# Summary Of Baptism In The Eighth Century.

8th century (source section) · Historical source

Source: Martyrs’ Mirror. Original heading: SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY.

Century of containing source section; exact event date not assigned

[The example of Lutgerus (adduced in the last
year of the preceding century) is rehearsed, by way
of introduction, in the beginning of this; to which is
added an account of Herinigild, who was baptized
by Leander, after previous instruction:

Germanus, a father at Constantinople, states that
it was customary to make confession of sins before
baptism.

Bede the presbyter treats of the baptism of the
apostles; of the baptism of the Angles who were
baptized in the Rhine and Swalbe; of the catechumens,
to whom, before baptism, the confession of
faith was delivered; of four things which do not apply
to infant baptism; of Paulinus, the teacher at
York, and how he baptized Eadfrid and Offrid, the
sons of Edwin; that there can be no baptism without
water and the word; that all believers must be baptized;
that the bread of the holy Supper is a figure
of the body of Christ; which latter is further explained
in the margin.

Amalarius Fortunatus states that the newly planted
or, newly baptized, Christians were led to the church
for eight days; he admonishes the candidates to
fast for several days before baptism; and, in the
margin, it is stated that he taught against transubstantiation,
etc.

The views of Antharitis, who refused baptism to
the infants of the Christians, are presented.

Of some among the Romanists, who held that
fasting, reading, and praying must be connected
with baptism; that the teachers should first baptize
the men, and then the women; what prayer should
be spoken over the men and women to be baptized;
that the baptized must kneel down and pray to
God, etc.

Wittikind becomes a catechumen, is instructed in
the faith, and then baptized together with Albion.

The baptism of the son of Carloman, and of his
daughter Gisla; what we think of it.

Albinus requires faith at baptism, that is, that
baptism must be received with faith; he also says
that with baptism there are connected three visible
and three invisible things; of which the visible are:
1. the body of the candidate; 2. the baptizer; 3. the
water; and the invisible are: 1. the soul; 2. faith;
3. the Spirit of God; that baptism without the invocation
of the holy Trinity is void; that not only the
creed, but also the Lord’s prayer was said at baptism;
that examination in the faith took place at
baptism; which custom, however, according to
Vicecomes, was abolished after infant baptism came
into vogue; that the factitious practices of the papists
commenced when baptism ceased to be administered
to adults. Thereupon follows the opinion
of Jacob Mehrning, that about the year 800, infant
baptism was doubtful and hung by a thread.

Seb. Franck quotes the statement of Beatus Rhenanus
(from Turtullian), saying that according to
213
the usage of the ancients, the adults were baptized
with the washing of regeneration; which is also
confirmed by the testimony of Polydorus.

The conclusion taken from P. J. Twisck, is to the
effect, that the ancient custom of baptizing adult,
believing and penitent persons, seems to have still
obtained in some measure, even with the general
church. Conclusion for this century.]

As in winter the sun does not always, but only
at times, send down his bright beams upon the
earth, even though he has risen above the horizon,
and even reached the meridian, so it was also in
the eighth century, with the true faith, and the
baptism which is administered upon faith. For although
the light of the holy Gospel had at that
time risen in the hearts of many pious persons, so
that they apprehended the faith, and, in token of it,
were baptized thereupon, yet, there were but few
who exhibited to mankind, by their writings, the
bright splendor of the evangelical truth; at least
this is true, that but very little has come down to
the present generation. Nevertheless, we have met
with enough to prove that this dark age also was
not entirely destitute of persons who shone forth as
flaming torches in the midnight of papal error, and
shed abroad the radiance of God’s truth, especially
in the matter of baptism. To prove this will not be
difficult for us; hence we begin.

A. D. 701.—For the last year of the preceding
century, that is, for A. D. 700, we showed that Lutgerus
and Libuga, two Christian parents, left their
son Lutgerus unbaptized till he, having accepted
the faith, was baptized of his own accord. This occurred
in France, at the time referred to, and it is
also stated that the same year, in Spain, Herinigild,
having attained to the faith through the instruction
of Leander, was baptized; besides various other
persons, both before and at that time, as the chronicles
show.

From this it clearly follows that the people who
held this belief must have existed also in the beginning
of this century, since a religion that has once
obtained a footing, cannot well be abolished in a
year or two, especially if it is spread over different
countries, and is zealously advocated, which latter,
as has been shown, the true believers did. Hence
we shall proceed to the persons who held this belief
and whose names are mentioned in this century.

A. D. 716.—Bapt. Hist., page 534, D. Vicecomes
(lib. 3, cap. 5), quotes from Germanus, a father
at Constantinople, who lived in the time of Leo
Isauricus, that it was still customary then, to make
confession of sins before baptism.

He speaks here of a general custom observed at
that time in the East, in the Greek churches; which
custom consisted in this, that confession of sins was
made before baptism; which, as every one can
judge, could not be done by infants, but only by
adult persons.

If any one should object here, that this related
only to the intelligent, but that infants were baptized,
though they did not make such confession,
we reply that this does not appear at all, nay, that
the contrary follows clearly, since the custom spoken
of was a general one, binding for all who were
to be baptized; and as infants could not follow this
custom, it is incontrovertible, that they were not
admitted to the baptism which required it.

From A. D. 724 to 736.—At this time there was
conspicuous in the kingdom of England, Bede,129
surnamed the Presbyter, who, having at one time
maintained the Roman superstitions, and among
these, infant baptism, now openly declared to hold
different views in many points. Touching baptism,
he is stated to have declared the following (Bapt.
Hist., page 532, on Acts 19): “All who came to
the apostles to be baptized, were first instructed and
taught by them; and having been instructed and
taught concerning baptism, they were baptized, by
virtue of the apostolic office.” Compare with
Mark 16:16.

Page 533, D. Vicecomes (lib. 1, cap. 5) quotes the
following testimonies from Bede. He writes: “Bede
says that the Angles were baptized in the Rhine and
in the Swalbe.” Regarding the manner, compare
this with Matt. 3:6: “And were baptized of him in
Jordan, confessing their sins.” Again: “And John
also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because
there was much water there: and they came and were
baptized” John 3:23. This mode of baptism, as we
have shown elsewhere, was not administered to infants,
but only to adult and intelligent persons; nay,
it is shown there, that this could not be otherwise.

Bede, in his exposition on the book of Esdras
(D. Vicecomes, lib. 2, cap. 3), writes, “To the hearers
of the new life (that is, the catechumens) we deliver
the confession of faith as laid down by the twelve
apostles.”

From the circumstance mentioned here, that the
confession of faith was delivered to the catechumens,
namely, that they might learn it, and be baptized
thereupon, it appears that at the time and place of
which he speaks, no such haste was made to have
infants baptized, as had been done previously, and
as was also done subsequently, by those of the Roman
church. For these catechumens were certainly
not baptized in their infancy, or presented for baptism
by their parents; but, in order to be truly
baptized, they first learned the catechism, which was
the instruction in the faith of the Christians in those
times; and in order that they might be perfectly
instructed therein, the whole confession of faith was
delivered to them, before they were baptized.

Bede (lib. 3, cap. 3), on Hebr. 6, further says:
“The separation from the Egyptians signifies the
separation from sin, which those who are to be baptized
(must) profess . . . as Saint Peter has said,
Acts 2: ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you,
in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord;’ as though he
would say: Depart from Egypt; go through the
Red Sea. Moreover, in the epistle to the Hebrews,
there is mentioned before baptism, repentance from
dead works; but what else is repentance from dead
works, than a being slain unto sin, that we may live
unto God in holiness?”

214

Here four things are mentioned which do not
apply to the baptism of infants. 1. The separation
from sin, which those who were to be baptized,
must confess. 2. Peter’s exhortation, Acts 2: “Repent,”
etc., which was not spoken to infants, but to
intelligent, penitent sinners. 3. The passage of Paul,
from the epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 6, verse 2,
where before baptism repentance from dead works is
mentioned. 4. Bede’s exposition of said passage:
“What is repentance from dead works, but a dying
unto sin, that we may live unto God in holiness?”

I feel confident that even our opponents will concur
with us in saying that the conditions which Bede
here joins to baptism, do not relate to infants, and,
hence, cannot be applied to the baptism of infants.

Bede (in lib. 2, Hist. Anglic.), writes of Paulinus,
the teacher at York: He preached the word of God
from that time on for six years, and there believed
and were baptized as many as were ordained (or
destined) to eternal life, etc.; among whom there
were Offrid and Eadfrid, the sons of King Edwin,
who were both born to him in the misery of his
exile, and were both taken out of this life while yet
in their white garments.”

This is a noble example of Paulinus, who preached
the word of God to the people, before he baptized
them; nor is it less remarkable, that those who believed
were baptized, and that the sons of Edwin,
though exiles, yet the scions of a great race, having
accepted the faith, humbled themselves to baptism.
It was to be lamented, however, that these two
youths, who might long have been lights and ensamples
in the church, were taken out of this life so
suddenly, even while they yet had on their white
garments, which it was customary to wear immediately
after baptism, as a sign of purity.

In the mean time we must rejoice that even in
those benighted times, so much light of the faith
shone forth, that not only some of the common people,
but also the children of the great were enlightened
by it, so that they willingly bowed themselves
under the yoke of Christ, through baptism.

Bede, on John 4, says: “Take away the water,
and there is no baptism; take away the word of God,
and there is also no baptism.” Bapt. Hist., p. 505.

By this he indicates that the water cannot be separated
from the word, neither the word from the
water; that is, that the doctrine cannot stand without
baptism, and baptism not without the doctrine;
thus his meaning is, that both doctrine and baptism
must go together. But how this applies to infant
baptism, in which the word is separated from the
water, or the doctrine from the baptism, any one
that has understanding can judge.

That all believers must be baptized, Bede teaches
in his exposition of Job 1: “Through the obedience
of faith all believers must come to baptism,” and on
chap. 2 he says: “No one is worthy to enter into
the kingdom of God, unless he is born again of water
and of the Spirit.”

In the first sentence he indicates that the believers
must come to baptism; of others he makes no mention;
even as Philip said to the Ethiopian: “If thou
believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” Acts
8:37.

In the second sentence he speaks of the regeneration
of water and of the Spirit; concerning which
Christ spoke to Nicodemus, who was not an infant,
but a man of years, yea, a master in Israel.
John 3:1,10. Hence, it can or should be sufficiently
understood, what kind of a baptism it is of which
he speaks in said place, namely, such a baptism as
belongs not to children, but to the reasonable and
regenerated.

That which is adduced, in lib. 4, Cantic., of his
belief respecting the faith of children, we do not accept
as his work, but as the production of some one
who chose to publish it under his name; because, in
the first place, its tenor throughout does not accord
with the style of his writing; and in the second
place, because we know neither the writer nor the
authenticity of said work.

We will conclude this subject with the account
given by P. J. Twisck, in his Chronijk., 8th book,
page 254, col. 2: “Bede, formerly a learned priest130
and monk in England, died this year, A. D. 736
(Merula says A. D. 734), aged 70 years. He wrote
many good books, as history testifies. He says:
“All who came to the apostles to be baptized, were
instructed and taught by them, and having been instructed
and taught concerning the sacrament of
baptism, they accepted the holy administration of
baptism.” On Acts 19, Histor. Vinc., lib. 24,
Leonh., lib. 2, Grond. Bewijs., letter A.

Again: He calls the Lord’s bread a sacrament
and figure of the body and blood of Christ, and
says: “Since bread sustains the body, and wine
makes blood, Christ has compared the bread to his
body, and the wine to his blood.”131 From Seb.
Franck, fol. 65.

Thus Bede declared against the Pope and the
Roman church, and, as can be inferred, in favor of
the belief of the Anabaptists, not only in the matter
of baptism, but also in regard to the holy Supper,
and other points, which we have not mentioned.

NOTE.—A. D. 732. Bede taught at this time,
that Christ instituted a sacrament as a memorial of
redemption. On Luke 22.

Isidore explained the words of Christ: “Thou art
Peter,” etc., thus: “Upon this rock which thou hast
confessed, I will build my church. For that rock,”
he says, “was Christ, upon which foundation also
Peter was built.” Lib. 7, Etim., cap. 9, Samuel
Veltius, Geslacht-register, page 126.

About A. D. 760.—D. Vicecomes (lib. 1, cap. 35,
Bapt. Hist., page 523), records that Amalarius
Fortunatus,132 a learned man of this period, writes
the following concerning the newly-baptized Christians:
“Our newly-planted Christians are led to the
church for eight days, by their leaders.”

215

This, as every one knows, can not be done with
or by infants. Continuing, Vicecomes (lib. 3,
cap. 6 and 7) writes what advice Amalarius Fortunatus
gave to those who wished to be baptized, saying:
“He that desires to be baptized, must fast for
several days previous to it, according to the example
of Cornelius, who, in order to receive baptism
worthily, prayed at the ninth hour, and fasted in his
house.”

He does not speak of such candidates as had no
knowledge, and to whom baptism was administered
without their knowing and wishing it, but of such
as had come to knowledge, and desired to be baptized.
Hence his words are: “He that desires to be
baptized.”

The example of Cornelius, adduced by him in
order to teach the candidates to fast and pray before
baptism, confirms our preceding view, namely, that
he is not treating of infants, but of intelligent
persons.

Amalarius (lib. 1, de Offic. Eccles., Vicecomes,
lib. 3, cap. 14, page 524), writes: “The second
meeting of the catechumens takes place four weeks
from the time of fasting; then, on the fourth day of
said week is held the third examination; they are
then instructed in the beginning of the four evangelists,
and receive on that day the Lord’s Prayer
and the apostles’ creed, which they recite (or profess)
on holy Easter Eve.

Concerning what is related between, and which
we have not noticed, namely, how the teacher would
touch the ear of the novices with his finger, this we
leave as it is, neither commending nor condemning
it, seeing it is of small importance. In the mean
time, it is gratifying to us, that the novices were
then examined in the faith before baptism, which is
a proof that the example of the first church, yea, of
the holy apostles, was still followed. See Acts 8:35,36,37.

Besides the above, D. Vicecomes (lib. 5, cap. 39)
quotes the following from Amalarius: “On holy
Easter and Whitsuntide, the church (of God) has
always been want to gather unto God new members,
through baptism, and we justly rejoice over their
salvation, since the white garments worn by them
indicate the brightness of their purified minds.”
Bapt. Hist. page 524.

As regards the custom of baptizing on Easter and
Whitsuntide, and the white garments then put on
the candidates, an explanation has been given elsewhere,
namely, that this was done to none but believers.
With this we leave the testimony of Amalarius
Fortunatus.

Note.—It is stated that about the same time
there lived an eminent man and defender of the
Christian religion, named Antharitis, who, however,
was opposed to the Roman church, and particularly
to the baptism of infants, holding the opinion that
they should not be baptized; on account of which
it was reported of him that he rejected baptism entirely;
or, at least, that he said, no baptism should
be taught; which is to be understood of the baptism
administered to infants. Concerning this, I find this
annotation: “Gregory, in the Register of the Longobards,
writes that Antharitis refused baptism to
the children of Christians.” Seb. Franck, Chron.,
Rom. Kett., fol. 74, col. 2.

About A. D. 768.—We find that at this time even
among some of the Romanists, instruction in the
faith was practiced before baptism, so that to this
end they established certain rules, by which infant
baptism was weakened not a little, and baptism upon
faith, according to the ordinance of Christ, greatly
strengthened. Touching the rules established at said
time, the following, among other things, is recorded
in Bapt. Hist., page 527, from Vicecom., lib. 1,
cap. 26: “On the Sabbath (or Sunday) of holy
Whitsuntide they shall all fast, and observe all the
divine services, with reading and praying as well as
with baptism.” Cap. 27. Those who desire to be
baptized, shall come to church (or to the assembly)
with their leaders, after the third hour, on the Sunday
before Easter. Cap. 29. Here it is taught, how
the teachers are to descend to the baptismal water,
and how they are to baptize first the men and then
the women.

Having noted these things, D. Vicecomes (cap. 6)
writes concerning it the following: “The men and
the women were separately admitted to the catechism,
that is, to the instruction in the faith; first the men,
and then the women. Hence, in the ordination (for
this purpose) there occurs the prayer: Almighty,
eternal God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
behold with gracious eyes these thy servants, whom
thou hast made worthy to be called to the first principles
of the faith.” A like prayer was pronounced
over the women.

A little further on he writes: “When this was
done, he (the teacher) went among them, and laid
his hands upon their heads, saying: Sing with a loud
voice, ‘I believe in one God the Father.’ Turning
then to the women, he did the same.”

This, the author says, was done for the sake of
discipline and virtue, that these might be implanted
together with the doctrine of the faith, in the catechumens;
for Christ said to his apostles (Matth. 28):
“Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;”
adding: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
I have commanded you.”

Understanding this to be the best course, the
apostle Peter (Acts 2) first enlightened the people
by preaching, and taught them to repent of their
former wicked life; whereupon those who with eager
ears heard the word of God, and had derived profit
therefrom, were baptized.

“Would to God,” says the writer who has quoted
this, “that the Roman church had continued in the
baptismal ordinance of Christ and his holy apostles;
never would there have become of it such an absurd
infant baptism, and, thence, such a grossly barbarous
and ignorant Christendom in Europe.” Bapt.
Hist., page 528.

Those who had been baptized thus (that is, upon
faith), were then exhorted several times by a deacon,
to pray on their bended knees. Bapt. Hist.,
page 532, ex Ord. Rom., and Amal. Fort.

Who will believe that these persons, who have
thus written on baptism, were members of the Roman
church? I say nothing of the many other
216
points which they, as can be inferred, maintained in
opposition to the common Romanists. Who would
not hold it certain, that these people were entirely
separated from the papists, who observed the Roman
superstitions? Yea, that at the present day they
would be declared heretics by the Pope, and, should
persecution arise, be placed at stakes and burned
alive? as has occurred not long since, yea, recently,
to many of our fellow-believers, on account of the
same belief, as will appear more fully in the sequel
of this history.

We shall, therefore, commit these people to God.
Whether they agreed in all other points with the
common Anabaptists, we are not able to show; it
suffices us that they, though called Romanists, opposed
the belief of the common Romanists, and
that they approached very near the truth in important
points, especially in the article of baptism. With
this we will leave them, and proceed to other testimonies.

About A. D. 772.—We quote the following from
Bapt. Hist., page 515: “Those who had come to
adult years, had to be instructed first in the Christian
doctrine, and were then examined before baptism.

“Wittikind became a catechumen, was instructed
in the faith, and then baptized with Albion.

“They had to say the creed and the Lord’s
Prayer.” Syn. Aug., cap. 2.

“The teachers had to instruct the people, how to
renounce (Satan) at baptism, and what to believe.”
Syn. Turon., cap. 18.

Page 516: “They had to be tolerably instructed
in the doctrine of Christ, and be given to godliness,
for (in the council of Arles) it was enjoined upon the
leaders to teach them.”

“They used to renounce the devil and his works;
which works are—murder, fornication, adultery,
drunkenness, and such like; the pomp is pride, presumption,
vanity, vain-glory, temerity.” Syn. Tur.

Certainly, these were all wholesome and good
rules, approaching very near the apostolical teachings;
hence we accept them as good instruction in
this iron and corroded age. It is achieving a good
deal, if one who stands at the point where many
crooked roads meet, takes the right, or, at least, the
best one. That these people who observed said
rules, were entirely free from error in other points,
it is not our intention to maintain. He that walks
amidst the darkness of night, can easily miss the
way; so also they, living as they must, in the darkness
of popery, could easily be misled in this or that
point. We let God judge them, being content with
this, that through the darkness we have seen the
rays of their knowledge and good practice.

A. D. 781.—This is the year which is mentioned
by different writers as the one in which the far-famed
Carloman, though he had accepted the Christian
faith himself, presented his son, who was then several
years old, and whom he had up to this time left
unbaptized, for baptism, which was administered to
him in the city of Rome, on Easter; likewise his
daughter Gisla, of whom it is stated that she was
baptized the same year, at Milan, by the Bishop or
teacher Thomas. Bapt. Hist., page 523, H. Montan.
Nietigh., pages 80, 81, from Centur. 9, Magdeb.,
cap. 4, Annal. Francor. Regino., lib. 2, Adon.
Aetate, 6.

From this manner of proceeding it appears, that
at this time no such reasoning obtained, as was
afterwards, and had also previously been, resorted
to by those of the Roman church, who commanded
parents, on peril of their salvation, yea, on pain of
damnation, to have their children baptized. But
those who took a proper view of the matter, and
esteemed the command of Christ more than the decrees
and statutes of men, did not allow themselves
to be intimidated by these threats, but deferred the
baptism of their children, till they, having grown
up, accepted the faith, and themselves desired to be
baptized thereupon.

We say nothing respecting Carloman, the father
here spoken of, neither of him who baptized his
son, and would conclude neither this nor that touching
their life and faith; we simply commend their
action in this matter; on the one hand, that the
father, though he had professed Christ, and was
called a member of the church, left his son and
daughter unbaptized, as an evidence that he considered
infant baptism (as a human invention) useless;
on the other hand, that those who baptized them,
did not censure this course, but rather assented to
and confirmed it with the deed, which is the more
evident from the fact that the ordinance was administered
with great pleasure, yea, joy, as history
tells us.

About A. D. 792.—Albinus teaches on John 1
(Bapt. Hist., page 505), that baptism is to be received
with faith. He writes: “It is aptly said that
the forerunner of our Lord baptized in Bethabara;
for Bethabara signifies a house of obedience, that
they should all, through the obedience of faith,
come to the baptism of Christ.”

This Albinus, surnamed Flaccus, was a remarkably
learned and beloved man of that age, but nevertheless
called ignorant, and hated, by his adversaries.
In his confession he was greatly opposed to the
common belief of the Roman church, especially in
the matter of baptism. In baptism he required faith,
regeneration, and newness of life, declaring that
these were the means to receive it worthily; which
things, though highly spoken of with the mouth,
yet in infant baptism are practically ignored.

In the defense of his belief he was bold, regarding,
it seems, neither the hatred nor the favor of the
people, so that, besides what we have just mentioned,
he left various excellent things concerning
the baptism of adults; of which we will present a
few instances.

On John 15 (page 509) he says: “Why does not
the Lord say: Ye are clean because of the baptism
in which ye are washed? but says: Through the
word which I have spoken unto you. For, take
away the word, and what is the water, but water?
When the word meets the element, then it becomes
a sacrament. Whence derives the water the power,
that, though it wets the body, the soul is purified, if
the word does not effect this? But this is not
effected, because it is spoken, but because it is believed.

217

In baptism there are three visible things: 1. the
body (of the one baptized), 2. the water, 3. the
teacher; and three invisible things: 1. the soul,
2. faith, 3. the Spirit of God.”

We can almost see with our eyes, and feel with
our hands, that this man here intended to oppose
the belief of the common Romanists. He makes
use of two special arguments, with which he sufficiently
denies, yea, refutes, the Roman infant baptism.
His first argument opposes the belief of those
who were wont to tie salvation to the elementary
water of baptism, and, consequently, to save them,
as it were, baptized the infants; in opposition to
which he averred that the element of water without
the word of God is merely an element, and no sacrament;
but that the water becomes a sacrament
through the word of God, not because the latter is
spoken, but because it is believed. And thus he removes
with his first argument also another error of
the Romanists, who imagined that in baptism,
through the saying of a few words, the water was
consecrated and made a means of salvation; which
he refutes, however, by the declaration that the consecration
is not effected by the speaking of the word,
but because it is believed.

If then, in baptism, the water is ineffectual without
the word, and the word has no virtue unless it
is believed, as Albinus declares, he flatly opposes infant
baptism, since there the water only is used,
without the instructing word, and without the latter
being believed by the infants.

His second argument is a sufficient refutation of
those who administered baptism to infants, without
regard as to whether they had intelligent minds, true
faith, and the fruits of God’s Spirit, or not; for, this
belief he opposes when he says that in baptism there
must be not only three visible things, 1. the body,
2. the water, 3. the teacher, but also three invisible
things, 1. the soul [mind], (that is, an intelligent
soul, for otherwise the soul cannot properly be so
called); 2. faith (that is, that which consists in a sure
confidence, for this is peculiar to true faith,
Hebr. 11:1); 3. the Spirit of God (that is, that
which is fruitful in virtues), for the Spirit of God is
known by its fruits, Gal. 5:22. But who has ever
been found that was able to discover such works of
the soul, of faith, and of the Spirit, in infants? without
which, indeed, baptism has no virtue, as conclusively
follows from the arguments of Albinus, which
are in accordance with the teachings of the holy
word of God. How this harmonizes with infant baptism,
the impartial may judge.

Of regeneration, Albinus, in the 7th penitential
psalm (page 510), says: “Thou art my God; thou
hast created me. I can be re-created by no one but
thee, by whom I have been created. Thou hast
created me by thy Word, which, O God, abideth
with thee. Thou createst me again by the Word,
which has become flesh for our sakes.”

The Romanists were accustomed sometimes to
call baptism, by which they meant infant baptism, a
regeneration, without respect to newness of life,
merely on account of the water, which, with the
speaking of a few words, was administered to the
infants. But Albinus here declares that as he was
created by the word, even so he is re-created and
regenerated by the word. He says nothing at all
about the water; not to depreciate the outward administration
of water baptism, but to show that recreation
or regeneration does not lie in it; for, that
the same must be effected by the word, whereupon
the administration of water baptism follows, as a sign
of it, seems to be the burden of his whole argument.

Moreover, it is also deserving of notice, that in
the above passage, touching the incarnation of Jesus
Christ, he says, that the Word (namely, by which
all things were made) became flesh for our sakes,
which accords with our confession, and also agrees
with John 1:14.

Albinus (lib. 3, de Trin., cap. 17, page 512) says:
“We are not to believe that he (Christ) then received
the gifts of the Holy Ghost; he who from
his birth was always full of the Holy Ghost; but that
the mystery of the Holy Trinity might be declared
unto us in baptism, the Son of God was baptized,
being a man; the Holy Spirit descended as a dove;
God the Father was heard in a voice, without the
invocation of which, no baptism can avail anything.
Therefore, the Son of God wished to signify by his
own baptism, that the whole Trinity was present;
who commanded the stewards of his mysteries (the
apostles): “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost.”

Again: Why did the Lord have himself baptized?
Namely, that no one, though he might possess great
gifts and power, should despise to be baptized.

He makes use here of three modes of speaking
which are incompatible with infant baptism. First,
when he says that without the invocation of the holy
Trinity no baptism can avail anything; for, who
knows not that infants cannot invoke the Holy
Trinity? Secondly, when he adduces, as a foundation
of baptism, the command of Christ: “Teach
all nations, baptizing them,” etc.; for there teaching
and baptizing are joined together, which, as even
some pedobaptists declare, is inapplicable to infants.
Thirdly, when he shows why the Lord had himself
baptized? Namely, that no one, though he might
possess great gifts and power, should despise to be
baptized. For, that this also cannot be understood
of infants, even nature teaches; since they have no
great gifts or power, and, consequently, can neither
rely upon them nor despise baptism.

D. Vicecomes (lib. 1, cap. 32, page 535) quotes
the following from Albinus Flaccus: “At baptism,
on holy Easter-day, the catechumens (the novices
who have been instructed in the faith), if they desire
baptism, recite the Lord’s Prayer and the creed from
memory.”

This is certainly clear testimony of the custom of
the believers of that age, from which it is evident,
that their children and novices had to know the
Lord’s Prayer and the creed, yea, had to recite it
from memory, and must themselves desire baptism,
before they were baptized. Who would say that
new-born infants can do this? Moreover, it was not
only required, to recite the Lord’s Prayer and the
creed from memory, but also to give reason for it,
and this not only once, but several times, on different
218
days appointed for this purpose, in the weeks
before Easter and Whitsuntide, as shown above, to
which we refer the reader. See also, G. Durand.,
lib. 6. Ration. Div. Offic. de 4. Feria Hebel. 4.
Quadrag, etc.

Page 536. Vicecomes (lib. 3, cap. 21), says:
“He (Albinus) also makes mention of the examinations
(in the faith) of the elect, that is, those
chosen to be baptized, tracing them down from the
times of the apostles.” Cap. 22, he says: “Then
took place the examinations (in the faith), in order
that it might be ascertained with greater certainty,
whether, after the renunciation of Satan, the word
of God and the faith promised to it, had taken deep
root in the heart.” Cap. 26: “Albinus Flaccus, in
the chapter on baptism, writes: ‘For the baptism of
the elect, who are examined (in the faith), according
to the rule of the apostles, consecrated by fasting,
and instructed by diligent preaching, two seasons
are set apart, Easter and Whitsuntide.’ ”

To this, D. Vicecomes adds this comment: “If
these examinations were held according to the rules
of the apostles, they must needs have been observed
by all; but subsequently, when infant baptism came
into vogue, this necessary practice was abolished
(or discontinued) by the church, A. D. 860, in the
reign of the Emperors Louis the Pious and Lothaire;
of which abundant proof exists.”

What do you think, beloved reader, of this last
testimony? to say nothing of the testimonies of Albinus
Flaccus. This Vicecomes was a pedobaptist
and strenuous maintainer of pedobaptism; yet he
states that the necessary (yea, apostolical) practice
of examinations (in the faith) was abolished or discontinued
when infant baptism came into vogue;
he also indicates the time when this occurred,
namely, A. D. 860. As to how he came at this, we
leave to him to answer.

In the meantime, this is also quite a refutation of
those who fix the origin of infant baptism very
early, indeed according to some, in the time of the
apostles. However, that infant baptism, together
with many other superstitions, originated soon after
the death of the apostles, they can, in some measure
substantiate; but that it wavered in the Roman
church, for many centuries, till the year 900, yea,
almost 1000, being now established, then abolished,
adopted in one place, and rejected in another, etc.,
appears sufficiently from the books in which we
have read the same.

We confine ourselves to the time of Albinus Flaccus,
who lived about A. D. 792, when this intrusion
was already rapidly gaining ground, which
also D. Vicecomes has seen, for, when he mentions
the chrism in baptism, and some other factitious
practices of the papists, he adds that it is his opinion
that all this did not begin until after the time of
Albinus Flaccus, when they ceased to baptize adults.
Lib. 5, cap. 5 and 19.

I cannot forbear adding here the verdict of Jacob
Mehrning, who, immediately after noting the preceding
passages from D. Vicecomes, writes: “Thus
we see from the history of this time, that infant
baptism hung yet as by a thread between both, being
received by some, and rejected by others, which
is a strong proof that it is not apostolical, much less
instituted by Christ himself. But what immeasurable
damage to souls, and what grossly barbarous
ignorance in Christendom, the introduction of this
absurd infant baptism has brought about, many intelligent
persons, even in that age, were able to discern.
Bapt. Hist., page 537.

A. D. 800.—Various writers state that at this
time, the last year of the eighth century, infant baptism,
although those of the Roman church in general
stoutly adhered to it, was nevertheless not
practiced, yea, positively rejected by many, insomuch
that they observed the very ancient custom
mentioned by us in different preceding centuries, of
baptizing only adults, on Easter and Whitsuntide.

Sebastian Franck, writing of this time and custom,
and having referred to Tertullian’s book, De
Corona Militis, says: “Respecting this passage,
Beatus Rhenanus notes that it was the custom of
the ancients, to baptize and wash adults with the
washing of regeneration; which custom was observed
till the time of Charlemagne and the Emperor
Louis, A. D. 800.” Chron. Rom. Kett.,
page 123, col. 2.

P. J. Twisck gives the following account for the
year 800: “The ancient custom was, to baptize
adults with the washing of regeneration, which was
observed till the time of the Emperors Charlemagne
and Louis. This is shown by the laws established
by them, in which the priests (that is, the teachers)
were prohibited from baptizing at any other time
than Easter and Whitsuntide, except where death
was imminent.” Again: “It was the custom of the
ancients (Polydorus says), to baptize mostly adults,
and to put a white garment on them after baptism.
This was done at Easter and Whitsuntide; in the
meantime, before these feasts, those to be baptized
were instructed in the mystery of the faith, and
were called catechumens, that is, such as are being
instructed; for, when they had apprehended the
mystery, they were baptized.” Chron., 8th book,
page 271, col. 2, from Polydor. de Inventoribus
rerum, lib. 4. Beatus Rhenanus in Annat. super.,
Tertull., Grond. Bewijs, letter B., Chron. Seb.
Franck., Thom. Imbr., fol. 26.

Although this century, in the beginning, seemed
to be doomed to darkness, as regards the true doctrine,
especially with reference to the matter of baptism
upon faith, yet the sun of truth rose to a considerable
altitude, so that his beams shone out in
every direction, illuminating the face, that is, the
people, of the earth. For not only the separate
Christian communities, but even many of those who
still adhered to the Roman church, observed baptism,
to say nothing of different other articles,
according to the original Christian and apostolical
custom.

P. J. Twisck, in the conclusion of the eighth century,
though greatly deploring the manifold human
inventions which were then increasing in the Roman
church, through the power of the Pope and of the
councils, declares nevertheless that the baptism of
adults still obtained in some measure among them;
his words are: “The ancient custom of baptizing
219
adult believers and penitents appears still to exist
in some measure in the church.”133 Page 274.

From this we can judge how much more this
practice must have flourished among those who
entirely free themselves from the Roman superstitions,
and who had fled as from Babel,—I mean the
members of the true Christian church, who had to
hide themselves as doves before the eagle, as shall
be shown. With this we will conclude our account
of baptism in the eighth century.





---

Page: http://history.truechristian.church/stories/mm-summary-of-baptism-in-the-eighth-century/

[Contribute a correction or addition](https://github.com/trueChristian/history.truechristian.church/issues/new?title=Correction%3A+Summary+Of+Baptism+In+The+Eighth+Century.&body=%23%23+Page+or+topic%0ASummary+Of+Baptism+In+The+Eighth+Century.%0A%0APage%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.truechristian.church%2Fstories%2Fmm-summary-of-baptism-in-the-eighth-century%2F%0A%0ARecord%3A+mm-summary-of-baptism-in-the-eighth-century%0A%0ADate+currently+shown%3A+8th+century+%28source+section%29%0A%0A%23%23+Correction+or+addition%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Sources+and+evidence%0APlease+include+book%2Fpage+references%2C+archive+links%2C+or+first-hand+documentation.%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Image+credit+%28if+applicable%29%0ACreator%2C+source%2C+and+permission+or+public-domain+basis.%0A%0A%0A%0ASubmitted+for+review%3B+this+issue+does+not+publish+changes+automatically.)