# Summary Of Baptism In The Fifth Century.

5th century (source section) · Historical source

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

Century of containing source section; exact event date not assigned

[We have begun this century with the fifth chapter
of the Centuriæ Magdeburgenses, the contents
of which may be examined.

Vincent Victor opposes Augustine in the matter
of infant baptism.

Synesius Syrenus, baptized on his faith, by Theophilus.

The fourth council of Carthage establishes, that
those who desire to be baptized, must first be examined,
and sounded relative to their faith.

Sedulius maintains that baptism is a regeneration,
and, moreover, exhorts the young to baptism.

Hilarius of Syracuse asserts the salvation of children
that die unbaptized.

The edict of Honorius and Theodosius against
the Anabaptists.

The council held at Carthage, under Aurelius,
against those who denied original sin, infant baptism,
and predestination, adopts resolutions entirely
different from the decree of the aforementioned
fourth council of Carthage.

The edicts of Honorius and Theodosius, in support
of said council.

Maximus teaches the baptism of Christ; Cresconius
and his adherents are pronounced Anabaptists;
Cyril of Alexandria speaks soundly on baptism,
and opposes the errors of the Nastorians and Valentinians.

An account, from Socrates, of many persons at
Alexandria, who hastened to baptism, and were
baptized on confession of their sins; as also, of a
sick Jew, who was baptized, and of one who received
baptism after much fasting.

Faustus Regiensis teaches that for baptism the
will [consent] of him that is baptized is necessary.

Evragius makes mention of the baptism of the
candidates, that is, of those who had previously
been instructed.

Eucherius maintains that that believer who dies
unto sin is rightly baptized.

Carthaginian women who waited for baptism.

In the Council of Arausica rules are made respecting
the baptism of the dumb, the weak, and catechumens.

Nazarius, the son of Perpetua, a Christian woman,
is baptized after previous instruction.

In the margin mention is made of one Montluck,
who adduces the resolutions of various councils,
against the killing of heretics; as also, the views of
Gelasius concerning the holy Supper.

Salvian of Marseilles, on renouncing Satan, confessing
the faith in God, which it was customary to
do at baptism.

Authymius, Sisinnius, and Sociorus, baptized
after having been instructed for seven days.

Nolanus mentions the hymns which it was customary
to sing at baptism.

Anabaptism condemned in the fourth council of
Rome.

An account of many who separated from the
church of Rome, and, though baptized in their infancy,
were baptized upon faith; as also, what the
Pope (or Bishop of Rome) decreed against this.

Primasius’ explanation of 1 Tim. 6:12; its application
to adult candidates for baptism.

Fulgentius calls baptism a sacrament of faith and
repentance.

In the margin it is stated how vehemently Leo
inveighed against the bishops of Campania, etc.,
who, according to his judgment, did not administer
baptism aright.

The conclusion is from P. J. Twisck, who says
that ancient church history, other writers excepted,
makes no mention of infant baptism before
A. D. 500.]

We shall begin the fifth century, concerning baptism,
with the fifth chapter of Jacob Mehrn. History
of Baptism, who commences his account of
baptism at that time thus: “Henceforth we shall
not dwell upon quite so many testimonies taken
from the ancient fathers and church historians, as
had necessarily to be the case in the preceding centuries,
in order to prove that during the first four
centuries after the birth of Christ, infant baptism
had neither in the holy Scriptures nor in the authentic
books of the teachers of the church, a firm
foundation; that is, that it had been ordained by
Christ, or that it was an apostolic institution or tradition.
But we shall in future content ourselves
with such testimonies and historical records as best
agree with the truth of the ordinance of the baptism
of Jesus Christ, in order that we may thereby
strengthen ourselves in that truth and in the true
faith.” Bapt. Hist., page 394.

A. D. 401.—About the beginning of this century,
opposition was made against infant baptism
and its advocates, among which advocates in favor
of infant baptism Augustine showed himself none of
the least, although he himself had been baptized
upon faith, as has previously been mentioned. He
was opposed by a certain bishop, by the name of
Vincent Victor, who, notwithstanding Augustine’s
authority, attacked infant baptism, and, as it appears,
withstood it with conclusive arguments from
holy Scripture. But how it finally ended between
the two parties, of this I find no account; mention
is made, however, of the matter itself, by Vicecomes
(lib. 2, cap. 1), who says that Augustine (lib. 3, de
anima, et ijus orig., cap. 14), mentions a bishop
called Vincent Victor, who contended with him
about infant baptism. Bapt. Hist., page 448.

NOTE.—Vincent taught that in the Supper the
figures of the body and the blood of Christ are
administered. Also, that the bread and the wine
continue in their own substance. Book of the two
natures. Also, Samuel Veltius, in Geslacht-register,
page 124.

A. D. 402.—About this time, the very old and
excellent orator Victorinus was baptized on confession
of his faith; of which we find the following in
the 2d chapter of the 8th book of Augustine’s
182
Confessions: “O Lord God, who hast bowed the
heavens under thy feet; thou hast come down and
touched the mountains, and smoke has issued from
them; how wonderfully hast thou long since come
into the heart of this Victorinus!”

“He read the holy Scriptures, as Simplician told
me, and most diligently examined and investigated
whatever he found written concerning the Christian
religion. He then said to Simplician, not openly,
but secretly, as friend speaks to friend: ‘Know that
I am now a Christian.’ Simplician answered: ‘I
shall not believe it, I shall not count thee among
the Christians, unless I see thee in the Christian
church.’ (A little further on:) But suddenly and
quite unexpectedly he said to Simplician, as the
latter told me: ‘Come, let us go to the church; I
will become a Christian.’ Simplician, not knowing
where he was, for joy, accompanied him there.

“Having been instructed in the principles of the
faith, Victorinus soon after had his name registered,
that he might be regenerated through the sacrament
of baptism.

“Finally, when the hour had come for him to
make his confession (for which confession, at Rome,
a customary formula was learned, and then delivered
from an elevated place, in the presence of all
the Christians, by those who prepared themselves
for baptism), the overseers, as Simplician told me,
offered to let him make it privately, as was the custom
to propose to those who it was feared might,
through diffidence, be unable to proceed. But he
said that he would rather profess his salvation in the
hearing of all the Christians, than otherwise.

“When he had ascended the elevated place to
make his confession, all who knew him pronounced
his name with secret joy. But who was there that
did not know him? For, from the mouths of all
that were assembled, in mutual rejoicing with him,
there arose the glad shout: Victorinus! Victorinus!”

A brief account of this is also given in Bapt.
Hist., page 461.

From the above words quoted by us from Augustine,
it certainly appears that at the time when said
Vistorinus was baptized, there existed even in
Rome, where this baptism took place, churches
which, notwithstanding Antichrist began to lift up
his head there in some measure, endeavored with
all diligence to observe the true baptism of Jesus
Christ, which is administered upon faith. For, the
statement, that in Rome, that is, in the church
which is spoken of here, was the custom, that those
who prepared themselves for baptism, learned, for
their confession, a customary formula, and then delivered
it from an elevated place in the presence of
all the Christians, incontrovertibly indicates that
there the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ was still observed
in this respect.

Matt. 10:32: “Whosoever therefore,” says Christ,
“shall confess me before men, him will I confess
also before my Father which is in heaven.” Again,
Rom. 10:10: “For with the heart man believeth
unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession
is made unto salvation.” This faith and this confession
are necessary to baptism. Acts 8:37; 22:16.

Bapt. Hist., page 459; Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 24.
At the time of Augustine, that is, at the time of the
aforementioned Victorinus, when virtue and Christian
simplicity were still reigning, the examinations
of the catechumens were conducted with much
strictness, and great frequency, in the night-watches
of the believers, as is shown by his words.
Lib. 2, de Symbola ad Catechum., cap. 1.

A. D. 402.—Synesius Syrenus, an upright, pious
man, became, from a heathen, a Christian; was
baptized by Theophilus, and afterwards appointed
by him bishop of Ptolemais. P. J. Twisck, Chron.,
5th book, page 138, col. 1, from Evagrius, lib. 1,
cap. 15. Mer., fol. 334.

It is true, that it is stated of Synesius Syrenus,
that his faith was not perfect with regard to all the
parts of the Christian religion, concerning which
historians specially mention one particular point;
but it is also stated that Bishop Theophilus, who
baptized him, was in hopes, that, in the course of
time, he would judge better on this point, which, it
seems was also the case, since, as it is stated, Theophilus
afterwards appointed him bishop of Ptolemais.

However, we would not commend this part of
the matter, namely, to baptize any one without perfect
faith or confession, especially if an essential
point is wanting; but this we commend, that not
children, but adult persons, who are commended as
pious are baptized, and, from heathen, desire to
become Christians, as is stated to have been the
case here.

A. D. 406.—At this time it was resolved at Carthage,
“That the candidates shall give in their names,
and after they shall have been examined long, and
diligently tried, with the imposition of hands, they
shall be baptized.” Also: “That a bishop, before
he be allowed to minister, shall be well examined
in doctrine and life.” Also: “That fellowship with
the excommunicated shall be avoided, and the penitent
received back again.” P. J. Twisck, Chron.,
5th book, page 139, col. 2, from Grond. Bew., letter
B. B. Valent. Beyer, fol. 603. Also, Bapt.
Hist., page 447. ex Conc. Carth. 4, cap. 88.

Here applies the annotation of P. J. Twisck, in
Chron., 5th book, page 153, col. 1: “In the fourth
council of Carthage,” he writes, “it was decreed,
That applicants for baptism shall first be examined
for a long time, shall abstain for a time from wine
and meat, and, having been diligently tried with
imposition of hands, shall be baptized.” From
Chron., Seb. Franck, of the Latin councils held in
Africa and Europe, letter C. The time of this
council is fixed by P. J. Twisck (from Seb. Fr.)
A. D. 436; but he has previously given A. D. 406
as the date, and hence we leave it thus; others,
however, give A. D. 416 as the date.

Beloved reader, this is a very different decree
from an earlier one, also one made at Carthage, in
the time of Cyprian, about A. D. 250, by sixty-six
bishops, in which it was established, Contra Fidum,
that infants should be baptized immediately. This
is certainly, we say, a very different decree, since
infant baptism is not confirmed, but, much more,
annulled by it; and thus we see that in the course
of time some had grown wiser. Not, that it is our
183
purpose to prove by councils, our view touching
the true baptism, which must be administered upon
faith; not at all, for we find in nothing less pleasure,
than in the decrees of councils, in so far as they
come short of the word of God. Besides, this point
needs not to be proved by councils, as it is expressed
in the holy Scriptures; we simply mean to
show thereby that also at that time there were persons
who, even in the very place where infant baptism
had been ratified, confirmed the true baptism
of Jesus Christ, which must be administered upon
previous examination, and has its foundation in the
holy Scriptures. As to this, that the candidates
were commanded, first to abstain for a time from
wine and meat, we leave that as it is, neither commending
nor condemning it, as being a thing which,
without sin, may be observed or omitted, provided
no superstition is connected therewith.

A. D. 410.—Bapt. Hist., page 408. Sedulius
writes, on Rom. 5: “No man suffers condemnation,
except through Adam; from which men are
redeemed through the washing of regeneration.”

But what else is the washing of regeneration, than
the death of the old man, and the putting on of a
new life, which is signified by baptism? See Rom.
6:3,4; Eph. 5:26,27; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21.

Again, Sedulius, on Rom. 6, says: “Paul would
have baptism so sure and perfect as to make it impossible
for the recipient to sin any more. When
the grace of God came upon us through Christ, and
the spiritual washing reigned in us through faith,
we began to live unto God, being dead unto sin,
that is, the devil. And thus, baptism is an earnest
and figure of the resurrection; and hence it is administered
with water, that, as water washes away
impurities, and even so we through baptism, we
believe, are spiritually cleansed and purified from
all sin.”

Further: “Know that through baptism you, who
have become a member of his body are crucified
with Christ. He hung on the cross with an innocent
body, that you might hang on the cross the guilty
one.”

Again, on 1 Cor. 5: “O that you may be a new
leaven; that you may be mixed with the grace of
holy baptism, as flour is mixed with water.” This
he seems to speak to those, who, though they had
reached adult years, yet did not make any preparations,
but deferred both their baptism and their
regeneration.

Again, on 2 Cor. 5: “If any man be in Christ,
he is a new creature:” that is, he that is renewed
through the sacrament of baptism.

We will not detain you, dear reader, with explanations
on the above passages of Sedulius, since
they, without explanation, are so clear, that even he
that has but little understanding in divine things,
can manifestly see, yea feel, that the baptism described
by Sedulius savors not in the least of infant
baptism, since the conditions he mentions in connection
with it, as faith, regeneration, crucifying the
old man, can not be comprehended, much less fulfilled
by infants.

A. D. 411.—Bapt. Hist., page 444, ex Centuria
5. Magdeburgensis, fol. 664. Augustine writes
that Hilarius, a teacher at Syracuse, wrote: “When
an unbaptized child dies, it can not justly be
damned, since it was born without sin.”

A person unacquainted with the condition of
things at that time, may perhaps think that with
these words Hilarius of Syracuse, contributed but
little to the abolishment of infant baptism; but he
that is familiar with it, will instantly see that thereby
he utterly denied infant baptism, and stripped it of
its virtues. It deserves mention, that in those times
infant baptism was based upon original sin, so that
it was thought that infants, for the removal of said
original sin, must necessarily be baptized; from
which the conclusion was derived, that infants that
were not baptized, and, consequently (in their opinion),
not cleansed from original sin, must necessarily
be damned, as is still taught at the present
day by the Papists.

Whenever then, any one denied original sin, the
foundation of infant baptism, he denied infant baptism
itself, yea utterly annihilated it. This did Hilarius
of Syracuse, who denied original sin in newborn
infants, and, consequently, infant baptism;
wherefore he, according to Augustine, frankly said:
“When an unbaptized child dies, it cannot justly
be damned, since it was born without sin.”

A. D. 412.—Bapt. Hist., page 407. Theodoretus,
in chap. 10, says: “In the law they used
sprinklings, and frequently washed the body; but
they who order their life according to the New
Testament, purify the soul by holy baptism, and
free the conscience from previous stains.”

Again, in Epist. Divin. Decret.: “But instead
of those sprinklings, the gift of holy baptism is sufficient
for those who believe; for it grants not only
remission of old or previous sins, but it also implants
(that is, into those who are thus baptized),
the hope of promised good things; it makes us partakers
of the death and resurrection of the Lord;
it imparts the communion and gifts of the Holy
Ghost; it makes us children of God, and not only
children, but also heirs of God, and joint heirs with
Christ.”

Again, quaest. 19 on Levit.: “He that believes in
Christ the Savior, when he is sanctified by the water
of holy baptism, is also cleansed from the stains of
sin.”

Again, quaest. 1 on Jos.: “As the priests who
bore the ark, went first into Jordan, whereupon
all the people, with Joshua, the princes, and the
prophets, passed through; even so, when John began
to baptize, Jesus the Savior hallowed, as it
were the nature of the water; and the believing people
entered through holy baptism into the kingdom
of God.”

Who does not see that Theodoretus who wrote
A. D. 412, and afterwards, indicates with all the
circumstances, that he recognized no baptism, than
that which is accompanied with faith and repentance;
for when, in the first place, he says: “Those
who order their lives according to the New Testament,
purify the soul by holy baptism,” and then
says: “Instead of those sprinklings, the gift of holy
baptism is sufficient for those who believe,” and
finally adds: “The believing people entered, through
184
baptism, into the kingdom of God,” he certainly
indicates that he does not in any wise speak of the
baptism of infants, since they have neither the
knowledge nor the ability, to order their lives in
accordance with the New Testament, or to believe,
which are here put down as absolute conditions in
the candidates for baptism.

NOTE.—Theodoretus taught that the figures of
the Supper, namely, the bread and the wine, in no
wise change their nature, but remain as they are,
after consecration. Dialog. 2, Sam. Velt., in Geslaght-register,
pages 123, 124.

A. D. 413.—As those Christians greatly increased,
who valued only the baptism which is administered
upon faith, and, consequently rebaptized
(as not having been baptized aright) those who had
been baptized by unbelievers or in infancy, when
they attained to the true faith, the Emperor Theodosius,
A. D. 413, issued an edict, against the Anabaptists,
commanding that they should be put to
death. Introduction, page 47, col. 2, from Chron.
Baron., num. 6.

But lest any one should think that the people
who, under the name of Anabaptists, were threatened
with death by the Emperor Theodosius, held,
with regard to this point, views different from those
maintained by the Baptists of the present day, who
are likewise called Anabaptists, it is expedient to
mention what was said about their views by the
inquisitor of Leeuwærden, in opposition to one of
our latest martyrs, namely, Jagues d’Auchi. When
Jagues wanted the inquisitor, who appealed to the
Emperor’s edict, to prove that said edict was just
or founded on holy Scripture, the inquisitor made
this reply to him: “I believe you think that all our
fathers were deceived, and that your sect is saved:
what do you say? It is now 1200 or 1300 years
since the Emperor Theodosius issued an edict, that
the heretics should be put to death, namely, those
who were rebaptized like your sect.” See the year
1558, and, in the index, the name Jagues d’Auchi.

When, therefore, the inquisitor says that they
“were rebaptized like your sect,” he certainly
indicates thereby, that they were people like Jagues
d’Auchi was, and, consequently, like the Anabaptists
who at that time, namely, A. D. 1558, gave
their lives for the truth.

A. D. 415.—Bapt. Hist., page 407, Prosperus,
Resp. 2, ad Object. Gallorum, says: “Every one
who, believing on the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, is regenerated in baptism, is freed
from his own, voluntary and actual, sins, as well
as from original sin.”

Page 413. Prosperus, in his Epigrams, puts the
martyrs and the candidates for baptism on an equal
footing, when he says:

“Sanctify, baptism will indeed;

But the martyr’s crown doth all complete.”

In the first passage of Prosperus we see that faith,
regeneration, baptism, forsaking of voluntary sins,
etc., are all joined together, even as this is done in
the holy Scriptures of the New Testament. Compare
Mark, 16:16; Eph. 5:26,27; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet.
3:21, with Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3; Acts
2:37,38; Rom. 6:4. Hence it is a scriptural confession;
and there we will let it rest.

In the second passage the martyrs and the candidates
for baptism are compared to one another;
but who does not know that infants cannot be
martyrs, seeing they can neither believe nor confess,
much less can they voluntarily confirm said
confessed faith with death, which, nevertheless, is
the own work of all the orthodox and faithful
martyrs. Now then, if infants are not qualified for
martyrdom, they are not fit for baptism. Therefore
judge whether this is not comprised in the words
of Prosperus which we have just mentioned.

A. D. 418.—The doctrine of infant baptism
having been openly controverted ever since the
beginning of this century, its foundation, namely,
original sin, being denied and refuted, it occurred,
A. D. 418, that those of the Roman church in
Africa, through the urgent request of Augustine
and his fellow-bishops, obtained the convocation
of a council or synod under Aurelius, bishop of
Carthage, composed of two hundred and fourteen
bishops; which council, in the name of the See of
Rome, absolutely anathematized or condemned the
views of those who did not admit infant baptism or
recognize original sin in infants, as well as of those
who, opposing predestination, held that the will
of man was free. The 112th Canon contains the
following resolution respecting original sin and
baptism: “It is likewise thought proper, that every
one who denies that infants who are baptized from
their birth, are baptized for the remission of sins,
and that they derive from the sin of the first father,
Adam, that from which they must be cleansed
through the washing of regeneration, be anathema,
that is, accursed.”

It is true, this anathema was aimed particularly
at Pelagius and Celestius, as being the ones who
had shown themselves the principal rejecters of
infant baptism, since they positively said (according
to Seb. Franck, Chron., letter P.): “There is no
original sin; hence, baptism is not needful for
children, yea, is useless to them.” Again, article 7:
“Children are born without original sin; baptism
avails them nothing.” Again, article 13: “Though
children be not baptized, they nevertheless have
eternal life.”

But nevertheless this council, Canon 112, also
anathematized or cursed all those who assented to
these views (the rejection of infant baptism and
original sin), for this is specially expressed with
these words: “Every one who denies that infants
who are baptized from their birth, are baptized for
the remission of sins, be Anathema.” For, we know
that the words every one do not mean any particular
person, but many persons.

It appears therefore, that at that time many
people separated from the Roman church, on account
of this view respecting original sin and infant
baptism. However, we would not defend the views
of Pelagius and Celestius, concerning some other
points; it suffices us, that there were people in those
times, who, notwithstanding the excommunication
of the pope, and the persecution of the councils,
still opposed the Roman church, especially through
185
the rejection of infant baptism, and even, some of
them, sacrificed their lives.

A. D. 419–421.—As the Anabaptists were not
yet deterred by the above council, from maintaining
their doctrine that baptism ought only to be administered
upon true faith, therefore, in order to
quench their doctrine, the authority of said council
was confirmed A. D. 419, by the edicts of the Emperors
Honorius and Theodosius, and A. D. 421,
by the additional edict of Constantius; whereby said
council forcibly prevailed throughout the entire
Roman empire. See concerning this, H. Montan.
Nietigh., page 79.

From this it appears that this doctrine of baptizing
only upon true faith, was accepted by very
many at that time; for otherwise it would not have
been necessary for the Emperors to threaten its defenders
with the great power of their edicts, and,
as it appears, to persecute them even unto death.

A. D. 425.—Bapt. Hist., page 411, Maximus
(Homil. 71, de Baptism. Christi) says: “Jesus
was baptized, not for himself, but for us; not that
he might be purified with the water, but that he
(so to speak), might sanctify the water. The new
man was baptized, that he might confirm the mystery
of the new baptism.”

When, therefore, Maximus introduces here the
baptism of Christ, which took place when the latter
was about thirty years old, and says that it was not
done for himself, but for us, that is, for an example
to be followed, and that he thereby confirmed the
mystery of the new baptism, he certainly indicates
thereby, that he is not speaking of the baptism of
infants, since Christ, who, through his baptism,
confirmed baptism, was not a child when he was
baptized, but an adult person. Moreover, as no
other, contrary testimony concerning him is found
in the history of holy baptism, it seems probable,
that he was not acquainted with any other baptism,
and, consequently, not with infant baptism, or, at
least, did not observe it.

A. D. 428.—There were many persons accused,
through the writings of Augustine, of being Anabaptists,
or at least, of defending Anabaptism, inasmuch
as they maintained that baptism administered
by heretics or unbelievers was not to be regarded
as true baptism, and that, therefore, those who had
been baptized by such persons, ought to be rebaptized;
in short, that there was no true baptism except
that administered in the true church, and upon
true faith. Among those thus accused Cresconius
was not one of the least; in Augustine’s writings
the following things are laid to his charge:

Bapt. Hist., page 416: “That there is but one
true baptism; for it is written: One God, one faith,
one baptism, one undefiled, true church: those who
are not in it, the same cannot have any baptism.”

Again: “In baptism, regard is had to the certainty
that he who administers it is such a one that does it
in a holy manner; but this certainty respecting the
one who baptizes, is not judged by the uprightness
of his heart, which cannot be seen, but according
to his good reputation, and the respect in which he
is held.”

Again: “It is written: ‘The oil of the sinner
shall not anoint my head’: hence it follows it is not
the will of God, that an open sinner shall baptize.”

Again: “In view of this passage, can anything
more absurd be said, than that one polluted person
should purify another? that one impure person
should wash another? that one unclean person
should cleanse another? or that a blasphemer should
make any one innocent?”

Again: “You, our gainsayers, do not distinguish
between a believer and an unbeliever.”

Again: “If it were wrong [what we confess], and
baptism may not be annulled [or re-administered],
no matter who has administered it, then the apostles
would not have baptized those who had been baptized
by John; but the contrary is seen,” Acts 19:5.

Again: “In Acts 2:38, Peter commands every
Jew to be baptized upon (or in) the name of Christ,
though their forefathers had been baptized in the
Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:2); hence, the previous baptism
(that is, the one which has not been administered
rightly), may justly be annulled or changed.”

These are the words, or, at least, the meaning,
of Cresconius and his companions, as described by
Augustine, and quoted in the History of Holy Baptism;
from which it may be seen that also at that
time but one baptism was recognized, which must
be administered in the true church, by blameless
teachers, and upon true faith, as stated elsewhere.
Leaving this, we proceed to others, who at that
time, and afterwards, confessed the same faith, or,
at least, as far as we know, did not oppose it.

A. D. 429.—It is recorded that at this time there
flourished Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, who, writing,
among other things, on baptism, has left some
sound testimony concerning it.

In Bapt. Hist., page 443, the Centuriatores
Magdeburgenses have made some extracts from
Cyril of Alexandria, page 613, where they say that
he taught as follows, book 6, on John 14: “Through
the water of the flood, the sins of the whole world
were reconciled (or brought to an end), and those
who were concealed in the ark, were preserved
through the water (of the flood). This was a type
of baptism, by which the impurity of all sin is put
off, and the old life taken away.”

Again: “A catechumen is anointed (that is, instructed
with the word of God), that he may be
taught; for the Greek word catechumenos means,
in Latin, one that is being instructed; and he is
baptized, that he may know the true light, and
receive the remission of all sins; therefore, the
virtue or significance of baptism ought not to be
esteemed lightly, since it dispels the darkness of
the soul, and imparts the light of heaven.”

Page 463, Vicecomes, lib. 2, cap. 24, Cyril of
Alexandria (lib. 7, Contra Julianum) writes: “When
we have put off the darkness of our mind, repelled
the legions of Satan, and wisely cast off all their
pomp and service, we confess the faith in God the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and are baptized
thereupon.”

This finishes the testimonies respecting baptism
which I have been able to find from Cyril of Alexandria.
There is certainly nothing contained in
186
them, which in the least resembles infant baptism,
nay, everything he says concerning baptism, opposes
it. For, when, in the first place, he says that
the impurity of all sin is put off, and the old life
taken away, it is certainly obvious that he does not
speak of the baptism of infants, since they, having
no previous impurity of sin, cannot put it off by
baptism, and, having never walked in the old life,
they cannot forsake it or put it away. When he,
secondly, says of the catechumens, that they are
baptized, it is certainly also obvious from it, that it
does not concern infants, since these have not the
qualification of being instructed. The third passage
is so clearly opposed to infant baptism, that it requires
no explanation, inasmuch as it expressly
speaks of confessing the faith on God the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, and of being baptized thereupon;
for this can never be done by infants in the
cradle.





---

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

[Contribute a correction or addition](https://github.com/trueChristian/history.truechristian.church/issues/new?title=Correction%3A+Summary+Of+Baptism+In+The+Fifth+Century.&body=%23%23+Page+or+topic%0ASummary+Of+Baptism+In+The+Fifth+Century.%0A%0APage%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.truechristian.church%2Fstories%2Fmm-summary-of-baptism-in-the-fifth-century%2F%0A%0ARecord%3A+mm-summary-of-baptism-in-the-fifth-century%0A%0ADate+currently+shown%3A+5th+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.)