Summary Of Baptism In The Eighth Century.

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.