# Summary Of Baptism In The Sixth Century.

6th century (source section) · Historical source

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

Century of containing source section; exact event date not assigned

[Shortly after the beginning of this account, Alcimus
is introduced who declares that baptism was
prefigured in the suffering of Christ; his testimony,
however, in regard to this, is reserved for another
place.

Cassiodorus follows Alcimus, saying that in baptism
believers are regenerated to new creatures.

He is followed by Fortunatus, who speaks of the
virtue and benefit of baptism, saying that those who
are regenerated by baptism, become children of
God.

People who indicate that infant baptism is not in
accordance with the holy Scriptures.

The council of Ilerda, in Spain, establishes various
canons or rules against the Anabaptists and
those baptized by them; forbidding to eat with
them.

The council of Agathe decrees that all Jews who
desire baptism must first be instructed for eight
months, with the catechumens. Confession of faith
preached to those desiring baptism (see margin as
well as column).

In the first council of Constantinople it is decreed
that the Eunomians and Montanists must first walk
for a considerable length of time with the church
[brotherhood], hear the holy Scriptures, and shall
then, if found faithful, be baptized.

Of certain persons termed fanatics, who prevailed
upon the imperial councilors, to abolish infant baptism.

Justus Origelitanus says excellent things with
regard to the nature and efficacy of baptism.

One Peter, and his companion Zoroaras defend
Anabaptism.

An account, from Gregory, of certain Jews, some
of whom were baptized on Easter, others on Whitsuntide,
after previous instruction.

Vincentius shows that it was customary to renounce,
before baptism, all pomp, and the works of
Satan.

Of the white robes put on the newly baptized,
and the gifts it was customary to present to them.

How Brunechildis, the daughter of Arthanagildus,
was rebaptized.

Of Euthimius, who entertained some that had
been baptized, forty days; and how he admonished
them.

Touching a certain prayer pronounced over the
candidates, containing very beautiful sentiments respecting
the dignity and benefit of baptism.

It is held that Theophilus Alexandrinus differs
from the Roman church, in regard to holy baptism
and the holy Supper.

The followers of Donatus again cited, and excused
in various things.

Christian novices, before baptism, divided in two
classes.

Statements with regard to the corruption of the
writings of the ancients; yet that on the subject of
baptism authentic testimonies still remain. With this
we have abbreviated and concluded this century.]

Although in the sixth century, Roman darkness,
as regards the corruption of divine worship, began
to arise more and more, and the divine and evangelical
truth necessarily had to sink out of sight at
times, inasmuch as the Roman Bishop and others,
who held with him, began, as it were, with the
black smoke of manifold superstitions, shamefully
and lamentably to darken the bright and transparent
commands of Christ, as baptism, the holy Supper,
the command not to swear, and others; so that
baptism on faith was converted into infant baptism,
the Lord’s Supper into a superstitious mass, the
command not to swear, into a permission to swear,
and other articles also greatly corrupted; yet in the
meantime nevertheless, there were people, yea eminent
persons, and even such, at times, as (living in
quiet as they did) were reckoned to belong to the
Roman church, through whom the aforesaid darkness
was illuminated, the superstitions removed, and
the pure truth of the holy Gospel brought to light
as a brightly shining sun; inasmuch as they, opposing
infant baptism, recommended baptism upon
faith; abolishing the mass or transubstantiation,
taught the simple Supper of Jesus Christ; rejecting,
according to the doctrine of Christ and James, oaths
and swearing, commanded the people not to use
oaths, or to swear at all.

But it would require too much time to treat on,
and show, all these things; hence we shall follow
the custom we adopted in the beginning, and speak
principally of baptism, showing briefly, by whom
and in what manner the same was practiced according
to the rule of Christ and the usage of his apostles,
and confirmed by doctrine or example.

Alcimus writes (lib. 1, de Orig. Mundi) in the
6th Cent. Magdeburg., fol. 112, concerning the
doctrine of baptism: “That baptism is prefigured in
the suffering of Christ.” Thereupon follows a certain
verse from Alcimus, in which baptism is compared
to the water which flowed from Christ’s side,
and to the blood of the martyrs; of which, however,
we will not speak further at present, as we intend to
reserve it for a place where it will be more to the
purpose. Jacob Mehrning also notices this verse in
Bapt. Hist., page 467.

A. D. 508.—Or at the time of the Emperor Anastasius,
surnamed Flavius Valerius, the highly enlightened
and gifted Cassiodorus, is stated to have
196
lived and written, who says with regard to baptism
(on Cant., cap. 7), “that it is a divine fountain, in
which believers are regenerated to new creatures.”
J. M., Bapt. Hist., page 467.

What else is this, than what our Savior himself
says (Mark 16:16), that believers must be baptized;
and (John 3:5), that one must be born again of
water and of the Spirit; which accords with the
words of Paul (Tit. 3:5), where he calls baptism
the washing of regeneration, because, believers,
when they are baptized, must forsake the old life,
and be regenerated into a new life. Rom. 6:4.

Cassiodorus, on Cant., cap. 4, teaches (Bapt.
Hist., page 468), That all believers shall (or must)
be baptized. “There can be,” he says, “no believer
without the washing of baptism (that is, no
true believer, who can stand before God and his
word, without baptism; for he who commanded
faith, also commanded baptism).

Again, in cap. 7: “No one can enter the church,
who has not previously been washed with the water
of baptism, and made to drink of the fountain of
wholesome doctrine. This well agrees with the
words of the apostles, who thus testifies of himself
and of the Corinthian church: “For by one Spirit
we are all baptized into one body . . . and have
been all made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Cor.
12:13. By this, the apostle (like Cassiodorus) indicates
that all who are true members of the church
of Jesus Christ, must have communion in two
things: First, they must have been made one body
with each other by baptism. Secondly, they must
have been made to drink into the Spirit, or the
doctrine of the divine word; which, as every intelligent
person knows, are things that cannot be
complied with by infants, but only by adult and
intelligent persons.

Cassiodorus, on Ps. 23 (page 469), says: “The
water of refreshing is the washing of baptism, in
which divine gifts are poured upon the souls that
have become barren through the withering influence
of sin, that they may bring forth good fruits.”

Again: “The souls of the elect (or of the baptized)
have, in baptism, forsaken the corruption of
the old man, and are renewed in Christ.”

Again: “As the people (of Israel) were preserved
by the Red Sea, in which Pharaoh perished, even
so, the church of the heathen, has been redeemed,
through baptism, from the bondage of the devil,
and brought into the true promised land, the liberty
of the Gospel; and thus she (that is the church of
the heathen) who was formerly a handmaid of iniquity,
has now become the friend of Christ, and been
washed, through baptism, from the filth of sin.”

Beloved reader, attentively consider the last three
passages of Cassiodorus, and you shall find that
they, in every particular, indicate that the baptism
of which he speaks, is not at all infant baptism, but
such a baptism as Christ commanded to be administered
upon faith; for, when he says, in the first
passage, that in (or through) the water of baptism,
divine gifts are poured upon the souls that have become
barren through the withering influence of sin,
that they may bring forth good fruits, he certainly
thereby indicates that he speaks of such candidates
as had previously become barren through the withering
influence of sin, and to whom gifts were now
imparted in (or through) baptism (namely, by God,
for the strengthening of their faith), that they might
bring forth good fruits, which, as every one knows,
can be done by none but adult and virtuous persons.
By the second passage, in which he says, that the
souls of the elect (or of the baptized) have forsaken,
in baptism, the corruption of the old man, and are
renewed in Christ, he again indicates that the persons
of whom he speaks, had lived, before baptism,
in the corruption of the old man, wherefore it was
necessary for them to forsake it in baptism, and, by
a pious life, to be renewed henceforth in Christ; but
how this applies to infants, may be judged.

We now come to the third passage, in which he
speaks of the passage of the people of Israel through
the Red Sea. He compares the Israelites to those
who, having been converted from heathenism, were
baptized; the Red Sea, by which the people of
Israel were delivered, he compares to baptism,
through which those who had been converted from
heathenism, had obtained their redemption, according
to the soul, depending on the merits of Jesus
Christ; Pharaoh, who was drowned with his people
in the Red Sea, he compares to the bondage of the
devil, from which believers are redeemed in baptism,
through the grace of the Son of God; the
entrance of Israel into the land of Canaan, he compares
to the entrance of believing, baptized Christians
into the true promised land—the liberty of the
Gospel. Finally he says, in the same passage:
“Thus she who was formerly a handmaid of iniquity,
has now become a friend of Christ, and been
washed from the filth of sin.”

All these things militate so clearly against infant
baptism, and confirm baptism upon faith, according
to the ordinance of Christ, that it seems unnecessary
to me, to add anything further respecting Cassiodorus.
The impartial will judge aright.

About A. D. 515.—Or properly after Cassiodorus,
is placed, in the History of the Holy Baptism,
the wise, but as it appears, excessively accused
Fortunatus; from whose writings the author of said
history adduces several passages, respecting which
he makes the following annotation in the margin:
“All the preceding commendations must be understood
as referring solely to the true baptism of
Christ, which is received as he has ordained it, and
which consists in the word, Spirit, and water, and
is obtained in (or upon) faith; and not as relating
to any self-invented infant baptism.”

He then shows, page 468 in his account, what
Fortunatus himself writes concerning it, saying:
“Of the virtue and benefit of baptism, Fortunatus
teaches (lib. 10 in Expos. Orat. Dom.): Man, when
regenerated by baptism, becomes a child of God,
who previously, through transgression, belonged to
his enemy, and was lost.” “Man, before baptism,”
he further says, “is described as being carnal,
but after baptism, as being spiritual.”

In a letter of the orientals to Symmachus, it is
written: “Christ our Savior has taken away, on the
cross, our handwriting, that we might henceforward,
after the washing of regeneration (that is,
197
baptism) be no longer subject to the sins of our
wickedness.”

These passages pertain only to adults, or at least
to such as are possessed of understanding, but in
no wise to those who have attained to neither years
nor understanding; for it certainly means something,
to be regenerated by baptism, yea, to be
made a child of God, which Fortunatus, in the first
instance, so expressly confesses.

Touching the regeneration of water and the Spirit,
Christ did not command it to the unintelligent, but
to a master of Israel, John 3:5; and of those who
had put on Christ, through baptism, the apostle
says: that by faith they became the children of God.
Gal. 3:26,27.

Thus also it is a matter of moment, to be carnal
before baptism, and spiritual after baptism, which
he nevertheless adds: For, beloved reader, what is
it to be carnal, but to live after the lusts of the flesh?
This, says our author, is done before baptism;
hence it is also evident that he speaks of a baptism
before the reception of which one can live after
the flesh.

What, on the other hand, is it to be spiritual,
but to live after the inclination of the spirit? that is,
according to the rule which agrees with the spirit,
and the word of God; but this, he states, is done
after baptism; hence it follows that the baptism of
which he treats, is of such a nature, that he who
has received it, can live after the Spirit.

But how can these two things, namely, to live
after the flesh before baptism, and after the Spirit
after baptism, apply to infants, of this he that has
experience may judge.

That which is written to Symmachus, in the
letter of the orientals, is of the same nature; for
there it is said of regenerated baptized persons that
after the washing of regeneration, that is, after baptism,
they are no longer subject to the sins of wickedness;
which sufficiently indicates that he speaks
of such people as are subject, before baptism, that
is, before they are baptized, to the sins of wickedness,
but from which they are freed after baptism,
through the grace of God and a holy purpose. Certainly,
infants differ widely from this.

A. D. 520.—That at this time, and thence forward,
there were persons who not only taught baptism
upon faith as ordained by Christ, but who also,
now and then, opposed infant baptism; this is
unanimously maintained by the well-tried Jacob
Mehrning, scholar of the holy Scriptures, and the
very learned Montanus, in these words: “Nevertheless,
as truth cannot remain suppressed, some were
found, in the course of time, who, seeing that infant
baptism did not accord with the holy Scriptures,
dared candidly confess this. Of such there were
many. A. D. 520, and from that time forward in
this century, for several years in succession, as may
clearly be gathered from the fourth canon of the
council of Gerunda, in Spain, held the aforementioned
year, in which it was decreed concerning
catechumens, that they should be baptized on Easter
and on Whitsuntide; but in case of feebleness or
sickness, also on other days. From Cent. Magdeb.,
Cent. 6, cap. 9, de Synodi.

For, that those who were born of Christian parents,
and had been brought up from their youth, in
the Christian religion, were reckoned among the
catechumens, is evident from the example of Ambrose,
and his brother, Satyrus, sons of the Christian
parents Symmachus and Marcellina, as may
be seen in the oration of Ambrose, on the death
of Satyrus; and it is further confirmed by the example
of Theodosius, Ambrose, Jerome, Basil, M. Augustine
himself, his natural son Adeodatus, and
Alipius; who though born of Christian parents, as
already stated, were nevertheless reckoned among
the catechumens, till the day after previous instruction,
they were baptized. Bapt. Hist., page 480.
H. Mont. Nietigh., pages 79, 80.

Perhaps some one may think, in which of the
preceding words is infant baptism spoken against?
which is nevertheless so distinctly asserted by Jacob
Mehrning and H. Montanus. We reply, that they
do not express it in formal words, but indicate it by
the circumstances which they adduce. For, when
they, in the first place, speak of the fourth canon
of the council of Gerunda, in Spain, in which it was
decreed that catechumens should be baptized on
Easter and on Whitsuntide, they thereby indicate
that the baptism of new-born infants cannot have
been practiced there, because infants are born not
only on Easter and Whitsuntide, but throughout the
whole year; and in another place it is stated that
not only no catechumens, but no one else, should
be baptized at any other time than Easter and
Whitsuntide.

In the second place, when they declare that by
the catechumens here spoken of, there are to be
understood not only such youths, or scholars,
as were of heathen descent, but also those born of
Christian parents, as is proved by the example of
Ambrose, Satyrus, &c., it shows that many Christians,
at that time, left their children unbaptized till
they, after sufficient instruction, as was given to
the catechumens, were baptized of their own accord,
on either of the two feasts, Easter or Whitsuntide.

Sebastian Franck calls the catechumens, of whom
the aforementioned council speaks, scholars of the
faith, and relates the decree of said council, as well
as the time when the same was held, on this wise:
“The council of Gerunda, held in the seventh year
of King Theodoric, passed, among nine decrees, also
this: That the catechumens, that is, the scholars in
the faith, should be baptized only on Easter and
Whitsuntide, except imminent death should require
it otherwise.” Chron. Rom. Council., fol. 73, col. 1.

About A. D. 525.—Or in the 15th year of Theodoric,
King of France, those of the Roman church
again found themselves in great embarrassment with
regard to the so-called Anabaptists. The matter
rose to such a pitch that it was thought well to assemble
a council against them, as had been done
by Pope Felix, A. D. 487, at Rome. Accordingly,
about A. D. 525, the second council against the
Anabaptists was convened, not at Rome, as the
first, but at Ilerda, in Spain; to which there assembled,
as was usually the case, many of the bitterest
papistic bishops—in order to extirpate, or at least
check, the heresy, as it was called—who made a
198
number of rules and laws, not only against the Anabaptists,
but also against those who, having separated
from the Roman church, had been rebaptized
by them; of which rules, among others, the following
are noted:

Canon 9. “Concerning those who through transgression
have been rebaptized, and have fallen without
necessity, it is our will, that the statutes of the
Nicene synod be observed respecting them, which
are considered to have been passed for such offenders:
that they shall pray for seven years among the
catechumens, and two years among the catholics,
and then,” &c.

Canon 14. “Godly believers shall not eat with
the rebaptized”. Bapt. Hist., pages 477, 478, from
the 6th Cent. Magd,. cap. 9, fol. 240, ex Decret.
Synod, Ilerdensis.

The 13th canon of this synod, also given in the
same place, we suspect, has been misquoted; however,
as it does not apply here, we leave it in its
own merit.

That the 14th canon, however, which speaks only
of the rebaptized, concerns the so-called Anabaptists,
appears from the annotation of Sebastian
Franck, of Wordens, in part 3 of his Chronijk, fol.
73, col. 1, who translates this canon thus: “The
clergy and believers shall not partake of meals with
the Anabaptists.”

From this it can be seen in what detestation, yea,
abhorrence, the so-called Anabaptists in the time
past, were held by the Romanists, inasmuch as they
were not considered worthy to eat with, even as
once the Samaritans, publicans, and sinners had
been regarded by the Jews.

We will not investigate minutely, whether the so-called
Anabaptists of that time held the same views,
in regard to every article, with those who, at the
present day, are designated by that name; nor will
we, if perhaps in some points they did not teach
aright, or were not fully enlightened, defend, much
less, praise them; it suffices us, that they, besides
other good and wholesome articles, mentioned by
us in another place, held this in common with the
Anabaptists of the present day, namely: That they
did not approve of the baptism which by the Romanists
is administered to infants, but rejected it, so
that they baptized, or, at least, baptized aright at
first, those who, having come to adult years, embraced
their faith.

It also is praiseworthy in them, that they, notwithstanding
the anathema of the Pope and the
councils, yea, regardless of persecution, suffering,
and death, as shall be shown in the proper place,
maintained and manfully defended their views. We
know of nothing further that we could say of them,
from authentic writers, but will commend them, as
well as ourselves, to God and his grace. As regards
the manner in which they were proceeded against,
in subsequent times, as well as how they conducted
themselves herein, we shall show in the proper time
and place.

About A. D. 530.—D. Joseph Vicecomes, in his
treatise records (Bapt. Hist., page 482), the following
testimonies from the sixth century.

Of the decree of the Christians, at Agathe, about
A. D. 530, he says, lib. 3, cap. 1: “The council of
Agathe, cap. 13, says: It is the will of all the
church, that on the eighth day before Easter, the
confession of faith be preached publicly in the
church to those desiring baptism.”118

We do not especially favor the decrees of councils;
yet, when they agree with the word of God,
we accept them, not because men have uttered
them, but because they have been pronounced already
in the word of God. Thus, when it is said of
all the churches which existed at that time, that it
was their will that the confession of faith should be
publicly preached on the eighth day before Easter;
and also that it was added, how and to whom it was
to be preached, namely, before those desiring baptism,
we find not only that it well accords with the
word of God, Mark 16:15,16, but, moreover, that
not only a few individuals, but all the churches,
namely, those which dissented from the church of
Rome, held that view, namely, to baptize after previous
instruction.

In the second place, when it is said here, that the
confession of faith should be preached to those desiring
baptism (that is, not to infants), it clearly
follows that the candidates here spoken of, had
themselves to desire baptism, yea, that they themselves
had to profess the confession of faith preached
to them, else there would have been no reason to
preach it to them.

Vicecomes (lib. 2, cap. 2, page 483), quotes the
following words from the 7th chapter of the first
council of Constantinople: “As many of the Eunomians
and Montanists as desire to embrace the faith,
we receive, as we do the Grecians; on the first day
we instruct them in Christianity, on the second day
we receive them as disciples, and on the third day
we bless them (or require them to renounce Satan);
and thus we instruct them, taking care that they
walk in the church for a considerable time, and hear
the holy Scriptures, and then, and not before, if
they are found upright, we baptize them.

This first council of Constantinople is placed, according
to the order of D. J. Vicecomes, in Bapt.
Hist., immediately after the council of Agathe, held
about A. D. 530; and although we have long
searched for it, we have not been able to ascertain
the correct date of it; hence we make no change in
the order.

After this, Vicecomes places the sixth council of
Constantinople, in which several things illustrating
the point we have in view respecting baptism upon
faith are presented; but since we find from other
writers, that said council was not held in this century,
but many years after, Vicecomes having
greatly erred in this, we will not proceed further
with it here, but reserve our account of it for the
proper time and place. We therefore turn to what
is quoted in the 7th chapter of the first council of
Constantinople, where it is said in regard to those
of the Eunomians and Montanists who should desire
199to unite with that church, that they should not
be baptized until they had been instructed one, two,
or three days, yea, had walked for a considerable
time in the church, and heard the holy Scriptures.

Take this matter, as you may, and it indicates
that the Constantinopolitan teachers recognized no
other baptism than that administered in their own
church, namely, after previous instruction; notwithstanding
the Eunomians and Montanists might have
alleged that they had been baptized in their infancy;
yet this was regarded as useless and of no value.

About A. D. 538.—It is recorded that at the time
of Justin and Justinian, the Roman Emperors, there
were people, termed fanatics by their opponents,
who brought over to them and persuaded the imperial
councilors and ministers, that infant baptism
should be abolished; against which the aforementioned
Emperors set themselves to prevent it. Concerning
this, Jacob Mehrning, in Bapt. Hist., page
487, says: “M. Rulichius, page 249, from whom
M. Glaneus quotes this, acknowledges (page 627)
that at that time there came forth many strange
fanatics (he calls them fanatics, though they were
far more pious teachers and Christians than Rulichius
and Glaneus, and reproved, from the ordinance
of the baptism of Christ, the encroaching abuses of
infant baptism) who prevailed on and persuaded the
imperial councilors and ministers, that infant baptism
should be abolished. But Justin, and other
Emperors would prevent the same by their authority
and interdiction.”

He then relates, from the constitutions [laws] of
the Emperors, Justin and Justinian, in what the
interdiction, or, at least, the decree, ordained by
these Emperors respecting this matter, consisted;
from which it can be seen, that not only was infant
baptism rejected and contemned by those contemptuously
called fanatics, but that even by the adherents
of the Roman church it was not looked upon
as a command, but merely as a matter which was
permitted; though at other times again, through the
decrees of popes and councils, it exceedingly prevailed.

In the meantime, it is gratifying to us, that even
our opponents, who were strenuous advocates of
infant baptism, I mean M. Rulichius and M. Glaneus,
confess that also at that time (about A. D. 538),
there were persons who sought to abolish infant
baptism; from which it appears that the truth of
baptism upon faith could not be suppressed to such
an extent that it did not, according to opportunity,
manage to raise its head; and that, on the other
hand, the error of infant baptism did not triumph
to such a degree that it did not have its opponents
when opportunity offered. Thus blooms the rose
among thorns, Cant. 2:2. God remains faithful to
his promises, Ps. 33:4. Christ is with his church
even unto the end of the world, Matt. 28:20.

About A. D. 542.—Justus Origelitanus says (in
Cant., Bapt. Hist., page 469): “They that are
baptized in the name of Christ, are filled with the
Holy Ghost.” Doubtless, this has reference to Acts
2:37,38, where Peter says to those who inquired
what they must do to be saved: “Repent, and be
baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus
Christ . . . and ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost;” which certainly was not spoken to
infants.

Again: “The fair church of Christ,” says Justus,
“is cleansed by the washing of water (that is, by
baptism).”

Thus also Paul speaks, Eph. 5:26, saying that
Christ has cleansed his church with “the washing
of water by the word;” whereby he indicates that
the believers of whom he speaks were cleansed not
only with the washing of water (that is, baptism),
but also by the word, that is, the doctrine of the
Gospel; upon which passages Justus has based his
declaration, though he, for the sake of being brief,
it seems, is silent about the word.

Again: “They have ascended,” he says, “from
the washing of water, when they, having received
the forgiveness of sins by baptism, have increased
in Christ.”

His speaking here of ascending, that is, climbing
up from, the washing of water, and of increasing in
Christ, clearly shows that he does not speak of infants,
but of persons who have the ability to climb
up from the washing of water, and to increase in
Christ, which is peculiar to believers only.

He then gives some additional testimony, in the
same place, corroborative of the point we have in
view; but as it is expressed in almost the same language
as that quoted above, we pass it by, so as not
to repeat the matter.

About A. D. 545.—Or immediately after Justus
Origelitanus, Olympiodorus is placed, who speaking
of baptism, says: “The spiritual birth, which is
effected by the washing of regeneration, resembles
the death (of Christ) in that those who are regenerated,
in this divine washing, are buried with Christ in
baptism.” Bapt. Hist., 469, from Olympiodor., in
Eccles., cap. 3.119

Certainly, this is clearly following, though in other
words, that which the apostle presents to the consideration
of the believing Romans (Rom. 6:3), where
he asks them whether they knew not that they all
who were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized
into his death; that like as Christ was raised up from
the dead by the glory of the Father, even so they
also should walk in newness of life. We need not
say anything further in regard to this, since the matter
as to what persons and what baptism are here
spoken of, is self-evident.

About A. D. 548.—Or 550, it is related, that one
Peter, as well as one Zoroaras defended Anabaptism;
but as to how and in what manner it was
done, whether they rejected infant baptism, or
whether they recognized no other baptism than
that upon faith and administered in their own
church, or otherwise, of this I find no other account
than that recorded in Bapt. Hist., page 472,
from Nicephorus, where it is said: “Nicephorus
writes (lib. 17, cap. 9): Peter, Bishop of Apamea
200in Spain, and Zoroaras, a Syrian monk, defended
Anabaptism.”120

But if these men have erred in other respects perhaps,
which in that dark age could very easily have
been the case, we would not justify it; it suffices us
that they, as regards this article, dared oppose the
common doctrine of the Roman church; which could
not have been done without peril of life, or, at least,
not without reaping calumny and obloquy.

About A. D. 551.—That it was customary at this
time, to baptize on Easter and Whitsuntide, is recorded
from Gregory, who says that several Jews
were baptized on Easter, and several on Whitsuntide.
Bapt. Hist., page 472, from Gregor., lib. 5,
Hist. cap. 11.

That this custom of baptizing on Easter and Whitsuntide,
pertained only to believing penitents, and in
no wise to children, we have previously sufficiently
shown; to which we refer the reader. But to remove
all doubt, mention is also made in the same place, in
the History of Holy Baptism, of the preaching or
doctrine of faith which it was then customary to present
to the novices, who were to be baptized. As an
example of this is adduced the wife of Sigibert, who,
having been rightly instructed in the faith through
such holy preaching, was ultimately baptized. Bapt.
Hist., page 472, from Greg. Turon., lib. 4, cap. 26.

About A. D. 553.—When, as it appears, the good
old custom of renouncing and forsaking Satan, which
was wont to be done publicly at baptism, in connection
with the confession of faith, began to cease, or,
at least, fall into neglect, it was revived and again
brought to remembrance, by the teacher Vincent;121
concerning which the following observation is found
in Bapt. Hist., page 473, from Vinc., lib. 21, cap. 6:
“It was the custom, to renounce (that is, forsake),
before baptism, all pomp and the works of the devil,
which can certainly not be done by children.”

About A. D. 556.—At this time white robes were
put on the newly baptized, after baptism. Thus,
Gregory Turon (lib. 5, cap. 11), says—that at Avernio
five hundred Jews were baptized at once, and
then went their way, clothed in white robes.

Gifts were also presented to the baptized; thus,
Guentheramus gave presents to Clotharius, when
the latter had been baptized. Bapt. Hist., p. 484,
from Gregor. Turon., lib. 10, cap. 27.

This putting on of the white robes after baptism,
signified that the newly-baptized, having put off the
garment of sin, must henceforth be clothed in the
clean white robe of true righteousness and holiness;
to which applies Eccl. 9:8: “Let thy garments be
always white;” and Rev. 3:4: “They shall walk
in white;” also, Rev. 19:8: “And to her was
granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen,
clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness
of saints.”

As to the gifts presented to the newly-baptized,
this indicated that God thus imparts his heavenly
gifts and blessings to them; as Peter said to those
whom he exhorted to be baptized: “And ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,” Acts 2:38.

However, if it should be, that with this putting on
of white robes, and giving of presents, there was
coupled any superstition (of which, however, we are
not aware,), we would not commend, but rather
speak against it. What we have in view here, is
simply this, that such ceremonies were not, and
could not be, performed with infants, inasmuch as
the latter are too weak in understanding to comprehend,
as well as in ability to perform, the same.
Hence it follows, that such baptism, at that day,
was not administered to infants, but to adult, reasonable,
and believing persons.

About A. D. 560.—It is stated, from Adon.
Aetat. 4, and Turon., lib. 4, cap. 26, that Brunechildis,
the daughter of Arthanagild, had been baptized,
probably in her infancy, by the Arians, but
that subsequently, having been married to Sigibert,
she was rebaptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.
This is related more fully by J. Mehrning, in Bapt.
Hist., p. 475. But whether Brunechildis continued
in the true footsteps of the faith, after her rebaptism,
of this we have no account; it suffices us
to know that having been baptized, probably in
infancy, by the Arians, she was afterwards, in adult
age, rebaptized, or, at least, baptized aright, upon
confession of faith; the first baptism having no foundation.

About A. D. 562.—Joseph Vicecomes (lib. 5,
cap. 53), quotes Cyril Monachus, in the life of the
Patriarch, Enthymius as follows: “When he had entertained
for forty days, several persons that had been
baptized, had admonished, and diligently instructed
them in godliness, and inculcated in them, in various
ways, the things necessary to their salvation, he
let them depart in peace.” Bapt. Hist., page 484.

In what place and manner, and under what circumstances,
the aforementioned persons were baptized,
is not stated; hence we must be content with
what is shown, from which we can infer that those
persons were baptized upon faith, seeing they were
yet confirmed, after baptism, in the doctrine of faith
and godliness; and thus it follows that the custom of
baptizing upon faith was practiced at the place where
this occurred.

About A. D. 570.—Vicecomes (lib. 4, cap. 12),
quotes, from Severus Alexandrinus, a certain prayer,
which it was customary, at that time, for the teacher
to pronounce over those who were baptized: “O
God! take out from them the old man, which destroys
himself through the lusts of error, and clothe
them with the new man, which is daily renewed in
thy knowledge.”

Again (lib. 5, cap. 27): “O Lord God! who hast
imputed unto us redemption through Christ, and
through the water, in the Holy Ghost, hast given to
these thy servants, regeneration; thou, O Lord, who
lovest light, confirm and uphold them in holiness,
that they, illuminated by the light of thy grace, and
standing before thy table, may be made worthy of
thy eternal salvation.”

In chap. 38 he relates how the candidates, immediately
after baptism, were brought to the holy Supper,
and crowned with wreaths, and how the teacher then
201
addressed them, exhorting them to joy and holiness
of life, saying: “Dear brethren, sing a hymn of
praise unto the Son of the Lord over all, who has
crowned you with royal crowns. You have now, my
beloved, received unfading crowns from the waters of
Jordan, through the power of the Holy Ghost. Dear
brethren, ye have put on to-day the glory of the
baptism of the heavenly Adam.”

He finally adds the wish addressed by the teacher
to God, saying: “The holy God give you holiness
with this seal wherewith you are sealed, and mark
you with the ring of a sweet-smelling anointing, by
this baptism wherewith you are baptized; may he
make you worthy of his kingdom, and crown you,
instead of this perishable crown, with the crown of
righteousness and every good work.”

Having quoted this much, Jacob Mehrning says:
“All this is utterly inapplicable to infant baptism.”
Bapt. Hist., page 486.

Same year as above.—It is stated that about this
time there also lived Theophilus Alexandrinus, who,
it appears, held views entirely different from those of
the Roman church, with regard to baptism as well as
to the holy Supper; so that he wrote against the
manifold adjurations which were wont to be connected
with the consecrating of the baptismal water,
as also against transubstantiation or the essential
change of the bread into the body of Christ, as follows:
“A false Christian (namely, one who deems adjurations
over the baptismal water necessary), does not
consider that the water, in holy baptism, is sanctified
by the word of God (which was wont to be spoken to
the candidates who confessed the faith), and the advent
of the Holy Ghost; and that the bread of the
Lord, by which the body of our Savior is signified,
and which we break for our sanctification, is consecrated
through invocation of the Lord.” Observe
he does not say, transubstantiated, but consecrated.122
See Bapt. Hist., page 486, from D. J. Vicecomes,
lib. 1, cap. 14.

A. D. 586.—Long since, namely, for the year
317, we cited Donatus, and showed, according to
Seb. Franck, Chron. Rom. Kill., letter D., that he
was a very learned Bishop of Carthage, a native of
Numidia, and that he taught that the Pope and his
adherents did not have a Christian church, and, consequently,
no true baptism; and hence held that
those who had been baptized in the Roman church,
needed to be rebaptized, saying that there was only
one church, one baptism, one faith, one Gospel, and
that no children should be baptized, but only believing
adults who desired baptism. At first almost all
Africa adhered to him. See the place indicated
above.

This doctrine, however, did not die with him, seeing
mention is made of his followers much later (namely
A. D. 586), that they at that time, under the leadership
of one Peter, Bishop of Apamia, rebaptized
those who had been baptized by the orthodox (or
Catholic) church. See concerning this, P. J. Twisck,
Chron., 6th book, page 201, col. 1, from Greg. lib.
8, Merul., fol. 446. Also our account for the
year 548.

NOTE.—-The followers of Donatus, of whom we
speak here, have of old been severely accused by
their opponents of gross errors, tyranny, &c., but
are acquitted thereof by other celebrated authors.
Nevertheless, we would not accept them in every
respect, but only in those of their teachings which
are good and true.

H. Bullinger compares them throughout to the
Anabaptists, or as he calls them Baptists, saying:
“Here our Baptists again disclose their ignorance,
when they teach that no one should be compelled
to that which is good, or to the faith;” and, continuing,
he says: “They resemble the ancient Baptists,
the Donatists, in every respect.” “These,” he
writes further, “were of the opinion, that heretics
should be allowed to live without restraint and with
impunity in their faith;” that is, without persecution
or blood shedding. They were opposed by Augustine.
H. Bulling., lib. 5, fol. 216, 222.123

As to the accusations formerly brought against
their faith as well as their life, these have been refuted
by several prominent authors. “It would be desirable,”
writes P. J. Twisck, “if we ourselves had their
writings, doctrines, and deeds; for, if it is true, that
they resemble the Baptists in every respect, and are
not willing that any one should be compelled in matters
of faith.” It is therefore sufficiently, as Bullinger
says, evident, that they were unjustly accused.
Chron., 5th book, page 147, col. 2. This is more
fully spoken of in the account for the year 317.

About A. D. 600.—We will now bring the history
of baptism in the sixth century to a close. We would
adduce more writers in confirmation of said matter,
but we fear that many authors of that time did not
write faithfully and uprightly; besides, that many of
their descendants, in order to give color to infant
baptism and similar doctrines, appear to have corrupted
their writings, of which many excellent men
have complained.

Jacob Mehrning, in his Indachtigmaeckinge over
het Doopsel, of the 6th century, says: “Thus the
Centuriatores Magdeburgenses, also the two doctors,
Calixtus and Brandanus Detrius, in their disputations
about baptism, must themselves confess
that in this century, and much longer, the Christian
novices were divided into two classes, as in the primitive
church, which observed a distinction between
the catechumens and believing applicants for baptism,
or the “elect,” as they were called by the
ancients.

But continuing, he writes the following concerning
the corruption of the writings of the true teachers:
“Here must also be taken into consideration, that
which the Centuriatores Magdeburgenses, Dr. Calixtus,
Dr. Meysner, Dr. Johan Gerhard, Dr. Guil.
Perkins, in Ementito Catholicismo, and many others
so frequently complain of, namely, that the writings
of the fathers and the primitive teachers of the
church, have been so amazingly abused, in manifold
ways, corrupted, interpolated and mutilated. Pray,
202who indeed will be our surety, that Augustine and
others of the fathers have written and taught about
infant baptism, all that is ascribed to them.

However, the fathers and teachers of the church,
whose writings are extant, constitute but a very
small part of the whole number. Were the writings,
books and testimonies of the countless hundreds and
thousands of other teachers of the church, bishops,
and laymen experienced in the word of God, who
have written, preached, taught, and spoken against
it, in various parts of the wide world, to come to
light, and could we also have the original manuscripts
of the fathers, namely, those who have written
against infant baptism, and compare them together,
we would be astonished to see how faithfully
the truth has been maintained in all ages, but also,
how it has been suppressed by the innovators of
baptism (that is, those who baptized infants). Yet,
however mutilated and corrupted the writings of the
fathers as we now have them, are, there are nevertheless
to be found in them many very excellent
testimonies respecting Christ’s true ordinance of
baptism, and very confused ones as regards infant
baptism; for which we owe special thanks to God,
and to him only, who thereby mightily confirms us
in the truth. Bapt. Hist., 2d part, pages 481, 482.

Thus, not we, but those who have unfaithfully
dealt with the writings of the fathers, are the cause
that we must here close our account of the baptism
of this time; however, in some of the following centuries,
where we meet with more authentic writers,
we shall be able to explain and amplify this more
conclusively.





---

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

[Contribute a correction or addition](https://github.com/trueChristian/history.truechristian.church/issues/new?title=Correction%3A+Summary+Of+Baptism+In+The+Sixth+Century.&body=%23%23+Page+or+topic%0ASummary+Of+Baptism+In+The+Sixth+Century.%0A%0APage%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.truechristian.church%2Fstories%2Fmm-summary-of-baptism-in-the-sixth-century%2F%0A%0ARecord%3A+mm-summary-of-baptism-in-the-sixth-century%0A%0ADate+currently+shown%3A+6th+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.)