AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM OF THE MARTYRS IN THE THIRD CENTURY.
SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THIS CENTURY.
[Among the witnesses of true baptism we have accorded Tertullian the first place, because it was in the very early part of this century that he flourished and spread abroad the fame of his doctrine. He rebuked those who brought such as were too young to be baptized, justifying his rebuke with conclusive reasons.
Leonilla, a Christian grandmother, had her three grandsons, Sosyphus, Cleosyphus, and Melosyphus, baptized after previous instruction.
Then comes Origen, surnamed Adamantius, who gives very excellent and salutary expositions, not only in regard to baptism, but also with reference to various other religious matters.
Three very learned men, Virian, Marcellinus, and Justin, confer with one another, and are baptized upon their faith; likewise also Pancratius, the son of the believing Chonius; also, Bazilla, an honorable maiden, who was baptized after having been instructed by Protus and Hiacyntus; and thus also was baptized, after having been instructed in the faith by Pontianus, Pontus, the son of a Christian, called Marcus.
Nemesius instructed and baptized those who attained to the faith.
Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus exhorted those who came to his baptism, that they should first fast forty days on account of their sins.
We conclude with some who in regard to baptism and the Lord’s Supper held views different from those of the Catholic (that is, Roman) Church, from which latter they had separated themselves, and with this completes the account of baptism in this century.]
We do not find it stated by a single authentic author, as has been shown, that during the first two centuries any one departed from the foundation of Christ’s true order of baptism, that is, from baptism upon faith, by changing this, the true baptism, into a vain or infant baptism; but it appears that in the third century there were men who not only originated, but also put it in practice and administered the same; yet it was adopted only in a few places. J. Mehrn. in Baptism. Hist., page 164, num. 10. H. Montanus, in Nietighz. van den Kinder-doop, second edition, p. 17.
It would not be out of order to give a two-fold account of this matter: in the first place, by whom, how, and in what manner baptism was then practiced in the true church of God; in the second place, by whom, how, and in what manner, infant baptism originated and was observed by some, at that time. But since it is not our purpose here to refute this error, but simply to show how true baptism, as instituted by Christ, and practiced by the holy apostles, has been observed, taught and preached from century to century; and how the church of God blossomed in that faith, as a rose amidst thorns; therefore we will pass by this question, since it does not properly belong here; however, we shall speak of it in a separate place, but proceed now in our account.
About the year 204.—This is the time in which, it is stated, the celebrated Tertullian flourished, who, seeing that baptism was administered to the catechumens (learners) too soon, inasmuch as some began to baptize them while they were yet children, wrote, in order to prevent this, as follows: “It is more expedient to defer baptism, according to the condition, circumstances, and age of each particular individual, than to precipitate it. Again: “It is true, the Lord says: ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them come, then, when they increase in years; let them come, when they learn and are taught whereto they come; that they may become Christians, when they can know Christ. Why hasten ye the innocent youths to the forgiveness of sins? We should exercise more prudence in temporal matters, than to entrust with divine things those to whom we do not entrust earthly; that they may know to desire salvation, in order that it may appear that it was given to him, who desired it.” Lib. de Baptismo, cap. 18. Also, H. Mont. Nietigheyd, page 17.
These words contain several dissuasions against baptizing too early. The first reason is based on the unprofitableness of hastening with it, and is contained in these words: “It is more profitable to defer baptism, according to the condition, circumstances, and age of each particular individual, than to hasten it.” The second reason is founded on the import of the words of Christ: “Forbid them not to come unto me;” with reference to which he says: “Let them come then, when they increase in years.” The third reason he bases on the innocence or simplicity of those children, saying: “Why hasten ye the innocent youths?” The fourth reason he founds on the imprudence manifested thereby, saying: “We should exercise more prudence in temporal matters than to trust with divine things those to whom we do not entrust earthly things.” The fifth reason, finally, he bases on the desire for salvation which the candidate for baptism must have, saying: “That they may know to desire salvation, in order that it may appear, that it was given to him who desired it.”
It appears therefore throughout these words of Tertullian, how greatly he was opposed to having baptism administered too hastily to ignorant and inexperienced young persons; and, on the other hand, how gratifying would it have been to him, if, having reached the years of maturity, and been instructed and taught, they would have been baptized upon their own desire to be saved.
This manner of baptizing he mentions in another place, stating at the same time, how this baptism was administered by him and his own people. He says: “When we go to the water, and first begin with baptism, we confess there, even as we did before in the church, under the hand of the overseer,[93] that we renounce the devil with all his adherents and angels; after which we are dipped three times, which answers more than the Lord has laid down in the Gospel.”[94] In lib. de Corona Militis, cap. 3 and 4. Also, H. Mont. Nietigheyd, page 16.
He states it still more clearly in Lib. de Spectaculis, cap. 4: “When we, having gone into the water, confess the Christian faith upon the words of his law, we testify with our mouth, that we have renounced the devil, his pomp, and his angels.”
And that this may be practiced and maintained in truth, he gives, to the candidates for baptism this instruction (Lib. de Baptismo, cap. 20): “Those who are to be baptized, must supplicate with much praying, fasting, bending of the knee, and watching, confessing all their former sins, so that they may show forth John’s baptism.” “They were baptized,” says he, “confessing their sins.” Matt. 3:6.
Then he shows what baptism is, and what it signifies; from which we can clearly see that at least in his estimation infant-baptism was not authorized. He says: “The washing of water is a seal of the faith; which faith begins with, and is known by the penitence of the believer. We are not washed, in order that we may cease to sin; but because we have ceased, and are washed in heart, for this is the first immersion of him that hears.”[95] Lib. de Pœnitentia, cap. 6. Also, J. du Bois, Seckerheyd van, etc., printed A. D. 1648, page 47.
If you wish to learn still more of the views of Tertullian concerning baptism as instituted by Christ, read lib. de Præscript, adversus Hæreticos, cap. 36, cited by H. Montanus, in Nietigh., page 23, and by J. du Bois (although he misinterprets this passage), Contra Montanum, page 44, where Tertullian writes thus: “Well, then, ye who would inquire more fully into the matter of your salvation, take a view of the apostolic churches, in which the chairs of the apostles are still occupied by their successors, and where their own authentic epistles are still read, sounding their voices, and calling up their very forms. If Achaia is near you, there is Corinth; are you not far from Macedonia, there is Philippi, and there Thessalonica; can you come into Asia, there is Ephesus; but are you near Italy, there is Rome. Let us see, what she (namely the church there) has said, what she has taught, and in what she has agreed with the African churches. She recognizes one God, the Creator of all things, and Christ Jesus from the virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator, and the resurrection of the flesh; she unites the law and the prophets with the evangelical and apostolical writings, and therefrom drinks this faith, which she seals with water, clothes with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, and confirms by martyrdom; and receives no one contrary to this institution.” Thus far, Tertullian.
To this we say: “It is indeed true, that he here speaks against the errors of Valentinus, Marcion, and the like; but since this occasions him to say, that all the churches which he mentions, especially the one at Rome, in which the apostolic doctrine was still sounded at that time, sealed the faith, which he opposes to said errors, with water, and that they received no one contrary to this institution; any one can clearly see, that all the above named churches administered baptism at that time to adults, who could drink that faith from the evangelical and apostolical writings; and not this only, but could also partake of it by the use of the eucharist, and confirm it by martyrdom, which are things that children cannot do.” Ergo.
TERTULLIAN’S VIEWS CONCERNING DIFFERENT OTHER MATTERS, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK.
“Tertullian,” says Twisck, “exhorts Christian women, in a book written to his wife, not to enter into marriage relations with the heathen, saying that it is impossible for them to live long in peace and friendship. He says: ‘What must the heathen husband think, when he sees, or hears it said that his wife kisses on the cheek the first Christian whom she happens to meet?’ ”
“Again, In a book on patience, when speaking of the apostates and of withdrawing from them, he says that patience governs all manner of salutary doctrines, and remarks: ‘What wonder then, that it also serves to repentance to those who are wont to come to the help of the apostate, whether it be man or wife, when separated one from another, nevertheless by such things as are lawful, to be led to maintain their widow or widowerhood. It is patience that waits for repentance, hopes for it and exhorts to it those who would yet at some time attain to salvation. How great the benefit it confers upon both—the one it preserves from adultery, the other it reforms.’[96] Again he says: ‘Do you think that it is hard for a Christian to suffer? He would rather die himself, than to kill others; and if you smite a Christian, he glories in it.’ ”
“Again, ‘As the religion of others does not concern us, and neither profits nor harms us; therefore, it does not become any one religion to force itself upon another, since it must be accepted voluntarily, and not by coercion, for what is required is the offering of a willing mind.’ ” (This agrees with Ex. 25, 35 and 36. Chr. Leonh., lib. 1. Seb. Fr. in the Arke fol. 174. Stand der Religie, lib. 4. Grond. Bew. letter B. Menn. Sym. Doop. C., fol. 8. Th. Imbroek, fol. 28.)
“Again, Tertullian (in his fourth book against Marcion) quoting the words of Christ: This is my body, that is, a figure of my body, says: ‘It would not have been a figure, had his body not been real; for a phantasm, or mere illusion, cannot have a figure or shadow?’ With this he means to prove that Christ had a real body; and what he here calls a figure, he, in the fifth book, calls a sacrament, with the express words: ‘The bread and the cup.’ Still more clearly he says in the first book: ‘Neither did he despise or reject the bread, by which he represented or typified his body.’
“He says: ‘These words of Christ: This is my body, we must understand as though Christ had said: This is the sign and figure of my body.’ I pass over Dionysius Alexandrinus, and Paulinus, who both treat in the same manner of the above sacrament.’ ” Tertul. Apolog., cap. 39. Euseb. lib. 6 and 9. Daniel Saut., lib. 1, cap. 6.
“Again, Tertullian says: ‘We must not seek the faith from the persons, but prove the persons by the faith.’ ” De Præscript., lib. 4. P. J. Twisck, Chron. 2d book, page 53, col. 1, 2.
Note.—Tertullian taught at this time: “We have the apostles for authors, who established nothing according to their own inclination, but faithfully taught the nations that which they had received from God.” Lib. 1. Præscript.
He writes further, that “all churches are apostolic churches, though they may have been founded long after the time of the apostles, if they have but kinship with the doctrine.” Lib. 1. Præsc. See Samuel Veltius, in the Geslacht-register der Roomscher Successie, second edition, 1649 pages 115, 116.
Tertullian says among other things: “The emperors would have believed in Christ, if the world had not prevented them; for they could not become Christians, because they had to serve the world, and carry on war.” See, Grondelijke Verklaringe Danielis ende Johannis, printed at Harlem, 1635, on Tertullian.
Vicecomes, in his first book on baptism, chap. 1, notes the following testimony from Tertullian (lib. 1, cap. 4.): “There is no difference between those whom John baptized in Jordan and those Peter baptized in the Tiber.” With this he intends to prove that in the first days of Christianity there were neither baptismal fonts nor churches. J. M., Baptism. Hist., page 275.
Again says Tertullian: “Thus, when we go into the water of baptism, we justly confess our sins and the Christian faith.” Vicecom., lib. 4, cap. 7, and J. M., Baptism. Hist., page 277.
These last two passages from Tertullian we have adduced over and above what was necessary, but they are not useless, since they confirm what we have said above about baptism; for by the first the superstition which was wont to be connected with the water, the baptismal font, and the church in which baptism was administered, is removed, or at least (per consequentiam) controverted; and the second states that it is proper to confess our sins, and the Christian faith, at baptism. And therewith he proves that it is not proper to be baptized without confessing one’s sins, and the Christian faith. What has been said is sufficient for the intelligent. With this we take our leave of Tertullian.
A. D. 224.—Leonilla, a Christian grandmother, had three grandsons, Sosyphus, Cleosyphus, and Melosyphus. She begged Romigius that he would instruct the three lads in the Christian faith, and then baptize them. This was done in a godly manner. P. J. Twisck, Chron. for the year 224, 3d book, page 60, col. 1, from Grond. Bew., letter B. Also, Kort verhæl van den loop der werelt, printed 1611, page 47.
From this it will be seen, that at that time and place Christians were not in the habit of having their children or grandchildren baptized, unless these had reached riper years, and been instructed in the faith, which, when they confessed it, they were baptized upon. This should be borne in mind.
A. D. 231.—At this time there flourished as a writer the celebrated Origen, surnamed Adamantius, who, treating on baptism, writes thus (Homil. 6, super. Ezechidem) on Ezekiel, 16:4: ”‘Neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee,’ etc.: We, who have received the grace of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, are washed unto salvation. Simon was washed, and when he had received baptism, continued with Philip; but not being washed unto salvation, he was condemned by him who through the Holy Ghost said to him: ‘Thy money perish with thee.’ It is a matter of great importance that he who is washed, be washed unto salvation.
“Be very heedful of this, ye catechumens, or learners, and prepare yourselves by what is told you while you are yet under instruction and unbaptized; and then come to the washing of water, and be washed unto salvation. But be not washed as some, who are washed, but not unto salvation; like those who receive the water, but not the Holy Ghost.
“He that is washed unto salvation, receives the water and the Holy Ghost.
“Because Simon was not washed unto salvation, he received the water, and not the Holy Ghost; for he thought he could purchase the gift of the Holy Ghost with money, wherein he was not washed unto salvation.
“That which we now read as having been spoken at Jerusalem, is addressed to every sinful soul that seems to believe.” Also, H. Mont. Nietigh., pp. 36, 37.
The above words of Origen indicate the manner of baptism which prevailed in his time, namely, that the candidates for baptism were first catechumens, that is, learners, who were instructed in the faith, and had to prepare themselves to this end, before they were baptized. For, when he says: “Be very heedful of this, ye catechumens, or learners, and prepare yourselves by what is told you while you are yet under instruction and unbaptized; and then come to the washing of water,” etc., what else is meant by it, than that it confirms what John required of those who came to him to be baptized, saying: “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance,” Matt. 3:8; that is, prepare yourselves by a true reformation of life, so that you may receive baptism worthily.
Then, on the words, Ezek. 16:5: “But thou wast cast out in the open field,” etc., he (Origen) comments thus: “If we sin again after the washing of regeneration, we are cast away, according to the word of God, in the day that we are born: such are frequently found, who, after they have been washed by the washing of regeneration, do not bring forth fruits meet for repentance; nor do they live up to the mystery of baptism, with more fear than they had while they were yet catechumens, or learners; or with more love than they exercised when they were still hearers of the word; or with holier deeds than they performed before. Beloved, observe what is said in the text: ‘Thou wast cast out in the open field, for the wickedness of thy soul, in the day that thou wast born.’ ” H. Mont., same page as above.
By these words he confirms the import of his former declaration, namely, “That those who are to be baptized, must first be catechumens, or learners, and, being baptized, they must be truly regenerated;” and thus he calls baptism “the washing of regeneration,” even as Paul, Tit. 3:5.
Moreover, he complains that those who were washed by the washing of regeneration, did not bring forth fruits meet for repentance. By this he certainly means to say, that the baptized person must be truly converted, and bring forth good fruits. But how can he be converted, that is, turn from his error, who never has erred? And how can it be demanded of him to bring forth good fruits, who cannot be accused of ever having brought forth bad fruits? Hence it is evident that he does not say this with reference to the baptism of infants, since these, having never erred, or brought forth bad fruits, cannot, through baptism, be required to turn from error, and bring forth better fruits than they have brought forth before.
That such baptism, accompanied with the mortifying of the flesh, and resurrection unto a new life, is taught and commended by Origen, is clearly expressed in his comments on Rom. 6:3: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” where he says: “But it seems to me that the apostle in this chapter does not prefix even the words: ‘Know ye not’ without a purpose. He thereby proves that at that time, that is, in the days of the apostles, it was not as it is now, that those who were baptized, received only the outward figure of the mysteries, but that also the power and intent of the same was imparted to them, and this to those who understood it, and had been instructed concerning it: that those who are baptized, are baptized into the death of Christ, and buried with him by baptism; and that those who are baptized must walk in newness of life, even as Christ rose from the dead, through the glory of the Father.” Also, H. Mont. page 37.
This is certainly expressing plainly and unequivocally, of what baptism he is treating,[97] namely, of such a baptism, of which the power and intent was imparted to those who understood it; by which they were buried into the death; by which they were raised, to walk in newness of life, etc., all of which are things that cannot be comprehended, much less undertaken and carried out, by infants. In this manner he speaks also in other places, as, for instance, in Homilia 5, 4th and 5th chapters of the book Joshua. Again, Homil. 9, 8th and 9th chapters; Homil. 15, 11th chap. Also, Homil. 7, 15th chap. of the book of Judges. B. Hist. p. 291.
NOTICE CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN WITH REFERENCE TO BAPTISM.
There are a few passages, namely, Homil. 8, on the 12th and 13th chapters of Leviticus; Homil. 14, on the 2d chap, of Luke; Comment. on the 6th chap. of the Epistle to the Romans, from which some who at this day uphold infant baptism suppose they can draw something to show that Origen was not a stranger to their views, but that he sanctioned them. But various eminent writers deny, yea, completely refute this, it being proven that these passages do not belong to Origen, but to Ruffinus, the priest at Aquileia, who, it is stated, more than one hundred and fifty years after Origen’s time translated the works of the latter from the Greek into Latin, adding from his own, that is, out of his own mind the abovementioned passages, and, on the other hand, leaving out other matters. To this explanation we assent. See Ruffinus’ prefatory and concluding remarks on Origen’s Commentary to the Epistle to the Romans. Also, Erasmus’ account of the life of Origen, prefaced to the works of the latter, according to J. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., pp. 283 and 291. Also, H. Mont. Nietigheyd van den Kinder-doop, pages 29–34, and 42, 43.
Besides this, various gross errors have of old been imputed to Origen, as, for instance, that he believed, that the evil spirits would ultimately be saved. However, he himself desires this in a certain letter written to those of Alexandria, in which he complains of the shamelessness of his adversaries, who dared in his life time to defame him with slanders which not even an insane man would utter. What, then, must have been the treatment his writings received after his death!
“We may plainly see,” says Jacob Mehrning, “from what we still have of the writings of Origen, that many ignorant and grossly erring spirits have sought to palm off to the simple-minded, their own whims under the name of this eminent man, who by Jerome (in Prefatione ante Ezechidem) is called the second master of the church after the apostles.” Bapt. Hist. pp. 288 and 289. Also, H. Mont. Nietigh., pages 35, 36.
TOUCHING DIFFERENT POINTS OF THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGEN, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK.
A. D. 231.—“Origen, a man who abounds in spiritual allegories, and who practiced himself what he taught others, as church history testifies of him, began at this time to write his books, and says to the catechumens: ‘Repent, that ye may receive baptism for the remission of sins.’ Also: ‘He that has resolved to come and be baptized, but is not willing to forsake his evil practices and habits, but continues in his former condition, does not come to baptism in the proper way.’ With reference to this, you may read, George Vicelius, in his Form en Aenteekening, en Welke Gestalte en form de Kerk duysent jaer stond, fol. 127.
“Again: Origen was appointed by Demetrius, at Alexandria, catechist, that is, teacher of the pupils of the faith, which office was filled before him (after the apostles) by Plautinus and Clement. Of his pupils, Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides, Heron, and a woman, were martyred for Christ, before they were baptized, thus obtaining the baptism of fire.
“After Origen, Heracles, and after Heracles, Dionysius had charge at Alexandria of the schools of the catechumens, that is, of those who received instruction in the Christian doctrine, preparatory to baptism.
“Again: Origen says, that no one should be persecuted for his faith, and that he who would live according to the Gospel must not drive or compel his brother to an oath, nor swear such an one himself, though it be demanded of him.
“Again: On Matt. 23 he says: The Lord reprehends those teachers who not only do not practice what they teach, but also, tyrannously and unmercifully, without considering the strength of their hearers, lay upon them burdens greater than they can bear, namely, forbid them to marry, and over and above what is expedient, would constrain them to an impossible chastity.
“Again: He says that it is altogether a letter that killeth, that John should be understood literally and carnally. Hence he insists strongly upon it, that the natural eating of Christ’s body avails nothing, and that it must therefore be spiritually understood and eaten. Euseb., lib. 6. Chron. Seb. Frank, fol. 101. Leonh., lib. 1. Joh. Anast., fol. 313.
“Again: In his 12th, 15th, and 18th Homily on the Book of Joshua, Origen writes thus: ‘If the natural war of Joshua and his people were not a figure and antitype of the spiritual war of Christ and the Christians, the apostles, as peace-proclaimers, would never have accepted, nor sanctioned the reading of the books of Joshua, in the heavenly Jerusalem of the peaceful church and the peace-loving children of God.’ And he further proves by many arguments, that Christ, the Prince of Peace, teaches peace, and not war; and that we are not to fight with external, but only with spiritual weapons, against the devil, the world, flesh, sin, and death.
“Again: Speaking of the destruction of Ai, and the extermination of the king and the people, he says: ‘By this we must not understand that the saints, at this day in the new Testament, may shed blood, and kill with the natural sword: these and like events are full of mysteries.’ He explains further, that we must utterly destroy Ai, that is, the kingdom of darkness and sin, through the spiritual Joshua, Christ Jesus. Col. 1; Eph. 6.
“Again: Origin (Homil. in Mattheo 7) says: ‘The text in Luke 22, about buying a sword, is pernicious (namely, for the wicked) if understood literally, and not allegorically: for he that should regard the letter, and not understand the will and intent of God, but sell his garment, and buy a sword, would understand the word of Christ contrary to his will.’
“Again: In the book against Celsus the Second, he says that ‘war has been abolished by the only God.’
“Again: Of antichrist he says, from 2 Thess. 2, that he sitteth in the temple of God, and, a little further on, he says: ‘Antichrist assumes merely the name of Christ, but does not do his works; nor does he teach the words of truth. Christ is the truth; antichrist is the spurious truth. He shows himself here, as though he were Christ and the word of God, but is nevertheless the abomination of desolation.’ ” P. J. Twisck, Chron. 3d book, p. 61, from Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 65, 78. Hieron. Zauch., fol. 56. Joh. Heyden Næmb., fol. 226, 227.
A. D. 251.—It is recorded that at this time, Virian, Marcellinus, and Justin, learned men, in the reign of Emperor Decius, conferred with one another about matters concerning the Christians, and were well pleased with this holy religion; and hearing that Christian believers were baptized, they sent for a teacher[98] called Justin, and asked him to baptize them.
Justin rejoiced that such learned men wished to take upon themselves the yoke of Christ. He began to instruct them, and then had water brought, and baptized them on confession of their faith. P. J. Twisck, Chron. 3d book, page 68, col. 2, from Wicel. in Choro Sanctorum, Grond. Bew., letter B.
A. D. 253.—For this year, we read in ancient authors, that Pancratius, the son of the believing Clionius, was baptized at Mount Celius, when he was fifteen years old, after he had been under instruction twenty days. Compare this with P. J. Twisck, Chron. 3d book, page 71, col. 1, from Wicel. Grond. Bew., letter B. Leonh., lib. 1.
Touching the circumstances of this matter, that is, of Dionysius, who traveled with him, and the bishop Cornelius who baptized him, to whom some have erroneously ascribed another office, we leave it in its own merit and mention it no further. It suffices us that it is evident from this, that at that time the believers did not have their children baptized, till they, having attained to understanding and riper years, themselves desired to be baptized on their faith.
Same year as above.—Basilla, an honorable and discreet maiden, at Rome, in the reign of Emperor Galien, learned the Christian faith from the eunuch Protus, and Hiacynthus, and was also baptized by the abovementioned bishop Cornelius. Grond. Bew. van den Doop, printed 1581, letter B., ij.
A. D. 257.—Pontus, the son of Marcus, a Christian, was orally instructed in the Christian religion, by the bishop, or teacher, Pontian, and then baptized. P. J. Twisck, Chron. 3d book, p. 73, col. 1, from Grond. Bew., letter B. Chron. Mich., fol. 163. Also, Loop der Werelt, by F. H. H., printed 1611, page 47.
Here notice again that the aforementioned Pontus was not of Jewish or heathenish, but of Christian descent; for he is called the son of Marcus, a Christian; from which, as in the case of Pancratius, it appears that the Christians suffered their children to grow up unbaptized, till they attained to the years of understanding.
A. D. 264.—At Rome, under the Emperors Valerian and Galien, Nemesius and some others catechised; and, according to the custom of the church, when they had held a fast, he baptized all who believed. P. J. Twisck, Chron. 3d book, p. 57, col. 1; word for word.
NOTE.—In the tract, Grondig Bewijs, en onder-rechting van den Doop, printed A. D. 1581, letter B., ij.; ex Codice Mariano, the name Nemesius is not put in the nominative, but in the accusative (objective) case; so that in this place it seems that Nemesius was not the one who baptized, but one of those who were baptized.
About A. D. 290.—The above cited examples of those who were baptized on their faith, after having been instructed, are confirmed by various teachings of Cyril of Jerusalem, who then showed how those who were baptized should conduct themselves before as well as after baptism. Jacob Mehrning introduces him about the end of this century, or about A. D. 290, and adduces from his writings various passages which apply in no wise to infant baptism, but very appropriately to the baptism which is administered upon faith and repentance.
In Baptism Hist., pages 317 and 318, he has this annotation (cap. 8, ibid.): “Cyril himself exhorts some catechumens who before had spent several years in sensuality and lewdness, that they should not think it grievous to do penance for forty days, saying: ‘Beloved, forsake that which is present, and believe in the things to come. So many years you have spent, and served the world in vain; will you not, then, begin, and for the sake of your souls, abstain for forty days?”’
“In Baptism Hist., page 318, we read (Cyril in Catech. 2, Mijstag.): ‘Repent, O man, and the grace of baptism shall not be with held from thee.’ ”
“Again: Cyril strenuously exhorts such newly planted ones unto godliness, so that when they go to receive baptism, they will not be rejected, like the guest spoken of in the gospel, who did not have on a wedding garment. Therefore he says: ‘Far be it, that any of those who have given in their names for baptism, and have been entered on the lists, should hear: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?’ ” From Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 12, on Cyril.
“Again he says (Cyril in Catech. 3, Mijstag): ‘Begin to wash your garments by repentance, that, being called to the marriage of the Lamb, you may be found worthy.’ ”
“Again (Baptism. Hist., page 319, Cyril Catech. 1, Mijstag): ‘Say to those who are to be baptized: Hear the voice of the prophet that saith: Wash ye, make you clean; put away from your souls the evils of your doings before mine eyes; that the assembly of the angels may call unto you: Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.’ ”
“Again cap. 6 (Vicec.), Cyril admonishes the newly baptized: ‘As you have put off the old garments, and put on those that are according to the Spirit, you shall henceforth always walk in white garments.’ By this we do not mean to say that it is necessary for you always to have on white garments, but that you are to clothe yourselves in such garments as are white, bright, and spiritual before God. And in cap. 10, he says: ‘Would to God, that we could all of a truth say: My soul is joyful in the Lord; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, and with the robe of gladness.’ ”
Then he shows how holy, divine, and blessed a thing it is, to have joined one’s self by baptism to the nobility of Christ, that is, to his church. It is truly wonderful, how affectionately, sweetly, and comfortingly he addresses them, saying: “You have now given in your names to the nobility of Christ, and have received the bridal torches, the desire for the kingdom of heaven, the good purpose, hope, etc.” And, cap. 38, he thus addresses the baptized: “Now the odor of salvation is on you, O ye enlightened! Gather you heavenly flowers, to make heavenly crowns of them. Now, now! the odor of the Holy Spirit smells sweetly on you. You have been at the gate of the King’s palace. Would to God, that you were already led before the King himself. The blossoms have now appeared on the trees; but, oh! that the fruit also were conceived!” Jac. Mehrn. Baptism. Hist. on the third century, page 320.
How could it be possible that Cyril of Jerusalem should have taught differently concerning baptism, than the Anabaptists to-day teach, namely, that it must be accompanied by faith and repentance; seeing he, as has been shown, employs throughout such manner of speech as cannot be applied otherwise than to this baptism, and by no means to infant baptism.
For instance, in the first passage he admonishes the catechumens who had spent several years in voluptuousness, not to think it grievous, to do penance before baptism for forty days; which well accords with what was said to those who were not prepared for baptism. Matt. 3:7,8.
This he confirms in the five subsequent passages, using these arguments: That they must not neglect to repent, so that the grace of baptism may not be withheld from them. Again, that they would not have to hear it said to them, as the unprepared guest in the Gospel: ‘Friend, how camest thou in hither?’ Again, that they, being called to the marriage of the Lamb, might be found worthy. Again, that to this end they should hear the voice of the prophet, that saith: “Wash ye, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings.”
In the sixth passage he admonishes the newly baptized: As you have put off the old garments (that is, forsaken the old life) and put on those that are according to the Spirit (that is, put on a new life), you shall henceforth always walk in white garments, that is, henceforth you shall live a holy life and pay unto God your vows made unto him when you were baptized. This is certainly a scriptural exposition, and is not obscurely expressed in Cyril’s words.
We now come to the seventh or last passage, of which we shall say but little, as it contains not a single word which does not clearly indicate that he speaks of the baptism of the believers and penitent; for he there says to the baptized, that being enlightened they now had on them the odor of salvation, and admonishes them, to gather heavenly flowers with which to make heavenly crowns, adding this wish: “The blossoms have now appeared on the trees; but oh! that also the fruit were conceived!”
Any one with only a little understanding can easily see that these words of Cyril do not pertain to infants, and that he therefore does not speak to infants or of infant baptism, but is speaking to reasonable persons, and of the baptism that is administered to such. Moreover, from his having previously mentioned the catechumens, it is evident that it was customary at that time in the church where he was teacher, first to instruct the youth in the faith, and then, when they had accepted it, to baptize them upon confession of it. Without contradiction, it was a scriptural and holy custom, which proceeded not from human reason, like infant baptism, but from the mind of Christ and the understanding of the holy apostles. With this we take our leave from Cyril.
A. D. 300.—Arnobius, an old teacher says (in Psalms 146): “You are not first baptized, and then apprehend the faith, and rejoice in it; but when you are about to be baptized, you state before the teacher your perfect willingness, and make your confession with your own mouth.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 3d book, page 82, col. 1, 2, from Grond. Bew., letter B.
These words of Arnobius are very excellent, and show that at his time they did not first baptize, and then apprehend faith; but that the one to be baptized had to state his willingness before baptism, and then to make confession of faith with his own mouth. However, we shall speak more fully of Arnobius in the succeeding century.
Same year as above.—It is recorded that at this time there were several persons who had separated from the catholic[99] (Roman) church, namely: Dadoes, Sabas, Adelphius, Hermas and Simeones, who were accused of heresy by the Roman church, and, among other things, were charged with holding erroneous views concerning the divine meat (that is, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper), and of baptism (that is, infant baptism). As regards the divine meat they were charged with holding the opinion, that it neither profited nor injured; that is, that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper had no intrinsic virtue or value; and of baptism it was said that they maintained, that those baptized were not benefited by baptism, but that fervent prayer alone must expel the indwelling Satan.
Concerning these and other matters with which they were charged, whether justly or unjustly, see Hist. Eccles. Tripart., lib. 7, cap. 11. S. Fr., Chron. Rom. Kett., printed A. D. 1563, fol. 96, letter E, under the name Eraclit. Epulius.
Hence, when they said that those baptized were not benefited by baptism, they thereby sufficiently rejected infant-baptism, since the Roman church in general recognized no other than infant baptism. That this rejection of baptism, or deeming it useless, has respect to infant baptism, is clearly evident from what is added, namely, that they held that not baptism, but fervent prayer must expel the indwelling Satan; for those of the Roman church entertained the contrary view, namely, that Satan must certainly be expelled from the infants by baptism. However, we let every one judge for himself in this matter.
Jacob Mehrning in concluding the third century, says: “All these are beautiful reminders, which were administered to the catechumens before as well as after baptism, and which can certainly not have place with infants. And thus it has been shown in this, the third chapter, that in these three centuries infant baptism cannot be proven by a single consistent and authentic testimony from the fathers and church historians.” Baptism. Hist., pp. 320 and 321.
But this is further elucidated by the remark of P. J. Twisck, who, quite at the close of the third century, says: “Although infant baptism had been originated by some individuals, or by the church (that is, the Roman), as they themselves state, there were, nevertheless, many who devoutly received baptism upon faith and with a penitent life.” Chron., 3d book, conclusion, pages 83 and 84.
With this we close our account of baptism as practiced in the third century, and proceed to the martyrs who suffered during this same time for the truth and their upright faith.