The Bloody Theatre, or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians / who baptized only upon confession of faith, and who suffered and died for the testimony of Jesus, their savior, from the time of Christ to the year A.D. 1660

by Thieleman J. van Braght

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.