Again the words of Paul, 1 Tim. 6:12, he expounds as follows: “Thou hast professed a good profession before many witnesses; which was done through thy baptism, when thou didst renounce the world and its pomp, before the elders[110] or teachers, before the ministers, and before the heavenly hosts.”
In the tract called, Klare en Grondige Bewijsing van den Doop, printed 1581, it is stated, letter A, Jerome on Matthew: “The Lord commanded his apostles, that they should first instruct and teach all nations, and then baptize those instructed, in the sacrament of faith; for it is not possible for the body to receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have previously received the true faith.”
Who could ever believe that this man at any time defended, or at least, not opposed but admitted infant baptism, seeing he opposes it in the places mentioned with such abundant clearness and explicitness? We note only the last mentioned passage, where he certainly says, without the least dissimulation or exception, that it is not possible for the body to receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have previously received the true faith. How can, may, or shall this be explained otherwise than that there cannot be or consist any other baptism than that which is received with true faith? for this is the very idea expressed by his words.
Nevertheless, there are men who ascribe to Jerome a certain dialogue against Pelagius, in which one Critobulus interrogates, and one Atticus answers, in this wise: Critobulus asks: “Why are children baptized?” Atticus replies: “That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism.” “Why, what sins have they committed?” asks Critobulus. Atticus answers: “Dost thou ask me this? let the evangelic trumpet answer thee.”
But, in order to prove that Jerome defended infant baptism, it would first have to be shown incontrovertibly, that this dialogue is Jerome’s own production, which we have great reason to doubt, since the style as well as the matter of the same do not accord with his other writings, especially those in which he treats of baptism; moreover, there have of old been forgers, who, in order to gain greater renown for their own productions, have ascribed them to celebrated men, or have interpolated their own opinions into their writings; thus, it has been proven that the writings of Justin have been interpolated. Bapt. Hist., page 170. H. Montan., pages 7, 8, 9. Also, the writings of Origen. Bapt. Hist., pages 283 and 291. H. Mont., pages 29–34, 42, 43.
Yea, in this manner, a whole book, also touching on infant baptism, has been falsely ascribed to Dionysius, the Areopagite, who, it is testified, lived in the time of the apostles; this the Magdeburg pedobaptists themselves show. Centur. 1, cap. 2. Also, Jac. Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., 177, 293, 341.
Again, even if it could be shown, which is by no means certain, that this dialogue is Jerome’s own production, it could nevertheless not be proven thereby, that Jerome himself held the views maintained by one party in the dialogue, namely, that infants may be baptized. For, why should we not, with equal justice, ascribe to him the views of the other party, which demands reasons and proof why they may be baptized? For one would certainly be his work as much as the other.
Moreover, every intelligent person knows that books that are written in the form of dialogues, do not always express the author’s individual views, but that frequently the views and debates of others are handled in them, either to censure them, expose their errors, or correct them.
Finally, how could it be possible, that any one endowed with reason and sound judgment should do such contrary things at one and the same time? We have shown how clearly and correctly he speaks of the baptism of adults, yea, recommends it, and not only this, but how he, though he was born of Christian parents, remained unbaptized until he was in his thirtieth year—how then could he admit infant baptism, seeing he decisively opposed it by doctrine and example? unless it be shown that Jerome wrote this article on infant baptism before his conversion, or that he subsequently apostatized from his adopted views, to infant baptism; but as I can find no account of either we will hold to our previous declaration.