Finally, the difference between those of the Roman church and those who administered baptism upon faith.
Conclusion of the account for this century.]
Notwithstanding in this century the seat of anti-Christ was exalted to its highest altitude, inasmuch as the Emperor Phocas, A. D. 606, conferred upon the Roman Bishop the title of Papa, that is, Pope or Supreme Father, which name was first assumed by Boniface III., writing, in the decrees emitted by him to enjoin obedience: “We will, we ordain, we decree, we command, etc.; thus I will, thus I ordain, thus I decree, thus I command;” whereby many superstitions and human inventions were presented to the people as the word of God; such as image worship, salutation of the sacrament, observance of infant baptism as necessary to salvation, etc.; yet many pious people not only refused to obey all these things which the Pope prescribed, but some even flatly opposed it, daring to censure, reject, and contume, some in this and some in that respect, the papal and Roman superstitions, as among other points, was done with regard to infant baptism and all that pertains to it, with which not only some of the common people, but also some eminent and learned men were dissatisfied, so that they abandoned it altogether, yea, indicated by words and actions, that they were opposed to it; which became manifest even in Rome, as will be shown in the proper place.[127]
A. D. 606.—In this very year, in which the Pope was accepted, by Phocas, as the head of the general Latin church, the celebrated teacher and Bishop Adrian publicly opposed infant baptism, wishing neither to baptize the children himself, nor to have them baptized, but utterly refusing them baptism; on account of which he was accused by Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, to John, Bishop of Larissa, as appears from a certain letter sent by Gregory to John, in which, among other things, the following is contained: “The second article of the accusation against Bishop Adrian is this: that he refused baptism to infants, thus letting them die.” Centur. Magd., Cent. 9, cap. 4, page 141, according to the account in Bapt. Hist., page 496, and H. Mont. Nietigh., page 80.
It appears, indeed, that this said Adrian was criminally punished for his views against infant baptism, and because he let the infants die unbaptized, as is stated by the ancients, and shall appear more fully in our account of the martyrs.[128]
A. D. 610.—Infant baptism, it appears, being at this time, held in very little esteem by many, whether in consequence of the teaching of the above mentioned Adrian, or for some other reason, so that it was considered useless and not necessary to salvation, those of the Roman church publicly opposed this sentiment, in order either to eradicate it, or, at least, to excommunicate it by the anathema of the Pope; wherefore, A. D. 610, in the second Bracerensian Council, among other articles, it was established, decreed, and published: “That infants must be baptized, as necessary to their salvation.” Seb. Franck, Chron., Rom., Kett., fol. 74, col. 2. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 7th book, page 213, col. 2.
But how the true Christians, who rightly observed Christ’s ordinance of baptism, conducted themselves with reference to this matter, and whether they suffered any persecution on account of it, is not clearly expressed, but, if necessary, shall be explained more fully in its proper place.
About A. D. 620.—Although, through the authority of the Roman Pope, who had been chosen the supreme head of the church, and through the decree of said Bracerensian council, infant baptism was now so firmly established, that no one who wished to remain a member of the Roman church, dared utter a word against it; yet, among those who loved Christ more than the Pope, and esteemed the Gospel more highly than the decrees of popes and councils, the true faith and the true ordinances of Christ, especially the article of baptism, were nevertheless maintained aright; concerning which very much might be stated, had not the books and writings of the pious been so lamentably and tyrannously destroyed by those of the Roman church. However, we are in possession of as much testimony from authentic writers, as is necessary to establish said matter.
As regards this, that baptism was at that time administered to adult persons, by those who were opposed to the decree of the Roman church in the matter of infant baptism, appears from three circumstances: 1. from the time of baptizing; 2. from the place of baptizing; 3. from the persons baptized.
As to the time of baptizing, Easter was expressly specified in the Anti-idiorensian council, where it was established, in opposition to those who baptized new-born infants every day: That no one should be baptized at any other time than Easter, except in case of imminent death. In Decr. Antis.; until which time instruction in the faith was usually given to the candidates, as is sufficiently shown above.