About A. D. 682.—As the believers who strictly observed the baptismal ordinance of Jesus Christ, increased in no small degree, as can be inferred, in many countries, yea, even in the Roman church, so that, in regard to the time when baptism should be administered, they had, here and there, settled on a fixed time; namely, that it should take place on one of the two feasts, Easter or Whitsuntide, and that to this end, the catechumens should previously be notified and, in the weeks preceding said feasts, instructed in the faith; those of the Roman church, as may easily be judged, were not well satisfied with this, seeing it was a means to completely set aside infant baptism; and not only this, but to abolish entirely all other superstitions and human inventions, which, with so great labor and costs, by councils and otherwise, had been introduced into the Roman church, ostensibly for the best. It was therefore—in order to prevent this, it seems—deemed expedient to renew and republish the import of what had previously, A. D. 610, been decreed in the second Bracerensian council, namely: “That infants should be baptized, as necessary to their salvation,” that is, on pain of damnation. But what was really done in this matter, is not expressed in all its particulars; however, it has not been passed by unnoticed, seeing Pope Leo II., according to the Roman notation, the 82d, who then occupied the chair, ordained: That during mass the kiss of peace should be offered to the people, and that baptism might be administered any day. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 233, col. 1, from Hist. Georg., lib. 4. Chron., S. F., fol. 19.
From this it can be seen that the Pope’s principal concern was, not to lose the mass and infant baptism, both of which were chief points upon which rested the Roman church, as the temple of Dagon upon two pillars, which were threatened, now by this Sampson and now by another, by the arms of the Spirit and the word of God, yea, were in danger of being utterly pulled out and broken. Now, what does the Pope to prevent this? As regards the mass, he ordains that during mass the kiss of peace should be offered to the people. But how could he more insinuatingly and affably bind the common people to the superstition of the mass, than by offering to them the kiss of peace? But when the lion’s skin will not reach, that of the fox is brought into requisition.
As to infant baptism, what does he ordain to preserve it? This: that baptism might be administered any day. But some one may think: This does not concern infant baptism; consequently the latter is not confirmed by this decree. We answer, that the pope certainly sought to establish it thereby; for, inasmuch as infant baptism was weakened in no small degree by the practice of the believers who baptized their candidates only on Easter and Whitsuntide, as already stated, there was hardly another remedy to maintain infant baptism, than to ordain all times and days for baptism, for thus it could be administered to new born infants, who are born not only on Easter and Whitsuntide, but throughout the whole year, and who, according to his view, must then also be baptized.
A. D. 699.—The decree of Pope Leo II., for the confirmation of infant baptism and the mass, as mentioned for the year 682, did not have the effect of causing the believers who had separated from the Roman church, and maintained the baptism upon faith, to swerve in the least from their faith and the practice of the same; on the contrary, it appears that still more, yea, even learned men, separated from the Roman church in this said article and joined the little flock of Christ, so that some of them who formerly had maintained infant baptism, the mass, the traditions, the meritoriousness of good works, and the seven sacraments, now taught differently, and opposed the Pope in these points. Of these, five persons are mentioned in the Chronicles, whom P. J. Twisck, in his seventh book, for the year 699, notes, saying: “Isidorus, Cesarius, Adelheymius, Agatho, and Julian Pomorius taught in opposition to the Pope concerning the holy Scriptures, justification, good works, that there are but two sacraments, and concerning the name of the church, which was not built upon Peter, but on Christ.” Page 238, col. 1, from Joh. Munst., fol. 121.
But preeminently is mentioned by other writers, Isidorus of Spain, who, having at one time been a strenuous advocate of infant baptism, now taught and wrote such things as could, with reason and judgment, in no wise be applied thereto. For, commenting on John’s baptism, which even our opponents admit to have been administered only to adult, penitent sinners, he compares it to the baptism of his own time, saying: “I hold that all who were baptized by John unto repentance, were patterns of the catechumens.” Bapt. Hist., page 498, from Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 4, from Isidorus of Spain, in lib. de Div. Officiis.
What kind of persons these catechumens were, and how they were instructed before baptism in the doctrine of the faith, called the catechism, has already been sufficiently explained, and it is not necessary to repeat it here: yet, over and above this, we will adduce the man’s own words, as I have found them translated in Bapt. Hist., page 499. “After the catechumens,” he says, “there is the second grade—the applicants for baptism or fellow-prayers, that is, those who are striving for the doctrine of the faith, and sobriety of life, in order to receive the grace of Christ in baptism, and, hence, are called fellow-prayers, that is, such as pray for the grace of Christ.” Lib. 2, de Div. Officiis, cap. 21.
What took place ultimately with these applicants for baptism, in his time, he indicates with these words: “On Palm Sunday (that is, the Sunday before Easter), the Symbolium (that is, the twelve articles of faith) is delivered to the applicants for baptism, on account of the approaching glorious Easter feast, in order that they, as striving to receive the grace of God (that is, baptism) should first learn the faith which we confess.” Bap. Hist., page 499, from Isid., lib. 2, de Div. Off., cap. 27.
These words, compared with the preceding ones, clearly show, what custom as regards baptism, prevailed at that time in the church of which he speaks; namely, that the catechumens, or, at least, the novices, were first instructed in the catechism, that is, in the doctrine of the faith, until they were meet to be baptized; and that from that time on, they were called applicants for baptism, and fellow-prayers, because they desired baptism and prayed for it. This could certainly not be done by newborn infants.
As regards that which is noted elsewhere from Isidorus (ex lib. de summo bono), with reference to other views on baptism which he is said to have entertained, we do not accept it as having been written by him, and this for good reasons, which, however, it would require too much time to relate; unless it be said that he wrote it before he was converted, and had obtained light on the matter; and here we would let the matter rest.
A. D. 700.—We come now to the last year of this century, in which we perceive that at that time not only those of Jewish or heathen parentage, but also those born of Christian parents, were instructed in the faith before they were admitted to baptism; so that the Christians who sought the salvation of their children, left them unbaptized, till they were able themselves to confess their sins, profess the faith, and thereupon desire baptism as a sign of the same. Among these, the two pious Christians, Lutgerus and his wife Libuga, are not considered of the least. It is stated of them, that they left their son Lutgerus unbaptized, till he, having learned and accepted the faith in Jesus Christ, in France, was baptized thereupon, A. D. 700. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 7th book, page 239, col. 1, from Grondig. Bewijs., letter B.