About A. D. 842.—It is stated that at this time a number of slaves who had become converted were baptized, yet not in the Roman manner, nor in the Roman language, as was customary with the Roman church, as well as with all other churches which adhered to the Roman see; but in a different manner and in another language; so that it appears from this occurrence that this church must have been separated from the superstitions of the Roman church not only in forms, but also, as may be inferred, in faith and practice. To this, the following annotation (Bapt. Hist., page 552, num. 9), among others, has reference: “They (those of the Roman church) used the Roman language not only in Italy, but also in other regions that were subject to the papal power; but that baptism was administered also in other languages, is proved by the history of the conversion of the slaves.”[143] Ex. Historia Sclav.
About A. D. 848.—That the instruction of novices, before baptism, obtained also at this time, Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 550, informs us with these words: “The adults had (then) to be instructed in the faith, and were catechized before baptism, as has been proven above, from Rabanus, Haimo, and others; thereupon they had to confess the faith, as Rabanus (lib. 1, de Cleric. Institutione, cap. 27) relates. They were asked, whether they believed in God the Father, the Almighty, and on his only Son, our Lord, and on the Holy Ghost, a general (christian) church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the flesh,” etc.[144] Bapt. Hist., p. 550, num. 4.
These were good and salutary customs for the upbuilding of the church of God; by which the name of the Lord was praised, the church edified, the word of God most strictly observed, and the salvation of many promoted. But the ancient saying: “Where God builds a temple, Satan builds one in opposition to it,” was also verified here; for, at the same time that those who loved the truth, baptized believers, upon the confession of their faith, nearly all the others, who were called Roman or Greek Christians, baptized infants, who, as every one knows can neither believe nor confess the faith; this has been referred to above.
About A. D. 854.—It is stated that very near the time of Haimo, there lived and wrote Idiota. In J. Mehrning’s History of Baptism is found a quotation by him, relating to baptism, which reads as follows: “In holy baptism we accept Christ for our bridegroom, and enter his chamber, which is ornamented with manifold graces and virtues.” De Innocentia, cap. 3.
To accept Christ for one’s bridegroom, to enter his chamber, is certainly not the work of children, but of believers. Those accept Christ for their bridegroom, who betroth themselves to him by faith, and, in token thereof, are baptized. John 3:26,29. Those enter his chamber, who, through obedience, join themselves to his church; for they are no more “strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” Eph. 2:18.
That which is further said of the chamber of the bridegroom, namely, that it is ornamented with graces and virtues, has reference to the spiritual ornament of the church of God, which latter is the true chamber of our heavenly bridegroom Jesus Christ. This church of God cannot be ornamented with graces and virtues by infants, seeing infants are ornamented with neither actual graces nor real virtues; hence, it has also respect to the believers, who, having come, through baptism, to the church of God, ornament the same with actual graces and real virtues. This concludes our exposition of the passage of Idiota.
Note.—A. D. 859.—Huldricus or Uldoricus, Bishop of Augsburg, greatly complained of the violence of the popes, and said: “What will become of this flock, when the shepherds become wolves?” He openly maintained that the Pope was fallible, and that it was lawful to admonish him for his error, and to reject his bad decrees. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 298, col. 1, from Merula, fol. 177. Jan. Crespin, fol. 211, 215, 216.
A. D. 860.—At this time, there departed from the belief and practice of infant baptism, Hincmar, at one time Bishop of Laudun, inasmuch as he would no longer baptize children, so that they grew up without baptism, and many also, who did not attain the years of understanding, died unbaptized; on account of which he was then greatly accused by Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, who, to this end, wrote to him as follows: “And thou, who knowest that it is true what the Lord says: ‘Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;’ hast nevertheless commanded, that infants shall not be baptized in thy church, not even when in peril of death, so that they should not be saved, though it is written: ‘The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ Thou hast also acted contrary to the decrees of Syricius, Leo, Gelasius, and the African council, as I have informed thee now twice by writing.” H. Mont. Nietigh., page 81, ex Biblioth. Patr., Tom. 9, part 2, page 137. Cent. Magd., Cent. 9, cap. 4, pages 40, 41.
In another letter, the Bishop of Rheims, with entreating, and not less earnest words, endeavors to draw him away from his belief, writing: “Desist from preaching this (namely, that infants may not be baptized), the mere thought of which is awful; desist from scattering the flock of Christ (meaning thereby, through error, the Roman church), lest the destruction of all the people come upon thee; and do not, from excessive love for thy belief, sever thyself from,” etc. H. Mont., page 82, from Cent. Magd., Cent. 9, pages 157, 158. Also, Bapt. Hist., page 545.
From these two letters it appears that Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, had not only departed from the doctrine of infant baptism, but also earnestly preached against it, so that many of the Roman church, particularly at Laudun, became his adherents; for, what did the Bishop of Rheims mean by writing: “Desist from preaching this,” but to say that Hincmar of Laudun should cease preaching against infant baptism? What else does he indicate when he says: “Desist from scattering the flock of Christ, lest the destruction of all the people come upon thee?” Certainly, these words indicate that many had already left the Roman church on this account, yea, that the state of things was such that all the people at Laudun adhered to this doctrine.