Page 662, num. 17. Rupert (lib. 2, on John 1) says: “To be baptized with the Holy Ghost, is to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, who does not [only] point out sin, but helps against sin, making us, from servants of sin, children of God.” Again: “He baptizes us with fire, when he, through the Holy Spirit, makes us strong in love, constant in faith, shining in knowledge, and burning with good zeal.”
He has respect here to the promise which John gave to those who came to his baptism, saying: “He (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire,” Matt. 3:11; John 1:33; which, as everyone knows, is a promise given not to infants, but to adult persons; hence Rupert also has such in view here.
This appears still more clearly, when he says of said candidates, that they, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, were made, from servants of sin, children of God; for no one can in truth be called a servant of sin, who has not first served sin; and no one can be made a child of God, who has not first been a child of the world; for what one becomes or will become, he has not been before.
With what he says further, of being “strong in love, constant in faith, shining in knowledge, and burning with good zeal,” he certainly indicates that he is speaking of such persons as, having attained to the use of their reason, have knowledge and ability for true love, faith in God, the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and a good zeal for the observance of the commandments of the Lord; for by such, and none else, can these things be undertaken, and, with God’s blessing, carried out.
In another place Rupert relates what customarily took place as regards the candidates, baptism itself, and some of the circumstances pertaining to it. He says: “All the youth of the church, whom they had sought to win to God, during the year, through the preaching of the word, gave in their names, on the fourth day of the week in lent, when Easter approached; and when each of them, in the subsequent days till Easter, heard the rule of faith, in which he had been begotten and had grown up, he finally died (that is, he put to death sin), and rose with Christ (that is, to a new life), confessing the faith with full confidence, at baptism.” Bapt. Hist., page 706, D. Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 14, from Rupert, lib. 4, cap. 18.
Upon this, a certain pedobaptist, D. J. V. (same page), once said: “But the Christian fear of God pleases us better, since the baptism of the ancients, and with it the ancient custom (namely, of baptizing upon faith), are abolished, and the believers now give to their children their names, at baptism, before the eighth day after their birth; for this agrees best with the practice of the Jews, who gave to their children their names on the eighth day of circumcision, and with the custom of the heathen, who did the like to their children, on the eighth, ninth, or tenth day after their birth.”
This is certainly plain language. He says that the baptism of the ancients (that is, the baptism according to the institution of Christ, Mark 16:16), and with it also the ancient custom (namely, of baptizing upon faith), are abolished (that is, by those who have introduced infant baptism), and he praises this as a Christian fear of God, saying, that it pleases him better. How would any one dare speak with greater presumption and shamelessness of the commandments of Jesus Christ? It grieves me to say more about this and I will leave it, adding, however, the remarks of Jacob Mehrning in referring to these words: “A fine arrangement this! Christians are no longer to conform to the baptismal ordinance of Christ, but Christ is to accommodate himself with his baptism, to the practice of the Jews and the custom of the heathen. Fie, Satan! how brazenly dost thou here disclose thy cloven foot!”
P. J. Twisck and H. Montanus quote the following words from the writings of Rupert: “Formerly it was customary to renew the children, throughout the year, with the word of God, in order to present to them, on the approach of Easter, the faith, which they had to confess at baptism; but, that Christianity might grow, and the net of the Gospel become full, it pleased the church (that is, the Roman church), because of the danger of temporal death, that the children of Christians should be baptized immediately.” Chron., page 443, col. 2, Nietigh., page 83, from Rupert, lib. 4, de Divinis Officies, cap. 18.
“With Rupert,” writes Twisck, “several learned men of the Roman church in this last century agree, as is adduced from their books. John Bohemius says: ‘Formerly it was customary to administer baptism only to those who had previously been instructed in the faith, and who were examined seven times in the weeks preceding Easter and Whitsuntide; but when baptism was afterwards deemed essential to eternal life, it was ordained that new-born infants should be baptized, and that sponsors should be provided, who, in their stead, confessed the faith, and renounced Satan.’ ” Same page, from J. Boh., lib. 2, de Gent. Morib., Loop der Werelt, page 41.
“This is confirmed by Ludovicus Vives, who says: ‘No one was brought to baptism among us, until he had reached his years, and when he knew what the mystic water signified, and himself desired to be washed with it.’ ” Same page, from Lud. Viv., in Annat. Civit. dei Augustini, lib. 1, cap. 27, also, H. Mont., page 88.