Page 125Faith, and then, when they had accepted it, to baptize them upon confession of it. Without contradiction, it was a scriptural and holy custom, which proceeded not from human reason like infant baptism, but from the mind of Christ and the understanding of the holy apostles. With this we take our leave from Cyril. A. D. 300.-Arnobius, an old teacher says (in Psalms 146), "You are not first baptized, and then apprehend the faith, and rejoice in it; but when you are about to be baptized, you state before the teacher your perfect willingness, and make your confession with your own mouth." P. J. Twisck, Chron., 3d book, page 82, col. 1, 2, from Grond. Bew., letter B. These words of Arnobius are very excellent, and show that at his time they did not first baptize, and then apprehend faith; but that the one to be baptized had to state his willingness before baptism, and then to make confession of faith with his own mouth. However, we shall speak more fully of Arnobius in the succeeding century. Same year as above.-It is recorded that at this time there were several persons who had separated from the catholic* (Roman) church, namely: Dadoes, Sabas, Adelphius, Hermas and Simeones, who were accused of heresy by the Roman church, and, among other things, were charged with holding erroneous views concerning the divine meat (that is, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper), and of baptism (that is, infant baptism). As regards the divine meat they were charged with holding the opinion, that it neither profited nor injured; that is, that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper had no intrinsic virtue or value; and of baptism it was said that they maintained, that those baptized were not benefited by baptism, but that fervent prayer alone must expel the indwelling Satan. Concerning these and other matters with which they were charged, whether justly or unjustly, see Hist. Eccles. Tripart., lib. 7, cap. 11. S. Fr., Chron. Rom. Kett., printed A. D. 1563, fol. 96, letter E, under the name Eraclit. Epulius. Hence, when they said that those baptized were not benefited by baptism, they thereby sufficiently rejected infant baptism, since the Roman church in general recognized no other than infant baptism. That this rejection of baptism, or deeming it useless, has respect to infant baptism, is clearly evident from what is added, namely, that they held that not baptism, but fervent prayer must expel the indwelling Satan; for those of the Roman church entertained the contrary view, namely, that Satan must certainly be expelled from the infants by baptism. However, we let every one judge for himself in this matter. Jacob Mehrning in concluding the third century, says, "All these are beautiful reminders, which were administered to the catechumens before as well as after baptism, and which can certainly not * ilsca in the sense of general. have place with infants. And thus it has been shown in this, the third chapter, that in these three centuries infant baptism cannot be proven by a single consistent and authentic testimony from the fathers and church historians." Baptism. Hist., pp. 320 and 321. But this is further elucidated by the remark of P. J. Twisck, who, quite at the close of the third century, says, "Although infant baptism had been originated by some individuals, or by the church (that is, the Roman), as they themselves state, there were, nevertheless, many who devoutly received baptism upon faith and with a penitent life." Chron., 3d book, conclusion, pages 83 and 84.
|
