Page 191It is true, this anathema was aimed particularly at Pelagius and Celestius, as being the ones who had shown themselves the principal rejectors of infant baptism, since they positively said (according to Seb. Franck, Chron., letter P.), "There is no original sin; hence, baptism is not needful for children, yea, is useless to them." Again, article 7, "Children are born without original sin; baptism avails them nothing." Again, article 13, "Though children be not baptized, they nevertheless have eternal life."; But nevertheless this council, Canon 112, also anathematized or cursed all those who assented to these views (the rejection of infant baptism and original sin), for this is specially expressed with these words, "Everyone who denies that infants who are baptized from their birth, are baptized for the remission of sins, be Anathema." For, we know that the word everyone does not mean any particular person, but many persons. It appears therefore, that at that time many people separated from the Roman church, on account of this view respecting original sin and infant baptism. However, we would not defend the views of Pelagius and Celestius, concerning some other points; it suffices us, that there were people in those times, who, notwithstanding the excommunication of the pope, and the persecution of the councils, still opposed the Roman church, especially through the rejection of infant baptism, and even, some of them, sacrificed their lives. A. D. 419-421.As the Anabaptists were not yet deterred by the above council, from maintaining their doctrine that baptism ought only to be administered upon true faith, therefore, in order to quench their doctrine, the authority of said council was confirmed A. D. 419, by the edicts of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius, and A. D. 421, by the additional edict of Constantius; whereby said council forcibly prevailed throughout the entire Roman empire. See concerning this, H. Montdn. Nietigh., page 79. From this it appears that this doctrine of baptizing only upon true faith, was accepted by very many at that time; for otherwise it would not have been necessary for the Emperors to threaten its defenders with the great power of their edicts, and, as it appears, to persecute them even unto death. A. D. 425. Bapt. Hist., page 411, Maximus (Homil. 71, de Baptism. Christi) says, "Jesus was baptized, not for Himself, but for us; not that He might be purified with the water, but that He (so to speak), might sanctify the water. The new man was baptized, that He might confirm the mystery of the new baptism. When, therefore, Maximus introduces here the baptism of Christ, which took place when the latter was about thirty years old, and says that it was not done for Himself, but for us, that is, for an example to be followed, and that He thereby confiirmed the mystery of the new baptism, he certainly indicates thereby, that he is not speaking of he baptism of infants, since Christ, who, through His baptism, confirmed baptism, was not a child when He was baptized, but an adult person. Moreover, as no other contrary testimony concerning him is found in the history of holy baptism, it seems probable, that he was not acquainted with any other baptism, and, consequently, not with infant baptism, or, at least, did not observe it. A. D. 428.-There were many persons accused, through the writings of Augustine, of being Anabaptist, or at least, of defending Anabaptism, inasmuch as they maintained that baptism administered by heretics or unbelievers was not to be regarded as true baptism, and that, therefore, those who had been baptized by such persons, ought to be rebaptized; in short, that there was no true baptism except that administered in the true church, and upon true faith. Among those thus accused Cresconius was not one of the least; in Augustine's writings the following things are laid to his charge Bapt. Hist., page 416, "That there is but one true baptism; for it is written: One God, one faith, one baptism, one undefiled, true church: those who are not in it, the same cannot have any baptism."; Again, "In baptism, regard is had to the certainty that he who administers it is such a one that does it in a holy manner; but this certainly respecting the one who baptizes, is not judged by the uprightness of his heart, which cannot be seen, but according to his good reputation, and the respect in which he is held."; Again, "It -is written: 'The oil of the sinner shall not anoint my head': hence it follows it is not the will of God, that an open sinner shall baptize."; Again, "In view of this passage, can anything more absurd be said, than that one polluted person should purify another? that one impure person should wash another? that one unclean person should cleanse another? or that a blasphemer should make any one innocent?"; Again, "You, our gainsayers, do not distinguish between a believer and an unbeliever."; Again, "If it were wrong [what we confess], and baptism may not be annulled [or re-administered], no matter who has administered it, then the apostles would not have baptized those who had been baptized by John; but the contrary is seen," Acts 19:5. Again, "In Acts 2:38, Peter commands every Jew to be baptized upon (or in) the name of Christ, though their forefathers had been baptized in the Red Sea (I Cor. 10:2) hence, the previous baptism (that is, the one which has not been administered rightly), may justly be annulled or changed."; These are the words, or, at least, the meaning, of Cresconius and his companions, as described by Augustine, and quoted in the History of Holy Baptism; from which it may be seen that also at that time but one baptism was recognized, which must be administered in the true church, by blameless teachers, and upon true faith, as stated elsewhere.
|
