Page 251About A. D. 938.-Very near the time of Ansbert, a place is accorded, in this century, to Smaragdus, who, having, it seems, at some time previous to his conversion, or, at least, to his enlightenment, maintained infant baptism, now gave such testimony concerning baptism as completely excludes infant baptism, inasmuch as he, writing, of the nature, virtue, practice, and benefit of baptism, very closely follows the language of Christ and His holy apostles.* This appears from his exposition of the institution of Christ respecting baptism., "First," he writes"all nations were taught, and then they were baptized with water; for it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the truth of the faith; for they were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Again, "This excellent ordinance of baptism commands the apostles; first to teach all nations, then to incorporate them by the baptism of faith, and then, after faith and baptism, to teach them what they were to observe." Smaragdus, on Matt. 28. N. B."Thus," says the writer who has recorded this,"the light of truth must shine forth in the midst of darkness; for, where did Christ institute another ordinance of baptism, for infants?" B. H., page 570, num, 7. Though this last passage is very acceptable and worthy of being considered, and confirms in no small measure the point we have in view we will nevertheless let the writer keep it to himself, it being only a comment on the aforementioned matter. We will, therefore, return to the matter itself, namely, to the words of Smaragdus, and we shall soon find that his aim was, to connect faith with baptism, yea, to admit no other baptism than that which is accompanied with the truth of the faith. For, what else does he intend to say with these words, "For it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the truth of the faith?" May we not firmly conclude from this, that this man knew nothing of infant baptism, or, at least, that he, when he wrote this, utterly denied and rejected it? Certainly, no one could oppose, or reject, infant baptism more flatly and plainly; for if it is impossible, as he says, to receive baptism aright without having previously accepted the truth of the faith, etc., he establishes that it is impossible to baptize infants aright, seeing they, because of their disqualification in regard to power as well as knowledge, cannot previously accept the truth of * What Smaragdua has written on I Pet. 2, saying, "Such holy, pure, and innocent childhood, the mother, the church of Christ, gains through the gr ace of bapism" gave cause to consider whether by the word"childhood" he meant infants of the cradle, and by the words"grace of baptism," infant baptism; but it is also interpreted as having reference to the believing children of God, according to Gal. 3:26, and to the baptism of believers, according to Mark 16: 16. As to the exposition, however, which he is stated to have made on John 13, it is held that it took place before his enlightenment. the faith. Unless some one would say that he held, that there is a certain faith or germ of faith, as others call it, in infants from their birth (as was afterwards advanced by the Lutherans), upon which, some were wont to assert, they ought to'be baptized. But this is easily refuted; for; besides this, that in the time of Smaragdus, as far as can be seen, they knew nothing of this hidden faith, or germ of faith, in infants, much less baptized them upon it, he plainly indicates that he is speaking of another faith, which he calls the truth of the faith, that is, a true and genuine faith; which true and genuine faith no one ever, to our knowledge, not even to the present day, claimed for infants, in order to establish infant baptism upon it. Moreover,' Smaragdus required of the candidates for baptism, not only the truth of the faith, but also regeneration, as appears from his comments on John 3, where he says, "He that is regenerated through water and the Spirit, is invisibly changed into a new man, and from a carnal lean is made a spiritual man; and he is therefore rightly called, not only spiritual, but also spirit." B. H., p. 573, nuln. 11. In this passage again there are several things mentioned, which indicate nothing else than that he is speaking of the baptism of adults. For, besides that the.words, John 3, were not spoken to an infant but to Nicodemus, a master in Israel, the circumstances adduced by Smaragdus in regard to it also indicate, that it is to be understood of none but adult persons. For, what else does he mean to say by the word regenerated, than that- the baptized person who has previously truly prepared himself for baptism, gives up. his old, earthly birth, and becomes a new creature? Thus also, when he says that the baptized person is changed into a new man; for, how shall any one be changed into a new man, who was not an old man before? And also, When he adds, that such an one, from a carnal man is made spiritual; for, how is it possible, from a carnal man to become spiritual, if one has not previously been carnal or lived after the flesh? Therefore, to become spiritual, does not simply 'mean, to receive the Spirit of God, but to live after the Spirit, in the fear of God, and in all the Christian virtues. Gal. 5:21-24. This being.,so, we will leave the testimony of Smaragdus and proceed to others of hi's contemporaries, who held the same belief and left it to us in their writings. A. D. 952.-It is stated that in the time of the. Emperor Otho the Great there lived and wrote, in Greece, a very virtuous and learned man called Theophilact, who, writing on various matters of faith, also makes mention of baptism, not differing herein, as far as we have been able to ascertain, from the Anabaptists of the present day, but agreeing with them very well on the subject of baptism upon faith.
|
