SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE FIFTH CENTURY

[We have begun this century with the fifth chapter of the Centuria Magdeburgenses, the contents of which may be examined.

Vincent Victor opposes Augustine in the matter of infant baptism.

Synesius Syrenus, baptized on his faith, by Theophilus.

The fourth council of Carthage establishes, that those who desire to be baptized, must first be examined, and sounded relative to their faith.

Sedulius maintains that baptism is a regeneration, and, moreover, exhorts the young to baptism.

Hilarius of Syracuse asserts the salvation of children that die unbaptized.

The edict of Honorius and Theodosius against the Anabaptists.

The council held at Carthage, under Aurelius, against those who denied original sin, infant baptism, and predestination, adopts resolutions entirely different from the decree of the aforementioned fourth council of Carthage.

The edicts of Honorius and Theodosius, in support of said council.

Maximus teaches the baptism of Christ; Cresconius and his adherents are pronounced Anabaptists; Cyril of Alexandria speaks soundly on baptism, and opposes the errors of the Nastorians and Valentinians.

An account, from Socrates, of many persons at Alexandria, who hastened to baptism, and were baptized on confession of their sins; as also, of a sick Jew, who was baptized, and of one who received baptism after much fasting.

Faustus Regiensis teaches that for baptism the will (consent) of him that is baptized is necessary.

Evragius makes mention of the baptism of the candidates, that is, of those who had previously been instructed.

Eucherius maintains that that believer who dies unto sin is rightly baptized.

Carthaginian women who waited for baptism. In the Council of Arausica rules are made respecting the baptism of the dumb, the weak, and catechumens.

Nazarius, the son of Perpetua, a Christian woman, is baptized after previous instruction.

In the margin mention is made of one Montluck, who adduces the resolutions of various councils, against the killing of heretics; as also, the views of Gelasius concerning the holy Supper.

Salvian of Marseilles, on renouncing Satan, confessing the faith in God, which it was customary to do at baptism.

Authymius, Sisinnius, and Sociorus, baptized after having been instructed for seven days.

—-

—-

Nolanus mentions the hymns which it was customary to sing at baptism.

Anabaptism condemned in the fourth council of Rome.

An account of many who separated from the church of Rome, and, though baptized in their infancy, were baptized upon faith; as also, what the Pope (or Bishop of Rome) decreed against this.

Primasius’ explanation of I Tim. 6:12; its application to adult candidates for baptism.

Fulgentius calls baptism a sacrament of faith and repentance.

In the margin it is stated how vehemently Leo inveighed against the bishops of Campania, etc., who, according to his judgment, did not administer baptism aright.

The conclusion is from P. J. Twisck, who says that ancient church history, other writers excepted, makes no mention of infant. baptism before A. D. 500. ]

We shall begin the fifth century, concerning baptism, with the fifth chapter of Jacob Mehrn. History of Baptism, who commences his account of baptism at that time thus: “Henceforth we shall not dwell upon quite so many testimonies taken from the ancient fathers and church historians, as had necessarily to be the case in the preceding centuries, in order to prove that during the first four centuries after the birth of Christ, infant baptism had neither in the holy Scriptures nor in the authentic books of the teachers of the,church, a firm foundation; that is, that it had been ordained by Christ, or that it was an apostolic institution or tradition. But we shall in future content ourselves with such testimonies and historical records as best agree with the truth of the ordinance of the baptism of Jesus Christ, in order that we may thereby strengthen ourselves in that truth and in the true faith.” Bapt. Hist., page 394.

A. D. 401. About the beginning of this century, opposition was made against infant baptism and its advocates, among which advocates in favor of infant baptism Augustine showed himself none of the least, although he himself had been baptized upon faith, as has previously been mentioned. He was opposed by a certain bishop, by the name of Vincent  victor, who, notwithstanding Augustine’s authority, attacked infant baptism, and; as it ap[1]pears, withstood it with conclusive arguments from holy Scripture. But how it finally ended between the two parties, of this I find no account; mention is made, however, of the matter itself, by Vicecomes (ib. 2, coup. 1), who says that Augustine (lib. 3, de anima, et ijus. orig., cap. 14), mentions a bishop called Vincent Victor, who contended with him about infant baptism. Bdpt. Hist., page 448.

NOTE. Vincent taught that in the Supper the figures of the body and the blood of Christ are administered. Also, that the bread and the wine continue in their own subsance. Book of the two natures. Also, Samuel Veltius, in G.eslacht register, page 124.

A. D. 402. About this time, the very old and excellent orator Victorinus was baptized on confession of his faith; of which we find the following in the 2d chapter of the 8th book of Augustine’s Confessions: “O Lord God, who hast bowed the heavens under Thy feet; Thou hast come down and touched the mountains, and smoke has issued from them; how wonderfully hast Thou long since come into the heart of this Victorinus!”

“He read the holy Scriptures, as Simplician told me, and most diligently examined and investigated whatever he found written concerning the Christian religion. He then said to Simplician, not openly, but secretly, as friend speaks to friend: `Know that I am now a. Christian.’ Simplician answered: `I shall not believe it, I shall not count thee among the Christians, unless I see thee in the Christian church.’ (A little further on:) But suddenly and quite unexpectedly he said to Simplician, as the latter told me: `Come, let us go to the church; I will become a Christian.’ Simplician, not knowing where he was, for joy accompanied him there.

“Having been instructed in the principles of the faith, Victorinus soon after had his name registered that he might be regenerated through the sacrament of baptism.

“Finally, when the hour had come for him to make his confession (for which confession, at Rome, a customary formula was learned, and then delivered from an elevated place, in the presence of all the Christians, by those who prepared themselves for baptism), the overseers, as Simplician told me, offered to let him make it privately, as was the custom to propose to those who it was feared might, through diffidence, be unable to proceed. But he said that he would rather profess his salvation in the hearing of all the Christians, than otherwise.

“When he had ascended the elevated place to make his confession, all who knew him pronounced his name with secret joy. But who was there that did not know him? For, from the mouths of all that were assembled, in mutual rejoicing with him, there arose the glad shout: Victorinus! Victorinus!”

A brief account of this is also given in Bapt. Hist., page 461.

From the above words quoted by us from Augustine, it certainly appears that at the time when said Victorinus was baptized, there existed even in Rome, where this baptism took place, churches which, notwithstanding antichrist began to lift up his head there in some measure, endeavored with all diligence to observe the true baptism of Jesus Christ, which is administered upon faith. For, the statement, that in Rome, that is, in the church which is. spoken of here, was the custom, that those who prepared themselves for baptism, learned, for their confession, a customary formula, and then delivered it from an elevated place in the presence of all the Christians, incontrovertibly indicates that there the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ was still observed in this respect.

Matt. 10:32: “Whosoever therefore,” says Christ, “shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” Again, Rom. 10:10: “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” This faith and this confession are necessary to baptism. Acts 8:37; 22:16.

Bapt. Hist., page 459; Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 24. At the time of Augustine, that is, at the time of the afore mentioned Victorinus, when virtue and Christian simplicity were still reigning, the examinations of the catechumens were conducted with much strictness, and great frequency, in the night watches of the believers, as is shown by his words. Lib. 2, de Symbola ad Catechum., cap. 1.

A. D. 402. Synesius Syrenus, an upright, pious man, became, from a heathen, a Christian; was baptized by Theophilus, and afterwards appointed by him bishop of Ptolemais. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 138, col. 1, from Evagrius, lib. 1, cap. 15. Mer., fol. 334.

It is true, that it is stated of Synesius Syrenus, that his faith was not perfect with regard to all the parts of the Christian religion, concerning which historians specially mention one particular point; but it is also stated that Bishop Theophilus, who baptized him, was in hopes, that, in the course of time, he would judge better on this point, which, it seems was also the case, since, as it is stated, Theophilus afterwards appointed him bishop of Ptolemais.

However, we would not commend this part of the matter, namely, to baptize any one without perfect faith or confession, especially if an essential point is wanting; but this we commend, that not children, but adult persons, who are commended as pious are baptized, and, from heathen, desire to become Christians, as is stated to have been the case here.

A. D. 406. At this time it was resolved at Carthage, “That the candidates shall give in their names, and after they shall have been examined long, and diligently tried, with the imposition of hands, they shall be baptized.” Also: “That a bishop, before he be allowed to minister, shall be well examined in doctrine and life.” Also: “That fellowship with the excom[1]municated shall be avoided, and the penitent received back again.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 139, col. 2, from Grond. Bew., letter B. B. halent. Beyer, fol. 603. Also, Bapt. Hist., page 447. ex Conc. Carth. 4, cap. 88.

Here applies the annotation of P. J. Twisck, in Chron., 5th book, page 153, col. 1: “In the fourth council of Carthage,” he writes, “it was decreed that applicants for baptism shall first be examined for a long time, shall abstain for a time from wine and meat, and, having been diligently tried with imposition of hands, shall be baptized.” From Chron., Seb. Franck, of the Latin councils held in Africa and Europe, letter C. The time of this council is fixed by P. J. Twisek (from Seb. Fr.) A. D. 436; but he has previously given A. D. 406 as the date, and hence we leave it thus; others, however, give A. D. 416 as the date.

Beloved reader, this is a very different decree from an earlier one, also made at Carthage, in the time of Cyprian, about A. D. 250, by sixty six bishops, in which it was established, Contra Fidunsy that infants should be baptized immediately. This is certainly, we say, a very different decree, since infant baptism is not confirmed, but, much more, annulled by it; and thus we see that in the course of time some had grown wiser. Not, that it is our purpose to prove by councils, our view touching the true baptism, which must be administered upon faith; not at all, for we find in nothing less pleasure, than in the decrees of councils, in so far as they come short of the Word of God. Besides, this point needs not to be proved by councils, as it is expressed in the holy Scriptures; we simply mean to show thereby that also at that time there were persons who, even in the very place where infant baptism had been ratified, confirmed the true baptism of Jesus Christ, which must be administered upon previous examination, and has its foundation in the holy Scriptures. As to this, that the candidates were commanded, first to abstain for a time from wine and meat, we leave that as it is, neither commending nor condemning it, as being a thing which, without sin, may be observed or omitted, provided no superstition is connected therewith.

A. D. 410. Bapt. Hist., page 408. Sedulius writes, on Rom. 5: “No man suffers condemna[1]tion, except through Adam; from which men are redeemed through the washing of regen[1]eration.”

But what else is the washing of regeneration, than the death of the old man, and the putting on of a new life, which is signified by baptism? See Rom. 6:3,4; Eph. 5:26,27; Tit. 3:5; I Pet. 3:21.

Again, Sedulius, on Rom. 6, says: “Paul would have baptism so sure and perfect as to make it impossible for the recipient to sin any more. When the grace of God came upon us through Christ, and the spiritual washing reigned in us through faith, we began to live unto God, being dead unto sin, that is, the devil. And thus, baptism is an earnest and figure of the resurrection; and hence it is administered with water, that, as water washes away impur[1]ities, and even so we through baptism, we believe, are spiritually cleansed and purified from all sin.”

Further: “Know that through baptism you, who have become a member of His body are crucified with Christ. He hung on the cross with an innocent body, that you might hang on the cross the guilty one.”

Again, on I Cor. 5: “O that you may be a new leaven; that you may be mixed with the grace of holy baptism, as flour is mixed with water.” This he seems to speak to those, who, though they had reached adult years, yet did not make any preparations, but deferred both their baptism and their regeneration.

Again, on II Cor. 5: “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:” that is, he that is renewed through the sacrament of baptism.

We will not detain you, dear reader, with explanations on the above passages of Sedulius, since they, without explanation, are so clear, that even he that has but little under[1]standing in divine things, can manifestly see, yea feel, that the baptism described by Sedulius savors not in the least of infant baptism, since the conditions he mentions in con[1]nection with it, as faith, regeneration, crucifying the old man, can not be comprehended, much less fulfilled by infants.

A. D. 411. Bapt. Hist., page 444, ex Cen;turies 5. Magdeburgensis, fol. 664. Augustine writes that Hilarius, a teacher at Syracuse, wrote: “When an unbaptized child dies, it can not justly be damned, since it was born without sin.”

A person unacquainted with the condition of things at that time, may perhaps think that with these words Hilarius of Syracuse, contributed but little to the abolishment of infant baptism; but he that is familiar with it, will instantly see that thereby he utterly denied infant baptism, and stripped it of its virtues. It deserves mention, that in those times infant baptism was based upon original sin, so that it was thought that infants, for the removal of said ori[1]ginal sin; must necessarily be baptized; from which the conclusion was derived, that infants that were not baptized, and, consequently (in their opinion), not cleansed from original sin, must necessarily be damned, as is still taught at the present day by the Papists.

Whenever then, any one denied original sin, the foundation of infant baptism, he denied infant baptism itself, yea utterly annihilated it. This did Hilarius of Syracuse, who denied original sin in new born infants, and consequently, infant baptism; wherefore he, according to Augustine, frankly said: “When an unbaptized child dies, it cannot justly be damned, since it was born without sin.”

A. D. 412. Bapt. Hist., page 407. Theodoretus, in ,chap. 10, says: “In the law they used sprinklings, and frequently washed the body; but they who order their lives according to the New Testament, purify the soul by holy baptism, and free the conscience from previous stains.”

Again, in Epist. Dizvin. Decret.: “But instead of those sprinklings, the gift of holy baptism is sufficient for those who believe; for it grants not only remission of old or previous sins, but it also implants (that is, into those who are thus baptized), the hope of promised good things; it makes us partakers of the death and resurrection of the Lord; it imparts the com[1]munion and gifts of the Holy Ghost; it makes us children of God, and not only children, but heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.”

Again, quaest. 19 on Levit.: “He that believes in Christ the Saviour, when he is sanctified by the water of holy baptism, is also cleansed from the stains of sin.”

Again, quaest. 1 on Jos.: “As the priests who bore the ark, went first into Jordan, whereupon all the people, with Joshua, the princes, and the prophets, passed through; even so, when John began to baptize, Jesus the Saviour hallowed, as it were the nature of the water; and the believing people entered through holy baptism into the kingdom of God.”

Who does not see that Theodoretus who wrote A: D. 412, and afterwards, indicates with all the circumstances, that he recognized no baptism, than that which is accompanied with faith and repentance; for when, in the first place, he says “Those who order their lives accord[1]ing to the New Testament, purify the soul by holy baptism,” and then says: “Instead of those sprinklings, the gift of holy baptism is sufficient for those who believe,” and finally adds: “The believing people entered, through baptism, into the kingdom of God,” he certainly in[1]dicates that he does not in any wise speak of the baptism of infants, since they have neither the knowledge nor the ability, to order their lives in accordance with the New Testament, or to believe,” which are here put down as absolute conditions in the candidates for baptism.

NOTE. Theodoretus taught that the figures of the Supper, namely, the bread and the wine, in no wise change their nature, but remain as they are, after consecration. Dialog. 2, Sam. Velt., in Geslacht register, pages 123, 124.

A. D. 413.  As those Christians greatly increased, who valued only the baptism which is administered upon faith, and, consequently rebaptized (as not having been baptized aright) those who had been baptized by unbelievers or in infancy, when they attained to the true faith, the Emperor Theodosius, A. D. 413, issued an edict, against the Anabaptists, commanding that they should be put to death. Introduction, page 47, col. 2, from Chron. Baron., num. 6.

But lest any one should think that the people who, under the name of Anabaptists, were threatened with death by the Emperor Theodosius, held, with regard to this point, views different from those maintained by the Baptists of the present day, who are likewise called Anabaptists, it is expedient to mention what was said about their views by the inquisitor of Leeuwaerden, in opposition to one of our latest martyrs, namely, Jagues d’ Auchi. When Jagues wanted the inquisitor, who appealed to the Emperor’s edict, to prove that said edict was just or founded on holy Scripture, the inquisitor made this reply to him: “I believe you think that all our fathers were received, and that your sect is saved what do you say? It is now 1200 or 1300 years since the Emperor Theodosius issued an edict, that the heretics should be put to death, namely, those who were rebaptized like your sect.” See the year 1558, and, in the index, the name Jagues d’ Auchi.

When, therefore, .the inquisitor says that they “were rebaptized like your sect,” he cer[1]tainly indicates thereby, that they were people like Jagues d’ Auchi was, and, consequently, like the Anabaptists who at that time, namely, A. D. 1558, gave their lives for the truth.

A. D. 415. Bapt. Hist., page 407, Prosperus, ResQ. 2, ad Object. Gallorum, says: “Every one who, believing on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is regenerated in baptism, is freed from his own, voluntary and actual, sins, as well as from original sin.”

Page 413. Prosperus, in his Epigrams, puts the martyrs and the candidates for baptism on an equal footing, when he. Says

“Sanctify, baptism will indeed;

But the martyr’s crown doth all complete.”

In the first passage of Prosperus we see that faith, regeneration, baptism, forsaking of voluntary sins, etc., are all joined together, even as this is done in the holy Scriptures of the New Testament. Compare Mark 16:16; Eph. 5:26, 27; Tit. 3:5; I Pet. 3:21, with Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:37, 38; Rom. 6:4. Hence it is a scriptural confession; and there we will let it rest.

In the second passage the martyrs and the candidates for baptism are compared to one another; but who does not know that infants cannot be martyrs, seeing they can neither believe nor confess, much less can they voluntarily confirm said confessed faith with death, which, nevertheless, is the own work of all the orthodox and faithful martyrs. Now then, if infants are not qualified for martyrdom, they are not fit for baptism. Therefore judge whether this is not comprised in the words of Prosperus which we have just mentioned.

A. D. 418. The doctrine of infant baptism having been openly controverted ever since the beginning of this century, its foundation, namely, original sin, being denied and refuted, it occurred, A. D. 418, that those of the Roman church in Africa, through the urgent request of Augustine and his fellow bishops, obtained the convocation of a council or synod under Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, composed of two hundred and fourteen bishops; which council, in the name of the See of Rome, absolutely anathematized or condemned the views of those who did not admit infant baptism or recognize original sin in infants, as well as of those who, opposing predestination, held that the will of man was free. The 112th Canon contains the following resolution respecting original sin and baptism: “It is likewise thought proper, that every one who denies that infants who are baptized from their birth, are baptized for the remission of sins, and that they derive from the sin of the first father, Adam, that from which they must be cleansed through the washing of regeneration, be anathema, that is, accursed.”

It 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 addi[1]tional 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 the 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.

Leaving this, we proceed to others, who at that time, and afterwards, confessed the same faith, or, at least, as far as we know, did not oppose it.

A. D. 429. It is recorded that at this time there flourished Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, who, writing, among other things, on baptism, has left some sound testimony concerning it.

In Bapt. Hist., page 443, the Centurintores Magdeburgenses have made some extracts from Cyril of Alexandria, page 613, where they say that he taught as follows, book 6, on John 14: “Through the  water of the flood, the sins of the whole world were reconciled (or brought to an end),.and those who were concealed ‘in the ark, were preserved through the water (of the flood). This was a type of baptism, by which the impurity of all sin is put off, and the old life taken away.”

Again: “A catechumen is anointed (that is, instructed with the Word of God), that he may be taught; for the Greek word catechumenos means, in Latin, one that is being instructed; and he is baptized, that he may know the true light, and receive the remission of all sins; therefore, the virtue or significance of baptism ought not to be esteemed lightly, since it dispels the darkness of the soul, and imparts the light of heaven.”

Page 463, Vicecomes, lib. 2, cap. 24, Cyril of Alexandria (lib. 7, Contra Julianum) writes

“When we have put off the darkness of our mind, repelled the legions of Satan, and wisely cast off all their pomp and service, we confess the faith in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and are baptized thereupon.”

This finishes the testimonies respecting baptism which I have been able to find from Cyril of Alexandria. There is certainly nothing contained in them, which in the least resembles infant baptism, nay, everything he says concerning baptism, opposed it. For, when, in the first place, he says that the impurity of all sin is put off, and the old life taken away, it is certainly obvious that he does not speak of the baptism of infants, since they, having no previous impurity of sin, cannot put it off by baptism, and, having never walked in the old life, they cannot forsake it or put it away. When he, secondly, says of the catechumens, that they are baptized, it is certainly also obvious from it, that it does not concern infants, since these have not the qualification of being instructed. The third passage is so clearly opposed to infant baptism, that it requires no explanation, inasmuch as it expressly speaks of confess[1]ing the faith on God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and of being baptized thereupon; for this can never be done by infants in the cradle.