An Account of the Holy Baptism in the Tenth Century

[The corruption of this century, caused by the papal superstitions, is sadly lamented by Jacob Mehrning and P. J. Twisck.

Nevertheless, it is then shown that in the midst of papal darkness there were still some who, in the matter of holy baptism, did not differ from the institution of Christ and His apostles.

Giselbert teaches that baptism must be connected with regeneration and a good will.

Then comes Ansbert, who declares that Christ, through preaching and baptism, is still daily bringing heirs to Himself; that we must be baptized upon the confession of the holy Trinity; and that after baptism we may sin no more.

Smaragdus follows next and says that it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism rightly, if the soul has not first accepted the truth of the faith; that the excellent ordinance of the baptism of Christ commands the apostles first to teach all nations, and then to incorporate them by the baptism of faith.

Then appears Theophilact, who produces very excellent testimonies concerning baptism; such as, among others, that the baptized have put on Christ, Galatians 3, verse 27; that the candidates are like the prodigal son when he was converted; that he is not rightly baptized who has not believed; that in baptism all believers are enlightened by the Holy Ghost; that no one may be recognized as a believer who is unregenerate or lives after the flesh; that the truly baptized may not drive away the Holy Spirit by wicked works, but must keep the image of God unspotted; that the good profession of which we read, First Timothy 6, verse 12, must take place at the instruction of those who are to be baptized; that those baptized by John were delivered by repentance from the bonds of the soul; that the novices repented before baptism; that the Supper was administered to the baptized, and so on.

It is then stated, from D. Vicecomes, that the papists, when infant baptism was introduced among them, abolished the practice of administering the Supper to the baptized. It is further shown that the Romanists ought to have abolished infant baptism just as well as the infant Supper.

The baptism of Olympius, his wife Exuperia, and his son Theodulus is cited from Simon Metaphrastes; also the baptism of Theridates and Nemesius.

Fulbertus Carnotenses is the last witness concerning holy baptism.]

We now pass on to the tenth century after the birth of Christ, to find in it, as we have done in the times before, the marks of the Christian believers, namely, the true baptism with its observance according to the institution of Christ and the practice of His apostles; which, as we shall show in the proper place, was held and practiced also at this time, though under great difficulties.

Yet what shall we say of this century? Many well-disposed people, who loved the truth, abhorred and detested it, because the innumerable human superstitions of the Roman church had risen almost to heaven, and the pure commandments of Jesus Christ, without the keeping of which no one can be saved, had been cast down almost into the pit. This was the century over which much woeful lamentation was made, because papal tyranny in the matter of worship had increased so greatly. Of these things (after the title), the following is contained in Jacob Mehrning's History of Baptism.