A New Witness for God (Volume 1 of 3)Roberts, B. H. (Brigham Henry)
Religion
A New Witness for God (Volume 1 of 3)
Roberts, B. H. (Brigham Henry)
Latter Day Saint churches
It must have been early in the third century that the form of baptism
began to be changed. Up to this time it had been performed only by
immersion of the whole body. But in the first half of the third
century, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, during a controversy respecting
the re-baptism of those who in times of persecution had denied the
faith, decided that those whose weak state of health did not permit
them to be immersed, were sufficiently baptized by being sprinkled.
[18] The first case of this kind of baptism is related by Eusebius. The
person to whom it was so administered was Novatus, a desperate heretic,
who created a schism in the church and became the founder of a sect.
He was among the number of so-called Christians who put off baptism
as long as he dared; in order to enjoy a life of sin and then through
baptism, just before death, obtain forgiveness--a custom very prevalent
in those times. Novatus being attacked with an obstinate disease, and
supposed to be at the point of death, was baptized by having water
sprinkled upon him as he lay in bed; "if indeed," says Eusebius, "it be
proper to say one like him did receive baptism." [19]
This innovation continued to spread until now the general rule among
Christians is to baptize by sprinkling or pouring. For this change
there is no warrant of revelation. It destroys the symbol there is
in baptism as taught by Messiah and his apostles--that of a burial
and resurrection--of a death and birth--a death unto sin, a birth
unto righteousness. It is one of those innovations which changed an
ordinance of the everlasting covenant. [20]
About the same time that the form of administering baptism was changed
it began to be misapplied, that is, it was administered to infants.
Just when this custom came into vogue may not be determined, but
clearly it has no warrant for its existence either in the doctrine or
practice of the apostles or any New Testament writer. No truth is more
plainly taught by the apostles than that baptism is for the remission
of sins, and must be preceded by faith and repentance; and as infants
are incapable of sin, and of exercising faith, or of repenting,
evidently they are not fit subjects for baptism.
Still it became the custom in the latter part of the second century or
early in the third to baptize infants. In the year 253 A. D., a council
of sixty bishops, in Africa--at which Cyprian, bishop of Carthage,
presided--considered the question whether infants should be baptized
within two or three days after birth, or whether baptism should be
deferred until the eighth day, as was the custom of the Jews in respect
to circumcision. The council decided that they should be baptized at
once, within a day or two after birth. [21] It will be observed that
the question was not as to whether infants should be baptized or not,
but when they should be baptized, within a day or two after birth or
not until they were eight days old.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account