NOTE.--In the time of Arcadius and Honorius, about A. D. 397, it was resolved, at Toledo, among other things: “That if any one, after baptism, engages in war, though he have committed nothing special in the war, he shall never be ordained a deacon. _Seb. Franck, Chron. Rom. Concil., fol. 73, col. 1_.
As to the person who baptized Epiphanius and his sister, as well as administered the Supper to them, we pass by; it suffices us, that this mode of baptism still obtained at that time and in the church where this took place; and that persons were found who administered it, as well as such who were willing to have it administered unto them. Notwithstanding infant baptism had already made great inroads at that time into many places, this baptism was nevertheless administered to persons born of Christian parents, as has been sufficiently shown previously.
_A. D. 400._--About this time there flourished, as a writer, the aforementioned Epiphanius, who, by his writings, has shed much light on the subject of baptism, it being sufficiently apparent from all the circumstances relating to him, that he held sound views with regard to the same. Of this, Jacob Mehrning and H. Montanus have given the following account: “Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamina, in Cyprus, A. D. 400, or thereabouts, in speaking of baptism, which he frequently does in his writings, always speak of it in such a manner that it does not include infants; and although occasion often presents itself to him, to speak of infant baptism, yet he never does so; from which we may readily conclude that he did not esteem it much, or that in his time, it was not yet customary in that island.” In Auchoratus he says: “You must not admit every one who is instructed in the faith and desires to come to holy baptism, to this ordinance, simply because he has told your children, that he believes in the Lord; but he must also, with express words, even as the church, our common mother, ours as well as yours, has received it, learn and say: ‘I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,’ etc.”
Again, in another place (_Contra Haereses, lib. 1_, _Tom. 1, Haeresi 8_): “This great circumcision, baptism, circumcises us from sin, and seals us in the name of God.” _Bapt. Hist., page 366. Nietigh., page 74._
When, therefore, Epiphanius, in the first passage, says: “You must not admit every one who is instructed in the faith, and desires to come to baptism, to this ordinance,” and then adds that he must also confess, saying: “I believe,” he plainly indicates that such baptism can certainly not be administered to infants, because they are not only unable to confess the faith, but have not even the capability or qualification to believe, upon which faith and confession alone he admits baptism.
When, in the second passage, he says: “This great circumcision, baptism, circumcises us from sin,” he does not mean to say thereby, as our opponents at this day assert, that baptism has come in the place of circumcision, so that, even as in the time of the Old Testament, the male infants were circumcised, so now, in the time of the New Testament, the infants must be baptized. O no! for this appears by no means. But he says that baptism is a great circumcision, which circumcises us from sin, which certainly does not apply to infants, that have never sinned, and, consequently, cannot be circumcised from their sins by baptism. With this we leave the views of Epiphanius on the subject of baptism, and proceed to what is related of his reproving image worship, according to the account of P. J. Twisck. “Epiphanius,” he says, “an ancient teacher, flourished in this time, who greatly opposed the worshiping of images, of Mary, or of any other creature. He said: ‘Beloved children, be mindful not to bring any images in the church, or to erect them over the graves of the saints; but bear God constantly in your hearts.’”