[In the beginning of the eleventh century, the celebrated Anselm is introduced, who declares that baptism is the “fulfilling of all righteousness;” that the baptism of Christ is a “washing of water in the word;” that every one, in his day, was baptized in the name and the faith of God; that believers were then baptized upon, or in the name of Christ; that the adults had first to be instructed in the Christian doctrine; that after baptism one must not again lay the foundation of repentance from dead works, Heb. 6:1–3; that believers are brought into the church of Christ (understand, through baptism); that the twelve Ephesian men (Acts 19) were rebaptized by Paul.
Algerus speaks of the power and operation of God in baptism; also, that the lasciviousness of the flesh is quenched or washed off in or through baptism.
Buchard of Worms gives an excellent explanation touching baptism, saying that the examinations in the faith were for the purpose of ascertaining whether the holy words of the faith confessed, were rooted deeply in the heart of the candidate, and whether he intended to continue steadfastly in the faith.
Lanfrancus opposed infant baptism.
The testimony of Bruno and Berengarius against infant baptism as well as against transubstantiation is presented and amply commented on; the time when they began their doctrine, and when they finished the same; also their death.
A certain book of ceremonies by the ancient Beroldus is introduced; what we read in it concerning baptism: namely, of the first address made to the novices at baptism, the way of wisdom and faith, being presented to them.
An account of Ado Trevirensis, and to what he admonished the candidates of his time; also, how he baptized the believing woman Syranna and her son, after previous instruction.
The last witness adduced about baptism is Juo of Carnuto, who, besides various other matters, makes this salutary and true declaration with regard to baptism: “That the novices would confess the creed before baptism; that they were then, while answering, washed from the old wickedness; that their baptism took place on the holy Easter Sabbath, and that they were first instructed; that those who desired baptism had to throw off, by prayers, the yoke of the devil; that they were asked: Do you believe on God,” etc. Thereupon it is noted what said passages of Juo indicate. Finally it is shown that he also opposed monachism, discrimination as regards food. Conclusion.]
* * * * *
The thousandth year is finished; we have come to the years that follow it; which time is called the eleventh century. We will wander through it in our thoughts, and investigate how it then stood with the true church of God, whether the ordinances of Christ, especially in the matter of baptism; and its requirements, were rightly observed. In order to begin and finish this aright, we will turn to some of the ancient authors who wrote about the condition of said matters, at that time, or, at least, who subsequently made mention of what then occurred with regard to religion.
_About A. D. 1010_, or, as Jacob Mehrning puts it, “In the beginning of the eleventh century,” there manifested himself, by various writings, the celebrated and almost universally known Anselm, who, having at one time, it seems, advocated infant baptism, with divers forcible, yet human arguments, now and also subsequently showed, that the opposite belief had taken root in him; concerning which, it is stated, that there have remained even to the present day, several excellent things, which cannot well be reconciled with infant baptism, yea, which, when viewed with spiritual eyes, militate against it. Of these we will present a few as examples, confident that, if you judge impartially, you will concur with us, or, at least, assent to it.[151]
[151] With regard to what is attributed to Anselm, concerning the suspicion in reference to infant baptism, namely, that he (on Eph. 4 and Hebr. 10.) agreed with Meginhard (_de Fide at Gunth._), we let those say, who can show more evidence of it, than we have yet met with. In the mean time, we have weighty reasons, which induce us to show the contrary concerning him. The same is true also with regard to what he is said to have written, touching said doctrine, on Matt. 15; 1 Cor. 7, and in _Concordia Gratia, and lib. Arbitrii_, etc.; which things as well as the above, we leave without comment, reserving our explanation of them to ourselves.