how that the heart must be changed and cleansed with the “_washing
of water by the word_,” and then says: “for this is the first
immersion (_indoopinge_) of him that hears,” by which he evidently
means to show that this spiritual change of the heart is _first_ in
importance. Karl Tauchnitz in his Dutch--German Dictionary gives
the definition of _Indoopen: Einweihen_, to consecrate or initiate,
of which baptism is also a signification. In this sense we might
say: This is the first baptism, or the first consecration, or the
most important work of him that hears, or of him that would be
saved.--_The Publishers._
If you wish to learn still more of the views of Tertullian concerning
baptism as instituted by Christ, read _lib. de Præscript, adversus
Hæreticos, cap. 36_, cited by _H. Montanus, in Nietigh., page 23_,
and by _J. du Bois_ (although he misinterprets this passage), _Contra
Montanum, page 44_, where Tertullian writes thus: “Well, then, ye who
would inquire more fully into the matter of your salvation, take a
view of the apostolic churches, in which the chairs of the apostles
are still occupied by their successors, and where their own authentic
epistles are still read, sounding their voices, and calling up their
very forms. If Achaia is near you, there is Corinth; are you not far
from Macedonia, there is Philippi, and there Thessalonica; can you
come into Asia, there is Ephesus; but are you near Italy, there is
Rome. Let us see, what she (namely the church there) has said, what she
has taught, and in what she has agreed with the African churches. She
recognizes one God, the Creator of all things, and Christ Jesus from
the virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator, and the resurrection of
the flesh; she unites the law and the prophets with the evangelical and
apostolical writings, and therefrom drinks this faith, which she seals
with water, clothes with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the eucharist, or
Lord’s Supper, and confirms by martyrdom; and receives no one contrary
to this institution.” Thus far, _Tertullian_.
To this we say: “It is indeed true, that he here speaks against the
errors of Valentinus, Marcion, and the like; but since this occasions
him to say, that all the churches which he mentions, especially the
one at Rome, in which the apostolic doctrine was still sounded at that
time, sealed the faith, which he opposes to said errors, with water,
and that they received no one contrary to this institution; any one
can clearly see, that all the above named churches administered baptism
at that time to adults, who could drink that faith from the evangelical
and apostolical writings; and not this only, but could also partake of
it by the use of the eucharist, and confirm it by martyrdom, which are
things that children cannot do.” _Ergo._
TERTULLIAN’S VIEWS CONCERNING DIFFERENT OTHER MATTERS, ACCORDING TO THE
ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK.
“Tertullian,” says Twisck, “exhorts Christian women, in a book written
to his wife, not to enter into marriage relations with the heathen,
saying that it is impossible for them to live long in peace and
friendship. He says: ‘What must the heathen husband think, when he
sees, or hears it said that his wife kisses on the cheek the first
Christian whom she happens to meet?’”
“Again, In a book on patience, when speaking of the apostates and
of withdrawing from them, he says that patience governs all manner
of salutary doctrines, and remarks: ‘What wonder then, that it also
serves to repentance to those who are wont to come to the help of the
apostate, whether it be man or wife, when separated one from another,
nevertheless by such things as are lawful, to be led to maintain their
widow or widowerhood. It is patience that waits for repentance, hopes
for it and exhorts to it those who would yet at some time attain to
salvation. How great the benefit it confers upon both--the one it
preserves from adultery, the other it reforms.’[96] Again he says: ‘Do
you think that it is hard for a Christian to suffer? He would rather
die himself, than to kill others; and if you smite a Christian, he
glories in it.’”
[96] The foregoing quotation from Tertullian is ambiguous in the
Holland language and appears to have been so also in the original.
Dr. Karl Ad. Heinrich Kellner, Prof, of Theol. at Heidelsheim, in
his German translation of the “Complete Works of Tertullian” renders
this passage as follows, which he says he holds as the correct
rendering: “What wonder then that it (patience) also unites itself
with repentance and is, aside from separation in the marriage
relation, the usual means of relief for the apostate--this, however,
only for the reason that we, whether it be for the man, or whether it
be for the wife, in widowhood may hope for constancy. It is patience
that waits for salvation with those who in their own time would seek
repentance, that longs for it and prays for it. How great a benefit
it works for both! The one it preserves from adultery, the other it
purifies.”--_The Publishers._
“Again, ‘As the religion of others does not concern us, and neither
profits nor harms us; therefore, it does not become any one religion
to force itself upon another, since it must be accepted voluntarily,
and not by coercion, for what is required is the offering of a willing
mind.’” (This agrees with Ex. 25, 35 and 36. _Chr. Leonh., lib. 1. Seb.
Fr. in the Arke fol. 174. Stand der Religie, lib. 4. Grond. Bew. letter
B. Menn. Sym. Doop. C., fol. 8. Th. Imbroek, fol. 28._)
“Again, Tertullian (in his fourth book against Marcion) quoting the
words of Christ: _This is my body_, that is, a figure of my body, says:
‘It would not have been a figure, had his body not been real; for a
phantasm, or mere illusion, cannot have a figure or shadow?’ With this
he means to prove that Christ had a real body; and what he here calls
a figure, he, in the fifth book, calls a sacrament, with the express
words: ‘The bread and the cup.’ Still more clearly he says in the
first book: ‘Neither did he despise or reject the bread, by which he
represented or typified his body.’
“He says: ‘These words of Christ: _This is my body_, we must understand
as though Christ had said: This is the sign and figure of my body.’ I
pass over Dionysius Alexandrinus, and Paulinus, who both treat in the
same manner of the above sacrament.’” _Tertul. Apolog., cap. 39. Euseb.
lib. 6 and 9. Daniel Saut., lib. 1, cap. 6._
“Again, Tertullian says: ‘We must not seek the faith from the persons,
but prove the persons by the faith.’” _De Præscript., lib. 4. P. J.
Twisck, Chron. 2d book, page 53, col. 1, 2._
NOTE.--Tertullian taught at this time: “We have the apostles for
authors, who established nothing according to their own inclination,
but faithfully taught the nations that which they had received from
God.” _Lib. 1. Præscript._
He writes further, that “all churches are apostolic churches, though
they may have been founded long after the time of the apostles, if
they have but kinship with the doctrine.” _Lib. 1. Præsc._ See _Samuel
Veltius, in the Geslacht-register der Roomscher Successie, second
edition, 1649 pages 115, 116_.
Tertullian says among other things: “The emperors would have believed
in Christ, if the world had not prevented them; for they could not
become Christians, because they had to serve the world, and carry on
war.” See, _Grondelijke Verklaringe Danielis ende Johannis_, printed at
_Harlem, 1635, on Tertullian_.
Vicecomes, in his first book on baptism, chap. 1, notes the following
testimony from Tertullian (_lib. 1, cap. 4._): “There is no difference
between those whom John baptized in Jordan and those Peter baptized in
the Tiber.” With this he intends to prove that in the first days of
Christianity there were neither baptismal fonts nor churches. _J. M.,
Baptism. Hist., page 275._
Again says Tertullian: “Thus, when we go into the water of baptism, we
justly confess our sins and the Christian faith.” _Vicecom., lib. 4,
cap. 7, and J. M., Baptism. Hist., page 277._
These last two passages from Tertullian we have adduced over and above
what was necessary, but they are not useless, since they confirm what
we have said above about baptism; for by the first the superstition
which was wont to be connected with the water, the baptismal font,
and the church in which baptism was administered, is removed, or at
least (_per consequentiam_) controverted; and the second states that
it is proper to confess our sins, and the Christian faith, at baptism.
And therewith he proves that it is not proper to be baptized without
confessing one’s sins, and the Christian faith. What has been said
is sufficient for the intelligent. With this we take our leave of
Tertullian.
_A. D. 224._--Leonilla, a Christian grandmother, had three grandsons,
Sosyphus, Cleosyphus, and Melosyphus. She begged Romigius that he would
instruct the three lads in the Christian faith, and then baptize them.
This was done in a godly manner. _P. J. Twisck, Chron. for the year
224, 3d book, page 60, col. 1, from Grond. Bew., letter B._ Also, _Kort
verhæl van den loop der werelt_, printed 1611, _page 47_.
From this it will be seen, that at that time and place Christians were
not in the habit of having their children or grandchildren baptized,
unless these had reached riper years, and been instructed in the faith,
which, when they confessed it, they were baptized upon. This should be
borne in mind.
_A. D. 231._--At this time there flourished as a writer the celebrated
Origen, surnamed Adamantius, who, treating on baptism, writes thus
(_Homil. 6, super. Ezechidem_) on Ezekiel, 16:4: ”‘Neither wast thou
washed in water to supple thee,’ etc.: We, who have received the grace
of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, are washed unto salvation.
Simon was washed, and when he had received baptism, continued with
Philip; but not being washed unto salvation, he was condemned by him
who through the Holy Ghost said to him: ‘Thy money perish with thee.’
It is a matter of great importance that he who is washed, be washed
unto salvation.
“Be very heedful of this, ye catechumens, or learners, and prepare
yourselves by what is told you while you are yet under instruction and
unbaptized; and then come to the washing of water, and be washed unto
salvation. But be not washed as some, who are washed, but not unto
salvation; like those who receive the water, but not the Holy Ghost.
“He that is washed unto salvation, receives the water and the Holy
Ghost.
“Because Simon was not washed unto salvation, he received the water,
and not the Holy Ghost; for he thought he could purchase the gift of
the Holy Ghost with money, wherein he was not washed unto salvation.
“That which we now read as having been spoken at Jerusalem, is
addressed to every sinful soul that seems to believe.” Also, _H. Mont.
Nietigh., pp. 36, 37_.
The above words of Origen indicate the manner of baptism which
prevailed in his time, namely, that the candidates for baptism were
first catechumens, that is, learners, who were instructed in the
faith, and had to prepare themselves to this end, before they were
baptized. For, when he says: “Be very heedful of this, ye catechumens,
or learners, and prepare yourselves by what is told you while you are
yet under instruction and unbaptized; and then come to the washing of
water,” etc., what else is meant by it, than that it confirms what John
required of those who came to him to be baptized, saying: “Bring forth
therefore fruits meet for repentance,” Matt. 3:8; that is, prepare
yourselves by a true reformation of life, so that you may receive
baptism worthily.
Then, on the words, Ezek. 16:5: “But thou wast cast out in the open
field,” etc., he (Origen) comments thus: “If we sin again after the
washing of regeneration, we are cast away, according to the word of
God, in the day that we are born: such are frequently found, who, after
they have been washed by the washing of regeneration, do not bring
forth fruits meet for repentance; nor do they live up to the mystery of
baptism, with more fear than they had while they were yet catechumens,
or learners; or with more love than they exercised when they were still
hearers of the word; or with holier deeds than they performed before.
Beloved, observe what is said in the text: ‘Thou wast cast out in the
open field, for the wickedness of thy soul, in the day that thou wast
born.’” _H. Mont._, same page as above.
By these words he confirms the import of his former declaration,
namely, “That those who are to be baptized, must first be catechumens,
or learners, and, being baptized, they must be truly regenerated;” and
thus he calls baptism “the washing of regeneration,” even as Paul, Tit.
3:5.
Moreover, he complains that those who were washed by the washing of
regeneration, did not bring forth fruits meet for repentance. By this
he certainly means to say, that the baptized person must be truly
converted, and bring forth good fruits. But how can he be converted,
that is, turn from his error, who never has erred? And how can it be
demanded of him to bring forth good fruits, who cannot be accused of
ever having brought forth bad fruits? Hence it is evident that he does
not say this with reference to the baptism of infants, since these,
having never erred, or brought forth bad fruits, cannot, through
baptism, be required to turn from error, and bring forth better fruits
than they have brought forth before.
That such baptism, accompanied with the mortifying of the flesh, and
resurrection unto a new life, is taught and commended by Origen, is
clearly expressed in his comments on Rom. 6:3: “Know ye not, that so
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his
death?” where he says: “But it seems to me that the apostle in this
chapter does not prefix even the words: ‘_Know ye not_’ without a
purpose. He thereby proves that at that time, that is, in the days of
the apostles, it was not as it is now, that those who were baptized,
received only the outward figure of the mysteries, but that also the
power and intent of the same was imparted to them, and this to those
who understood it, and had been instructed concerning it: that those
who are baptized, are baptized into the death of Christ, and buried
with him by baptism; and that those who are baptized must walk in
newness of life, even as Christ rose from the dead, through the glory
of the Father.” Also, _H. Mont. page 37_.
This is certainly expressing plainly and unequivocally, of what baptism
he is treating,[97] namely, of such a baptism, of which the power and
intent was imparted to those who understood it; by which they were
buried into the death; by which they were raised, to walk in newness of
life, etc., all of which are things that cannot be comprehended, much
less undertaken and carried out, by infants. In this manner he speaks
also in other places, as, for instance, in _Homilia 5, 4th and 5th
chapters of the book Joshua_. Again, _Homil. 9, 8th and 9th chapters;
Homil. 15, 11th chap._ Also, _Homil. 7, 15th chap. of the book of
Judges. B. Hist. p. 291._
[97] At this time Origen taught that we must appeal to the
Holy Scriptures; for without these no credence can be given to
what we say. On _Jeremiah, Homil. 1._ See, _Samuel Veltius, in
Geslacht-register der, etc., page 115_.
NOTICE CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN WITH REFERENCE TO BAPTISM.
There are a few passages, namely, _Homil. 8_, on the 12th and 13th
chapters of Leviticus; _Homil. 14_, on the 2d chap, of Luke; _Comment._
on the 6th chap. of the Epistle to the Romans, from which some who at
this day uphold infant baptism suppose they can draw something to show
that Origen was not a stranger to their views, but that he sanctioned
them. But various eminent writers deny, yea, completely refute this,
it being proven that these passages do not belong to Origen, but to
Ruffinus, the priest at Aquileia, who, it is stated, more than one
hundred and fifty years after Origen’s time translated the works of
the latter from the Greek into Latin, adding from his own, that is,
out of his own mind the abovementioned passages, and, on the other
hand, leaving out other matters. To this explanation we assent. See
_Ruffinus’ prefatory and concluding remarks on Origen’s Commentary to
the Epistle to the Romans_. Also, _Erasmus’ account of the life of
Origen_, prefaced to the works of the latter, according to _J. Mehrn.,
Bapt. Hist., pp. 283 and 291_. Also, _H. Mont. Nietigheyd van den
Kinder-doop, pages 29–34, and 42, 43_.
Besides this, various gross errors have of old been imputed to Origen,
as, for instance, that he believed, that the evil spirits would
ultimately be saved. However, he himself desires this in a certain
letter written to those of Alexandria, in which he complains of the
shamelessness of his adversaries, who dared in his life time to defame
him with slanders which not even an insane man would utter. What, then,
must have been the treatment his writings received after his death!
“We may plainly see,” says Jacob Mehrning, “from what we still have
of the writings of Origen, that many ignorant and grossly erring
spirits have sought to palm off to the simple-minded, their own whims
under the name of this eminent man, who by Jerome (in _Prefatione
ante Ezechidem_) is called the second master of the church after the
apostles.” _Bapt. Hist. pp. 288 and 289._ Also, _H. Mont. Nietigh.,
pages 35, 36_.
TOUCHING DIFFERENT POINTS OF THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGEN, ACCORDING TO THE
ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK.
_A. D. 231._--“Origen, a man who abounds in spiritual allegories,
and who practiced himself what he taught others, as church history
testifies of him, began at this time to write his books, and says to
the catechumens: ‘Repent, that ye may receive baptism for the remission
of sins.’ Also: ‘He that has resolved to come and be baptized, but is
not willing to forsake his evil practices and habits, but continues
in his former condition, does not come to baptism in the proper way.’
With reference to this, you may read, _George Vicelius_, in his _Form
en Aenteekening, en Welke Gestalte en form de Kerk duysent jaer stond,
fol. 127_.
“Again: Origen was appointed by Demetrius, at Alexandria, catechist,
that is, teacher of the pupils of the faith, which office was filled
before him (after the apostles) by Plautinus and Clement. Of his
pupils, Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides, Heron, and a woman, were
martyred for Christ, before they were baptized, thus obtaining the
baptism of fire.
“After Origen, Heracles, and after Heracles, Dionysius had charge at
Alexandria of the schools of the catechumens, that is, of those who
received instruction in the Christian doctrine, preparatory to baptism.
“Again: Origen says, that no one should be persecuted for his faith,
and that he who would live according to the Gospel must not drive or
compel his brother to an oath, nor swear such an one himself, though it
be demanded of him.
“Again: On Matt. 23 he says: The Lord reprehends those teachers who
not only do not practice what they teach, but also, tyrannously and
unmercifully, without considering the strength of their hearers, lay
upon them burdens greater than they can bear, namely, forbid them to
marry, and over and above what is expedient, would constrain them to an
impossible chastity.
“Again: He says that it is altogether a letter that killeth, that John
should be understood literally and carnally. Hence he insists strongly
upon it, that the natural eating of Christ’s body avails nothing, and
that it must therefore be spiritually understood and eaten. _Euseb.,
lib. 6. Chron. Seb. Frank, fol. 101. Leonh., lib. 1. Joh. Anast., fol.
313._
“Again: In his 12th, 15th, and 18th Homily on the Book of Joshua,
Origen writes thus: ‘If the natural war of Joshua and his people
were not a figure and antitype of the spiritual war of Christ and
the Christians, the apostles, as peace-proclaimers, would never have
accepted, nor sanctioned the reading of the books of Joshua, in the
heavenly Jerusalem of the peaceful church and the peace-loving children
of God.’ And he further proves by many arguments, that Christ, the
Prince of Peace, teaches peace, and not war; and that we are not to
fight with external, but only with spiritual weapons, against the
devil, the world, flesh, sin, and death.
“Again: Speaking of the destruction of Ai, and the extermination of the
king and the people, he says: ‘By this we must not understand that the
saints, at this day in the new Testament, may shed blood, and kill with
the natural sword: these and like events are full of mysteries.’ He
explains further, that we must utterly destroy Ai, that is, the kingdom
of darkness and sin, through the spiritual Joshua, Christ Jesus. Col.
1; Eph. 6.
“Again: Origin (_Homil. in Mattheo 7_) says: ‘The text in Luke 22,
about buying a sword, is pernicious (namely, for the wicked) if
understood literally, and not allegorically: for he that should regard
the letter, and not understand the will and intent of God, but sell
his garment, and buy a sword, would understand the word of Christ
contrary to his will.’
“Again: In the book against Celsus the Second, he says that ‘war has
been abolished by the only God.’
“Again: Of antichrist he says, from 2 Thess. 2, that he sitteth in the
temple of God, and, a little further on, he says: ‘Antichrist assumes
merely the name of Christ, but does not do his works; nor does he teach
the words of truth. Christ is the truth; antichrist is the spurious
truth. He shows himself here, as though he were Christ and the word
of God, but is nevertheless the abomination of desolation.’” _P. J.
Twisck, Chron. 3d book, p. 61_, from _Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 65, 78.
Hieron. Zauch., fol. 56. Joh. Heyden Næmb., fol. 226, 227._
_A. D. 251._--It is recorded that at this time, Virian, Marcellinus,
and Justin, learned men, in the reign of Emperor Decius, conferred with
one another about matters concerning the Christians, and were well
pleased with this holy religion; and hearing that Christian believers
were baptized, they sent for a teacher[98] called Justin, and asked him
to baptize them.
[98] The author employs the word _priest_; but priest is derived from
the word _presbyter_, that is, elder. We say teacher.
Justin rejoiced that such learned men wished to take upon themselves
the yoke of Christ. He began to instruct them, and then had water
brought, and baptized them on confession of their faith. _P. J. Twisck,
Chron. 3d book, page 68, col. 2_, from _Wicel. in Choro Sanctorum,
Grond. Bew., letter B_.
_A. D. 253._--For this year, we read in ancient authors, that
Pancratius, the son of the believing Clionius, was baptized at Mount
Celius, when he was fifteen years old, after he had been under
instruction twenty days. Compare this with _P. J. Twisck, Chron. 3d
book, page 71, col. 1_, from _Wicel. Grond. Bew., letter B. Leonh.,
lib. 1_.
Touching the circumstances of this matter, that is, of Dionysius, who
traveled with him, and the bishop Cornelius who baptized him, to whom
some have erroneously ascribed another office, we leave it in its own
merit and mention it no further. It suffices us that it is evident
from this, that at that time the believers did not have their children
baptized, till they, having attained to understanding and riper years,
themselves desired to be baptized on their faith.
_Same year as above._--Basilla, an honorable and discreet maiden, at
Rome, in the reign of Emperor Galien, learned the Christian faith
from the eunuch Protus, and Hiacynthus, and was also baptized by the
abovementioned bishop Cornelius. _Grond. Bew. van den Doop_, printed
1581, _letter B., ij_.
_A. D. 257._--Pontus, the son of Marcus, a Christian, was orally
instructed in the Christian religion, by the bishop, or teacher,
Pontian, and then baptized. _P. J. Twisck, Chron. 3d book, p. 73, col.
1_, from _Grond. Bew., letter B. Chron. Mich., fol. 163_. Also, _Loop
der Werelt, by F. H. H._, printed 1611, _page 47_.
Here notice again that the aforementioned Pontus was not of Jewish
or heathenish, but of Christian descent; for he is called the son
of Marcus, a Christian; from which, as in the case of Pancratius,
it appears that the Christians suffered their children to grow up
unbaptized, till they attained to the years of understanding.