they have fallen, they shall be excluded three years from the prayers
of those catechumens who have not fallen. This is an indication of the
carefulness exercised by that assembly, to admit to baptism, according
to the doctrine of the holy Gospel, no unprepared catechumens before
they had truly repented after their fall. The 12th Canon, speaking
of the penance to be performed by those who, under persecution, had
apostatized without having been tormented; and the 13th Canon, treating
of the very great and long penance to be endured by those, who, after
having become Christians, had resumed the military profession, and
thus become apostates; these precepts we say, militate neither against
the holy Scriptures, nor against the views of the Anabaptists, but
sufficiently confirm them both.
NOTE.--It is recorded that at this time pseudo-apostles taught that the
church of Rome was rejected of God, and that it was not his church, but
Babylon, and the whore mentioned in the Apocalypse, who rides the beast
with the seven heads; and that we therefore do not owe obedience to
the Pope; that under the New Testament we are in no wise bound to give
tithes to the priests; that all manner of swearing is unlawful; that a
consecrated church is not better to pray in than a pigsty. _Seb. Fr.
Chron., fol. 120, col. 3._
_A. D. 335._--At this time, Athanasius vigorously maintained the cause
of such as had been baptized according to order of Christ, against
those who, it seems, asserted that baptism might take place without
previous instruction, or confession of faith. He says (_Serm. 3.,
Contra Arian._): “Our Savior did not simply command to baptize, but
first said, _teach_, and then, _baptize_; so that true faith may
proceed from the doctrine, and then baptism be perfected with faith.”
_P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 99, col. 2; from Grond. Bew.,
letter A. Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d Part, page 370._
NOTE.--At this time Athanasius taught that it is the duty of every
Christian, to read the holy Scriptures, on the 6th chap. Eph. Again, he
prohibited the practice of making a likeness of God for the purpose of
worshiping him thereby, etc., as being an unlawful thing. _Contr. Gent.
Sam. Veltius, in the Geslacht-register, page 118._
_Notice concerning several writings attributed to Athanasius._--The
pedobaptists, prone to bring forward everything that seems in any
wise to favor their views, were wont to adduce the 114th and the
124th question of a certain book called, _Various Questions of Holy
Scripture_, attributed to Athanasius. But in answer to this we say:
that said book is not the work of Athanasius, but of some other
author who wrote subsequently to him; as in his 23d question he
cites Athanasius as one having lived before him, saying: “This is
the testimony of the great Athanasius, a man who was mighty in the
divine Scriptures; but we, who are enlightened by him.” Moreover, that
book contains many opinions foreign to Athanasius, as shown by the
_Centuriatores Magdenburgenses, Cent. 4, cap. 10, p. 1032_. See also,
_H. Montan. Nietigh., p. 69, and J. M., Bapt. Hist., pages 360, 361_.
NOTE.--_A. D. 320. Lactantius Firmianus_ taught at this time: 1. “That
the sacrifices of the Christian are, a good life, purity, and good
works. 2. That there is no religion in a place where there are images.
_Lib. 2_, of the _Divine Instruction_. Also, _Sam. Veltius_, in the
_Geslacht-register,. pp. 116, 117_. 3. He taught against compulsion of
conscience, and revenge, as appears from the following. He writes to
the Emperor Constantine (_5th book, chap. 20_): “The more the religion
of God is suppressed, the more it breaks forth and grows; hence they
should employ reasoning and admonition; it is not necessary to proceed
with violence. For religion admits of no compulsion; persuasive words
can do more to promote the cause than blows.” Again (_5th book, chap.
21_) he writes: “We Christians do not desire that any one should serve
God, the Creator of all, against his will; neither are we angry if
he does not serve him; for we trust his Majesty, who can as easily
avenge himself against those who despise him, as he does the vexations
and injuries inflicted upon his servants. Therefore, when we suffer
such shameful things, we say not one word against it, but commit all
vengeance to God; not doing as those who would be regarded protectors
of their gods, and very cruelly assail those who do not worship them.”
_Korte ontschuldiging, by P. V. K., edition of 1643, page 47, from
Religions Vryheydt, 2d part, p. 10._
_About A. D. 340._--_Marius Victorius_ writes in the fifth book against
Arius: “Every one that is baptized, and says he believes, and accepts
the faith, receives the Spirit of truth, that is, the holy Ghost, and
is made holier by him.” _J. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 325._ I find in
authentic writers, no other account of baptism by this Marius, so that
this seems to be the only thing he has written about baptism, and from
this, too, it is obvious that he must have been a stranger to infant
baptism, seeing he joins together confession, faith, and baptism, in
the one that is to be baptized.
_A. D. 350._--About this time Hilarius attained to the faith in
Jesus Christ, and having been baptized upon this faith, he proceeded
to defend the truth which he had received and accepted, and, for
the strengthening of the faith he had adopted, and that he might
live according to the same, he prayed to God (_lib. 12 de Trinit._)
as follows: “Dear God, preserve my faith and the testimony of my
conscience, that I may ever keep that which I confessed in the
sacrament of my regeneration, when I was baptized in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; namely, that I worship thee, O
God our Father, and thy Son with thee, and that the Holy Spirit, that
proceeds from thee, may be awakened.”
Again Vicecomes (_lib. 2, cap. 27_) quotes from Hilarius, on the 15th
chapter of Matt. the following: “They that come to baptism confess
first, that they believe in the Son of God, and in his suffering
and resurrection; and this confession is made or pronounced at the
sacrament of baptism.”
Again, Hilarius writes (_vol. 2, de Trinitate_): “The Lord has
commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost; that is, upon the confession of the Author (that
is, him who in the beginning created all things), and the First-born,
and the Free Gift (that is, the Son and the Holy Ghost).” _Jac. Mehrn.
Bapt., Histor., 2d part, pages 371, 372._
HILARIUS ON BAPTISM AND SEVERAL OTHER ARTICLES OF HIS FAITH, ACCORDING
TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK.
Hilarius, originally a heathen, who subsequently became a Christian,
and was baptized at Rome, A. D. 350, was a very learned and eloquent
man. He writes (_lib. 2_): “The Lord has commanded to baptize on, or
in, the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that
is,” etc.
He also defended the truth against the Arians, on account of which he
was exiled; and he likewise vigorously opposed the arrogance of the see
of Rome, and its dominion over other churches, and said that antichrist
would devastate the earth through wars and murder.
To those who concerned themselves more in wondering at the building of
the temple, than in the consideration of the doctrine he says: “You are
indeed unwise, to look with wonder upon these things; for, you must
know that antichrist shall once set his throne there.
“The nature of the name antichrist is opposition to Christ, which he
effects under a specious semblance of the Gospel. He transforms himself
into an angel of light, that he may alienate the Christian mind. He
has already, to some extent, commenced his progress, pretending to be
Christ, though he is departed very far from Christ.
“They (that is, the Antichristians) ambitiously desire the aid of
the secular power, which they draw to themselves in order to advance
their name and honor, and to protect their church; thus working with a
worldly ambition, notwithstanding it is folly to employ secular power
in defense of the Christian church.
“Let me ask you, ye bishops, what aid did the apostles employ in
proclaiming the Gospel? by the assistance of what magistracy did they
preach Christ, and convert the heathen from idolatry to God?
“Now the church courts the favor of the world, and boasts that the
world loves her, who could at no time have been the church of Christ,
without being hated by the world.”
Again, on the 68th Psalm, he says: “God is now preached, honored, and
worshiped in stone, wood, and metal, and the Master-builder of the
world, the Father of us all, is fashioned in perishable matter, to
which they have been brought by the enticing words of philosophy. With
these and like words he greatly censures the abuse practiced by the
church of Rome.” _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 104, col. 1, 2,
from Socrat., lib. 3. Casp. Swinc., epist. 1, fol. 877. Seb. Fr._
Since the above passages from Hilarius are not only excellent, but also
plain, so that they require no explanation, we leave them and proceed
to others who confessed the same faith.
NOTE.--At this time, Hilarius taught that all human traditions, on
account of which God’s commandments are transgressed, must be rooted
out. On Matt. 15, Canon 14. _Sam. Veltius, Geslacht-register, page
122._ He also writes: “The Father revealed to Peter, who said: ‘Thou
art the Son of God,’ that the church should be built upon this rock of
confession.” “This faith,” he says, “is the foundation of the church;
this faith has the keys of heaven.” In the same place, as well as in
the _6th book on the Trinity_.
_A. D. 350._--In the meantime we find that the parents of Augustine’s
mother, though they were Christians, did not have their daughter Monica
baptized in her infancy; inasmuch as she was not baptized until she
had reached the years of understanding, and this at the time when the
followers of Cyprian practiced infant baptism to a very great extent.
With regard to this, I find the following account: “Moreover, even in
Africa, where Cyprian had held the aforesaid council--to determine
on the precise time for baptizing infants--and resolved that baptism
should be administered to infants as soon as they were born, it was,
about the year 350, not observed by all Christian believers. Of this,
we have an example in Monica, Augustine’s mother, a very pious woman,
born of Christian parents, who also was baptized when she had reached
the years of understanding, as Augustine himself testifies.” _H.
Montan. Nietigh., page 71_, from _Augustine, lib. 2. Confess., cap. 3,
and lib. 9, cap. 8 and 13_.
_A. D. 351._--It is recorded that the Christians at Neocesarea declared
themselves openly against infant baptism, in a convention or assembly
of the ministers, called the council of Neocesarea; so that infant
baptism, which then began to prevail in different places, could gain no
support there, as appears from the various rules adopted by this body.
In Canon 5, we read: “If a catechumen who is not yet baptized, and has
his place among the catechumens in the church, has been seen in a sin,
he shall hear the preaching on his bended knees; that he may refrain
from the sin he committed; but if he persists in it, he shall be
expelled.”
In Canon 6, we read: “Pregnant women may be baptized, whenever they
desire it; for in this sacrament there is no communication between the
mother and the child which is born of her; but every one must in this
confession himself declare his free will and good intention.
Canon 11, after some other words declares: “The Lord was not baptized
until he was thirty years old, and thereupon he preached.” _Jacob
Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d part, pages 351, 352._
First, when in Canon 5 mention is made of the catechumens, it certainly
indicates that it was customary to instruct the young before baptism,
in the articles of the faith, upon which followed the confession of the
same, and baptism. This cannot be contradicted.
Secondly, when in Canon 6 it is established that pregnant women may be
baptized whenever they desire it, because there is no communication
between the mother and the child which is born of her, it clearly
confirms that infant baptism had no place whatever among them, but,
that they were indeed inimical to it. It appears that a difficulty was
raised at that time, as to whether pregnant women might be baptized or
not; for it was thought or feared that the fruit had such communion
with the mother, that the child, too, would become a partaker of the
baptism received by the mother; which would have been contrary to
the views held by the church, that no one should be baptized except
upon his own confession of faith, and consequently, no infants, much
less unborn children. But this apprehension or difficulty was removed,
when it was declared that in the reception of baptism there is no
communication between the mother and the child, and that for this
reason the child does not participate in the baptism received by the
mother. This is too clear to be refuted.
Thirdly, when in Canon 11, mention is made of Christ being baptized
when he was thirty years old, notwithstanding that preaching is here
spoken of, and that the same ought not to be undertaken by one before
he is thirty years old, the baptism which is administered upon faith or
in adult years, is nevertheless also recommended and deemed necessary.
For, as Christ was baptized in adult years, and forthwith began to
preach, so that the time of his baptism was also the time of his
preaching, even so (the Canon apparently means to say), baptizing, like
preaching, may only take place in adult years; for as the one requires
understanding, so does the other, according to the example of Christ.
_A. D. 360._--P. J. Twisck writes: “Notwithstanding that at this time,
much bloody cruelty was practiced against the bishop who sided with
Arius, so that this party was almost wholly crushed, still, according
to history, there remained sects like the Anabaptists, etc. If their
books were extant, we might give an account of what they taught
concerning all these matters; but as it is, we let it suffice with what
others have written.” _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 106, col.
2_, from _Jac. P. Verm. Onsch., lib. 4, fol. 131_.
It is exceedingly to be regretted that so few of the writings of the
Anabaptists who lived at that time, are extant; for thereby we are
compelled to receive information concerning them from the mouths of
their enemies; which information, as we may readily judge, was not
dictated by love, but by animosity. However, we owe thanks to God, that
even this much has come down to us respecting their history; since
Satan, through the instrumentality of his adherents, has always aimed
to exterminate, not only their books, but also their lives, yea, their
bodies and souls, if this were possible.
_A. D. 362._--Saint Martin, born of heathen parents, when he was ten
years old, went, contrary to the will of his parents, to the meetings
of the Christians, embraced Christianity and was baptized when he was
eighteen years old. Being now a Christian, he desired to be discharged
from the military profession into which he had been brought by his
parents; hence he said to the apostate Emperor, Julian, that it was not
lawful for him to fight, because he was a Christian.
But as the Minorite, _Thomas van Heerentaals_, in his _Mirror of the
Ten Commandments and Seven Sacraments_, gives a somewhat fuller account
concerning St. Martin, and especially of baptism as practiced at that
time, we shall make a short extract from it. He says: “In former times
it was customary to administer holy baptism but twice a year, namely,
on Easter eve and on Pentecost eve; except in cases of necessity,
which was fourfold: 1. In a siege. 2. In danger of martyrdom. 3. In
peril at sea. 4. In dangerous sickness. In such cases they baptized
all, and at all times, that no one might die without baptism. But
when these four reasons did not exist, baptism was administered only
on the two abovementioned days, and that with great solemnity and
dignity, and all who were admitted to baptism, had attained the years
of understanding; even St. Martin, that holy man, was a catechumen for
six years--from the time he was twelve, until he was eighteen years
old--before he received baptism. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page
110, col. 1, 2._
_A. D. 363 and 364._--In the time of Julian the apostate there lived
and shone as bright lights, various excellent men, whose learning and
piety it is not necessary to extol, since it is sufficiently known.
They gave expression to their orthodox convictions by word and by deed,
especially with regard to the matter of baptism, that it ought to be
administered after previous instruction, upon faith and repentance.
At the same time, A. D. 363, there lived Ambrose, who is stated to have
been born of Christian parents. His father’s name was also Ambrose,
while that of his mother was Marcellina. He, too, was not baptized
until the day on which he was chosen bishop of Milan, after having
been instructed in the catechism, that is, in the doctrines of the
faith.[103] See concerning this, _Tract van den loop der wereld, by
F. H. H._, printed 1611, _page 47, 48_, from _Paul, de vita Ambrosii.
Naucler. Chron. Generat. 13_.
[103] Bullinger says that before the days of Ambrose (A. D. 363),
Aurentius rejected infant baptism. See, _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page
114, col. 2_, in the annotation.
D. Vicecomes (_lib. 2, cap. 6_) records, from Nolanus, concerning
Ambrose, that in his time, Frigitil, Queen of the Marcomans, having
heard from a Christian man, what good things were said of Ambrose,
believed in Christ, and recognized him (Ambrose) as his minister. To
her, Ambrose wrote an excellent epistle. See, _Bapt. Hist., page 462_.
Such a procedure, namely, thus precipitately to elect any one bishop or
teacher, as is stated here concerning Ambrose, we do not commend; but
we notice here, that Christians at that time had not generally adopted
infant baptism; nay, that some, notwithstanding the papal power,
purposely did not have their children baptized; causing them, when they
had reached maturer years, to be instructed first, and then baptized,
upon their own confession.
Ambrose (_Serm. 61_) makes the statement: “It was customary for all
people to be baptized at Easter.” In _Lib. de Jejunio, cap. 10_,
he says: “Now comes the day of the resurrection; now the elect are
baptized.” Yet on 1 Tim. 4, he says that the sick were baptized on any
day. _Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 334._
These words of Ambrose confirm our preceding assertion; for when
he says that at Easter it was customary to baptize all people, he
sufficiently declares that at that time infant baptism was not a
custom. For not only at Easter, but throughout the whole year, children
are born, the baptism of which, because of the danger that they might
die, could never have been postponed until Easter, had infant baptism
been deemed necessary for salvation. But Ambrose removes all doubt
when he says what persons were baptized then, namely, _all people_; for
by the word _people_ there are generally understood adult or rational
persons, and not infants in the cradle.
Moreover, when he writes that the sick were baptized on any day, he
proves thereby, that infant baptism was not practiced in the church
of which he speaks. For, if it had been customary there, to baptize
infants, it would not have been necessary to baptize the sick on any
day, since they would have been baptized already in their infancy;
or our opponents must show that the sick, who were baptized any day,
were also baptized in their infancy; which they dare not maintain,
seeing these churches would then have to be regarded anabaptistic.
Nevertheless, one of two things must follow: Either that the sick who
were baptized in their infancy were rebaptized, or that the adults
baptized had not been baptized in their infancy. If the former is true,
then the Anabaptists, as they are called, flourished already in those
early times. But if the latter is true, then there were at that time
whole churches who rejected infant baptism, or, at least, suffered
their children to remain unbaptized. This is so clear that it cannot be
refuted.
OF SEVERAL OTHER ARTICLES OF FAITH TAUGHT BY AMBROSE, ACCORDING TO THE
ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK.
“Ambrose (on Rom. 1) ridicules those who say: ‘We cannot come before
God except through the mediation of the saints, just as we come before
a king through the mediation of counts.’ ‘Well then,’ says he, ‘is not
he guilty of contempt of majesty, who ascribes to counts the honor due
to the king? Certainly. Why then, will not they consider themselves
sinners, who give God’s name and honor to creatures, and, setting aside
the Lord, worship his servants? Because kings are not acquainted with
the individual wants of every one, interpreters and advocates appear
before them; but God, to whom nothing is hid, needs no advocates or
informants, but simply an humble heart.’
“Again: ‘They now bestow such names and honors upon the images, as
they would never have dared to give to the living person, namely,
divine honor; and this, when they are dead.’ Thus Ambrose reproves the
image worship of the Roman church, and (on Col. 1) positively asserts
that ‘neither elements, nor saints, nor angels should be honored or
worshiped, but Christ alone.’
“It seems,” says he, “that Ambrose, too, would seek antichrist at
Rome;” for he says that ‘antichrist shall restore to the Romans their
freedom, under his name,’ and calls the city of antichrist ‘the city
of the devil.’ He says further, that ‘antichrist shall be revealed
after the downfall of the Roman Empire, or when the Emperors shall have
lost their power;’ and history shows that the decline of the Roman
Emperors was the augmentation of the power and dominion of the Popes or
antichrists.
“Ambrose says further: ‘The violence of worldly opponents must not be
overcome with worldly, but with spiritual weapons; and heretics must be
punished only by exclusion from the church; for the champions of Christ
seek neither weapons nor iron balls.’
“Again, in regard to marriage he says: ‘Purity of the body is something
to be desired by us, and I commend it by way of advice, but do not
enjoin it as a command; for the virgin state may be advised, but not
commanded.’ _Hist. Tripart., lib. 7, cap. 8. Adolphus Tectander Apol.,
fol. 163. Casp. Swinck, Epist. 1, fol. 877. Hier. Zanc., fol. 65. D.
Anth. l., fol. 116._
“Again: The words of Ambrose clearly indicate that he means that the
sacrament (the Lord’s Supper), should be received under both forms,
that is, with bread and wine. _Lib. 9, cap. 30. Seb. Fr., fol. 50._
“Again: ‘The body of Christ is not material or earthly food, or
bread, but a spiritual, eternal bread, which feeds believing souls.
Regenerated men belong to this table, of which the ungodly cannot
partake.’ _Chron. Seb. Fr. on Ambrose._
“Again: Ambrose says also: ‘We are in duty bound to examine the
churches, and if there is one which rejects the faith, and does not
hold to the foundation of the apostolical doctrine, we must leave it.’”
In _Lucam, lib. 6, cap. 9. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 114,
col. 2_ and _115, col. 1, 2_.
_A. D. 364._--It is recorded that in or about the second year of
Julian, the Apostate, there lived and wrote the very learned, yet
humble, Ephrem, surnamed Syrus, who, in writing of baptism, relates
that in his time it was customary for people, when they were baptized,
to renounce with express words the devil and all his works, _Jac.
Mehrn. in Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 328._
Ephrem (_Lib. de Poenit., cap. 5_) also enumerates the works of Satan
which we renounce in baptism, as fornication, adultery, uncleanness,
lying, stealing, envy, etc.
Page 336. He also states (_Orat. 3, de S. Lavacro_) that it is
customary for the candidates for baptism to confess their sins. And
from his book on _Repentance, chap. 5_, it appears that those who were
thus baptized confessed their faith before many witnesses, and said: “I
renounce thee, O Satan, and all thy works.”