of the reign of Emperor Louis I., surnamed the Pious, there shone forth
as a bright light, and wrote, one Rabanus Maurus, residing at Fulda,
who, among various things written by him against the Roman church, also
speaks of baptism, in the discussion of which he throughout employs
such language as pertains only to believers, and in no wise to infants;
notwithstanding he at one time, it appears, had been a maintainer of
infant baptism, and many other superstitions of popery, so much so that
he had been an abbot. But passing this by, we shall show what he wrote
of baptism, and how closely it agrees with the teaching of the holy
Scriptures.
[140] The proper time for baptizing was still Easter and Whitsuntide.
_Bapt. Hist., page 550, num. 2_. White garments were put on those
baptized, which signified the innocence, salvation and purity of
the Christian; that they should henceforth, all through life, keep
themselves unspotted from iniquity. _Page 553, num. 14._
In Jacob Mehrning’s history of baptism, various passages from Rabanus
Maurus are adduced, some of which, it is suspected, have been
attributed to him unjustly, or, at least, that, if he has written them,
he wrote them before he was enlightened or converted; as, among others,
in _lib. 2, de Proprit. Serm., cap. 200_; again, _lib. 4, cap. 10_; of
which we let the intelligent judge.
Nevertheless various things are found, which, we doubt not, are
justly ascribed to him, as, for instance: Of the instruction of the
catechumens before baptism, and how the novices ought to learn the
faith before they are baptized. In _Decretis de Consecrat. dist. 4,
cap. Ante Bapt., ex Rabano, Bapt. Hist., page 560_. Likewise, the
quotation made by Vicecomes (_lib. 2, cap. 40_) from Rabanus (_in lib.
de instruct. Cleric._), which reads as follows: “The order according to
which the catechumens are prepared for baptism, is this: First they
are interrogated whether they renounce the devil,” etc. _Bapt. Hist.,
page 562._ The rest we omit.
By this he indicates, that in his time, in the church of which he was
a member, the custom of preparing the novices for baptism was still
observed, inasmuch as first, the instruction of the faith, called
the catechism, was presented and taught them; also, that they had to
renounce Satan, &c.; which was observed not only at this time, but in
nearly all the preceding times, as appears from this passage: “They are
wont to renounce the devil with his works and pomp.” _Syn. Turon. Bapt.
Hist., page 516, num. 7._
That in the time of Rabanus the instruction of novices extended not
only to those of heathen descent, but also to such as were born of
Christian parents, is declared by Jacob Mehrning, _Bapt. Hist., page
560, contra Rulichium._
D. Vicecomes (_lib. 3, cap. 9_), quotes from Rabanus Maurus (_page
562_): “The fellow petitioners for baptism are those who, through the
doctrine of the faith, and by refraining from disorderly conduct, make
haste to receive the grace of Christ in baptism.”
This confirms our former assertion, namely, that before baptism a
preparation had to be made, in order that it (baptism) might be
received worthily; which preparation is here called “the doctrine of
the faith and refraining from disorderly conduct.” In it are comprised
both parts of the doctrine which John presented to those who came to
his baptism, saying: “Repent ye, and believe,” etc. Matt. 3:2, compared
with Mark 1:15, and Acts 19:4.
Moreover, they are called fellow petitioners, and it is said that “They
make haste to receive the grace of Christ in baptism,” which are things
that cannot be done by infants.
Hence he writes, on Cant. 3:6, (_page 540_): “Who is this that cometh
up white as snow?” applying the same to the candidates, who, cleansed
from their former sins, come up from baptism, and increase in virtue.
“This mystery,” he says, “is not otherwise than under the invocation of
the Holy Trinity, that is, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost; thus the Lord says to the apostles, Matt. 28:19: ‘Go
and teach,’” etc.
Hence, when he speaks of coming up from the water, and of the
invocation of the Holy Trinity, as well as of the passage, Matt. 28:19,
he sufficiently shows that he does not speak of the baptism of infants,
since they cannot come up from baptism, nor invoke the Holy Trinity,
nor fulfill the passage, Matt. 28; which is too clear to be refuted. We
will therefore briefly conclude this account of Rabanus with that which
P. J. Twisck records concerning him.
THE VIEWS OF RABANUS MAURUS CONCERNING VARIOUS OTHER ARTICLES OF HIS
FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED AUTHOR.
He writes, _A. D. 830_: “Rabanus, an eminently learned man writes
and says: ‘The catechism, that is, the doctrine of the faith, shall
precede baptism, so that the candidate (catechumen) may first learn the
first principles of the faith.’”
He further says: “The Lord Christ first anointed the eyes of the man
born blind, with clay made of spittle, before he sent him to the water
of Siloam; therefore, the candidate shall first be instructed in the
faith of the incarnation of Christ, and, if he then believes, admitted
to baptism; that he may know what grace he obtains in baptism, and to
whom he owes his service for it.”
Again: “Rabanus writes also, that in the sacrament the language is
figurative, and that Christ, having gone to heaven (in order that we
being regenerated by faith, should long the more ardently for him) left
us this sacrament, as a visible figure and symbol of his flesh and
blood, so that we the more abundantly, might apprehend in faith the
invisible things.” This language, Twisck writes, the Roman church now
greatly curses.
“He also taught contrary to the Roman church, of the authority of the
holy Scriptures, of justification, repentance, the state of the soul
after this life, and against other[141] papal errors, as his books
testify.
[141] Twisck might have used a less ambiguous phrase here, though
we doubt not, that the intelligent reader will readily see what he
means; but, for fear that some one might misunderstand him, we will
add a few words of explanation. The word “other,” of course, implies
that some errors have already been adduced; strictly speaking,
however, he has not adduced the errors, but rather the articles of
faith in regard to which errors were held, by the Roman church.
_Translator._
“The same thing was done at this time, by Angelomus, who treated of the
grace of God, good works, and the keys of the church, in opposition to
the Pope. _Chron., 9th book, page 283_, from _John Munst., fol. 120,
133. John Boea., lib. 4, Grond. Bewijs, letter A. Chron. Seb. Franck,
fol. 77, Casp. Swinck, fol. 115._
_Same year as above._--This Angelomus just mentioned is referred to
in _Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism_, in which it is stated that,
besides the aforementioned views held by him contrary to the Roman
church, he left the following testimony with regard to the matter of
baptism:
_Angelomus_ (_in cap. 7, lib. 3, Reg. 1, page 548_), says: “From all
that we have sinned with the sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and
feeling, we are redeemed through the grace of God, by the washing
of the living fountain of water (that is, water-baptism). But the
forgiveness of previous sins is not enough, if we are not diligent to
lay up good works: for, otherwise, the devil who was gone out of the
man, finding him empty of good works, returns, manifold, and makes the
last state of that man worse than the first.”
Hence, when Angelomus here speaks of the sins which before baptism were
committed through the senses, as, through the sight, hearing, smelling,
tasting, and feeling, he certainly indicates thereby, that the persons
of whom he speaks, are not unintelligent infants, seeing these can
neither use nor abuse their senses, and, consequently, as long as they
lack the knowledge and power, they can not sin with them.
Hence it also appears that the baptism of which he speaks, is not
infant baptism; for this can have no regard to sins committed
previously through the abuse of the senses. The baptism in question,
then, is such a baptism as is received by persons who can lay aside
previous sins, and lay up good works; who also give no room to the
devil gone out of them, that the last state may not be worse than the
first; for of all this, Angelomus speaks. We will, therefore, leave
this, and proceed to other testimonies serving the same purpose.
_A. D. 840._--That at this time not only baptism, but also various
other articles of Christian doctrine were maintained contrary to the
belief of the Roman church. P. J. Twisck indicates, in his _Chronijk._,
for the year 840, with these words: “Bertram, a courageous and learned
man, now vigorously assailed the doctrine of transubstantiation, in a
remarkable book, dedicated to the King of France. Heymon, Bishop of
Halberstadt, also contended against this doctrine, and wrote much of
baptism, the Supper, justification, good works, and of the church and
her office, in opposition to the opinion of the papists. Also Walafrid
opposed the new doctrine of the Romanists very vigorously.[142] _P. J.
Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 286, col. 2_, and _page 287, col. 1_,
from _Joh. Munst., fol. 129_, and _132_.
[142] About this time, Bertram taught, in his book of the _Body and
Blood of Christ_, concerning the words: “This is my body,” that this
is to be understood figuratively, and that in the Supper, the faith
is presented somewhat differently than the eyes externally see, and
the taste perceives; also, that the bread and wine are figuratively
the body and blood of Christ, and represent to, or keep before us,
the remembrance of the suffering and death of Christ. _Sam. Velt.,
Geslacht-register; pages 126, 127._
In the Scythian church, (A. D. 840), writes Valfrid Abbas, they
used the common mother tongue, and taught that images should not
be worshiped or honored; that the paschal lamb should not be
consecrated; yea, that it was better to aid the poor, than to
decorate the churches. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 286,
col. 2_, from _Casp. Grev., fol. 277_.
_A. D. 841._--It is recorded that at this time, in the reign of the
Emperors Louis and Lothaire, a council was held at Paris, concerning
which it is written (_chap. 6_): “In the beginning of the holy church
of God, no one was admitted to receive baptism, who had not previously
been instructed in the faith, and in the mystery of baptism, as is
testified by the words of Paul, Rom. 6:3: ‘Know ye not, that so many of
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?’
which passage of the apostle has reference to the sacrament of baptism.”
In the council of Laodicea (Tit. 46), it is also written, that “those
who desire to come to baptism, shall learn the faith, and recite the
same to the bishop or teacher, on the fifth day of the great week.”
Again (_Tit. 47_): “That those who were baptized in sickness, shall,
after recovery, diligently study their faith and know what great grace
they have received; which words plainly indicate, that those who attain
to the Christian faith, are also previously instructed concerning said
faith and the mysteries of baptism. But now, sad to relate, also the
infants of Christian parents are baptized, who, on account of their
tender age, cannot comprehend this matter, which to learn even persons
of understanding must exert themselves diligently, and which, owing to
the negligence of some, has gone out of use in the Christian church.
O what great neglect! O what great mischief.” _Jacob Mehrning, Bapt.
Hist., page 538._ _About A. D. 842._--It is stated that at this time
a number of slaves who had become converted were baptized, yet not in
the Roman manner, nor in the Roman language, as was customary with
the Roman church, as well as with all other churches which adhered
to the Roman see; but in a different manner and in another language;
so that it appears from this occurrence that this church must have
been separated from the superstitions of the Roman church not only in
forms, but also, as may be inferred, in faith and practice. To this,
the following annotation (_Bapt. Hist., page 552, num. 9_), among
others, has reference: “They (those of the Roman church) used the
Roman language not only in Italy, but also in other regions that were
subject to the papal power; but that baptism was administered also in
other languages, is proved by the history of the conversion of the
slaves.”[143] _Ex. Historia Sclav._
[143] _A. D. 843._--Christus Lupim, at Ferrara, refuted the new Roman
doctrines concerning purgatory, matrimony of priests, and other
points. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 288, col. 1_, from
_Catal. Test., fol. 103_.
_About A. D. 848._--That the instruction of novices, before baptism,
obtained also at this time, _Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 550_,
informs us with these words: “The adults had (then) to be instructed
in the faith, and were catechized before baptism, as has been proven
above, from Rabanus, Haimo, and others; thereupon they had to confess
the faith, as Rabanus (_lib. 1, de Cleric. Institutione, cap. 27_)
relates. They were asked, whether they believed in God the Father,
the Almighty, and on his only Son, our Lord, and on the Holy Ghost, a
general (christian) church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the
flesh,” etc.[144] _Bapt. Hist., p. 550, num. 4._
[144] _A. D. 858._--At this time, Gunther, Bishop of Cologne, wrote
to Pope Nicholas: “Thou art playing the tyrant: under the guise of
a shepherd we find thee to be a wolf. The title, indeed, is father,
but virtually thou showest thyself a Jupiter.” _Sam. Veltius,
Geslacht-register, page 127._
These were good and salutary customs for the upbuilding of the church
of God; by which the name of the Lord was praised, the church edified,
the word of God most strictly observed, and the salvation of many
promoted. But the ancient saying: “Where God builds a temple, Satan
builds one in opposition to it,” was also verified here; for, at the
same time that those who loved the truth, baptized believers, upon the
confession of their faith, nearly all the others, who were called Roman
or Greek Christians, baptized infants, who, as every one knows can
neither believe nor confess the faith; this has been referred to above.
_About A. D. 854._--It is stated that very near the time of Haimo,
there lived and wrote Idiota. In _J. Mehrning’s History of Baptism_ is
found a quotation by him, relating to baptism, which reads as follows:
“In holy baptism we accept Christ for our bridegroom, and enter his
chamber, which is ornamented with manifold graces and virtues.” _De
Innocentia, cap. 3._
To accept Christ for one’s bridegroom, to enter his chamber, is
certainly not the work of children, but of believers. Those accept
Christ for their bridegroom, who betroth themselves to him by faith,
and, in token thereof, are baptized. John 3:26,29. Those enter his
chamber, who, through obedience, join themselves to his church; for
they are no more “strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with
the saints, and of the household of God.” Eph. 2:18.
That which is further said of the chamber of the bridegroom, namely,
that it is ornamented with graces and virtues, has reference to the
spiritual ornament of the church of God, which latter is the true
chamber of our heavenly bridegroom Jesus Christ. This church of God
cannot be ornamented with graces and virtues by infants, seeing infants
are ornamented with neither actual graces nor real virtues; hence, it
has also respect to the believers, who, having come, through baptism,
to the church of God, ornament the same with actual graces and real
virtues. This concludes our exposition of the passage of Idiota.
NOTE.--_A. D. 859._--Huldricus or Uldoricus, Bishop of Augsburg,
greatly complained of the violence of the popes, and said: “What will
become of this flock, when the shepherds become wolves?” He openly
maintained that the Pope was fallible, and that it was lawful to
admonish him for his error, and to reject his bad decrees. _P. J.
Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 298, col. 1_, from _Merula, fol. 177_.
_Jan. Crespin, fol. 211, 215, 216._
_A. D. 860._--At this time, there departed from the belief and practice
of infant baptism, Hincmar, at one time Bishop of Laudun, inasmuch
as he would no longer baptize children, so that they grew up without
baptism, and many also, who did not attain the years of understanding,
died unbaptized; on account of which he was then greatly accused by
Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, who, to this end, wrote to him as follows:
“And thou, who knowest that it is true what the Lord says: ‘Except
a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of heaven;’ hast nevertheless commanded, that infants shall not
be baptized in thy church, not even when in peril of death, so that
they should not be saved, though it is written: ‘The Son of man is not
come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ Thou hast also acted
contrary to the decrees of Syricius, Leo, Gelasius, and the African
council, as I have informed thee now twice by writing.” _H. Mont.
Nietigh., page 81, ex Biblioth. Patr., Tom. 9, part 2, page 137. Cent.
Magd., Cent. 9, cap. 4, pages 40, 41._
In another letter, the Bishop of Rheims, with entreating, and not less
earnest words, endeavors to draw him away from his belief, writing:
“Desist from preaching this (namely, that infants may not be baptized),
the mere thought of which is awful; desist from scattering the flock
of Christ (meaning thereby, through error, the Roman church), lest
the destruction of all the people come upon thee; and do not, from
excessive love for thy belief, sever thyself from,” etc. _H. Mont.,
page 82_, from _Cent. Magd., Cent. 9, pages 157, 158_. Also, _Bapt.
Hist., page 545_.
From these two letters it appears that Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun,
had not only departed from the doctrine of infant baptism, but also
earnestly preached against it, so that many of the Roman church,
particularly at Laudun, became his adherents; for, what did the Bishop
of Rheims mean by writing: “Desist from preaching this,” but to say
that Hincmar of Laudun should cease preaching against infant baptism?
What else does he indicate when he says: “Desist from scattering the
flock of Christ, lest the destruction of all the people come upon
thee?” Certainly, these words indicate that many had already left the
Roman church on this account, yea, that the state of things was such
that all the people at Laudun adhered to this doctrine.
Moreover, from the last letter we see, how firmly, and almost
immovably, said Hincmar must have stood, at Laudun, in his doctrine and
belief against infant baptism, seeing such great endeavors were made to
draw him away; now by presenting his belief in the most odious light,
as though he preached things the mere thought of which was awful; now
by flattery: “And do not, from excessive love for thy belief, sever
thyself from,” etc. But whether through this he was in any wise turned
away from his belief, we have not been able to ascertain; hence we will
let the matter rest.
In reference to what he may have taught with regard to other points,
we can, on account of the default of history, give nothing certain; it
is sufficient for us, that in those perilous times he dared oppose the
common Roman church, by rejecting infant baptism, and that much people
adhered to him therein, as has been shown above.
_A. D. 867._--We have now come to the year in which an uncommon and
quite unexpected matter is mentioned by ancient writers, of which we
will forthwith give an account. Just now, for the year 860, we told of
a certain champion of the Roman superstitions, especially of infant
baptism, namely, Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, who, once and again, by
express letters, immoderately accused another Hincmar, Bishop of
Laudun, because the latter refused to baptize infants, and would also
not allow them to be baptized, though they were in danger of dying.
This same person now, seven years after making the above accusations
respecting the non-baptizing of infants, opposed the Pope, not only
in one point, but in many, among which infant baptism may also have
been. Concerning this P. J. Twisck, from other authors, writes thus:
“Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, opposed Pope Adrian II. in many points,
in defense of the truth. He charged him with innovation, saying that
he could not be Bishop and King at the same time; that he should have
nothing to do with secular affairs.” _Chron., 9th book, page 305, col.
2_, from _Hist. Georg., fol. 314, Catal. Test., fol. 52_.
It is a pity and to be lamented, that the ancients have not left us
more information regarding the particular points maintained by Hincmar,
Bishop of Rheims, against the Pope, and, consequently, also against the
Roman church.
It would not be very surprising, if among the points maintained by
him against the Pope, the denial of infant baptism was one; for, when
he, seven years before that, accused Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, for
not baptizing the infants, the latter apparently, either from the
holy Scriptures, or by conclusive arguments, demonstrated to him the
groundlessness and vanity of infant baptism in such a manner that he
may easily have attained to very different views, not only in regard to
infant baptism, but also in other points which were maintained after
the manner of the papists. But as this is not clearly indicated, we
will not discuss it any further, but leave it as a probable conjecture.
Moreover, it is not our purpose to justify said Bishop in every article
of religion, nor to declare him orthodox on the whole; but to show
that the same person who had previously so stoutly defended the Roman
church and the papal superstitions, especially in the matter of infant
baptism, now dared attack not only the Roman church, but even the Pope,
who is called its head, and to oppose him in many points, as has been
shown. With this we take our leave of Hincmar of Rheims.
_A. D. 880._--At this time there lived Paschasius, a remarkably
experienced and virtuous man, who wrote various things against the
belief of the Roman church; but as the thread of our account extends
only, or, at least, principally, over the matter of baptism, we will
also here turn our special attention to the same, and, so as not to be
encumbered with many testimonies, present but one passage of his belief
with reference to this matter, as recorded in Jacob Mehrning’s history
of baptism.
Paschasius (_de Corp. and Sang. Dom., cap. 10, page 594_) says: “In
the sacrament of baptism the door is opened to believers, to enter
into the sonship of God, that we, being delivered from evil through
this regeneration, may afterwards become one body with the members of
Christ; in which baptism, when the Holy Ghost is shed abroad in the
souls of the regenerated, the whole church of Christ is quickened, and
becomes one body, by one Spirit received by all.”
Here he indicates three things incompatible with infant baptism.
Firstly, when he says that “In the sacrament of baptism the door is
opened to believers, to enter into the sonship of God.” For, that this
cannot relate to infants, appears from the nature of faith and of the
believers; as to faith, it is a sure confidence of the things hoped
for. Hebr. 11:1. This faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word
of God. Rom. 10:17. That neither this sure confidence, nor hope, nor
intelligent hearing of the word of God, can have place in infants, is
quite evident, since neither their powers nor their knowledge can reach
these things. See Deut. 1:39; 1 Cor. 13:11.
Secondly, when he says: “That we, being delivered from evil through
this regeneration, may afterwards become one body with the members of
Christ.” For the word regeneration is no where in Scripture applied to
infants, but to adults. John 3:3; Tit. 3:5. Likewise, to be delivered
from evil, is applied only to such persons as, through evil works, were
previously ensnared and held captive by sin. 2 Tim. 2:26. Hence, the
second also does in no wise apply to infants.