The Bloody Theatre, or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians / who baptized only upon confession of faith, and who suffered and died for the testimony of Jesus, their savior, from the time of Christ to the year A.D. 1660

by Thieleman J. van Braght

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM OF THE MARTYRS IN THE FOURTH CENTURY.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THIS CENTURY.

At the close of the third century the eminent Arnobius was introduced, and inasmuch as his life extended from one century into the other we refer to him again here in the beginning of the fourth century. He speaks of the virtue and benefit of baptism, as may be seen in the proper place.

Fusca and the handmaid Maura were baptized after previous instruction.

At this time (in the time of Sylvester) there existed such sects as were afterwards called Waldenses, Anabaptists, etc.

One Donatus was called an Anabaptist, and his followers, Anabaptists.

Athanasius, while yet a child, indicated, with other children, that at Alexandria they baptized upon confession of faith.

In Canon 12, 13, 15, of the Council of Nice several good things are established with regard to baptism.

Athanasius, having become a man, teaches wholesome doctrine, not only with respect to baptism, but also in regard to other matters of religion.

Soon after him comes Marius Victorinus, who joins together faith, confession, and baptism.

Then appears Hilarius, who wrote very appropriately on baptism, and also opposes antichrist, images, and traditions.

Monica, the mother of Augustine, was baptized in adult years, though she was born of Christian parents.

In the Council of Neocesarea, the candidates for baptism, the baptizing of pregnant women, Christ’s baptism, etc., were discussed.

Again sects appear, who were like the Baptists.

St. Martin was instructed from his twelfth to his eighteenth year, and then baptized. He strongly opposed war.

Ambrose was baptized in adult years, at Milan, though his parents were Christians. He advanced sound views on baptism, against war, of the sacrament, etc.

Ephrem, Gregory of Nyssa, the Councils of Laodicea and Elibertum, and also Optatus Milevitanus, give correct views on baptism.

Gregory of Nazianzus, born of Christian parents, was already in his twentieth year when he was baptized. Nectarius was baptized in adult years. Basil, the son of a Christian, and Eubulus, consulted together, and were baptized on their faith, at Jerusalem. Posthumanius made a glorious confession at his baptism. John Crysostom was suffered by his parents, though they were Christians, to remain unbaptized, not receiving baptism until he was twenty-one years old. Also, his views respecting baptism; his teaching against war, confession, etc.

Jerome, also born of Christian parents, was baptized at Syridon, when he was thirty years old.

Augustine, Adeolatus, Alipius, Euodius, Epiphanius, with his sister, all baptized upon faith. Conclusion of baptism in the fourth century.

That the holy order of the baptism of Jesus Christ was practiced also in the fourth century, appears from various teachings and examples of the fathers, from which, we shall present only a few, but such as are certain and genuine testimonies.

A. D. 301.—At the close of the preceding century, for A. D. 300, we introduced the eminent Arnobius, and showed that, speaking of baptism, he says: “That the candidates for baptism, when they are baptized, state before the minister their perfect willingness, and make their confession with their own lips.”

This Arnobius follows us also in the beginning of this century, namely through the years 301, 302, 303, 304; and having not abandoned his previous views regarding this matter, he confirms them with the following testimonies.

Speaking against the tenets of the Romanists, who ordain consecrated, or, properly speaking, exorcised water for baptism, he writes thus (in Psalm 74): “It is written: Thou breakest the heads of the dragons in the waters; that is,” says he, “the heads of the dragons in baptism;” but by saying, in the waters, he means to signify that the same baptism can be administered in all kinds of waters, as, in rivers, lakes, wells, baths, seas, etc. In these the head of the dragon, that is Satan, is broken in all waters. Jacob Mehrn. Bapt. Hist., page 323.

Of the virtue and benefit of baptism he teaches as follows, Psalm 32, where the Psalmist says: “In the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him,” upon which he remarks: “that men, by the true water of baptism, draw nigh to God, who is a refuge from the fear of Satan that encompasses us.” Jacob Mehrn., page 324.

Again, Psalm 32, he says: “Man is redeemed; no angel, nor any other creature, but man alone praises his mercy, says the Lord, whose sins he forgives in baptism.” Jacob Mehrn., page 325.

Although these words of Arnobius are somewhat obscure, yet they contain light enough, to emit rays of divine truth concerning the matter of baptism. For when in the first place he says, that the head of the dragon is broken in baptism (by dragon meaning Satan), he certainly indicates thereby, that he speaks of persons who, having attained maturer years, become subject to the assaults of Satan, and that these, in baptism, break the head of the dragon, that is, Satan, by means of the true faith, through Christ; hence he does not speak of children—who are ignorant of the assaults of Satan—and, consequently, not of infant baptism.

Secondly, when he says that men, by the true water of baptism, draw nigh to God, he certainly indicates that he speaks of men who have departed from God through disobedience, consequently, of persons who have arrived at the years of discretion; and not of infants; for how can any one draw nigh to God by baptism, who has not departed from him? Infants have not departed from God through disobedience; hence they cannot draw nigh to him by baptism.

Thirdly, when he speaks of man, who praises the mercy of the Lord, and whose sins the Lord forgives in baptism, he certainly indicates that he speaks of men who are capable of praising the mercy of the Lord, namely, men possessing understanding, and who have sinned; for only he that has sinned can have his sins forgiven; but with infants, who have never sinned, no forgiveness can take place, and consequently, no baptism for the remission of sins. By this the obscure words of Arnobius became clear.

NOTE.—P. J. Twisck records, for the year 306, that Constantine the Great, the son of the believing Helena, was baptized in Jordan, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, after having been instructed (Chron. 4th book, page 89, col. 1); from which it is apparent, that at that time Christians left their children unbaptized, in order that they themselves might believe and be baptized.

A. D. 308.—Fusca, the pious maiden, conceived a desire for the Christian faith when she was quite young, and, having manifested this desire to the servant-maid, Mauro, who also felt an inward drawing towards Christ, they were thoroughly instructed in the Christian faith at Ravenna, by the teacher Hermola, and baptized. P. J. Twisck, Chron. 4th book, page 90, col. 1, from Grond. Bew., letter B, Leonh., lib. 2.

A. D. 315.—It is stated that already in the time of Sylvester, there was taught and maintained the same doctrine which was afterwards maintained by countless numbers of the baptistic Waldenses, yea, that those churches which in the 11th, 12th, 13th, and in subsequent centuries were styled Waldenses Albigenses, and lastly, Mennonites, or Anabaptists, had existed already at that time, and indeed, long before. Of this a certain celebrated author among the Romanists bitterly complains, in a very old book, saying: “These heretics (the people mentioned above) have always had many sects among them; but of all that ever existed, none was more pernicious to the church of God (understand the Roman church) than the Poor of Lyons (the Waldenses or Anabaptists), and this for three reasons: In the first place, because of their antiquity; some asserting that they existed already in the days of Sylvester, others referring them even to the time of the apostles.” Jac. Mehrn., page 615.

In another place Jacob Mehrning writes thus about the abovementioned people: “This is not a new sect that originated only at that time (that is, in the time of Waldus); for the papistic writers themselves confess that they existed already in the time of Pope Sylvester, nay, long before him, even in the time of the apostles.” B. H., page 670.

In another place he writes that Flaccius has also recorded the same, from an ancient papistic book, namely, that they existed from the time of Sylvester, yea, from the time of the apostles; and that Thuanus, though he compares them to another people, states that their doctrine has continued through many centuries.” Page 682.

The time of the reign of Sylvester, who was the first pope of this name, and on the register of the Roman bishops the 34th, is fixed in the year 315. See P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, p. 93, col. 1, from Platina, fol. 63. Fasc. Temp., fol. 99, Hist. Georg., lib. 1, Fr. Ala., fol. 22, Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 13.

A. D. 317.—Donatus, an over-learned bishop at Carthage,[101] who had many adherents in Africa, taught among other things: “That the preaching of the divine word and the administration of the sacraments by an ungodly minister, were of no avail. They (his followers) held that the church of Christ existed only among them, and hence, they rebaptized all who wished to adopt their religion, saying that the heretics, or the Pope, had no Christian church, and consequently, no baptism, inasmuch as there was only one God, one faith, one Gospel, one church, and one baptism. ‘They, like the Anabaptists, also held,’ says Franck, ‘that no children, even in the extremity of death, should be baptized, but only believing adults who desired it.’ ”

When he was imprisoned he upbraided Augustine, saying that no one ought to be imprisoned on account of his faith, God had given man his free will, to believe as he chose. Concerning all this, see, P. J. Twisck Chron., 4th book, p. 93, col. 2, and page 94, col. 1, from Merula, fol. 255. Zeg., fol. 79. Seb. Franck, Chron. van de Roomsche Ketters, letter D., fol. 76, printed A. D. 1563.

As regards Donatus, if it be true that he erred in some things, or failed in some matter of faith, we will not defend him therein; however, this much is certain, that owing to the absence of his writings, we have no other information concerning him, than that which comes to us through the mouth and hand of his adversaries.

Concerning this, P. J. Twisck, in a certain place, expresses his regret, saying, that in his Chronijk, for the year 410, he wrote something derogatory to his followers, before he had been properly informed regarding it; which he afterwards, for the year 417, refutes and explains more clearly by quoting from Bullinger: “That the followers of Donatus were similar to the Anabaptists (whom he calls Baptists); that they taught, that no one ought to be compelled to do good or to accept the faith.” Again: “that every heretic should be left to follow his particular faith without restraint or compulsion.”

On this account, P. J. Twisck, in the same place, relates from another author, that it is quite probable that these people were burdened with many unjust accusations. “It would be desirable,” writes he, “to have in our possession their writings, teachings, and deeds; for if it be the case, that they were in all respects like the Anabaptists, and would compel no one in matters of faith, then it is sufficiently apparent, that they are unjustly charged by other writers, with tyranny. I have given this a place here, because the year 410 was already arranged when this reached me.” Thus far, P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 147, col. 2, from H. Bulling. Contra Anbapt., lib. 5, fol. 216, 222.

NOTE.—We accept of the writings of Donatus only that which is good and true; for the rest we assume no responsibility.

About A. D. 318.—It appears that when Athanasius was yet a boy, at Alexandria also, baptism was not administered otherwise than upon confession of faith; at least, that it was not customary to baptize infants, is evident from the following circumstances of a certain occurrence related by Ruffinus and Zozomenus: “When the day of the martyr Peter was celebrated at Alexandria, by the Bishop Alexander, and he, after the solemn service was over, was awaiting his assistants, or pupils to dine with him, he observed in the distance some children playing on the sea shore, who, very probably, not for the first time were imitating the bishop and those things which are generally done in church. But when he observed the children more attentively, he noticed that they were performing some mysterious things. Astonished at this, he summoned his assistants to him, and showed them what he had seen from a distance. Then he commanded them to seize the children and bring them to him. When they came, he asked them, what they had been playing, and what and how they had been doing? They, as was natural for their years, at first were frightened, and denied the matter, but afterwards related it just as it had taken place, and confessed that they, through Athanasius, who in this game had imitated the Bishop, had baptized some catechumens, that is, boys who had not been baptized. Alexander then inquired of those who they said had been baptized, what questions had been put to them, and what they had answered; likewise interrogating him who had put the questions; and found that all was in accordance with the manner of our religion. Jac. Mehrn., 2d part, pp. 356, 357, from Nicephor., lib. 8, cap. 44. Also, H. Montan. Nietigh., pp. 64, 65, from Ruffin. Eccl. Hist. 1, cap. 14. Zozom. Eccl. Hist., lib. 3, cap. 16.

From these circumstances it is evident that infant baptism was not customary there. First, when we take into consideration the conduct of these boys, we see that in the Christian church at Alexandria the usual mode of baptizing at that time was this, namely: that the Bishop, or whoever administered baptism, first interrogated the candidates for baptism, and then, after they had answered him, they were baptized.

Secondly, if we consider the boys themselves, who apparently were ten or twelve years old, which probability is increased by the fact that Ruffinus (as H. Montanus shows), calls them catechumens, that is, such as were being instructed in the faith, which is plainly indicated by their performance, since they were able to imitate in every particular such important services. These boys are nevertheless called unbaptized, wherefore Athanasius, though by way of play, baptized them.

Moreover, that these boys were born of Christian parents, appears in various ways, as, for instance, in this, that they diligently attended the Christian assemblies, for without this they could never have represented so completely in all its particulars, the baptism practiced in the church. Likewise, in the fact that Alexander and his assistants (as the account further sets forth), enjoined the parents of these boys, who before were unbaptized, but had now been thus baptized, to bring them up in that vocation, namely, in the Christian religion, which certainly would not have been done, had their parents been heathen and not Christians. It is also stated that this was done with invocation and confession of God’s holy name, which certainly would not have been the case with heathen, who worshiped either no god, or many gods.

As to what Alexander held of this performance, we leave it to its own merits; it suffices us to have shown that at that time the Christians at Alexandria suffered their children to remain unbaptized; inasmuch as they were first instructed, and then baptized upon confession of their faith, which, as has been shown, is clearly indicated by the course of the aforementioned boys.

A. D. 333.—It is recorded that in the first great council at Nice, held against Arius, and various innovations in the church, it was resolved among other things:

“Canon 21. The Paulianists and Photinians shall be rebaptized.”

“Canon 12. If any apostatize under persecution, without having been tormented, and sincerely repent, they shall be put among the catechumens for five years, and after two more years, shall be reinstated among the faithful, with prayer.”

“Canon 13. But they who, for the sake of the confession of the faith, have relinquished the military profession and again return to it, shall do penance for thirteen years, and then be received again; however, if they truly repent, the bishop is authorized to mitigate the term of penance, provided he sees that their repentance is fruitful and devout.”

“Canon 15. Concerning the catechumens who have apostatized, it is decided, that they shall be excluded from the prayers of the catechumens who have not apostatized, for three years, and at the end of that time be received back again.” Jac. Mehrn., pages 352, 353, ex Concil. Nicen. Secund. Ruffin.

This is the great Council which is extolled as orthodox and Christian by nearly all so-called Christians. Be this as it may, we see no reason to praise it so highly, seeing that we must honor the precepts of God’s holy word alone, whereas the rules of that council were made by fallible men. Yet, so far as these men have laid down precepts that accord with the precepts of God’s holy word, or, at least, do not militate against them, so far we accept, or, at least, do not oppose them.[102]

When it is said, in Canon 21, that the Paulianists and Photinians shall be rebaptized, it establishes, that, according to the Holy Scriptures, not every baptism is a genuine or true baptism, and that consequently there is but one baptism which can in truth be called genuine, namely, that baptism which is administered by the true church, and upon the true faith. This is also established at this day by the Anabaptists, and regarded as a precept from the holy word of God.

It is also said in the 15th Canon concerning the catechumens, that if 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.

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.”

Page 384. Vicecomes (Lib. 1, cap. 20) quotes the following from Ephrem Syrus: “This declaration of renunciation, as it is called, which we make in baptism, seems to be a small matter, but it has a deeper meaning, and he that observes it rightly is truly blessed; for with these few words, namely those spoken in baptism, we let go all that is called evil, and is hated of God, and renounce the same; and these things are not one, two, or ten, but everything that can be called evil, for you say: ‘I renounce Satan and all his works.’ ” “This,” writes Jac. Mehrn., “is certainly not a meaningless or frivolous performance that can be imposed on infants.”

A. D. 365.—About the beginning of this year, Gregory of Nyssa is mentioned, who, observing, it seems, how some came to baptism, unprepared and with an ungodly mind, wrote the following for their instruction: “When we pass through the sacramental water of baptism, we must mortify in the water all that is evil and vicious, such as unchastity, rapacity, luxury, frivolity, pride, vanity of the mind, envy, and the like. We must also drown and forsake in the water, as much as is possible, not only the gross vices, with their operations, but also the emotions and pollutions of the mind which, in some measure, cleave to human nature.” Greg. Nyss., lib. de vita Mosis. Also, Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 328.

When at this time some thought it was needful to be baptized in consecrated water, he declared in a certain sermon, that this was not necessary, but that faith and the blessing of the minister were all that a person needed for baptism; for every place is the Lord’s, and all kinds of water may be used for baptism, if God only finds faith, for this he accepts, and the blessing of the minister, which sanctifies. Bapt. Hist., 2d. part, page 376, from Vicecom., lib. 1, cap. 14, from Greg. Nyss.

In another place he very earnestly admonishes some persons who deferred their baptism, that they should have their names registered among the catechumens, in order that, having been truly examined and instructed in the faith, they might receive baptism. Concerning this, I find the following annotation (Bapt. Hist., page 376, from Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 12): “Gregory of Nyssa says in a sermon, to those who had long deferred their baptism: ‘Come, ye who are burdened to your sanctification; give me your names, that I may write them with ink in earthly books; but may God record them on tablets that never perish.’ ”

Thus, also Gregory of Nyssa, as has been shown, wrote sound and correct doctrine respecting baptism. Besides this we have not been able to find any other testimony from him relative to this subject.

A. D. 366.—Infant baptism, as it appears, beginning to gain a foothold in some places, the teachers at Laodicea, in Phrygia Pacatiana, declared themselves decidedly against it, in a public convention or assembly, in which, among other things, it was resolved: “That those whom it was the intention to baptize, should previously be instructed in the faith, and be examined concerning it, on Thursday of the last week of Lent.” Compare Seb. Franck, Cons. Laod., with P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 112, col. 1, 2.[104]

It is recorded that about this time, in another convention of ministers, called the Elibertine Council, it was resolved among other things: “That persons who embrace the Christian faith shall, if they lead a pious life, be admitted to baptism, in eighteen months or two years.” Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 8, from the 42d Canon of the Elibertine Council, as noted by Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 372.

Here we cannot but see the uprightness and carefulness of the aforementioned ministers, who, so as not to act contrary to the command of Christ, and baptize any without true faith and repentance, deemed it preferable to defer for eighteen months or two years, the baptism of even those catechumens, whose life was well spoken of; in order that, having in the meantime well counted the cost, they might erect a good building, and be built up by baptism as living stones in the Christian temple of the church.

In the meantime, it appears that an abuse obtained in the administration of baptism, namely, that a plate was presented to the candidates, that they might put some money on it (either for the minister, or for the poor). But this was also abolished at that time, with these words: “It has also seemed proper to us, to ordain that hereafter the candidates for baptism shall not put any money on the plate, as has been the custom.” Bapt. Hist., page 372, ex Concilio Elibertino Vicecom., lib. 4, cap. 2.

From this custom of presenting a plate to the candidates, that they might put money on it, and from its abolishment, the plain inference is, that the candidates were not little children, and that the decree enacted concerning them, did not concern little children, for these have neither the knowledge nor the ability to do it, or voluntarily to omit it.

About A. D. 370.—We are informed that about this time there taught and wrote Optatus Milevitanus, a catechist, who, it is stated, by virtue of his office instructed the young in the articles of the faith, in order that after previous instruction, they might be baptized upon their own confession. Speaking of the things that are to be observed in and about baptism, he says: “We know that in the observance of holy baptism there are three essentials. The first relates to the holy Trinity, the second to the believer, and the third to the baptizer; but they must not all be weighed in the same balance.” Bapt. Hist., page 327, from Opt. Mil., lib. 3.

Although these words seem somewhat obscure, they nevertheless contain enough light for us to perceive clearly, of what baptism, and of what matter he speaks. As regards the matter of which he here treats, it apparently is the dignity of baptism, in order to prove which, he alleges that in baptism there are three very worthy things. Mentioning the most worthy first, he says that it is God or the Holy Trinity. As the second, he mentions the believer, namely, him who stands ready to be baptized; for he is very worthy in the sight of God, since Christ says: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark 16:16. As the third, he mentions the baptizer, namely, him who has received so worthy an office from God. From these three worthy circumstances he justly concludes the dignity of baptism.

From this it is as clear as sunlight, of what baptism he speaks, for in mentioning the believer, in connection with baptism, and speaking of him as the one to be baptized, he certainly indicates that he does not speak of children, or of infant baptism, but of the baptism of believers. Moreover, a little after the preceding words, he says concerning the candidate for baptism, of whom he speaks: “He follows the faith of the believers.”

Vicecomes (lib. 2, cap. 4), cites Optatus Milevitanus, and says that in the 5th book against Parmes he expounds the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 3:6, on this wise: “‘I have planted, Apollos watered,’ that is: O ye heathen, I have made you disciples of Christ; Apollos has baptized these disciples.”

Likewise in the 2d book, 7th chapter, Vicecomes writes: “Optatus was a catechist at Carthage.” Also, Bapt. Hist., page 375.

These things confirm our previous declaration; for, when he calls unbelieving and unbaptized persons heathen, and, on the other hand, pronounces those who had been instructed in the faith, and baptized upon it, disciples of Christ, without remarking whether they were born of Christian, or of heathen parents, he declares thereby, that it is not birth, but unbelief and absence of baptism, which constitutes one a heathen, and that not Christian parentage, but faith and baptism, make one a Christian; which well accords with the words of Paul, Gal. 3:26–28: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Again, the fact that Optatus, as Vicecomes writes, was a catechist, indicates that at the place where he was teacher it was the custom, to teach the candidates for baptism the catechism, that is, to instruct them in the faith, before they were baptized; hence these candidates were called catechumens.

NOTE.—Damascenus writes that “at this time, A. D. 370, the Gospel was preached in all the world, not by the force of arms, nor by subjugating its adversaries through war, but by a handful of poor, naked, and martyred people, that is, by patience and faith. For, how could the church have martyrs, if she made martyrs?” Damasc., 3 Cent., cap. 33. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 116, col. 2.

A. D. 380.—Gregory of Nazianzus, in Cappadocia, born of Christian parents, was not baptized until he was in his twentieth year; concerning which, Jacob Mehrning gives the following account: “His father, Bishop at Nazianzus, and also called Gregory, and his mother Nonna, a pious woman of Christian parentage, knew nothing of infant baptism, for they did not have their son (Gregory) baptized in his infancy. His baptism, according to history, did not take place until he was in his twentieth year. Bapt. Hist., page 354. Also, H. Mont. Nietigh., page 62.

In order to show still further, how vain and useless infant baptism was deemed at that time, by various pious and learned men, and how baptism was even deferred till late in life, we will adduce one or two brief examples.[105]

A. D. 381.—It is stated that in this year there was baptized at Constantinople, Nectarius, after he had attained his full understanding, yea, such an advanced age and penetrating knowledge, that he was at the same time elected bishop or teacher of that place, the like of which occurred previously, as stated concerning Ambrose, in the year 363. See P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 122, from Histor. Tripart., lib. 9, cap. 13. Adolph. Apol., fol. 163. Leonh., lib. 2. Merula, fol. 312.

As regards the statement how precipitately and unexpectedly Nectarius was elected bishop or teacher of that place, even as was related of Ambrose, it is not our purpose to defend or advocate it; but simply to show that he deferred baptism in his youth, and was not baptized until he had attained to quite an advanced age.

NOTE.—In A. D. 382, Theodosius, born and bred by Christian parents, was baptized at Thessalonica, by Bishop Ascholius. Hist. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 6, Socrates. Also, H. Montan., page 70.

A. D. 383.—Basilius[106] and Eubulus, said to each other: “Let us sell all our goods, and distribute to the poor, and then journey to the holy city, that we may behold for ourselves the wonderful works of God, and thereby awaken within us a confidence towards God.” Having done this, and taken with them the clothes necessary for baptism, they journeyed to Jerusalem. Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 4, from Amphilochius. Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 389.

Amphilochius writes of a baptized Jewish physician, who distributed the money he had gained by his profession, among the hospitals, and gave the rest to other poor people. Vicecom., lib. 5, cap. 46. Bapt. Hist., see above.

We mentioned Basilius and Eubulus, who journeyed to Jerusalem, taking with them the clothes necessary for baptism, in order to be baptized. From this it appears that it was the custom at that time in Jerusalem—and one that remained in use long afterwards in many warm countries—to baptize the candidates in or at rivers, and that they went partly or with the whole body down into the water, and then came up again; to which end they divested themselves of their own clothes, usually had on a white or linen garment. This is the kind of clothes that Basilius and Eubulus appear to have taken with them, in order to be baptized therein.

Now, compare this with the baptism of infants in the cradle, and you will at once see that this mode of baptism cannot take place with infants, since they have neither the ability nor the understanding necessary for the observance of such a mode of baptism.

We will now proceed to the views of Basilius with regard to baptism, and what he, according to the testimony of ancient writers, has taught and written concerning it. First, it is stated of him, that in writing of baptism, he in no wise mentions infant baptism, but, on the other hand, the baptism of catechumens, that is, persons receiving instruction in the faith.

Concerning this, H. Montanus and Jacob Mehrning unanimously give the following testimony: “The aforementioned Basilius who was bishop of Cesarea, in Cappadocia, A. D. 386, exhorts only the catechumens to baptism, without once mentioning infants, yea, he sufficiently indicates that infant baptism was not the custom there at his time, saying: ‘Ye who have been evangelized by the apostles, repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ ”

True, he exhorts also the young to baptism, yet not such as are altogether destitute of understanding, but those who can hear the words by which he admonishes them to baptism, that is, adults, and not infants. He uses such expressions throughout this entire exhortation, and also in some of his other writings, as in the book of the “Holy Spirit,” chap. 12, 14, and 27; but nowhere does he mention infant baptism. H. Montan. Nietigh., page 73. Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 365.

Moreover, the words of Basilius, whenever he treats of baptism, clearly express that they cannot be applied to infants. For, showing the nature of baptism, and what it is, he says (Lib. 3, Contra Eunom.): “Baptism is a seal of faith.” Again (Exhort. ad Bapt.): “Baptism is the mark of the Christian champion.” Again (de Instr. ad Bapt. Ven.): “Baptism is a likeness of death, burial, and the resurrection of the dead.” Bapt. Hist., p. 322.

These things are so clear that they require no explanation, and we shall therefore proceed to what he says further. As regards the form of baptism, according to the institution of Christ, he writes (Lib. 3, Contra Eunom.): “Our baptism is administered according to the institution of the Lord, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

Again, concerning the faith which must accompany such baptism, he says (Lib. de Sp. S., cap. 12): “When we believe on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we are also baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Bapt. Hist., page 323.

Respecting the words of the candidates, and what manner of conduct they observed at baptism, he says, in the last named book, that the candidates for baptism renounced Satan and all his angels. Again (Exhort. ad Bapt.), he states that they lifted up their hands towards heaven; that they kneeled down in prayer. Bapt. Hist., page 336.

He makes mention, moreover, in many places, of various other circumstances and matters pertaining to baptism; of which we will present the following to the reader.

Basilius the Great writes (Contra Eunom., lib. 3): “Faith must precede, if the believer is to be sealed by baptism.”

D. Vicecomes adduces from Basilius, book 1, chap. 23, of his Exhortation to Baptism the following: “When wilt thou become a Christian? When shall we recognize thee as one of our number? Last year thou deferredst it till the present Easter; and now thou wilt wait till the next. Take heed, lest thou be deceived in thy expectation of a long life.”

Again, chap. 31, Basilius, in the 128th epistle, commends C. Posthumanius, and wishes that he had been his godfather, since the same had made such a glorious confession at his baptism; and this with great contrition, pain, and anguish of spirit; and had evinced in his life and conversation the moderation which the confession of the Christian name demands.

Again, chap. 33, Vicecomes writes: “Basilius is greatly astonished (in the 23d epistle to Boniface), at infant baptism and godfathership, saying: ‘Since you cannot promise anything certain, either with regard to the child’s future faith, or its present thoughts, I pray thee, beloved, what then does it signify that, when the children are brought to baptism, the parents, as sureties, answer in their stead, and say that the children do that which at that age they cannot even think, or, which if they can, is hid from us? But those who bring the child are asked: Does it believe in God? and, for this age, which knows not whether there is a God, the parents answer: It believes. Thus also the other questions are responded to. I am astonished that in such matters the parents answer so presumptuously for the child.’ ” Bapt. Hist., pages 390, 391.

This can certainly be called a candid rejection of infant baptism, and not only of infant baptism, but of all the absurd questions and answers which customarily occurred at the baptism of children, and upon which infant baptism was founded. He accuses the children of ignorance, saying that they do not know whether there is a God; the parents he accuses of presumption because they thus boldly dare answer in their stead, and say: “The child believes.” The priests who baptize such children, he accuses of folly, because they presented such improper and unfounded questions respecting the ignorant infants, and demanded that they should be answered in the child’s name. Infant baptism itself he charges with worthlessness and falsity, seeing, as Vicecomes says, he, in his 23d epistle to Boniface, is greatly astonished at infant baptism.

Basilius, in order to still more fully state his views concerning this matter, adduces various passages, which effectually overthrow infant baptism, and establish baptism upon faith.

D. Vicecomes (Lib. 2, cap. 3), writes thus: “Basilius calls the catechumens nurtured ones, since they were fed and nurtured with instruction in the Christian faith.”

Again (cap. 4, Basilius Serm. 1, de Bapt.) he says: “We must know that we must first teach and instruct, and ultimately administer holy baptism to those thus rightly instructed.” And, a little after this: “Instruction must precede baptism, and first of all everything which stands in the way of teaching and instruction, must be removed.”

Again, in book 3, chapter 4, of the Exhortation to Baptism, he writes: “Examine thy conscience; go into the secret chamber of thy heart; awaken within thee for a time the remembrance of former things.”

Again, chapter 5: “As soon as any one came to John, and confessed his sins, however great and heinous they were, he was baptized in Jordan’s floods, and immediately received remission of sins.” Bapt. Hist., page 392.

All these passages of Basilius as cited by D. Vicecomes, himself a pedobaptist, and noted by J. M. in Bapt. Hist., are so clearly opposed to infant baptism, that further comment is unnecessary. We will therefore let this suffice, and proceed to the testimony of several other persons in the fourth century.

A. D. 390.—John Chrysostom, born of Christian parents, was at this time baptized upon his faith by Bishop Melitius, being twenty-one years old. Episcopii. Antew. op de proeve des Remonstr. Catechism., page 359.

CHRYSOSTOM’S VIEWS RESPECTING BAPTISM.

Chrysostom, though he lived in and under the Roman church, and was not fully enlightened in all respects, nevertheless wrote soundly and correctly on the subject of baptism, as is shown by the following extracts from his writings.

Jacob Mehrning, in Bapt. Hist., following the Centuriæ Magdeburgenses, says, page 403: “How baptism must be received, St. Chrysostom reminds us (Hom. 14, in Marc.): ‘Thus ye who desire to receive baptism, since we are all under the dominion of sin, lay hold first of the feet of your Savior; wash them with your tears; dry them with your hair; and, this done, you may approach his head. When you then descend with your Savior into the fountain of life, that is, the water of baptism, you may learn how the head of your Redeemer was anointed.’ ”

Moreover, he explains still further, how one must prepare himself for baptism, and this with such affectionate words as should move every soul.

In Bapt. Hist., page 445, Homil. 13, Marc., Chrysostom says: “Will you come to baptism? O how happy are you when you shall be regenerated in Christ! when you shall put on Christ; when you are buried with Christ, that you may also rise with him. At another day you shall be made acquainted in proper order with the things that are expedient for this mystery. In the meantime I tell you this, that you may know it, and may prepare yourselves for the coming day (namely, for baptism). But may the almighty God strengthen your hearts, and make you worthy of his baptism. May he himself come into you, at baptism. May he himself hallow the water wherewith you are sanctified. Let no one go there with a doubting heart. Let no one say: Do you indeed think that my sins will be forgiven? He that goeth there thus, his sins shall not be forgiven. It is better, not to go there at all, than in this manner. Remember this, especially you who thus receive baptism, that you may serve God.”

I beg you, dear reader, to observe attentively these words of Chrysostom. Does he say anything at all different from what the Anabaptist teachers of the present day say? O no! he follows the same course. For, first he says: “Will you come to baptism?” He does not say: Will you carry your infants to baptism? How could he speak more plainly? For, to come one’s self, and to desire to come, is certainly no child’s work.

Then he says: “O how happy are you, when you shall be regenerated in Christ? when you shall put on Christ?” (namely, in or through baptism). But what else is there said by this, than what the apostle Paul declares of believers, namely, that they are saved by the washing of regeneration, that is, baptism, Tit. 3:5; and that they put on Christ by baptism, Gal. 3:27.

Then he says: “At another day you shall be made acquainted in proper order with the things that are expedient for this mystery” (that is, baptism). In like manner, Christ teaches to instruct the candidates for baptism before they are baptized. Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15,16. John likewise first instructed those whom he baptized. Matt. 3:7,8. Peter first instructed the Jews. Acts 2:38. Philip first instructed the Ethiopian. Acts 8:34,35. Ananias first taught Saul the faith. Acts 9:17,18.

He further adds this wish: “May the almighty God strengthen your hearts, and make you worthy of his baptism.” But who knows not, that newborn infants can not be strengthened in their hearts before baptism? and that, consequently, they cannot receive baptism worthily (that is, with a holy purpose and believing hearts), since they know neither good nor evil, Deut. 1:39; nor their right hand from their left, Jonah 4:11; and do as children do, 1 Cor. 13:11. Hence, this wish of Chrysostom, respecting baptism, cannot apply to them.

Finally, having declared, with what heart and purpose we must go to baptism, namely not with a doubting heart, he says: “You who thus receive baptism that you may serve God.” These are certainly plain words, which prove manifestly, that the baptism of which he speaks is far different from the baptism of infants, since these are incapable, not only of going to baptism with an undoubting or assured heart, but also of going there at all; not less incapable are they of receiving baptism with the purpose of serving God. Compare this with the words of Chrysostom, and you will find that they are as different from infant baptism as heaven is from the earth.

Bapt. Hist., page 461. Palladius, in the Life of Chrysostom, speaks of an uproar which the Emperor Theophilus[107] raised against bishop Chrysostom, persecuting him; which occurred shortly before Easter. There was no other alternative for those who sided with the bishop, and fasted with him, than to go to the Emperor and the Empress, in the week of confession, and to entreat them with tears, that they would spare the church of Christ, especially on account of the feast, and for the sake of those who were to be baptized, having received sufficient instruction for this purpose; therefore, they should release their bishop.

Here again are several items from which we may perceive that in the church of which Chrysostom was bishop or teacher, baptism was administered after previous instruction, and upon faith. For, in the first place, mention is made of the time in which this took place, namely, shortly before Easter, in the week of confession. Any one who has but a little experience, will find that that was the time and week in which it was customary to instruct the candidates before baptism, hear the confession of their faith, and properly examine them, in order to baptize them on the following Easter days. In the second place, mention is made of those who were to be baptized, and had received sufficient instruction for it; which so plainly illustrates what we have aimed to show, namely, that baptism at that time was administered after previous instruction, that we deem it unnecessary to add anything further with regard to it, and, hence, let it suffice.

OF THE BENEFIT, VIRTUE AND OPERATION OF BAPTISM.

Chrysostom on Phil., chap. 3, page 405, says: “Christ has given or ordained baptism as a purgative, and thus we have spewed out all wickedness, and by it have been made free from all our sins. The heat has abated, the fever is checked, all impurities have departed, and through the Spirit all other evil things have been purged out—those springing from fornication as well as those having their origin in the vanity of the mind.”

Again, on Heb. 7: “Therefore God gives baptism, that it may wash away sin, and not increase it.”

Again, on Col. 3: “Truly, before baptism we were very impure, but after it we become golden.”[108]

Again, on Heb. 11: “What then constitutes brotherhood, if not the washing of regeneration (that is, baptism)?”

Who does not perceive by these passages of Chrysostom, that the baptism of which he speaks, applies in no wise to infants, but only and exclusively to rational persons; for, when he first says to those who wished to receive baptism, that they should (spiritually) take hold of the feet of Christ, and wash them with their tears, and then says that Christ has given or ordained baptism for a purgative, and that they had thus spewed out all wickedness (that is, sin), he sufficiently indicates thereby that he is not speaking of the baptism of infants, since, these cannot do the things which he describes as being connected with baptism.

All these things are still more clearly established by the following passages from his writings, as we shall show.

In Bapt. Hist., page 406, Chrysostom, on 1 Cor. 10, says: “The passage of the Jews through the Red Sea was a type of the future baptism.” A little further on, he explains this, saying: “For there it was water, here it is also water; yea, here it is the washing, and there it was the sea; here they all go into the water, there they did likewise. But would you know the truth of the matter? There they were delivered from Egypt, but here from idolatry; there Pharaoh was drowned, but here the devil; there the Egyptians perished, but here the old man of sin is buried.”

Again, on John 3, Hom. 27: “We have committed many and grievous sins, and, from youth to old age, have not refrained from staining our souls therewith; yet God does not require an account from us, but absolves us therefrom, through the washing of regeneration (that is, baptism), and has freely given us righteousness and holiness.”

How could any one speak more plainly and clearly of the true baptism of believers? For, when in the first passage he says that in being baptized we are delivered from idolatry, and that in or through baptism the old man of sin is buried; and in the second passage declares that they, having committed many and grievous sins, from youth to old age, are absolved therefrom through the washing of regeneration, that is, baptism, it again is very evident that this does not at all apply to children, since they, never having lived in idolatry, cannot forsake idolatry; neither can they, who, being yet in their infancy, have never lived according to the old man, much less have died unto it, bury the old man of sin in or through baptism; finally, they who being still infants, have not attained to old age, cannot or need not be absolved through the washing of regeneration (that is, by baptism), from the sins which they have not committed in this life.

Bapt. Hist., page 410. That baptism ought not to be deferred, Chrysostom (Hom. 1, on Acts) expounds with these words: “If any one say: I am afraid, I answer: If thou art afraid, thou shouldst have received and observed baptism. But thou wilt say: Even therefore I do not receive it, because I am afraid. But art thou not afraid to die in this condition? Thou sayest: Ah! God is gracious. Well then, therefore receive baptism, seeing he is so gracious, and helps thee.” He says finally: “It is impossible, I say impossible, that he, who on such a hope defers baptism, can do anything good or commendable.”

Bapt. Hist., page 420. The teachers of the church sometimes call baptism a consecration; regarding this Chrysostom says (Hom. 1, on Acts): “Who will fully believe me, how it pains me to the heart, when some one dies, who has not been consecrated,” that is, baptized. And, a little further on he writes: “What anguish of soul I experience, when I see how others do not hasten to baptism till their breath is about to leave them,” that is, when they must die.

These passages of Chrysostom indicate how exceedingly sorry he was, that some deferred their baptism to the end of life, who ought to have received it in time; yet not before the time of faith or repentance, much less in infancy, since he speaks only of those persons who had voluntarily, and not less presumptuously, neglected their baptism. Hence it sometimes occurred that persons desired to be baptized in their sickness, yea, on their deathbed, which this good man opposed with conclusive arguments. Bapt. Hist., page 412, Chrysostom says: “The mysteries are glorious and greatly to be desired, but let no soul that is about to die, receive the washing; for that is not the time for the mysteries (baptism), but to make a will; the time for the mysteries (baptism) is when the mind is sound, and the soul purified.”

Finally, Chrysostom here again produces two things which do not apply to infant baptism. First, his saying that “the mysteries” (namely, of baptism), “are glorious and greatly to be desired;” for such a desire cannot exist in infants. Secondly, his declaration, that “the time for the mysteries (or, for baptism), is when the mind is sound, and the soul purified;” for infants neither have nor know unsoundness of mind or impurity of soul. Hence neither the soundness of their minds nor the purification of their souls can be promoted or had in view, and baptism can, for this very reason, have no place with them.

CHRYSOSTOM’S VIEWS RESPECTING SEVERAL OTHER ARTICLES OF FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK, IN HIS CHRONIJK VAN DEN ONDERGANK DER TYRANNEN, 5th BOOK, PP. 136 AND 137.

“John Chrysostom,” he writes, “a celebrated, zealous, and eloquent teacher or bishop at Constantinople, was expelled from his bishopric, and relegated into misery; much ignominy and suffering were inflicted on him, and he died in banishment.

“His adherents and people were greatly persecuted by imperial edicts commanding them also to attend church and hear their enemies (namely, those of the Roman church), which they would not do, but held their own meetings in the farthest outskirts of the city. When this was reported to the Emperor by the bishop, a squad of soldiers was immediately sent to the place, who with sticks and stones dispersed the meeting, robbed those who had assembled of their goods, and apprehended such as could not make their escape. Finding it impossible to meet in public, they chose voluntary banishment, and forthwith departed, each his own way. Besides this, the adherents of Chrysostom were unjustly accused of having caused a conflagration, which the common people, out of spite towards Chrysostom, had kindled in the temple in which he had taught; on account of which they had to suffer much; the cruelty practiced being as great as that of the first persecutions.

“Again, the aforesaid John Chrysostom, also called, John Goldenmouth,[109] on account of his golden or excellent teachings, and his eloquent tongue taught from Matt. 5, that we ought not to swear at all, neither rightly nor falsely, and concludes very forcibly, with many words from the passage, Matt. 5:34: ‘Swear not at all,’ that it is not lawful for a Christian to swear. He conclusively refutes all objections, and maintains that now we ought not to swear. Read yourselves his full exposition of said passages.

Prior to him, likewise Haimus, on Rev. 10, writes, saying, That all swearing is now prohibited unto men, it being lawful only for God and the angels, who neither deceive, nor can be deceived.

Seb. Franck notes the following concerning this Haimus: “Haimus, the teacher also wrote a great deal against the Pope and the Roman church; among other things, that swearing is lawful only for God and the angels, but to men all swearing is forbidden. On Rev. 10, Chron., Roman. Kett., letter H.

NOTE.—This view (that we ought not to swear), is also ascribed to Isiodorus. Tract, Loop der Werelt, page 99.

We return to the account of P. J. Twisck, concerning Chrysostom, page 136, col. 2. He writes: “This Goldenmouth, John Chrysostom, taught also mightily against cruelty, tyranny, war, and bloodshed, maintaining that it is altogether improper for Christians to wage war, and that peace and quiet are to be taught in the kingdom of Christ. Christ, he says, compels not, drives not away, oppresses not, but accords to each his free will, saying: ‘If any man will.’ ”

Read also, on Matt. 13, how he explains that the tares (to which the heretics are compared) are not to be rooted out, which, he says, Christ spoke for the purpose of preventing and forbidding war and bloodshed. No violence is to be employed in heavenly things; the wicked teachings which have proceeded from heretics, are to be reprehended and anathematized; but the men we must spare.

Again, he is also greatly opposed to the worshiping of the saints, saying that God is not like the tyrants, with whom intercession is necessary; and that we are not to confess our sins to any one except to God alone. “Thou must confess thy sins,” he says, “that thou mayest eradicate them. If thou art ashamed to confess to any one, confess them daily in thy soul. I say not, that thou shalt confess them to thy fellow servant, that he may curse them and upbraid thee; but tell them to God, who alone can heal thee from them, and follow herein the prophet, who says: ‘Commit thy way unto the Lord . . . and he shall bring it to pass.’ ” Ps. 37:5.

And on Matt. 23, he says with many excellent words: That with human doctrines, we serve God in vain, and that there is no other testimony of the truth, no other certain test of heresy, than the Holy Scriptures, and no other way by which we may know which is the Christian church.

Again, Chrysostom says: “When the Roman Empire shall be put down, then shall antichrist come.” On Matt. 24, he says: “He speaks not unreasonably, who by the abomination of desolation understands antichrist, who, it is thought, will shortly afterwards rise, and will occupy the holy place of the church, under the name of Christ.” Also, on 2 Thess. 2: “When the Empire shall be waste and vacant, then antichrist shall occupy it, and endeavor to draw to him the kingdom of God and men.”

Further, on Matt. 24: “Beloved, be not moved, when antichrist does the works of Christ, and in the sight of Christians, performs all the offices of Christ; for Satan himself can transform himself into an angel of light. What wonder then, that his servants assume the garb of servants of righteousness, and a semblance of Christianity.

“The Jewish abomination is to be understood as having reference not only to the Jewish war, but, in a spiritual sense, also to antichrist, who in the last time, shall sit in the holy place, occupying the chief places of the church, and leading the souls of men away from God. This is very likely the one of whom Paul says that he shall oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. He, standing in the holy place, has laid waste the church of God with multitudes of heresies.”

Then he says: “Since the Lord Jesus knew what great destruction would come in the last days, he commanded that the Christians who are in Christendom, if they would always continue in the true faith, should resort only to the Holy Scriptures; for, if they would look to other things, they would be offended and corrupted, and not understand what the true church is, and, in that way, fall into this horrible abomination, which sitteth in the holy place of the church.”

“Thus,” writes Twisck, “Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory, Ambrose, Jerome, and most of the ancient teachers, though the Papists esteem them greatly with their mouths, would be nothing better than Roman heretics, and if they were still alive, and would teach these doctrines, they would have to expect nothing but fire and sword.”

“Finally, in the year 408 Chrysostom was released from his life of vexation and exile, in which he suffered much, and fell asleep in peace.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, pages 137 and 138, col. 1, from Chron. Sebastian Franck, fol. 56, 92. Tob. Færi, fol. 73. Merula, fol. 338. Joan. Wales, fol. 166. Cornelius Hillenius, fol. 41.

A. D. 390.—Jerome, born of Christian parents at Syridon, in Illyria, or Dalmatia, and instructed in the Christian doctrine from his youth, was baptized at Rome, yet not before he was in the thirtieth year of his age. Bapt. Hist., pages 841, 365, 366, 373, 593. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 29, col. 1. Tract, van den loop der Werelt, page 47, from Erasmus and Wicelius, in the life of Jerome.

In Bapt. Hist., page 374, we read the following: “Jerome writes in the 78th epistle, that he received his baptism and white garment at Rome, though we know that he was born of Christian parents, at Syridon, in Dalmatia. Hence, says the author, the Christians of that age must not have hastened so much with infant baptism, as is the case in the present time.” This Jerome, though some pedobaptists, yea, the Papists themselves, declare him a good and upright teacher, nevertheless wrote several things of such a nature, that at the present day they would be pronounced heresy by many of these same pedobaptists, especially by the Roman church; hence he is classed among the Roman heretics, that is, among those whose views are at this day pronounced heresy by the Roman church. Chron. Seb. Franck, letter H; P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 138, col. 1.

Touching as to how it stood with baptism at the time of Jerome, I find, in substance, this annotation, Bapt. Hist., page 335: “It is certain, that in the time of Jerome adults were still baptized in the occidental churches, as may be seen in his epistle against the errors of John of Jerusalem.”

He, in Epist. ad Pammach, and Ambrose, in Epistle 83, testify that those who desired baptism were called fellow-desirers.

H. Montanus writes thus: “Jerome, who also lived about that time, and, as some say, was an elder at Rome, or, much earlier, as others suppose, at Jerusalem, also testifies that in his time it was a prevailing custom, to baptize adults who had been brought up in the Christian faith, when they desired baptism, for which reason they were called Competentes, as Jerome states in his letter to Pammachius.” H. Montan. Nietigh., pages 74, 75.

Having now shown how it stood with baptism at the time of Jerome, and that the same was administered in the occidental churches to adults, we shall proceed to Jerome’s individual views and what he has written on this subject, according to ancient writers.

In Bapt. Hist., page 373, Jerome writes to Pammachius: “It is customary with us, publicly to instruct for forty days, those who are to be baptized, and enjoin them to pray to the Holy Trinity.”

D. Vicecomes finally shows, page 375, chap. 41 and 44, that Jerome wrote, that in his time they gave those who were baptized, milk and honey to eat, which, the annotator remarks, is no food for new-born infants. Moreover, he shows what is required for true baptism; namely, regeneration, consisting in the mortifying of the old, and resurrection of the new man. This he expresses in the following two passages:

Jerome further writes, page 323, lib. 12, Comment. in Ezechiel.: “We need not only the first birth, but also the second, in order that we, who are born in the flesh, may be born again after the Spirit.”

Again, page 328, Apol. Contr. Ruffin.: “We say that the old man entirely dies in baptism, and that the new man is raised with Christ in baptism; that the earthly perishes, and the heavenly is born.”

Then he admonishes the candidates for baptism, how they should conduct themselves before and at baptism; as well as how those who had already been baptized before many witnesses, and had made a good confession, ought to manifest themselves.

Again, page 374, Epist. 83, ad Ocean, he writes: “The catechumens who are learning the Christian faith must observe not to have carnal intercourse with women before baptism.”

Again the words of Paul, 1 Tim. 6:12, he expounds as follows: “Thou hast professed a good profession before many witnesses; which was done through thy baptism, when thou didst renounce the world and its pomp, before the elders[110] or teachers, before the ministers, and before the heavenly hosts.”

In the tract called, Klare en Grondige Bewijsing van den Doop, printed 1581, it is stated, letter A, Jerome on Matthew: “The Lord commanded his apostles, that they should first instruct and teach all nations, and then baptize those instructed, in the sacrament of faith; for it is not possible for the body to receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have previously received the true faith.”

Who could ever believe that this man at any time defended, or at least, not opposed but admitted infant baptism, seeing he opposes it in the places mentioned with such abundant clearness and explicitness? We note only the last mentioned passage, where he certainly says, without the least dissimulation or exception, that it is not possible for the body to receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have previously received the true faith. How can, may, or shall this be explained otherwise than that there cannot be or consist any other baptism than that which is received with true faith? for this is the very idea expressed by his words.

Nevertheless, there are men who ascribe to Jerome a certain dialogue against Pelagius, in which one Critobulus interrogates, and one Atticus answers, in this wise: Critobulus asks: “Why are children baptized?” Atticus replies: “That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism.” “Why, what sins have they committed?” asks Critobulus. Atticus answers: “Dost thou ask me this? let the evangelic trumpet answer thee.”

But, in order to prove that Jerome defended infant baptism, it would first have to be shown incontrovertibly, that this dialogue is Jerome’s own production, which we have great reason to doubt, since the style as well as the matter of the same do not accord with his other writings, especially those in which he treats of baptism; moreover, there have of old been forgers, who, in order to gain greater renown for their own productions, have ascribed them to celebrated men, or have interpolated their own opinions into their writings; thus, it has been proven that the writings of Justin have been interpolated. Bapt. Hist., page 170. H. Montan., pages 7, 8, 9. Also, the writings of Origen. Bapt. Hist., pages 283 and 291. H. Mont., pages 29–34, 42, 43.

Yea, in this manner, a whole book, also touching on infant baptism, has been falsely ascribed to Dionysius, the Areopagite, who, it is testified, lived in the time of the apostles; this the Magdeburg pedobaptists themselves show. Centur. 1, cap. 2. Also, Jac. Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., 177, 293, 341.

Again, even if it could be shown, which is by no means certain, that this dialogue is Jerome’s own production, it could nevertheless not be proven thereby, that Jerome himself held the views maintained by one party in the dialogue, namely, that infants may be baptized. For, why should we not, with equal justice, ascribe to him the views of the other party, which demands reasons and proof why they may be baptized? For one would certainly be his work as much as the other.

Moreover, every intelligent person knows that books that are written in the form of dialogues, do not always express the author’s individual views, but that frequently the views and debates of others are handled in them, either to censure them, expose their errors, or correct them.

Finally, how could it be possible, that any one endowed with reason and sound judgment should do such contrary things at one and the same time? We have shown how clearly and correctly he speaks of the baptism of adults, yea, recommends it, and not only this, but how he, though he was born of Christian parents, remained unbaptized until he was in his thirtieth year—how then could he admit infant baptism, seeing he decisively opposed it by doctrine and example? unless it be shown that Jerome wrote this article on infant baptism before his conversion, or that he subsequently apostatized from his adopted views, to infant baptism; but as I can find no account of either we will hold to our previous declaration.

JEROME’S VIEWS TOUCHING SEVERAL OTHER MATTERS OF FAITH, ACCORDING TO P. J. TWISCK’S CHRONIJK, ETC., PAGE 129, COL. 1, 2.

“Jerome, born of Christian parents, and brought up and instructed in the Christian doctrine, was baptized at Rome, in the thirtieth year of his age.” Erasmus, Grondig Bewijs, letter A., Mart. Ball., fol. 102.

“Again, Jerome plainly says, respecting the words of the Supper, that with this bread Christ intended to prefigure, represent, and show the truth of his body, and in many places he calls the cup a figure of the blood.

“Again, he teaches, on Matt. 16, that the priests have no more, or just as little, power, to bind or to loose, than the priests of the Old Testament had, to pronounce the lepers clean or unclean. The words of the priest made them neither clean nor unclean, but simply indicated who, according to the law of Moses, was leprous or not leprous; so now the bishop, according to the law of Christ, pronounces, whose sins are retained, and whose are forgiven.

“Again, he also maintains that all days should be esteemed alike, and that men should constantly keep Easter and Sabbath.

“He would likewise have that men should fast daily, ‘for, what avails it,’ says he, ‘if you carry around an empty stomach, for two or three days, and then overload it? Daily you must hunger, and daily you must eat; you must fast so as not to injure the body, but to subdue and break the desires.’

“Again: ‘The Roman church is not to be esteemed more highly than the church of the whole world, whether of France, or of Britannia, etc. But to worship one Christ, and to have one Ruler, or teacher, of the truth, this constitutes a church.’ Chron. Fra., fol. 65, 86.

“Again, of Antichrist he says: ‘And do we not know that the coming of antichrist is nigh at hand? He shall sit in the temple of God, that is to say, in Jerusalem, or in the church, as I apprehend with more truth. Antichrist shall war against the heathen and overcome them.’

“Again: ‘While man lives here, he may be justified, but after death he has no more opportunity to do good works, though some controvert this, saying that men may increase or decrease even after they have died. While we are in this present life, we may help one another by prayer or deeds; but when we come before the judgment seat of God, neither Job, nor Daniel, nor Noah, can pray for any one; then every one must bear his own burden.’ Valent. Vanius, fol. 112.

“Again, Jerome says: ‘He that is spiritual never persecutes him that is carnal. I have learned from the command of the apostles, to avoid a heretic, but not to burn him. Christ came not to smite, but to be smitten. He that is smitten, follows Christ; but he that smites, follows antichrist.’

“ ‘Again, the Lord commanded his apostles that they should first instruct and teach all nations, and then baptize those instructed, in the sacrament of faith; for it is not possible for the body to receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have previously received the true faith.’ ” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 129.

That also in Thessalia infant baptism was not much practiced at this time, A. D. 390, is shown by Socrates, Bapt. Hist., p. 363, book 5, chap. 21, with these words: “Besides, I also know of another custom in Thessalia, namely, that there they baptize only on Easter days; hence nearly all, few excepted, die without baptism.” See also, H. Montan. Nietigheyd, page 71.

But some one may ask: With what words is it expressed in the passage cited, that also in Thessalia infant baptism was not much practiced in A. D. 390, which the writer so confidently asserts. I answer: He expresses two reasons whereby he proves it; in the first place, because, as he says, It was the custom there, to baptize only on Easter days, which indicates that said baptism was not, as Cyprian and his followers had commanded, administered to newborn infants, for these were not born just on Easter days, and, hence, could not be baptized on Easter days, from which it follows that the custom of baptizing on Easter days, was not instituted for newborn infants, but for adult persons, who could prepare themselves for that time. In the second place, when he says, That therefore nearly all, few excepted, died without baptism, it is certainly obvious from this, that all who died without baptism, had not been baptized in their infancy, and that, consequently, many persons were found at this time, who allowed their children to remain unbaptized.

A. D. 391.—It is stated that Augustine (notwithstanding he afterwards became infected with the doctrine of infant baptism), though born of a Christian mother, and the descendant of Christian ancestors, was not baptized before he was in his thirtieth year, (Nauclerus, book 14, Generat., says, in his thirty-third year, by bishop Ambrose, at Milan, on Easter.)

Jacob Mehrning and H. Montanus thus relate this, namely, that Monica, Augustine’s mother, who, though born of Christian parents, was not baptized until she had reached adult years, likewise did not have her son Augustine baptized in his infancy; but that he was baptized when he was already thirty-three, others say, thirty, years old. It is true, we read, say they, that, having become a youth, and fallen very sick, he desired to be baptized; and also, that his mother was engaged then in preparing him for baptism. But when he suddenly recovered from his sickness, his baptism was deferred. Augustine was at that time of such an age, that if he had been baptized, it would really not have been infant baptism, but a baptism which might have been counted with the baptism of adults, had it sprung from a voluntary resolution, for it should have been connected, as Augustine himself declares with his faith and the confession of the name of Christ, which cannot be the case in the baptism of infants.

Augustine there also relates why his mother at that time deferred his baptism, namely, because she, foreseeing the many and great billows of temptation which would roll over his head in his youthful years, feared that the guilt of his sins, after the washing of baptism, would be the greater and more dangerous, which he himself and the whole family, with the exception of his father, then believed. He also tells us, that there were others, too, at that time, who put off or omitted the baptism of their children, from such considerations. Bapt. Hist., pages 363, 364. H. Montan. Nietigh., pages 71, 72.

It appears, moreover, that on that occasion not only Augustine was baptized upon the confession of his faith, but also his son Adeodatus, and his friend Alipius, concerning which we find this notice. Bapt. Hist., page 444, Augustine, bishop of Hippon, in Africa, when he was thirty-three years old, was baptized at Milan, by bishop Ambrose, together with Alipius, and Adeodatus, his natural son, who was fifteen years old at the time. Of this, Augustine, in the 9th book, 6th chap., of his Confessions, says: “When the time had come, that I was to have my name entered on the register of the candidates for baptism, I left the country, and again journeyed to Milan. My dear friend Alipius desired to be baptized with me. Alipius, who was qualified for it, on account of his humility, and the dominion he had over his body, so that in case of emergency, he would have traveled barefoot in winter through the snow in Italy, accompanied me. We took with us the child (that is, the youth) Adeodatus, begotten by me in sin. Thou, O Lord, didst form him well, according to both soul and body. He was now about fifteen years old, and excelled many worthy and learned men.” A little further on, he says: “We have made him our equal, O Lord, in the reception of thy grace, in order to be further trained up in thy law and school; we are baptized, and the care of our old life has been taken away from us. I could not be satisfied in those days, with the wonderful sweetness which I experienced in the contemplation of the mysteriousness of thy counsel, O Lord, with regard to the salvation of the human race. O how I wept, amidst songs of praise. The tears ran down my cheeks.” Thus far, Augustine.

NOTE. A. D. 392.—The Apollinarians, who derived their origin from Apollinaris, denied that Christ adopted his humanity from the virgin Mary, saying that the word became flesh. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 130, from Tripart., lib. 9. Vincent. Hist., cap. 44. Zeg., fol. 189.

A. D. 393.—Valentinian, or Valens, the son of Christian parents (Valentinian and Justina), was induced to journey to Milan, to be baptized by Ambrose, but was treacherously murdered on the way by one Arbogastes. H. Montan., page 70, from Socrat., lib. 4, cap. 9, 26. H. Montanus, however, erroneously, fixes the date of this occurrence about A. D. 380.

My dear friends, is it not a sad thing, that this man, namely Augustine, who thus defended baptism upon faith, yea confirmed it with his own example, and the example of his son Adeodatus, and his friend Alipius, whom he had admonished thereto, should ultimately fall so far as to admit, yea to become a defender of infant baptism! Surely, it is a lamentable matter. For, no one can deny, that in the beginning right after his baptism, he was exceedingly zealous in defense of the true baptism, which is received with a penitent heart; but, that in the course of time he apostatized to infant baptism, can likewise not be denied by any lover of truth. Still, the example of Augustine, his son Adeodatus, and his friend Alipius, serves to confirm our faith, inasmuch as we see that in Augustine’s time the principal Christians allowed their children to remain unbaptized, until they were grown up and, of their own accord desired baptism; for, thus did Monica with her son Augustine, and Augustine with his son Adeodatus, and his friend Alipius, which is a clear proof of the matter in question, namely, that not infant baptism, but baptism upon faith, was practiced among the chief Christians.

THE CONVERSION OF EUVODIUS, WHO FROM A WORLDLY WARRIOR BECAME A SOLDIER OF CHRIST, IN THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE.

In the 8th chapter of the 9th book of his Confessions, Augustine, after speaking of his own baptism, makes the following confession to the Lord, in regard to the baptism of Euvodius: “Thou, O Lord, who causest those that are of the same mind, to dwell in one house, hast joined to us a companion, a young nobleman, called Euvodius, a native of our city. He, who, when following war, commanded the legions of the Empire, was, before us, converted unto thee, and baptized, and, having abandoned secular war, has betaken himself to thy war. We were together; together we had one will to serve thee, and considered in what place we might best do this.” These are his own words, which we read at the place indicated above, and from them we may see how the church increased at that time—not through the addition of infants, but through the conversion and baptism of adult and rational persons. With this we leave Augustine, and the baptism of his companion Euvodius.

About A. D. 397.—About A. D. 397, it is stated that Epiphanius,[111] who subsequently became bishop of Cyprus, was baptized, together with his sister, as it appears, in the presence of his friend and spiritual father Lucian. Of this, D. Vicecomes gives the following account, from Simon Metaphrastes, Bapt. Hist., page 578. Vicecom., lib. 1, cap. 30: “When the Gospel had been read, the bishop, after the baptism, went and commanded Epiphanius and his sister to go in, and with them also Lucian, who became Epiphanius’ spiritual father in holy baptism.

In Bapt. Hist., page 580, lib. 5, cap. 34, Metaphrastes writes of Epiphanius, that immediately upon receiving the doctrine and baptism, the latter, together with an hundred and eight other persons, received the holy Supper, from Bishop Stephen.

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.’ ”

Once, when he went into a Christian church, and observed a painted curtain at the door, bearing the picture of Christ or of some saint, he tore it down, because it was contrary to Scripture, and advised the sexton to bury the corpse of some poor person in it; and when he had sent another curtain in its place, he commanded that they should no more hang up curtains like the former, in the church, “Which,” said he, “is contrary to our religion and faith.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 119, col. 2, and page 120, col. 1, from Socrat., lib. 6. Tripart., lib. 10. Leonh., lib. 2. Chron. Seb. Franck, 135. Tob. Fabr., fol. 66, 67. Fransch. Ala., fol. 22. Dani. Saut., lib. 1.

NOTE.—In regard to his teaching against image worship, see Samuel Veltius, in Geslacht-register, page 120. Epiphanius taught at this time that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are to be worshiped, but that no one should worship Mary, or any other woman, or human being, since this honor belongs to God alone, and must not be accorded even to angels. Again, that the women should not say: We honor the queen of heaven. Tom. 2. Haeres., lib. 3. Haeres. 79, in Geslacht-register, page 29.

Concluding the fourth century, as also we will do, P. J. Twisck says: “Baptism was administered twice a year, at Easter and at Pentecost, and this, to a great extent is still done to adult believers and catechumens.” Chron., page 134.

NOTE.—Besides this, that the true order of the baptism of Jesus Christ was practiced in this century by the orthodox believers, many who belonged to the Roman church deferred (though erring in other matters) the baptism of their children till they came to adult years, as is evident, for instance, in the case of Constantine the Great, whom Helena, his Christian mother, kept from baptism, but afterwards admonished to it; of Theodosius, who, being born of Christian parents, was baptized at Milan, upon his faith; of Valens who was mentioned above. With regard to the baptism of Constantine, see Rom. Adelaer, edition 1642, page 211, from Eusebius and Socrat. Of the baptism of Theodosius, see tract van den loop der Wereldt, printed 1611, in the article on baptism; also De gantsch Klare en Grondige Bewijsinge, nopende het doopsel.