“Thus,” remarks Jacob Mehrning on this, “we are informed, that even at this day there are brethren and Christians in Thessalonica, who agree with the Mennists in all articles of religion.” These are J. Mehrning’s own words (page 739), of which we shall speak more fully hereafter.
OF CHARLES, BISHOP OF MILAN.
Bapt. Hist., p. 740, D. Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 45, writes: “Charles, bishop of Milan, admonished the teachers, diligently to expound to their hearers the mystery of holy baptism, and to earnestly exhort them to a Christian walk, in order that the confession of the Christian name (upon which baptism was wont to be administered), might well become them.”
What else does this indicate, than that the teachers should exhort their hearers to the baptism, which ought to be administered upon confession of faith, and, consequently, not in infancy?
Galvaneus, in the History of Milan, (B. H., page 741, D. Vicecomes, lib. 1, cap. 4), writes: “St. Barnabas, when he first preached the Gospel at Milan, baptized in running water.”
This manner and these circumstances plainly indicate, as stated elsewhere, that infant baptism was then not practiced at that place.
Note.—For the year 1394, mention is made of a number of people in Bohemia, who sided with the Anabaptists. Seb. Fr. Chron. der Rom. Kett., p. 121, col. 2, letter P., Picardy.
A. D. 1400.—It appears that when the last year of this century had come, various persons opposed popery, not only with regard to baptism, but also to many other articles; of which, among other things, mention is made in the fourteenth book of the Ondergang der Tyrannen, p. 749, col. 1, 2, 3; where we have this declaration: “The Pope has no absolute power or judgment, so that he cannot err; so all, even the papists, have taught for about fourteen hundred years. The ancient fathers, the Greek as well as the Latin, regarded Pope Honorius I. as a Monothelitic[185] heretic. Likewise, the sixth synod, in which he was condemned as a heretic, and his letters burned. From Perkins, fol. 421.
Note.—If this condemning of the Pope as a heretic, as also the burning of his letters, was done from envy, or bitterness, we would by no means defend, much less praise, but far rather condemn it. But since, as the matter appears to us, it was done from a good intention and godly zeal, we find nothing censurable in it. For the word condemn does not always signify eternal damnation, as the Holy Scripture uses it,[186] but it is also understood as meaning, to sentence or pronounce guilty. Thus, also, the name heretic, when rightly considered, signifies only a schismatic, headstrong person, who follows his own opinion, instead of the Holy Scripture. Now, that the Pope of Rome was such a person, will not soon be contradicted by those who give due honor to God, and allow themselves to be governed by reason. The burning of his letters we regard as having been done from carefulness, lest any might be seduced or brought into error by them. This will satisfy the well-disposed, who, imitating the bee, will extract honey, instead of gall, from it.