Chapter XXXVI: Conclusion: Of the Matters Here Related (10)

_A. D. 360._--P. J. Twisck writes: “Notwithstanding that at this time, much bloody cruelty was practiced against the bishop who sided with Arius, so that this party was almost wholly crushed, still, according to history, there remained sects like the Anabaptists, etc. If their books were extant, we might give an account of what they taught concerning all these matters; but as it is, we let it suffice with what others have written.” _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 106, col. 2_, from _Jac. P. Verm. Onsch., lib. 4, fol. 131_.

It is exceedingly to be regretted that so few of the writings of the Anabaptists who lived at that time, are extant; for thereby we are compelled to receive information concerning them from the mouths of their enemies; which information, as we may readily judge, was not dictated by love, but by animosity. However, we owe thanks to God, that even this much has come down to us respecting their history; since Satan, through the instrumentality of his adherents, has always aimed to exterminate, not only their books, but also their lives, yea, their bodies and souls, if this were possible.

_A. D. 362._--Saint Martin, born of heathen parents, when he was ten years old, went, contrary to the will of his parents, to the meetings of the Christians, embraced Christianity and was baptized when he was eighteen years old. Being now a Christian, he desired to be discharged from the military profession into which he had been brought by his parents; hence he said to the apostate Emperor, Julian, that it was not lawful for him to fight, because he was a Christian.

But as the Minorite, _Thomas van Heerentaals_, in his _Mirror of the Ten Commandments and Seven Sacraments_, gives a somewhat fuller account concerning St. Martin, and especially of baptism as practiced at that time, we shall make a short extract from it. He says: “In former times it was customary to administer holy baptism but twice a year, namely, on Easter eve and on Pentecost eve; except in cases of necessity, which was fourfold: 1. In a siege. 2. In danger of martyrdom. 3. In peril at sea. 4. In dangerous sickness. In such cases they baptized all, and at all times, that no one might die without baptism. But when these four reasons did not exist, baptism was administered only on the two abovementioned days, and that with great solemnity and dignity, and all who were admitted to baptism, had attained the years of understanding; even St. Martin, that holy man, was a catechumen for six years--from the time he was twelve, until he was eighteen years old--before he received baptism. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 110, col. 1, 2._

_A. D. 363 and 364._--In the time of Julian the apostate there lived and shone as bright lights, various excellent men, whose learning and piety it is not necessary to extol, since it is sufficiently known. They gave expression to their orthodox convictions by word and by deed, especially with regard to the matter of baptism, that it ought to be administered after previous instruction, upon faith and repentance.

At the same time, A. D. 363, there lived Ambrose, who is stated to have been born of Christian parents. His father’s name was also Ambrose, while that of his mother was Marcellina. He, too, was not baptized until the day on which he was chosen bishop of Milan, after having been instructed in the catechism, that is, in the doctrines of the faith.[103] See concerning this, _Tract van den loop der wereld, by F. H. H._, printed 1611, _page 47, 48_, from _Paul, de vita Ambrosii. Naucler. Chron. Generat. 13_.

[103] Bullinger says that before the days of Ambrose (A. D. 363),
Aurentius rejected infant baptism. See, _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page
114, col. 2_, in the annotation.

D. Vicecomes (_lib. 2, cap. 6_) records, from Nolanus, concerning
Ambrose, that in his time, Frigitil, Queen of the Marcomans, having
heard from a Christian man, what good things were said of Ambrose,
believed in Christ, and recognized him (Ambrose) as his minister. To
her, Ambrose wrote an excellent epistle. See, _Bapt. Hist., page 462_.

Such a procedure, namely, thus precipitately to elect any one bishop or teacher, as is stated here concerning Ambrose, we do not commend; but we notice here, that Christians at that time had not generally adopted infant baptism; nay, that some, notwithstanding the papal power, purposely did not have their children baptized; causing them, when they had reached maturer years, to be instructed first, and then baptized, upon their own confession.

Ambrose (_Serm. 61_) makes the statement: “It was customary for all people to be baptized at Easter.” In _Lib. de Jejunio, cap. 10_, he says: “Now comes the day of the resurrection; now the elect are baptized.” Yet on 1 Tim. 4, he says that the sick were baptized on any day. _Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 334._

These words of Ambrose confirm our preceding assertion; for when he says that at Easter it was customary to baptize all people, he sufficiently declares that at that time infant baptism was not a custom. For not only at Easter, but throughout the whole year, children are born, the baptism of which, because of the danger that they might die, could never have been postponed until Easter, had infant baptism been deemed necessary for salvation. But Ambrose removes all doubt when he says what persons were baptized then, namely, _all people_; for by the word _people_ there are generally understood adult or rational persons, and not infants in the cradle.

Moreover, when he writes that the sick were baptized on any day, he proves thereby, that infant baptism was not practiced in the church of which he speaks. For, if it had been customary there, to baptize infants, it would not have been necessary to baptize the sick on any day, since they would have been baptized already in their infancy; or our opponents must show that the sick, who were baptized any day, were also baptized in their infancy; which they dare not maintain, seeing these churches would then have to be regarded anabaptistic. Nevertheless, one of two things must follow: Either that the sick who were baptized in their infancy were rebaptized, or that the adults baptized had not been baptized in their infancy. If the former is true, then the Anabaptists, as they are called, flourished already in those early times. But if the latter is true, then there were at that time whole churches who rejected infant baptism, or, at least, suffered their children to remain unbaptized. This is so clear that it cannot be refuted.

OF SEVERAL OTHER ARTICLES OF FAITH TAUGHT BY AMBROSE, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK.

“Ambrose (on Rom. 1) ridicules those who say: ‘We cannot come before God except through the mediation of the saints, just as we come before a king through the mediation of counts.’ ‘Well then,’ says he, ‘is not he guilty of contempt of majesty, who ascribes to counts the honor due to the king? Certainly. Why then, will not they consider themselves sinners, who give God’s name and honor to creatures, and, setting aside the Lord, worship his servants? Because kings are not acquainted with the individual wants of every one, interpreters and advocates appear before them; but God, to whom nothing is hid, needs no advocates or informants, but simply an humble heart.’

“Again: ‘They now bestow such names and honors upon the images, as they would never have dared to give to the living person, namely, divine honor; and this, when they are dead.’ Thus Ambrose reproves the image worship of the Roman church, and (on Col. 1) positively asserts that ‘neither elements, nor saints, nor angels should be honored or worshiped, but Christ alone.’

“It seems,” says he, “that Ambrose, too, would seek antichrist at Rome;” for he says that ‘antichrist shall restore to the Romans their freedom, under his name,’ and calls the city of antichrist ‘the city of the devil.’ He says further, that ‘antichrist shall be revealed after the downfall of the Roman Empire, or when the Emperors shall have lost their power;’ and history shows that the decline of the Roman Emperors was the augmentation of the power and dominion of the Popes or antichrists.

“Ambrose says further: ‘The violence of worldly opponents must not be overcome with worldly, but with spiritual weapons; and heretics must be punished only by exclusion from the church; for the champions of Christ seek neither weapons nor iron balls.’

“Again, in regard to marriage he says: ‘Purity of the body is something to be desired by us, and I commend it by way of advice, but do not enjoin it as a command; for the virgin state may be advised, but not commanded.’ _Hist. Tripart., lib. 7, cap. 8. Adolphus Tectander Apol., fol. 163. Casp. Swinck, Epist. 1, fol. 877. Hier. Zanc., fol. 65. D. Anth. l., fol. 116._

“Again: The words of Ambrose clearly indicate that he means that the sacrament (the Lord’s Supper), should be received under both forms, that is, with bread and wine. _Lib. 9, cap. 30. Seb. Fr., fol. 50._

“Again: ‘The body of Christ is not material or earthly food, or bread, but a spiritual, eternal bread, which feeds believing souls. Regenerated men belong to this table, of which the ungodly cannot partake.’ _Chron. Seb. Fr. on Ambrose._

“Again: Ambrose says also: ‘We are in duty bound to examine the churches, and if there is one which rejects the faith, and does not hold to the foundation of the apostolical doctrine, we must leave it.’” In _Lucam, lib. 6, cap. 9. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 114, col. 2_ and _115, col. 1, 2_.

_A. D. 364._--It is recorded that in or about the second year of Julian, the Apostate, there lived and wrote the very learned, yet humble, Ephrem, surnamed Syrus, who, in writing of baptism, relates that in his time it was customary for people, when they were baptized, to renounce with express words the devil and all his works, _Jac. Mehrn. in Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 328._

Ephrem (_Lib. de Poenit., cap. 5_) also enumerates the works of Satan which we renounce in baptism, as fornication, adultery, uncleanness, lying, stealing, envy, etc.

Page 336. He also states (_Orat. 3, de S. Lavacro_) that it is customary for the candidates for baptism to confess their sins. And from his book on _Repentance, chap. 5_, it appears that those who were thus baptized confessed their faith before many witnesses, and said: “I renounce thee, O Satan, and all thy works.”

_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]

[104] P. J. Twisck fixes this council of Laodicea in the year 364,
while Seb. Franck states that it occurred in the year 368, but we
follow a middle course, and assign the year 366 as its date.

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]

[105] About this time (A. D. 380), Ambrose taught that the heathen
worshiped wood, because they judged it to be the image of God; but,
says he, “God’s image is invisible.” _Tom. 4, in Psal. 118, Ser. 10.
Samuel Veltius, in Geslacht-register, page 119._

_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._

[106] That this Basilius was the son of Christian parents, appears
from _Bapt. Hist., page 365_. Instances of this kind, it is stated
there, occurred at that time also in other places; we mention
Basilius, Jerome, Ambrose, etc., all of whom were born of Christian
parents, and baptized upon confession of their faith.

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.

[107] It is evident here that either the author is mistaken in the
name, or that a typographical error occurred. Theophilus was the
name of the Patriarch of Alexandria, through whose instigation, with
that of the Empress Eudoxia, the Emperor in question, whose name was
Arcadius, was induced to persecute Chrysostom.--_Translator._

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]

[108] Pure as precious metal.--_Pub._

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.

[109] Although the Papists sometimes have this Goldenmouth in their
mouth, they nevertheless regard his teachings as heresies.

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.”