Hilarius On Baptism And Several Other Articles Of His Faith, According To The Account Of P. J. Twisck.

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.