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 153 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 154 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.