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.

155

“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 156not 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

157

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.—Basilius106 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 158 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.