The Views Of Rabanus Maurus Concerning Various Other Articles Of His Faith, According To The Aforementioned Author.

He writes, A. D. 830: “Rabanus, an eminently learned man writes and says: ‘The catechism, that 228 is, the doctrine of the faith, shall precede baptism, so that the candidate (catechumen) may first learn the first principles of the faith.’ ”

He further says: “The Lord Christ first anointed the eyes of the man born blind, with clay made of spittle, before he sent him to the water of Siloam; therefore, the candidate shall first be instructed in the faith of the incarnation of Christ, and, if he then believes, admitted to baptism; that he may know what grace he obtains in baptism, and to whom he owes his service for it.”

Again: “Rabanus writes also, that in the sacrament the language is figurative, and that Christ, having gone to heaven (in order that we being regenerated by faith, should long the more ardently for him) left us this sacrament, as a visible figure and symbol of his flesh and blood, so that we the more abundantly, might apprehend in faith the invisible things.” This language, Twisck writes, the Roman church now greatly curses.

“He also taught contrary to the Roman church, of the authority of the holy Scriptures, of justification, repentance, the state of the soul after this life, and against other141 papal errors, as his books testify.

“The same thing was done at this time, by Angelomus, who treated of the grace of God, good works, and the keys of the church, in opposition to the Pope. Chron., 9th book, page 283, from John Munst., fol. 120, 133. John Boea., lib. 4, Grond. Bewijs, letter A. Chron. Seb. Franck, fol. 77, Casp. Swinck, fol. 115.

Same year as above.—This Angelomus just mentioned is referred to in Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism, in which it is stated that, besides the aforementioned views held by him contrary to the Roman church, he left the following testimony with regard to the matter of baptism:

Angelomus (in cap. 7, lib. 3, Reg. 1, page 548), says: “From all that we have sinned with the sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling, we are redeemed through the grace of God, by the washing of the living fountain of water (that is, water-baptism). But the forgiveness of previous sins is not enough, if we are not diligent to lay up good works: for, otherwise, the devil who was gone out of the man, finding him empty of good works, returns, manifold, and makes the last state of that man worse than the first.”

Hence, when Angelomus here speaks of the sins which before baptism were committed through the senses, as, through the sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling, he certainly indicates thereby, that the persons of whom he speaks, are not unintelligent infants, seeing these can neither use nor abuse their senses, and, consequently, as long as they lack the knowledge and power, they can not sin with them.

Hence it also appears that the baptism of which he speaks, is not infant baptism; for this can have no regard to sins committed previously through the abuse of the senses. The baptism in question, then, is such a baptism as is received by persons who can lay aside previous sins, and lay up good works; who also give no room to the devil gone out of them, that the last state may not be worse than the first; for of all this, Angelomus speaks. We will, therefore, leave this, and proceed to other testimonies serving the same purpose.

A. D. 840.—That at this time not only baptism, but also various other articles of Christian doctrine were maintained contrary to the belief of the Roman church. P. J. Twisck indicates, in his Chronijk., for the year 840, with these words: “Bertram, a courageous and learned man, now vigorously assailed the doctrine of transubstantiation, in a remarkable book, dedicated to the King of France. Heymon, Bishop of Halberstadt, also contended against this doctrine, and wrote much of baptism, the Supper, justification, good works, and of the church and her office, in opposition to the opinion of the papists. Also Walafrid opposed the new doctrine of the Romanists very vigorously.142 P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 286, col. 2, and page 287, col. 1, from Joh. Munst., fol. 129, and 132.

A. D. 841.—It is recorded that at this time, in the reign of the Emperors Louis and Lothaire, a council was held at Paris, concerning which it is written (chap. 6): “In the beginning of the holy church of God, no one was admitted to receive baptism, who had not previously been instructed in the faith, and in the mystery of baptism, as is testified by the words of Paul, Rom. 6:3: ‘Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?’ which passage of the apostle has reference to the sacrament of baptism.”

In the council of Laodicea (Tit. 46), it is also written, that “those who desire to come to baptism, shall learn the faith, and recite the same to the bishop or teacher, on the fifth day of the great week.”

Again (Tit. 47): “That those who were baptized in sickness, shall, after recovery, diligently study their faith and know what great grace they have received; which words plainly indicate, that those who attain to the Christian faith, are also previously instructed concerning said faith and the mysteries of baptism. But now, sad to relate, also the infants of Christian parents are baptized, who, on account of their tender age, cannot comprehend this matter, which to learn even persons of understanding must exert themselves diligently, and which, owing to the negligence of some, has gone out of use in the Christian church. O what great neglect! O what great mischief.” Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 538.

229

About A. D. 842.—It is stated that at this time a number of slaves who had become converted were baptized, yet not in the Roman manner, nor in the Roman language, as was customary with the Roman church, as well as with all other churches which adhered to the Roman see; but in a different manner and in another language; so that it appears from this occurrence that this church must have been separated from the superstitions of the Roman church not only in forms, but also, as may be inferred, in faith and practice. To this, the following annotation (Bapt. Hist., page 552, num. 9), among others, has reference: “They (those of the Roman church) used the Roman language not only in Italy, but also in other regions that were subject to the papal power; but that baptism was administered also in other languages, is proved by the history of the conversion of the slaves.”143 Ex. Historia Sclav.

About A. D. 848.—That the instruction of novices, before baptism, obtained also at this time, Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 550, informs us with these words: “The adults had (then) to be instructed in the faith, and were catechized before baptism, as has been proven above, from Rabanus, Haimo, and others; thereupon they had to confess the faith, as Rabanus (lib. 1, de Cleric. Institutione, cap. 27) relates. They were asked, whether they believed in God the Father, the Almighty, and on his only Son, our Lord, and on the Holy Ghost, a general (christian) church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the flesh,” etc.144 Bapt. Hist., p. 550, num. 4.

These were good and salutary customs for the upbuilding of the church of God; by which the name of the Lord was praised, the church edified, the word of God most strictly observed, and the salvation of many promoted. But the ancient saying: “Where God builds a temple, Satan builds one in opposition to it,” was also verified here; for, at the same time that those who loved the truth, baptized believers, upon the confession of their faith, nearly all the others, who were called Roman or Greek Christians, baptized infants, who, as every one knows can neither believe nor confess the faith; this has been referred to above.

About A. D. 854.—It is stated that very near the time of Haimo, there lived and wrote Idiota. In J. Mehrning’s History of Baptism is found a quotation by him, relating to baptism, which reads as follows: “In holy baptism we accept Christ for our bridegroom, and enter his chamber, which is ornamented with manifold graces and virtues.” De Innocentia, cap. 3.

To accept Christ for one’s bridegroom, to enter his chamber, is certainly not the work of children, but of believers. Those accept Christ for their bridegroom, who betroth themselves to him by faith, and, in token thereof, are baptized. John 3:26,29. Those enter his chamber, who, through obedience, join themselves to his church; for they are no more “strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” Eph. 2:18.

That which is further said of the chamber of the bridegroom, namely, that it is ornamented with graces and virtues, has reference to the spiritual ornament of the church of God, which latter is the true chamber of our heavenly bridegroom Jesus Christ. This church of God cannot be ornamented with graces and virtues by infants, seeing infants are ornamented with neither actual graces nor real virtues; hence, it has also respect to the believers, who, having come, through baptism, to the church of God, ornament the same with actual graces and real virtues. This concludes our exposition of the passage of Idiota.

Note.—A. D. 859.—Huldricus or Uldoricus, Bishop of Augsburg, greatly complained of the violence of the popes, and said: “What will become of this flock, when the shepherds become wolves?” He openly maintained that the Pope was fallible, and that it was lawful to admonish him for his error, and to reject his bad decrees. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 298, col. 1, from Merula, fol. 177. Jan. Crespin, fol. 211, 215, 216.

A. D. 860.—At this time, there departed from the belief and practice of infant baptism, Hincmar, at one time Bishop of Laudun, inasmuch as he would no longer baptize children, so that they grew up without baptism, and many also, who did not attain the years of understanding, died unbaptized; on account of which he was then greatly accused by Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, who, to this end, wrote to him as follows: “And thou, who knowest that it is true what the Lord says: ‘Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;’ hast nevertheless commanded, that infants shall not be baptized in thy church, not even when in peril of death, so that they should not be saved, though it is written: ‘The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ Thou hast also acted contrary to the decrees of Syricius, Leo, Gelasius, and the African council, as I have informed thee now twice by writing.” H. Mont. Nietigh., page 81, ex Biblioth. Patr., Tom. 9, part 2, page 137. Cent. Magd., Cent. 9, cap. 4, pages 40, 41.

In another letter, the Bishop of Rheims, with entreating, and not less earnest words, endeavors to draw him away from his belief, writing: “Desist from preaching this (namely, that infants may not be baptized), the mere thought of which is awful; desist from scattering the flock of Christ (meaning thereby, through error, the Roman church), lest the destruction of all the people come upon thee; and do not, from excessive love for thy belief, sever thyself from,” etc. H. Mont., page 82, from Cent. Magd., Cent. 9, pages 157, 158. Also, Bapt. Hist., page 545.

From these two letters it appears that Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, had not only departed from the doctrine of infant baptism, but also earnestly preached against it, so that many of the Roman 230 church, particularly at Laudun, became his adherents; for, what did the Bishop of Rheims mean by writing: “Desist from preaching this,” but to say that Hincmar of Laudun should cease preaching against infant baptism? What else does he indicate when he says: “Desist from scattering the flock of Christ, lest the destruction of all the people come upon thee?” Certainly, these words indicate that many had already left the Roman church on this account, yea, that the state of things was such that all the people at Laudun adhered to this doctrine.

Moreover, from the last letter we see, how firmly, and almost immovably, said Hincmar must have stood, at Laudun, in his doctrine and belief against infant baptism, seeing such great endeavors were made to draw him away; now by presenting his belief in the most odious light, as though he preached things the mere thought of which was awful; now by flattery: “And do not, from excessive love for thy belief, sever thyself from,” etc. But whether through this he was in any wise turned away from his belief, we have not been able to ascertain; hence we will let the matter rest.

In reference to what he may have taught with regard to other points, we can, on account of the default of history, give nothing certain; it is sufficient for us, that in those perilous times he dared oppose the common Roman church, by rejecting infant baptism, and that much people adhered to him therein, as has been shown above.

A. D. 867.—We have now come to the year in which an uncommon and quite unexpected matter is mentioned by ancient writers, of which we will forthwith give an account. Just now, for the year 860, we told of a certain champion of the Roman superstitions, especially of infant baptism, namely, Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, who, once and again, by express letters, immoderately accused another Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, because the latter refused to baptize infants, and would also not allow them to be baptized, though they were in danger of dying. This same person now, seven years after making the above accusations respecting the non-baptizing of infants, opposed the Pope, not only in one point, but in many, among which infant baptism may also have been. Concerning this P. J. Twisck, from other authors, writes thus: “Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, opposed Pope Adrian II. in many points, in defense of the truth. He charged him with innovation, saying that he could not be Bishop and King at the same time; that he should have nothing to do with secular affairs.” Chron., 9th book, page 305, col. 2, from Hist. Georg., fol. 314, Catal. Test., fol. 52.

It is a pity and to be lamented, that the ancients have not left us more information regarding the particular points maintained by Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, against the Pope, and, consequently, also against the Roman church.

It would not be very surprising, if among the points maintained by him against the Pope, the denial of infant baptism was one; for, when he, seven years before that, accused Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, for not baptizing the infants, the latter apparently, either from the holy Scriptures, or by conclusive arguments, demonstrated to him the groundlessness and vanity of infant baptism in such a manner that he may easily have attained to very different views, not only in regard to infant baptism, but also in other points which were maintained after the manner of the papists. But as this is not clearly indicated, we will not discuss it any further, but leave it as a probable conjecture. Moreover, it is not our purpose to justify said Bishop in every article of religion, nor to declare him orthodox on the whole; but to show that the same person who had previously so stoutly defended the Roman church and the papal superstitions, especially in the matter of infant baptism, now dared attack not only the Roman church, but even the Pope, who is called its head, and to oppose him in many points, as has been shown. With this we take our leave of Hincmar of Rheims.

A. D. 880.—At this time there lived Paschasius, a remarkably experienced and virtuous man, who wrote various things against the belief of the Roman church; but as the thread of our account extends only, or, at least, principally, over the matter of baptism, we will also here turn our special attention to the same, and, so as not to be encumbered with many testimonies, present but one passage of his belief with reference to this matter, as recorded in Jacob Mehrning’s history of baptism.

Paschasius (de Corp. and Sang. Dom., cap. 10, page 594) says: “In the sacrament of baptism the door is opened to believers, to enter into the sonship of God, that we, being delivered from evil through this regeneration, may afterwards become one body with the members of Christ; in which baptism, when the Holy Ghost is shed abroad in the souls of the regenerated, the whole church of Christ is quickened, and becomes one body, by one Spirit received by all.”

Here he indicates three things incompatible with infant baptism. Firstly, when he says that “In the sacrament of baptism the door is opened to believers, to enter into the sonship of God.” For, that this cannot relate to infants, appears from the nature of faith and of the believers; as to faith, it is a sure confidence of the things hoped for. Hebr. 11:1. This faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17. That neither this sure confidence, nor hope, nor intelligent hearing of the word of God, can have place in infants, is quite evident, since neither their powers nor their knowledge can reach these things. See Deut. 1:39; 1 Cor. 13:11.

Secondly, when he says: “That we, being delivered from evil through this regeneration, may afterwards become one body with the members of Christ.” For the word regeneration is no where in Scripture applied to infants, but to adults. John 3:3; Tit. 3:5. Likewise, to be delivered from evil, is applied only to such persons as, through evil works, were previously ensnared and held captive by sin. 2 Tim. 2:26. Hence, the second also does in no wise apply to infants.

Thirdly, when he, expounding the utility of baptism, says: “In which baptism, the whole church of Christ is quickened and becomes one body, by one Spirit received by all.” For, when mention is made here of the quickening Spirit of God, which in baptism 231 is imparted to the church, or, at least, to those who, by baptism, are incorporated as members into the church, it follows almost incontrovertibly, that this relates neither to infants nor to infant baptism; for, as regards infants, instead of becoming quickened by the Spirit of God, after baptism, that is, instead of becoming adorned with all divine and Christian virtues, we see, on the contrary, that they generally, from that time on, as their powers increase, are led by their own spirit, so that with the increasing years, perverseness also increases, yea, sometimes gains the ascendency; hence, those who have reached their years, are admonished, that they must be born again, that is, that they must lead another and better life; or that they cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5,7.

This being the case, it stands fast, that Paschasius, in said passage, speaks neither of infants nor of infant baptism. Leaving this subject here, we will conclude with the account of P. J. Twisck, who records of Paschasius, besides what we have stated above, that he mentions but two sacraments, namely, 1. baptism; 2. the Supper; or, as it was anciently called, the body and blood of the Lord; which militates against the seven sacraments of the Roman church. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 310.

Same year as above.—“Remigius,” he writes in the same place, “also taught much against the Pope, saying, among other things: “That we must address our prayers not to idols, but to the living God; and that the church must conform to the holy Scriptures.” Chron., 9th book, page 310, col. 1, from John Munst., fol. 61, 131, 133. Perk., fol. 249.

In the mean time, the pious were exceedingly oppressed in this century, by the power of the Pope and the Roman clergy; so that, on account of the smoke of the papistic errors, the fire of the pure doctrine could not burn freely, which was also the reason that not more learned and godfearing men manifested themselves at that time, in defense of the truth of God.

A. D. 900.—That at this time, some dared oppose not only infant baptism and other tenets of the Roman church, but even the Pope of Rome, who might well be called the father of all superstitions, the example of Tergandus sufficiently indicates, who, at this time, dared designate him by the name of antichrist, wolf, etc.; concerning which, Samuel Veltius (from other authors) has noted the following for the year 900: “Tergandus, Bishop of Treves, called the Pope of Rome antichrist, yea, a wolf, and Rome, Babylon.” Geslacht-register, page 128.

Note.—We will close with the account of P. J. Twisck, in his conclusion to the ninth century: “In this century, the occidental or western, Roman Empire, which has been at a stand-still now for 324 years, begins afresh. The clergy, through the folly of the Emperors, obtain power to elect popes and bishops. The Emperors are crowned by the popes, who will themselves to be the masters and lords and rule before and over others, as is evident from this, that some times two, three, and four popes reign at once and seek to domineer over the others, expelling, driving away, exhuming, cursing, each other. Spiritual matters are still greatly on the decline, men seeking their salvation far more in so-called good works, in ceremonies and superstitions, than through justification by faith in Christ Jesus. Disputations about transubstantiation are inaugurated, though the Supper is still administered under both forms, that is, with bread and wine. The people, having been to the supper, offer money or something else.”

What he further relates of exorcism at baptism; of the mass; of the power to canonize saints; of the worship of saints and images; of the ban of the bishops; of the punishment of heretics; of the consecration of temples; of purgatory; of soul-masses, to redeem souls from purgatory, etc., would require too much time to recount. See concerning it, Chron., page 320.

This has been told simply to show how and whereby the orthodox Christians were oppressed at this time in their worship of God; and why so few learned and pious people manifested themselves. We will now proceed to show what pious witnesses of Jesus Christ suffered as martyrs at this time.

Note.—A. D. 884. John Patrick, a man well versed in the Chaldean, Arabian, and Greek languages, in the monastery of Mabelsbury, greatly opposed the doctrine of an offering for the living and the dead; on account of which he was stabbed to death with awls. See Geslacht-register, page 127.