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

9th century (source section) · Historical source

Source: Martyrs’ Mirror. Original heading: THE VIEWS OF RABANUS MAURUS CONCERNING VARIOUS OTHER ARTICLES OF HIS FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED AUTHOR.

Century of containing source section; exact event date not assigned

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.





---

Page: http://history.truechristian.church/stories/mm-the-views-of-rabanus-maurus-concerning-various-other-articles-of-his-faith-according-to-the-aforementioned-author/

[Contribute a correction or addition](https://github.com/trueChristian/history.truechristian.church/issues/new?title=Correction%3A+The+Views+Of+Rabanus+Maurus+Concerning+Various+Other+Articles+Of+His+Faith%2C+According+To+The+Aforementioned+Author.&body=%23%23+Page+or+topic%0AThe+Views+Of+Rabanus+Maurus+Concerning+Various+Other+Articles+Of+His+Faith%2C+According+To+The+Aforementioned+Author.%0A%0APage%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.truechristian.church%2Fstories%2Fmm-the-views-of-rabanus-maurus-concerning-various-other-articles-of-his-faith-according-to-the-aforementioned-author%2F%0A%0ARecord%3A+mm-the-views-of-rabanus-maurus-concerning-various-other-articles-of-his-faith-according-to-the-aforementioned-author%0A%0ADate+currently+shown%3A+9th+century+%28source+section%29%0A%0A%23%23+Correction+or+addition%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Sources+and+evidence%0APlease+include+book%2Fpage+references%2C+archive+links%2C+or+first-hand+documentation.%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Image+credit+%28if+applicable%29%0ACreator%2C+source%2C+and+permission+or+public-domain+basis.%0A%0A%0A%0ASubmitted+for+review%3B+this+issue+does+not+publish+changes+automatically.)