Touching Some Other Points Of Cyril’S Faith, According To The Account Of P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th Book, Page 152, Col. 1.

“Cyril, a celebrated teacher, strenuously opposed the heresy of Nestorius.”

Again: “Cyril says: ‘Antichrist shall come when the time of the Roman Empire shall be fulfilled.’ ”

“The mysteries of the faith ought not to be taught inconsiderately, without the holy Scriptures. If I shall merely tell you these things, without bringing any proof, do not believe me, unless you receive from me proof from holy Scripture; for the salvation of our faith proceeds not from an eloquent recital, but from the demonstration of the divine Scriptures.” Joh. Polii, fol. 93.

“It is necessary that we follow the holy Scriptures, departing in no wise from their precepts.” Joh. Polii, fol. 93. Valent. Vanni., fol. 41.

Cyril, in the 7th book against Valentinian, says also, in regard to spiritual eating, “That at the holy table we must not simply gaze on the bread and wine placed there, or be deceived thereby, but that, with uplifted hearts, we must apprehend by faith, that on this holy table there is also the Lamb which taketh away the sins of the world. This must be apprehended and eaten spiritually, by faith, and not with the hands.” Chron., Seb. Franck, fol. 65, idem, Chron. Rom. Kett., fol. 77, col. 2.

Thus Cyril wrote soundly, not only on the matter of baptism, but also respecting the authority of the divine Scriptures, as well as, that the substance of the Supper is not the body and blood of Christ, but bread and wine; and that we must not become deluded thereby, that is, esteem it for more than it is; yet that we must eat the Lamb of God, that is, Christ, by faith, or spiritually.

NOTE.—At this time Cyril taught that those who have died, can add nothing to what they have done; but that they must remain what they are, and await the day of judgment. Lib. 3, on Isaiah. In the Geslacht-register, page 123.

A. D. 430.—In Bapt. Hist., page 392, quoted from Socrates by Vicecomes, lib. 1, cap. 27, Socrates writes, in the 7th book of the Church History: “A Jew, who was very sick, lying almost at the point of death, desired to be baptized. To this end, he was carried into the church, where the teacher instructed him in the articles of faith, and expounded to him the hope on Christ. And having thus been brought to baptism on his bed, he was baptized.”

Page 393, from Vicecomes, lib. 3, cap. 5, he (Socrates) writes (lib. 9, cap. 29, Tripart): “In the city of Alexandria many hastened to holy baptism, and were baptized upon the confession of their sins”.

Again (Vicecom., cap. 6, from Socrates, lib. 7, cap. 17): “A Jew came to Paul, the bishop, and desired to be baptized by him. The latter commended him for his desire, but refused to baptize him until he should be instructed in the doctrine of the faith, and have fasted many days. But the Jew, compelled to fast contrary to the sentiment of his heart, importuned the more eagerly, and begged to be baptized, which request was finally complied with.”

As regards that which, page 393, is related according to the account of Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 5, from Socrates, lib. 7, cap. 30, how the Burgundians, having journeyed to a certain city in France, prayed the Bishop of that city, to make them Christians by baptism; and how they, after seven days of fasting, and having been instructed in the faith, were baptized on the eighth day, and dismissed in peace; about this we will not say more at present, because these Burgundians in a certain article in which they should have been taught, were not yet rightly instructed; we notice, simply, that they were baptized upon their faith, and that baptism upon faith was customary at that place.

Touching the above account from Socrates, respecting the Jew, who was brought to church on his sick-bed, and was baptized upon his faith, we would not praise or recommend the baptizing of the sick, when there is more danger of death than hope of life. O no! for baptism should and must be received at a time when one can voluntarily forsake the old man, put on the new, and walk thenceforth in newness of life (Rom. 6:4); which no sick person, much less one that is at the point of death, can accomplish. Still, it is commendable in this case, that, according to the doctrine of Christ, faith was required before baptism, as is also stated of the other Jew, who was baptized in health; for he asked for baptism, which, after previous instruction and many days of fasting, was administered to him. We will say nothing about those of Alexandria, who hastened to baptism, and were baptized upon confession of their sins; for the matter speaks so clearly for the views of the Anabaptists, that an explanation of it is wholly unnecessary.

A. D. 434.—Faustus Regiensus, a Bishop in France, taught that baptism required willingness on the part of him who comes to it. Lib. 2, de lib. Arb., cap. 8. Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 425.

About the same time Evagrius is mentioned, who, in writing on baptism, (lib. 2), says “that after the water was blessed, the candidates, that is, those 187 who had previously been instructed by the word of God, in the catechism, and were found enlightened, were baptized.” Bapt. Hist., page 421.

These testimonies of Faustus and Evagrius prove that the baptism of which they speak, is entirely different from infant baptism; for, when Faustus says that baptism requires willingness on the part of him who comes to it; and Evagrius declares that those who had previously been instructed by the word of God, in the catechism, were baptized, it is certainly very evident that this does not apply to infants, since these cannot come to baptism with a will of their own, or voluntarily; neither can they, before baptism, be instructed by the word of God, in the catechism, much less become enlightened.

NOTE.—It is recorded that in the time of Honorius A. D. 436, even those of Carthage passed this resolution: “Those who wish to receive baptism, shall previously be tried and examined for a long time.” Seb. Fr., Chron. Rom. Conc., fol. 71, col. 4.

A. D. 438.—Eucherius (in lib. 3, Reg.), says: “We are all baptized upon confession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Bapt. Hist., page 403.

Again (in lib. 3, Com. in lib. Reg.), Eucherius, in speaking of the imposition of hands, says: “The sacrifice is washed, when the water of baptism is poured upon a believer.”

In lib. 4, he says: “In descending to baptism, he that believes on Christ, dies unto original sin and all iniquity.” Bapt. Hist., page 428.

Truly, these are excellent testimonies, which very closely approach the form of the holy Scriptures; for here mention is made of a certain confession of the candidates; as also, that the water of baptism is poured upon the believer; and that he who descends to baptism, dies unto original sin and all iniquity; which matters are so frequently mentioned in the holy Scriptures of the New Testament, that it is unnecessary to adduce any proof concerning them, since they are sufficiently known. Compare, among others, Matt. 3:6; Mark 16:16, with Rom. 6:3,4.

A. D. 446.—Notwithstanding those of Carthage swayed to and fro, like a shaking reed, in the matter of baptism, as may be seen by their many councils, there were, nevertheless, as it appears, many pious people there, who kept to the institution of Christ, and the practice of his apostles, inasmuch as they baptized upon faith, of which, among others, Augustine makes mention in the 22d book, 8th chapter, of the City of God, saying, “That when Easter was at hand, and the women (that is, those who had made application for baptism), were waiting for baptism.”

But that which he relates in the same place, of the very pious woman Innocentia, namely, that, being afflicted with an incurable cancer, she went to the first woman that was baptized, to be marked by her with the sign of Christ, in order that she might have her health restored, this we leave as it is, it being sufficient for us, that even in Carthage, where infant baptism had already been adopted, there were people who administered baptism to adults, or, at least, to believers; and that this was done at a stated time, namely, on Easter. This is also mentioned in Bapt. Hist., page 433.

A. D. 450.—It appears that about the middle of the fifth century, a departure began to manifest itself even in the Roman church, among those who did not favor infant baptism; inasmuch as many were found, who had not been baptized in their youth. But as to whether these were known, or whether they kept it secret, we have no information; however, it is apparent that, in the course of time, they became manifest, since, with reference to the matter, the Council of Arausica114 established certain canons or rules in regard to the manner in which such persons should be treated. Bapt. Hist., p. 440, from Centuriæ Magdeburgenses, fol. 510, ex Concil. Arausic.

Canon 12. “A person who has suddenly become dumb, shall have baptism, or repentance, administered to him, if it be proved by his own testimony, or by that of some one else, that he has previously wished it; or if he indicate it by signs.”

Canon 14. “The unbaptized weak (members), who are concerned about their purification, and commit themselves to spiritual guardians, following their admonitions, may commune, in order that, through the virtue of the sacrament received, they may be strengthened against the assaults of the devil.”

Canon 15. “Weak catechumens shall be provided with baptism, according as necessity and opportunity demand.”

There were still other canons or rules, established by said council, from which it appears that at that time many people omitted to have their children baptized, so that the latter, when they had reached adult years, were still unbaptized; as Canons 18, 19, 20. But it suffices us briefly to have shown this, since by our promise we are not bound to prove anything further than that in all the centuries, from the time of Christ, there were persons, few or many, who rejected infant baptism, and observed the true baptism upon faith, according to the institution of Christ and the example of his apostles.

A. D. 454.—It is recorded for this year, that Nazarius, the son of Perpetua, a Christian woman, followed the religion of his mother, when he was still very young, and that he was baptized after previous catechization or instruction. Tract, Gantsch Grondig. Bewijs., 1581. Also, Kort verhael van den loop der Werelt, compared with P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 160, col. 2.

As to the teacher who baptized Nazarius, his name is differently given by different writers; hence, we pass him by, simply noticing the faith of Perpetua, and the baptism of her son; for it appears from the circumstances, that Perpetua was a Christian woman, who herself professed the Christian religion, but who nevertheless let her son remain without baptism in his infancy, apparently regarding infant baptism as unlawful, or at least without 188benefit; besides this it appears that Nazarius, her son, regarded baptism upon faith as good and necessary, notwithstanding he was born of a Christian mother, else he would not have had himself baptized, upon having come to adult years.

NOTE.—A. D. 455.—Montluck, Bishop of Valence said before the King of France, it should be borne in mind, that there were 380 bishops in the council of Nice, 150 in the council of Constantinople, 200 in the council of Ephesus, and 300 in the council of Chalcedon, who would use no other weapons than the word of God, against the Arians, Macedonians, Nestorians, and others. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 161, col. 1, from Den Stant der Religie, 200.

A. D. 456.—Gelasius taught at this time, that in the Supper there are celebrated the figures of the body and blood of Christ, and that, through the Holy Ghost we become partakers of divine things, though the bread and wine continue what they are. In the Book of the two Natures. See Sam. Veltius, Geslacht-register, page 124.

A. D. 458.—Salvian of Massilia (Marseilles) lib. 6, de Providentia (Bapt. Hist., page 448), says to the candidates: “You say: ‘I renounce the devil, his pomp, his adherents, and his works.’ And what else? You also say: ‘I believe on God the Father, and on Jesus Christ his Son.’ Thus, one first forsakes the devil, that he may believe on God; but whosoever does not forsake the devil, does not believe on God; and whoever turns again to the devil, forsakes God.” These things, says the annotator, can in no wise be said of infants.

From this formula, which the candidates at that time were obliged to confess publicly, we certainly see without controversy, that it stood altogether differently with the matter of baptism, than is now the case among many so-called Christians; for then the candidates had to make confession themselves of their faith, before they were baptized; but now, in many places, when infants are baptized, no confession is demanded, or, if demanded, is not made by the children themselves, since they cannot do it, but by their parents, or godfathers and godmothers, who bring them to baptism; however, if the confession is demanded from the children themselves, they do not make it before baptism (as is required by holy Scripture), but after baptism, so that twenty, thirty, sixty, or even more years, elapse, yea, that their baptism is forgotten by the time they make their confession; and some who are baptized, never make their confession.

What is to be held of such a baptism, may easily be judged; but as it is not our purpose to refute this error, we let this matter rest; in the meantime it suffices us, that in the latter half of the fifth century there were people, yea, distinguished persons, who, notwithstanding the superstitions of popery, especially with regard to infant baptism, kept to the ordinance of Christ, baptizing only upon faith, or after previous instruction.

A. D. 460.—About this time, according to the account of the ancients, the godfearing and noted persons, Anthymius, Sisinnius, and Sociorus, betook themselves, by baptism, under the peaceable banner of Jesus Christ, to be champions and servants of his, having confessed the faith and acknowledged him as their Lord; which took place after they had been instructed for seven days. Reference is had to this, in Bapt. Hist., page 448, from Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 8, where it is related that when they had been learning, for seven days, the mystery of Jesus Christ, that is, the faith, they were baptized.

A. D. 465.—D. Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 48, gives an account, from Nolanus, of the hymns which the Christians at that time used to sing over the newly baptized believers. “Nolanus,” he says, “also describes, in a special hymn the extraordinary spiritual joy which the Christians were (then) wont to have over the newly baptized.” Bapt. Hist., p. 463.

What the contents of these joyful hymns were, is not stated, only that with them extraordinary spiritual joy was expressed. It undoubtedly was the endeavor, to praise God with them, to edify the church, and to strengthen the newly baptized in the accepted faith, in order that they might pay their vows unto God; always remember the day of their enlightenment; walk in the Lord Jesus Christ, whom they had now accepted, and if necessary, also lay down their life for him, and thus, having testified to the faith with their blood, obtain the unfading crown of honor.

NOTE.—In the meantime, those of the Roman church sought to abolish Christ’s true ordinance of baptism; to which tended the canon established in the council held A. D. 469, at Chalcedon, which read as follows: “Those who are not baptized, shall not be baptized by heretics.” Seb. Fr., Chron. der Rom. Kett., fol. 71, col. 1.

A. D. 470.—It appears that at this time, through the power of the Pope and the councils, they began to condemn Anabaptism, and, consequently, to excommunicate and treat as heretics, the so-called Anabaptists; which is stated to have been put into effect A. D. 470, in the fourth council of Rome. To this refers the annotation found in the 5th book of the Chronijk of P. J. Twisck, page 164, col. 1, from Valentinus Beyer, fol. 635: “In the fourth council of Rome Anabaptism was condemned.”

But it did not stop here; for, A. D. 487, seventeen years afterwards, Pope Felix III., the fiftieth in the register of the popes, by the aid of a council then held, established different other articles against Anabaptism and the Anabaptists, very evidently, with a view to their suppression.

A. D. 487.—Many now, from time to time, separated from the Roman church, rejecting her superstitions and invented ordinances of worship, and desiring to have no fellowship with the mystery of wickedness, which just then began greatly to rise among the Romanists, so that not only many of the common people, but also, it appears, some eminent clerical and learned persons, separated themselves from the Roman religion in such a manner, that they, in token of this, were baptized upon faith, by those who were called heretics or Anabaptists, notwithstanding they had been baptized in their youth by the Romanists. In order to prevent this, the Pope or Bishop of Rome, whose name was Felix, 189 made the most strenuous efforts,115 convoking for this end, A. D. 487, a synod or council, in the city of Rome; concerning which the following account is given in Bapt. Hist., page 442, from Centuræ Magdeburgenses, fol. 538: “In a synod held at Rome, A. D. 487, by Pope Felix, who had learned that in Africa, some ecclesiastics, priests, and bishops had been rebaptized together with numbers of the common people, it was decreed:

“1. If those that have been rebaptized are grievously sorry, and desire to do penance, they shall be received kindly, and, as usual, by the priests.

“2. The priests and ecclesiastics that have fallen, and been baptized with the baptism of heretics, shall do penance to the end of their life.

“3. Other ecclesiastics, as monks, nuns, and seculars, who have fallen, and been rebaptized, shall remain three years among the catechumens, and seven years among the penitents; shall not offer for the space of two years, but pray among the seculars; however, if they be overtaken by death during this time, the bishop, or a priest shall absolve them.

“4. Those who have been baptized or rebaptized by heretics, shall not be permitted to receive any ecclesiastical office, but must be content (that is, if they return) with being received into the number of the Catholics.”

All these articles—the fourth one we have passed over as irrelevant—sufficiently indicate that those who were then called Anabaptists must have increased greatly and commanded no small respect, since not only the common people, but also (as the second and third article declare) priests, ecclesiastics, and other clerical persons, as monks, nuns, etc., though baptized in youth, were rebaptized, that is, baptized upon faith; which is the more evident from the fact that the Pope considered the matter of sufficient importance, to convoke, in order to weaken the so-called Anabaptists and maintain the Roman church, a public synod or council, and publish laws and rules against them. Also P. J. Twisck makes mention of this, in his Chron., 5th book, page 167, col. 2, fixing, however, the date of this occurrence on the year 483, which is four years earlier than in Bapt. History.

He says: “Felix III., the fiftieth Pope of Rome, ordained that the churches should be consecrated by the bishops, and that annual wakes or church-masses—real bacchanals—should be celebrated. In his time it was also decreed in a council, that persons baptized by heretics, or rebaptized, should not be received into any ecclesiastical order. Said council also had under consideration those who had been rebaptized in Africa, and desired to do penance; as well as, what should be done with the bishops, priests, monks, and nuns, who had been rebaptized.” From Platina, fol. 91. Fasc. Temp., fol. 112. Hist. Georg., lib. 3.

A. D. 494.—At this time flourished Primasius; he explains 1 Tim. 6:12, where the apostle says: “Thou hast professed a good profession before many witnesses,” as having reference to baptism. See Bapt. Hist., page 483, from Joseph Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 37.

But, beloved reader, how can this passage apply to baptism, or be interpreted with reference to it, unless we understand that the good profession of which the apostle speaks, is attributed to the candidates for baptism; so that, as Timothy (of whom he says this) professed a good profession before many witnesses, even so must yet at this day all who are to be baptized, profess a good profession before many witnesses. But new-born infants cannot do this; hence, the baptism of which Primasius here speaks, does not relate to infants.

Afterwards, in his first book on John’s Revelation, he says: “He is arrayed in a white robe, who is clothed with Christ, and is strong in the faith which worketh by love; but as many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.” Gal. 3:27. Bapt. Hist., page 408.

Nowhere in the holy Scriptures, are infants enjoined to put on Christ; but this is throughout and without exception said to believers. See Rom. 13:14; Gal 3:27; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10. These epistles were written and sent only to believers. But to remove all doubt, Primasius himself explains what he understands by this putting on of Christ, by adding: “and is strong in the faith.” This is certainly not anything that children can do; hence the baptism which he applies to such as he speaks of is not the baptism of infants.

NOTE.—At this time mention is made, in a certain African council, of certain people, as being agitators with regard to baptism, and how they should be suppressed. Compare Seb. Franck, Chron. Rom., Conc., fol. 48, col. 4, with our remarks in the account of the martyrs of the fifth century, on the year 497.

A. D. 498.—It is stated that at this time there lived and wrote, the excellent teacher, Fulgentius, who, writing, among other things on baptism says (lib. de fide, ad Petrum, cap. 30): “Rest assured of this, and doubt not in anywise.” Continuing he says: “That no man can receive eternal life, who has not previously been converted from his sins through repentance and faith, and through the sacrament of faith and repentance been redeemed, that is, through baptism; this is absolutely necessary for adults, namely that they repent of their sins, understand the common faith, according to the truth, and receive the sacrament of baptism (upon it).”

This is the only testimony of Fulgentius, respecting baptism, which we have been able to find; from which we can draw no other conclusion than that he esteemed baptism upon faith very highly, yea, that this, and no other, was considered true baptism by him; for when he speaks of baptism, he connects it with faith and repentance, and, hence, calls it a sacrament of faith and repentance, adding that it is necessary for adults. How could one speak more clearly and plainly of the true Christian and apostolical baptism, which is peculiar to believers and penitents. We will, therefore, let the matter rest, as having been sufficiently explained by Fulgentius.

190

NOTE.—It appears that the doctrine of baptism upon faith had at this time, A. D. 498, made its way even to the papal chair, which, however, we do not recognize. Bapt. Hist., page 463, Pope Leo I., in his epistle, declaims with great warmth against the Bishops of Sicily, Campania, Samnia, and Picena, because they baptized not only on Easter and Whitsuntide, but also on Epiphany and other holidays. Observe: this is utterly opposed to infant baptism, as we have shown elsewhere. On page 464, Pope Leo (Serm. 1, de natia Dom., cap. 4) thus exhorts those who had been baptized: “Remain steadfast in the faith which you have confessed before many witnesses, and in which you are regenerated.” Again, Leo writes (Epist. 4, ad Episcob., in Sicilia, cap. 6): “You plainly see that two reasons must be observed, in which the elect (that is, believers) are to be baptized.”

See, beloved reader, such is the power of truth, that even the mouth of the liar, yea, of antichrist, must confess it. But though Pope Leo confessed this, other popes declared those who confessed the same, heretics, yea, cursed, persecuted, and killed them, as shall be shown in the proper place.

At this time Fulgentius taught that the holy Scriptures contained all that was necessary for salvation—food for children, as well as for adults. S. Veltius, Geschlacht-register, 1649, page 123.

A. D. 500.—P. J. Twisck, in the conclusion of his account of the fifth century, complains of the desolation, both in civil and spiritual affairs, occasioned chiefly by the power of the Pope of Rome, saying: “In this time, and still longer, through the desolation caused in the lands by the invasion of many different armies, and by other destroyers, as well as through immorality and heresies, the best people and chiefest authors perished, piety and learning diminished, and whatever of good remained, became for the most part corrupted. For although the baptism of adults was still administered, and church history from the time of Christ up to about this period, does not in the least, as far as I know, mention infant baptism, the latter nevertheless, according to other writers, more and more lifts up its head, and this with papal pollution, is confirmed by a decree, and considered not necessary to salvation.” Chron., 5th book, page 174.

From this we may gather the reason why at times so few orthodox and good writers are found, and, hence, how it comes that in those early days, there was sometimes, for a long period, only one, or a few, who openly maintained baptism upon faith, and other wholesome articles of faith, of which we will not speak further now.

The statement, that church history, from the time of Christ up to about this time (A. D. 500), does not in the least mention infant baptism, gives rise to the grave suspicion, that the authors which appear to have written long before the year 500, were interpolated by some of their descendants who maintained infant baptism. A few instances of this kind we have already given, respecting the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, Justin, Origen, and others.

But be this as it may, posterity must make the best of the aforesaid writings, as we also must now do; and, according to their account, infant baptism obtained at this time, and long before, in many of the (Roman) churches, though many kept aloof from it, so that even with them, it was not generally adopted until about the year 900, yea, almost to the year 1000, as we hope to show in the proper place, and as may be seen in various prominent authors.

In the mean time we have shown (which suffices us) that the fifth century was not without men who, opposing infant baptism, maintained baptism upon faith, according to the teaching of Christ, and confirmed it by doctrine and example.

NOTE.—It is stated that about A. D. 500, Clodovius and his people were baptized upon faith, or the confession of the same, by Remigius, Bishop of Rheins. Bapt. Hist., page 435. But he did not show himself a Christian in every respect, which we would not commend. Moreover, his two sons were baptized before his conversion as Blondus writes (lib. 3, decade 1, also Bapt. Hist., page 436), notwithstanding their mother, Clotildis was a godly, Christian woman, as is stated in Bapt. Hist., page 435. From this it appears that at that time, even among the Romanists, it was not a general custom to baptize infants, but that some permitted their children to attain to the years of understanding, before they were baptized; however in other places, in the Roman dominion, infant baptism was strictly observed. In the mean time the true Christians kept quiet, and practiced baptism upon faith, as has been sufficiently shown.