Hilarius on Baptism and Several Other Articles of His Faith

Hilarius, originally a heathen, who later became a Christian and was baptized at Rome in the year 350, was a very learned and eloquent man. He writes (book 2): "The Lord has commanded 'to baptize on, or in, the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that is," and so on.

He also defended the truth against the Arians, and for this he was exiled; and he likewise vigorously opposed the arrogance of the see of Rome, and its rule over other churches, and said that antichrist would devastate the earth through wars and murder.

To those who busied themselves more with marveling at the building of the temple than with considering the doctrine, he says: "You are indeed unwise to look with wonder on these things; for you must know that antichrist will one day set his throne there.

"The nature of the name antichrist is opposition to Christ, which he brings about under a deceptive show of the Gospel. He transforms himself into an angel of light, so that he may turn the Christian mind away. He has already, to some extent, begun his course, pretending to be Christ, though he has departed very far from Christ.

"They (that is, the Antichristians) ambitiously seek the help of the secular power, which they draw to themselves in order to advance their name and honor, and to protect their church; so they work with a worldly ambition, although it is folly to use secular power in defense of the Christian church.

"Let me ask you, you bishops, what help did the apostles use in proclaiming the Gospel? By the aid of what magistracy did they preach Christ, and turn the heathen from idolatry to God?

"Now the church counts the favor of the world, and boasts that the world loves her — she who could at no time have been the church of Christ without being hated by the world."

Again, on Psalm 68, he says: "God is now preached, honored, and worshiped in stone, wood, and metal, and the Master builder of the world, the Father of us all, is fashioned in perishable matter, to which they have been brought by the enticing words of philosophy. With these and similar words he strongly censures the abuse practiced by the church of Rome." P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 104, columns 1, 2, from Socrat., book 3. Casp. Swine, epistle 1, folio 877. Seb. Fr.

Since the passages above from Hilarius are not only excellent but also plain, so that they need no explanation, we leave them and go on to others who confessed the same faith.

NOTE. At this time Hilarius taught that all human traditions, because of which God's commandments are broken, must be rooted out. On Matthew 15, Canon 14. Sam. Veltius, Geslachtregister, page 122. He also writes: "The Father revealed to Peter, who said, 'You are the Son of God,' that the church should be built on this rock of confession." "This faith," he says, "is the foundation of the church; this faith has the keys of heaven." In the same place, as well as in the 6th book of the Trinity.

In the year 350. In the meantime we find that the parents of Augustine's mother, though they were Christians, did not have their daughter Monica baptized in her infancy, since she was not baptized until she had reached the years of understanding, and this at the time when the followers of Cyprian practiced infant baptism to a very great extent. With regard to this, I find the following account: "Moreover, even in Africa, where Cyprian had held the council mentioned above to settle the exact time for baptizing infants, and had resolved that baptism should be administered to infants as soon as they were born, it was, about the year 350, not observed by all Christian believers. Of this we have an example in Monica, Augustine's mother, a very devout woman, born of Christian parents, who also was baptized when she had reached the years of understanding, as Augustine himself testifies." H. Montan. Nietigh., page 71, from Augustine, book 2, Confess., chapter 3, and book 9, chapters 8 and 13.

In the year 351. It is recorded that the Christians at Neocesarea declared themselves openly against infant baptism, in a convention or assembly of the ministers, called the council of Neocesarea; so that infant baptism, which was then beginning to prevail in different places, could gain no support there, as appears from the various rules adopted by this body.

In Canon 5, we read: "If a catechumen who is not yet baptized, and has his place among the catechumens in the church, has been seen in a sin, he shall hear the preaching on his bended knees, so that he may turn from the sin he committed; but if he persists in it, he shall be expelled."

In Canon 6, we read: "Pregnant women may be baptized whenever they desire it; for in this sacrament there is no communication between the mother and the child which is born of her; but everyone must in this confession himself declare his free will and good intention."

Canon 11, after some other words, declares: "The Lord was not baptized until He was thirty years old, and after that He preached." Jacob Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2nd part, pages 351, 352.

First, when in Canon 5 mention is made of the catechumens, it certainly shows that it was the custom to instruct the young before baptism in the articles of the faith, upon which followed the confession of the same, and baptism. This cannot be contradicted.

Secondly, when in Canon 6 it is established that pregnant women may be baptized whenever they desire it, because there is no communication between the mother and the child which is born of her, it clearly confirms that infant baptism had no place whatsoever among them, but that they were indeed opposed to it. It appears that a difficulty was raised at that time as to whether pregnant women might be baptized or not; for it was thought or feared that the unborn child had such communion with the mother that the child, too, would share in the baptism received by the mother, which would have been contrary to the views held by the church, that no one should be baptized except upon his own confession of faith, and therefore no infants, much less unborn children. But this fear or difficulty was removed when it was declared that in the receiving of baptism there is no communication between the mother and the child, and that for this reason the child does not share in the baptism received by the mother. This is too clear to be refuted.

Thirdly, when in Canon 11 mention is made of Christ being baptized when He was thirty years old, although preaching is what is spoken of here, and that it ought not to be undertaken by anyone before he is thirty years old, the baptism which is administered upon faith, or in adult years, is nevertheless also commended and held to be necessary. For, as Christ was baptized in adult years and at once began to preach, so that the time of His baptism was also the time of His preaching, so too (the Canon apparently means to say) baptizing, like preaching, may take place only in adult years; for as the one requires understanding, so does the other, according to the example of Christ.

In the year 360. P. J. Twisck writes: "Although at this time much bloody cruelty was practiced against the bishop who sided with Arius, so that this party was almost wholly crushed, still, according to history, there remained sects like the Anabaptists, and so on. If their books were still in existence, we might give an account of what they taught concerning all these matters; but as it is, we must be content with what others have written." P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 106, column 2, from Jac. P. perm. Onsch., book 4, folio 131.

It is greatly to be regretted that so few of the writings of the Anabaptists who lived at that time are still in existence; for this compels us to receive our information about them from the mouths of their enemies, information which, as we may readily judge, was not dictated by love, but by animosity. However, we owe thanks to God that even this much has come down to us concerning their history, since Satan, through his followers, has always aimed to destroy not only their books, but also their lives — indeed, their bodies and souls, if possible.

In the year 362. Saint Martin, born of heathen parents, went at the age of ten, against the will of his parents, to the meetings of the Christians, embraced Christianity, and was baptized when he was eighteen years old. Being now a Christian, he desired to be discharged from the military profession into which his parents had brought him; so he said to the apostate Emperor, Julian, that it was not lawful for him to fight, because he was a Christian.

But since the Minorite, Thomas van Heerentaals, in his Mirror of the Ten Commandments and Seven Sacraments, gives a somewhat fuller account concerning Saint Martin, and especially of baptism as it was practiced at that time, we shall make a short extract from it. He says: "In former times it was the custom to administer holy baptism only twice a year, namely, on Easter eve and on Pentecost eve, except in cases of necessity, which were fourfold: 1. In a siege. 2. In danger of martyrdom. 3. In peril at sea. 4. In dangerous sickness. In such cases they baptized all, and at all times, so that no one might die without baptism. But when these four reasons did not exist, baptism was administered only on the two days mentioned above, and that with great solemnity and dignity; and all who were admitted to baptism had reached the years of understanding. Even Saint Martin, that holy man, was a catechumen for six years, from the time he was twelve until he was eighteen years old, before he received baptism." P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 110, columns 4, 2.

In the years 363 and 364. In the time of Julian the apostate there lived and shone as bright lights various excellent men, whose learning and godliness there is no need to extol, since it is sufficiently known. They gave expression to their orthodox convictions by word and by deed, especially with regard to the matter of baptism, that it ought to be administered after previous instruction, upon faith and repentance.

At the same time, in the year 363, there lived Ambrose, who is said to have been born of Christian parents. His father's name was also Ambrose, while his mother's name was Marcellina. He, too, was not baptized until the day on which he was chosen bishop of Milan, after he had been instructed in the catechism, that is, in the doctrines of the faith.* On this see Tract van den loop der wereld, by F. H. H., printed 1611, pages 47, 48, from Paul. de vita Ambrosii. Naucler. Chron. Generat. 13.

Such a procedure, namely, to elect anyone bishop or teacher so hastily, as is stated here concerning Ambrose, we do not commend; but we note here that Christians at that time had not generally adopted infant baptism; indeed, that some, in spite of the papal power, purposely did not have their children baptized, but had them, when they had reached riper years, first instructed, and then baptized upon their own confession. [n231-1]

D. Vicecomes (book 2, chapter 6) records, from Nolanus, concerning Ambrose, that in his time Frigitil, Queen of the Marcomans, having heard from a Christian man what good things were said of Ambrose, believed in Christ, and acknowledged him (Ambrose) as his minister. To her Ambrose wrote an excellent letter. See "Bapt. Hist.," page 462.

Ambrose (Sermon 61) makes the statement: "It was the custom for all people to be baptized at Easter." In the book de Jejunio, chapter 10, he says: "Now comes the day of the resurrection; now the elect are baptized." Yet on First Timothy 4 he says that the sick were baptized on any day. Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2nd part, page 334.

These words of Ambrose confirm what we said before; for when he says that at Easter it was the custom to baptize all people, he sufficiently declares that at that time infant baptism was not a custom. For not only at Easter, but throughout the whole year, children are born, and their baptism, because of the danger that they might die, could never have been put off until Easter, had infant baptism been deemed necessary for salvation. But Ambrose removes all doubt when he says what persons were baptized then, namely, all people; for by the word people are generally understood adult or rational persons, and not infants in the cradle.

Moreover, when he writes that the sick were baptized on any day, he proves thereby that infant baptism was not practiced in the church of which he speaks. For if it had been the custom there to baptize infants, it would not have been necessary to baptize the sick on any day, since they would have been baptized already in their infancy; or our opponents must show that the sick, who were baptized on any day, were also baptized in their infancy, which they dare not maintain, since these churches would then have to be regarded as anabaptists. Nevertheless, one of two things must follow. Either the sick who were baptized in their infancy were rebaptized, or the adults who were baptized had not been baptized in their infancy. If the former is true, then the Anabaptists, as they are called, flourished already in those early times. But if the latter is true, then there were at that time whole churches which rejected infant baptism, or at least let their children remain unbaptized. This is so clear that it cannot be refuted.