_About A. D. 525._--Or in the 15th year of Theodoric, King of France, those of the Roman church again found themselves in great embarrassment with regard to the so-called Anabaptists. The matter rose to such a pitch that it was thought well to assemble a council against them, as had been done by Pope Felix, A. D. 487, at Rome. Accordingly, about A. D. 525, the second council against the Anabaptists was convened, not at Rome, as the first, but at Ilerda, in Spain; to which there assembled, as was usually the case, many of the bitterest papistic bishops--in order to extirpate, or at least check, the heresy, as it was called--who made a number of rules and laws, not only against the Anabaptists, but also against those who, having separated from the Roman church, had been rebaptized by them; of which rules, among others, the following are noted:
_Canon 9._ “Concerning those who through transgression have been rebaptized, and have fallen without necessity, it is our will, that the statutes of the Nicene synod be observed respecting them, which are considered to have been passed for such offenders: that they shall pray for seven years among the catechumens, and two years among the catholics, and then,” &c.
_Canon 14._ “Godly believers shall not eat with the rebaptized”. _Bapt. Hist., pages 477, 478_, from _the 6th Cent. Magd,. cap. 9, fol. 240, ex Decret. Synod, Ilerdensis_.
The 13th canon of this synod, also given in the same place, we suspect, has been misquoted; however, as it does not apply here, we leave it in its own merit.
That the 14th canon, however, which speaks only of the rebaptized, concerns the so-called Anabaptists, appears from the annotation of Sebastian Franck, of Wordens, in _part 3_ of his _Chronijk, fol. 73, col. 1_, who translates this canon thus: “The clergy and believers shall not partake of meals with the Anabaptists.”
From this it can be seen in what detestation, yea, abhorrence, the so-called Anabaptists in the time past, were held by the Romanists, inasmuch as they were not considered worthy to eat with, even as once the Samaritans, publicans, and sinners had been regarded by the Jews.
We will not investigate minutely, whether the so-called Anabaptists of that time held the same views, in regard to every article, with those who, at the present day, are designated by that name; nor will we, if perhaps in some points they did not teach aright, or were not fully enlightened, defend, much less, praise them; it suffices us, that they, besides other good and wholesome articles, mentioned by us in another place, held this in common with the Anabaptists of the present day, namely: _That they did not approve of the baptism which by the Romanists is administered to infants, but rejected it_, so that they baptized, or, at least, baptized aright at first, those who, having come to adult years, embraced their faith.
It also is praiseworthy in them, that they, notwithstanding the anathema of the Pope and the councils, yea, regardless of persecution, suffering, and death, as shall be shown in the proper place, maintained and manfully defended their views. We know of nothing further that we could say of them, from authentic writers, but will commend them, as well as ourselves, to God and his grace. As regards the manner in which they were proceeded against, in subsequent times, as well as how they conducted themselves herein, we shall show in the proper time and place.
_About A. D. 530._--D. Joseph Vicecomes, in his treatise records (_Bapt. Hist., page 482_), the following testimonies from the sixth century.
Of the decree of the Christians, at Agathe, about A. D. 530, he says, _lib. 3, cap. 1_: “The council of Agathe, _cap. 13_, says: It is the will of all the church, that on the eighth day before Easter, the confession of faith be preached publicly in the church to those desiring baptism.”[118]