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 other[141] papal errors, as his books testify.
[141] Twisck might have used a less ambiguous phrase here, though we doubt not, that the intelligent reader will readily see what he means; but, for fear that some one might misunderstand him, we will add a few words of explanation. The word “other,” of course, implies that some errors have already been adduced; strictly speaking, however, he has not adduced the errors, but rather the articles of faith in regard to which errors were held, by the Roman church. _Translator._
“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_.