Part 33

Beloved reader! I could not forbear to translate these records, just as they were, for the most part word for word; not only because I have found them to be true and genuine in every respect; but also, because we can very clearly see therefrom, what form of inquisition or examination the heathen employed against the Christians; as well as with what manifold torments the obdurate heathen sought to compel the Christians to apostatize from the faith, and how remarkably God preserved his own against the devices and wiles of the devil.

It need not seem strange to the reader, that the proconsuls or criminal judges so frequently put to the rack the same Christians, to cause them to apostatize from the faith: for Lactantius tells us of a president in Bithynia, who for two years endeavored by all manner of torments to compel a Christian to apostatize, and who, when this Christian finally seemed to yield, boasted of it just as though he had conquered a whole province of a barbaric country.

As touching the rest of the matter, that is, how and when the sentence of the Proconsul was executed, the heathen have not recorded it; but some Christian brethren, namely, Macarius, Felix, and Verus, probably bought those records from the clerk of the criminal court, and added from their own observation what was wanting, since they had been eye-witnesses of it at the theatrical drama the following day.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE DEATH OF THE AFOREMENTIONED MARTYRS, WRITTEN BY SOME CHRISTIAN BRETHREN WHO WITNESSED IT.

Numerius Maximus, Proconsul of Cilicia, summoning Terentian, the provider of public sacrifices and theatrical performances which were held in Cilicia, commanded him to provide for the dramas for the next day. The following day a great number of men and women assembled in the amphitheatre, which was situated about a mile, or one thousand paces from the city. When the amphitheatre was filled with people, Maximus also came to witness the play, and in the first act of it, when many wild beasts were let out at the same time, many human bodies were devoured. We Christians kept ourselves concealed and waited with great fear for the bringing forth of the martyrs. Suddenly the Proconsul commanded the soldiers to bring in the Christian martyrs, namely, Tharacus, Probus, and Andronicus. The soldiers compelled some to carry the Christian martyrs on their shoulders, for they were torn and lacerated to such a degree, that they could not walk. We then saw them carried thus disfigured into the amphitheatre, and seeing how they had been maltreated, we turned our faces, and cried bitterly. Thus the martyrs were thrown down into the middle of the arena, as the offscouring or refuse of this world; and when the multitude beheld them, they were all frightened, and the people murmured greatly against Maximus for having thus tormented them, and then yet sentencing them to be thrown to the beasts; yea, many went away from the amphitheatre, censuring Maximus for his inhuman cruelty. When Maximus saw this, he commanded the soldiers who stood near him, to note those who murmured against him, and were leaving; so that he might afterwards examine them in regard to it. In the meanwhile he commanded that the wild beasts should be let out, to rend the martyrs. In _Scriptura Christianorum Fratrum_.

In order to avoid prolixity, we shall sum up what follows here in the aforementioned account of the Christian brethren, in these words: “The wild beasts were let out, especially a frightful bear, and then a lioness; both of which indeed, by roaring terribly, made a dreadful noise, so that also the spectators were frightened by it; but they did not harm the martyrs, much less tear or devour them. The Proconsul in his rage commanded the spear-men, to thrust the bear through; the lioness, however, on account of the fear of the people, was let out by a back door, which was broken in pieces. Then Maximus ordered Terentian, to let in the gladiators, who should first kill the Christians, and then fight with each other for life. These, when they came in, first thrust through the martyrs; which happened on the 11th day of October, A. D. 290, at Tarsus in Cilicia.” When the drama was over, and the Proconsul was about to go home, he left ten soldiers in the amphitheatre, charging them, to mingle the dead bodies of the martyrs with those of the heathen gladiators, that the Christians might not be able to distinguish them. However, it is stated in the above account, that the Christians removed their dead bodies, and buried them in a cave in a rock.

In regard to this, A. Mellinus, who has referred to it, has the following remark: “They who did this, also wrote the conclusion of this history; hence we have not the least reason to doubt the veracity of this account of the proceedings against the martyrs.” _First book of the Mart. 1619, fol. 96, col. 1_; but with reference to the previous proceedings against the martyrs, see _fol. 93, col. 3_, and _fol. 94, col. 1–4_, and _fol. 95, col. 1–3_.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM OF THE MARTYRS IN THE FOURTH CENTURY.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THIS CENTURY.

At the close of the third century the eminent Arnobius was introduced, and inasmuch as his life extended from one century into the other we refer to him again here in the beginning of the fourth century. He speaks of the virtue and benefit of baptism, as may be seen in the proper place.

Fusca and the handmaid Maura were baptized after previous instruction.

At this time (in the time of Sylvester) there existed such sects as were afterwards called Waldenses, Anabaptists, etc.

One Donatus was called an Anabaptist, and his followers, Anabaptists.

Athanasius, while yet a child, indicated, with other children, that at Alexandria they baptized upon confession of faith.

In Canon 12, 13, 15, of the Council of Nice several good things are established with regard to baptism.

Athanasius, having become a man, teaches wholesome doctrine, not only with respect to baptism, but also in regard to other matters of religion.

Soon after him comes Marius Victorinus, who joins together faith, confession, and baptism.

Then appears Hilarius, who wrote very appropriately on baptism, and also opposes antichrist, images, and traditions.

Monica, the mother of Augustine, was baptized in adult years, though she was born of Christian parents.

In the Council of Neocesarea, the candidates for baptism, the baptizing of pregnant women, Christ’s baptism, etc., were discussed.

Again sects appear, who were like the Baptists.

St. Martin was instructed from his twelfth to his eighteenth year, and then baptized. He strongly opposed war.

Ambrose was baptized in adult years, at Milan, though his parents were Christians. He advanced sound views on baptism, against war, of the sacrament, etc.

Ephrem, Gregory of Nyssa, the Councils of Laodicea and Elibertum, and also Optatus Milevitanus, give correct views on baptism.

Gregory of Nazianzus, born of Christian parents, was already in his twentieth year when he was baptized. Nectarius was baptized in adult years. Basil, the son of a Christian, and Eubulus, consulted together, and were baptized on their faith, at Jerusalem. Posthumanius made a glorious confession at his baptism. John Crysostom was suffered by his parents, though they were Christians, to remain unbaptized, not receiving baptism until he was twenty-one years old. Also, his views respecting baptism; his teaching against war, confession, etc.

Jerome, also born of Christian parents, was baptized at Syridon, when he was thirty years old.

Augustine, Adeolatus, Alipius, Euodius, Epiphanius, with his sister, all baptized upon faith. Conclusion of baptism in the fourth century.

That the holy order of the baptism of Jesus Christ was practiced also in the fourth century, appears from various teachings and examples of the fathers, from which, we shall present only a few, but such as are certain and genuine testimonies.

_A. D. 301._--At the close of the preceding century, for A. D. 300, we introduced the eminent Arnobius, and showed that, speaking of baptism, he says: “That the candidates for baptism, when they are baptized, state before the minister their perfect willingness, and make their confession with their own lips.”

This Arnobius follows us also in the beginning of this century, namely through the years 301, 302, 303, 304; and having not abandoned his previous views regarding this matter, he confirms them with the following testimonies.

Speaking against the tenets of the Romanists, who ordain consecrated, or, properly speaking, exorcised water for baptism, he writes thus (in Psalm 74): “It is written: Thou breakest the heads of the dragons in the waters; that is,” says he, “the heads of the dragons in baptism;” but by saying, _in the waters_, he means to signify that the same baptism can be administered in all kinds of waters, as, in rivers, lakes, wells, baths, seas, etc. In these the head of the dragon, that is Satan, is broken in all waters. _Jacob Mehrn. Bapt. Hist., page 323._

Of the virtue and benefit of baptism he teaches as follows, Psalm 32, where the Psalmist says: “In the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him,” upon which he remarks: “that men, by the true water of baptism, draw nigh to God, who is a refuge from the fear of Satan that encompasses us.” _Jacob Mehrn., page 324._

Again, Psalm 32, he says: “Man is redeemed; no angel, nor any other creature, but man alone praises his mercy, says the Lord, whose sins he forgives in baptism.” _Jacob Mehrn., page 325._

Although these words of Arnobius are somewhat obscure, yet they contain light enough, to emit rays of divine truth concerning the matter of baptism. For when in the first place he says, that the head of the dragon is broken in baptism (by dragon meaning Satan), he certainly indicates thereby, that he speaks of persons who, having attained maturer years, become subject to the assaults of Satan, and that these, in baptism, break the head of the dragon, that is, Satan, by means of the true faith, through Christ; hence he does not speak of children--who are ignorant of the assaults of Satan--and, consequently, not of infant baptism.

Secondly, when he says that men, by the true water of baptism, draw nigh to God, he certainly indicates that he speaks of men who have departed from God through disobedience, consequently, of persons who have arrived at the years of discretion; and not of infants; for how can any one draw nigh to God by baptism, who has not departed from him? Infants have not departed from God through disobedience; hence they cannot draw nigh to him by baptism.

Thirdly, when he speaks of man, who praises the mercy of the Lord, and whose sins the Lord forgives in baptism, he certainly indicates that he speaks of men who are capable of praising the mercy of the Lord, namely, men possessing understanding, and who have sinned; for only he that has sinned can have his sins forgiven; but with infants, who have never sinned, no forgiveness can take place, and consequently, no baptism for the remission of sins. By this the obscure words of Arnobius became clear.

NOTE.--P. J. Twisck records, for the year 306, that Constantine the Great, the son of the believing Helena, was baptized in Jordan, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, after having been instructed (_Chron. 4th book, page 89, col. 1_); from which it is apparent, that at that time Christians left their children unbaptized, in order that they themselves might believe and be baptized.

_A. D. 308._--Fusca, the pious maiden, conceived a desire for the Christian faith when she was quite young, and, having manifested this desire to the servant-maid, Mauro, who also felt an inward drawing towards Christ, they were thoroughly instructed in the Christian faith at Ravenna, by the teacher Hermola, and baptized. _P. J. Twisck, Chron. 4th book, page 90, col. 1_, from _Grond. Bew., letter B, Leonh., lib. 2_.

_A. D. 315._--It is stated that already in the time of Sylvester, there was taught and maintained the same doctrine which was afterwards maintained by countless numbers of the baptistic Waldenses, yea, that those churches which in the 11th, 12th, 13th, and in subsequent centuries were styled Waldenses Albigenses, and lastly, Mennonites, or Anabaptists, had existed already at that time, and indeed, long before. Of this a certain celebrated author among the Romanists bitterly complains, in a very old book, saying: “These heretics (the people mentioned above) have always had many sects among them; but of all that ever existed, none was more pernicious to the church of God (understand the Roman church) than the _Poor of Lyons_ (the Waldenses or Anabaptists), and this for three reasons: In the first place, because of their antiquity; some asserting that they existed already in the days of Sylvester, others referring them even to the time of the apostles.” _Jac. Mehrn., page 615._

In another place Jacob Mehrning writes thus about the abovementioned people: “This is not a new sect that originated only at that time (that is, in the time of Waldus); for the papistic writers themselves confess that they existed already in the time of Pope Sylvester, nay, long before him, even in the time of the apostles.” _B. H., page 670._

In another place he writes that Flaccius has also recorded the same, from an ancient papistic book, namely, that they existed from the time of Sylvester, yea, from the time of the apostles; and that Thuanus, though he compares them to another people, states that their doctrine has continued through many centuries.” _Page 682._

The time of the reign of Sylvester, who was the first pope of this name, and on the register of the Roman bishops the 34th, is fixed in the year 315. See _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, p. 93, col. 1, from Platina, fol. 63_. _Fasc. Temp., fol. 99, Hist. Georg., lib. 1, Fr. Ala., fol. 22, Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 13._

_A. D. 317._--Donatus, an over-learned bishop at Carthage,[101] who had many adherents in Africa, taught among other things: “That the preaching of the divine word and the administration of the sacraments by an ungodly minister, were of no avail. They (his followers) held that the church of Christ existed only among them, and hence, they rebaptized all who wished to adopt their religion, saying that the heretics, or the Pope, had no Christian church, and consequently, no baptism, inasmuch as there was only one God, one faith, one Gospel, one church, and one baptism. ‘They, like the Anabaptists, also held,’ says Franck, ‘that no children, even in the extremity of death, should be baptized, but only believing adults who desired it.’”

[101] Seb. Franck notes as the time of the propagation of the doctrine of Donatus the year 334, under the Emperor Constantine. “He taught,” says Franck, “that the Son is less than the Father, and the Holy Spirit less than the Son.” This is considered heresy by the Roman church, but when rightly expounded, it may be correct. For Christ himself with regard to his humanity says: “My Father is greater than I,” John 14:28. And of the Holy Ghost he says: “If I depart, I will send him unto you,” John 16:7; as though the Holy Ghost were less than himself. Franck further says, that Donatus was an over-learned bishop of Carthage, who had come there from Numidia, and maintained that the true and only baptism existed exclusively in his church and faith. _Chron. Rom. Kett., letter D._

When he was imprisoned he upbraided Augustine, saying that no one ought to be imprisoned on account of his faith, God had given man his free will, to believe as he chose. Concerning all this, see, _P. J. Twisck Chron., 4th book, p. 93, col. 2, and page 94, col. 1, from Merula, fol. 255. Zeg., fol. 79. Seb. Franck, Chron. van de Roomsche Ketters, letter D., fol. 76_, printed A. D. 1563.

As regards Donatus, if it be true that he erred in some things, or failed in some matter of faith, we will not defend him therein; however, this much is certain, that owing to the absence of his writings, we have no other information concerning him, than that which comes to us through the mouth and hand of his adversaries.

Concerning this, P. J. Twisck, in a certain place, expresses his regret, saying, that in his _Chronijk_, for the year 410, he wrote something derogatory to his followers, before he had been properly informed regarding it; which he afterwards, for the year 417, refutes and explains more clearly by quoting from Bullinger: “That the followers of Donatus were similar to the Anabaptists (whom he calls Baptists); that they taught, that no one ought to be compelled to do good or to accept the faith.” Again: “that every heretic should be left to follow his particular faith without restraint or compulsion.”

On this account, P. J. Twisck, in the same place, relates from another author, that it is quite probable that these people were burdened with many unjust accusations. “It would be desirable,” writes he, “to have in our possession their writings, teachings, and deeds; for if it be the case, that they were in all respects like the Anabaptists, and would compel no one in matters of faith, then it is sufficiently apparent, that they are unjustly charged by other writers, with tyranny. I have given this a place here, because the year 410 was already arranged when this reached me.” Thus far, _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 147, col. 2, from H. Bulling. Contra Anbapt., lib. 5, fol. 216, 222_.

NOTE.--We accept of the writings of Donatus only that which is good and true; for the rest we assume no responsibility.

_About A. D. 318._--It appears that when Athanasius was yet a boy, at Alexandria also, baptism was not administered otherwise than upon confession of faith; at least, that it was not customary to baptize infants, is evident from the following circumstances of a certain occurrence related by Ruffinus and Zozomenus: “When the day of the martyr Peter was celebrated at Alexandria, by the Bishop Alexander, and he, after the solemn service was over, was awaiting his assistants, or pupils to dine with him, he observed in the distance some children playing on the sea shore, who, very probably, not for the first time were imitating the bishop and those things which are generally done in church. But when he observed the children more attentively, he noticed that they were performing some mysterious things. Astonished at this, he summoned his assistants to him, and showed them what he had seen from a distance. Then he commanded them to seize the children and bring them to him. When they came, he asked them, what they had been playing, and what and how they had been doing? They, as was natural for their years, at first were frightened, and denied the matter, but afterwards related it just as it had taken place, and confessed that they, through Athanasius, who in this game had imitated the Bishop, had baptized some catechumens, that is, boys who had not been baptized. Alexander then inquired of those who they said had been baptized, what questions had been put to them, and what they had answered; likewise interrogating him who had put the questions; and found that all was in accordance with the manner of our religion. _Jac. Mehrn., 2d part, pp. 356, 357, from Nicephor., lib. 8, cap. 44._ Also, _H. Montan. Nietigh., pp. 64, 65, from Ruffin. Eccl. Hist. 1, cap. 14. Zozom. Eccl. Hist., lib. 3, cap. 16_.

From these circumstances it is evident that infant baptism was not customary there. First, when we take into consideration the conduct of these boys, we see that in the Christian church at Alexandria the usual mode of baptizing at that time was this, namely: that the Bishop, or whoever administered baptism, first interrogated the candidates for baptism, and then, after they had answered him, they were baptized.

Secondly, if we consider the boys themselves, who apparently were ten or twelve years old, which probability is increased by the fact that Ruffinus (as H. Montanus shows), calls them catechumens, that is, such as were being instructed in the faith, which is plainly indicated by their performance, since they were able to imitate in every particular such important services. These boys are nevertheless called unbaptized, wherefore Athanasius, though by way of play, baptized them.

Moreover, that these boys were born of Christian parents, appears in various ways, as, for instance, in this, that they diligently attended the Christian assemblies, for without this they could never have represented so completely in all its particulars, the baptism practiced in the church. Likewise, in the fact that Alexander and his assistants (as the account further sets forth), enjoined the parents of these boys, who before were unbaptized, but had now been thus baptized, to bring them up in that vocation, namely, in the Christian religion, which certainly would not have been done, had their parents been heathen and not Christians. It is also stated that this was done with invocation and confession of God’s holy name, which certainly would not have been the case with heathen, who worshiped either no god, or many gods.

As to what Alexander held of this performance, we leave it to its own merits; it suffices us to have shown that at that time the Christians at Alexandria suffered their children to remain unbaptized; inasmuch as they were first instructed, and then baptized upon confession of their faith, which, as has been shown, is clearly indicated by the course of the aforementioned boys.

_A. D. 333._--It is recorded that in the first great council at Nice, held against Arius, and various innovations in the church, it was resolved among other things:

“_Canon 21._ The Paulianists and Photinians shall be rebaptized.”

“_Canon 12._ If any apostatize under persecution, without having been tormented, and sincerely repent, they shall be put among the catechumens for five years, and after two more years, shall be reinstated among the faithful, with prayer.”

“_Canon 13._ But they who, for the sake of the confession of the faith, have relinquished the military profession and again return to it, shall do penance for thirteen years, and then be received again; however, if they truly repent, the bishop is authorized to mitigate the term of penance, provided he sees that their repentance is fruitful and devout.”

“_Canon 15._ Concerning the catechumens who have apostatized, it is decided, that they shall be excluded from the prayers of the catechumens who have not apostatized, for three years, and at the end of that time be received back again.” _Jac. Mehrn., pages 352, 353, ex Concil. Nicen. Secund. Ruffin._

This is the great Council which is extolled as orthodox and Christian by nearly all so-called Christians. Be this as it may, we see no reason to praise it so highly, seeing that we must honor the precepts of God’s holy word alone, whereas the rules of that council were made by fallible men. Yet, so far as these men have laid down precepts that accord with the precepts of God’s holy word, or, at least, do not militate against them, so far we accept, or, at least, do not oppose them.[102]

[102] In Canon 2, _Concil. Nicen._, we have the following: “No one who has recently been received from heathendom, and baptized, shall become an ecclesiastic (that is, a teacher or bishop), unless he have been very carefully examined previously.” _Bapt. Histor., p. 352_, from _Ruffinus_; which quite agrees with Paul’s words, 1 Tim. 3:6, that no novice shall be ordained to the office of a bishop.