Part 44

This Benjamin was a deacon of the Christian church in Persia, who, when opportunity offered itself, also proclaimed the doctrines of the holy gospel to the people, at which Geroranes, the King of Persia, took such offense, that he caused him to be cast into prison, in which he remained without deliverance for two years. After this, a certain ambassador came to the King to transact some state business. Having heard of Benjamin and his dreary confinement, he besought the King to set him free. The King consented, yet on the condition, that the prisoner should not speak to any of his magi or priests of the Christian religion or dispute with them. The ambassador promised the King in Benjamin’s name that his command should be heeded. But when he came to Benjamin, and admonished him to this, Benjamin answered: “I do not wish to do what you have promised in my name. I can not withhold the doctrine of the light of the gospel, which I have received from God, from others, not communicating it to them; for I have learned from the gospel how severely those will be punished, who bury the talent which has been given them to gain something therewith, in the earth.”

In the meantime, the King, knowing nothing of the answer which Benjamin had returned to the ambassador gave command to release him from his confinement. Benjamin once more free, ceased not to exhort the people as before, and to set the light of the holy gospel on the candle-stick. When this had continued for about the space of one year after his liberation from prison, new complaints were brought against him before the King, who had him brought before him, and commanded him to renounce the God whom he served, on pain of bodily punishment. Then Benjamin asked the King: “What punishment, beloved King, does he deserve, who deserts and renounces thee and thy government, and submits himself to, and serves another lord?” The King answered: “Such a man deserves punishment on body and property, yea, the severest penalty of death.” Benjamin asked again saying: “What punishment does the man deserve who forsakes his God, the Creator of all things, in order to exalt one of his servants as God, and to give to a creature the worship due to God alone?”

These words so incensed the King, that he commanded his guards to sharpen twenty reeds and to thrust them between the flesh and the nails of his fingers and toes. But when the King saw that the pious martyr endured all this with steadfastness, yea, regarded it but very little, he, after other torments, ordered the executioners to prepare a knotty stick, which by cutting away the branches, was made as sharp as a stick of thorns. This he caused to be thrust into the nether part of his body, and then pulled backwards and forwards, until the faithful servant and professor of Christ ended his life under the hands of the executioners, like a defenseless lamb that is led to the slaughter and opens not its mouth. Compare the account of _Abr. Mellinus, 2d, book, fol. 260, col. 1, 2_, taken from _Theod., lib. 5, pag. 38, and Merul, Graec._, with the annotation of _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 191, col. 1_, from _Hist. Eccl. Tripart, 2d, part, lib. 11, cap. 33, Hist. Andr. Hondorff, fol. 20_.

THE CRUELTY OF THE ARIAN KING, HONORICUS, ALSO CALLED HUNNERICUS, THE SECOND KING OF THE VANDALS, TOWARDS SOME BISHOPS AND ELDERS WHO WOULD NOT SWEAR, AND OTHER CRUELTIES, A. D. 477.

A. D. 477, Honoricus, King of the Vandals, an adherent of the Arian sect, arose with great violence against those who would not assent to his views, cruelly persecuting, and lamentably maltreating them. He had honorable women and maidens suspended naked; their bodies burned with torches; their breasts and arms cut off; hot pitch applied to their back, breasts and sides; he also caused them to be drawn up, and heavy stones tied to their feet, etc.

When he proposed to many that they should swear an oath, some thought it not contrary to God, but the bishops and elders of the church of Christ would not swear, saying that it was prohibited in the gospel, since Christ says: “Swear not.” Thereupon they were martyred, or at least severely punished. Those, however, who had been prevailed upon to swear, did not escape free, for, according to ancient writers, he punished both alike; these, because they had sworn contrary to the command of the gospel, and those, because they refused to swear.

In the meantime, the distress and misery were so great that scarcely a house could be found that was not filled with wailing and lamentations.

After this terrible tyrant had put to death, by these and similar torments, as well as exiled, a countless number, God, after many plagues had been sent upon that country, awfully punished him: worms and lice so gnawed his flesh that his whole body became putrified, one member dropping off after another, so that he was buried piecemeal, thus coming to a horrible and not less ignominious end--the evident vengance of God for his tyranny against the Christians. Compare _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th, book, pag. 166, col. 2_, with _Chron. Carionis, lib. 3, fol. 29. Eccl. Caspar Hedio 3d, part, lib. 2, cap. 18–21, 25, 27, Chronol. Leonh. Krantz., lib. 3, fol. 87, 89. Paul. Merula, fol. 381, 382. Histor. Andr., fol. 180. Jan. Crespin, fol. 139._

NOTE.--It is stated that about this time, until the year 495, and afterwards, there were made in different councils held in Africa five hundred and five laws (called canons or rules), in which among other things it was resolved by the Roman church: 1. “That the children of the Donatists, (namely those Donatists who had renounced the doctrine of Donatus) shall not be re-baptized.” 2. “That those who say that a child is not to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, etc., are excommunicated.” 3, _Act. 23_. That the agitation about baptism should be suppressed by military force.” _Seb. Franck, Chron. der Roomsche Concilien, fol. 48, col. 2–4, etc._

NOTE.--From the third article it appears: 1. That at this time there were people who stirred up agitation about baptism, that is, infant baptism, for this was now practiced by the Roman church. 2. That these people were suppressed by military assistance or force. What views, besides this article, these people held, or in which manner they were suppressed, we have not been able to ascertain; hence we let this suffice.

THE BLOODY OPPRESSION OF THE BELIEVERS, WHICH, IT APPEARS, OCCURRED IN THE TIME OF THE TEACHER, FULGENTIUS, A. D. 498.

It appears that at this time the persecution and marytyrization of those who were baptized according to the ordinance of Christ was still in progress; of which the godfearing teacher Fulgentius makes mention to his contemporaries. _Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 464, num. 12_, from _D. Vicec., lib. 3, cap. 3_, from _Fulgentius, lib de fide ad petrum, cap. 30_.

“Rest assured of this,” he writes, “and doubt not that those who, for the name of Christ are baptized in their blood, without which no man shall receive eternal life, that is, who has not previously been converted from his sins through repentance and faith, and redeemed through the sacrament of faith and repentance, that is, through baptism.”

When Fulgentius here speaks of those who, for the name of Christ are baptized in the blood, etc., he plainly indicates thereby, that blood was shed then inasmuch as people were baptized with it as it were, that is, such people as he speaks of further on, namely, “who are converted through repentance and faith, and redeemed through the sacrament of faith and repentance, that is, through baptism,” etc.

However, if to any one the above words of Fulgentius appear rather too obscure for the purpose in view, we leave him to the free and unrestrained enjoyment of his own judgment.

NOTE.--At this time, namely about the close of this century, those who opposed infant baptism were so hated by the Roman church, that in a certain council of Carthage, two persons, whose names we for certain reasons omit, were condemned, because they had denied infant baptism. _Bapt. Hist. 2d, part, page 436_, taken from the _9th chapter van de Doop gebruyken der Roomsche Kerke, fol. 460_.

As to the persons themselves that were condemned, we commit them to God, since our only aim is to show how exceedingly the aforementioned doctrines were hated, and those who defended them, oppressed, yea, condemned at that time. With this we conclude our account of the martyrs of the fifth century.

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

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE SIXTH CENTURY.

[Shortly after the beginning of this account, Alcimus is introduced who declares that baptism was prefigured in the suffering of Christ; his testimony, however, in regard to this, is reserved for another place.

Cassiodorus follows Alcimus, saying that in baptism believers are regenerated to new creatures.

He is followed by Fortunatus, who speaks of the virtue and benefit of baptism, saying that those who are regenerated by baptism, become children of God.

People who indicate that infant baptism is not in accordance with the holy Scriptures.

The council of Ilerda, in Spain, establishes various canons or rules against the Anabaptists and those baptized by them; forbidding to eat with them.

The council of Agathe decrees that all Jews who desire baptism must first be instructed for eight months, with the catechumens. Confession of faith preached to those desiring baptism (see margin as well as column).

In the first council of Constantinople it is decreed that the Eunomians and Montanists must first walk for a considerable length of time with the church [brotherhood], hear the holy Scriptures, and shall then, if found faithful, be baptized.

Of certain persons termed fanatics, who prevailed upon the imperial councilors, to abolish infant baptism.

Justus Origelitanus says excellent things with regard to the nature and efficacy of baptism.

One Peter, and his companion Zoroaras defend Anabaptism.

An account, from Gregory, of certain Jews, some of whom were baptized on Easter, others on Whitsuntide, after previous instruction.

Vincentius shows that it was customary to renounce, before baptism, all pomp, and the works of Satan.

Of the white robes put on the newly baptized, and the gifts it was customary to present to them.

How Brunechildis, the daughter of Arthanagildus, was rebaptized.

Of Euthimius, who entertained some that had been baptized, forty days; and how he admonished them.

Touching a certain prayer pronounced over the candidates, containing very beautiful sentiments respecting the dignity and benefit of baptism.

It is held that Theophilus Alexandrinus differs from the Roman church, in regard to holy baptism and the holy Supper.

The followers of Donatus again cited, and excused in various things.

Christian novices, before baptism, divided in two classes.

Statements with regard to the corruption of the writings of the ancients; yet that on the subject of baptism authentic testimonies still remain. With this we have abbreviated and concluded this century.]

Although in the sixth century, Roman darkness, as regards the corruption of divine worship, began to arise more and more, and the divine and evangelical truth necessarily had to sink out of sight at times, inasmuch as the Roman Bishop and others, who held with him, began, as it were, with the black smoke of manifold superstitions, shamefully and lamentably to darken the bright and transparent commands of Christ, as baptism, the holy Supper, the command not to swear, and others; so that baptism on faith was converted into infant baptism, the Lord’s Supper into a superstitious mass, the command not to swear, into a permission to swear, and other articles also greatly corrupted; yet in the meantime nevertheless, there were people, yea eminent persons, and even such, at times, as (living in quiet as they did) were reckoned to belong to the Roman church, through whom the aforesaid darkness was illuminated, the superstitions removed, and the pure truth of the holy Gospel brought to light as a brightly shining sun; inasmuch as they, opposing infant baptism, recommended baptism upon faith; abolishing the mass or transubstantiation, taught the simple Supper of Jesus Christ; rejecting, according to the doctrine of Christ and James, oaths and swearing, commanded the people not to use oaths, or to swear at all.

But it would require too much time to treat on, and show, all these things; hence we shall follow the custom we adopted in the beginning, and speak principally of baptism, showing briefly, by whom and in what manner the same was practiced according to the rule of Christ and the usage of his apostles, and confirmed by doctrine or example.

Alcimus writes (_lib. 1, de Orig. Mundi_) in the _6th Cent. Magdeburg., fol. 112_, concerning the doctrine of baptism: “That baptism is prefigured in the suffering of Christ.” Thereupon follows a certain verse from Alcimus, in which baptism is compared to the water which flowed from Christ’s side, and to the blood of the martyrs; of which, however, we will not speak further at present, as we intend to reserve it for a place where it will be more to the purpose. Jacob Mehrning also notices this verse in _Bapt. Hist., page 467_.

_A. D. 508._--Or at the time of the Emperor Anastasius, surnamed Flavius Valerius, the highly enlightened and gifted Cassiodorus, is stated to have lived and written, who says with regard to baptism (on _Cant., cap. 7_), “that it is a divine fountain, in which believers are regenerated to new creatures.” _J. M., Bapt. Hist., page 467._

What else is this, than what our Savior himself says (Mark 16:16), that believers must be baptized; and (John 3:5), that one must be born again of water and of the Spirit; which accords with the words of Paul (Tit. 3:5), where he calls baptism the washing of regeneration, because, believers, when they are baptized, must forsake the old life, and be regenerated into a new life. Rom. 6:4.

Cassiodorus, on _Cant., cap. 4_, teaches (_Bapt. Hist., page 468_), That all believers shall (or must) be baptized. “There can be,” he says, “no believer without the washing of baptism (that is, no true believer, who can stand before God and his word, without baptism; for he who commanded faith, also commanded baptism).

Again, in _cap. 7_: “No one can enter the church, who has not previously been washed with the water of baptism, and made to drink of the fountain of wholesome doctrine. This well agrees with the words of the apostles, who thus testifies of himself and of the Corinthian church: “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body ... and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Cor. 12:13. By this, the apostle (like Cassiodorus) indicates that all who are true members of the church of Jesus Christ, must have communion in two things: First, they must have been made one body with each other by baptism. Secondly, they must have been made to drink into the Spirit, or the doctrine of the divine word; which, as every intelligent person knows, are things that cannot be complied with by infants, but only by adult and intelligent persons.

Cassiodorus, on Ps. 23 (_page 469_), says: “The water of refreshing is the washing of baptism, in which divine gifts are poured upon the souls that have become barren through the withering influence of sin, that they may bring forth good fruits.”

Again: “The souls of the elect (or of the baptized) have, in baptism, forsaken the corruption of the old man, and are renewed in Christ.”

Again: “As the people (of Israel) were preserved by the Red Sea, in which Pharaoh perished, even so, the church of the heathen, has been redeemed, through baptism, from the bondage of the devil, and brought into the true promised land, the liberty of the Gospel; and thus she (that is the church of the heathen) who was formerly a handmaid of iniquity, has now become the friend of Christ, and been washed, through baptism, from the filth of sin.”

Beloved reader, attentively consider the last three passages of Cassiodorus, and you shall find that they, in every particular, indicate that the baptism of which he speaks, is not at all infant baptism, but such a baptism as Christ commanded to be administered upon faith; for, when he says, in the first passage, that in (or through) the water of baptism, divine gifts are poured upon the souls that have become barren through the withering influence of sin, that they may bring forth good fruits, he certainly thereby indicates that he speaks of such candidates as had previously become barren through the withering influence of sin, and to whom gifts were now imparted in (or through) baptism (namely, by God, for the strengthening of their faith), that they might bring forth good fruits, which, as every one knows, can be done by none but adult and virtuous persons. By the second passage, in which he says, that the souls of the elect (or of the baptized) have forsaken, in baptism, the corruption of the old man, and are renewed in Christ, he again indicates that the persons of whom he speaks, had lived, before baptism, in the corruption of the old man, wherefore it was necessary for them to forsake it in baptism, and, by a pious life, to be renewed henceforth in Christ; but how this applies to infants, may be judged.

We now come to the third passage, in which he speaks of the passage of the people of Israel through the Red Sea. He compares the Israelites to those who, having been converted from heathenism, were baptized; the Red Sea, by which the people of Israel were delivered, he compares to baptism, through which those who had been converted from heathenism, had obtained their redemption, according to the soul, depending on the merits of Jesus Christ; Pharaoh, who was drowned with his people in the Red Sea, he compares to the bondage of the devil, from which believers are redeemed in baptism, through the grace of the Son of God; the entrance of Israel into the land of Canaan, he compares to the entrance of believing, baptized Christians into the true promised land--the liberty of the Gospel. Finally he says, in the same passage: “Thus she who was formerly a handmaid of iniquity, has now become a friend of Christ, and been washed from the filth of sin.”

All these things militate so clearly against infant baptism, and confirm baptism upon faith, according to the ordinance of Christ, that it seems unnecessary to me, to add anything further respecting Cassiodorus. The impartial will judge aright.

_About A. D. 515._--Or properly after Cassiodorus, is placed, in the History of the Holy Baptism, the wise, but as it appears, excessively accused Fortunatus; from whose writings the author of said history adduces several passages, respecting which he makes the following annotation in the margin: “All the preceding commendations must be understood as referring solely to the true baptism of Christ, which is received as he has ordained it, and which consists in the word, Spirit, and water, and is obtained in (or upon) faith; and not as relating to any self-invented infant baptism.”

He then shows, page 468 in his account, what Fortunatus himself writes concerning it, saying: “Of the virtue and benefit of baptism, Fortunatus teaches (_lib. 10 in Expos. Orat. Dom._): Man, when regenerated by baptism, becomes a child of God, who previously, through transgression, belonged to his enemy, and was lost.” “Man, before baptism,” he further says, “is described as being carnal, but after baptism, as being spiritual.”

In a letter of the orientals to Symmachus, it is written: “Christ our Savior has taken away, on the cross, our handwriting, that we might henceforward, after the washing of regeneration (that is, baptism) be no longer subject to the sins of our wickedness.”

These passages pertain only to adults, or at least to such as are possessed of understanding, but in no wise to those who have attained to neither years nor understanding; for it certainly means something, to be regenerated by baptism, yea, to be made a child of God, which Fortunatus, in the first instance, so expressly confesses.

Touching the regeneration of water and the Spirit, Christ did not command it to the unintelligent, but to a master of Israel, John 3:5; and of those who had put on Christ, through baptism, the apostle says: that by faith they became the children of God. Gal. 3:26,27.

Thus also it is a matter of moment, to be carnal before baptism, and spiritual after baptism, which he nevertheless adds: For, beloved reader, what is it to be carnal, but to live after the lusts of the flesh? This, says our author, is done before baptism; hence it is also evident that he speaks of a baptism before the reception of which one can live after the flesh.

What, on the other hand, is it to be spiritual, but to live after the inclination of the spirit? that is, according to the rule which agrees with the spirit, and the word of God; but this, he states, is done after baptism; hence it follows that the baptism of which he treats, is of such a nature, that he who has received it, can live after the Spirit.

But how can these two things, namely, to live after the flesh before baptism, and after the Spirit after baptism, apply to infants, of this he that has experience may judge.

That which is written to Symmachus, in the letter of the orientals, is of the same nature; for there it is said of regenerated baptized persons that after the washing of regeneration, that is, after baptism, they are no longer subject to the sins of wickedness; which sufficiently indicates that he speaks of such people as are subject, before baptism, that is, before they are baptized, to the sins of wickedness, but from which they are freed after baptism, through the grace of God and a holy purpose. Certainly, infants differ widely from this.

_A. D. 520._--That at this time, and thence forward, there were persons who not only taught baptism upon faith as ordained by Christ, but who also, now and then, opposed infant baptism; this is unanimously maintained by the well-tried Jacob Mehrning, scholar of the holy Scriptures, and the very learned Montanus, in these words: “Nevertheless, as truth cannot remain suppressed, some were found, in the course of time, who, seeing that infant baptism did not accord with the holy Scriptures, dared candidly confess this. Of such there were many. A. D. 520, and from that time forward in this century, for several years in succession, as may clearly be gathered from the fourth canon of the council of Gerunda, in Spain, held the aforementioned year, in which it was decreed concerning catechumens, that they should be baptized on Easter and on Whitsuntide; but in case of feebleness or sickness, also on other days. From _Cent. Magdeb., Cent. 6, cap. 9, de Synodi_.

For, that those who were born of Christian parents, and had been brought up from their youth, in the Christian religion, were reckoned among the catechumens, is evident from the example of Ambrose, and his brother, Satyrus, sons of the Christian parents Symmachus and Marcellina, as may be seen in the oration of Ambrose, on the death of Satyrus; and it is further confirmed by the example of Theodosius, Ambrose, Jerome, Basil, M. Augustine himself, his natural son Adeodatus, and Alipius; who though born of Christian parents, as already stated, were nevertheless reckoned among the catechumens, till the day after previous instruction, they were baptized. _Bapt. Hist., page 480. H. Mont. Nietigh., pages 79, 80._