Part 50
If then, in baptism, the water is ineffectual without the word, and the word has no virtue unless it is believed, as Albinus declares, he flatly opposes infant baptism, since there the water only is used, without the instructing word, and without the latter being believed by the infants.
His second argument is a sufficient refutation of those who administered baptism to infants, without regard as to whether they had intelligent minds, true faith, and the fruits of God’s Spirit, or not; for, this belief he opposes when he says that in baptism there must be not only three visible things, 1. the body, 2. the water, 3. the teacher, but also three invisible things, 1. the soul [mind], (that is, an intelligent soul, for otherwise the soul cannot properly be so called); 2. faith (that is, that which consists in a sure confidence, for this is peculiar to true faith, Hebr. 11:1); 3. the Spirit of God (that is, that which is fruitful in virtues), for the Spirit of God is known by its fruits, Gal. 5:22. But who has ever been found that was able to discover such works of the soul, of faith, and of the Spirit, in infants? without which, indeed, baptism has no virtue, as conclusively follows from the arguments of Albinus, which are in accordance with the teachings of the holy word of God. How this harmonizes with infant baptism, the impartial may judge.
Of regeneration, Albinus, in the 7th penitential psalm (_page 510_), says: “Thou art my God; thou hast created me. I can be re-created by no one but thee, by whom I have been created. Thou hast created me by thy Word, which, O God, abideth with thee. Thou createst me again by the Word, which has become flesh for our sakes.”
The Romanists were accustomed sometimes to call baptism, by which they meant infant baptism, a regeneration, without respect to newness of life, merely on account of the water, which, with the speaking of a few words, was administered to the infants. But Albinus here declares that as he was created by the word, even so he is re-created and regenerated by the word. He says nothing at all about the water; not to depreciate the outward administration of water baptism, but to show that recreation or regeneration does not lie in it; for, that the same must be effected by the word, whereupon the administration of water baptism follows, as a sign of it, seems to be the burden of his whole argument.
Moreover, it is also deserving of notice, that in the above passage, touching the incarnation of Jesus Christ, he says, that the Word (namely, by which all things were made) became flesh for our sakes, which accords with our confession, and also agrees with John 1:14.
Albinus (_lib. 3, de Trin., cap. 17, page 512_) says: “We are not to believe that he (Christ) then received the gifts of the Holy Ghost; he who from his birth was always full of the Holy Ghost; but that the mystery of the Holy Trinity might be declared unto us in baptism, the Son of God was baptized, being a man; the Holy Spirit descended as a dove; God the Father was heard in a voice, without the invocation of which, no baptism can avail anything. Therefore, the Son of God wished to signify by his own baptism, that the whole Trinity was present; who commanded the stewards of his mysteries (the apostles): “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
Again: Why did the Lord have himself baptized? Namely, that no one, though he might possess great gifts and power, should despise to be baptized.
He makes use here of three modes of speaking which are incompatible with infant baptism. First, when he says that without the invocation of the holy Trinity no baptism can avail anything; for, who knows not that infants cannot invoke the Holy Trinity? Secondly, when he adduces, as a foundation of baptism, the command of Christ: “Teach all nations, baptizing them,” etc.; for there teaching and baptizing are joined together, which, as even some pedobaptists declare, is inapplicable to infants. Thirdly, when he shows why the Lord had himself baptized? Namely, that no one, though he might possess great gifts and power, should despise to be baptized. For, that this also cannot be understood of infants, even nature teaches; since they have no great gifts or power, and, consequently, can neither rely upon them nor despise baptism.
D. Vicecomes (_lib. 1, cap. 32, page 535_) quotes the following from Albinus Flaccus: “At baptism, on holy Easter-day, the catechumens (the novices who have been instructed in the faith), if they desire baptism, recite the Lord’s Prayer and the creed from memory.”
This is certainly clear testimony of the custom of the believers of that age, from which it is evident, that their children and novices had to know the Lord’s Prayer and the creed, yea, had to recite it from memory, and must themselves desire baptism, before they were baptized. Who would say that new-born infants can do this? Moreover, it was not only required, to recite the Lord’s Prayer and the creed from memory, but also to give reason for it, and this not only once, but several times, on different days appointed for this purpose, in the weeks before Easter and Whitsuntide, as shown above, to which we refer the reader. See also, _G. Durand., lib. 6. Ration. Div. Offic. de 4. Feria Hebel. 4. Quadrag, etc._
_Page 536_. Vicecomes (_lib. 3, cap. 21_), says: “He (Albinus) also makes mention of the examinations (in the faith) of the elect, that is, those chosen to be baptized, tracing them down from the times of the apostles.” _Cap. 22_, he says: “Then took place the examinations (in the faith), in order that it might be ascertained with greater certainty, whether, after the renunciation of Satan, the word of God and the faith promised to it, had taken deep root in the heart.” _Cap. 26_: “Albinus Flaccus, in the chapter on baptism, writes: ‘For the baptism of the elect, who are examined (in the faith), according to the rule of the apostles, consecrated by fasting, and instructed by diligent preaching, two seasons are set apart, Easter and Whitsuntide.’”
To this, D. Vicecomes adds this comment: “If these examinations were held according to the rules of the apostles, they must needs have been observed by all; but subsequently, when infant baptism came into vogue, this necessary practice was abolished (or discontinued) by the church, A. D. 860, in the reign of the Emperors Louis the Pious and Lothaire; of which abundant proof exists.”
What do you think, beloved reader, of this last testimony? to say nothing of the testimonies of Albinus Flaccus. This Vicecomes was a pedobaptist and strenuous maintainer of pedobaptism; yet he states that the necessary (yea, apostolical) practice of examinations (in the faith) was abolished or discontinued when infant baptism came into vogue; he also indicates the time when this occurred, namely, A. D. 860. As to how he came at this, we leave to him to answer.
In the meantime, this is also quite a refutation of those who fix the origin of infant baptism very early, indeed according to some, in the time of the apostles. However, that infant baptism, together with many other superstitions, originated soon after the death of the apostles, they can, in some measure substantiate; but that it wavered in the Roman church, for many centuries, till the year 900, yea, almost 1000, being now established, then abolished, adopted in one place, and rejected in another, etc., appears sufficiently from the books in which we have read the same.
We confine ourselves to the time of Albinus Flaccus, who lived about A. D. 792, when this intrusion was already rapidly gaining ground, which also D. Vicecomes has seen, for, when he mentions the chrism in baptism, and some other factitious practices of the papists, he adds that it is his opinion that all this did not begin until after the time of Albinus Flaccus, when they ceased to baptize adults. _Lib. 5, cap. 5_ and _19_.
I cannot forbear adding here the verdict of Jacob Mehrning, who, immediately after noting the preceding passages from D. Vicecomes, writes: “Thus we see from the history of this time, that infant baptism hung yet as by a thread between both, being received by some, and rejected by others, which is a strong proof that it is not apostolical, much less instituted by Christ himself. But what immeasurable damage to souls, and what grossly barbarous ignorance in Christendom, the introduction of this absurd infant baptism has brought about, many intelligent persons, even in that age, were able to discern. _Bapt. Hist., page 537._
_A. D. 800._--Various writers state that at this time, the last year of the eighth century, infant baptism, although those of the Roman church in general stoutly adhered to it, was nevertheless not practiced, yea, positively rejected by many, insomuch that they observed the very ancient custom mentioned by us in different preceding centuries, of baptizing only adults, on Easter and Whitsuntide.
Sebastian Franck, writing of this time and custom, and having referred to Tertullian’s book, _De Corona Militis_, says: “Respecting this passage, Beatus Rhenanus notes that it was the custom of the ancients, to baptize and wash adults with the washing of regeneration; which custom was observed till the time of Charlemagne and the Emperor Louis, A. D. 800.” _Chron. Rom. Kett., page 123, col. 2._
P. J. Twisck gives the following account for the year 800: “The ancient custom was, to baptize adults with the washing of regeneration, which was observed till the time of the Emperors Charlemagne and Louis. This is shown by the laws established by them, in which the priests (that is, the teachers) were prohibited from baptizing at any other time than Easter and Whitsuntide, except where death was imminent.” Again: “It was the custom of the ancients (Polydorus says), to baptize mostly adults, and to put a white garment on them after baptism. This was done at Easter and Whitsuntide; in the meantime, before these feasts, those to be baptized were instructed in the mystery of the faith, and were called _catechumens_, that is, such as are being instructed; for, when they had apprehended the mystery, they were baptized.” _Chron., 8th book, page 271, col. 2_, from _Polydor. de Inventoribus rerum, lib. 4. Beatus Rhenanus in Annat. super., Tertull., Grond. Bewijs, letter B., Chron. Seb. Franck., Thom. Imbr., fol. 26_.
Although this century, in the beginning, seemed to be doomed to darkness, as regards the true doctrine, especially with reference to the matter of baptism upon faith, yet the sun of truth rose to a considerable altitude, so that his beams shone out in every direction, illuminating the face, that is, the people, of the earth. For not only the separate Christian communities, but even many of those who still adhered to the Roman church, observed baptism, to say nothing of different other articles, according to the original Christian and apostolical custom.
P. J. Twisck, in the conclusion of the eighth century, though greatly deploring the manifold human inventions which were then increasing in the Roman church, through the power of the Pope and of the councils, declares nevertheless that the baptism of adults still obtained in some measure among them; his words are: “The ancient custom of baptizing adult believers and penitents appears still to exist in some measure in the church.”[133] _Page 274._
[133] This appears also quite clearly from the example of Charlemagne, who, about the year 781, had his son Carloman, who was then several years old, baptized by Pope Adrian I., at Rome, on the feast of Easter. His daughter Gisla was also baptized the same year, at Milan, by Bishop Thomas. H. Montanus refers this to the year 781, but others, to A. D. 800.
From this we can judge how much more this practice must have flourished among those who entirely free themselves from the Roman superstitions, and who had fled as from Babel,--I mean the members of the true Christian church, who had to hide themselves as doves before the eagle, as shall be shown. With this we will conclude our account of baptism in the eighth century.
AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY.
SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE EIGHTH CENTURY.
[We commence with a certain severe persecution of the Christians in the East, instituted by Haumar, King of the Saracens, about A. D. 718.
Thereupon follows a note concerning said persecution; it is related that those of the East had long before separated from those of the West (that is, from the Roman church); mention is also made of the Thessalonian churches, which, from the time of the apostles, are said to have continued unchanged in religion; from which it is concluded that apparently also some of these true believers were put to death for the true faith, in said eastern persecution.
A very brief account of the great cruelty exercised by Elvelid, the Mohammedan, A. D. 739, against all Christian prisoners in the eastern countries, whom without mercy, he caused to be put to death, because of the Christian worship; upon which follows a note containing more particulars, and some explanation with regard to Eutichius, Peter of Damascus, Peter Mavimenus, and others, who were put to death for the Gospel, in the East, particularly at Damascus.
Derthuin, Bertherius, Anobert, Hunored, and others, oppose the superstitions of Boniface, the papal Legate; whereupon they are deposed from their ministry, about A. D. 748.
Albert of Gaul, and Clement of Scotland, follow the aforementioned persons, and reprove Boniface for introducing his superstitions; then it is related, of each separately, what happened on this account to Albert and Clement; and how they died, according to the most reliable testimony, about A. D. 748; a discrepancy among authors as to the time of their death; how the discrepancy can be reconciled.
Two followers of the aforementioned martyrs, Samson and Sydonius, as well as some others, whose names are not mentioned, maintain their doctrine against the papists, especially against Boniface, the aforementioned papal legate; but whether for this they were martyred or put to death, is not stated. A circumstantial account of a severe and lamentable persecution instituted by Mady, King of the Arabians, against the Christian believers in the East, about A. D. 780.
A note touching said persecution, as well as how the Arabians proceeded in persecuting the Christians in other places; also, what might be adduced, as regards the matter of martyrization, from our account of baptism in this century. Conclusion.]
SEVERE PERSECUTION IN THE EAST, ABOUT A. D. 718.
There was now considerable tranquillity in the western countries, but in the East commotions began to arise; for about the year 718, Haumar,[134] King of the Saracens, issued bloody decrees for the persecution of the Christians. He prohibited wine, according to the laws of Mohammed, which, however, did not matter much; but the most grievous of all was this: he endeavored to compel the Christians to apostatize and deny Christ; he promised exemption from tribute and taxes to those who, forsaking Christ, should adhere to Mohammed; on the other hand, he threatened to punish with death, all those who should cling steadfastly to Christ. In the meantime he oppressed them with intolerable burdens, and deprived some of life, by various torments.[135]
[134] _Paul Diac., lib. 21. Hist. Rom. in Leone Isauro_, compared with _Abr. Mell. Hist., fol. 305, col. 2_.
[135] In the year 720, the Saracens or Arabians came over into Spain, where they sorely persecuted and martyred many pious Christians. _Sigibert. Chron. Tudensis._ Also, _Abr. Mell., fol. 328, col. 1_. However, from this we would conclude neither the one nor the other.
He also made a law that the testimony of a Christian should not be valid, nor be accepted against a Saracen. In short, it is stated that by virtue of said decrees, many of the innocent and defenseless Christians became martyrs; but in default of faithful historians of that time, the names of said martyrs have not come down to us, save a few, as shall appear.
NOTE.--Above all, it must be observed in this account of the eastern martyrs, that, as far as regards open churches or communities, those of the East had long before separated from those of the West, that is, from the Roman church, because they would not be subject to the power and dominion of the Pope of Rome, who, already, A. D. 606, had been declared head of all the churches; but as such they would by no means recognize or accept him. This separation, in the course of time, assumed such proportions, that, as far as we know, they have not united again even to the present day.
Moreover, it is established by different writers, that, besides said separated churches, called the Greek, there are other churches in the East, principally in the region of Thessalonica, who are agreed in all respects with the Anabaptists of the present day, and have maintained such faith and practice uninterruptedly from the time of the apostles; of this, however, we shall speak more fully in the sixteenth century, in connection with baptism.
This being the case, it would not be surprising, if in said persecution of the Christians in the East, not only this or that single person, but, what is more, very many true believers were martyred and put to death for the true faith in Jesus Christ, and the sincere practice of the precepts of the Gospel. Nevertheless, we can tell no more than what the ancient writers have left us, and shall, therefore, proceed accordingly, adding, whenever we think it necessary, our own opinion in the margin or in a note.
THE GREAT CRUELTY OF ELVELID, THE MOHAM-MEDAN, TOWARDS ALL CHRISTIAN PRISONERS, WHOM HE, WITHOUT MERCY, CAUSED TO BE PUT TO DEATH, ON ACCOUNT OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, A. D. 739.
It is stated that A. D. 739, in the 23d year of Leo Isaurus, the Mohammedan Prince Elvelid caused all the imprisoned Christians in every city to be put to death, on account of the Christian religion. Among them is mentioned one Eutichius, who was carried away to Karras, in Mesopotamia, and, at the time when said slaughter and martyrization of all imprisoned Christian believers occurred, offered up, because of the same faith and testimony, for his Savior Jesus. Compare _Paul. Diac., lib. 21, with A. Mellinus, 2d book, fol. 305, col. 2, 3_.
NOTE.--Of said Eutichius we find no further account, touching the confession of his faith, save that, when the other martyrs were put to death, he, too, was offered up for Christ; which must also be understood of various others. See the abovementioned authors, compared with what we have stated in the beginning of this century.
We will say nothing of Peter, Bishop of the church of Damascus, Peter Mavimenus, and others, who, at this time, were also put to death in the East, particularly at Damascus, for the testimony of the Lord Jesus, about the year 742; since the ancient writers have left us no definite information respecting their particular confession of faith, only a general statement, namely, that they suffered for Christ, and for the Christian or evangelical truth.
Hence it has come, that some who boast of Christ and his holy Gospel with their mouths, yet, by their singular expositions, yea, by their deeds and works, are very far therefrom, have nevertheless not hesitated, to claim as of their number, and produce as witnesses for their strange, and, in many respects, unchristian and unevangelical confessions, persons of whom we maintain, because of certain circumstances mentioned by ancient writers, that they believed and lived in perfect accordance with the true tenor of the holy Gospel, and, as a seal of this, testified to this with their blood and steadfast death.
O, how greatly it is to be lamented that the ancients have not left us more definite and clear information with regard to this! We feel confident, that it would still refresh many a well-meaning heart, and serve to confirm their faith, if they should see that in those early, and not less turbulent times, many of their fellow brethren and sisters had such love for Christ, their beloved _blood-bridegroom_, and for his heavenly doctrine (which they confess with them), that they did not hesitate, the one in the fire, another in the water, some under the teeth and claws of wild beasts, others under the sword, the deadly halter, or otherwise, to bear testimony to it.
But we hope that in the right place, and throughout, we have given as much information and explanation in regard to it, as will satisfy a true Christian and well-meaning soul. All things cannot be discussed in one place.
We will here leave this, and proceed from the East, of which we have hitherto spoken, to the West, where now we think we can find clearer information concerning several special points of the faith, namely, of such persons as did not suffer under the heathen, Mohammedans, Saracens, or the like, but under the Pope of Rome, or the Roman church, where it was customary to condemn people on some particular articles of worship. But before we proceed to the martyrs who were punished as criminals and with death, we deem it well, by way of introduction to, and preparation for, this matter, to show first, how this, as by steps, took its rise; namely, how first a few persons, whom we shall name, about this time, opposed a certain papal Legate, with words and censures, for introducing certain superstitions; and what occurred to them, on this account, from the Pope.
OF DERTHUIN, BERTHERIUS, ANOBERT, HUNORED, AND OTHERS, WHO WERE DEPOSED FROM THEIR MINISTRY, BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE SUPERSTITIONS OF THE PAPAL LEGATE, ETC., ABOUT A. D. 748.
A certain Boniface, Archbishop of Mayence, having been sent out, as an apostle, ambassador and legate, by Pope Zacharias I., to convert the heathen to the Roman see (as it was called), and to inoculate to those who already belonged to it, the Roman ceremonies and superstitions, and cause them to observe the same, many bishops, overseers, or teachers, in Germany, Bavaria, and France, opposed it with spiritual weapons, namely, with reproofs from the word of God, refusing to obey in this respect, either the Pope or his Legate.
Among those who thus refused, there are mentioned by name, Derthuin, Bertherius, Anobert, and Hunored. These men were accused to the Pope, and charged not only with said matter, but, from envy, also with being avaricious, proud and desirous of filthy lucre. Thereupon they were all deposed from their ministry, by authority of the Pope and his Legate; but how it ended with them, is not stated, though it is to be presumed that some kind of ecclesiastical exclusion, anathematization or excommunication followed; however, since this is passed by in silence, we can conclude nothing certain concerning it.
In the meantime, there appears, on the one hand, the boldness of said persons in reproving the Roman superstitions, and, on the other hand, the shameless arrogance of the Pope and his legate, in deposing and removing those who, loving the good, could not refrain, according to the doctrine of the word of God, from reproving the evil. See _A. Mell., fol. 328, col. 2_, compared with _Aventin. Annal. Boj., lib. 3_.
HOW ALBERT OF GAUL, AND CLEMENT OF SCOTLAND, ALSO OPPOSED THE PAPAL SUPERSTITIONS, ABOUT A. D. 750; ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THEY WERE MARTYRED.