Part 51

It is stated that about A. D. 750, there lived two very eminent men, Albert, surnamed Gallas, that is, of Gaul or France, and Clement, surnamed Scotus, that is, of Scotland. Both opposed the superstitions of common popery in various points; Albert began first, in some part of France, and was followed by said Clement, who came from Scotland and joined him. In consequence of this, both, yet each separately, had to feel the sting of the Pope, in such a manner as the sequel will show. In order to present this, together with the circumstances pertaining to it, in the most suitable way, we shall treat of each separately, beginning with Albert, since he was the first and principal one in said matter.

ALBERT OF GAUL, FOR OPPOSING THE ROMAN SUPERSTITIONS, CAST INTO PRISON AT FULDA, IN WHICH HE, TO ALL APPEARANCE, PERISHED THROUGH WANT, ABOUT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR 750.

Enlightened by the heavenly radiance of the doctrine of the apostles, Albert, with voice and pen, had again and again reproved the errors and superstitions of the Roman church, asserting, namely, that priests or teachers should not be prohibited from marrying; that the relics, or bones, of the saints ought not to be venerated; that images should not be worshiped or saluted as a religious service, and that the Pope has no right to the primacy (or supremacy) over the church. He condemned the masses for the dead, purgatory, etc., as [human] inventions. Wicelius adds: He rejected as unnecessary and superstitious, ceremonies, the imposition of hands, the making the sign of the cross, confirmation, etc., and, in short, all such things as are practiced in popery for the purpose of confirming infant baptism.

Boniface, the papal Legate, therefore, accused him to the Pope, fabricating and disseminating many slanders, which were spewed out against him as bitter gall. The Pope lost no time, nor sought to delay the matter, but immediately condemned him unheard upon these false accusations; and the abovementioned articles, excommunicated him, and sent the sentence of excommunication to said false accuser, namely, to Boniface, his dear Legate, that the latter should publish it against Albert, throughout France. Hence it is, that the papists number him among the heretics, though they fail to show what heresy it was, for which he was condemned and thus shamefully excommunicated; which matter must be gleaned from other writers, except the testimony quoted above from Wicelius, according to A. M.

Having received said letter containing Albert’s excommunication, from the Pope, Boniface not only caused the same to be published throughout France, and deposed him from his ministry, but also incarcerated him in the monastery at Fulda, in which imprisonment he probably died of hunger, thirst, and divers wants. Compare _Wilibald. in vita Bonifacii, Aventin. Annal., lib. 3. Nauc. Gen. 26, vol. 2. Balaeus. Cent. 14, cap. 30, 31, in Append. Epist. Zach. ad Bonif., Tom. 2, Concil Lutsenb. Haigiol. in vita Bon._, with _A. M., fol. 328, col. 3; also, J. Gys., edition of 1657, fol. 30, col. 2, 3_.

FURTHER OBSERVATION, RESPECTING THE TIME OF THE PRECEDING EVENT.

Most ancient writers, it seems, with whom also A. Mellinus agrees, fix the time of the excommunication and martyrdom of said Albert, about A. D. 750. _A. M., fol. 329, col. 1._ Seb. Franck fixes it ten years earlier, namely, A. D. 740. In _Chron. Rom. Kett., fol. 64, col. 2_.

However, this discrepancy can easily be reconciled, if a distinction is made between the time when Albert commenced to teach against the Pope and the Roman Church, and the time when he was anathematized by the Pope, and, ultimately, deprived of life in the dungeon at Fulda; for ten years can easily have intervened, and Seb. Franck may therefore have had regard to the time when he began to teach, while the other authors, including Mellinus, may have referred to the time of his death.

Regarding this it appears that John Gysius made a great error, either through incorrect authors, or for some other reason, when he fixes the time of the aforesaid martyr, A. D. 900. See in the margin of the place referred to above.

CLEMENT OF SCOTLAND, A COMPANION OF ALBERT, EXCOMMUNICATED AND THEN BURNED, AS A HERETIC, BY THE ROMANISTS, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENTS, A. D. 750, FOR THE SAME REASON, NAMELY, FOR OPPOSING AND REJECTING THE ROMAN SUPERSTITIONS.

When Clement, having come from Scotland, had joined the aforesaid Albert as a companion, and united with him in regard to doctrine, he not only began, but ceased not, even as the friend whom he had found, to combat with the spiritual armor, and, if possible, to overcome, in an evangelical manner, the Pope and the Roman Church, in various points, touching mostly her ceremonies. Thereupon he was also accused, and put to death in such a manner as in the proper place, we presently hope to show.

The accusations brought against him were of the same nature as those preferred against Albert, his companion; which was not at all strange, since he had placed himself under Albert, not only as a friend and companion, but also as a disciple. For this reason, the Pope, through the accusation of Boniface, the papal Legate, pronounced the same excommunication against him.

But when he presented himself for the purpose of vindicating his conduct in a full synod, Boniface prevented him from taking this course, making the people believe that it were not lawful to admit a heretic who had been excommunicated or excluded from the church, to divine worship, or to a synodal assembly; yea, that such an one should not be permitted to have the benefit (in whatever this might consist) of the laws or ordinances of the church.

Seeing that by this pretense his lips were sealed, making it impossible for him to properly defend himself, he had recourse to his pen and wrote a book concerning this matter, against Boniface.

Finally, it is stated and maintained that this steadfast witness of Jesus Christ, was burned as a heretic by the Romanists, even against the will of Pope Zacharias, about A. D. 750, or a little after.

Compare this entire account of Clement with _Willibaldi, Naucleri, Aventini. Balae. Alij ubi supra._ Also, _Annal. Boj. Bernhard. Lutz, in Catal. Hæres., Tom. 2, Concil._ Also, _A. M., 2d book, H. M., 1619, fol. 328, 329. Hist. Mart. I. S., 1645, fol. 30_.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS TOUCHING THE CASE OF ALBERT AND CLEMENT, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SEBASTIAN FRANCK.

“In the year” etc., “these two men drew to them much people in France, pretending to be followers of the apostles, and speaking great things of the mysteries of God, and the life and conduct of man. Boniface, Archbishop of France, wrote the whole matter to the Pope, who, in a council of the bishops, laid it before them. They rejected the opinion of the (supposed) heretic from the church.” Finally he says: “They were unanimously deposed and anathematized.” _Chron. Rom. Kett., fol. 64._

SPECIAL ACCOUNT OF CLEMENT, ACCORDING TO P. J. TWISCK.

“Clemens Scotus, a faithful disciple of Bishop Adelbert, taught with great power in France and Germany, especially in Bavaria and Franconia, that the Pope ought not to have so much power; that he (the Pope) very improperly would forbid the priests (or teachers) to marry; that he introduced many new and unknown ceremonies into the church, and originated false doctrines. He (Clement) was condemned without a hearing or examination, and his writings or books were burned.” _Chron., page 258, col. 2, and 259, col. 1_, from _Joh. Munst., fol. 125. Aventin., lib. 3. Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 54_.

OF TWO FOLLOWERS OF THE AFORESAID MARTYRS, NAMED SAMSON AND SYDONIUS, WHO, WITH OTHERS, MAINTAINED THEIR DOCTRINE AGAINST POPERY, PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE PAPAL LEGATE, BONIFACE, ARCHBISHOP OF MAYENCE; BUT WHETHER FOR THIS THEY WERE MARTYRED, IS NOT STATED.

Samson was also a Scotchman by descent, and an elder and companion of said Clement. He and Sydonius, Bishop in Bavaria, and others of like purpose and belief, were as one heart and soul, to oppose with the word of God, Boniface, the papal Legate, who proposed to oppress the people with manifold superstitions and burdens. This, not only Samson, but also Sydonius and the others boldly did. They taught with word and pen, that the apostolical embassy (as it was called) of Bishop Boniface bore a closer resemblance to paganism or anti-christendom, than to christendom, and that he had _deformed_ rather than _reformed_, France and Germany. Again, that he was a sycophant and flatterer of the Pope of Rome, to whom he had not only bound, but completely sold himself, as a sworn slave.

This they were able to prove, since, by a solemn oath, he had sworn to the two Popes, Zacharias I. and Gregory II.: That he would bring all the persons whom he should draw to him, also into obedience to the Roman see. These things were known from documents written by himself and transmitted to said Popes.

They also censured him for his evil practices in the administration of baptism (that is, infant baptism), consisting in the saying of certain words, by way of exorcism. In this several questions were generally put to the unintelligent infants, namely: “Believest thou?” etc., whereupon the sponsors, in the child’s name, answered: “Yea, I believe,” etc.; which things certainly deserved no little censure, though without them, infant baptism had but little virtue or respectability.

They were also greatly offended, because he would forbid them to marry, as contrary to the institution of God, Gen. 1:27,28, yea, as being a doctrine of devils, 1 Tim. 4:1–3.

Finally it is stated, that said persons, and others, unable, in Germany as well as in France, to bring about any improvement with their doctrine, were greatly oppressed, partly through the tyranny of the popes of Rome, and partly through the authority of the kings of France, yea, were condemned in open synods, deposed from their ministry, and shut up in prisons and dungeons, and thus closely guarded that they might not escape. But as to what finally became of these persons, and others of like belief, A. Mellinus states, that the papistic historians are ashamed to tell. Compare _Aventin. 3, Annal. Centur. Balaei., 14, cap. 31, and in Append., Tom. 2. Concil. in Decret. Greg. 2, Epist. Bonifac. ad Zachar. Citante Balaeo. Hist. Boj., lib. 3,_ with _A. Mell, 2d book, fol. 329, col. 1, 2_.

SEVERE AND LAMENTABLE PERSECUTION, INSTITUTED BY MADY, KING OF THE ARABIANS, AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS IN THE EAST, ABOUT A. D. 780.

About A. D. 780, in the fifth year of Leo IV., son of Constantine Copronymus, Mady, King of the Arabians, greatly devastated the church of God in the East, constraining the innocent and defenseless Christians to apostatize, especially the servants and slaves. To this end he had given full power to one Thesias, surnamed Zelotes, to inflict upon the Christians all manner of oppression. The latter, upon coming to Emesas, promised to constrain no one to apostatize, or to become marked with the sign of Mohammed, except the Jews, or those who had long before not been Christians, but unbelievers. But when the Jews and the Christians had been separated, he commenced to torment the Christians far more cruelly than had ever been done by the Governors Lysias and Agricolaus, under the heathen Emperors; so that he put to death many of them, men as well as women, for the name of Jesus Christ.

In the meantime something remarkable occurred here. Certain women whom he visited with various torments, to see whether he could not make them yield to his ungodliness, remained steadfast, overcoming, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, his fury with patience. He caused a thousand stripes to be given them, and had them scourged and tormented unto death, till they received from Christ the crown of victory.

Proceeding thence throughout Syria, he demolished, as far as Damascus, all the meeting-places of the Christians, and ravaged the churches, thus breaking the promise made by the Arabians to those of Syria, viz.: That under their rule they should live in peace and tranquillity, and enjoy the free and unrestricted practice of their religion. But (as the apostle says) as then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it was now, Gal. 4:29. See _Abr. Mell., 2d book, fol. 306, col. 1_, compared with _Paul. Diac., lib. 23, Histor. Rom., in Leone 4. Sigibert. Chron., A. D. 781_; others, however, fix it A. D. 780.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS RESPECTING THE AFOREMENTIONED PERSECUTION.

We commenced this century in the East, thence proceeded to the West, and have now returned to the East, namely, to the countries situated east from Italy, and, consequently, far from Rome, and the Roman see of papal dominion.

As regards the aforesaid persecutions, as well as the churches which existed in the East, especially in the Thessalonian regions, and the martyrs who fell there, namely, what and how much is to be held of them, can be gleaned from the explanation which we gave in the beginning, and to which we here refer the reader.

These Arabians proceeded and brought still more persecution and misery upon many Christian believers in other countries; however, for reasons already mentioned, we are again prevented from speaking more fully, or, at least, separately, of each person that may have been martyred there.

The account of holy baptism, which we have given for this century, would furnish us with not a little matter, to fill these hundred years to the very end with true professors of the true faith, also with such as, to all appearance, did not hesitate, in testimony of their upright and unwavering minds, to lay down their lives for the sake of Jesus Christ, which is the utmost that can be required of any martyr; but as we have not been able to find their names, they can have no place in this book. It is sufficient, we hope, that their names, by the hand of God, are written in the Book of life and eternal salvation.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE NINTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE NINTH CENTURY.

[This account begins with a sad lamentation, that nearly all the learned and celebrated men were corrupted through the Roman superstitions.

Immediately, however, a consolation follows, namely, that in this corrupt age there were still people who did not adhere to the Roman superstitions.

Then it is shown from Haimo, that teaching must precede baptism; that the candidate must first be instructed; that he must first be enlightened, etc. Thereupon, in the margin, A. D. 821, it is noticed that Christus Taurinensus wrote against the invocation of images, of the cross, of relics, of the saints, and against the power of the Pope, pilgrimages, etc. In the margin, for the year 825, a certain council of Paris is adduced, against image worship. In the same place, Gratian says that Christians must not oppose weapon with weapon, but flee before persecution.

Rabanus Maurus appears, A. D. 830, and teaches how in his time the catechumens were prepared for baptism. Of those who asked for baptism, and made haste for it. His exposition of Cant. 3:6: “Who is this that cometh up white as snow?” Again, that the candidate must previously be instructed in the faith of the incarnation of Jesus Christ; also, that in the sacrament of the Supper, the language is figurative.

Angelomus follows Rabanus, teaching that the sins which have been committed through the senses, are washed away (that is, forgiven) in or through baptism; which is more fully explained.

Thereupon, A. D. 840, Bertram, Heymon, and Walafrid appear, who declare themselves against the Roman church, in various points, as in the matter of baptism, transubstantiation, justification, good works as practiced by the papists.

The council of the Christians at Paris, in the time of Louis and Lothaire, is introduced; lamentation on account of the encroachment of infant baptism, and the neglect of the instruction once connected with baptism.

The conversion of the Slaves (of Slavonia) is stated; also, that they were baptized, though not according to the Roman custom, nor in the Roman language. Marginal notice, for A. D. 843, that Christus Lupim at Ferrara refuted the new Roman doctrines, as purgatory.

A few good things respecting the baptism of adults are adduced, for the year 848, and explained in a simple manner. In the margin, for A. D. 858, it is stated of Gunther, Bishop of Cologne, that he calls the Pope a tyrant, yea, a wolf.

Idiota declares that in baptism we accept Christ as our bridegroom. In the margin, mention is made of Ulric, Bishop of Augsburg, that he accused the Pope of error.

Hincmar, Bishop of Landun, opposes the baptism of infants, and prohibits their being baptized; on account of which he is severely accused.

Paschasius advances three things which are incompatible with infant baptism.

Remigius teaches against the Pope; likewise, Tergand, Bishop of Triers, who calls him antichrist, and Rome Babylon. Conclusion from P. J. Twisck and John Patrick.]

* * * * *

Jesus Christ our Savior, speaking of the grievous times which should come after his departure, says, (Matt. 24:12): “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” This was experienced at this time; for with the growth and increase, through very many ungodly and unrighteous superstitions, of the iniquities of the Pope of Rome and the whole Roman church, the true love for God’s commandments decreased, so that but few were found, who, as bright lights, penetrated the smoke that came up from the Roman pit; yea, nearly all men of learning and celebrity were corrupt. O sad and lamentable matter![136]

[136] A. D. 812, disputes began to arise in the Roman church, concerning transubstantiation, or the changing of the bread and wine into the sacrament; so that the custom of the holy Supper was converted into idolatry. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 279, col. 1_, from _Chron. Mich., 2d part, fol. 175, Zegh., fol. 245_.

Nevertheless, as Noah and his family served God in the first world; Lot, in Sodom; Daniel and the three youths, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, in Babylon; Elijah and the seven thousand who were hidden and had not bowed their knees to Baal, in the land of Israel, where the prophets of the Lord were slain, and his altars thrown down; even so there remained some, though but few, at this time, who, living in the midst of popery, did not adhere to the Roman superstitions, but abhorred them.

However, in order to avoid prolixity, we shall confine ourselves, omitting, as has been our custom, other points to the article of baptism, except where it may be found necessary to add something else; and shall show when and by whom this article, with the rejection of infant baptism, was maintained salutarily and in the fear of God, according to his words. Hence we will begin thus.

_A. D. 814._--In the days of Louis the Pious, the first of this name, who began to reign with the year 814, there lived and wrote the celebrated Haimo, of whom various praiseworthy things concerning baptism upon faith are still extant.

Haimo, on Matt. 28:19, (_Bapt. Hist. page 561_,) writes: “In this place the order how to baptize aright is pointed out to us; in which it is ordained, that teaching must precede baptism, for he says: ‘Teach all nations;’ and then adds: ‘baptizing them.’ He, then, that is to be baptized, must previously be instructed, that he may first learn faith, which he shall afterwards receive in baptism.

How could any one give clearer testimony concerning the true baptism of Jesus Christ? how, also, could anybody more plainly reject infant baptism, than by such a declaration? every word emphatically says it.

He begins with Matt. 28:19, where the Lord says: “Go ye therefore, and teach,” or, in other words make disciples of; which he explains thus: “_that teaching must precede baptism_;” for the Lord first says: teach, and then, _baptize_, and that therefore he that is to be baptized, must first be instructed, and learn the faith. Certainly, these are things which pertain only to the adult and intelligent; hence it would be sinning against the truth to apply them to unintelligent infants.

Haimo (_Serm. Domin. 12, Trinit., page 564_) says: “Since those who are baptized, must first be enlightened with the grace of the Holy Spirit, then instructed by the teachers, and finally called to confess the faith, hence arises the custom that,” etc.

This accords fully with the preceding; for he declares the same still more plainly, since here not only instructing is joined to baptizing, but the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the instruction of the teachers, and the confession of the faith are connected with, yea, required before baptism; which is so clear, according to the purport of the first declaration, that it is unnecessary to add another word; the impartial may judge. As to what he further says in the same place, concerning the touching of the tongue, the saying of the word _Hephphatha_, etc., we leave as it is, neither praising nor censuring it, since it is of little consequence, if the truth and the signification of the matter is rightly preserved.

Haimo, on Rom. 1 (_page 542_), writes: “At the time of baptism we confess that we believe on God the Father, and on the Lord Jesus Christ, and on the Holy Ghost; likewise, that we renounce the devil and all his pomp and works. If we observe this thus, we belong to God in faith; but if we do not, we are convinced of unbelief.[137]

[137] A. D. 821 (writes P. J. Twisk), that is, in the time of the Roman Emperor Louis, there lived Christus Taurinensus, who wrote and taught against the invocation of the images, of the cross, of the relics, of the saints, and against the power of the Pope, and pilgrimages. _Chron., 9th book, page 280, col. 2_, from _Joh. Munst., fol. 132_.

A little before, in his exposition of Rom. 6 (_page 540_), he makes mention of four different baptisms: 1. In the water only, as was John’s baptism. 2. In fire and the Spirit, with which the apostles were baptized on the day of Pentecost. 3. In water and the Spirit, which baptism then obtained in the church. 4. In the shedding of the blood with which the Lord himself and all the holy martyrs were baptized.

These four different baptisms can pertain to none but the intelligent and believing; for, as regards the first, namely, John’s baptism, it is expressly stated that those to whom it was administered, confessed their sins and repented. Matth. 3:6,8,11. As to the second, namely, the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, which was administered to the apostles by God himself from heaven, this did not at all relate to infants, seeing that all who were thus baptized, spake with tongues and magnified God. Acts 2:3,4. Concerning the third, namely, the baptism in water and the Spirit, which then obtained in the church, this likewise could not be peculiar to infants, since the fruits of the Holy Ghost, without which the Holy Ghost cannot be, do in no wise appear in them. See Gal. 5:22. Respecting the fourth, namely, the baptism by the shedding of blood, this, according to his statement, is peculiar only to Christ and the martyrs; consequently it cannot be regarded as applying to infants, for these do not even know of _confessing Christ_, much less of suffering one’s blood to be shed for his name’s sake, and of dying in constancy.