Part 53

To accept Christ for one’s bridegroom, to enter his chamber, is certainly not the work of children, but of believers. Those accept Christ for their bridegroom, who betroth themselves to him by faith, and, in token thereof, are baptized. John 3:26,29. Those enter his chamber, who, through obedience, join themselves to his church; for they are no more “strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” Eph. 2:18.

That which is further said of the chamber of the bridegroom, namely, that it is ornamented with graces and virtues, has reference to the spiritual ornament of the church of God, which latter is the true chamber of our heavenly bridegroom Jesus Christ. This church of God cannot be ornamented with graces and virtues by infants, seeing infants are ornamented with neither actual graces nor real virtues; hence, it has also respect to the believers, who, having come, through baptism, to the church of God, ornament the same with actual graces and real virtues. This concludes our exposition of the passage of Idiota.

NOTE.--_A. D. 859._--Huldricus or Uldoricus, Bishop of Augsburg, greatly complained of the violence of the popes, and said: “What will become of this flock, when the shepherds become wolves?” He openly maintained that the Pope was fallible, and that it was lawful to admonish him for his error, and to reject his bad decrees. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 298, col. 1_, from _Merula, fol. 177_. _Jan. Crespin, fol. 211, 215, 216._

_A. D. 860._--At this time, there departed from the belief and practice of infant baptism, Hincmar, at one time Bishop of Laudun, inasmuch as he would no longer baptize children, so that they grew up without baptism, and many also, who did not attain the years of understanding, died unbaptized; on account of which he was then greatly accused by Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, who, to this end, wrote to him as follows: “And thou, who knowest that it is true what the Lord says: ‘Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;’ hast nevertheless commanded, that infants shall not be baptized in thy church, not even when in peril of death, so that they should not be saved, though it is written: ‘The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ Thou hast also acted contrary to the decrees of Syricius, Leo, Gelasius, and the African council, as I have informed thee now twice by writing.” _H. Mont. Nietigh., page 81, ex Biblioth. Patr., Tom. 9, part 2, page 137. Cent. Magd., Cent. 9, cap. 4, pages 40, 41._

In another letter, the Bishop of Rheims, with entreating, and not less earnest words, endeavors to draw him away from his belief, writing: “Desist from preaching this (namely, that infants may not be baptized), the mere thought of which is awful; desist from scattering the flock of Christ (meaning thereby, through error, the Roman church), lest the destruction of all the people come upon thee; and do not, from excessive love for thy belief, sever thyself from,” etc. _H. Mont., page 82_, from _Cent. Magd., Cent. 9, pages 157, 158_. Also, _Bapt. Hist., page 545_.

From these two letters it appears that Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, had not only departed from the doctrine of infant baptism, but also earnestly preached against it, so that many of the Roman church, particularly at Laudun, became his adherents; for, what did the Bishop of Rheims mean by writing: “Desist from preaching this,” but to say that Hincmar of Laudun should cease preaching against infant baptism? What else does he indicate when he says: “Desist from scattering the flock of Christ, lest the destruction of all the people come upon thee?” Certainly, these words indicate that many had already left the Roman church on this account, yea, that the state of things was such that all the people at Laudun adhered to this doctrine.

Moreover, from the last letter we see, how firmly, and almost immovably, said Hincmar must have stood, at Laudun, in his doctrine and belief against infant baptism, seeing such great endeavors were made to draw him away; now by presenting his belief in the most odious light, as though he preached things the mere thought of which was awful; now by flattery: “And do not, from excessive love for thy belief, sever thyself from,” etc. But whether through this he was in any wise turned away from his belief, we have not been able to ascertain; hence we will let the matter rest.

In reference to what he may have taught with regard to other points, we can, on account of the default of history, give nothing certain; it is sufficient for us, that in those perilous times he dared oppose the common Roman church, by rejecting infant baptism, and that much people adhered to him therein, as has been shown above.

_A. D. 867._--We have now come to the year in which an uncommon and quite unexpected matter is mentioned by ancient writers, of which we will forthwith give an account. Just now, for the year 860, we told of a certain champion of the Roman superstitions, especially of infant baptism, namely, Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, who, once and again, by express letters, immoderately accused another Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, because the latter refused to baptize infants, and would also not allow them to be baptized, though they were in danger of dying. This same person now, seven years after making the above accusations respecting the non-baptizing of infants, opposed the Pope, not only in one point, but in many, among which infant baptism may also have been. Concerning this P. J. Twisck, from other authors, writes thus: “Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, opposed Pope Adrian II. in many points, in defense of the truth. He charged him with innovation, saying that he could not be Bishop and King at the same time; that he should have nothing to do with secular affairs.” _Chron., 9th book, page 305, col. 2_, from _Hist. Georg., fol. 314, Catal. Test., fol. 52_.

It is a pity and to be lamented, that the ancients have not left us more information regarding the particular points maintained by Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, against the Pope, and, consequently, also against the Roman church.

It would not be very surprising, if among the points maintained by him against the Pope, the denial of infant baptism was one; for, when he, seven years before that, accused Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, for not baptizing the infants, the latter apparently, either from the holy Scriptures, or by conclusive arguments, demonstrated to him the groundlessness and vanity of infant baptism in such a manner that he may easily have attained to very different views, not only in regard to infant baptism, but also in other points which were maintained after the manner of the papists. But as this is not clearly indicated, we will not discuss it any further, but leave it as a probable conjecture. Moreover, it is not our purpose to justify said Bishop in every article of religion, nor to declare him orthodox on the whole; but to show that the same person who had previously so stoutly defended the Roman church and the papal superstitions, especially in the matter of infant baptism, now dared attack not only the Roman church, but even the Pope, who is called its head, and to oppose him in many points, as has been shown. With this we take our leave of Hincmar of Rheims.

_A. D. 880._--At this time there lived Paschasius, a remarkably experienced and virtuous man, who wrote various things against the belief of the Roman church; but as the thread of our account extends only, or, at least, principally, over the matter of baptism, we will also here turn our special attention to the same, and, so as not to be encumbered with many testimonies, present but one passage of his belief with reference to this matter, as recorded in Jacob Mehrning’s history of baptism.

Paschasius (_de Corp. and Sang. Dom., cap. 10, page 594_) says: “In the sacrament of baptism the door is opened to believers, to enter into the sonship of God, that we, being delivered from evil through this regeneration, may afterwards become one body with the members of Christ; in which baptism, when the Holy Ghost is shed abroad in the souls of the regenerated, the whole church of Christ is quickened, and becomes one body, by one Spirit received by all.”

Here he indicates three things incompatible with infant baptism. Firstly, when he says that “In the sacrament of baptism the door is opened to believers, to enter into the sonship of God.” For, that this cannot relate to infants, appears from the nature of faith and of the believers; as to faith, it is a sure confidence of the things hoped for. Hebr. 11:1. This faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17. That neither this sure confidence, nor hope, nor intelligent hearing of the word of God, can have place in infants, is quite evident, since neither their powers nor their knowledge can reach these things. See Deut. 1:39; 1 Cor. 13:11.

Secondly, when he says: “That we, being delivered from evil through this regeneration, may afterwards become one body with the members of Christ.” For the word regeneration is no where in Scripture applied to infants, but to adults. John 3:3; Tit. 3:5. Likewise, to be delivered from evil, is applied only to such persons as, through evil works, were previously ensnared and held captive by sin. 2 Tim. 2:26. Hence, the second also does in no wise apply to infants.

Thirdly, when he, expounding the utility of baptism, says: “In which baptism, the whole church of Christ is quickened and becomes one body, by one Spirit received by all.” For, when mention is made here of the quickening Spirit of God, which in baptism is imparted to the church, or, at least, to those who, by baptism, are incorporated as members into the church, it follows almost incontrovertibly, that this relates neither to infants nor to infant baptism; for, as regards infants, instead of becoming quickened by the Spirit of God, after baptism, that is, instead of becoming adorned with all divine and Christian virtues, we see, on the contrary, that they generally, from that time on, as their powers increase, are led by their own spirit, so that with the increasing years, perverseness also increases, yea, sometimes gains the ascendency; hence, those who have reached their years, are admonished, that they must be born again, that is, that they must lead another and better life; or that they cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5,7.

This being the case, it stands fast, that Paschasius, in said passage, speaks neither of infants nor of infant baptism. Leaving this subject here, we will conclude with the account of P. J. Twisck, who records of Paschasius, besides what we have stated above, that he mentions but two sacraments, namely, 1. baptism; 2. the Supper; or, as it was anciently called, the body and blood of the Lord; which militates against the seven sacraments of the Roman church. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 310._

_Same year as above._--“Remigius,” he writes in the same place, “also taught much against the Pope, saying, among other things: “That we must address our prayers not to idols, but to the living God; and that the church must conform to the holy Scriptures.” _Chron., 9th book, page 310, col. 1_, from _John Munst., fol. 61, 131, 133. Perk., fol. 249._

In the mean time, the pious were exceedingly oppressed in this century, by the power of the Pope and the Roman clergy; so that, on account of the smoke of the papistic errors, the fire of the pure doctrine could not burn freely, which was also the reason that not more learned and godfearing men manifested themselves at that time, in defense of the truth of God.

_A. D. 900._--That at this time, some dared oppose not only infant baptism and other tenets of the Roman church, but even the Pope of Rome, who might well be called the father of all superstitions, the example of Tergandus sufficiently indicates, who, at this time, dared designate him by the name of antichrist, wolf, etc.; concerning which, Samuel Veltius (from other authors) has noted the following for the year 900: “Tergandus, Bishop of Treves, called the Pope of Rome antichrist, yea, a wolf, and Rome, Babylon.” _Geslacht-register, page 128._

NOTE.--We will close with the account of P. J. Twisck, in his conclusion to the ninth century: “In this century, the occidental or western, Roman Empire, which has been at a stand-still now for 324 years, begins afresh. The clergy, through the folly of the Emperors, obtain power to elect popes and bishops. The Emperors are crowned by the popes, who will themselves to be the masters and lords and rule before and over others, as is evident from this, that some times two, three, and four popes reign at once and seek to domineer over the others, expelling, driving away, exhuming, cursing, each other. Spiritual matters are still greatly on the decline, men seeking their salvation far more in so-called good works, in ceremonies and superstitions, than through justification by faith in Christ Jesus. Disputations about transubstantiation are inaugurated, though the Supper is still administered under both forms, that is, with bread and wine. The people, having been to the supper, offer money or something else.”

What he further relates of exorcism at baptism; of the mass; of the power to canonize saints; of the worship of saints and images; of the ban of the bishops; of the punishment of heretics; of the consecration of temples; of purgatory; of soul-masses, to redeem souls from purgatory, etc., would require too much time to recount. See concerning it, _Chron., page 320_.

This has been told simply to show how and whereby the orthodox Christians were oppressed at this time in their worship of God; and why so few learned and pious people manifested themselves. We will now proceed to show what pious witnesses of Jesus Christ suffered as martyrs at this time.

NOTE.--_A. D. 884._ John Patrick, a man well versed in the Chaldean, Arabian, and Greek languages, in the monastery of Mabelsbury, greatly opposed the doctrine of an offering for the living and the dead; on account of which he was stabbed to death with awls. See _Geslacht-register, page 127_.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE NINTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS IN THE NINTH CENTURY.

[The beginning is a repetition of the fourth proposition of the discourse of Haimo (for the year A. D. 814) respecting baptism by the shedding of blood, with which the Lord and all the holy martyrs were baptized.

Of the cruelties instituted by the Danish tyrant, Regnerus (A. D. 818) against the Christian believers; which matter is further explained in a note.

In the margin, mention is made that A. D. 826, the Saracens invaded the islands of the Romans, and, consequently, Creta; where Cyril, Bishop of the church at Gortina was slain.

The tyranny instituted by the King of Bulgaria against the Christians, about the year 842, is shown and confirmed by testimonies.

Great persecution of the believers, caused by the mutual contentions of the Kings in France, noted also for A. D. 842.

Very grievous and lamentable persecution of Christian believers at Cordova, in Spain, A. D. 850, through the wickedness of the Saracens. It is shown that said persecution had commenced long before A. D. 850, but that at this time it raged the most violently.

The distressing martyrdom of John, a tradesman at Cordova, A. D. 850. Note respecting the faith of said martyr.

Nunilo and Aloida, sisters and Christian maidens, put to death with the sword, for the name of the Lord, in the city of Osca, about A. D. 851.

Marginal note, for the year 852, that then the zeal of some to die as martyrs, was so great that multitudes of them confessed Christ, and ran after martyrdom; among whom Emilas and Hieremias are mentioned, who were beheaded for said reason: however, every one is left to judge for himself.

Aurea, a godfearing maiden, after many severe trials, beheaded at Cordova, for the testimony of Jesus Christ, A. D. 856.

After adding a note, we prepare to flee from the Mohammedan persecutions, and turn to England and Italy, where more and clearer light has arisen.

Marginal note of Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, that, through the hatred of the Bishop of Rheims, and by a certain council held at Dusiacum about A. D. 866, he was condemned and finally sent into banishment.

Johannes Erigena, a Scotchman, and, hence, called Scotus, through the instigation of some monks, put to death by his scholars, for the confession of the evangelical truth, at Meldum, in England, A. D. 884.

Observations about the time of this history, as well as some remarks upon the history itself, according to the accounts of Carion, P. Melancthon, C. Peucer, Sebastian Franck of Worth, P. J. Twisck, Cæsar Baronius, and A. Mellinus. Finally, his belief is compared with that of Berengarius, of whom we shall speak in the eleventh century. Conclusion.]

* * * * *

_About the year A. D. 814._--In our account of Holy Baptism for the year 814, we made mention of Haimo, a celebrated teacher of that day, as well as of some salutary and good testimonies, which he left respecting the baptism of believers. Writing on Rom. 6, he treats of four different kinds of baptism, the fourth or last of which he calls _baptism by the shedding of blood_, indicating withal, what he means thereby, as well as what persons were baptized in this manner. The fourth (baptism), he says, “is by the shedding of blood; with which the Lord himself and all holy martyrs were baptized.” _B. H., 2d part, page 540, num. 2_, from _Centur. Magd. IX., cap. 4, fol. 75_.

Some one perhaps may think that in this passage by Haimo, nothing is said of a present persecution or martyrdom, but that it is simply shown that the shedding of the blood of the martyrs can, in some measure, be called a baptism, with which the Lord himself and many of his followers, namely, all the holy martyrs, had, so to speak, been baptized. To this we will offer no objection, for it is well remarked; nevertheless, it will throw light upon the object we have in view, namely, to show the martyrdom of this time. Hence, in order to reach this end, we say: It would not have been necessary then only to recount to the hearers the shedding of the blood of the martyrs, as well as that in a certain way this may be called a baptism, if at that time the exigency of martyrdom or the shedding of blood for the Lord’s sake had not existed, or, at least, if there had been no danger of being persecuted or martyred.

Certainly, all good teachers regard the opportuneness of the times, the condition of persons, and other circumstances, in the matter of teaching, lest the salutary and good words of God, by being spoken at the wrong time, or on an unsuitable occasion, should prove void, powerless, and vain to those who hear it. Thus we must believe that also said teacher (Haimo) proceeded, and that, consequently, when he called the shedding of the blood of the martyrs a baptism, and adduced this for the purpose of instructing his brethren, there must have been an exigency of martyrdom, either at the time, or near at hand; otherwise the assertion and exposition of this excellent teacher would not have been adduced properly, or at the right time and on the proper occasion.

We shall, therefore, ascertain from other authors the condition of that time, and whether then or shortly after, any persecution, bloodshedding or martyrdom arose against the Christian believers, to which the aforementioned teacher might have had reference in his instruction touching said matter.

TOUCHING THE CRUELTIES INSTITUTED BY THE DANISH TYRANT REGNERUS AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS, ABOUT A. D. 818.

Four years after the admonition of the aforenamed teacher, namely, A. D. 818, mention is made of a certain Danish tyrant, called Regnerus, the sixty-second King of Denmark; who, as regards military affairs, was greatly praised by the champions of war, but, with regard to his cruelty and tyranny towards the Christian believers, deserves to be utterly contemned, yea, counted a tyrant and a blood-thirsty monster.

Concerning this, P. J. Twisck (from various other writers) has left the following as a summary of his wickedness, and how he was punished for it, as a warning to all tyrants. “King Regnerus was a prodigy in matters of war, but a great enemy and persecutor of the Christians. He was conquered by Hella, King of the Britons, and cast into a pool of snakes, to be killed in this manner.” _Chron., 9th book, page 280._

NOTE.--We have not been able to learn in particular the manner in which said tyrant manifested his enmity against the Christians, or how he persecuted them; nor the countries and places in which those persecutions occurred; nor the names of the persons who then suffered; nor how long these persecutions and martyrdoms lasted; hence we cannot more fully speak of these things.

In the meantime, it is our firm conviction, that not a few upright professors of Jesus Christ laid down their lives for the apprehended and accepted truth of the holy Gospel, and were offered up as steadfast martyrs for their love to their Savior, and for the working out of their own salvation. But for the want of their particular confessions and names, we are constrained to break off, as we have had to do in several places in preceding centuries; which things can be compared with the account we have given here; which we commit to the intelligent and impartial reader.

About A. D. 826, the Saracens invaded the islands of the Romans, and took possession of Crete (where Paul had ordained his beloved spiritual son Titus Bishop and shepherd of the church), and put to death, Cyril, the Bishop of the church of Gortina, for confessing Christ. Compare _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 306, col. 2_, with _Zonar., Tom. 3, in Michaele Balbo Cedren_.

TOUCHING THE TYRANNY INSTITUTED BY THE KING OF BULGARIA AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS, ABOUT A. D. 842.

When the aforementioned tyrant Regnerus, who commenced to reign about A. D. 818, had died, in the year 832, having been cast among the snakes, and the Christian believers in the devastated regions, had obtained, it seems, some freedom in the matter of living according to their faith, there arose against them, ten years afterwards, namely, A. D. 842, another miscreant, no better, to all appearance, than the former, though for a time he had borne the name of a Christian, who instituted great tyranny against them.

The last mentioned author, proceeding to the year 842, speaks in his account concerning this matter as follows: “When this King of the Bulgarians had received the kingdom from his father, who wished to retire into privacy, he apostatized from the (Roman) Christian faith to heathen idolatry, and re-established the latter, with much tyranny against the Christians. _Chron., 9th book, page 287, col. 1_, from _Hist. Andræ, fol. 182. Leon., lib. 4, fol. 176._ Compare this with the above note.

GREAT PERSECUTION OF THE BELIEVERS, CAUSED BY THE MUTUAL CONTENTIONS OF THE KINGS IN FRANCE, IN SAID YEAR 842.