Part 55
As to the dates 869 and 884, to which the history of said Johannes has been referred by him, some one might think that this could not very well be reconciled, which may, however, be easily done, if we take the year 869 as the time in which said martyr flourished and propagated his doctrine, and the year 884 as the time when he died and was martyred for the principles which he taught.
FURTHER OBSERVATION TOUCHING THE HISTORY ITSELF, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF CARION, P. MELANCTHON AND C. PEUCER.
“In the time of Emperor Louis the Pious,” said authors say, “Johannes Scotus read and explained publicly in the schools, Dionysius’ treatise _Hierarchia_. This Johannes Scotus, when he censured and refuted with good reasons, the false and impious tenet of the sacrifice of the mass, concerning which others at that time taught that in the Supper Christ was to be offered up for the living and the dead, was stabbed to death by his disciples and hearers, with their penknives.” _Chron. Carion., from the beginning of the world until Charles V., enlarged by Phil. Melancthon and Casp. Peucer, printed 1586, 4th book, fol. 476, col. 1._
CONCERNING SAID HISTORY, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SEBASTIAN FRANCK OF WORTH.
“Johannes, surnamed Scotus, not of the Gray Friars, wrote a treatise on the sacrament, denying the presence of the body and blood of Christ. He was condemned in the council of Vercellis. He was rector at Paris, eminently versed in the languages, and the phenix of his age. The Emperor Lothaire held him in great esteem. Of him there have written, Platina,” etc. See _Chron. Rom. Kett., fol. 106, col. 4, letter J_.
P. J. TWISCK’S ACCOUNT OF SAID JOHANNES SCOTUS.
“Johannes Scotus,” he writes, “lived under the Emperor Louis the Pious, and wrote strenuously against transubstantiation. On a certain occasion, when he, in an exposition, was severely censuring the delusion of the blasphemous oblation or offering up of the Lord Christ in the Supper, for the living and the dead, his disciples and hearers killed him with iron styles.” _Chron., 9th book, fol. 306, col. 2_, from _Hist. Andr., fol. 160_.
FURTHER EXPLANATION TOUCHING SAID J. SCOTUS, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAPIST BARONIUS, AS NOTED BY ABR. MELLINUS.
“But let us add,” says he, “the opinion of Baronius, touching this Scotchman: As regards Johannes Scotus, we have said above, in the proper place, that he was in bad repute with the Pope Nicholas I. Although he wrote so violently against the Catholic faith, yet, as he did not spread it among the people, so that his views became known to all, many had a good opinion of him, so much so, that they, though most inconsiderately (thus he speaks, from a papistic standpoint) gave him the title of martyr.” Compare _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 393, col. 1, 2_, with _Cesar. Baronius’_ account touching _J. Scotus. Annal. T. 11, A. D. 1059_.
From this account it appears that the papist Baronius, who was a cardinal of the Roman see, was not pleased that many had a good opinion of Johannes Scotus, and, what is still more, gave him the title of martyr; but this is not to be wondered at, since the true papists have a good opinion of none but those who adhere to the Roman superstitions, and never dare to utter a word of censure against them; and they would confer the title of martyr upon none but those who have suffered for the Roman see and its traditions (which are a parcel of human inventions). However, we will let them answer for this, and leave it.
We return to Johannes Scotus and say that, as regards his boldness, he showed himself as behooves a true martyr, since, to clear his conscience and defend the oppressed truth, he did not hesitate to incur the hatred of the Pope and the papists, yea, the prospect of being anathematized, excommunicated, and, finally, miserably tortured and put to death for it. He died for the confession of the Christian and evangelical truth, particularly for the article by which we commemorate the Lord’s death, and in which lies the consolation of the soul, with regard to our blessed redemption.
But, since Berengarius, who opposed not only transubstantiation and the mass, but also infant baptism, was afterwards charged with having imbibed and obtained his belief from Johannes Scotus, the aforementioned martyr, we may conclude that said martyr must also have opposed infant baptism; otherwise it could not be said in general words, that Berengarius imbibed or obtained his views from J. Scotus, which is nevertheless frequently and confidently asserted by ancient writers. With this we will take our leave of J. Scotus and also of our account of the martyrs of this century; as being sufficient for the well-disposed--for the evil-disposed we care not; hence, our soul shall rest, and content itself with the pious.
AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE TENTH CENTURY.
SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE TENTH CENTURY.
[The corruption of this century, caused by the papal superstitions, is sadly lamented by Jacob Mehrning and P. J. Twisck.
Nevertheless, it is shown thereupon, that in the midst of papal darkness there were still some who, in the matter of holy baptism, did not differ from the institution of Christ and his apostles.
Giselbert teaches, that baptism must be connected with regeneration and a good will.
Then follows Ansbert, who declares that Christ, through preaching and baptism, is still daily bringing unto himself heirs; that we must be baptized upon the confession of the holy Trinity; and that after baptism we may sin no more.
Smaragdus follows next and says that it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the truth of the faith; that the excellent _ordinance of the baptism of Christ_ commands the apostles first to teach all nations, and then to incorporate them by the baptism of faith.
Then appears Theophilact, who produces very excellent testimonies concerning baptism; as, among others, that the baptized have put on Christ, Gal. 3:27; that the candidates are like the prodigal son when he was converted; that he is not baptized aright, who has not believed; that in baptism all believers are enlightened by the Holy Ghost; that no one may be recognized as a believer, who is unregenerate or lives after the flesh; that the truly baptized may not drive away the Holy Spirit by wicked works, but must preserve the image of God unspotted; that the good profession of which we read, 1 Tim. 6:12, must take place at the instruction of those that are to be baptized; that those baptized by John, were delivered by repentance from the bonds of the soul; that the novices repented before baptism; that the Supper was administered to the baptized, etc.
Thereupon it is stated, from D. Vicecomes, that the papists, when infant baptism was introduced among them, abolished the practice of administering the Supper to the baptized. It is furthermore demonstrated, that the Romanists ought to have abolished infant baptism just as well as the infant Supper.
The baptism of Olympius, his wife Exuperia, and his son Theodulus, is adduced, from Simon Metaphrastes; also, of the baptism of Theridates, and Nemesius.
Fulbertus Carnotenses is the last witness respecting holy baptism.]
* * * * *
We now pass over to the tenth century after the birth of Christ, to find in it, as we have done in the preceding times, the marks of the Christian believers, namely, the true baptism with its observance according to the institution of Christ and the practice of his apostles; which, as we shall show in the proper place, obtained and was practiced also at this time, though under great difficulties.
Yet, what shall we say of this century? Many well-disposed persons, who loved the truth, abhorred and detested it, because the innumerable human superstitions of the Roman church had risen nigh unto heaven, and the pure commandments of Jesus Christ, without the observance of which men cannot be saved, had been cast almost down into the pit. This was the century concerning which much woful lamentation was made, because papal tyranny, in the matter of worship, had increased so exceedingly. Of these things (after the title), the following is contained in _Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism_.
OF THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD IN THE TENTH CENTURY.
“In the tenth century the dominion of the Roman Pope had exceedingly obscured, and taken possession of, nearly all the churches in Europe, so that everything, had to be done according to his pleasure, both in spiritual and secular governments; hence, great darkness prevailed at this time, in which but very few learned, virtuous, and celebrated men lived. For fear of the great tyranny, one dared scarcely speak the least word of the adulteration of the doctrine, or the abuses in the false worship, and the increase of the abominable blasphemies; for, as soon as those who knew better, and feared God, uttered the least word of opposition, the Pope instantly thundered, with hail and lightning as it were, excommunications from the Roman chair, so that every one was terrified, since also the secular lords were bewitched and controlled by him. Was it to be wondered at, then, that the corruptions with reference to baptism, increased the longer the more?” _Bapt. Hist., p. 566_, from _Magd. Cent. 10, cap. 1_.
Touching the abuses in and about baptism, which were then introduced the decree of the Pope and the councils, they are noticed by different writers, as may be seen in _Cent. Magd., Cent. 10, cap. 6, 10, 11_.
In short, whereas formerly the catechumens had not been baptized until, after proper instruction, they had given an account of their faith, either on Easter or Whitsuntide, it was now ordained, that, when death or peril of life was apprehended, they should be baptized immediately. _Metaphr., lib. 2, cap. 5_.
Whereas baptism had formerly been administered with unblessed or unconsecrated water, it was now blessed and consecrated, yea, the chrism was used, the sign of the cross on the forehead, the oil of chrism. _Bapt. Hist., page 576, num. 13._
But the most ridiculous of all was, that, whereas formerly only human beings had been baptized, Pope John XIV. now commanded that the great bell in the Lateran church should be baptized and named after him. _Bapt. Hist., page 577, ex Balaeo Centur. 2. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 10th book, for the year 965, page 341, col. 1._
These exceeding great errors of the Roman church, and the dreadful darkness in which all nations, with the exception of a few pious people, sat during those dreary times, is described in _P. J. Twisck’s Chronijk_, in the conclusion of the thousandth year, with the following words (after the title):
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD IN THIS CENTURY.
“As far as regards the preceding century, I cannot speak of any improvement, inasmuch as the secular affairs manifested themselves with much commotion, strife, misery, and distress. Papal dominion prevailed more and more. The idolatrous ceremonies were very prolific; the baptismal water was consecrated; the oil was prepared by the bishop alone, two days before Easter, as well as imparted to others; the Supper, or sacrament, was administered nearly every Sunday, at an altar or table prepared for this purpose. Excommunication or the ban of the church was used very frivolously, not only against common people, but also against emperors, kings, and princes. The punishment imposed upon penitents consisted much in abstaining for seven years from certain food, meat and wine, or in the giving of alms, building of churches, founding of cloisters, and other like inventions and burdens, according to the ability and mind of each respective individual.
“It was taught, that the saints must be worshiped; not that they should save the supplicants, but that they should intercede, and ask God for help for them.
“Holy people were presented, who had died before the time of Christ, in the Old Testament, and who, as it was said, had been in hell, yet without pain--a strange notion and wicked doctrine respecting the holy fathers.
“It was said that there was a purgatory, where men had to atone after this life, and wash away sin by suffering.
“The canonizing of ecclesiastical persons was very common. The holidays instituted in honor of the saints, were very many, and took away nearly one half of the year. The images and graves of the saints were greatly esteemed. Kings, princes, lords, ecclesiastics, and laymen, made pilgrimages to Rome, St. Jago, Jerusalem, and other places, where the bodies or bones of the saints were buried or preserved, as though dead bones without spirit, could impart life or benefit.
“The sick would confess to the ear of the priest, and thereupon receive the sacrament of the unction; after which they departed in full assurance, though without any good resulting from it.
“The dead were buried with the ringing of bells, with tapers and torches, with much singing, with masses, vigils, and prayers for their souls, etc.” _P.J. Twisck, Chron., 10th book, page 361._
Thus, the tenth century was utterly corrupted through the superstitions of popery; but, as in the dark midnight the stars still sometimes give their light, so it was also here; for, that the marks of the true church might not be swallowed up entirely in the darkness, some, though but few, manifested themselves, who, in one and the other point, but principally in the matter of baptism, showed, that they, as regards the matter itself, did not differ from the institution of Christ and the practice of his holy apostles; which can be gathered from the writings they have left.
_About A. D. 910._--Or very close to the beginning of this century, the ancient writers place Giselbert, a man of learning, but accused of strange opinions by his adversaries; whom the emergency of the time compelled to stoop and hide, under the ravages of popery. He, though others have regarded him as a member of the Roman church, opposed, apparently as much as lay in his power, the Pope and the Roman church, and this not a little in the matter of baptism. For, while the Pope and the Roman church generally taught that it was necessary, yea, upon pain of damnation, to baptize the infants, notwithstanding they have not, and cannot have, either true regeneration or a good will [intention], which are nevertheless required of candidates (Matt. 3:7,8), he taught that it is indeed necessary to salvation, to be baptized, but that said baptism must be connected with regeneration, and a good intention; which things, besides the grace of Christ, he considered the chief means to salvation, so much so, that any one who had these virtues, though he were not baptized (that is, if there had been no opportunity), could nevertheless be saved because of the grace and power of God. Of this, there is, among others, the following annotation in _Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism, page 567_.
_Of the necessity of baptism._--Giselbert (_Alter. 1_), says: “It is true, God can save; yet, man cannot be saved without baptism; (that is, that baptism which is accompanied with regeneration, as the following words declare), for thus says the author of this sacrament himself: ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ It is, however, not in the power of man, to reject this way, and to choose to salvation another. However, it is in God’s power, if man cannot obtain this means (baptism), to accept graciously his good will.” _Cent. Magd. X., cap. 4._
Hence, when he here speaks of the good will of man, it is quite evident, that he treats neither of infants nor of infant baptism, seeing infants have no knowledge of either a good or a bad will, nor of baptism, nor of regeneration, to which said passage of Giselbert also has reference; much less have they the ability to worthily begin and execute all this, for the proper reception of baptism. He intends simply to say, that baptism is indeed necessary, yet not without regeneration; which regeneration he regards as the most important of all, according to John 3:5,7, from which he concludes that it is not in the power of man to reject this way, namely, to separate regeneration from baptism, or baptism from regeneration, which is a stricture upon those who were wont to reject the baptism of the regenerated or penitent, and to go another way, as did the Pharisees in the days of John the Baptist; who, rejecting the counsel of God against themselves (namely, the baptism of John), were not baptized of him. Luke 7:30.
But, in order that no one need sorrow, who, having attained to regeneration, could not receive baptism, on account of serious obstacles or the want of a fitting opportunity, and, hence, might imagine that there was no grace or mercy of God for him, he adds this consolation, namely: “That it is in God’s power, if man cannot obtain the means (baptism), to accept graciously his good will.”
Whatever others, especially papistic writers, may have recorded of Giselbert’s belief, detrimental to, or, at least, against the point in view, we let them be responsible for it; this is certain, that we have not as yet been able to find anything to the contrary, in any authentic writer.
_About A. D. 925._--Shortly after, or very near the time of Giselbert, Ansbert is mentioned, who, writing on several matters of faith, or articles of religion, also makes mention of baptism, approaching herein very closely the language, or, at least, the sense of the holy apostles, which appears from the following testimonies:
_Bapt. Hist., page 568._ Ansbert (on Rev. 19), says, according to the words of Christ, John 1:13: “Which were born not of blood ... but of God.” “_Of God_, that is, through the preached word and the washing of regeneration, by which mysteries (namely, preaching and the washing of regeneration, that is, baptism) Christ still daily begets and brings forth unto himself heirs.”
He here connects the word of God, or preaching, with the washing of regeneration, or baptism, and says that by them Christ begets and brings forth unto himself heirs. How could anybody more plainly declare: 1. what true baptism is; 2. what belongs to it; and 3. what fruit proceeds from it. For, firstly, what true baptism is, he expresses by these words: _Washing of regeneration_, according to Tit. 3:5, indicating thereby, that true baptism is peculiar only to the regenerate; that is, to the penitent. Secondly, what belongs to baptism he expresses by these words: _The preached word_; for, as the apostle declares, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” Rom. 10:17. The preached word is therefore the means by which to attain to the faith, and faith is the foundation upon which truly to receive baptism. As necessary, then, as faith is, in order to be truly baptized, upon it, so necessary also is the preached word, in order to truly believe; consequently, Ansbert has justly joined the preached word to baptism, as a proof that it belongs to it, according to the words of Christ (Mark 16:15,16): “Preach the Gospel ... he that believeth and is baptized.” Thirdly, what fruit proceeds from such baptism, when it is accompanied with regeneration and the preached word of God, he expresses with these words: “_By which mysteries Christ still daily begets and brings forth unto himself heirs_,” which well agrees with the words of Paul, Gal. 3:26,27: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” These, then, who by this means become children of God, also become his heirs and joint heirs with Christ. Rom. 8:17. Hence, said words of Ansbert are conformable to the holy Scriptures, and speak of the baptism of the regenerate, but in no wise of infant baptism.
_Page 569._ Ansbert (on Rev. 21) teaches: “The trinity of the Godhead we dare not, and shall not pass by unnoticed, especially when we are baptized upon the confession of the holy Trinity, and are saved in the faith of the unity of the same.”
Here he again connects baptism with confession and faith, yea, he says that we are baptized upon confession, and saved in faith. Certainly, there is not a letter in the above passage, which savors of infant baptism, but every word denies, yea, opposes it, inasmuch as here such a baptism only is spoken of, as is received with faith and the confession of the same; but that this can be done by infants, militates not only against the holy Scriptures, but also against nature.
_Page 574._ Ansbert (on Rev. 1) says: “He that has been washed in baptism from dead works, and, after such washing, again commits sins unto death, it avails him nothing that he was washed; hence, the Lord, through Isaiah (chap. 1, verse 16), admonishes thus: ‘Wash ye, make you clean.’ He washes and cleanses himself, who commits no new sins after baptism. But he that conducts himself thus that after such washing, he again pollutes the white robe with sin, let him still not despair of remission, if he desires to be washed again; for there is yet another baptism, with which publicans and harlots are always baptized--and what other is it but the well-spring of tears? in which Mary Magdalene, polluted with many a stain of vice, and Peter, when he had thrice denied the Lord, washed themselves.”
This whole passage is a warning to those who, having committed sins unto death, were baptized for the remission of the same, that they should not rely upon this, otherwise they might be deceived; hence, against such, there are spoken these words: “He that after such washing again commits sins unto death, it avails him nothing that he was washed.” Then follows an admonition, not to fall into new sins after baptism; yet that any who had fallen into them, should still not despair. But to such there is pointed out another baptism, namely, the baptism of tears, that is, weeping and sorrowing for committed sins. Then it is told what persons were once baptized with this baptism of tears, namely, publicans and harlots, Mary Magdalene, and Peter, for denying Christ.
Judge now, whether the above-stated things can be done by infants, or whether they are peculiar only to the adult and intelligent, and we are fully confident, that, if you are impartial, you will choose the latter, and reject the former.
_About A. D. 938._--Very near the time of Ansbert, a place is accorded, in this century, to Smaragdus, who, having, it seems, at some time previous to his conversion, or, at least, to his enlightenment, maintained infant baptism, now gave such testimony concerning baptism as completely excludes infant baptism, inasmuch as he, writing of the nature, virtue, practice, and benefit of baptism, very closely follows the language of Christ and his holy apostles.[147]
[147] What Smaragdus has written on 1 Pet. 2, saying: “Such holy, pure, and innocent childhood, the mother, the church of Christ, gains through the grace of baptism,” gave cause to consider whether by the word _childhood_ he meant infants of the cradle, and by the words _grace of baptism_, infant baptism; but it is also interpreted as having reference to the believing children of God, according to Gal. 3:26, and to the baptism of believers, according to Mark 16:16. As to the exposition, however, which he is stated to have made on John 13, it is held that it took place before his enlightenment.
This appears from his exposition of the institution of Christ respecting baptism.