Chapter XLI: Conclusion: Of the Matters Here Related (15)

_About A. D. 548._--Or 550, it is related, that one Peter, as well as one Zoroaras defended Anabaptism; but as to how and in what manner it was done, whether they rejected infant baptism, or whether they recognized no other baptism than that upon faith and administered in their own church, or otherwise, of this I find no other account than that recorded in _Bapt. Hist., page 472_, from Nicephorus, where it is said: “Nicephorus writes (_lib. 17, cap. 9_): Peter, Bishop of Apamea in Spain, and Zoroaras, a Syrian monk, defended Anabaptism.”[120]

[120] P. J. Twisck, it appears, makes mention of this Peter, for the
year 586, as we have also noted for that year.

But if these men have erred in other respects perhaps, which in that dark age could very easily have been the case, we would not justify it; it suffices us that they, as regards this article, dared oppose the common doctrine of the Roman church; which could not have been done without peril of life, or, at least, not without reaping calumny and obloquy.

_About A. D. 551._--That it was customary at this time, to baptize on Easter and Whitsuntide, is recorded from Gregory, who says that several Jews were baptized on Easter, and several on Whitsuntide. _Bapt. Hist., page 472_, from _Gregor., lib. 5, Hist. cap. 11_.

That this custom of baptizing on Easter and Whitsuntide, pertained only to believing penitents, and in no wise to children, we have previously sufficiently shown; to which we refer the reader. But to remove all doubt, mention is also made in the same place, in the _History of Holy Baptism_, of the preaching or doctrine of faith which it was then customary to present to the novices, who were to be baptized. As an example of this is adduced the wife of Sigibert, who, having been rightly instructed in the faith through such holy preaching, was ultimately baptized. _Bapt. Hist., page 472_, from _Greg. Turon., lib. 4, cap. 26_.

_About A. D. 553._--When, as it appears, the good old custom of renouncing and forsaking Satan, which was wont to be done publicly at baptism, in connection with the confession of faith, began to cease, or, at least, fall into neglect, it was revived and again brought to remembrance, by the teacher Vincent;[121] concerning which the following observation is found in _Bapt. Hist., page 473_, from _Vinc., lib. 21, cap. 6_: “It was the custom, to renounce (that is, forsake), before baptism, all pomp and the works of the devil, which can certainly not be done by children.”

[121] This Vincent is to be distinguished from Vincent Victor, who is
spoken of in another place.

_About A. D. 556._--At this time white robes were put on the newly baptized, after baptism. Thus, Gregory Turon (_lib. 5, cap. 11_), says--that at Avernio five hundred Jews were baptized at once, and then went their way, clothed in white robes.

Gifts were also presented to the baptized; thus, Guentheramus gave presents to Clotharius, when the latter had been baptized. _Bapt. Hist., p. 484_, from _Gregor. Turon., lib. 10, cap. 27_.

This putting on of the white robes after baptism, signified that the newly-baptized, having put off the garment of sin, must henceforth be clothed in the clean white robe of true righteousness and holiness; to which applies Eccl. 9:8: “Let thy garments be always white;” and Rev. 3:4: “They shall walk in white;” also, Rev. 19:8: “And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.”

As to the gifts presented to the newly-baptized, this indicated that God thus imparts his heavenly gifts and blessings to them; as Peter said to those whom he exhorted to be baptized: “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,” Acts 2:38.

However, if it should be, that with this putting on of white robes, and giving of presents, there was coupled any superstition (of which, however, we are not aware,), we would not commend, but rather speak against it. What we have in view here, is simply this, that such ceremonies were not, and could not be, performed with infants, inasmuch as the latter are too weak in understanding to comprehend, as well as in ability to perform, the same. Hence it follows, that such baptism, at that day, was not administered to infants, but to adult, reasonable, and believing persons.

_About A. D. 560._--It is stated, from _Adon. Aetat. 4_, and _Turon., lib. 4, cap. 26_, that Brunechildis, the daughter of Arthanagild, had been baptized, probably in her infancy, by the Arians, but that subsequently, having been married to Sigibert, she was rebaptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. This is related more fully by J. Mehrning, in _Bapt. Hist., p. 475_. But whether Brunechildis continued in the true footsteps of the faith, after her rebaptism, of this we have no account; it suffices us to know that having been baptized, probably in infancy, by the Arians, she was afterwards, in adult age, rebaptized, or, at least, baptized aright, upon confession of faith; the first baptism having no foundation.

_About A. D. 562._--Joseph Vicecomes (_lib. 5, cap. 53_), quotes Cyril Monachus, in the life of the Patriarch, Enthymius as follows: “When he had entertained for forty days, several persons that had been baptized, had admonished, and diligently instructed them in godliness, and inculcated in them, in various ways, the things necessary to their salvation, he let them depart in peace.” _Bapt. Hist., page 484._

In what place and manner, and under what circumstances, the aforementioned persons were baptized, is not stated; hence we must be content with what is shown, from which we can infer that those persons were baptized upon faith, seeing they were yet confirmed, after baptism, in the doctrine of faith and godliness; and thus it follows that the custom of baptizing upon faith was practiced at the place where this occurred.

_About A. D. 570._--Vicecomes (_lib. 4, cap. 12_), quotes, from Severus Alexandrinus, a certain prayer, which it was customary, at that time, for the teacher to pronounce over those who were baptized: “O God! take out from them the old man, which destroys himself through the lusts of error, and clothe them with the new man, which is daily renewed in thy knowledge.”

Again (_lib. 5, cap. 27_): “O Lord God! who hast imputed unto us redemption through Christ, and through the water, in the Holy Ghost, hast given to these thy servants, regeneration; thou, O Lord, who lovest light, confirm and uphold them in holiness, that they, illuminated by the light of thy grace, and standing before thy table, may be made worthy of thy eternal salvation.”

In _chap. 38_ he relates how the candidates, immediately after baptism, were brought to the holy Supper, and crowned with wreaths, and how the teacher then addressed them, exhorting them to joy and holiness of life, saying: “Dear brethren, sing a hymn of praise unto the Son of the Lord over all, who has crowned you with royal crowns. You have now, my beloved, received unfading crowns from the waters of Jordan, through the power of the Holy Ghost. Dear brethren, ye have put on to-day the glory of the baptism of the heavenly Adam.”

He finally adds the wish addressed by the teacher to God, saying: “The holy God give you holiness with this seal wherewith you are sealed, and mark you with the ring of a sweet-smelling anointing, by this baptism wherewith you are baptized; may he make you worthy of his kingdom, and crown you, instead of this perishable crown, with the crown of righteousness and every good work.”

Having quoted this much, Jacob Mehrning says: “All this is utterly inapplicable to infant baptism.” _Bapt. Hist., page 486._

_Same year as above._--It is stated that about this time there also lived Theophilus Alexandrinus, who, it appears, held views entirely different from those of the Roman church, with regard to baptism as well as to the holy Supper; so that he wrote against the manifold adjurations which were wont to be connected with the consecrating of the baptismal water, as also against transubstantiation or the essential change of the bread into the body of Christ, as follows: “A false Christian (namely, one who deems adjurations over the baptismal water necessary), does not consider that the water, in holy baptism, is sanctified by the word of God (which was wont to be spoken to the candidates who confessed the faith), and the advent of the Holy Ghost; and that the bread of the Lord, by which the body of our Savior is signified, and which we break for our sanctification, is consecrated through invocation of the Lord.” Observe he does not say, _transubstantiated_, but _consecrated_.[122] See _Bapt. Hist., page 486_, from _D. J. Vicecomes, lib. 1, cap. 14_.

[122] What he says about the water of baptism, is somewhat obscure,
and hence every one may judge for himself; but that which he remarks
about the bread of the Supper, is clearer.

_A. D. 586._--Long since, namely, for the year 317, we cited Donatus, and showed, according to Seb. Franck, _Chron. Rom. Kill., letter D._, that he was a very learned Bishop of Carthage, a native of Numidia, and that he taught that the Pope and his adherents did not have a Christian church, and, consequently, no true baptism; and hence held that those who had been baptized in the Roman church, needed to be rebaptized, saying that there was only one church, one baptism, one faith, one Gospel, and that no children should be baptized, but only believing adults who desired baptism. At first almost all Africa adhered to him. See the place indicated above.

This doctrine, however, did not die with him, seeing mention is made of his followers much later (namely A. D. 586), that they at that time, under the leadership of one Peter, Bishop of Apamia, rebaptized those who had been baptized by the orthodox (or Catholic) church. See concerning this, P. J. Twisck, _Chron., 6th book, page 201, col. 1_, from _Greg. lib._ _8, Merul., fol. 446_. Also our account for the year 548.

NOTE.---The followers of Donatus, of whom we speak here, have of old been severely accused by their opponents of gross errors, tyranny, &c., but are acquitted thereof by other celebrated authors. Nevertheless, we would not accept them in every respect, but only in those of their teachings which are good and true.

H. Bullinger compares them throughout to the Anabaptists, or as he calls them Baptists, saying: “Here our Baptists again disclose their ignorance, when they teach that no one should be compelled to that which is good, or to the faith;” and, continuing, he says: “They resemble the ancient Baptists, the Donatists, in every respect.” “These,” he writes further, “were of the opinion, that heretics should be allowed to live without restraint and with impunity in their faith;” that is, without persecution or blood shedding. They were opposed by Augustine. _H. Bulling., lib. 5, fol. 216, 222_.[123]

[123] The writings of Bullinger against the said people are more
fully explained elsewhere.

As to the accusations formerly brought against their faith as well as their life, these have been refuted by several prominent authors. “It would be desirable,” writes P. J. Twisck, “if we ourselves had their writings, doctrines, and deeds; for, if it is true, that they resemble the Baptists in every respect, and are not willing that any one should be compelled in matters of faith.” It is therefore sufficiently, as Bullinger says, evident, that they were unjustly accused. _Chron., 5th book, page 147, col. 2_. This is more fully spoken of in the account for the year 317.

_About A. D. 600._--We will now bring the history of baptism in the sixth century to a close. We would adduce more writers in confirmation of said matter, but we fear that many authors of that time did not write faithfully and uprightly; besides, that many of their descendants, in order to give color to infant baptism and similar doctrines, appear to have corrupted their writings, of which many excellent men have complained.

Jacob Mehrning, in his _Indachtigmaeckinge over het Doopsel_, of the 6th century, says: “Thus the _Centuriatores Magdeburgenses_, also the two doctors, Calixtus and Brandanus Detrius, in their disputations about baptism, must themselves confess that in this century, and much longer, the Christian novices were divided into two classes, as in the primitive church, which observed a distinction between the catechumens and believing applicants for baptism, or the “elect,” as they were called by the ancients.

But continuing, he writes the following concerning the corruption of the writings of the true teachers: “Here must also be taken into consideration, that which the _Centuriatores Magdeburgenses_, Dr. Calixtus, Dr. Meysner, Dr. Johan Gerhard, Dr. Guil. Perkins, in _Ementito Catholicismo_, and many others so frequently complain of, namely, that the writings of the fathers and the primitive teachers of the church, have been so amazingly abused, in manifold ways, corrupted, interpolated and mutilated. Pray, who indeed will be our surety, that Augustine and others of the fathers have written and taught about infant baptism, all that is ascribed to them.

However, the fathers and teachers of the church, whose writings are extant, constitute but a very small part of the whole number. Were the writings, books and testimonies of the countless hundreds and thousands of other teachers of the church, bishops, and laymen experienced in the word of God, who have written, preached, taught, and spoken against it, in various parts of the wide world, to come to light, and could we also have the original manuscripts of the fathers, namely, those who have written against infant baptism, and compare them together, we would be astonished to see how faithfully the truth has been maintained in all ages, but also, how it has been suppressed by the innovators of baptism (that is, those who baptized infants). Yet, however mutilated and corrupted the writings of the fathers as we now have them, are, there are nevertheless to be found in them many very excellent testimonies respecting Christ’s true ordinance of baptism, and very confused ones as regards infant baptism; for which we owe special thanks to God, and to him only, who thereby mightily confirms us in the truth. _Bapt. Hist., 2d part, pages 481, 482._

Thus, not we, but those who have unfaithfully dealt with the writings of the fathers, are the cause that we must here close our account of the baptism of this time; however, in some of the following centuries, where we meet with more authentic writers, we shall be able to explain and amplify this more conclusively.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE SIXTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE SIXTH CENTURY.

[The verse of Alcimus, reserved in the preceding account of baptism in this century, is now adduced, as the first proof of the martyrization of this time, and circumstantially explained.

Mention is made of various severe persecutions that occurred about this time, of which fifteen are enumerated; it is also shown in what kingdoms, principalities, or countries they took place, as well as who the tyrants were by whom all this was committed against the Christian believers.

An explanation that it is hardly credible, that all the countries in which the aforementioned fifteen persecutions occurred, were subject to the Roman See; which is amplified, and its signification shown.

Arnold, a teacher of the Gospel, martyred in a forest, in France, and buried by his wife, presented as a pious martyr in the year 511.

In the margin (in connection with Arnold) a severe persecution in Arabia, A. D. 520, is spoken of; what inference may be drawn from it.

The oppression of the church and the servants of God, under Granus, son of the King of France, is noticed, for the year 562; then, in the margin, mention is made of forty Christian peasants, who suffered under the Longobards; however, for certain reasons, they are not absolutely accepted.

After this, for the year 566, other forty persons are mentioned, the most of whom were put to death with the sword, because they would not commit idolatry, or forsake Christ; in the margin an explanation is given with reference to this, and they are recognized by us as true martyrs.

Golauduch, a Christian woman of Persia, put to death, by the Persian Priests, A. D. 598.

Some remarks respecting the time in which Evagrius lived, who has recorded the last mentioned instance of martyrdom.]

Here will be the proper place to sing, with mournful voice, the blood-red verse of Alcimus, mentioned by us on a former occasion; as the author of the history of holy baptism places Alcimus at the very beginning of this century, which arrangement meets our approbation. With regard to the oppression of the Christians of his time, he expresses, in the German language, as a song of mourning, the following lines:

_Der Kriegsknecht stach in Christi Seit;
Wasser sprang aus der Wunden weit:
Den Vœlkern das die Tauff bedeut;
Der Martrer Blut auch so fleuszt heut._

The soldier pierced the Savior’s side:
There gusheth forth the wat’ry flood,
A sign[124] of the baptismal rite;
Thus flows to-day the martyrs’ blood.

[124] The reader will please insert here, _to the peoples_, which is
contained in the original, but had to be omitted in the translation,
as the metre would not allow it. The words in question are virtually
implied in the verse as translated by us, and we would not have
deemed it necessary to call attention to the circumstance, were
it not for the fact, that van Braght bases part of his following
argument on these very words.--_Translator._

The question now is, what Alcimus meant to say by this verse. He treats of two things: 1. of Baptism; 2. of Martyrdom, comparing thereto the water that flowed from Christ’s side, when a soldier had pierced it with a spear.

I. _Of Baptism._--Of this we shall say but little, since this subject has been sufficiently discussed in our preceding account of baptism as practiced in this century; yet, in order to proceed properly, and to pass by no part of said verse, we say that the resemblance which Alcimus here finds in the blood that flowed from Christ’s side, saying that it was to the people, or to the peoples, a sign of baptism, neither can nor may be applied as referring to infant baptism; for not only the sense, but even the words of the verse, would contradict this. As to the words, he does not say that said water is _to infants_ a sign of baptism, which he certainly must have said, had he meant infant baptism by it; but he says that it was _to the people_, or _peoples_, a sign of baptism, which word (people, or peoples), in holy Scripture as well as in secular authors, is generally understood to mean adult, or, at least, intelligent persons, who can be taught, or to whom something can be signified; as, for instance, Christ said to his disciples: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them,” etc. Matt. 28:19. Moreover, that infants are unable to understand the signification of little things, even to say nothing of this great mystery of baptism, is so clear that it cannot, with truth, be controverted.

II. _Of Martyrdom._--This is what we have chiefly had in view; for he says in the last line of the aforementioned verse: “Thus flows to-day the martyrs’ blood.” Certainly, here he indicates that at the time when he wrote this, the blood of the (believing) martyrs was shed; for this is indicated by the word, _to-day_, which generally is understood to mean the present _day_; but here properly signifies the present current _time_. Moreover, as to the persons whom Alcimus notices as martyrs, and of whom he says that their blood flowed to-day, they cannot be understood to have been other than orthodox martyrs, or, at least, such as held the same views and doctrines with him; for the first, ancient, and true Christians called none martyrs, but their fellow-believers who had suffered or been put to death for the faith. From this, it would seem, has proceeded the old adage, which is still used: “_Not the suffering, but the good cause from which he suffers, makes the martyr_.”

Of the correct views of Alcimus, and, consequently, of those whom he calls martyrs, especially in regard to baptism, we have spoken before, and have also just now given some explanation with reference to it; which must suffice for the present. The impartial reader may decide for himself. In the meantime it behooves us to investigate and, if possible, show when, where, why, and how said martyrs suffered. But, not being able, on account of the scarcity of ancient writers, to ascertain all this, we shall content ourselves with what we do find in regard to it, and shall therefore endeavor to follow the most faithful and truthful records.

OF VARIOUS SEVERE PERSECUTIONS INSTITUTED IN AND ABOUT THIS TIME, AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS, IN MANY KINGDOMS, PRINCIPALITIES, PROVINCES, AND COUNTRIES, BY JEWS, HEATHEN, AND FALSE OR APOSTATE CHRISTIANS; OF WHICH WE SHALL BRIEFLY POINT OUT THE PRINCIPAL ONES.

We have counted from Abraham Mellinus alone, besides from many ancient writers referred to by him, who have more fully recorded the martyrdom of this time, fifteen persecutions in this century, which were raised most vehemently against the Christians, in various countries.

In order to condense this as much as possible, so as not to weary the reader, we shall not present the account of the aforementioned author word for word, but extract from it the pith and import thereof, and present it as clearly as is possible for us to do. In the _2d book_ of the _History of the Persecutions, etc._, under the head: “Exposition of Satan bound a thousand years,” _fol. 293, col. 1–4_, are described, in consecutive order, among other things, the aforementioned persecutions, within the bounds of the sixth century, namely, from A. D. 518 to the close of the century; which we have briefly summed up thus:

First of all, mention is made of many oppressions by the Jews, heathen, and others; by which all Christendom was kept in commotion, from the reign of the Emperor Constantine the Great, to that of Justin the Great (_fol. 293, col. 2_); however, since said oppressions occurred before the time of Justin the Great, that is before A. D. 518, we will leave them, as not belonging to the number mentioned by us.

OF THE PERSECUTIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE AFTER THE TIME OF JUSTIN THE GREAT, FROM A. D. 518 TO THE CLOSE OF THIS CENTURY.

1. It is stated that besides the persecution instituted in the beginning of the reign of Justin the Great, by Theodoricus, the Arian, against those who were called orthodox Christians, a certain Jewish tyrant, called Dunan, in the fifth year of Justin’s reign, violently persecuted the Christians in the city of Nagra. _Fol. 293, col. 3._

2. Of Amalric, King of the West Goths, in France, it is stated that he heaped much vexation and contempt upon his own wife, Clotildis, because she was orthodox in the Christian faith. _Ibidem_, from _Hist. Gall. and Isidor., in Chron_.

3. It is declared that in the third year of Justinian the Great, nephew of Justin the Great, a persecution against the Christians was raised by the Samaritan Jews in Palestine. _Ibidem, col. 4._

4. Afterwards there was also a short persecution of the Christian believers, by the Vandals, in Africa. _Ibid._

5. Also, the Arian persecution of the Christians, by Totila, which is said to have taken place under Justinian, in Italy, is mentioned by the same writer.

6. Besides these the persecution originated by the Jews and Samaritans, at Cesarea, in Palestine, was repeated in the 29th year of the reign of Justinian. _See above._

7. We read that in the time of Justin II., the Christian churches in Pers-Armenia were oppressed by Chosroe, the King of Persia. _See above._

8. In the third year of said Justin, Alboin, the first King of the Longobards, invaded Italy, having sworn to annihilate all the blood of the Christians with the sword. _Ibid._

9. At this time, also a Saracenic persecution against the Christians was carried on, by Manucha.

10. After this, Chilperic, an enemy of the Christians, exercised great cruelty towards them. _Fol. 294, col. 1._

11. In the first year of Mauritius, Emperor of the Cappadocians, the Persians instituted a persecution with fire and sword, in Armenia. _Ibid._

12. At this time, the Longobards, throughout Italy, did not cease to oppress the Christian believers. _See same place._

13. About this time there was also a persecution in France.

14. Also in Spain.

15. In England the heathen sought to exterminate the Christians. For full information on the above persecutions, read, aside from the above references, _A. Mell., pages 293, 294_ and on to _p. 303_.

NOTE.--In said fifteen persecutions that occurred in this century, we notice that twelve different kingdoms, principalities, and other countries, are mentioned, situated not only in Europe, much less in Italy (which can also be reckoned only as a single country), where the Roman Bishops chiefly had their seat and ungodly dominion; but also, yea, for the most part, in Asia and Africa, which were far remote from Italy, being different parts of the world. The countries mentioned, in consecutive order, are these: 1. Nagra, a place or region in Arabia. 2. France. 3. Palestine. 4. Some region in Africa. 5. Italy. 6. Cesarea. 7. Pers-Armenia. 8. A certain country where the Saracens persecuted the Christians. 9. Another country, where Chilperic tyrannized. 10. Armenia. 11. Spain. 12. England. These are the countries mentioned, besides those that are passed over, but were also subjected to persecution.

Who will believe now, that all these countries were under the Roman Empire? Yea, more than that, what man of ordinary intelligence will think that they all adhered to the Roman See, and, consequently, that all the persons who were slain in said fifteen persecutions, professed the Roman religion? Surely, this does by no means appear; but the opposite is quite evident. In the first place, because we do not find, in reliable authors, that the authority and power of the Roman Bishop, or Pope, was so great at this time, that not only Europe, but also Asia and Africa, constituting the whole of the ancient or then known world, bowed to him; which would nevertheless have to be proved and established, for in these three divisions of the world are situated the abovementioned kingdoms, principalities, and countries, and the aforementioned persecutions occurred not only within, but also beyond their boundaries.

In the second place, that at this time there were people in different countries, who, not only in regard to baptism, but also in other points of religion, held views entirely different from what those of the Roman church understood and believed, is so clearly evident from our previous account of baptism in this century, that no reasonable person will dispute, much less be able to refute it.

Hence it follows, that to all appearance, in the abovementioned fifteen persecutions, not a few, or, at least, some, orthodox believers were put to death, as true martyrs; for such have of old been paramountly subject to persecution. We shall therefore investigate what people have at this time, as pious witnesses of Jesus, steadfastly testified to the truth of their Savior by their death, and sealed it with their blood.

ARNOLD, A TEACHER OF THE GOSPEL AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, MARTYRED IN A FOREST NEAR PARIS, A. D. 511.

It is stated that in the eleventh year of the sixth century, a certain pious teacher, by the name of Arnold, not willing to bury the talent given him by God, in the earth, but if possible, to obtain some spiritual gain for Christ his Savior, by preaching the Gospel, exchanged his life for death in the forests of France, and has thus been reckoned among the number of the pious martyrs. Concerning this, P. J. Twisck, among others, notes the following, for the year 511: “When Arnold preached the Gospel of Christ and the Christian faith in a forest in France, near Paris, he was martyred, and was buried there by his wife.” _Chron., 6th book, p. 177, col. 2_, from _Chron. Nicol. Gillem., fol. 44_.

NOTE.--All the particulars mentioned respecting said Arnold, clearly indicate the uprightness of his mind and views, as well as how far he stood aloof from the superstitions of the Roman church, which superstitions then had already risen very high. The latter especially appears from various circumstances.

First, Because it is stated that he did not preach the traditions and legends of the Romanists, but the Gospel.

Secondly, Because it is shown what he preached from the Gospel, namely, Christ and the Christian faith, but nothing about the power of the Roman bishop, or about the Roman faith.

Thirdly, because it is stated, according to ancient writers, that having been martyred for said faith, he was buried there (where he had been put to death) by his wife; but to have a wife the Romanists had many years before forbidden, to teachers and deacons, on pain of deposition. With regard to this, the article established about the year 495, in a certain papal council, reads as follows: “The priests, that is, those who also preach, and deacons shall abstain from taking unto themselves wives; if they do not observe this, they shall be deposed from their office.” _Seb. Franck, Chron. Rom. Concilen, fol. 48, col. 4_, from _Concil. Aphr._

Fourthly, because we have found, in the ancient registers, in which the names of the principal ancient teachers and martyrs are recorded, not the least charge laid against this man, either of superstition, or anything else; although we searched diligently, and had others search.

NOTE.--It appears that about nine years after the death of said martyr, Arnold, namely, A. D. 520, a great persecution arose in Arabia against the Christians; of which P. J. Twisck writes the following: “A. D. 520, a seditious Jew, who pretended to be the second Moses, caused an awful massacre and persecution of the Christians, at Nagra in Arabia, in the reign of the Emperor Justin; he slew the pious Bishop Arethas and many thousands of Christians. _Chron. 6th book, page 180, col. 1_, from _Nicephor., lib. 16, cap. 6_. But as we have not been able to obtain reliable information, except that which we have shown, concerning this Bishop Arethas, as to whether he was a true and orthodox Bishop, as well as in regard to the many thousands of Christians who were slain with him, as to whether they professed a good profession of faith, which we doubt very much, we will not concern ourselves with them. Nevertheless, it must be considered, that among so great a number there were at least some, here and there, who died in the true faith, seeing the same were sometimes scattered in various countries. Of this we will let the well-meaning reader judge for himself.

THE OPPRESSION SUFFERED BY THE CHURCH AND THE SERVANTS OF GOD, UNDER GRANUS, THE SON OF THE KING OF FRANCE A. D. 562.

That believers and the leaders of the church of God had to suffer great oppression at this time, our beloved brother and co-worker in Christ, P. J. Twisk, deceased, in his time, signified to his cotemporaries with these words: “About this time (562), the churches and the servants of God were greatly vexed by Granus, the wicked son of the King of France.” _Chron. 6th book, page 192, col. 1_, from _Paul Merula, fol. 431, hist. Wenc., fol. 78_.[125]

[125] In the following year, namely, A. D. 563, mention is made
of forty Christian peasants, whom the Longobards seized and would
constrain to eat of the food offered to idols; but as they refused to
do this, they were beheaded together, for the faith in the only God,
and his Son Jesus Christ. Compare _P. J. Twisck, Chron. page 192_,
from _Marianus Scotus, lib. 4_, with _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 299,
col. 4_, from _Gregor. Dialog., lib. 5, cap. 27_ from trustworthy
eye-witnesses. Nevertheless, we dare not count them among the true,
defenseless martyrs, since we doubt whether, at their apprehension,
they showed themselves meek.

ABOUT FORTY PIOUS CHRISTIANS SEIZED BY THE LONGOBARDS IN ITALY, AND MOST OF THEM PUT TO DEATH WITH THE SWORD, FOR REFUSING TO COMMIT IDOLATRY, A. D. 566.

Shortly after the death of the peasants just spoken of in the margin, as the heathen Longobards, according to their custom, were offering to Satan the head of a he-goat, about forty meek and pious Christians were apprehended. When their captors, in honor of Satan, had gone round their sacrifice, consecrated it by their sorcerous incantations and conjurations, and had bowed their heads before it, and worshiped it, they wanted to constrain the captive Christians to worship with them this head of the he-goat. But most of the Christians, preferring to die and strive for life immortal, rather than to live and worship the idol, refused to bow their heads, which they had always bowed in honor to God their Creator, before a vain and perishable creature. Thereupon, the enemies of God and his Anointed, who had not hesitated to fight against the Lord, and to kick against the pricks, put to death with the sword, all of said captive Christians who would have no fellowship with their idolatry; and thus they (the latter), all became blessed martyrs of Jesus Christ. Compare _A. Mell. 2d book, 1699, page 299, col. 4_, from _lib. 5 Dialog., cap. 28_.[126]

[126] Concerning these martyrs, we have not found that anything
has been laid to their charge, as regards the uprightness and
steadfastness of their faith (as has been stated respecting Arnold);
nor have we discovered anything that is at variance with the views
of the Anabaptists; hence we have accorded them a place among the
faithful martyrs of Jesus Christ.

GOLAUDUCH, A CHRISTIAN WOMAN OF PERSIA, MUCH TORTURED, AND PUT TO DEATH, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, ABOUT A. D. 598.

About A. D. 598, in the time of the Emperor Mauritius, Golauduch, a woman of Persia, who had once been an adherent of the Persian religion, but subsequently become converted to Christ, and, consequently, had been baptized upon her faith, and remained steadfast in the confession of the Christian religion, even unto death. Of this, Evagrius makes mention, whom we take to be the same one of whom we have spoken elsewhere, and shown that he has described and commended as something praiseworthy, the baptism of candidates; that is of those who were baptized upon confession of faith. He writes the following of said Golauduch: “At that time (namely, in the reign of Mauritius), there lived among us, the godly martyress, Golauduch, who, having suffered many and severe torments at the hands of the magi or Persian priests, finally obtained the martyrs’ crown; of whose life, old Stephen, Bishop of Hierapolis, has written an account.” Compare _Evagr., lib. 6, cap. 19_; also, _Nicephor., lib. 18, cap. 25, ex Act. Sabulosis_, with _A. Mell., 1619, fol. 301, col. 1_.

Abraham Mellinus and J. Mehrning, however, differ in regard to the supposed time in which Evagrius (who, it appears, wrote the above account of the martyrdom of Golauduch), is said to have lived, J. Mehrning referring him to the middle of the fifth century, while Abr. Mellinus, on the other hand, places him almost at the close of the sixth. This difference of chronology we leave to them, holding, nevertheless, that they both wrote of one and the same person; who was a good historian and well versed in ecclesiastical affairs.

This person, then, called Evagrius, having commended as praiseworthy the baptism of the above mentioned candidates, that is, of those who had previously been instructed in the faith, afterwards, it appears, also makes mention of said martyress Golauduch, virtually calling her his sister in the faith, and a member of his church. For, when he says: “At that time, there lived among us, the godly martyress Golauduch,” what else does he mean to indicate thereby, but that said woman belonged to, and lived in, the very church of which he was a member, or, at least, whose doctrine he loved and cherished? Besides, we have not found anything laid to her charge, as regards her faith and good conversation, as has been stated of the preceding martyrs; hence we are satisfied with regard to her.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY.

[Adrian is mentioned as the first one who, in this century, declared himself, not so much in words as in deed, against infant baptism; as to the manner, however, in which the Romanists proceeded against him, shall be more fully spoken of elsewhere.

The Bracerensian papists, to prevent the decline of infant baptism, confirm it in a certain council.

The pious adhere to the true ordinance of the baptism of Christ, notwithstanding the power of the Pope and the decree of the aforementioned council.

In the mean time there were baptized (that is, in adult age), Anastasius, the Persian; Theodorus or Theodus; many hundred Jews; some in Upper and Lower Saxony; some in England.

Probation or examination in the faith, was at this time practiced by the orthodox, as did, among others, Amandus, Birinus, another teacher.

Those of the Jewish nation now became members of the Christian church; some of whom, after confessing the faith, asked for baptism.

How Zeno of Verona was wont to address the candidates; explanation of his address.

The example of the Egyptian divines, who preached the doctrine of faith, before baptism, to the candidates, is followed by others at this time.

The time for baptism, which was fixed on Easter and Whitsuntide, is ordained to every day, on account of infant baptism. The Pope also decrees that during the mass the kiss of peace be offered to the people, in order that the mass, which, it appears, was esteemed but little by many, might be regarded the more highly.

The believers were not turned away from their faith, by said papal decree; nay, it appears that even some of the Roman church declared themselves against the papal superstitions; as, 1. Isidorus, 2. Cesarius, 3. Adelheymius, 4. Agatho, 5. Julian Pomorius. In the mean time, mention is also made of Isidorus of Spain, and what he has written on baptism, namely of the applicants for baptism, and fellow-prayers.

The Christian parents, Lutgerus and Libuga, left their son Lutgerus unbaptized, till he, having accepted the faith in France, was baptized thereupon.

Finally, the difference between those of the Roman church and those who administered baptism upon faith.

Conclusion of the account for this century.]

Notwithstanding in this century the seat of anti-Christ was exalted to its highest altitude, inasmuch as the Emperor Phocas, A. D. 606, conferred upon the Roman Bishop the title of _Papa_, that is, Pope or Supreme Father, which name was first assumed by Boniface III., writing, in the decrees emitted by him to enjoin obedience: “We will, we ordain, we decree, we command, etc.; thus I will, thus I ordain, thus I decree, thus I command;” whereby many superstitions and human inventions were presented to the people as the word of God; such as image worship, salutation of the sacrament, observance of infant baptism as necessary to salvation, etc.; yet many pious people not only refused to obey all these things which the Pope prescribed, but some even flatly opposed it, daring to censure, reject, and contume, some in this and some in that respect, the papal and Roman superstitions, as among other points, was done with regard to infant baptism and all that pertains to it, with which not only some of the common people, but also some eminent and learned men were dissatisfied, so that they abandoned it altogether, yea, indicated by words and actions, that they were opposed to it; which became manifest even in Rome, as will be shown in the proper place.[127]

[127] _A. D. 605._--At this time, Gregory the Great wrote: “If a
bishop, whoever he be, is called a general bishop (that is, Pope),
the whole church decays.” In _Regist., lib. 8, cap. 188_. Again: “I
candidly say that any one who calls himself a general bishop, or
desires to be called such, is, in his exaltation, the forerunner of
antichrist.” _Lib. 4, Epist. 30, Sam. Velt., Geslacht Register, page
125._

_A. D. 606._--In this very year, in which the Pope was accepted, by Phocas, as the head of the general Latin church, the celebrated teacher and Bishop Adrian publicly opposed infant baptism, wishing neither to baptize the children himself, nor to have them baptized, but utterly refusing them baptism; on account of which he was accused by Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, to John, Bishop of Larissa, as appears from a certain letter sent by Gregory to John, in which, among other things, the following is contained: “The second article of the accusation against Bishop Adrian is this: that he refused baptism to infants, thus letting them die.” _Centur. Magd., Cent. 9, cap. 4, page 141_, according to the account in _Bapt. Hist., page 496_, and _H. Mont. Nietigh., page 80_.

It appears, indeed, that this said Adrian was criminally punished for his views against infant baptism, and because he let the infants die unbaptized, as is stated by the ancients, and shall appear more fully in our account of the martyrs.[128]

[128] _A. D. 608._--Theophilactus taught at this time, that every one
must and may read the holy Scriptures, if he would rightly instruct
his children in the words of the Lord. On _Eph. 6, Sam. Velt., page
152_.

_A. D. 610._--Infant baptism, it appears, being at this time, held in very little esteem by many, whether in consequence of the teaching of the above mentioned Adrian, or for some other reason, so that it was considered useless and not necessary to salvation, those of the Roman church publicly opposed this sentiment, in order either to eradicate it, or, at least, to excommunicate it by the anathema of the Pope; wherefore, A. D. 610, in the second Bracerensian Council, among other articles, it was established, decreed, and published: “That infants must be baptized, as necessary to their salvation.” _Seb. Franck, Chron., Rom., Kett., fol. 74, col. 2. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 7th book, page 213, col. 2._

But how the true Christians, who rightly observed Christ’s ordinance of baptism, conducted themselves with reference to this matter, and whether they suffered any persecution on account of it, is not clearly expressed, but, if necessary, shall be explained more fully in its proper place.

_About A. D. 620._--Although, through the authority of the Roman Pope, who had been chosen the supreme head of the church, and through the decree of said Bracerensian council, infant baptism was now so firmly established, that no one who wished to remain a member of the Roman church, dared utter a word against it; yet, among those who loved Christ more than the Pope, and esteemed the Gospel more highly than the decrees of popes and councils, the true faith and the true ordinances of Christ, especially the article of baptism, were nevertheless maintained aright; concerning which very much might be stated, had not the books and writings of the pious been so lamentably and tyrannously destroyed by those of the Roman church. However, we are in possession of as much testimony from authentic writers, as is necessary to establish said matter.

As regards this, that baptism was at that time administered to adult persons, by those who were opposed to the decree of the Roman church in the matter of infant baptism, appears from three circumstances: 1. from the time of baptizing; 2. from the place of baptizing; 3. from the persons baptized.

As to the _time_ of baptizing, Easter was expressly specified in the Anti-idiorensian council, where it was established, in opposition to those who baptized new-born infants every day: That no one should be baptized at any other time than Easter, except in case of imminent death. In _Decr. Antis._; until which time instruction in the faith was usually given to the candidates, as is sufficiently shown above.

As regards the _place_ of baptizing, it was not in a font or basin, but in the wilderness, here and there at the rivers, whither, as every one can easily judge, new-born infants cannot go; neither can they observe the manner then customary at baptism, namely, to kneel during baptism, and go in or under the water; of which there were many instances at this time in warm countries. Among others, Bede (_lib. 2, cap. 16_), writes: “That Paulianus baptized many persons at noon, close by the city of Trovulsinga, in the river Trehenda.”

This manner of baptizing, by the ancients called immersion or submersion, has long been observed, even up to the present time, especially by the eastern and southern nations, who understood the Greek word _baptisma_ (baptism), or _baptizo_ (to baptize), to signify a total immersion or submersion in water; however, it is found that, according to the idiom of the Greek language, said words do not only signify an immersion or submersion in, but also a washing or sprinkling with, water. For instance, _baptisma_, _baptismos_, is translated sprinkling, washing, dipping, etc. See _Dictionar. Tetraglott., in quo voces Latine omnes cum Græca, Gallica and Belgica interpretatione. Amsterodami ex Typographia Ravesteniana, A. D. 1634_.

However, we leave the above mode of baptism to its own merits; it suffices us to have shown that it could not be administered to infants, and that those who were baptized after this manner, must have been adult and intelligent persons.

As to the third point, namely, what _persons_ were then baptized, has been made sufficiently clear from the two preceding circumstances of time and place; but over and above this, we will mention some persons. At this time there was baptized at Jerusalem, Anastasius the Persian; at Constantinople, the celebrated Persian woman, Cæsarea, with her husband and many of her followers were baptized; in Bavaria, Theodorus, also called Theodo or Theodus, with much people received baptism; in Spain, many hundreds of Jews were baptized upon faith, the number of which are reckoned by some writers to have been several thousands, which number, however, in order not to overstep the bounds of truth, we have not dared to give or follow; the same occurred in Upper and Lower Saxony, in England, and other countries, where at this time, it is stated, countless numbers attained to the faith, and were baptized upon it. This is stated in _Bapt. Hist., page 491_, from _John Magnus_, _Paul Diaconus_, _Bede_, _Hist. Gath_, etc., which should be compared together.

_About A. D. 632._--At this time, probation and examination in the faith were practiced by the orthodox teachers. Those who presented themselves for baptism, whether of Jewish, heathen, or Christian parentage, were first proved and examined in the faith, which examination generally took place six or seven times in the week before Easter or Whitsuntide; to the end, that the candidates, having made a good confession, and having been confirmed in the faith, might be baptized at the approaching holiday. This custom is noticed by many writers; we will, however, present only this brief extract from _Bapt. Hist., page 492_: “The Bishop or teacher Amandus made the son of Dagobert a catechumen, before he baptized him.” _Regina, lib. 1._ In Lower Saxony, Birinus observed it as a rule not to baptize people before he had catechized, that is, instructed, them. _Bede, lib. 4, cap. 16._ Another teacher, according to Metaphrastes, instructed a certain Jewish virgin, before he baptized her. Vincent states of Arnulph, that he baptized (that is, after previous instruction), a sick person, who shortly afterwards got well. _Lib. 23, cap. 76_, by which we would not indicate that baptism possesses any virtue to heal the body, but that it is administered to intelligent persons, and that upon faith, according to the ordinance of the Lord, Mark 16:15,16.

_About A. D. 646._--As the doctrine of faith in Jesus Christ was now greatly spreading, and the believers increased in many places, so that the church, which at times, on account of persecution, had been wont to hide in dens and caverns, began to arise here and there, as herbs spring up from the earth in spring-time, her growth was seen to proceed not only from those who, born of Christian parents, accepted the faith, nor only from heathen who became converted to the faith, but principally from the Jews, who had previously been very bitter against the Christians, but who now came in multitudes, as occurred not long since, to be baptized in the name of Christ, upon faith; an example of which is given by Gregory of Turon (_lib. 5, Chron. Franc., cap. 11_). Some Jews who desired baptism, said with one accord to the teacher: “We believe that Jesus is the Son of the living God, promised unto us for a Prophet and Messiah; therefore we pray to be washed by baptism, that we may not abide in our sins.” The teacher rejoiced at this confession, and, in the night before Whitsuntide, when it was customary to watch and to pray, he went to the place of baptism, situated without the city walls; where the whole multitude fell down before him and prayed to be baptized. _Bapt. Hist., page 499._

_About A. D. 658._--D. Joseph Vicecomes quotes from Zeno of Verona, a certain address which the latter was accustomed to direct to the candidates, saying, when they were about to be baptized: “Rejoice (beloved friends); it is true, in baptism you are divested of your clothes, but adorned in the heavenly robe, you shall soon ascend again, white as snow; whosoever will not defile it, shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.” _Bap. Hist., page 501_, from _Vicecom._, _lib. 4, cap. 10_, from Zeno’s second homily on baptism.

All these are certainly expressions that relate to intelligent persons, and are not in the least applicable to infants; for, when, in the first place, it is said here: “Rejoice,” this is the opposite of sorrow, which sorrow the candidates previously were wont to feel on account of their manifold sins, over which they wept and mourned; but now, being washed in baptism, through faith and the blood of Christ, they had reason to rejoice, even as the jailer, who, having been baptized, rejoiced with all his house, Acts 16; and as the Ethiopian, who, after baptism, went on his way rejoicing, Acts 8:39.

The putting off of the bodily clothes before baptism, and the putting on of the snow-white robe of righteousness in baptism, as well as the solicitude not to defile it with sin after baptism, referred to in the above address to the candidates, is no work for infants, but only for adult persons; hence, the baptism spoken of there, is not infant baptism, but a baptism peculiar solely to the adult and those of reasonable minds.

_About A. D. 670._--At this time, the holy baptismal ordinance of Christ was still rightly observed in Egypt; namely, the doctrines of the faith were preached to the candidates before baptism; yea, this practice was so highly regarded there, that some in other countries, separating from the Roman church in this article resolved to restore the Christian religion according to the example of the Egyptian Christians; hence they were styled _beginners in the Christian religion_. In allusion to this, quotation of Vicecomes (_lib. 2, cap. 3_), from Jacob Pamelius’ book on Tertullian, is no doubt made, saying that the _beginners in the Christian religion_ (that is, those who, separating from the Roman church, established the Christian religion upon the original apostolical foundation), adopted the practice of catechization (that is, teaching the doctrines of the faith), before baptism from the Egyptian divines. _Bap. Hist., page 501._