Chapter XLIV: Conclusion: Of the Matters Here Related (18)

In the second passage, baptism is compared to the Red Sea, and it is said that “by the impartation of the same, the believers proceed.” But is not this the very thing which Paul spoke of the figurative baptism of the believing patriarchs, saying: “Brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the (Red) sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1,2); which is not to be understood of infants that were wont to be carried, but of adult persons, who were able to proceed and walk.

In the third passage, faith, regeneration, baptism, and being made children of God, are joined together. “They that through faith are regenerated in baptism, are made children of God,” he writes. But how can this be interpreted otherwise, than with reference to intelligent persons, who, having attained to faith, by the hearing of the word of God, are regenerated, and, in token thereof, baptized, and adopted as children of God into his church? Faith certainly comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17. Regeneration takes place after the death of the first birth, or after the mortifying of the old man. John 3:4,5; Rom. 6:4. Baptism is administered to the believing and regenerated, as a sign of faith and regeneration. Acts 8:37; Tit. 3:5. Those are made children of God, who, through faith, have put on Christ, and, in proof of this, have been baptized. John 1:12, compared with Gal. 3:26,27. Judge now, whether these are things that can be done by new-born infants. I am fully confident that you will say: _No_. Yet, these things are connected with baptism, not only by Haimo, but principally by God, in the holy Scriptures; yea, without them, baptism is of no value. Hence we say: “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Matth. 19:6.

In the fourth passage it is said, that “The church of the Gentiles, by baptism, is delivered from the bondage of the devil,” and that “she who was a handmaid of iniquity, is (thus) become a friend [beloved] of Christ.” This certainly savors not at all of infant baptism, for it cannot be said of infants, that they are the church of the Gentiles, under the bondage of the devil, a handmaid of iniquity, nor that they, by baptism, are delivered from the service of the devil, and become a friend of Christ. Certainly, no one can be delivered from the service of the devil, but he who has served the devil; no other can be liberated from the servitude of iniquity except she who previously committed iniquity; she who previously blasphemed; no other can be adopted as a friend of Christ, than she who formerly, by wicked works, was at enmity with Christ; consequently it is indisputable, that this cannot be understood of infants, seeing these things can have no place with them; this even those who maintain infant baptism, must admit, and hence we dismiss the subject.

“The adult (candidates) also made confession of their sins, and a penance was imposed on them, for forty, twenty or seven days.” _Haimo, on Heb. 6_, (_p. 552_).

Here adult and not infant candidates are spoken of, yea, such, upon whom, when they had made confession of sins, a penance (or amendment of life) was imposed; which are things pertaining to adults, and not to little children; this is too plain to be refuted.

Said baptism was so firmly maintained and thus valued by Haimo, that he held that it should never be repeated, if it had been administered according to the rule of the holy Scriptures; for, treating of the 6th chapter of Romans, he says, by way of exposition: “If we have once died unto sin in baptism, we may not be baptized again.” _Bapt. Hist., p. 543._ This well accords with the custom of the Anabaptists of the present day; for, though they rebaptize such as have been baptized in their infancy, when they attain to the faith; regarding the baptism which is received in infancy as no baptism at all, because it is not according to holy Scripture; yet no one is rebaptized by them, who has been _baptized aright_, that is, upon faith.

NOTE.--_A. D. 825._--The council held at Paris, A. D. 825, decreed against image worship. _Sam. Veltius, Geslacht-register, page 127._ Gratian said to his cotemporaries: “The Lord, in saying to his disciples: ‘When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another,’ teaches that Christians when persecuted, should not repel weapon with weapon, but flee therefrom”. See _Grondelijke Verklaringe Danielis ende Johannis_, printed at Harlem, in the year 1635, p. 56.

_A. D. 830._[140]--It is stated that A. D. 830, in the sixteenth year of the reign of Emperor Louis I., surnamed the Pious, there shone forth as a bright light, and wrote, one Rabanus Maurus, residing at Fulda, who, among various things written by him against the Roman church, also speaks of baptism, in the discussion of which he throughout employs such language as pertains only to believers, and in no wise to infants; notwithstanding he at one time, it appears, had been a maintainer of infant baptism, and many other superstitions of popery, so much so that he had been an abbot. But passing this by, we shall show what he wrote of baptism, and how closely it agrees with the teaching of the holy Scriptures.

[140] The proper time for baptizing was still Easter and Whitsuntide.
_Bapt. Hist., page 550, num. 2_. White garments were put on those
baptized, which signified the innocence, salvation and purity of
the Christian; that they should henceforth, all through life, keep
themselves unspotted from iniquity. _Page 553, num. 14._

In Jacob Mehrning’s history of baptism, various passages from Rabanus Maurus are adduced, some of which, it is suspected, have been attributed to him unjustly, or, at least, that, if he has written them, he wrote them before he was enlightened or converted; as, among others, in _lib. 2, de Proprit. Serm., cap. 200_; again, _lib. 4, cap. 10_; of which we let the intelligent judge.

Nevertheless various things are found, which, we doubt not, are justly ascribed to him, as, for instance: Of the instruction of the catechumens before baptism, and how the novices ought to learn the faith before they are baptized. In _Decretis de Consecrat. dist. 4, cap. Ante Bapt., ex Rabano, Bapt. Hist., page 560_. Likewise, the quotation made by Vicecomes (_lib. 2, cap. 40_) from Rabanus (_in lib. de instruct. Cleric._), which reads as follows: “The order according to which the catechumens are prepared for baptism, is this: First they are interrogated whether they renounce the devil,” etc. _Bapt. Hist., page 562._ The rest we omit.

By this he indicates, that in his time, in the church of which he was a member, the custom of preparing the novices for baptism was still observed, inasmuch as first, the instruction of the faith, called the catechism, was presented and taught them; also, that they had to renounce Satan, &c.; which was observed not only at this time, but in nearly all the preceding times, as appears from this passage: “They are wont to renounce the devil with his works and pomp.” _Syn. Turon. Bapt. Hist., page 516, num. 7._

That in the time of Rabanus the instruction of novices extended not only to those of heathen descent, but also to such as were born of Christian parents, is declared by Jacob Mehrning, _Bapt. Hist., page 560, contra Rulichium._

D. Vicecomes (_lib. 3, cap. 9_), quotes from Rabanus Maurus (_page 562_): “The fellow petitioners for baptism are those who, through the doctrine of the faith, and by refraining from disorderly conduct, make haste to receive the grace of Christ in baptism.”

This confirms our former assertion, namely, that before baptism a preparation had to be made, in order that it (baptism) might be received worthily; which preparation is here called “the doctrine of the faith and refraining from disorderly conduct.” In it are comprised both parts of the doctrine which John presented to those who came to his baptism, saying: “Repent ye, and believe,” etc. Matt. 3:2, compared with Mark 1:15, and Acts 19:4.

Moreover, they are called fellow petitioners, and it is said that “They make haste to receive the grace of Christ in baptism,” which are things that cannot be done by infants.

Hence he writes, on Cant. 3:6, (_page 540_): “Who is this that cometh up white as snow?” applying the same to the candidates, who, cleansed from their former sins, come up from baptism, and increase in virtue. “This mystery,” he says, “is not otherwise than under the invocation of the Holy Trinity, that is, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; thus the Lord says to the apostles, Matt. 28:19: ‘Go and teach,’” etc.

Hence, when he speaks of coming up from the water, and of the invocation of the Holy Trinity, as well as of the passage, Matt. 28:19, he sufficiently shows that he does not speak of the baptism of infants, since they cannot come up from baptism, nor invoke the Holy Trinity, nor fulfill the passage, Matt. 28; which is too clear to be refuted. We will therefore briefly conclude this account of Rabanus with that which P. J. Twisck records concerning him.

THE VIEWS OF RABANUS MAURUS CONCERNING VARIOUS OTHER ARTICLES OF HIS FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED AUTHOR.

He writes, _A. D. 830_: “Rabanus, an eminently learned man writes and says: ‘The catechism, that is, the doctrine of the faith, shall precede baptism, so that the candidate (catechumen) may first learn the first principles of the faith.’”

He further says: “The Lord Christ first anointed the eyes of the man born blind, with clay made of spittle, before he sent him to the water of Siloam; therefore, the candidate shall first be instructed in the faith of the incarnation of Christ, and, if he then believes, admitted to baptism; that he may know what grace he obtains in baptism, and to whom he owes his service for it.”

Again: “Rabanus writes also, that in the sacrament the language is figurative, and that Christ, having gone to heaven (in order that we being regenerated by faith, should long the more ardently for him) left us this sacrament, as a visible figure and symbol of his flesh and blood, so that we the more abundantly, might apprehend in faith the invisible things.” This language, Twisck writes, the Roman church now greatly curses.

“He also taught contrary to the Roman church, of the authority of the holy Scriptures, of justification, repentance, the state of the soul after this life, and against other[141] papal errors, as his books testify.

[141] Twisck might have used a less ambiguous phrase here, though
we doubt not, that the intelligent reader will readily see what he
means; but, for fear that some one might misunderstand him, we will
add a few words of explanation. The word “other,” of course, implies
that some errors have already been adduced; strictly speaking,
however, he has not adduced the errors, but rather the articles of
faith in regard to which errors were held, by the Roman church.
_Translator._

“The same thing was done at this time, by Angelomus, who treated of the grace of God, good works, and the keys of the church, in opposition to the Pope. _Chron., 9th book, page 283_, from _John Munst., fol. 120, 133. John Boea., lib. 4, Grond. Bewijs, letter A. Chron. Seb. Franck, fol. 77, Casp. Swinck, fol. 115._

_Same year as above._--This Angelomus just mentioned is referred to in _Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism_, in which it is stated that, besides the aforementioned views held by him contrary to the Roman church, he left the following testimony with regard to the matter of baptism:

_Angelomus_ (_in cap. 7, lib. 3, Reg. 1, page 548_), says: “From all that we have sinned with the sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling, we are redeemed through the grace of God, by the washing of the living fountain of water (that is, water-baptism). But the forgiveness of previous sins is not enough, if we are not diligent to lay up good works: for, otherwise, the devil who was gone out of the man, finding him empty of good works, returns, manifold, and makes the last state of that man worse than the first.”

Hence, when Angelomus here speaks of the sins which before baptism were committed through the senses, as, through the sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling, he certainly indicates thereby, that the persons of whom he speaks, are not unintelligent infants, seeing these can neither use nor abuse their senses, and, consequently, as long as they lack the knowledge and power, they can not sin with them.

Hence it also appears that the baptism of which he speaks, is not infant baptism; for this can have no regard to sins committed previously through the abuse of the senses. The baptism in question, then, is such a baptism as is received by persons who can lay aside previous sins, and lay up good works; who also give no room to the devil gone out of them, that the last state may not be worse than the first; for of all this, Angelomus speaks. We will, therefore, leave this, and proceed to other testimonies serving the same purpose.

_A. D. 840._--That at this time not only baptism, but also various other articles of Christian doctrine were maintained contrary to the belief of the Roman church. P. J. Twisck indicates, in his _Chronijk._, for the year 840, with these words: “Bertram, a courageous and learned man, now vigorously assailed the doctrine of transubstantiation, in a remarkable book, dedicated to the King of France. Heymon, Bishop of Halberstadt, also contended against this doctrine, and wrote much of baptism, the Supper, justification, good works, and of the church and her office, in opposition to the opinion of the papists. Also Walafrid opposed the new doctrine of the Romanists very vigorously.[142] _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 286, col. 2_, and _page 287, col. 1_, from _Joh. Munst., fol. 129_, and _132_.

[142] About this time, Bertram taught, in his book of the _Body and
Blood of Christ_, concerning the words: “This is my body,” that this
is to be understood figuratively, and that in the Supper, the faith
is presented somewhat differently than the eyes externally see, and
the taste perceives; also, that the bread and wine are figuratively
the body and blood of Christ, and represent to, or keep before us,
the remembrance of the suffering and death of Christ. _Sam. Velt.,
Geslacht-register; pages 126, 127._

In the Scythian church, (A. D. 840), writes Valfrid Abbas, they
used the common mother tongue, and taught that images should not
be worshiped or honored; that the paschal lamb should not be
consecrated; yea, that it was better to aid the poor, than to
decorate the churches. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 286,
col. 2_, from _Casp. Grev., fol. 277_.

_A. D. 841._--It is recorded that at this time, in the reign of the Emperors Louis and Lothaire, a council was held at Paris, concerning which it is written (_chap. 6_): “In the beginning of the holy church of God, no one was admitted to receive baptism, who had not previously been instructed in the faith, and in the mystery of baptism, as is testified by the words of Paul, Rom. 6:3: ‘Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?’ which passage of the apostle has reference to the sacrament of baptism.”

In the council of Laodicea (Tit. 46), it is also written, that “those who desire to come to baptism, shall learn the faith, and recite the same to the bishop or teacher, on the fifth day of the great week.”

Again (_Tit. 47_): “That those who were baptized in sickness, shall, after recovery, diligently study their faith and know what great grace they have received; which words plainly indicate, that those who attain to the Christian faith, are also previously instructed concerning said faith and the mysteries of baptism. But now, sad to relate, also the infants of Christian parents are baptized, who, on account of their tender age, cannot comprehend this matter, which to learn even persons of understanding must exert themselves diligently, and which, owing to the negligence of some, has gone out of use in the Christian church. O what great neglect! O what great mischief.” _Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 538._ _About A. D. 842._--It is stated that at this time a number of slaves who had become converted were baptized, yet not in the Roman manner, nor in the Roman language, as was customary with the Roman church, as well as with all other churches which adhered to the Roman see; but in a different manner and in another language; so that it appears from this occurrence that this church must have been separated from the superstitions of the Roman church not only in forms, but also, as may be inferred, in faith and practice. To this, the following annotation (_Bapt. Hist., page 552, num. 9_), among others, has reference: “They (those of the Roman church) used the Roman language not only in Italy, but also in other regions that were subject to the papal power; but that baptism was administered also in other languages, is proved by the history of the conversion of the slaves.”[143] _Ex. Historia Sclav._

[143] _A. D. 843._--Christus Lupim, at Ferrara, refuted the new Roman
doctrines concerning purgatory, matrimony of priests, and other
points. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 288, col. 1_, from
_Catal. Test., fol. 103_.

_About A. D. 848._--That the instruction of novices, before baptism, obtained also at this time, _Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 550_, informs us with these words: “The adults had (then) to be instructed in the faith, and were catechized before baptism, as has been proven above, from Rabanus, Haimo, and others; thereupon they had to confess the faith, as Rabanus (_lib. 1, de Cleric. Institutione, cap. 27_) relates. They were asked, whether they believed in God the Father, the Almighty, and on his only Son, our Lord, and on the Holy Ghost, a general (christian) church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the flesh,” etc.[144] _Bapt. Hist., p. 550, num. 4._

[144] _A. D. 858._--At this time, Gunther, Bishop of Cologne, wrote
to Pope Nicholas: “Thou art playing the tyrant: under the guise of
a shepherd we find thee to be a wolf. The title, indeed, is father,
but virtually thou showest thyself a Jupiter.” _Sam. Veltius,
Geslacht-register, page 127._

These were good and salutary customs for the upbuilding of the church of God; by which the name of the Lord was praised, the church edified, the word of God most strictly observed, and the salvation of many promoted. But the ancient saying: “Where God builds a temple, Satan builds one in opposition to it,” was also verified here; for, at the same time that those who loved the truth, baptized believers, upon the confession of their faith, nearly all the others, who were called Roman or Greek Christians, baptized infants, who, as every one knows can neither believe nor confess the faith; this has been referred to above.

_About A. D. 854._--It is stated that very near the time of Haimo, there lived and wrote Idiota. In _J. Mehrning’s History of Baptism_ is found a quotation by him, relating to baptism, which reads as follows: “In holy baptism we accept Christ for our bridegroom, and enter his chamber, which is ornamented with manifold graces and virtues.” _De Innocentia, cap. 3._

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.

In the same year in which the abovementioned Bulgarian tyrant reigned and instituted so much wickedness against the Christian believers, namely, A. D. 842, the kings of the Franks, through their wars, though they were brothers, it appears, grievously persecuted and martyred the poor believers, everywhere in the French territories; so that said persecution and martyrdom is compared and regarded as equal to the persecutions instituted in earlier times by the heathen emperors. Of this, the following is found in the last mentioned chronicle, and in the same place: “The fraternal wars between the kings of the Franks, were the cause of much calamity and distress to the poor believers throughout France, so that they might well be compared to the cruel persecutions which in former times occurred under the heathen princes.”

Concerning this, Remigius, Bishop of Auxerre, who lived about this time, writes thus (on Ps. 69): “There are different times of persecution; one, when the heathen fall unmercifully upon the Christians; the other, when the evil purpose of the (false) Christians persecutes the believers, which time still continues in the church; for, though the heathen kings, and others, are dead, still the devil is not dead, who secretly vents his cruelty, by secret instruments, that is, through bad Christians. _Chron., 9th book, page 287, col. 1_, from _Leonhard, lib. 4, histor. Georg., lib. 4, fol. 305_.

GRIEVOUS AND LAMENTABLE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, BY THE SARACENS, AT CORDOVA IN SPAIN, ABOUT A. D. 850.

About A. D. 850, the Saracens, who were adherents to the Mohammedan religion, invaded various islands of the Mediterranean Sea, and also the kingdom of Spain, in which they penetrated so far that their king had his court in the city of Cordova.

In the mean time, in order to treat the inhabitants of said country kindly as it were, and thus draw them gradually over to the Mohammedan religion, the Christians were allowed to remain, on condition that they would not gainsay, revile, or refute their false prophet Mohammed and his laws; also that they should no longer go into their churches, but pay their taxes, and live quietly under their jurisdiction.

The Christians, thus limited, and obeying their conscience by calling evil, evil, and good, good, were easily apprehended by the Saracens, and accused of capital crime; but, what is most to be deplored, these accusations proceeded sometimes from apostate, so-called Christians, yea, from such as bore the name of bishops (apparently political bishops, or such as were designated ordinaries by the Roman church), who, loving the favor of the Saracens more than the favor of God, declared that those who were put to death by them, because they obeyed their conscience, were no martyrs and could not be recognized as such; and what is yet more, they maintained this in a public council.

The persecutors, as can easily be judged, greatly encouraged by this, lamentably persecuted, martyred, and put to death many innocent Christians. O deadly piercings of antichrist, through the instrumentality of his bishops!

It is true, no severe tortures were inflicted upon the Christians who were martyred in this persecution, but for the most part they were simply beheaded; however, after their death their bodies were shamefully treated; first they were suspended for a time on gallows, then burned, and their ashes strewed in the rivers; or they were left unburied, to be torn to pieces by dogs and birds.

It is stated that this persecution commenced long before A. D. 850, but that at this time it was at the height of its fury, for which reason, it seems, the ancient writers have ascribed it to this year. Compare _Memor. Sanctor, lib. 1. Apal. Mart. and Doc. Mart. Eulog., lib. 2, cap. 8, 9, and vita Eulogii_, with _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 306, col. 2, 3_; also, _Chron. van den Ondergang, 9th book, page 290_, from _Hist. Wenc., fol. 443. Chron. Nicoll. Gill., fol. 172, Leonh., lib. 4_. However, this persecution is here fixed one year later, namely, A. D. 851.

What has been said of this persecution, is to be further explained by the remarks made in the first note. In the mean time, we will investigate what martyrs mentioned by name, suffered during said persecution for the testimony of Jesus Christ, and the confession of the holy Gospel.

JOHN, A TRADESMAN AT CORDOVA, SEVERELY SCOURGED FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, SET REVERSELY UPON AN ASS, MOCKED, AND MISERABLY TORMENTED, A. D. 850.

A. D. 850, in the city of Cordova, John, an unlearned, but pious man, who kept a few things for sale, was accused to the judge, by false witnesses, for the sake of Jesus Christ, of deriding and reviling Mohammed. But as the witnesses in this case were not found reliable enough in their accusations, to condemn him to death, this faithful servant of God was sentenced to be severely scourged, and constrained to deny Christ. But this pious professor of Christ cried aloud: That he would not forsake the Christian religion unto death, and declared that he was innocent of the false accusations which had been brought against him.

This firmness so enraged the judge against John, that he had him scourged with more than five hundred stripes, causing the executioners to continue beating him, till he, under their hands, fell to the ground, apparently dead. But as he still lived and breathed after this torture, they set him backwards on an ass, and led him through the whole city, from street to street, with a crier, who cried: “Thus shall it be done with the revilers of our prophet, and with the ridiculers of our worship.”

This done they fettered him with heavy chains, and put him in prison; but as to how he finally died, we have not been able to discover in the accounts of the ancients; this much, however, is certain, that he contended for the name of Christ even unto blood. Compare _Eulog. Memorial. Sanctor., lib. 1_, with the account of _Abr. Mellinus, 2d book, fol. 307, col. 1, 2_.

NOTE.--From a want of fuller records by the ancient writers, we have not been able to obtain further information regarding the cause of the martyrdom of the abovementioned John, than that being zealous for the truth of God and his Savior, he suffered principally for the second article of our general Christian faith, in which we confess that we believe in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; which justly, and according to the rule of God’s word, can be called a good profession, 1 Tim. 6:12.

Moreover, we have found nothing derogatory to his faith, of papal superstition or the like, in other points; notwithstanding in the city of Cordova, where he suffered, there were also people, who, it appears, were not free from the Roman pollutions; of which history has made mention. Hence, since nothing of this kind can be laid to his charge, we are bound, according to the nature of love, to judge the best both of his person and the other points of his faith, and this not only with regard to him, but also to others, who suffered for the same reason, and of whom the ancients, in regard to this matter, have given like testimony.

NUNILO AND ALOIDA, SISTERS AND CHRISTIAN MAIDENS PUT TO DEATH WITH THE SWORD, IN THE CITY OF OSCA, FOR THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, ABOUT A. D. 851.

For this contest for the name of Christ, the Lord prepared not only men, but also women, and young maidens so that in the following year, 851, as near as can be reckoned, two sisters, one named Nunilo, the other Aloida, did not hesitate to confess Jesus Christ, their heavenly Bridegroom, among the Mohammedans, not only with their blood, but also with their death; which took place on this wise:

Their father was a Mohammedan, and their mother a nominal Christian, but not very pious, since she, according to the testimony of the ancients, after the death of her husband, married a Saracen (Mohammedan) or unbeliever. In consequence of this, these pious young women could not freely observe, and live up to, the confession of their faith, according to the doctrine of Christ, on account of the constraints placed upon them by their unbelieving stepfather. Compelled, therefore, to leave their mother’s house, they went to live with their aunt or mother’s sister, who, being a true Christian woman, brought them up farther in the Christian religion.

The envious enemy of the human race, filled with jealousy because they, the children of a Saracen father, had become Christians, accused them through the instrumentality of wicked persons, to the chief officer of the city of Osca, so that shortly after they were brought before the Judge. The latter, in order to draw them away from the Christian religion made them great promises of gifts and presents. He moreover offered to secure their marriage with the most excellent young men, etc., if they would but embrace Mohammedanism. But, if they remained stubborn, and despised the advice of the President or Judge, he threatened to torture them with divers torments, and finally to put them to death with the sword.

Thereupon, these pious maidens being strengthened by the Spirit of God, firmly and fearlessly answered the Judge, saying: “O Judge! how is it, that thou dost command us to turn away from true godliness? since God has made known to us, that no one in the world is richer than Jesus Christ, our Savior; and that nothing is more blessed than the Christian faith, by which the just live, and the saints have conquered kingdoms. For, without Christ there is no life, and without his knowledge there is nothing but eternal death. To dwell with him, and to live in him, is our only and true consolation; but to depart from him, is eternal perdition. From his communion we will never be separated as long as we live in this life; for, having given and entrusted our innocence (or youth) into his keeping, we hope eventually to become his bride.