Chapter XLV: Conclusion: Of the Matters Here Related (19)

“For, the profit of the transient riches of this world, with which thou didst think to allure us, we count as dung and loss, that we may gain Christ, because we know that everything under the sun, except Christ and true faith in him, is vanity.

“Nor are we moved by the threatened punishment; since we know, that the torments endure but a short time; yea, for death itself, which thou hast presented to us as the final terror, we long the more, because we know that thereby we go without delay[145] to heaven, to Christ our bridegroom, there to be embraced by him inseparably, through his love.”

[145] _To go without delay to heaven, to Christ_, may fitly be
understood as having reference to the commending of their souls into
the hands of Christ; as is stated of the holy martyr Stephen, namely,
that he saw the heavens opened, and Christ standing on the right hand
of God; to whom, in his extremity, he commended his soul, saying:
“Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit. And when he had said this, he fell
asleep.” Acts 7:59,60.

The judge, perceiving the steadfastness of their faith, and the power of their confession, deemed it well to commit these young maidens, each separately to certain Saracen women, to be instructed in the Mohammedan religion, strictly prohibiting them from conversing with each other, or with any others of the Christians. The women, who had undertaken to instruct them in the Saracen or Mohammedan religion, daily presented to them their idolatry and pernicious doctrine, seeking thus to poison them with the cup of the wrath of God, from the hand of Mohammed. But all in vain; they remained steadfast, which was called stubbornness by their enemies.

Finally they were brought before the tribunal and made a public spectacle; where they, confessing Christ as before, and declaring Mohammed an enemy of the Christian faith, as well as rejecting his doctrine, were executed with the sword, in the city of Osca in Spain, on the 22d of October, A. D. 851. Though others differ considerably in their chronology of this matter, we leave it to the decision of the intelligent reader. Compare the account of _A. Mellinus, second book, fol. 308, col. 1, 2_, with the authors from whom the same has been extracted. _Eulog. Memor. Sanctor., lib. 2, cap. 7_, and _Interp._

Touching these two pious martyresses, there is also to be observed what is said in the added note respecting John, the first mentioned martyr.

NOTE.--A. D. 852, the zeal of some to die for the name of Jesus Christ was so great that multitudes of them confessed Christ, and, hastening to martyrdom, suffered themselves to be put to death as defenseless lambs, for Christ’s sake. It is stated that among these there were two young heroes of Jesus Christ, namely, Emilas and Hieremias, who, from a well-meaning and special zeal, spoke against Mohammed, and thus offered themselves, to suffer for Christ their Savior. For this they were both executed with the sword, whereupon (according to the testimony of the ancients), though the weather had been fine in the forenoon, immediately at the hour of their death, there followed mighty peals of thunder, so that the earth quaked; terrible lightnings fell from the air; great darkness, heavy hailstorms, furious whirlwinds, and storms manifested themselves, as though the insensible elements (according to Eulogius) were mourning the death of these pious martyrs; whose dead bodies were taken across the river and suspended on stakes, on the 15th of September, A. D. 852. _A. Mell., fol. 309, col. 4_, from _Memor. Sanctor., lib. 2, cap. 2_. For certain reasons, however, we will not comment on these persons, though we know of nothing to censure, as regards either their faith or their life.

AUREA, A GODFEARING MAIDEN, AFTER MANY SEVERE TRIALS, EXECUTED WITH THE SWORD, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, AT CORDOVA, A. D. 856.

Aurea was by descent a noble maiden, and a sister to the martyr John, of whom we have already spoken, from the province Hispalis or Seville, who was betrayed and accused by some of her countrymen. The Judge, who was a relative of hers, endeavored by every possible means to draw her away from Christ, in which he also succeeded. But shortly after, she repented of her apostasy, and went daily into the congregation of the believers, that by the hearing of the word of God she might be strengthened in the Spirit against a like conflict in time to come.

The enemy of mankind, who could not endure it, that Aurea now adhered more firmly to God her Creator, than before, instigated another to accuse this maiden to the Judge, who instantly had her brought by his bailiffs, and threatened her as before. But in the second conflict she was as much stronger to obtain the martyr’s crown, as, in her former apostasy, she had been too weak to resist the temptation; for she thus answered the Judge, saying: “I have never separated myself from Christ my God; I have never forsaken the religion of true godliness; I have never for one moment adhered to your impious worship; though I once, with my tongue, seemed to have apostatized from Christ, my heart was nevertheless far from it, and I had a firm confidence in my Lord Jesus Christ, who has again lifted up my contrite conscience, by his consoling promises, saying: ‘He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.’ Though, with my words, I fell into the snare of denial, yet my heart was strengthened through the power of faith, for, as soon as I went away from you, I kept with heart and mind the faith which I had practiced from infancy. Hence, there is nothing left, but to execute me with the sword, or else you must give me liberty to freely serve my Lord Christ.”

Thereupon the Judge said that she should be kept in prison until he had informed the King of the matter. The result was, that the following day, according to the King’s command, she was put to death with the sword, and then, with a murderer, suspended by her heels on the gallows. Her dead body was sunk with several thieves and murderers in the river Betis. She died on the 19th of July, A. D. 856, at Cordova, under Mahumad, King of the Saracens. In this account, _A. M., fol. 311_, must be reconciled with _Eul., lib. 3, cap. 17_.

REMARK.--For further information we would remark that the aforementioned martyress, as regards profession in the matter of external religion, is to be distinguished from four other persons, Helias, Paulus, Isidore, and Argimirus, together with others, whom the last mentioned authors, in their account, have noticed just before the martyrdom of Aurea; for they, to all appearance, were of the Roman profession, of which we find no evidence in Aurea. She professed a good profession of Christ her Savior, and died thereupon; on which account she is justly classed among the true believing martyrs, according to what we stated in the note respecting the martyr John, for the year 850.

NOTE.--Since we do not find sufficient light on the persecutions, with regard to the names, as well as the confessions of the martyrs, we will now prepare ourselves to take leave of them, and commit those whom we have not noticed, as being too dark before our eyes, to the omniscient God, who will bring all to light. Our purpose is, to turn to Italy and England, where more and brighter light has arisen, though it had its beginning in France; so that the papal darkness, particularly in the matter of transubstantiation and the mass, was illumined by it. Yet, this shall end as a tragedy, for we shall show that the bright light of truth had to set in rays of blood and to sink under the earth as it were, to the sorrow of the true believing Christians.

NOTE.--In our account of holy baptism, for the year 860, we made mention of Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, and stated that he desired that infants should be left unbaptized, on account of which he was greatly censured. But it seems that this was not the last of it, seeing other writers afterwards relate that he was sentenced and condemned in a certain council in the palace of Dusiacum, in the province of Rheims; moreover, that he was sent into banishment, laid in chains, and, two years after, deprived of both his eyes. However, these writers do not unanimously state that this happened to him solely on account of his rejecting infant baptism, but relate also, that it was done through the bitter hatred of the Arch-bishop of Rheims, as well as from other reasons relating to popery. As to the time of this event, the papist Cesar Baronius fixes it, A. D. 871, though we, from comparison with other authors, should fix it five years earlier. Moreover, though we, as regards the life and walk of said Hincmar, have found nothing but what is good, we dare not give him a place among the martyrs, because of the differing statements of the ancient writers; hence we commit him to God, who will judge his cause.

JOHANNES ERIGENA, A SCOTCHMAN, PUT TO DEATH BY HIS SCHOLARS FOR THE CONFESSION OF THE EVANGELICAL TRUTH, THROUGH THE INSTIGATION OF SOME MONKS, AT MELDUM IN ENGLAND, ABOUT A. D. 884.

Johannes Erigena, a Scotchman, and, hence, called Scotus, flourished, in the matter of his doctrine, in the time of the Emperor Louis the Pious, and his son Lothaire, somewhere in one of the cities of France. He was exceedingly virtuous, learned, and eloquent, and, consequently, for his eminent gifts, highly celebrated and esteemed. For, when Charles, one of the sons of the above Emperor, was desirous of having a good translation and exposition of the books of Dionysius, the Areopagite, especially of the treatise _Hierarchia_,[146] John executed the same very laudably, and with marked ability, so that one Anastasius, who was librarian at the time, and composed a preface to it, writes of him thus: “It is astonishing how this barbarian (that is, foreigner or Scotchman), who hails from the uttermost parts of the world, was able to comprehend with his understanding such high things, and to translate them (said book of Dionysius), into another language, namely, from the Greek into the Latin; I refer to Johannes the Scotchman, concerning whom I have heard that he is a very holy and godly man.”

[146] This was a treatise on the name of God, and the heavenly order
of the angels.

This is the testimony even of one of his adversaries, touching his learning and godliness; so that it is not necessary for us to adduce additional testimony relative to this point, from other authors, hence we let it suffice.

Afterwards, it seems, he wrote a book on the Eucharist (that is, on the thankoffering of the Supper), in which he very profoundly and conclusively refuted the gross error of the papists in the matter of transubstantiation, or the essential change of the bread into the body of Jesus Christ; also, the mass and the sacrifice which thereby, in popery, is offered for both the living and the dead. This was the cause of his death, as the sequel shows.

When he had written this book, it was greatly esteemed by some, among whom, subsequently, was Berengarius, deacon of the church at Angiers, of whom it is stated that he took and learned his belief respecting this point (and perhaps also against infant baptism, since he strenuously dissuaded from it), from the writings of Johannes Scotus; of which we propose to speak more fully in the proper place. On the other hand, said book was exceedingly hated by those who were zealous defenders of the Roman superstitions, especially of transubstantiation and the mass; so much so, that, when it had come before Pope Leo IX., the result was, that both (as appears) he and his book were condemned and anathematized as heretical; which was done chiefly in the council of Vercellis.

When this had thus happened, and he had incurred the hatred of the Pope and many of the papists, he left the city of Paris--where he was rector of the University--and also France, and went to England, where he took up his residence at Meldum, supporting himself by teaching and instructing inexperienced youths. But after a few years, when the spite and hatred of some monks could tolerate him no longer, on account of his faith against the Roman church, they instigated his scholars against him, so that they stabbed him to death with awls and penknives.

Other writers are of the opinion that the monks did it themselves. Both may be true; the monks, having instigated the young men, and probably finding them too timid, may have led off in the murder, the youths following, with penknives, awls, etc., so that said martyr lost his life under their hands. This much is certain, that he died a cruel death for his faith, and that the monks, through the instrumentality of his scholars, were in no small measure the cause of it, as the records of his death inform us. Compare the account of _A. Mellinus, 2d book, fol. 343, col. 2, 3_, and _fol. 392, col. 4_, and _fol. 393, col. 1, 2_, taken from _Trithem. de Script. Eccles., Item, Hist. Reg. Angl., in Alfredo, lib. 2. Hobed. Annal. parte Priore. Westmon., in Flor. Hist., A. D. 883. Idem, Hist. parte Prima. Chron. Car., lib. 4, sub. Henr. 4, Seniore. Lanfranc., lib. de Euch., contra Bereng. Baron. Annal. T. 11, A. D. 1059. Mamelsburi Regum Angl., lib. 2. Testibus. Lanfranco, Guytmundo and Aliis._

CONCERNING THE TIME OF THIS HISTORY.

NOTE.--P. J. Twisck gives two different accounts concerning it; in the first he fixes the date, A. D. 869. _Chron. 9th book, page 306, col. 2_, from _Hist. Andr., fol. 160_. In the second he fixes it, A. D. 884. _Page 311, col. 2_, from _John Munster, fol. 83_. In the first place he calls him Johannes Scotus, in the second, Johannes Erigena; however, as the account itself declares, it is the same person.

As to the dates 869 and 884, to which the history of said Johannes has been referred by him, some one might think that this could not very well be reconciled, which may, however, be easily done, if we take the year 869 as the time in which said martyr flourished and propagated his doctrine, and the year 884 as the time when he died and was martyred for the principles which he taught.

FURTHER OBSERVATION TOUCHING THE HISTORY ITSELF, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF CARION, P. MELANCTHON AND C. PEUCER.

“In the time of Emperor Louis the Pious,” said authors say, “Johannes Scotus read and explained publicly in the schools, Dionysius’ treatise _Hierarchia_. This Johannes Scotus, when he censured and refuted with good reasons, the false and impious tenet of the sacrifice of the mass, concerning which others at that time taught that in the Supper Christ was to be offered up for the living and the dead, was stabbed to death by his disciples and hearers, with their penknives.” _Chron. Carion., from the beginning of the world until Charles V., enlarged by Phil. Melancthon and Casp. Peucer, printed 1586, 4th book, fol. 476, col. 1._

CONCERNING SAID HISTORY, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SEBASTIAN FRANCK OF WORTH.

“Johannes, surnamed Scotus, not of the Gray Friars, wrote a treatise on the sacrament, denying the presence of the body and blood of Christ. He was condemned in the council of Vercellis. He was rector at Paris, eminently versed in the languages, and the phenix of his age. The Emperor Lothaire held him in great esteem. Of him there have written, Platina,” etc. See _Chron. Rom. Kett., fol. 106, col. 4, letter J_.

P. J. TWISCK’S ACCOUNT OF SAID JOHANNES SCOTUS.

“Johannes Scotus,” he writes, “lived under the Emperor Louis the Pious, and wrote strenuously against transubstantiation. On a certain occasion, when he, in an exposition, was severely censuring the delusion of the blasphemous oblation or offering up of the Lord Christ in the Supper, for the living and the dead, his disciples and hearers killed him with iron styles.” _Chron., 9th book, fol. 306, col. 2_, from _Hist. Andr., fol. 160_.

FURTHER EXPLANATION TOUCHING SAID J. SCOTUS, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAPIST BARONIUS, AS NOTED BY ABR. MELLINUS.

“But let us add,” says he, “the opinion of Baronius, touching this Scotchman: As regards Johannes Scotus, we have said above, in the proper place, that he was in bad repute with the Pope Nicholas I. Although he wrote so violently against the Catholic faith, yet, as he did not spread it among the people, so that his views became known to all, many had a good opinion of him, so much so, that they, though most inconsiderately (thus he speaks, from a papistic standpoint) gave him the title of martyr.” Compare _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 393, col. 1, 2_, with _Cesar. Baronius’_ account touching _J. Scotus. Annal. T. 11, A. D. 1059_.

From this account it appears that the papist Baronius, who was a cardinal of the Roman see, was not pleased that many had a good opinion of Johannes Scotus, and, what is still more, gave him the title of martyr; but this is not to be wondered at, since the true papists have a good opinion of none but those who adhere to the Roman superstitions, and never dare to utter a word of censure against them; and they would confer the title of martyr upon none but those who have suffered for the Roman see and its traditions (which are a parcel of human inventions). However, we will let them answer for this, and leave it.

We return to Johannes Scotus and say that, as regards his boldness, he showed himself as behooves a true martyr, since, to clear his conscience and defend the oppressed truth, he did not hesitate to incur the hatred of the Pope and the papists, yea, the prospect of being anathematized, excommunicated, and, finally, miserably tortured and put to death for it. He died for the confession of the Christian and evangelical truth, particularly for the article by which we commemorate the Lord’s death, and in which lies the consolation of the soul, with regard to our blessed redemption.

But, since Berengarius, who opposed not only transubstantiation and the mass, but also infant baptism, was afterwards charged with having imbibed and obtained his belief from Johannes Scotus, the aforementioned martyr, we may conclude that said martyr must also have opposed infant baptism; otherwise it could not be said in general words, that Berengarius imbibed or obtained his views from J. Scotus, which is nevertheless frequently and confidently asserted by ancient writers. With this we will take our leave of J. Scotus and also of our account of the martyrs of this century; as being sufficient for the well-disposed--for the evil-disposed we care not; hence, our soul shall rest, and content itself with the pious.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE TENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE TENTH CENTURY.

[The corruption of this century, caused by the papal superstitions, is sadly lamented by Jacob Mehrning and P. J. Twisck.

Nevertheless, it is shown thereupon, that in the midst of papal darkness there were still some who, in the matter of holy baptism, did not differ from the institution of Christ and his apostles.

Giselbert teaches, that baptism must be connected with regeneration and a good will.

Then follows Ansbert, who declares that Christ, through preaching and baptism, is still daily bringing unto himself heirs; that we must be baptized upon the confession of the holy Trinity; and that after baptism we may sin no more.

Smaragdus follows next and says that it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the truth of the faith; that the excellent _ordinance of the baptism of Christ_ commands the apostles first to teach all nations, and then to incorporate them by the baptism of faith.

Then appears Theophilact, who produces very excellent testimonies concerning baptism; as, among others, that the baptized have put on Christ, Gal. 3:27; that the candidates are like the prodigal son when he was converted; that he is not baptized aright, who has not believed; that in baptism all believers are enlightened by the Holy Ghost; that no one may be recognized as a believer, who is unregenerate or lives after the flesh; that the truly baptized may not drive away the Holy Spirit by wicked works, but must preserve the image of God unspotted; that the good profession of which we read, 1 Tim. 6:12, must take place at the instruction of those that are to be baptized; that those baptized by John, were delivered by repentance from the bonds of the soul; that the novices repented before baptism; that the Supper was administered to the baptized, etc.

Thereupon it is stated, from D. Vicecomes, that the papists, when infant baptism was introduced among them, abolished the practice of administering the Supper to the baptized. It is furthermore demonstrated, that the Romanists ought to have abolished infant baptism just as well as the infant Supper.

The baptism of Olympius, his wife Exuperia, and his son Theodulus, is adduced, from Simon Metaphrastes; also, of the baptism of Theridates, and Nemesius.

Fulbertus Carnotenses is the last witness respecting holy baptism.]

* * * * *

We now pass over to the tenth century after the birth of Christ, to find in it, as we have done in the preceding times, the marks of the Christian believers, namely, the true baptism with its observance according to the institution of Christ and the practice of his apostles; which, as we shall show in the proper place, obtained and was practiced also at this time, though under great difficulties.

Yet, what shall we say of this century? Many well-disposed persons, who loved the truth, abhorred and detested it, because the innumerable human superstitions of the Roman church had risen nigh unto heaven, and the pure commandments of Jesus Christ, without the observance of which men cannot be saved, had been cast almost down into the pit. This was the century concerning which much woful lamentation was made, because papal tyranny, in the matter of worship, had increased so exceedingly. Of these things (after the title), the following is contained in _Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism_.

OF THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD IN THE TENTH CENTURY.

“In the tenth century the dominion of the Roman Pope had exceedingly obscured, and taken possession of, nearly all the churches in Europe, so that everything, had to be done according to his pleasure, both in spiritual and secular governments; hence, great darkness prevailed at this time, in which but very few learned, virtuous, and celebrated men lived. For fear of the great tyranny, one dared scarcely speak the least word of the adulteration of the doctrine, or the abuses in the false worship, and the increase of the abominable blasphemies; for, as soon as those who knew better, and feared God, uttered the least word of opposition, the Pope instantly thundered, with hail and lightning as it were, excommunications from the Roman chair, so that every one was terrified, since also the secular lords were bewitched and controlled by him. Was it to be wondered at, then, that the corruptions with reference to baptism, increased the longer the more?” _Bapt. Hist., p. 566_, from _Magd. Cent. 10, cap. 1_.

Touching the abuses in and about baptism, which were then introduced the decree of the Pope and the councils, they are noticed by different writers, as may be seen in _Cent. Magd., Cent. 10, cap. 6, 10, 11_.

In short, whereas formerly the catechumens had not been baptized until, after proper instruction, they had given an account of their faith, either on Easter or Whitsuntide, it was now ordained, that, when death or peril of life was apprehended, they should be baptized immediately. _Metaphr., lib. 2, cap. 5_.

Whereas baptism had formerly been administered with unblessed or unconsecrated water, it was now blessed and consecrated, yea, the chrism was used, the sign of the cross on the forehead, the oil of chrism. _Bapt. Hist., page 576, num. 13._

But the most ridiculous of all was, that, whereas formerly only human beings had been baptized, Pope John XIV. now commanded that the great bell in the Lateran church should be baptized and named after him. _Bapt. Hist., page 577, ex Balaeo Centur. 2. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 10th book, for the year 965, page 341, col. 1._

These exceeding great errors of the Roman church, and the dreadful darkness in which all nations, with the exception of a few pious people, sat during those dreary times, is described in _P. J. Twisck’s Chronijk_, in the conclusion of the thousandth year, with the following words (after the title):

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD IN THIS CENTURY.

“As far as regards the preceding century, I cannot speak of any improvement, inasmuch as the secular affairs manifested themselves with much commotion, strife, misery, and distress. Papal dominion prevailed more and more. The idolatrous ceremonies were very prolific; the baptismal water was consecrated; the oil was prepared by the bishop alone, two days before Easter, as well as imparted to others; the Supper, or sacrament, was administered nearly every Sunday, at an altar or table prepared for this purpose. Excommunication or the ban of the church was used very frivolously, not only against common people, but also against emperors, kings, and princes. The punishment imposed upon penitents consisted much in abstaining for seven years from certain food, meat and wine, or in the giving of alms, building of churches, founding of cloisters, and other like inventions and burdens, according to the ability and mind of each respective individual.

“It was taught, that the saints must be worshiped; not that they should save the supplicants, but that they should intercede, and ask God for help for them.

“Holy people were presented, who had died before the time of Christ, in the Old Testament, and who, as it was said, had been in hell, yet without pain--a strange notion and wicked doctrine respecting the holy fathers.

“It was said that there was a purgatory, where men had to atone after this life, and wash away sin by suffering.

“The canonizing of ecclesiastical persons was very common. The holidays instituted in honor of the saints, were very many, and took away nearly one half of the year. The images and graves of the saints were greatly esteemed. Kings, princes, lords, ecclesiastics, and laymen, made pilgrimages to Rome, St. Jago, Jerusalem, and other places, where the bodies or bones of the saints were buried or preserved, as though dead bones without spirit, could impart life or benefit.

“The sick would confess to the ear of the priest, and thereupon receive the sacrament of the unction; after which they departed in full assurance, though without any good resulting from it.

“The dead were buried with the ringing of bells, with tapers and torches, with much singing, with masses, vigils, and prayers for their souls, etc.” _P.J. Twisck, Chron., 10th book, page 361._

Thus, the tenth century was utterly corrupted through the superstitions of popery; but, as in the dark midnight the stars still sometimes give their light, so it was also here; for, that the marks of the true church might not be swallowed up entirely in the darkness, some, though but few, manifested themselves, who, in one and the other point, but principally in the matter of baptism, showed, that they, as regards the matter itself, did not differ from the institution of Christ and the practice of his holy apostles; which can be gathered from the writings they have left.

_About A. D. 910._--Or very close to the beginning of this century, the ancient writers place Giselbert, a man of learning, but accused of strange opinions by his adversaries; whom the emergency of the time compelled to stoop and hide, under the ravages of popery. He, though others have regarded him as a member of the Roman church, opposed, apparently as much as lay in his power, the Pope and the Roman church, and this not a little in the matter of baptism. For, while the Pope and the Roman church generally taught that it was necessary, yea, upon pain of damnation, to baptize the infants, notwithstanding they have not, and cannot have, either true regeneration or a good will [intention], which are nevertheless required of candidates (Matt. 3:7,8), he taught that it is indeed necessary to salvation, to be baptized, but that said baptism must be connected with regeneration, and a good intention; which things, besides the grace of Christ, he considered the chief means to salvation, so much so, that any one who had these virtues, though he were not baptized (that is, if there had been no opportunity), could nevertheless be saved because of the grace and power of God. Of this, there is, among others, the following annotation in _Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism, page 567_.

_Of the necessity of baptism._--Giselbert (_Alter. 1_), says: “It is true, God can save; yet, man cannot be saved without baptism; (that is, that baptism which is accompanied with regeneration, as the following words declare), for thus says the author of this sacrament himself: ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ It is, however, not in the power of man, to reject this way, and to choose to salvation another. However, it is in God’s power, if man cannot obtain this means (baptism), to accept graciously his good will.” _Cent. Magd. X., cap. 4._

Hence, when he here speaks of the good will of man, it is quite evident, that he treats neither of infants nor of infant baptism, seeing infants have no knowledge of either a good or a bad will, nor of baptism, nor of regeneration, to which said passage of Giselbert also has reference; much less have they the ability to worthily begin and execute all this, for the proper reception of baptism. He intends simply to say, that baptism is indeed necessary, yet not without regeneration; which regeneration he regards as the most important of all, according to John 3:5,7, from which he concludes that it is not in the power of man to reject this way, namely, to separate regeneration from baptism, or baptism from regeneration, which is a stricture upon those who were wont to reject the baptism of the regenerated or penitent, and to go another way, as did the Pharisees in the days of John the Baptist; who, rejecting the counsel of God against themselves (namely, the baptism of John), were not baptized of him. Luke 7:30.

But, in order that no one need sorrow, who, having attained to regeneration, could not receive baptism, on account of serious obstacles or the want of a fitting opportunity, and, hence, might imagine that there was no grace or mercy of God for him, he adds this consolation, namely: “That it is in God’s power, if man cannot obtain the means (baptism), to accept graciously his good will.”

Whatever others, especially papistic writers, may have recorded of Giselbert’s belief, detrimental to, or, at least, against the point in view, we let them be responsible for it; this is certain, that we have not as yet been able to find anything to the contrary, in any authentic writer.

_About A. D. 925._--Shortly after, or very near the time of Giselbert, Ansbert is mentioned, who, writing on several matters of faith, or articles of religion, also makes mention of baptism, approaching herein very closely the language, or, at least, the sense of the holy apostles, which appears from the following testimonies:

_Bapt. Hist., page 568._ Ansbert (on Rev. 19), says, according to the words of Christ, John 1:13: “Which were born not of blood ... but of God.” “_Of God_, that is, through the preached word and the washing of regeneration, by which mysteries (namely, preaching and the washing of regeneration, that is, baptism) Christ still daily begets and brings forth unto himself heirs.”

He here connects the word of God, or preaching, with the washing of regeneration, or baptism, and says that by them Christ begets and brings forth unto himself heirs. How could anybody more plainly declare: 1. what true baptism is; 2. what belongs to it; and 3. what fruit proceeds from it. For, firstly, what true baptism is, he expresses by these words: _Washing of regeneration_, according to Tit. 3:5, indicating thereby, that true baptism is peculiar only to the regenerate; that is, to the penitent. Secondly, what belongs to baptism he expresses by these words: _The preached word_; for, as the apostle declares, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” Rom. 10:17. The preached word is therefore the means by which to attain to the faith, and faith is the foundation upon which truly to receive baptism. As necessary, then, as faith is, in order to be truly baptized, upon it, so necessary also is the preached word, in order to truly believe; consequently, Ansbert has justly joined the preached word to baptism, as a proof that it belongs to it, according to the words of Christ (Mark 16:15,16): “Preach the Gospel ... he that believeth and is baptized.” Thirdly, what fruit proceeds from such baptism, when it is accompanied with regeneration and the preached word of God, he expresses with these words: “_By which mysteries Christ still daily begets and brings forth unto himself heirs_,” which well agrees with the words of Paul, Gal. 3:26,27: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” These, then, who by this means become children of God, also become his heirs and joint heirs with Christ. Rom. 8:17. Hence, said words of Ansbert are conformable to the holy Scriptures, and speak of the baptism of the regenerate, but in no wise of infant baptism.

_Page 569._ Ansbert (on Rev. 21) teaches: “The trinity of the Godhead we dare not, and shall not pass by unnoticed, especially when we are baptized upon the confession of the holy Trinity, and are saved in the faith of the unity of the same.”

Here he again connects baptism with confession and faith, yea, he says that we are baptized upon confession, and saved in faith. Certainly, there is not a letter in the above passage, which savors of infant baptism, but every word denies, yea, opposes it, inasmuch as here such a baptism only is spoken of, as is received with faith and the confession of the same; but that this can be done by infants, militates not only against the holy Scriptures, but also against nature.

_Page 574._ Ansbert (on Rev. 1) says: “He that has been washed in baptism from dead works, and, after such washing, again commits sins unto death, it avails him nothing that he was washed; hence, the Lord, through Isaiah (chap. 1, verse 16), admonishes thus: ‘Wash ye, make you clean.’ He washes and cleanses himself, who commits no new sins after baptism. But he that conducts himself thus that after such washing, he again pollutes the white robe with sin, let him still not despair of remission, if he desires to be washed again; for there is yet another baptism, with which publicans and harlots are always baptized--and what other is it but the well-spring of tears? in which Mary Magdalene, polluted with many a stain of vice, and Peter, when he had thrice denied the Lord, washed themselves.”

This whole passage is a warning to those who, having committed sins unto death, were baptized for the remission of the same, that they should not rely upon this, otherwise they might be deceived; hence, against such, there are spoken these words: “He that after such washing again commits sins unto death, it avails him nothing that he was washed.” Then follows an admonition, not to fall into new sins after baptism; yet that any who had fallen into them, should still not despair. But to such there is pointed out another baptism, namely, the baptism of tears, that is, weeping and sorrowing for committed sins. Then it is told what persons were once baptized with this baptism of tears, namely, publicans and harlots, Mary Magdalene, and Peter, for denying Christ.

Judge now, whether the above-stated things can be done by infants, or whether they are peculiar only to the adult and intelligent, and we are fully confident, that, if you are impartial, you will choose the latter, and reject the former.

_About A. D. 938._--Very near the time of Ansbert, a place is accorded, in this century, to Smaragdus, who, having, it seems, at some time previous to his conversion, or, at least, to his enlightenment, maintained infant baptism, now gave such testimony concerning baptism as completely excludes infant baptism, inasmuch as he, writing of the nature, virtue, practice, and benefit of baptism, very closely follows the language of Christ and his holy apostles.[147]

[147] What Smaragdus has written on 1 Pet. 2, saying: “Such holy,
pure, and innocent childhood, the mother, the church of Christ, gains
through the grace of baptism,” gave cause to consider whether by the
word _childhood_ he meant infants of the cradle, and by the words
_grace of baptism_, infant baptism; but it is also interpreted as
having reference to the believing children of God, according to Gal.
3:26, and to the baptism of believers, according to Mark 16:16. As to
the exposition, however, which he is stated to have made on John 13,
it is held that it took place before his enlightenment.

This appears from his exposition of the institution of Christ respecting baptism.

“First,” he writes: “all nations were taught, and then they were baptized with water; for it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the truth of the faith; for they were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Again: “This excellent ordinance of baptism commands the apostles, first to teach all nations, then to incorporate them by the baptism of faith, and then, after faith and baptism, to teach them what they were to observe.” _Smaragdus, on Matt. 28._

N. B. “Thus,” says the writer who has recorded this, “the light of truth must shine forth in the midst of darkness; for, where did Christ institute another ordinance of baptism, for infants?” _B. H., page 570, num. 7._

Though this last passage is very acceptable and worthy of being considered, and confirms in no small measure the point we have in view we will nevertheless let the writer keep it to himself, it being only a comment on the aforementioned matter.

We will, therefore, return to the matter itself, namely, to the words of Smaragdus, and we shall soon find that his aim was, to connect faith with baptism, yea, to admit no other baptism than that which is accompanied with the truth of the faith. For, what else does he intend to say with these words: “For it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the truth of the faith?” May we not firmly conclude from this, that this man knew nothing of infant baptism, or, at least, that he, when he wrote this, utterly denied and rejected it? Certainly, no one could oppose, or reject, infant baptism more flatly and plainly; for if it is impossible, as he says, to receive baptism aright without having previously accepted the truth of the faith, etc., he establishes that it is impossible to baptize infants aright, seeing they, because of their disqualification in regard to power as well as knowledge, cannot previously accept the truth of the faith. Unless some one would say that he held, that there is a certain faith, or germ of faith, as others call it, in infants from their birth (as was afterwards advanced by the Lutherans), upon which, some were wont to assert, they ought to be baptized. But this is easily refuted; for, besides this, that in the time of Smaragdus, as far as can be seen, they knew nothing of this hidden faith, or germ of faith, in infants, much less baptized them upon it, he plainly indicates that he is speaking of another faith, which he calls _the truth of the faith_, that is, a true and genuine faith; which true and genuine faith no one ever, to our knowledge, not even to the present day, claimed for infants, in order to establish infant baptism upon it.

Moreover, Smaragdus required of the candidates for baptism, not only the truth of the faith, but also regeneration, as appears from his comments on John 3, where he says: “He that is regenerated through water and the Spirit, is invisibly changed into a new man, and from a carnal man is made a spiritual man; and he is therefore rightly called, not only spiritual, but also spirit.” _B. H., p. 573, num. 11._

In this passage again there are several things mentioned, which indicate nothing else than that he is speaking of the baptism of adults. For, besides that the words, John 3, were not spoken to an infant but to Nicodemus, a master in Israel, the circumstances adduced by Smaragdus in regard to it also indicate, that it is to be understood of none but adult persons. For, what else does he mean to say by the word _regenerated_, than that the baptized person who has previously truly prepared himself for baptism, gives up his old, earthly birth, and becomes a new creature? Thus also, when he says that the baptized person is changed into a new man; for, how shall any one be changed into a new man, who was not an old man before? And also, when he adds, that such an one, from a carnal man is made spiritual; for, how is it possible, from a carnal man to become spiritual, if one has not previously been carnal or lived after the flesh? Therefore, to become spiritual, does not simply mean, to receive the Spirit of God, but to live after the Spirit, in the fear of God, and in all the Christian virtues. Gal. 5:21–24.

This being so, we will leave the testimony of Smaragdus and proceed to others of his cotemporaries, who held the same belief and left it to us in their writings.

_A. D. 952._--It is stated that in the time of the Emperor Otho the Great there lived and wrote, in Greece, a very virtuous and learned man called Theophilact, who, writing on various matters of faith, also makes mention of baptism, not differing herein, as far as we have been able to ascertain, from the Anabaptists of the present day, but agreeing with them very well on the subject of baptism upon faith.

_Bapt. Hist., page 571_, Theophilact on Luke 15, says: “As many of us as have been baptized have put on Christ.”

These are the words of Paul, Gal. 3:27, which the apostle does not speak to infants, but to the believing saints of the Galatian church, namely, that they had indeed, become children of God by faith, but had put on Christ by baptism.”

Continuing he says: “Then he puts on our hand (namely, to us who through baptism have put on Christ) the ring, the seal of Christianity, which works in us.” Again: “Every one that is baptized, is also made a child of God, yea, readopted as such; he is also, when he is washed from sin, made a partaker of the fatted calf, and becomes the joy of the Father and his servants, the holy angels and men, even as one that has arisen from the dead, and who was lost, and is found.”

He here compares the candidates to the prodigal son who, repenting of his evil life, arose to go to his father, to seek grace, and was received by him with outstretched arms. Thus, he would say, it is also in baptism: The sinner seeks grace, confesses his sins, manifests sorrow for them, yea, prays and supplicates for forgiveness. God, the Lord, who is the true Father of all men by reason of creation, meets him, embraces him with the arms of his grace, yea, pardons all his past sins, and, in token thereof, commands one of his servants to baptize him. This he compares to the putting on of the ring, saying: “Then he puts on our hand the ring, the seal of Christianity.” What he further says concerning the killing of the fatted calf; and the joy of the Father and his servants, has regard to the joy that is in heaven over the repentance of such a penitent (and thereupon baptized) sinner, which is greater than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Luke 15:7.

Hence, when Theophilact compares the candidate for baptism to the prodigal son, in the manner shown above, it is evident enough, yea, as clear as midday, that he is treating of no other baptism than the baptism of adults, and this of such adults as manifest sorrow for their past sins.

_Page 572._ Theophilact on John 8, says: “Since Christ came to take away the sins of the world, we can obtain remission of sins in no other way than, by means of baptism (however properly speaking the blood of Christ is the effective cause of the remission and taking away of sins), yet it is impossible that he that has not believed, be baptized (aright); hence, the unbeliever must afterwards die in his sins, for he has not put off the old man, because he has not been baptized.”

Though several things are said here, which confirm our preceding explanation of the words of Theophilact, we shall nevertheless notice only these words: “It is impossible that he that has not believed, be baptized (aright);” for here certainly every baptism which is not received with faith is denied; hence, infant baptism cannot be admitted here, because it is without all faith, yea, it is utterly denied here. And thus, the words of Theophilact concerning baptism, are not only clear, but also Christian-like and apostolical.

_Page 572._ Theophilact on 2 Cor. 3, says: “Even as silver, exposed to the sun, does itself emit rays, because the sun shines upon it; so also we, when we are purified in baptism, by the Holy Ghost, and illumined by his rays, emit a spiritual radiance, perceived only in the soul, and are changed into the same image, by the Spirit of the Lord, to our glory.” And, a little further on: “All believers are illumined in baptism by the Holy Ghost, that their souls shine (or, emit radiance) thereby.” Again: “As we are all dead by one sinner, even so we are all made alive, and are risen through Christ, in baptism; and we justly recognize no one as believing, who lives after the flesh, that is, who leads the old, carnal life; but all who are regenerated by the Spirit, begin a new, spiritual life.”

The words which Theophilact speaks from or on 2 Cor. 3, concerning the candidates, Paul speaks of believers; and the simile borrowed by the aforementioned writer from the silver, which, when the sun shines upon it, reflects his rays, which he applies to the candidates, who become illumined by the Holy Ghost, and reflect a spiritual radiance of virtues, confirms, in a good degree, that he is speaking of such candidates as can be illumined by the Holy Ghost, and live virtuously, to the honor of God, the edification of their neighbor, and to the salvation of their own souls. What he says after that, fully confirms our opinion, namely, that he is speaking of believing candidates; for, this he clearly expresses with these words: “All believers are illumined in baptism by the Holy Ghost.” What he adds finally, tends in the same direction, for he says that, “As we are all dead by one sinner (Adam), even so we are all made alive and are risen, through Christ, in baptism.” Who does not see that this making alive and rising (in baptism) has respect to the renewing of the old life, according to the teaching of Paul (Rom. 6:4): “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” That this is his meaning, he indicates by the following words, when he calls those whom he has previously termed candidates, believers and regenerated persons, saying: “We justly recognize no one as believing, who lives after the flesh; but all who are regenerated (thus he calls the candidates or the baptized) by the Spirit, begin a new, spiritual life.”

_Page 573._ Philophilact on 2 Tim. 1, says: “The Holy Ghost hovers over us at baptism; now, if we keep this Spirit, and do not drive him away by wicked works, he keeps us and what we have received from God; therefore, use all diligence, that you keep the Holy Ghost, and he, who has been given you, will also keep you.”

It seems that in the days of Theophilact there was a failing among some of the candidates, or, at least, among the unbaptized Christians, that, instead of stirring up the grace of the Spirit of God, which had been given them (after baptism), and thereby increasing and proceeding in virtues, they decreased and retrograded, yea, fell into wicked works. This, Theophilact opposed, warning them to be careful not to drive the good Spirit of God away from them by wicked works, seeing he will not dwell in a malicious soul, nor in a body that is subject unto sin. Wisdom of Sol. 1:4.

Secondly, he admonishes them affectionately and consolingly, to keep the gift of the Holy Ghost (after baptism), pointing out also, the means by which this could be done, namely, by avoiding wicked works, and using diligence, that is, such diligence by which the worship of God and the common edification could be promoted. The consolation which he, for such, adds to his admonition, is expressed in these words: “Therefore, use all diligence, that you keep the Holy Ghost, and he ... will also keep you.” But, what fruit his warning, and consoling admonition had on those persons, is not stated there; hence we will take our leave, and proceed to other writings which he has left.

_Same page as above._ Theophilact on John 3, says: “It is not enough for the preservation of purity, to be baptized; but one must also use great diligence, that the image of the sonship of God, which is represented in baptism, is kept unspotted. There are many who have received, in baptism, the grace of adoption as children of God, but who, through negligence, have not remained children of God unto the end.

Here he greatly laments the apostasy of the children of God, namely, of those who, having been baptized, and having received the grace of adoption as children of God, but through negligence had apostatized so that they, as he calls it, had not remained children of God. Certainly, this was a sad matter; but notwithstanding we rejoice that in those times people were baptized upon faith (as has been shown above), that they might receive the grace of adoption as children of God; and that there were yet persons (as appears from Theophilact) who taught this doctrine and reproved the opposing abuses; to which, has been our sole aim.

_Page 575._ Theophilact (on 1 Tim. 6, where the apostle says: “Thou hast professed a good profession before many witnesses”), writes: “This profession takes place at the instruction of those who are to be baptized; and we profess by it that we will forsake Satan, and pitch our tent with Christ, that we may fully adhere to him.”

How could any one speak more clearly and truly of baptism according to the institution of Christ and the practice of the apostles? He says here, that the good profession of which Paul writes (1 Tim. 6:12), took place at the instruction of those who were to be baptized; by which he indicates that in his time the candidates were not only instructed at and before baptism, namely, in the Christian faith, but that they were also required to make a profession of what they believed, which consisted (as can be gleaned not only from Theophilact, but also from other writers of that time) of two parts: firstly, in the confession of faith in God and in his Son Jesus Christ; and secondly, in the renunciation of Satan, the world, the flesh, and all its lusts.

_Same page as above._ Theophilact on Mark 1, says: “All who came to be baptized by John, were delivered through repentance from the bond of their souls, if they believed on Christ.”