Chapter XLVI: Conclusion: Of the Matters Here Related (20)

He says of those who came to John’s baptism, that they were delivered through repentance from the bond of their souls (that is, from sin), if they believed on Christ; by which he indicates that two things were required of those candidates, in order that they might be delivered from sin; 1. _repentance_; 2. _faith in Christ_. Which things, since he adduces them for the instruction of his cotemporaries, were also required of the candidates of his time, namely, that they had to repent and believe on Christ. For, to what purpose should he otherwise, by way of instruction, have adduced them?

_Page 581._ D. J. Vicecomes (_lib. 3, cap. 3_, on Heb. 6), quotes from Theophilact: “When you were to be baptized, you repented of dead works, that is, rejected the works of Satan.”

In _Lib. 5, cap. 37_, Vicecomes expresses the opinion, that in the time of Theophilact the holy Supper was still administered to the baptized, after baptism.

Whether we cast our eyes upon the words of Theophilact, or upon those of Vicecomes, we see that both tend in the same direction. As regards the words of Theophilact, he informs us concerning the candidates of his time, that they, before baptism, or, at least, when they were about to be baptized, repented of dead works, which, as every one knows, can only be done by adults, and not at all by infants; for, one that is to desist from dead works, and repent, must first have committed dead works; this is incontrovertible.

As to the words of Vicecomes, they confirm the foregoing; for, if the holy Supper was then administered to the baptized after baptism; which Supper, as is taught in 1 Cor. 11:27, had to be received with proper examination, and qualification, as, according to history, was then still done, it follows that the baptism of infants could not have been maintained among those who practiced this, seeing infants are unfit for such examination and qualification, and, consequently, also unfit to become partakers of the holy Supper, which Vicecomes also notices; for, referring, in the same place, to some among the Romanists, he says: “But when the baptism of infants was introduced, they [the infants] did not understand the virtue of the heavenly food, the church abolished this custom (namely, of administering the Supper to the baptized), that this holy sacrament might not be dishonored thereby.”

From this it is quite evident, that at that time, not only some who had separated from the Roman church, but even some who belonged to the Roman church (perhaps, whole churches of the Romanists), still had the custom of administering the holy Supper to all that had been baptized, and this with all proper devotion; so that in those churches, it seems, nothing was known, even as late as that time, of infant baptism, or, at least, that it was not observed there, until the Pope, or some council ordained otherwise; for this is clearly expressed in the words: “But when the baptism of infants was introduced, the church abolished this custom.”

Touching what is adduced (_B. H., p. 308_, from _D. Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 37_), concerning the infant Supper, as though it might have obtained in the time of Theophilact, it is refuted by the writer himself, in said passage; for he explains it as having reference to the Supper of believing, baptized Christians, saying, that it was administered to the baptized till infant baptism came into vogue, and that it was then (because infants were unfit for it) abolished.

In regard to this, the writer who records it, has the following words to the shame of those who did so: “Cannot these foolish saints,” says he “for the same reason, also abolish infant baptism, which is not a less, but, on account of the effectual regeneration, a greater sacrament, than the Supper?” _B. H., page 308._ He means to say: If the Supper, which it was customary to administer to believers after baptism, was abolished, when infant baptism came into vogue, because infants have not the ability to worthily prepare themselves for the Supper; how great a folly is it, then, that infant baptism was not also abolished for the same reason; seeing that not less, but more, is required for baptism than for the Supper, namely, an _effectual regeneration_? For which reason also baptism is a greater sacrament than the Supper. Certainly, this was a forcible argument in refutation of those who, having introduced infant baptism, had therefore abolished the Supper which used to be administered after baptism; and who considered infants better qualified for baptism than for the Supper.

_About A. D. 980._--_Bapt. Hist., pages 578, 579._ Vicecomes quotes from Simon Metaphrastes, _lib. 1, cap. 5_, the following occurrence: “That Theridates, with his wife and the chief persons of the land were baptized in the river Euphrates.”

_Page 580._ “Greg. Martyr enjoined upon Theridates and those who desired to be baptized, a fast of thirty days, then instructed them one after another, and thereupon baptized them in the Euphrates.” From _Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 6_.

D. Vicecomes (_lib. 1, cap. 14_), relates how Namesius, came to the water, towards evening, descended into it, and was baptized, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. From _Metaphr., in vita Steph._

In _lib. 3, cap. 3_, he writes, how Olympius, with his wife, Exuperia, and his only son, Theodulus, in the night came to Sympronius, fell down at his feet, and said: “We have recently learned to know the power of Christ, that he is truly God. We therefore pray thee, to see that we receive baptism, in the name of Christ, whom thou preachest.” Sympronius answered them: “If you repent with your whole heart, God will be so gracious as to receive you as penitents.” Then said Olympius: “This we will immediately do.” From _Metaphr., in vita Steph. B. H., page 579, num. 10_.

_Page 580, num. 14._ “This same Olympius, when he desired to become a Christian, was bidden to break the idols with his own hands, to melt the gold and silver of which they were made, with fire, and to gather the poor, and distribute it among them. This, the writer says, Olympius faithfully did.” _D. Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 13._

NOTE.--Page 851, it is related of Placidus, his wife Trajana, and his two sons, how they went to the teacher, etc.; and how the latter instructed and eventually baptized them; changed their names; administered the Supper to them; wished everything good to them, and said: “Depart! the true peace of Christ go with you.” From _Metaphr._, according to _Vicecom., lib. 5, cap. 45_.

Still other similar examples, which it would take too long to recount, are adduced in said place, and elsewhere, in the History of Baptism. The persons mentioned in all these examples, those who were baptized as well as those who baptized, we pass by without commenting on them; our object here being simply to show that said Simon Metaphrastes, who is stated to have lived and written about this time, described the foregoing matters as good and praiseworthy examples of the believing, baptized Christians, and left them to posterity, for instruction.

_About A. D. 1000._--Or at the close of the tenth century, there is noticed in Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism, Fulbertus Carnotanses, who compares the descending in baptism to the burying of Christ in the earth, and the arising from baptism to the resurrection of Christ from the grave, or, properly speaking, to the awakening of Christ to life.[148]

[148] What Fulbertus says, in this comparison, of baptism, is, as
far as the sense is concerned, identical with that which Paul, Rom.
6:4, declares of the baptism of believers, saying: “Therefore we are
buried with him by baptism unto 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.”

His own words can be found, translated into German, _page 581_, from _Fulbert. Carnot._ in _Epist. ad Adcodatum_. Herewith we conclude our account of baptism in the tenth century, and proceed to the pious martyrs who suffered in those days for the name of Jesus Christ.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE TENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS WHO SUFFERED IN THE TENTH CENTURY.

[About the year 910, we again refer to Giselbert (see our Account of Holy Baptism), who teaches, as it were, for the consolation of the martyrs who could not receive water baptism, that it is in God’s power to show mercy to them on account of their good will.

Lamentable persecution of the Christians in the region of Cordova, by the Arabians, instituted by their King Habdarrhaghman, A. D. 923.

Eugenia, an upright Christian woman, beheaded for the testimony of Jesus Christ, near Cordova, in said year, 923.

Pelagius, a lad of thirteen years, beheaded after his arms and legs were cut off, on account of the true Christian faith, at Cordova, A. D. 925.

An extract from the account of P. J. Twisck, touching the martyrdom of the youth Pelagius.

Note containing further explanation respecting the confession of faith of Eugenia and Pelagius.

Of the cruel persecution instituted by the Danish King Worm against the Christian believers, A. D. 926.

A note containing further explanatory remarks concerning the last-mentioned persecution, and that other similar persecutions are to be understood and explained in the same manner.

A deplorable persecution of the Christians, caused by Udo, the Sclavonian prince, A. D. 950.

Marginal note, of the terrible pillage and burning perpetrated by the Saracens among the Christians in Syria, A. D. 964.

Circumstantial account of the severe persecution of Christians by the Vandals, in the borders of Hamburg, Brandenburg, Havelburg, and the adjacent countries, A. D. 984.

Marginal note, how, seven years afterwards, namely, A. D. 991, the Normans came from Denmark into Germany, and there, for about forty years, greatly vexed the Christians; and that the Arabians, from A. D. 622 to 1300, committed much mischief in nearly every country of Europe, or Christendom.]

ABOUT THE YEAR, A. D. 910.

In our account of holy baptism for A. D. 910, we introduced the very learned, but, by his adversaries, much accused, Giselbert, who, through the exigency of that time, had to live under the Roman church, though he decidedly opposed her superstitions, especially in the matter of baptism. He taught concerning holy baptism as connected with regeneration and a good will. He also added, for explanation (on John 3:5): “If any one (through obstacles, or otherwise) cannot receive external baptism, it is in God’s power to graciously accept his good will.” _Ex. Cent Magd. 10, cap. 4. Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 567._

Hence, when Giselbert here consoles, in some measure, those who, from necessity, had to remain without baptism, with the mercifulness of God, who has it in his power to show mercy, even in the absence of baptism, to those who are of a good will, it seems that at that time there must have been an oppression or persecution of the Christian believers; for at such times it frequently happens that there are people of a good will, namely, who desire to be baptized upon the true faith on Jesus Christ, but who nevertheless, on account of the persecution, and the dispersion of the churches and their teachers, cannot attain to it, as we have shown by living examples, in different places of our account of the martyrs.

Thus, when people who had not been baptized, yet had a desire to be baptized, were apprehended and put in bonds for the testimony of the Lord, it was frequently seen, that they could not obtain complete peace in their hearts, though they firmly believed in the Lord, and had resolved to give expression to, and confirm, such faith not only by words, but also in deed, yea, with their blood and steadfast death. On these occasions, or against these emergencies, the pious and soul-seeking teachers often consoled such people, strengthened their hearts, and caused them to hope instead of despair; since God has it in his power, to show mercy to, yea, to save, such, even without baptism, for the sake of their good will or intention, if it has not been neglected on purpose and presumptuously.

This the above mentioned Giselbert taught, and thus he consoled the well-disposed unbaptized; hence, our foregoing conclusion may be regarded as true, namely, that there was, at that time, a persecution on account of the word of the Lord, which made it necessary to add said consolation for the aforementioned persons. But as this is based merely on a probable conjecture, since it is not expressed in clear words, we will leave it, and give an account of a certain persecution which, about thirteen years after this, was raised by the Arabians against the Christians, and ended after much misery and distress.

A LAMENTABLE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE REGION OF CORDOVA, BY THE ARABIANS, INSTITUTED BY THEIR KING HABDARRHAGHMAN, A. D. 923.

_A. D. 923_, a terrible persecution was raised by the Arabians against the Christian believers, in the region of Cordova. This occurred mainly through the wickedness of the Arabian King Habdarrhaghman IV., who allowed himself to be called protector of the law of God, and king of the believers; but, being filled with bitter hatred against the true law of Jesus Christ, and, consequently, also against the true Christian believers, he considered and declared all Christians unbelievers and despisers of the law of God. But he did not stop at this, but raged against them in an awful manner, yea, persecuted them with fire and sword. One thing, however, in connection with this grieves us to the very heart, namely, that the records of the pious witnesses of Jesus Christ who were killed by him, have all been lost, except of two, namely, Eugenia and a youth of thirteen years; of whom we shall give an account presently. Touching said persecution; compare _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 312, col. 2_, with _Ruderic., Archiep. Tolet., and Alii. Rer., Hisp. Script._

EUGENIA, AN UPRIGHT CHRISTIAN WOMAN, BEHEADED FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, NEAR THE CITY OF CORDOVA, A. D. 923.

It is recorded that A. D. 923, an upright Christian woman, called Eugenia, was apprehended in the aforementioned persecution, and, remaining steadfast in the confession of the faith in the Son of God, was beheaded, on the sixteenth of March, A. D. 923, through the tyrant and persecutor Habdarraghman.

It is stated that in digging the foundation of some building, in a village called Marmolejos, near Cordova, where she was martyred, an epitaph was found, the first letters of each line of which spelled her name: _Eugenia Martyr_, that is, Eugenia the Witness (namely, of Jesus), as a token that she had died for the testimony of Jesus her Savior. There could be gathered from it, further, the time when this took place, as well as the manner in which she was put to death, namely, that she was beheaded with the sword, at the time indicated above.[149]

[149] For further comments respecting Eugenia’s confession of faith,
see the explanation which we shall append to the account of the death
of Pelagius.

PELAGIUS, A LAD OF THIRTEEN YEARS, AFTER MUCH SUFFERING FOR THE TRUE CHRISTIAN FAITH, AT CORDOVA, HAS HIS ARMS AND LEGS CUT OFF, AND IS FINALLY BEHEADED, A. D. 925.

It is stated that about two years after, namely, A. D. 925, a lad of thirteen years, called Pelagius, was put to death for the name of Christ, in Cordova, which occurred as follows: His uncle, Ermoigus (who by some writers is called a bishop), having been apprehended and imprisoned at Cordova, by the Arabian King Habdarrhaghman, said Ermoigus, in order to be released, left his nephew, who was then only about thirteen years old, in his stead, as a pledge, which for more than three years was not redeemed, either through the neglect of his friends, or because the King would not let go the youth, who was now very comely and well-mannered.

In the mean time, this lad exercised himself diligently in the Christian religion, to prepare himself for his martyrdom, which seemed to him to be drawing near. When he was about thirteen and a half years old, he was brought before the King, and, standing there, immediately began to confess his faith, declaring that he was ready to die for it.[150] But the King, having in view something else than to hear the confession of the Son of God, or of the Christian faith, proposed to the youth, who was quite innocent in evil, some improper things, which this hero of Christ valiantly and in a Christian manner refused, willing rather, to die an honorable death for the name of Christ, than to live shamefully with the devil, and pollute both soul and body with such an abominable sin. The King, hoping that he could yet be persuaded, commanded his servants to ply him with fair promises, to the effect, that, if he would apostatize, he should be brought up with royal splendor at the court of the King. But the Lord, in whom he trusted, strengthened him against all the allurements of this world, so that he said: “I am a Christian, and will remain a Christian, and obey only Christ’s commands all the days of my life.”

[150] _To die for the name of Christ_, our author says.

The King, seeing that he remained steadfast, was filled with rage, and commanded his guards to take him, suspend him by iron tongs, and pinch him and haul him up and down until he should either die or renounce Christ as his Lord. But having undergone all this, he was as fearless as ever, and refused not to suffer still more tortures, even unto death.

When the tyrant perceived the immovable steadfastness of this youth, he commanded that they should cut him limb from limb, and throw the pieces into the river. As he thus stood before the King, dripping with blood, from his previous tortures, he prayed to none than to Jesus Christ our Lord, saying: “O Lord, deliver me out of the hands of my enemies.” When he lifted up his hands to God [in prayer], the executioners pulled them apart and cut off first one arm, and then the other; thus also his legs, and, lastly, his head. When this was done, the pieces were thrown into the river.

Thus this young hero and pious witness of Jesus Christ ended his life, on the 29th of June, A. D. 925, his martyrdom having lasted from seven o’clock in the morning until evening. See the first mentioned writer, who has given the account of the Arabian persecution, on the page referred to, third column, compared with _Raguele in Append., ab Eulog., super Pelagium_.

EXTRACT FROM THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK, TOUCHING THE MARTYRDOM OF THE YOUTH PELAGIUS.

“When Habdarrhaghman, the King of the Arabians, had, from bishop Ermoigus, his nephew Pelagius, as a pledge or hostage, the tyrant tore him with red-hot tongs; and, having been torn limb from limb, he was thrown into the nearest river, when he was scarcely thirteen years old.” _Chron., 10th book, fol. 329, col. 1_, from _Merulae., fol. 621_.

NOTE.--Neither of Eugenia nor of the youth Pelagius have we been able (as in the case of other martyrs before these), to ascertain the particulars of their confession of faith, though we have exerted ourselves not a little in this direction. It is almost as if the records which no doubt treated more fully of it, were buried in the earth, like the epitaph of Eugenia. O, that this were certain, and that the spot were known--without contradiction, no pains would be spared to obtain them, if it were possible; since thereby, according to our opinion, the bright light of evangelical truth would come to light pure and clear in many points; whereas now, others, especially those of the Roman church, have, whenever it has pleased them, dimmed and perceptibly obscured, with the smoke of their human inventions, the blessed confessors of Jesus Christ and their confessions.

But what do our lamentations avail? We must content ourselves with what has remained. It may be that said particular confessions, together with the records of the suffering and death of many other martyrs (of which we spoke in the beginning) were lost through the violence of the persecution, or perished in some other way.

This persecution has not been so fortunate an one for the searchers of ancient memoirs, as some of the preceding ones of which we know; for these other persecutions already spoken of, however severe and fierce they may have been, besides giving clearer light as regards the confessions, have through the carefulness of some writers, generally furnished and left for remembrance, a respectable number of martyrs either mentioned or unmentioned; while this persecution, although very many were slain in it, tells us of but two persons.

But though we, unable to obtain more, must content ourselves with the bare circumstances, still the aforementioned martyrs, Eugenia and Pelagius, shall not be esteemed the less by us; yet not, that we would regard them without fault in all points, for who on earth is perfect? but we hold that they were free from such blemishes as separate one from Christ or deprive him of the name of a true martyr, though he might suffer for his faith’s sake. The uprightness of said persons, in faith as well as in life, may readily be inferred from the circumstances mentioned in the account of the ancients, which, though brief and few, nevertheless indicate these things.

What the faith of Eugenia and Pelagius was, appears from their confessions. Eugenia is for this reason called _martyr_, which signifies according to the Greek language, _the witness_; by which name, even in and about the time of the apostles, those were wont to be called, who had laid down their lives, or, at least, had suffered much, for the pure and genuine testimony of Jesus their Savior.

Of the youth Pelagius, the authors write that he confessed his faith and declared that he was ready to die (upon said faith) for the name of Christ. Also, that in his suffering he called upon no other than his Lord Jesus Christ, saying: “O Lord, deliver me out of the hands of my enemies.”

Concerning the life of both of these martyrs, it appears to have been upright in every respect, as regards the grand resolution which each severally had--not only to confess the Lord with the mouth, and to follow him with works in the regeneration, but also to honor and magnify his holy name, by offering up their lives through a violent death; as well as that they not only had resolved and determined to do this, but also actually fulfilled their resolution, which is the most important of all.

From the accounts given we have learned that Pelagius said: “I am a Christian, and will remain a Christian, and obey only the commandments of Christ all the days of my life.” He desired to obey only the commands of his Savior, and not human inventions, and this, to the end of his life; which he also did, according to his ability. Moreover, we have not found anything, either of Eugenia or of Pelagius, in authentic writers, which conflicts with the above good testimony respecting the faith and life of said two persons; nor of priestcraft, nor of papal or episcopal inventions, nor of Roman factitious practices, although these things were much in vogue at that time. With this, we think to have treated the matter sufficiently, and hence we will leave it and proceed in our account.

A CRUEL PERSECUTION, INSTITUTED BY THE DANISH KING WORM AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS, A. D. 926.

It is recorded that A. D. 926, there appeared, from another quarter than the one of which we have spoken, namely, from Denmark, a cruel tyrant who was King of said country, and whose name accorded well with his deeds. His name was Worm, and whatever he did was gnawing, biting, and devouring, so that he inflicted much vexation, misery and grief upon the followers of the Christian faith, in persecuting, tormenting, and, as appears, killing and destroying them.

Of this tyrant, P. J. Twisck makes mention with these words: “At this time, there was in Denmark, King Worm, a cruel tyrant and persecutor of the Christian faith.” _Chron., fol. 329, col. 1_. from _Leonh., lib. 4, fol. 190_.

NOTE.--King Worm was not the first tyrant that had arisen in Denmark, seeing we spoke in the preceding century of the tyranny which the Danes then practiced against the Christian believers. Just before the account of this Danish persecution we lamented, and this, for good reasons, that not more than two martyrs are mentioned in the whole persecution; and but very little of their confessions, except the circumstances. But here we have still more reason for regret, since not a single person is mentioned of all those who were persecuted and martyred, though their number, it seems, was very great. Moreover, their confession of faith, upon which, nevertheless many, to all appearance, suffered and were martyred or put to death, is not mentioned at all. Still, this matter, is not utterly devoid of light or information, seeing it is stated of the tyrant who instituted said persecution, that he was a persecutor of the Christian faith.

Whether, then, he persecuted all who bore the name of Christians, or only the Christian believers (who seem to have been had in view here), it is evident, that the true and sincere believers, who, having no settled place of abode, being scattered throughout the world, did not escape; for they necessarily often had to live among the nominal, yea, among the wicked Christians, with whom they frequently, when distress arose, had to suffer, though not for the same reason. I will not speak of the fact that the wicked Christians themselves, whenever it pleased them, persecuted the faithful and good Christians exceedingly, and, after many torments, put them to death in a worse manner than the heathen did; so that, to all appearance, said tyrant, when he persecuted the Christian believers, or, as our author says, the _Christian faith_, he puts to death not a few, or, at least here, and there some, of the orthodox and true Christians, on account of their faith; besides what they often had to suffer from others.

Here we will let the matter rest, and will take a similar view, and judge in like manner, according to the nature and rule of divine love, also of other persecutions of the Christian believers, of which we may subsequently speak; taking care, however, not to present persecutions concerning which there may be evidence that those persecuted were not faithful and sincere, but merely apparent or professed Christians; for the former, we shall search, but the latter we shall avoid. We shall now proceed in our task.

A MISERABLE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, CAUSED BY UDO, THE PRINCE OF THE SLAVES (SLAVONIANS), A. D. 950.

About twenty-four years after the beginning of the aforementioned persecution, instituted by the Danish King, a very dark cloud arose over the Christian believers, from Slavonia, which threatened a heavy rain or outpouring of the blood of the innocent and defenseless Christians. For, one Udo, Prince of the Slaves, manifested himself very cruelly against the Christian believers, and proved to be a great tyrant over them. But he finally received his reward from one of his own stamp, though a Saxon, who took his life. Concerning this, we read in _Chron. van den Onderg., page 334, col. 2_, the following words (except the parenthesis): “Udo, the Prince of the Slaves, an atrocious persecutor of the Christians, and a great tyrant (who lived at this time), was thrust through by a Saxon.” From _Hist. Andr., fol. 182_.

Compare this account with the explanation contained in the note on the persecution of A. D. 926; as the circumstances of the persecution of A. D. 950 must be explained in the same manner.

NOTE.--A. D. 964, fourteen years after the last persecution, the Christians in Syria had to suffer much; yet not so much on their bodies as in their property. This was done through the violent pillage and burning perpetrated by the Saracens, of which I have found this account, among others: “A. D. 964, in the reign of this Emperor (namely, N. Phocas, the fifty-seventh who reigned in the Orient, at Constantinople), the Saracens did great damage to the Christians in Syria, by robbing and burning.” See _P. J. Twisck, page 340, col. 1_, from _Chron. Melancth., lib. 4_. Who shall say that this was not brought upon them on account of the confession of the Christian faith? or that among said people there were not some faithful and sincere Christians, who suffered for living according to their true faith? This could hardly be said, much less proved, since the orthodox, though sometimes few in number, could be found in almost every country; however, since said matter is obscure, we will not enter further into it.

A SEVERE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, BY THE VANDALS, IN THE BORDERS OF HAMBURG, BRANDENBURG, HAVELBURG, AND THE ADJACENT COUNTRIES, A. D. 984.

In the time of Emperor Otho III., or A. D. 984, Mistavus, King of the Vandals, instituted (according to the testimony of the ancients) a severe persecution against the Christian believers, in the borders of Hamburg, Brandenburg, Havelburg, and the adjacent countries; we will say nothing of his tyranny at Altenburg, since this, as can be seen, was directed chiefly against the Romanists.

This persecution was caused by the hatred which the King of the Vandals held against Otho III., because the latter, having intended to give him his daughter in marriage, afterwards refused to do it, on account of the opposition of Theodoric, Margrave of Brandenburg, who said that he ought not to give such a noble maiden to a dog (so he called Mistavus, the King of the Vandals). Mistavus, enraged at this, resolved to revenge himself of it, yet not on those who had injured him, namely, Otho and Theodoric, who were the chiefs of said countries; but on their subjects, who were certainly quite innocent of that which their chiefs had done; but this is generally the case that subjects must suffer for the misdeeds of their rulers.

He then assailed those Christians who lived nearest, persecuting them in an atrocious manner, a grievous matter for human nature, but pleasant for the spirit, namely, of those who, through love, were inseparably united to their God and Savior, and, hence, could say with Paul: “Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Rom. 8:38,39.

Concerning the tyrant Mistavus, the author of their distress, it is stated that he raised a violent persecution, A. D. 984, against the Christians living in the countries lying nearest; also, that Hamburg, Brandenburg, and Havelburg, had their share of said persecution. Compare _P. J. Twisck, page 348, col. 2_, with the account of _Merula, fol. 649_, and _Georg. Hist., lib. 5_.

The reader, in order to understand aright our object in noting this persecution, will please read, and accept as explanatory of the last mentioned persecution, the different notes which we have placed throughout this century.

NOTE.--Seven years after the persecution which we have just related, namely A. D. 991, the Normans came from Denmark into Germany, where they began to greatly vex the Christians, which lasted about forty years, that is, for over thirty years after the close of this century. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 351, col. 1_, from _Chron. Avont, lib. 4_. _Vinc., fol. 502._ Moreover, that the Arabians (of whom we made mention in our account of the first open persecution in this century, for the year 923), not only at this time, but from A. D. 622 to 1300, like a swarm of destructive grasshoppers, overran nearly every country of the known world, to the great distress and misery of many Christian believers, can be read at large in the history of the Turks; of which brief mention is made in _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 312, col. 4_, and _fol. 313, col. 1_.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

[In the beginning of the eleventh century, the celebrated Anselm is introduced, who declares that baptism is the “fulfilling of all righteousness;” that the baptism of Christ is a “washing of water in the word;” that every one, in his day, was baptized in the name and the faith of God; that believers were then baptized upon, or in the name of Christ; that the adults had first to be instructed in the Christian doctrine; that after baptism one must not again lay the foundation of repentance from dead works, Heb. 6:1–3; that believers are brought into the church of Christ (understand, through baptism); that the twelve Ephesian men (Acts 19) were rebaptized by Paul.

Algerus speaks of the power and operation of God in baptism; also, that the lasciviousness of the flesh is quenched or washed off in or through baptism.

Buchard of Worms gives an excellent explanation touching baptism, saying that the examinations in the faith were for the purpose of ascertaining whether the holy words of the faith confessed, were rooted deeply in the heart of the candidate, and whether he intended to continue steadfastly in the faith.

Lanfrancus opposed infant baptism.

The testimony of Bruno and Berengarius against infant baptism as well as against transubstantiation is presented and amply commented on; the time when they began their doctrine, and when they finished the same; also their death.

A certain book of ceremonies by the ancient Beroldus is introduced; what we read in it concerning baptism: namely, of the first address made to the novices at baptism, the way of wisdom and faith, being presented to them.

An account of Ado Trevirensis, and to what he admonished the candidates of his time; also, how he baptized the believing woman Syranna and her son, after previous instruction.

The last witness adduced about baptism is Juo of Carnuto, who, besides various other matters, makes this salutary and true declaration with regard to baptism: “That the novices would confess the creed before baptism; that they were then, while answering, washed from the old wickedness; that their baptism took place on the holy Easter Sabbath, and that they were first instructed; that those who desired baptism had to throw off, by prayers, the yoke of the devil; that they were asked: Do you believe on God,” etc. Thereupon it is noted what said passages of Juo indicate. Finally it is shown that he also opposed monachism, discrimination as regards food. Conclusion.]

* * * * *

The thousandth year is finished; we have come to the years that follow it; which time is called the eleventh century. We will wander through it in our thoughts, and investigate how it then stood with the true church of God, whether the ordinances of Christ, especially in the matter of baptism; and its requirements, were rightly observed. In order to begin and finish this aright, we will turn to some of the ancient authors who wrote about the condition of said matters, at that time, or, at least, who subsequently made mention of what then occurred with regard to religion.

_About A. D. 1010_, or, as Jacob Mehrning puts it, “In the beginning of the eleventh century,” there manifested himself, by various writings, the celebrated and almost universally known Anselm, who, having at one time, it seems, advocated infant baptism, with divers forcible, yet human arguments, now and also subsequently showed, that the opposite belief had taken root in him; concerning which, it is stated, that there have remained even to the present day, several excellent things, which cannot well be reconciled with infant baptism, yea, which, when viewed with spiritual eyes, militate against it. Of these we will present a few as examples, confident that, if you judge impartially, you will concur with us, or, at least, assent to it.[151]

[151] With regard to what is attributed to Anselm, concerning the
suspicion in reference to infant baptism, namely, that he (on Eph.
4 and Hebr. 10.) agreed with Meginhard (_de Fide at Gunth._), we
let those say, who can show more evidence of it, than we have yet
met with. In the mean time, we have weighty reasons, which induce
us to show the contrary concerning him. The same is true also with
regard to what he is said to have written, touching said doctrine,
on Matt. 15; 1 Cor. 7, and in _Concordia Gratia, and lib. Arbitrii_,
etc.; which things as well as the above, we leave without comment,
reserving our explanation of them to ourselves.

_In Bapt. Hist., page 582_, from _Cent. Magd. XI., cap. 4_, of baptism, Anselm teaches on Matt. 3, that baptism is necessary, and says: “Baptism is a fulfilling of all righteousness; a man may be never so righteous, pious, benevolent, abstemious, and chaste, yet, it avails him nothing, if he lacks the grace of holy baptism.”

It is evident that Anselm has regard here to what Jesus Christ our Savior said to John, when the latter refused to baptize him with water. “Suffer it to be so now,” the Lord said, “for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness,” Matt. 3:15; which took place, according to Luke 3:23, when Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, and the people, who came from Jerusalem, were baptized by John in Jordan.

It having been observed then that Anselm has regard to the baptism of Christ, and that Christ calls it the fulfilling of all righteousness, it is manifest, that he does not speak of infant baptism here, since in the same no righteousness at all, much less, all righteousness, can be fulfilled; which is the more obvious, when he says, in the same place, that however righteous, pious, benevolent, abstemious and chaste one might be, it would avail him nothing, if he lacked the grace of holy baptism: for, righteousness, piety, etc., are not exercises or works of infants, but only of intelligent, yea, of devout persons.

_On the same page_, Anselm, on Ephes. 5, says: “The baptism of Christ is a washing of water in the word; if you take away the water, it is no baptism; if you take away the word, it is likewise no baptism.”

What else is indicated thereby, than that the word of God cannot be separated from baptism? which word of God, in baptism, does not consist simply in this, that a few words of holy Scripture are pronounced in or over baptism, or over those who are baptized; but that the word of faith is preached to the candidates, before and at baptism. Mark 16:15,16; Rom. 10:8.

_On page 583, num. 6_, Anselm (_Enarrat. in Evang._) says: “That the Father was heard in a voice; that the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove; and that the Son, in his humanity, was baptized; this clearly indicates the Holy Trinity, in whose name and in the belief of which, every one of us is baptized.”

Here he again has reference to the baptism of Christ, concerning which the holy evangelists state, that, when he, being about thirty years of age, was baptized, the heavens were opened above him; that the Holy Ghost descended like a dove upon him; and that a voice came from heaven (or, from God, his heavenly Father) saying: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matt. 3:16,17; Mark 1:10,11; Luke 3:22.

All this, as has been stated above, can serve only as a type of the baptism of the adult, intelligent, and believing followers of Christ; which Anselm plainly indicates, when he says: “In whose name and in the belief of which, every one of us is baptized.” Notice, when he says, “Every one of us,” etc., he indicates each severally and all in general, namely, all who belodged as members to the church of Christ; so that, according to the language employed by him, each and all among them were baptized, not only in the name of the Holy Trinity, but also in or upon the belief of the same.

_On page 585_, Anselm, on Rom. 6, says: “We are baptized into the death of Christ, that we, believing in his death, and following it, may live as those who are dead; but since we, through baptism, are dead to sin, we must not again live unto sin, so that it is necessary again to die unto it; for, we are baptized into the death, that is, in the likeness of the death, of Christ; that, as he once died, and ever lives, even so we, having once died to evil, should ever live to the good; and, as a dead person can sin no more; thus also we, if we have died with Christ, shall not let ourselves be entangled again in mortal sins.”

The sense of the words of Anselm is this: that we must be careful, not to live in sin again after baptism, since the former sins, in which we lived, have died through baptism, and have been laid in the grave as it were, through the death of Christ. Hence, said words can only be applied to the baptism of the believing and penitent, but in no wise to the baptism of infants; because it is certain that the things indicated as requisite for baptism cannot exist in infants. For, how can baptism be, in infants, a dying of their former sins, when they have never lived in sin? How can they have their sins buried, through baptism, into the death of Christ, who never could nor need die unto sin?

Thus, Anselm, in the aforementioned passage, speaks only of the baptism of the adult, intelligent, and penitent Christians, who, having died unto their former sins, had them buried through baptism into the death of Christ, to rise to a new life.

_Page 588, num. 6_, Anselm writes on Matt. 3: “The adults had first to be instructed in the Christian doctrine.” S. Clement and others imposed upon those who had lived in wickedness, and, becoming converted, desired to be baptized, a fast of seven days, and sometimes more, as a preparation; moreover, a considerable time, before baptism was also prescribed to the catechumens who were to be baptized.

N. B. “Thus,” says the writer who has noted this, “the light of the testimony of the truth shines forth brightly in the midst of the darkness of popery.”

We will not enlarge on what the writer has added here, but turn to words of Anselm, which we cannot view without plainly seeing that he treats of the baptism of the believing and penitent; for, when he speaks of the adults; of those who were first instructed in the Christian doctrine; of those who, having lived in wickedness, becoming converted; of those who desired to be baptized; of the seven days’ fast imposed upon them; of the considerable time prescribed the catechumens who were to be baptized, etc., it is clearly expressed thereby, that the baptism of which he here speaks, is far different from the baptism of infants, since these things can in no wise be said of them.

_On page 593, num. 5_, D. Vicecomes quotes, _lib. 2, cap. 4_, the following language of Anselm on the words of Paul, Heb. 6:1–3: “We will not lay again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of baptism, of doctrine, etc., that is, the doctrine which was delivered to you in the beginning.”

He explains the words of the apostle (Heb. 6:1–3), which, as every one knows, were written to the believing Hebrew brethren, who, having accepted Christ at the beginning of their faith, had had the same sealed through baptism. They are here exhorted to constancy in the faith accepted, and that they should not return to the principles of the Christian religion, upon which they had been baptized, but must go on to the perfection of the same. This is what Anselm, from said words, sought to impress, in his time, upon his fellow-believers in the faith, to the end, that they might observe their baptism and the confession of the same, to the honor of God, the edification of their neighbor, and the salvation of their own souls.

_On same page_, Vicecomes, _lib. 5, cap. 35_, Anselm, on Luke 2, says: “Even as Jesus, after the purification, was brought into the temple, so those who become believers, are brought into the church of Christ.”

When he speaks of those who, becoming believers, are brought into the church of Christ, he has respect to such as, having been baptized upon faith, are through this means, recognized and received as members in the Christian church; for this is the purpose for which this passage of Anselm is adduced in _Bapt. Hist._

As to the twelve Ephesian men, of whom we read, Acts 19:1–5, who had been baptized with the baptism of John, he asserts in his explanation on Matt. 3, that they were re-baptized by Paul, assigning as a reason of this, that the baptism of John could not properly give remission of sins, because the blood of Christ which blots out sin, had not then been shed; again, because John, who was a forerunner of Christ’s preaching, was also (according to his explanation) a forerunner of baptism.

_About A. D. 1024_, close to, or a little after, the time of Anselm, a place is given to one Algerus, who, though writing somewhat obscurely on baptism, gives so much light on the subject, that an impartial Christian heart can readily decide from it, that, in said matter, he followed the evangelical truth, according to the doctrine of Christ and the practice of his apostles; in proof of which we will present a few examples.

_In Bapt. Hist, page 583._--Algerus says (_lib. 3, de Euchar. cap. 3_): “Who can regenerate a child of the devil to a child of God, except God the Father? Who can justify sinners, except he who died for our sins? And, since every thing which is done in baptism, is spiritual, who can perform it, except the Holy Ghost?”

He tells in the above place, whence baptism has its power, and whence its operations chiefly proceed; and, certainly, he does not seek, find, or show it in the water, as is done by many who, at the present day, baptize infants, especially by the Romanists; but he seeks, finds, and shows it in the operation of God the Lord, whom he calls by the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. To God the Father he ascribes, that he regenerates the candidate from a child of the devil to a child of God. Of the Son he states, that he, having died for our sins, justifies sinners when they are baptized. Of the Holy Ghost he says, that, since all that is done in baptism, is spiritual, so all that is effected in baptism, is spiritually performed by the Holy Ghost. Now, let every one judge, without prejudice, whether such operations can have place in infants, or in adults (when they are baptized); and we are confident that the instant reply will be, that not the former, but the latter, is conformable to the truth.

_Page 585, num. 9._ Of the power and benefit of baptism, Algerus says (_lib. 3, de Euchar., cap. 4_,): “In order that the grace of God may abound over us, it has reference, in the sacramental form (namely, of baptism) not so much to worthiness and respectability, as to their equal fitness; for, as water quenches, cleanses and purifies, better than all other liquids, even so baptism quenches the lasciviousness of the flesh, and washes off the impurity of sin, of actual sins as well as,” etc.

Here, again, several things are mentioned, which are not applicable to infant baptism, but speak sufficiently against it. For, in the first place, when it is here said of the grace of God, that it has reference, in the sacramental form (namely, of baptism) not so much to the worthiness or respectability, namely, of the persons to whom the sacramental form, or baptism, may be administered, as to their equal fitness; there is certainly indicated, in the candidates, some fitness to which the grace of God has regard; but what fitness can there be in the candidates, to which the grace of God may have regard, if it is not faith in Jesus Christ, true repentance, obedience to God’s commandments, and such like things as are requisite to baptism?

In the second place, when it is averred in said passage, “that baptism quenches the lasciviousness of the flesh, and washes off the impurity of sin, of actual sin as well as,” etc., it is evident, again, that he treats of such a baptism and of such candidates, wherein lasciviousness of the flesh, impurity of sin, yea, actual sins, etc., can be washed off; for, otherwise he would contradict himself. But what kind of persons these are, in whom such sins can have place, and who need to be washed from them, whether infants or adult persons are meant thereby, the intelligent may judge.

_About A. D. 1042._--Or almost in the middle of the eleventh century, Buchard of Worms (in Germany) flourished, who makes mention, among other things, of the examinations in the faith, to which it was customary, either in his time or before, to subject the candidates, at baptism. Concerning this, D. Vicecomes (_lib. 2, cap. 28_), in his allegations respecting baptism in the eleventh century, gives the following account, which is also found in _Bapt. Hist., page 592, num. 1_: “Buchard of Worms (_lib. 6, de Sacram. Eccles._) says: ‘The examinations are for the purpose of ascertaining whether he (the candidate), after renouncing Satan, has the holy words of the faith confessed, deeply rooted in his heart, and intends to continue steadfastly in the faith.’”

This is certainly plain language concerning baptism upon faith and the confession of the same, according to the institution of Christ, and the example of the apostles and the first apostolical church; hence we need add not a word of explanation, and will therefore proceed to others who, in or about that time, taught the same doctrine, and, as much as lay in their ability, confirmed it in their deeds.

_A. D. 1051._--This is the year in which the learned Lanfrancus, who also showed himself opposed to infant baptism, and dissuaded from it, is introduced by the writers. See _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 383, col. 1_, from _Guitmundus, and Sebastian Franck, fol. 58_.

_A. D. 1060._--Two eminent, learned, and well-meaning persons, who were greatly celebrated on account of their great learning and boldness, at this time displayed their greatest strength in rejecting infant baptism and other articles of the Roman church. One of these was Bruno, Bishop of Angiers in France; the other, Berengarius, his deacon. They had begun to teach said doctrine as early as the year 1035, and continued therein for many years, yea, Berengarius, besides the article against transubstantiation, maintained it, as the chronicles show, until the year 1079.

But, in order to sum up all this briefly, we will present what is recorded, concerning this matter, in the _Introduction to the Martyrs Mirror, page 48, col. 2_, we read: “In A. D. 1035, Berengarius, archdeacon of Angiers, in France, together with Bruno, the Bishop of said city, began to teach against transubstantiation and infant baptism. Their doctrine immediately spread throughout all France and Germany. Against it, Pope Leo IX. held, A. D. 1050, two Synods, one at Rome, the other at Versailles (_Baron., A. D. 1050, num. 1_), in which the doctrine of these two men was condemned.

Afterwards, when Berengarius did not cease to promulgate his doctrine, another synod was held, A. D. 1055, at Tours in France (_Baron., A. D. 1055, num. 4_), in which Berengarius feigned repentance; but as soon as Hildebrand, who afterwards became Pope, had gone away, he again maintained his doctrine.

“Afterwards, Pope Nicholas II. held a Synod (_Baron., A. D. 1059, num. 3, 4_), and summoned Berengarius before it, who, for the second time, either from fear or human weakness, pretended to recant, burning the writings of Johannes Scotus, from which he had derived his views respecting transubstantiation; but seeing immediately opportunity again, he returned to his old belief; and composed different writings concerning it, against which some others have written.

“Subsequently, Hildebrand, who had now become Pope, and was called Gregory VII., held a synod in Rome, A. D. 1079, where, as Baronius, who judges as a Romanist and papist, says, Berengarius, again renounced his doctrine. But how true this is, we leave to God.

“It is evident,” says the author to the _Introduction_, “that he maintained this doctrine for forty-four years, and filled Germany and France with it; from which it can be inferred, that the same, even as it had itself proceeded from previously existing writings, in its turn left many disciples.” _Introd., page 48, col. 2_, and _49, col. 1_.