The Bloody Theatre, or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians who baptized only upon confession of faith, and who suffered and died for the testimony of Jesus, their savior, from the time of Christ to the year A.D. 1660 (part 3 of 13)

The Bloody Theatre, or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians who baptized only upon confession of faith, and who suffered and died for the testimony of Jesus, their savior, from the time of Christ to the year A.D. 1660 (part 3 of 13)

When he had been imprisoned for some time, his son Origen, then but seventeen years old, sent him a very comforting letter, in which he exhorted him to constancy, writing, among other things: “Be strong in the Lord, my father, and endure valiantly the suffering which awaits thee. Let not regard for us induce thee to do otherwise.” He means to say: O father! do not grieve too much for thy wife, our dear mother, or for us, thy seven beloved children, of whom I am the oldest; or become so wavering, that through desire to usward thou shouldest forsake thy faithful God and Savior.” This was in brief the import of the letter which Origen wrote to his father. It acted as a healing medicine in the wounds of the sorrowful mind of his father, so that he resolved to patiently suffer death for the honor of his Savior. He was finally sentenced to be beheaded, and all his property was confiscated for the treasury of the Roman Empire. This happened in the time of Emperor Severus, about the year 201. Compare Euseb., lib. 6, cap. 2, with Abr. Mell., 1st book of the Hist., fol. 57, col. 1, ex Hieron. Catal. in Orig. Also, P. J. Twisck, Chron., 2d book, for the year 195, page 51, col. 2. Also, Introduction to the Martyrs Mirror, edition 1631, fol. 38, col. 2. Also, Joh. Gys. Hist. Mart., edition 1657, fol. 3.

FIVE OF THE DISCIPLES OF ORIGEN, NAMELY, PLUTARCH, HERACLIDES, HERO, AND TWO OTHER MEN, BOTH CALLED SERENUS, PUT TO DEATH FOR THE FAITH, AT ALEXANDRIA IN EGYPT, ABOUT THE YEAR 203.

At this time, Origen, though but eighteen years old, was a teacher of the faith, at Alexandria, in Egypt, where he taught with such excellence, not only to begin with Christ, but also to die with him, that many of his disciples laid down their lives for the truth of Christ. Among these are mentioned by name, Plutarch, Heraclides, Hero, and two other men, both called Serenus. Their suffering and death happened in this manner: Origen, the teacher of these pious people, was in the habit of going into the prison to the martyrs who suffered for the name of Jesus Christ, to strengthen them in the faith. Yea, even when they had already received their sentence of death, and were making their last defense, he stood by them, and, at parting, gave them the kiss of peace, as a token of his sincere love.

When Plutarch, his beloved disciple, was led forth to death, he, according to his custom, comforted him, for which the raging multitude would have killed him, had not divine Providence protected him. This having happened, Plutarch was put to death for the name of Jesus Christ, and died as a martyr.

After the death of Plutarch, the first of the two men named Serenus, was brought forth and burned. His faith, as is stated, was tried with fire, notwithstanding he was still a catechumen, that is, one who, though he had been instructed, had not yet received baptism.

The third of these martyrs is called Heraclides, and of him the same is stated that is recorded of Serenus, concerning his faith, namely, that he too was still under instruction, and had not yet been baptized, but was preparing for it. And thus he sealed his faith not with water, but with his blood. He was beheaded with the ax.

The fourth that was put to death for the same faith, was Hero, who is called a novice in the faith, that is one who had only lately accepted the faith with baptism. Having commended his soul into the hands of God, he was likewise beheaded with the ax.

Besides these four martyrs, there is mentioned a fifth, who was the second of the aforementioned men named Serenus. Refusing to apostatize, he, after many severe torments, was beheaded, like the lastmentioned two; and thus attained to a blessed end, together with his slain fellow-brethren. Compare Euseb., lib. 6, cap. 4, with Abr. Mell., 1st book, fol. 57, col. 2, 3. Also, Joh. Gys. Hist., fol. 18, col. 3, after Leonides, the father of Origen. Also, Introduction, fol. 39, col. 1, from Eusebius.

TWO FEMALE DISCIPLES OF ORIGEN, NAMELY, RHAIS AND MARCELLA, BURNED ALIVE AT ALEXANDRIA, FOR THE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, ABOUT THE YEAR 204.

Among the disciples of Origen, who became martyrs, there are also mentioned several women as faithful martyrs. However, we shall only refer to two of these, one called Rhais, the other Marcella, who suffered their faith and lives to be tried with fire, like gold that is refined.

Rhais was a catechumen, that is, one that was receiving instruction preparatory to baptism, and hence, had not yet sealed her faith with water; however, as Origen himself declares, she was baptized with fire, that is, burned alive.

Marcella was the mother of Potamiena (of whom the ancients speak in such commendatory terms, as having also laid down her life for the faith; but whom we pass over, on account of certain remarks which she addressed to Basilides, her executioner.) After insufferable and dreadful torments, she was burned by degrees, in great constancy, until she was reduced to ashes; and thus she exchanged this temporal for an eternal life. See the abovementioned authors, as compared with Mellinus, fol. 57, col. 4.

BASILIDES, WHO, FROM AN EXECUTIONER BECAME A CHRISTIAN, BEHEADED FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, AT ALEXANDRIA, ABOUT THE YEAR 204.

Not long after the death of Potamiena, who had died with the abovementioned Rhais and Marcella, one of the executioners, named Basilides, who had brought her to death, was converted to the faith in Christ. Eusebius writes: “Being among his companions, and an oath being demanded of him on some special matter, he said, that he dared not swear at all, because he was a Christian, and did openly confess it before them. When they heard this, they thought at first, that he was joking; but when he persistently asserted it, and showed that he was in earnest, he was seized and cast into prison. When some of the brethren came to visit him, and inquired how it happened that he had become changed so suddenly, he fully satisfied them in regard to the matter. Having heard this, they gave him the sign of the Lord, that is (as A. Mellinus explains it), he was baptized in the name of Christ. The following day he was beheaded for the confession of the Lord. Compare the preceding accounts concerning the disciples of Origen, with Eusebius, lib. 6, cap. 5, fol. 107, col. 1, 2. Also, A. Mellinus, 1st book, fol. 58, col. 1, 2. Also, P. J. Twisck, Chron., 3d book, for the year 204, fol. 55, col. 2, above. Also, Introduction M. Sp., fol. 39, col. 1.

IRENEUS, AN ANCIENT TEACHER, AFTER MANY TORMENTS, PUT TO DEATH FOR THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AT LYONS, IN FRANCE, ABOUT THE YEAR 210.

Ireneus, by descent an Asiatic, was born at Smyrna. In his youth he attended school, and was a disciple of Polycarp, who was appointed by the apostle John bishop of the church at Smyrna, and afterwards became a martyr, as we have already shown in the proper place. On account of his (Ireneus’) special fitness, he subsequently became bishop of the church at Lyons in France, in the place of Photinus. His erudition was so great, that Eusebius extols him more than any of the learned who lived before and in his time. Tertullian called him “the most remarkable investigator of all manner of learning.” Jerome said that he was “an apostolic man, who lived next to the time of the apostles.” Epiphanius gave him the title of a “holy and ancient divine,” yea, a “successor of the apostles.” In his ministry he was so faithful a servant in the house of the Lord, that he had the oversight not only of the church at Lyons, where he was bishop, and other churches in France, but even of some churches in Asia and Phrygia.

Concerning his death, the ancient historians have left us but little information of the time as well as of the manner of his martyrdom. We find, however, in regard to it the following words: “That, when the persecution of the Christians, under Severus, had been instituted in all the countries of the Romans, the city of Lyons, too, pursuant to the command of the Emperor, was surrounded with soldiers, and all the Christians in it put to death with the sword, or beheaded; but that Ireneus, the shepherd of them all, was sought with special diligence, and, when found, was put to death with manifold tortures, and was buried by Zacharia, his elder.” Ex actis Procons. Perditis hoc Tantum extat. Adr. Martyrol. 28 Jun. Abr. Mell., fol. 59, col. 3, and fol. 60, col. 1, ex Hieron. Catal. Iren. idem Hieron. epist. 84 ad Magnum, and 29 ad Theodorum Euseb., lib. 4, cap. 20. Tertull. lib. Contra Valentin., cap. 5. Hieron. epist. 29. ad Theodorum and in Catal. Epiph. Haer. 24 and 31. Also, Joh. Gys., 1657, fol. 18, col. 3, 4. Also, P. J. Twisck, 3d book, for the year 210, 28th June, p. 56, col. 1. He adds these words: “On the 28th of June, A. D. 210, in the fifth persecution, Bishop Irenus (he means to say: Ireneus) was put to death, together with many citizens, for the confession of Christ.”

He says of the Lord’s Supper: “There is something heavenly and something earthly; the earthly is bread, which is for the nourishment of the body, and points us to the heavenly, that is, Christ with his merits, which is the food of the soul.”

In the Revelation of John he writes that “antichrist will rise in the Latin, that is, the Roman church, and will be a Roman.” Also: “Antichrist, who is a thief and apostate, would be worshiped as God, and, though being but a servant, would be proclaimed king.” From Histor. Georg., lib. 2. Vinc. Cal., fol. 352. P. P. Cock, fol. 59.

HOW SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIAN, THROUGH A CERTAIN APOLOGY, DEFENDED THE CHRISTIANS, AND SOUGHT TO HAVE THEM SPARED, ABOUT THE YEAR 204.

When the persecution of the true Christians would not cease, but increased the longer the more, the pious man Septimius Florens Tertullian wrote an apology in defense of the Christians against the heathen, in which he refuted all the slanders with which they were assailed at that time; showing that they were innocent, and were persecuted--not on account of any evil deeds, as the heathen pretended, but simply on account of their name; and that nevertheless their religion was not weakened or injured by the bitterness of the persecution, but much rather helped and strengthened by it.

Among other things he writes: “We are increased, and grow, when we are mowed down by you. The blood of the Christians is the seed (of the church). For who is there among you who, seeing these things, is not constrained to examine what there may be inside of this matter? Who, having examined it, does not join them, and, having joined himself to them, does not wish to suffer with them?”

After this he said these words, or at least words to this import: “This sect (so he calls the Christians, according to the view of the heathen) will never perish or be extirpated; which, rest assured, when it seems to be cut down is built up. For every one, seeing their great patience, when they are beaten and goaded, is incited to inquire into the cause of this; and when he has come to the knowledge of the truth, he instantly follows.” Compare Joh. Gys., fol. 18, col. 4, ex Tertulliano, ad Scapulam. Also, P. J. Twisck, 2d book, for the year 200, page 53, col. 1, from Chronol. Leonh., lib. 1.

CESSATION OF THIS PERSECUTION, UNDER ANTONINUS CARACALLA AND SEPTIMUS GETA, THE SONS OF SEVERUS, ABOUT THE YEAR 213.

Septimus Severus having reigned eighteen years as Roman Emperor, his sons, Antoninus Caracalla and Septimus Geta, succeeded him as Emperors, about A. D. 213. These, although they were very unmerciful, cruel, and bloodthirsty, especially Caracalla, did not, to any extent, molest the Christians, so that during their reign very little, indeed, almost no blood of the Christians was shed in the countries over which their dominion extended; which continued until about the year 219. Some write that the cessation of the persecution continued for about thirty-eight years, during which time, however, Maximin the Giant greatly vexed many bishops, elders, and deacons, (that is, the overseers over some churches); but whether they were punished with death, will be shown in the proper place. However, it is stated, that this fifth persecution, which had just commenced, did not cease entirely, though it was a desirable time, as Tertullian writes, when compared with the preceding severe and very bloody persecutions. See A. Mell, 1st book, fol. 60, col. 1, as compared with Herod. Sever. Ejusd. Antonin., and Geta Spartian de Eisdem.

REINSTITUTION OF THIS PERSECUTION, UNDER ALEXANDER SEVERUS, THE SON OF ANTONINUS AND MAMMEA, ABOUT THE YEAR 223.

The followers of Jesus Christ having enjoyed some respite during this time and a few years previous, the envy and hatred of some against the Christians increased to such an extent that even Alexander Severus, who otherwise favored the Christians, yea, had built them a church, and, according to the manner of the heathen, had placed Christ among the number of the so-called gods, commenced a persecution against them, or at least continued the one begun under Septimus Severus. This was occasioned principally, as Lactantius Firmianus states, by some of the Roman jurists, who, through wrong interpretation of the laws, but especially through a deadly hatred against the Christians, incited and urged on the Emperor to persecute them.

Among those who instigated the Emperor, there is chiefly mentioned Ulpianus, who was not only a senator, but also a master of requests, and the Emperor’s tutor, so that the latter considered him as his Father; hence the accusations of Ulpianus against the Christians found the more easily a willing ear with the Emperor. Lactantius Firmianus calls this Ulpianus and his adherents murderers, because they made wicked laws against the godly. He says: “For we read of blasphemous laws and unjust disputes of the jurists against the Christians.”

Domitius, surnamed Ulpianus (mentioned above), in his seventh book of the office of the Governors of the Roman provinces, hunted out and collected the edicts and decrees of the princes, as of Nero, Domitian, Trajan, etc., in order to send therefrom instructions, how they should punish the Christians who served and confessed the true God. Thus far, Lactantius, according to the annotation of Mellinus, in the 1st book, fol. 61, col. 1, 2, ex Lamprid. Herodian, in Alex. Severo. Lactant. Firmian. Institute lib. 5, cap. 11, 12, 19. Also, in Corras., lib. 1, Missel., cap. 10, although D. P. Pers calls this Emperor a pious and excellent prince. Roomschen Adelaer, printed 1642, page 154, on the name Severus Alexander, A. D. 224. On the other hand P. J. Twisck states, that in the beginning of his reign he was not favorable to the Christians, so that, through misinformation, he caused some of them to be put to death for the name of Jesus Christ. Third book, for the year 223, page 60, col. 1, from Chron. Mich., fol. 141, Merula.

AGAPITUS, CALAPODIUS, TIBURTIUS, VALERIANUS, QUIRITIUS, JULIA, CECILIA, MARTINA, AND OTHERS, PUT TO DEATH FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, ABOUT THE YEAR 223.

It is stated that in the last persecution resumed under Alexandrinus Severus there were put to death among different other persons, for the name of Jesus Christ and the testimony of the evangelical truth, Agapitus, a youth of fifteen years; Calapodius, an elder (of whom P. J. Twisck writes, though two years earlier than J. Gysius, that he was apprehended for the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and, refusing to sacrifice to the heathen gods, was dragged with great ignominy through the city of Rome, and drowned in the Tiber. 3d book, page 59, col. 2, from Bergomens, lib. 8.); Tiburtius and Valerianus, two brothers were likewise put to death, as well as Quiritius and his mother Julia, and Cecilia and Martina, both of them virgins; all of whom were put to death for the name of Jesus Christ, either in the water, or in the fire, or by the sword, or in some other manner. See, Joh. Gys., fol. 19, col. 1.

HENRICUS, NARCISSUS, JULIUS, EUSEBIUS, AND OTHERS, PUT TO DEATH FOR THE FAITH, DURING THIS PERSECUTION.

Besides those whom we have mentioned as having been slain in the fifth persecution, Seb. Franck names several very virtuous believers who suffered and were deprived of life for the same cause, namely: Henricus, bishop of the church at Lyons; Narcissus, a patriarch at Jerusalem; Julius and Eusebius. Sebast. Fra. Keysers Chron. en Wereltlijke Hist. van Christi geboorte tot op Car. V., printed 1563, fol. 20, col. 2.

OF THE SIXTH PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, COMMENCED UNDER MAXIMIN, A. D. 237.

The sixth persecution of the Christians, writes J. Gysius, arose under the Emperor Maximin, a naturally cruel man, and was directed against persons of respectability (since he was of low origin), as well as against the Christians, but especially against the ministers of the word. Fortunately for the Christians, this persecution was brief, since he reigned but two years; and as he was a violent enemy of the ministers of the church, the persecution commenced on them, as the teachers and authors, it was said, of the Christian religion; for it was thought that if they were removed, the common people could easily be drawn away from it. Then, Origen, a teacher of the church, in order to exhort the Christians to steadfastness, wrote a book on martyrdom, dedicating it to Ambrose, overseer of the church at Milan, and Proctotus, learned men of that time. J. Gys., fol. 19, col. 1, 2, from Euseb., lib. 6, cap. 20, Oros. lib. 7, cap. 19.

Touching the cause of these persecutions, the author of the Introduction, etc., writes thus: The heathen had such a hatred for the Christians at that time, that, whenever an earthquake, a storm, or the like, occurred, they laid it to the charge of the Christians, saying that their gods were offended, because their honor was waning on account of the Christians; from which it is to be inferred that they treated the Christians in an awful manner. Fol. 39, col. 2, from Baronius, in Chron., A. D. 237, num. 3, and A. D. 256, num. 5.

SEVERAL THOUSAND PERSONS BURNED IN THEIR MEETING-PLACES FOR THE EVANGELICAL TRUTH, ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, BY THE COMMAND OF MAXIMIN, ABOUT THE YEAR 237.

In the new Keysers Chronijk there is related a cruel and iniquitous deed perpetrated by Emperor Maximin on the Christians. The author says: The Christians were assembled in their churches or meeting-places, praising their Savior, when the Emperor sent forth his soldiers, and had all the churches or meeting-places locked up, and then wood placed around them and set on fire, in order to burn all the Christians within. But before the wood was ignited, he caused it to be proclaimed, that whoever would come out and sacrifice to the god Jupiter, should be secure of his life, and, moreover, be rewarded by the Emperor. They replied that they knew nothing of Jupiter; that Christ was their Lord and God, by the honor of his name, and calling upon the same they would live and die. It is to be regarded as a special miracle, that among so many thousand Christians there was not found one who desired to go out, in order to save his life by denying Christ; for all remained together with one accord, singing, and praising Christ, as long as the smoke and vapor permitted them to use their tongues. P. J. Twisck, 3d book, page 64, col. 1, from Chron. Mich. Sach., fol. 146, Niceph., lib. 7, cap. 6. Hist. Mandri, fol. 10.

ABOUT SIXTY NOTED, PIOUS MARTYRS PUT TO DEATH FOR THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, ABOUT THE YEAR 239.

In the preceding number of several thousand martyrs who laid down their lives under Maximin, in the sixth persecution, none of them are mentioned by name, doubtless because in the estimation of the world they were mostly lowly and obscure people; but Sebastian Franck relates from some ancient writers that about sixty noted martyrs received the crown of martyrdom under this tyrant; which would be too long to recount. Chron. des Keysers, fol. 21, col. 3.

ALEXANDER OF JERUSALEM, AFTER MANY TORMENTS, PUT TO DEATH FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, AT JERUSALEM, AND OTHERS AT DIFFERENT PLACES, A. D. 247.

Alexander of Jerusalem, who was a bishop of the church of Christ in that place, had to suffer much for the Christian truth. Eusebius Pamphilius of Cesarea writes, that for confessing Christ he was brought before the Judge, bound with chains, and cast into prison. And he also writes, that when they had, time and again, drawn this venerable old man from the prison to the tribunal, and from the tribunal back to his chains, he continually, in his suffering and pain, thanked God, and finally, through unspeakable torments, offered up his spirit. Histor. Eccles., lib. 6, cap. 29.

P. J. Twisck fixes this occurrence in the year 247, and adds these words: “About this time there were many martyrs in Alexandria, Judea, at Cesarea, Antioch, and elsewhere, who testified to the Christian faith with their blood and death.” Third book, page 66, col. 1, from Euseb. Also, Hist. Adri., fol. 32, Jan. Cresp., fol. 48.

NOTE.--Although it is stated that the aforementioned Alexander was put to death after the seven years’ reign of Philippus, by the Emperor Decius, A. D. 247, we have nevertheless included him in the sixth persecution, since he, as it appears, was apprehended long before the commencement of the seventh general persecution, which did not begin until A. D. 251, and was in full force in 253.

OF THE SEVENTH PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, UNDER DECIUS, BEGUN ABOUT THE YEAR 251.

Sebastian Frank, P. J. Twisck, and Joh. Gysius place the beginning of this persecution under Decius in A. D. 251, while Abraham Mellinus and the author of the Introduction to the Martyrs Mirror begin it with the year 253; which difference can easily be reconciled in this manner: namely, that the decrees against the Christians were sent out and published about the year 251, but that they were not actually put in force until about A. D. 253. Compare Seb. Frank, etc., fol. 21, col. 3, with P. J. Twisck, 3d book, page 67, col. 2. Also, Joh. Gys., fol. 19, col. 2. Also, A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 65, col. 4. Also, Introduction, fol. 40, col. 1.

OF THE CRUELTY AND MISERY OF THIS PERSECUTION.

P. J. Twisck, after narrating something in commendation of this Emperor, begins immediately to give an account of the tyranny which he employed against the Christians, saying: “He caused public mandates and decrees to be issued and posted up, that if they would not apostatize from Christ, to persecute the Christians everywhere, and to execute them without mercy with every kind of torture that could be devised. The torments with which the poor Christians were put to death in that day were very severe, as we may read in Dionysius, Gregory, Cyprian, Eusebius, Vincentius, and others. They were exiled, spoiled of their goods, sentenced to the mines, scourged, beaten. Beheading and hanging were thought far too insignificant, yea, no punishment at all for them. Hot tar was most invariably poured over them, roasted at a slow fire, stoned, pricked in the face, eyes, and the whole body with sharp pointed instruments, dragged through the streets over hard pebbles and rough stones, dashed against rocks, cast down from steep places, their limbs broken in pieces, torn asunder with hooks, rolled about on sharp potsherds, given as a prey and food to the wild beasts, stakes driven through their loins, etc.

There was scarcely a place where persecution was not in vogue; Africa and Alexandria especially could be called the school of the martyrs. In short, Nicephorus says in his 5th book, chap. 29, that to count the martyrs of this time would be as easy as to undertake to count the sands of the sea shore. See, P. J. Twisck, 3d book, for the year 251, p. 67, col. 2, and page 68, col. 1, from Euseb., lib. 7, cap. 1. Chron. Mich., fol. 154. Chron. Carionis, lib. 3. Seb. Fr., fol. 17. Hist. Andræ, fol. 177, 2d part, fol. 174. Paul Merul., fol. 212–214. Leonh. Krentz. Chronologiae, fol. 16, 17. Chron. Car., fol. 236. Jan Crespin., fol. 53.

We shall begin with the persecution which at this time took place at Alexandria against the pious and defenseless Christians; for which reason this place was called by the ancients the “Scaffold of all tyranny.”

METRAS, A GODFEARING OLD MAN, PIERCED WITH REEDS, AND STONED TO DEATH, FOR THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AT ALEXANDRIA, A. D. 252.

Metras, also called Metranus, a godfearing old man, was now apprehended by the riotous people at Alexandria, and commanded to utter blasphemous words against God; that is, to blaspheme the name of God, and to forsake the Savior, Jesus. But as he refused to do so, they beat him on his whole body with sticks, pricked and pierced his face and eyes with sharp reeds, and, martyred thus, led him out of the city, and stoned him to death in the suburbs. Euseb., lib. 6, cap. 41, fol. 122, letter O, taken from the letter of Dionys. Alexandrinus to Fabian, concerning the martyrs in Alexandria. Compared with A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 67, col. 1. Also, Joh. Gys., fol. 19, col. 4. Also, Introduction, fol. 40, col. 1.

COINTHA, A BELIEVING WOMAN, DRAGGED THROUGH THE STREETS OF ALEXANDRIA, AND STONED FOR THE TESTIMONY OF THE SON OF GOD, A. D. 252.

Afterwards, an honorable believing woman, called Cointha, or, as others call her, Quinta, was seized and brought into a temple of idols, and placed before these, in order to compel her to worship them. But when she recoiled with abhorrence from the idols, they tied her feet together, and dragged her through all the streets of the city of Alexandria, beat her with rods, and as some writers have recorded, rubbed her naked body against mill-stones. When they had dragged, beaten, and rubbed her long enough, so that her body was completely lacerated, they at last dragged her into the suburbs, and there pelted her with stones until she was covered with them. Compare Euseb. with Abr. Mell. and Joh. Gys. in the places referred to above concerning the martyr Metras.

APOLLONIA, AN AGED VIRGIN, AFTER MANY TORMENTS BURNED ALIVE FOR THE EVANGELICAL TRUTH, AT ALEXANDRIA, A. D. 252.

Apollonia was an aged virgin, whom the enemies of the truth apprehended, and with their fists and blows in the face, knocked every tooth out of her head. In the meantime a large fire of wood was kindled, and they threatened to burn her alive, if she would not worship the gods, and forsake Christ. But notwithstanding this miserable death, she would rather go into the fire, and lose her temporal life, than save it by abandoning Christ and losing her soul.

Touching the manner of her death, and her great willingness to die, A. Mellinus makes this statement: “This virgin was sentenced to be burned, or to blaspheme the name of Christ; but as she abhorred the latter, she wished to show that she was ready and willing to die for Christ.” See Eusebius, Mellinus, and Gysius, in the books and on the pages referred to in connection with the martyrdom of Metras and Cointha.

SERAPION OF EPHESUS, A PIOUS MAN, TORN LIMB FROM LIMB, THROWN OUT OF THE WINDOW, AND KILLED, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, AT ALEXANDRIA, A. D. 252.

As the aforementioned bloodthirstiness of the heathen at Alexandria did not abate, but increased more and more, against those who confessed the name of Jesus Christ, it came to pass that they laid their hands on a pious Christian, called Serapion, an Ephesian by birth. They dragged him out of his house, tore him almost limb from limb, and finally threw him out of a window; in consequence of which, after many torments, and having commended his soul to God, he tasted death, and thus was counted among the number of the steadfast and blessed martyrs. See the books cited above.

JULIAN, AN OLD MAN, WITH HIS FRIEND EUNUS, LED ABOUT SEATED ON CAMELS, SEVERELY SCOURGED, AND FINALLY BURNED ALIVE, AT ALEXANDRIA, ABOUT A. D. 253.

There was at this time and place also an old man, who, on account of great pain caused by gout, could not walk, but had to be carried. His name was Julian, and the ancients greeted him as a very venerable man, on account of his virtue. In pursuance of the imperial decree published against the Christians, he was brought by two carriers before the Judge, to give an account of his faith.

Forthwith one of those who had carried him, fearing the severe examination, or the rack, apostatized from the faith; for which reason we deem his name unworthy of a place here; but the other, called Eunus, continued very constant in the faith, together with the old man Julian, who was his dear friend; hence both made a grand confession of it; notwithstanding their many severe torments.

Both were then seated naked upon camels, and led about the whole city of Alexandria, which is very large; scourged with many severe stripes, and finally brought before a great, high-flaming fire, into which both were cast, and burned alive, in the sight of a great multitude of people that stood about. Compare Euseb., lib. 5, cap. 31, fol. 123, col. 1, letter B., from the letter of Dionys. to Fabius, bishop of Antioch. Also, A. Mell., fol. 67, col. 4. Also, Joh. Gys., fol. 20, col. 1.

MACAR, EPIMACHUS, AND ALEXANDER, AFTER MANY TORMENTS, BURNED ALIVE, AT ALEXANDRIA, ABOUT THE YEAR 253.

There was yet another pious Christian, called Macar, or Macarius, a native of Lybia, whom the Judge advised with many words, to forsake Christ; but he continued only the more steadfastly to confess his faith. Finally the Judge commanded that he should be burned alive; which was done.

Epimachus and Alexander did not remain prisoners very long after Macar’s death; but, after suffering much pain, having been cut and slashed with razors, lacerated with scourges, and wounded on the most sensitive parts of their bodies, they were finally burned alive with flaming fire. See the authors cited above.

FOUR GOD-FEARING WOMEN, NAMELY, TWO CALLED AMMONARIA, AND MERCURIA AND DIONYSIA, BEHEADED AT ALEXANDRIA FOR THE CONFESSION OF JESUS CHRIST, ABOUT THE YEAR 253.

At this time, God also wonderfully manifested his power in certain women, among whom four are mentioned by name, two called Ammonaria, and Mercuria and Dionysia. The last named two were aged women, one of them being the mother of many children, all of whom she nevertheless had forsaken, for Christ’s sake. The other two, as it appears, were unmarried persons or young maidens, who loved their heavenly bridegroom, Jesus Christ, too much, to look for an earthly one. Of all these it is stated that they remained so steadfast in the confession of Jesus Christ, that the Judge felt ashamed on this account, and, in order to put an end to the matter, had them beheaded. See the authors and books cited above. Also, A. Mell., fol. 68, col. 1.

HERON, ATER, AND ISIDORE, BURNED FOR THE FAITH; AND DIOSCORUS, A YOUTH OF FIFTEEN YEARS SET FREE AFTER HAVING BEEN GREATLY TORMENTED; AT ALEXANDRIA, ABOUT THE YEAR 253.

Heron, Ater, and Isidore, Egyptians by birth, and a youth of fifteen years, called Dioscorus, were committed to the Judge of Alexandria, at the same time. The Judge examined the youth first, supposing it a very easy matter to persuade him, or deceive him by fair words, or, if not on this wise, to move him by torments (of which, as Eusebius says, many were inflicted upon him), to deny the Christian faith. But this excellent youth, Dioscorus, could be induced neither by fair words nor by the force of torments, to obey the Judge.

The three men, namely Heron, Ater, and Isidore, the Judge had most cruelly scourged, and examined with all manner of stripes, intending to draw them away from the faith; but when he saw that because of their faith in Jesus Christ they valiantly endured all the torments, he delivered them to the executioners to be burned alive; except the youth Dioscorus, whom he released, on account of his courage as well as the astonishingly discreet answers which he gave to every one of his questions; saying that in consideration of his youth he would wink at his perverseness for the present, so that, in the meantime he might reflect upon the matter, and repent. But the ancient writers state, that, coming to the church of Jesus Christ, God ordained him to be a bulwark and consolation of his people; awaiting a longer and severer conflict, and a greater and fuller reward; on account of which, as well as because of his previous sufferings, he was reckoned among the pious martyrs. See the abovementioned authors and books.

NEMESIUS, A PIOUS CHRISTIAN, BURNED FOR HIS FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, TOGETHER WITH SEVERAL MALEFACTORS, AT ALEXANDRIA, ABOUT THE YEAR 253.

The malignity of the tyrants had now become so great that they called the defenseless lambs of Christ murderers, and sought to put them to death under this name. Among those thus accused was a pious follower of Christ, called Nemesius, or, also, Nemesis, who, being accused of the same crime, first of all candidly and clearly vindicated himself from it. Thereupon his accuser charged him with being a Christian, and, therefore, nevertheless guilty of death. Eusebius writes, that in this point the Judge observed no moderation, but caused him first to be tortured with twofold torments, and then commanded that he should be burned with the murderers, unconscious of the fact that through his cruelty he made this holy martyr resemble our Savior, who, for the salvation of mankind, was crucified between murderers. In regard to this, A. Mellinus says: “The Judge made this martyr like unto his Lord Christ, and, according to his example, had him placed between highwaymen, and then burned alive.” A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 68, col. 2, from Euseb., lib. 6, cap. 41. Also, P. J. Twisck, 3d book, for the year 252, page 70, col. 1, on the name Nemesion.

BABYLAS, BISHOP OF THE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH, AND THREE YOUTHS, URBAN, PHILIDIAN, AND EPOLONIUS, BEHEADED AT ANTIOCH, FOR THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, ABOUT THE YEAR 254.

Babylas, bishop of the church of Antioch, the capital of Syria, situated on the river Orontes, was a very godly and faithful shepherd of the flock of Christ. Knowing beforehand that this severe persecution was threatening the church of Christ, he very diligently instructed not only men and women, but also children in the principles of the Christian faith, and constantly admonished them in his preaching, not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for his name. Touching the cause of his imprisonment, the ancients have briefly described it thus: namely, that the Emperor Decius came to one of the congregations of the Christians, and requested to be admitted; but that the shepherd of that congregation or church, namely Babylas, in order to spare the congregations, opposed him boldly, saying, that it was not lawful for him thus audaciously to enter the house of the living God, and to view the mysteries of the Lord with his polluted eyes, or to touch them with his murderous hands still covered with blood. The Emperor, unable to bear this, had Babylas, together with several others, seized, bound with chains, and placed in severe confinement.

Those who were apprehended with him, and were finally put to death, were, as appears from the records, three young men, brothers, and were called, Urban, Philidian, and Epolonius; who, as some suppose, were his bodily, but according to others, his spiritual children, because he had won them for Christ through the doctrine of the truth.

When the hour of his departure began to draw near, that he was to be offered, and his disciples or other good friends came to visit him in prison, he earnestly asked, as a last request of them, to bury him with his fetters, chains, and bonds.

Concerning his death, Eusebius Pamphilius writes: “Bishop Babylas fell asleep in the Lord, in prison, at Antioch, after having made his confession, in all things like Alexander.” Hist. Eccl. Edit. A. D. 1588, lib. 6, cap. 39, fol. 121, letters F, G.

But as all the other fathers who have written of Babylas speak of him as a martyr, they also state that he was executed with the sword. The records of his death, faithfully collected by Suidas and others from the most ancient writers, read thus: “When Babylas was sentenced by the Emperor Decius to be beheaded, together with the aforementioned three young men, he sang the comforting words of the 116th psalm, on his way to the place of execution: ‘Return unto thy rest, O my soul; for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee. He hath delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling. I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living.’”

When Babylas and the three young men had arrived at the place where they were to be beheaded, Babylas begged, that they would first put to death before his eyes, the three youths (whether they were his bodily or his spiritual children) so that they might not be deterred or discouraged by his death from dying for the name of Christ.

While the executioners were busy executing the children, he prayed to the Lord, saying: “Here am I, Lord, and the children whom thou hast given me.” And thus he encouraged the children, steadfastly to suffer for the Lord.

After this, Babylas also fell asleep very peacefully in the Lord, having commended his soul into the hands of the Lord, to bring it to the eternal rest of which he had spoken immediately before his death.

The mother of these children, and the brethren of the church of Antioch buried the dead bodies of these martyrs in a decent manner, together with the chains and fetters with which Babylas had been bound during his life.

Thus, this good father and his dear children took an honorable departure from this world together on the same day, and are awaiting now the blessed hope and the revelation of the great God, and their Savior, Jesus Christ, for whose honor and glory they suffered these things. Abr. Mell., 1st book, fol. 68, col. 4, and fol. 69, col. 1, 2, from Euseb., lib. 6, cap. 29. Epiphan. lib. de Mens. and Pond. Hieron. Catal. in Origene. Chrysost. Eunt. Gent. and Homil. 9 ad Ephes. Suidas in Babyla. acta ex Patribus Collecta. Suid. in Hist. sub. nom. Babylæ.

NOTE.--P. J. Twisck, who begins this persecution by Decius, with the year 251, fixes the death of this man, Babylas, in the second year of his reign, namely, A. D. 252. Chron. 3d book, p. 70, col. 1, from Hist. Andr., fol. 21. But Abr. Mellinus, who begins the persecution with the year 253, fixes his death in A. D. 254 (although the printer has erroneously made it A. D. 264; for Decius reigned only two years), and this is consequently the second year of Decius. We have followed the latter author.

PIONIUS, BISHOP OF THE CHURCH AT SMYRNA, NAILED TO A PIECE OF WOOD AND BURNED ALIVE, IN THE CITY OF SMYRNA, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 254.

Mention is made in this time of a certain pious Christian, called Pionius, a man greatly noted on account of his remarkable virtue, who always stood fearlessly before the Judges, and, as Eusebius declares, steadfastly replied to all their questions, yea, taught and disputed in the court, so that those who wavered on account of the persecution, were thereby strengthened and encouraged. While in prison, he strengthened the brethren, and encouraged them, to fight steadfastly even unto the end, in the faith, for the Lord, in which he preceded them as a good leader. For, according to the testimony of Eusebius, he was finally nailed on a piece of wood, and cast into a flaming fire, and thus died a blessed death. Euseb., lib. 4, cap. 15, taken from the letter of those of Smyrna, concerning the death of Polycarp and some of the martyrs who followed him.

FURTHER PARTICULARS CONCERNING THE DEATH OF PIONIUS, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY DIFFERENT AUTHORS.

We shall endeavor to be as brief as possible, and, instead of relating all that pertains to this, present only the last acts of his death.

When the Governor, after much had been said on both sides, said to Pionius: “Why dost thou make such great haste to meet death?” Pionius answered: “I do not make haste to meet death, but life.” Then said the Governor: “Thou dost not act wisely thus to hasten to meet death. Thou art like those who, despising death, for the sake of a little gain offer themselves to fight with the beasts. But since thou despisest death so much, thou shalt be burned alive.”

This sentence of death was read to him from a tablet inscribed with Roman letters: “We have sentenced Pionius to be burned alive, because he has confessed that he is a Christian.”

Having thus been sentenced, Pionius was brought to the place where he was to be burned. There he divested himself of his clothes, and, having looked at his naked body, he cast up his eyes to heaven, praising and thanking God for having kept him to this hour free and unspotted from the idols.

With this, he voluntarily went and lay down on the fire-wood, stretched himself over it, and delivered himself to the soldiers, to be nailed to the wood.

When he was fastened to the wood, the servant said to him: “Be converted and alter your views; and we shall remove the nails.” Pionius answered: “I feel that they are in already.” And reflecting a little, he said to God: “Therefore, O Lord, do I hasten to death, that I may rise the sooner (or the more glorious).”

Having been nailed on the cross, he was raised up with his face towards the east. When a great heap of wood had been collected with which to burn him, he closed his eyes for some time, so that the people thought that he had already died. However, he prayed secretly in his heart; for when he had finished his prayer, he opened his eyes, and all at once the flame shot up to a great height, just as with a glad countenance he uttered the last word of his trust, saying: “Amen, O Lord, receive my soul,” and calmly and without manifesting the least sign of pain, he gave his spirit over into the hands of God.

This happened when Julius Proculus Quintilianus was Proconsul of Asia, and Emperor M. Q. T. Decius was Consul for the third, and Gratus for the second time, at Rome, in A. D. 254, by virtue of the seventh persecution under Emperor Decius, at Smyrna, in Asia Minor. Abr. Mell., 1st book, fol. 71, col. 3, 4, from Euseb., lib. 4. Also, Acta per Sym. Metaph. Genuma, and Vere pro Consularia.

MAXIMUS, A PIOUS CHRISTIAN, AFTER MANY TORMENTS STONED TO DEATH, AT EPHESUS, ABOUT THE YEAR 255.

It is stated that shortly after the death of Pionius and the preceding martyrs, there suffered a certain pious Christian, called Maximus, a citizen of Ephesus; concerning whom, we, in order to present the matter in the briefest, clearest and plainest manner, shall, (instead of the testimony of the fathers) copy the records themselves, which were approved by the Proconsul, and written by the clerk of the court. They read thus: “Maximus, a citizen of Ephesus, having been apprehended and brought before Optimus, the Proconsul of Asia, the latter asked him: ‘What is thy name?’

“He answered: ‘My name is Maximus.’

“The Proconsul asked: ‘What is thy estate?’ which meant, whether he was free-born, or a servant.

“Maximus said: ‘I belong to myself, and am free-born. Nevertheless, I am a servant of Christ, and manage my own affairs.’

“The Proconsul said: ‘Art thou a Christian?’

“Maximus replied: ‘Notwithstanding I am a sinner, I am nevertheless a servant of Christ.’

“The Proconsul questioned: ‘Knowest thou not the decrees of the invincible Princes, which have now been brought hither?’

“Maximus asked back: ‘What are they?’

“The Proconsul answered: ‘That all the Christians are to forsake their superstitions, acknowledge the only true Prince, to whose power all things are subject, and worship his gods.’

“Maximus said: ‘Yea, I have heard the unjust decree of this Prince or Emperor, and hence have come, openly to declare myself against it.’

“The Proconsul spoke: ‘Then sacrifice to the gods.’

“Maximus said: ‘I sacrifice to none, except to God; and I rejoice that from my childhood’s days I have offered myself only to God.’

“The Proconsul again said: ‘Sacrifice, lest I cause thee to be tormented in divers manners.’

“Maximus said: ‘This is just what I have always longed for: to be deprived of this temporal and frail life, and thereby attain life eternal.’

“The Proconsul then commanded his soldiers to beat Maximus with sticks. While he was being beaten, the Proconsul said to him: ‘Sacrifice, Maximus, that you may be released from these torments.’

“Maximus said: ‘These torments, which I gladly and willingly receive for the name of my Lord Jesus Christ, are no torments at all; but if I apostatize from Christ, I must expect the real and everlasting torments.’

“The Proconsul therefore had him suspended on the torture-stake, and dreadfully tormented; and said to him: ‘See, now, where thou hast come to by thy folly; sacrifice, therefore, that thou mayest save thy life.’

“Maximus replied: ‘If I sacrifice not, I shall save my life; but if I do, I shall lose it. For neither thy sticks, hooks, claws, pincers, nor thy fire hurt me; nor do I feel any pain through it, because the grace of Christ abides in me.’

“Then the proconsul pronounced the sentence of death, which was as follows: ‘I command, that Maximus be stoned to death, as an example and terror to other Christians; because he would not submit to the laws, and sacrifice to the great Diana of Ephesus.’ Acta Proconsularia.” Thus far extend the words which the clerk of the court himself wrote.

The Christian who copied these records, adds the following: “And presently this faithful champion of Christ was taken away by the servants of Satan, brought without the city walls, and stoned. While he was being led away, and stoned, he thanked God with all his heart, who had made him worthy to overcome the devil in the conflict; and thus committed his soul into the hands of his Lord Jesus Christ.”

Thus this pious witness of Jesus laid down his life amidst a volley of stones, for the honor of his Savior, and thus was registered among the holy and steadfast martyrs. A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 72, col. 3, 4, from Acta Procons. Also, Aug., lib. 2, de Doctr. Christ., cap. 26, Idem. contra Donatist. super alia acta citat.

ORIGEN, A SON OF LEONIDES THE MARTYR, GREATLY TORMENTED AT ALEXANDRIA, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, AND BANISHED TO CESAREA STATONIS, ABOUT THE YEAR 254.

In our account of baptism in the third century, with special reference to the year 231, we have spoken of the views of Origen and shown that he has left us very excellent and salutary teachings concerning baptism upon faith; and also, that in his teaching he opposed the swearing of oaths, war, compulsory celibacy, the literal view of the Lord’s Supper, those who taught something, and did not practice it themselves, the antichrist, etc.

We have likewise shown there, that some very peculiar things were laid to his charge as his views, from which, however, the principal ancient writers, as well as later authors, have vindicated him; all of which may be examined at the place indicated, and considered with Christian discretion. This we leave to the judgment of the judicious. We shall therefore proceed to treat of his martyrdom, and how much he had to suffer for the name of the Lord Jesus.

From the very beginning of his knowledge he placed himself in great danger of being apprehended or put to death for the testimony of the Son of God. For when he was but seventeen years old, and his father, whom he affectionately loved, had been apprehended for the Christian religion, and had nothing to expect but death (as we have noted for the year 202), he did not only comfort him by letter, but, as other writers state, desired to follow him into prison, yea even unto death; which he would have done, had not his mother prevented it by withholding or taking away his clothes. Introduction, fol. 38, col. 2, from Euseb.

Besides this he often exposed himself to danger for the Christian martyrs, because of his extraordinary love for them. He would station himself near the tribunal, where the apprehended Christians were making their last defense, or were to receive their sentence of death, and when they were becoming weak he would strengthen and encourage them; he went with them to death, even to the place of execution; he gave them the last kiss of peace, as a friendly and fraternal farewell; so that frequently he would have lost his life, had not God remarkably and miraculously preserved him. Soldiers who were hired for the purpose by the enemies of the truth, lay in ambush for his person and for the house in which he lived, in order to apprehend or kill him; so that on account of the fierce persecution he could remain no longer in Alexandria, the place where he had been brought up; and this the more, because the believers there, on account of his conspicuousness, could no longer conceal him.

His beloved disciples, whom he had faithfully taught the ways of God, had nearly all been put to death for the name of Jesus Christ, among whom were, Plutarch, Heraclides, Hero, the two pious men called Serenus, Rhais, Marcella, and others; whom we have mentioned in the years A. D. 203 and 204.

It may therefore be considered a miracle that Origenes lived so long in the midst of deadly persecutions, namely, from his seventh to his seventieth year, which is more than fifty years.

But finally, sufferings beyond measure came upon him; he was cast into the deepest prison, his neck loaded with iron chains, his feet placed in the stocks, and stretched so that four holes were between them.[100] There he was tortured with fire and divers other means of torment; but he bore it all with the utmost patience. Nevertheless, it appears from ancient writers, that he was not put to death judicially, but, as Epiphanius writes, was banished to Cesarea Statonis; and that finally, having moved to Tyre, he died and was buried there, under Gallus and Valusianus. Compare the account of A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 57, col. 1, 2, under the name Leonides, but especially, fol. 77, col. 3, 4, under the name Origen, from Euseb., lib. 6, cap. 2. Hieron. Apol. Ruffin. Suid. in Origene Epiphan. de Mensuris. Hieron. Catal. in Origene. Also, Euseb., lib. 6. Also, P. J. Twisck, 3d book, for the year 231, page 61, col. 1, 2, from Georgius Vicelius. Also, Introduction, fol. 38, col. 2. Also, Joh. Gys., fol. 18, col. 3, about Leonides.

[100] The number of holes reached indicated the degree of torture to which the prisoner was subjected.--Translator.

There are some who accuse Origen of apostasy; but different excellent authors have acquitted him of this charge; though in point of knowledge he had his weaknesses and failings.

Eusebius Pamphilius of Cesarea praises his virtue above measure, saying that Origen wished to have no communion with Paulus Antiochenus, because the latter was tainted with error. Of Origen it was said: “This is he who lives as he teaches, and teaches as he lives. He sold his books of heathen philosophy, on condition that four pence a day should be given him for his daily needs, so that he would not be a burden to any one. He set all his disciples an example of poverty, that they should forsake whatever they possessed; hence he was beloved by everyone, because he contended with none about temporal goods, except that some were dissatisfied because he refused to accept what they offered to impart to him for the sustenance of his body.” Eusebius further says: “It is said that for many years he went barefooted, using neither wine nor such like, but only the absolute necessaries of life, until disease in the breast, which endangered his life, compelled him to it.” Lib. 6, cap. 1, 2, 3. Also, Baudart. in Apophthegm. Christian., lib. 3, page 100.

In refutation of those who accuse Origen of apostasy, A. Mellinus writes (though he does not wish to defend his misconceptions or errors, as he calls them): “If this account of the apostasy of Origen were true, Porphyrius, who wrote at this time against the Christians, and was especially bitter against Origen, would very probably have mentioned it in his writings, and this the more so, as he dared unjustly to accuse Ammonius, Origen’s teacher, of Apostasy: how much more then, would he have exerted himself against Origen, if the latter had really apostatized; whereas he acknowledges that Origen lived as a Christian to the end.” A little further on he writes: “As regards his Christian life and steadfast confession of the name of Christ, we have no reason to call it in question, since even his enemies bear him a good testimony in this respect.” Abr. Mell., 1st book, fol. 78, col. 1, from Porphyry.

OF THE EIGHTH PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, UNDER VALERIAN AND HIS SON GALLIEN, WHICH COMMENCED ABOUT THE YEAR 259.

After the death of the Emperor Volusian, the son of Decius, Aemilian, an Ethiopian, ascended the imperial throne; but since it is stated that he reigned only three months, and that Valerian had previously already been declared Emperor, his reign is not taken into account. It follows, therefore, that Valerian was acknowledged Emperor; who, together with his son Gallien, began to reign about the year 255, as set forth by Seb. Frank; but the persecution, according to the testimony of different authors, did not begin until the year 259.

OF THE ORIGINATOR AND THE CAUSE OF THIS PERSECUTION.

The author of the Introduction to the Martyrs Mirror writes, concerning this, as follows: “In A. D. 259 the eighth persecution against the Christians arose under the Emperor Valerian. He issued an edict against the Christians, in which he commanded that the Christians were not to assemble themselves; and as this was not observed, a great persecution arose everywhere.” Fol. 41, col. 1.

FURTHER PARTICULARS ABOUT THE ORIGINATOR AND THE CAUSE OF THIS PERSECUTION.

Concerning this, J. Gysius records the following: “Valerian and Gallien, who in the beginning of their reign; were favorable to the Christians, soon afterwards changed their course, being misled by an Egyptian sorcerer, and by divers torments compelled the Christians to idolatry.” Fol. 20, col. 3, 4.

FURTHER AMPLIFICATION OF THE CAUSE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PERSECUTION.

P. J. Twisck, speaking (for the year 255) of the beginning of the reign of Emperor Valerian, says: “Truly, this Emperor, as history tells us, was in the beginning a very pious and praiseworthy Prince, a censor, who excelled all others; in regard to which many commendatory passages may be read in the Tijdthresoor by Paul Merula. But, what of it? Although at first he was very favorable to the Christians, and so honored their ministers, that his house was considered a church of the Lord, he was nevertheless afterwards corrupted by a doctor, a wicked lord and prince of all the sorcerers of Egypt; who made the Emperor believe that fortune would not be on his side as long as he tolerated the Christians at his court, or in the land. Then the Emperor commanded that these holy and just men should be persecuted and put to death as such who were opposed to the sorcery with which he was polluted.

This sorcerer also prevailed upon the Emperor to slaughter and sacrifice children and human beings in honor of the devil. He accordingly commanded that little children should be put to death, so that he could perform his unclean ceremonies and abominable sacrifices; and thus robbed parents of their children, and became such a despiser and oppressor of the Christian faith, that he spared neither old nor young, men nor women, nor any state and condition, but most miserably murdered all that were brought to him, in Alexandria and other places too numerous to mention. At Rome also there was much innocent blood shed at this time, even as this city has ever been a place of slaughter for the poor Christians.” Third book, for the year 255, page 71, col. 2.

OF THE CRUELTY AND VIOLENCE OF THIS PERSECUTION.

P. J. Twisck, having concluded his account of the aforementioned matter, proceeds immediately to show how cruelly and lamentably the innocent Christians were treated at that time. “The martyrdoms,” he writes, “were manifold: they were cast before the wild beasts; they were beaten, wounded, executed with the sword, burned, torn limb from limb, rent asunder, pinched with red-hot tongs; red-hot nails were driven in their fingers and nerves. Some were hung up by their arms, and heavy weights tied to their feet, and thus were torn asunder gradually and with great pain. Others, whose wounded bodies had been smeared over with honey, were placed naked on the earth in the hot sun, to be tormented and stung to death by flies, bees, and other insects. Others were beaten with clubs, and cast into prison, until they miserably perished.”

“Under the reign of the aforementioned cruel and tyrannical Emperors,” he writes a little further on, “many Christians had to wander and roam about in foreign countries, in secluded places, along shores, in caverns, on mountains, in caves, amidst want and poverty; leaving comfort, honor, prosperity, peace, friends, money, and property.” Among many others, there is an account given in the Keyser’s Chronijk, of a youth of sixteen years, called Paul, well versed in different languages, and the son of a rich man, who, in order to escape the persecution, went out into a village to live with his sister. But his brother-in-law was moved by avarice to betray him, that thus he might obtain possession of his property. His sister having warned him of his danger, he fled into the mountains, gladly leaving behind him all his possessions. However, God prepared him there a secret cave, where he could quench his thirst with pure water, and satisfy his hunger with roots, herbs, and the fruits of the trees. Idem. Ibidem, from Euseb. Fasc. Temp., fol. 94. Chron. Mich., fol. 161. Chron. Seb. Franc., fol. 18, Hist. Andr., fol. 177, 178, 2d part, fol. 174. Paul Merula, fol. 217, 218, 221. Jan. Crespin, fol. 65.

DIONYSIUS, BISHOP OF THE CHURCH AT ALEXANDRIA, WITH TWO OF HIS FELLOW-BELIEVERS, GAIUS AND PETER, AFTER MUCH SUFFERING, EXILED INTO A DESERT PLACE OF LYBIA, THREE DAYS JOURNEY FROM PARAETONIUM, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, ABOUT THE YEAR 260.

After different letters of Dionysius, bishop at Alexandria (recorded by Abr. Mellinus from Eusebius), concerning the persecution he suffered, there follows one which Dionysius wrote to Domitius and Didymus, about the oppression of the Christians under Valerian, as well as how he himself was oppressed at that time. Among other statements, it contains these words: “It is not necessary to mention all the names of the Christian martyrs, because their number is very great, and you do not know them; but know ye of this persecution, in general, that innumerably many men and women, old and young people, old women and young girls, of every state and condition, were, some scourged, some burned, some beheaded, or made martyrs in some other manner; and still the proconsul continues in his cruelty; putting to death those that were made known to him, causing some to be rent asunder by divers torments, holding others in bonds and severe confinement, and letting them perish through hunger and thirst, forbidding all to come to them, yea closely watching those who but endeavor to get near them.

“Nevertheless, the Lord has thus strengthened the hearts of the brethren, that they, for the name of Christ, have constantly visited these oppressed prisoners, notwithstanding it was interdicted under penalty of death. And although this persecution has lasted for a considerable length of time, there have still been some whom God did not deem worthy to take to himself as martyrs. Among whom, says Dionysius, I myself yet remain, until the Lord will otherwise dispose of me; since he doubtless preserves me for some other time, which appears to him more suitable. At present I, together with Gaius and Peter, am separated from all the rest of the brethren, confined in a desert place of Lybia, three days’ journey from Paraetonium.” Compare A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 79, col. 2, from Euseb., lib. 7.

We selected this letter of Dionysius from all the rest, because there is stated in it, on the one hand, the severity of this persecution in general, and, on the other hand, the oppression which this friend of God himself suffered; inasmuch as he, after much wandering, was separated, together with his two dear friends, Gaius and Peter, from all the rest of his brethren, and confined in a desert place of Lybia, there expecting death for the name of the Lord.

Of Dionysius, P. J. Twisck states, that he as well as Tertullian held a figurative or spiritual view of the Lord’s Supper, i. e., that the words of Christ: “This is my body,” signify: “This is a figure of my body.” Second book, for the year 200, page 53, col. 1, concerning Tertullian.

The same author, speaking of Origen, says among other things of Dionysius, that after Origen and Heracles he presided over the schools of the catechumens (that is, those who were instructed in the Christian doctrine, before baptism) at Alexandria. Third book, for the year 231, page 61, col. 1.

In another place the aforementioned author states that Dionysius, whom he calls a catechetical preacher, accompanied Pancratius, when the latter was baptized at Mount Celinus. In the same book, for the year 253, page 71, col. 1, from Wicelius, in Chorosanctorum. Grond. Bew., letter B., Leonhard, lib. 1.

In his second book, 13th chapter, D. Vicecomes cites Dionysius (from Eusebius) as saying: “Many heathen adopted at their baptism the name of the apostle John, from special love and admiration for him, as well as because of the zeal which animated them, to follow him, and because they desired to be loved by the Lord, as he was. For the same reason the names of Peter and Paul became prevalent among the believing children of God.

“All these,” says the writer who has recorded this, “are beautiful reminders, which were administered to the catechumens before and after baptism; which certainly cannot apply to infants.” Baptism. Hist., printed at Dortmund, A. D. 1646, and 1647, 2d part, concerning the third century, page 320.

FRUCTUOSUS, BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF TARRAGONA, WITH AUGURIUS AND EULOGIUS, HIS DEACONS, BURNED ALIVE FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, AT TARRAGONA, ABOUT THE YEAR 261.

It is stated that at this time, Fructuosus, bishop of the church of Tarragona in Spain, and Augurius and Eulogius, his deacons, were apprehended at the command of Aemilian, the Proconsul, and held in prison six days, before they were brought before the tribunal of the Proconsul. When they were standing before the judgment seat, Aemilian commanded them to kneel before the altars, and worship the gods standing thereon, and sacrifice to them, saying to Fructuosus: “I understand that thou art a teacher of a new-devised religion, and that thou incitest giddy young women, no longer to go to the groves, where the gods are worshiped, yea, to forsake Jupiter himself. Go on, then, despising our religion, but know thou, that the Emperor Gallien has, with his own lips, issued a decree by which he binds all his subjects, to serve the same gods which the prince, that is, the Emperor, serves or honors.”

Thereupon Bishop Fructuosus answered: “I worship the eternal Prince, who has created the days and the gods, and is Lord even over the Emperor Gallien; and Christ, who is begotten of the eternal Father himself, whose servant, and the shepherd of whose flock I am.”

The Proconsul derisively said: “Yea, who hast been it till now; but thou art so no longer.” With this, he sentenced Fructuosus and his two deacons, Augurius and Eulogius, to be burned alive.

These faithful martyrs, having received the sentence of death, for the name of Christ, rejoiced in their impending martyrdom, and when they saw the people weep, as they were led to death, they forbade them to weep. When some offered Fructuosus a drink on the way, that he might refresh his heart, he refused it, according to the example of Christ, saying: “Now is our fast-day. I do not wish to drink; it is not yet the ninth hour of the day (that is three o’clock in the afternoon, before which time those who fasted did not eat); and death itself shall not break my fast-day.”

When they arrived in the arena, where the executioner had been ordered to build a great fire in which to burn these pious martyrs, a dispute (proceeding, however, from heartfelt love) arose among the faithful Christians, as to who should first untie the latchets of the shoes of the bishop, their beloved shepherd and teacher. But Fructuosus would not permit it, saying: “I shall untie them myself from my feet, so that I can go unhindered into the fire.” And perceiving that they wept, he said: “Why weep ye? and why do you ask me to remember you? I shall pray for all of Christ’s people.”

Standing with his bare feet by the fire, he said to all the people: “Believe me! what you see before your eyes is no punishment; it passes away in a moment of time, and does not take away life, but restores it. O happy souls! who through this temporal ascend into heaven unto God, and who on the last day, shall be saved from everlasting fire.”

All at once they hastened towards the fire, which indeed burned off in a moment the bands with which their hands had been fastened on their backs, thus freeing these; but their bodies remained intact in this great heat, so that with outstretched hands they prayed God to suffer the flames speedily to deliver them from the agony of death. Their prayer having been heard, they, leaving their frail bodies here as pledges, committed their souls unto God, and the three martyrs fell calmly asleep in the Lord, from whom, on the day of judgment, they will receive, in reward of their faithful services and steadfast testimonies, the martyr’s crown, and white robes in token of their victory. Abr. Mell., 1st book, fol. 81, col. 4, and fol. 82, col. 1, 2, from Prudent. Stephan. Hym. 6, ex Actis Proconsul.

MARINUS, OF NOBLE DESCENT, BUT PREFERRING THE GOSPEL TO THE SWORD, BEHEADED AT JERUSALEM FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, ABOUT THE YEAR 262.

In the ancient records of the pious witnesses of Jesus Christ, an account is given of Marinus, a citizen of Jerusalem, of noble descent, who, although he belonged to the nobility, entertained a sincere affection for the true Christians, who at that time were oppressed beyond measure. On this account his enviers, who were jealous of the honor of his nobility, severely accused and charged him with being a Christian; which he also confessed, when he was brought before the Judge; yea, he declared with a loud and clear voice, that he was certainly a Christian. The Judge then gave him three hours’ respite to consider, whether he would die as a Christian, or whether he would sacrifice to the gods and the Emperor.

As he went away from the tribunal, Theotecnes, the bishop of the church in that city, took him by the hand, and led him to the meeting, in the meeting-place, strengthened him with many words in the faith, and, placing before him the sword which he was wont to carry at his side, and also the Gospel [book], he asked him which of the two he would choose?

When Marinus, with a firm faith, stretched forth his hand for the Gospel, choosing it instead of the sword, Theotecnes said to him: “O my son! keep that which thou hast chosen, and, despising this present life, hope for the eternal. Depart in good confidence, and receive the crown which the Lord has prepared for thee.”

Marinus accordingly returned to the tribunal, and was forthwith called by the lord’s servant, for the appointed time had come; he did not delay or wait until he was asked, but said of his own accord: that he had considered the matter, and that it was established by the law of the fathers, that God must be obeyed rather than men. Eusebius Pamphilius writes, that when Marinus had answered thus, the Judge immediately gave sentence that he should be beheaded. Lib. 7, cap. 15.

P. J. Twisck gives the following account of this Marinus: “When Marinus confessed that he was a Christian, and chose the Bible in preference to the sword, he was called before the tribunal, sentenced, and beheaded.” Third book, for the year 262, page 73, col. 2; from Euseb. Compare this with the Introduction, fol. 41, col. 2.

THREE PIOUS PEASANTS, PRISCUS, MALCHUS, AND ALEXANDER, WHO SOUGHT HEAVENLY CROWNS, TORN BY THE WILD BEASTS, AT CESAREA, IN PALESTINE, ABOUT THE YEAR 263.

In this persecution under Valerian there were three very noted and godfearing martyrs at Cesarea, in Palestine, who nevertheless were but simple peasants, the first called Priscus, the second Malchus, the third Alexander. Eusebius writes, that, as they lived near the suburbs of Cesarea, a divine zeal for the faith was kindled within them, and they accused each other (and each himself, says Mellinus), of slothfulness, since heavenly crowns of martyrdom were distributed, or at least offered, in the city, and they were so little inclined to ask for them, notwithstanding our Lord and Savior had said that the kingdom of heaven must be taken by violence, and therefore it did not become them to remain so earthly and slothful. Having exhorted one another with such words, they went into the city, and addressed and reproved that cruel tyrant, the criminal Judge, demanding of him, why he shed so much Christian blood. The tyrant instantly replied, saying: “They shall be thrown before the wild beasts, to be torn by them, who do not like to see the blood of the Christians shed; which, it is stated, was done to them. Compare Euseb., lib. 7, cap. 12, fol. 131, col. 1, 2, letter F, G, with the Introduction, fol. 4, col. 2. Also, Joh. Gys., fol. 21, col. 2.

A. Mellinus, writing in defense of the aforementioned three peasants, against those who would pronounce them too bold, says after other remarks: “Who are you that judge your brethren? How do you know of what spirit they were? No one has courage of himself; but it is the gift of God, not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for his name: hence, neither is of ourselves. They also did not seek their own honor, but to magnify the name of Christ by their death; to which, no doubt, they were impelled by a divine zeal, since their zeal was not without knowledge, but proceeded from the power of faith; whereby they were prepared through the divine Spirit to proclaim the honor of God through their death; for this was their sole object.” First book, fol. 79, col. 4.

PHILIP, PRIVATUS, FLORENTIN, PONTIUS, AND MANY OTHERS, PUT TO DEATH FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, IN DIFFERENT PLACES, DURING THIS PERSECUTION, TILL ABOUT A. D. 270.

Besides the aforementioned martyrs who were put to death in this persecution, certain other authors have noted various other pious witnesses of Jesus Christ, who, loving the honor of God more than their own lives, were put to death at that time, and under that same Emperor; which we shall presently relate. Besides the three hundred Christians whom P. J. Twisck places in the year 264, as having been burned in a lime-kiln, because they would not throw incense on the coals, for a sacrifice in honor of Jupiter, as may be seen in the 3d book, page 75, col. 1, from Histor. Adr., fol. 30, several names are mentioned, as, Philip, bishop of the church at Alexandria, who was put to death with the sword in this persecution, for the testimony of Jesus Christ. J. Gys., fol. 21, col. 2, from Vinc. Spec. Hist., lib. 11, cap. 23. Henr. d’Oxf., lib. 6, cap. 21. Also, Florentin and Pontius, pious men, are stated to have been put to death in France, for the name of the Lord, together with others, who are also mentioned. Introduction, fol. 41, col. 2, Seb. Franck, fol. 22, col. 4.

OF THE NINTH PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, UNDER AURELIAN, COMMENCED ABOUT A. D. 273.

CONCERNING THE CRUELTY AND BLOOD-THIRSTINESS OF THE EMPEROR AURELIAN AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS, AND HOW HE WAS PREVENTED THEREIN BY GOD.

A. Mellinus writes: “Aurelian was a stern, cruel, and blood-thirsty Emperor by nature, and although at first he had a good opinion of the Christians, he nevertheless afterwards became averse to, and estranged from them; and having, undoubtedly, by some tale-bearers, been instigated against the Christians, he allowed himself to be seduced so far, as to raise the ninth general persecution of the Roman monarchy against them, which persecution he, however, did not carry out. For at the very moment in which the decrees written against the Christians, were laid before him by his secretary, that he might sign them, and when he was about to take the pen in hand, the hand of God suddenly touched him, smiting his hand with lameness, and thus preventing him in his purpose, so that he could not sign them.” First book, fol. 87, col. 3, from Vopisc. Victor. Eus., lib. 7. Post. Literas, Aug. de Civit. Dei., lib. 18, cap. 52. Oros., lib. 7, cap. 16. Theodoret. Hist., lib. 4, cap. 17.

A MORE PARTICULAR ACCOUNT OF THIS PERSECUTION, ACCORDING TO P. J. TWISCK.

He writes: “Emperor Aurelian commenced the ninth persecution against the Christians. He was by nature inclined to tyranny, and was a furious blood-hound, as Eutropius writes, so that he did not hesitate to kill his sister’s son, and finally, through the atrocity of his own wicked nature, and evil counsel suggested to him, he became an enemy and persecutor of the Christians. He sent letters to the Governors of the Roman country, that they should vex the Christians; but when he was about actually to carry the persecution into effect, he could not sign the decrees which were to be issued against the Christians, because God smote him, so that his hand was paralyzed. Through divine judgment he was terrified by thunder, lightning, and fire-darts, at the time that he was constantly meditating how he might slay and exterminate the Christians; and shortly after was himself killed by his notary.” Third book, for the year 270, page 76, col. 2, from Chron. Mich. Sac., fol. 178. Euseb., lib. 7. Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 18. Chron. Carionis, lib. 3, Hist. Andreæ, fol. 178, 2d part, fol. 175. Paul. Mer., fol. 226. Jan. Crespin., fol. 62. Chron. Andreæ, lib. 13, fol. 343.

WHAT THE AUTHOR OF THE INTRODUCTION, ETC. HAS WRITTEN ABOUT THIS PERSECUTION.

In A. D. 273 arose the ninth persecution of the Christians, under the Emperor Aurelian; but it was not as great as the former, because death suddenly overtook him as he proposed to himself, to begin it. Under him were killed ... and many others, concerning whom no special accounts are extant. Fol. 41, col. 2.

Notwithstanding Emperor Aurelian could not himself sign the abovementioned decrees against the Christians, the persecution nevertheless proceeded in some places, so that here and there some laid down their lives for the testimony of Jesus Christ; of whom we shall mention only a few, whom we have selected as true martyrs.

PRIVATUS, BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST AT GEVAULDAN, BEATEN TO DEATH WITH STICKS FOR THE TRUE FAITH, ABOUT A. D. 274.

When Chorus, the king of the Germans, in the time of Valerian, and Aurelian, yea, up to the time of Probus, devastated France, he found among other martyrs who dwelt separated from men in deserts and mountains, a certain pious man, called Privatus, Bishop of the church at Gevauldan. This man, sojourning in the mountains, fasting and praying, was taken prisoner by the Germans, and because he, as behooves a good shepherd, would not deliver his lambs into the claws of the wolves, by himself sacrificing to Satan, which he would in no wise do, he was beaten with sticks by them for a very long time, till they left him lie for dead; in consequence of which treatment he also died a few days after. This happened, as some have supposed, under Valerian and Gallien, but in reality, under Aurelian. Compare A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 89, col. 1, from Greg. Turon. Hist., lib. 1, cap. 34, with Introduction, fol. 41, col. 2, where he is called Privatus, Bishop of Gablen.

MAMAS, A SHEPHERD, THRUST THROUGH WITH A THREE-PRONGED SPEAR, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, AT CESAREA IN CAPPADOCIA, ABOUT A. D. 274.

Mamas, a shepherd, who pastured his sheep upon the mountains and in the wildernesses of Cappadocia, lived very poorly, without a hut, dwelling under the blue heavens, and subsisting on the milk and cheese of his flock, as Basilius testifies. Nazianzenus adds, that the hinds also suffered themselves to be milked by him daily, and that he was thus fed by them.

Basilius says, that from the course of the heavenly bodies he learned to know the wonderful works of God, his Creator, and thus his eternal power and wisdom. However, the accounts written concerning him state that he had the word of God with him in the desert, and that he read in it daily.

It is quite probable, writes Mellinus, that this Mamas, in order to escape the persecution in the time of Decius and Valerian, went into the wilderness, and remained there till the time of Aurelian, whose proconsul of Cappadocia, Alexander, caused him to be brought out of the wilderness, and to appear before him, at Cesarea, the capital of Cappadocia.

The proconsul called him a sorcerer or conjurer, because the wild animals of the wilderness so tamely submitted to him.

Mamas answered: “I am a servant of Christ, and know nothing about sorcery; but would rather live among the wild animals, than among you: for they feel the power of their Creator in and through me; but ye will not know God. I cannot sufficiently wonder that you, who have attained to gray hairs, are still in such gross darkness of ignorance, as to forsake the true and living God, and give divine honor to deaf and dumb idols.”

When he was requested to say at least with his lips, that he would sacrifice to the gods, so as to escape punishment, Mamas replied: “I shall never, either with my lips, or with my heart, deny the true God and King, Jesus Christ. So far am I from seeking to escape suffering for the name of Christ, that I, on the contrary, consider it the highest honor, the greatest gain, and the utmost benefit, which you can confer upon me.”

Upon this confession, the proconsul had him placed on the rack, cruelly scourged, tormented with pincers, burnt on his sides with lamps and torches, and tortured in various other ways. But seeing that in all these and other torments he remained steadfast, he finally had him thrust through with a three-pronged spear; and thus Mamas became a faithful martyr for his Savior, under Emperor Aurelian, at Cesarea in Cappadocia. A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 89, col. 2, 3, ex Basilii Concio, in Mart. Mamant. Nazianz. Orat. 43. Act. per Metaphrast.

SYMPHORIAN, A PIOUS CHRISTIAN, BEHEADED FOR THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, AT AUGUSTODUNUM, NOW CALLED AUTUM, ABOUT A. D. 275.

It is stated that at this time, as the heathen at Augustodunum, now called Autum, in Burgundy, on a feast-day of the goddess Cybele, whom they called the mother of the gods, carried around her image on a wagon, in procession, a certain pious Christian, called Symphorianus, met this image, and refused to worship it; in consequence of which he was apprehended as an impious person, or despiser of the gods, and brought before Heraclius, the Proconsul, who, in that city, exercised the strictest vigilance over the Christians. When he stood before the judgment-seat, the Proconsul asked him for his name. Symphorian replied that he was a Christian by religion, was born of Christian parents, and had received the name Symphorian.

The Judge said: “Why didst thou not honor the mother of the gods, or worship her image?”

Symphorian answered: “Because I am a Christian, and call only upon the living God, who reigns in heaven. But as to the image of Satan I not only do not worship it, but, if you will let me, I will break it in pieces with a hammer.”

The Judge said: “This man is not only sacrilegious at heart, but also obstinate and a rebel; but perhaps he knows nothing of the ordinances or decrees of the Emperor. Let the officer, therefore, read to him the decrees of the Emperors.”

The decrees having been read to him, Symphorian said: “I shall notwithstanding never confess that this image is anything but a worthless idol of Satan, by which he persuades men that he is a god; while it is an evident demonstration of their eternal destruction for all those who put their trust in it.”

Upon this confession, the Judge caused him to be scourged and cast into prison, to keep him for some other day. Some time after, he had him brought again before his judgment-seat, and addressed him with kind words, saying: “Symphorian, sacrifice to the gods, that thou mayest be promoted to the highest honor and state at court. If not, I call the gods to witness that I am compelled this day, after various tortures, to sentence thee to death.”

Symphorian answered: “What matters it, if we deliver up this life to Christ, since, by reason of debt, in any event we must pay it to him? Your gifts and presents are mingled with the sweetness of the adulterated honey, with which you poison the minds of the unbelieving. But our treasures and riches are ever in Christ, our Lord, alone; and do not perish through age or length of time; whereas your desire is insatiable, and you possess nothing, even though you have everything in abundance. The joy and mirth which you enjoy in this world, is like fine glass, which, if placed in the radiance and heat of the sun, cracks and breaks in two; but God alone is our supreme happiness.”

After Symphorian had said these and like things before the Judge, Heraclius, the Proconsul, pronounced sentence of death upon him, saying: “Symphorian, having openly been found guilty of death, because he hath blasphemed against the holy altars, shall be executed with the sword.”

When this godly confessor was led to death, to be offered up to Christ, his mother called down to him from the wall of the city this comforting admonition: “Symphorian, my son! my son! remember the living God; let thy heart be steadfast and valiant. We can surely not fear death, which beyond doubt leads us into the true life. Lift up thy heart to heaven, my son, and behold him who reigns in heaven! To-day thy life will not be taken from thee, but be changed into a better one. If thou remainest steadfast to-day, thou shalt make a happy exchange: leaving this earthly house, thou shalt go to dwell in the tabernacle not made with hands.”

Symphorian, having been thus strengthened by his mother, was taken out of the city, and beheaded there, having commended his soul into the hands of God, in the time of Emperor Aurelian, and Heraclius, the Proconsul, at Autum in Burgundy. His dead body was buried by certain Christians. Compare A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 19, col. 4, and fol. 90, col. 1, ex Actis Proconsul. Greg. Turan. Degl. Confess., cap. 77, and Hist., lib. 2, cap. 15, with different other authors concerning Symphorian.

SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PRECEDING MARTYRS, A. D. 284, DIOCLETIAN ATTAINED TO THE REIGN OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, AND SHORTLY AFTERWARDS ISSUED HIS FIRST EDICT AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY A SECOND IN 302, CALLED THE TENTH PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS.

Before the tenth general and severe persecution of the Christians began, A. D. 302, many Christians were put to death in different places, and throughout this whole period, by virtue of the first edict of Diocletian. Of these we shall present a few, and then, with the beginning of the next century, proceed to the tenth and severest persecution.

CLAUDIUS, ASTERIUS, AND NEON, THREE BROTHERS, CRUCIFIED FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST; ALSO TWO WOMEN, DONUINA AND THEONILLA, TORMENTED TO DEATH FOR THE SAME TESTIMONY, AT ÆGÆA IN CILICIA, A. D. 285.

It is stated that in the second year of the reign of Emperor Diocletian, which coincides with the year 285, three pious Christians, spiritual as well as natural brothers, called Claudius, Asterius, and Neon, were accused to the Judge of the City of Aegæa, in Cilicia, of being Christians, by their stepmother, who, as it seems, was a heathen woman.

Two godfearing Christian women, named Donuina, and Theonilla, were also accused with them. They were all imprisoned till the arrival of Lysias, the Proconsul, who, on his tour through the provinces of Cilicia, also came to Aegæa, and there held criminal court against the Christians.

How Claudius was examined first.--Claudius being first brought before his judgment-seat, Lysias asked him for his name, and admonished him, not thus rashly to throw away the bloom of his youth, but to sacrifice to the gods, and thus obey the command of the Emperor, that he might escape the ready penalty.

Claudius answered: “Our God does not need these sacrifices; he has more pleasure in works of love and mercy towards our fellowmen, and in holiness of life; but your gods are unclean evil spirits, and delight in such sacrifices, by which they bring eternal punishment upon those who offer them. You shall therefore never be able to persuade me to honor them.”

Lysias said: “Bind him, and scourge him with rods; for there is no other way to tame his folly.”

Claudius said: “By these severe tortures thou shalt not harm me, but wilt bring down upon thyself eternal punishment.”

Lysias said: “Our lords, the Emperors, have commanded that the Christians shall sacrifice to the gods. It is their will, that the disobedient be punished; while to them who obey their commandment they promise honor and office.”

Claudius replied: “These gifts and benefits endure but a short time, but the confession of Christ imparts eternal glory.”

Lysias commanded that they should suspend him on the torture-stake, put fire under his feet, and cut off pieces from his heels.

Claudius said: “They who fear God with all their hearts cannot be overcome either by fire or by other torments; for they know that even these things are serviceable to them unto eternal life.”

Lysias commanded: “Let him be tormented with pincers, scraped or cut with potsherds, and burned with torches.”

Claudius said: “I say nevertheless, that thou doest all this for Satan, and that it conduces to my welfare, but tends to thy eternal perdition. Yea, thy fire and all these torments promote my salvation. Such is our condition, that those who thus suffer for the name of Christ, obtain eternal life.”

Lysias then commanded: “Desist from him; lead him back into prison, and bring forth another.”

Asterius examined.--When Asterius, the second brother, stood before the Proconsul, Lysias said: “Obey me, Asterius! sacrifice to the gods, and thus escape punishment.”

Asterius answered: “I shall not do it; for I worship the only true God, who has created heaven and earth, and who shall come to judge the quick and the dead.”

Lysias said: “Throw him on the rack, tear his flesh from his sides with pincers, and say to him: ‘Believe now at least, and sacrifice to the gods.’”

Asterius replied: “I am a brother of him who was tormented just now, and we hold the same confession of faith in Christ. Do what thou mayest; my body is in thy power, but not my soul.”

Lysias commanded: “Bind him hand and foot, stretch him out, and torture him; take the pincers, throw hot coals under his feet, scourge him with rods and thongs.”

Asterius said to the Proconsul: “Thou doest foolishly, since thou art preparing, not for me, but for thyself, much severer torments. Do thy best, for aught I care. I can stand it, if not one member of my body remains untormented.”

Lysias said: “Loose him, and keep him in custody with the other; and let the third one be brought forth.” This was done.

Neon examined.--When Neon stood before the judgment-seat, Lysias said to him: “Son, listen to me, and sacrifice to the gods, so that thou needst not suffer all this.”

Neon said: “There are no gods, neither have they any power. You worship idols, but I honor the God of heaven.”

Lysias said: “Take him by the throat and let the crier announce to him, to desist blaspheming the gods.”

Neon answered: “He that speaks does not blaspheme the truth.”

Lysias commanded: “Stretch him out on the rack; put coals under him; beat and cut him.”

Neon said: “I know what is needful for me. Whatever, then, is profitable to my soul, that shall I do; but I cannot be moved from my faith.”

Lysias having gone within to the other members of the tribunal, and having drawn the cover over the court, determined with them upon the sentence of death for the three brothers. When he came out, he read from a tablet their sentence, which was as follows: “Claudius, Asterius, and Neon, brothers, who are Christians, who blaspheme the gods, and refuse to sacrifice, shall be crucified before the forum, and their bodies be given to the birds of heaven as food, to be devoured by them; and this shall be executed by Eulalius, the jailer, and Archelaus, the executioner.”

However, before they were led forth to death, they were taken back to prison. Then Eulalius, the jailer, brought out Donuina, one of the women imprisoned, to whom Lysias, the Proconsul, said: “See, woman, this fire and these torments are ready for you. If you desire to escape unhurt by them, sacrifice before the gods.”

Donuina replied: “I shall not do it, lest I fall into the everlasting pains of hell. I serve God and his anointed Christ, who has created heaven and earth, and all that is therein. Your gods are of wood and stone, and are made by human hands.”

Donuina examined on the rack.--Lysias said: “Strip her stark naked, stretch her, and lacerate all her members with rods.” While they were beating her she died. Then said Archelaus, the executioner, to the Proconsul: “Your highness, Donuina has died.” Lysias commanded: “Let her dead body be thrown into the river.”

Eulalius, the jailer, then said: “Here is Theonilla.” Lysias said to her: “Woman, thou hast seen, what punishment they who were disobedient have suffered, and how they have been tormented. Honor the gods, therefore, and sacrifice, so that thou mayest be delivered from these punishments.”

Theonilla answered: “I fear him who has power to cast both soul and body into the fire of hell; and who will burn with it all those who depart from God, and give honor to Satan.”

Lysias said: “Smite her on the cheeks, throw her down, bind her feet, and torment her greatly.”

Theonilla answered: “Does it seem to thee, to be right and proper, thus to maltreat a well-born woman? Thou knowest, that thou canst not conceal from God what thou doest to me.”

Lysias commanded: “Hang her up by the braids of her hair, and smite her on the cheeks.”

Theonilla severely examined on the rack.--Having been stripped naked, Theonilla said: “Art thou not ashamed to uncover my nakedness, seeing that through me, thou puttest to like shame thy mother and thy wife, who are also women?”

Lysias asked whether she had a husband, or whether she was a widow?

Theonilla replied: “I have been a widow now for over twenty-three years, and have remained thus single, in order to more zealously serve God with fasting, watching and praying; which God I did not know until after I had renounced the world and the idols.”

Lysias commanded them, in order to disgrace her the more, to shave the hair from her head, put bundles of thorns around her body, and stretch her out between four stakes, then, to beat her over her whole body, and put hot coals upon her, that she might be consumed. When Eulalius, the jailer, and Archelaus, the executioner, had done all this, death ensued, and they said to Lysias: “Sir, she is dead now.” Lysias commanded that her dead body should be sewed up in a leathern bag, and thrown into the water; which was done. Thus did these holy martyrs suffer, under Lysias, the Proconsul of Cilicia, in Aegæa, on the 23d of August, in the second year of Diocletian, when he was Burgomaster with Aristobulus, A. D. 285. These acts have for the most part been taken from the records of the clerk of the criminal court of the city of Aegæa, and were gathered by the ancient Christians. These court documents were called Acta Proconsularia. Compare this with A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 92, col. 3, 4, and fol. 93, col. 1.

ZENOBIUS AND HIS SISTER ZENOBIA, BEHEADED AFTER MANY TORMENTS, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, AT AEGÆA IN CILICIA, A. D. 285.

Not long afterwards, under the same Emperor and Proconsul, and in the same year, Zenobius, Bishop of the church of Aegæa in Cilicia, and his sister, were apprehended; and when there were held out to him on the one hand, great wealth, honor, and position, if, in accordance with the command of the Emperor, he would serve the gods, but on the other hand, manifold torments, Zenobius answered: “I love Jesus Christ more than all the riches and honor of this world. Death and the torments with which you threaten me, I do not consider a disadvantage, but my greatest gain.”

Having received this answer from the martyr, Lysias caused him to be suspended on the rack, and inhumanly tormented on his whole body.

While the executioners were busy with Zenobius, his sister Zenobia, having learned of it, came running, crying with a loud voice: “Thou tyrant, what villainy has my brother committed, that thou dost thus cruelly torment him?”

Having thus addressed Lysias, and set at naught his entreating as well as his threatening words, she, too, was seized by the servants, stripped naked, and stretched out, and roasted beside her brother on a redhot iron bed, or roasting pan. The tyrant, deriding the martyrs, said: “Now let Christ come and help you, seeing you suffer these torments for him.”

Zenobius replied: “See, he is already with us, and cools, with his heavenly dew the flames of fire on our bodies; though thou, surrounded as thou art with the thick darkness of wickedness, canst not perceive it on us.”

Lysias, almost beside himself, commanded that they should be put naked into boiling caldrons. But seeing that the boiling water did not injure them, or, at least, that they could not thereby be made to apostatize, he had them taken out of the city and beheaded. Their dead bodies were buried by Caius and Hermogenes in the nearest cave. This happened A. D. 285, on the 30th day of October; in the city of Aegæa in Cilicia. Idem. Ibidem. ex Actis Zenobii procons. per Metaphorast.

THARACUS, PROBUS, AND ANDRONICUS, THREE PIOUS CHRISTIANS, FIRST VERY DREADFULLY TORMENTED, THEN THROWN BEFORE THE WILD BEASTS, AND FINALLY THRUST THROUGH, FOR THE FAITH OF THE SON OF GOD, AT TARSUS IN CILICIA, A. D. 290.

At Tarsus in Cilicia, the birthplace of the apostle Paul, there were imprisoned, A. D. 290, three pious Christians, namely, Tharacus, Probus, and Andronicus; who, having been brought to prison, before the tribunal, and to the rack, and having suffered beyond measure for the name of the Lord and the faith in Jesus Christ, were finally put to death, concerning which we shall notice and present to the reader the judicial proceedings, as we have found them in ancient authors. From Act. Procons.

When Diocletian was Emperor for the fourth, and Maximian for the third time, Tharacus, Probus, and Andronicus were brought by the captain Demetrius before Maximus, the President, at Pompeiopolis.

First examination of Tharacus.--Maximus first asked Tharacus his name, because the latter was the oldest. Tharacus answered: “I am a Christian.”

Maximus said: “Be silent about this ungodly name, and tell me your name.”

Tharacus again replied: “I am a Christian.”

Maximus said to his beadles: “Break his jaws, and tell him not to answer me thus any more.”

Tharacus responded: “I have told thee my best name; but if thou desirest to know how my parents called me, my name is Tharacus, and when I followed war, I was called Victor.”

The President asked him: “Of what nation art thou, Tharacus?”

He answered: “Of the noble nation of the Romans, and was born at Claudianopolis, a city in Syria; but being a Christian I have abandoned war.”

The Proconsul said: “Thou art not worthy of the pay, but how didst thou leave the service?”

Tharacus replied: “I asked Publius, our General, for permission, and he discharged me.”

The President said: “Have regard for thy age, then; for I desire thee, too, to be one of those who obey the commands of our lords, the emperors; so that thou mayest be promoted by me to great honors. Come hither, therefore, and sacrifice to our gods, for the princes themselves, who are the monarchs of the whole world, honor the gods.”

Tharacus answered: “They err grossly; however, they are seduced by Satan.”

The President said: “Smite him on the cheek, because he has said that the emperors err.”

Tharacus replied: “Yes, I have said it, and say it still, that they as men are liable to err.”

The President said: “Sacrifice to our gods, and forsake thy folly.”

Tharacus answered: “I serve my God, and sacrifice to him: not with blood, but with a pure heart; for these sacrifices (namely such as are stained with blood) are unnecessary.”

The President said: “I have pity for thy age; therefore I admonish thee, to forsake this folly, and sacrifice to the gods.”

Tharacus replied: “I will not depart from the law of the Lord; and because I honor the law of God, I shall beware of such wickedness.”

The President said: “Is there, then, another law besides this, thou wicked wretch?”

Tharacus answered: “Your law commands to worship wood, stone, and the work of man.”

Tharacus put to the rack.--The Proconsul or President then said to his hangmen: “Smite him on the neck, and tell him not to speak such folly.”

While they were beating Tharacus, he said: “I shall by no means abandon this confession, which saves me.”

The Proconsul said: “I shall make thee forsake this folly, and be more prudent.”

Tharacus answered: “Do what thou wilt; thou hast full power over my body.”

Maximus, the Proconsul, said to his servants: “Strip him, and scourge him with rods.”

Tharacus answered, as he was scourged: “Truly, thou hast made me more prudent, since by these stripes thou strengthenest me more and more in my confidence in God and his Anointed, Jesus Christ, who is his Son.”

The President said: “Thou accursed and unrighteous fellow! how canst thou serve two gods at once. See, now thou dost certainly confess more than one god. Why then, deniest thou those whom we worship? Dost thou not confess Christ and the Lord?”

Tharacus answered: “Yea, I do; for he is the Son of God, the hope of all Christians, for whose sake we are wounded, and healed.”

The President said: “Leave off this useless babbling; come hither, and sacrifice.”

“I do not say much,” replied Tharacus, “but I speak the truth; for I am now sixty-five years old, and have believed thus, and do not desire to depart from the truth.”

Demetrius, the Centurion, said: “O wretched man! spare thyself, sacrifice, and follow my advice.”

Tharacus answered: “Depart from me, thou servant of Satan, with thy advice.”

Maximus commanded them, to put heavy iron chains on him, and take him back to prison, and to bring forth another.

Probus examined.--Demetrius, the Captain, said: “Lord, here is one already.”

Thereupon the President said to Probus: “Tell me first thy name.”

Probus answered: “In the first place, my noblest name is, that I am a Christian; secondly, men call me Probus.”

The Proconsul asked again: “Of what nation and descent art thou?”

Probus replied: “My father was from Thracia, a citizen, born at Pergamus, in Pamphilia; but I am a Christian.”

The Proconsul said: “Thou shalt not gain much by this name; but listen to me, and sacrifice to the gods; that thou mayest be honored by the princes, and be our friend.”

Probus answered: “I desire neither honor from the emperors nor thy friendship; for not small was the wealth which I forsook, in order faithfully to serve the living God.”

The Proconsul commanded them, to take his cloak off him, strip him, rack him, and scourge him with raw thongs. While they scourged him, Demetrius, the captain, said: “O wretched man! behold, how thy blood is spilled upon the earth.”

Probus replied: “My body is in your hands; but all these torments are a precious balm to me.”

After he was scourged, the Proconsul said to him: “Thou wretch! wilt thou not yet cease from thy folly? and dost thou still persist in thy obstinacy?”

Probus answered: “I am not vain, but more courageous in the Lord, than you people are.”

The President said to his servants: “Turn him over, and scourge him on his stomach.”

Probus prayed, saying: “O Lord, come and succor thy servant.”

Maximus, the Proconsul, said to the executioners: “While you scourge him, ask him, saying: ‘Where is thy helper?’”

Probus replied as they scourged him: “He has helped me, and shall still help me.”

The President said: “Thou wretched man! do spare thine own body; for the earth is soaked with thy blood.”

Probus answered: “Be assured, the more my body suffers for the name of Christ, the more my soul is healed and quickened.”

After he had been thus scourged and tortured, the Proconsul commanded them to fetter his hands and feet with irons, and thus keep him in prison; however to bring before him another.

Andronicus examined.--Demetrius, the Centurion, placed Andronicus before Maximus’ judgment seat, saying: “Sir, here is the third one.”

The Proconsul said: “What is thy name?”

Andronicus answered: “Wouldst thou openly know who I am? I am a Christian.”

Maximus said: “Those who have preceded thee have gained nothing by this name; therefore thou must answer me aright.”

Andronicus replied: “Men generally call me Andronicus.”

Maximus asked him of what nationality he was.

Andronicus answered: “Of noble blood.”

Maximus said: “Spare thyself, and hearken to me, as to thy father; for those who have prated such nonsense before thee have gained nothing by it. But honor thou the princes and the fathers, and be obedient to our gods.”

Andronicus replied: “Thou didst well call them fathers; for thou art of the father, the devil, and, having become one of his children, thou doest his works.”

Maximus said: “Wilt thou, a stripling, despise and mock me? Knowest thou not, what torments are ready for thee?”

Andronicus said: “Dost thou think I am a fool, that I should be willing to be found inferior to my predecessors, in suffering? I stand prepared to endure all thy torments.”

The Proconsul commanded that he should be stripped, ungirded, and suspended to the torture-stake. Demetrius, the Captain, moved by pity, said: “Listen to me, wretched man, before thy body be racked.”

Andronicus answered: “It is better that my body perish, than that thou shouldst do with my soul according to thy pleasure.”

Maximus said: “Take advice, and sacrifice, before thou be tortured to death.”

Andronicus replied: “Never from my youth up did I sacrifice, and do still not wish to do so, though thou constrain me.”

Maximus said: “Lay on, and rack him well.”

Anaximus, the horn-blower, who was to execute the sentence, spoke to Andronicus, saying: “I am old enough to be thy father; I advise thee to the best: do what the Proconsul commands thee.”

Andronicus replied: “Because thou art older, and hast no understanding, therefore thou advisest me to sacrifice to stones and evil spirits.”

While he was being tormented, the Proconsul said: “Thou wretched man! Dost thou not feel any torments, seeing thou hast no compassion upon thyself, and dost not forsake thy folly, which cannot save thee?”

Andronicus answered: “My sincere confession, which thou callest a vain folly, is perfectly good, as putting all hope and confidence upon the Lord our God; but thy temporal wisdom shall die forever.”

The President asked: “Who is it that has taught thee this folly?”

Andronicus replied: “The quickening word, by which we are quickened, teaches us that our Lord is in heaven, who works in our hearts the living hope of our blessed resurrection from the dead.”

Maximus said: “Desist from this folly before we torture thee still more severely.”

Andronicus answered: “My body is before thee; thou hast full power over it; do as it pleaseth thee.”

The Proconsul said: “Torture him exceedingly on the mouth.”

Andronicus replied: “The Lord sees that you punish me even as a murderer.”

The President said: “Dost thou still despise the commands of the princes? and thinkest thou my tribunal is without power?”

Andronicus answered: “I trust in the mercy and truth of God’s promise, and therefore I suffer all this patiently.”

Maximus asked: “Have, then, the princes transgressed, thou wretched man?”

Andronicus replied: “Yes, according as I understand it, they have; for it is a transgression to sacrifice to idols.”

While he was being tormented, the Proconsul said: “Turn him over, and torment him on his sides.”

Andronicus said: “I am before you. Torment me as you please.”

The President said to the executioners: “Take potsherds, and scrape open the old wounds.”

When they had done this, Andronicus said: “You have strengthened my body by these torments.”

Maximus said: “Ere long I shall exterminate thee; ere long I shall kill thee.”

Andronicus answered: “I do not fear thy threats; my sentiments are better than all thy wicked thoughts.”

Then the Proconsul commanded that irons should be put on his neck and feet, and he be kept with the others until the second examination.

SECOND EXAMINATION OF THE THREE AFOREMENTIONED CHRISTIANS.

When Maximus held court the second time over these faithful witnesses of Jesus Christ, and sat upon his judgment-seat, he said: “Call in the ungodly Christians.” Demetrius, the captain, answered: “Here I am, my lord!” Then said the Proconsul to Tharacus: “Knowest thou not, that age is honored in many respects? Hast thou, then, not considered it, whether thou wilt still persist in thy first intention? Yea, advise with thyself, and sacrifice to the gods, for the prosperity of the princes; that thou mayest attain to honor.”

Tharacus answered: “If the princes and others who are of the same opinion with you, knew what there is in this honor, they themselves would turn away from the blindness of their vain conversation.”

Tharacus put on the rack the second time.--The Proconsul said to his beadles: “Strike him on the mouth with stones, and say to him: Desist from thy folly.” Tharacus answered: “If I did not exercise more care for my salvation than you people do, I would be as foolish as you are.”

The President said to him: “See, they have knocked thy teeth out; do have compassion upon thyself.”

Tharacus replied: “Do not imagine this; for though thou shouldst cause everyone of my members to be crushed, I could still remain strong and steadfast in him who strengthens me.”

The President said: “Believe me, it is better for thee, that thou sacrifice.”

Tharacus answered: “If I knew that it were better for me, I would not wait for this advice from thee.”

When Tharacus ceased to speak, the Proconsul said to his hangmen: “Smite him on the mouth, and make him speak.”

Tharacus replied: “My cheeks are knocked to pieces; how can I answer any longer?”

Maximus said: “And wilt thou, madman, not yet consent to worship, and sacrifice to the gods?”

Tharacus answered: “Although thou hast deprived me of my voice, so that I cannot cry aloud, thou shalt nevertheless not injure my soul; but thou hast in this hour greatly strengthened me in my opinion.”

Maximus said to his servants: “Bring fire! stretch out his hands, and put fire on them.”

Tharacus replied: “I do not fear thy temporal fire; but I would have to fear the eternal fire, if I should obey thee.”

When the glowing fire was laid upon his hands, the President said: “See, the fire is consuming thy hands; desist, therefore, from thy folly and sacrifice to the gods.”

Tharacus answered: “Thou speakest to me, as though because of thy cruelty I had already yielded to thy wish; however, but through the grace of God I am, in all my sufferings, as strong as ever.”

The Proconsul said: “Tie his feet together, and hang him up by his heels, and make a thick smoke under his face.”

Tharacus replied: “I neither regard thy fire, nor do I fear thy smoke.”

When he was hung up, Maximus said to him: “There shalt thou hang, until thou consentest to sacrifice to the gods.”

Tharacus answered: “Thou mayest sacrifice; for thou art accustomed to sacrifice human beings; but for me it is not lawful.”

Maximus said to his servants: “Bring vinegar mixed with salt, and pour it into his nostrils.”

NOTE.--Here a whole leaf is wanting in the original, namely, of the tortures which Tharacus, Probus, and Andronicus suffered in the second examination on the rack; however, concerning Andronicus the following additional was found.

The Proconsul said (namely, to Andronicus): “All this nonsense can avail thee nothing. But come, and sacrifice to the gods, that thou mayest not perish under the punishment.”

Andronicus replied: “It is the same that thou hast heard the first and the second time; for I am not a child, to be moved or turned by words.”

The President said: “You shall nevertheless neither conquer me, nor despise my tribunal.”

Andronicus answered: “We do not conquer thee, but our Lord Jesus Christ strengthens us.”

The President said: “The next time we hold court over these men, let other modes of torture be put in practice. In the meantime put him (Andronicus) in irons, and keep him in prison until tomorrow, and let no one see him.”

THE THREE MARTYRS EXAMINED ON THE RACK THE THIRD TIME.

The President said: “Call the ungodly Christians in.” Demetrius, the centurion, answered: “Here I am.”

Tharacus brought forth first.--When he had brought forth Tharacus, the Proconsul said: “Dost thou still despise imprisonment, bonds, punishments, and tortures? Follow my advice, O Tharacus, and abandon this confession, which profits thee nothing. Rather sacrifice to the gods, by whom all things exist.”

Tharacus answered: “Woe shall come upon them. Thou thinkest that the world is governed by them; whereas they are destined for eternal fire; and not they only, but all those also who serve them.”

The President said: “And dost thou not yet desist, thou impious blasphemer! or thinkest thou not that for thy rash words I should cause thee to be instantly beheaded?”

Tharacus replied: “Then I would not die a lingering death, but a short one. But let me have a long conflict, that in the meantime my faith in the Lord may grow and increase.”

The President said: “Thou and thy fellow-prisoners must die according to the laws.”

Tharacus answered: “What thou sayest is an evidence of thy ignorance; for those who do evil die justly; but we who know of no evil, that is, who have committed nothing worthy of death before men, but suffer for the Lord, expect with confident hope the heavenly reward from the Lord.”

The Proconsul said: “Thou accursed miscreant! what reward have ye to expect, seeing you die for your wickedness?”

Tharacus replied: “It is not lawful for thee to inquire into, or to ask, what reward the Lord has laid up for us in heaven; and therefore we patiently suffer the wrath of thy madness.”

The President said: “Darest thou thus address me, thou accursed [one], as though thou wert mine equal?”

Tharacus answered: “I am not thine equal; but it is lawful for me to speak, and no one can silence me, for the sake of him who strengthens me, namely, the Lord.”

The Proconsul said: “Thou miscreant, I shall deprive thee of the power.”

Tharacus answered: “No one can take away the power from me, neither thou, nor your princes, nor Satan, the father of you all.”

Tharacus put to the rack.--The President said: “Now, seeing thou art bound and suspended, in order that you may be tortured, sacrifice in time, before I cause thee to be punished according to thy deserts.”

Tharacus replied: “That thou mayest do; but since I was formerly a soldier, thou mayest not torment me with all manner of punishment. Yet, lest thou think, I might yield to thy perverseness, go on and devise and inflict upon me all sorts of punishment.”

The President said: “Do not think that I shall sentence thee at once. I shall cause thee to be put to death by degrees.”

Tharacus answered: “Whatever thou intendest to do, do at once, and do not threaten.”

The President said: “If thou think, that some women will come and embalm thy body, thou art greatly mistaken, for it is my intention that nothing shall remain of thee.”

Tharacus replied: “Do with my body as pleaseth thee, now as well as after my death.”

“Maximian,” said the Proconsul, “break his jaws, and tear his lips.”

Tharacus answered: “True, thou hast crushed and marred my face; but thou hast quickened my soul.”

The President said: “Thou wretched man! Desist from thy vain thoughts, and sacrifice; that thou mayest be delivered from these pangs.”

Tharacus replied: “Dost thou think I am a fool or a madman, and that I, who trust in the Lord, shall not live in heaven? Thou mayest deprive me of this temporal life for a little while; but thou wilt thereby cast thine own soul into eternal damnation.”

The President said to the executioners: “Put the branding irons into the fire, and brand him on his cheeks or shoulders.”

Tharacus answered: “Though thou inflict many more torments than these upon me, thou shalt nevertheless not turn the servant of God to the shameful idolatry of devils, to worship them.”

The President said: “Bring a razor; cut off his skin; shave his head bald, and put burning coals upon it.”

Tharacus replied: “And though thou cause my whole body to be flayed, I shall still not depart from my God, who strengthens me, to endure all the weapons of your torturing.”

The President said: “Get the branding irons; let them get still hotter, and apply them to all his members and joints.”

Tharacus, as he suffered this, cried out: “May the Lord look down from heaven, and judge!”

The President said: “What lord dost thou call upon, thou accursed fellow?”

Tharacus answered: “The Lord whom thou dost not know, and who recompenses every one according to his works.”

The President said: “And shall I not exterminate thee, as I have told thee? Yea, even thy remains I shall burn, and scatter thy ashes to the wind; that the women may not come, and wind thy dead body in clothes to embalm it with precious ointments and spices.”

Tharacus replied: “I have said it, and say so still, do what thou wilt: thou hast full power over my body in this world.”

The President said: “Put him back into prison, and keep him until the next time for the wild beasts. Let another be brought before the tribunal.”

Probus brought forward.--Demetrius, the captain, said to the Proconsul: “Sir, here he is already, namely, Probus.”

The President said to Probus: “Advise with thyself, Probus, that thou mayest not fall again into the same punishment; for others, who on thy account have persisted in their obstinacy have rued it. Sacrifice now, therefore, that thou mayest be honored by us and the gods.”

Probus answered: “We are all of one mind, serving God with one heart and soul. Think not, therefore, that thou wilt hear anything different from us; for thou hast ere this heard and seen enough to convince thee, that thou canst not turn us. Here I stand before thee the third time, and do not yet regard thy threats. What dost thou wait for, then?”

The President said: “Ye have conspired together to deny the gods. Bind him, and hang him up by his heels.”

Probus replied: “Dost thou not yet cease to fight for Satan?”

Maximus said: “Believe me, before thou be tortured; have compassion upon thine own body. See, what dreadful torments are being prepared for thee.”

Probus answered: “All that thou mayest do unto me, shall conduce to the comfort of my soul; therefore, do what thou wilt.”

The President said: “Heat the branding irons red-hot, and apply them to his sides, so that he may desist from his folly.”

Probus replied: “The more foolish I appear to thee, the wiser I shall be in the law of the Lord.”

The President said: “Press the branding irons on his back.”

Probus answered as he was suffering: “My body is subject to thy power; but God will behold from heaven my humility and patience.”

In the meantime the President commanded that meat and wine should be brought, which had been sacrificed to the idols, saying to the executioners: “Pour wine down his throat, and take meat, and force it into his mouth.”

While they were busy doing this, Probus said: “The Lord behold from his high throne the violence ye do to me, and judge my cause.”

The President said: “Thou wretched man! thou hast suffered so much, and, behold! thou hast thyself received the sacrifice.”

Probus replied: “Ye have not accomplished much, by doing me violence. The Lord knoweth my intentions.”

The President said: “Thou hast eaten and drank what was sacrificed to the gods.”

Probus answered: “The Lord knoweth it, and hath seen the violence I have suffered.”

The President said to the executioners: “Apply the branding irons to the calves of his legs.”

Probus replied: “Neither the fire, nor the torments, nor thy father, Satan, can turn the servant of God from his confession.”

The President said to his servants: “Let sharp nails be heated, and put them into his hands.”

Probus answered as he suffered this: “I thank thee, O Lord, that thou hast made my hands worthy, to suffer for thy name.”

The President said: “The many torments have deprived thee of thy mind.”

Probus replied: “The great power which thou hast, has not only made thee a fool, but also blind; for thou knowest not what thou art doing.”

The President said: “Thou who hast been tormented on thy whole body excepting the eyes, darest thou speak thus to me?” “Pinch his eyes,” said he to the executioners, “that he may gradually become blind.”

When this had been done, Probus said: “Behold, thou has also deprived me of my bodily eyes, but thou shalt never be permitted to destroy the eyes of my faith.”

The President said: “Dost thou think thou wilt survive all these torments, or that thus thou shalt die happy?”

Probus answered: “Fighting thus, I gradually approach the end, so that I may finish my good and perfect confession, and be put to death by you without mercy.”

The President said: “Take him away, bind him, put him in prison, and let none of his companions come near him, to praise him for having continued so steadfast in his wickedness. He, too, shall be cast before the wild beasts at the next show.”

Andronicus put to the rack.--Then said the President: “Let Andronicus come forth.”

Demetrius, the captain, said: “He is already here.”

The President said to Andronicus: “Have at least compassion on thy youth, if thou hast prudently advised with thyself to reverence the gods: consent and sacrifice to the gods, that thou mayest be released.”

Andronicus answered: “May God never suffer thee, O tyrant, that I do aught against the law of God. Thou shalt never shake my good confession, which I have founded upon my Lord. Here I stand ready, for thee to make manifest on me thy hardness.”

The President said: “Methinks, thou art raving, and possessed of the devil.”

Andronicus replied: “If I had the devil in me, I should obey thee; but because I confess the Lord, I do not submit to the commands of the devil. But hast not thou the devil in thee? For, being deceived by the devil, thou doest the works of the devil.”

The President said to the Executioners: “Make bundles of paper, and put fire upon his body.”

When this was done, Andronicus said: “Though I burn from head to foot, the spirit nevertheless is alive in me. Thou shalt not conquer me; for the Lord, whom I serve is with me.”

The President said: “Thou madman! how long wilt thou remain thus obstinate? Seek at least to die upon thy bed.”

Andronicus answered: “As long as I live, I shall overcome thy wickedness.”

The President said: “Heat the branding-irons red-hot again, and put them between his fingers.”

Andronicus replied: “O foolish despiser of God! Thou art full of the wicked thoughts of Satan. Seest thou not that my body is almost consumed through the manifold torments thou hast inflicted upon me. Thinkest thou that now at the last I shall begin to fear thy devices? I have Christ dwelling in my heart, and despise thy torments.”

The President said: “Thou miscreant! knowest thou not that this Christ, whom thou worshipest became man, and was punished under the Judge Pontius Pilate?”

Andronicus answered: “Be silent, for it is not lawful for thee to speak evil of him.”

The President said: “What gainest thou by thy faith and hope in this man whom thou callest Christ?”

Andronicus replied: “I have thereby in expectation a great reward and gain; hence I endure all this so patiently.”

The President said: “Break open his mouth, and take meat that has been sacrificed, from the altar, and force it into his mouth, and pour in wine also.”

Andronicus called God to witness, saying: “O Lord! Lord! behold, what violence I suffer!”

The President said: “How long wilt thou thus obstinately endure the punishment? See, thou hast certainly eaten of that which has been sacrificed to the gods.”

Andronicus answered: “Cursed be all who honor the idols, thou and thy princes.”

The President said: “Thou miscreant, cursest thou the princes, who have obtained for us so lasting and tranquil peace?”

Andronicus replied: “They are cursed, who, as the pestilence, and as bloodhounds, turn the whole world upside down; whom the Lord by his mighty arm shall confound and destroy.”

The President commanded the executioners: “Put an iron into his mouth, and with it break out all his teeth, and cut out his blasphemous tongue, that he may learn no more to blaspheme the princes. Take away his teeth, and burn his tongue to ashes, and scatter the latter all about, lest his fellow-Christians, or some women, gather his remains, and keep them as precious relics. Take him away from here, and put him into prison, that at the next show he, together with his companions, Tharacus and Probus may be thrown before the wild beasts.” Acta Procons. per Metaph. and alios.

It is declared that the above account concerning the examination of the three aforementioned Christians was written entirely by the heathen themselves, who put them to death; only a few words having been altered, to make the sense clearer. A certain celebrated author mentioning this, writes as follows: “Herewith ends the third examination or inquisition on the rack, and thus far these proceedings with the martyrs have been recorded by the heathen clerk of the criminal court himself, and were doubtless afterwards bought for money by the Christians.”

Beloved reader! I could not forbear to translate these records, just as they were, for the most part word for word; not only because I have found them to be true and genuine in every respect; but also, because we can very clearly see therefrom, what form of inquisition or examination the heathen employed against the Christians; as well as with what manifold torments the obdurate heathen sought to compel the Christians to apostatize from the faith, and how remarkably God preserved his own against the devices and wiles of the devil.

It need not seem strange to the reader, that the proconsuls or criminal judges so frequently put to the rack the same Christians, to cause them to apostatize from the faith: for Lactantius tells us of a president in Bithynia, who for two years endeavored by all manner of torments to compel a Christian to apostatize, and who, when this Christian finally seemed to yield, boasted of it just as though he had conquered a whole province of a barbaric country.

As touching the rest of the matter, that is, how and when the sentence of the Proconsul was executed, the heathen have not recorded it; but some Christian brethren, namely, Macarius, Felix, and Verus, probably bought those records from the clerk of the criminal court, and added from their own observation what was wanting, since they had been eye-witnesses of it at the theatrical drama the following day.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE DEATH OF THE AFOREMENTIONED MARTYRS, WRITTEN BY SOME CHRISTIAN BRETHREN WHO WITNESSED IT.

Numerius Maximus, Proconsul of Cilicia, summoning Terentian, the provider of public sacrifices and theatrical performances which were held in Cilicia, commanded him to provide for the dramas for the next day. The following day a great number of men and women assembled in the amphitheatre, which was situated about a mile, or one thousand paces from the city. When the amphitheatre was filled with people, Maximus also came to witness the play, and in the first act of it, when many wild beasts were let out at the same time, many human bodies were devoured. We Christians kept ourselves concealed and waited with great fear for the bringing forth of the martyrs. Suddenly the Proconsul commanded the soldiers to bring in the Christian martyrs, namely, Tharacus, Probus, and Andronicus. The soldiers compelled some to carry the Christian martyrs on their shoulders, for they were torn and lacerated to such a degree, that they could not walk. We then saw them carried thus disfigured into the amphitheatre, and seeing how they had been maltreated, we turned our faces, and cried bitterly. Thus the martyrs were thrown down into the middle of the arena, as the offscouring or refuse of this world; and when the multitude beheld them, they were all frightened, and the people murmured greatly against Maximus for having thus tormented them, and then yet sentencing them to be thrown to the beasts; yea, many went away from the amphitheatre, censuring Maximus for his inhuman cruelty. When Maximus saw this, he commanded the soldiers who stood near him, to note those who murmured against him, and were leaving; so that he might afterwards examine them in regard to it. In the meanwhile he commanded that the wild beasts should be let out, to rend the martyrs. In Scriptura Christianorum Fratrum.

In order to avoid prolixity, we shall sum up what follows here in the aforementioned account of the Christian brethren, in these words: “The wild beasts were let out, especially a frightful bear, and then a lioness; both of which indeed, by roaring terribly, made a dreadful noise, so that also the spectators were frightened by it; but they did not harm the martyrs, much less tear or devour them. The Proconsul in his rage commanded the spear-men, to thrust the bear through; the lioness, however, on account of the fear of the people, was let out by a back door, which was broken in pieces. Then Maximus ordered Terentian, to let in the gladiators, who should first kill the Christians, and then fight with each other for life. These, when they came in, first thrust through the martyrs; which happened on the 11th day of October, A. D. 290, at Tarsus in Cilicia.” When the drama was over, and the Proconsul was about to go home, he left ten soldiers in the amphitheatre, charging them, to mingle the dead bodies of the martyrs with those of the heathen gladiators, that the Christians might not be able to distinguish them. However, it is stated in the above account, that the Christians removed their dead bodies, and buried them in a cave in a rock.

In regard to this, A. Mellinus, who has referred to it, has the following remark: “They who did this, also wrote the conclusion of this history; hence we have not the least reason to doubt the veracity of this account of the proceedings against the martyrs.” First book of the Mart. 1619, fol. 96, col. 1; but with reference to the previous proceedings against the martyrs, see fol. 93, col. 3, and fol. 94, col. 1–4, and fol. 95, col. 1–3.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM OF THE MARTYRS IN THE FOURTH CENTURY.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THIS CENTURY.

At the close of the third century the eminent Arnobius was introduced, and inasmuch as his life extended from one century into the other we refer to him again here in the beginning of the fourth century. He speaks of the virtue and benefit of baptism, as may be seen in the proper place.

Fusca and the handmaid Maura were baptized after previous instruction.

At this time (in the time of Sylvester) there existed such sects as were afterwards called Waldenses, Anabaptists, etc.

One Donatus was called an Anabaptist, and his followers, Anabaptists.

Athanasius, while yet a child, indicated, with other children, that at Alexandria they baptized upon confession of faith.

In Canon 12, 13, 15, of the Council of Nice several good things are established with regard to baptism.

Athanasius, having become a man, teaches wholesome doctrine, not only with respect to baptism, but also in regard to other matters of religion.

Soon after him comes Marius Victorinus, who joins together faith, confession, and baptism.

Then appears Hilarius, who wrote very appropriately on baptism, and also opposes antichrist, images, and traditions.

Monica, the mother of Augustine, was baptized in adult years, though she was born of Christian parents.

In the Council of Neocesarea, the candidates for baptism, the baptizing of pregnant women, Christ’s baptism, etc., were discussed.

Again sects appear, who were like the Baptists.

St. Martin was instructed from his twelfth to his eighteenth year, and then baptized. He strongly opposed war.

Ambrose was baptized in adult years, at Milan, though his parents were Christians. He advanced sound views on baptism, against war, of the sacrament, etc.

Ephrem, Gregory of Nyssa, the Councils of Laodicea and Elibertum, and also Optatus Milevitanus, give correct views on baptism.

Gregory of Nazianzus, born of Christian parents, was already in his twentieth year when he was baptized. Nectarius was baptized in adult years. Basil, the son of a Christian, and Eubulus, consulted together, and were baptized on their faith, at Jerusalem. Posthumanius made a glorious confession at his baptism. John Crysostom was suffered by his parents, though they were Christians, to remain unbaptized, not receiving baptism until he was twenty-one years old. Also, his views respecting baptism; his teaching against war, confession, etc.

Jerome, also born of Christian parents, was baptized at Syridon, when he was thirty years old.

Augustine, Adeolatus, Alipius, Euodius, Epiphanius, with his sister, all baptized upon faith. Conclusion of baptism in the fourth century.

That the holy order of the baptism of Jesus Christ was practiced also in the fourth century, appears from various teachings and examples of the fathers, from which, we shall present only a few, but such as are certain and genuine testimonies.

A. D. 301.--At the close of the preceding century, for A. D. 300, we introduced the eminent Arnobius, and showed that, speaking of baptism, he says: “That the candidates for baptism, when they are baptized, state before the minister their perfect willingness, and make their confession with their own lips.”

This Arnobius follows us also in the beginning of this century, namely through the years 301, 302, 303, 304; and having not abandoned his previous views regarding this matter, he confirms them with the following testimonies.

Speaking against the tenets of the Romanists, who ordain consecrated, or, properly speaking, exorcised water for baptism, he writes thus (in Psalm 74): “It is written: Thou breakest the heads of the dragons in the waters; that is,” says he, “the heads of the dragons in baptism;” but by saying, in the waters, he means to signify that the same baptism can be administered in all kinds of waters, as, in rivers, lakes, wells, baths, seas, etc. In these the head of the dragon, that is Satan, is broken in all waters. Jacob Mehrn. Bapt. Hist., page 323.

Of the virtue and benefit of baptism he teaches as follows, Psalm 32, where the Psalmist says: “In the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him,” upon which he remarks: “that men, by the true water of baptism, draw nigh to God, who is a refuge from the fear of Satan that encompasses us.” Jacob Mehrn., page 324.

Again, Psalm 32, he says: “Man is redeemed; no angel, nor any other creature, but man alone praises his mercy, says the Lord, whose sins he forgives in baptism.” Jacob Mehrn., page 325.

Although these words of Arnobius are somewhat obscure, yet they contain light enough, to emit rays of divine truth concerning the matter of baptism. For when in the first place he says, that the head of the dragon is broken in baptism (by dragon meaning Satan), he certainly indicates thereby, that he speaks of persons who, having attained maturer years, become subject to the assaults of Satan, and that these, in baptism, break the head of the dragon, that is, Satan, by means of the true faith, through Christ; hence he does not speak of children--who are ignorant of the assaults of Satan--and, consequently, not of infant baptism.

Secondly, when he says that men, by the true water of baptism, draw nigh to God, he certainly indicates that he speaks of men who have departed from God through disobedience, consequently, of persons who have arrived at the years of discretion; and not of infants; for how can any one draw nigh to God by baptism, who has not departed from him? Infants have not departed from God through disobedience; hence they cannot draw nigh to him by baptism.

Thirdly, when he speaks of man, who praises the mercy of the Lord, and whose sins the Lord forgives in baptism, he certainly indicates that he speaks of men who are capable of praising the mercy of the Lord, namely, men possessing understanding, and who have sinned; for only he that has sinned can have his sins forgiven; but with infants, who have never sinned, no forgiveness can take place, and consequently, no baptism for the remission of sins. By this the obscure words of Arnobius became clear.

NOTE.--P. J. Twisck records, for the year 306, that Constantine the Great, the son of the believing Helena, was baptized in Jordan, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, after having been instructed (Chron. 4th book, page 89, col. 1); from which it is apparent, that at that time Christians left their children unbaptized, in order that they themselves might believe and be baptized.

A. D. 308.--Fusca, the pious maiden, conceived a desire for the Christian faith when she was quite young, and, having manifested this desire to the servant-maid, Mauro, who also felt an inward drawing towards Christ, they were thoroughly instructed in the Christian faith at Ravenna, by the teacher Hermola, and baptized. P. J. Twisck, Chron. 4th book, page 90, col. 1, from Grond. Bew., letter B, Leonh., lib. 2.

A. D. 315.--It is stated that already in the time of Sylvester, there was taught and maintained the same doctrine which was afterwards maintained by countless numbers of the baptistic Waldenses, yea, that those churches which in the 11th, 12th, 13th, and in subsequent centuries were styled Waldenses Albigenses, and lastly, Mennonites, or Anabaptists, had existed already at that time, and indeed, long before. Of this a certain celebrated author among the Romanists bitterly complains, in a very old book, saying: “These heretics (the people mentioned above) have always had many sects among them; but of all that ever existed, none was more pernicious to the church of God (understand the Roman church) than the Poor of Lyons (the Waldenses or Anabaptists), and this for three reasons: In the first place, because of their antiquity; some asserting that they existed already in the days of Sylvester, others referring them even to the time of the apostles.” Jac. Mehrn., page 615.

In another place Jacob Mehrning writes thus about the abovementioned people: “This is not a new sect that originated only at that time (that is, in the time of Waldus); for the papistic writers themselves confess that they existed already in the time of Pope Sylvester, nay, long before him, even in the time of the apostles.” B. H., page 670.

In another place he writes that Flaccius has also recorded the same, from an ancient papistic book, namely, that they existed from the time of Sylvester, yea, from the time of the apostles; and that Thuanus, though he compares them to another people, states that their doctrine has continued through many centuries.” Page 682.

The time of the reign of Sylvester, who was the first pope of this name, and on the register of the Roman bishops the 34th, is fixed in the year 315. See P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, p. 93, col. 1, from Platina, fol. 63. Fasc. Temp., fol. 99, Hist. Georg., lib. 1, Fr. Ala., fol. 22, Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 13.

A. D. 317.--Donatus, an over-learned bishop at Carthage,[101] who had many adherents in Africa, taught among other things: “That the preaching of the divine word and the administration of the sacraments by an ungodly minister, were of no avail. They (his followers) held that the church of Christ existed only among them, and hence, they rebaptized all who wished to adopt their religion, saying that the heretics, or the Pope, had no Christian church, and consequently, no baptism, inasmuch as there was only one God, one faith, one Gospel, one church, and one baptism. ‘They, like the Anabaptists, also held,’ says Franck, ‘that no children, even in the extremity of death, should be baptized, but only believing adults who desired it.’”

[101] Seb. Franck notes as the time of the propagation of the doctrine of Donatus the year 334, under the Emperor Constantine. “He taught,” says Franck, “that the Son is less than the Father, and the Holy Spirit less than the Son.” This is considered heresy by the Roman church, but when rightly expounded, it may be correct. For Christ himself with regard to his humanity says: “My Father is greater than I,” John 14:28. And of the Holy Ghost he says: “If I depart, I will send him unto you,” John 16:7; as though the Holy Ghost were less than himself. Franck further says, that Donatus was an over-learned bishop of Carthage, who had come there from Numidia, and maintained that the true and only baptism existed exclusively in his church and faith. Chron. Rom. Kett., letter D.

When he was imprisoned he upbraided Augustine, saying that no one ought to be imprisoned on account of his faith, God had given man his free will, to believe as he chose. Concerning all this, see, P. J. Twisck Chron., 4th book, p. 93, col. 2, and page 94, col. 1, from Merula, fol. 255. Zeg., fol. 79. Seb. Franck, Chron. van de Roomsche Ketters, letter D., fol. 76, printed A. D. 1563.

As regards Donatus, if it be true that he erred in some things, or failed in some matter of faith, we will not defend him therein; however, this much is certain, that owing to the absence of his writings, we have no other information concerning him, than that which comes to us through the mouth and hand of his adversaries.

Concerning this, P. J. Twisck, in a certain place, expresses his regret, saying, that in his Chronijk, for the year 410, he wrote something derogatory to his followers, before he had been properly informed regarding it; which he afterwards, for the year 417, refutes and explains more clearly by quoting from Bullinger: “That the followers of Donatus were similar to the Anabaptists (whom he calls Baptists); that they taught, that no one ought to be compelled to do good or to accept the faith.” Again: “that every heretic should be left to follow his particular faith without restraint or compulsion.”

On this account, P. J. Twisck, in the same place, relates from another author, that it is quite probable that these people were burdened with many unjust accusations. “It would be desirable,” writes he, “to have in our possession their writings, teachings, and deeds; for if it be the case, that they were in all respects like the Anabaptists, and would compel no one in matters of faith, then it is sufficiently apparent, that they are unjustly charged by other writers, with tyranny. I have given this a place here, because the year 410 was already arranged when this reached me.” Thus far, P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 147, col. 2, from H. Bulling. Contra Anbapt., lib. 5, fol. 216, 222.

NOTE.--We accept of the writings of Donatus only that which is good and true; for the rest we assume no responsibility.

About A. D. 318.--It appears that when Athanasius was yet a boy, at Alexandria also, baptism was not administered otherwise than upon confession of faith; at least, that it was not customary to baptize infants, is evident from the following circumstances of a certain occurrence related by Ruffinus and Zozomenus: “When the day of the martyr Peter was celebrated at Alexandria, by the Bishop Alexander, and he, after the solemn service was over, was awaiting his assistants, or pupils to dine with him, he observed in the distance some children playing on the sea shore, who, very probably, not for the first time were imitating the bishop and those things which are generally done in church. But when he observed the children more attentively, he noticed that they were performing some mysterious things. Astonished at this, he summoned his assistants to him, and showed them what he had seen from a distance. Then he commanded them to seize the children and bring them to him. When they came, he asked them, what they had been playing, and what and how they had been doing? They, as was natural for their years, at first were frightened, and denied the matter, but afterwards related it just as it had taken place, and confessed that they, through Athanasius, who in this game had imitated the Bishop, had baptized some catechumens, that is, boys who had not been baptized. Alexander then inquired of those who they said had been baptized, what questions had been put to them, and what they had answered; likewise interrogating him who had put the questions; and found that all was in accordance with the manner of our religion. Jac. Mehrn., 2d part, pp. 356, 357, from Nicephor., lib. 8, cap. 44. Also, H. Montan. Nietigh., pp. 64, 65, from Ruffin. Eccl. Hist. 1, cap. 14. Zozom. Eccl. Hist., lib. 3, cap. 16.

From these circumstances it is evident that infant baptism was not customary there. First, when we take into consideration the conduct of these boys, we see that in the Christian church at Alexandria the usual mode of baptizing at that time was this, namely: that the Bishop, or whoever administered baptism, first interrogated the candidates for baptism, and then, after they had answered him, they were baptized.

Secondly, if we consider the boys themselves, who apparently were ten or twelve years old, which probability is increased by the fact that Ruffinus (as H. Montanus shows), calls them catechumens, that is, such as were being instructed in the faith, which is plainly indicated by their performance, since they were able to imitate in every particular such important services. These boys are nevertheless called unbaptized, wherefore Athanasius, though by way of play, baptized them.

Moreover, that these boys were born of Christian parents, appears in various ways, as, for instance, in this, that they diligently attended the Christian assemblies, for without this they could never have represented so completely in all its particulars, the baptism practiced in the church. Likewise, in the fact that Alexander and his assistants (as the account further sets forth), enjoined the parents of these boys, who before were unbaptized, but had now been thus baptized, to bring them up in that vocation, namely, in the Christian religion, which certainly would not have been done, had their parents been heathen and not Christians. It is also stated that this was done with invocation and confession of God’s holy name, which certainly would not have been the case with heathen, who worshiped either no god, or many gods.

As to what Alexander held of this performance, we leave it to its own merits; it suffices us to have shown that at that time the Christians at Alexandria suffered their children to remain unbaptized; inasmuch as they were first instructed, and then baptized upon confession of their faith, which, as has been shown, is clearly indicated by the course of the aforementioned boys.

A. D. 333.--It is recorded that in the first great council at Nice, held against Arius, and various innovations in the church, it was resolved among other things:

“Canon 21. The Paulianists and Photinians shall be rebaptized.”

“Canon 12. If any apostatize under persecution, without having been tormented, and sincerely repent, they shall be put among the catechumens for five years, and after two more years, shall be reinstated among the faithful, with prayer.”

“Canon 13. But they who, for the sake of the confession of the faith, have relinquished the military profession and again return to it, shall do penance for thirteen years, and then be received again; however, if they truly repent, the bishop is authorized to mitigate the term of penance, provided he sees that their repentance is fruitful and devout.”

“Canon 15. Concerning the catechumens who have apostatized, it is decided, that they shall be excluded from the prayers of the catechumens who have not apostatized, for three years, and at the end of that time be received back again.” Jac. Mehrn., pages 352, 353, ex Concil. Nicen. Secund. Ruffin.

This is the great Council which is extolled as orthodox and Christian by nearly all so-called Christians. Be this as it may, we see no reason to praise it so highly, seeing that we must honor the precepts of God’s holy word alone, whereas the rules of that council were made by fallible men. Yet, so far as these men have laid down precepts that accord with the precepts of God’s holy word, or, at least, do not militate against them, so far we accept, or, at least, do not oppose them.[102]

[102] In Canon 2, Concil. Nicen., we have the following: “No one who has recently been received from heathendom, and baptized, shall become an ecclesiastic (that is, a teacher or bishop), unless he have been very carefully examined previously.” Bapt. Histor., p. 352, from Ruffinus; which quite agrees with Paul’s words, 1 Tim. 3:6, that no novice shall be ordained to the office of a bishop.

When it is said, in Canon 21, that the Paulianists and Photinians shall be rebaptized, it establishes, that, according to the Holy Scriptures, not every baptism is a genuine or true baptism, and that consequently there is but one baptism which can in truth be called genuine, namely, that baptism which is administered by the true church, and upon the true faith. This is also established at this day by the Anabaptists, and regarded as a precept from the holy word of God.

It is also said in the 15th Canon concerning the catechumens, that if they have fallen, they shall be excluded three years from the prayers of those catechumens who have not fallen. This is an indication of the carefulness exercised by that assembly, to admit to baptism, according to the doctrine of the holy Gospel, no unprepared catechumens before they had truly repented after their fall. The 12th Canon, speaking of the penance to be performed by those who, under persecution, had apostatized without having been tormented; and the 13th Canon, treating of the very great and long penance to be endured by those, who, after having become Christians, had resumed the military profession, and thus become apostates; these precepts we say, militate neither against the holy Scriptures, nor against the views of the Anabaptists, but sufficiently confirm them both.

NOTE.--It is recorded that at this time pseudo-apostles taught that the church of Rome was rejected of God, and that it was not his church, but Babylon, and the whore mentioned in the Apocalypse, who rides the beast with the seven heads; and that we therefore do not owe obedience to the Pope; that under the New Testament we are in no wise bound to give tithes to the priests; that all manner of swearing is unlawful; that a consecrated church is not better to pray in than a pigsty. Seb. Fr. Chron., fol. 120, col. 3.

A. D. 335.--At this time, Athanasius vigorously maintained the cause of such as had been baptized according to order of Christ, against those who, it seems, asserted that baptism might take place without previous instruction, or confession of faith. He says (Serm. 3., Contra Arian.): “Our Savior did not simply command to baptize, but first said, teach, and then, baptize; so that true faith may proceed from the doctrine, and then baptism be perfected with faith.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 99, col. 2; from Grond. Bew., letter A. Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d Part, page 370.

NOTE.--At this time Athanasius taught that it is the duty of every Christian, to read the holy Scriptures, on the 6th chap. Eph. Again, he prohibited the practice of making a likeness of God for the purpose of worshiping him thereby, etc., as being an unlawful thing. Contr. Gent. Sam. Veltius, in the Geslacht-register, page 118.

Notice concerning several writings attributed to Athanasius.--The pedobaptists, prone to bring forward everything that seems in any wise to favor their views, were wont to adduce the 114th and the 124th question of a certain book called, Various Questions of Holy Scripture, attributed to Athanasius. But in answer to this we say: that said book is not the work of Athanasius, but of some other author who wrote subsequently to him; as in his 23d question he cites Athanasius as one having lived before him, saying: “This is the testimony of the great Athanasius, a man who was mighty in the divine Scriptures; but we, who are enlightened by him.” Moreover, that book contains many opinions foreign to Athanasius, as shown by the Centuriatores Magdenburgenses, Cent. 4, cap. 10, p. 1032. See also, H. Montan. Nietigh., p. 69, and J. M., Bapt. Hist., pages 360, 361.

NOTE.--A. D. 320. Lactantius Firmianus taught at this time: 1. “That the sacrifices of the Christian are, a good life, purity, and good works. 2. That there is no religion in a place where there are images. Lib. 2, of the Divine Instruction. Also, Sam. Veltius, in the Geslacht-register,. pp. 116, 117. 3. He taught against compulsion of conscience, and revenge, as appears from the following. He writes to the Emperor Constantine (5th book, chap. 20): “The more the religion of God is suppressed, the more it breaks forth and grows; hence they should employ reasoning and admonition; it is not necessary to proceed with violence. For religion admits of no compulsion; persuasive words can do more to promote the cause than blows.” Again (5th book, chap. 21) he writes: “We Christians do not desire that any one should serve God, the Creator of all, against his will; neither are we angry if he does not serve him; for we trust his Majesty, who can as easily avenge himself against those who despise him, as he does the vexations and injuries inflicted upon his servants. Therefore, when we suffer such shameful things, we say not one word against it, but commit all vengeance to God; not doing as those who would be regarded protectors of their gods, and very cruelly assail those who do not worship them.” Korte ontschuldiging, by P. V. K., edition of 1643, page 47, from Religions Vryheydt, 2d part, p. 10.

About A. D. 340.--Marius Victorius writes in the fifth book against Arius: “Every one that is baptized, and says he believes, and accepts the faith, receives the Spirit of truth, that is, the holy Ghost, and is made holier by him.” J. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 325. I find in authentic writers, no other account of baptism by this Marius, so that this seems to be the only thing he has written about baptism, and from this, too, it is obvious that he must have been a stranger to infant baptism, seeing he joins together confession, faith, and baptism, in the one that is to be baptized.

A. D. 350.--About this time Hilarius attained to the faith in Jesus Christ, and having been baptized upon this faith, he proceeded to defend the truth which he had received and accepted, and, for the strengthening of the faith he had adopted, and that he might live according to the same, he prayed to God (lib. 12 de Trinit.) as follows: “Dear God, preserve my faith and the testimony of my conscience, that I may ever keep that which I confessed in the sacrament of my regeneration, when I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; namely, that I worship thee, O God our Father, and thy Son with thee, and that the Holy Spirit, that proceeds from thee, may be awakened.”

Again Vicecomes (lib. 2, cap. 27) quotes from Hilarius, on the 15th chapter of Matt. the following: “They that come to baptism confess first, that they believe in the Son of God, and in his suffering and resurrection; and this confession is made or pronounced at the sacrament of baptism.”

Again, Hilarius writes (vol. 2, de Trinitate): “The Lord has commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; that is, upon the confession of the Author (that is, him who in the beginning created all things), and the First-born, and the Free Gift (that is, the Son and the Holy Ghost).” Jac. Mehrn. Bapt., Histor., 2d part, pages 371, 372.

HILARIUS ON BAPTISM AND SEVERAL OTHER ARTICLES OF HIS FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK.

Hilarius, originally a heathen, who subsequently became a Christian, and was baptized at Rome, A. D. 350, was a very learned and eloquent man. He writes (lib. 2): “The Lord has commanded to baptize on, or in, the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that is,” etc.

He also defended the truth against the Arians, on account of which he was exiled; and he likewise vigorously opposed the arrogance of the see of Rome, and its dominion over other churches, and said that antichrist would devastate the earth through wars and murder.

To those who concerned themselves more in wondering at the building of the temple, than in the consideration of the doctrine he says: “You are indeed unwise, to look with wonder upon these things; for, you must know that antichrist shall once set his throne there.

“The nature of the name antichrist is opposition to Christ, which he effects under a specious semblance of the Gospel. He transforms himself into an angel of light, that he may alienate the Christian mind. He has already, to some extent, commenced his progress, pretending to be Christ, though he is departed very far from Christ.

“They (that is, the Antichristians) ambitiously desire the aid of the secular power, which they draw to themselves in order to advance their name and honor, and to protect their church; thus working with a worldly ambition, notwithstanding it is folly to employ secular power in defense of the Christian church.

“Let me ask you, ye bishops, what aid did the apostles employ in proclaiming the Gospel? by the assistance of what magistracy did they preach Christ, and convert the heathen from idolatry to God?

“Now the church courts the favor of the world, and boasts that the world loves her, who could at no time have been the church of Christ, without being hated by the world.”

Again, on the 68th Psalm, he says: “God is now preached, honored, and worshiped in stone, wood, and metal, and the Master-builder of the world, the Father of us all, is fashioned in perishable matter, to which they have been brought by the enticing words of philosophy. With these and like words he greatly censures the abuse practiced by the church of Rome.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 104, col. 1, 2, from Socrat., lib. 3. Casp. Swinc., epist. 1, fol. 877. Seb. Fr.

Since the above passages from Hilarius are not only excellent, but also plain, so that they require no explanation, we leave them and proceed to others who confessed the same faith.

NOTE.--At this time, Hilarius taught that all human traditions, on account of which God’s commandments are transgressed, must be rooted out. On Matt. 15, Canon 14. Sam. Veltius, Geslacht-register, page 122. He also writes: “The Father revealed to Peter, who said: ‘Thou art the Son of God,’ that the church should be built upon this rock of confession.” “This faith,” he says, “is the foundation of the church; this faith has the keys of heaven.” In the same place, as well as in the 6th book on the Trinity.

A. D. 350.--In the meantime we find that the parents of Augustine’s mother, though they were Christians, did not have their daughter Monica baptized in her infancy; inasmuch as she was not baptized until she had reached the years of understanding, and this at the time when the followers of Cyprian practiced infant baptism to a very great extent. With regard to this, I find the following account: “Moreover, even in Africa, where Cyprian had held the aforesaid council--to determine on the precise time for baptizing infants--and resolved that baptism should be administered to infants as soon as they were born, it was, about the year 350, not observed by all Christian believers. Of this, we have an example in Monica, Augustine’s mother, a very pious woman, born of Christian parents, who also was baptized when she had reached the years of understanding, as Augustine himself testifies.” H. Montan. Nietigh., page 71, from Augustine, lib. 2. Confess., cap. 3, and lib. 9, cap. 8 and 13.

A. D. 351.--It is recorded that the Christians at Neocesarea declared themselves openly against infant baptism, in a convention or assembly of the ministers, called the council of Neocesarea; so that infant baptism, which then began to prevail in different places, could gain no support there, as appears from the various rules adopted by this body.

In Canon 5, we read: “If a catechumen who is not yet baptized, and has his place among the catechumens in the church, has been seen in a sin, he shall hear the preaching on his bended knees; that he may refrain from the sin he committed; but if he persists in it, he shall be expelled.”

In Canon 6, we read: “Pregnant women may be baptized, whenever they desire it; for in this sacrament there is no communication between the mother and the child which is born of her; but every one must in this confession himself declare his free will and good intention.

Canon 11, after some other words declares: “The Lord was not baptized until he was thirty years old, and thereupon he preached.” Jacob Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d part, pages 351, 352.

First, when in Canon 5 mention is made of the catechumens, it certainly indicates that it was customary to instruct the young before baptism, in the articles of the faith, upon which followed the confession of the same, and baptism. This cannot be contradicted.

Secondly, when in Canon 6 it is established that pregnant women may be baptized whenever they desire it, because there is no communication between the mother and the child which is born of her, it clearly confirms that infant baptism had no place whatever among them, but, that they were indeed inimical to it. It appears that a difficulty was raised at that time, as to whether pregnant women might be baptized or not; for it was thought or feared that the fruit had such communion with the mother, that the child, too, would become a partaker of the baptism received by the mother; which would have been contrary to the views held by the church, that no one should be baptized except upon his own confession of faith, and consequently, no infants, much less unborn children. But this apprehension or difficulty was removed, when it was declared that in the reception of baptism there is no communication between the mother and the child, and that for this reason the child does not participate in the baptism received by the mother. This is too clear to be refuted.

Thirdly, when in Canon 11, mention is made of Christ being baptized when he was thirty years old, notwithstanding that preaching is here spoken of, and that the same ought not to be undertaken by one before he is thirty years old, the baptism which is administered upon faith or in adult years, is nevertheless also recommended and deemed necessary. For, as Christ was baptized in adult years, and forthwith began to preach, so that the time of his baptism was also the time of his preaching, even so (the Canon apparently means to say), baptizing, like preaching, may only take place in adult years; for as the one requires understanding, so does the other, according to the example of Christ.

A. D. 360.--P. J. Twisck writes: “Notwithstanding that at this time, much bloody cruelty was practiced against the bishop who sided with Arius, so that this party was almost wholly crushed, still, according to history, there remained sects like the Anabaptists, etc. If their books were extant, we might give an account of what they taught concerning all these matters; but as it is, we let it suffice with what others have written.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 106, col. 2, from Jac. P. Verm. Onsch., lib. 4, fol. 131.

It is exceedingly to be regretted that so few of the writings of the Anabaptists who lived at that time, are extant; for thereby we are compelled to receive information concerning them from the mouths of their enemies; which information, as we may readily judge, was not dictated by love, but by animosity. However, we owe thanks to God, that even this much has come down to us respecting their history; since Satan, through the instrumentality of his adherents, has always aimed to exterminate, not only their books, but also their lives, yea, their bodies and souls, if this were possible.

A. D. 362.--Saint Martin, born of heathen parents, when he was ten years old, went, contrary to the will of his parents, to the meetings of the Christians, embraced Christianity and was baptized when he was eighteen years old. Being now a Christian, he desired to be discharged from the military profession into which he had been brought by his parents; hence he said to the apostate Emperor, Julian, that it was not lawful for him to fight, because he was a Christian.

But as the Minorite, Thomas van Heerentaals, in his Mirror of the Ten Commandments and Seven Sacraments, gives a somewhat fuller account concerning St. Martin, and especially of baptism as practiced at that time, we shall make a short extract from it. He says: “In former times it was customary to administer holy baptism but twice a year, namely, on Easter eve and on Pentecost eve; except in cases of necessity, which was fourfold: 1. In a siege. 2. In danger of martyrdom. 3. In peril at sea. 4. In dangerous sickness. In such cases they baptized all, and at all times, that no one might die without baptism. But when these four reasons did not exist, baptism was administered only on the two abovementioned days, and that with great solemnity and dignity, and all who were admitted to baptism, had attained the years of understanding; even St. Martin, that holy man, was a catechumen for six years--from the time he was twelve, until he was eighteen years old--before he received baptism. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 110, col. 1, 2.

A. D. 363 and 364.--In the time of Julian the apostate there lived and shone as bright lights, various excellent men, whose learning and piety it is not necessary to extol, since it is sufficiently known. They gave expression to their orthodox convictions by word and by deed, especially with regard to the matter of baptism, that it ought to be administered after previous instruction, upon faith and repentance.

At the same time, A. D. 363, there lived Ambrose, who is stated to have been born of Christian parents. His father’s name was also Ambrose, while that of his mother was Marcellina. He, too, was not baptized until the day on which he was chosen bishop of Milan, after having been instructed in the catechism, that is, in the doctrines of the faith.[103] See concerning this, Tract van den loop der wereld, by F. H. H., printed 1611, page 47, 48, from Paul, de vita Ambrosii. Naucler. Chron. Generat. 13.

[103] Bullinger says that before the days of Ambrose (A. D. 363), Aurentius rejected infant baptism. See, P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 114, col. 2, in the annotation.

D. Vicecomes (lib. 2, cap. 6) records, from Nolanus, concerning Ambrose, that in his time, Frigitil, Queen of the Marcomans, having heard from a Christian man, what good things were said of Ambrose, believed in Christ, and recognized him (Ambrose) as his minister. To her, Ambrose wrote an excellent epistle. See, Bapt. Hist., page 462.

Such a procedure, namely, thus precipitately to elect any one bishop or teacher, as is stated here concerning Ambrose, we do not commend; but we notice here, that Christians at that time had not generally adopted infant baptism; nay, that some, notwithstanding the papal power, purposely did not have their children baptized; causing them, when they had reached maturer years, to be instructed first, and then baptized, upon their own confession.

Ambrose (Serm. 61) makes the statement: “It was customary for all people to be baptized at Easter.” In Lib. de Jejunio, cap. 10, he says: “Now comes the day of the resurrection; now the elect are baptized.” Yet on 1 Tim. 4, he says that the sick were baptized on any day. Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 334.

These words of Ambrose confirm our preceding assertion; for when he says that at Easter it was customary to baptize all people, he sufficiently declares that at that time infant baptism was not a custom. For not only at Easter, but throughout the whole year, children are born, the baptism of which, because of the danger that they might die, could never have been postponed until Easter, had infant baptism been deemed necessary for salvation. But Ambrose removes all doubt when he says what persons were baptized then, namely, all people; for by the word people there are generally understood adult or rational persons, and not infants in the cradle.

Moreover, when he writes that the sick were baptized on any day, he proves thereby, that infant baptism was not practiced in the church of which he speaks. For, if it had been customary there, to baptize infants, it would not have been necessary to baptize the sick on any day, since they would have been baptized already in their infancy; or our opponents must show that the sick, who were baptized any day, were also baptized in their infancy; which they dare not maintain, seeing these churches would then have to be regarded anabaptistic. Nevertheless, one of two things must follow: Either that the sick who were baptized in their infancy were rebaptized, or that the adults baptized had not been baptized in their infancy. If the former is true, then the Anabaptists, as they are called, flourished already in those early times. But if the latter is true, then there were at that time whole churches who rejected infant baptism, or, at least, suffered their children to remain unbaptized. This is so clear that it cannot be refuted.

OF SEVERAL OTHER ARTICLES OF FAITH TAUGHT BY AMBROSE, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK.

“Ambrose (on Rom. 1) ridicules those who say: ‘We cannot come before God except through the mediation of the saints, just as we come before a king through the mediation of counts.’ ‘Well then,’ says he, ‘is not he guilty of contempt of majesty, who ascribes to counts the honor due to the king? Certainly. Why then, will not they consider themselves sinners, who give God’s name and honor to creatures, and, setting aside the Lord, worship his servants? Because kings are not acquainted with the individual wants of every one, interpreters and advocates appear before them; but God, to whom nothing is hid, needs no advocates or informants, but simply an humble heart.’

“Again: ‘They now bestow such names and honors upon the images, as they would never have dared to give to the living person, namely, divine honor; and this, when they are dead.’ Thus Ambrose reproves the image worship of the Roman church, and (on Col. 1) positively asserts that ‘neither elements, nor saints, nor angels should be honored or worshiped, but Christ alone.’

“It seems,” says he, “that Ambrose, too, would seek antichrist at Rome;” for he says that ‘antichrist shall restore to the Romans their freedom, under his name,’ and calls the city of antichrist ‘the city of the devil.’ He says further, that ‘antichrist shall be revealed after the downfall of the Roman Empire, or when the Emperors shall have lost their power;’ and history shows that the decline of the Roman Emperors was the augmentation of the power and dominion of the Popes or antichrists.

“Ambrose says further: ‘The violence of worldly opponents must not be overcome with worldly, but with spiritual weapons; and heretics must be punished only by exclusion from the church; for the champions of Christ seek neither weapons nor iron balls.’

“Again, in regard to marriage he says: ‘Purity of the body is something to be desired by us, and I commend it by way of advice, but do not enjoin it as a command; for the virgin state may be advised, but not commanded.’ Hist. Tripart., lib. 7, cap. 8. Adolphus Tectander Apol., fol. 163. Casp. Swinck, Epist. 1, fol. 877. Hier. Zanc., fol. 65. D. Anth. l., fol. 116.

“Again: The words of Ambrose clearly indicate that he means that the sacrament (the Lord’s Supper), should be received under both forms, that is, with bread and wine. Lib. 9, cap. 30. Seb. Fr., fol. 50.

“Again: ‘The body of Christ is not material or earthly food, or bread, but a spiritual, eternal bread, which feeds believing souls. Regenerated men belong to this table, of which the ungodly cannot partake.’ Chron. Seb. Fr. on Ambrose.

“Again: Ambrose says also: ‘We are in duty bound to examine the churches, and if there is one which rejects the faith, and does not hold to the foundation of the apostolical doctrine, we must leave it.’” In Lucam, lib. 6, cap. 9. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 114, col. 2 and 115, col. 1, 2.

A. D. 364.--It is recorded that in or about the second year of Julian, the Apostate, there lived and wrote the very learned, yet humble, Ephrem, surnamed Syrus, who, in writing of baptism, relates that in his time it was customary for people, when they were baptized, to renounce with express words the devil and all his works, Jac. Mehrn. in Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 328.

Ephrem (Lib. de Poenit., cap. 5) also enumerates the works of Satan which we renounce in baptism, as fornication, adultery, uncleanness, lying, stealing, envy, etc.

Page 336. He also states (Orat. 3, de S. Lavacro) that it is customary for the candidates for baptism to confess their sins. And from his book on Repentance, chap. 5, it appears that those who were thus baptized confessed their faith before many witnesses, and said: “I renounce thee, O Satan, and all thy works.”

Page 384. Vicecomes (Lib. 1, cap. 20) quotes the following from Ephrem Syrus: “This declaration of renunciation, as it is called, which we make in baptism, seems to be a small matter, but it has a deeper meaning, and he that observes it rightly is truly blessed; for with these few words, namely those spoken in baptism, we let go all that is called evil, and is hated of God, and renounce the same; and these things are not one, two, or ten, but everything that can be called evil, for you say: ‘I renounce Satan and all his works.’” “This,” writes Jac. Mehrn., “is certainly not a meaningless or frivolous performance that can be imposed on infants.”

A. D. 365.--About the beginning of this year, Gregory of Nyssa is mentioned, who, observing, it seems, how some came to baptism, unprepared and with an ungodly mind, wrote the following for their instruction: “When we pass through the sacramental water of baptism, we must mortify in the water all that is evil and vicious, such as unchastity, rapacity, luxury, frivolity, pride, vanity of the mind, envy, and the like. We must also drown and forsake in the water, as much as is possible, not only the gross vices, with their operations, but also the emotions and pollutions of the mind which, in some measure, cleave to human nature.” Greg. Nyss., lib. de vita Mosis. Also, Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 328.

When at this time some thought it was needful to be baptized in consecrated water, he declared in a certain sermon, that this was not necessary, but that faith and the blessing of the minister were all that a person needed for baptism; for every place is the Lord’s, and all kinds of water may be used for baptism, if God only finds faith, for this he accepts, and the blessing of the minister, which sanctifies. Bapt. Hist., 2d. part, page 376, from Vicecom., lib. 1, cap. 14, from Greg. Nyss.

In another place he very earnestly admonishes some persons who deferred their baptism, that they should have their names registered among the catechumens, in order that, having been truly examined and instructed in the faith, they might receive baptism. Concerning this, I find the following annotation (Bapt. Hist., page 376, from Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 12): “Gregory of Nyssa says in a sermon, to those who had long deferred their baptism: ‘Come, ye who are burdened to your sanctification; give me your names, that I may write them with ink in earthly books; but may God record them on tablets that never perish.’”

Thus, also Gregory of Nyssa, as has been shown, wrote sound and correct doctrine respecting baptism. Besides this we have not been able to find any other testimony from him relative to this subject.

A. D. 366.--Infant baptism, as it appears, beginning to gain a foothold in some places, the teachers at Laodicea, in Phrygia Pacatiana, declared themselves decidedly against it, in a public convention or assembly, in which, among other things, it was resolved: “That those whom it was the intention to baptize, should previously be instructed in the faith, and be examined concerning it, on Thursday of the last week of Lent.” Compare Seb. Franck, Cons. Laod., with P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 112, col. 1, 2.[104]

[104] P. J. Twisck fixes this council of Laodicea in the year 364, while Seb. Franck states that it occurred in the year 368, but we follow a middle course, and assign the year 366 as its date.

It is recorded that about this time, in another convention of ministers, called the Elibertine Council, it was resolved among other things: “That persons who embrace the Christian faith shall, if they lead a pious life, be admitted to baptism, in eighteen months or two years.” Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 8, from the 42d Canon of the Elibertine Council, as noted by Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 372.

Here we cannot but see the uprightness and carefulness of the aforementioned ministers, who, so as not to act contrary to the command of Christ, and baptize any without true faith and repentance, deemed it preferable to defer for eighteen months or two years, the baptism of even those catechumens, whose life was well spoken of; in order that, having in the meantime well counted the cost, they might erect a good building, and be built up by baptism as living stones in the Christian temple of the church.

In the meantime, it appears that an abuse obtained in the administration of baptism, namely, that a plate was presented to the candidates, that they might put some money on it (either for the minister, or for the poor). But this was also abolished at that time, with these words: “It has also seemed proper to us, to ordain that hereafter the candidates for baptism shall not put any money on the plate, as has been the custom.” Bapt. Hist., page 372, ex Concilio Elibertino Vicecom., lib. 4, cap. 2.

From this custom of presenting a plate to the candidates, that they might put money on it, and from its abolishment, the plain inference is, that the candidates were not little children, and that the decree enacted concerning them, did not concern little children, for these have neither the knowledge nor the ability to do it, or voluntarily to omit it.

About A. D. 370.--We are informed that about this time there taught and wrote Optatus Milevitanus, a catechist, who, it is stated, by virtue of his office instructed the young in the articles of the faith, in order that after previous instruction, they might be baptized upon their own confession. Speaking of the things that are to be observed in and about baptism, he says: “We know that in the observance of holy baptism there are three essentials. The first relates to the holy Trinity, the second to the believer, and the third to the baptizer; but they must not all be weighed in the same balance.” Bapt. Hist., page 327, from Opt. Mil., lib. 3.

Although these words seem somewhat obscure, they nevertheless contain enough light for us to perceive clearly, of what baptism, and of what matter he speaks. As regards the matter of which he here treats, it apparently is the dignity of baptism, in order to prove which, he alleges that in baptism there are three very worthy things. Mentioning the most worthy first, he says that it is God or the Holy Trinity. As the second, he mentions the believer, namely, him who stands ready to be baptized; for he is very worthy in the sight of God, since Christ says: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark 16:16. As the third, he mentions the baptizer, namely, him who has received so worthy an office from God. From these three worthy circumstances he justly concludes the dignity of baptism.

From this it is as clear as sunlight, of what baptism he speaks, for in mentioning the believer, in connection with baptism, and speaking of him as the one to be baptized, he certainly indicates that he does not speak of children, or of infant baptism, but of the baptism of believers. Moreover, a little after the preceding words, he says concerning the candidate for baptism, of whom he speaks: “He follows the faith of the believers.”

Vicecomes (lib. 2, cap. 4), cites Optatus Milevitanus, and says that in the 5th book against Parmes he expounds the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 3:6, on this wise: “‘I have planted, Apollos watered,’ that is: O ye heathen, I have made you disciples of Christ; Apollos has baptized these disciples.”

Likewise in the 2d book, 7th chapter, Vicecomes writes: “Optatus was a catechist at Carthage.” Also, Bapt. Hist., page 375.

These things confirm our previous declaration; for, when he calls unbelieving and unbaptized persons heathen, and, on the other hand, pronounces those who had been instructed in the faith, and baptized upon it, disciples of Christ, without remarking whether they were born of Christian, or of heathen parents, he declares thereby, that it is not birth, but unbelief and absence of baptism, which constitutes one a heathen, and that not Christian parentage, but faith and baptism, make one a Christian; which well accords with the words of Paul, Gal. 3:26–28: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Again, the fact that Optatus, as Vicecomes writes, was a catechist, indicates that at the place where he was teacher it was the custom, to teach the candidates for baptism the catechism, that is, to instruct them in the faith, before they were baptized; hence these candidates were called catechumens.

NOTE.--Damascenus writes that “at this time, A. D. 370, the Gospel was preached in all the world, not by the force of arms, nor by subjugating its adversaries through war, but by a handful of poor, naked, and martyred people, that is, by patience and faith. For, how could the church have martyrs, if she made martyrs?” Damasc., 3 Cent., cap. 33. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 116, col. 2.

A. D. 380.--Gregory of Nazianzus, in Cappadocia, born of Christian parents, was not baptized until he was in his twentieth year; concerning which, Jacob Mehrning gives the following account: “His father, Bishop at Nazianzus, and also called Gregory, and his mother Nonna, a pious woman of Christian parentage, knew nothing of infant baptism, for they did not have their son (Gregory) baptized in his infancy. His baptism, according to history, did not take place until he was in his twentieth year. Bapt. Hist., page 354. Also, H. Mont. Nietigh., page 62.

In order to show still further, how vain and useless infant baptism was deemed at that time, by various pious and learned men, and how baptism was even deferred till late in life, we will adduce one or two brief examples.[105]

[105] About this time (A. D. 380), Ambrose taught that the heathen worshiped wood, because they judged it to be the image of God; but, says he, “God’s image is invisible.” Tom. 4, in Psal. 118, Ser. 10. Samuel Veltius, in Geslacht-register, page 119.

A. D. 381.--It is stated that in this year there was baptized at Constantinople, Nectarius, after he had attained his full understanding, yea, such an advanced age and penetrating knowledge, that he was at the same time elected bishop or teacher of that place, the like of which occurred previously, as stated concerning Ambrose, in the year 363. See P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 122, from Histor. Tripart., lib. 9, cap. 13. Adolph. Apol., fol. 163. Leonh., lib. 2. Merula, fol. 312.

As regards the statement how precipitately and unexpectedly Nectarius was elected bishop or teacher of that place, even as was related of Ambrose, it is not our purpose to defend or advocate it; but simply to show that he deferred baptism in his youth, and was not baptized until he had attained to quite an advanced age.

NOTE.--In A. D. 382, Theodosius, born and bred by Christian parents, was baptized at Thessalonica, by Bishop Ascholius. Hist. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 6, Socrates. Also, H. Montan., page 70.

A. D. 383.--Basilius[106] and Eubulus, said to each other: “Let us sell all our goods, and distribute to the poor, and then journey to the holy city, that we may behold for ourselves the wonderful works of God, and thereby awaken within us a confidence towards God.” Having done this, and taken with them the clothes necessary for baptism, they journeyed to Jerusalem. Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 4, from Amphilochius. Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 389.

[106] That this Basilius was the son of Christian parents, appears from Bapt. Hist., page 365. Instances of this kind, it is stated there, occurred at that time also in other places; we mention Basilius, Jerome, Ambrose, etc., all of whom were born of Christian parents, and baptized upon confession of their faith.

Amphilochius writes of a baptized Jewish physician, who distributed the money he had gained by his profession, among the hospitals, and gave the rest to other poor people. Vicecom., lib. 5, cap. 46. Bapt. Hist., see above.

We mentioned Basilius and Eubulus, who journeyed to Jerusalem, taking with them the clothes necessary for baptism, in order to be baptized. From this it appears that it was the custom at that time in Jerusalem--and one that remained in use long afterwards in many warm countries--to baptize the candidates in or at rivers, and that they went partly or with the whole body down into the water, and then came up again; to which end they divested themselves of their own clothes, usually had on a white or linen garment. This is the kind of clothes that Basilius and Eubulus appear to have taken with them, in order to be baptized therein.

Now, compare this with the baptism of infants in the cradle, and you will at once see that this mode of baptism cannot take place with infants, since they have neither the ability nor the understanding necessary for the observance of such a mode of baptism.

We will now proceed to the views of Basilius with regard to baptism, and what he, according to the testimony of ancient writers, has taught and written concerning it. First, it is stated of him, that in writing of baptism, he in no wise mentions infant baptism, but, on the other hand, the baptism of catechumens, that is, persons receiving instruction in the faith.

Concerning this, H. Montanus and Jacob Mehrning unanimously give the following testimony: “The aforementioned Basilius who was bishop of Cesarea, in Cappadocia, A. D. 386, exhorts only the catechumens to baptism, without once mentioning infants, yea, he sufficiently indicates that infant baptism was not the custom there at his time, saying: ‘Ye who have been evangelized by the apostles, repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.’”

True, he exhorts also the young to baptism, yet not such as are altogether destitute of understanding, but those who can hear the words by which he admonishes them to baptism, that is, adults, and not infants. He uses such expressions throughout this entire exhortation, and also in some of his other writings, as in the book of the “Holy Spirit,” chap. 12, 14, and 27; but nowhere does he mention infant baptism. H. Montan. Nietigh., page 73. Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 365.

Moreover, the words of Basilius, whenever he treats of baptism, clearly express that they cannot be applied to infants. For, showing the nature of baptism, and what it is, he says (Lib. 3, Contra Eunom.): “Baptism is a seal of faith.” Again (Exhort. ad Bapt.): “Baptism is the mark of the Christian champion.” Again (de Instr. ad Bapt. Ven.): “Baptism is a likeness of death, burial, and the resurrection of the dead.” Bapt. Hist., p. 322.

These things are so clear that they require no explanation, and we shall therefore proceed to what he says further. As regards the form of baptism, according to the institution of Christ, he writes (Lib. 3, Contra Eunom.): “Our baptism is administered according to the institution of the Lord, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

Again, concerning the faith which must accompany such baptism, he says (Lib. de Sp. S., cap. 12): “When we believe on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we are also baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Bapt. Hist., page 323.

Respecting the words of the candidates, and what manner of conduct they observed at baptism, he says, in the last named book, that the candidates for baptism renounced Satan and all his angels. Again (Exhort. ad Bapt.), he states that they lifted up their hands towards heaven; that they kneeled down in prayer. Bapt. Hist., page 336.

He makes mention, moreover, in many places, of various other circumstances and matters pertaining to baptism; of which we will present the following to the reader.

Basilius the Great writes (Contra Eunom., lib. 3): “Faith must precede, if the believer is to be sealed by baptism.”

D. Vicecomes adduces from Basilius, book 1, chap. 23, of his Exhortation to Baptism the following: “When wilt thou become a Christian? When shall we recognize thee as one of our number? Last year thou deferredst it till the present Easter; and now thou wilt wait till the next. Take heed, lest thou be deceived in thy expectation of a long life.”

Again, chap. 31, Basilius, in the 128th epistle, commends C. Posthumanius, and wishes that he had been his godfather, since the same had made such a glorious confession at his baptism; and this with great contrition, pain, and anguish of spirit; and had evinced in his life and conversation the moderation which the confession of the Christian name demands.

Again, chap. 33, Vicecomes writes: “Basilius is greatly astonished (in the 23d epistle to Boniface), at infant baptism and godfathership, saying: ‘Since you cannot promise anything certain, either with regard to the child’s future faith, or its present thoughts, I pray thee, beloved, what then does it signify that, when the children are brought to baptism, the parents, as sureties, answer in their stead, and say that the children do that which at that age they cannot even think, or, which if they can, is hid from us? But those who bring the child are asked: Does it believe in God? and, for this age, which knows not whether there is a God, the parents answer: It believes. Thus also the other questions are responded to. I am astonished that in such matters the parents answer so presumptuously for the child.’” Bapt. Hist., pages 390, 391.

This can certainly be called a candid rejection of infant baptism, and not only of infant baptism, but of all the absurd questions and answers which customarily occurred at the baptism of children, and upon which infant baptism was founded. He accuses the children of ignorance, saying that they do not know whether there is a God; the parents he accuses of presumption because they thus boldly dare answer in their stead, and say: “The child believes.” The priests who baptize such children, he accuses of folly, because they presented such improper and unfounded questions respecting the ignorant infants, and demanded that they should be answered in the child’s name. Infant baptism itself he charges with worthlessness and falsity, seeing, as Vicecomes says, he, in his 23d epistle to Boniface, is greatly astonished at infant baptism.

Basilius, in order to still more fully state his views concerning this matter, adduces various passages, which effectually overthrow infant baptism, and establish baptism upon faith.

D. Vicecomes (Lib. 2, cap. 3), writes thus: “Basilius calls the catechumens nurtured ones, since they were fed and nurtured with instruction in the Christian faith.”

Again (cap. 4, Basilius Serm. 1, de Bapt.) he says: “We must know that we must first teach and instruct, and ultimately administer holy baptism to those thus rightly instructed.” And, a little after this: “Instruction must precede baptism, and first of all everything which stands in the way of teaching and instruction, must be removed.”

Again, in book 3, chapter 4, of the Exhortation to Baptism, he writes: “Examine thy conscience; go into the secret chamber of thy heart; awaken within thee for a time the remembrance of former things.”

Again, chapter 5: “As soon as any one came to John, and confessed his sins, however great and heinous they were, he was baptized in Jordan’s floods, and immediately received remission of sins.” Bapt. Hist., page 392.

All these passages of Basilius as cited by D. Vicecomes, himself a pedobaptist, and noted by J. M. in Bapt. Hist., are so clearly opposed to infant baptism, that further comment is unnecessary. We will therefore let this suffice, and proceed to the testimony of several other persons in the fourth century.

A. D. 390.--John Chrysostom, born of Christian parents, was at this time baptized upon his faith by Bishop Melitius, being twenty-one years old. Episcopii. Antew. op de proeve des Remonstr. Catechism., page 359.

CHRYSOSTOM’S VIEWS RESPECTING BAPTISM.

Chrysostom, though he lived in and under the Roman church, and was not fully enlightened in all respects, nevertheless wrote soundly and correctly on the subject of baptism, as is shown by the following extracts from his writings.

Jacob Mehrning, in Bapt. Hist., following the Centuriæ Magdeburgenses, says, page 403: “How baptism must be received, St. Chrysostom reminds us (Hom. 14, in Marc.): ‘Thus ye who desire to receive baptism, since we are all under the dominion of sin, lay hold first of the feet of your Savior; wash them with your tears; dry them with your hair; and, this done, you may approach his head. When you then descend with your Savior into the fountain of life, that is, the water of baptism, you may learn how the head of your Redeemer was anointed.’”

Moreover, he explains still further, how one must prepare himself for baptism, and this with such affectionate words as should move every soul.

In Bapt. Hist., page 445, Homil. 13, Marc., Chrysostom says: “Will you come to baptism? O how happy are you when you shall be regenerated in Christ! when you shall put on Christ; when you are buried with Christ, that you may also rise with him. At another day you shall be made acquainted in proper order with the things that are expedient for this mystery. In the meantime I tell you this, that you may know it, and may prepare yourselves for the coming day (namely, for baptism). But may the almighty God strengthen your hearts, and make you worthy of his baptism. May he himself come into you, at baptism. May he himself hallow the water wherewith you are sanctified. Let no one go there with a doubting heart. Let no one say: Do you indeed think that my sins will be forgiven? He that goeth there thus, his sins shall not be forgiven. It is better, not to go there at all, than in this manner. Remember this, especially you who thus receive baptism, that you may serve God.”

I beg you, dear reader, to observe attentively these words of Chrysostom. Does he say anything at all different from what the Anabaptist teachers of the present day say? O no! he follows the same course. For, first he says: “Will you come to baptism?” He does not say: Will you carry your infants to baptism? How could he speak more plainly? For, to come one’s self, and to desire to come, is certainly no child’s work.

Then he says: “O how happy are you, when you shall be regenerated in Christ? when you shall put on Christ?” (namely, in or through baptism). But what else is there said by this, than what the apostle Paul declares of believers, namely, that they are saved by the washing of regeneration, that is, baptism, Tit. 3:5; and that they put on Christ by baptism, Gal. 3:27.

Then he says: “At another day you shall be made acquainted in proper order with the things that are expedient for this mystery” (that is, baptism). In like manner, Christ teaches to instruct the candidates for baptism before they are baptized. Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15,16. John likewise first instructed those whom he baptized. Matt. 3:7,8. Peter first instructed the Jews. Acts 2:38. Philip first instructed the Ethiopian. Acts 8:34,35. Ananias first taught Saul the faith. Acts 9:17,18.

He further adds this wish: “May the almighty God strengthen your hearts, and make you worthy of his baptism.” But who knows not, that newborn infants can not be strengthened in their hearts before baptism? and that, consequently, they cannot receive baptism worthily (that is, with a holy purpose and believing hearts), since they know neither good nor evil, Deut. 1:39; nor their right hand from their left, Jonah 4:11; and do as children do, 1 Cor. 13:11. Hence, this wish of Chrysostom, respecting baptism, cannot apply to them.

Finally, having declared, with what heart and purpose we must go to baptism, namely not with a doubting heart, he says: “You who thus receive baptism that you may serve God.” These are certainly plain words, which prove manifestly, that the baptism of which he speaks is far different from the baptism of infants, since these are incapable, not only of going to baptism with an undoubting or assured heart, but also of going there at all; not less incapable are they of receiving baptism with the purpose of serving God. Compare this with the words of Chrysostom, and you will find that they are as different from infant baptism as heaven is from the earth.

Bapt. Hist., page 461. Palladius, in the Life of Chrysostom, speaks of an uproar which the Emperor Theophilus[107] raised against bishop Chrysostom, persecuting him; which occurred shortly before Easter. There was no other alternative for those who sided with the bishop, and fasted with him, than to go to the Emperor and the Empress, in the week of confession, and to entreat them with tears, that they would spare the church of Christ, especially on account of the feast, and for the sake of those who were to be baptized, having received sufficient instruction for this purpose; therefore, they should release their bishop.

[107] It is evident here that either the author is mistaken in the name, or that a typographical error occurred. Theophilus was the name of the Patriarch of Alexandria, through whose instigation, with that of the Empress Eudoxia, the Emperor in question, whose name was Arcadius, was induced to persecute Chrysostom.--Translator.

Here again are several items from which we may perceive that in the church of which Chrysostom was bishop or teacher, baptism was administered after previous instruction, and upon faith. For, in the first place, mention is made of the time in which this took place, namely, shortly before Easter, in the week of confession. Any one who has but a little experience, will find that that was the time and week in which it was customary to instruct the candidates before baptism, hear the confession of their faith, and properly examine them, in order to baptize them on the following Easter days. In the second place, mention is made of those who were to be baptized, and had received sufficient instruction for it; which so plainly illustrates what we have aimed to show, namely, that baptism at that time was administered after previous instruction, that we deem it unnecessary to add anything further with regard to it, and, hence, let it suffice.

OF THE BENEFIT, VIRTUE AND OPERATION OF BAPTISM.

Chrysostom on Phil., chap. 3, page 405, says: “Christ has given or ordained baptism as a purgative, and thus we have spewed out all wickedness, and by it have been made free from all our sins. The heat has abated, the fever is checked, all impurities have departed, and through the Spirit all other evil things have been purged out--those springing from fornication as well as those having their origin in the vanity of the mind.”

Again, on Heb. 7: “Therefore God gives baptism, that it may wash away sin, and not increase it.”

Again, on Col. 3: “Truly, before baptism we were very impure, but after it we become golden.”[108]

[108] Pure as precious metal.--Pub.

Again, on Heb. 11: “What then constitutes brotherhood, if not the washing of regeneration (that is, baptism)?”

Who does not perceive by these passages of Chrysostom, that the baptism of which he speaks, applies in no wise to infants, but only and exclusively to rational persons; for, when he first says to those who wished to receive baptism, that they should (spiritually) take hold of the feet of Christ, and wash them with their tears, and then says that Christ has given or ordained baptism for a purgative, and that they had thus spewed out all wickedness (that is, sin), he sufficiently indicates thereby that he is not speaking of the baptism of infants, since, these cannot do the things which he describes as being connected with baptism.

All these things are still more clearly established by the following passages from his writings, as we shall show.

In Bapt. Hist., page 406, Chrysostom, on 1 Cor. 10, says: “The passage of the Jews through the Red Sea was a type of the future baptism.” A little further on, he explains this, saying: “For there it was water, here it is also water; yea, here it is the washing, and there it was the sea; here they all go into the water, there they did likewise. But would you know the truth of the matter? There they were delivered from Egypt, but here from idolatry; there Pharaoh was drowned, but here the devil; there the Egyptians perished, but here the old man of sin is buried.”

Again, on John 3, Hom. 27: “We have committed many and grievous sins, and, from youth to old age, have not refrained from staining our souls therewith; yet God does not require an account from us, but absolves us therefrom, through the washing of regeneration (that is, baptism), and has freely given us righteousness and holiness.”

How could any one speak more plainly and clearly of the true baptism of believers? For, when in the first passage he says that in being baptized we are delivered from idolatry, and that in or through baptism the old man of sin is buried; and in the second passage declares that they, having committed many and grievous sins, from youth to old age, are absolved therefrom through the washing of regeneration, that is, baptism, it again is very evident that this does not at all apply to children, since they, never having lived in idolatry, cannot forsake idolatry; neither can they, who, being yet in their infancy, have never lived according to the old man, much less have died unto it, bury the old man of sin in or through baptism; finally, they who being still infants, have not attained to old age, cannot or need not be absolved through the washing of regeneration (that is, by baptism), from the sins which they have not committed in this life.

Bapt. Hist., page 410. That baptism ought not to be deferred, Chrysostom (Hom. 1, on Acts) expounds with these words: “If any one say: I am afraid, I answer: If thou art afraid, thou shouldst have received and observed baptism. But thou wilt say: Even therefore I do not receive it, because I am afraid. But art thou not afraid to die in this condition? Thou sayest: Ah! God is gracious. Well then, therefore receive baptism, seeing he is so gracious, and helps thee.” He says finally: “It is impossible, I say impossible, that he, who on such a hope defers baptism, can do anything good or commendable.”

Bapt. Hist., page 420. The teachers of the church sometimes call baptism a consecration; regarding this Chrysostom says (Hom. 1, on Acts): “Who will fully believe me, how it pains me to the heart, when some one dies, who has not been consecrated,” that is, baptized. And, a little further on he writes: “What anguish of soul I experience, when I see how others do not hasten to baptism till their breath is about to leave them,” that is, when they must die.

These passages of Chrysostom indicate how exceedingly sorry he was, that some deferred their baptism to the end of life, who ought to have received it in time; yet not before the time of faith or repentance, much less in infancy, since he speaks only of those persons who had voluntarily, and not less presumptuously, neglected their baptism. Hence it sometimes occurred that persons desired to be baptized in their sickness, yea, on their deathbed, which this good man opposed with conclusive arguments. Bapt. Hist., page 412, Chrysostom says: “The mysteries are glorious and greatly to be desired, but let no soul that is about to die, receive the washing; for that is not the time for the mysteries (baptism), but to make a will; the time for the mysteries (baptism) is when the mind is sound, and the soul purified.”

Finally, Chrysostom here again produces two things which do not apply to infant baptism. First, his saying that “the mysteries” (namely, of baptism), “are glorious and greatly to be desired;” for such a desire cannot exist in infants. Secondly, his declaration, that “the time for the mysteries (or, for baptism), is when the mind is sound, and the soul purified;” for infants neither have nor know unsoundness of mind or impurity of soul. Hence neither the soundness of their minds nor the purification of their souls can be promoted or had in view, and baptism can, for this very reason, have no place with them.

CHRYSOSTOM’S VIEWS RESPECTING SEVERAL OTHER ARTICLES OF FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK, IN HIS CHRONIJK VAN DEN ONDERGANK DER TYRANNEN, 5th BOOK, PP. 136 AND 137.

“John Chrysostom,” he writes, “a celebrated, zealous, and eloquent teacher or bishop at Constantinople, was expelled from his bishopric, and relegated into misery; much ignominy and suffering were inflicted on him, and he died in banishment.

“His adherents and people were greatly persecuted by imperial edicts commanding them also to attend church and hear their enemies (namely, those of the Roman church), which they would not do, but held their own meetings in the farthest outskirts of the city. When this was reported to the Emperor by the bishop, a squad of soldiers was immediately sent to the place, who with sticks and stones dispersed the meeting, robbed those who had assembled of their goods, and apprehended such as could not make their escape. Finding it impossible to meet in public, they chose voluntary banishment, and forthwith departed, each his own way. Besides this, the adherents of Chrysostom were unjustly accused of having caused a conflagration, which the common people, out of spite towards Chrysostom, had kindled in the temple in which he had taught; on account of which they had to suffer much; the cruelty practiced being as great as that of the first persecutions.

“Again, the aforesaid John Chrysostom, also called, John Goldenmouth,[109] on account of his golden or excellent teachings, and his eloquent tongue taught from Matt. 5, that we ought not to swear at all, neither rightly nor falsely, and concludes very forcibly, with many words from the passage, Matt. 5:34: ‘Swear not at all,’ that it is not lawful for a Christian to swear. He conclusively refutes all objections, and maintains that now we ought not to swear. Read yourselves his full exposition of said passages.

[109] Although the Papists sometimes have this Goldenmouth in their mouth, they nevertheless regard his teachings as heresies.

Prior to him, likewise Haimus, on Rev. 10, writes, saying, That all swearing is now prohibited unto men, it being lawful only for God and the angels, who neither deceive, nor can be deceived.

Seb. Franck notes the following concerning this Haimus: “Haimus, the teacher also wrote a great deal against the Pope and the Roman church; among other things, that swearing is lawful only for God and the angels, but to men all swearing is forbidden. On Rev. 10, Chron., Roman. Kett., letter H.

NOTE.--This view (that we ought not to swear), is also ascribed to Isiodorus. Tract, Loop der Werelt, page 99.

We return to the account of P. J. Twisck, concerning Chrysostom, page 136, col. 2. He writes: “This Goldenmouth, John Chrysostom, taught also mightily against cruelty, tyranny, war, and bloodshed, maintaining that it is altogether improper for Christians to wage war, and that peace and quiet are to be taught in the kingdom of Christ. Christ, he says, compels not, drives not away, oppresses not, but accords to each his free will, saying: ‘If any man will.’”

Read also, on Matt. 13, how he explains that the tares (to which the heretics are compared) are not to be rooted out, which, he says, Christ spoke for the purpose of preventing and forbidding war and bloodshed. No violence is to be employed in heavenly things; the wicked teachings which have proceeded from heretics, are to be reprehended and anathematized; but the men we must spare.

Again, he is also greatly opposed to the worshiping of the saints, saying that God is not like the tyrants, with whom intercession is necessary; and that we are not to confess our sins to any one except to God alone. “Thou must confess thy sins,” he says, “that thou mayest eradicate them. If thou art ashamed to confess to any one, confess them daily in thy soul. I say not, that thou shalt confess them to thy fellow servant, that he may curse them and upbraid thee; but tell them to God, who alone can heal thee from them, and follow herein the prophet, who says: ‘Commit thy way unto the Lord ... and he shall bring it to pass.’” Ps. 37:5.

And on Matt. 23, he says with many excellent words: That with human doctrines, we serve God in vain, and that there is no other testimony of the truth, no other certain test of heresy, than the Holy Scriptures, and no other way by which we may know which is the Christian church.

Again, Chrysostom says: “When the Roman Empire shall be put down, then shall antichrist come.” On Matt. 24, he says: “He speaks not unreasonably, who by the abomination of desolation understands antichrist, who, it is thought, will shortly afterwards rise, and will occupy the holy place of the church, under the name of Christ.” Also, on 2 Thess. 2: “When the Empire shall be waste and vacant, then antichrist shall occupy it, and endeavor to draw to him the kingdom of God and men.”

Further, on Matt. 24: “Beloved, be not moved, when antichrist does the works of Christ, and in the sight of Christians, performs all the offices of Christ; for Satan himself can transform himself into an angel of light. What wonder then, that his servants assume the garb of servants of righteousness, and a semblance of Christianity.

“The Jewish abomination is to be understood as having reference not only to the Jewish war, but, in a spiritual sense, also to antichrist, who in the last time, shall sit in the holy place, occupying the chief places of the church, and leading the souls of men away from God. This is very likely the one of whom Paul says that he shall oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. He, standing in the holy place, has laid waste the church of God with multitudes of heresies.”

Then he says: “Since the Lord Jesus knew what great destruction would come in the last days, he commanded that the Christians who are in Christendom, if they would always continue in the true faith, should resort only to the Holy Scriptures; for, if they would look to other things, they would be offended and corrupted, and not understand what the true church is, and, in that way, fall into this horrible abomination, which sitteth in the holy place of the church.”

“Thus,” writes Twisck, “Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory, Ambrose, Jerome, and most of the ancient teachers, though the Papists esteem them greatly with their mouths, would be nothing better than Roman heretics, and if they were still alive, and would teach these doctrines, they would have to expect nothing but fire and sword.”

“Finally, in the year 408 Chrysostom was released from his life of vexation and exile, in which he suffered much, and fell asleep in peace.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, pages 137 and 138, col. 1, from Chron. Sebastian Franck, fol. 56, 92. Tob. Færi, fol. 73. Merula, fol. 338. Joan. Wales, fol. 166. Cornelius Hillenius, fol. 41.

A. D. 390.--Jerome, born of Christian parents at Syridon, in Illyria, or Dalmatia, and instructed in the Christian doctrine from his youth, was baptized at Rome, yet not before he was in the thirtieth year of his age. Bapt. Hist., pages 841, 365, 366, 373, 593. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 29, col. 1. Tract, van den loop der Werelt, page 47, from Erasmus and Wicelius, in the life of Jerome.

In Bapt. Hist., page 374, we read the following: “Jerome writes in the 78th epistle, that he received his baptism and white garment at Rome, though we know that he was born of Christian parents, at Syridon, in Dalmatia. Hence, says the author, the Christians of that age must not have hastened so much with infant baptism, as is the case in the present time.” This Jerome, though some pedobaptists, yea, the Papists themselves, declare him a good and upright teacher, nevertheless wrote several things of such a nature, that at the present day they would be pronounced heresy by many of these same pedobaptists, especially by the Roman church; hence he is classed among the Roman heretics, that is, among those whose views are at this day pronounced heresy by the Roman church. Chron. Seb. Franck, letter H; P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 138, col. 1.

Touching as to how it stood with baptism at the time of Jerome, I find, in substance, this annotation, Bapt. Hist., page 335: “It is certain, that in the time of Jerome adults were still baptized in the occidental churches, as may be seen in his epistle against the errors of John of Jerusalem.”

He, in Epist. ad Pammach, and Ambrose, in Epistle 83, testify that those who desired baptism were called fellow-desirers.

H. Montanus writes thus: “Jerome, who also lived about that time, and, as some say, was an elder at Rome, or, much earlier, as others suppose, at Jerusalem, also testifies that in his time it was a prevailing custom, to baptize adults who had been brought up in the Christian faith, when they desired baptism, for which reason they were called Competentes, as Jerome states in his letter to Pammachius.” H. Montan. Nietigh., pages 74, 75.

Having now shown how it stood with baptism at the time of Jerome, and that the same was administered in the occidental churches to adults, we shall proceed to Jerome’s individual views and what he has written on this subject, according to ancient writers.

In Bapt. Hist., page 373, Jerome writes to Pammachius: “It is customary with us, publicly to instruct for forty days, those who are to be baptized, and enjoin them to pray to the Holy Trinity.”

D. Vicecomes finally shows, page 375, chap. 41 and 44, that Jerome wrote, that in his time they gave those who were baptized, milk and honey to eat, which, the annotator remarks, is no food for new-born infants. Moreover, he shows what is required for true baptism; namely, regeneration, consisting in the mortifying of the old, and resurrection of the new man. This he expresses in the following two passages:

Jerome further writes, page 323, lib. 12, Comment. in Ezechiel.: “We need not only the first birth, but also the second, in order that we, who are born in the flesh, may be born again after the Spirit.”

Again, page 328, Apol. Contr. Ruffin.: “We say that the old man entirely dies in baptism, and that the new man is raised with Christ in baptism; that the earthly perishes, and the heavenly is born.”

Then he admonishes the candidates for baptism, how they should conduct themselves before and at baptism; as well as how those who had already been baptized before many witnesses, and had made a good confession, ought to manifest themselves.

Again, page 374, Epist. 83, ad Ocean, he writes: “The catechumens who are learning the Christian faith must observe not to have carnal intercourse with women before baptism.”

Again the words of Paul, 1 Tim. 6:12, he expounds as follows: “Thou hast professed a good profession before many witnesses; which was done through thy baptism, when thou didst renounce the world and its pomp, before the elders[110] or teachers, before the ministers, and before the heavenly hosts.”

[110] The translator says priests, namely, such priests as John speaks of, Rev. 1:6: “And hath made us kings and priests,” etc.

In the tract called, Klare en Grondige Bewijsing van den Doop, printed 1581, it is stated, letter A, Jerome on Matthew: “The Lord commanded his apostles, that they should first instruct and teach all nations, and then baptize those instructed, in the sacrament of faith; for it is not possible for the body to receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have previously received the true faith.”

Who could ever believe that this man at any time defended, or at least, not opposed but admitted infant baptism, seeing he opposes it in the places mentioned with such abundant clearness and explicitness? We note only the last mentioned passage, where he certainly says, without the least dissimulation or exception, that it is not possible for the body to receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have previously received the true faith. How can, may, or shall this be explained otherwise than that there cannot be or consist any other baptism than that which is received with true faith? for this is the very idea expressed by his words.

Nevertheless, there are men who ascribe to Jerome a certain dialogue against Pelagius, in which one Critobulus interrogates, and one Atticus answers, in this wise: Critobulus asks: “Why are children baptized?” Atticus replies: “That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism.” “Why, what sins have they committed?” asks Critobulus. Atticus answers: “Dost thou ask me this? let the evangelic trumpet answer thee.”

But, in order to prove that Jerome defended infant baptism, it would first have to be shown incontrovertibly, that this dialogue is Jerome’s own production, which we have great reason to doubt, since the style as well as the matter of the same do not accord with his other writings, especially those in which he treats of baptism; moreover, there have of old been forgers, who, in order to gain greater renown for their own productions, have ascribed them to celebrated men, or have interpolated their own opinions into their writings; thus, it has been proven that the writings of Justin have been interpolated. Bapt. Hist., page 170. H. Montan., pages 7, 8, 9. Also, the writings of Origen. Bapt. Hist., pages 283 and 291. H. Mont., pages 29–34, 42, 43.

Yea, in this manner, a whole book, also touching on infant baptism, has been falsely ascribed to Dionysius, the Areopagite, who, it is testified, lived in the time of the apostles; this the Magdeburg pedobaptists themselves show. Centur. 1, cap. 2. Also, Jac. Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., 177, 293, 341.

Again, even if it could be shown, which is by no means certain, that this dialogue is Jerome’s own production, it could nevertheless not be proven thereby, that Jerome himself held the views maintained by one party in the dialogue, namely, that infants may be baptized. For, why should we not, with equal justice, ascribe to him the views of the other party, which demands reasons and proof why they may be baptized? For one would certainly be his work as much as the other.

Moreover, every intelligent person knows that books that are written in the form of dialogues, do not always express the author’s individual views, but that frequently the views and debates of others are handled in them, either to censure them, expose their errors, or correct them.

Finally, how could it be possible, that any one endowed with reason and sound judgment should do such contrary things at one and the same time? We have shown how clearly and correctly he speaks of the baptism of adults, yea, recommends it, and not only this, but how he, though he was born of Christian parents, remained unbaptized until he was in his thirtieth year--how then could he admit infant baptism, seeing he decisively opposed it by doctrine and example? unless it be shown that Jerome wrote this article on infant baptism before his conversion, or that he subsequently apostatized from his adopted views, to infant baptism; but as I can find no account of either we will hold to our previous declaration.

JEROME’S VIEWS TOUCHING SEVERAL OTHER MATTERS OF FAITH, ACCORDING TO P. J. TWISCK’S CHRONIJK, ETC., PAGE 129, COL. 1, 2.

“Jerome, born of Christian parents, and brought up and instructed in the Christian doctrine, was baptized at Rome, in the thirtieth year of his age.” Erasmus, Grondig Bewijs, letter A., Mart. Ball., fol. 102.

“Again, Jerome plainly says, respecting the words of the Supper, that with this bread Christ intended to prefigure, represent, and show the truth of his body, and in many places he calls the cup a figure of the blood.

“Again, he teaches, on Matt. 16, that the priests have no more, or just as little, power, to bind or to loose, than the priests of the Old Testament had, to pronounce the lepers clean or unclean. The words of the priest made them neither clean nor unclean, but simply indicated who, according to the law of Moses, was leprous or not leprous; so now the bishop, according to the law of Christ, pronounces, whose sins are retained, and whose are forgiven.

“Again, he also maintains that all days should be esteemed alike, and that men should constantly keep Easter and Sabbath.

“He would likewise have that men should fast daily, ‘for, what avails it,’ says he, ‘if you carry around an empty stomach, for two or three days, and then overload it? Daily you must hunger, and daily you must eat; you must fast so as not to injure the body, but to subdue and break the desires.’

“Again: ‘The Roman church is not to be esteemed more highly than the church of the whole world, whether of France, or of Britannia, etc. But to worship one Christ, and to have one Ruler, or teacher, of the truth, this constitutes a church.’ Chron. Fra., fol. 65, 86.

“Again, of Antichrist he says: ‘And do we not know that the coming of antichrist is nigh at hand? He shall sit in the temple of God, that is to say, in Jerusalem, or in the church, as I apprehend with more truth. Antichrist shall war against the heathen and overcome them.’

“Again: ‘While man lives here, he may be justified, but after death he has no more opportunity to do good works, though some controvert this, saying that men may increase or decrease even after they have died. While we are in this present life, we may help one another by prayer or deeds; but when we come before the judgment seat of God, neither Job, nor Daniel, nor Noah, can pray for any one; then every one must bear his own burden.’ Valent. Vanius, fol. 112.

“Again, Jerome says: ‘He that is spiritual never persecutes him that is carnal. I have learned from the command of the apostles, to avoid a heretic, but not to burn him. Christ came not to smite, but to be smitten. He that is smitten, follows Christ; but he that smites, follows antichrist.’

“‘Again, the Lord commanded his apostles that they should first instruct and teach all nations, and then baptize those instructed, in the sacrament of faith; for it is not possible for the body to receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have previously received the true faith.’” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 129.

That also in Thessalia infant baptism was not much practiced at this time, A. D. 390, is shown by Socrates, Bapt. Hist., p. 363, book 5, chap. 21, with these words: “Besides, I also know of another custom in Thessalia, namely, that there they baptize only on Easter days; hence nearly all, few excepted, die without baptism.” See also, H. Montan. Nietigheyd, page 71.

But some one may ask: With what words is it expressed in the passage cited, that also in Thessalia infant baptism was not much practiced in A. D. 390, which the writer so confidently asserts. I answer: He expresses two reasons whereby he proves it; in the first place, because, as he says, It was the custom there, to baptize only on Easter days, which indicates that said baptism was not, as Cyprian and his followers had commanded, administered to newborn infants, for these were not born just on Easter days, and, hence, could not be baptized on Easter days, from which it follows that the custom of baptizing on Easter days, was not instituted for newborn infants, but for adult persons, who could prepare themselves for that time. In the second place, when he says, That therefore nearly all, few excepted, died without baptism, it is certainly obvious from this, that all who died without baptism, had not been baptized in their infancy, and that, consequently, many persons were found at this time, who allowed their children to remain unbaptized.

A. D. 391.--It is stated that Augustine (notwithstanding he afterwards became infected with the doctrine of infant baptism), though born of a Christian mother, and the descendant of Christian ancestors, was not baptized before he was in his thirtieth year, (Nauclerus, book 14, Generat., says, in his thirty-third year, by bishop Ambrose, at Milan, on Easter.)

Jacob Mehrning and H. Montanus thus relate this, namely, that Monica, Augustine’s mother, who, though born of Christian parents, was not baptized until she had reached adult years, likewise did not have her son Augustine baptized in his infancy; but that he was baptized when he was already thirty-three, others say, thirty, years old. It is true, we read, say they, that, having become a youth, and fallen very sick, he desired to be baptized; and also, that his mother was engaged then in preparing him for baptism. But when he suddenly recovered from his sickness, his baptism was deferred. Augustine was at that time of such an age, that if he had been baptized, it would really not have been infant baptism, but a baptism which might have been counted with the baptism of adults, had it sprung from a voluntary resolution, for it should have been connected, as Augustine himself declares with his faith and the confession of the name of Christ, which cannot be the case in the baptism of infants.

Augustine there also relates why his mother at that time deferred his baptism, namely, because she, foreseeing the many and great billows of temptation which would roll over his head in his youthful years, feared that the guilt of his sins, after the washing of baptism, would be the greater and more dangerous, which he himself and the whole family, with the exception of his father, then believed. He also tells us, that there were others, too, at that time, who put off or omitted the baptism of their children, from such considerations. Bapt. Hist., pages 363, 364. H. Montan. Nietigh., pages 71, 72.

It appears, moreover, that on that occasion not only Augustine was baptized upon the confession of his faith, but also his son Adeodatus, and his friend Alipius, concerning which we find this notice. Bapt. Hist., page 444, Augustine, bishop of Hippon, in Africa, when he was thirty-three years old, was baptized at Milan, by bishop Ambrose, together with Alipius, and Adeodatus, his natural son, who was fifteen years old at the time. Of this, Augustine, in the 9th book, 6th chap., of his Confessions, says: “When the time had come, that I was to have my name entered on the register of the candidates for baptism, I left the country, and again journeyed to Milan. My dear friend Alipius desired to be baptized with me. Alipius, who was qualified for it, on account of his humility, and the dominion he had over his body, so that in case of emergency, he would have traveled barefoot in winter through the snow in Italy, accompanied me. We took with us the child (that is, the youth) Adeodatus, begotten by me in sin. Thou, O Lord, didst form him well, according to both soul and body. He was now about fifteen years old, and excelled many worthy and learned men.” A little further on, he says: “We have made him our equal, O Lord, in the reception of thy grace, in order to be further trained up in thy law and school; we are baptized, and the care of our old life has been taken away from us. I could not be satisfied in those days, with the wonderful sweetness which I experienced in the contemplation of the mysteriousness of thy counsel, O Lord, with regard to the salvation of the human race. O how I wept, amidst songs of praise. The tears ran down my cheeks.” Thus far, Augustine.

NOTE. A. D. 392.--The Apollinarians, who derived their origin from Apollinaris, denied that Christ adopted his humanity from the virgin Mary, saying that the word became flesh. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 130, from Tripart., lib. 9. Vincent. Hist., cap. 44. Zeg., fol. 189.

A. D. 393.--Valentinian, or Valens, the son of Christian parents (Valentinian and Justina), was induced to journey to Milan, to be baptized by Ambrose, but was treacherously murdered on the way by one Arbogastes. H. Montan., page 70, from Socrat., lib. 4, cap. 9, 26. H. Montanus, however, erroneously, fixes the date of this occurrence about A. D. 380.

My dear friends, is it not a sad thing, that this man, namely Augustine, who thus defended baptism upon faith, yea confirmed it with his own example, and the example of his son Adeodatus, and his friend Alipius, whom he had admonished thereto, should ultimately fall so far as to admit, yea to become a defender of infant baptism! Surely, it is a lamentable matter. For, no one can deny, that in the beginning right after his baptism, he was exceedingly zealous in defense of the true baptism, which is received with a penitent heart; but, that in the course of time he apostatized to infant baptism, can likewise not be denied by any lover of truth. Still, the example of Augustine, his son Adeodatus, and his friend Alipius, serves to confirm our faith, inasmuch as we see that in Augustine’s time the principal Christians allowed their children to remain unbaptized, until they were grown up and, of their own accord desired baptism; for, thus did Monica with her son Augustine, and Augustine with his son Adeodatus, and his friend Alipius, which is a clear proof of the matter in question, namely, that not infant baptism, but baptism upon faith, was practiced among the chief Christians.

THE CONVERSION OF EUVODIUS, WHO FROM A WORLDLY WARRIOR BECAME A SOLDIER OF CHRIST, IN THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE.

In the 8th chapter of the 9th book of his Confessions, Augustine, after speaking of his own baptism, makes the following confession to the Lord, in regard to the baptism of Euvodius: “Thou, O Lord, who causest those that are of the same mind, to dwell in one house, hast joined to us a companion, a young nobleman, called Euvodius, a native of our city. He, who, when following war, commanded the legions of the Empire, was, before us, converted unto thee, and baptized, and, having abandoned secular war, has betaken himself to thy war. We were together; together we had one will to serve thee, and considered in what place we might best do this.” These are his own words, which we read at the place indicated above, and from them we may see how the church increased at that time--not through the addition of infants, but through the conversion and baptism of adult and rational persons. With this we leave Augustine, and the baptism of his companion Euvodius.

About A. D. 397.--About A. D. 397, it is stated that Epiphanius,[111] who subsequently became bishop of Cyprus, was baptized, together with his sister, as it appears, in the presence of his friend and spiritual father Lucian. Of this, D. Vicecomes gives the following account, from Simon Metaphrastes, Bapt. Hist., page 578. Vicecom., lib. 1, cap. 30: “When the Gospel had been read, the bishop, after the baptism, went and commanded Epiphanius and his sister to go in, and with them also Lucian, who became Epiphanius’ spiritual father in holy baptism.

[111] P. J. Twisck places this Epiphanius in the year 377, but this may be a typographical error; the figure 7 having been substituted for the figure 9.

In Bapt. Hist., page 580, lib. 5, cap. 34, Metaphrastes writes of Epiphanius, that immediately upon receiving the doctrine and baptism, the latter, together with an hundred and eight other persons, received the holy Supper, from Bishop Stephen.

NOTE.--In the time of Arcadius and Honorius, about A. D. 397, it was resolved, at Toledo, among other things: “That if any one, after baptism, engages in war, though he have committed nothing special in the war, he shall never be ordained a deacon. Seb. Franck, Chron. Rom. Concil., fol. 73, col. 1.

As to the person who baptized Epiphanius and his sister, as well as administered the Supper to them, we pass by; it suffices us, that this mode of baptism still obtained at that time and in the church where this took place; and that persons were found who administered it, as well as such who were willing to have it administered unto them. Notwithstanding infant baptism had already made great inroads at that time into many places, this baptism was nevertheless administered to persons born of Christian parents, as has been sufficiently shown previously.

A. D. 400.--About this time there flourished, as a writer, the aforementioned Epiphanius, who, by his writings, has shed much light on the subject of baptism, it being sufficiently apparent from all the circumstances relating to him, that he held sound views with regard to the same. Of this, Jacob Mehrning and H. Montanus have given the following account: “Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamina, in Cyprus, A. D. 400, or thereabouts, in speaking of baptism, which he frequently does in his writings, always speak of it in such a manner that it does not include infants; and although occasion often presents itself to him, to speak of infant baptism, yet he never does so; from which we may readily conclude that he did not esteem it much, or that in his time, it was not yet customary in that island.” In Auchoratus he says: “You must not admit every one who is instructed in the faith and desires to come to holy baptism, to this ordinance, simply because he has told your children, that he believes in the Lord; but he must also, with express words, even as the church, our common mother, ours as well as yours, has received it, learn and say: ‘I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,’ etc.”

Again, in another place (Contra Haereses, lib. 1, Tom. 1, Haeresi 8): “This great circumcision, baptism, circumcises us from sin, and seals us in the name of God.” Bapt. Hist., page 366. Nietigh., page 74.

When, therefore, Epiphanius, in the first passage, says: “You must not admit every one who is instructed in the faith, and desires to come to baptism, to this ordinance,” and then adds that he must also confess, saying: “I believe,” he plainly indicates that such baptism can certainly not be administered to infants, because they are not only unable to confess the faith, but have not even the capability or qualification to believe, upon which faith and confession alone he admits baptism.

When, in the second passage, he says: “This great circumcision, baptism, circumcises us from sin,” he does not mean to say thereby, as our opponents at this day assert, that baptism has come in the place of circumcision, so that, even as in the time of the Old Testament, the male infants were circumcised, so now, in the time of the New Testament, the infants must be baptized. O no! for this appears by no means. But he says that baptism is a great circumcision, which circumcises us from sin, which certainly does not apply to infants, that have never sinned, and, consequently, cannot be circumcised from their sins by baptism. With this we leave the views of Epiphanius on the subject of baptism, and proceed to what is related of his reproving image worship, according to the account of P. J. Twisck. “Epiphanius,” he says, “an ancient teacher, flourished in this time, who greatly opposed the worshiping of images, of Mary, or of any other creature. He said: ‘Beloved children, be mindful not to bring any images in the church, or to erect them over the graves of the saints; but bear God constantly in your hearts.’”

Once, when he went into a Christian church, and observed a painted curtain at the door, bearing the picture of Christ or of some saint, he tore it down, because it was contrary to Scripture, and advised the sexton to bury the corpse of some poor person in it; and when he had sent another curtain in its place, he commanded that they should no more hang up curtains like the former, in the church, “Which,” said he, “is contrary to our religion and faith.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 119, col. 2, and page 120, col. 1, from Socrat., lib. 6. Tripart., lib. 10. Leonh., lib. 2. Chron. Seb. Franck, 135. Tob. Fabr., fol. 66, 67. Fransch. Ala., fol. 22. Dani. Saut., lib. 1.

NOTE.--In regard to his teaching against image worship, see Samuel Veltius, in Geslacht-register, page 120. Epiphanius taught at this time that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are to be worshiped, but that no one should worship Mary, or any other woman, or human being, since this honor belongs to God alone, and must not be accorded even to angels. Again, that the women should not say: We honor the queen of heaven. Tom. 2. Haeres., lib. 3. Haeres. 79, in Geslacht-register, page 29.

Concluding the fourth century, as also we will do, P. J. Twisck says: “Baptism was administered twice a year, at Easter and at Pentecost, and this, to a great extent is still done to adult believers and catechumens.” Chron., page 134.

NOTE.--Besides this, that the true order of the baptism of Jesus Christ was practiced in this century by the orthodox believers, many who belonged to the Roman church deferred (though erring in other matters) the baptism of their children till they came to adult years, as is evident, for instance, in the case of Constantine the Great, whom Helena, his Christian mother, kept from baptism, but afterwards admonished to it; of Theodosius, who, being born of Christian parents, was baptized at Milan, upon his faith; of Valens who was mentioned above. With regard to the baptism of Constantine, see Rom. Adelaer, edition 1642, page 211, from Eusebius and Socrat. Of the baptism of Theodosius, see tract van den loop der Wereldt, printed 1611, in the article on baptism; also De gantsch Klare en Grondige Bewijsinge, nopende het doopsel.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE FOURTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.

[This lamentable time commenced with the Tenth General Persecution, instituted by Diocletian, and prosecuted by Maximian, his associate; which caused a very severe and distressing state of affairs, with respect to the violence as well as the long duration of the persecution.

In order to proceed systematically, we have presented separately each year with its respective martyrs. In the first year of this persecution Anthimus and many others at Nicomedia; Phileas, Cassianus; Eulalia and Eucratis, aged virgins, laid down their lives for the evangelical truth.

In the second year, Euplius, Pancratius, a youth of fourteen years; Justus; Felix of Thibaris; the two brothers, Primus and Felicianus, suffered martyrdom.

In the third year: Apphianus, Ulpianus, Aedesius, Agathopius and Theodulus; Julitta of Iconia; forty youths, laid down their lives.

In the fourth year Sylvanus, Januarius, Sosius, Proculus, Pelagia, Theonas, Cyrenia, and Juliana, were martyred.

In the fifth year Theodosia, a virgin of Tyre, Pamphilius, a friend of Eusebius, at Cesarea, were put to death.

In the sixth year Ennathas, a virgin from the city of Scythopolis; Catharina of Alexandria, suffered death.

In the seventh year Ares, Promus, and Elias, at Askalon; Peter Abselamus; the three sisters, Biblis, Aquilina, and Fortunata, poured out their blood.

In the eighth year two sisters from Antioch; Irene, with her two sisters, Peter Nilus and P. Mythius; forty who were beheaded; Martionilla, Euphratesia, seven brothers, and others were compelled to die.

In the ninth year Lucian, elder at Antioch, Peter, Faustus, Didius, and Ammonius, Anysia, a girl of Thessalonica, and Demetrius, suffered death.

In the tenth year Eugenius Auxentius, Maodatius, and many others were put to death.

Then follow two other persecutions, one under Lucinius, the other under Julian, which are called the eleventh and the twelfth persecutions.

Under Lucinius suffered: Basileus, Ammon; the two brothers, Donatian and Rogatian, of whom the one was baptized, and the other not.

Under Julian were slain: John and Paul, who opposed war; and some were killed under the Emperor Valens.

After these details we conclude the account of this century.]

* * * * *

A. D. 301.--“At this time,” writes P. J. Twisck, “the persecution was very severe; for when the Emperor, namely, Diocletian would divert himself in the theatre, the whole multitude of the people called to him ten times, that the Christians should not be tolerated, and twelve times, that they should be exterminated.” Chron., 4th book, p. 85, col. 1, from Merul., fol. 237. Leonh. lib. 1.

In the preceding century, in the year 284, we mentioned, in connection with the beginning of the reign of Diocletian, the first bloody edict, issued by this Emperor against the pious and steadfast Christians, upon which followed the death of some of them, as may be seen in the cases of Claudius, Asterius, Neon, Zenobius, and the pious Christian women, Nuina, Theonilla, Zenobia, sister of the aforementioned Zenobius, etc., most of whom died at Tarsus, in Cilicia, the birth-place of the apostle Paul, for the testimony of Jesus, their Savior. This continued from the aforesaid year until the close of that century, as we have related in the proper place.

But in the same place we have also made mention of a second edict by the same Emperor, which, about nineteen years afterwards, was followed by the most violent persecution of the Christians. Of this we promised to speak more fully, and now purpose to do so, having come to the very time in which commenced this, the severest and most grievous persecution, which is called the tenth.

OF THE TENTH GENERAL PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, UNDER DIOCLETIAN, COMMENCED A. D. 302.

Various eminent writers have made mention of this awful and lamentable deed of the Emperor Diocletian, and they cannot sufficiently wonder at two things: In the first place, that any one who is at all a human being could commit such great cruelties on his fellow-men, as Diocletian inflicted upon the Christians. In the second place, that the Christians, frail men, as they were, could endure all this, and not only this, but that many of them, from love to Jesus Christ, and because of the certain hope of their reward, manifested great joy in their sufferings. We shall first speak of the former, and then of the latter as follows.

THE CAUSE AND SEVERITY OF THIS PERSECUTION, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK, FROM VARIOUS ANCIENT AND CELEBRATED AUTHORS.

These two Emperors (namely, Diocletian and Maximian) jointly governed the empire, in harmony and constancy, and remained undivided. However, when they had reigned about ten years, they took counsel together, and resolved to exterminate the Christians, because the discord of religion caused great dissensions, both in the households and in the Roman Empire.

“The apostate Christians played the part of instigators and firebrands in the raising of this persecution, holding out to the Emperors the hope, that the Christians could be exterminated. The persecution which ensued thereupon, is considered the most grievous.”

Then he writes: “But the enemies of the truth took the occasion to incite the Emperor Diocletian against the Christians, from a certain conflagration in the city of Nicomedia--at that time the place where the Emperors were wont to reside--by which the palace of the Emperor was totally destroyed. With this calamity they charged the Christians. The Emperor, enraged beyond measure on this account, easily believed the slanderers, thinking he had sufficient reason for it. He accordingly, in the nineteenth year of his reign, which coincides with A. D. 302, issued a public decree (as was done in the days of Antiochus), that every one, in every place, should sacrifice to the gods of the Emperors; and that he who should refuse to do so, should be punished with death; also, that the churches or meeting-places, and the books, of the Christians should be utterly destroyed. Yea, there was scarcely a large city in the empire, in which not daily a hundred Christians, or thereabouts, were slain. It is also recorded that in one month seventeen thousand Christians were put to death in different parts of the empire, so that the blood which was shed colored red many rivers. Some were hanged, others beheaded, some burned, and some sunk by whole shiploads in the depths of the sea.”

As touching the fearful tortures inflicted, he then writes thus: “These tyrants had some of them dragged through the streets, tied to the tails of horses, and after they were mangled and bruised, they had them put back into prison, and placed upon beds of potsherds, so that rest might be more excruciating for them than actual torment. Sometimes they bent down with great force the branches of trees, and tied one leg to one branch, and the other to another, and then let the branches spring back into their natural positions, so that their limbs were shockingly rent in pieces. They cut off the ears, noses, lips, hands, and the toes of many, leaving them only the eyes, to inflict still more pain upon them. They sharpened wooden pegs, which they inserted between the flesh and the nails; and had lead or tin melted, and poured as hot as possible over their bare backs.” Chron., 3d book, p. 78, col. 1, 2, and page 79, col. 1, from Euseb., lib. 8, cap. 2, 3, 16, 17, 18. Fasc. Temp., fol. 96. Chron. Mich., fol. 196. Chron. Carionis, fol. 248, 249. Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 19. Paul. Merul., fol. 232, 238, 239. Pieter Messiæ, fol. 148. Chron. Leonh., lib. 1. Hist. Andræ, fol. 175, 176. Jan Cresp., fol. 66, 67, 68, 70. A. Schri., lib. 13, fol. 349, 350. Hist. D. Matth. Jud., lib. 4, cap. 3.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF THE CAUSE AND SEVERITY OF THIS PERSECUTION, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT IN THE INTRODUCTION TO THE MARTYRS MIRROR.

“In A. D. 302, commenced the tenth persecution of the Christians, namely, in the 19th year of the reign of Emperor Diocletian; for although it had been smouldering previously already, it was in this year, that through the edicts, it was caused to break forth in flames. It was so great as to exceed, not only in cruelty, but also in duration, all the former ones, for under the tyrannous Emperors, Diocletian, Maximian, Maxentius, and Maximin, it lasted twelve years, and this, principally in the east.

“Eusebius, who lived to see this persecution, gives a full description of it. How awful it was, we may read in his church history, book 8. He writes that the cause of it was the great liberty enjoyed by the Christians, who had attained to great distinction. Thus it occurred, says the author of the Introduction, that Diocletian first issued decrees commanding that all the churches or meeting-places of the Christians should be demolished, and the Holy Scriptures burned. Then another decree followed, to the effect, that the leaders, that is, the teachers and ministers, of the churches, should be compelled to sacrifice to the gods, or be put to death. Then the tormenting and putting to death was extended also over the common people of the Christians.[112] Some were torn with sharp irons, others lacerated with hooks, some burned with red-hot plates; some were compelled to sacrifice, and even though they did not sacrifice, it was nevertheless proclaimed that they had sacrificed.” Introduction, fol. 42, col. 1, 2, from Baronius, in Chron., A. D. 302, num. 1.

[112] The author writes: “In Egypt they were beheaded in such great numbers, that the executioners grew tired, and their swords became dull from cutting. The Christians went unto death gladly, without being bound, fearing lest they should not be there in time to die as martyrs.” Fol. 41.

FURTHER ACCOUNT OF THE CAUSES AND SEVERITIES OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED PERSECUTION, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF J. GYSIUS.

He writes: “In A. D. 302, in the 19th year of his reign, the Emperor Diocletian instituted a great and unmerciful persecution against the Christians, which is called the Tenth Persecution. Of this persecution, Salpitius Severus speaks thus: ‘About fifty years after Valerian, under the reign of Diocletian and Maximian, there arose the most bitter persecution, which for ten consecutive years ravaged God’s people. At this time the whole world was stained with the holy blood of the martyrs; for men hastened emulously to these glorious and famous contests, that is, to martyrdom, for the name of the Lord; and to obtain, through a worthy and honorable death, the honor which belongs to a martyr was then sought with more eagerness, than at the present time, through a false ambition, men seek after a bishopric. Never was the world so greatly depopulated as through this persecution, and never were greater triumphs gained by us, than when by these ten years of slaughter we could not be conquered.’” Salpit. Sever. Hist. Sacr.

“In this persecution, Diocletian also employed his associate, Maximian Herculeus, a man hard, cruel, faithless, and licentious by nature, who in all things obeyed Diocletian’s behests. In this persecution Diocletian raged against those in the east, and Maximian against those in the west.”

The same author then mentions different causes for this persecution, one of which he describes in the following manner: “The Emperor Diocletian, determined to restore the Roman Empire to its ancient flourishing condition, and being desirous therefore, to reestablish all the customs which seemed to be trampled upon, endeavored also to prevent and abolish the difference which he found to exist in the matter of worship, seeking first of all to exterminate the Christian religion as one which cursed and rejected all idolatry. There were very many philosophers and sophists who instigated the Emperor to this, and confirmed him in his purpose. By violent and satiric writings they incited the Emperor and all the princes and judges, ridiculed the Christian religion, and charged it with being an innovation, falsehood, and wicked superstition. On the other hand, they extolled the heathen religion as the most ancient, together with the worship of the gods, who as they said, ruled the world by their power and majesty.

“Among these instigators, besides Apollinius, were Porphyry, a philosopher, who from a Jew had become a Christian, and from a Christian an apostate; and Hierocles, a man of great popularity. Against Porphyry wrote, Methodius, bishop of Tyre, Eusebius, and Apollinaris; and against Hierocles wrote this same Eusebius. Lactantius wrote against both, and all others of the same stamp.”

Touching the torments, he writes among other things the following: “It would take too long to recount in writing, all the different manners in which, through the instigation of the devil, the Christians were put to death at this particular time. Beating, scourging, and lacerating the skin with all manner of sharp instruments, were simply preparatories for severer torments that brought on death. Over some, molten lead was poured; some were roasted before glowing coals, with long-continued torments (as we have shown in another place); others had the fingers of both hands pierced with sharp awls and needles, which were inserted between the flesh and the nails; of others we read that after having been beaten on the bare body for a long time with thin rods and leaden plates, they were cast as food before bears, lions, leopards, and other beasts.” A little further on he says: “Some were suffocated with the smoke of a slow fire of moistened combustibles; others, whose noses, ears, and hands had been cut off, were suffered to roam in misery about the country, as a terror to other, unknown Christians.”

As touching the places where these cruelties were inflicted upon the defenseless and innocent Christians, the aforementioned author writes: “This persecution extended over the whole world--Asia, Africa, Europe, and all the islands, especially Cecilia, Lesbos, and Sonnus.”

Then, after having related the destruction of several cities, he says: “Many other cities had to taste in their whole body the bitter cup of this persecution; especially, Thebes and Antino, in Egypt; Nicopolis, in Thracia; Aquileia, in Italy, where all the Christian believers were slain; Florence, Bergamo, Verona, Naples, Beneventum, and Venusia; in Gallia, Marseilles and Treves, where Rictionarus proceeded with such violence and cruelty, in this matter, that the blood which was shed, colored many rivers; in Germany, the city of Augusta, and even Spain, Britannia, Rhetia, and other provinces were not exempt.” Joh. Gys. Hist., fol. 22, col. 2–4, and fol. 23, col. 1, 2, from Euseb., lib. 7. Oros., lib. 7, cap. 26, 27. Nic., lib. 7. Idem, lib. 7. Multis. cap. Vinc., in Speculo, lib. 12. Sabell. Ennead, lib. 7 and 8.

NOTICE TO THE READER.

Before we proceed to give a special account of the martyrs who were put to death in this persecution, we deem it necessary to call the attention of the reader to the following points.

1. That after A. D. 300, that is, in the beginning of this century, many errors began to arise among some of those who were called Christians, especially among those who belonged under the Roman dominion. Yea, they went so far as to resort to carnal weapons (which, however, had already previously been done by some); through which the defenseless and meek lambs of Christ suffered not a little distress, fear, and sorrow.

2. That, besides the martyrs of the true faith, some of the aforesaid class suffered themselves to be killed for their opinions; whereby the death and the glorious martyrdom of the true Christian believers were not a little obscured.

3. That, in order to distinguish these from the former, we have exerted our utmost diligence, so that as far as we know, there are not found among the martyrs of whom we have given, or may yet give, an account, any who can be shown to have been guilty of gross errors, much less of the shedding of blood. At least we have not been able to detect it in any of them, and hence in accordance with the spirit of love, we must judge and believe the best of them.

As this persecution under Diocletian and Maximian was not only very severe, but also of long duration, we have deemed it well to present its years separately in consecutive order, and to show what the pious martyrs suffered in each year, steadfastly confessing with their blood the truth of God.

FIRST YEAR OF THE PERSECUTION COMMENCED A. D. 302.

The sword of Diocletian had now been drawn from its sheath, and there remained nothing but the shedding of blood, and murdering and burning in manifold ways, all directed against the innocent and defenseless lambs of Christ; of which we shall directly give some examples.

ANTHIMUS, BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, AT NICOMEDIA, AS ALSO MANY MEMBERS OF HIS CHURCH, BEHEADED IN THAT CITY, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 302.

Among the first martyrs of the Tenth Persecution is counted Anthimus, who was bishop of the church of Christ at Nicomedia. It is stated that he was beheaded in that city for the testimony of Jesus Christ; as also a great number of that church, all of whom obtained with him, in great steadfastness, the crown of martyrdom. See, Abr. Mell. Hist., 1st book, fol. 100, col. 1. Acta per Metaphr., 27 April. Niceph. Hist., lib. 7, cap. 6. Also, Acta super Euphrasiam. P. J. Twisck, for the year 204, in Chr., lib. 4.

FULLER ACCOUNT OF THE MARTYRDOM AND DEATH OF ANTHIMUS, AS RECORDED BY J. GYSIUS.

He writes: “At this time there was also beheaded, after a glorious confession, Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, together with a great number of the faithful. Nicephorus writes that he was first most cruelly beaten; that they then bored his heels through with burning pins, threw him on potsherds, put red-hot slippers on his feet, tore the skin and flesh from his body, burned him with torches, stoned him, and finally beheaded him.” The same way trod Tyrannion, bishop of the church of Tyre, Zenobius of Sidon, Sylvanus of Gaza, and Pamphilius, concerning whom Eusebius wrote a special book.” Joh. Gys., fol. 23, col. 3, from Euseb., lib. 8, cap. 6. Cyprian., lib. 7, cap. 6.

PHILEAS, BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, AT THUMIS, IN EGYPT, BEHEADED AT THAT PLACE, FOR THE EVANGELICAL TRUTH, A. D. 302.

It is related that after the death of the aforementioned martyrs, Phileas, Bishop of the Church of Thumis, in Egypt, was sentenced to death, and beheaded, by virtue of the edict of the Emperor, on account of his faith in Jesus Christ, and because he would not give honor to the gods, nor sacrifice to them. Jerome has written of him that after he became bishop, he wrote a very excellent book in praise of the martyrs. In Catalogo.

The author of the Introduction, has left on record these words concerning him: “Phileas, Bishop at Thumis, who was entreated by the Judge to have regard for his wife and children, remaining steadfast, nevertheless, was beheaded.” Introduction, fol. 43, col. 1, compared with Mellinus, 1st book, fol. 101, from Euseb.

AN EXTRACT FROM THE LETTERS WHICH THE AFOREMENTIONED MARTYR PHILEAS WROTE CONCERNING THE PERSECUTION AT ALEXANDRIA, TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AT THUMIS, AND LEFT FOR THE ADMONITION AND CONSOLATION OF ALL BELIEVERS; CONTAINING THE AWFULNESS OF THE TORMENTS INFLICTED ON THE BELIEVERS, AND HOW STEADFASTLY THEY BORE UP UNDER THEM.

NOTE.--The first part of the letter of bishop Phileas is translated thus by Eusebius in his Church History, 8th book, 10th chapter.

Phileas writes: “The holy martyrs who fought with us, have left us good examples. Being taught out of the divine Scriptures, they fixed the eyes of their hearts on God, and voluntarily, without the least fear, apprehended death for the sake of the truth. For they constantly bore in mind that our Lord Jesus Christ became man for our sakes; and that he has taught us, to fight against sin even unto death. For, being equal with God, he thought it not robbery, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself unto death, even the death of the cross. The holy martyrs followed his example, enduring all pain and torment, that they might not stain the conscience of their faith; for the perfect love which was in them cast out all fear. It is impossible for me to describe the power, patience, and steadfastness of the martyrs, yea, it is scarcely credible except for those who have seen it with their own eyes; for they were exposed, and every one was at liberty to inflict upon them whatever contumely or torment he pleased, and if any invented a new mode of torture, he was permitted to torment them with it himself.”

Thus far Eusebius’ translation; what now follows, is thus related by Mellinus, from the above letter of Phileas.

“As every heathen had been given full power over the Christians, to inflict upon them all manner of vexation, mockery, and ignominy, yea, to put them to death in every way; they beat some with sticks, others with rods, scourges, whips, thongs, ropes, or whatever they could the most readily lay hold of; which spectacle was changed now and then by new kinds of torture and beating which the Christians had to undergo. Some of them had their hands tied behind their backs, and were suspended from a gibbet, and then all their members were stretched apart by executioner’s instruments. They were then, through the command of the magistrate, scourged with iron rods on the whole body, not only on their sides, as was customary to do with murderers, but even on the belly, the shins, buttocks, and some on all the most sensitive parts of the body. Others were suspended by one hand to the ceiling of a gallery, and thus stretched limb from limb, which exceeds every other torture. Others were tied back to back to pillars or columns, but so that their feet did not touch the ground; and the more the executioners or their assistants tightened the ropes, the more were the martyrs tormented by the weight of their own bodies. And this cruel torment lasted not only while the President was engaged in examining them, but he often let them hang a whole day in this torment. While the President or criminal Judge would go from one to the other to examine them on the rack, he had his servants closely observe the first ones, to see whether any of them, overcome by the intensity of the torments, were ready to yield. He also commanded his executioners that they should tighten the ropes on them the longer the more. But if they should see that the martyrs were almost ready to die, then they should take them down, and drag them over the ground, over stones, shells, potsherds, and caltrops. For they had no other consideration for the Christians, then how they might subject them, if it were possible, to a thousand deaths--just as though they were not human beings.

“Over and above all the tortures mentioned, the enemies of Christ invented still another mode of torment for his anointed, or holy martyrs; for after they had tormented them, they placed some with their feet in the block, and violently stretched apart their legs, as far as they possibly could, even to the fourth hole, and there fastened them, so that the bodies of the martyrs must of necessity lie backwards over the block, yea, that they, on account of their many wounds, could neither move nor stir. Others, who had been taken down from the racks or torture-stakes, were thrown half dead upon the bare ground, which was far more horrible to behold than when they were still being tormented. Of these some died under the executioner’s hands, while they were being tormented; others, in whom life was not yet extinct, were thrown half dead back into prison, and in a few days perished of pain; others, again, who triumphed over their long imprisonment, were healed and restored. These became much stronger in the faith than they had been before, and when it was left to the free choice of each of them, either to touch the shameful heathen sacrifices, and thereby be delivered from all trouble, yea, from death itself, and be invested with the former freedom; or to refuse to sacrifice, and receive sentence of death, they without the least deliberation chose the latter, and boldly went unto death, knowing full well, that it is written in the word of God: ‘He that sacrificeth unto strange gods shall be cut off from the people.’ Again: ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’”

Thus far the words of the martyr Phileas, which he wrote in a letter to the brethren of the church of Thumis, of which he was pastor, while he was still in prison, and before he had received his sentence of death; by which letter he wished to inform his church of his condition in prison, as well as to admonish them in the true godliness in Christ, and that they should steadfastly continue therein after his death, which was soon to follow. Compare Eusebius, concerning the death of Phileas, with A. Mellinus, 1st book, fol. 101, col. 2, 3.

CASSIAN, A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL-TEACHER, BY THE ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE PUT TO DEATH BY HIS HEATHEN SCHOLARS, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, AT FORUM CORNELII, A. D. 302.

It is stated that in this persecution Cassian, Bishop of the church at Brescia, in Italy, being compelled to flee on account of the violent persecution, settled in the city of Forum Cornelii (at present called Imola), where he established a school for children. However, the persecution, which also there broke forth, did not spare him; for shortly afterwards he was denounced as a Christian, and apprehended. When the Judges asked him what profession or trade he had, he replied that he was a schoolteacher, and taught children to read and write. He was also examined concerning his faith, and as he would not abandon it, or sacrifice to the gods, the Judges sentenced him to a very unusual death, for this was his sentence: “Let the scourger, that is, the school-teacher, be pricked, cut, and stabbed to death by his own scholars, with styles, awls, pens, penknives, and other sharp instruments such as children make use of in school.”

Thereupon Cassian was stripped naked; his hands were tied behind his back, and he was thus delivered unto his scholars, to be maltreated by them in the aforesaid manner. Some of these then stoned him, some beat him with school-boards and wax-tablets, others stabbed him with styles, pens, penknives, and other sharp school utensils, till after unspeakable torments, death ensued, and he, having commended his soul unto God was thus released from this vale of sorrows. Compare A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 104, col. 3, 4, with J. Gys., fol. 24, col. 1, ex Prudent., in Hymno, Steph. Hym., 9. Petr. de Nat., lib. 7.

EULALIA, A CHRISTIAN MAIDEN, BURNED WITH LAMPS AND TORCHES, AND SUFFOCATED THEREBY, FOR THE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, AT EMERITA IN LUSITANIA, A. D. 302.

At this time there was a Christian maiden, called Eulalia, not more than twelve or thirteen years old, who was filled with such a desire and ardor of the spirit, to die for the name of Christ, that her parents had to take her out of the city of Merida, to some distant country-seat, and closely confine her there. But this place could not extinguish the fire of her spirit, or long confine her body; for, having escaped on a certain night, she went very early the following day before the tribunal, and with a loud voice said to the Judge and the whole magistracy: “Are you not ashamed to cast your own souls and those of others at once into eternal perdition by denying the only true God, the Father of us all, and the Creator of all things? O ye wretched men! do you seek the Christians, that you may put them to death? Behold, here am I, an adversary of your satanical sacrifices. I confess with heart and mouth God alone; but Isis, Apollo, and Venus are vain idols.”

The Judge before whose tribunal Eulalia spoke thus boldly, was filled with rage, and called the executioner, commanding him to take her away speedily, strip her, and inflict various punishments on her; so that she, said he, may feel the gods of our fathers, through the punishment, and may learn that it will be hard for her, to despise the command of our Prince (that is, of Maximian).

But before he allowed matters to proceed so far, he addressed her with these soft words: “How gladly would I spare thee! O that thou mightest renounce before thy death thy perverse views of the Christian religion? Reflect once, what great joy awaits thee, which thou mayest expect in the honorable state of matrimony. Behold, all thy friends weep for thee, and thy sorrow-stricken, well-born kindred sigh over thee, that thou art to die in the tender bloom of thy young life. See, the servants stand ready to torture thee to death with all sorts of torments; for thou shalt either be beheaded with the sword, or torn by the wild beasts, or singed with torches, which will cause thee to howl and wail, because thou wilt not be able to endure the pain; or, lastly be burned with fire. Thou canst escape all these tortures with little trouble, if thou wilt only take a few grains of salt and incense on the tips of thy fingers, and sacrifice it. Daughter, consent to this, and thou shalt thereby escape all these severe punishments.”

This faithful martyr did not think it worth the trouble to reply either to the entreating or the threatening words of the Judge, but, to say it briefly, pushed far away from her and upset[113] the images, the altar, censor, sacrificial book, etc.

[113] A certain author speaks of her having spit into the face of the tyrant; which is to be understood of the image or idol.

Instantly two executioners came forward, who tore her tender limbs, and with cutting hooks or claws cut open her sides to the very ribs.

Eulalia, counting and recounting the gashes on her body, said: “Behold, Lord Jesus Christ! thy name is being written on my body; what great delight it affords me to read these letters, because they are signs of thy victory! Behold, my purple blood confesses thy holy name.”

This she spoke with an undaunted and happy countenance, evincing not the least sign of distress, though the blood flowed like a fountain from her body. After she had been pierced through to her ribs with pincers, they applied burning lamps and torches to the wounds in her sides, and to her abdomen. Finally the hair of her head was ignited by the flame, and taking it in her mouth, she was suffocated by it. This was the end of this heroine, young in years, but old in Christ, who loved the doctrine of her Savior more than her own life. A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 105, col. 4, and fol. 106, col. 1, 2, compared with J. Gys., fol. 23, col. 3, ex Prudent. Steph. Hym. 3.

This happened in Lusitania, at Emerita, now called Merida or Medina del Rio Sacco, in the uttermost or lowest part of Spain, under the Emperor Maximian and the Proconsul Dacian, as may clearly be seen in ancient writers, and also in the aforementioned authors.

EUCRATIS, A VIRTUOUS MAIDEN, DIED IN PRISON, AT CÆSAR AUGUSTA, AFTER RECEIVING MANY STRIPES AND WOUNDS, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS, HER SAVIOR, A. D. 302.

After the death of Eulalia an account is given (from Prudentius) of another Christian maiden, called Eucratis, who by her steadfastness in suffering, and the violence with which she took the kingdom of heaven, put to shame the spirit of this world, at Cæsar Augusta. The ancients tell us in what manner this heroine of Jesus Christ was martyred, namely, that she was not only tormented on her sides with rods and other iron instruments, but that her breasts were cut off, so that her liver could be seen; hence, having been put back into prison, she very miserably died (yet with a glad hope), in consequence of the putrefaction of the wounds, which she had received for the name of Jesus Christ. See Mell. as cited above, from Steph. Hym. 4. Flos. Sanct. Hisp. Mart. Rom., 16 April.

THE SECOND YEAR OF THIS PERSECUTION BEGAN A. D. 303.

The persecution did not yet cease, though it had already risen to a very high degree. But it may have pleased God to bring his people through much tribulation into his kingdom. Acts 14:22,23.

EUPLIUS, A PIOUS CHRISTIAN, BEHEADED IN THE CITY OF CATANA IN SICILY, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 303.

On the 12th of August, A. D. 303, a certain pious Christian, called Euplius, was surprised by the inquisitors of the Romans, in the city of Catana in Sicily, as he was engaged in reading the Gospel, and instructing other Christians. They apprehended him and brought him near the tribunal, in which sat the clerk of the criminal court and the Judge.

Meanwhile Euplius cried aloud: “I am a Christian, and wish to die for the name of Christ.”

Calvisianus, the Proconsul, hearing this, said: “Bring him in here, who cried thus.”

When Euplius had entered the tribunal, carrying with him the Gospel books, one of the Proconsul’s friends said: “It is not right for him to carry such papers with him contrary to the prohibition of the Emperors.”

The Proconsul asked Euplius, whence he had these writings? Whether he brought them from his house?

Euplius answered: “I have no house. My Lord Jesus Christ knows that I have no house.”

Then the Proconsul commanded him with a loud voice, to read something out of the writings.

Euplius, having opened the book, read these words: “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Also: “Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself,” etc.

When he had read these and like passages, the Proconsul said: “What does all this mean?”

Euplius replied: “This is the law of my Lord, of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The Proconsul, having heard this confession of Christ, said: “Let him be delivered unto the executioners, put to the rack, and thus examined.”

He was then very grievously, yea, inhumanly tormented, and commanded to deliver up the Scriptures he had with him, and to have them burned to the dishonor of Jesus Christ. All of this he steadfastly refused to do; moreover, he openly invoked the name of Jesus Christ, because he had been found worthy to suffer for his name’s sake.

Thereupon he was again led to the rack and dreadfully tormented in the same manner as before. But he suffered it patiently, and called upon the Lord, saying: “I thank thee, O Christ! help me, O Christ! for thy sake I suffer all this, O Christ!”

In short, the Proconsul, still more enraged by this, went into the tribunal, and gave the sentence of death to the clerk of the criminal court, that he might write it out against this good man. Then, coming out again from the tribunal, and bringing with him the tablet containing the death sentence, he read the latter aloud, as follows: “I command that Euplius, the Christian, be slain with the sword, because he despises the gods of the Emperors, blasphemes the other gods, and does not repent.” He further said: “Lead him away.”

This sentence having been read, the Gospel book which he had with him when he was apprehended, was forthwith suspended to his neck, and the crier went before him, crying thus: “Euplius, the enemy of the gods and the Emperors, is led to death.” Euplius went joyfully to the place where he was to be put to death, continually thanking Christ for his grace. Having arrived at the place of execution, he with great reverence bowed his knees, and prayed to the Lord his God. As soon as he had finished, he offered his neck to the sword, and poured out his blood as a drink offering unto the Lord. His dead body was afterwards removed by the Christians and buried. This happened at Catana, in Sicily, A. D. 303, after the twelfth day of the month of August had passed. Acta M. S. Proconsular. Baron., edit. in Annal 1, 2, A. D. 303. Alia per Metaphrastem, compared with A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 117, col. 2–4.

PANCRATIUS, A YOUTH OF FOURTEEN YEARS, BEHEADED FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, WITHOUT THE CITY OF ROME, A. D. 303.

There was at that time a Christian youth of fourteen years, called Pancratius, who, when he was brought before the Emperor Diocletian found such special favor in the eyes of the latter, that he promised to adopt him as his son, if he would abandon Christ, and show honor to the gods of the Romans. But this youth, who was old in the knowledge and love of his Savior, showed such steadfastness in defending his faith and despising the gods, that the Emperor, filled with rage, commanded that he should be decapitated, on the Aurelian way, just out of the city of Rome. Thus this youth loved the honor of his Savior more than his own life, and hence he is justly reckoned among the number of the pious martyrs. Acta per Sicrium, bona fide edita, secundum Mellinum, in Tract super, fol. 139, col. 4.

JUSTUS, A PIOUS AND GODFEARING YOUTH OF AUXERRE, IN BURGUNDY, DECAPITATED FOR THE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, NEAR LUPERAM, A. D. 303.

When the soldiers of the Emperor Diocletian were engaged in apprehending the Christians, a certain father, called Mattheus, and his two sons, Justinian and Justus, were journeying toward Auxerre, in Burgundy, their place of residence. But having been denounced, in the meantime, by some evil informers, they were pursued by the aforesaid soldiers and four horsemen sent by the Emperor’s Proconsul. The younger son, Justus, perceiving this, communicated it to his father and his brother, who hid themselves in a cave, but Justus kept watch without. When he saw the horsemen, he went to meet them. Being asked by them, who he was, and where his companions were, he replied: “I am called Justus, and I freely confess that I am also a Christian; but since I regard you as persecutors of the Christians, it is not lawful for me to betray my companions.”

When they drew their swords, and threatened him with them, he answered: “Truly, I shall consider myself happy, if I may be permitted to suffer all manner of punishment, nay, death itself, for the name of Christ; for I am ready to lose my soul in this world, that I may keep it unto life eternal.”

Thereupon one of the soldiers drew his sword, and struck off his head. His father and his brother buried his dead body at Luperam, which place was near by. This occurred A. D. 303. Abr. Mell., ex Acta per Surium edita, ut apparet ex Bede Acris Rit. Micis de Sumpta.

FELIX, BISHOP OF THE CHURCH AT THIBARIS, IN AFRICA, PUT TO DEATH WITH THE SWORD, IN THAT CITY, FOR DEFENDING THE EVANGELICAL TRUTH, A. D. 303.

When Constantinus Chlorus and Galerius Maximianus were Cæsars for the fourth time, the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian issued an edict to the whole world, which was transmitted to the authorities of all the colonies or free cities of the Romans, and read to this effect: that they should demand the divine books and laws of the Christians at the hands of their bishops and teachers. A copy of this edict, among others, was posted up in the city of Thibaris, in Africa, on the fifth day of the month of June.

Now when it came to pass that the fiscal Procurator of that place demanded of Felix the divine and Christian books, in order to burn them, Felix answered: “It were better, that I should be burned, than the divine Scriptures, because we must obey God rather than men.”

The Procurator said: “Nevertheless, the command of the Emperors must have the precedence to thy word.”

Felix replied: “God’s command comes before the commands of men.”

The Procurator said: “Consider well, what thou doest.”

NOTE.--Here we might produce the whole of the court proceedings as believed to have been recorded by the clerk of the criminal court; but in order to avoid prolixity, we shall present to the kind reader, word for word, only the last and principal part of those proceedings.

Having arrived there, the Proconsul or General commanded them to loose Felix, and asked him, saying: “O Felix, why wilt thou not deliver up the books of the Lord thy God? Or perhaps, thou dost not have any?”

Felix answered: “Indeed, I have them, but I do not wish to give them to you.”

The Proconsul said: “Put Felix to death with the sword.”

When Felix had received the sentence of death, he said with a loud voice: “I thank thee, O Lord, that thou hast redeemed me!” He was immediately led to the place where he was to die; at which time the moon was changed as into blood. This happened on the 30th of August.

Having arrived at the place of execution, Felix lifted up his eyes toward heaven, and said with a loud voice: “O Lord God, I thank thee, that I have lived to be fifty-six years old. I have kept myself pure; have kept the Gospels or evangelical books; and have preached the faith and truth in their purity. O Lord God of heaven and earth, Jesus Christ! I bow my neck to the sword, as an offering unto thee, who abidest in eternity, with whom there is and abideth glory and majesty forever and ever, Amen.”

Thus far the account of the martyrdom of Felix has been translated word for word from the Acta Proconsularia, that is, the records of the proceedings which were approved by the heathen judges and proconsuls. Compare Abr. Mell., 1st book, fol. 117, col. 1, 2, with Act. Proconsul. extant sur tom 5, Octob. 24.

PRIMUS AND FELICIAN, TWO BROTHERS, AFTER MANY TORMENTS, THROWN BEFORE LIONS AND BEARS, TO BE TORN BY THEM, BUT FINALLY BEHEADED, AT NUMENTA, IN ITALY, A. D. 303.

In the year 303 two brothers, Primus and Felician, were brought prisoners before the criminal Judge of the city of Numenta, in Italy. He first examined Felician, and asked him, whether he would rather sacrifice to the gods, and live in honors, and see good days, or be tortured unto death with all manner of torments?

Felician answered: “How canst thou speak to me of pleasant days? I am now eighty years old, and have been enlightened with the saving knowledge of Christ for about thirty years; yea, I am still finding the greatest joy of my heart in his service. And thou wouldst persuade me to forsake my Savior, and accept instead of him the vain lusts of this world! Far be it from me; for I have resolved to cleave to Christ, my Lord and my God, to the very last breath of my life.”

Thereupon this good old man was put in prison, and his brother Primus brought forth, whom the Judge endeavored to persuade that Felician, his dear old brother, had apostatized. But Primus was confident that the contrary was true; therefore he said that it was a lie. Upon this, he was beaten with sticks, and burned on his loins with lamps. But he sang with the prophet David: “O Lord, thou has proved us with fire, as silver is tried.”

Then both were tormented, in different ways. Molten lead was poured down Primus’ throat, while Felician was beaten with leaded scourges, nailed with his hands and feet to a stake, and inhumanly tortured. Both were cast before the lions and bears; but as these would not harm them the Judge caused the martyrs to be beheaded and their dead bodies laid on the ground for the dogs and the birds of the air. However, they were buried by the Christians. Acta per eundem. Also, A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 114, col. 2.

THE THIRD YEAR OF THE PERSECUTION, COMMENCED A. D. 304.

In the third year of the persecution, the obdurate heart of the bloodthirsty Emperor Diocletian had not yet softened, seeing he and his associate Maximian steadily went on putting to death the poor Christian believers, as appears from the death of the following persons.

APPHIAN, A GODFEARING YOUTH, DROWNED IN THE SEA, AT CESAREA, IN PALESTINE, BECAUSE HE DEFENDED THE HONOR OF JESUS CHRIST, AND REPROVED IDOLATRY, A. D. 304.

When the third year of the aforementioned persecution had begun, the second oppression of the Christians arose in Palestine, through letters which had been sent in the Emperor’s name to Urbanus, the Proconsul; whereby the magistrates of every city were commanded: to exert the utmost diligence, that all Christians, men and women, old and young, would sacrifice to the gods; and that the criers should call together in the city of Cesarea, men, women, and children, to assemble in the temples of the idols; and also that the chief men of every quarter of the city should read off from their lists, the name of every citizen, so as to make it impossible for any one to conceal himself. This caused great misery and distress throughout the whole city.

When it came to pass, on the feast-day of the goddess Hecate, that the Proconsul of Palestine was engaged in offering his sacrifice, Apphian, who was not yet twenty years old, went undauntedly to the Proconsul, and reproved him for his wicked idolatry, admonishing him to desist from it. Instantly the youth was frightfully torn as by wild beasts by the body-guards of the Proconsul, suffering stripes without number from them, which he endured with great steadfastness. Thereupon he was imprisoned for a while, but was then brought forth again, and dreadfully tormented. He was beaten so inhumanly in his face and on his neck, that owing to the wounds and the swelling of his face he was so disfigured, that those who formerly knew him well, now no longer recognized him. At the command of the Proconsul they also took linen cloths, which they had saturated with oil, wound them around his bare legs, and then set them on fire, so that the flames leaped up high, consuming not only the flesh off the bones, but even melting the marrow within them, causing it to trickle down; which must have caused a pain beyond all comparison. But in all this he remained steadfast. Three days after this he was again brought before the Judge, and received sentence of death, namely, that he should be drowned in the sea; which sentence was executed on the second of April, A. D. 304. Compare Abr. Mell., 1st book, fol. 123, col. 1, 2, with Eus., lib. 8, cap. 14.

ULPIAN, A PIOUS YOUNG MAN, CAST INTO THE SEA, AND DROWNED, NEAR THE CITY OF TYRE, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 304.

About that time, almost in those very days, another youth, named Ulpian, was brought forth in the city of Tyre, who, after having been long and very severely tormented, was finally sentenced to an unusual death, for the testimony of Jesus Christ, namely: to be wrapped stark naked, together with a dog and an adder, in the fresh hide of an ox or cow and thus thrown into the sea. This sentence was executed near the city of Tyre; but the sea shall give up its dead, and then shall this pious witness of Jesus Christ, and his fellow-brethren be rewarded and crowned by the Lord with the crown of immortality. Vide supra Mellin., ex Euseb. Hist., lib. 8, cap. 15.

AEDESIUS, BROTHER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED APPHIAN, FIRST BANISHED TO THE MINES OF PALESTINE, AND AFTERWARDS DROWNED IN THE SEA, AT ALEXANDRIA, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF THE LORD, A. D. 304.

Shortly after the death of the martyrs Apphian and Ulpian, the enemies of the divine and Christian truth laid their hands on Aedesius, the brother of Apphian. After making many excellent confessions for the name of the Lord, he was sentenced to be sent as a slave to the mines of Palestine.

Finally, when he happened to see, in the city of Alexandria, how the Proconsul pronounced sentence of death upon the Christians, and sometimes caused manifold indignities to be heaped upon aged persons, together with other wickednesses practiced by him, he boldly went into the court to the Judge, and openly reproved him on account of the unjust and wicked sentences he pronounced upon the innocent Christians. For this he was most unmercifully tormented, which pains he meekly and not less steadfastly endured. He was then thrown into the sea, and drowned, even as had been done with his brother. See the above cited books.

AGATHOPUS, A DEACON, AND THEODULUS, A LECTOR, OF THE THESSALONIAN CHURCH, DROWNED NEAR THESSALONICA, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 304.

In that same year, two pious Christians of Thessalonica, Agathopus, a deacon, and Theodulus, a lector, of the Thessalonian church, were apprehended for the testimony of Jesus Christ, and brought before Faustin, the Governor of the city. He first took up Theodulus, the younger, to torment him, causing him to be stripped and bound. While Theodulus was being tormented, the crier called to him: “Sacrifice, and thou shalt be released.” Theodulus answered: “You may strip my body, but you shall never turn my heart and mind from the faith in God.”

As they both went to hear their sentence of death, their friends cried and wailed most bitterly, so that the sound of it seemed to ascend to heaven; but Theodulus said to them, with a happy countenance: “If you weep for our old friendship’s sake, I tell you, that you ought rather to rejoice, because we are tried in so honorable a conflict; but if you envy us this happiness, and are sad because you are not partakers of it, the door of blessedness stands open for you, too, and the proclamation of faith calls: Come ye all to Christ; but it gives the crown of eternal life only to those who are drawn back neither by riches, nor by voluptuousness, nor by the honor of this world.”

Finally, the Judge gave sentence, that their hands should be tied behind their backs, and heavy stones be fastened to their necks, and that they should thus be drowned; which they steadfastly endured, and are therefore reckoned among the number of the holy martyrs. A. M., fol. 140, col. 1, ex Act. per Metaph.

JULITTA OF ICONIA, AN HONORABLE WIDOW, AFTER MUCH FLEEING FINALLY BEHEADED FOR THE NAME OF THE LORD, AT TARSUS, IN CILICIA, A. D. 304.

When Diocletian’s persecution was at its highest, a certain widow of Iconia tried to flee from it; wherefore she went with her child, which was three years old, from Lyconia to Seleucia, and from there to Tarsus, in Cilicia. But she could not remain concealed there from the heat of that persecution; for Alexander, the Proconsul who had jurisdiction there, apprehended her. After many vain efforts to persuade her to renounce the Christian faith, he caused her to be scourged with tough cowhides.

In the meantime he endeavored to quiet the frightened child, called Quiricus, by many pleasant and coaxing words; but the child resisted with hands and feet, refusing to be caressed by the tyrant, and finally ran to his mother. However, the tyrant caught him up again; but this did not turn out very peacefully or pleasantly, for the child scratched his face, and kicked his sides, so that the pain quite enraged him. He therefore took the child by his legs and pitched him head foremost down the stone stairs. The mother, seeing this, thus addressed the tyrant: “Thou needst not think that I am so timid as to be conquered by thy cruelties; for the tearing of my body shall not intimidate me, nor the racking of my members move my spirit; neither shall the threats of the fire, nor death itself be able to separate me from the love of Christ. The greater the torments are with which you threaten me, the more acceptable they are to me; for I hope thereby the sooner to come to my dear son, and to receive with him the crown of righteousness at the hand of Christ.”

Upon this confession, the Proconsul had her suspended to the torture-stake, her flesh torn with iron combs, melted pitch poured over her naked body and fresh wounds, and finally caused her to be beheaded. Acta Fidelia, per Metaphrastem, compared with A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 140, col. 1, 2.

FORTY YOUTHS, WHO CONFESSED CHRIST THEIR SAVIOR, THROWN INTO A COLD POOL, AND BURNED ALIVE THE FOLLOWING DAY, AT ANTIOCH, A. D. 304.

When the east as well as the west was exceedingly disturbed on account of the violence of the persecution, there manifested themselves in the east, namely at Antioch, forty pious youths, as valiant champions of Jesus Christ, inasmuch as they openly and boldly confessed the Son of God, Jesus Christ, as their Savior. Thereupon, the Governor of that place, after they had been apprehended, strenuously exerted himself to move them from the faith; but when all his efforts proved unsuccessful, he had them stripped naked, in the coldest part of the winter, and cast into a very cold pool. But as they were still alive the next day, he caused them to be burned to powder.

One of them, who in consideration of his extreme youthfulness had, through compassion, been restored to his mother, was placed by the latter with her own hands upon the wagon in which the others lay, and exhorted, to finish this blessed course with his fellow brethren. This happened in the third year of the persecution, A. D. 304. Joh. Gys., fol. 23, col. 3, ex Bas. de 40 Martyr.

FOURTH YEAR OF THE PERSECUTION, COMMENCED A. D. 305.

Galerius Maximian, continuing in the persecution which had been begun, and carried into execution, with great bitterness, by Diocletian and Maximian, exercised much cruelty, through Peucetius, Quintinian, Theotecnus, and other Proconsuls, against the poor Christians; burning them alive; throwing them before the wild beasts, to be torn by them; nailing them to crosses; drowning multitudes of them in the sea; starving them to death in the prisons; beheading them; cutting off their hands and feet, and then giving them their life; but when they would make use of the favor granted them, spoiling them of all their goods, and driving them away into misery.

Touching those who were slain there, the following, among others, are mentioned by name.

SYLVANUS, JANUARIUS, SOSIUS, PROCULUS, PELAGIA, THEONAS, CYRENIA, AND JULIANA, ALL OF WHOM LAID DOWN THEIR LIVES FOR THE EVANGELICAL TRUTH, A. D. 305.

Sylvanus, Bishop of the church of Emissa, a city of Apamea, in Syria, was, with many others, thrown before the wild beasts, to be devoured by them.

Januarius, Bishop of the church of Beneventum; Sosius, a deacon of the church of Misenum; Proculus, deacon, at Pussolis, and others, were beheaded together.

Pelagia was suffocated in a redhot ox.

Theonas, with his companions, Cyrenia and Juliana, were deprived of life by other methods. Joh. Gys., about the death of Januarius and Sosius. Abr. Mell., fol. 141, ex Act. per Johannem Januarii Diaconum conscripta per surium edita.

THE FIFTH YEAR OF THE PERSECUTION, COMMENCED A. D. 306.

In this year the persecution was not so severe as in some of the preceding ones; wherefore there were not many martyrs at this time. However, the ancients have recorded a few, whom we shall presently mention.

THEODOSIA, A GODFEARING MAIDEN OF THE CITY OF TYRE, WHO CAME TO COMFORT THE BOUND MARTYRS, DROWNED IN THE SEA AT CESAREA, A. D. 306.

When the fifth year of the tenth persecution had come, on the second day of the month of April, the Sunday of the resurrection of our Savior, Theodosia, a godfearing maiden of the city of Tyre, about eighteen years old, came to some bound martyrs at Cesarea, as they were standing before the tribunal, to receive their sentence of death. Her reason in doing so was affectionately to greet them, and to comfort them in their extremity.

Thereupon she was instantly seized by the soldiers, and brought before the Proconsul, who forthwith caused her to be maltreated as though he had been bereft of reason; for he did not have her tortured with all manner of dreadful torments, on her sides only, as was generally the custom, but he also caused her breasts to be torn open to the very bones, and then cut off. All this she suffered steadfastly and with a happy countenance; but when by reason of the intensity of the pain she could scarcely draw her breath any longer, so that it seemed that she would soon cease to live, the Proconsul had her thrown into the sea; and thus this faithful heroine of Jesus Christ was numbered among her slain fellow-brethren and sisters. See A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 124, col. 2, 3, from Euseb., lib. 8. Also, J. Gys. on the name Theodosia.

PAMPHILIUS, AN ELDER OF THE CHURCH AT CESAREA IN PALESTINE, MOST MISERABLY MARTYRED THERE, FOR THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 306.

This Pamphilius was an elder of the church at Cesarea, and a very eloquent, learned and godly man. It is stated of him that after much suffering and tribulation he underwent the conflict of martyrdom, for the name of Christ, and was thus numbered among the heroes of the bloody banner of Jesus Christ. It appears that he was a special friend of Eusebius Pamphilius, so that some are of the opinion, that the latter took his surname Pamphilius from him. This much is certain, that he wrote the following concerning him, as ancient authors have informed us: “Among those who were variously afflicted and vexed, and kept in chains and bonds at Cesarea, by Urban, the Proconsul of Palestine, was also Pamphilius, my most faithful friend, who probably was the chiefest martyr of our time, and the most celebrated in all manner of virtue and godliness.” A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 124, col. 3, 4, from Eusebius and Jerome, compared with J. Gys., fol. 26, col. 4.

THE SIXTH YEAR OF THE PERSECUTION, COMMENCED A. D. 307.

From among those who were put to death in the sixth year of Diocletian’s persecution, we have selected the following.

ENNATHAS, A CHRISTIAN MAIDEN FROM THE CITY OF SCYTHOPOLIS, BURNED ALIVE IN PALESTINE, FOR THE CONFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, A. D. 307.

When some Christians, in their zeal for the truth, had reproved Firmilian, the Proconsul of Palestine, for his great idolatry, and were put to death on this account, on the thirteenth of November, A. D. 307, a certain young maiden, named Ennathas, a native of the city of Scythopolis, came there on the same day, not of her own accord, however, but through compulsion, and, together with the others, boldly laid down her life for the name of Jesus Christ. She was at first most unmercifully treated, nay, in a manner too shameful and horrible for description. Finally, when she remained steadfast nevertheless, in the confession of her faith, the Judge pronounced sentence of death upon her, namely, that she should be burnt alive; and thus this pious martyr pressed through the strait gate, leaving her flesh on the posts; which the Lord shall afterwards crown and reward with glory and majesty. See, A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 125, col. 4, from Euseb., J. Gys., fol. 26, col. 4.

CATHARINA, AN HONORABLE MAIDEN OF ALEXANDRIA, BEHEADED AFTER MANY TORMENTS, FOR THE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 307.

It is stated that on the 25th of November of the same year, Catharina, an honorable maiden of Alexandria, was beheaded, for the faith in Jesus Christ, after having suffered many torments. J. Gys., fol. 26, col. 4.

THE SEVENTH YEAR OF THE PERSECUTION, COMMENCED A. D. 308.

It is stated that in the seventh year of the persecution the following persons were slain for the confession of the evangelical truth.

SOME PIOUS CHRISTIANS WHO WENT TO VISIT THEIR CONFINED FELLOW-BRETHREN, APPREHENDED AT CESAREA, AND BANISHED TO THE MINES; BUT THREE OF THEM, NAMELY, ARES, PROMUS, AND ELIAS, PUT TO DEATH AT ASKALON, A. D. 308.

About the beginning of the year 308, some godfearing Christians left Egypt, with the intention of journeying to Cilicia, to supply those, who for the confession of the faith had been banished to the mines there, with some needful things in their misery and poverty. They were apprehended at Cesarea by the guard at the gate of the city. Some of them were sent into misery and slavery through the same sentence, which consisted in this, that the right eye was to be put out, and the left knee-pan cut away, and the wound seared; and thus with one eye and one leg they were compelled to labor in this hard slavery.

Three of their number were apprehended at Askalon, in Palestine, and were tormented in various ways, because they steadfastly confessed their faith. One of them, named Ares, was burnt alive; the other two, Promus and Elias, were beheaded, and thus departed this life in a godly manner. A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 126, col. 1, from Euseb.

PETER APSELAMUS, A YOUNG MAN, BURNED ALIVE AT CESAREA FOR THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 308.

Shortly afterwards (on the 11th of January), a pious man, called Peter, and surnamed Apselamus, was apprehended. He was a native of Amea, a village in the neighborhood of Elentheropolis. For some time he had led the life of a recluse, having retired into solitude to give himself over to divine meditations.

Though the Judge and the other members of the tribunal had begged him again and again, to have compassion upon himself and his youth (for he was yet in the bloom of life), he disregarded it all, putting his entire confidence in the living and true God, whom he loved more than all this world contains, yea, than his own life. Finally he suffered his confidence in Christ, his Savior, to be tried, as precious gold, by fire, and was burned alive at Cesarea, for the name of Jesus Christ, having commended his soul into the hands of God. Idem, Ibidem, ex Euseb., lib. 8.

BIBLIS, AQUILINA, AND FORTUNATA, THREE GODFEARING CHRISTIAN WOMEN, PUT TO DEATH FOR THE DIVINE TRUTH, IN PALESTINE, A. D. 308.

Among various other martyrs who suffered for the testimony of Jesus Christ in the seventh year of Diocletian’s persecution, we have noticed that there were also several honorable Christian women who, from love to their Savior, did not hesitate to give their lives for the truth. They were called Biblis, Aquilina, a girl of twelve years, and Fortunata, a maiden of Cesarea; who together laid down their lives for the truth, in Palestine. J. Gys., fol. 26, col. 3, compared with A. M., fol. 131, col. 3, ex Mart. Rom. Menol. Grec. Metaphrast. 13 Junii.

THE EIGHTH YEAR OF THE PERSECUTION, COMMENCED A. D. 309.

It is related that at this time the modes of torture and of putting to death were various. Some were beheaded with the axe, as was mostly done with the martyrs in Arabia. Some had their legs broken on the wheel, as was the case with those who confessed the name of Christ in Cappadocia. Others were hung up by their heels, with the head close to the ground, and then suffocated by a small fire, as was the case in Mesopotamia. Some had their noses, ears, hands, feet, and other members, cut off, as was done to those at Alexandria. At Antioch some were roasted on frying-pans, not unto death, but to intensify the pain. But the sufferings inflicted upon the poor martyrs in Pontus are horrible to relate; for some had sharp splints of reed thrust between the nails and the flesh of their fingers; others had melted lead poured over their naked bodies; some had their secret parts singed and seared, in the invention of which tortures the judges and proconsuls vied with one another, even as though they wished thereby to manifest their great ingenuity, and their tyranny against the Christians. See concerning, this, A. Mell., fol. 128, col. 1, 2.

TWO SISTERS AT ANTIOCH DROWNED IN THE SEA, BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT RENOUNCE CHRIST THEIR SAVIOR, A. D. 309.

In the eighth year of Diocletian’s persecution, that is, A. D. 309, there were at Antioch two sisters, young maidens, of modest manners and pious life, intelligent and well-informed in the way of godliness; so that the world was not worthy, to contain them any longer. They were apprehended and examined, and, clinging steadfastly to Christ, cast into the depths of the sea, and drowned, by the servants of Satan. See the above named author, in the same book, fol. 129, col. 1, from Euseb.

IRENE AND HER TWO SISTERS, BURNED ALIVE FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 309.

In the records written, through the clerk of the criminal court, by the Proconsul Dulcetius, concerning some pious martyrs, there is pronounced, at the close, a certain sentence of death over three sisters, who steadfastly continued in the truth of Christ. The last part of the aforementioned records contain, in regard to this, the following words: “And when he (Dulcetius) had demanded paper, he wrote this sentence of death: ‘Whereas Irene would not obey the decree of the Emperors, and sacrifice to the gods, and does still remain a Christian, therefore I command that she be burned alive, as her two sisters were.’”

When the criminal Judge had pronounced this sentence upon Irene, the soldiers took her and brought her upon an elevated place, where her sisters had died; and when they had built a great fire of wood, they made her climb upon it, and there, after singing sweet psalms and hymns of praise to the honor of God, she was consumed by the flames. A. Mell., fol. 130 and 131, col. 1, ex Act. Ver. Proconsular. apud Metaph. Also, Acta cognitionis novissime diei.

PETER, NILUS, AND P. MYTHIUS, BURNED IN EGYPT; FORTY BEHEADED; MARTIONILLA, EUPHRATESIA, SEVEN BROTHERS, AND OTHERS, PUT TO DEATH AT ANTIOCH, A. D. 309.

It is stated that besides the aforementioned martyrs there were put to death by fire in Egypt, for the name of the Lord, three pious Christians, named Peter, Nilus, and P. Mythius; forty others were beheaded; and for the same reason, Martionilla, Euphratesia, seven brothers, and various others, also laid down their lives for the truth. J. Gys., fol. 27, col. 1.

THE NINTH YEAR OF THE PERSECUTION, COMMENCED A. D. 310.

The ancients tell us that Maximinus Jovius instituted at this time a special persecution at Antioch, through the instrumentality of one Theotecnus; to which end he caused an image to be erected, in honor of Jupiter Philius (the god of friendship), by which--whether through Satan or through jugglery--certain oracles were uttered, to the effect, that God had commanded that the Christians, as his special enemies, should be driven out of every country, city, and field, and be exterminated, the sooner the better. A. Mell., fol. 134, from Euseb.

It is easy to judge that this false and blood-thirsty voice, having fallen as a true oracle into the hearts of the heathen, caused not a little shedding of blood, oppression, and burning among the innocent and defenseless lambs of Christ, as we shall presently in some measure show.

LUCIAN, AN ELDER OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AT ANTIOCH, AFTER HAVING CONFESSED THE FAITH, CAST INTO PRISON, AND PUT TO DEATH THERE, A. D. 310.

Among the many pious witnesses of Jesus Christ, who laid down their lives for the truth, Lucian, who was an elder of the church at Antioch, was not one of the least; for it is stated of him, that he was a very godly, wise, and eloquent man, well versed in the Scriptures, but above all, that he boldly sealed all this with his blood and death, to the honor of God.

The Judge asked him as he stood before his judgment seat, saying: “O Lucian, how does it come that thou, who art such a wise man, dost follow this sect, for which thou canst give no reason at all? Or, if thou hast any, let us hear it.”

Having obtained permission to speak, he made a very excellent and glorious profession of his faith; which would well deserve a place here, were we not, in order to avoid prolixity, compelled to omit it. As soon as he had ended his confession, and the people had, in some measure, been drawn over to his views, the Judge commanded them to lock him up again in prison, and to put him to death there; which, as the ancient writers relate, was accordingly done. But God shall reveal it all on the last day, and reward every one according to his works. Compare with A. M., fol. 135, col. 1–4, ex Eusebio and Ruffino, in Hist. Eccles. Hier. Catal. in Luciano.

NOTE.--Some place this Lucian in the tenth year of the persecution, namely, in A. D. 311.

PETER, FAUSTUS, DIDIUS, AND AMMONIUS, WHO MINISTERED TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST AT ALEXANDRIA, PUT TO DEATH FOR THE FAITH IN THE SON OF GOD, A. D. 310.

At this time there were persecuted, by virtue of the bloody decree of Maximian, a number of godfearing and learned men, who adhered to Christ by a true confession; of whom we shall briefly present a few, mentioning also the place and time of their death. Peter, bishop of the church of Christ at Alexandria, and Faustus, Didius, and Ammonius, all three elders, were put to death for the faith in Jesus Christ, on the 28th day of November, A. D. 310. There were also several other bishops in Egypt, who laid down their lives for the same reason. Compare J. Gys., fol. 27, col. 1, with A. Mell., 1st book, fol. 136, col. 4, from Eusebius, Epiphanius, Athanasius.

ANYSIA, A YOUNG GIRL OF THESSALONICA, SLAIN IN THE TEMPLE, AT ALEXANDRIA, BECAUSE OF HER CHRISTIAN FAITH, A. D. 310.

Anysia, a girl of Thessalonica, born of wealthy Christian parents, was slain in the temple at Alexandria, because of her Christian faith, at the time when Maximian had issued a decree authorizing every one to kill the Christians wherever they might be found. J. Gys., fol. 27, col. 2.

DEMETRIUS, A CHRISTIAN TEACHER, PUT TO DEATH FOR THE TRUE CHRISTIAN TRUTH, AT ALEXANDRIA, A. D. 310.

At the same time and place, also Demetrius, a remarkably virtuous and zealous teacher, sealed the genuine, divine and Christian truth with his blood. Idem, Ibidem.

THEODORUS, PHILEMON, AND CYRILLA, PUT TO DEATH FOR THEIR LOVE TO THEIR SAVIOR, A. D. 310.

Besides the preceding ones, we find that there were put to death, for the name of the Lord, and their love to their Savior, Theodorus, a bishop of the church of Christ, Philemon, and Cyrilla. See the abovementioned author, in the same book, fol. 27, col. 3, ex Vinc., lib. 12, cap. 149.

THE TENTH OR LAST YEAR OF THIS PERSECUTION, COMMENCED A. D. 311.

We shall speak but briefly of the last year of this persecution, since ancient writers have left us little information in regard to it. Nevertheless, there were some at that time, who laid down their lives for the truth; among whom the following are mentioned.

EUGENIUS, AUXENTIUS, MAODATIUS, AND MANY OTHERS, AFTER MANY TORMENTS PUT TO DEATH IN VARIOUS WAYS, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 311.

Eugenius, because he confessed Christ, and had reproved the wickedness of the heathen, had his tongue cut out, and his arms and legs broken, and thus departed this life, steadfastly continuing in the Lord.

Auxentius, a deacon of the Christian church at Auracea, in Asia, was beheaded for the same reason--for the faith in Christ.

Maodatius was hung up by his toes, and, having been pierced with red-hot awls, and burned with torches, was deprived of life, for the testimony of Jesus.

Besides these, many others were put to death for the faith, whose names cannot be given; hence we shall content ourselves with those already mentioned. See J. Gys., fol. 27, col. 4, at the foot, and fol. 28, col. 1.

In the Introduction to the Martyrs Mirror, fol. 44 and 45, there are mentioned, besides the ten general persecutions, which we have described, two others, there called the eleventh and the twelfth persecutions; of which the former is said to have begun, A. D. 316, under Lucinius, who, together with Constantine the Great, reigned in the east; and the second, A. D. 362, under Julian the Apostate. But since other eminent writers do not pronounce these persecutions as general ones, we shall give no special account of them; however, if any true martyrs were put to death at that time, we hope to mention each in his proper place. Under Lucinius, there laid down their lives for the faith in the Son of God, according to the testimony of the ancients, the following persons.

BASILEUS, BISHOP AT PONTUS; AMMON, A DEACON; ABOUT FORTY WOMEN; AND OTHERS, PUT TO DEATH BY FIRE, WATER, AND ICE, A. D. 316.

When it was thought that the previous persecutions, especially that under Diocletian and Maximian, should have quenched the blood-thirstiness of the great, Lucinius, who occupied the imperial throne in the east, was still not content therewith. For when the winds of blood, fanned on by Satan, blew through his head, he caused to be put to death without mercy, various pious Christians, namely: Basileus, bishop of the church of Christ at Amasen, in Pontus; Ammon, a deacon; and about forty women, whom he had killed, some by fire, and some by water; as well as various other pious martyrs, whom he had put in the cold ice, thus causing their death. This happened about the tenth year of the reign of Lucianius, which agrees with A. D. 316. Introd., fol. 44, col. 1, 2.

TWO BROTHERS, DONOTIAN AND ROGATIAN, BEHEADED FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 360.

There were two brothers, Donotian and Rogatian, natives of Italy; one of whom, Donotian, had accepted the true Christian faith, and been baptized upon it; but the other, Rogatian, had not yet received baptism, was however a neophyte or catechumen, having been brought to the knowledge of the Christian truth through the instrumentality of his brother. Both were apprehended. Then Rogatian wished greatly that he had been baptized, for he knew that he would have to die; but that could not be, as there was no opportunity. His brother, Donotian, therefore prayed to God, that his blood might be accounted to him for the sacrament of baptism. The next day both were beheaded, A. D. 360. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, fol. 106, col. 2, from the tract, Grondig Bewijs van den Heyligen Doop, letter B. Also, Leonh., in tract., lib. 2. These authors must be compared with each other.

The persecution which took place under Julian, the Apostate, did not destroy the bodies as much as the souls. For since he was a very crafty man, and had an eloquent, yet deceitful, tongue, he did more harm to the church of God by his flattery, than by tyranny. Nevertheless, several of the true Christians were martyred under his reign; who would rather through the way of death enter life eternal, than through the way of temporal life, by flattery, fall into eternal death and damnation; as shall presently be shown.

JOHN AND PAUL, WHO OPPOSED WAR, PUT TO DEATH AS HERETICS, UNDER JULIAN THE APOSTATE, ABOUT A. D. 363.

There were two special friends, John and Paul, who opposed war and bloodshed. They were called to war, and urged to engage in it, but as they would not consent to it, they were therefore, as well as because of their true Christian confession, put to death as heretics. Concerning this, different authors write thus: “John and Paul had to die, because they would not engage in warfare, but replied to the Apostate: ‘We are Christians; it is not lawful for us to engage in war.’” In Grondelijke Verklaringe Danielis, en Johannis Openbaringe, printed at Harlem, A. D. 1635, page 56, from various other authors.

SOME PIOUS PEOPLE, WHO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST, REFUSED TO ENGAGE IN WARFARE, VERY CRUELLY PUT TO DEATH BY THE EMPEROR VALENS, A. D. 368.

After the death of the Emperor Julian, Jovian reigned, and after the death of the latter, the empire devolved on Valentinian, who is commonly called Valens. He, too, stained his hands with the blood of the Christians, yet not so excessively as some of his predecessors. Nevertheless, he cannot be excused, seeing he caused some pious people who observed the doctrine of Christ to be put to a very cruel death, because they, like the abovementioned John and Paul, refused to perform military service. Compare P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, p. 114, col. 1, with Jan. Crespin, in his tract, treating of the oppressions, fol. 114.

We might have adduced more martyrs for this century, but since that which the ancients have written with respect to their lives, as well as their faith and religion is doubtful, we have not deemed it well to proceed further, and shall, therefore, content ourselves with the true martyrs of whom we have already given an account, and those of whom we hope to give an account in the following centuries.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM OF THE MARTYRS IN THE FIFTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE FIFTH CENTURY.

[We have begun this century with the fifth chapter of the Centuriæ Magdeburgenses, the contents of which may be examined.

Vincent Victor opposes Augustine in the matter of infant baptism.

Synesius Syrenus, baptized on his faith, by Theophilus.

The fourth council of Carthage establishes, that those who desire to be baptized, must first be examined, and sounded relative to their faith.

Sedulius maintains that baptism is a regeneration, and, moreover, exhorts the young to baptism.

Hilarius of Syracuse asserts the salvation of children that die unbaptized.

The edict of Honorius and Theodosius against the Anabaptists.

The council held at Carthage, under Aurelius, against those who denied original sin, infant baptism, and predestination, adopts resolutions entirely different from the decree of the aforementioned fourth council of Carthage.

The edicts of Honorius and Theodosius, in support of said council.

Maximus teaches the baptism of Christ; Cresconius and his adherents are pronounced Anabaptists; Cyril of Alexandria speaks soundly on baptism, and opposes the errors of the Nastorians and Valentinians.

An account, from Socrates, of many persons at Alexandria, who hastened to baptism, and were baptized on confession of their sins; as also, of a sick Jew, who was baptized, and of one who received baptism after much fasting.

Faustus Regiensis teaches that for baptism the will [consent] of him that is baptized is necessary.

Evragius makes mention of the baptism of the candidates, that is, of those who had previously been instructed.

Eucherius maintains that that believer who dies unto sin is rightly baptized.

Carthaginian women who waited for baptism.

In the Council of Arausica rules are made respecting the baptism of the dumb, the weak, and catechumens.

Nazarius, the son of Perpetua, a Christian woman, is baptized after previous instruction.

In the margin mention is made of one Montluck, who adduces the resolutions of various councils, against the killing of heretics; as also, the views of Gelasius concerning the holy Supper.

Salvian of Marseilles, on renouncing Satan, confessing the faith in God, which it was customary to do at baptism.

Authymius, Sisinnius, and Sociorus, baptized after having been instructed for seven days.

Nolanus mentions the hymns which it was customary to sing at baptism.

Anabaptism condemned in the fourth council of Rome.

An account of many who separated from the church of Rome, and, though baptized in their infancy, were baptized upon faith; as also, what the Pope (or Bishop of Rome) decreed against this.

Primasius’ explanation of 1 Tim. 6:12; its application to adult candidates for baptism.

Fulgentius calls baptism a sacrament of faith and repentance.

In the margin it is stated how vehemently Leo inveighed against the bishops of Campania, etc., who, according to his judgment, did not administer baptism aright.

The conclusion is from P. J. Twisck, who says that ancient church history, other writers excepted, makes no mention of infant baptism before A. D. 500.]

We shall begin the fifth century, concerning baptism, with the fifth chapter of Jacob Mehrn. History of Baptism, who commences his account of baptism at that time thus: “Henceforth we shall not dwell upon quite so many testimonies taken from the ancient fathers and church historians, as had necessarily to be the case in the preceding centuries, in order to prove that during the first four centuries after the birth of Christ, infant baptism had neither in the holy Scriptures nor in the authentic books of the teachers of the church, a firm foundation; that is, that it had been ordained by Christ, or that it was an apostolic institution or tradition. But we shall in future content ourselves with such testimonies and historical records as best agree with the truth of the ordinance of the baptism of Jesus Christ, in order that we may thereby strengthen ourselves in that truth and in the true faith.” Bapt. Hist., page 394.

A. D. 401.--About the beginning of this century, opposition was made against infant baptism and its advocates, among which advocates in favor of infant baptism Augustine showed himself none of the least, although he himself had been baptized upon faith, as has previously been mentioned. He was opposed by a certain bishop, by the name of Vincent Victor, who, notwithstanding Augustine’s authority, attacked infant baptism, and, as it appears, withstood it with conclusive arguments from holy Scripture. But how it finally ended between the two parties, of this I find no account; mention is made, however, of the matter itself, by Vicecomes (lib. 2, cap. 1), who says that Augustine (lib. 3, de anima, et ijus orig., cap. 14), mentions a bishop called Vincent Victor, who contended with him about infant baptism. Bapt. Hist., page 448.

NOTE.--Vincent taught that in the Supper the figures of the body and the blood of Christ are administered. Also, that the bread and the wine continue in their own substance. Book of the two natures. Also, Samuel Veltius, in Geslacht-register, page 124.

A. D. 402.--About this time, the very old and excellent orator Victorinus was baptized on confession of his faith; of which we find the following in the 2d chapter of the 8th book of Augustine’s Confessions: “O Lord God, who hast bowed the heavens under thy feet; thou hast come down and touched the mountains, and smoke has issued from them; how wonderfully hast thou long since come into the heart of this Victorinus!”

“He read the holy Scriptures, as Simplician told me, and most diligently examined and investigated whatever he found written concerning the Christian religion. He then said to Simplician, not openly, but secretly, as friend speaks to friend: ‘Know that I am now a Christian.’ Simplician answered: ‘I shall not believe it, I shall not count thee among the Christians, unless I see thee in the Christian church.’ (A little further on:) But suddenly and quite unexpectedly he said to Simplician, as the latter told me: ‘Come, let us go to the church; I will become a Christian.’ Simplician, not knowing where he was, for joy, accompanied him there.

“Having been instructed in the principles of the faith, Victorinus soon after had his name registered, that he might be regenerated through the sacrament of baptism.

“Finally, when the hour had come for him to make his confession (for which confession, at Rome, a customary formula was learned, and then delivered from an elevated place, in the presence of all the Christians, by those who prepared themselves for baptism), the overseers, as Simplician told me, offered to let him make it privately, as was the custom to propose to those who it was feared might, through diffidence, be unable to proceed. But he said that he would rather profess his salvation in the hearing of all the Christians, than otherwise.

“When he had ascended the elevated place to make his confession, all who knew him pronounced his name with secret joy. But who was there that did not know him? For, from the mouths of all that were assembled, in mutual rejoicing with him, there arose the glad shout: Victorinus! Victorinus!”

A brief account of this is also given in Bapt. Hist., page 461.

From the above words quoted by us from Augustine, it certainly appears that at the time when said Vistorinus was baptized, there existed even in Rome, where this baptism took place, churches which, notwithstanding Antichrist began to lift up his head there in some measure, endeavored with all diligence to observe the true baptism of Jesus Christ, which is administered upon faith. For, the statement, that in Rome, that is, in the church which is spoken of here, was the custom, that those who prepared themselves for baptism, learned, for their confession, a customary formula, and then delivered it from an elevated place in the presence of all the Christians, incontrovertibly indicates that there the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ was still observed in this respect.

Matt. 10:32: “Whosoever therefore,” says Christ, “shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” Again, Rom. 10:10: “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” This faith and this confession are necessary to baptism. Acts 8:37; 22:16.

Bapt. Hist., page 459; Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 24. At the time of Augustine, that is, at the time of the aforementioned Victorinus, when virtue and Christian simplicity were still reigning, the examinations of the catechumens were conducted with much strictness, and great frequency, in the night-watches of the believers, as is shown by his words. Lib. 2, de Symbola ad Catechum., cap. 1.

A. D. 402.--Synesius Syrenus, an upright, pious man, became, from a heathen, a Christian; was baptized by Theophilus, and afterwards appointed by him bishop of Ptolemais. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 138, col. 1, from Evagrius, lib. 1, cap. 15. Mer., fol. 334.

It is true, that it is stated of Synesius Syrenus, that his faith was not perfect with regard to all the parts of the Christian religion, concerning which historians specially mention one particular point; but it is also stated that Bishop Theophilus, who baptized him, was in hopes, that, in the course of time, he would judge better on this point, which, it seems was also the case, since, as it is stated, Theophilus afterwards appointed him bishop of Ptolemais.

However, we would not commend this part of the matter, namely, to baptize any one without perfect faith or confession, especially if an essential point is wanting; but this we commend, that not children, but adult persons, who are commended as pious are baptized, and, from heathen, desire to become Christians, as is stated to have been the case here.

A. D. 406.--At this time it was resolved at Carthage, “That the candidates shall give in their names, and after they shall have been examined long, and diligently tried, with the imposition of hands, they shall be baptized.” Also: “That a bishop, before he be allowed to minister, shall be well examined in doctrine and life.” Also: “That fellowship with the excommunicated shall be avoided, and the penitent received back again.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 139, col. 2, from Grond. Bew., letter B. B. Valent. Beyer, fol. 603. Also, Bapt. Hist., page 447. ex Conc. Carth. 4, cap. 88.

Here applies the annotation of P. J. Twisck, in Chron., 5th book, page 153, col. 1: “In the fourth council of Carthage,” he writes, “it was decreed, That applicants for baptism shall first be examined for a long time, shall abstain for a time from wine and meat, and, having been diligently tried with imposition of hands, shall be baptized.” From Chron., Seb. Franck, of the Latin councils held in Africa and Europe, letter C. The time of this council is fixed by P. J. Twisck (from Seb. Fr.) A. D. 436; but he has previously given A. D. 406 as the date, and hence we leave it thus; others, however, give A. D. 416 as the date.

Beloved reader, this is a very different decree from an earlier one, also one made at Carthage, in the time of Cyprian, about A. D. 250, by sixty-six bishops, in which it was established, Contra Fidum, that infants should be baptized immediately. This is certainly, we say, a very different decree, since infant baptism is not confirmed, but, much more, annulled by it; and thus we see that in the course of time some had grown wiser. Not, that it is our purpose to prove by councils, our view touching the true baptism, which must be administered upon faith; not at all, for we find in nothing less pleasure, than in the decrees of councils, in so far as they come short of the word of God. Besides, this point needs not to be proved by councils, as it is expressed in the holy Scriptures; we simply mean to show thereby that also at that time there were persons who, even in the very place where infant baptism had been ratified, confirmed the true baptism of Jesus Christ, which must be administered upon previous examination, and has its foundation in the holy Scriptures. As to this, that the candidates were commanded, first to abstain for a time from wine and meat, we leave that as it is, neither commending nor condemning it, as being a thing which, without sin, may be observed or omitted, provided no superstition is connected therewith.

A. D. 410.--Bapt. Hist., page 408. Sedulius writes, on Rom. 5: “No man suffers condemnation, except through Adam; from which men are redeemed through the washing of regeneration.”

But what else is the washing of regeneration, than the death of the old man, and the putting on of a new life, which is signified by baptism? See Rom. 6:3,4; Eph. 5:26,27; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21.

Again, Sedulius, on Rom. 6, says: “Paul would have baptism so sure and perfect as to make it impossible for the recipient to sin any more. When the grace of God came upon us through Christ, and the spiritual washing reigned in us through faith, we began to live unto God, being dead unto sin, that is, the devil. And thus, baptism is an earnest and figure of the resurrection; and hence it is administered with water, that, as water washes away impurities, and even so we through baptism, we believe, are spiritually cleansed and purified from all sin.”

Further: “Know that through baptism you, who have become a member of his body are crucified with Christ. He hung on the cross with an innocent body, that you might hang on the cross the guilty one.”

Again, on 1 Cor. 5: “O that you may be a new leaven; that you may be mixed with the grace of holy baptism, as flour is mixed with water.” This he seems to speak to those, who, though they had reached adult years, yet did not make any preparations, but deferred both their baptism and their regeneration.

Again, on 2 Cor. 5: “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:” that is, he that is renewed through the sacrament of baptism.

We will not detain you, dear reader, with explanations on the above passages of Sedulius, since they, without explanation, are so clear, that even he that has but little understanding in divine things, can manifestly see, yea feel, that the baptism described by Sedulius savors not in the least of infant baptism, since the conditions he mentions in connection with it, as faith, regeneration, crucifying the old man, can not be comprehended, much less fulfilled by infants.

A. D. 411.--Bapt. Hist., page 444, ex Centuria 5. Magdeburgensis, fol. 664. Augustine writes that Hilarius, a teacher at Syracuse, wrote: “When an unbaptized child dies, it can not justly be damned, since it was born without sin.”

A person unacquainted with the condition of things at that time, may perhaps think that with these words Hilarius of Syracuse, contributed but little to the abolishment of infant baptism; but he that is familiar with it, will instantly see that thereby he utterly denied infant baptism, and stripped it of its virtues. It deserves mention, that in those times infant baptism was based upon original sin, so that it was thought that infants, for the removal of said original sin, must necessarily be baptized; from which the conclusion was derived, that infants that were not baptized, and, consequently (in their opinion), not cleansed from original sin, must necessarily be damned, as is still taught at the present day by the Papists.

Whenever then, any one denied original sin, the foundation of infant baptism, he denied infant baptism itself, yea utterly annihilated it. This did Hilarius of Syracuse, who denied original sin in newborn infants, and, consequently, infant baptism; wherefore he, according to Augustine, frankly said: “When an unbaptized child dies, it cannot justly be damned, since it was born without sin.”

A. D. 412.--Bapt. Hist., page 407. Theodoretus, in chap. 10, says: “In the law they used sprinklings, and frequently washed the body; but they who order their life according to the New Testament, purify the soul by holy baptism, and free the conscience from previous stains.”

Again, in Epist. Divin. Decret.: “But instead of those sprinklings, the gift of holy baptism is sufficient for those who believe; for it grants not only remission of old or previous sins, but it also implants (that is, into those who are thus baptized), the hope of promised good things; it makes us partakers of the death and resurrection of the Lord; it imparts the communion and gifts of the Holy Ghost; it makes us children of God, and not only children, but also heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.”

Again, quaest. 19 on Levit.: “He that believes in Christ the Savior, when he is sanctified by the water of holy baptism, is also cleansed from the stains of sin.”

Again, quaest. 1 on Jos.: “As the priests who bore the ark, went first into Jordan, whereupon all the people, with Joshua, the princes, and the prophets, passed through; even so, when John began to baptize, Jesus the Savior hallowed, as it were the nature of the water; and the believing people entered through holy baptism into the kingdom of God.”

Who does not see that Theodoretus who wrote A. D. 412, and afterwards, indicates with all the circumstances, that he recognized no baptism, than that which is accompanied with faith and repentance; for when, in the first place, he says: “Those who order their lives according to the New Testament, purify the soul by holy baptism,” and then says: “Instead of those sprinklings, the gift of holy baptism is sufficient for those who believe,” and finally adds: “The believing people entered, through baptism, into the kingdom of God,” he certainly indicates that he does not in any wise speak of the baptism of infants, since they have neither the knowledge nor the ability, to order their lives in accordance with the New Testament, or to believe, which are here put down as absolute conditions in the candidates for baptism.

NOTE.--Theodoretus taught that the figures of the Supper, namely, the bread and the wine, in no wise change their nature, but remain as they are, after consecration. Dialog. 2, Sam. Velt., in Geslaght-register, pages 123, 124.

A. D. 413.--As those Christians greatly increased, who valued only the baptism which is administered upon faith, and, consequently rebaptized (as not having been baptized aright) those who had been baptized by unbelievers or in infancy, when they attained to the true faith, the Emperor Theodosius, A. D. 413, issued an edict, against the Anabaptists, commanding that they should be put to death. Introduction, page 47, col. 2, from Chron. Baron., num. 6.

But lest any one should think that the people who, under the name of Anabaptists, were threatened with death by the Emperor Theodosius, held, with regard to this point, views different from those maintained by the Baptists of the present day, who are likewise called Anabaptists, it is expedient to mention what was said about their views by the inquisitor of Leeuwærden, in opposition to one of our latest martyrs, namely, Jagues d’Auchi. When Jagues wanted the inquisitor, who appealed to the Emperor’s edict, to prove that said edict was just or founded on holy Scripture, the inquisitor made this reply to him: “I believe you think that all our fathers were deceived, and that your sect is saved: what do you say? It is now 1200 or 1300 years since the Emperor Theodosius issued an edict, that the heretics should be put to death, namely, those who were rebaptized like your sect.” See the year 1558, and, in the index, the name Jagues d’Auchi.

When, therefore, the inquisitor says that they “were rebaptized like your sect,” he certainly indicates thereby, that they were people like Jagues d’Auchi was, and, consequently, like the Anabaptists who at that time, namely, A. D. 1558, gave their lives for the truth.

A. D. 415.--Bapt. Hist., page 407, Prosperus, Resp. 2, ad Object. Gallorum, says: “Every one who, believing on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is regenerated in baptism, is freed from his own, voluntary and actual, sins, as well as from original sin.”

Page 413. Prosperus, in his Epigrams, puts the martyrs and the candidates for baptism on an equal footing, when he says:

“Sanctify, baptism will indeed; But the martyr’s crown doth all complete.”

In the first passage of Prosperus we see that faith, regeneration, baptism, forsaking of voluntary sins, etc., are all joined together, even as this is done in the holy Scriptures of the New Testament. Compare Mark, 16:16; Eph. 5:26,27; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21, with Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:37,38; Rom. 6:4. Hence it is a scriptural confession; and there we will let it rest.

In the second passage the martyrs and the candidates for baptism are compared to one another; but who does not know that infants cannot be martyrs, seeing they can neither believe nor confess, much less can they voluntarily confirm said confessed faith with death, which, nevertheless, is the own work of all the orthodox and faithful martyrs. Now then, if infants are not qualified for martyrdom, they are not fit for baptism. Therefore judge whether this is not comprised in the words of Prosperus which we have just mentioned.

A. D. 418.--The doctrine of infant baptism having been openly controverted ever since the beginning of this century, its foundation, namely, original sin, being denied and refuted, it occurred, A. D. 418, that those of the Roman church in Africa, through the urgent request of Augustine and his fellow-bishops, obtained the convocation of a council or synod under Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, composed of two hundred and fourteen bishops; which council, in the name of the See of Rome, absolutely anathematized or condemned the views of those who did not admit infant baptism or recognize original sin in infants, as well as of those who, opposing predestination, held that the will of man was free. The 112th Canon contains the following resolution respecting original sin and baptism: “It is likewise thought proper, that every one who denies that infants who are baptized from their birth, are baptized for the remission of sins, and that they derive from the sin of the first father, Adam, that from which they must be cleansed through the washing of regeneration, be anathema, that is, accursed.”

It is true, this anathema was aimed particularly at Pelagius and Celestius, as being the ones who had shown themselves the principal rejecters of infant baptism, since they positively said (according to Seb. Franck, Chron., letter P.): “There is no original sin; hence, baptism is not needful for children, yea, is useless to them.” Again, article 7: “Children are born without original sin; baptism avails them nothing.” Again, article 13: “Though children be not baptized, they nevertheless have eternal life.”

But nevertheless this council, Canon 112, also anathematized or cursed all those who assented to these views (the rejection of infant baptism and original sin), for this is specially expressed with these words: “Every one who denies that infants who are baptized from their birth, are baptized for the remission of sins, be Anathema.” For, we know that the words every one do not mean any particular person, but many persons.

It appears therefore, that at that time many people separated from the Roman church, on account of this view respecting original sin and infant baptism. However, we would not defend the views of Pelagius and Celestius, concerning some other points; it suffices us, that there were people in those times, who, notwithstanding the excommunication of the pope, and the persecution of the councils, still opposed the Roman church, especially through the rejection of infant baptism, and even, some of them, sacrificed their lives.

A. D. 419–421.--As the Anabaptists were not yet deterred by the above council, from maintaining their doctrine that baptism ought only to be administered upon true faith, therefore, in order to quench their doctrine, the authority of said council was confirmed A. D. 419, by the edicts of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius, and A. D. 421, by the additional edict of Constantius; whereby said council forcibly prevailed throughout the entire Roman empire. See concerning this, H. Montan. Nietigh., page 79.

From this it appears that this doctrine of baptizing only upon true faith, was accepted by very many at that time; for otherwise it would not have been necessary for the Emperors to threaten its defenders with the great power of their edicts, and, as it appears, to persecute them even unto death.

A. D. 425.--Bapt. Hist., page 411, Maximus (Homil. 71, de Baptism. Christi) says: “Jesus was baptized, not for himself, but for us; not that he might be purified with the water, but that he (so to speak), might sanctify the water. The new man was baptized, that he might confirm the mystery of the new baptism.”

When, therefore, Maximus introduces here the baptism of Christ, which took place when the latter was about thirty years old, and says that it was not done for himself, but for us, that is, for an example to be followed, and that he thereby confirmed the mystery of the new baptism, he certainly indicates thereby, that he is not speaking of the baptism of infants, since Christ, who, through his baptism, confirmed baptism, was not a child when he was baptized, but an adult person. Moreover, as no other, contrary testimony concerning him is found in the history of holy baptism, it seems probable, that he was not acquainted with any other baptism, and, consequently, not with infant baptism, or, at least, did not observe it.

A. D. 428.--There were many persons accused, through the writings of Augustine, of being Anabaptists, or at least, of defending Anabaptism, inasmuch as they maintained that baptism administered by heretics or unbelievers was not to be regarded as true baptism, and that, therefore, those who had been baptized by such persons, ought to be rebaptized; in short, that there was no true baptism except that administered in the true church, and upon true faith. Among those thus accused Cresconius was not one of the least; in Augustine’s writings the following things are laid to his charge:

Bapt. Hist., page 416: “That there is but one true baptism; for it is written: One God, one faith, one baptism, one undefiled, true church: those who are not in it, the same cannot have any baptism.”

Again: “In baptism, regard is had to the certainty that he who administers it is such a one that does it in a holy manner; but this certainty respecting the one who baptizes, is not judged by the uprightness of his heart, which cannot be seen, but according to his good reputation, and the respect in which he is held.”

Again: “It is written: ‘The oil of the sinner shall not anoint my head’: hence it follows it is not the will of God, that an open sinner shall baptize.”

Again: “In view of this passage, can anything more absurd be said, than that one polluted person should purify another? that one impure person should wash another? that one unclean person should cleanse another? or that a blasphemer should make any one innocent?”

Again: “You, our gainsayers, do not distinguish between a believer and an unbeliever.”

Again: “If it were wrong [what we confess], and baptism may not be annulled [or re-administered], no matter who has administered it, then the apostles would not have baptized those who had been baptized by John; but the contrary is seen,” Acts 19:5.

Again: “In Acts 2:38, Peter commands every Jew to be baptized upon (or in) the name of Christ, though their forefathers had been baptized in the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:2); hence, the previous baptism (that is, the one which has not been administered rightly), may justly be annulled or changed.”

These are the words, or, at least, the meaning, of Cresconius and his companions, as described by Augustine, and quoted in the History of Holy Baptism; from which it may be seen that also at that time but one baptism was recognized, which must be administered in the true church, by blameless teachers, and upon true faith, as stated elsewhere. Leaving this, we proceed to others, who at that time, and afterwards, confessed the same faith, or, at least, as far as we know, did not oppose it.

A. D. 429.--It is recorded that at this time there flourished Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, who, writing, among other things, on baptism, has left some sound testimony concerning it.

In Bapt. Hist., page 443, the Centuriatores Magdeburgenses have made some extracts from Cyril of Alexandria, page 613, where they say that he taught as follows, book 6, on John 14: “Through the water of the flood, the sins of the whole world were reconciled (or brought to an end), and those who were concealed in the ark, were preserved through the water (of the flood). This was a type of baptism, by which the impurity of all sin is put off, and the old life taken away.”

Again: “A catechumen is anointed (that is, instructed with the word of God), that he may be taught; for the Greek word catechumenos means, in Latin, one that is being instructed; and he is baptized, that he may know the true light, and receive the remission of all sins; therefore, the virtue or significance of baptism ought not to be esteemed lightly, since it dispels the darkness of the soul, and imparts the light of heaven.”

Page 463, Vicecomes, lib. 2, cap. 24, Cyril of Alexandria (lib. 7, Contra Julianum) writes: “When we have put off the darkness of our mind, repelled the legions of Satan, and wisely cast off all their pomp and service, we confess the faith in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and are baptized thereupon.”

This finishes the testimonies respecting baptism which I have been able to find from Cyril of Alexandria. There is certainly nothing contained in them, which in the least resembles infant baptism, nay, everything he says concerning baptism, opposes it. For, when, in the first place, he says that the impurity of all sin is put off, and the old life taken away, it is certainly obvious that he does not speak of the baptism of infants, since they, having no previous impurity of sin, cannot put it off by baptism, and, having never walked in the old life, they cannot forsake it or put it away. When he, secondly, says of the catechumens, that they are baptized, it is certainly also obvious from it, that it does not concern infants, since these have not the qualification of being instructed. The third passage is so clearly opposed to infant baptism, that it requires no explanation, inasmuch as it expressly speaks of confessing the faith on God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and of being baptized thereupon; for this can never be done by infants in the cradle.

TOUCHING SOME OTHER POINTS OF CYRIL’S FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK, CHRON., 5TH BOOK, PAGE 152, COL. 1.

“Cyril, a celebrated teacher, strenuously opposed the heresy of Nestorius.”

Again: “Cyril says: ‘Antichrist shall come when the time of the Roman Empire shall be fulfilled.’”

“The mysteries of the faith ought not to be taught inconsiderately, without the holy Scriptures. If I shall merely tell you these things, without bringing any proof, do not believe me, unless you receive from me proof from holy Scripture; for the salvation of our faith proceeds not from an eloquent recital, but from the demonstration of the divine Scriptures.” Joh. Polii, fol. 93.

“It is necessary that we follow the holy Scriptures, departing in no wise from their precepts.” Joh. Polii, fol. 93. Valent. Vanni., fol. 41.

Cyril, in the 7th book against Valentinian, says also, in regard to spiritual eating, “That at the holy table we must not simply gaze on the bread and wine placed there, or be deceived thereby, but that, with uplifted hearts, we must apprehend by faith, that on this holy table there is also the Lamb which taketh away the sins of the world. This must be apprehended and eaten spiritually, by faith, and not with the hands.” Chron., Seb. Franck, fol. 65, idem, Chron. Rom. Kett., fol. 77, col. 2.

Thus Cyril wrote soundly, not only on the matter of baptism, but also respecting the authority of the divine Scriptures, as well as, that the substance of the Supper is not the body and blood of Christ, but bread and wine; and that we must not become deluded thereby, that is, esteem it for more than it is; yet that we must eat the Lamb of God, that is, Christ, by faith, or spiritually.

NOTE.--At this time Cyril taught that those who have died, can add nothing to what they have done; but that they must remain what they are, and await the day of judgment. Lib. 3, on Isaiah. In the Geslacht-register, page 123.

A. D. 430.--In Bapt. Hist., page 392, quoted from Socrates by Vicecomes, lib. 1, cap. 27, Socrates writes, in the 7th book of the Church History: “A Jew, who was very sick, lying almost at the point of death, desired to be baptized. To this end, he was carried into the church, where the teacher instructed him in the articles of faith, and expounded to him the hope on Christ. And having thus been brought to baptism on his bed, he was baptized.”

Page 393, from Vicecomes, lib. 3, cap. 5, he (Socrates) writes (lib. 9, cap. 29, Tripart): “In the city of Alexandria many hastened to holy baptism, and were baptized upon the confession of their sins”.

Again (Vicecom., cap. 6, from Socrates, lib. 7, cap. 17): “A Jew came to Paul, the bishop, and desired to be baptized by him. The latter commended him for his desire, but refused to baptize him until he should be instructed in the doctrine of the faith, and have fasted many days. But the Jew, compelled to fast contrary to the sentiment of his heart, importuned the more eagerly, and begged to be baptized, which request was finally complied with.”

As regards that which, page 393, is related according to the account of Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 5, from Socrates, lib. 7, cap. 30, how the Burgundians, having journeyed to a certain city in France, prayed the Bishop of that city, to make them Christians by baptism; and how they, after seven days of fasting, and having been instructed in the faith, were baptized on the eighth day, and dismissed in peace; about this we will not say more at present, because these Burgundians in a certain article in which they should have been taught, were not yet rightly instructed; we notice, simply, that they were baptized upon their faith, and that baptism upon faith was customary at that place.

Touching the above account from Socrates, respecting the Jew, who was brought to church on his sick-bed, and was baptized upon his faith, we would not praise or recommend the baptizing of the sick, when there is more danger of death than hope of life. O no! for baptism should and must be received at a time when one can voluntarily forsake the old man, put on the new, and walk thenceforth in newness of life (Rom. 6:4); which no sick person, much less one that is at the point of death, can accomplish. Still, it is commendable in this case, that, according to the doctrine of Christ, faith was required before baptism, as is also stated of the other Jew, who was baptized in health; for he asked for baptism, which, after previous instruction and many days of fasting, was administered to him. We will say nothing about those of Alexandria, who hastened to baptism, and were baptized upon confession of their sins; for the matter speaks so clearly for the views of the Anabaptists, that an explanation of it is wholly unnecessary.

A. D. 434.--Faustus Regiensus, a Bishop in France, taught that baptism required willingness on the part of him who comes to it. Lib. 2, de lib. Arb., cap. 8. Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 425.

About the same time Evagrius is mentioned, who, in writing on baptism, (lib. 2), says “that after the water was blessed, the candidates, that is, those who had previously been instructed by the word of God, in the catechism, and were found enlightened, were baptized.” Bapt. Hist., page 421.

These testimonies of Faustus and Evagrius prove that the baptism of which they speak, is entirely different from infant baptism; for, when Faustus says that baptism requires willingness on the part of him who comes to it; and Evagrius declares that those who had previously been instructed by the word of God, in the catechism, were baptized, it is certainly very evident that this does not apply to infants, since these cannot come to baptism with a will of their own, or voluntarily; neither can they, before baptism, be instructed by the word of God, in the catechism, much less become enlightened.

NOTE.--It is recorded that in the time of Honorius A. D. 436, even those of Carthage passed this resolution: “Those who wish to receive baptism, shall previously be tried and examined for a long time.” Seb. Fr., Chron. Rom. Conc., fol. 71, col. 4.

A. D. 438.--Eucherius (in lib. 3, Reg.), says: “We are all baptized upon confession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Bapt. Hist., page 403.

Again (in lib. 3, Com. in lib. Reg.), Eucherius, in speaking of the imposition of hands, says: “The sacrifice is washed, when the water of baptism is poured upon a believer.”

In lib. 4, he says: “In descending to baptism, he that believes on Christ, dies unto original sin and all iniquity.” Bapt. Hist., page 428.

Truly, these are excellent testimonies, which very closely approach the form of the holy Scriptures; for here mention is made of a certain confession of the candidates; as also, that the water of baptism is poured upon the believer; and that he who descends to baptism, dies unto original sin and all iniquity; which matters are so frequently mentioned in the holy Scriptures of the New Testament, that it is unnecessary to adduce any proof concerning them, since they are sufficiently known. Compare, among others, Matt. 3:6; Mark 16:16, with Rom. 6:3,4.

A. D. 446.--Notwithstanding those of Carthage swayed to and fro, like a shaking reed, in the matter of baptism, as may be seen by their many councils, there were, nevertheless, as it appears, many pious people there, who kept to the institution of Christ, and the practice of his apostles, inasmuch as they baptized upon faith, of which, among others, Augustine makes mention in the 22d book, 8th chapter, of the City of God, saying, “That when Easter was at hand, and the women (that is, those who had made application for baptism), were waiting for baptism.”

But that which he relates in the same place, of the very pious woman Innocentia, namely, that, being afflicted with an incurable cancer, she went to the first woman that was baptized, to be marked by her with the sign of Christ, in order that she might have her health restored, this we leave as it is, it being sufficient for us, that even in Carthage, where infant baptism had already been adopted, there were people who administered baptism to adults, or, at least, to believers; and that this was done at a stated time, namely, on Easter. This is also mentioned in Bapt. Hist., page 433.

A. D. 450.--It appears that about the middle of the fifth century, a departure began to manifest itself even in the Roman church, among those who did not favor infant baptism; inasmuch as many were found, who had not been baptized in their youth. But as to whether these were known, or whether they kept it secret, we have no information; however, it is apparent that, in the course of time, they became manifest, since, with reference to the matter, the Council of Arausica[114] established certain canons or rules in regard to the manner in which such persons should be treated. Bapt. Hist., p. 440, from Centuriæ Magdeburgenses, fol. 510, ex Concil. Arausic.

[114] This council, also called Concilium Arausione, is stated to have taken place, A. D. 441. In the same it was decreed, by command of Antichrist, that the Gospel should not be read to the catechumens, and that they should not be admitted to the place of baptism. See P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 155, col. 1.

Canon 12. “A person who has suddenly become dumb, shall have baptism, or repentance, administered to him, if it be proved by his own testimony, or by that of some one else, that he has previously wished it; or if he indicate it by signs.”

Canon 14. “The unbaptized weak (members), who are concerned about their purification, and commit themselves to spiritual guardians, following their admonitions, may commune, in order that, through the virtue of the sacrament received, they may be strengthened against the assaults of the devil.”

Canon 15. “Weak catechumens shall be provided with baptism, according as necessity and opportunity demand.”

There were still other canons or rules, established by said council, from which it appears that at that time many people omitted to have their children baptized, so that the latter, when they had reached adult years, were still unbaptized; as Canons 18, 19, 20. But it suffices us briefly to have shown this, since by our promise we are not bound to prove anything further than that in all the centuries, from the time of Christ, there were persons, few or many, who rejected infant baptism, and observed the true baptism upon faith, according to the institution of Christ and the example of his apostles.

A. D. 454.--It is recorded for this year, that Nazarius, the son of Perpetua, a Christian woman, followed the religion of his mother, when he was still very young, and that he was baptized after previous catechization or instruction. Tract, Gantsch Grondig. Bewijs., 1581. Also, Kort verhael van den loop der Werelt, compared with P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 160, col. 2.

As to the teacher who baptized Nazarius, his name is differently given by different writers; hence, we pass him by, simply noticing the faith of Perpetua, and the baptism of her son; for it appears from the circumstances, that Perpetua was a Christian woman, who herself professed the Christian religion, but who nevertheless let her son remain without baptism in his infancy, apparently regarding infant baptism as unlawful, or at least without benefit; besides this it appears that Nazarius, her son, regarded baptism upon faith as good and necessary, notwithstanding he was born of a Christian mother, else he would not have had himself baptized, upon having come to adult years.

NOTE.--A. D. 455.--Montluck, Bishop of Valence said before the King of France, it should be borne in mind, that there were 380 bishops in the council of Nice, 150 in the council of Constantinople, 200 in the council of Ephesus, and 300 in the council of Chalcedon, who would use no other weapons than the word of God, against the Arians, Macedonians, Nestorians, and others. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 161, col. 1, from Den Stant der Religie, 200.

A. D. 456.--Gelasius taught at this time, that in the Supper there are celebrated the figures of the body and blood of Christ, and that, through the Holy Ghost we become partakers of divine things, though the bread and wine continue what they are. In the Book of the two Natures. See Sam. Veltius, Geslacht-register, page 124.

A. D. 458.--Salvian of Massilia (Marseilles) lib. 6, de Providentia (Bapt. Hist., page 448), says to the candidates: “You say: ‘I renounce the devil, his pomp, his adherents, and his works.’ And what else? You also say: ‘I believe on God the Father, and on Jesus Christ his Son.’ Thus, one first forsakes the devil, that he may believe on God; but whosoever does not forsake the devil, does not believe on God; and whoever turns again to the devil, forsakes God.” These things, says the annotator, can in no wise be said of infants.

From this formula, which the candidates at that time were obliged to confess publicly, we certainly see without controversy, that it stood altogether differently with the matter of baptism, than is now the case among many so-called Christians; for then the candidates had to make confession themselves of their faith, before they were baptized; but now, in many places, when infants are baptized, no confession is demanded, or, if demanded, is not made by the children themselves, since they cannot do it, but by their parents, or godfathers and godmothers, who bring them to baptism; however, if the confession is demanded from the children themselves, they do not make it before baptism (as is required by holy Scripture), but after baptism, so that twenty, thirty, sixty, or even more years, elapse, yea, that their baptism is forgotten by the time they make their confession; and some who are baptized, never make their confession.

What is to be held of such a baptism, may easily be judged; but as it is not our purpose to refute this error, we let this matter rest; in the meantime it suffices us, that in the latter half of the fifth century there were people, yea, distinguished persons, who, notwithstanding the superstitions of popery, especially with regard to infant baptism, kept to the ordinance of Christ, baptizing only upon faith, or after previous instruction.

A. D. 460.--About this time, according to the account of the ancients, the godfearing and noted persons, Anthymius, Sisinnius, and Sociorus, betook themselves, by baptism, under the peaceable banner of Jesus Christ, to be champions and servants of his, having confessed the faith and acknowledged him as their Lord; which took place after they had been instructed for seven days. Reference is had to this, in Bapt. Hist., page 448, from Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 8, where it is related that when they had been learning, for seven days, the mystery of Jesus Christ, that is, the faith, they were baptized.

A. D. 465.--D. Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 48, gives an account, from Nolanus, of the hymns which the Christians at that time used to sing over the newly baptized believers. “Nolanus,” he says, “also describes, in a special hymn the extraordinary spiritual joy which the Christians were (then) wont to have over the newly baptized.” Bapt. Hist., p. 463.

What the contents of these joyful hymns were, is not stated, only that with them extraordinary spiritual joy was expressed. It undoubtedly was the endeavor, to praise God with them, to edify the church, and to strengthen the newly baptized in the accepted faith, in order that they might pay their vows unto God; always remember the day of their enlightenment; walk in the Lord Jesus Christ, whom they had now accepted, and if necessary, also lay down their life for him, and thus, having testified to the faith with their blood, obtain the unfading crown of honor.

NOTE.--In the meantime, those of the Roman church sought to abolish Christ’s true ordinance of baptism; to which tended the canon established in the council held A. D. 469, at Chalcedon, which read as follows: “Those who are not baptized, shall not be baptized by heretics.” Seb. Fr., Chron. der Rom. Kett., fol. 71, col. 1.

A. D. 470.--It appears that at this time, through the power of the Pope and the councils, they began to condemn Anabaptism, and, consequently, to excommunicate and treat as heretics, the so-called Anabaptists; which is stated to have been put into effect A. D. 470, in the fourth council of Rome. To this refers the annotation found in the 5th book of the Chronijk of P. J. Twisck, page 164, col. 1, from Valentinus Beyer, fol. 635: “In the fourth council of Rome Anabaptism was condemned.”

But it did not stop here; for, A. D. 487, seventeen years afterwards, Pope Felix III., the fiftieth in the register of the popes, by the aid of a council then held, established different other articles against Anabaptism and the Anabaptists, very evidently, with a view to their suppression.

A. D. 487.--Many now, from time to time, separated from the Roman church, rejecting her superstitions and invented ordinances of worship, and desiring to have no fellowship with the mystery of wickedness, which just then began greatly to rise among the Romanists, so that not only many of the common people, but also, it appears, some eminent clerical and learned persons, separated themselves from the Roman religion in such a manner, that they, in token of this, were baptized upon faith, by those who were called heretics or Anabaptists, notwithstanding they had been baptized in their youth by the Romanists. In order to prevent this, the Pope or Bishop of Rome, whose name was Felix, made the most strenuous efforts,[115] convoking for this end, A. D. 487, a synod or council, in the city of Rome; concerning which the following account is given in Bapt. Hist., page 442, from Centuræ Magdeburgenses, fol. 538: “In a synod held at Rome, A. D. 487, by Pope Felix, who had learned that in Africa, some ecclesiastics, priests, and bishops had been rebaptized together with numbers of the common people, it was decreed:

[115] The pope and the councils had commenced making such efforts, it appears, already A. D. 470, seventeen years earlier; for at that time Anabaptism was condemned at Rome, as has been shown.

“1. If those that have been rebaptized are grievously sorry, and desire to do penance, they shall be received kindly, and, as usual, by the priests.

“2. The priests and ecclesiastics that have fallen, and been baptized with the baptism of heretics, shall do penance to the end of their life.

“3. Other ecclesiastics, as monks, nuns, and seculars, who have fallen, and been rebaptized, shall remain three years among the catechumens, and seven years among the penitents; shall not offer for the space of two years, but pray among the seculars; however, if they be overtaken by death during this time, the bishop, or a priest shall absolve them.

“4. Those who have been baptized or rebaptized by heretics, shall not be permitted to receive any ecclesiastical office, but must be content (that is, if they return) with being received into the number of the Catholics.”

All these articles--the fourth one we have passed over as irrelevant--sufficiently indicate that those who were then called Anabaptists must have increased greatly and commanded no small respect, since not only the common people, but also (as the second and third article declare) priests, ecclesiastics, and other clerical persons, as monks, nuns, etc., though baptized in youth, were rebaptized, that is, baptized upon faith; which is the more evident from the fact that the Pope considered the matter of sufficient importance, to convoke, in order to weaken the so-called Anabaptists and maintain the Roman church, a public synod or council, and publish laws and rules against them. Also P. J. Twisck makes mention of this, in his Chron., 5th book, page 167, col. 2, fixing, however, the date of this occurrence on the year 483, which is four years earlier than in Bapt. History.

He says: “Felix III., the fiftieth Pope of Rome, ordained that the churches should be consecrated by the bishops, and that annual wakes or church-masses--real bacchanals--should be celebrated. In his time it was also decreed in a council, that persons baptized by heretics, or rebaptized, should not be received into any ecclesiastical order. Said council also had under consideration those who had been rebaptized in Africa, and desired to do penance; as well as, what should be done with the bishops, priests, monks, and nuns, who had been rebaptized.” From Platina, fol. 91. Fasc. Temp., fol. 112. Hist. Georg., lib. 3.

A. D. 494.--At this time flourished Primasius; he explains 1 Tim. 6:12, where the apostle says: “Thou hast professed a good profession before many witnesses,” as having reference to baptism. See Bapt. Hist., page 483, from Joseph Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 37.

But, beloved reader, how can this passage apply to baptism, or be interpreted with reference to it, unless we understand that the good profession of which the apostle speaks, is attributed to the candidates for baptism; so that, as Timothy (of whom he says this) professed a good profession before many witnesses, even so must yet at this day all who are to be baptized, profess a good profession before many witnesses. But new-born infants cannot do this; hence, the baptism of which Primasius here speaks, does not relate to infants.

Afterwards, in his first book on John’s Revelation, he says: “He is arrayed in a white robe, who is clothed with Christ, and is strong in the faith which worketh by love; but as many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.” Gal. 3:27. Bapt. Hist., page 408.

Nowhere in the holy Scriptures, are infants enjoined to put on Christ; but this is throughout and without exception said to believers. See Rom. 13:14; Gal 3:27; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10. These epistles were written and sent only to believers. But to remove all doubt, Primasius himself explains what he understands by this putting on of Christ, by adding: “and is strong in the faith.” This is certainly not anything that children can do; hence the baptism which he applies to such as he speaks of is not the baptism of infants.

NOTE.--At this time mention is made, in a certain African council, of certain people, as being agitators with regard to baptism, and how they should be suppressed. Compare Seb. Franck, Chron. Rom., Conc., fol. 48, col. 4, with our remarks in the account of the martyrs of the fifth century, on the year 497.

A. D. 498.--It is stated that at this time there lived and wrote, the excellent teacher, Fulgentius, who, writing, among other things on baptism says (lib. de fide, ad Petrum, cap. 30): “Rest assured of this, and doubt not in anywise.” Continuing he says: “That no man can receive eternal life, who has not previously been converted from his sins through repentance and faith, and through the sacrament of faith and repentance been redeemed, that is, through baptism; this is absolutely necessary for adults, namely that they repent of their sins, understand the common faith, according to the truth, and receive the sacrament of baptism (upon it).”

This is the only testimony of Fulgentius, respecting baptism, which we have been able to find; from which we can draw no other conclusion than that he esteemed baptism upon faith very highly, yea, that this, and no other, was considered true baptism by him; for when he speaks of baptism, he connects it with faith and repentance, and, hence, calls it a sacrament of faith and repentance, adding that it is necessary for adults. How could one speak more clearly and plainly of the true Christian and apostolical baptism, which is peculiar to believers and penitents. We will, therefore, let the matter rest, as having been sufficiently explained by Fulgentius.

NOTE.--It appears that the doctrine of baptism upon faith had at this time, A. D. 498, made its way even to the papal chair, which, however, we do not recognize. Bapt. Hist., page 463, Pope Leo I., in his epistle, declaims with great warmth against the Bishops of Sicily, Campania, Samnia, and Picena, because they baptized not only on Easter and Whitsuntide, but also on Epiphany and other holidays. Observe: this is utterly opposed to infant baptism, as we have shown elsewhere. On page 464, Pope Leo (Serm. 1, de natia Dom., cap. 4) thus exhorts those who had been baptized: “Remain steadfast in the faith which you have confessed before many witnesses, and in which you are regenerated.” Again, Leo writes (Epist. 4, ad Episcob., in Sicilia, cap. 6): “You plainly see that two reasons must be observed, in which the elect (that is, believers) are to be baptized.”

See, beloved reader, such is the power of truth, that even the mouth of the liar, yea, of antichrist, must confess it. But though Pope Leo confessed this, other popes declared those who confessed the same, heretics, yea, cursed, persecuted, and killed them, as shall be shown in the proper place.

At this time Fulgentius taught that the holy Scriptures contained all that was necessary for salvation--food for children, as well as for adults. S. Veltius, Geschlacht-register, 1649, page 123.

A. D. 500.--P. J. Twisck, in the conclusion of his account of the fifth century, complains of the desolation, both in civil and spiritual affairs, occasioned chiefly by the power of the Pope of Rome, saying: “In this time, and still longer, through the desolation caused in the lands by the invasion of many different armies, and by other destroyers, as well as through immorality and heresies, the best people and chiefest authors perished, piety and learning diminished, and whatever of good remained, became for the most part corrupted. For although the baptism of adults was still administered, and church history from the time of Christ up to about this period, does not in the least, as far as I know, mention infant baptism, the latter nevertheless, according to other writers, more and more lifts up its head, and this with papal pollution, is confirmed by a decree, and considered not necessary to salvation.” Chron., 5th book, page 174.

From this we may gather the reason why at times so few orthodox and good writers are found, and, hence, how it comes that in those early days, there was sometimes, for a long period, only one, or a few, who openly maintained baptism upon faith, and other wholesome articles of faith, of which we will not speak further now.

The statement, that church history, from the time of Christ up to about this time (A. D. 500), does not in the least mention infant baptism, gives rise to the grave suspicion, that the authors which appear to have written long before the year 500, were interpolated by some of their descendants who maintained infant baptism. A few instances of this kind we have already given, respecting the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, Justin, Origen, and others.

But be this as it may, posterity must make the best of the aforesaid writings, as we also must now do; and, according to their account, infant baptism obtained at this time, and long before, in many of the (Roman) churches, though many kept aloof from it, so that even with them, it was not generally adopted until about the year 900, yea, almost to the year 1000, as we hope to show in the proper place, and as may be seen in various prominent authors.

In the mean time we have shown (which suffices us) that the fifth century was not without men who, opposing infant baptism, maintained baptism upon faith, according to the teaching of Christ, and confirmed it by doctrine and example.

NOTE.--It is stated that about A. D. 500, Clodovius and his people were baptized upon faith, or the confession of the same, by Remigius, Bishop of Rheins. Bapt. Hist., page 435. But he did not show himself a Christian in every respect, which we would not commend. Moreover, his two sons were baptized before his conversion as Blondus writes (lib. 3, decade 1, also Bapt. Hist., page 436), notwithstanding their mother, Clotildis was a godly, Christian woman, as is stated in Bapt. Hist., page 435. From this it appears that at that time, even among the Romanists, it was not a general custom to baptize infants, but that some permitted their children to attain to the years of understanding, before they were baptized; however in other places, in the Roman dominion, infant baptism was strictly observed. In the mean time the true Christians kept quiet, and practiced baptism upon faith, as has been sufficiently shown.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE FIFTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY.

[First of all, mention is made of the tyrants who in the beginning of this century tyrannized over the defenseless lambs of Christ; among them are mentioned Isdigerdis, and his son Geroranes.

The bloody edict issued by the two Emperors, Honorius and Theodosius, against the so-called Anabaptists, is adduced, according to different versions, and explained.

The couplet of Prosperus, which proclaims to the candidates for baptism, that their baptism must be perfected by martyrdom, is explained.

Albanus, a pious teacher at Mentz,[116] and others, martyred.

[116] Or Mayance.

The threatenings of the Nestorian Emperor, Theodosius, against the upright teacher, Cyril of Alexandria.

The tyranny of Theodosius, Bishop of Jerusalem, against many upright people, especially towards a pious teacher of the church of Christ, whom he first caused to be scourged, and then beheaded.

Benjamin, a deacon, after suffering many torments, put to death with a knotty stick, in Persia.

The cruelty of Honoricus, the Arian King, towards certain bishops and elders who would not swear an oath, described at large, as also his destruction.

Thereupon it is shown in the margin, that about this time, in different councils held in Africa, there were made five hundred and five laws, some of them relating to infant baptism; the agitation about baptism, suppression of the same, etc.

The bloody oppression of the believers, which, it appears, occurred in the time of Fulgentius.

Two persons who denied infant baptism, condemned in a certain council at Carthage (as is shown in the margin); but we commit them to God. With this we conclude the fifth century.]

We now come to fulfill the promise we repeatedly made in the Account of Baptism in the Fifth Century, namely, that we would show that of those who were baptized according to the ordinance of Christ, and of those who defended them and their views, a number had to lose their lives on this account; and that others, who escaped death, were severely persecuted or had to suffer corporal punishment. In order to show this properly, we shall first notice the tyrants of this time, and their tyranny; and then the persons who through this tyranny were oppressed and suffered unto blood.

TOUCHING THE TYRANTS OF THIS TIME, AND THEIR TYRANNY, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT CONTAINED IN THE FIFTH BOOK OF THE ONDERGANG DER TYRANNEN, FOR THE YEAR 401, PAGE 135, COL. 2.

Among all the cruel bloodhounds, and persecutors of the Christians may well be counted Isdigerdis and his son, Geroranes, who not only flayed and roasted the Christians alive, but also split reeds, and bound them, with the cut side inwards, tightly around the naked bodies of the martyrs, whom they then drew out by force, thus shockingly lacerating the bodies of the Christians. They also confined the steadfast martyrs, naked, in cells, bound them hand and foot, and then chased in a great number of rats, which, impelled by hunger, gnawed their bodies, and, in the course of time, entirely devoured them. Nevertheless, they could not, through these and similar cruelties, force many Christians to a denial of their Redeemer. All this is related in order to convey an idea of the cruel tyranny which was at this time practiced against the Christians. Compare with Chron. Leonh., lib. 2. Will Baudart. Denckw., lib. 5. Hist. Joh. Wega, lib. 4, cap. 3. Theodoret., lib. 5, cap. 39.

THE BLOODY EDICT ISSUED, A. D. 413, AGAINST THE SO-CALLED ANABAPTISTS, BY THE TWO EASTERN EMPERORS, THEODOSIUS AND HONORIUS.

In order to give a thorough account of this bloody edict, and this in the best possible manner, we shall present the different versions which we have found of it, word for word, and then state our own views in regard to the matter.

FIRST VERSION, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SEBASTIAN FRANCK, IN HIS CHRONIJK, 1563, FOL. 136, COL. 3.

“The most important matter in this transaction” he writes, “is the imperial code, which contains cap. 1, lib. 2, an edict issued by the Emperors Theodosius and Honorius, which reads thus: “If any minister of the Christian church is found guilty of having rebaptized any one, he, together with the person thus rebaptized, provided the latter is proved to be of such an age as to understand the crime, shall be put to death.”

SECOND VERSION, ACCORDING TO THE ANNOTATION OF MARTIN BELLIUS, IN THE TRACT, VAN DE KETTERS, EN OF MAN DE SELVE SAL VERVOLGEN, DEDICATED TO CHRISTOPHER, DUKE OF WURTEMBERG, PAGE 53.

“Since we must speak,” he writes, “of that imperial code, we will relate the following, namely, about the law contained in the first codex prohibiting rebaptism. Joined to the other, it reads thus:

The Emperors, Honorius and Theodosius, to A. A. Antonius, the magistrate:

If information is obtained that any one has rebaptized a servant of the Catholic [general] religion, he shall be put to death, together with the latter, who has committed a punishable crime, provided he is of an age admitting of the capability, to commit such (and has been instructed concerning the matter).”

THE ABOVE EDICT, ACCORDING TO THE ANNALS OF CARDINAL CESAR BARONIUS, IN HIS CHRONICLES, A. D. 413, NUMBER 6.

In that year, he writes, the Emperor Theodosius issued an edict against the Anabaptists, commanding that they should be put to death.

This was subsequently also quoted by the inquisitor of Leeuwærden, in his controversy with Jacques d’Auchi, in the year 1558. See register of the 2d book, on the name Jacques. Also, Introduction, fol. 47, col. 2.

These several versions of the edict of Honorius and Theodosius unanimously indicate three things: 1. That at that time, A. D. 413, there were people who were called Anabaptists. 2. That on account of this matter of rebaptizing, these people were exceedingly hated by the world, especially by the great. 3. It is shown how they were hated, namely, unto death, so that the command was given, that they should be punished with death. However, intelligent people well know, that Christ, our Savior predicted long before, that such things would befall his disciples and followers. Matt. 10:22; 24:9; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12; John 15:19; 16:2.

Moreover, that the aforementioned people, against whom said edict was issued, were not strange, unknown, erring spirits, but such people as are also in our day styled Anabaptists; this not only the inquisitor of Leeuwærden, A. D. 1558, readily admitted, as has been shown in the proper place, but all the particulars of the last mentioned authors make it almost as clear as the sun at midday, that this is the general opinion of the Romanists. Nay, it appears that the edict of Honorius and Theodosius was carried into execution, not only A. D. 413, and in some of the subsequent years, but that it was no small cause of the last great persecution of the Anabaptists, which began about A. D. 1524, through the strong urging of the Papists, especially of their clergy, who, to all appearance, by it induced the Emperor, Charles V., to renew said edict against the Anabaptists of their time, as being an identical people, and of the same faith, with those who lived in the time of Honorius and Theodosius. At least, that many papistic magistrates put to death innumerable pious Anabaptist Christians, by virtue of said ancient edict of A. D. 413, appears with such certainty from various authors, that it cannot, with truth, be denied. Compare Seb. Franck, fol. 136, col. 3, with Martin Bellius, page 53.

Now the couplet of Prosperus was verified, namely, that baptism did indeed sanctify the true candidate in some measure, but that all this was perfected by the crown of martyrdom. This was afterwards rendered in German, by Jacob Mehrning, thus:

“_Was heylligs bringt die Tauffe schon: Solchs gants erfuellet der Martrer chron._”[117]

[117] In English this may be rendered thus:

“Sanctify, baptism will indeed; But the martyr’s crown doth all complete.”

Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 413, ex Prosp. in Epigramm.

He means to say, that those who were then baptized, had to expect martyrdom. We shall therefore show what persons suffered at this time for the testimony of Jesus Christ, either by virtue of the abovementioned edict, or otherwise.

ALBANUS, A PIOUS TEACHER AT MENTZ, WITH OTHERS, MARTYRED FOR THE FAITH, A. D. 424.

In A. D. 424, eleven years after the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius had issued their bloody edict against the so-called Anabaptists, a pious teacher, who, intending to spread abroad the name of Jesus Christ, and promulgate the doctrines of the holy Gospel, had come to Mentz, was lamentably slain; as were also some others. Besides other authors, P. J. Twisck describes this, with these words: “When Albanus preached Christ at Mentz, he was martyred, together with others.” Chron., 5th book, page 149, col. 2, from Hist. Andr. 143.

THE SEVERE THREATENINGS OF THE NESTORIAN EMPEROR THEODOSIUS, AGAINST THE FAITHFUL TEACHER, CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, BECAUSE THE LATTER WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE NESTORIAN ERRORS, A. D. 429.

The Emperor Theodosius, not content with having, together with his co-emperor, Honorius, A. D. 413, threatened the aforesaid Anabaptists with death, seems to have finally been seduced so far as to endeavor to compel the orthodox believers to assent to the very absurd errors of the Nestorians. Among others, he intended to compel, as one of the chief opponents of said errors, Cyril of Alexandria, the purity and uprightness of whose faith was very conspicuous. He threatened him with a certain edict (apparently with severe punishment), if he would not desist from his views, or at least accept the doctrine of Nestorius. Of this we find the following account in the Chronijk van den Ondergang der Tyrannen: “Cyril, a celebrated teacher, strenuously opposed the heresy of Nestorius; but as the Emperor Theodosius, who, in many respects is greatly praised, was somewhat infected with the doctrine of Nestorius, he sent Cyril an edict, severely threatening him, if he would not assent to the doctrine of Nestorius. Fifth book, pag. 151, col. 21, from Merula, fol. 352.

THE TYRANNY OF THEODOSIUS, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM, TOWARD MANY UPRIGHT PEOPLE, BUT IN PARTICULAR, TOWARD A PIOUS TEACHER OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, WHO WAS FIRST SCOURGED AND THEN BEHEADED, A. D. 453.

Not only the Emperor Theodosius, who was a secular judge, but also one Theodosius, Bishop of Jerusalem, who ought to have been a spiritual judge, yea, a shepherd and leader of the flock of Jesus Christ, caused no small disturbance among the orthodox, well-meaning, and beloved friends of God.

Of Theodosius, the secular Judge and Emperor, we have already spoken; we now speak of Theodosius of Jerusalem, who, though only the administration of the spiritual law was committed to him, nevertheless, showed himself not less of a tyrant than the former, oppressing on account of their obedience to God, not only the souls and consciences of men, but also their bodies, even unto death. With regard to this, ancient writers furnish us among others, with the following example: That he had a certain pious minister of the church of Christ scourged and beheaded, and after his body had been dragged through the city, he caused it to be thrown before the dogs; simply because the latter, together with other pious Christians, opposed his wickedness. Compare Merulae Tract, fol. 370, with P. J. Twisck, chron. 5th, book, pag. 160, col 1.

BENJAMIN, A DEACON OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, AFTER SUFFERING MANY TORMENTS FOR THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, PUT TO DEATH WITH A KNOTTY STICK IN PERSIA, A. D. 456.

This Benjamin was a deacon of the Christian church in Persia, who, when opportunity offered itself, also proclaimed the doctrines of the holy gospel to the people, at which Geroranes, the King of Persia, took such offense, that he caused him to be cast into prison, in which he remained without deliverance for two years. After this, a certain ambassador came to the King to transact some state business. Having heard of Benjamin and his dreary confinement, he besought the King to set him free. The King consented, yet on the condition, that the prisoner should not speak to any of his magi or priests of the Christian religion or dispute with them. The ambassador promised the King in Benjamin’s name that his command should be heeded. But when he came to Benjamin, and admonished him to this, Benjamin answered: “I do not wish to do what you have promised in my name. I can not withhold the doctrine of the light of the gospel, which I have received from God, from others, not communicating it to them; for I have learned from the gospel how severely those will be punished, who bury the talent which has been given them to gain something therewith, in the earth.”

In the meantime, the King, knowing nothing of the answer which Benjamin had returned to the ambassador gave command to release him from his confinement. Benjamin once more free, ceased not to exhort the people as before, and to set the light of the holy gospel on the candle-stick. When this had continued for about the space of one year after his liberation from prison, new complaints were brought against him before the King, who had him brought before him, and commanded him to renounce the God whom he served, on pain of bodily punishment. Then Benjamin asked the King: “What punishment, beloved King, does he deserve, who deserts and renounces thee and thy government, and submits himself to, and serves another lord?” The King answered: “Such a man deserves punishment on body and property, yea, the severest penalty of death.” Benjamin asked again saying: “What punishment does the man deserve who forsakes his God, the Creator of all things, in order to exalt one of his servants as God, and to give to a creature the worship due to God alone?”

These words so incensed the King, that he commanded his guards to sharpen twenty reeds and to thrust them between the flesh and the nails of his fingers and toes. But when the King saw that the pious martyr endured all this with steadfastness, yea, regarded it but very little, he, after other torments, ordered the executioners to prepare a knotty stick, which by cutting away the branches, was made as sharp as a stick of thorns. This he caused to be thrust into the nether part of his body, and then pulled backwards and forwards, until the faithful servant and professor of Christ ended his life under the hands of the executioners, like a defenseless lamb that is led to the slaughter and opens not its mouth. Compare the account of Abr. Mellinus, 2d, book, fol. 260, col. 1, 2, taken from Theod., lib. 5, pag. 38, and Merul, Graec., with the annotation of P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 191, col. 1, from Hist. Eccl. Tripart, 2d, part, lib. 11, cap. 33, Hist. Andr. Hondorff, fol. 20.

THE CRUELTY OF THE ARIAN KING, HONORICUS, ALSO CALLED HUNNERICUS, THE SECOND KING OF THE VANDALS, TOWARDS SOME BISHOPS AND ELDERS WHO WOULD NOT SWEAR, AND OTHER CRUELTIES, A. D. 477.

A. D. 477, Honoricus, King of the Vandals, an adherent of the Arian sect, arose with great violence against those who would not assent to his views, cruelly persecuting, and lamentably maltreating them. He had honorable women and maidens suspended naked; their bodies burned with torches; their breasts and arms cut off; hot pitch applied to their back, breasts and sides; he also caused them to be drawn up, and heavy stones tied to their feet, etc.

When he proposed to many that they should swear an oath, some thought it not contrary to God, but the bishops and elders of the church of Christ would not swear, saying that it was prohibited in the gospel, since Christ says: “Swear not.” Thereupon they were martyred, or at least severely punished. Those, however, who had been prevailed upon to swear, did not escape free, for, according to ancient writers, he punished both alike; these, because they had sworn contrary to the command of the gospel, and those, because they refused to swear.

In the meantime, the distress and misery were so great that scarcely a house could be found that was not filled with wailing and lamentations.

After this terrible tyrant had put to death, by these and similar torments, as well as exiled, a countless number, God, after many plagues had been sent upon that country, awfully punished him: worms and lice so gnawed his flesh that his whole body became putrified, one member dropping off after another, so that he was buried piecemeal, thus coming to a horrible and not less ignominious end--the evident vengance of God for his tyranny against the Christians. Compare P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th, book, pag. 166, col. 2, with Chron. Carionis, lib. 3, fol. 29. Eccl. Caspar Hedio 3d, part, lib. 2, cap. 18–21, 25, 27, Chronol. Leonh. Krantz., lib. 3, fol. 87, 89. Paul. Merula, fol. 381, 382. Histor. Andr., fol. 180. Jan. Crespin, fol. 139.

NOTE.--It is stated that about this time, until the year 495, and afterwards, there were made in different councils held in Africa five hundred and five laws (called canons or rules), in which among other things it was resolved by the Roman church: 1. “That the children of the Donatists, (namely those Donatists who had renounced the doctrine of Donatus) shall not be re-baptized.” 2. “That those who say that a child is not to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, etc., are excommunicated.” 3, Act. 23. That the agitation about baptism should be suppressed by military force.” Seb. Franck, Chron. der Roomsche Concilien, fol. 48, col. 2–4, etc.

NOTE.--From the third article it appears: 1. That at this time there were people who stirred up agitation about baptism, that is, infant baptism, for this was now practiced by the Roman church. 2. That these people were suppressed by military assistance or force. What views, besides this article, these people held, or in which manner they were suppressed, we have not been able to ascertain; hence we let this suffice.

THE BLOODY OPPRESSION OF THE BELIEVERS, WHICH, IT APPEARS, OCCURRED IN THE TIME OF THE TEACHER, FULGENTIUS, A. D. 498.

It appears that at this time the persecution and marytyrization of those who were baptized according to the ordinance of Christ was still in progress; of which the godfearing teacher Fulgentius makes mention to his contemporaries. Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 464, num. 12, from D. Vicec., lib. 3, cap. 3, from Fulgentius, lib de fide ad petrum, cap. 30.

“Rest assured of this,” he writes, “and doubt not that those who, for the name of Christ are baptized in their blood, without which no man shall receive eternal life, that is, who has not previously been converted from his sins through repentance and faith, and redeemed through the sacrament of faith and repentance, that is, through baptism.”

When Fulgentius here speaks of those who, for the name of Christ are baptized in the blood, etc., he plainly indicates thereby, that blood was shed then inasmuch as people were baptized with it as it were, that is, such people as he speaks of further on, namely, “who are converted through repentance and faith, and redeemed through the sacrament of faith and repentance, that is, through baptism,” etc.

However, if to any one the above words of Fulgentius appear rather too obscure for the purpose in view, we leave him to the free and unrestrained enjoyment of his own judgment.

NOTE.--At this time, namely about the close of this century, those who opposed infant baptism were so hated by the Roman church, that in a certain council of Carthage, two persons, whose names we for certain reasons omit, were condemned, because they had denied infant baptism. Bapt. Hist. 2d, part, page 436, taken from the 9th chapter van de Doop gebruyken der Roomsche Kerke, fol. 460.

As to the persons themselves that were condemned, we commit them to God, since our only aim is to show how exceedingly the aforementioned doctrines were hated, and those who defended them, oppressed, yea, condemned at that time. With this we conclude our account of the martyrs of the fifth century.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM OF THE MARTYRS IN THE SIXTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE SIXTH CENTURY.

[Shortly after the beginning of this account, Alcimus is introduced who declares that baptism was prefigured in the suffering of Christ; his testimony, however, in regard to this, is reserved for another place.

Cassiodorus follows Alcimus, saying that in baptism believers are regenerated to new creatures.

He is followed by Fortunatus, who speaks of the virtue and benefit of baptism, saying that those who are regenerated by baptism, become children of God.

People who indicate that infant baptism is not in accordance with the holy Scriptures.

The council of Ilerda, in Spain, establishes various canons or rules against the Anabaptists and those baptized by them; forbidding to eat with them.

The council of Agathe decrees that all Jews who desire baptism must first be instructed for eight months, with the catechumens. Confession of faith preached to those desiring baptism (see margin as well as column).

In the first council of Constantinople it is decreed that the Eunomians and Montanists must first walk for a considerable length of time with the church [brotherhood], hear the holy Scriptures, and shall then, if found faithful, be baptized.

Of certain persons termed fanatics, who prevailed upon the imperial councilors, to abolish infant baptism.

Justus Origelitanus says excellent things with regard to the nature and efficacy of baptism.

One Peter, and his companion Zoroaras defend Anabaptism.

An account, from Gregory, of certain Jews, some of whom were baptized on Easter, others on Whitsuntide, after previous instruction.

Vincentius shows that it was customary to renounce, before baptism, all pomp, and the works of Satan.

Of the white robes put on the newly baptized, and the gifts it was customary to present to them.

How Brunechildis, the daughter of Arthanagildus, was rebaptized.

Of Euthimius, who entertained some that had been baptized, forty days; and how he admonished them.

Touching a certain prayer pronounced over the candidates, containing very beautiful sentiments respecting the dignity and benefit of baptism.

It is held that Theophilus Alexandrinus differs from the Roman church, in regard to holy baptism and the holy Supper.

The followers of Donatus again cited, and excused in various things.

Christian novices, before baptism, divided in two classes.

Statements with regard to the corruption of the writings of the ancients; yet that on the subject of baptism authentic testimonies still remain. With this we have abbreviated and concluded this century.]

Although in the sixth century, Roman darkness, as regards the corruption of divine worship, began to arise more and more, and the divine and evangelical truth necessarily had to sink out of sight at times, inasmuch as the Roman Bishop and others, who held with him, began, as it were, with the black smoke of manifold superstitions, shamefully and lamentably to darken the bright and transparent commands of Christ, as baptism, the holy Supper, the command not to swear, and others; so that baptism on faith was converted into infant baptism, the Lord’s Supper into a superstitious mass, the command not to swear, into a permission to swear, and other articles also greatly corrupted; yet in the meantime nevertheless, there were people, yea eminent persons, and even such, at times, as (living in quiet as they did) were reckoned to belong to the Roman church, through whom the aforesaid darkness was illuminated, the superstitions removed, and the pure truth of the holy Gospel brought to light as a brightly shining sun; inasmuch as they, opposing infant baptism, recommended baptism upon faith; abolishing the mass or transubstantiation, taught the simple Supper of Jesus Christ; rejecting, according to the doctrine of Christ and James, oaths and swearing, commanded the people not to use oaths, or to swear at all.

But it would require too much time to treat on, and show, all these things; hence we shall follow the custom we adopted in the beginning, and speak principally of baptism, showing briefly, by whom and in what manner the same was practiced according to the rule of Christ and the usage of his apostles, and confirmed by doctrine or example.

Alcimus writes (lib. 1, de Orig. Mundi) in the 6th Cent. Magdeburg., fol. 112, concerning the doctrine of baptism: “That baptism is prefigured in the suffering of Christ.” Thereupon follows a certain verse from Alcimus, in which baptism is compared to the water which flowed from Christ’s side, and to the blood of the martyrs; of which, however, we will not speak further at present, as we intend to reserve it for a place where it will be more to the purpose. Jacob Mehrning also notices this verse in Bapt. Hist., page 467.

A. D. 508.--Or at the time of the Emperor Anastasius, surnamed Flavius Valerius, the highly enlightened and gifted Cassiodorus, is stated to have lived and written, who says with regard to baptism (on Cant., cap. 7), “that it is a divine fountain, in which believers are regenerated to new creatures.” J. M., Bapt. Hist., page 467.

What else is this, than what our Savior himself says (Mark 16:16), that believers must be baptized; and (John 3:5), that one must be born again of water and of the Spirit; which accords with the words of Paul (Tit. 3:5), where he calls baptism the washing of regeneration, because, believers, when they are baptized, must forsake the old life, and be regenerated into a new life. Rom. 6:4.

Cassiodorus, on Cant., cap. 4, teaches (Bapt. Hist., page 468), That all believers shall (or must) be baptized. “There can be,” he says, “no believer without the washing of baptism (that is, no true believer, who can stand before God and his word, without baptism; for he who commanded faith, also commanded baptism).

Again, in cap. 7: “No one can enter the church, who has not previously been washed with the water of baptism, and made to drink of the fountain of wholesome doctrine. This well agrees with the words of the apostles, who thus testifies of himself and of the Corinthian church: “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body ... and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Cor. 12:13. By this, the apostle (like Cassiodorus) indicates that all who are true members of the church of Jesus Christ, must have communion in two things: First, they must have been made one body with each other by baptism. Secondly, they must have been made to drink into the Spirit, or the doctrine of the divine word; which, as every intelligent person knows, are things that cannot be complied with by infants, but only by adult and intelligent persons.

Cassiodorus, on Ps. 23 (page 469), says: “The water of refreshing is the washing of baptism, in which divine gifts are poured upon the souls that have become barren through the withering influence of sin, that they may bring forth good fruits.”

Again: “The souls of the elect (or of the baptized) have, in baptism, forsaken the corruption of the old man, and are renewed in Christ.”

Again: “As the people (of Israel) were preserved by the Red Sea, in which Pharaoh perished, even so, the church of the heathen, has been redeemed, through baptism, from the bondage of the devil, and brought into the true promised land, the liberty of the Gospel; and thus she (that is the church of the heathen) who was formerly a handmaid of iniquity, has now become the friend of Christ, and been washed, through baptism, from the filth of sin.”

Beloved reader, attentively consider the last three passages of Cassiodorus, and you shall find that they, in every particular, indicate that the baptism of which he speaks, is not at all infant baptism, but such a baptism as Christ commanded to be administered upon faith; for, when he says, in the first passage, that in (or through) the water of baptism, divine gifts are poured upon the souls that have become barren through the withering influence of sin, that they may bring forth good fruits, he certainly thereby indicates that he speaks of such candidates as had previously become barren through the withering influence of sin, and to whom gifts were now imparted in (or through) baptism (namely, by God, for the strengthening of their faith), that they might bring forth good fruits, which, as every one knows, can be done by none but adult and virtuous persons. By the second passage, in which he says, that the souls of the elect (or of the baptized) have forsaken, in baptism, the corruption of the old man, and are renewed in Christ, he again indicates that the persons of whom he speaks, had lived, before baptism, in the corruption of the old man, wherefore it was necessary for them to forsake it in baptism, and, by a pious life, to be renewed henceforth in Christ; but how this applies to infants, may be judged.

We now come to the third passage, in which he speaks of the passage of the people of Israel through the Red Sea. He compares the Israelites to those who, having been converted from heathenism, were baptized; the Red Sea, by which the people of Israel were delivered, he compares to baptism, through which those who had been converted from heathenism, had obtained their redemption, according to the soul, depending on the merits of Jesus Christ; Pharaoh, who was drowned with his people in the Red Sea, he compares to the bondage of the devil, from which believers are redeemed in baptism, through the grace of the Son of God; the entrance of Israel into the land of Canaan, he compares to the entrance of believing, baptized Christians into the true promised land--the liberty of the Gospel. Finally he says, in the same passage: “Thus she who was formerly a handmaid of iniquity, has now become a friend of Christ, and been washed from the filth of sin.”

All these things militate so clearly against infant baptism, and confirm baptism upon faith, according to the ordinance of Christ, that it seems unnecessary to me, to add anything further respecting Cassiodorus. The impartial will judge aright.

About A. D. 515.--Or properly after Cassiodorus, is placed, in the History of the Holy Baptism, the wise, but as it appears, excessively accused Fortunatus; from whose writings the author of said history adduces several passages, respecting which he makes the following annotation in the margin: “All the preceding commendations must be understood as referring solely to the true baptism of Christ, which is received as he has ordained it, and which consists in the word, Spirit, and water, and is obtained in (or upon) faith; and not as relating to any self-invented infant baptism.”

He then shows, page 468 in his account, what Fortunatus himself writes concerning it, saying: “Of the virtue and benefit of baptism, Fortunatus teaches (lib. 10 in Expos. Orat. Dom.): Man, when regenerated by baptism, becomes a child of God, who previously, through transgression, belonged to his enemy, and was lost.” “Man, before baptism,” he further says, “is described as being carnal, but after baptism, as being spiritual.”

In a letter of the orientals to Symmachus, it is written: “Christ our Savior has taken away, on the cross, our handwriting, that we might henceforward, after the washing of regeneration (that is, baptism) be no longer subject to the sins of our wickedness.”

These passages pertain only to adults, or at least to such as are possessed of understanding, but in no wise to those who have attained to neither years nor understanding; for it certainly means something, to be regenerated by baptism, yea, to be made a child of God, which Fortunatus, in the first instance, so expressly confesses.

Touching the regeneration of water and the Spirit, Christ did not command it to the unintelligent, but to a master of Israel, John 3:5; and of those who had put on Christ, through baptism, the apostle says: that by faith they became the children of God. Gal. 3:26,27.

Thus also it is a matter of moment, to be carnal before baptism, and spiritual after baptism, which he nevertheless adds: For, beloved reader, what is it to be carnal, but to live after the lusts of the flesh? This, says our author, is done before baptism; hence it is also evident that he speaks of a baptism before the reception of which one can live after the flesh.

What, on the other hand, is it to be spiritual, but to live after the inclination of the spirit? that is, according to the rule which agrees with the spirit, and the word of God; but this, he states, is done after baptism; hence it follows that the baptism of which he treats, is of such a nature, that he who has received it, can live after the Spirit.

But how can these two things, namely, to live after the flesh before baptism, and after the Spirit after baptism, apply to infants, of this he that has experience may judge.

That which is written to Symmachus, in the letter of the orientals, is of the same nature; for there it is said of regenerated baptized persons that after the washing of regeneration, that is, after baptism, they are no longer subject to the sins of wickedness; which sufficiently indicates that he speaks of such people as are subject, before baptism, that is, before they are baptized, to the sins of wickedness, but from which they are freed after baptism, through the grace of God and a holy purpose. Certainly, infants differ widely from this.

A. D. 520.--That at this time, and thence forward, there were persons who not only taught baptism upon faith as ordained by Christ, but who also, now and then, opposed infant baptism; this is unanimously maintained by the well-tried Jacob Mehrning, scholar of the holy Scriptures, and the very learned Montanus, in these words: “Nevertheless, as truth cannot remain suppressed, some were found, in the course of time, who, seeing that infant baptism did not accord with the holy Scriptures, dared candidly confess this. Of such there were many. A. D. 520, and from that time forward in this century, for several years in succession, as may clearly be gathered from the fourth canon of the council of Gerunda, in Spain, held the aforementioned year, in which it was decreed concerning catechumens, that they should be baptized on Easter and on Whitsuntide; but in case of feebleness or sickness, also on other days. From Cent. Magdeb., Cent. 6, cap. 9, de Synodi.

For, that those who were born of Christian parents, and had been brought up from their youth, in the Christian religion, were reckoned among the catechumens, is evident from the example of Ambrose, and his brother, Satyrus, sons of the Christian parents Symmachus and Marcellina, as may be seen in the oration of Ambrose, on the death of Satyrus; and it is further confirmed by the example of Theodosius, Ambrose, Jerome, Basil, M. Augustine himself, his natural son Adeodatus, and Alipius; who though born of Christian parents, as already stated, were nevertheless reckoned among the catechumens, till the day after previous instruction, they were baptized. Bapt. Hist., page 480. H. Mont. Nietigh., pages 79, 80.

Perhaps some one may think, in which of the preceding words is infant baptism spoken against? which is nevertheless so distinctly asserted by Jacob Mehrning and H. Montanus. We reply, that they do not express it in formal words, but indicate it by the circumstances which they adduce. For, when they, in the first place, speak of the fourth canon of the council of Gerunda, in Spain, in which it was decreed that catechumens should be baptized on Easter and on Whitsuntide, they thereby indicate that the baptism of new-born infants cannot have been practiced there, because infants are born not only on Easter and Whitsuntide, but throughout the whole year; and in another place it is stated that not only no catechumens, but no one else, should be baptized at any other time than Easter and Whitsuntide.

In the second place, when they declare that by the catechumens here spoken of, there are to be understood not only such youths, or scholars, as were of heathen descent, but also those born of Christian parents, as is proved by the example of Ambrose, Satyrus, &c., it shows that many Christians, at that time, left their children unbaptized till they, after sufficient instruction, as was given to the catechumens, were baptized of their own accord, on either of the two feasts, Easter or Whitsuntide.

Sebastian Franck calls the catechumens, of whom the aforementioned council speaks, scholars of the faith, and relates the decree of said council, as well as the time when the same was held, on this wise: “The council of Gerunda, held in the seventh year of King Theodoric, passed, among nine decrees, also this: That the catechumens, that is, the scholars in the faith, should be baptized only on Easter and Whitsuntide, except imminent death should require it otherwise.” Chron. Rom. Council., fol. 73, col. 1.

About A. D. 525.--Or in the 15th year of Theodoric, King of France, those of the Roman church again found themselves in great embarrassment with regard to the so-called Anabaptists. The matter rose to such a pitch that it was thought well to assemble a council against them, as had been done by Pope Felix, A. D. 487, at Rome. Accordingly, about A. D. 525, the second council against the Anabaptists was convened, not at Rome, as the first, but at Ilerda, in Spain; to which there assembled, as was usually the case, many of the bitterest papistic bishops--in order to extirpate, or at least check, the heresy, as it was called--who made a number of rules and laws, not only against the Anabaptists, but also against those who, having separated from the Roman church, had been rebaptized by them; of which rules, among others, the following are noted:

Canon 9. “Concerning those who through transgression have been rebaptized, and have fallen without necessity, it is our will, that the statutes of the Nicene synod be observed respecting them, which are considered to have been passed for such offenders: that they shall pray for seven years among the catechumens, and two years among the catholics, and then,” &c.

Canon 14. “Godly believers shall not eat with the rebaptized”. Bapt. Hist., pages 477, 478, from the 6th Cent. Magd,. cap. 9, fol. 240, ex Decret. Synod, Ilerdensis.

The 13th canon of this synod, also given in the same place, we suspect, has been misquoted; however, as it does not apply here, we leave it in its own merit.

That the 14th canon, however, which speaks only of the rebaptized, concerns the so-called Anabaptists, appears from the annotation of Sebastian Franck, of Wordens, in part 3 of his Chronijk, fol. 73, col. 1, who translates this canon thus: “The clergy and believers shall not partake of meals with the Anabaptists.”

From this it can be seen in what detestation, yea, abhorrence, the so-called Anabaptists in the time past, were held by the Romanists, inasmuch as they were not considered worthy to eat with, even as once the Samaritans, publicans, and sinners had been regarded by the Jews.

We will not investigate minutely, whether the so-called Anabaptists of that time held the same views, in regard to every article, with those who, at the present day, are designated by that name; nor will we, if perhaps in some points they did not teach aright, or were not fully enlightened, defend, much less, praise them; it suffices us, that they, besides other good and wholesome articles, mentioned by us in another place, held this in common with the Anabaptists of the present day, namely: That they did not approve of the baptism which by the Romanists is administered to infants, but rejected it, so that they baptized, or, at least, baptized aright at first, those who, having come to adult years, embraced their faith.

It also is praiseworthy in them, that they, notwithstanding the anathema of the Pope and the councils, yea, regardless of persecution, suffering, and death, as shall be shown in the proper place, maintained and manfully defended their views. We know of nothing further that we could say of them, from authentic writers, but will commend them, as well as ourselves, to God and his grace. As regards the manner in which they were proceeded against, in subsequent times, as well as how they conducted themselves herein, we shall show in the proper time and place.

About A. D. 530.--D. Joseph Vicecomes, in his treatise records (Bapt. Hist., page 482), the following testimonies from the sixth century.

Of the decree of the Christians, at Agathe, about A. D. 530, he says, lib. 3, cap. 1: “The council of Agathe, cap. 13, says: It is the will of all the church, that on the eighth day before Easter, the confession of faith be preached publicly in the church to those desiring baptism.”[118]

[118] Touching the Jews who embraced the faith, this rule was established: “A Jew shall be tried for eight months among the scholars of the faith, and then, if he assents to it, be baptized.” Seb. Franck, Chron., Rom. Conc., fol. 72, col. 3.

We do not especially favor the decrees of councils; yet, when they agree with the word of God, we accept them, not because men have uttered them, but because they have been pronounced already in the word of God. Thus, when it is said of all the churches which existed at that time, that it was their will that the confession of faith should be publicly preached on the eighth day before Easter; and also that it was added, how and to whom it was to be preached, namely, before those desiring baptism, we find not only that it well accords with the word of God, Mark 16:15,16, but, moreover, that not only a few individuals, but all the churches, namely, those which dissented from the church of Rome, held that view, namely, to baptize after previous instruction.

In the second place, when it is said here, that the confession of faith should be preached to those desiring baptism (that is, not to infants), it clearly follows that the candidates here spoken of, had themselves to desire baptism, yea, that they themselves had to profess the confession of faith preached to them, else there would have been no reason to preach it to them.

Vicecomes (lib. 2, cap. 2, page 483), quotes the following words from the 7th chapter of the first council of Constantinople: “As many of the Eunomians and Montanists as desire to embrace the faith, we receive, as we do the Grecians; on the first day we instruct them in Christianity, on the second day we receive them as disciples, and on the third day we bless them (or require them to renounce Satan); and thus we instruct them, taking care that they walk in the church for a considerable time, and hear the holy Scriptures, and then, and not before, if they are found upright, we baptize them.

This first council of Constantinople is placed, according to the order of D. J. Vicecomes, in Bapt. Hist., immediately after the council of Agathe, held about A. D. 530; and although we have long searched for it, we have not been able to ascertain the correct date of it; hence we make no change in the order.

After this, Vicecomes places the sixth council of Constantinople, in which several things illustrating the point we have in view respecting baptism upon faith are presented; but since we find from other writers, that said council was not held in this century, but many years after, Vicecomes having greatly erred in this, we will not proceed further with it here, but reserve our account of it for the proper time and place. We therefore turn to what is quoted in the 7th chapter of the first council of Constantinople, where it is said in regard to those of the Eunomians and Montanists who should desire to unite with that church, that they should not be baptized until they had been instructed one, two, or three days, yea, had walked for a considerable time in the church, and heard the holy Scriptures.

Take this matter, as you may, and it indicates that the Constantinopolitan teachers recognized no other baptism than that administered in their own church, namely, after previous instruction; notwithstanding the Eunomians and Montanists might have alleged that they had been baptized in their infancy; yet this was regarded as useless and of no value.

About A. D. 538.--It is recorded that at the time of Justin and Justinian, the Roman Emperors, there were people, termed fanatics by their opponents, who brought over to them and persuaded the imperial councilors and ministers, that infant baptism should be abolished; against which the aforementioned Emperors set themselves to prevent it. Concerning this, Jacob Mehrning, in Bapt. Hist., page 487, says: “M. Rulichius, page 249, from whom M. Glaneus quotes this, acknowledges (page 627) that at that time there came forth many strange fanatics (he calls them fanatics, though they were far more pious teachers and Christians than Rulichius and Glaneus, and reproved, from the ordinance of the baptism of Christ, the encroaching abuses of infant baptism) who prevailed on and persuaded the imperial councilors and ministers, that infant baptism should be abolished. But Justin, and other Emperors would prevent the same by their authority and interdiction.”

He then relates, from the constitutions [laws] of the Emperors, Justin and Justinian, in what the interdiction, or, at least, the decree, ordained by these Emperors respecting this matter, consisted; from which it can be seen, that not only was infant baptism rejected and contemned by those contemptuously called fanatics, but that even by the adherents of the Roman church it was not looked upon as a command, but merely as a matter which was permitted; though at other times again, through the decrees of popes and councils, it exceedingly prevailed.

In the meantime, it is gratifying to us, that even our opponents, who were strenuous advocates of infant baptism, I mean M. Rulichius and M. Glaneus, confess that also at that time (about A. D. 538), there were persons who sought to abolish infant baptism; from which it appears that the truth of baptism upon faith could not be suppressed to such an extent that it did not, according to opportunity, manage to raise its head; and that, on the other hand, the error of infant baptism did not triumph to such a degree that it did not have its opponents when opportunity offered. Thus blooms the rose among thorns, Cant. 2:2. God remains faithful to his promises, Ps. 33:4. Christ is with his church even unto the end of the world, Matt. 28:20.

About A. D. 542.--Justus Origelitanus says (in Cant., Bapt. Hist., page 469): “They that are baptized in the name of Christ, are filled with the Holy Ghost.” Doubtless, this has reference to Acts 2:37,38, where Peter says to those who inquired what they must do to be saved: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ ... and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;” which certainly was not spoken to infants.

Again: “The fair church of Christ,” says Justus, “is cleansed by the washing of water (that is, by baptism).”

Thus also Paul speaks, Eph. 5:26, saying that Christ has cleansed his church with “the washing of water by the word;” whereby he indicates that the believers of whom he speaks were cleansed not only with the washing of water (that is, baptism), but also by the word, that is, the doctrine of the Gospel; upon which passages Justus has based his declaration, though he, for the sake of being brief, it seems, is silent about the word.

Again: “They have ascended,” he says, “from the washing of water, when they, having received the forgiveness of sins by baptism, have increased in Christ.”

His speaking here of ascending, that is, climbing up from, the washing of water, and of increasing in Christ, clearly shows that he does not speak of infants, but of persons who have the ability to climb up from the washing of water, and to increase in Christ, which is peculiar to believers only.

He then gives some additional testimony, in the same place, corroborative of the point we have in view; but as it is expressed in almost the same language as that quoted above, we pass it by, so as not to repeat the matter.

About A. D. 545.--Or immediately after Justus Origelitanus, Olympiodorus is placed, who speaking of baptism, says: “The spiritual birth, which is effected by the washing of regeneration, resembles the death (of Christ) in that those who are regenerated, in this divine washing, are buried with Christ in baptism.” Bapt. Hist., 469, from Olympiodor., in Eccles., cap. 3.[119]

[119] Olympiodorus (in Eccles., cap. 9), says: “Through the washing of regeneration white robes are also given us, which doubtless remain clean as long as we refrain from the evil of sin.” Bapt. Hist., page 474.

Certainly, this is clearly following, though in other words, that which the apostle presents to the consideration of the believing Romans (Rom. 6:3), where he asks them whether they knew not that they all who were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so they also should walk in newness of life. We need not say anything further in regard to this, since the matter as to what persons and what baptism are here spoken of, is self-evident.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This doctrine, however, did not die with him, seeing mention is made of his followers much later (namely A. D. 586), that they at that time, under the leadership of one Peter, Bishop of Apamia, rebaptized those who had been baptized by the orthodox (or Catholic) church. See concerning this, P. J. Twisck, Chron., 6th book, page 201, col. 1, from Greg. lib. 8, Merul., fol. 446. Also our account for the year 548.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE SIXTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE SIXTH CENTURY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In order to condense this as much as possible, so as not to weary the reader, we shall not present the account of the aforementioned author word for word, but extract from it the pith and import thereof, and present it as clearly as is possible for us to do. In the 2d book of the History of the Persecutions, etc., under the head: “Exposition of Satan bound a thousand years,” fol. 293, col. 1–4, are described, in consecutive order, among other things, the aforementioned persecutions, within the bounds of the sixth century, namely, from A. D. 518 to the close of the century; which we have briefly summed up thus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Also in Spain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion of the account for this century.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About A. D. 682.--As the believers who strictly observed the baptismal ordinance of Jesus Christ, increased in no small degree, as can be inferred, in many countries, yea, even in the Roman church, so that, in regard to the time when baptism should be administered, they had, here and there, settled on a fixed time; namely, that it should take place on one of the two feasts, Easter or Whitsuntide, and that to this end, the catechumens should previously be notified and, in the weeks preceding said feasts, instructed in the faith; those of the Roman church, as may easily be judged, were not well satisfied with this, seeing it was a means to completely set aside infant baptism; and not only this, but to abolish entirely all other superstitions and human inventions, which, with so great labor and costs, by councils and otherwise, had been introduced into the Roman church, ostensibly for the best. It was therefore--in order to prevent this, it seems--deemed expedient to renew and republish the import of what had previously, A. D. 610, been decreed in the second Bracerensian council, namely: “That infants should be baptized, as necessary to their salvation,” that is, on pain of damnation. But what was really done in this matter, is not expressed in all its particulars; however, it has not been passed by unnoticed, seeing Pope Leo II., according to the Roman notation, the 82d, who then occupied the chair, ordained: That during mass the kiss of peace should be offered to the people, and that baptism might be administered any day. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 233, col. 1, from Hist. Georg., lib. 4. Chron., S. F., fol. 19.

From this it can be seen that the Pope’s principal concern was, not to lose the mass and infant baptism, both of which were chief points upon which rested the Roman church, as the temple of Dagon upon two pillars, which were threatened, now by this Sampson and now by another, by the arms of the Spirit and the word of God, yea, were in danger of being utterly pulled out and broken. Now, what does the Pope to prevent this? As regards the mass, he ordains that during mass the kiss of peace should be offered to the people. But how could he more insinuatingly and affably bind the common people to the superstition of the mass, than by offering to them the kiss of peace? But when the lion’s skin will not reach, that of the fox is brought into requisition.

As to infant baptism, what does he ordain to preserve it? This: that baptism might be administered any day. But some one may think: This does not concern infant baptism; consequently the latter is not confirmed by this decree. We answer, that the pope certainly sought to establish it thereby; for, inasmuch as infant baptism was weakened in no small degree by the practice of the believers who baptized their candidates only on Easter and Whitsuntide, as already stated, there was hardly another remedy to maintain infant baptism, than to ordain all times and days for baptism, for thus it could be administered to new born infants, who are born not only on Easter and Whitsuntide, but throughout the whole year, and who, according to his view, must then also be baptized.

A. D. 699.--The decree of Pope Leo II., for the confirmation of infant baptism and the mass, as mentioned for the year 682, did not have the effect of causing the believers who had separated from the Roman church, and maintained the baptism upon faith, to swerve in the least from their faith and the practice of the same; on the contrary, it appears that still more, yea, even learned men, separated from the Roman church in this said article and joined the little flock of Christ, so that some of them who formerly had maintained infant baptism, the mass, the traditions, the meritoriousness of good works, and the seven sacraments, now taught differently, and opposed the Pope in these points. Of these, five persons are mentioned in the Chronicles, whom P. J. Twisck, in his seventh book, for the year 699, notes, saying: “Isidorus, Cesarius, Adelheymius, Agatho, and Julian Pomorius taught in opposition to the Pope concerning the holy Scriptures, justification, good works, that there are but two sacraments, and concerning the name of the church, which was not built upon Peter, but on Christ.” Page 238, col. 1, from Joh. Munst., fol. 121.

But preeminently is mentioned by other writers, Isidorus of Spain, who, having at one time been a strenuous advocate of infant baptism, now taught and wrote such things as could, with reason and judgment, in no wise be applied thereto. For, commenting on John’s baptism, which even our opponents admit to have been administered only to adult, penitent sinners, he compares it to the baptism of his own time, saying: “I hold that all who were baptized by John unto repentance, were patterns of the catechumens.” Bapt. Hist., page 498, from Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 4, from Isidorus of Spain, in lib. de Div. Officiis.

What kind of persons these catechumens were, and how they were instructed before baptism in the doctrine of the faith, called the catechism, has already been sufficiently explained, and it is not necessary to repeat it here: yet, over and above this, we will adduce the man’s own words, as I have found them translated in Bapt. Hist., page 499. “After the catechumens,” he says, “there is the second grade--the applicants for baptism or fellow-prayers, that is, those who are striving for the doctrine of the faith, and sobriety of life, in order to receive the grace of Christ in baptism, and, hence, are called fellow-prayers, that is, such as pray for the grace of Christ.” Lib. 2, de Div. Officiis, cap. 21.

What took place ultimately with these applicants for baptism, in his time, he indicates with these words: “On Palm Sunday (that is, the Sunday before Easter), the Symbolium (that is, the twelve articles of faith) is delivered to the applicants for baptism, on account of the approaching glorious Easter feast, in order that they, as striving to receive the grace of God (that is, baptism) should first learn the faith which we confess.” Bap. Hist., page 499, from Isid., lib. 2, de Div. Off., cap. 27.

These words, compared with the preceding ones, clearly show, what custom as regards baptism, prevailed at that time in the church of which he speaks; namely, that the catechumens, or, at least, the novices, were first instructed in the catechism, that is, in the doctrine of the faith, until they were meet to be baptized; and that from that time on, they were called applicants for baptism, and fellow-prayers, because they desired baptism and prayed for it. This could certainly not be done by newborn infants.

As regards that which is noted elsewhere from Isidorus (ex lib. de summo bono), with reference to other views on baptism which he is said to have entertained, we do not accept it as having been written by him, and this for good reasons, which, however, it would require too much time to relate; unless it be said that he wrote it before he was converted, and had obtained light on the matter; and here we would let the matter rest.

A. D. 700.--We come now to the last year of this century, in which we perceive that at that time not only those of Jewish or heathen parentage, but also those born of Christian parents, were instructed in the faith before they were admitted to baptism; so that the Christians who sought the salvation of their children, left them unbaptized, till they were able themselves to confess their sins, profess the faith, and thereupon desire baptism as a sign of the same. Among these, the two pious Christians, Lutgerus and his wife Libuga, are not considered of the least. It is stated of them, that they left their son Lutgerus unbaptized, till he, having learned and accepted the faith in Jesus Christ, in France, was baptized thereupon, A. D. 700. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 7th book, page 239, col. 1, from Grondig. Bewijs., letter B.

We now leave this account of baptism in the seventh century; in which, on the one side, the oppressed believers practiced the true ordinance of the baptism of Christ upon faith; while, on the other side, the oppressing Roman church deviated the longer the more from it, so that they not only forsook, but also opposed the command of Christ to baptize only upon faith.

On the other hand, infant baptism and many other superstitions were so firmly established, that almost no one except those who did not fear the anathema of the Pope, and death, dared oppose these things. It is truly astonishing, what P. J. Twisck writes, and truthfully, concerning this, in his conclusion to the seventh century, with which we will also conclude this: “The Pope of Rome, having been declared head of all the churches by the Emperor Phocas, gradually established the boundaries of his power, authority and jurisdiction, not only in, but also beyond, Italy, yea, beyond Europe, and this with exceeding haughtiness. The pomp and greatness became unendurable; yea, the avarice of the clergy generally was so great that they obtained ecclesiastical offices through presents, in order to derive temporal gain therefrom, and would scarcely baptize an infant, unless money was given them for it.”

Herewith enough has been said regarding this matter, and we will therefore turn to the martyrs who suffered at this time for the truth of Christ their Savior.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY.

[After the oppression exercised by the heathen and Arians, the Roman Pope also began to direct his arrows against the orthodox Christians. This forms the beginning of our account.

Bishop Adrian, of whom we have already related that he refused baptism to infants, is now criminally punished for this cause, A. D. 606.

Concerning the chapter of criminal matters, some further observations are made; also, as to whether said Adrian really suffered corporal or capital punishment.

Thereupon follows a notice concerning the following martyrs, noted by P. J. Twisck for the years 614 and 628, and recorded by us.

Many Christians apprehended by the Longobards, and put to death, A. D. 614, because they refused to eat, in honor of the idols, food offered to idols.

Of the sufferings of the Christians in Persia, and how a great many of them were delivered from imprisonment, given for the year 628.

Mention made of eight severe persecutions instituted against Christian believers, from A. D. 622, to the close of the century; the places where these persecutions happened, and the names of some of the tyrants who originated them.

Further observations concerning said persecutions and martyrs, which concludes the account of the martyrs of this century.]

When first the heathen and then the Arians, the former by open, wicked violence, the latter by secret, tyrannical hypocrisy, had for a long time not only scattered the flock of Christ, but devoured with wolves’ teeth, as it were, many of its innocent and defenseless lambs, then, in this century (a thing almost unheard of), the Roman Bishop, now called Pope, began to arise as the forerunner of antichrist, seeking to destroy those who opposed the Roman church, not only by anathematizing, excommunicating, and awfully threatening them, which alone would have been sufficient to strike terror into the heart, but, besides this, it seems, by criminal and actual punishments, which generally touched the body or the life. Of this we hope presently to show an example from which the rest of his wicked deeds may be inferred.

ADRIAN, A CHRISTIAN BISHOP OR TEACHER, CRIMINALLY PUNISHED FOR REJECTING INFANT BAPTISM, ABOUT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR 606.

In our account of baptism for the year A. D. 606, we made mention of the celebrated teacher and Bishop Adrian, and stated, from a certain letter sent by Gregory the Great to John, bishop of Larissa, that Adrian was accused of having refused baptism to infants. But it seems it did not stop at said accusation, but that they, to all appearance, proceeded further and more severely and cruelly against him; for the above was imputed to him for a crime or a heinous sin. Hence he was criminally proceeded against, which criminal punishment sometimes related to property, but most frequently it was of a corporal, or capital nature.

Moreover, though said punishment was ordained for great crimes and criminals, yet in the case of Adrian, we can perceive, it was founded on nothing but his disregard and rejection of infant baptism, as appears from the sequel of Gregory’s letter to John, which reads thus: “Pursuant to the chapter of criminal matters, a charge was preferred against Bishop Adrian, or brought against him by way of punishment, concerning the children which, by his orders, had been kept from baptism, and died in darkness, unbaptized (or unwashed) from the filth of sin.” Compare with the account in Bapt. Hist., page 546.

If any one should object that said chapter of criminal matters, was not comprehensive and rigorous enough, and that therefore, Adrian was probably not really punished corporally or with death, by virtue of the same, with such a one we do not feel inclined to dispute. It suffices us, to have learned, on the one hand, that this teacher Adrian, did not hesitate, even though he should incur severe penalty, to speak against infant baptism, yea, what is still more, to reject infants from baptism, and to let them die unbaptized, as being under the grace of God; and on the other hand, that those of the Roman church were exceedingly dissatisfied with this, yea, to such a degree, that the chapter of criminal matters was opened and, apparently by form of sentence, set before this good man, either to send him (after preceding excommunication) into banishment, or to strip him of his property, or to punish him corporally or capitally. But whether said sentence was actually executed on him, is not clearly expressed; hence we commit the truth of the matter to God.

In the meantime, there appears what we have said before, namely, that the Pope or the Roman church did not hesitate, not only to anathematize, as had formerly been customary, their opposers, especially those who spoke against infant baptism, but to proceed against them criminally or by way of corporal punishment. This was done with the said teacher Adrian, concerning whose departure we have a good hope, whether he died a natural or a violent death. The Lord knows his own, and shall in the hereafter not leave them unrewarded, who have suffered for testifying to his truth, and opposing error.

NOTICE CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING MARTYRS NOTED BY P. J. TWISCK FOR THE YEARS 614 AND 628, AND RECORDED BY US.

We have not been able to obtain certain or clear information as regards the confession of faith of the martyred persons of whom we shall presently speak; hence we dare not reckon them all indiscriminately among the true and orthodox confessors of the true faith; the more especially, as the sword of persecution then came upon all who bore the Christian name (as had before, yea, frequently, been the case), in places where such persecutions occurred. Persons were also not examined so very closely with regard to this or that controverted point of the faith (I speak of those who were apprehended by the heathen), for these were things of which the persecutors knew nothing, while it was quite different with those who fell into the hands of the papists mentioned above. The people were simply asked whether they would sacrifice to the idols, renounce Christ, etc. Hence the reason, that in the confession of the martyrs who suffered among the heathen, but little is said regarding controverted matters of faith which are now discussed among Christians; but this is discussed more fully elsewhere.

The negligence of the writers of those times, the absence of the art of printing, and the violence of persecution, which caused people to flee and roam about, are also no small cause why so little can be adduced concerning the confessions of the martyrs. This has been more fully explained in our account of baptism.

Therefore we hold, according to the judgment and nature of love, that among the martyrs of whom we shall speak, there were, if not all, at least some, who viewed the matter aright, and whose martyrdom had for its foundation a good confession; but to accept them altogether, or to enter deeper and more fully into the matter, we do not deem advisable, for reasons already mentioned.

In order, then, to present the matter in the briefest and simplest manner, we shall follow the account of P. J. Twisck, as being a summary of what the ancients have recorded concerning it.

OF MANY CHRISTIANS WHO WERE APPREHENDED BY THE LONGOBARDS, AND PUT TO DEATH BY THEM, BECAUSE, IN HONOR OF THE IDOLS, THEY REFUSED TO EAT FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS. A. D. 614.

“The Longobards,” says Twisck, “apprehended many Christians, and sought to compel them, to eat meat which they had offered to their idols; and when they refused, they put them to death. They also put to death four hundred who would not worship their gods.” Chron., page 216, col. 1.

As to what might be adduced concerning the confession of faith of these slain persons, and how far we accept them as martyrs, see the foregoing notice.

OF THE SUFFERINGS OF THE CHRISTIANS IN PERSIA, AND HOW AFTERWARDS MANY OF THEM WERE DELIVERED FROM IMPRISONMENT, A. D. 628.

Continuing in his account, the above mentioned author finally speaks of the year 628, for which, in the beginning, he records these words: “About this time, the Christians had to suffer much also in Persia.” He then relates that the Emperor Heraclius, having come into Persia, liberated many of the imprisoned Christians; the number, however, of those who suffered, as well as of those who were delivered from imprisonment, is not expressed, and hence we can add no further explanation. Chron., page 221, from Hist. Eccl. Hedio., lib. 5, cap. 18 and 19.

All explanation further necessary, concerning the imprisonment and the sufferings of said Christians in Persia, and how far they are recognized by us, must be looked for in the preceding notice.

OF EIGHT SEVERE PERSECUTIONS INSTITUTED AGAINST CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS, FROM A. D. 622 TO THE CLOSE OF THIS CENTURY.

It behooves us to record here, that from A. D. 622, to the close of this century, various other persecutions and severe oppressions were instituted against those who were called Christian believers, among whom, to all appearance, there were here and there, some who died upon a pure confession of faith; of which persecutions and oppressions of the Christian believers, among others, eight are enumerated, which we will briefly extract from A. Mellinus. Having spoken of the chronology of the Turks or Mohammedans, he proceeds to the year 622, and says:

1. “In Italy a new persecution arose against the Christians who resided there, under the Arian King of the Longobards.

2. “In France also some (namely, Christian believers) were made martyrs.

3. “Constantine, the son of Heraclius, having reigned four months, and Heracleonas six months, Constant, the son of Constantine, became Emperor, and reigned for twenty-seven years. He followed in the footsteps of his grandfather Heraclius, in espousing the cause of the Monothelites, and for the sake of this sect carried on a severe persecution (namely, against those Christians who held different views).

4. “In the twenty-eight years during which said three Emperors reigned, the Arabians or Saracens conquered many countries and cities, and put to death a countless number of Christians (namely, of those who lived under said reign). There was also considerable commotion in France and England (understand, on account of the Christian religion). He afterwards says:

5. “But in France, during the seventeen years of his reign several were put to death as martyrs.”

After this, he speaks of the persecutions which, during the twenty-seven years comprising the reign of Justinian II., and the time of Leontius and Tiberius Apsimarus, arose against the Christians, through the Longobards as well as the Saracens. Finally he says:

“Also in France, 6. in England, 7. in Germany, and in Spain 8. many became martyrs at this time.” A. Mell., 2nd book, fol. 303, col. 1, 2.

What has been remarked concerning the martyrdom of those slain in the years 614 and 628, applies also to the eight persecutions just mentioned; hence, see the above mentioned notice.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS TOUCHING THE ABOVE MENTIONED MARTYRS.

Here we are compelled to leave our account of the martyrs of this century, since the ancient writers have left us no further information respecting this matter; at least we have not found anything more that would shed light on the subject. However, it will be sufficient for the defense of the cross-bearing church of the Anabaptists and defenseless Christians; for, though among the great number of martyrs that have been noticed by us there are found but few open professors of the faith, but this diminishes neither the respectability nor the verity of said cross-bearing church; since already in our account of baptism throughout this century various, yea, many, professors of said faith have been presented, to prevent and oppose whom divers means were frequently resorted to. See the account of baptism for the years 610, 682, 699, etc.

Moreover, it seems hardly possible that all those who were, in such great numbers, it appears, designated Anabaptists, in the fifth century, and against whom bloody decrees were ordained, A. D. 413, should all have been slain and exterminated so that none were left remaining. This, we say, seems hardly possible, since even in the severest persecutions the persecuted, especially if their number is great, cannot be spied out so closely as to make it impossible for any to escape, or that not one or the other will be able to conceal himself. This being the case, those remaining (for it can scarcely be otherwise) allowed the living faith which was in them, to manifest and work out its power, in order to implant in the people of that age, but especially, in their children and descendants, the belief and doctrine which they themselves professed, and for the sake of which they had imperiled their lives, escaping death however, through the grace of God.

It certainly appears that in the following (sixth) century there were again people of such belief and doctrine; and not only that, but such as to honor Christ their Savior, did not hesitate, as true martyrs, to pour out their blood like water. Concerning this, both with respect to the confession and the martyrdom, our observations on the sixth century may be referred.

Is it a matter of surprise, then, that we hold it for certain, that the seventh century also was not destitute of persons who, having professed a good confession of faith, had to taste death thereupon? Certainly, we have no reason to doubt it; or the ancients must not have well instructed their cotemporaries and descendants, or there must have been no persecutions in this century. As regards the former, the very nature of love will lead us to believe otherwise; while the latter has already been sufficiently refuted, seeing we have shown that various persecutions occurred during that time. We will now conclude, since our object has been sufficiently explained above; besides, many of the confessors and martyrs noted for this century, will bear testimony to it.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY.

[The example of Lutgerus (adduced in the last year of the preceding century) is rehearsed, by way of introduction, in the beginning of this; to which is added an account of Herinigild, who was baptized by Leander, after previous instruction:

Germanus, a father at Constantinople, states that it was customary to make confession of sins before baptism.

Bede the presbyter treats of the baptism of the apostles; of the baptism of the Angles who were baptized in the Rhine and Swalbe; of the catechumens, to whom, before baptism, the confession of faith was delivered; of four things which do not apply to infant baptism; of Paulinus, the teacher at York, and how he baptized Eadfrid and Offrid, the sons of Edwin; that there can be no baptism without water and the word; that all believers must be baptized; that the bread of the holy Supper is a figure of the body of Christ; which latter is further explained in the margin.

Amalarius Fortunatus states that the newly planted or, newly baptized, Christians were led to the church for eight days; he admonishes the candidates to fast for several days before baptism; and, in the margin, it is stated that he taught against transubstantiation, etc.

The views of Antharitis, who refused baptism to the infants of the Christians, are presented.

Of some among the Romanists, who held that fasting, reading, and praying must be connected with baptism; that the teachers should first baptize the men, and then the women; what prayer should be spoken over the men and women to be baptized; that the baptized must kneel down and pray to God, etc.

Wittikind becomes a catechumen, is instructed in the faith, and then baptized together with Albion.

The baptism of the son of Carloman, and of his daughter Gisla; what we think of it.

Albinus requires faith at baptism, that is, that baptism must be received with faith; he also says that with baptism there are connected three visible and three invisible things; of which the visible are: 1. the body of the candidate; 2. the baptizer; 3. the water; and the invisible are: 1. the soul; 2. faith; 3. the Spirit of God; that baptism without the invocation of the holy Trinity is void; that not only the creed, but also the Lord’s prayer was said at baptism; that examination in the faith took place at baptism; which custom, however, according to Vicecomes, was abolished after infant baptism came into vogue; that the factitious practices of the papists commenced when baptism ceased to be administered to adults. Thereupon follows the opinion of Jacob Mehrning, that about the year 800, infant baptism was doubtful and hung by a thread.

Seb. Franck quotes the statement of Beatus Rhenanus (from Turtullian), saying that according to the usage of the ancients, the adults were baptized with the washing of regeneration; which is also confirmed by the testimony of Polydorus.

The conclusion taken from P. J. Twisck, is to the effect, that the ancient custom of baptizing adult, believing and penitent persons, seems to have still obtained in some measure, even with the general church. Conclusion for this century.]

* * * * *

As in winter the sun does not always, but only at times, send down his bright beams upon the earth, even though he has risen above the horizon, and even reached the meridian, so it was also in the eighth century, with the true faith, and the baptism which is administered upon faith. For although the light of the holy Gospel had at that time risen in the hearts of many pious persons, so that they apprehended the faith, and, in token of it, were baptized thereupon, yet, there were but few who exhibited to mankind, by their writings, the bright splendor of the evangelical truth; at least this is true, that but very little has come down to the present generation. Nevertheless, we have met with enough to prove that this dark age also was not entirely destitute of persons who shone forth as flaming torches in the midnight of papal error, and shed abroad the radiance of God’s truth, especially in the matter of baptism. To prove this will not be difficult for us; hence we begin.

A. D. 701.--For the last year of the preceding century, that is, for A. D. 700, we showed that Lutgerus and Libuga, two Christian parents, left their son Lutgerus unbaptized till he, having accepted the faith, was baptized of his own accord. This occurred in France, at the time referred to, and it is also stated that the same year, in Spain, Herinigild, having attained to the faith through the instruction of Leander, was baptized; besides various other persons, both before and at that time, as the chronicles show.

From this it clearly follows that the people who held this belief must have existed also in the beginning of this century, since a religion that has once obtained a footing, cannot well be abolished in a year or two, especially if it is spread over different countries, and is zealously advocated, which latter, as has been shown, the true believers did. Hence we shall proceed to the persons who held this belief and whose names are mentioned in this century.

A. D. 716.--Bapt. Hist., page 534, D. Vicecomes (lib. 3, cap. 5), quotes from Germanus, a father at Constantinople, who lived in the time of Leo Isauricus, that it was still customary then, to make confession of sins before baptism.

He speaks here of a general custom observed at that time in the East, in the Greek churches; which custom consisted in this, that confession of sins was made before baptism; which, as every one can judge, could not be done by infants, but only by adult persons.

If any one should object here, that this related only to the intelligent, but that infants were baptized, though they did not make such confession, we reply that this does not appear at all, nay, that the contrary follows clearly, since the custom spoken of was a general one, binding for all who were to be baptized; and as infants could not follow this custom, it is incontrovertible, that they were not admitted to the baptism which required it.

From A. D. 724 to 736.--At this time there was conspicuous in the kingdom of England, Bede,[129] surnamed the Presbyter, who, having at one time maintained the Roman superstitions, and among these, infant baptism, now openly declared to hold different views in many points. Touching baptism, he is stated to have declared the following (Bapt. Hist., page 532, on Acts 19): “All who came to the apostles to be baptized, were first instructed and taught by them; and having been instructed and taught concerning baptism, they were baptized, by virtue of the apostolic office.” Compare with Mark 16:16.

[129] Venerable Bede.--Transl.

Page 533, D. Vicecomes (lib. 1, cap. 5) quotes the following testimonies from Bede. He writes: “Bede says that the Angles were baptized in the Rhine and in the Swalbe.” Regarding the manner, compare this with Matt. 3:6: “And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” Again: “And John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came and were baptized” John 3:23. This mode of baptism, as we have shown elsewhere, was not administered to infants, but only to adult and intelligent persons; nay, it is shown there, that this could not be otherwise.

Bede, in his exposition on the book of Esdras (D. Vicecomes, lib. 2, cap. 3), writes, “To the hearers of the new life (that is, the catechumens) we deliver the confession of faith as laid down by the twelve apostles.”

From the circumstance mentioned here, that the confession of faith was delivered to the catechumens, namely, that they might learn it, and be baptized thereupon, it appears that at the time and place of which he speaks, no such haste was made to have infants baptized, as had been done previously, and as was also done subsequently, by those of the Roman church. For these catechumens were certainly not baptized in their infancy, or presented for baptism by their parents; but, in order to be truly baptized, they first learned the catechism, which was the instruction in the faith of the Christians in those times; and in order that they might be perfectly instructed therein, the whole confession of faith was delivered to them, before they were baptized.

Bede (lib. 3, cap. 3), on Hebr. 6, further says: “The separation from the Egyptians signifies the separation from sin, which those who are to be baptized (must) profess ... as Saint Peter has said, Acts 2: ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord;’ as though he would say: Depart from Egypt; go through the Red Sea. Moreover, in the epistle to the Hebrews, there is mentioned before baptism, repentance from dead works; but what else is repentance from dead works, than a being slain unto sin, that we may live unto God in holiness?” Here four things are mentioned which do not apply to the baptism of infants. 1. The separation from sin, which those who were to be baptized, must confess. 2. Peter’s exhortation, Acts 2: “Repent,” etc., which was not spoken to infants, but to intelligent, penitent sinners. 3. The passage of Paul, from the epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 6, verse 2, where before baptism repentance from dead works is mentioned. 4. Bede’s exposition of said passage: “What is repentance from dead works, but a dying unto sin, that we may live unto God in holiness?”

I feel confident that even our opponents will concur with us in saying that the conditions which Bede here joins to baptism, do not relate to infants, and, hence, cannot be applied to the baptism of infants.

Bede (in lib. 2, Hist. Anglic.), writes of Paulinus, the teacher at York: He preached the word of God from that time on for six years, and there believed and were baptized as many as were ordained (or destined) to eternal life, etc.; among whom there were Offrid and Eadfrid, the sons of King Edwin, who were both born to him in the misery of his exile, and were both taken out of this life while yet in their white garments.”

This is a noble example of Paulinus, who preached the word of God to the people, before he baptized them; nor is it less remarkable, that those who believed were baptized, and that the sons of Edwin, though exiles, yet the scions of a great race, having accepted the faith, humbled themselves to baptism. It was to be lamented, however, that these two youths, who might long have been lights and ensamples in the church, were taken out of this life so suddenly, even while they yet had on their white garments, which it was customary to wear immediately after baptism, as a sign of purity.

In the mean time we must rejoice that even in those benighted times, so much light of the faith shone forth, that not only some of the common people, but also the children of the great were enlightened by it, so that they willingly bowed themselves under the yoke of Christ, through baptism.

Bede, on John 4, says: “Take away the water, and there is no baptism; take away the word of God, and there is also no baptism.” Bapt. Hist., p. 505.

By this he indicates that the water cannot be separated from the word, neither the word from the water; that is, that the doctrine cannot stand without baptism, and baptism not without the doctrine; thus his meaning is, that both doctrine and baptism must go together. But how this applies to infant baptism, in which the word is separated from the water, or the doctrine from the baptism, any one that has understanding can judge.

That all believers must be baptized, Bede teaches in his exposition of Job 1: “Through the obedience of faith all believers must come to baptism,” and on chap. 2 he says: “No one is worthy to enter into the kingdom of God, unless he is born again of water and of the Spirit.”

In the first sentence he indicates that the believers must come to baptism; of others he makes no mention; even as Philip said to the Ethiopian: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” Acts 8:37.

In the second sentence he speaks of the regeneration of water and of the Spirit; concerning which Christ spoke to Nicodemus, who was not an infant, but a man of years, yea, a master in Israel. John 3:1,10. Hence, it can or should be sufficiently understood, what kind of a baptism it is of which he speaks in said place, namely, such a baptism as belongs not to children, but to the reasonable and regenerated.

That which is adduced, in lib. 4, Cantic., of his belief respecting the faith of children, we do not accept as his work, but as the production of some one who chose to publish it under his name; because, in the first place, its tenor throughout does not accord with the style of his writing; and in the second place, because we know neither the writer nor the authenticity of said work.

We will conclude this subject with the account given by P. J. Twisck, in his Chronijk., 8th book, page 254, col. 2: “Bede, formerly a learned priest[130] and monk in England, died this year, A. D. 736 (Merula says A. D. 734), aged 70 years. He wrote many good books, as history testifies. He says: “All who came to the apostles to be baptized, were instructed and taught by them, and having been instructed and taught concerning the sacrament of baptism, they accepted the holy administration of baptism.” On Acts 19, Histor. Vinc., lib. 24, Leonh., lib. 2, Grond. Bewijs., letter A.

[130] In what Bede’s priesthood or monkhood consisted, is not expressed; hence nothing can be concluded regarding it.

Again: He calls the Lord’s bread a sacrament and figure of the body and blood of Christ, and says: “Since bread sustains the body, and wine makes blood, Christ has compared the bread to his body, and the wine to his blood.”[131] From Seb. Franck, fol. 65.

[131] He calls the bread of the Supper a figure, which does not accord well with the priesthood or monkhood.

Thus Bede declared against the Pope and the Roman church, and, as can be inferred, in favor of the belief of the Anabaptists, not only in the matter of baptism, but also in regard to the holy Supper, and other points, which we have not mentioned.

NOTE.--A. D. 732. Bede taught at this time, that Christ instituted a sacrament as a memorial of redemption. On Luke 22.

Isidore explained the words of Christ: “Thou art Peter,” etc., thus: “Upon this rock which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. For that rock,” he says, “was Christ, upon which foundation also Peter was built.” Lib. 7, Etim., cap. 9, Samuel Veltius, Geslacht-register, page 126.

About A. D. 760.--D. Vicecomes (lib. 1, cap. 35, Bapt. Hist., page 523), records that Amalarius Fortunatus,[132] a learned man of this period, writes the following concerning the newly-baptized Christians: “Our newly-planted Christians are led to the church for eight days, by their leaders.”

[132] The life of Amalarius Fortunatus is described in history shortly after the middle of the eighth century, or about A. D. 760, though P. J. Twisck refers him to the year 836, the time of Ludovicus Pius, which is 76 years later; however, both may be true, if Amalarius wrote from his youth to old age, which may easily have been the case. As regards his belief, Twisck gives this account: “Amalarius Fortunatus, at this time, in the reign of Ludovicus Pius, wrote several excellent treatises against transubstantiation and the corporeal presence of the body of Christ, of the internal sacrifice of believers, and other fine things, as can be seen in Catal. Test., fol. 161, P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 285, col. 1.

This, as every one knows, can not be done with or by infants. Continuing, Vicecomes (lib. 3, cap. 6 and 7) writes what advice Amalarius Fortunatus gave to those who wished to be baptized, saying: “He that desires to be baptized, must fast for several days previous to it, according to the example of Cornelius, who, in order to receive baptism worthily, prayed at the ninth hour, and fasted in his house.”

He does not speak of such candidates as had no knowledge, and to whom baptism was administered without their knowing and wishing it, but of such as had come to knowledge, and desired to be baptized. Hence his words are: “He that desires to be baptized.”

The example of Cornelius, adduced by him in order to teach the candidates to fast and pray before baptism, confirms our preceding view, namely, that he is not treating of infants, but of intelligent persons.

Amalarius (lib. 1, de Offic. Eccles., Vicecomes, lib. 3, cap. 14, page 524), writes: “The second meeting of the catechumens takes place four weeks from the time of fasting; then, on the fourth day of said week is held the third examination; they are then instructed in the beginning of the four evangelists, and receive on that day the Lord’s Prayer and the apostles’ creed, which they recite (or profess) on holy Easter Eve.

Concerning what is related between, and which we have not noticed, namely, how the teacher would touch the ear of the novices with his finger, this we leave as it is, neither commending nor condemning it, seeing it is of small importance. In the mean time, it is gratifying to us, that the novices were then examined in the faith before baptism, which is a proof that the example of the first church, yea, of the holy apostles, was still followed. See Acts 8:35,36,37.

Besides the above, D. Vicecomes (lib. 5, cap. 39) quotes the following from Amalarius: “On holy Easter and Whitsuntide, the church (of God) has always been want to gather unto God new members, through baptism, and we justly rejoice over their salvation, since the white garments worn by them indicate the brightness of their purified minds.” Bapt. Hist. page 524.

As regards the custom of baptizing on Easter and Whitsuntide, and the white garments then put on the candidates, an explanation has been given elsewhere, namely, that this was done to none but believers. With this we leave the testimony of Amalarius Fortunatus.

NOTE.--It is stated that about the same time there lived an eminent man and defender of the Christian religion, named Antharitis, who, however, was opposed to the Roman church, and particularly to the baptism of infants, holding the opinion that they should not be baptized; on account of which it was reported of him that he rejected baptism entirely; or, at least, that he said, no baptism should be taught; which is to be understood of the baptism administered to infants. Concerning this, I find this annotation: “Gregory, in the Register of the Longobards, writes that Antharitis refused baptism to the children of Christians.” Seb. Franck, Chron., Rom. Kett., fol. 74, col. 2.

About A. D. 768.--We find that at this time even among some of the Romanists, instruction in the faith was practiced before baptism, so that to this end they established certain rules, by which infant baptism was weakened not a little, and baptism upon faith, according to the ordinance of Christ, greatly strengthened. Touching the rules established at said time, the following, among other things, is recorded in Bapt. Hist., page 527, from Vicecom., lib. 1, cap. 26: “On the Sabbath (or Sunday) of holy Whitsuntide they shall all fast, and observe all the divine services, with reading and praying as well as with baptism.” Cap. 27. Those who desire to be baptized, shall come to church (or to the assembly) with their leaders, after the third hour, on the Sunday before Easter. Cap. 29. Here it is taught, how the teachers are to descend to the baptismal water, and how they are to baptize first the men and then the women.

Having noted these things, D. Vicecomes (cap. 6) writes concerning it the following: “The men and the women were separately admitted to the catechism, that is, to the instruction in the faith; first the men, and then the women. Hence, in the ordination (for this purpose) there occurs the prayer: Almighty, eternal God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, behold with gracious eyes these thy servants, whom thou hast made worthy to be called to the first principles of the faith.” A like prayer was pronounced over the women.

A little further on he writes: “When this was done, he (the teacher) went among them, and laid his hands upon their heads, saying: Sing with a loud voice, ‘I believe in one God the Father.’ Turning then to the women, he did the same.”

This, the author says, was done for the sake of discipline and virtue, that these might be implanted together with the doctrine of the faith, in the catechumens; for Christ said to his apostles (Matth. 28): “Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” adding: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

Understanding this to be the best course, the apostle Peter (Acts 2) first enlightened the people by preaching, and taught them to repent of their former wicked life; whereupon those who with eager ears heard the word of God, and had derived profit therefrom, were baptized.

“Would to God,” says the writer who has quoted this, “that the Roman church had continued in the baptismal ordinance of Christ and his holy apostles; never would there have become of it such an absurd infant baptism, and, thence, such a grossly barbarous and ignorant Christendom in Europe.” Bapt. Hist., page 528.

Those who had been baptized thus (that is, upon faith), were then exhorted several times by a deacon, to pray on their bended knees. Bapt. Hist., page 532, ex Ord. Rom., and Amal. Fort.

Who will believe that these persons, who have thus written on baptism, were members of the Roman church? I say nothing of the many other points which they, as can be inferred, maintained in opposition to the common Romanists. Who would not hold it certain, that these people were entirely separated from the papists, who observed the Roman superstitions? Yea, that at the present day they would be declared heretics by the Pope, and, should persecution arise, be placed at stakes and burned alive? as has occurred not long since, yea, recently, to many of our fellow-believers, on account of the same belief, as will appear more fully in the sequel of this history.

We shall, therefore, commit these people to God. Whether they agreed in all other points with the common Anabaptists, we are not able to show; it suffices us that they, though called Romanists, opposed the belief of the common Romanists, and that they approached very near the truth in important points, especially in the article of baptism. With this we will leave them, and proceed to other testimonies.

About A. D. 772.--We quote the following from Bapt. Hist., page 515: “Those who had come to adult years, had to be instructed first in the Christian doctrine, and were then examined before baptism.

“Wittikind became a catechumen, was instructed in the faith, and then baptized with Albion.

“They had to say the creed and the Lord’s Prayer.” Syn. Aug., cap. 2.

“The teachers had to instruct the people, how to renounce (Satan) at baptism, and what to believe.” Syn. Turon., cap. 18.

Page 516: “They had to be tolerably instructed in the doctrine of Christ, and be given to godliness, for (in the council of Arles) it was enjoined upon the leaders to teach them.”

“They used to renounce the devil and his works; which works are--murder, fornication, adultery, drunkenness, and such like; the pomp is pride, presumption, vanity, vain-glory, temerity.” Syn. Tur.

Certainly, these were all wholesome and good rules, approaching very near the apostolical teachings; hence we accept them as good instruction in this iron and corroded age. It is achieving a good deal, if one who stands at the point where many crooked roads meet, takes the right, or, at least, the best one. That these people who observed said rules, were entirely free from error in other points, it is not our intention to maintain. He that walks amidst the darkness of night, can easily miss the way; so also they, living as they must, in the darkness of popery, could easily be misled in this or that point. We let God judge them, being content with this, that through the darkness we have seen the rays of their knowledge and good practice.

A. D. 781.--This is the year which is mentioned by different writers as the one in which the far-famed Carloman, though he had accepted the Christian faith himself, presented his son, who was then several years old, and whom he had up to this time left unbaptized, for baptism, which was administered to him in the city of Rome, on Easter; likewise his daughter Gisla, of whom it is stated that she was baptized the same year, at Milan, by the Bishop or teacher Thomas. Bapt. Hist., page 523, H. Montan. Nietigh., pages 80, 81, from Centur. 9, Magdeb., cap. 4, Annal. Francor. Regino., lib. 2, Adon. Aetate, 6.

From this manner of proceeding it appears, that at this time no such reasoning obtained, as was afterwards, and had also previously been, resorted to by those of the Roman church, who commanded parents, on peril of their salvation, yea, on pain of damnation, to have their children baptized. But those who took a proper view of the matter, and esteemed the command of Christ more than the decrees and statutes of men, did not allow themselves to be intimidated by these threats, but deferred the baptism of their children, till they, having grown up, accepted the faith, and themselves desired to be baptized thereupon.

We say nothing respecting Carloman, the father here spoken of, neither of him who baptized his son, and would conclude neither this nor that touching their life and faith; we simply commend their action in this matter; on the one hand, that the father, though he had professed Christ, and was called a member of the church, left his son and daughter unbaptized, as an evidence that he considered infant baptism (as a human invention) useless; on the other hand, that those who baptized them, did not censure this course, but rather assented to and confirmed it with the deed, which is the more evident from the fact that the ordinance was administered with great pleasure, yea, joy, as history tells us.

About A. D. 792.--Albinus teaches on John 1 (Bapt. Hist., page 505), that baptism is to be received with faith. He writes: “It is aptly said that the forerunner of our Lord baptized in Bethabara; for Bethabara signifies a house of obedience, that they should all, through the obedience of faith, come to the baptism of Christ.”

This Albinus, surnamed Flaccus, was a remarkably learned and beloved man of that age, but nevertheless called ignorant, and hated, by his adversaries. In his confession he was greatly opposed to the common belief of the Roman church, especially in the matter of baptism. In baptism he required faith, regeneration, and newness of life, declaring that these were the means to receive it worthily; which things, though highly spoken of with the mouth, yet in infant baptism are practically ignored.

In the defense of his belief he was bold, regarding, it seems, neither the hatred nor the favor of the people, so that, besides what we have just mentioned, he left various excellent things concerning the baptism of adults; of which we will present a few instances.

On John 15 (page 509) he says: “Why does not the Lord say: Ye are clean because of the baptism in which ye are washed? but says: Through the word which I have spoken unto you. For, take away the word, and what is the water, but water? When the word meets the element, then it becomes a sacrament. Whence derives the water the power, that, though it wets the body, the soul is purified, if the word does not effect this? But this is not effected, because it is spoken, but because it is believed.

In baptism there are three visible things: 1. the body (of the one baptized), 2. the water, 3. the teacher; and three invisible things: 1. the soul, 2. faith, 3. the Spirit of God.”

We can almost see with our eyes, and feel with our hands, that this man here intended to oppose the belief of the common Romanists. He makes use of two special arguments, with which he sufficiently denies, yea, refutes, the Roman infant baptism. His first argument opposes the belief of those who were wont to tie salvation to the elementary water of baptism, and, consequently, to save them, as it were, baptized the infants; in opposition to which he averred that the element of water without the word of God is merely an element, and no sacrament; but that the water becomes a sacrament through the word of God, not because the latter is spoken, but because it is believed. And thus he removes with his first argument also another error of the Romanists, who imagined that in baptism, through the saying of a few words, the water was consecrated and made a means of salvation; which he refutes, however, by the declaration that the consecration is not effected by the speaking of the word, but because it is believed.

If then, in baptism, the water is ineffectual without the word, and the word has no virtue unless it is believed, as Albinus declares, he flatly opposes infant baptism, since there the water only is used, without the instructing word, and without the latter being believed by the infants.

His second argument is a sufficient refutation of those who administered baptism to infants, without regard as to whether they had intelligent minds, true faith, and the fruits of God’s Spirit, or not; for, this belief he opposes when he says that in baptism there must be not only three visible things, 1. the body, 2. the water, 3. the teacher, but also three invisible things, 1. the soul [mind], (that is, an intelligent soul, for otherwise the soul cannot properly be so called); 2. faith (that is, that which consists in a sure confidence, for this is peculiar to true faith, Hebr. 11:1); 3. the Spirit of God (that is, that which is fruitful in virtues), for the Spirit of God is known by its fruits, Gal. 5:22. But who has ever been found that was able to discover such works of the soul, of faith, and of the Spirit, in infants? without which, indeed, baptism has no virtue, as conclusively follows from the arguments of Albinus, which are in accordance with the teachings of the holy word of God. How this harmonizes with infant baptism, the impartial may judge.

Of regeneration, Albinus, in the 7th penitential psalm (page 510), says: “Thou art my God; thou hast created me. I can be re-created by no one but thee, by whom I have been created. Thou hast created me by thy Word, which, O God, abideth with thee. Thou createst me again by the Word, which has become flesh for our sakes.”

The Romanists were accustomed sometimes to call baptism, by which they meant infant baptism, a regeneration, without respect to newness of life, merely on account of the water, which, with the speaking of a few words, was administered to the infants. But Albinus here declares that as he was created by the word, even so he is re-created and regenerated by the word. He says nothing at all about the water; not to depreciate the outward administration of water baptism, but to show that recreation or regeneration does not lie in it; for, that the same must be effected by the word, whereupon the administration of water baptism follows, as a sign of it, seems to be the burden of his whole argument.

Moreover, it is also deserving of notice, that in the above passage, touching the incarnation of Jesus Christ, he says, that the Word (namely, by which all things were made) became flesh for our sakes, which accords with our confession, and also agrees with John 1:14.

Albinus (lib. 3, de Trin., cap. 17, page 512) says: “We are not to believe that he (Christ) then received the gifts of the Holy Ghost; he who from his birth was always full of the Holy Ghost; but that the mystery of the Holy Trinity might be declared unto us in baptism, the Son of God was baptized, being a man; the Holy Spirit descended as a dove; God the Father was heard in a voice, without the invocation of which, no baptism can avail anything. Therefore, the Son of God wished to signify by his own baptism, that the whole Trinity was present; who commanded the stewards of his mysteries (the apostles): “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Again: Why did the Lord have himself baptized? Namely, that no one, though he might possess great gifts and power, should despise to be baptized.

He makes use here of three modes of speaking which are incompatible with infant baptism. First, when he says that without the invocation of the holy Trinity no baptism can avail anything; for, who knows not that infants cannot invoke the Holy Trinity? Secondly, when he adduces, as a foundation of baptism, the command of Christ: “Teach all nations, baptizing them,” etc.; for there teaching and baptizing are joined together, which, as even some pedobaptists declare, is inapplicable to infants. Thirdly, when he shows why the Lord had himself baptized? Namely, that no one, though he might possess great gifts and power, should despise to be baptized. For, that this also cannot be understood of infants, even nature teaches; since they have no great gifts or power, and, consequently, can neither rely upon them nor despise baptism.

D. Vicecomes (lib. 1, cap. 32, page 535) quotes the following from Albinus Flaccus: “At baptism, on holy Easter-day, the catechumens (the novices who have been instructed in the faith), if they desire baptism, recite the Lord’s Prayer and the creed from memory.”

This is certainly clear testimony of the custom of the believers of that age, from which it is evident, that their children and novices had to know the Lord’s Prayer and the creed, yea, had to recite it from memory, and must themselves desire baptism, before they were baptized. Who would say that new-born infants can do this? Moreover, it was not only required, to recite the Lord’s Prayer and the creed from memory, but also to give reason for it, and this not only once, but several times, on different days appointed for this purpose, in the weeks before Easter and Whitsuntide, as shown above, to which we refer the reader. See also, G. Durand., lib. 6. Ration. Div. Offic. de 4. Feria Hebel. 4. Quadrag, etc.

Page 536. Vicecomes (lib. 3, cap. 21), says: “He (Albinus) also makes mention of the examinations (in the faith) of the elect, that is, those chosen to be baptized, tracing them down from the times of the apostles.” Cap. 22, he says: “Then took place the examinations (in the faith), in order that it might be ascertained with greater certainty, whether, after the renunciation of Satan, the word of God and the faith promised to it, had taken deep root in the heart.” Cap. 26: “Albinus Flaccus, in the chapter on baptism, writes: ‘For the baptism of the elect, who are examined (in the faith), according to the rule of the apostles, consecrated by fasting, and instructed by diligent preaching, two seasons are set apart, Easter and Whitsuntide.’”

To this, D. Vicecomes adds this comment: “If these examinations were held according to the rules of the apostles, they must needs have been observed by all; but subsequently, when infant baptism came into vogue, this necessary practice was abolished (or discontinued) by the church, A. D. 860, in the reign of the Emperors Louis the Pious and Lothaire; of which abundant proof exists.”

What do you think, beloved reader, of this last testimony? to say nothing of the testimonies of Albinus Flaccus. This Vicecomes was a pedobaptist and strenuous maintainer of pedobaptism; yet he states that the necessary (yea, apostolical) practice of examinations (in the faith) was abolished or discontinued when infant baptism came into vogue; he also indicates the time when this occurred, namely, A. D. 860. As to how he came at this, we leave to him to answer.

In the meantime, this is also quite a refutation of those who fix the origin of infant baptism very early, indeed according to some, in the time of the apostles. However, that infant baptism, together with many other superstitions, originated soon after the death of the apostles, they can, in some measure substantiate; but that it wavered in the Roman church, for many centuries, till the year 900, yea, almost 1000, being now established, then abolished, adopted in one place, and rejected in another, etc., appears sufficiently from the books in which we have read the same.

We confine ourselves to the time of Albinus Flaccus, who lived about A. D. 792, when this intrusion was already rapidly gaining ground, which also D. Vicecomes has seen, for, when he mentions the chrism in baptism, and some other factitious practices of the papists, he adds that it is his opinion that all this did not begin until after the time of Albinus Flaccus, when they ceased to baptize adults. Lib. 5, cap. 5 and 19.

I cannot forbear adding here the verdict of Jacob Mehrning, who, immediately after noting the preceding passages from D. Vicecomes, writes: “Thus we see from the history of this time, that infant baptism hung yet as by a thread between both, being received by some, and rejected by others, which is a strong proof that it is not apostolical, much less instituted by Christ himself. But what immeasurable damage to souls, and what grossly barbarous ignorance in Christendom, the introduction of this absurd infant baptism has brought about, many intelligent persons, even in that age, were able to discern. Bapt. Hist., page 537.

A. D. 800.--Various writers state that at this time, the last year of the eighth century, infant baptism, although those of the Roman church in general stoutly adhered to it, was nevertheless not practiced, yea, positively rejected by many, insomuch that they observed the very ancient custom mentioned by us in different preceding centuries, of baptizing only adults, on Easter and Whitsuntide.

Sebastian Franck, writing of this time and custom, and having referred to Tertullian’s book, De Corona Militis, says: “Respecting this passage, Beatus Rhenanus notes that it was the custom of the ancients, to baptize and wash adults with the washing of regeneration; which custom was observed till the time of Charlemagne and the Emperor Louis, A. D. 800.” Chron. Rom. Kett., page 123, col. 2.

P. J. Twisck gives the following account for the year 800: “The ancient custom was, to baptize adults with the washing of regeneration, which was observed till the time of the Emperors Charlemagne and Louis. This is shown by the laws established by them, in which the priests (that is, the teachers) were prohibited from baptizing at any other time than Easter and Whitsuntide, except where death was imminent.” Again: “It was the custom of the ancients (Polydorus says), to baptize mostly adults, and to put a white garment on them after baptism. This was done at Easter and Whitsuntide; in the meantime, before these feasts, those to be baptized were instructed in the mystery of the faith, and were called catechumens, that is, such as are being instructed; for, when they had apprehended the mystery, they were baptized.” Chron., 8th book, page 271, col. 2, from Polydor. de Inventoribus rerum, lib. 4. Beatus Rhenanus in Annat. super., Tertull., Grond. Bewijs, letter B., Chron. Seb. Franck., Thom. Imbr., fol. 26.

Although this century, in the beginning, seemed to be doomed to darkness, as regards the true doctrine, especially with reference to the matter of baptism upon faith, yet the sun of truth rose to a considerable altitude, so that his beams shone out in every direction, illuminating the face, that is, the people, of the earth. For not only the separate Christian communities, but even many of those who still adhered to the Roman church, observed baptism, to say nothing of different other articles, according to the original Christian and apostolical custom.

P. J. Twisck, in the conclusion of the eighth century, though greatly deploring the manifold human inventions which were then increasing in the Roman church, through the power of the Pope and of the councils, declares nevertheless that the baptism of adults still obtained in some measure among them; his words are: “The ancient custom of baptizing adult believers and penitents appears still to exist in some measure in the church.”[133] Page 274.

[133] This appears also quite clearly from the example of Charlemagne, who, about the year 781, had his son Carloman, who was then several years old, baptized by Pope Adrian I., at Rome, on the feast of Easter. His daughter Gisla was also baptized the same year, at Milan, by Bishop Thomas. H. Montanus refers this to the year 781, but others, to A. D. 800.

From this we can judge how much more this practice must have flourished among those who entirely free themselves from the Roman superstitions, and who had fled as from Babel,--I mean the members of the true Christian church, who had to hide themselves as doves before the eagle, as shall be shown. With this we will conclude our account of baptism in the eighth century.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE EIGHTH CENTURY.

[We commence with a certain severe persecution of the Christians in the East, instituted by Haumar, King of the Saracens, about A. D. 718.

Thereupon follows a note concerning said persecution; it is related that those of the East had long before separated from those of the West (that is, from the Roman church); mention is also made of the Thessalonian churches, which, from the time of the apostles, are said to have continued unchanged in religion; from which it is concluded that apparently also some of these true believers were put to death for the true faith, in said eastern persecution.

A very brief account of the great cruelty exercised by Elvelid, the Mohammedan, A. D. 739, against all Christian prisoners in the eastern countries, whom without mercy, he caused to be put to death, because of the Christian worship; upon which follows a note containing more particulars, and some explanation with regard to Eutichius, Peter of Damascus, Peter Mavimenus, and others, who were put to death for the Gospel, in the East, particularly at Damascus.

Derthuin, Bertherius, Anobert, Hunored, and others, oppose the superstitions of Boniface, the papal Legate; whereupon they are deposed from their ministry, about A. D. 748.

Albert of Gaul, and Clement of Scotland, follow the aforementioned persons, and reprove Boniface for introducing his superstitions; then it is related, of each separately, what happened on this account to Albert and Clement; and how they died, according to the most reliable testimony, about A. D. 748; a discrepancy among authors as to the time of their death; how the discrepancy can be reconciled.

Two followers of the aforementioned martyrs, Samson and Sydonius, as well as some others, whose names are not mentioned, maintain their doctrine against the papists, especially against Boniface, the aforementioned papal legate; but whether for this they were martyred or put to death, is not stated. A circumstantial account of a severe and lamentable persecution instituted by Mady, King of the Arabians, against the Christian believers in the East, about A. D. 780.

A note touching said persecution, as well as how the Arabians proceeded in persecuting the Christians in other places; also, what might be adduced, as regards the matter of martyrization, from our account of baptism in this century. Conclusion.]

SEVERE PERSECUTION IN THE EAST, ABOUT A. D. 718.

There was now considerable tranquillity in the western countries, but in the East commotions began to arise; for about the year 718, Haumar,[134] King of the Saracens, issued bloody decrees for the persecution of the Christians. He prohibited wine, according to the laws of Mohammed, which, however, did not matter much; but the most grievous of all was this: he endeavored to compel the Christians to apostatize and deny Christ; he promised exemption from tribute and taxes to those who, forsaking Christ, should adhere to Mohammed; on the other hand, he threatened to punish with death, all those who should cling steadfastly to Christ. In the meantime he oppressed them with intolerable burdens, and deprived some of life, by various torments.[135]

[134] Paul Diac., lib. 21. Hist. Rom. in Leone Isauro, compared with Abr. Mell. Hist., fol. 305, col. 2.

[135] In the year 720, the Saracens or Arabians came over into Spain, where they sorely persecuted and martyred many pious Christians. Sigibert. Chron. Tudensis. Also, Abr. Mell., fol. 328, col. 1. However, from this we would conclude neither the one nor the other.

He also made a law that the testimony of a Christian should not be valid, nor be accepted against a Saracen. In short, it is stated that by virtue of said decrees, many of the innocent and defenseless Christians became martyrs; but in default of faithful historians of that time, the names of said martyrs have not come down to us, save a few, as shall appear.

NOTE.--Above all, it must be observed in this account of the eastern martyrs, that, as far as regards open churches or communities, those of the East had long before separated from those of the West, that is, from the Roman church, because they would not be subject to the power and dominion of the Pope of Rome, who, already, A. D. 606, had been declared head of all the churches; but as such they would by no means recognize or accept him. This separation, in the course of time, assumed such proportions, that, as far as we know, they have not united again even to the present day.

Moreover, it is established by different writers, that, besides said separated churches, called the Greek, there are other churches in the East, principally in the region of Thessalonica, who are agreed in all respects with the Anabaptists of the present day, and have maintained such faith and practice uninterruptedly from the time of the apostles; of this, however, we shall speak more fully in the sixteenth century, in connection with baptism.

This being the case, it would not be surprising, if in said persecution of the Christians in the East, not only this or that single person, but, what is more, very many true believers were martyred and put to death for the true faith in Jesus Christ, and the sincere practice of the precepts of the Gospel. Nevertheless, we can tell no more than what the ancient writers have left us, and shall, therefore, proceed accordingly, adding, whenever we think it necessary, our own opinion in the margin or in a note.

THE GREAT CRUELTY OF ELVELID, THE MOHAM-MEDAN, TOWARDS ALL CHRISTIAN PRISONERS, WHOM HE, WITHOUT MERCY, CAUSED TO BE PUT TO DEATH, ON ACCOUNT OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, A. D. 739.

It is stated that A. D. 739, in the 23d year of Leo Isaurus, the Mohammedan Prince Elvelid caused all the imprisoned Christians in every city to be put to death, on account of the Christian religion. Among them is mentioned one Eutichius, who was carried away to Karras, in Mesopotamia, and, at the time when said slaughter and martyrization of all imprisoned Christian believers occurred, offered up, because of the same faith and testimony, for his Savior Jesus. Compare Paul. Diac., lib. 21, with A. Mellinus, 2d book, fol. 305, col. 2, 3.

NOTE.--Of said Eutichius we find no further account, touching the confession of his faith, save that, when the other martyrs were put to death, he, too, was offered up for Christ; which must also be understood of various others. See the abovementioned authors, compared with what we have stated in the beginning of this century.

We will say nothing of Peter, Bishop of the church of Damascus, Peter Mavimenus, and others, who, at this time, were also put to death in the East, particularly at Damascus, for the testimony of the Lord Jesus, about the year 742; since the ancient writers have left us no definite information respecting their particular confession of faith, only a general statement, namely, that they suffered for Christ, and for the Christian or evangelical truth.

Hence it has come, that some who boast of Christ and his holy Gospel with their mouths, yet, by their singular expositions, yea, by their deeds and works, are very far therefrom, have nevertheless not hesitated, to claim as of their number, and produce as witnesses for their strange, and, in many respects, unchristian and unevangelical confessions, persons of whom we maintain, because of certain circumstances mentioned by ancient writers, that they believed and lived in perfect accordance with the true tenor of the holy Gospel, and, as a seal of this, testified to this with their blood and steadfast death.

O, how greatly it is to be lamented that the ancients have not left us more definite and clear information with regard to this! We feel confident, that it would still refresh many a well-meaning heart, and serve to confirm their faith, if they should see that in those early, and not less turbulent times, many of their fellow brethren and sisters had such love for Christ, their beloved blood-bridegroom, and for his heavenly doctrine (which they confess with them), that they did not hesitate, the one in the fire, another in the water, some under the teeth and claws of wild beasts, others under the sword, the deadly halter, or otherwise, to bear testimony to it.

But we hope that in the right place, and throughout, we have given as much information and explanation in regard to it, as will satisfy a true Christian and well-meaning soul. All things cannot be discussed in one place.

We will here leave this, and proceed from the East, of which we have hitherto spoken, to the West, where now we think we can find clearer information concerning several special points of the faith, namely, of such persons as did not suffer under the heathen, Mohammedans, Saracens, or the like, but under the Pope of Rome, or the Roman church, where it was customary to condemn people on some particular articles of worship. But before we proceed to the martyrs who were punished as criminals and with death, we deem it well, by way of introduction to, and preparation for, this matter, to show first, how this, as by steps, took its rise; namely, how first a few persons, whom we shall name, about this time, opposed a certain papal Legate, with words and censures, for introducing certain superstitions; and what occurred to them, on this account, from the Pope.

OF DERTHUIN, BERTHERIUS, ANOBERT, HUNORED, AND OTHERS, WHO WERE DEPOSED FROM THEIR MINISTRY, BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE SUPERSTITIONS OF THE PAPAL LEGATE, ETC., ABOUT A. D. 748.

A certain Boniface, Archbishop of Mayence, having been sent out, as an apostle, ambassador and legate, by Pope Zacharias I., to convert the heathen to the Roman see (as it was called), and to inoculate to those who already belonged to it, the Roman ceremonies and superstitions, and cause them to observe the same, many bishops, overseers, or teachers, in Germany, Bavaria, and France, opposed it with spiritual weapons, namely, with reproofs from the word of God, refusing to obey in this respect, either the Pope or his Legate.

Among those who thus refused, there are mentioned by name, Derthuin, Bertherius, Anobert, and Hunored. These men were accused to the Pope, and charged not only with said matter, but, from envy, also with being avaricious, proud and desirous of filthy lucre. Thereupon they were all deposed from their ministry, by authority of the Pope and his Legate; but how it ended with them, is not stated, though it is to be presumed that some kind of ecclesiastical exclusion, anathematization or excommunication followed; however, since this is passed by in silence, we can conclude nothing certain concerning it.

In the meantime, there appears, on the one hand, the boldness of said persons in reproving the Roman superstitions, and, on the other hand, the shameless arrogance of the Pope and his legate, in deposing and removing those who, loving the good, could not refrain, according to the doctrine of the word of God, from reproving the evil. See A. Mell., fol. 328, col. 2, compared with Aventin. Annal. Boj., lib. 3.

HOW ALBERT OF GAUL, AND CLEMENT OF SCOTLAND, ALSO OPPOSED THE PAPAL SUPERSTITIONS, ABOUT A. D. 750; ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THEY WERE MARTYRED.

It is stated that about A. D. 750, there lived two very eminent men, Albert, surnamed Gallas, that is, of Gaul or France, and Clement, surnamed Scotus, that is, of Scotland. Both opposed the superstitions of common popery in various points; Albert began first, in some part of France, and was followed by said Clement, who came from Scotland and joined him. In consequence of this, both, yet each separately, had to feel the sting of the Pope, in such a manner as the sequel will show. In order to present this, together with the circumstances pertaining to it, in the most suitable way, we shall treat of each separately, beginning with Albert, since he was the first and principal one in said matter.

ALBERT OF GAUL, FOR OPPOSING THE ROMAN SUPERSTITIONS, CAST INTO PRISON AT FULDA, IN WHICH HE, TO ALL APPEARANCE, PERISHED THROUGH WANT, ABOUT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR 750.

Enlightened by the heavenly radiance of the doctrine of the apostles, Albert, with voice and pen, had again and again reproved the errors and superstitions of the Roman church, asserting, namely, that priests or teachers should not be prohibited from marrying; that the relics, or bones, of the saints ought not to be venerated; that images should not be worshiped or saluted as a religious service, and that the Pope has no right to the primacy (or supremacy) over the church. He condemned the masses for the dead, purgatory, etc., as [human] inventions. Wicelius adds: He rejected as unnecessary and superstitious, ceremonies, the imposition of hands, the making the sign of the cross, confirmation, etc., and, in short, all such things as are practiced in popery for the purpose of confirming infant baptism.

Boniface, the papal Legate, therefore, accused him to the Pope, fabricating and disseminating many slanders, which were spewed out against him as bitter gall. The Pope lost no time, nor sought to delay the matter, but immediately condemned him unheard upon these false accusations; and the abovementioned articles, excommunicated him, and sent the sentence of excommunication to said false accuser, namely, to Boniface, his dear Legate, that the latter should publish it against Albert, throughout France. Hence it is, that the papists number him among the heretics, though they fail to show what heresy it was, for which he was condemned and thus shamefully excommunicated; which matter must be gleaned from other writers, except the testimony quoted above from Wicelius, according to A. M.

Having received said letter containing Albert’s excommunication, from the Pope, Boniface not only caused the same to be published throughout France, and deposed him from his ministry, but also incarcerated him in the monastery at Fulda, in which imprisonment he probably died of hunger, thirst, and divers wants. Compare Wilibald. in vita Bonifacii, Aventin. Annal., lib. 3. Nauc. Gen. 26, vol. 2. Balaeus. Cent. 14, cap. 30, 31, in Append. Epist. Zach. ad Bonif., Tom. 2, Concil Lutsenb. Haigiol. in vita Bon., with A. M., fol. 328, col. 3; also, J. Gys., edition of 1657, fol. 30, col. 2, 3.

FURTHER OBSERVATION, RESPECTING THE TIME OF THE PRECEDING EVENT.

Most ancient writers, it seems, with whom also A. Mellinus agrees, fix the time of the excommunication and martyrdom of said Albert, about A. D. 750. A. M., fol. 329, col. 1. Seb. Franck fixes it ten years earlier, namely, A. D. 740. In Chron. Rom. Kett., fol. 64, col. 2.

However, this discrepancy can easily be reconciled, if a distinction is made between the time when Albert commenced to teach against the Pope and the Roman Church, and the time when he was anathematized by the Pope, and, ultimately, deprived of life in the dungeon at Fulda; for ten years can easily have intervened, and Seb. Franck may therefore have had regard to the time when he began to teach, while the other authors, including Mellinus, may have referred to the time of his death.

Regarding this it appears that John Gysius made a great error, either through incorrect authors, or for some other reason, when he fixes the time of the aforesaid martyr, A. D. 900. See in the margin of the place referred to above.

CLEMENT OF SCOTLAND, A COMPANION OF ALBERT, EXCOMMUNICATED AND THEN BURNED, AS A HERETIC, BY THE ROMANISTS, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENTS, A. D. 750, FOR THE SAME REASON, NAMELY, FOR OPPOSING AND REJECTING THE ROMAN SUPERSTITIONS.

When Clement, having come from Scotland, had joined the aforesaid Albert as a companion, and united with him in regard to doctrine, he not only began, but ceased not, even as the friend whom he had found, to combat with the spiritual armor, and, if possible, to overcome, in an evangelical manner, the Pope and the Roman Church, in various points, touching mostly her ceremonies. Thereupon he was also accused, and put to death in such a manner as in the proper place, we presently hope to show.

The accusations brought against him were of the same nature as those preferred against Albert, his companion; which was not at all strange, since he had placed himself under Albert, not only as a friend and companion, but also as a disciple. For this reason, the Pope, through the accusation of Boniface, the papal Legate, pronounced the same excommunication against him.

But when he presented himself for the purpose of vindicating his conduct in a full synod, Boniface prevented him from taking this course, making the people believe that it were not lawful to admit a heretic who had been excommunicated or excluded from the church, to divine worship, or to a synodal assembly; yea, that such an one should not be permitted to have the benefit (in whatever this might consist) of the laws or ordinances of the church.

Seeing that by this pretense his lips were sealed, making it impossible for him to properly defend himself, he had recourse to his pen and wrote a book concerning this matter, against Boniface.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us