else than to give an account of the true baptism, which Christ and
his apostles taught that it should only be administered upon faith
and repentance for sins; for, when he says: “Those who voluntarily
desire to be baptized again, and who repent of their past sins,” and
adds: “Invoking the name of God, we lead the one to be baptized to the
washing of water,” he certainly says nothing else than what was said to
those baptized by John. Matt. 3:6: “And were baptized of him in Jordan,
confessing their sins,” and what Peter said to the contrite penitents,
who inquired what they must do to be saved. Acts 2:38: “Repent, and
be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the
remission of sins.” The very same idea is expressed here by Justinus,
as is shown.
Further on in the same apology or defense, Justinus writes these words:
“But we, after he who, being convinced, has become of one mind with
us, is thus washed, we lead him to those who are called brethren,
where they are assembled, ardently offering up the common prayers, for
ourselves, for him who is enlightened, and for all other men, wherever
they may be; that we may be worthy to be disciples of the truth leading
indeed a good conversation, and be found observers of that which is
commanded us; in order that we may obtain eternal salvation.” _H. Mont.
Nietighz., page 7, ex Justino._
This is the third citation from Justinus, from which it appears
certainly no more, than from the first two, that he mentions any other
baptism, than that upon faith and repentance. For, when he says:
“After he who, being convinced, has become of one mind with us, is
thus washed, we lead him to those who are called brethren,” he gives
to understand with this, that those who were washed, that is baptized,
must first be convinced, and consent to the doctrine, which agrees
with Christ’s command, Matt. 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach (or,
make disciples of) all nations, baptizing them,” and mark: “Preach the
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved.”[88]
[88] In the year 141, Justinus taught that in matters of controversy
we must judge from the apostolic writings. _In the 119th question._
Also, that the true church of Christ must not be known (is
not distinguished) by the great number of members, but by the
doctrine. _In the answer to the first question._ Also, in the
_Geslacht-register der Roomscher Successie_, second edition, 1649,
_page 114_.
Jacob Mehrning, in his account of baptism in the second century, cites
from the _Centurien van Mægdenborg_ the following words: “The teachers
of the church of that time held, that regeneration was effected through
baptism and the word, to both of which together they ascribed a power,
namely, the forgiveness of sins, which required repentance from
adults.” Many clear testimonies concerning this are found in Justinus.
In the disputation with Tryphon, the Jew, he writes: “Through the
washing of water of repentance (Wasserbad der Busse), and the knowledge
of God, which has been instituted for the forgiveness of the sins of
the people, as Isaiah says, we believe and feel assured, that this is
the blessed baptism, which was proclaimed in former times, and that
this alone can cleanse the penitent, yea, that this is a water of life.”
A little further on he calls baptism a spiritual circumcision
acceptable to the merciful God. And in conclusion he says: “Through
water and faith, the regeneration of the whole human race is effected.”
_Jac. Mehrn., Baptism. Histor., 2d part, on the second century, page
202._
Justinus writes further, in the disputation with Tryphon, the Jew, on
the truth of the Christian religion: “Since we, through Christ, are
converted to the true God, we are sanctified in baptism, and call upon
him as our helper, and call him our Redeemer. Before the power of this
name, Satan himself must fear and tremble.” _Jac. Mehrn., page 203.
Baptism. Hist., 2d Part._
Who does not see clearly from these words of Justinus, in the
disputation with Tryphon, in the first as well as in the second
citation, that he employs such words and phrases as can by no means
be applied otherwise than to the true order of the baptism of Christ
and his apostles, namely, baptism which is accompanied with faith and
repentance? For in the first citation he certainly says expressly,
that baptism is a _washing of water of repentance, and the knowledge
of God_; also, that it alone can cleanse the penitent; and also, that
through water and faith the regeneration of the whole human race is
effected. In the second citation he also plainly says: “Since we,
through Christ, are converted to the true God, we are sanctified in
baptism.” How could any one more clearly indicate the true practice
of baptism, which must take place with conversion to God? And such
baptism, Justinus states here, was practiced in the church of God in
his time. O glorious, holy, and most Christian transaction!
NOTICE CONCERNING THE BOOK “QUÆSTIONUM ET RESPONSIONUM,” THAT IS,
“QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS,” WHICH IS WRONGFULLY ATTRIBUTED TO JUSTINUS.
In the fifty-sixth question and answer of this book some words are
employed from which pedobaptists sometimes are wont to conclude, that
infant baptism was practiced in the days of Justinus. But to this,
various excellent and learned men have replied long since, namely, that
this book was never written by Justinus; to prove which, different
reasons are adduced, as, for instance: That in the answer to the 115th
question mention is made of Irenius, who lived twenty-five years after
Justinus, but is nevertheless cited by the latter in his writings as
his predecessor. Moreover, that in the answer to the twelfth, and
also in that to the eighty-sixth question, Origen is mentioned, who
lived a whole century after Justinus. To this must be added, that
neither Eusebius nor Jerome, both of whom have each compiled a complete
catalogue of all the authentic writings of Justinus, enumerate this
book _Quæstionum_; whereas they mention the Second Defense of the
Christians, and the Disputation with Tryphon, from which we have
adduced in full several citations concerning baptism. Hence the
aforementioned book is justly rejected, as not being the work of
Justinus. See concerning this, _De Centuriator. Magdeub., Cent. 2,
cap. 10, in the account of the life of Justinus_. Also, _Bellarm. in
Tract van de Scribenten der Kerke_. Also, _Jacob Mehrn., Baptism.
Histor., 2nd Part, page 170, 171_. Also, _A. Montan. Nietighz. van den
Kinder-doop, second edition, A. 1648, page 8, 9_.
NOTE.--In 152, Valentinus Romanus was censured as a heretic, because he
believed that the Son of God, _Christus Jesus_, assumed neither a human
nature, nor flesh and blood from the substance of the virgin Mary. _P.
J. Twisck, Chron. for the year 152, 2d Book, page 42, col. 1, from
Herm. Med., fol. 330, Chron. Seb. Fr., 106., Jan. Cresp., fol. 34._
_About the year 160._--Gratianus quotes the words of the Lord: “When
they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another;” and says then:
“Here Jesus Christ teaches that Christians shall not repel weapon with
weapon, but must flee before weapons.” _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 2d Book,
for the year 160, p. 43, col. 1, 2, from Seb. Fra. in den Krieg des
Fredes, fol. 63._
From this explanation of Gratianus appears, how salutarily and
rightly he believed and taught with regard to the words of Jesus
Christ relative to the forsaking of revenge; from which we may infer
his correct views concerning other matters of Holy Scripture and the
Christian faith; but since, either through default of the ancient
writers, or for some other reason, nothing else has come down to us
from him, we shall be content with what we have mentioned, and take our
leave of him.[89]
[89] A. D. 175, Ireneus taught that the bread of the Supper was
of the fruit of the earth, and he also calls the Supper not an
offering but a thanksgiving. _Lib 4, contra Valent._ See in the
_Geslacht-register der Roomscher Successie; second edition, 1649,
page 114_.
_About the year 200._--About this time flourished Clemens Alexandrinus,
who, though writing largely on baptism, nowhere mentions infant
baptism, but employs throughout such language as sufficiently implies,
that he knew nothing of infant baptism, but confined himself solely
to the ordinance of Christ and the practice of his apostles, which is
baptism that is accompanied with faith and repentance.
In _Pædagog., lib. 1., chap. 6_, he writes thus: “This is also done
with us, whose example the Lord Christ has become. Being baptized, we
become enlightened; being enlightened, we are made children; having
been made children, we are brought to perfection; having been brought
to perfection, we are made immortal.” A little after that he says:
“Thus also, when we are baptized, we obtain a free, unobstructed, and
clear eye of the Holy Ghost, as an avengement of blindness; having
trodden underfoot the sins which hitherto obscured the divine Spirit.”
Also: “That which was grievously bound by ignorance, is unbound by
knowledge, and these bands are loosed through the faith of man and the
grace of God, the manifold sins being forgiven through reasonable[90]
baptism as a perfect remedy; thus we are washed from all sins, and
are henceforth evil no more; this is the grace of enlightenment, that
the manner of life is no longer the same that it was before we were
baptized.” Further: “Teaching or instruction precedes faith, but faith
conjointly with baptism is led and directed through the Holy Ghost.”
And: “Even so we who repent of our former sins separate ourselves from
them and are being cleansed through baptism, let us run to the eternal
light, as children to their father.” See further, concerning these
citations, _Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d Part, pages 213, 214_. Also,
_H. Montan. Nietighz van den Kinder-doop, pages 26, 27_.
[90] The words, “reasonable baptism,” indicate that he speaks of such
a baptism as belongs to reasonable or intelligent persons.
What is there in this testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, that can apply
to infant baptism? yea, on the contrary, what is there that does not
militate against it? He certainly says expressly: “These bands (namely,
of sin) are loosed through the faith of man, and the grace of God,
the manifold sins being forgiven through reasonable baptism.” This
certainly is a clear and obvious joining together of faith and baptism,
as things which, through the providence of God, belong together, for
the remission of sins. When he further says: “Teaching, or instruction,
precedes faith, but faith conjointly with baptism is led and directed
through the Holy Ghost,” there is expressed, without controversy, the
same thing that we have said just now; since here not only faith is
joined together with baptism, but also instruction, which precedes
faith, and the Holy Ghost, who follows and confirms faith.
It is true, he says soon after this, that those who are baptized are
children, or, at least, ought to be. But what kind of children? Not
children in understanding, not infants in the cradle, but, as he
further says, Children in wickedness, but perfect in the understanding.
Children, who, as children of God, have put off the old man, and the
garment of wickedness, and have put on the incorruptibility of Christ,
in order that, being regenerated, they may become a new and holy
people, and keep unspotted the new man. See the treatise cited above.
If at that time it was at all customary in Alexandria to baptize
infants, would it not have been appropriate here for him, to speak of
irrational infants, or at least to mention with a word or two, that
they, too, were entitled to baptism, although, on account of their
youth, they could not understand the object of it? Truly, according to
our opinion he could not well have omitted mentioning it; but, inasmuch
as he does not refer to it with a single word, it is good proof, that
at that time this abuse was not known there, or, at least, not regarded.
Jacob Mehrning says (_Baptism. Hist. concerning the second century,
page 213_): “Of Clemens Alexandrinus we read that at Alexandria he
presided over the school in which the catechumens, that is those who
received instruction preparatory to baptism, were taught the principles
of the Christian faith.” _Vicecomes, lib. 2, cap. 7._
From this _Pædag., Clementis Alexandrini, lib. 1, cap. 6_, Vicecomes
would prove that there was given to those who were baptized, milk and
honey to eat, and milk mixed with wine, to drink; likewise, that after
baptism, preaching took place and peace was imparted to those baptized.
As regards the statement, that there was given to the baptized, as a
sign of God’s blessing, milk and honey to eat, and milk mixed with
wine, to drink, we leave it to its own merits, it being a matter of
small importance, which, if done without superstition, could either
be observed or omitted. But the preceding statement, that Clemens
Alexandrinus presided over the school in which the catechumens were
taught the principles of the Christian faith, certainly implies that
the candidates for baptism were first instructed in the school, in the
principles of the Christian faith, before they were baptized; and also,
the final remark, that after baptism preaching took place, and peace
was imparted to the baptized, certainly also indicates that those who
were baptized were not infants, for then they could not have understood
the preaching, much less would they have been qualified to receive with
attention and according to the requirements of Holy Scripture the
peace which was imparted to them.
NOTE.--Baudartius writes of Clemens Alexandrinus, that he proclaimed
the true religion with his mouth as well as with his pen, saying among
other things: “A pious and honorable man is well content with little.”
_Apophth., edit. 1640, lib. 2, page 49._
FURTHER REMARKS CONCERNING BAPTISM IN THIS CENTURY.
From the writings of Walafridus Strabonus we may clearly infer what
manner of baptism was practiced at this time, in the first as well
as in the second century, and also long afterwards, namely, that no
infants, but adult, reasonable, and believing persons were baptized,
and this, according to the example of Christ and his holy apostles.
_Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., p. 524, D. I. Vicecomes, lib. I, cap. 4._
Walafridus Strabo (_in lib. de Rebus Eccles., cap. 26_) writes: “We
must know that originally believers were very simply baptized in
streams and springs; for our Lord Jesus Christ himself, in order to
sanctify such washing for us, was baptized of John in Jordan; even we
read elsewhere: ‘John was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because
there was much water there.’”
_Page 525_, from _D. Vicecomes, lib. 1, cap. 30_; also, _cap. 26_,
Strabo speaks thus concerning baptism: “We must know that in those
first times baptism was administered only to those who, in body as well
as in soul, were washed clean and white, so that they could both know
and understand, what benefit there was to be obtained in baptism, what
was to be confessed and believed, and, finally, what was necessary to
be observed by the regenerated in Christ.
He then relates of Augustine, that he was instructed in the faith
before he was baptized (of which we shall speak in the proper place);
but that subsequently, for the sake of improvement, as it is called,
the church, that is, the Roman church, practiced infant baptism, with
a view of freeing infants by this means from the punishment of God for
original sin. Then the followers of the true faith (thus he wrongly
calls the Romanists), in order that the children might not be lost, if
they should die without the means of regeneration, that is, baptism,
resolved that they should be baptized for the remission of sins. Hence
originated, he writes, the custom of having godfathers and godmothers,
who stand for the child at (literally, lift the child from) baptism,
and answer for them all that they themselves, on account of the
weakness of their infancy, are not able to confess.” Thus for Strabo.
N. B.--Concerning these words, D. Vicecomes writes thus: “Since
Walafridus Strabo removes the custom of infant baptism from the
primitive church, he also recognizes no older origin of the godfather’s
than which dates from a period subsequent to the times of Augustine.”
_Bapt. Hist., pp. 525, 526._
Thus, in the first two centuries, and long afterwards, infant baptism
was not known by the Romanists even, according to the above mentioned
testimony of W. Strabo. Shortening this, we shall conclude with a
statement contained in the _H. Doophistorie_, at the end of the second
century, _page 211, cap. 7, de Ratione Gubernationis Ecclesiæ_: “Since
also the administration of the Sacraments belongs to the government
of the church, we see from the history of the time, that the bishops
and teachers did not deem it burdensome to baptize, not bells and
altars, but men whom they had instructed in the principal articles of
the Christian religion; and to them they also administered the holy
Supper.” We shall now proceed to the martyrs, who, during this time
suffered for this same faith.
AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE SECOND CENTURY.
SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE SECOND CENTURY.
[The two Roman, or, properly speaking, Greek Emperors, Trajan and
Marcus Aurelius raised the principal persecutions against the
Christians, in this century. This is amply shown in the following
account, as well as what persons suffered for the name of Christ in
these persecutions.
In the persecutions through Trajan there were slain, after enduring
much suffering, Simon Cleophas, who was a hundred and twenty years
old, Rufus and Zosimus, the Ethiopian baptized by Philip, Ignatius,
Onesimus, Dionysius Areopagita, Publius, Barsimeus, Barbelius and his
sister Barba, Justus and Pastor, Phocas, Faustina, Jacobita, Felicitas
with her seven sons, and Lucius.
Under Marcus Aurelius there suffered, Justinus, Polycarpus, and
twelve of his beloved disciples, who had come from Philadelphia to
Smyrna, and were slain there; Carpus, Papylus, Agathonica and many
women, Germanicus, Vetius, Attalus, Alexander of Phrygia, Maturus,
Sanctus Blandina and a youth, Photinus, ninety years old, Alcibiades,
Epipodius, Alexander the Greek, Leoxides, Plutarchus, Sagaris,
Thraseas. All these fought unto blood under the blood-stained banner
of Jesus Christ; their deaths may be read at large in the following
account.]
We shall begin the second century with the third general persecution
which was raised against the followers of Jesus Christ, and shall
forthwith proceed to give an account of the time, place, persons, and
circumstances.
THE THIRD PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, COMMENCED UNDER TRAJAN, A. D.
102.
With the beginning of the second century, A. D. 102, arose the third
heathen persecution against the Christians, under Emperor Trajan, who
attained to the reign of the Roman monarchy in the year 100.
Being instigated by Mamertinus, the governor of Rome, and Targuinus,
the superintendent of the worship of the heathen deities, he
persecuted the Christians in an awful manner, and put them to a
wretched death.
He was called a good emperor, but very superstitious as regards the
heathen worship; by reason of which he was the more easily induced to
undertake this sorry work. It also was no small help to this end, that
the heathen priests and idolaters paid great taxes, to extirpate by
sufferings and death, as the enemies of God and of man, those who were
opposed to their gods, especially the Christians.
Meanwhile we shall show what persons suffered under the bloody reign of
Emperor Trajan, for the name of Jesus Christ.
SIMON CLEOPHAS, ONE OF THE SEVENTY DISCIPLES OF CHRIST, CRUCIFIED BY
ATTICUS, UNDER TRAJAN, A. D. 109.
Simon Cleophas was the son of Cleophas and Mary, and a cousin of our
Lord Jesus, because he was the son of the brother of Joseph, the
supposed father of Christ. After the death of the apostle James he was
chosen, by common consent, bishop of the church at Jerusalem; hence he
must be distinguished from Simon surnamed Zelotes, who was one of the
apostles, and was crucified in Persia. For, the latter was a son of
Alpheus, but the former a son of Cleophas, not one of the twelve, but
of the seventy disciples of Christ, as Eusebius admits, saying: “If any
one should say that this Simon beheld Christ with his own eyes, and
listened to his preaching with his own ears, he would not be beyond
reason and truth in this opinion, not only on account of the long
duration of his life, being a hundred and twenty years old, but much
more by virtue of the testimony of the holy Gospel, in which mention is
made of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, whose son he was, according to the
testimony of Egesippus, who was the nearest historian to the times of
the apostles.” _Hist. Eccles. Euseb. Pamphil., lib. 3, cap. 11._
This is the Simon, of whom it is stated that he was an eye-witness to
the stoning of James, the holy apostle of the Lord. _Epiph. supra, in
Sym. Alph._
He was accused by some wicked men before Atticus, the governor of
Emperor Trajan, of being a Christian, yea a near relative of Christ, of
the generation of David. On this account he was dreadfully beaten for
many days with scourges and sharp rods, so that everyone who saw him,
had to lament and wonder, the judge himself being astonished, that a
man of such a great age, a hundred and twenty years old, was able so
long to endure such intolerable torturing.
Finally, as he remained steadfast in his confession, he became
conformed in suffering unto his Lord, whom he confessed, and was
sentenced by Atticus to be crucified; which death he suffered in the
tenth year of Emperor Trajan, which corresponds with the year of Christ
109. Compare the _1st Book of A. Mellinus_, printed A. D. 1617, _fol.
24, col. 1, 2_, with _Hist. Mart. Joh. Gysii_, recently printed by _I.
Braat, A. D. 1657, fol. 15, col. 1_.
RUFUS AND ZOSIMUS, TWO PIOUS CHRISTIANS, BEHEADED AT PHILIPPI IN
MACEDONIA, FOR THE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, A. D. 109.
Rufus and Zosimus were disciples of Christ and his apostles, and had
also been instrumental in founding and building up the church of God
among the Jews and the Gentiles.
Especially conspicuous is Rufus, from the greetings of the Apostle Paul
to the church at Rome, in which he includes Rufus, not merely as a
common member of the same, but as a distinguished, yea chosen person,
for he says: “Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and
mine.” Rom. 16:13.
This Rufus and the aforementioned Zosimus, both pious and upright
Christians, together with many of their fellow-believers, were put to
death for the faith, in the city of Philippi in Macedonia. Some write
that both were beheaded in the days of of Emperor Trajan, A. D. 109.
Compare what A. Mellinus adduces in _Het groot Christen Martelærs-bœk,
fol. 19, col. 4_, from _Polycarpo ad Philippens_, with that which J.
Gysius has noted in _Hist. Mart., fol. 15, col. 3_.
THE ETHIOPIAN OR EUNUCH OF QUEEN CANDACE, WHO WAS BAPTIZED BY PHILIP,
PUT TO DEATH FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, IN THE ISLAND OF CAPROBANO, A. D.
110.
Immediately after Rufus and Zosimus, A. Mellinus introduces the
Ethiopian or eunuch of Queen Candace in Ethiopia, who was converted by
Philip to the faith in Jesus Christ, and thereupon baptized, as we read
in the Acts of the Apostles.
It is stated of him, from Jerome, that he preached the Gospel of our
Lord in Arabia Felia, and also in a certain island of the Red Sea,
called Caprobano (some call it Ceylon), where, it is supposed, he
suffered death for the testimony of the truth. See above, _Mellin. ex
Hieron. Catal. in Crescente, in 53, cap. Esai._
IGNATIUS, A DISCIPLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, DEVOURED BY WILD BEASTS IN A
CIRCUS AT ROME, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF THE SON OF GOD, A. D. 111.
[Illustration: IGNATIUS DEVOURED BY WILD BEASTS.]