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.
[Illustration: GOD’S JUDGMENT ON KING HONORICUS.]
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.