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.