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.
[Illustration: CLEMENT OF SCOTLAND BURNED BY THE ROMANISTS.]
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.
Finally, it is stated and maintained that this steadfast witness of
Jesus Christ, was burned as a heretic by the Romanists, even against
the will of Pope Zacharias, about A. D. 750, or a little after.
Compare this entire account of Clement with _Willibaldi, Naucleri,
Aventini. Balae. Alij ubi supra._ Also, _Annal. Boj. Bernhard. Lutz,
in Catal. Hæres., Tom. 2, Concil._ Also, _A. M., 2d book, H. M., 1619,
fol. 328, 329. Hist. Mart. I. S., 1645, fol. 30_.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS TOUCHING THE CASE OF ALBERT AND CLEMENT, ACCORDING
TO THE ACCOUNT OF SEBASTIAN FRANCK.
“In the year” etc., “these two men drew to them much people in France,
pretending to be followers of the apostles, and speaking great things
of the mysteries of God, and the life and conduct of man. Boniface,
Archbishop of France, wrote the whole matter to the Pope, who, in a
council of the bishops, laid it before them. They rejected the opinion
of the (supposed) heretic from the church.” Finally he says: “They were
unanimously deposed and anathematized.” _Chron. Rom. Kett., fol. 64._
SPECIAL ACCOUNT OF CLEMENT, ACCORDING TO P. J. TWISCK.
“Clemens Scotus, a faithful disciple of Bishop Adelbert, taught
with great power in France and Germany, especially in Bavaria and
Franconia, that the Pope ought not to have so much power; that he (the
Pope) very improperly would forbid the priests (or teachers) to marry;
that he introduced many new and unknown ceremonies into the church,
and originated false doctrines. He (Clement) was condemned without
a hearing or examination, and his writings or books were burned.”
_Chron., page 258, col. 2, and 259, col. 1_, from _Joh. Munst., fol.
125. Aventin., lib. 3. Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 54_.
OF TWO FOLLOWERS OF THE AFORESAID MARTYRS, NAMED SAMSON AND SYDONIUS,
WHO, WITH OTHERS, MAINTAINED THEIR DOCTRINE AGAINST POPERY,
PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE PAPAL LEGATE, BONIFACE, ARCHBISHOP OF MAYENCE;
BUT WHETHER FOR THIS THEY WERE MARTYRED, IS NOT STATED.