understood as having reference to the commending of their souls into
the hands of Christ; as is stated of the holy martyr Stephen, namely,
that he saw the heavens opened, and Christ standing on the right hand
of God; to whom, in his extremity, he commended his soul, saying:
“Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit. And when he had said this, he fell
asleep.” Acts 7:59,60.
The judge, perceiving the steadfastness of their faith, and the power
of their confession, deemed it well to commit these young maidens, each
separately to certain Saracen women, to be instructed in the Mohammedan
religion, strictly prohibiting them from conversing with each other,
or with any others of the Christians. The women, who had undertaken to
instruct them in the Saracen or Mohammedan religion, daily presented
to them their idolatry and pernicious doctrine, seeking thus to poison
them with the cup of the wrath of God, from the hand of Mohammed. But
all in vain; they remained steadfast, which was called stubbornness by
their enemies.
Finally they were brought before the tribunal and made a public
spectacle; where they, confessing Christ as before, and declaring
Mohammed an enemy of the Christian faith, as well as rejecting his
doctrine, were executed with the sword, in the city of Osca in Spain,
on the 22d of October, A. D. 851. Though others differ considerably in
their chronology of this matter, we leave it to the decision of the
intelligent reader. Compare the account of _A. Mellinus, second book,
fol. 308, col. 1, 2_, with the authors from whom the same has been
extracted. _Eulog. Memor. Sanctor., lib. 2, cap. 7_, and _Interp._
Touching these two pious martyresses, there is also to be observed what
is said in the added note respecting John, the first mentioned martyr.
NOTE.--A. D. 852, the zeal of some to die for the name of Jesus Christ
was so great that multitudes of them confessed Christ, and, hastening
to martyrdom, suffered themselves to be put to death as defenseless
lambs, for Christ’s sake. It is stated that among these there were two
young heroes of Jesus Christ, namely, Emilas and Hieremias, who, from a
well-meaning and special zeal, spoke against Mohammed, and thus offered
themselves, to suffer for Christ their Savior. For this they were
both executed with the sword, whereupon (according to the testimony
of the ancients), though the weather had been fine in the forenoon,
immediately at the hour of their death, there followed mighty peals of
thunder, so that the earth quaked; terrible lightnings fell from the
air; great darkness, heavy hailstorms, furious whirlwinds, and storms
manifested themselves, as though the insensible elements (according to
Eulogius) were mourning the death of these pious martyrs; whose dead
bodies were taken across the river and suspended on stakes, on the 15th
of September, A. D. 852. _A. Mell., fol. 309, col. 4_, from _Memor.
Sanctor., lib. 2, cap. 2_. For certain reasons, however, we will not
comment on these persons, though we know of nothing to censure, as
regards either their faith or their life.
AUREA, A GODFEARING MAIDEN, AFTER MANY SEVERE TRIALS, EXECUTED WITH THE
SWORD, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, AT CORDOVA, A. D. 856.
Aurea was by descent a noble maiden, and a sister to the martyr John,
of whom we have already spoken, from the province Hispalis or Seville,
who was betrayed and accused by some of her countrymen. The Judge, who
was a relative of hers, endeavored by every possible means to draw
her away from Christ, in which he also succeeded. But shortly after,
she repented of her apostasy, and went daily into the congregation of
the believers, that by the hearing of the word of God she might be
strengthened in the Spirit against a like conflict in time to come.
The enemy of mankind, who could not endure it, that Aurea now adhered
more firmly to God her Creator, than before, instigated another to
accuse this maiden to the Judge, who instantly had her brought by his
bailiffs, and threatened her as before. But in the second conflict she
was as much stronger to obtain the martyr’s crown, as, in her former
apostasy, she had been too weak to resist the temptation; for she
thus answered the Judge, saying: “I have never separated myself from
Christ my God; I have never forsaken the religion of true godliness;
I have never for one moment adhered to your impious worship; though I
once, with my tongue, seemed to have apostatized from Christ, my heart
was nevertheless far from it, and I had a firm confidence in my Lord
Jesus Christ, who has again lifted up my contrite conscience, by his
consoling promises, saying: ‘He that believeth in me, though he were
dead, yet shall he live.’ Though, with my words, I fell into the snare
of denial, yet my heart was strengthened through the power of faith,
for, as soon as I went away from you, I kept with heart and mind the
faith which I had practiced from infancy. Hence, there is nothing left,
but to execute me with the sword, or else you must give me liberty to
freely serve my Lord Christ.”
Thereupon the Judge said that she should be kept in prison until he had
informed the King of the matter. The result was, that the following
day, according to the King’s command, she was put to death with the
sword, and then, with a murderer, suspended by her heels on the
gallows. Her dead body was sunk with several thieves and murderers in
the river Betis. She died on the 19th of July, A. D. 856, at Cordova,
under Mahumad, King of the Saracens. In this account, _A. M., fol.
311_, must be reconciled with _Eul., lib. 3, cap. 17_.
REMARK.--For further information we would remark that the
aforementioned martyress, as regards profession in the matter of
external religion, is to be distinguished from four other persons,
Helias, Paulus, Isidore, and Argimirus, together with others, whom the
last mentioned authors, in their account, have noticed just before the
martyrdom of Aurea; for they, to all appearance, were of the Roman
profession, of which we find no evidence in Aurea. She professed a good
profession of Christ her Savior, and died thereupon; on which account
she is justly classed among the true believing martyrs, according to
what we stated in the note respecting the martyr John, for the year 850.
NOTE.--Since we do not find sufficient light on the persecutions, with
regard to the names, as well as the confessions of the martyrs, we will
now prepare ourselves to take leave of them, and commit those whom we
have not noticed, as being too dark before our eyes, to the omniscient
God, who will bring all to light. Our purpose is, to turn to Italy and
England, where more and brighter light has arisen, though it had its
beginning in France; so that the papal darkness, particularly in the
matter of transubstantiation and the mass, was illumined by it. Yet,
this shall end as a tragedy, for we shall show that the bright light
of truth had to set in rays of blood and to sink under the earth as it
were, to the sorrow of the true believing Christians.
NOTE.--In our account of holy baptism, for the year 860, we made
mention of Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, and stated that he desired that
infants should be left unbaptized, on account of which he was greatly
censured. But it seems that this was not the last of it, seeing other
writers afterwards relate that he was sentenced and condemned in a
certain council in the palace of Dusiacum, in the province of Rheims;
moreover, that he was sent into banishment, laid in chains, and, two
years after, deprived of both his eyes. However, these writers do not
unanimously state that this happened to him solely on account of his
rejecting infant baptism, but relate also, that it was done through
the bitter hatred of the Arch-bishop of Rheims, as well as from other
reasons relating to popery. As to the time of this event, the papist
Cesar Baronius fixes it, A. D. 871, though we, from comparison with
other authors, should fix it five years earlier. Moreover, though we,
as regards the life and walk of said Hincmar, have found nothing but
what is good, we dare not give him a place among the martyrs, because
of the differing statements of the ancient writers; hence we commit him
to God, who will judge his cause.
JOHANNES ERIGENA, A SCOTCHMAN, PUT TO DEATH BY HIS SCHOLARS FOR THE
CONFESSION OF THE EVANGELICAL TRUTH, THROUGH THE INSTIGATION OF SOME
MONKS, AT MELDUM IN ENGLAND, ABOUT A. D. 884.
Johannes Erigena, a Scotchman, and, hence, called Scotus, flourished,
in the matter of his doctrine, in the time of the Emperor Louis
the Pious, and his son Lothaire, somewhere in one of the cities of
France. He was exceedingly virtuous, learned, and eloquent, and,
consequently, for his eminent gifts, highly celebrated and esteemed.
For, when Charles, one of the sons of the above Emperor, was desirous
of having a good translation and exposition of the books of Dionysius,
the Areopagite, especially of the treatise _Hierarchia_,[146] John
executed the same very laudably, and with marked ability, so that one
Anastasius, who was librarian at the time, and composed a preface to
it, writes of him thus: “It is astonishing how this barbarian (that
is, foreigner or Scotchman), who hails from the uttermost parts of
the world, was able to comprehend with his understanding such high
things, and to translate them (said book of Dionysius), into another
language, namely, from the Greek into the Latin; I refer to Johannes
the Scotchman, concerning whom I have heard that he is a very holy and
godly man.”
[146] This was a treatise on the name of God, and the heavenly order
of the angels.
This is the testimony even of one of his adversaries, touching his
learning and godliness; so that it is not necessary for us to adduce
additional testimony relative to this point, from other authors, hence
we let it suffice.
Afterwards, it seems, he wrote a book on the Eucharist (that is, on
the thankoffering of the Supper), in which he very profoundly and
conclusively refuted the gross error of the papists in the matter of
transubstantiation, or the essential change of the bread into the body
of Jesus Christ; also, the mass and the sacrifice which thereby, in
popery, is offered for both the living and the dead. This was the cause
of his death, as the sequel shows.
When he had written this book, it was greatly esteemed by some, among
whom, subsequently, was Berengarius, deacon of the church at Angiers,
of whom it is stated that he took and learned his belief respecting
this point (and perhaps also against infant baptism, since he
strenuously dissuaded from it), from the writings of Johannes Scotus;
of which we propose to speak more fully in the proper place. On the
other hand, said book was exceedingly hated by those who were zealous
defenders of the Roman superstitions, especially of transubstantiation
and the mass; so much so, that, when it had come before Pope Leo IX.,
the result was, that both (as appears) he and his book were condemned
and anathematized as heretical; which was done chiefly in the council
of Vercellis.
When this had thus happened, and he had incurred the hatred of the
Pope and many of the papists, he left the city of Paris--where he was
rector of the University--and also France, and went to England, where
he took up his residence at Meldum, supporting himself by teaching
and instructing inexperienced youths. But after a few years, when the
spite and hatred of some monks could tolerate him no longer, on account
of his faith against the Roman church, they instigated his scholars
against him, so that they stabbed him to death with awls and penknives.
Other writers are of the opinion that the monks did it themselves. Both
may be true; the monks, having instigated the young men, and probably
finding them too timid, may have led off in the murder, the youths
following, with penknives, awls, etc., so that said martyr lost his
life under their hands. This much is certain, that he died a cruel
death for his faith, and that the monks, through the instrumentality of
his scholars, were in no small measure the cause of it, as the records
of his death inform us. Compare the account of _A. Mellinus, 2d book,
fol. 343, col. 2, 3_, and _fol. 392, col. 4_, and _fol. 393, col. 1,
2_, taken from _Trithem. de Script. Eccles., Item, Hist. Reg. Angl., in
Alfredo, lib. 2. Hobed. Annal. parte Priore. Westmon., in Flor. Hist.,
A. D. 883. Idem, Hist. parte Prima. Chron. Car., lib. 4, sub. Henr.
4, Seniore. Lanfranc., lib. de Euch., contra Bereng. Baron. Annal. T.
11, A. D. 1059. Mamelsburi Regum Angl., lib. 2. Testibus. Lanfranco,
Guytmundo and Aliis._
CONCERNING THE TIME OF THIS HISTORY.
NOTE.--P. J. Twisck gives two different accounts concerning it; in the
first he fixes the date, A. D. 869. _Chron. 9th book, page 306, col.
2_, from _Hist. Andr., fol. 160_. In the second he fixes it, A. D. 884.
_Page 311, col. 2_, from _John Munster, fol. 83_. In the first place he
calls him Johannes Scotus, in the second, Johannes Erigena; however, as
the account itself declares, it is the same person.
As to the dates 869 and 884, to which the history of said Johannes has
been referred by him, some one might think that this could not very
well be reconciled, which may, however, be easily done, if we take the
year 869 as the time in which said martyr flourished and propagated his
doctrine, and the year 884 as the time when he died and was martyred
for the principles which he taught.
FURTHER OBSERVATION TOUCHING THE HISTORY ITSELF, ACCORDING TO THE
ACCOUNT OF CARION, P. MELANCTHON AND C. PEUCER.
“In the time of Emperor Louis the Pious,” said authors say, “Johannes
Scotus read and explained publicly in the schools, Dionysius’ treatise
_Hierarchia_. This Johannes Scotus, when he censured and refuted with
good reasons, the false and impious tenet of the sacrifice of the mass,
concerning which others at that time taught that in the Supper Christ
was to be offered up for the living and the dead, was stabbed to death
by his disciples and hearers, with their penknives.” _Chron. Carion.,
from the beginning of the world until Charles V., enlarged by Phil.
Melancthon and Casp. Peucer, printed 1586, 4th book, fol. 476, col. 1._
CONCERNING SAID HISTORY, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SEBASTIAN FRANCK
OF WORTH.
“Johannes, surnamed Scotus, not of the Gray Friars, wrote a treatise on
the sacrament, denying the presence of the body and blood of Christ.
He was condemned in the council of Vercellis. He was rector at Paris,
eminently versed in the languages, and the phenix of his age. The
Emperor Lothaire held him in great esteem. Of him there have written,
Platina,” etc. See _Chron. Rom. Kett., fol. 106, col. 4, letter J_.
P. J. TWISCK’S ACCOUNT OF SAID JOHANNES SCOTUS.
“Johannes Scotus,” he writes, “lived under the Emperor Louis the
Pious, and wrote strenuously against transubstantiation. On a certain
occasion, when he, in an exposition, was severely censuring the
delusion of the blasphemous oblation or offering up of the Lord Christ
in the Supper, for the living and the dead, his disciples and hearers
killed him with iron styles.” _Chron., 9th book, fol. 306, col. 2_,
from _Hist. Andr., fol. 160_.
FURTHER EXPLANATION TOUCHING SAID J. SCOTUS, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT
OF THE PAPIST BARONIUS, AS NOTED BY ABR. MELLINUS.
“But let us add,” says he, “the opinion of Baronius, touching this
Scotchman: As regards Johannes Scotus, we have said above, in the
proper place, that he was in bad repute with the Pope Nicholas I.
Although he wrote so violently against the Catholic faith, yet, as he
did not spread it among the people, so that his views became known to
all, many had a good opinion of him, so much so, that they, though most
inconsiderately (thus he speaks, from a papistic standpoint) gave him
the title of martyr.” Compare _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 393, col. 1, 2_,
with _Cesar. Baronius’_ account touching _J. Scotus. Annal. T. 11, A.
D. 1059_.
From this account it appears that the papist Baronius, who was a
cardinal of the Roman see, was not pleased that many had a good opinion
of Johannes Scotus, and, what is still more, gave him the title of
martyr; but this is not to be wondered at, since the true papists have
a good opinion of none but those who adhere to the Roman superstitions,
and never dare to utter a word of censure against them; and they
would confer the title of martyr upon none but those who have suffered
for the Roman see and its traditions (which are a parcel of human
inventions). However, we will let them answer for this, and leave it.
We return to Johannes Scotus and say that, as regards his boldness,
he showed himself as behooves a true martyr, since, to clear his
conscience and defend the oppressed truth, he did not hesitate to incur
the hatred of the Pope and the papists, yea, the prospect of being
anathematized, excommunicated, and, finally, miserably tortured and
put to death for it. He died for the confession of the Christian and
evangelical truth, particularly for the article by which we commemorate
the Lord’s death, and in which lies the consolation of the soul, with
regard to our blessed redemption.
But, since Berengarius, who opposed not only transubstantiation
and the mass, but also infant baptism, was afterwards charged with
having imbibed and obtained his belief from Johannes Scotus, the
aforementioned martyr, we may conclude that said martyr must also have
opposed infant baptism; otherwise it could not be said in general
words, that Berengarius imbibed or obtained his views from J. Scotus,
which is nevertheless frequently and confidently asserted by ancient
writers. With this we will take our leave of J. Scotus and also of our
account of the martyrs of this century; as being sufficient for the
well-disposed--for the evil-disposed we care not; hence, our soul shall
rest, and content itself with the pious.
AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE TENTH CENTURY.
SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE TENTH CENTURY.
[The corruption of this century, caused by the papal superstitions, is
sadly lamented by Jacob Mehrning and P. J. Twisck.
Nevertheless, it is shown thereupon, that in the midst of papal
darkness there were still some who, in the matter of holy baptism, did
not differ from the institution of Christ and his apostles.
Giselbert teaches, that baptism must be connected with regeneration and
a good will.
Then follows Ansbert, who declares that Christ, through preaching and
baptism, is still daily bringing unto himself heirs; that we must
be baptized upon the confession of the holy Trinity; and that after
baptism we may sin no more.
Smaragdus follows next and says that it is impossible for the body to
receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously
accepted the truth of the faith; that the excellent _ordinance of the
baptism of Christ_ commands the apostles first to teach all nations,
and then to incorporate them by the baptism of faith.
Then appears Theophilact, who produces very excellent testimonies
concerning baptism; as, among others, that the baptized have put on
Christ, Gal. 3:27; that the candidates are like the prodigal son when
he was converted; that he is not baptized aright, who has not believed;
that in baptism all believers are enlightened by the Holy Ghost; that
no one may be recognized as a believer, who is unregenerate or lives
after the flesh; that the truly baptized may not drive away the Holy
Spirit by wicked works, but must preserve the image of God unspotted;
that the good profession of which we read, 1 Tim. 6:12, must take
place at the instruction of those that are to be baptized; that those
baptized by John, were delivered by repentance from the bonds of the
soul; that the novices repented before baptism; that the Supper was
administered to the baptized, etc.
Thereupon it is stated, from D. Vicecomes, that the papists, when
infant baptism was introduced among them, abolished the practice
of administering the Supper to the baptized. It is furthermore
demonstrated, that the Romanists ought to have abolished infant baptism
just as well as the infant Supper.
The baptism of Olympius, his wife Exuperia, and his son Theodulus, is
adduced, from Simon Metaphrastes; also, of the baptism of Theridates,
and Nemesius.
Fulbertus Carnotenses is the last witness respecting holy baptism.]
* * * * *
We now pass over to the tenth century after the birth of Christ, to
find in it, as we have done in the preceding times, the marks of the
Christian believers, namely, the true baptism with its observance
according to the institution of Christ and the practice of his
apostles; which, as we shall show in the proper place, obtained and was
practiced also at this time, though under great difficulties.
Yet, what shall we say of this century? Many well-disposed persons,
who loved the truth, abhorred and detested it, because the innumerable
human superstitions of the Roman church had risen nigh unto heaven, and
the pure commandments of Jesus Christ, without the observance of which
men cannot be saved, had been cast almost down into the pit. This was
the century concerning which much woful lamentation was made, because
papal tyranny, in the matter of worship, had increased so exceedingly.
Of these things (after the title), the following is contained in _Jacob
Mehrning’s History of Baptism_.
OF THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD IN THE TENTH CENTURY.
“In the tenth century the dominion of the Roman Pope had exceedingly
obscured, and taken possession of, nearly all the churches in Europe,
so that everything, had to be done according to his pleasure, both in
spiritual and secular governments; hence, great darkness prevailed at
this time, in which but very few learned, virtuous, and celebrated men
lived. For fear of the great tyranny, one dared scarcely speak the
least word of the adulteration of the doctrine, or the abuses in the
false worship, and the increase of the abominable blasphemies; for, as
soon as those who knew better, and feared God, uttered the least word
of opposition, the Pope instantly thundered, with hail and lightning as
it were, excommunications from the Roman chair, so that every one was
terrified, since also the secular lords were bewitched and controlled
by him. Was it to be wondered at, then, that the corruptions with
reference to baptism, increased the longer the more?” _Bapt. Hist., p.
566_, from _Magd. Cent. 10, cap. 1_.
Touching the abuses in and about baptism, which were then introduced
the decree of the Pope and the councils, they are noticed by different
writers, as may be seen in _Cent. Magd., Cent. 10, cap. 6, 10, 11_.
In short, whereas formerly the catechumens had not been baptized until,
after proper instruction, they had given an account of their faith,
either on Easter or Whitsuntide, it was now ordained, that, when death
or peril of life was apprehended, they should be baptized immediately.
_Metaphr., lib. 2, cap. 5_.
Whereas baptism had formerly been administered with unblessed or
unconsecrated water, it was now blessed and consecrated, yea, the
chrism was used, the sign of the cross on the forehead, the oil of
chrism. _Bapt. Hist., page 576, num. 13._
But the most ridiculous of all was, that, whereas formerly only human
beings had been baptized, Pope John XIV. now commanded that the great
bell in the Lateran church should be baptized and named after him.
_Bapt. Hist., page 577, ex Balaeo Centur. 2. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 10th
book, for the year 965, page 341, col. 1._
These exceeding great errors of the Roman church, and the dreadful
darkness in which all nations, with the exception of a few pious
people, sat during those dreary times, is described in _P. J. Twisck’s
Chronijk_, in the conclusion of the thousandth year, with the following
words (after the title):
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF THE WORSHIP OF
GOD IN THIS CENTURY.