From a brief account online:

According to St. Basil, forty soldiers who had openly confessed themselves Christians were condemned by the prefect to be exposed naked upon a frozen pond near Sebaste on a bitterly cold night, that they might freeze to death. Among the confessors, one yielded and, leaving his companions, sought the warm baths near the lake which had been prepared for any who might prove inconstant. One of the guards set to keep watch over the martyrs beheld at this moment a supernatural brilliancy overshadowing them and at once proclaimed himself a Christian, threw off his garments, and placed himself beside the thirty-nine soldiers of Christ. Thus the number of forty remained complete. At daybreak, the stiffened bodies of the confessors, which still showed signs of life, were burned and the ashes cast into a river. The Christians, however, collected the precious remains, and the relics were distributed throughout many cities; in this way the veneration paid to the Forty Martyrs became widespread, and numerous churches were erected in their honour.

Not that it proves anything in this matter, but it is a fact that any sacrament and the grace thereof are distinct things.  I can receive certain sacraments of the living while in a state of sin, and thus, although I receive the sacrament, I do not receive the grace proper to it.  For example, if I am in a state of sin when I am confirmed, I will not receive the grace of that sacrament until/unless I confess my sins.  Once I have done so, the grace of confirmation, impeded until that time, will flow into my soul.

There is NO EVIDENCE he received the Sacrament of Baptism, yet his being venerated by Holy Church as a martyr, for centuries at that, is a guarantee that he is in heaven.  I have to get cracking on some work, so I cannot get into it more at the moment.

Sorry: Please read "...take to be not merely..."

And another thing:

Quote

To contradict himself was never a failing of so profoundly philosophic a scholar as the Angel of the Schools.

And yet he did contradict himself, this shouldn't be shocking as infallibility was not given to theologians, but the pope.

Seeing as J.D. Bryant's book was published in 1855:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MagsAAAAYAAJ&dq=J.D.+Bryant+immaculate+conception&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=6NxOfG0eu9&sig=LBeB3sASNXX1zgU8Wiif9rCpCwU&hl=en&ei=2FVySu7xL4_UsQPT7cTYCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

It was not until 15 years later that papal infallibility was defined by Holy Mother Church:

Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesia Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."