its operations chiefly proceed; and, certainly, he does not seek, find,
or show it in the water, as is done by many who, at the present day,
baptize infants, especially by the Romanists; but he seeks, finds, and
shows it in the operation of God the Lord, whom he calls by the name
of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. To God the Father he ascribes, that
he regenerates the candidate from a child of the devil to a child of
God. Of the Son he states, that he, having died for our sins, justifies
sinners when they are baptized. Of the Holy Ghost he says, that, since
all that is done in baptism, is spiritual, so all that is effected in
baptism, is spiritually performed by the Holy Ghost. Now, let every one
judge, without prejudice, whether such operations can have place in
infants, or in adults (when they are baptized); and we are confident
that the instant reply will be, that not the former, but the latter, is
conformable to the truth.
_Page 585, num. 9._ Of the power and benefit of baptism, Algerus says
(_lib. 3, de Euchar., cap. 4_,): “In order that the grace of God may
abound over us, it has reference, in the sacramental form (namely, of
baptism) not so much to worthiness and respectability, as to their
equal fitness; for, as water quenches, cleanses and purifies, better
than all other liquids, even so baptism quenches the lasciviousness of
the flesh, and washes off the impurity of sin, of actual sins as well
as,” etc.
Here, again, several things are mentioned, which are not applicable
to infant baptism, but speak sufficiently against it. For, in the
first place, when it is here said of the grace of God, that it has
reference, in the sacramental form (namely, of baptism) not so much to
the worthiness or respectability, namely, of the persons to whom the
sacramental form, or baptism, may be administered, as to their equal
fitness; there is certainly indicated, in the candidates, some fitness
to which the grace of God has regard; but what fitness can there be
in the candidates, to which the grace of God may have regard, if it
is not faith in Jesus Christ, true repentance, obedience to God’s
commandments, and such like things as are requisite to baptism?
In the second place, when it is averred in said passage, “that baptism
quenches the lasciviousness of the flesh, and washes off the impurity
of sin, of actual sin as well as,” etc., it is evident, again, that he
treats of such a baptism and of such candidates, wherein lasciviousness
of the flesh, impurity of sin, yea, actual sins, etc., can be washed
off; for, otherwise he would contradict himself. But what kind of
persons these are, in whom such sins can have place, and who need to be
washed from them, whether infants or adult persons are meant thereby,
the intelligent may judge.
_About A. D. 1042._--Or almost in the middle of the eleventh century,
Buchard of Worms (in Germany) flourished, who makes mention, among
other things, of the examinations in the faith, to which it was
customary, either in his time or before, to subject the candidates,
at baptism. Concerning this, D. Vicecomes (_lib. 2, cap. 28_), in
his allegations respecting baptism in the eleventh century, gives
the following account, which is also found in _Bapt. Hist., page
592, num. 1_: “Buchard of Worms (_lib. 6, de Sacram. Eccles._) says:
‘The examinations are for the purpose of ascertaining whether he
(the candidate), after renouncing Satan, has the holy words of the
faith confessed, deeply rooted in his heart, and intends to continue
steadfastly in the faith.’”
This is certainly plain language concerning baptism upon faith and the
confession of the same, according to the institution of Christ, and the
example of the apostles and the first apostolical church; hence we need
add not a word of explanation, and will therefore proceed to others
who, in or about that time, taught the same doctrine, and, as much as
lay in their ability, confirmed it in their deeds.
_A. D. 1051._--This is the year in which the learned Lanfrancus, who
also showed himself opposed to infant baptism, and dissuaded from it,
is introduced by the writers. See _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 383, col.
1_, from _Guitmundus, and Sebastian Franck, fol. 58_.
_A. D. 1060._--Two eminent, learned, and well-meaning persons, who were
greatly celebrated on account of their great learning and boldness, at
this time displayed their greatest strength in rejecting infant baptism
and other articles of the Roman church. One of these was Bruno, Bishop
of Angiers in France; the other, Berengarius, his deacon. They had
begun to teach said doctrine as early as the year 1035, and continued
therein for many years, yea, Berengarius, besides the article against
transubstantiation, maintained it, as the chronicles show, until the
year 1079.
But, in order to sum up all this briefly, we will present what is
recorded, concerning this matter, in the _Introduction to the Martyrs
Mirror, page 48, col. 2_, we read: “In A. D. 1035, Berengarius,
archdeacon of Angiers, in France, together with Bruno, the Bishop
of said city, began to teach against transubstantiation and infant
baptism. Their doctrine immediately spread throughout all France and
Germany. Against it, Pope Leo IX. held, A. D. 1050, two Synods, one at
Rome, the other at Versailles (_Baron., A. D. 1050, num. 1_), in which
the doctrine of these two men was condemned.
Afterwards, when Berengarius did not cease to promulgate his doctrine,
another synod was held, A. D. 1055, at Tours in France (_Baron., A. D.
1055, num. 4_), in which Berengarius feigned repentance; but as soon
as Hildebrand, who afterwards became Pope, had gone away, he again
maintained his doctrine.
“Afterwards, Pope Nicholas II. held a Synod (_Baron., A. D. 1059,
num. 3, 4_), and summoned Berengarius before it, who, for the second
time, either from fear or human weakness, pretended to recant, burning
the writings of Johannes Scotus, from which he had derived his views
respecting transubstantiation; but seeing immediately opportunity
again, he returned to his old belief; and composed different writings
concerning it, against which some others have written.
“Subsequently, Hildebrand, who had now become Pope, and was called
Gregory VII., held a synod in Rome, A. D. 1079, where, as Baronius, who
judges as a Romanist and papist, says, Berengarius, again renounced his
doctrine. But how true this is, we leave to God.
“It is evident,” says the author to the _Introduction_, “that he
maintained this doctrine for forty-four years, and filled Germany and
France with it; from which it can be inferred, that the same, even as
it had itself proceeded from previously existing writings, in its turn
left many disciples.” _Introd., page 48, col. 2_, and _49, col. 1_.
But though the doctrine of Bruno and Berengarius commenced in the
year 1035 and ended about A. D. 1079, as far as these two persons are
concerned (for, otherwise it is a doctrine that began with Christ and
will end only at the end of the world), yet, said doctrine displayed
its greatest power, through these two persons, and encountered the most
opposition, about the year 1060, as appears from the account of Jac.
Mehrning and H. Montanus, who unanimously state the following:
“A. D. 1060, Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius, his deacon,
rejected infant baptism.” See _Guitmundus, Bishop of Avers, and
Durandus, Bishop of Luyck_. These are their words: “Bruno, Bishop of
Angiers, and Berengarius of Tours, annul the baptism of infants as much
as is in their power; so that they, discarding infant baptism, counsel
men to plunge themselves without fear into the deep abyss of all manner
of wickedness; saying that they are not to be baptized, until they
attain to years of understanding.” _Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., pp. 591,
592. H. Montan. Nietighd., pages 82, 83_, from _Guitm. in Principio
Dialogi de Veritate Eucharistiae. Durand, in Epist. contra Brunon and
Berengarium_; also, _Baron., A. D. 1035, num. 1_; also, _Alan., lib. 1,
contra Hæretic. sui Temporis, pages 103, 104, 105_.
It seems that the matter of the accusation of these two men, Bruno
and Berengarius, rose to such a pitch, that they were subjected to an
examination, in order to ascertain the grounds of their faith, and to
judge them accordingly.
The author of an anonymous manuscript found in the library of Baron
Caraw. de Clepton., writes of the examination of said Bruno, saying,
that he himself was present when Bruno, the defender of Berengarius,
was interrogated in regard to his faith; and that they both, Bruno and
Berengarius, said that infant baptism was not necessary to salvation.
See also _J. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 685_.
_About A. D. 1068._--D. Vicecomes quotes from a manuscript book
of ceremonies, by Beroldus, which, treating of certain religious
ceremonies of that time, makes mention also of baptism, and how it was
administered then among those of whom he writes. But, to come to the
matter; when, noting from this book, the first address made to novices
(whom he terms children, according to the manner of Christ, who also
called his disciples children, John 21:5), he says, that, the door
having been opened, they were thus addressed: “Enter, ye children, into
the house of God; hear your father (the teacher) teach you the way of
wisdom.” _Bapt. Hist., page 592, num. 3, Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 43._
He then relates what occurred when the doors were closed, and the
novices were in the assembly; how the bishop or teacher then delivered
to them the symbol, that is, the creed; and how he presented or
repeated to them the faith, according to the language of the gospels,
and then said: “Hear the faith: I believe on God the Father.” _Above
page, Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 14._
The other circumstances related there we pass by; it suffices us to
have seen that then the novices (before they were baptized), were
taught the way of wisdom; that the faith was presented to them, and
that they were instructed in it, which are things that cannot be done
with infants, and, hence, prove, that in the church where this practice
was observed, infant baptism was unknown, or, at least, was not
practiced there.
_About A. D. 1076_, or right after Beroldus, one Ado, surnamed
Trevirensis, a teacher of that time, is introduced; of whom it is
stated that, in administering baptism, he admonished the candidates not
only in the knowledge of the faith, but also to the practice of it,
that is, to fast, to humble themselves. Of these matters an instance
is given, which is related as follows in _Bapt. Hist., page 593, num.
4_: “When a certain woman, called Syranna, became a believer, he (Ado)
thanked God for her, imposed a fast upon her, and told her how she
should humble herself, and having thus instructed her, together with
her son, he baptized them.” _Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 12._
_A. D. 1090._--At this time lived and wrote, it is stated, the teacher
and historian Juo, surnamed Carnotensis, from the place Carnuto, where
he resided. According to the testimony of ancient writers, he opposed
common popery in various points of doctrine, teaching in such a manner
concerning the only Mediator, Christ Jesus, church-service, against
monachism, against the difference of meats, and of the Supper, that
the papists took offense thereat, and considered him a seditious and
schismatical person.
NOTE.--Juo Carnotensis makes some mention also of the origin of infant
baptism, how the same arose in the Roman church. “The church,” he says,
“having now been sufficiently spread and gathered among the Gentiles;
in order that her children, who departed this life before they had
attained to the years of understanding, might not remain strangers
to the communion of Christ, it was desired to provide them with this
medicine of salvation (with baptism); and thus they were baptized with
the sacrament of faith.” _Bapt. Hist., pp. 587, 588_, from _Cent. Magd.
XI., cap. 6_.
However, it is not our purpose to write here of all these things;
partly, because this, through default of the authors, cannot be done
circumstantially; and partly, because we only intended to write
something of baptism, with regard to which we will also adduce the
testimony of Juo. What he may have written concerning this subject, in
other respects, while he was yet unenlightened, we pass by, and will
only speak of that which he, when he had become enlightened and had
attained to knowledge, wrote salutarily and correctly on this article.
_Bapt. Hist., page 588, num. 6_, Juo writes: “To the hearers of the new
life, the apostolic creed is delivered, which they publicly confess
before baptism.” _Ex Meginh. de Fide._
_Page 590, num. 14_, the following is quoted from Juo: “During the
answers to the threefold question, the catechumen (that is, the
novice who has learned the faith) is washed from the filth of the old
wickedness (namely, through baptism), and puts on the new man.”
_Page 594, num. 7._ D. Vicecomes (_lib. 1, cap. 25_) quotes the
following account from Juo: “Then those who were to be baptized on the
holy Easter Sabbath, were led, in the fourth week of the forty days’
fast, and on the fourth day of said week, to the church (or, to the
assembly), to be taught and examined in the catechism (that is, in the
instruction of the faith), and further instructed, how they should
fight against spiritual wickedness; yet, their baptism was deferred
till holy Easter Sabbath.” _Serm. de Sacram. Initiat._
_Same page as above._ “On that day, those who desire baptism, come
to the church (or, to the assembly), that they may be received into
the order (or number) of the catechumens, and may throw off, by holy
prayers, the yoke of the devil.” _D. Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 30._
_Page 595._--Juo (from August.) adduces these words: “At the water of
baptism, before we baptized you, we asked: Do you believe on God the
Almighty?” _D. Vicecom., lib. 4, cap. 7._
From these five passages of Juo it is evident, virtually as well as
from the circumstances, that he treats of no other baptism than that
which is accompanied with instruction, faith, confession of the faith,
and observance of the same; in short, that he speaks of a baptism
which, as appears from his own words, cannot well, yea, not at all,
be reconciled with infant baptism. For, in the first passage he makes
mention of a creed, which the candidates had to confess publicly before
baptism. In the second passage he speaks of the answers which the
catechumens gave to the threefold question put to them before baptism;
and that they were then washed from the filth of the old wickedness,
and did put on the new man. In the third passage he relates how those
who were to be baptized on the holy Easter Sabbath, were first examined
in the faith, and further instructed, in the fourth week of the forty
days’ fast. In the fourth passage he says that on that day those who
desired baptism, came to the church or assembly, to be received into
the order or number of the catechumens, and to pray. In the fifth
passage he mentions what the candidates were asked at the water of
baptism, namely, whether they believed on God, the Almighty.
All these are things that pertain only to the adult and intelligent,
and cannot be comprehended, much less practiced by infants.
We will conclude this with the account of P. J. Twisck, who, besides
what he has mentioned concerning baptism, briefly notices several other
articles which Juo taught contrary to the common belief of the Roman
church. He writes: “Juo, Bishop of Carnuto, zealously taught of Christ,
the only Mediator, of church-service, against monachism, against the
difference of meats, and of the Supper.” _Chron., page 416, col. 2_,
from _Catal. Test., Tom. 2, fol. 346_.
It is very probable, since we have never heard of his having recanted,
that this Juo, who began his doctrine, or, at least, maintained it the
most vigorously, in the year 1090, continued therein to the end, and
thus concluded the eleventh century with it. Hence, we will close here,
and see which pious witnesses of Jesus Christ suffered at this time.
AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.
SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.
[A simile of the moonlight and the stars, which shine most in the
darkest nights, forms the beginning of our account, representing the
condition of this time.
Fourteen persons, the chiefest of whom was called Stephen, are burned
as heretics, for the testimony of the truth, by the papists, A. D.
1022, at Orleans in France.
Then follows a note concerning the accusations brought against the
aforementioned persons; and also, further observations touching said
fourteen martyrs, according to the accounts of various papistic and
other writers, noted in the _Second Book of the Persecutions, fol. 437,
col. 3, 4_.
The great craftiness of the Papist, Gretserus, in altering the
titles of the books of the ancients, to the detriment of the belief
of the Waldenses; some of their martyrs called firstlings, which is
circumstantially noticed in the margin.
Some pious Christians at Goslar, called Manicheans by the papists,
hanged for the confession of the evangelical truth, A. D. 1052. It
is shown, 1. that they claimed to lead a true apostolical life; 2.
that they would neither lie nor swear; 3. that they maintained that
the sacrament of the altar was nothing but bread; 4. that they denied
baptism, that is, infant baptism. One papist, as Thuan against Radulph,
etc., opposed to each other in their testimony against these people.
Henry and Alfuard, two good Christians, the former beheaded in the
uttermost parts of Sweden, the latter slain among the Normans, for
defending the evangelical doctrine, A. D. 1067.
Marginal notice explanatory of their belief.
Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius, his deacon, are condemned
in different councils, through the Roman Pope, on account of their
views against infant baptism, transubstantiation, the mass, etc.; the
first time, A. D. 1050, both together; the second time, A. D. 1079,
Berengarius alone. The inconstancy of Berengarius in some matters is
shown, but also his sorrow for it, and his perseverance to the end, on
account of which he is accounted among the martyrs.
Many of the followers of Berengarius, called Berengarians, are
anathematized by order of the Pope, at Piacenza, in Italy, A. D. 1095,
and afterwards persecuted unto death, about A. D. 1100. Conclusion.]
* * * * *
Even as the shining moon and the glittering stars give the most light,
and adorn the blue expanse of heaven the most gloriously, in the
darkest nights, so it was also after A. D. 1000, as regards spiritual
matters, which concern the honor of God and the salvation of the souls
of men. For, about the year 1000, as well as many years before and
after, but particularly then, the world lay sunken, as it were, in an
arctic, six-month’s night, through the thick, and palpable darkness,
which had arisen, with heavy vapors of superstitions, from the Roman
pit. Yet, notwithstanding the state of the times, some undefiled
persons, as bright heavenly signs, and stars, began to shine forth the
more, and to let their light of evangelical truth illumine the dark
nights of papal error. Yea, some, like the polar star, served as a
sign to sail by; I mean, to accomplish safely and in a godly manner,
through the turbulent waves of perverted worship and human inventions,
the journey to the heavenly fatherland. Others, like the morning-star,
or the lovely, blushing Aurora, announced the approaching day; we mean,
they pointed to the true day of the Christian and evangelical worship
of God, and revealed it, as much as they were able, to those who sat
in the darkness of error.
We will no longer speak by simile; what we mean is this: That there
were men in those dark times, who maintained God’s truth, in various
points, according to the needs of that time, and bore witness to and
sealed it not only with the mouth, but with the deed, yea, with their
blood and death.
FOURTEEN PERSONS, THE CHIEFEST OF WHOM WAS CALLED STEPHEN, BURNED AS
HERETICS FOR THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRUTH, BY THE PAPISTS, AT ORLEANS, IN
FRANCE, NEAR THE CLOSE OF A. D. 1022.
A. D. 1022, near the close of the year, it seems, or, at the latest,
A. D. 1023, there were apprehended and publicly burned, in France, in
the presence of King Robert, an account of heresy (so-called by the
papists), certain fourteen persons, some of whom were common people,
while the others were of noble descent,[152] and of whom the chiefest
was called Stephen. They were accused of having spoken evil of God, and
the holy sacraments, that is, of holy baptism (namely, infant baptism,
for this was what the papists generally practiced, and concerning which
disputes were of frequent occurrence), and of the body and blood of the
Lord (that is, the sacrament of the altar, which the Romanists were
wont to call the body and blood of the Lord); also of marriage, etc.
[152] Laymen and nobles, etc., the papist writer says.
“This appears,” says the writer, “to have been the first execution
(that is, by burning), of persons accused of heresy in the Roman
church.” Continuing he says: “In an old book we find an account, that
this heresy was brought into this country from across the sea, namely,
from Bulgaria, and that thence it was spread into other provinces,
where it subsequently was much in vogue, principally in Languedoc,
around Toulouse, and in Gascony.”
He also states there, that the people who maintained this doctrine,
were called Albigeois, and also Bulgarians, because they came from
Bulgaria. _Vignierii Hist. Eccl., A. D. 1022, ex Glabro and Massonio in
Annalibus, and alio Antiquo Authore_, compared with _Abr. Mell., fol.
381, col. 2_, and _fol. 436, col. 1_.
Touching the accusations which were brought against the aforementioned
fourteen persons, they were, as is related: That they had spoken
against the article concerning God; against the holy sacraments,
both baptism and the sacrament of the altar; against marriage, etc.;
on account of which there was inflicted upon them the very cruel,
dreadful, and miserable death by fire.
But what they believed and maintained with regard to said points,
according to the account of impartial writers, shall be amply explained
afterwards, in the Confession of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who
held the same belief; since said persons are held to have been the
firstlings of those who maintained the doctrine of the Albigenses
(though long before their general rising). _See the authors cited
above, especially the last one._
Then it will be seen, that they believed and spoke nothing but what we
at the present day believe and speak; also, as regards baptism, that
they baptized believers, and opposed infant baptism; and, touching the
Supper, that they observed it according to the institution of Christ,
but rejected the mass and transubstantiation; again, that they denied
revenge, the swearing of oaths, auricular confession, the invocation of
departed saints, purgatory, etc.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS TOUCHING SAID FOURTEEN MARTYRS, ACCORDING TO THE
ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS PAPISTIC AND OTHER WRITERS, NOTED IN A. MELLINUS’
SECOND BOOK OF THE PERSECUTIONS, FOL. 437, COL. 3, 4.
[Illustration: FOURTEEN PERSONS BURNED AT ORLEANS, FRANCE.]
“Robert Altisidorensis states of said martyrs of Orleans, that they
were of the best or chiefest laymen of Orleans, and that for this
reason a council was convened there against them, in which they were
unanimously condemned and sentenced, as heretics, to the fire; and that
they were thus burned alive.”
This testimony is confirmed by Johannes, a monk of Floriax, who gives
a somewhat fuller account of the matter, in his letter to Oliva or
Olivarius, abbot of the church of Ansona, saying: “Meanwhile I will
inform thee of this heresy (thus he calls the true faith of these
people), which was on Innocent’s day, in the city of Orleans; for it is
the truth if thou hast heard aught of it. King Robert caused fourteen
of the best or most nobly born laymen of said city to be burned alive;
who, (O, what a great falsehood!) abominable before God, and hated by
heaven and earth, utterly denied the grace of holy baptism (he means
infant baptism, for thereupon the grace of salvation was promised to
children, which these men denied) as well as the consecration of the
body and blood of the Lord, and denied that one could thereby obtain
remission of sins, after he had committed a crime.” _Masson Annal.
Franc., lib. 3_, in _Hugo and Robert_.
Glaber Radulphus (in _Hist. Gall., lib. 3, cap. 8_), gives a much more
circumstantial account of these martyrs, relating not only how this (so
called) heresy was discovered, but also how it was brought to Orleans
and propagated; which we, in order to be brief, pass by.