ancients; he teaches, that, in order to be baptized, one must first
believe, and confess the faith; that many who are baptized with water,
are not renewed inwardly, because their heart is not right, though they
make confession with the mouth; that the truly baptized, from servants
of sin, become children of God; that the word of God was preached to
the Christian youth throughout the whole year to prepare them for
baptism. What a certain pedobaptist, D. J. V., has written on said
words of Rupertus; what P. J. Twisck and H. Montanus have noted from
the writings of Rupert; that even some learned men of the Roman church
accorded with Rupert. Johannes Bohemius and Ludovicus Vives, and their
belief against the Roman church.
Many Christians at Arles, Narbonne, Toulouse, in Gascony, and other
parts of France, called Petrobrusians; they, according to Peter, abbot
of Cluny, reproved the abuses of the Roman church.
Of Arnald of Brescia, and Peter Abelard, who also opposed infant
baptism.
Henricus Petri Tholossanus opposes fifteen articles to the papists,
which are all fully stated.
Some peasants in France, called Apostolics, also teach against infant
baptism, purgatory, praying for the dead, invocation of the saints.
The Albigenses, from the province Albi, and the Waldenses, the
followers of Peter Waldus, now arise; the conversion of Peter Waldus,
and how he, having separated from the Roman church, gathered unto
himself much people, to whom he taught the doctrine of the holy Gospel,
and who became his followers.
Of the dispersion and the different names of the Waldenses; that there
were three divisions of them, one of which agreed in all articles
of religion with the Anabaptists; that said people were called
Anabaptists; that they rejected infant baptism; their views with regard
to the office of secular authority, against war, the swearing of oaths,
and against nearly all articles of the Roman church; full statement of
the confession of faith of the Waldenses, in fourteen articles; another
confession of theirs, in twelve articles, made to those of Merindol
and Cabriere; some precepts, which they left to their church; some
testimonies by ancient writers, respecting the virtuous life of the
Waldenses; how they have been unjustly accused by their inquisitors and
accusers; the time in which the Waldenses lived and flourished, namely,
more than three hundred years, in France, as well as in Italy; the
places where they sojourned; that almost a thousand towns were filled
with them. Conclusion.]
* * * * *
As a fire of small coals, when water is poured over it, though emitting
a spark occasionally, yet smoulders for the most part, stifled as it
were, by the smoke, but finally breaks forth with great power, so
that the flame, leaping above the smoke, can no longer be extinguished
with water, or kept down; so it was, in the twelfth century with the
fire of the Gospel, and particularly as regards the article of baptism
upon faith. Over this, the Pope of Rome, with his cardinals, bishops,
priests, and monks, had thus poured, in the preceding century, the
water of so many false doctrines, that scarcely a few sparks could rise
before it was instantly sought to extinguish them, till finally through
the contentions and dissensions of the Romish so-called clergy, each
striving to rise above the other, the fire of the Gospel, as having
been, it was supposed, sufficiently quenched, was left, in some measure
unmolested; in consequence of which it began to rekindle and burn
with such power that its flames, having surmounted the smoke of papal
superstitions, could not be extinguished by the water of persecution,
suffering, or death; yea, the severest persecutions and the greatest
torments were, at that time, like oil in the fire.
This shall be shown in the proper place; but first we will speak of the
persons who then opposed infant baptism and other Roman superstitions,
and, in order to do this systematically, we will begin thus:
For A. D. 1100, the last year of the eleventh, or the beginning of
the twelfth century, P. J. Twisck gives this account: “It appears
from writers, that at this time and shortly after, there existed
the Waldenses and the Albigeois, who opposed the papal errors, and
infant baptism, and had to suffer much misery and persecution from the
tyrants. _Chron., page 423, col. 1_. However, in the proper place we
shall speak more fully of it.
_A. D. 1105._--This is the year in which mention is made by writers of
certain persons who were accused of having no good opinion of infant
baptism as well as of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into
the body and blood of Christ; and of reviling the Roman church. _P. J.
Twisck, page 428, col. 2_, from _Merul., fol. 726_; also, _H. Mont., p.
83_.
We briefly mention this here, simply to show the belief of those
people; however, when we come to the account of the martyrs of this
time, we shall show how many there were of these persons, what befell
them on account of their faith, and where, and through whom this
happened.
_A. D. 1119._--It is recorded that at this time there were certain
people, who, under the name of religion, besides other things of the
Roman church, also reviled infant baptism and the mass. _J. Mehrn.,
Bapt. Hist., page 685_, from _Joh. de Oppido, inquisit. Tholoss., in
Chron._ Also, _A. Mell., fol. 422, col. 1_.
_A. D. 1120._--Jean Paul Perrin Lionnois makes mention, in his _History
of the Waldenses and Albigenses, 3d part, 3d book, cap. 1, pages 163,
164_, of a certain manuscript dated A. D. 1120, containing certain
sermons of such people as were afterwards, in the time of Peter Waldus,
called Waldenses and Albigenses. Besides said sermons, there is also a
tract against the Pope of Rome, who is there called antichrist.
But above all it is worthy of note, that among the marks ascribed there
to antichrist, infant baptism upon a dead faith is also enumerated,
and is called _the third work of antichrist_. Then there are further
denounced, the mass, image worship, and relics, or the bones of the
saints.
“The sixth work of antichrist,” these people said, “consists in this,
that he tolerates open sins, and does not excommunicate or separate the
impenitent.”
“The seventh work of antichrist consists in this, that he does not
govern or protect his unity through the Holy Spirit, but by secular
power, uniting the latter with spiritual things, for his aid.”
“The eighth work of antichrist is, that he persecutes the members of
the church of Christ, searches out, apprehends and kills them.”
Thus it is quite evident, that in these early times, there were already
very many who not only confessed the purity of the true faith, but even
attacked, with spiritual weapons from God’s holy word, the Roman see,
notwithstanding, as appears from the eighth work of antichrist, they
were persecuted, searched out, apprehended and killed; of which we
shall speak more fully in the proper place.
_A. D. 1124._--At this time, appeared Rupert Tuiciensis with many
writings. He did not hesitate to point out the decay, and the manifold
superstitions of the Roman church, presenting at the same time, the
practice of the first Christian and the apostolical church; by which
course he gave the Romanists of his time sufficient cause to be ashamed
and convinced, especially with regard to the abuse of baptism, which
originally had been administered upon faith, but was now given by them
to infants. All this we hope to show in proper order, from the writings
he has left.
First of all he establishes, that in order to be truly baptized, faith
and confession of the same are required.
_Jac. Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 659._ Rupert (_lib. 13, on John
18_) says: “Every one that is to be baptized, must first believe and
confess, and not until then be baptized, upon (or into) the death of
Christ, and be buried with him by baptism in order to arise.”
Who does not see that Rupert here censures and refutes the practice
of those who at his time, namely, among the Roman church, baptized
infants, without regard to faith or confession of the same, as well
as without dying unto, and burying of, former sins, much less, with
arising unto a new life, since these things cannot exist in infants;
for why should he have connected faith, confession of it, and baptism,
if he had not considered them as belonging together? Why should he say,
that every one that is to be baptized, must first believe and confess?
which is just what Christ taught, Mark 16:16, and Philip required of
the Ethiopian, Acts 8:37.
Thus it is also with what he says of being baptized upon, or into, the
death of Christ, and of being buried with him by baptism, in order to
arise, etc.; for this the apostle applies to those who, having been
baptized upon their faith, had become members of the church at Rome,
Rom. 6:3,4, whose faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom.
1:8.
_Page 657._ Rupert (_lib. 11, on John 15_) says: “They (the teachers)
can visibly administer water baptism, but they cannot give the Holy
Spirit, in whom, nevertheless, all the virtue of baptism consists.”
These are words that overthrow the authority and power of the Romish
priests, who, when baptizing infants, were wont to pretend that they
did not only wet them with water, but that they also expelled Satan
from them, and imparted the Holy Ghost, which they supposed to bring
about by certain exorcisms and blessings; but this is opposed by
Rupert, with the aforementioned words.
_Same page._ Rupert (_lib. 3, on John 2_) says: “There are many who are
indeed baptized with water, but are nevertheless not renewed in the
spirit of their mind, because they do not put off the works of the old
man, though they are baptized in the water, and confess that they put
on the new man.”
Here the reason is shown, why many, though baptized with water, are
not renewed in the spirit of their mind; however, the blame is charged
upon the candidates themselves, and not upon the teachers, who had
not blessed them; but it is because those who were baptized, did not
themselves, though it was their duty, put off the works of the old man.
For, God’s wisdom (that is, the Spirit of God) does not enter into a
malicious soul; nor does it dwell in the body that is subject unto sin.
_Sap. 1:4._
It must be noted, moreover, that when he speaks here of being baptized
in the water, of confessing something, and of putting on the new
man, and that all this is said of the candidates of his time, it is
clearly evident, that then, in the church of which he speaks, adult and
intelligent persons were baptized, who, confessing their former sins,
could put on the new man, that is, a sinless and godly life.
_Page 662, num. 17._ Rupert (_lib. 2, on John 1_) says: “To be baptized
with the Holy Ghost, is to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, who
does not [only] point out sin, but helps against sin, making us, from
servants of sin, children of God.” Again: “He baptizes us with fire,
when he, through the Holy Spirit, makes us strong in love, constant in
faith, shining in knowledge, and burning with good zeal.”
He has respect here to the promise which John gave to those who came
to his baptism, saying: “He (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost, and with fire,” Matt. 3:11; John 1:33; which, as everyone knows,
is a promise given not to infants, but to adult persons; hence Rupert
also has such in view here.
This appears still more clearly, when he says of said candidates, that
they, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, were made, from servants of
sin, children of God; for no one can in truth be called a servant of
sin, who has not first served sin; and no one can be made a child of
God, who has not first been a child of the world; for what one becomes
or will become, he has not been before.
With what he says further, of being “strong in love, constant in faith,
shining in knowledge, and burning with good zeal,” he certainly
indicates that he is speaking of such persons as, having attained to
the use of their reason, have knowledge and ability for true love,
faith in God, the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and a good zeal for the
observance of the commandments of the Lord; for by such, and none else,
can these things be undertaken, and, with God’s blessing, carried out.
In another place Rupert relates what customarily took place as
regards the candidates, baptism itself, and some of the circumstances
pertaining to it. He says: “All the youth of the church, whom they had
sought to win to God, during the year, through the preaching of the
word, gave in their names, on the fourth day of the week in lent, when
Easter approached; and when each of them, in the subsequent days till
Easter, heard the rule of faith, in which he had been begotten and had
grown up, he finally died (that is, he put to death sin), and rose
with Christ (that is, to a new life), confessing the faith with full
confidence, at baptism.” _Bapt. Hist., page 706, D. Vicecom., lib. 2,
cap. 14_, from _Rupert, lib. 4, cap. 18_.
Upon this, a certain pedobaptist, D. J. V. (same page), once said: “But
the Christian fear of God pleases us better, since the baptism of the
ancients, and with it the ancient custom (namely, of baptizing upon
faith), are abolished, and the believers now give to their children
their names, at baptism, before the eighth day after their birth; for
this agrees best with the practice of the Jews, who gave to their
children their names on the eighth day of circumcision, and with the
custom of the heathen, who did the like to their children, on the
eighth, ninth, or tenth day after their birth.”
This is certainly plain language. He says that the baptism of the
ancients (that is, the baptism according to the institution of Christ,
Mark 16:16), and with it also the ancient custom (namely, of baptizing
upon faith), are abolished (that is, by those who have introduced
infant baptism), and he praises this as a Christian fear of God,
saying, that it pleases him better. How would any one dare speak with
greater presumption and shamelessness of the commandments of Jesus
Christ? It grieves me to say more about this and I will leave it,
adding, however, the remarks of Jacob Mehrning in referring to these
words: “A fine arrangement this! Christians are no longer to conform to
the baptismal ordinance of Christ, but Christ is to accommodate himself
with his baptism, to the practice of the Jews and the custom of the
heathen. Fie, Satan! how brazenly dost thou here disclose thy cloven
foot!”
P. J. Twisck and H. Montanus quote the following words from the
writings of Rupert: “Formerly it was customary to renew the children,
throughout the year, with the word of God, in order to present to them,
on the approach of Easter, the faith, which they had to confess at
baptism; but, that Christianity might grow, and the net of the Gospel
become full, it pleased the church (that is, the Roman church), because
of the danger of temporal death, that the children of Christians should
be baptized immediately.” _Chron., page 443, col. 2, Nietigh., page
83_, from _Rupert, lib. 4, de Divinis Officies, cap. 18_.
“With Rupert,” writes Twisck, “several learned men of the Roman church
in this last century agree, as is adduced from their books. John
Bohemius says: ‘Formerly it was customary to administer baptism only
to those who had previously been instructed in the faith, and who were
examined seven times in the weeks preceding Easter and Whitsuntide; but
when baptism was afterwards deemed essential to eternal life, it was
ordained that new-born infants should be baptized, and that sponsors
should be provided, who, in their stead, confessed the faith, and
renounced Satan.’” _Same page_, from _J. Boh., lib. 2, de Gent. Morib.,
Loop der Werelt, page 41_.
“This is confirmed by Ludovicus Vives, who says: ‘No one was brought to
baptism among us, until he had reached his years, and when he knew what
the mystic water signified, and himself desired to be washed with it.’”
_Same page_, from _Lud. Viv., in Annat. Civit. dei Augustini, lib. 1,
cap. 27_, also, _H. Mont., page 88_.
But, to return to Rupert, Twisck says, he wrote not only on baptism,
but also composed many other books, against the papal views, of the
holy Scriptures, of justification, of two sacraments, of the Supper
under both forms, and of the spiritual presence of Christ. He also
says of antichrist, that he will send his messengers and preachers
throughout the whole world; he will first convert (that is, turn to
himself) and overcome the Kings and princes, and then, through their
instrumentality, will raise persecution over all the nations who will
sincerely confess Christ. _Chron., page 444, col. 1_, from _Rupert, in
Apoc., lib. 3, cap. 13, Johan. Fobri., fol. 158, Anth. Jac., fol. 113,
John Munst., fol. 140_.
_A. D. 1126._--At this time, there were many Christians at Arles,
Narbonne, Toulouse, in Gascony, and at different other places in
France, who were afterwards called Petrobrusians, after one Peter
Bruis,[154] their most prominent teacher, and who also neither
sanctioned nor practiced infant baptism. This is attested by Peter,
abbot of Cluny, who says, in the beginning of his tract against the
Petrobrusians: “They deny that infants who have not yet attained the
years of understanding, can be saved by the baptism of Christ; and say
that the faith of another cannot help those who cannot use their own
faith; for, according to their view, not the faith of another, but each
one’s own faith saves with baptism, because the Lord says: ‘He that
believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not,
shall be damned.’” _Bapt. Hist., page 598, H. Mont. Nietigh., page 83_,
from _Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 12, part 2, fol. 206_. Also, _Baron., A. D.
1126_.
[154] This Peter de Bruis, with his disciple Henry, was known, A.
D. 1130, throughout all France, on account of his learning and his
boldness in reproving the abuses of the Roman church. _Bapt. Hist.,
page 686._
The foregoing is so clearly opposed to infant baptism and in favor of
baptism upon faith, that it is unnecessary to add a single word of
explanation; hence, we will let the matter rest, and proceed to others
who maintained and confirmed the same belief, both in and after those
times.
NOTE.--_A. D. 1128._ Arnulph, Bishop of Lyons, an excellent preacher
of the Christian doctrine, was secretly murdered at this time, through
craftiness, by the clergy, because he reproved too severely their
luxuriousness, lewdness and gross errors. He presented to them, for
their imitation, Christ’s poverty, and his most holy life and walk. _P.
J. Twisck, page 446, col. 1, Chron. Platinæ, fol. 273, Histor. Andr.,
fol. 57; Histor. Georg., lib. 5._
_A. D. 1131._--About this time, also Hildebert, Bishop of Mayence,
wrote and preached vehemently against the power and authority of the
Pope, whom he did not hesitate to charge with tyranny; declaring also,
that the city of Rome had been made by him the seat of all mischief and
wickedness, because the fear of God and love were banished from it.
For this he was imprisoned at Rome, and treated very cruelly. _P. J.
Twisck, Chron., page 448, col. 2_, and _page 449, col. 1_, from _Paul
Merul. Tytthres., fol. 746_.
_A. D. 1139._--A little before or after this time, as Baronius says,
Arnald, a lector, at Brescia, in Italy, taught against infant baptism;
as did also Peter Abelard, of whom Arnald had obtained his doctrine,
in France. Concerning this much might be related here, but, as we
afterwards, in the proper place, shall have to speak of the martyrdom
of these persons, we will say no more of this here, deeming the
statement that they opposed infant baptism sufficient for the present.
As regards their doctrine, as well as what happened to them, see _Bapt.
Hist., page 598, H. Mont. Nietigh., page 84_, from _Baron., A. D. 1139,
Num. 3_, also _A. D. 1145, Num. 3_, and _A. D. 1147, Num. 6_.
NOTE.--“In the year 1139 or 1140,” writes P. J. Twisck, “there was in
Italy an honorable, godly, and learned man, simple in his life, called
Arnold of Brescia, who dared teach and preach mightily against the
power and authority of the Pope and against the monks and priests; on
account of which he was excommunicated by Innocent, the Pope of Rome,
and greatly persecuted. Arnold, therefore, fled into Switzerland, and
remained at Zurich, exposing all the abominations of the papists.”
_Chron., page 466, col. 2_, from _Hist. Georg., lib. 5. Chron. Car.,
lib. 4. Leonh., lib. 5. Zegh., fol. 292. Hist. Eccl. Casp. Hedio., 3d
part, cap. 11, D. Andr. Hond., lib. 2, cap. 26. Seb. Franck,. fol. 26,
39. Merul. Tytt., fol. 750, 753, 757, 760, 761, 853. Jan. Cresp., fol.
281._ Of his death we shall speak in the history of the martyrs, for
the year 1145.
_A. D. 1147._--Henricus Petri Tholossanus, that is, Henry of Toulouse,
at this time and afterwards, vigorously attacked infant baptism, with
the spiritual weapons of divine truth; which he had commenced already
in the time of Peter Bruis, as was mentioned for the year 1126; and he
did not cease to pursue it until, and after the death of said Peter
Bruis; which matter is described by _Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page
664_ as follows: “Now Peter de Bruis having been condemned and burnt,
Henry strenuously maintained his doctrine; for he was a co-worker with
Peter, and had not a few followers of his doctrine.” Peter Cluniacensis
writes, that among other things, he taught:
1. That children may not be baptized or saved through the faith of
another; but they must be baptized and saved through their own faith;
for baptism without individual faith, saves no one.
2. That individual faith without baptism is also useless.
3. That children that have not yet reached the years of understanding,
cannot be saved by the baptism of Christ.
4. That those who have been baptized in infancy, must, when they become
older, be re-baptized, for this, he says, is not re-baptizing, but,
much rather, baptizing aright.
5. That the body and blood of Christ are not offered up in the public
mass; and that this sacrifice has no virtue to the salvation of souls.
Again, that the altars ought to be cast down or broken in pieces.
6. That the doctrine of the forms and of the transubstantiation of the
sacrament is false.
7. That the Supper ought not to be administered any more (as their
accusers charged them with maintaining), it having been given once by
Christ to the apostles.
8. That the sacrifice of the mass, prayer, alms, and such like, works
of the living for the dead, are folly, wickedness, and of no avail.
9. That monks and priests should marry, rather than commit fornication,
and live continually in lewdness.
10. That crucifixes should not be honored or worshiped; and the many
crosses, which tend to superstition, ought much rather to be abolished
than retained.
11. That men ought not to build so many costly churches, which are
frequently not used for hearing the word of God; and those that are
built should be demolished.
12. That by the bawling church-singing of the priests and monks God is
mocked, and not reconciled.
13. That flesh may be eaten on Sunday and other days.
14. That they do not receive all the books of the Old and the New
Testaments, namely those which are called _apocryphal_; but the Gospel
only.
15. That they believe only the holy Scriptures, but do not place the
writings of the fathers on an equality with them.
This doctrine, and these articles, Peter Cluniacensus, who quoted them
from the writings of Henry, undertook to refute; but the _Centuriatores
Magdeburgenses_ accept them for the most part, and refute Peter. See
concerning this, _Bapt. Hist., pp. 665, 666_.
Said articles certainly show of what faith and persuasion Henry was,
and that he did not continue to adhere to monachism, although he had
first embraced it; for, to be a monk and to make such a profession,
are incompatible with each other. On this account he had to suffer
much ignominy and calumny from Bernhard, who was regarded as a saint
among the Romanists. The latter not only called him an ignorant fellow
and an apostate from the Roman church, but also charged him with many
unbecoming, and ungodly things, though by other writers, of greater
note and credibility, he has been exempted, and acquitted of them.