Summary Of Baptism In The Twelfth Century.

[The last year of the preceding century, namely, A. D. 1100, is introduced here by way of introduction to the following century; in which it is shown, that in and shortly after that time there existed the Waldenses and Albigeois, of whom we shall speak more fully about the middle of this century.

For the year 1105, some persons are introduced, who opposed infant baptism, transubstantiation, and the Roman church; also some, for the year 1119, who condemned the mass.

Certain people, who held the same views as were afterwards held in the time of Peter Waldus. Their views against the Pope, infant baptism, the mass, image worship, secular power of the church, persecution, etc.

Rupert Tuiciensis gives an excellent exposition of the baptism of the 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 261 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 262 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., 263 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.

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 264 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.

We will close our remarks concerning Henry, and give, if necessary, a fuller account of the matter, when we shall speak of his sufferings for the truth; however, in reference to this, we refer the reader briefly, to Bapt. Hist., pages 685, 686, from A. M., fol. 423, 424, ex Petr. Cluniac. Duae, epist. 141 and 142, ad Comit. Tholoss. and Tholossanos, idem, Serm., 65, 66, super. Cant. vitae Bernh., cap. 3. Cent. Magd. XII., cap. 5, and Illyr. Cat. Test. Verit., lib. 15, tit. Petri de Bruis, etc.

A. D. 1155.—This is the time in which, according to Nicholas Sander (but according to Cesar Baronius, A. D. 1147), there were in the vicinity of Toulouse, in France, certain humble people, who, by other writers, are called peasants, but who properly were termed Apostolics, that is, followers of the apostles. It is stated of them, that they would hold only to the apostolic writings, and that they therefore condemned infant baptism, as well as purgatory, praying for the dead, the invocation of the saints, etc.

More might be related here, but as some of them have attained to the martyrs’ crown, and we consequently shall afterwards have to speak more fully with regard to them, we will leave the matter until then, being satisfied, meanwhile, that they professed this good profession, and rejected the evil. See concerning this, P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 469, col. 2, from Nicol. Sand., Hist. der Mart. Doops-ges., A. 8, D. Anth. Jac., fol. 118; also Bapt. Hist., page 599. H. Montan. Niehtigh., page 84, etc.

A. D. 1160.—This is the year which, of old, was noted with joy by many pious and well-meaning Christians, who detested popery; and in which, even to this day, not a few of the godfearing rejoice. For then, and especially, shortly after, popery and her superstitions received the severest blow of which we read in history; and the divine truth, which, almost to this very time, seemed, in many respects, to be trampled under foot most atrociously, now joyfully raised her head and triumphed. The doctrine against infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, war, in short, against nearly all the evil practices and perverted worship of the Roman church, of which one formerly dared speak only with fear and trembling, and that often only in private, was now boldly, yea, frequently, publicly preached and defended, and, notwithstanding the threats of the Pope of Rome, maintained. This was first commenced chiefly by Peter Waldo at Lyons, in France, and carried out by his successors; however, in order to treat the matter systematically, we will begin with the conversion of Peter Waldo, and then go on to his successors.