# Summary Of Baptism In The Twelfth Century.

12th century (source section) · Historical source

Source: Martyrs’ Mirror. Original heading: SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

Century of containing source section; exact event date not assigned

[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.





---

Page: http://history.truechristian.church/stories/mm-summary-of-baptism-in-the-twelfth-century/

[Contribute a correction or addition](https://github.com/trueChristian/history.truechristian.church/issues/new?title=Correction%3A+Summary+Of+Baptism+In+The+Twelfth+Century.&body=%23%23+Page+or+topic%0ASummary+Of+Baptism+In+The+Twelfth+Century.%0A%0APage%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.truechristian.church%2Fstories%2Fmm-summary-of-baptism-in-the-twelfth-century%2F%0A%0ARecord%3A+mm-summary-of-baptism-in-the-twelfth-century%0A%0ADate+currently+shown%3A+12th+century+%28source+section%29%0A%0A%23%23+Correction+or+addition%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Sources+and+evidence%0APlease+include+book%2Fpage+references%2C+archive+links%2C+or+first-hand+documentation.%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Image+credit+%28if+applicable%29%0ACreator%2C+source%2C+and+permission+or+public-domain+basis.%0A%0A%0A%0ASubmitted+for+review%3B+this+issue+does+not+publish+changes+automatically.)