Various Testimonies That The Waldenses Rejected Infant Baptism.

In Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism there is introduced the testimony of Reinerius, in former times a priest of the order of Dominicans, who lived in and about the time of the rise of the Waldenses, and who gives the following with regard to their belief: “They (the Waldenses) say, that the washing of baptism given to infants is of no use.” See concerning this, Bibliotheca Patrum, Tom. 13, page 300. Also, H. Montan. Nietigh., page 86, which also agrees with the confession that Jean Paul Perrin relates in his History of the Waldenses, art. 7.

On pages 618 and 619, several articles are quoted from a very ancient book, which, in papistic manner, are imputed to them as errors, though they spoke correctly and according to truth with regard to them.

1. They reject all the sacraments of the church (that is, as they were administered according to the Romish custom).

2. Of the sacrament of holy baptism they say, that the questions of the catechism are put in vain [that is, to infants, who do not comprehend such questions, and do not have the ability to reply to them; whereby they sufficiently rejected infant baptism, which it was not customary to administer without putting said questions to the unintelligent infants.]

3. That the absolution which is pronounced over infants (at baptism) is useless.

4. That the sponsors (who were accustomed to recite the creed as out of the child’s mouth) do not understand what they answer to the priests.

By the fourth as well as the third article, not only is infant baptism itself abolished, but also its appurtenances of absolution and sponsors are derided and declared a vain, useless, and ridiculous performance. But in the first article already, where it is said, that they rejected all the sacraments of the (Roman) church, among which sacraments infant baptism was not one of the least, but one of the chief ones; it is plainly taught, that they did not believe at all in infant baptism, but like other ancient papal institutions, trampled it under their feet and rejected it.

From said ancient book, which is ascribed to Reinerius, the Waldenses are charged with various other things respecting their faith; of which, in the ninth and tenth charge, the following is said with reference to baptism (page 629, art. 9): “As regards baptism, some (he means the Waldenses) err, saying: ‘Infants are not saved by baptism, Mark 16:16. But he that believes and is baptized, shall be saved; but the child does not believe, and, hence, is not saved (by baptism).’ Thereupon the priest Reinerius replies: ‘The child is baptized upon the faith of the parents;’ ergo.”

Art. 10 confirms the preceding; only it treats also of something more, namely, of the imposition of hands, which was customarily done among the Waldenses, at baptism, to the adult candidates. They also reprove therein the practice which the priests had, of interrogating the sponsors who would 269 come with children to baptism, in an unknown tongue, to which the sponsors then replied, without knowing, however, what they had been asked. This the Waldenses also take as a reason for rejecting infant baptism and the pedobaptistic superstitions. However, to this, said Reinerius replies: “Suffer little children to come unto me.” Matt. 19.

On page 733, de Centuria XIII., cap. 5, fol. 216, 217, it is stated from Cesarius, that the Waldenses and Albigenses rejected baptism and said that baptism possessed no virtue and was of no use; which they understood of infant baptism, which is administered without doctrine and faith; for otherwise the Waldenses esteemed the baptism of Christ, which is administered according to his ordinance, very highly.

P. J. Twisck, beginning to write of the Waldenses for the year 1100, calls them by the name of Brethren, and says that they opposed infant baptism. His words are these: “It is evident from the writers, that in these times and shortly after, there existed the Waldensian or Albigensian Brethren, who opposed the papal errors and infant baptism.” Chron., page 423, col. 1.

This is confirmed by the writers of the Introduction to the Martyrs Mirror, page 50, col. 1, who say, With, or from, Baronius, that among other things they held, that infant baptism is not necessary to salvation.

We finally come to the testimony of Jean Paul Perrin Lionnoys, who, according to the translation of B. Lydius, also confirms the foregoing, although the translator, Lydius, as well as J. M. V., after the manner of pedobaptists has endeavored to give said belief of the Waldenses a different appearance; however, it will appear sufficiently from the matter itself, who has been the more honest, the author or the translator. We will therefore enter upon our work and commit this to the judgment of the reader.

In the third chapter of the first book of the History of the Waldenses, various things of which the papists accused the Waldenses are related, some of which were true, and some false. Among them, mention is made of their views against infant baptism, which is expressed in these words: “The fourth calumny was, that they rejected infant baptism.” Lib. 1, part 1. Hist. Waldenses, cap. 3, page 6, col. 1, from St. Bernh., Hom. 66 on Cant.

These things, B. Lydius (page 10) endeavors to refute, as though the Waldenses deferred the baptism of their children, not in consequence of their belief, but from necessity through want of teachers; in which he agrees with his colleague, Abraham Mellinus, preacher of the Calvinists, in St. Anthony’s Polder; who, remarking that various writers testify that the Waldenses left their children unbaptized, says (Hist. Mart. 435, col. 3): “That the children of the Waldenses often got to be rather old, before they could receive baptism, was not a voluntary matter on their part, but was owing to the lack of teachers; for the harvest among them was great, but the laborers few, who could administer the sacraments, especially baptism, which they held in great esteem. Hence, as their ministers were frequently scattered far and wide, through the violence of persecution, or had gone into other countries to preach, they were often compelled to postpone the baptism of their children, and thus it happened that their children not seldom got to be almost of age, before they could obtain baptism.” Thus far, A. Mellinus.

But who does not see, that this is only a fabrication, yea, an artifice, by which not only Lydius, but also Mellinus, both strong Calvinists, seek to force it upon the Waldenses that they omitted infant baptism not as a matter of faith, but of necessity. For, that they needed not to omit it from necessity, or through want of teachers who administered baptism, if, otherwise they had held infant baptism to be right, appears from various authors; for they had their churches, which could not well be without teachers, not only in kingdoms, principalities, earldoms, and provinces, but even in nearly every city, as we shall show more fully in the proper place. Who, then, can believe, that they from necessity, through want of teachers, left their children unbaptized, yea, suffered them to grow up until they became of age, without baptism?

It is evident, therefore, that they did not leave their children unbaptized from necessity or through want of teachers, but because of their belief; as holding that baptism without faith could not conduce to salvation, as is manifest from the confessions which they professed in those times already. Thus both B. Lydius and A. Mellinus have committed no small blunder, in endeavoring to force infant baptism upon the Waldenses, of which they apparently never thought in such a light, and to deprive them of baptism upon faith, which they had confessed so many times.

But, as the compass, though its point be turned East, West, or South, ultimately returns to North; so it is also with the truth: though she be forced from her proper place, she will eventually return to it. This is the case here; for, said translator, who first intended to prove, that the Waldenses administered baptism not only upon faith, but also without faith, to infants, states in another place, that it was always administered with faith and repentance. For, what else is indicated by the words, that they received the sacraments (that is, not only the Supper, but also baptism) with faith and repentance, and this invariably? as is stated in the first book of the third part of the History of the Waldenses, cap. 9, page 138, col. 1, art. 8.

If, then, not only the second, but also the first sacrament, as it is called, namely baptism, is received with faith and repentance, it cannot be said that it was administered to infants, seeing these have neither knowledge nor ability either to believe, or to manifest repentance, and, hence, lack the whole foundation upon which baptism was administered by the Waldenses.

In the tract of the Waldenses, as to which are the works of antichrist, several reproaches against the Pope of Rome and the Roman church are treated of; among other things, it is said, after the second article has been treated: “The third work of antichrist consists in this, that he ascribes the renewing of the Holy Ghost to the external, dead faith 270 (namely, to the creed which the sponsors used to recite at baptism, as from the mouth of the children), and that he baptizes the children in that faith, pretending that by it baptism and regeneration must be obtained.” History of the Waldenses, 3d book, 3d part. Tract against Antichrist, Art. 3, page 162, col. 1, page 163, col. 2.

In another place there is quoted, from Reinerius, this accusation against the Waldenses: “They also censure many things in the (papal) sacraments, and say that the baptism of infants is of no avail to them.” B. Lydius, Tractaet van de Kerke, page 86, col. 1.

Having, then, sufficiently proved, that the true Waldenses were not only called Anabaptists, but that they also actually rejected infant baptism, we will proceed to other articles of their doctrine, which they had in common with the present Baptists.155