Part 61
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.
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.
OF THE CONVERSION OF PETER WALDO, AND THE RISE OF THE WALDENSES, ETC.
M. Matthias Flaccius Illyricus (in his _Catalog. Tesitum Veritatis, between fol. 263, and fol. 277, according to Jac. Mehrning in Bapt. Hist., page 601_), writes: “About A. D. 1160, several of the principal citizens of Lyons were together, conversing on various matters, as is customary in the summer season, in Italy and France. As they were thus standing together, one of them suddenly fell down to the ground and expired, before their eyes.
“This awful occurrence, an example of the mortality of man, and of the divine wrath, terrified one of their number, namely, Peter Waldo, a man who was very wealthy. He began to reflect and resolved (Impelled, no doubt, by the Holy Spirit), to repent, amend his life, and be more diligent in the fear of God than he had hitherto been. He therefore began to distribute alms liberally, and at convenient seasons, to put his household and others who came to him, in mind of the good, and to admonish them to repentance and true godliness.
“When he had thus for some time, done much good to the poor, and was becoming the longer the more zealous to learn, as well as to teach others, the people also came to him more and more; he therefore began to present to them, not his own ideas, but the holy Scriptures, and to expound and explain the same in the common French language.
“But the bishop and the prelates, who, as Christ says, have the key of heaven, and yet do not go in themselves, nor will suffer others to enter, were greatly vexed that this (in their opinion) unlearned and common man, should bring the holy Scriptures into the vernacular language, and expound the same, and that already great numbers came into his house, whom he instructed and admonished.
“However, he was greatly in earnest, to promote both the honor of God and the salvation of men; and the people were so eager for the word of God, which, in the churches, was not preached pure, nor publicly, that they could not be turned away by the command of these papistic Pharisees and highpriests; hence, both the teacher and those taught said, that one ought to obey God rather than men.
“Waldo therefore resolved, notwithstanding the commands of the wicked, to sustain the hungry Christians not only with his temporal living, which, owing to the liberal distribution, decreased day by day, but also with the word of God, and good instructions and admonitions; and since the prelates, by tyranny and unchristian decrees, sought to suppress and exterminate the simple and true preaching of the word of God, sufficient reason was thus given to Waldo and his adherents, to inquire the more diligently into the religion and intentions of the priests, and to speak the more boldly against them.
“The contest with the priests becoming the longer the more violent, more confusions and superstitions were discovered in the papistic religion, and attacked. At this time Waldo also read, in the vernacular, certain testimonies from the writings of the fathers, with which he defended his own not only with the holy Scriptures, but also with the testimonies of the ancients, against the enemies of the truth.
“When the bishop with his papistic Pharisees and scribes saw with what constancy Waldo and his adherents taught the word of God, and were pained, that their own infamy, ignorance, and fickleness in doctrine, and other absurdities, were attacked by Waldo and his followers, they excommunicated them one and all. Not long afterwards, perceiving that also by excommunication they could not be deterred from their purpose, they relegated them into misery, persecuted them with imprisonment, the sword, and fire, and treated them very atrociously, in order that they might be compelled, on account of the existing distress and danger, to remove from Lyons and disperse into various countries.
“It is presumable, that the congregations of Waldo, or some of them, whom he taught at Lyons, were there for four or five years, until they were utterly driven away from that city; for Waldo was a man of powerful abilities, and is said to have had many relatives, and, hence, could not be checked or suppressed in a trice; besides, he did not immediately, at the beginning, attack the priests of the Pope.
“Finally, these godly people were proceeded against with great fury, throughout Christendom; they were sent hither and thither by the inquisitors; for which we have to thank those atrocious wolves that go about in sheep’s clothing, and call themselves monks.” _Bapt. Hist., pages 601–4, from Matt. Flacc._
Claude de Rubis relates, that Waldo and his followers were completely expelled from Lyons; while Albert de Capitaneis says, that they could not be expelled entirely. We have not been able to ascertain anything further about this first persecution, save that the Waldenses, so called after Waldo, after escaping from Lyons, followed him, and then dispersed, in different bands, into various countries. _Balthas. Lydius, History of the Waldenses, printed at Dortrecht, 1624, 1st book of the first part, cap. 1, Page 3, col. 1, from Claud. de Rub. Hist., p. 269. Albert de Cap., book of the origin of the Waldenses, page 1._
NOTE.--Peter Blesensus, a learned man, well known by his writings, taught, A. D. 1167, that Rome was the true Babylon of which John has prophesied; that the officials of the Roman court were genuine harpies, and the priests, true calves of Bethel, priests of Baal, Egyptian idols, and that at Rome everything could be had for money. _Chron. van den Onderg., page 479, col. 1, from Merula, fol. 767._
_About A. D. 1170._--For the year 1160, we gave an account of Peter Waldo and his conversion, as well as of his having brought many who sat in the darkness of popery, to the light of the holy Gospel. It is stated of these people, that in doctrine, faith, and life they were like the Apostolics, of whom we made mention for the year 1155, and stated, that they were opposed to infant baptism, purgatory, etc. The rise of these people, called Waldenses and Albigenses, is fixed about A. D. 1170, that is, ten years after Peter Waldo began to teach them; which matters shall hereafter be treated more fully and circumstantially. Compare _Bapt. Hist., page 599_, with _Nietigh., page 85_; also, _Introduction to the Martyrs Mirror, fol. 50, col. 1, 2_, (although the principal rising of said people is there fixed A. D. 1176) from _Bar. in Chron., A. D. 1176, num. 1, 2, 3_.