An Account of the Holy Baptism in the Twelfth Century

[The last year of the preceding century, namely, the year 1100, is brought in here as an introduction to the century that follows; in which it is shown that in and shortly after that time there existed the Waldenses and the Albigeois, of whom we shall speak more fully about the middle of this century.

For the year 1105, certain persons are brought forward 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 that were afterward held in the time of Peter Waldus. Their views against the pope, infant baptism, the mass, image worship, the secular power of the church, persecution, and so on.

Rupert Tuiciensis gives an excellent account 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 become, from servants of sin, children of God; and 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 these words of Rupertus; what P. J. Twisck and H. Montanus have noted from the writings of Rupert; and that even some learned men of the Roman church agreed 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; according to Peter, abbot of Cluny, they reproved the abuses of the Roman church.

Of Arnald of Brescia, and Peter Abelard, who also opposed infant baptism.

Henricus Petri Tholossanus sets fifteen articles against the papists, all of which are fully stated.

Some peasants in France, called Apostolics, also teach against infant baptism, purgatory, praying for the dead, and the invocation of the saints.

The Albigenses, from the province AN, 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 many people to himself, to whom he taught the doctrine of the holy Gospel, and who became his followers. [n378-2]

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, and that these people were called Anabaptists; that they rejected infant baptism; their views concerning the office of secular authority, against war, against the swearing of oaths, and against nearly all the articles of the Roman church; a 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 about 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 lived; and that almost a thousand towns were filled with them.

Conclusion.]

A fire of small coals, when water is poured over it, throws out a spark now and then, but for the most part only smolders, stifled as it were by the smoke; yet at last it breaks out with great power, so that the flame, leaping above the smoke, can no longer be put out with water or held down. So it was in the twelfth century with the fire of the Gospel, and particularly with the article of baptism upon faith. Over this fire the pope of Rome, with his cardinals, bishops, priests, and monks, had poured in the preceding century the water of so many false doctrines that scarcely could a few sparks rise before it was at once attempted to put them out. At last, through the quarrels and divisions of the Romish so-called clergy, each striving to rise above the other, the fire of the Gospel, being supposed to be sufficiently quenched, was left in some measure unmolested; and because of this it began to rekindle and to burn with such power that its flames, having risen above the smoke of papal superstitions, could not be put out by the water of persecution, suffering, or death. Indeed, the severest persecutions and the greatest torments were at that time like oil on 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 in an orderly way, we will begin as follows:

For the year 1100, the last year of the eleventh century, or the beginning of the twelfth, 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, column 1. However, in the proper place we shall speak more fully of it.

In the year 1105. This is the year in which writers mention 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, column 2, from Merul., folio 726; also, H. Mont., page 83.

We mention this briefly 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 of these persons there were, what happened to them because of their faith, and where and through whom it happened.

In the year 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, inquisitor of Toulouse, in Chron. Also, A. Mell., folio 422, column 1.

In the year 1120. Jean Paul Perrin Lionnois mentions, in his History of the Waldenses and Albigenses, part 3, book 3, chapter 1, pages 163 and 164, a certain manuscript dated in the year 1120, containing sermons of such people as were afterward, in the time of Peter Waldus, called Waldenses and Albigenses. Besides these sermons there is also a tract against the pope of Rome, who is there called antichrist.

But above all it is worth noting that among the marks ascribed there to antichrist, infant baptism upon a dead faith is also counted, and is called the third work of antichrist. Then the mass, image worship, and relics, or the bones of the saints, are further denounced.

"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, joining 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 them out, arrests them and kills them."

So 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 the Roman see with spiritual weapons out of God's holy Word, even though, as appears from the eighth work of antichrist, they were persecuted, searched out, arrested and killed; of which we shall speak more fully in the proper place.

In the year 1124. At this time Rupert Tuiciensis appeared with many writings. He did not hesitate to point out the decay and the many superstitions of the Roman church, setting before them at the same time the practice of the first Christian and apostolic church. By this course he gave the Romanists of his time cause enough to be ashamed and convinced, especially with regard to the abuse of baptism, which at first 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 lays it down that in order to be truly baptized, faith and the confession of it are required.

Jac. Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 659. Rupert (book 13, on John 18) says: "Everyone who 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 rise again."

Who does not see that Rupert here censures and refutes the practice of those who in his time, namely, in the Roman church, baptized infants without regard to faith or the confession of it, and without dying to, and burying, former sins, much less rising to a new life, since these things cannot exist in infants? For why should he have joined together faith, the confession of it, and baptism, if he had not considered them as belonging together? Why should he say that everyone who is to be baptized must first believe and confess? This is just what Christ taught, Mark 16, verse 16, and what Philip required of the Ethiopian, Acts 8, verse 37.

So 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 rise, and so on; for the apostle applies this to those who, having been baptized upon their faith, had become members of the church at Rome, Romans 6, verses 3 and 4, whose faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, Romans 1, verse 8.

Page 657. Rupert (book 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, used to claim that they did not only wet them with water, but that they also drove Satan out of them and imparted the Holy Ghost, which they supposed they brought about by certain exorcisms and blessings; but this is opposed by Rupert with the aforementioned words.

Same page. Rupert (book 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 a body that is subject to sin. Wisdom of Solomon 1, verse 4. [n378-3]

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 when 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, number 17. Rupert (book 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 in view here 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," Matthew 3, verse 11; John 1, verse 33. This, as everyone knows, is a promise given not to infants, but to adult persons; so Rupert also has such in view here.

This appears still more clearly when he says of these candidates that, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, they were made, from servants of sin, children of God; for no one can truly 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 a person 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 shows that he is speaking of such persons as, having come to the use of their reason, have the knowledge and the ability for true love, faith in God, the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and a good zeal for keeping the commandments of the Lord; for by such, and by no others, can these things be undertaken and, with God's blessing, carried out.

In another place Rupert tells what was customarily done with regard to the candidates, to baptism itself, and to some of the circumstances belonging 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 drew near; and when each of them, in the following days until Easter, had heard the rule of faith in which he had been begotten and had grown up, he at last died (that is, he put sin to death), and rose with Christ (that is, to a new life), confessing the faith with full confidence at baptism." Bapt. Hist., page 706, D. Vicecom., book 2, chapter 14, from Rupert, book 4, chapter 18.

On 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 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 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, verse 16), and with it also the ancient custom (namely, of baptizing upon faith), are abolished (that is, by those who have brought in infant baptism); and he praises this as a Christian fear of God, saying that it pleases him better. How could anyone dare to speak of the commandments of Jesus Christ with greater presumption and shamelessness? It grieves me to say more about this, and I will leave it, adding, however, the remarks of Jacob Mehrning on these words: "A fine arrangement this! Christians are no longer to conform to the baptismal ordinance of Christ, but Christ is to accommodate Himself and His baptism to the practice of the Jews and the custom of the heathen. Fie, Satan! How brazenly you here disclose your 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, so 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 at once." Chron., page 443, column 2, Nietigh., page 83, from Rupert, book 4, de Divinis Officiis, chapter 18.

"With Rupert," writes Twisck, "several learned men of the Roman church in this last century agree, as is shown from their books. John Bohemius says: `Formerly it was customary to administer baptism only to those who had first been instructed in the faith, and who were examined seven times in the weeks before Easter and Whitsuntide; but when baptism was afterward held to be necessary to eternal life, it was ordained that newborn infants should be baptized, and that sponsors should be provided, who in their place confessed the faith and renounced Satan.'" Same page, from J. Boh., book 2, de Gent. Morib., Loop der Werelt, page 41.

"This is confirmed by Ludovicus Vives, who says: `No one among us was brought to baptism until he had reached his years, and knew what the mystic water signified, and himself desired to be washed with it.'" Same page, from Lud. Viv., in Annot. Civit. Dei Augustini, book 1, chapter 27; also, H. Mont., page 88.

But, to return to Rupert, Twisck says that he wrote not only on baptism, but also composed many other books against the papal views: on the holy Scriptures, on justification, on two sacraments, on the Supper under both forms, and on the spiritual presence of Christ. He also says of antichrist that he will send his messengers and preachers throughout the whole world; that he will first convert (that is, turn to himself) and overcome the kings and princes, and then, through them, will raise persecution over all the nations that will sincerely confess Christ. Chron., page 444, column 1, from Rupert, in Apoc., book 3, chapter 13, Johan. Fobri., folio 158, Anth. Jac., folio 113, John Munst., folio 140.

In the year 1126. At this time there were many Christians at Arles, Narbonne, Toulouse, in Gascony, and at various other places in France, who were afterward called Petrobrusians, after one Peter Bruis,* their most prominent teacher, and who also neither approved 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 reached the years of understanding can be saved by the baptism of Christ; and they say that the faith of another cannot help those who cannot use their own faith; for, according to their view, it is not the faith of another, but each one's own faith, that saves with baptism, because the Lord says: `He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be damned.'" Bapt. Hist., page 598, H. Mont. Nietigh., page 83, from Biblioth. Patr., volume 12, part 2, folio 206. Also, Baron., in the year 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. [n378-1]

So we will let the matter rest, and go on to the others who held and confirmed the same belief, both in and after those times.

NOTE. In the year 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 their luxury, lewdness and gross errors too severely. He set before them, for their imitation, Christ's poverty, and His most holy life and walk. P. J. Twisck, page 446, column 1, Chron. Platin., folio 273, Histor. Andr., folio 57; Histor. Georg., book 5.

In the year 1131. About this time also Hildebert, Bishop of Mayence, wrote and preached strongly 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, column 2, and page 499, column 1, from Paul Merul. Tytthres., folio 746.

In the year 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, from whom Arnald had obtained his doctrine, in France. Much might be related here about this, but since we shall afterward, in the proper place, have to speak of the martyrdom of these persons, we will say no more of it here, thinking it enough for the present to state that they opposed infant baptism. As regards their doctrine, as well as what happened to them, see Bapt. Hist., page 598, H. Mont. Nietigh., page 84, from Baron., in the year 1139, number 3; also in the year 1145, number 3, and in the year 1147, number 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 to 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, column 2, from Hist. Georg., book 5. Chron. Car., book 4. Leonh., book 5. Zegh., folio 292. Hist. Eccl. Casp. Hedio., part 3, chapter 11, D. Andr. Hond., book 2, chapter 26. Seb. Franck., folio 26, 39. Merul. Tytt., folio 750, 753, 757, 760, 761, 853. Jan. Cresp., folio 281. Of his death we shall speak in the history of the martyrs, for the year 1145.

In the year 1147. Henricus Petri Tholossanus, that is, Henry of Toulouse, at this time and afterward vigorously attacked infant baptism with the spiritual weapons of divine truth. He had begun this already in the time of Peter Bruis, as was mentioned for the year 1126, and he did not cease to pursue it up to, and after, the death of that Peter Bruis. The matter is described by Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 664, as follows: "Now, Peter de Bruis having been condemned and burned, Henry strongly maintained his doctrine; for he was a coworker 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 must be baptized and saved through their own faith; for baptism without a person's own faith saves no one.

2. That a person's own faith without baptism is also useless.

3. That children who 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 grow older, be rebaptized; for this, he says, is not rebaptizing, 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 for 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 that the many crosses which lead to superstition ought much rather to be abolished than kept.

11. That people ought not to build so many costly churches, which are often not used for hearing the Word of God, and that those which are built should be pulled down.

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, and 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., pages 665, 666:

These articles certainly show of what faith and persuasion Henry was, and that he did not continue to hold to monasticism, although he had first embraced it; for to be a monk, and to make such a profession, cannot go together. On this account he had to suffer much shame and slander 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 cleared and acquitted of them.

We will close our remarks concerning Henry, and give, if it is needful, a fuller account of the matter when we come to 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., folio 423, 424, ex Petr. Cluniac. Duae, epistles 141 and 142, ad Comit. Tholoss. and Tholossanos; the same, Sermons 65, 66, super. Cant.; vitae Bernh., chapter 3. Cent. Magd. 12, chapter 5, and Illyr. Cat. Test. Verit., book 15, title Petri de Bruis, and so on.

In the year 1155. This is the time in which, according to Nicholas Sander (but according to Caesar Baronius, in the year 1147), there were in the neighborhood of Toulouse, in France, certain humble people, who by other writers are called peasants, but who properly were called 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, and so on.

More might be related here, but since some of them have come to the martyrs' crown, and we shall therefore afterward 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, column 2, from Nicol. Sand., Hist. der Mart. Doops ges., A. 8, D. Anth. Jac., folio 118; also Bapt. Hist., page 599, H. Montan. Nietigh., page 84, and so on.

In the year 1160. This is the year which of old was marked with joy by many pious and well-meaning Christians who detested popery, and in which, even to this day, not a few of the God-fearing rejoice. For then, and especially shortly afterward, 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 most shamefully under foot, now joyfully raised her head and triumphed. The doctrine against infant baptism, against the swearing of oaths, against 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, and indeed often publicly, preached and defended, and, notwithstanding the threats of the pope of Rome, maintained. This was first begun chiefly by Peter Waldo at Lyons, in France, and carried on by his successors; however, in order to treat the matter in an orderly way, we will begin with the conversion of Peter Waldo, and then go on to his successors.