Chapter XLVIII: Conclusion: Of the Matters Here Related (22)

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_.

NOTE.--It appears from several ancient writers, that the Waldenses, or, at least, people who held the same belief, existed long before the year 1170, yea, before 1160; seeing that already in the year 1160 they had increased to such an extent, that they were summoned to Rome before a synod, and were condemned there as obstinate heretics. _Johan. de Oppido._ The same occurred A. D. 1164, in the synod of Tours, _Bapt. Hist., p. 676_. Hence, when their beginning is fixed A. D. 1170, this must not be understood of their origin, but of their rising, progress, and greatest prosperity.

OF THE DISPERSION AND THE VARIOUS NAMES OF THE WALDENSES OR FOLLOWERS OF PETER WALDO.

When Peter Waldo with his adherents, through the cruel hatred of the papists, had to leave the city of Lyons, on account of his faith, they became distributed and scattered into different parts of the world, and, hence, received various appellations, with regard to the places where they resided, as well as with regard to their faith, and to the accusations brought against them, especially by the Romanists.

In the _History of the Waldenses_, by _D. Balthasar Lydius, 1st book of the first part, cap. 3, page 4, col. 2_, and _page 5, col. 1_, the following account is found of the various names of said people:

“They, in the first place, called them Waldenses, after Waldo, who was a citizen of Lyons; and, after the district of Albi, they called them Albigenses.

“And because those who adhered to the doctrine of Waldo, left Lyons, stripped of all human means, having had to leave behind the most of their goods, they were derisively called, _The Poor Men of Lyons_.”

“In Dauphine they were by way of derision called _Chaignards_, that is, _Dogs_.

“Also because a part of them crossed the Alps, they were called _Transmontani_.

“After Joseph, one of Waldo’s disciples who preached in the bishopric of Dije, Lower Dauphine, they were called _Josephists_.

“In England they were called _Lollards_, after Lollardus, one of those who preached there.

“After two priests, Henry and Esperon, who taught the doctrine of Waldo in Languedoc, they were called _Henricians_ and _Esperonists_.

“After Arnold, one of their pastors or teachers, who preached in Albigeois, they were called _Arnoldists_.

“In Provence they were called, in an unknown tongue, _Siccars_.

“In Italy they were called _Fratricellii_, that is, _Little Brothers_, because they lived like brothers in true unity.

“Also, as they observed no other day of rest or holiday, than Sunday, they were styled _Insabbathi_ or _Insabbathas_, that is, _Sabbathless_, or not observing Sabbaths.

“Because they were continually subject to, and underwent sufferings, they were called _Patarins_ or _Patariens_, that is, _Sufferers_, from the Latin word _pati_, to suffer.

“Because they, as poor wanderers, fled and traveled from country to country, they were termed _Passagenes_, that is, _Travelers_ or _Vagrants_.

“In Germany they were called _Gazares_, which signifies, _Accursed_ and _Abominable_; but thus the Pope of Rome has always been accustomed to call those who oppose the Roman faith.

“In Flanders they were called _Turilupini_, that is, _Dwellers with Wolves_, because, on account of persecution, they were often compelled to hide and live in wildernesses and forests, in close proximity to wolves.

“Sometimes they were named after the region or district where they lived, as Albigenses, from Albi; Toulousians, from Toulouse; Lombards, from Lombardy; Picards, from Picardy; Lyonists, from Lyons; Bohemians, from Bohemia.”

Thereafter, the origin and cause of said names, according to Jean Paul Perrin Lyonnois, who has noted the same, is further explained by D. Balthasar Lydius, in his treatise on the _Various names of the Waldenses, 3d chapter of Perrin_, from _page 48, col. 1, to page 82, col. 2_; in which the true innocence and uprightness of said people, though they were sometimes called bad names, is demonstrated in all simplicity and clearness.

But that nothing may be wanting here, we will, for additional information, subjoin several other names of the Waldenses, passed over by B. Lydius (from J. P. Perrin), but mentioned by _Abr. Mellinus_, in his _History of the Persecutions and Martyrs_, for _A. D. 1619, fol. 449, col. 3, 4_, by misprint, but, properly, _fol. 439, col. 3, 4_, and some of them, further explained. For, among other things, he writes there, that said people were also “called _Catharists_, that is, _Heretics_, because they were called heretics by their opponents.

“They were called _Publicans_, because they were compared by the Romanists to publicans or open sinners.

“From the Latin word _lolium_, signifying weed, they were called _Lollards_; though, as stated above, this name was also given them from Lollardus, a teacher; however, they were likened to _lolium_, a weed that grows among the corn, because they, (the papists said) ought to be rooted out like the tares from among the corn; this name they also retained in Germany, Sarmatia, Livonio,” etc.

“They were called _Runcari_ because they lived near Runcalia, not far from Piacenza.

“They were called _Barrini_, from Mount Barrio or Barian, a place in the district of Crema, in Italy. Also _Cotterellos_, because they lived on the mountains known as the Cottian Alps. They were also called _Comists_, because they lived in the city of Como, in Italy.

“In Germany they were called _Grubenheimer_, that is, _Cave-dwellers_, because necessity compelled them to live underground, in pits and caves.

“In France they were termed _Texerants_, that is, _Weavers_, because there were many weavers among them.”

These and similar names have been given the Waldenses in former times; which we have deemed necessary to notice briefly, in order that the readers, in the sequel of our history, whenever these or similar persons are spoken of, may know who and of what belief they were.

OF THE WALDENSES WHO IN ALL RESPECTS WERE OF ONE BELIEF WITH THE BAPTISTS (ALSO CALLED ANABAPTISTS); OF WHOM WE SHALL SPEAK THROUGHOUT OUR ACCOUNT.

Although Peter Waldo, from whom the Waldenses derived their name, was enkindled with a true zeal for the divine and evangelical truth; yea, so that in the beginning very many, through his doctrine and life, burned as with a heavenly fire, and were zealous with him for God and the pure truth; yet not all remained steadfast in the truth; which appears to have been caused from their being dispersed into different countries and becoming separated from one another, by reason of the persecutions.

Some were also called Waldenses though they had no fellowship with them, and never were true brethren with these people.

Others, though they had once been members of that church, had joined themselves to others, thus forsaking, either from fear of death, or for some other reason, their former confession, especially in the article of the meekness and patience of Jesus.

Others, notwithstanding that they filled worldly offices, yea, even engaged in war, were sometimes, though perversely, as shall be shown in the proper place, called Waldenses or Albigenses; only (as can be inferred) for the reason, that some Waldenses or Albigenses lived under their protection, who were tolerated by connivance, or otherwise countenanced by them.

We shall therefore pass over all those concerning whom there is evidence that they only bore the name of Waldenses, but were not such in deed; and turn to those of whom ancient history testifies that they confirmed the name by the deed, in faith as well as in doctrine.

Sebastian Franck, in _Chron. van de Ord. en Sect. der Rom., fol. 153, col. 3_, writes, that the Waldenses were divided into two, or, as some maintain, three divisions, one of which, in all points, held the same tenets with the Anabaptists (Baptists), having all things in common. They baptize no infants, and do not believe at all in the presence of the Lord’s body in the sacrament. A little before this, he says: “They invoke no saints or creatures, but only God. They do not swear at all, yea, they regard this as improper for a Christian. They also have no images, and do not bow before or worship them. They allege, that the sacrament ought not to be worshiped, but Christ, at the right hand of his Father, and God, in Spirit and in truth. They suffer no beggars among them, but help and assist each other as brethren.” See concerning them, _Seb. Franck, Chron. Rom. Ketter, fol. 121, col. 2. Introduction, page 50, col. 2. H. Mont. Nietigh., page 86, Jac. du Bois contra Montanum, page 158._

These are the true Waldenses, whom we have chosen, and who shall be the aim of our whole account.

HOW THE WALDENSES WERE CALLED ANABAPTISTS BY THE ROMANISTS THEMSELVES.

This is stated by Jacob Mehrning in different places, after he has declared, upon the testimony of ancient writers, that they were called by the peculiar names of those who were previously already termed Anabaptists. “From Berengarius,” says he, (_Bapt. Hist., page 666_), “they were called Berengarians; from Peter de Bruis, Petrobrusians; from Henry, Henricians; from the apostles, Apostolics; from Peter Waldo, Waldenses, and so forth. Among us Germans,” he writes (_pp. 695, 696_), “the papist, Lutheran, and Calvinistic pedobaptists still contemptuously call them Anabaptists; in the Netherlands they are called Mennists, from Menno Simons, one of their principal teachers.”

Thus, according to this testimony, the ancient Waldenses agreed in faith not only with Berengarius, Peter Bruis, Henry Tholossanus, and the Apostolics, of whom we have given an account before; but also with the Mennonites or Baptists of the present day, who by nearly all the rest in so-called Christendom are stigmatized with the contemptuous appellation of _Anabaptists_, even as their former brethren, the abovementioned Waldenses, were called by those from whom they were separated, namely, the papists.

On _pages 677_ and _678_, these Waldenses are several times called Anabaptists, with the statement, that long before the time of John Huss, they lived in Poland and Bohemia, as well as in France, as is noted in that place. From _Hagecus_, _Dubravius_, _Micchovius_, _Cromerus_, _Jacob Usserius_, _Jounetus_, _M. Glaneus_, _Keyser’s Car. Edict._

It is true, that by some of said papistic authors these people are represented in a very bad light, with regard to their faith, as well as their life; however, the writer of the History of Baptism refutes said representation, saying (_p. 679_, from _M. Flaccius and Cent. Magd._), that they were slandered by their accusers, and that in doctrine and life they were very pious, orthodox, and godly Christians.

Although we might stop here, as having sufficiently proved, that the ancient Waldenses were one people with the Baptists of the present day, yet, since this is a much assailed point, we will add, for further confirmation, a few more testimonies from papistic writers. Abbot Peter Cluniacensis, in the first article of Peter Bruis and Henry Tholossanus, makes mention of the belief of the Waldenses, and says, that “they (with said two men) denied that infants in the years of their irrationality can be saved by the baptism of Christ, and maintained, that the faith of another cannot help them, because they cannot use their own faith.” Hence, they said: “Though the infants are baptized by the papists, yet, since they cannot believe, their infancy preventing them, they are by no means saved by baptism. But we choose a proper time of faith, and do not rebaptize men, as is alleged against us, since they know their God, and are prepared to believe on him; but we then baptize them aright, lest it might be said, that they are rightly baptized, who, though baptized in infancy, are not baptized with the baptism by which sin is washed away.” This the Waldenses are wont to say, says the writer. _Bapt. Hist., page 687._

The writer of the _History of Baptism_ makes the following comments on the twelfth of the _Magdeburg Centuries, pp. 428, 429_: “Concerning the origin of the Waldenses, who sprung from Peter Waldo, Mellinus relates all that has been given above from Flaccius. Hence it came, that all his disciples, followers and adherents were at that time called _Anabaptists_ by the malicious papists; and also, _Poor Men of Lyons_, of which name they needed not to be ashamed for Christ’s sake, who also, for our sakes, became poor, that through his poverty he might make us rich. But when they subsequently, through persecution, became dispersed from France into other countries, as, England, Poland, Livonia, etc., other names were given them.” _B. H., p. 695._

Here it is expressly stated that the Waldenses, from ancient times were designated by the papists by the name of Anabaptists; doubtless, because they baptized those who had been baptized in their infancy again, or, at least, aright, afterwards, when they had attained to the faith; for these are words of the Waldenses themselves, as has been shown above. Moreover, that said people were scattered from France not only into England, Poland, and Livonia, but also into many other countries, yea, almost over the whole known world, has previously been proven in part, and shall hereafter, if necessary, be demonstrated still more fully.

_Bapt. Hist., page 710._ D. Vicecomes (_lib. 2, cap. 2_), gives evidence from Bernhard, that the Waldenses were anabaptists, as the ungodly now call the Christian baptists (the Baptists), who did not believe in infant baptism.

It is certainly clearly and plainly said, that the Waldenses were anabaptists, or, at least, that they were called by that name; the reason why is also shown, namely, because they, like the Baptists of the present day, did not believe in infant baptism.

Jacob Mehrning, having noted that the Waldenses were called anabaptists, says (_p. 696_): “But their right, proper, and true name is, and should be, by rights, _Christians_ and _Christian-baptists_; because they, according to the command and ordinance of Christ, baptize none but those who, according to Christ’s baptismal ordinance, know Christ from his holy Gospel, believe on him, and upon such faith, are rightly baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

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 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 (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]

[155] _Doopsgesinde_, German, _Taufsgesinde_.

THE BELIEF OF THE ANCIENT WALDENSES RESPECTING THE OFFICE OF THE SECULAR AUTHORITY.

It is altogether manifest, that the true Waldenses, in their beginning as well as in their progress, did not accept of secular power and authority, but forsook, yea, fled from it. This appears, in the first place, from those who were the originators, or at least, no insignificant representatives of their religion, namely, Peter Waldo and John of Lyons, both of them influential and very wealthy men, who voluntarily abandoned their riches, and taught their followers to do likewise--to resign not only authority, but also the means which furnished occasion thereto, and to be content with such things as might be needful to them for a modest and sober manner of life. For this reason they were called not only Waldenses, but also Poor Men of Lyons. See _Bapt. Hist., page 599_. _H. Mont., page 85._

To this belongs also, that, though their number was great, they suffered themselves to be martyred like sheep for the slaughter, after their expulsion from Lyons, to which they had not offered the least resistance; concerning which, ancient history affords an abundant evidence, and which, God granting us time, we shall notice more fully in the proper place.

As regards what the Waldenses, long after they had left Lyons, believed and taught with reference to this point, it is expressed in one of their articles as follows: “But he (Christ) also exercised no temporal jurisdiction or authority, in the state of his humiliation.” _Abr. Mell., 2d book, fol. 446, col. 2._

By these words the Waldenses indicate that even as Christ exercised no temporal authority in the state of his humiliation, so his followers also, here, ought not to exercise any such authority, but that they themselves should be subject to secular authorities, as the whole article shows, both in the preceding and in the following words.

In another article they say, that they are truly poor in spirit, and, for righteousness and faith’s sake do not exercise authority, but suffer persecution. _Bapt. Hist., page 617_, in the fourth error of their first article, as the Romanists call it.

THE VIEWS OF THE ANCIENT WALDENSES AGAINST WAR.

Their departure from Lyons, their wandering about in foreign countries and cities, their innocent and patient suffering, their steadfastness unto death, and all this without any resistance, retaliation, or self-defense, sufficiently indicated the faith they had, and by what spirit they were actuated. But in order to treat this subject in a proper manner, we will here add what they, as regards this matter, believed and, themselves or in the name of others, indicated.

In an old book of parchment, supposed to have been written three hundred years ago, by a certain priest called Reinerius, various matters are alleged as charges against the Waldenses, which he, in a certain place, comprises in three articles, each of which he then divides into sections. In the tenth section he says, “That the Pope and all the Bishops are murderers, because of the war that they carry on.” _Bapt. Hist., page 617. B. Lydius, 3. Tract of the Faith of the Waldenses, page 85, col. 1, Art. 10._

This he gives as an article of the faith of the Waldenses, calling it, however, an error or heresy; but how can he, who has not learned otherwise, speak differently?

Jean Paul Perrin Lionnoys, or his translator, charges the Waldenses also with the following, which accords well with the preceding: “Seventhly, (he says) that they (the Waldenses) maintained, that the Pope commits mortal sin, when he sends forth to make war upon the Turks; and that they likewise commit mortal sin, who obey him in waging war against the heretics.” _History of the Waldenses, 1st part, 1st book, cap. 3, page 6, col. 1._

Who cannot see, that this article of the Waldenses opposes war and everything that can be called warfare? yea, in such a manner, that it does not admit of it at all.

For, if one should look for a just cause to wage war, how could he find one more just, than against the Turks? howbeit, it is unjust against all men; but we speak by way of comparison. How could one find greater reason to wage war, than against those whom he considers heretics? for of such it was customary to say that they were worse than murderers, seeing murderers kill only the body, but they, it was said, souls. Nevertheless, the Waldenses reproved the Pope for such action, yea, declared, that he committed mortal sin thereby; as well as those who allowed themselves to be used as instruments by the Pope for this purpose.

What is added by the translator (_lib. 1, part 1, Hist. Wald., cap. 4, page 11_), for explanation, which however, serves much more to obscuration, we pass by, as unworthy of consideration and which will fall of its own accord.

Yea, it seems, that the Waldenses not only held that they themselves might not wage war or kill any one, but that they also denied the right of secular authorities who wished to be called Christians, to kill, even if the persons whom they should put to death were malefactors. Concerning this, we find in _P. J. Twisck’s Chronijk_, that the “Poor Men,” “Insabbathi,” or “Waldenses,” taught, that no judge who would be a Christian, might put to death any one, not even a malefactor. _Chron., page 534, col. 2_l and _page 535, col. 1_, from _Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 202_, and _Enca. Sylvio._