Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part 2 · Chapter 7 · Section 1
Concerning the Witneſs pretended to be born by the Waldenſes againſt Infant Baptiſm.
4 Waldenſes.
IT is a miſerable cauſe indeed, whoſe Advocates muſt ſtill have recourſe to lies for its defence, and an Argument of the want of honeſty, and conſcience for men to perſiſt in this courſe, when more than enough hath been ſaid to convince them of the evil thereof. It was a ſolemn rebuke which Job gave to his miſtaken friends when they put ſuch falſe interpretations upon God's dealings with him, Will ye lie (ſaid he) for God? ſurely he hath no need of, nor doth he require us by any ſiniſter and ſinful way, to juſtify him in his Attributes, providences, cauſe, or truth. As touching the matter in hand before us, if the Antipaedobaptiſts have the truth on their ſide, yet certainly it is little beholding to ſome of them, who have attempted to defend it by ſo many unwarrantable ways. In particular I ſhall make it appear that the preſent Author with whom I have to deal, is foully criminal in laying out the utmoſt of his skill in traducing thoſe famous ancient Chriſtians, the Waldenſes, as if in their ſeveral generations they had witneſſed againſt Infant-Baptiſm, when he cannot but know (being ſo well read in the Hiſtories of that people written by Perin, and Dr. Ʋſher): that they were falſly, and malitiouſly charged here with by their cruel Antichriſtian enemies. Beſides the Author (whoſe Treatiſe about Baptiſm is a Compendium of what Mr. Tombes hath long ſince written upon that ſubject) knows well enough, (and is therefore the more inexcuſable) how much Mr. Tombes was rebuked, by two Reverend Divines,Mr. Marſhal & Mr. Baxter. for endeavouring to defend his opinion by popiſh Frgeries and Slanders.
I find by the Authors diſcourſe that he is well read in Mr. Baxter's Plain-Proof for Infant-Baptiſm, who in his Apologetical Preface Pag. the 10th tells us, That the lying Papiſts do accuſe the Albigenſes and Waldenſes (our firſt Reformers) to be Witcher, Buggerers, Sorcerers and to deny the Baptiſm of Infants. Hereupon they raiſe war againſt them, put them to the Sword, and burn their Citys to aſhes. Theſe Godly men deny their Accuſations, and ſhew that their Miniſters being much abroad to ſpread the Goſpel, they kept their Children unbaptized, till they came home, becauſe they would not have them Baptized by the Prieſts in the Popiſh faſhion. Upon this (mark it) the Slander was raiſed that they would not have Infants Baptized, which they purge themſelves of, and profeſs their judgment for Infant-Baptiſm; all which being ſo well known to the Author, (as appears by his often quoting of Perin, who treats of theſe things) it is a ſtrange boldneſs (to ſay no worſe) that he ſhould dare affirm, that the Waldenſes amongſt other Ordinances of Chriſt, that they defended and witneſſed to, to death & baniſhment, and bonds, that of Baptizing Believers, in oppoſition to that of Infants, was not the leaſt: Which he attempts to prove,
1. By their publick Confeſſions of Faith.
2. By ſome particular Witneſs, that ſome of their principal Men bare thereto.
3. In the more general Witneſs born by the body of the people as appears by the decrees of Councils, decretal Epiſtles, and general Edicts given forth againſt the whole party for the ſame.
4. In the foot-ſteps that we find thereof in the ſeveral Countries, whre they have heretofore imprinted the ſame.
Reply, There are two ſorts of People that 'tis like will be impoſed upon by the flouriſhes which this Champion makes, thoſe who are Ignorant, and thoſe who are prejudiced againſt Infant-Baptiſm: no doubt but all this will paſs for Goſpel amongſt ſuch. But I may ſay of the Author, multa loquitur, ſed nihil dicit, or rather probat, and that what he ſays is but Vox & praeterea nihil, a great ſound of words, but no proof: And this I ſhall make appear in order.
Firſt, for the Witneſs born in their Publick Confeſſions, he cites Perin, and if he can find any thing in that Author to ſerve his purpoſe I am much miſtaken: I ſhall ſhortly produce the ſame Author verbis rotundis, moſt expreſly againſt him. But my Adverſary hath a notable dexterity to prove quidlibet ex quolibet, let us now hear what he quotes out of Perin, and then judge Reader, whether it be anſwerable to what he affirms under this firſt Head.
Firſt of all the Author tells us out of Perin, That in their ancient Confeſſion of Faith bearing date 1120, Article 13. they ſay We acknowledg no other Sacraments but Baptiſm and the Supper of the Lord. P. Perin, 87. Reader thou haſt here every Syllable of the Article, and is not this a knocking Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſm, that they acknowledged two Sacraments, Baptiſm and the Supper of the Lord? This is a Witneſs indeed, but 'tis of the Authors weakneſs to produce it.
The next is Article the 28. of an other Confeſſion, viz. God hath Ordained certain Sacraments to be joyned with the Word, as a means to unite us unto, and to make us partakers of his Benefits, and that there be only Two of them: this is a Witneſs with a witneſs, here is alſO altum Silentium, a deep Silence, as to Infant-Baptiſm, not a word pro or con, and he that ſees any thing againſt it in this Article wears Antipaedobaptiſtical Spectacles.
And in another Ancient Confeſſion of Faith Article 7. ſaith the Author, we have this, viz. We do believe that in the Sacrament of Baptiſm water is the viſible and external ſign, which repreſents to us that which is within, viz. Renovation of the Spirit, and mortification of our Members in Jeſus Chriſt, Perin 89. There is a Harmony between all the Proteſtant Churches in the World, and the Waldenſes in this Article, we all who are for Infant-Baptiſm believe the ſame.
After this we have a paſſage out of Vigniers Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, namely, That they do expreſly-declare to receive the Canon of the Old and New-Teſtament, to reject all Doctrines which have not their foundation in it; therefore all the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome the condemn, and abominate, ſaying ſhe is a Den of Thieves, and the Apocalyptical Harlot. This is all very good, but what have we in all this againſt Infant-Baptiſm? but the Author would put their words upon the Tenter-hooks, it may be, and ſtrain them farther than their intention, and would have us think doubtleſs, that they judged infant-Baptiſm to be a Romiſh Tradition, and to have no foundation in the Word of God; and is it not ſtrang that it ſhould be a Romiſh Tradition when it was in uſe in Tertullian's days, as the Author himſelf intimates a little before: But the Waldenſes themſelves have declared their judgment otherwiſe, and ſeconded it with their Practice, as ſhall be ſhewn by and by. They were indeed againſt the Romiſh Ceremonies uſed in Baptiſm, as Exorciſm, Chryſm, &c. but not againſt Infant-Baptiſm itſelf.
Another Citation is out of an Ancient Confeſſion, Artic. 11. The words are —We eſteem for an Abomination and as Antichriſtian all Humane Inventions, as a trouble and prejudice to the liberty of the Spirit. And in their Ancient Catechiſm. Perin. de Doct. de Vaud. Liv. 1.168, 169. When Humane Traditions are approved for Gods Ordinances, then is he Worſhipped in vain. Iſ. 19. Matt. 15. Which is done when grace is attributed to the external Ceremonies and perſons enjoyned to partake of Sacraments without Faith and Truth. This alſo is inſignificant to the purpoſe for which the Author quotes it, and doth not in the leaſt touch Infant-Baptiſm. It is a good Teſtimony againſt Humane Traditions, and they tell us what they mean; which is done (ſay they) when Grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies, and 'tis one of the Popiſh Errors we know, that Baptiſm confers grace ex opere operato; it is alſo a good Teſtimony againſt Compulſion to the Sacraments, and that wicked practice of the Spaniards in forcing the Indians to be Baptized, and whoever ſhall compel ignorant, and ſcandalous perſons to receive the Lords Supper.
Laſtly we have ſomething brought out of their ancient Treatiſe concerning Antichriſt, writ 1120. And if we can find nothing there againſt our Practice, then may we ſay of this Antagoniſt, Promiſit montes, naſcitur ridieulus mus.
The words of that Treatiſe are, That Antichriſt attributes the Regeneration of the Holy Spirit unto the dead outward work of Baptizing Children, and teacheth that thereby Regeneration muſt be had. And here at laſt by good hap we have the word Children named, but not a jot ſerving the Author's deſign, for they do not hereby except againſt Childrens Baptiſm, but only againſt the corrupt ends that Antichriſt hath in it; for whether it be in Children or grown Perſons, it is an Antichriſtian, or Popiſh Tenent to aſcribe Regeneration to the dead outward work of Baptiſm, and this is that before mentioned that Baptiſm confers grace ex opere operato.
By what hath been ſaid any unprejudiced Reader may ſee how meanly the Author hath acquitted himſelf in the beginning of his undertaking to prove the Waldenſes againſt Infant-Baptiſm, from their publick Confeſſions of Faith; and 'tis not unlikely we ſhall find him as defective in what follows. We have ſeen much confidence in the man, but not a grain of proof, and 'tis impoſſible any mans belief ſhould be ſhaken by what he hath hitherto faid touching the Lawfulneſs of Infant-Baptiſm.
2. His ſecond proof is the Witneſs of the eminent and leading Men. The firſt he begins with, is the Famous Beringarius of Turain in Anjou, and he quotes the Magdeburgenſes Cent. 11. c. 5. p. 240. That Beringarius did in the time of Leo the 9th about the year 1049. publickly maintain his Hereſies, which they ſet down to be denying Tranſubſtantiation, and Baptiſm to little ones.
Now we muſt have to do with Mr. Tombes again,Mr. Tombe's Praecurſor, Examen p. 20.
Reply, 1. That Beringarius was a famous Champion for the Truth againſt Popiſh Errors and Superſtitions is beyond all diſpute, but ſtill 'tis queſtionable whether he was againſt Infant-Baptiſm; Why, ſaith the Author, the Magdeburgenſes tell us ſo, that is 4 Proteſtant Divines that drew up the Hiſtory of the Church. Here the incautelous Reader is in danger of a ſnare; for thoſe Divines accuſe him not of this, but only tell us what the Popiſh records ſpeak of him; Beringarius, ſay the Magdeburgenſes, maintained his Hereſies, which they (that is the Papiſts) ſet down to be denying Tranſubſtantiation, and Infant-Baptiſm, who being ſuch falſe accuſers may very well be excepted againſt as inſufficient evidence. We know what Calumnies they have caſt upon thoſe eminent Reformers, Luther, Calvin, Beza, that lived nearer our times; what errors they charge them with both Intellectual and Moral, as if they had been very Heretical in judgment, and men of debaucht lives: they have their witneſſes too more than a Iury, to juſtify all their malicious charges, Books written by divers Authors, enough to make up a conſiderable Library: If we muſt credit them againſt one, why not againſt all? the Teſtimony is the ſame.
2. Since this inſtance of Beringarius is taken out of Tombe's, let us hear what anſwer Mr. Marſhal gave him pag. 65. of his defence of Infant-Baptiſm; It is true (ſaith he) that Deoduinus Leodienſes took it up as a common fame, & upon his credit Guitmond a Popiſh Biſhop relates it, that Beringarius oppoſed the Corporal preſence in the Euchariſt, and the Baptiſm of little ones;Uſher de Succeſſ. Cap. 7. Sect. 37. but (ſaith Biſhop Ʋ ſher in his Succeſſion of the Church) in ſo many Synods beld againſt Beringarius we never find any thing of this nature laidto his charge; and Biſhop Ʋſher farther adds, that to him it appears, that they who in thoſe days were charged to hold that Baptiſm did not parvulis proficere ad ſalutem, held nothing but this, that Baptiſm doth not confer Grace ex opere operato. And indeed, in thoſe Popiſh times to deny the greaſy Ceremony of Chriſm was ground enough, for a charge of denying Infant-Baptiſm, as you ſhall hear ſuddenly.
Next we have an impertinent citation out of Clark's Martyrology, where it is ſaid, that God raiſed up Beringarius, who did boldly and faithfully preach and witneſs againſt Popiſh errors, whereupon the Goſpellers were called Beringarians for above an hundred years after, but Clark gives no hint that any of theſe Goſpellers were againſt Infant-Baptiſm, but relates the quite contrary, for (ſaith he) (in the ſame place, and in the words following what is before quoted by the Author) They Baptized their Children, taught them the Belief, and ten Commandements, and carefully kept the Sabbath day; upon which Lewis the 12th of France, (that had been otherwiſe informed, but now ſatisfied of the truth of their faith, and practice by his commiſſioners, and Confeſſors,) ſaid (and bound it with an Oath) that they were honeſter than he, and his Catholick Subjects.
To as little purpoſe as the former is that he quotes out of Dr. Ʋſher in his Succeſſion of the Church out of Thuanus; Dr. Uſher.That Bruno Archbiſhop of Tryers did expel ſeveral Beringarians that had ſpread his Doctrine in ſeveral of thoſe Belgick Countries, and that ſeveral of them upon examination did ſay, that Baptiſm did not profit Children unto Salvation.
And well might they ſay ſo, all Proteſtants are of the ſame judgment, and in the ſame we have Dr. Ʋſher's Paraphraſe on it — nec aliud videntur negaviſſe, &c. They ſeemed (ſaith he) to deny nothing elſe but this, that Baptiſm doth not confer Grace by the work done; and ſo we have done with his firſt witneſs.
2. The next he brings are Peter Bruis, P. Bruis.Arnoldus, and Henricus, three famous Waldenſes; they were of their Barbes, that is, Teachers. I ſhall ſpeak of the firſt and laſt being joyned together in Hiſtory, as the two firſt great Preachers of the Albigenſes and Waldenſes: the firſt was a Prieſt, the laſt a Monk, hated and perſecuted very much by the Romiſh-Church. Theſe being driven out of ſeveral places, where they ſtoutly oppoſed the Popiſh errors, were at laſt received at Tholouſe in Provence, and they that followed their Doctrine were called Petro-Bruſians and Henricians. Now to prove theſe to be againſt Infant-Baptiſm, the Author in conformity to his old friend Mr. Tombes, betakes himſelf to the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorians that have written of the State of the Church in the ſeveral Centuries ſince Chriſt, for from them muſt we fetch our light touching matters of Fact in the Countries where they lived; or from ſuch who have made it their peculiar work to write the Hiſtory of the Waldenſes as Perin &c.
The Proteſtant Century-writers, are either the Magdeburgenſian Divines, or Lucas Oſiander. I ſhall give a brief account of what they ſay of the Waldenſes, concerning the point under debate, and ſo leave the Reader to judge on which ſide the truth lyeth, whether on ours or our Oppoſites; and ſhall premiſe this caution, that the Reader do not miſtake, and take that to be the judgment of thoſe Writers concerning Peter Bruis and Henricus, which they tranſcribe out of the Popiſh Records, Councils, Edicts &c. And what they relate of them they have it from two Popiſh Abbots viz. Bernard, and Cluniacenſis.
1. Concerning Bernard the Magdeburgenſes tell us Cent. 12. c. 5. that he in his 66th Sermon in Cantica, flyes out againſt theſe men accuſing them to be Hereticks: he chargeth them,
1. To be Manicheans.
2. To deny the Lawfulneſs of Oaths.
3. That 'tis unlawful to Baptize Children.
4. That it is unlawful to eat any thing quod ex coitu generatur, and accordingly (ſaith Bernard) they denyed the lawfulneſs of eating Fleſh and Milk.
Theſe were then a terrible ſort of Fellows, if we may believe that old Superſtitious (though otherwiſe devout, and ſome think Pious) Abbot, who is commonly known by the name of St. Bernard. And certainly if theſe Petro-bruſians were guilty in theſe things, they were even Monſters in nature. What to deny our little ones both Milk and Water too, O Cruelty! But as theſe good men cleared themſelves, from theſe falſe imputations and calumnies; ſo alſo do the Magdeburgenſes in their Hiſtory ſpeak highly of them, and that which is ſufficient for their Vindication.
The other cited by the Author, is Lucas Oſiander, Cent. 12, 262. And I doubt ſome prejudice to his cauſe,Oſiander. may ariſe from citing him. Whatſoever Oſiander ſaith (concerning Peter Bruis. and Henricus, of their being againſt Infant-Baptiſm) he taketh it out of the Works of Peter Cluniacenſis, another Popiſh Abbot; and he doth Calumniari fortiter, lay very many abominable errors to their charge; and among others he accuſeth them of this Venial one of denying Infant-Baptiſm. Now if any credit may be given to this Abbot, it muſt be per totum, throughout, in all, or elſe in nothing: And verily if his Teſtimony be valid (as Mr. Tombes would have it accounted, and the Author from him) our oppoſites need not glory in ſuch Waldenſes, that they comported with their opinion, nor we be troubled at their diſſenting from us.
Let us now look into the wicked and falſe Teſtimony or Account, this lying Abbot gives of thoſe two precious Miniſters, Peter Bruis, and Henricus, as Oſiander takes it out of his own Writings.
Exorta eſt, & progreſſu temporis vires acquiſivit haereſis Albigenſium. Ea Romae primo caepiſſe putant, poſtea verò in comitatu Toloſato (etiam intra viros Illuſtres) longe late que ſparſa dicitur; quin etiam in Angliam penetraſſe ſcribitur.
Dogmata haec illis attribuuntur, (inquit Oſiander).
1. Baptiſmum abjiciunt.
2. Corporum reſurrectionem negant.
3. Carnem comedi prohibent.
4. Chriſtum non eſſe Deum, nec aſſumpſiſſe de Virgine, ſed de Caelo carnem duxiſſe.
5. Eccleſiam non poſſe aliquid poſſidere, niſi in communi, &c.
There aroſe and in progreſs of time gathered ſtrength the hereſy of the Albigenſes, that is ſaid to take its riſe at Rome, then diſperſed far and wide over the Country of Tholouſe, (& that amongſt men of quality;) & moreover they ſay that it got into England.
They are charged to hold theſe Opinions, ſaith Oſiander.
They caſt of Baptiſm, meaning that of Infants.
They deny the reſurrection.
They forbid eating Fleſh (as Bernard before.)
They ſay Chriſt is not God, neither took he fleſh of the Virgin, but brought it down from Heaven.
That the Church ſhould poſſeſs all things in common.
By this time I ſuppoſe we may conclude, that theſe Waldenſes were vile perſons, or Cluniacenſis a lying Abbot; and this latter we do not in the leaſt queſtion. Furthermore (as if the Author had never enough of him) he tells us, that the Magdeburgenſes ſet down the Aſſertions of Peter Bruis againſt Infant-Baptiſm, Tranſubſtantiation, Tombe's Examen pag. 25.Worſhipping of Images, Purgatory, which are diſtinctly, and at large anſwered by Peter Cluniacenſis: But you muſt know he had never any perſonal conference, or diſpute with him. But that I may not remain in the Author's debt, for what he quotes out of the Magdeburgenſes, I ſhall requite him with what I find in Oſiander, who tells us that the ſaid Cluniacenſis doth profeſs twice in his Writings, that he would not accuſe the Waldenſes upon uncertain report, but from their own Writings; nay farther, he chargeth them that they denied the Divine Authority of the Old-Teſtament, and all the New, except the Goſpels: Evangelium creditis, Epiſtolas Fauli cur non Suſcipitis? Reſpondetis, quia non adeo certa nobis autoritas eſt earum. i. e. You believe the Goſpel, why not alſo the Epiſtles of Paul? your anſwer is, becauſe the Divine Authority of them doth not ſo certainly appear to us. And upon that account (ſaith Oſiander) Cluniacenſis ſpends two whole Chapters to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures againſt them. I ſhall conclude this with Mr. Marſhal's words to Mr. Tombes upon his quoting Cluniacenſis, to the ſame end as my Antagoniſt doth. He (ſaith that Reverend Miniſter) that reads that railing Book of Petrus Cluniacenſis, will find that he acknowledgeth moſt of what he layes to their charge to be upon the report of others. Now me thinks the Author ſhould bluſh at his indiſcretion for introducing ſuch a Popiſh Calumniator for an evidence in this matter; and if he believe this Abbot ſlandred Peter Bruis and his followers in theſe things, I hope he will excuſe the Reader if he believe he did noleſs, when he chargeth them to be againſt Infant-Baptiſm, & that Children who dyed before they could actually believe, were damned; which is another Article Cluniacenſis brings in againſt them, & one as true as the other. I ſee by this that when men are engaged in a cauſe, and wedded to an opinion, they will not refuſe the moſt ſordid and ſhameful ways to promote it. They will fall in with ſlanderous Papiſts, and take up what they ſay to defend their Opinions. Witneſs my Antagoniſt, and his Predeſeſſour and Tutor Mr. Tombes, who was checkt by Mr. Baxter for his evil carriage in this very thing, he boldly juſtifies himſelf, and tells us in his Precurſor, pag. 29. That Petrus Cluniacenſis was (though a zealous Papiſt) yet thought fit by Illyricus to be reckoned among Witneſſes of truth in his Catalogue; and if ſuch as he (and eſpecially Bernard) be not taken for Witneſſes of things in their times, I know not how Proteſtants will make up their Catalogue of Witneſſes for them in all Ages: I think theſe are dangerous words, ſomewhat derogating from the honour of the Proteſtant Religion.
The other eminent Perſon which is joyned in Hiſtory with Peter Bruis, is Henricus. Theſe two, as is ſaid, were the firſt and moſt famous Preachers of the Albigenſes and Waldenſes. This Henricus (ſaith the Author) witneſſed to this great Truth, being a Friend and Collegue of P. Bruis; whoſe Doctrines and Poſitions are alſo recorded by the Magdeburgenſes under eleven Heads; the firſt whereof was denying Baptiſm to Children. Cent. 12. p. 843,
We have obſerved before that Bernard is ſo ingenious, as to acknowledg that he takes up theſe things by hear-ſay, and upon report; ab iis qui ad Pontificiam eccleſiam redierunt, of ſuch as were returned again to the Church of Rome, and who is ſuch an infidel as not to believe what they ſay? Furthermore the Magdeburgs tell us, that when the Henricians, or Diſciples of Henricus were examined, Bernard himſelf confeſſeth, they denyed the things that were Objected againſt them, and that haply (ſay the Magdeburgs) becauſe they Objected ſuch things as they never taught.Ait porr… in Examine eos Objecta negaſſe. Haec ille, ſc. Bernardus. Quia forte alia …is Objecta fuerunt, quam docuerunt. Magd. Cent. 12. p. 845. Mr. Tombes told his Tale about Henricus a little handſomer than the Author, in his Praecurſor. pag. 29. And is not aſhamed to ſay, it ſeems utterly unlikely to him that be, and his followers ſhould be belyed, and tells us what Bernard ſaid of them in 204th Epiſtle: the ſame alſo he hath in his Exercitation p. 31. and let us compare the Author with him, and we ſhall ſee he hath the Story from him; for thus he concludes this Section.
The Author.
The ſame Bernard in his Epiſtle to Heldefonſus Earl of St. Gyles, ſaith, The Henerici did deny Holy-days, Sacracraments, Churches and Prieſts, complaining that the Children of Chriſtians were excluded the life of Chriſt, whilſt they denyed them the grace of Baptiſm, and not ſuffered them to partake of Salvation.
Mr. Tombes Exerc. p. 31. and Examen. pag. 21.
The ſame Bernard in his firſt Epiſtle to Heldefonſus Earl of St. Gyles, complains of Henricus, that he took away Holy-days, Sacraments, Churches, Prieſts, that the life of Chriſt is ſtopped to the little ones of Chriſtians, while the grace of Baptiſm is denyed, and they not ſuffered to draw near to Salvation.
Thus far we find the Author exactly following Tombes, having little elſe but what is tranſcribed out of him; only he omits that ingenious paſſage of Mr. Tombes Praecurſor pag. 30. As for the Albigenſes and Waldenſes it might be (ſaith he) that ſome might be againſt infant-Baptiſm, yet others not; or it may be in the beginning beld ſo, but after left it. But this Author makes as if the whole Body of the people had been againſt it which followes next to be examined.
Thirdly (ſaith he) in the Witneſs, born not only by ſome particular Men, but by the body of the People; 3. By the People themſelves, ſuffering for the ſame.as appeareth by decrees of Councils, Decretal Epiſtles, and Edicts given forth againſt them aſwell as the Teſtimony of many Learned Writers.
Reply.
There is no convincing Proof to be fetcht from hence, of their being againſt Infant-Baptiſm; becauſe they were their Enemies, calumniating malicious Papiſts, that loaded them with all manner of reproaches, to render them Odious: And no marvel (ſaith Mr. Marſhal) ſuch Opinions ſhould be charged upon them,Marſhal's Defence. p. 66. though they held them not; ſeeing we find this particular charged upon Luther, Calvin, and Beza, who did all in a ſpecial manner oppoſe this error; ſo that (ſaith the ſame Author) unleſs ſome one doth out of their own Confeſſion give better evidence, Ieſ. Vicecom. Obſer. Eccl. Vol. Lib. 2. c. 1. p. 103.I ſhall believe that this Doctrine of oppoſing the Baptizing of the Infants of Believers, is an Innovation no ancienter than the Anabaptiſts in Germany.
And whereas the Author cites two Canons of Alexander the 3d, one made in the Gallican, and the other in the Lateran Council, againſt the Waldenſian, or Catharian Hereſy, the latter Anathematizing them as for other Hereſies, ſo particularly for denying Infant-Baptiſm, and for their Contempt of all the Sacraments.
We are informed by Perin (the French Hiſtorian,) that theſe Canons were diſcharged againſt the Waldenſes as ſoon upon the matter, as they were known by this name. For (ſaith he) in the year 1160 Peter Waldo Citizen of Lyons couragiouſly oppoſed Tranſubſtantiation, with divers other corruptions crept into the Church of Rome, blaming the Vice, Luxury, Exceſs and Avarice, of the Pope and his Clergy, and he was the more harkened to, being held in great eſteem for his learning, piety and great charity. Now the Pope conſidering that at Lyons, there were ſo many perſons (by reaſon of Waldo's teaching) that queſtioned his Soveraign Authority over the whole Church, fearing what this might come to, being chaſed out of Lyons, they ſpread themſelves in divers companies and places; and from this Waldo, they were called Waldenſes, Perin Hiſt. Lib. 1. p. 2, 3.
The Monks, Inquiſitors and others, (ſaith the Hiſtorian) being their Mortal Enemies, poured out Reproaches, and laid Opprobrious Imputations on them, affirming they were the Authors of all Hereſies in the World, and that they were Confederates with the ancient Hereticks.
Becauſe they made profeſſion of Purity, they called them Cathares i. e. Puritans. Becauſe they denied the Bread which the Prieſt ſhewed in the Maſs to be God, they called them Arrians, as if they denied the Divinity of Chriſt; and becauſe they maintained that the Authority of Emperours and Kings depended not on the Pope, Manicheans; and for other cauſes which they fained, they called them Gnoſticks and Apoſtoliques. This Proteſtant Hiſtorian is large in theſe things, but I muſt contract, among others laid to their charge he mentioneth theſe 3 following.
1. That they held Community of Goods.
2. That it was unlawful to ſwear at all.
3. That they rejected the Baptiſm of Infants.
This Bernard and Cluniacenſis, charged them with as before.
They acquit themſelves (faith Perin) from theſe Calumnies by putting forth a Book called the Spiritual Almanack, Fol. 45. They aſſert and maintain Propriety of Eſtate, the Lawfulneſs of Oaths grounded on Heb. 6.6. and alledgeth 'twas God's Ordinance, that the people of Iſrael ſhould ſwear by his Name. Deut. 16.53.
And laſtly for Infant-Baptiſm (the matter in diſpute) Perin gives this account pag. 15. [which I deſire the Reader to obſerve it, becauſe we have ſo ancient a declaration of their faith in this particular.]
That they being conſtrained for ſome hundred years to ſuffer their Children to be Baptized by the Prieſts of the Church of Rome, they deferred the doing thereof, as long as they could, having in deteſtation thoſe Humane inventions which were added to the Sacrament, which they held to be but pollution thereof.
And foraſmuch as their Paſtors were many times abroad, imployed in the ſervice of the Churches, they could not have Baptiſm Adminiſtred to their Infants by their own Miniſters. For this cauſe they kept them long from Baptiſm, which the Prieſts perceiving, charged them thereupon with this impoſture viz. That they were againſt Infant-Baptiſm. Which, ſaith Perin, not only their Adverſaries have believed, that is, the Papiſts: and from hence came all that Bedrole of Decrees, Councils, Decretal Epiſtles, and Edicts againſt them, but alſo others (ſaith he) who have well approved of their Life and Faith in all other points; amongſt the number of which we muſt reckon Mr. Tombes, and the Author of this late Treatiſe of Baptiſm now under examination.
This ample account, given by ſuch an excellent impartial Hiſtorian; ſo many years ſince, before the World was ſo troubled with diſputes about Baptiſm, and from one of their own Country-men, a man unconcerned, as to intereſt, or diſſenting parties in this controverſy, and being ſo faithful in his relations of the Faith, and ſufferings of the Waldenſes, that he was never (that I could hear of) queſtioned or ſuſpected, will undoubtedly be credited by all ingenious Perſons, and is ſufficient to diſmount thouſands of thoſe Canons, Edicts, &c. the Author brings.
Beſides this, that I may (if poſſible) undeceive the Antipaedobaptiſts, who are hardly brought to believe any thing that is againſt them; I will add two other Teſtimonies, from whence we may conclude the Body of the Waldenſes were not againſt Infant-Baptiſm; one of them is Luther, the other Bullinger, both of which have written ſmartly againſt Anabaptiſts, and would never have given ſuch a large Encomium of the Waldenſes, had they apprehended them to be touched with the error of denying Baptiſm to the Children of Believers.
Luther profeſſeth that he hated the Waldenſes (whilſt a Monk) as deſperate men, until he knew their piety and truth of their Belief by their own Confeſſions and Writings, whereby be perceived that thoſe good men were much wronged, and that the Pope had condemned them for Hereticks, being rather worthy of the praiſe that is due to the Martyrs.
And Bullinger that wrote a Book againſt the Anabaptiſts, ſaith in his Preface to his Sermons upon the Revelations, That above 400 years ſince the Waldenſes have made Profeſſion of the Goſpel of Jeſus Chriſt, throughout France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Bohemiah, and other Kingdoms.
4. If this be not enough to cleer the Waldenſes from what the Author would have us believe from the Teſtimony of their Enemies the Papiſts, we are willing to give him full meaſure, preſſed down and running over; and that is by the Teſtimony which they give of themſelves in their Publick General Confeſſions of Faith. We have before ſhewn the Author could find nothing in any of their Confeſſions againſt Infant-Baptiſm, let us now ſee whether we can find any thing for it.
Firſt they purge themſelves from the imputation of denying Infant-Baptiſm,Hiſt. Wald. Lib. 1. c. 4. p. 15. So Lib. 1. c. 6. p. 43. and ſhew the reaſon why for ſome hundred years they forbore it, as before; he that writes the Hiſtory, profeſſedly ſets down in his 3d part of it, the Doctrine of the Waldenſes and Albigenſes, and particularly what their Faith was, touching Baptiſm in theſe words of their own, viz. And whereas Baptiſm is Adminiſtred in a full Congregation — And for this cauſe it is that we preſent our Children in Baptiſm, which they ought to do, to whom the Children are neareſt, as Parents, &c.
In the year of our Lord 1535, an Aſſembly of the Waldenſes from all their Valleys met at Angrongne, Perin. Hiſt. Wald. L. 2. Cap. 4. pag. 57.and there was ſignified what they underſtood of their Brethren of Provence and Daughine, namely, that they had ſent into Germany their Paſtors, George Morell, and Peter Maſon to confer with Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Capito, touching the belief which they had time out of mind: [Mark hereby the way how unworthily the Author Prevaricates and endeavours to blind the Reader, pag. 329. of his Book, as if all the Waldenſes were declining, or Apoſtatizing, towards the Antichriſtian Abomination of being preſent at Maſs: if ſome of them of Provence were faulty; yet this Aſſembly at Angrongne ſtood faſt in the Truth] where (ſaith Perin) when they had read certain Letters of encouragement ſent from Oecolampadius, both to thoſe of Provence, Dhugtony and to themſelves.
Afterward concluded on certain Propoſitions and Articles of Faith, which were read and approved, ſigned and ſworn to by all the Heads of the Families and their Paſtors, with one mind and conſent, to Conſerve, Obſerve, Believe, and retain amongſt them inviolably without any contradiction, as being conformable to the Doctrine which hath been taught them, (mark it) from the Father to the Son, for theſe many hundred years out of the Word of God.
If therefore among any of theſe Articles we can find Infant-Baptiſm owned, what becomes then of all the Crack that the Author makes, as if they had been of his judgment.
The Articles there agreed on were in number 17, too long to be inſerted, the laſt is about Baptiſm, and thus it is to a Syllable.
Article 17.
Touching the matter of the Sacrament, it hath been coneluded by the H. Scriptures, that we have but two Sacramental ſigns, the which Chriſt Jeſus hath left unto as, the one is Baptiſm, the other the Euchariſt, which we receive to ſhew what our perſeverance in the faith is, as we have promiſed when we were Baptized being little Infants.
This is the Confeſſion of the Faith of the Aſſembly at Angrongne, where a letter was read from Oecolampadius to thoſe of Provence, who (it ſeems out of fear) were ſometimes preſent at Maſs with the Papiſts, or at leaſt ſome of them, who did in heart doubtleſs abhor it: but how doth this prove they were not heartily for Infant-Baptiſm? And becauſe the Letter is ſo Excellent a Diſſwaſive from any Complyance with Superſtitious and Idolatrous Worſhip, I ſhall here inſert it.