*

mercy be saved (I quoted his words for that before); but adds, "But as for you, you cannot be secure, if any. by your order have died without the said sacraments, that you shall not be severely judged (though the mercy of Almighty God make it up in them) unless your, true humility do procure your pardon," &c. The stubborn bishop would not obey, but recriminated; he sent word to the archbishop, saying, " You gave me an example: I have a village in your diocese, &c. and you excommunicated them; and I have an account of how many infants died without baptism, and men without the communion," &c. The archbishop denied this; the matter is brought before the synod held in the Attiniacum: [770] They condemn the Bishop of Laudun.

Now see what Mr. Danvers makes of this (which I set down as a specimen; not that I mean to trouble the reader with tracing him any further, whatever I have done myself); -he relates it thus: †

66

Hincmarus, Bishop of Laudun, in France, in the 9th century, renounced childrens baptism, and refused any more to baptize any of them, &c. for which he and his diocese was accused in the synod of Accinicus, in France, in these words: Ne missas celebrarent, aut infantes baptizarent, aut pænitentes absolverent, aut mortuos sepelirent:" which he translates contrary to the idiom of Latin phrase, and to the tenor of the history that they neither celebrated mass, baptized chil'dren, absolved the penitent, or buried the dead.' Whereas the accusation was not against the diocese, but against the Bishop only; that he had excommunicated them, and interdicted his clergy; ne missas cele-· brarent, &c. that they should not (or could not) say 'mass, baptize children, absolve penitents, or bury the 'dead." And he quotes for this, Bib. Patrum, tom. 9, part 2, p. 137; Magd. Cent. 9, c. 4, p. 40, 41, 43;. Dutch Martyrology, p. 244, part 1.

Now, for Dutch Martyrology I will by no means

* Hincmari Præfatio. Treat. Part 2, c. 7, p. 233, edit. 1674.

answer; but this I will undertake, that whoever looks into Hincmarus's Opusculum, which is recited in Bib. Patrum, tom. 9, part 2, p. 93, &c. [p. 137 seems to be a mistake of the printer] ed. Colon. 1618; or into Magd. Cent. 9, c. 9, p. 443 [which is the place that must be meant, though his print be c. 4, p. 40, 41, 43.] edit. Basil. 1547, will find the account of the matter as I have told it, and no other.

Now at such a rate of quoting, reciting, translating, and altering, he may find Antipædobaptists in every age, and at any place. It is abundance of the quotations that he has brought, which I, as well as Mr. Baxter and Mr. Wills, have searched and never found any, not so much as one (of those I mean which are for the centuries aforesaid from 400 to 1000, and seemed to be any thing material) but what had some such mistake as this, or a worse, in the applying of them. But I shall not go on to recite them, especially since the foresaid writers have done it already*. One would wonder what he meant to make of this Hincmarus. If we can conceive that he thought his opinion to be against baptizing children, did he think that he judged burying the dead unlawful too?

But, about the year of Christ 1050, there are quotations that have better foundation and a greater appearance of truth, and do at least deserve an examination, concerning Bruno, Bishop of Angers, and Berengarius, Archdeacon of the same church; and about 100 years after, some concerning the Waldenses, of yet greater credit.

Bruno and Berengarius seem to have aimed at a reformation of some corrupt doctrines then in the church of Rome they had an opportunity more advantageous than ordinary, one being Bishop and the other Archdeacon of the same place. They are said to have begun their attempt about 1035, when Berengarius was but a young man, [935] for he lived 50 years after Wills's Infant Baptism asserted,

*Baxter, More Proofs, &c. item Infant Baptism reasserted,

that time. They opposed Transubstantiation; for which they had a great many mouths open, and many pieces wrote against them. Among which many, there is one (not written by one of the same nation but a foreigner, who owns that he speaks by hearsay) that charges them with some error that did overthrow infant baptism. It is a letter written by Durandus, Bishop of Liege, as Baronius [950] and the editors of the Bib. Patr. had supposed; but as Bishop Usher and F. Mabillon † have fully proved, by Deodwinus, Bishop of Leige, to Henry I. king of France. The words are, t

*

"There is a report come out of France, and which goes through all Germany, that these two do maintain that the Lord's Body (the Host) is not the body, but a shadow and figure of the Lord's body. And that they do disannul lawful marriages, and, as far as in them lie, overthrow the baptism of infants."

Of Bruno we hear no more; probably he died.

But of Berengarius, the report that Deodwinus had heard was so far certainly true, as that he did deny the real presence in the sacrament in that proper and corporal meaning, in which a great many then began to understand it. And there are, a little after this, a great many tracts written, and a great many councils § held against him and others of his opinion, [955] for that supposed error. [963] But none of those tracts, nor any of those councils do object any error held by him, in reference to matrimony or infant baptism. And since he is found three or four several times to have been received to communion by his adversaries, upon recantation of that his opinion of the Eucharist, without mention of any other, it is probable and almost certain that the report which Deodwinus had heard of his holding those other opinions was a mistake; or else that (as Bishop Usher ||gueses) he had denied that bap

* De Succes. Eccl. p. 196. + Analect. tom. 4. p. 396.
Bib. Patr. tom. 11. Ed. Col. 1618. Durandi Epist.
§ Concil. Turonese, anno 1055. Romanum 1063.
De Succes. Eccl. cap. 7, Sect. 37.

bis

tism does confer grace er opere operato; which was enough at that time to make his adversaries say he did overthrow baptism. And that is Deodwin's words; he does not say they denied it, but his words are, quantum in ipsis est, parvulorum baptismum evertunt. They, as far as in them lies, overthrow the baptism of infants.'

*

Guitmund, indeed who is one of those many that I. said wrote against Berengarius, [975] towards the latter end of his life, about his opinion of the other sacrament, does take notice of Deodwin's letter, and of the report therein mentioned of his holding those other opinions; but he speaks of them as of tenets which Berengarius, if ever he held them, never did think fit to own or publish for his words are, that Berengarius finding that those two opinions [of marriage and baptism] would not be endured by the ears even of the worst men that were, and that there was no pretence in Scripture to be brought for them, betook himself wholly to uphold the other, [viz. that against Transubstantiation] in which he seemed to have the testimony of our senses on his side; and against which none of the holy fathers had so fully spoken, and for which he picked up some reasons and some places of Scripture misunderstood, &c.

This is what he says as by report from Deodwin's letter. [970] And for his other adversaries † [950] Lanfranc Adleman †, Algerus §, and others, [1030] they do not at all, as I can find, mention any thing about baptism.

One thing I do here note by the by, that both this Guitmund and the others mentioned, do so maintain the doctrine of Transubstantiation against Berengarius, as that they say nothing of worshipping the Host, nor any thing from whence one may gather that it was then practised in the church of Rome itself. I believe

* De Veritate Corporis & Sang. lib. 1.
+ De Corpore & Sanguine Domini.
Epistola ad Berengar. de Veritate, &c.
De Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis, &c,

they then held Transubstantiation as the Lutherans do now Consubstantiation, so as not to worship the Host as the Papists do now.

Now for the next age after this: the author of the Acts of Bruno, Archbishop of Triers, cited by Bishop Usher, *says, that the said Bruno taking on him to expel those that were of the Berengarian sect out of his diocese, there were some found among them who, upon examination, confessed their opinion to be, that baptism does no good to infants for their salvation. And the said author tells it upon his credit, that he was present at their confession, and heard them say so.

But it is probable that these were a sort of people that have been since called Waldenses; for it must be observed that in this age, viz. the 12th century, [1050] several societies of men began to make a figure in the world; who differing from one another in some other matters, all agreed in renouncing the Pope and See of Rome, and denying Transubstantiation, and the worship of images, and some other grosser corruptions lately brought into that church. These were at first in several places called by several names and nick-names; but have been since by our English writers denoted by the general name of Waldenses. And one of the nicknames in use at this time, was to call them Berengarians. Now, whether those in Bruno's diocese, that were so called, did mean by that saying of theirs that baptism itself is a thing of no use to infants or any one else; or whether they put the emphasis on the word infants, does not appear: and there were about this time some sects that would say the one, and some that would be apt to say the other, as I shall shew.

Beside the name of Berengarians, other names that were severally used at several places and times, were these Cathari [or Puritans,] Paterines, Petrobrusians, Lyonists, Albigenses, Waldenses, and several more; and these, though differing many of them very much from one another, have been of late confusedly and by

* De Succes. Eccl. c. 7, p. 207.