He says, the first of this sect came from Bulgaria, and a country that he calls Dugranicia. They were doubtless an offspring of the old Manichees; who, as well as these later, made use of the name of Jesus Christ, but denied the true history of him; and framed a notion of him more enthusiastic than that which the worst sort of our Quakers do by the name of Jesus Christ within them.

These Cathari, it seems, thought water-baptism a devilish thing; but that, even without it, infants (and men too, that were not initiated in, and rescued by their rites) would be damned, as being of the Devil's make. Yet here, the Albanenses, one sect of the Cathari, dissent. Reinerius says, "And say, no creature of the good God shall perish." I suppose they meant that their body shall be damned; but their soul, because that is made by the good God, shall be saved.

The Runcarians and Paterins say likewise, "That Lucifer created all visible things." One would think these should be the same that others call the Luciferians. But that Pilichdorf, in the place I mentioned, distinguishes them; these (and the Ortlibenses and Siscidenses, of whom he says little) have nothing about baptism. The Șiscidenses, he says, hold the same as the Waldenses, save that they receive the communion." Now who he means by the Waldenses, I know not, for this is the only place where he uses the name. This man wrote anno 1254 [1154].

66

The Ordibarians say, -"The world had no begin

ning; that Christ was a sinner till he became of their sect; they deny the resurrection of the body, but not the immortality of the spirit [or soul]; they say baptism is of no farther value than are the merits of the baptizer; and that it does no good to infants, unless they be perfect in that sect." So the words are: Nisi sint perfecti in illa secta. I think they mean, "Unless they be initiated in that sect." TeguεVOL. Of the Lyonists he says thus: "There is no sect

more pernicious to the church than they," &c.

* Cap. 4.

Of the sacraments he says, "They condemn them all." This appears to be invidiously expressed; for, by his own account of the particulars, they did (to say the worst) only hold some heterodox opinions about them.

66

First for baptism:-"They say that catechism is nothing." This also must be maliciously worded; for no people ever, that believed the articles of the Creed, would hold catechizing of children to be useless; — but I guess by catechism, here is meant the interrogations and answers at the baptizing of an infant :Also, that the washing that is given to children does no good." By words so 'short, one cannot tell which of these three tenets he would accuse them to hold; either, 1. That all.baptismal washing is good for nothing; for so a Quaker now would say, "The washing you give your children is good for nothing;" when his meaning is, that all baptism is so. But these people do not seem to have been Manichees. Or, 2dly, That baptism is of no force when it is given to infants. But then it would have been plainer expressed; and he would have used the word baptismus, and not ablutio, which is spoken in disdain, and signifies an ordinary washing. Or, Sdly, That in baptisin, the washing itself, or outward act taken by itself, is not that which saves, but God operating, saves by it, as St. Peter says, * - It is not the washing off the dirt of the flesh that saves. This last I take to be what they might be likely to say; and this was a great heresy in those times, to deny that the sacraments do confer grace, er opere operato, Even by the mere outward work done.' Also, that the Godfathers do not understand what they answer to the priest; also, that the offering which is called Anwegung, is an invention; also, they dislike all the exorcisms and benedictions of baptism.'

Here is evidence more than enough, that there were several sects of this people,which is what I proposed to prove by these passages.

* 1 Ep. 3.. ch. v. 21.

And now, Secondly, That soine of them (I do not say any of the Waldenses, strictly so called, but some of these sects, which about the same time and the same places opposing the Church of Rome, are therefore, by late writers, huddled together under the name of Waldenses; that some of these, I say) did deny infant baptism, there is this ground of probability:

66

First, One Evervinus of the diocese of Cologne, a little before the year 1140 [1040], writes to St. Bernard a letter (which is lately brought to light by F. Mabillon, Analect. tom. 3.) giving him an account of two sorts of heretics lately discovered in that country; -one sort were, by his description, perfect Manichees; of the other sort, he says, They condemn the sacraments, except baptism only; and this only in those who are come to age, who they say are baptized by Christ himself, whoever be the minister of the saeraments; they do not believe infant baptism, al leging that place of the gospel, He that believeth, and is baptized, &c. All marriage they call Fornication, except that which is between two virgins," &c.

Then at the year 1146 [1046], Peter, Abbot of Clugny, writing against one Peter Bruis, and one Henry his disciple, and their associates, charges them with six errors: The first of which was their denial of infant baptism; the other five were, 2. "That churches ought not to be built; and if built, ought to be pulled down."-If we were to credit all the reports that come now from France, the Cevennois would seem to be of this opinion, by their destroying so many churches; but I hope that those reports are not true. 3." That crosses ought not to be worshipped, but broken and burnt." Peter Bruis had been, a little before the writing of this, taken and burnt himself. This writer says it was a just judgment on him, who had burnt so many crosses. 4. That not only what Berengarius had said, viz. "That there is no transubstantiation in the sacrament,' was true; but also, that

-

Epist. contra Petrobrusianos.

that sacrament is no more to be administered since Christ's time.-5. That dead men receive no benefit from the prayers, sacrifices, &c. of the living. 6. That it is a mocking of God to sing in the church."

He also says, that they were reported to "renounce all the Old Testament, and all the New, except the Four Gospels;" but this he was not sure of, and would not impute it to them, for fear he might slander them; so it appears that he did not certainly know what they held. Yet to make his proofs unquestionable, he first proves the truth of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, by their agreement with the Gospels; and then the Old Testament, by the New: and then, out of the whole, proceeds to refute their tenets, bestowing a chapter on each. The first of them was, as I said, against infant baptism, and is thus expressed :

The first proposition of the new heretics: They say, "Christ sending his disciples to preach, says in the gospel,-Go ye out into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. From these words of our Saviour, it is plain that none can be saved, unless he believe and be baptized; that is, have both Christian faith and baptism; for not one of these, but both together, does save. So that infants, though they be by you bap tized, yet since, by reason of their age, they cannot believe, are not saved. It is therefore an idle and vain thing for you to wash persons with water at such a time, when you may indeed cleanse their skin from dirt in a human nature, but not purge their souls from sin. But we do stay till the proper time of faith; and when a person is capable to know his God, and believe in him, then we do (not, as you charge us, rebaptize him, but) baptize him; for he is to be accounted as not yet baptized, who is not washed with that baptism by which sins are done away."

This is, as to the practice, perfectly agreeable with the modern Antipædobaptists; but, as Cassander ob

serves, it is upon quite contrary grounds; for the Antipædobaptists now do generally hold, that all that die infants, baptized or not, of Christian or of heathen parents, are saved; and so it is needless to baptize them; whereas these held that, baptized or not, they could not be saved; and so it was to no purpose to baptize them. And this writer does accordingly spend most of the chapter, which is in answer to this tenet of theirs, in proving that infants as well as grown men, are capable of the kingdom. "Abate (says he) of that overmuch severity which you have taken upon you

and do not exclude infants from the kingdom of Heaven; of whom Christ says, Of such is the kingdom of Heaven." Also he argues that the infants of the Jews had a possibility of being saved, viz. if they were circumcised; and if the children of Christians. have no means to be saved, we are in much worse case than they." At last he concludes that chapter, "O the difference that is between mercy and cruelty, between a tender regard to one's children, and unnaturalness, between Christ lovingly receiving infants, and the heretics impiously repelling them!" &c.

It is to be noted that this author speaks of this opinion as then lately set on foot [1026], and says it might have seemed not to need or deserve any confutation, "were it not that it had now continued 20 years." That the first seeds of it were sown by Peter de Bruis (who was living when the book was written, but put to death before it was published, of which mention is made in the preface). It was first vented in the mountainous country of Dauphine, and had had there some followers, from whence being in good measure expelled, it had got footing in Gascony, and the parts about Toulouse, being propagated by Henry, who was a disciple and successor of the said Peter.

This writer aggravates this charge of novelty, by urging, that if baptism, given in infancy, be null and void, as they pretended, then "all the world has been

* De Baptismo Infantium.

+ Præfatio & initium libri.