The late patrons of Anabaptism among us would make the world believe that this Sect had for its Author the famous Berengarius,  and for its fomenters four hundred years ago, the old prede­cessors of Protestants, commonly called Albi­genses: but who will be pleased to consult the fountain of this allegation shall find Berengarius absolved from this crime by that very mouth whence alone the slander did proceed.
Bishop Guitmund lays on the back of Deacon Beren­garius the load of so many contumelies as he is able to invent, only for his boldness to oppose the common Doctrine of that time, the corporal presence of Christs body in the bread of the Sacrament: among other things he challenges him for the deny­ing baptism to infants, but if any should require a proof of this heavy charge, Guitmund professes that none can be given, avow­ing that Berengarius did never bring any such Doctrine in pub­lic, knowing that no Scripture could be alleged for it, and that no creature would take such an absurdity from his hand (A); Ju­stice therefore does require that Berengarius be freed of that crime, since his very adversary confesses that it was never made appear by any known profession; for crimes that appear not are reputed by just men as not existing (M. Tombes, Ex­amin. p. 20, 21).
Concerning the Albigenses, the man that lays the slander of Anabaptism upon them is Petrus Cluniacensis, but how unjustly I offer to be considered not only from this general very true and confessed ground, that the Popish Writers of that time do charge these honest and pious men of Albi with many both errors and crimes, whereof all equitable men believe them to have been most innocent; but also from three particular observations: First, they are not challenged by Cluniacensis as direct and express deniers of paedobaptism, but for their affirming the impossibi­lity of infants believing, and of their impossible salvation with­out faith, he alleges upon them by way of consequence, that they did also maintain the Baptism of infants to be unprofitable and null (B). The learned know how much uses to be said against the burdening of men with all the consequents of their tenets, espe­cially when the party rejects them, and the things themselves have no necessary dependence. Secondly, the antecedent where­upon this consequent is builded, we much doubt if ever it came in the thoughts of the Albigenses. That these gracious and ortho­dox men should have been so absurd as to damn absolutely all infants dying in their infancy, which never any of the grossest heretics to this day did affirm; we must be pardoned to deny our belief to ten witnesses of much better faith then the Abbot of Cluny. Thirdly, that which Cassander avows in that same place helps to evidence the slander of Cluniacensis: the Waldenses were the children and immediate successors of the Albigenses, many of their writs yet extant shew how rigid and punctual observers the children were of their Fathers ways: now it is Cassander’s remark verified by the writs and known practice to this day of all the Waldenses that they have been constant paedo­baptists (C). He must therefore be a man of greater authority then any Friar or Monk of these dark times, who shall be able to persuade that their Fathers the Albigenses were against infants baptism.
Wherefore notwithstanding of all which is misalleged from Cassander we may safely with all Protestant Writers affirm that the first known Fathers of Anabaptism were Nicholas Stock and Thomas Muntzer, who in the year 1522 began to sow the tares of that sect in Saxony with too great success. Neither Me­lancthon nor Ca­rolostadius did ever favor an­tipaedobaptism. What some allege of Melancthon and Carolostadius their favor towards these men, of Melancthon it is most false as many of his writs declare (D), unless it be understood of his good and extraordinary meek na­ture, whereby he was ever inclined to pity the worst of men so long as there was any hope by loving dealing to do them good. Carolostadius indeed was a rash hot headed man, and at the beginning did give too much countenance to the Anabaptists, albeit not in the point of Antipaedobaptism (E), so far as we can find; but wherein soever he favored these fanatic men, he did quick­ly repent and made his public retractions to the satisfaction of Luther’ss own mind (F).
M. Tombs by all his diligence to search for ancient and renow­ned friends to his Clients the Anabaptists, does but raise dust to darken the air about himself: all who will be at the pains to consider these very testimonies which he alleges, shall find that no Divine of good fame did ever join with that sect: for the spirit that did reign therein was so evidently malignant, that a small measure of discretion did ever serve to discover and avoid him.

Robert Baillie | Anabaptism, The True Fountain of Independency, Brownisme, Antinomy, Familism, and the most of the other Errors Which For The Time Do Trouble the Church of England, Unsealed (London, 1647), 2–3. NB: For ease of reading and because archaic spelling tend to make older writers seem unintelligent archaic spellings have been modernized and some typos have been corrected.

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• Browse the Heidelshop!
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

Post authored by:

• Heidelblog

  

  The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.

  More by Heidelblog ›