The Middle Ages
John: Doctor Pettingill says: "At all time, from the beginning of the church age, God has always had a remnant remaining faithful to Him. They have never consented to the union of church and state, or to baptismal regeneration, or to infant baptism ... They bore nicknames, depending sometimes upon a leader's name, or the name of their locality. They were Montanists, Novatians, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Petro-Brussians, Waldenses, Peterines, Albigenses, Stundists, and others; but their generic name was Anabaptists, meaning rebaptizers, for they ignored infant baptism, and rebaptized those who had been saved through personal faith. They also had a generic name for themselves; they called themselves Antipedobaptists, meaning opponents of infant baptism." [1]
Doesn't this fact, pointed out by Doctor Pettingill, show that Baptism has existed from the Apostolic times on?
Martin: Do you know these groups from church history?
John: Except for this statement of Doctor Pettingill's, I have only read what Hiscox says on the matter. [2]
Martin: Let's see what church history says of these groups. Montanists are the first group mentioned by Doctor Pettingill. Doctor Thomas Armitage declares in his large work History of the Baptists [3] that the Montanists sprang from Montanus, a native of Phrygia, in Asia Minor. The movement aimed at restoring the church to its original spirituality and purity. The aim was good, but in trying to accomplish their end they went too far and fell into errors. They claimed that they were as directly under the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit as were the apostles, and that Montanus was the Holy Spirit Himself. They became thoroughly legal in their zeal for consecration, excluded themselves from society, and were harsh in their treatment of weak and erring Christians. Sin after baptism was regarded by them as almost unpardonable; second marriages were regarded as wicked in the extreme; and matter itself was held to be unmixed evil.
Tertullian joined the Montanists and shared their view of sins after baptism. That was the reason why he opposed infant baptism, as well as the baptism of unmarried virgins and widows. Otherwise, there was no dispute on baptism between the Montanists and the Church Universal, Doctor Armitage says. Both of them believed that sins were forgiven in baptism, and both of them regarded baptism as a washing of regeneration. Both of them also used infant baptism, although there was more tendency among the Montanists to postpone it to a later age, as the example of Tertullian shows. As I pointed out, this was due to the Montanist view that sins after baptism were almost unpardonable. The Church Universal, or the Catholic Church -- not the Roman Catholic, which did not exist as yet -- was more merciful in its treatment of weak and erring Christians, and of those who fell into apostasy in persecutions.
Now, brother John, can you tell me in what sense were the Montanists antipedobaptists? I repeat, there was no controversy on baptism between them and the church at large, and in things on which there was controversy, the antipedobaptists of our time do not accept the Montanistic conception but agree with the Ancient Catholic Church.
John: It seems to me that the Montanists are not akin to the antipedobaptists in any other sense than in their zeal for the purity of the church.
Martin: But in the principles to be followed in caring for the purity and spirituality of the Church the antipedobaptists follow the principles of the Ancient Catholic Church. We are therefore much closer to historical truth when we say that the Montanists cannot be regarded in any special sense as forerunners of the baptistic principles. Even their view that it is preferable to baptize people in mature age than in infancy has little to do with the modern baptistic principles; quite to the contrary, it was based on their belief in the saving efficacy of baptism, and on their conception that sins after baptism were almost unpardonable; and both of these beliefs are in conflict with present-day baptistic teaching.
The Novatians were "Puritans" who arose about a century later than the Montanists, taking their name from Novatian, a Roman Christian who was their first notable leader. Novatian was sick when he was baptized, and it was done by pouring water on him. Such an emergency form of baptism was regarded as doubtful by some strict immersionists, particularly when it came to ordaining such a person for ministry. Cornelius, a rival of Novatian in Rome, used this fact against him when he wanted to become a presbyter and bishop. Another controversial issue was that Novatian opposed the restoration of the "lapsed" into the Church, while Cornelius favored their reception after due repentance. When Cornelius was elected bishop by the majority in A.D. 251, Novatian let the minority elect him also a bishop, and so he became the leader of a strict party which excluded permanently from their church fallen Christians, and also rebaptized all who joined them from the Catholic Church.
John: The Novatians represented, then, a baptistic principle.
Martin: Don't be too rash in your conclusions. The Novatians, like the Church in general, believed in salvation through baptism. The antipedobaptists of our time (with the exception of the Campbellites) do not believe in it. The Novatians did not rebaptize the Catholics because they had been baptized before conversion, but simply because they came from a Church which they regarded as corrupt, since it received "lapsed" or fallen people who repented and wanted to return to the Church. It seems to me that the antipedobaptists of our time follow at this point the principles of the Church Universal of the fourth century, not the principles of the Novatians. If there were Novatians in our time, we may be sure that they would denounce practically all the antipedobaptists as corrupt because they receive fallen Christians back into the Church when they repent. The Novatians would reimmerse all the Baptists, Pentecostals, and such others who would join them, as coming from corrupt churches. Besides, as Doctor Armitage says, no controversy existed between the Church Universal and the Novatians on baptism itself, and there was no discussion on infant baptism between them. Thus I do not see any reason at all why some antipedobaptists regard the Novatians as representatives of their principles.
Of the Paulicians, Doctor Armitage tells that they were a group that arose in Armenia about A.D. 660, and probably got their name from the Apostle Paul, whom they greatly admired. They were not Baptists, for they rejected all external sacraments, using no baptism at all. The words of the Gospel were, in their judgment, the only baptism and communion for the faithful. They believed in a baptism known as the Consolamentum or baptism of the Spirit, which they administered by laying a copy of the Gospels on the head of the candidate, accompanied with prayer. As to the Supper, they fed on Christ only by faith in the heart, regarding this as the spirit of the institution. In a word, on the ordinances they were related to the Quakers, and not to the antipedobaptists. The Paulicians were Reformed Manicheans, who rejected many of the doctrines of this sect, which was a mixture of Christianity and the pagan religion of the Persians. They held, however, some of the tenets of the Gnostics, and were filled with all kinds of speculations as to the nature of God, the origin of matter, its relations to moral and physical evil, and so were poor specimens of Christians anyway, when measured after the full order of the Gospel, as Doctor Armitage says. [4] Now, brother John, in what sense are the Paulicians to be regarded as representatives of the baptistic principles?
John: I do not see any particular similarity between them and the followers of baptistic principles in our time. I wonder why Doctor Pettingill mentions them among the ancient representatives of baptistic principles.
Martin: I also wonder. Even the fact that they were persecuted is no peculiarity of theirs, for the Church Universal was also persecuted until the first part of the fourth century, and the Lutheran and Reformed pedobaptists have at times been persecuted as much as any Baptists.
The Petro-Brussians, or Petrobrusians, were followers of Peter of Bruis in the twelfth century. They were a part of the movement called Cathari, but rejected many of the tenets of the actual Cathari. They abandoned infant baptism and insisted on immersion of all believers in Christ. Peter of Bruis began his reformation movement in A.D. 1104. He rejected the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and regarded the Lord's Supper as a merely historical and memorial act. He held the Church to be made up of a regenerated people only, counted the bishops and priests, as he knew them, mere frauds, rejected the adoration of images, prayers for the dead, and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. [5] The Petrobrusians were thus in their doctrine and practice true Medieval Baptists. Arnold of Brescia, from whom the Arnoldists received their name, was in 1139 condemned by the Lateran Council for rejecting infant baptism. He was possibly at this point a follower of Peter of Bruis. Arnold has become famous for the establishment of a republic in Rome, which, however, came to its end when Frederick Barbarossa conquered the city, and Arnold himself was hanged in 1155. [6]
The Henricians are named after Peter Waldo, a rich merchant of Lyons. In 1160 he consecrated himself to Christ, began to preach, had the gospels translated into the language of the common people, and became a leader of a movement that spread in southern France, northern Italy, and elsewhere. They did not reject the doctrine of the Church, and therefore they were accused only of being "schismatics," because the established a new apostolate, and usurped the office of preaching without papal authority. They were excommunicated in 1183-84. After that they gradually became critical of some doctrines of the Church of Rome on the basis of the teachings of the Scriptures, which they diligently studied. In general they did not oppose infant baptism, Doctor Armitage writes: "If they opposed infant baptism it is unaccountable that their literature, running through four centuries, gives no formal argument against it, and no accompanying demand for the baptism of believers only." Neither did they defend infant baptism. [7] The reason must be that there was no dissension on baptism between them and the Catholic Church. There were, however, possibly some individual Waldensians who accepted the view of the Peterbrusians, but they were exceptions. This is also seen from the fact that the bulk of the Waldensians joined the Protestant pedobaptists at the time of the Reformation, having with them no dissension on baptism. Thus, the Waldensians were not forerunners of Baptism, but rather of pedobaptist Protestants.
The Albigenses arose in southern France early in the eleventh century, taking their name from the city of Albi, the center of the Albigenses district. They rejected the Romish Church, and esteemed the New Testament above all its traditions and ceremonies. The Catholic Church organized crusades against them, and their district was utterly destroyed and the people slaughtered. Since there were many sects of the Cathari, among whom the Albigenses were counted, it is hard to know their doctrines. It is known that they did not take oaths, and did not believe in baptismal regeneration. They were ascetic, and exalted celibacy. Only certain minor groups of the Cathari rejected infant baptism. [8]
The Paterines or Patarenes were a reform party at Milan in the eleventh century, directed against the worldly behavior of the clergy and the so-called royal investiture. The clergy was compelled to celibacy, and the property of the refractory clergy was plundered. The Patarenes were thoroughly Roman Catholic in doctrine and never questioned infant baptism. [9] It is inconceivable to me why Doctor Pettingill mentions this Catholic riotous party, zealous for the celibacy of the clergy, among the forerunners and representatives of baptistic principles. In reality it has nothing to do with the history of Baptism. Doctor Armitage does not mention them at all. Neither does he mention the Stundists, an evangelical revival movement in southern Russia, which received its inspiration from German Lutheran immigrants. It was led by a layman, Ratusny, in the 1860's, and came soon into a close contact with Baptism. Stundism was not originally a Baptist movement, and as far as it has been influenced by Baptism, its history belongs to the modern history of Baptism.
The result of our study is that most of the groups mentioned by Doctor Pettingill cannot be called Anabaptists, and still less have they used this name of themselves, as Doctor Pettingill asserts. Most of them have nothing to do with the history of Baptism. [10]
A historical fact is that the baptistic view of baptism is not found in the Bible; neither is it found in the history of the Church for more than a millennium after the birth of the Church. No group held the baptistic principles in the Christian Church until the appearance of the Petrobrusians. Thus the history of Baptism begins about 1104, and all attempts to trace it further back than that have failed, or have been based on a falsification of the facts. In the actual sense of the word, the history of the baptistic movement begins in 1525 in the form of the Reformation-period Anabaptists. According to the study of Harold S. Bender, who belongs to the Mennonites, the direct spiritual descendants of the Anabaptists, the birthday of the Anabaptist movement was January 21, 1525, in the city of Zurich, Switzerland. Then a number of men assembled privately for prayer and meditation, and a certain George Blaurock, a former cleric of Grisonia, asked the leader of the group, Conrad Grebel, to seal his decision for a new and committed life by baptizing him upon confession of faith. This Grebel did. Then he himself was baptized by Blaurock, and after that the other members of this small circle were also baptized. It was a solemn and spontaneous act in which no known outside influences seem to have been instrumental. [11] It was a new start, without any connection with the medieval Petrobrusians and other baptists. As I already pointed out, in our time, the Mennonites and some other groups are descendants of the sixteenth century Anabaptists. The baptistic movement of the English-speaking world started in the 1590's among the followers of Henry Barrow. A certain person had himself rebaptized, and then baptized others. This was another new start, without a direct historical connection with the Anabaptists. Thus both in doctrine and practice the baptistic view is a relatively late unbiblical error. When the Baptist writers claim that "Baptists have an unbroken line of churches since Christ," and that even during the Middle Ages (A.D. 500-1520) there has been "a continual line of churches called Ana-Baptists," [12] they speak historical untruths.
John: I cannot deny that your hard judgment is largely justified. I am not able to show any group in the Church that has really represented the baptistic view until the Petrobrusians ...
[1] William L. Pettingill, "The Evils of Infant Baptism." Reprinted in Dr. J. Oliver Buswell's booklet Both Sides of the Baptism Question, p. 3.
[2] Edward T. Hiscox, The New Directory for Baptist Churches (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1894), pp. 495ff.
[3] New York: Bryan, Taylor and Co., 1887. Dr. Armitage was pastor of the Fifth Avenue Baptist Church in New York City. He deals with Montanism on pp. 174-177.
[4] Armitage, op. cit., pp. 234ff.
[5] Ibid., pp. 284ff.
[6] Ibid., pp. 292ff.
[7] Ibid., pp. 295-302.
[8] Ibid., pp. 278ff.
[9] Schaff-Herzog, New Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
[10] Dr. Pettingill explains in his article "The Evils of Infant Baptism" that "in church history there is no record of infant baptism until the year 370." We have shown how another Baptist, Hiscox, admits that Tertullian's opposition to infant baptism toward the end of the second century shows that it had been in use for some time. Dr. Pettingill also declares that "in the year 416 infant baptism was made compulsory throughout the Roman empire by law." Church history knows nothing of such an event. The whole thing is an invention of Dr. Pettingill, who has much zeal against infant baptism, but does not seem to care for historical truth. Dr. J. Oliver Buswell sent to The Voice, in which Pettingill's article was published, an article in which he refuted Pettingill's errors, but The Voice (official organ of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America) refused to publish it. Dr. Buswell published both Pettingill's article and his own in The Bible Today. They are available as a reprint from Shelton College, New York.
[11] H.S. Bender, Conrad Gebel, c. 1498-1525, the Founder of the Swiss Brethren, Sometimes Called Anabaptists (Goshen, Indiana: The Mennonite Historical Society, 1950).
[12] J.M. Carrol, "The Trail of Blood" (Lexington, Ky.: Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, 1931). Chart at the end of the booklet.
[Read more selections from "Scriptural Baptism" by Uuras Saarnivaara]