There is no proof, however, that these teachers were Waldenses of Piedmont. Did they not more probably derive their opinions from the Paulicians who retired from oppression under the Grecian yoke, left Bulgaria and Thrace, and removing to Italy, existed in considerable numbers in Lombardy, especially at Milan, and wandered from thence into France and Germany?

3. Peter abbot of Clugny, who persecuted to death Peter de Bruys, says that "the seeds of the doctrine sown by him brought forth chiefly five poisonous shoots; the first of which consisted in denying that infants could be saved by baptism, when they are under the age of reason; and that the faith of the parents can be available to those who are not of age to believe.” Bossuet, in consequence of this accusation, considers the followers of Peter de Bruys as Manichees; but Dr. Allix, vindicating them, observes, "If he had said that Peter de Bruys had revived the error of the Hieracites*....he would have had more reason on his side, for the

* A sect formed in Egypt in the 3rd century by Hierax of Leontium, an eminently learned bookseller, who thought that children were excluded from the kingdom of heaven, if they died under the age of reason, and had not triumphed in the christian conflict over evil passions to acquire a reward.-Ed.

first article comes very near the opinion of the Hieracites, but it is absoluely false that it agrees with the belief of the Manichees. The Manichees absolutely rejected baptism; whereas, if we will believe Peter de Clugny, the Petrobrussians did not look upon it as needless, but only to infants. In a word, Peter de Clugny attributes to them a kind of anabaptism, which maintained, that infants were not capable of baptism, and that it was only to be conferred upon such as were full grown, because at the receiving of it they were to make profession of their faith for themselves. At this rate we might as well accuse Tertullian, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and Walafridus Strabo* of Manichæism.....This error was not general amongst them, because the disciples of Peter de Bruys

Tertullian" had some singular notions.... In his own private opinion he was for deferring the baptism of infants, especially where there was no danger of death, till they came to years of discretion, but he so argues for this, as to shew that the practice of the church was otherwise." Gregory Nazianzen "thought it better to defer it, till they were about three years old, but in case of danger to give it immediately after they were born."-Bingham's Antiquities, i. 481, 3.

Walafridus Strabo lived in the ninth century, and wrote "poems, lives of the saints, and explications of many of the more difficult passages of scripture.". Mosheim, ii. 316.

and Henry (of Thoulouse) reject it as a slanderous imputation, and because the malice which appears in the wording of this calumny, is nothing but the effect of that hatred wherewith Peter de Clugny was inflamed against these pretended heretics."

4. There is a treatise against Antichrist, dated 1120, "written," says Morland, "about the time of Peter de Bruys." In that treatise we find these words,-" La terza obra de l'antichrist es que el attribuis la reformation del Sanct Sperit a la fe morta de fora, et bapteia li enfant en aquella fe," &c.—The third work of antichrist is, that he attributes the renewing of the Holy Ghost to a dead outward faith, and baptizes children in this faith. This passage, though supposed adverse to infant-baptism, only condemns the notion that the renewing of the Holy Ghost necessarily accompanied the outward administration of baptism to children, although the faith of those who administered the rite were only a dead outward faith. It was levelled, apparently, against the supposed efficacy of the opus operatum in every case. There is another passage in the same treatise, which explains more fully why the ancient Waldenses and Albigenses objected, not to infant-baptism, but to the corruptions that had

been introduced in the administration of the rite:

66

That which is of no necessity in the administration of baptism, are exorcisms, the breathing, the sign of the cross on the breast and forehead, the putting salt into the mouth, the anointing his breast," &c. &c. Many other similar minute ceremonies are enumerated.

66

...

5. An extract from Raynerius is cited by Dr. Allix, in reference to the followers of Peter Waldo, which contains obvious calumny on some points, blended with an accurate statement of their opinions on others. They say," observes Raynerius, "that a man is then first baptized when initiated into their sect. Some of them consider baptism of no use to children because they cannot actually believe."

6. An inquisitor, who wrote in the 14th century respecting the colony of the Waldenses (Peter Waldo's disciples) settled in Bohemia, states," Some of them are in an error concerning baptism, holding, that infants cannot be saved by it; (he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ;) but an infant does not believe, therefore is not saved. Some of them do baptize; others use imposition of hands instead of baptism."*

* Allix, pp. 191, 223.

7. Leger, p. 332, mentions the case of the nuns of a convent of Mompellier, on the road to Lates, who were burnt, and the convent also, for heresy. He particularly describes the martyrdom of one of those nuns, (Catherine de Suabe de Thoul en Lorraine,) who was previously burnt, (A. D. 1417.) In that convent she had been taught to believe,

1. That the catholic church consists of men and women, who follow the life of the apostles,

2. That the host is not Christ's real body, 3. That auricular confession is unnecessary, 4. That there is no purgatory.

She was therefore condemned "comme hérétique Vaudoise." Amongst other things laid to her charge was the following: "That children, though baptized, are not saved unless they possess faith." Leger cites those circumstances on the authority of "L'histoire des Albigeois recueillie par Jean Chassagnien, de Monistrol en Vallai, imprimée à Genève l'an 1595.” This author, Leger observes, "prouve que PLUSIEURS Albigeois, quoiqu'ils n'ayent jamais rejetté le sacrement, ni dit qu'il fût inutile, ont neanmoins estimé qu'il n'étoit pas necessaire aux petits enfans tandis qu'ils n'etoient point en âge pour croire, et qu'il est écrit, Qui