I did not need you to tell me that Paulicians , Bogomils and others were rebaptizers. That is very well known, but it is not the point at issue. The question is whether these people were orthodox in their theology. The Petrobusians and Waldenses seem to have been so; the others, not so much. Diligent searches on line have failed to turn up the evidence. If you have it, please print it out on this forum so that we can all see it. In the meantime I will look and see what I can find on Jstor and elsewhere.
I will not post again until either you or I is able to post the information here on the forum.
[Cites reposted below for convenience]
Thank you for the clarification. Let me respond on the narrow point you’ve raised.
You now acknowledge that Paulicians, Bogomils, and others were rebaptizers. That was one of the original points at issue: whether rebaptism existed long before 1525. It did, and you concede that.
You have shifted the question from “Were they rebaptizers?” to “Were they orthodox in their theology?” That is a different question, and I am happy to address it, but it should be recognized as a change of focus.
As to your request that I “print out” trial records and inquisitorial proceedings on the forum:
These documents are lengthy, often running to dozens or hundreds of pages.
They are available in the links I already provided, in full, in reputable editions, but are listed again below.
Copy‑pasting large sections of medieval Latin or translated trial records into a BB thread is neither practical nor appropriate.
You say diligent searches have failed to turn up the evidence. That is precisely why I supplied links to:
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius on rebaptizers.
Medieval trial records and inquisitorial documents identifying Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Bogomils, Petrobrusians, Henricians, and Waldenses as rebaptizers.
These are not vague references; they are specific, citable sources. They are already on the table.
You are, of course, free to consult JSTOR and other databases. But it is not accurate to say that no written evidence has been provided until it is manually re‑typed into a BB post. The documentation exists, has been cited, and has been linked.
If you wish to continue the discussion on orthodoxy, we can do so by engaging the sources already cited rather than requiring that they be reproduced in full here. Otherwise, we will simply be stalled on a procedural demand that does not change the fact that the evidence is available and has been presented.
For clarity, I will relist the documentation already provided. These sources do two things:
They identify groups who practiced rebaptism long before 1525.
They record the beliefs for which they were condemned, whether orthodox, semi‑orthodox, or heterodox.
This allows us to distinguish the fact of rebaptism from the theological character of each group.
Patristic Sources (rebaptizers and the doctrines involved)
Irenaeus - Against Heresies
Identifies sects whose baptisms were rejected and whose converts were rebaptized.
Also records the doctrinal errors involved.
Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
www.newadvent.org
Tertullian - On Baptism
Explicit discussion of rebaptism and the theological disputes surrounding it.
Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
www.newadvent.org
Hippolytus - Refutation of All Heresies
Lists groups practicing rebaptism and the doctrinal reasons they were condemned.
Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
www.newadvent.org
Epiphanius - Panarion
Catalogs sects, including rebaptizers, with detailed descriptions of their beliefs.
Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
www.newadvent.org
Medieval Trial Records and Inquisitorial Proceedings
These do not merely say “rebaptizers.” They specify why they were condemned.
Paulicians
Rebaptizers; condemned for rejecting infant baptism, rejecting sacramentalism, and opposing the established church.
Peter of Sicily’s History of the Paulicians:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/byzantium/peter-sicily.asp (sourcebooks.fordham.edu in Bing)
Bogomils
Rebaptizers; condemned for rejecting infant baptism, rejecting the priesthood, and opposing sacramental theology.
Cosmas the Priest’s Sermon Against the Bogomils:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/bogomil.asp (sourcebooks.fordham.edu in Bing)
Petrobrusians and Henricians
Rebaptizers; condemned for rejecting infant baptism, rejecting transubstantiation, rejecting prayers for the dead, and opposing church hierarchy.
Peter of Cluny’s Contra Petrobrusianos:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/peterbrus.asp (sourcebooks.fordham.edu in Bing)
Waldenses
Rebaptizers in several regions; condemned for rejecting infant baptism, rejecting sacramental regeneration, and preaching without clerical authorization.
Multiple inquisitorial records:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/waldensians.asp (sourcebooks.fordham.edu in Bing)
Lollards
Rebaptizers in some districts; condemned for rejecting infant baptism, rejecting sacramental regeneration, and denying the authority of Rome.
English trial records:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/lollards.asp (sourcebooks.fordham.edu in Bing)
These are the same sources previously supplied. They contain the full texts and the doctrinal charges. Copying entire medieval proceedings into a BB post is not practical, but the documentation is here, publicly accessible, and complete.
If you locate additional material on JSTOR, I will be glad to examine it with you. But the written evidence for rebaptizers , and the beliefs for which they were condemned, has already been provided and is now relisted for convenience.
