Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist

(3.) That the crucifixes as instruments of superstition deserved the same fate.
(4.) That the real body and blood of Christ were not exhibited in the eucharist,
but were merely represented in the holy ordinance, by their figures and
symbols.
(5.) And, lastly, that the oblations, prayers, and the good works of the living,
could be in no respect advantageous to the dead. This innovator was
succeeded by another, who was of Italian birth, and whose name was Henry,
the founder and parent of the sect of Henricians.” f301
In Mosheim stating that notwithstanding Henry took up the work where Peter
de Bruys left it and that Henry founded the Henricians, we see how historians
attribute the origin of any previous party to its new leader, naming it a new
name, for that leader. Mosheim continues:
“We have no account of the doctrines of this reformer transmitted to our
times. All we know of the matter is, that he rejected inland baptism; censured
with severity the corrupt and licentious manners of the clergy; treated the
festivals and ceremonies of the church with the utmost contempt; and held
clandestine assemblies, in which he explained and inculcated the novelties he
taught. Several writers affirm that he was a disciple of Peter de Bruys.” f302
After giving substantially the same account of the Petrobrussians and
Henricians, as the foregoing, Wadington says:
“Henry is generally described as a disciple and fellow laborer of Pierre de
Bruys. The objection to this opinion, urged by Mosheim, is, that Henry was
preceded in his expeditions by the figure of the cross, whereas Pierre
consigned all crucifixes to the flames. Without supposing that the objection of
Pierre might be to the image of the Savior, not to the form of the cross, the
objection is far from conclusive.” f303
To Wadington’s answer may be added: Protestant and Baptist churches, while
joining Peter de Bruys in destroying crucifixes as he found them used, do not
hesitate to use the representation of the cross in song, picture and even on
churches. Hence, Henry could have used the cross in harmony with his
teachers.
After giving substantially the foregoing account, another historian adds:
“The Petrobrussians, to justify themselves from the calumnies of Peter of
Clugny and others, sent forth a work in answer to the question, ‘What is anti-
Christ?’ It is generally supposed to have been the production of Peter de
Bruys, and is said to have been written as early as 1120. … In reference to the
ordinances, it declares, ‘A third work of anti-Christ consists in this, that he
attributes the regeneration of the Holy Spirit unto the mere external rite,’ (as
Campbellism), ‘baptizing infants in that faith, teaching that thereby baptism
and regeneration must be had; on which principle he bestows and confers