The Bloody Theatre, or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians who baptized only upon confession of faith, and who suffered and died for the testimony of Jesus, their savior, from the time of Christ to the year A.D. 1660 (part 4 of 13)

The Bloody Theatre, or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians who baptized only upon confession of faith, and who suffered and died for the testimony of Jesus, their savior, from the time of Christ to the year A.D. 1660 (part 4 of 13)

Finally, it is stated and maintained that this steadfast witness of Jesus Christ, was burned as a heretic by the Romanists, even against the will of Pope Zacharias, about A. D. 750, or a little after.

Compare this entire account of Clement with Willibaldi, Naucleri, Aventini. Balae. Alij ubi supra. Also, Annal. Boj. Bernhard. Lutz, in Catal. Hæres., Tom. 2, Concil. Also, A. M., 2d book, H. M., 1619, fol. 328, 329. Hist. Mart. I. S., 1645, fol. 30.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS TOUCHING THE CASE OF ALBERT AND CLEMENT, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SEBASTIAN FRANCK.

“In the year” etc., “these two men drew to them much people in France, pretending to be followers of the apostles, and speaking great things of the mysteries of God, and the life and conduct of man. Boniface, Archbishop of France, wrote the whole matter to the Pope, who, in a council of the bishops, laid it before them. They rejected the opinion of the (supposed) heretic from the church.” Finally he says: “They were unanimously deposed and anathematized.” Chron. Rom. Kett., fol. 64.

SPECIAL ACCOUNT OF CLEMENT, ACCORDING TO P. J. TWISCK.

“Clemens Scotus, a faithful disciple of Bishop Adelbert, taught with great power in France and Germany, especially in Bavaria and Franconia, that the Pope ought not to have so much power; that he (the Pope) very improperly would forbid the priests (or teachers) to marry; that he introduced many new and unknown ceremonies into the church, and originated false doctrines. He (Clement) was condemned without a hearing or examination, and his writings or books were burned.” Chron., page 258, col. 2, and 259, col. 1, from Joh. Munst., fol. 125. Aventin., lib. 3. Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 54.

OF TWO FOLLOWERS OF THE AFORESAID MARTYRS, NAMED SAMSON AND SYDONIUS, WHO, WITH OTHERS, MAINTAINED THEIR DOCTRINE AGAINST POPERY, PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE PAPAL LEGATE, BONIFACE, ARCHBISHOP OF MAYENCE; BUT WHETHER FOR THIS THEY WERE MARTYRED, IS NOT STATED.

Samson was also a Scotchman by descent, and an elder and companion of said Clement. He and Sydonius, Bishop in Bavaria, and others of like purpose and belief, were as one heart and soul, to oppose with the word of God, Boniface, the papal Legate, who proposed to oppress the people with manifold superstitions and burdens. This, not only Samson, but also Sydonius and the others boldly did. They taught with word and pen, that the apostolical embassy (as it was called) of Bishop Boniface bore a closer resemblance to paganism or anti-christendom, than to christendom, and that he had deformed rather than reformed, France and Germany. Again, that he was a sycophant and flatterer of the Pope of Rome, to whom he had not only bound, but completely sold himself, as a sworn slave.

This they were able to prove, since, by a solemn oath, he had sworn to the two Popes, Zacharias I. and Gregory II.: That he would bring all the persons whom he should draw to him, also into obedience to the Roman see. These things were known from documents written by himself and transmitted to said Popes.

They also censured him for his evil practices in the administration of baptism (that is, infant baptism), consisting in the saying of certain words, by way of exorcism. In this several questions were generally put to the unintelligent infants, namely: “Believest thou?” etc., whereupon the sponsors, in the child’s name, answered: “Yea, I believe,” etc.; which things certainly deserved no little censure, though without them, infant baptism had but little virtue or respectability.

They were also greatly offended, because he would forbid them to marry, as contrary to the institution of God, Gen. 1:27,28, yea, as being a doctrine of devils, 1 Tim. 4:1–3.

Finally it is stated, that said persons, and others, unable, in Germany as well as in France, to bring about any improvement with their doctrine, were greatly oppressed, partly through the tyranny of the popes of Rome, and partly through the authority of the kings of France, yea, were condemned in open synods, deposed from their ministry, and shut up in prisons and dungeons, and thus closely guarded that they might not escape. But as to what finally became of these persons, and others of like belief, A. Mellinus states, that the papistic historians are ashamed to tell. Compare Aventin. 3, Annal. Centur. Balaei., 14, cap. 31, and in Append., Tom. 2. Concil. in Decret. Greg. 2, Epist. Bonifac. ad Zachar. Citante Balaeo. Hist. Boj., lib. 3, with A. Mell, 2d book, fol. 329, col. 1, 2.

SEVERE AND LAMENTABLE PERSECUTION, INSTITUTED BY MADY, KING OF THE ARABIANS, AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS IN THE EAST, ABOUT A. D. 780.

About A. D. 780, in the fifth year of Leo IV., son of Constantine Copronymus, Mady, King of the Arabians, greatly devastated the church of God in the East, constraining the innocent and defenseless Christians to apostatize, especially the servants and slaves. To this end he had given full power to one Thesias, surnamed Zelotes, to inflict upon the Christians all manner of oppression. The latter, upon coming to Emesas, promised to constrain no one to apostatize, or to become marked with the sign of Mohammed, except the Jews, or those who had long before not been Christians, but unbelievers. But when the Jews and the Christians had been separated, he commenced to torment the Christians far more cruelly than had ever been done by the Governors Lysias and Agricolaus, under the heathen Emperors; so that he put to death many of them, men as well as women, for the name of Jesus Christ.

In the meantime something remarkable occurred here. Certain women whom he visited with various torments, to see whether he could not make them yield to his ungodliness, remained steadfast, overcoming, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, his fury with patience. He caused a thousand stripes to be given them, and had them scourged and tormented unto death, till they received from Christ the crown of victory.

Proceeding thence throughout Syria, he demolished, as far as Damascus, all the meeting-places of the Christians, and ravaged the churches, thus breaking the promise made by the Arabians to those of Syria, viz.: That under their rule they should live in peace and tranquillity, and enjoy the free and unrestricted practice of their religion. But (as the apostle says) as then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it was now, Gal. 4:29. See Abr. Mell., 2d book, fol. 306, col. 1, compared with Paul. Diac., lib. 23, Histor. Rom., in Leone 4. Sigibert. Chron., A. D. 781; others, however, fix it A. D. 780.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS RESPECTING THE AFOREMENTIONED PERSECUTION.

We commenced this century in the East, thence proceeded to the West, and have now returned to the East, namely, to the countries situated east from Italy, and, consequently, far from Rome, and the Roman see of papal dominion.

As regards the aforesaid persecutions, as well as the churches which existed in the East, especially in the Thessalonian regions, and the martyrs who fell there, namely, what and how much is to be held of them, can be gleaned from the explanation which we gave in the beginning, and to which we here refer the reader.

These Arabians proceeded and brought still more persecution and misery upon many Christian believers in other countries; however, for reasons already mentioned, we are again prevented from speaking more fully, or, at least, separately, of each person that may have been martyred there.

The account of holy baptism, which we have given for this century, would furnish us with not a little matter, to fill these hundred years to the very end with true professors of the true faith, also with such as, to all appearance, did not hesitate, in testimony of their upright and unwavering minds, to lay down their lives for the sake of Jesus Christ, which is the utmost that can be required of any martyr; but as we have not been able to find their names, they can have no place in this book. It is sufficient, we hope, that their names, by the hand of God, are written in the Book of life and eternal salvation.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE NINTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE NINTH CENTURY.

[This account begins with a sad lamentation, that nearly all the learned and celebrated men were corrupted through the Roman superstitions.

Immediately, however, a consolation follows, namely, that in this corrupt age there were still people who did not adhere to the Roman superstitions.

Then it is shown from Haimo, that teaching must precede baptism; that the candidate must first be instructed; that he must first be enlightened, etc. Thereupon, in the margin, A. D. 821, it is noticed that Christus Taurinensus wrote against the invocation of images, of the cross, of relics, of the saints, and against the power of the Pope, pilgrimages, etc. In the margin, for the year 825, a certain council of Paris is adduced, against image worship. In the same place, Gratian says that Christians must not oppose weapon with weapon, but flee before persecution.

Rabanus Maurus appears, A. D. 830, and teaches how in his time the catechumens were prepared for baptism. Of those who asked for baptism, and made haste for it. His exposition of Cant. 3:6: “Who is this that cometh up white as snow?” Again, that the candidate must previously be instructed in the faith of the incarnation of Jesus Christ; also, that in the sacrament of the Supper, the language is figurative.

Angelomus follows Rabanus, teaching that the sins which have been committed through the senses, are washed away (that is, forgiven) in or through baptism; which is more fully explained.

Thereupon, A. D. 840, Bertram, Heymon, and Walafrid appear, who declare themselves against the Roman church, in various points, as in the matter of baptism, transubstantiation, justification, good works as practiced by the papists.

The council of the Christians at Paris, in the time of Louis and Lothaire, is introduced; lamentation on account of the encroachment of infant baptism, and the neglect of the instruction once connected with baptism.

The conversion of the Slaves (of Slavonia) is stated; also, that they were baptized, though not according to the Roman custom, nor in the Roman language. Marginal notice, for A. D. 843, that Christus Lupim at Ferrara refuted the new Roman doctrines, as purgatory.

A few good things respecting the baptism of adults are adduced, for the year 848, and explained in a simple manner. In the margin, for A. D. 858, it is stated of Gunther, Bishop of Cologne, that he calls the Pope a tyrant, yea, a wolf.

Idiota declares that in baptism we accept Christ as our bridegroom. In the margin, mention is made of Ulric, Bishop of Augsburg, that he accused the Pope of error.

Hincmar, Bishop of Landun, opposes the baptism of infants, and prohibits their being baptized; on account of which he is severely accused.

Paschasius advances three things which are incompatible with infant baptism.

Remigius teaches against the Pope; likewise, Tergand, Bishop of Triers, who calls him antichrist, and Rome Babylon. Conclusion from P. J. Twisck and John Patrick.]

* * * * *

Jesus Christ our Savior, speaking of the grievous times which should come after his departure, says, (Matt. 24:12): “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” This was experienced at this time; for with the growth and increase, through very many ungodly and unrighteous superstitions, of the iniquities of the Pope of Rome and the whole Roman church, the true love for God’s commandments decreased, so that but few were found, who, as bright lights, penetrated the smoke that came up from the Roman pit; yea, nearly all men of learning and celebrity were corrupt. O sad and lamentable matter![136]

[136] A. D. 812, disputes began to arise in the Roman church, concerning transubstantiation, or the changing of the bread and wine into the sacrament; so that the custom of the holy Supper was converted into idolatry. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 279, col. 1, from Chron. Mich., 2d part, fol. 175, Zegh., fol. 245.

Nevertheless, as Noah and his family served God in the first world; Lot, in Sodom; Daniel and the three youths, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, in Babylon; Elijah and the seven thousand who were hidden and had not bowed their knees to Baal, in the land of Israel, where the prophets of the Lord were slain, and his altars thrown down; even so there remained some, though but few, at this time, who, living in the midst of popery, did not adhere to the Roman superstitions, but abhorred them.

However, in order to avoid prolixity, we shall confine ourselves, omitting, as has been our custom, other points to the article of baptism, except where it may be found necessary to add something else; and shall show when and by whom this article, with the rejection of infant baptism, was maintained salutarily and in the fear of God, according to his words. Hence we will begin thus.

A. D. 814.--In the days of Louis the Pious, the first of this name, who began to reign with the year 814, there lived and wrote the celebrated Haimo, of whom various praiseworthy things concerning baptism upon faith are still extant.

Haimo, on Matt. 28:19, (Bapt. Hist. page 561,) writes: “In this place the order how to baptize aright is pointed out to us; in which it is ordained, that teaching must precede baptism, for he says: ‘Teach all nations;’ and then adds: ‘baptizing them.’ He, then, that is to be baptized, must previously be instructed, that he may first learn faith, which he shall afterwards receive in baptism.

How could any one give clearer testimony concerning the true baptism of Jesus Christ? how, also, could anybody more plainly reject infant baptism, than by such a declaration? every word emphatically says it.

He begins with Matt. 28:19, where the Lord says: “Go ye therefore, and teach,” or, in other words make disciples of; which he explains thus: “that teaching must precede baptism;” for the Lord first says: teach, and then, baptize, and that therefore he that is to be baptized, must first be instructed, and learn the faith. Certainly, these are things which pertain only to the adult and intelligent; hence it would be sinning against the truth to apply them to unintelligent infants.

Haimo (Serm. Domin. 12, Trinit., page 564) says: “Since those who are baptized, must first be enlightened with the grace of the Holy Spirit, then instructed by the teachers, and finally called to confess the faith, hence arises the custom that,” etc.

This accords fully with the preceding; for he declares the same still more plainly, since here not only instructing is joined to baptizing, but the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the instruction of the teachers, and the confession of the faith are connected with, yea, required before baptism; which is so clear, according to the purport of the first declaration, that it is unnecessary to add another word; the impartial may judge. As to what he further says in the same place, concerning the touching of the tongue, the saying of the word Hephphatha, etc., we leave as it is, neither praising nor censuring it, since it is of little consequence, if the truth and the signification of the matter is rightly preserved.

Haimo, on Rom. 1 (page 542), writes: “At the time of baptism we confess that we believe on God the Father, and on the Lord Jesus Christ, and on the Holy Ghost; likewise, that we renounce the devil and all his pomp and works. If we observe this thus, we belong to God in faith; but if we do not, we are convinced of unbelief.[137]

[137] A. D. 821 (writes P. J. Twisk), that is, in the time of the Roman Emperor Louis, there lived Christus Taurinensus, who wrote and taught against the invocation of the images, of the cross, of the relics, of the saints, and against the power of the Pope, and pilgrimages. Chron., 9th book, page 280, col. 2, from Joh. Munst., fol. 132.

A little before, in his exposition of Rom. 6 (page 540), he makes mention of four different baptisms: 1. In the water only, as was John’s baptism. 2. In fire and the Spirit, with which the apostles were baptized on the day of Pentecost. 3. In water and the Spirit, which baptism then obtained in the church. 4. In the shedding of the blood with which the Lord himself and all the holy martyrs were baptized.

These four different baptisms can pertain to none but the intelligent and believing; for, as regards the first, namely, John’s baptism, it is expressly stated that those to whom it was administered, confessed their sins and repented. Matth. 3:6,8,11. As to the second, namely, the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, which was administered to the apostles by God himself from heaven, this did not at all relate to infants, seeing that all who were thus baptized, spake with tongues and magnified God. Acts 2:3,4. Concerning the third, namely, the baptism in water and the Spirit, which then obtained in the church, this likewise could not be peculiar to infants, since the fruits of the Holy Ghost, without which the Holy Ghost cannot be, do in no wise appear in them. See Gal. 5:22. Respecting the fourth, namely, the baptism by the shedding of blood, this, according to his statement, is peculiar only to Christ and the martyrs; consequently it cannot be regarded as applying to infants, for these do not even know of confessing Christ, much less of suffering one’s blood to be shed for his name’s sake, and of dying in constancy.

Continuing, he shows in the same place (Rom. 6) that in him that is to be baptized, there must be three invisible things: 1. Faith. 2. The soul, which is washed from sin. 3. The Holy Ghost, by whose cooperation the forgiveness of sins is imparted. We would explain these things more fully; but since this is a passage expressed in almost the very words which Albinus, in the preceding century, for the year 792, wrote (on John 15), of which we gave an explanation, we will, to avoid repetition, take leave therefrom, referring the reader to said explanation.

Haimo teaches, on Canticles 4 (page 544), that all who desire to become brethren must be baptized, saying: “Without the washing of baptism, no one can be a true believer.”

What else is this than what the holy Scripture teaches, namely, that in baptism we put on Christ? and that by faith (which is professed in baptism) we become the children of God? Paul says: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ.” Gal. 3:26,27.

But some one may think: Haimo speaks of becoming brethren by baptism; whereas Paul speaks of becoming children of God, of putting on Christ, etc. True, beloved reader; but who, with only a little experience in the holy Scriptures, knows not that to be a child of God, or to be a brother of the church of Christ, is one and the same thing? Certainly, it is the same; for the same Spirit that makes us children of God, also makes us brethren of Christ, yea, joint heirs with him. Rom. 8:15–17. For this reason, Christ calls them both his brethren and his children, saying: “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.” And again: “Behold, here am I and the children which God hath given me.” Hebr. 2:12,13. Who now shall say that Haimo, who calls the baptized, brethren, and Paul, who terms them children of God, contradict each other? Their accordance is sufficiently proven, and at this we will let it rest.

Of the dignity of baptism, Haimo, on Hos. 2 (page 547), says: “Baptism is sanctified by faith in the sufferings of our Lord.”

“What doth hinder me to be baptized?” said the Ethiopian to Philip. Philip replied: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest,” Acts 8:36,37; indicating that, in order to receive baptism worthily, sincere faith is required, by which baptism is sanctified, which is just what Haimo has expressed in the above words; and thus his words agree with those of the holy Scripture which we have quoted.[138]

[138] The following passages by Haimo, from Ps. 38, to Cant. 1, are apparently quoted by Idiota. Bapt. Hist., pages 547, 548.

The righteous, Haimo says, on Ps. 38 (page 548): “Live in baptism, in which they die unto sin and the world.”

Again, on Ps. 136, he says: “By the Red Sea we understand holy baptism, which (so to speak) is red, being sanctified through the blood of Christ,” and a little further on: “By the impartation of the same, the believers begin (to proceed) in the way by which they come to God.”

On Zech. 13 he says: “When we receive the faith, we are regenerated in Christ, and in baptism we are washed from all our sins; and they that through faith are regenerated in baptism, are made children of God.[typo?: ” missing]

Again, on Cant. 1, he speaks thus: “As Israel was preserved in the Red Sea, but Pharaoh drowned, even so the church of the Gentiles, by baptism, is delivered from the bondage of the devil, and led into the true land of promise, to the liberty of the Gospel; thus she who was formerly an handmaid of iniquity, is become a friend[139] [beloved] of Christ, cleansed and washed, by baptism, from the filth of sin.”

[139] In the Dutch translation of the Bible, in the Book of Canticles, the word corresponding to “love,” whenever this is applied as a term of endearment to the church, by Christ, is vriendinne, i. e., friend; hence the allusion is not so apparent in the passage as translated here into English.--Translator.

These passages are like the jets of a fountain, which, though they shoot forth in different places, proceed from one source. In the first passage, it is said of the righteous, that they “live in baptism, yea, die unto sin and the world.” The life spoken of here signifies a spiritual life, and is contrasted with death, which comes by sin; the dying unto sin and the world, signifies a forsaking and renouncing of the same, which can be done only by those who previously adhered to, and loved, sin and the world.

In the second passage, baptism is compared to the Red Sea, and it is said that “by the impartation of the same, the believers proceed.” But is not this the very thing which Paul spoke of the figurative baptism of the believing patriarchs, saying: “Brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the (Red) sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1,2); which is not to be understood of infants that were wont to be carried, but of adult persons, who were able to proceed and walk.

In the third passage, faith, regeneration, baptism, and being made children of God, are joined together. “They that through faith are regenerated in baptism, are made children of God,” he writes. But how can this be interpreted otherwise, than with reference to intelligent persons, who, having attained to faith, by the hearing of the word of God, are regenerated, and, in token thereof, baptized, and adopted as children of God into his church? Faith certainly comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17. Regeneration takes place after the death of the first birth, or after the mortifying of the old man. John 3:4,5; Rom. 6:4. Baptism is administered to the believing and regenerated, as a sign of faith and regeneration. Acts 8:37; Tit. 3:5. Those are made children of God, who, through faith, have put on Christ, and, in proof of this, have been baptized. John 1:12, compared with Gal. 3:26,27. Judge now, whether these are things that can be done by new-born infants. I am fully confident that you will say: No. Yet, these things are connected with baptism, not only by Haimo, but principally by God, in the holy Scriptures; yea, without them, baptism is of no value. Hence we say: “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Matth. 19:6.

In the fourth passage it is said, that “The church of the Gentiles, by baptism, is delivered from the bondage of the devil,” and that “she who was a handmaid of iniquity, is (thus) become a friend [beloved] of Christ.” This certainly savors not at all of infant baptism, for it cannot be said of infants, that they are the church of the Gentiles, under the bondage of the devil, a handmaid of iniquity, nor that they, by baptism, are delivered from the service of the devil, and become a friend of Christ. Certainly, no one can be delivered from the service of the devil, but he who has served the devil; no other can be liberated from the servitude of iniquity except she who previously committed iniquity; she who previously blasphemed; no other can be adopted as a friend of Christ, than she who formerly, by wicked works, was at enmity with Christ; consequently it is indisputable, that this cannot be understood of infants, seeing these things can have no place with them; this even those who maintain infant baptism, must admit, and hence we dismiss the subject.

“The adult (candidates) also made confession of their sins, and a penance was imposed on them, for forty, twenty or seven days.” Haimo, on Heb. 6, (p. 552).

Here adult and not infant candidates are spoken of, yea, such, upon whom, when they had made confession of sins, a penance (or amendment of life) was imposed; which are things pertaining to adults, and not to little children; this is too plain to be refuted.

Said baptism was so firmly maintained and thus valued by Haimo, that he held that it should never be repeated, if it had been administered according to the rule of the holy Scriptures; for, treating of the 6th chapter of Romans, he says, by way of exposition: “If we have once died unto sin in baptism, we may not be baptized again.” Bapt. Hist., p. 543. This well accords with the custom of the Anabaptists of the present day; for, though they rebaptize such as have been baptized in their infancy, when they attain to the faith; regarding the baptism which is received in infancy as no baptism at all, because it is not according to holy Scripture; yet no one is rebaptized by them, who has been baptized aright, that is, upon faith.

NOTE.--A. D. 825.--The council held at Paris, A. D. 825, decreed against image worship. Sam. Veltius, Geslacht-register, page 127. Gratian said to his cotemporaries: “The Lord, in saying to his disciples: ‘When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another,’ teaches that Christians when persecuted, should not repel weapon with weapon, but flee therefrom”. See Grondelijke Verklaringe Danielis ende Johannis, printed at Harlem, in the year 1635, p. 56.

A. D. 830.[140]--It is stated that A. D. 830, in the sixteenth year of the reign of Emperor Louis I., surnamed the Pious, there shone forth as a bright light, and wrote, one Rabanus Maurus, residing at Fulda, who, among various things written by him against the Roman church, also speaks of baptism, in the discussion of which he throughout employs such language as pertains only to believers, and in no wise to infants; notwithstanding he at one time, it appears, had been a maintainer of infant baptism, and many other superstitions of popery, so much so that he had been an abbot. But passing this by, we shall show what he wrote of baptism, and how closely it agrees with the teaching of the holy Scriptures.

[140] The proper time for baptizing was still Easter and Whitsuntide. Bapt. Hist., page 550, num. 2. White garments were put on those baptized, which signified the innocence, salvation and purity of the Christian; that they should henceforth, all through life, keep themselves unspotted from iniquity. Page 553, num. 14.

In Jacob Mehrning’s history of baptism, various passages from Rabanus Maurus are adduced, some of which, it is suspected, have been attributed to him unjustly, or, at least, that, if he has written them, he wrote them before he was enlightened or converted; as, among others, in lib. 2, de Proprit. Serm., cap. 200; again, lib. 4, cap. 10; of which we let the intelligent judge.

Nevertheless various things are found, which, we doubt not, are justly ascribed to him, as, for instance: Of the instruction of the catechumens before baptism, and how the novices ought to learn the faith before they are baptized. In Decretis de Consecrat. dist. 4, cap. Ante Bapt., ex Rabano, Bapt. Hist., page 560. Likewise, the quotation made by Vicecomes (lib. 2, cap. 40) from Rabanus (in lib. de instruct. Cleric.), which reads as follows: “The order according to which the catechumens are prepared for baptism, is this: First they are interrogated whether they renounce the devil,” etc. Bapt. Hist., page 562. The rest we omit.

By this he indicates, that in his time, in the church of which he was a member, the custom of preparing the novices for baptism was still observed, inasmuch as first, the instruction of the faith, called the catechism, was presented and taught them; also, that they had to renounce Satan, &c.; which was observed not only at this time, but in nearly all the preceding times, as appears from this passage: “They are wont to renounce the devil with his works and pomp.” Syn. Turon. Bapt. Hist., page 516, num. 7.

That in the time of Rabanus the instruction of novices extended not only to those of heathen descent, but also to such as were born of Christian parents, is declared by Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 560, contra Rulichium.

D. Vicecomes (lib. 3, cap. 9), quotes from Rabanus Maurus (page 562): “The fellow petitioners for baptism are those who, through the doctrine of the faith, and by refraining from disorderly conduct, make haste to receive the grace of Christ in baptism.”

This confirms our former assertion, namely, that before baptism a preparation had to be made, in order that it (baptism) might be received worthily; which preparation is here called “the doctrine of the faith and refraining from disorderly conduct.” In it are comprised both parts of the doctrine which John presented to those who came to his baptism, saying: “Repent ye, and believe,” etc. Matt. 3:2, compared with Mark 1:15, and Acts 19:4.

Moreover, they are called fellow petitioners, and it is said that “They make haste to receive the grace of Christ in baptism,” which are things that cannot be done by infants.

Hence he writes, on Cant. 3:6, (page 540): “Who is this that cometh up white as snow?” applying the same to the candidates, who, cleansed from their former sins, come up from baptism, and increase in virtue. “This mystery,” he says, “is not otherwise than under the invocation of the Holy Trinity, that is, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; thus the Lord says to the apostles, Matt. 28:19: ‘Go and teach,’” etc.

Hence, when he speaks of coming up from the water, and of the invocation of the Holy Trinity, as well as of the passage, Matt. 28:19, he sufficiently shows that he does not speak of the baptism of infants, since they cannot come up from baptism, nor invoke the Holy Trinity, nor fulfill the passage, Matt. 28; which is too clear to be refuted. We will therefore briefly conclude this account of Rabanus with that which P. J. Twisck records concerning him.

THE VIEWS OF RABANUS MAURUS CONCERNING VARIOUS OTHER ARTICLES OF HIS FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED AUTHOR.

He writes, A. D. 830: “Rabanus, an eminently learned man writes and says: ‘The catechism, that is, the doctrine of the faith, shall precede baptism, so that the candidate (catechumen) may first learn the first principles of the faith.’”

He further says: “The Lord Christ first anointed the eyes of the man born blind, with clay made of spittle, before he sent him to the water of Siloam; therefore, the candidate shall first be instructed in the faith of the incarnation of Christ, and, if he then believes, admitted to baptism; that he may know what grace he obtains in baptism, and to whom he owes his service for it.”

Again: “Rabanus writes also, that in the sacrament the language is figurative, and that Christ, having gone to heaven (in order that we being regenerated by faith, should long the more ardently for him) left us this sacrament, as a visible figure and symbol of his flesh and blood, so that we the more abundantly, might apprehend in faith the invisible things.” This language, Twisck writes, the Roman church now greatly curses.

“He also taught contrary to the Roman church, of the authority of the holy Scriptures, of justification, repentance, the state of the soul after this life, and against other[141] papal errors, as his books testify.

[141] Twisck might have used a less ambiguous phrase here, though we doubt not, that the intelligent reader will readily see what he means; but, for fear that some one might misunderstand him, we will add a few words of explanation. The word “other,” of course, implies that some errors have already been adduced; strictly speaking, however, he has not adduced the errors, but rather the articles of faith in regard to which errors were held, by the Roman church. Translator.

“The same thing was done at this time, by Angelomus, who treated of the grace of God, good works, and the keys of the church, in opposition to the Pope. Chron., 9th book, page 283, from John Munst., fol. 120, 133. John Boea., lib. 4, Grond. Bewijs, letter A. Chron. Seb. Franck, fol. 77, Casp. Swinck, fol. 115.

Same year as above.--This Angelomus just mentioned is referred to in Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism, in which it is stated that, besides the aforementioned views held by him contrary to the Roman church, he left the following testimony with regard to the matter of baptism:

Angelomus (in cap. 7, lib. 3, Reg. 1, page 548), says: “From all that we have sinned with the sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling, we are redeemed through the grace of God, by the washing of the living fountain of water (that is, water-baptism). But the forgiveness of previous sins is not enough, if we are not diligent to lay up good works: for, otherwise, the devil who was gone out of the man, finding him empty of good works, returns, manifold, and makes the last state of that man worse than the first.”

Hence, when Angelomus here speaks of the sins which before baptism were committed through the senses, as, through the sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling, he certainly indicates thereby, that the persons of whom he speaks, are not unintelligent infants, seeing these can neither use nor abuse their senses, and, consequently, as long as they lack the knowledge and power, they can not sin with them.

Hence it also appears that the baptism of which he speaks, is not infant baptism; for this can have no regard to sins committed previously through the abuse of the senses. The baptism in question, then, is such a baptism as is received by persons who can lay aside previous sins, and lay up good works; who also give no room to the devil gone out of them, that the last state may not be worse than the first; for of all this, Angelomus speaks. We will, therefore, leave this, and proceed to other testimonies serving the same purpose.

A. D. 840.--That at this time not only baptism, but also various other articles of Christian doctrine were maintained contrary to the belief of the Roman church. P. J. Twisck indicates, in his Chronijk., for the year 840, with these words: “Bertram, a courageous and learned man, now vigorously assailed the doctrine of transubstantiation, in a remarkable book, dedicated to the King of France. Heymon, Bishop of Halberstadt, also contended against this doctrine, and wrote much of baptism, the Supper, justification, good works, and of the church and her office, in opposition to the opinion of the papists. Also Walafrid opposed the new doctrine of the Romanists very vigorously.[142] P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 286, col. 2, and page 287, col. 1, from Joh. Munst., fol. 129, and 132.

[142] About this time, Bertram taught, in his book of the Body and Blood of Christ, concerning the words: “This is my body,” that this is to be understood figuratively, and that in the Supper, the faith is presented somewhat differently than the eyes externally see, and the taste perceives; also, that the bread and wine are figuratively the body and blood of Christ, and represent to, or keep before us, the remembrance of the suffering and death of Christ. Sam. Velt., Geslacht-register; pages 126, 127.

In the Scythian church, (A. D. 840), writes Valfrid Abbas, they used the common mother tongue, and taught that images should not be worshiped or honored; that the paschal lamb should not be consecrated; yea, that it was better to aid the poor, than to decorate the churches. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 286, col. 2, from Casp. Grev., fol. 277.

A. D. 841.--It is recorded that at this time, in the reign of the Emperors Louis and Lothaire, a council was held at Paris, concerning which it is written (chap. 6): “In the beginning of the holy church of God, no one was admitted to receive baptism, who had not previously been instructed in the faith, and in the mystery of baptism, as is testified by the words of Paul, Rom. 6:3: ‘Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?’ which passage of the apostle has reference to the sacrament of baptism.”

In the council of Laodicea (Tit. 46), it is also written, that “those who desire to come to baptism, shall learn the faith, and recite the same to the bishop or teacher, on the fifth day of the great week.”

Again (Tit. 47): “That those who were baptized in sickness, shall, after recovery, diligently study their faith and know what great grace they have received; which words plainly indicate, that those who attain to the Christian faith, are also previously instructed concerning said faith and the mysteries of baptism. But now, sad to relate, also the infants of Christian parents are baptized, who, on account of their tender age, cannot comprehend this matter, which to learn even persons of understanding must exert themselves diligently, and which, owing to the negligence of some, has gone out of use in the Christian church. O what great neglect! O what great mischief.” Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 538. About A. D. 842.--It is stated that at this time a number of slaves who had become converted were baptized, yet not in the Roman manner, nor in the Roman language, as was customary with the Roman church, as well as with all other churches which adhered to the Roman see; but in a different manner and in another language; so that it appears from this occurrence that this church must have been separated from the superstitions of the Roman church not only in forms, but also, as may be inferred, in faith and practice. To this, the following annotation (Bapt. Hist., page 552, num. 9), among others, has reference: “They (those of the Roman church) used the Roman language not only in Italy, but also in other regions that were subject to the papal power; but that baptism was administered also in other languages, is proved by the history of the conversion of the slaves.”[143] Ex. Historia Sclav.

[143] A. D. 843.--Christus Lupim, at Ferrara, refuted the new Roman doctrines concerning purgatory, matrimony of priests, and other points. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 288, col. 1, from Catal. Test., fol. 103.

About A. D. 848.--That the instruction of novices, before baptism, obtained also at this time, Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 550, informs us with these words: “The adults had (then) to be instructed in the faith, and were catechized before baptism, as has been proven above, from Rabanus, Haimo, and others; thereupon they had to confess the faith, as Rabanus (lib. 1, de Cleric. Institutione, cap. 27) relates. They were asked, whether they believed in God the Father, the Almighty, and on his only Son, our Lord, and on the Holy Ghost, a general (christian) church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the flesh,” etc.[144] Bapt. Hist., p. 550, num. 4.

[144] A. D. 858.--At this time, Gunther, Bishop of Cologne, wrote to Pope Nicholas: “Thou art playing the tyrant: under the guise of a shepherd we find thee to be a wolf. The title, indeed, is father, but virtually thou showest thyself a Jupiter.” Sam. Veltius, Geslacht-register, page 127.

These were good and salutary customs for the upbuilding of the church of God; by which the name of the Lord was praised, the church edified, the word of God most strictly observed, and the salvation of many promoted. But the ancient saying: “Where God builds a temple, Satan builds one in opposition to it,” was also verified here; for, at the same time that those who loved the truth, baptized believers, upon the confession of their faith, nearly all the others, who were called Roman or Greek Christians, baptized infants, who, as every one knows can neither believe nor confess the faith; this has been referred to above.

About A. D. 854.--It is stated that very near the time of Haimo, there lived and wrote Idiota. In J. Mehrning’s History of Baptism is found a quotation by him, relating to baptism, which reads as follows: “In holy baptism we accept Christ for our bridegroom, and enter his chamber, which is ornamented with manifold graces and virtues.” De Innocentia, cap. 3.

To accept Christ for one’s bridegroom, to enter his chamber, is certainly not the work of children, but of believers. Those accept Christ for their bridegroom, who betroth themselves to him by faith, and, in token thereof, are baptized. John 3:26,29. Those enter his chamber, who, through obedience, join themselves to his church; for they are no more “strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” Eph. 2:18.

That which is further said of the chamber of the bridegroom, namely, that it is ornamented with graces and virtues, has reference to the spiritual ornament of the church of God, which latter is the true chamber of our heavenly bridegroom Jesus Christ. This church of God cannot be ornamented with graces and virtues by infants, seeing infants are ornamented with neither actual graces nor real virtues; hence, it has also respect to the believers, who, having come, through baptism, to the church of God, ornament the same with actual graces and real virtues. This concludes our exposition of the passage of Idiota.

NOTE.--A. D. 859.--Huldricus or Uldoricus, Bishop of Augsburg, greatly complained of the violence of the popes, and said: “What will become of this flock, when the shepherds become wolves?” He openly maintained that the Pope was fallible, and that it was lawful to admonish him for his error, and to reject his bad decrees. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 298, col. 1, from Merula, fol. 177. Jan. Crespin, fol. 211, 215, 216.

A. D. 860.--At this time, there departed from the belief and practice of infant baptism, Hincmar, at one time Bishop of Laudun, inasmuch as he would no longer baptize children, so that they grew up without baptism, and many also, who did not attain the years of understanding, died unbaptized; on account of which he was then greatly accused by Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, who, to this end, wrote to him as follows: “And thou, who knowest that it is true what the Lord says: ‘Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;’ hast nevertheless commanded, that infants shall not be baptized in thy church, not even when in peril of death, so that they should not be saved, though it is written: ‘The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ Thou hast also acted contrary to the decrees of Syricius, Leo, Gelasius, and the African council, as I have informed thee now twice by writing.” H. Mont. Nietigh., page 81, ex Biblioth. Patr., Tom. 9, part 2, page 137. Cent. Magd., Cent. 9, cap. 4, pages 40, 41.

In another letter, the Bishop of Rheims, with entreating, and not less earnest words, endeavors to draw him away from his belief, writing: “Desist from preaching this (namely, that infants may not be baptized), the mere thought of which is awful; desist from scattering the flock of Christ (meaning thereby, through error, the Roman church), lest the destruction of all the people come upon thee; and do not, from excessive love for thy belief, sever thyself from,” etc. H. Mont., page 82, from Cent. Magd., Cent. 9, pages 157, 158. Also, Bapt. Hist., page 545.

From these two letters it appears that Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, had not only departed from the doctrine of infant baptism, but also earnestly preached against it, so that many of the Roman church, particularly at Laudun, became his adherents; for, what did the Bishop of Rheims mean by writing: “Desist from preaching this,” but to say that Hincmar of Laudun should cease preaching against infant baptism? What else does he indicate when he says: “Desist from scattering the flock of Christ, lest the destruction of all the people come upon thee?” Certainly, these words indicate that many had already left the Roman church on this account, yea, that the state of things was such that all the people at Laudun adhered to this doctrine.

Moreover, from the last letter we see, how firmly, and almost immovably, said Hincmar must have stood, at Laudun, in his doctrine and belief against infant baptism, seeing such great endeavors were made to draw him away; now by presenting his belief in the most odious light, as though he preached things the mere thought of which was awful; now by flattery: “And do not, from excessive love for thy belief, sever thyself from,” etc. But whether through this he was in any wise turned away from his belief, we have not been able to ascertain; hence we will let the matter rest.

In reference to what he may have taught with regard to other points, we can, on account of the default of history, give nothing certain; it is sufficient for us, that in those perilous times he dared oppose the common Roman church, by rejecting infant baptism, and that much people adhered to him therein, as has been shown above.

A. D. 867.--We have now come to the year in which an uncommon and quite unexpected matter is mentioned by ancient writers, of which we will forthwith give an account. Just now, for the year 860, we told of a certain champion of the Roman superstitions, especially of infant baptism, namely, Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, who, once and again, by express letters, immoderately accused another Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, because the latter refused to baptize infants, and would also not allow them to be baptized, though they were in danger of dying. This same person now, seven years after making the above accusations respecting the non-baptizing of infants, opposed the Pope, not only in one point, but in many, among which infant baptism may also have been. Concerning this P. J. Twisck, from other authors, writes thus: “Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, opposed Pope Adrian II. in many points, in defense of the truth. He charged him with innovation, saying that he could not be Bishop and King at the same time; that he should have nothing to do with secular affairs.” Chron., 9th book, page 305, col. 2, from Hist. Georg., fol. 314, Catal. Test., fol. 52.

It is a pity and to be lamented, that the ancients have not left us more information regarding the particular points maintained by Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, against the Pope, and, consequently, also against the Roman church.

It would not be very surprising, if among the points maintained by him against the Pope, the denial of infant baptism was one; for, when he, seven years before that, accused Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, for not baptizing the infants, the latter apparently, either from the holy Scriptures, or by conclusive arguments, demonstrated to him the groundlessness and vanity of infant baptism in such a manner that he may easily have attained to very different views, not only in regard to infant baptism, but also in other points which were maintained after the manner of the papists. But as this is not clearly indicated, we will not discuss it any further, but leave it as a probable conjecture. Moreover, it is not our purpose to justify said Bishop in every article of religion, nor to declare him orthodox on the whole; but to show that the same person who had previously so stoutly defended the Roman church and the papal superstitions, especially in the matter of infant baptism, now dared attack not only the Roman church, but even the Pope, who is called its head, and to oppose him in many points, as has been shown. With this we take our leave of Hincmar of Rheims.

A. D. 880.--At this time there lived Paschasius, a remarkably experienced and virtuous man, who wrote various things against the belief of the Roman church; but as the thread of our account extends only, or, at least, principally, over the matter of baptism, we will also here turn our special attention to the same, and, so as not to be encumbered with many testimonies, present but one passage of his belief with reference to this matter, as recorded in Jacob Mehrning’s history of baptism.

Paschasius (de Corp. and Sang. Dom., cap. 10, page 594) says: “In the sacrament of baptism the door is opened to believers, to enter into the sonship of God, that we, being delivered from evil through this regeneration, may afterwards become one body with the members of Christ; in which baptism, when the Holy Ghost is shed abroad in the souls of the regenerated, the whole church of Christ is quickened, and becomes one body, by one Spirit received by all.”

Here he indicates three things incompatible with infant baptism. Firstly, when he says that “In the sacrament of baptism the door is opened to believers, to enter into the sonship of God.” For, that this cannot relate to infants, appears from the nature of faith and of the believers; as to faith, it is a sure confidence of the things hoped for. Hebr. 11:1. This faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17. That neither this sure confidence, nor hope, nor intelligent hearing of the word of God, can have place in infants, is quite evident, since neither their powers nor their knowledge can reach these things. See Deut. 1:39; 1 Cor. 13:11.

Secondly, when he says: “That we, being delivered from evil through this regeneration, may afterwards become one body with the members of Christ.” For the word regeneration is no where in Scripture applied to infants, but to adults. John 3:3; Tit. 3:5. Likewise, to be delivered from evil, is applied only to such persons as, through evil works, were previously ensnared and held captive by sin. 2 Tim. 2:26. Hence, the second also does in no wise apply to infants.

Thirdly, when he, expounding the utility of baptism, says: “In which baptism, the whole church of Christ is quickened and becomes one body, by one Spirit received by all.” For, when mention is made here of the quickening Spirit of God, which in baptism is imparted to the church, or, at least, to those who, by baptism, are incorporated as members into the church, it follows almost incontrovertibly, that this relates neither to infants nor to infant baptism; for, as regards infants, instead of becoming quickened by the Spirit of God, after baptism, that is, instead of becoming adorned with all divine and Christian virtues, we see, on the contrary, that they generally, from that time on, as their powers increase, are led by their own spirit, so that with the increasing years, perverseness also increases, yea, sometimes gains the ascendency; hence, those who have reached their years, are admonished, that they must be born again, that is, that they must lead another and better life; or that they cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5,7.

This being the case, it stands fast, that Paschasius, in said passage, speaks neither of infants nor of infant baptism. Leaving this subject here, we will conclude with the account of P. J. Twisck, who records of Paschasius, besides what we have stated above, that he mentions but two sacraments, namely, 1. baptism; 2. the Supper; or, as it was anciently called, the body and blood of the Lord; which militates against the seven sacraments of the Roman church. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 310.

Same year as above.--“Remigius,” he writes in the same place, “also taught much against the Pope, saying, among other things: “That we must address our prayers not to idols, but to the living God; and that the church must conform to the holy Scriptures.” Chron., 9th book, page 310, col. 1, from John Munst., fol. 61, 131, 133. Perk., fol. 249.

In the mean time, the pious were exceedingly oppressed in this century, by the power of the Pope and the Roman clergy; so that, on account of the smoke of the papistic errors, the fire of the pure doctrine could not burn freely, which was also the reason that not more learned and godfearing men manifested themselves at that time, in defense of the truth of God.

A. D. 900.--That at this time, some dared oppose not only infant baptism and other tenets of the Roman church, but even the Pope of Rome, who might well be called the father of all superstitions, the example of Tergandus sufficiently indicates, who, at this time, dared designate him by the name of antichrist, wolf, etc.; concerning which, Samuel Veltius (from other authors) has noted the following for the year 900: “Tergandus, Bishop of Treves, called the Pope of Rome antichrist, yea, a wolf, and Rome, Babylon.” Geslacht-register, page 128.

NOTE.--We will close with the account of P. J. Twisck, in his conclusion to the ninth century: “In this century, the occidental or western, Roman Empire, which has been at a stand-still now for 324 years, begins afresh. The clergy, through the folly of the Emperors, obtain power to elect popes and bishops. The Emperors are crowned by the popes, who will themselves to be the masters and lords and rule before and over others, as is evident from this, that some times two, three, and four popes reign at once and seek to domineer over the others, expelling, driving away, exhuming, cursing, each other. Spiritual matters are still greatly on the decline, men seeking their salvation far more in so-called good works, in ceremonies and superstitions, than through justification by faith in Christ Jesus. Disputations about transubstantiation are inaugurated, though the Supper is still administered under both forms, that is, with bread and wine. The people, having been to the supper, offer money or something else.”

What he further relates of exorcism at baptism; of the mass; of the power to canonize saints; of the worship of saints and images; of the ban of the bishops; of the punishment of heretics; of the consecration of temples; of purgatory; of soul-masses, to redeem souls from purgatory, etc., would require too much time to recount. See concerning it, Chron., page 320.

This has been told simply to show how and whereby the orthodox Christians were oppressed at this time in their worship of God; and why so few learned and pious people manifested themselves. We will now proceed to show what pious witnesses of Jesus Christ suffered as martyrs at this time.

NOTE.--A. D. 884. John Patrick, a man well versed in the Chaldean, Arabian, and Greek languages, in the monastery of Mabelsbury, greatly opposed the doctrine of an offering for the living and the dead; on account of which he was stabbed to death with awls. See Geslacht-register, page 127.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE NINTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS IN THE NINTH CENTURY.

[The beginning is a repetition of the fourth proposition of the discourse of Haimo (for the year A. D. 814) respecting baptism by the shedding of blood, with which the Lord and all the holy martyrs were baptized.

Of the cruelties instituted by the Danish tyrant, Regnerus (A. D. 818) against the Christian believers; which matter is further explained in a note.

In the margin, mention is made that A. D. 826, the Saracens invaded the islands of the Romans, and, consequently, Creta; where Cyril, Bishop of the church at Gortina was slain.

The tyranny instituted by the King of Bulgaria against the Christians, about the year 842, is shown and confirmed by testimonies.

Great persecution of the believers, caused by the mutual contentions of the Kings in France, noted also for A. D. 842.

Very grievous and lamentable persecution of Christian believers at Cordova, in Spain, A. D. 850, through the wickedness of the Saracens. It is shown that said persecution had commenced long before A. D. 850, but that at this time it raged the most violently.

The distressing martyrdom of John, a tradesman at Cordova, A. D. 850. Note respecting the faith of said martyr.

Nunilo and Aloida, sisters and Christian maidens, put to death with the sword, for the name of the Lord, in the city of Osca, about A. D. 851.

Marginal note, for the year 852, that then the zeal of some to die as martyrs, was so great that multitudes of them confessed Christ, and ran after martyrdom; among whom Emilas and Hieremias are mentioned, who were beheaded for said reason: however, every one is left to judge for himself.

Aurea, a godfearing maiden, after many severe trials, beheaded at Cordova, for the testimony of Jesus Christ, A. D. 856.

After adding a note, we prepare to flee from the Mohammedan persecutions, and turn to England and Italy, where more and clearer light has arisen.

Marginal note of Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, that, through the hatred of the Bishop of Rheims, and by a certain council held at Dusiacum about A. D. 866, he was condemned and finally sent into banishment.

Johannes Erigena, a Scotchman, and, hence, called Scotus, through the instigation of some monks, put to death by his scholars, for the confession of the evangelical truth, at Meldum, in England, A. D. 884.

Observations about the time of this history, as well as some remarks upon the history itself, according to the accounts of Carion, P. Melancthon, C. Peucer, Sebastian Franck of Worth, P. J. Twisck, Cæsar Baronius, and A. Mellinus. Finally, his belief is compared with that of Berengarius, of whom we shall speak in the eleventh century. Conclusion.]

* * * * *

About the year A. D. 814.--In our account of Holy Baptism for the year 814, we made mention of Haimo, a celebrated teacher of that day, as well as of some salutary and good testimonies, which he left respecting the baptism of believers. Writing on Rom. 6, he treats of four different kinds of baptism, the fourth or last of which he calls baptism by the shedding of blood, indicating withal, what he means thereby, as well as what persons were baptized in this manner. The fourth (baptism), he says, “is by the shedding of blood; with which the Lord himself and all holy martyrs were baptized.” B. H., 2d part, page 540, num. 2, from Centur. Magd. IX., cap. 4, fol. 75.

Some one perhaps may think that in this passage by Haimo, nothing is said of a present persecution or martyrdom, but that it is simply shown that the shedding of the blood of the martyrs can, in some measure, be called a baptism, with which the Lord himself and many of his followers, namely, all the holy martyrs, had, so to speak, been baptized. To this we will offer no objection, for it is well remarked; nevertheless, it will throw light upon the object we have in view, namely, to show the martyrdom of this time. Hence, in order to reach this end, we say: It would not have been necessary then only to recount to the hearers the shedding of the blood of the martyrs, as well as that in a certain way this may be called a baptism, if at that time the exigency of martyrdom or the shedding of blood for the Lord’s sake had not existed, or, at least, if there had been no danger of being persecuted or martyred.

Certainly, all good teachers regard the opportuneness of the times, the condition of persons, and other circumstances, in the matter of teaching, lest the salutary and good words of God, by being spoken at the wrong time, or on an unsuitable occasion, should prove void, powerless, and vain to those who hear it. Thus we must believe that also said teacher (Haimo) proceeded, and that, consequently, when he called the shedding of the blood of the martyrs a baptism, and adduced this for the purpose of instructing his brethren, there must have been an exigency of martyrdom, either at the time, or near at hand; otherwise the assertion and exposition of this excellent teacher would not have been adduced properly, or at the right time and on the proper occasion.

We shall, therefore, ascertain from other authors the condition of that time, and whether then or shortly after, any persecution, bloodshedding or martyrdom arose against the Christian believers, to which the aforementioned teacher might have had reference in his instruction touching said matter.

TOUCHING THE CRUELTIES INSTITUTED BY THE DANISH TYRANT REGNERUS AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS, ABOUT A. D. 818.

Four years after the admonition of the aforenamed teacher, namely, A. D. 818, mention is made of a certain Danish tyrant, called Regnerus, the sixty-second King of Denmark; who, as regards military affairs, was greatly praised by the champions of war, but, with regard to his cruelty and tyranny towards the Christian believers, deserves to be utterly contemned, yea, counted a tyrant and a blood-thirsty monster.

Concerning this, P. J. Twisck (from various other writers) has left the following as a summary of his wickedness, and how he was punished for it, as a warning to all tyrants. “King Regnerus was a prodigy in matters of war, but a great enemy and persecutor of the Christians. He was conquered by Hella, King of the Britons, and cast into a pool of snakes, to be killed in this manner.” Chron., 9th book, page 280.

NOTE.--We have not been able to learn in particular the manner in which said tyrant manifested his enmity against the Christians, or how he persecuted them; nor the countries and places in which those persecutions occurred; nor the names of the persons who then suffered; nor how long these persecutions and martyrdoms lasted; hence we cannot more fully speak of these things.

In the meantime, it is our firm conviction, that not a few upright professors of Jesus Christ laid down their lives for the apprehended and accepted truth of the holy Gospel, and were offered up as steadfast martyrs for their love to their Savior, and for the working out of their own salvation. But for the want of their particular confessions and names, we are constrained to break off, as we have had to do in several places in preceding centuries; which things can be compared with the account we have given here; which we commit to the intelligent and impartial reader.

About A. D. 826, the Saracens invaded the islands of the Romans, and took possession of Crete (where Paul had ordained his beloved spiritual son Titus Bishop and shepherd of the church), and put to death, Cyril, the Bishop of the church of Gortina, for confessing Christ. Compare A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 306, col. 2, with Zonar., Tom. 3, in Michaele Balbo Cedren.

TOUCHING THE TYRANNY INSTITUTED BY THE KING OF BULGARIA AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS, ABOUT A. D. 842.

When the aforementioned tyrant Regnerus, who commenced to reign about A. D. 818, had died, in the year 832, having been cast among the snakes, and the Christian believers in the devastated regions, had obtained, it seems, some freedom in the matter of living according to their faith, there arose against them, ten years afterwards, namely, A. D. 842, another miscreant, no better, to all appearance, than the former, though for a time he had borne the name of a Christian, who instituted great tyranny against them.

The last mentioned author, proceeding to the year 842, speaks in his account concerning this matter as follows: “When this King of the Bulgarians had received the kingdom from his father, who wished to retire into privacy, he apostatized from the (Roman) Christian faith to heathen idolatry, and re-established the latter, with much tyranny against the Christians. Chron., 9th book, page 287, col. 1, from Hist. Andræ, fol. 182. Leon., lib. 4, fol. 176. Compare this with the above note.

GREAT PERSECUTION OF THE BELIEVERS, CAUSED BY THE MUTUAL CONTENTIONS OF THE KINGS IN FRANCE, IN SAID YEAR 842.

In the same year in which the abovementioned Bulgarian tyrant reigned and instituted so much wickedness against the Christian believers, namely, A. D. 842, the kings of the Franks, through their wars, though they were brothers, it appears, grievously persecuted and martyred the poor believers, everywhere in the French territories; so that said persecution and martyrdom is compared and regarded as equal to the persecutions instituted in earlier times by the heathen emperors. Of this, the following is found in the last mentioned chronicle, and in the same place: “The fraternal wars between the kings of the Franks, were the cause of much calamity and distress to the poor believers throughout France, so that they might well be compared to the cruel persecutions which in former times occurred under the heathen princes.”

Concerning this, Remigius, Bishop of Auxerre, who lived about this time, writes thus (on Ps. 69): “There are different times of persecution; one, when the heathen fall unmercifully upon the Christians; the other, when the evil purpose of the (false) Christians persecutes the believers, which time still continues in the church; for, though the heathen kings, and others, are dead, still the devil is not dead, who secretly vents his cruelty, by secret instruments, that is, through bad Christians. Chron., 9th book, page 287, col. 1, from Leonhard, lib. 4, histor. Georg., lib. 4, fol. 305.

GRIEVOUS AND LAMENTABLE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, BY THE SARACENS, AT CORDOVA IN SPAIN, ABOUT A. D. 850.

About A. D. 850, the Saracens, who were adherents to the Mohammedan religion, invaded various islands of the Mediterranean Sea, and also the kingdom of Spain, in which they penetrated so far that their king had his court in the city of Cordova.

In the mean time, in order to treat the inhabitants of said country kindly as it were, and thus draw them gradually over to the Mohammedan religion, the Christians were allowed to remain, on condition that they would not gainsay, revile, or refute their false prophet Mohammed and his laws; also that they should no longer go into their churches, but pay their taxes, and live quietly under their jurisdiction.

The Christians, thus limited, and obeying their conscience by calling evil, evil, and good, good, were easily apprehended by the Saracens, and accused of capital crime; but, what is most to be deplored, these accusations proceeded sometimes from apostate, so-called Christians, yea, from such as bore the name of bishops (apparently political bishops, or such as were designated ordinaries by the Roman church), who, loving the favor of the Saracens more than the favor of God, declared that those who were put to death by them, because they obeyed their conscience, were no martyrs and could not be recognized as such; and what is yet more, they maintained this in a public council.

The persecutors, as can easily be judged, greatly encouraged by this, lamentably persecuted, martyred, and put to death many innocent Christians. O deadly piercings of antichrist, through the instrumentality of his bishops!

It is true, no severe tortures were inflicted upon the Christians who were martyred in this persecution, but for the most part they were simply beheaded; however, after their death their bodies were shamefully treated; first they were suspended for a time on gallows, then burned, and their ashes strewed in the rivers; or they were left unburied, to be torn to pieces by dogs and birds.

It is stated that this persecution commenced long before A. D. 850, but that at this time it was at the height of its fury, for which reason, it seems, the ancient writers have ascribed it to this year. Compare Memor. Sanctor, lib. 1. Apal. Mart. and Doc. Mart. Eulog., lib. 2, cap. 8, 9, and vita Eulogii, with A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 306, col. 2, 3; also, Chron. van den Ondergang, 9th book, page 290, from Hist. Wenc., fol. 443. Chron. Nicoll. Gill., fol. 172, Leonh., lib. 4. However, this persecution is here fixed one year later, namely, A. D. 851.

What has been said of this persecution, is to be further explained by the remarks made in the first note. In the mean time, we will investigate what martyrs mentioned by name, suffered during said persecution for the testimony of Jesus Christ, and the confession of the holy Gospel.

JOHN, A TRADESMAN AT CORDOVA, SEVERELY SCOURGED FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, SET REVERSELY UPON AN ASS, MOCKED, AND MISERABLY TORMENTED, A. D. 850.

A. D. 850, in the city of Cordova, John, an unlearned, but pious man, who kept a few things for sale, was accused to the judge, by false witnesses, for the sake of Jesus Christ, of deriding and reviling Mohammed. But as the witnesses in this case were not found reliable enough in their accusations, to condemn him to death, this faithful servant of God was sentenced to be severely scourged, and constrained to deny Christ. But this pious professor of Christ cried aloud: That he would not forsake the Christian religion unto death, and declared that he was innocent of the false accusations which had been brought against him.

This firmness so enraged the judge against John, that he had him scourged with more than five hundred stripes, causing the executioners to continue beating him, till he, under their hands, fell to the ground, apparently dead. But as he still lived and breathed after this torture, they set him backwards on an ass, and led him through the whole city, from street to street, with a crier, who cried: “Thus shall it be done with the revilers of our prophet, and with the ridiculers of our worship.”

This done they fettered him with heavy chains, and put him in prison; but as to how he finally died, we have not been able to discover in the accounts of the ancients; this much, however, is certain, that he contended for the name of Christ even unto blood. Compare Eulog. Memorial. Sanctor., lib. 1, with the account of Abr. Mellinus, 2d book, fol. 307, col. 1, 2.

NOTE.--From a want of fuller records by the ancient writers, we have not been able to obtain further information regarding the cause of the martyrdom of the abovementioned John, than that being zealous for the truth of God and his Savior, he suffered principally for the second article of our general Christian faith, in which we confess that we believe in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; which justly, and according to the rule of God’s word, can be called a good profession, 1 Tim. 6:12.

Moreover, we have found nothing derogatory to his faith, of papal superstition or the like, in other points; notwithstanding in the city of Cordova, where he suffered, there were also people, who, it appears, were not free from the Roman pollutions; of which history has made mention. Hence, since nothing of this kind can be laid to his charge, we are bound, according to the nature of love, to judge the best both of his person and the other points of his faith, and this not only with regard to him, but also to others, who suffered for the same reason, and of whom the ancients, in regard to this matter, have given like testimony.

NUNILO AND ALOIDA, SISTERS AND CHRISTIAN MAIDENS PUT TO DEATH WITH THE SWORD, IN THE CITY OF OSCA, FOR THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, ABOUT A. D. 851.

For this contest for the name of Christ, the Lord prepared not only men, but also women, and young maidens so that in the following year, 851, as near as can be reckoned, two sisters, one named Nunilo, the other Aloida, did not hesitate to confess Jesus Christ, their heavenly Bridegroom, among the Mohammedans, not only with their blood, but also with their death; which took place on this wise:

Their father was a Mohammedan, and their mother a nominal Christian, but not very pious, since she, according to the testimony of the ancients, after the death of her husband, married a Saracen (Mohammedan) or unbeliever. In consequence of this, these pious young women could not freely observe, and live up to, the confession of their faith, according to the doctrine of Christ, on account of the constraints placed upon them by their unbelieving stepfather. Compelled, therefore, to leave their mother’s house, they went to live with their aunt or mother’s sister, who, being a true Christian woman, brought them up farther in the Christian religion.

The envious enemy of the human race, filled with jealousy because they, the children of a Saracen father, had become Christians, accused them through the instrumentality of wicked persons, to the chief officer of the city of Osca, so that shortly after they were brought before the Judge. The latter, in order to draw them away from the Christian religion made them great promises of gifts and presents. He moreover offered to secure their marriage with the most excellent young men, etc., if they would but embrace Mohammedanism. But, if they remained stubborn, and despised the advice of the President or Judge, he threatened to torture them with divers torments, and finally to put them to death with the sword.

Thereupon, these pious maidens being strengthened by the Spirit of God, firmly and fearlessly answered the Judge, saying: “O Judge! how is it, that thou dost command us to turn away from true godliness? since God has made known to us, that no one in the world is richer than Jesus Christ, our Savior; and that nothing is more blessed than the Christian faith, by which the just live, and the saints have conquered kingdoms. For, without Christ there is no life, and without his knowledge there is nothing but eternal death. To dwell with him, and to live in him, is our only and true consolation; but to depart from him, is eternal perdition. From his communion we will never be separated as long as we live in this life; for, having given and entrusted our innocence (or youth) into his keeping, we hope eventually to become his bride.

“For, the profit of the transient riches of this world, with which thou didst think to allure us, we count as dung and loss, that we may gain Christ, because we know that everything under the sun, except Christ and true faith in him, is vanity.

“Nor are we moved by the threatened punishment; since we know, that the torments endure but a short time; yea, for death itself, which thou hast presented to us as the final terror, we long the more, because we know that thereby we go without delay[145] to heaven, to Christ our bridegroom, there to be embraced by him inseparably, through his love.”

[145] To go without delay to heaven, to Christ, may fitly be understood as having reference to the commending of their souls into the hands of Christ; as is stated of the holy martyr Stephen, namely, that he saw the heavens opened, and Christ standing on the right hand of God; to whom, in his extremity, he commended his soul, saying: “Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.” Acts 7:59,60.

The judge, perceiving the steadfastness of their faith, and the power of their confession, deemed it well to commit these young maidens, each separately to certain Saracen women, to be instructed in the Mohammedan religion, strictly prohibiting them from conversing with each other, or with any others of the Christians. The women, who had undertaken to instruct them in the Saracen or Mohammedan religion, daily presented to them their idolatry and pernicious doctrine, seeking thus to poison them with the cup of the wrath of God, from the hand of Mohammed. But all in vain; they remained steadfast, which was called stubbornness by their enemies.

Finally they were brought before the tribunal and made a public spectacle; where they, confessing Christ as before, and declaring Mohammed an enemy of the Christian faith, as well as rejecting his doctrine, were executed with the sword, in the city of Osca in Spain, on the 22d of October, A. D. 851. Though others differ considerably in their chronology of this matter, we leave it to the decision of the intelligent reader. Compare the account of A. Mellinus, second book, fol. 308, col. 1, 2, with the authors from whom the same has been extracted. Eulog. Memor. Sanctor., lib. 2, cap. 7, and Interp.

Touching these two pious martyresses, there is also to be observed what is said in the added note respecting John, the first mentioned martyr.

NOTE.--A. D. 852, the zeal of some to die for the name of Jesus Christ was so great that multitudes of them confessed Christ, and, hastening to martyrdom, suffered themselves to be put to death as defenseless lambs, for Christ’s sake. It is stated that among these there were two young heroes of Jesus Christ, namely, Emilas and Hieremias, who, from a well-meaning and special zeal, spoke against Mohammed, and thus offered themselves, to suffer for Christ their Savior. For this they were both executed with the sword, whereupon (according to the testimony of the ancients), though the weather had been fine in the forenoon, immediately at the hour of their death, there followed mighty peals of thunder, so that the earth quaked; terrible lightnings fell from the air; great darkness, heavy hailstorms, furious whirlwinds, and storms manifested themselves, as though the insensible elements (according to Eulogius) were mourning the death of these pious martyrs; whose dead bodies were taken across the river and suspended on stakes, on the 15th of September, A. D. 852. A. Mell., fol. 309, col. 4, from Memor. Sanctor., lib. 2, cap. 2. For certain reasons, however, we will not comment on these persons, though we know of nothing to censure, as regards either their faith or their life.

AUREA, A GODFEARING MAIDEN, AFTER MANY SEVERE TRIALS, EXECUTED WITH THE SWORD, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, AT CORDOVA, A. D. 856.

Aurea was by descent a noble maiden, and a sister to the martyr John, of whom we have already spoken, from the province Hispalis or Seville, who was betrayed and accused by some of her countrymen. The Judge, who was a relative of hers, endeavored by every possible means to draw her away from Christ, in which he also succeeded. But shortly after, she repented of her apostasy, and went daily into the congregation of the believers, that by the hearing of the word of God she might be strengthened in the Spirit against a like conflict in time to come.

The enemy of mankind, who could not endure it, that Aurea now adhered more firmly to God her Creator, than before, instigated another to accuse this maiden to the Judge, who instantly had her brought by his bailiffs, and threatened her as before. But in the second conflict she was as much stronger to obtain the martyr’s crown, as, in her former apostasy, she had been too weak to resist the temptation; for she thus answered the Judge, saying: “I have never separated myself from Christ my God; I have never forsaken the religion of true godliness; I have never for one moment adhered to your impious worship; though I once, with my tongue, seemed to have apostatized from Christ, my heart was nevertheless far from it, and I had a firm confidence in my Lord Jesus Christ, who has again lifted up my contrite conscience, by his consoling promises, saying: ‘He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.’ Though, with my words, I fell into the snare of denial, yet my heart was strengthened through the power of faith, for, as soon as I went away from you, I kept with heart and mind the faith which I had practiced from infancy. Hence, there is nothing left, but to execute me with the sword, or else you must give me liberty to freely serve my Lord Christ.”

Thereupon the Judge said that she should be kept in prison until he had informed the King of the matter. The result was, that the following day, according to the King’s command, she was put to death with the sword, and then, with a murderer, suspended by her heels on the gallows. Her dead body was sunk with several thieves and murderers in the river Betis. She died on the 19th of July, A. D. 856, at Cordova, under Mahumad, King of the Saracens. In this account, A. M., fol. 311, must be reconciled with Eul., lib. 3, cap. 17.

REMARK.--For further information we would remark that the aforementioned martyress, as regards profession in the matter of external religion, is to be distinguished from four other persons, Helias, Paulus, Isidore, and Argimirus, together with others, whom the last mentioned authors, in their account, have noticed just before the martyrdom of Aurea; for they, to all appearance, were of the Roman profession, of which we find no evidence in Aurea. She professed a good profession of Christ her Savior, and died thereupon; on which account she is justly classed among the true believing martyrs, according to what we stated in the note respecting the martyr John, for the year 850.

NOTE.--Since we do not find sufficient light on the persecutions, with regard to the names, as well as the confessions of the martyrs, we will now prepare ourselves to take leave of them, and commit those whom we have not noticed, as being too dark before our eyes, to the omniscient God, who will bring all to light. Our purpose is, to turn to Italy and England, where more and brighter light has arisen, though it had its beginning in France; so that the papal darkness, particularly in the matter of transubstantiation and the mass, was illumined by it. Yet, this shall end as a tragedy, for we shall show that the bright light of truth had to set in rays of blood and to sink under the earth as it were, to the sorrow of the true believing Christians.

NOTE.--In our account of holy baptism, for the year 860, we made mention of Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, and stated that he desired that infants should be left unbaptized, on account of which he was greatly censured. But it seems that this was not the last of it, seeing other writers afterwards relate that he was sentenced and condemned in a certain council in the palace of Dusiacum, in the province of Rheims; moreover, that he was sent into banishment, laid in chains, and, two years after, deprived of both his eyes. However, these writers do not unanimously state that this happened to him solely on account of his rejecting infant baptism, but relate also, that it was done through the bitter hatred of the Arch-bishop of Rheims, as well as from other reasons relating to popery. As to the time of this event, the papist Cesar Baronius fixes it, A. D. 871, though we, from comparison with other authors, should fix it five years earlier. Moreover, though we, as regards the life and walk of said Hincmar, have found nothing but what is good, we dare not give him a place among the martyrs, because of the differing statements of the ancient writers; hence we commit him to God, who will judge his cause.

JOHANNES ERIGENA, A SCOTCHMAN, PUT TO DEATH BY HIS SCHOLARS FOR THE CONFESSION OF THE EVANGELICAL TRUTH, THROUGH THE INSTIGATION OF SOME MONKS, AT MELDUM IN ENGLAND, ABOUT A. D. 884.

Johannes Erigena, a Scotchman, and, hence, called Scotus, flourished, in the matter of his doctrine, in the time of the Emperor Louis the Pious, and his son Lothaire, somewhere in one of the cities of France. He was exceedingly virtuous, learned, and eloquent, and, consequently, for his eminent gifts, highly celebrated and esteemed. For, when Charles, one of the sons of the above Emperor, was desirous of having a good translation and exposition of the books of Dionysius, the Areopagite, especially of the treatise Hierarchia,[146] John executed the same very laudably, and with marked ability, so that one Anastasius, who was librarian at the time, and composed a preface to it, writes of him thus: “It is astonishing how this barbarian (that is, foreigner or Scotchman), who hails from the uttermost parts of the world, was able to comprehend with his understanding such high things, and to translate them (said book of Dionysius), into another language, namely, from the Greek into the Latin; I refer to Johannes the Scotchman, concerning whom I have heard that he is a very holy and godly man.”

[146] This was a treatise on the name of God, and the heavenly order of the angels.

This is the testimony even of one of his adversaries, touching his learning and godliness; so that it is not necessary for us to adduce additional testimony relative to this point, from other authors, hence we let it suffice.

Afterwards, it seems, he wrote a book on the Eucharist (that is, on the thankoffering of the Supper), in which he very profoundly and conclusively refuted the gross error of the papists in the matter of transubstantiation, or the essential change of the bread into the body of Jesus Christ; also, the mass and the sacrifice which thereby, in popery, is offered for both the living and the dead. This was the cause of his death, as the sequel shows.

When he had written this book, it was greatly esteemed by some, among whom, subsequently, was Berengarius, deacon of the church at Angiers, of whom it is stated that he took and learned his belief respecting this point (and perhaps also against infant baptism, since he strenuously dissuaded from it), from the writings of Johannes Scotus; of which we propose to speak more fully in the proper place. On the other hand, said book was exceedingly hated by those who were zealous defenders of the Roman superstitions, especially of transubstantiation and the mass; so much so, that, when it had come before Pope Leo IX., the result was, that both (as appears) he and his book were condemned and anathematized as heretical; which was done chiefly in the council of Vercellis.

When this had thus happened, and he had incurred the hatred of the Pope and many of the papists, he left the city of Paris--where he was rector of the University--and also France, and went to England, where he took up his residence at Meldum, supporting himself by teaching and instructing inexperienced youths. But after a few years, when the spite and hatred of some monks could tolerate him no longer, on account of his faith against the Roman church, they instigated his scholars against him, so that they stabbed him to death with awls and penknives.

Other writers are of the opinion that the monks did it themselves. Both may be true; the monks, having instigated the young men, and probably finding them too timid, may have led off in the murder, the youths following, with penknives, awls, etc., so that said martyr lost his life under their hands. This much is certain, that he died a cruel death for his faith, and that the monks, through the instrumentality of his scholars, were in no small measure the cause of it, as the records of his death inform us. Compare the account of A. Mellinus, 2d book, fol. 343, col. 2, 3, and fol. 392, col. 4, and fol. 393, col. 1, 2, taken from Trithem. de Script. Eccles., Item, Hist. Reg. Angl., in Alfredo, lib. 2. Hobed. Annal. parte Priore. Westmon., in Flor. Hist., A. D. 883. Idem, Hist. parte Prima. Chron. Car., lib. 4, sub. Henr. 4, Seniore. Lanfranc., lib. de Euch., contra Bereng. Baron. Annal. T. 11, A. D. 1059. Mamelsburi Regum Angl., lib. 2. Testibus. Lanfranco, Guytmundo and Aliis.

CONCERNING THE TIME OF THIS HISTORY.

NOTE.--P. J. Twisck gives two different accounts concerning it; in the first he fixes the date, A. D. 869. Chron. 9th book, page 306, col. 2, from Hist. Andr., fol. 160. In the second he fixes it, A. D. 884. Page 311, col. 2, from John Munster, fol. 83. In the first place he calls him Johannes Scotus, in the second, Johannes Erigena; however, as the account itself declares, it is the same person.

As to the dates 869 and 884, to which the history of said Johannes has been referred by him, some one might think that this could not very well be reconciled, which may, however, be easily done, if we take the year 869 as the time in which said martyr flourished and propagated his doctrine, and the year 884 as the time when he died and was martyred for the principles which he taught.

FURTHER OBSERVATION TOUCHING THE HISTORY ITSELF, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF CARION, P. MELANCTHON AND C. PEUCER.

“In the time of Emperor Louis the Pious,” said authors say, “Johannes Scotus read and explained publicly in the schools, Dionysius’ treatise Hierarchia. This Johannes Scotus, when he censured and refuted with good reasons, the false and impious tenet of the sacrifice of the mass, concerning which others at that time taught that in the Supper Christ was to be offered up for the living and the dead, was stabbed to death by his disciples and hearers, with their penknives.” Chron. Carion., from the beginning of the world until Charles V., enlarged by Phil. Melancthon and Casp. Peucer, printed 1586, 4th book, fol. 476, col. 1.

CONCERNING SAID HISTORY, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SEBASTIAN FRANCK OF WORTH.

“Johannes, surnamed Scotus, not of the Gray Friars, wrote a treatise on the sacrament, denying the presence of the body and blood of Christ. He was condemned in the council of Vercellis. He was rector at Paris, eminently versed in the languages, and the phenix of his age. The Emperor Lothaire held him in great esteem. Of him there have written, Platina,” etc. See Chron. Rom. Kett., fol. 106, col. 4, letter J.

P. J. TWISCK’S ACCOUNT OF SAID JOHANNES SCOTUS.

“Johannes Scotus,” he writes, “lived under the Emperor Louis the Pious, and wrote strenuously against transubstantiation. On a certain occasion, when he, in an exposition, was severely censuring the delusion of the blasphemous oblation or offering up of the Lord Christ in the Supper, for the living and the dead, his disciples and hearers killed him with iron styles.” Chron., 9th book, fol. 306, col. 2, from Hist. Andr., fol. 160.

FURTHER EXPLANATION TOUCHING SAID J. SCOTUS, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAPIST BARONIUS, AS NOTED BY ABR. MELLINUS.

“But let us add,” says he, “the opinion of Baronius, touching this Scotchman: As regards Johannes Scotus, we have said above, in the proper place, that he was in bad repute with the Pope Nicholas I. Although he wrote so violently against the Catholic faith, yet, as he did not spread it among the people, so that his views became known to all, many had a good opinion of him, so much so, that they, though most inconsiderately (thus he speaks, from a papistic standpoint) gave him the title of martyr.” Compare A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 393, col. 1, 2, with Cesar. Baronius’ account touching J. Scotus. Annal. T. 11, A. D. 1059.

From this account it appears that the papist Baronius, who was a cardinal of the Roman see, was not pleased that many had a good opinion of Johannes Scotus, and, what is still more, gave him the title of martyr; but this is not to be wondered at, since the true papists have a good opinion of none but those who adhere to the Roman superstitions, and never dare to utter a word of censure against them; and they would confer the title of martyr upon none but those who have suffered for the Roman see and its traditions (which are a parcel of human inventions). However, we will let them answer for this, and leave it.

We return to Johannes Scotus and say that, as regards his boldness, he showed himself as behooves a true martyr, since, to clear his conscience and defend the oppressed truth, he did not hesitate to incur the hatred of the Pope and the papists, yea, the prospect of being anathematized, excommunicated, and, finally, miserably tortured and put to death for it. He died for the confession of the Christian and evangelical truth, particularly for the article by which we commemorate the Lord’s death, and in which lies the consolation of the soul, with regard to our blessed redemption.

But, since Berengarius, who opposed not only transubstantiation and the mass, but also infant baptism, was afterwards charged with having imbibed and obtained his belief from Johannes Scotus, the aforementioned martyr, we may conclude that said martyr must also have opposed infant baptism; otherwise it could not be said in general words, that Berengarius imbibed or obtained his views from J. Scotus, which is nevertheless frequently and confidently asserted by ancient writers. With this we will take our leave of J. Scotus and also of our account of the martyrs of this century; as being sufficient for the well-disposed--for the evil-disposed we care not; hence, our soul shall rest, and content itself with the pious.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE TENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE TENTH CENTURY.

[The corruption of this century, caused by the papal superstitions, is sadly lamented by Jacob Mehrning and P. J. Twisck.

Nevertheless, it is shown thereupon, that in the midst of papal darkness there were still some who, in the matter of holy baptism, did not differ from the institution of Christ and his apostles.

Giselbert teaches, that baptism must be connected with regeneration and a good will.

Then follows Ansbert, who declares that Christ, through preaching and baptism, is still daily bringing unto himself heirs; that we must be baptized upon the confession of the holy Trinity; and that after baptism we may sin no more.

Smaragdus follows next and says that it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the truth of the faith; that the excellent ordinance of the baptism of Christ commands the apostles first to teach all nations, and then to incorporate them by the baptism of faith.

Then appears Theophilact, who produces very excellent testimonies concerning baptism; as, among others, that the baptized have put on Christ, Gal. 3:27; that the candidates are like the prodigal son when he was converted; that he is not baptized aright, who has not believed; that in baptism all believers are enlightened by the Holy Ghost; that no one may be recognized as a believer, who is unregenerate or lives after the flesh; that the truly baptized may not drive away the Holy Spirit by wicked works, but must preserve the image of God unspotted; that the good profession of which we read, 1 Tim. 6:12, must take place at the instruction of those that are to be baptized; that those baptized by John, were delivered by repentance from the bonds of the soul; that the novices repented before baptism; that the Supper was administered to the baptized, etc.

Thereupon it is stated, from D. Vicecomes, that the papists, when infant baptism was introduced among them, abolished the practice of administering the Supper to the baptized. It is furthermore demonstrated, that the Romanists ought to have abolished infant baptism just as well as the infant Supper.

The baptism of Olympius, his wife Exuperia, and his son Theodulus, is adduced, from Simon Metaphrastes; also, of the baptism of Theridates, and Nemesius.

Fulbertus Carnotenses is the last witness respecting holy baptism.]

* * * * *

We now pass over to the tenth century after the birth of Christ, to find in it, as we have done in the preceding times, the marks of the Christian believers, namely, the true baptism with its observance according to the institution of Christ and the practice of his apostles; which, as we shall show in the proper place, obtained and was practiced also at this time, though under great difficulties.

Yet, what shall we say of this century? Many well-disposed persons, who loved the truth, abhorred and detested it, because the innumerable human superstitions of the Roman church had risen nigh unto heaven, and the pure commandments of Jesus Christ, without the observance of which men cannot be saved, had been cast almost down into the pit. This was the century concerning which much woful lamentation was made, because papal tyranny, in the matter of worship, had increased so exceedingly. Of these things (after the title), the following is contained in Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism.

OF THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD IN THE TENTH CENTURY.

“In the tenth century the dominion of the Roman Pope had exceedingly obscured, and taken possession of, nearly all the churches in Europe, so that everything, had to be done according to his pleasure, both in spiritual and secular governments; hence, great darkness prevailed at this time, in which but very few learned, virtuous, and celebrated men lived. For fear of the great tyranny, one dared scarcely speak the least word of the adulteration of the doctrine, or the abuses in the false worship, and the increase of the abominable blasphemies; for, as soon as those who knew better, and feared God, uttered the least word of opposition, the Pope instantly thundered, with hail and lightning as it were, excommunications from the Roman chair, so that every one was terrified, since also the secular lords were bewitched and controlled by him. Was it to be wondered at, then, that the corruptions with reference to baptism, increased the longer the more?” Bapt. Hist., p. 566, from Magd. Cent. 10, cap. 1.

Touching the abuses in and about baptism, which were then introduced the decree of the Pope and the councils, they are noticed by different writers, as may be seen in Cent. Magd., Cent. 10, cap. 6, 10, 11.

In short, whereas formerly the catechumens had not been baptized until, after proper instruction, they had given an account of their faith, either on Easter or Whitsuntide, it was now ordained, that, when death or peril of life was apprehended, they should be baptized immediately. Metaphr., lib. 2, cap. 5.

Whereas baptism had formerly been administered with unblessed or unconsecrated water, it was now blessed and consecrated, yea, the chrism was used, the sign of the cross on the forehead, the oil of chrism. Bapt. Hist., page 576, num. 13.

But the most ridiculous of all was, that, whereas formerly only human beings had been baptized, Pope John XIV. now commanded that the great bell in the Lateran church should be baptized and named after him. Bapt. Hist., page 577, ex Balaeo Centur. 2. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 10th book, for the year 965, page 341, col. 1.

These exceeding great errors of the Roman church, and the dreadful darkness in which all nations, with the exception of a few pious people, sat during those dreary times, is described in P. J. Twisck’s Chronijk, in the conclusion of the thousandth year, with the following words (after the title):

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD IN THIS CENTURY.

“As far as regards the preceding century, I cannot speak of any improvement, inasmuch as the secular affairs manifested themselves with much commotion, strife, misery, and distress. Papal dominion prevailed more and more. The idolatrous ceremonies were very prolific; the baptismal water was consecrated; the oil was prepared by the bishop alone, two days before Easter, as well as imparted to others; the Supper, or sacrament, was administered nearly every Sunday, at an altar or table prepared for this purpose. Excommunication or the ban of the church was used very frivolously, not only against common people, but also against emperors, kings, and princes. The punishment imposed upon penitents consisted much in abstaining for seven years from certain food, meat and wine, or in the giving of alms, building of churches, founding of cloisters, and other like inventions and burdens, according to the ability and mind of each respective individual.

“It was taught, that the saints must be worshiped; not that they should save the supplicants, but that they should intercede, and ask God for help for them.

“Holy people were presented, who had died before the time of Christ, in the Old Testament, and who, as it was said, had been in hell, yet without pain--a strange notion and wicked doctrine respecting the holy fathers.

“It was said that there was a purgatory, where men had to atone after this life, and wash away sin by suffering.

“The canonizing of ecclesiastical persons was very common. The holidays instituted in honor of the saints, were very many, and took away nearly one half of the year. The images and graves of the saints were greatly esteemed. Kings, princes, lords, ecclesiastics, and laymen, made pilgrimages to Rome, St. Jago, Jerusalem, and other places, where the bodies or bones of the saints were buried or preserved, as though dead bones without spirit, could impart life or benefit.

“The sick would confess to the ear of the priest, and thereupon receive the sacrament of the unction; after which they departed in full assurance, though without any good resulting from it.

“The dead were buried with the ringing of bells, with tapers and torches, with much singing, with masses, vigils, and prayers for their souls, etc.” P.J. Twisck, Chron., 10th book, page 361.

Thus, the tenth century was utterly corrupted through the superstitions of popery; but, as in the dark midnight the stars still sometimes give their light, so it was also here; for, that the marks of the true church might not be swallowed up entirely in the darkness, some, though but few, manifested themselves, who, in one and the other point, but principally in the matter of baptism, showed, that they, as regards the matter itself, did not differ from the institution of Christ and the practice of his holy apostles; which can be gathered from the writings they have left.

About A. D. 910.--Or very close to the beginning of this century, the ancient writers place Giselbert, a man of learning, but accused of strange opinions by his adversaries; whom the emergency of the time compelled to stoop and hide, under the ravages of popery. He, though others have regarded him as a member of the Roman church, opposed, apparently as much as lay in his power, the Pope and the Roman church, and this not a little in the matter of baptism. For, while the Pope and the Roman church generally taught that it was necessary, yea, upon pain of damnation, to baptize the infants, notwithstanding they have not, and cannot have, either true regeneration or a good will [intention], which are nevertheless required of candidates (Matt. 3:7,8), he taught that it is indeed necessary to salvation, to be baptized, but that said baptism must be connected with regeneration, and a good intention; which things, besides the grace of Christ, he considered the chief means to salvation, so much so, that any one who had these virtues, though he were not baptized (that is, if there had been no opportunity), could nevertheless be saved because of the grace and power of God. Of this, there is, among others, the following annotation in Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism, page 567.

Of the necessity of baptism.--Giselbert (Alter. 1), says: “It is true, God can save; yet, man cannot be saved without baptism; (that is, that baptism which is accompanied with regeneration, as the following words declare), for thus says the author of this sacrament himself: ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ It is, however, not in the power of man, to reject this way, and to choose to salvation another. However, it is in God’s power, if man cannot obtain this means (baptism), to accept graciously his good will.” Cent. Magd. X., cap. 4.

Hence, when he here speaks of the good will of man, it is quite evident, that he treats neither of infants nor of infant baptism, seeing infants have no knowledge of either a good or a bad will, nor of baptism, nor of regeneration, to which said passage of Giselbert also has reference; much less have they the ability to worthily begin and execute all this, for the proper reception of baptism. He intends simply to say, that baptism is indeed necessary, yet not without regeneration; which regeneration he regards as the most important of all, according to John 3:5,7, from which he concludes that it is not in the power of man to reject this way, namely, to separate regeneration from baptism, or baptism from regeneration, which is a stricture upon those who were wont to reject the baptism of the regenerated or penitent, and to go another way, as did the Pharisees in the days of John the Baptist; who, rejecting the counsel of God against themselves (namely, the baptism of John), were not baptized of him. Luke 7:30.

But, in order that no one need sorrow, who, having attained to regeneration, could not receive baptism, on account of serious obstacles or the want of a fitting opportunity, and, hence, might imagine that there was no grace or mercy of God for him, he adds this consolation, namely: “That it is in God’s power, if man cannot obtain the means (baptism), to accept graciously his good will.”

Whatever others, especially papistic writers, may have recorded of Giselbert’s belief, detrimental to, or, at least, against the point in view, we let them be responsible for it; this is certain, that we have not as yet been able to find anything to the contrary, in any authentic writer.

About A. D. 925.--Shortly after, or very near the time of Giselbert, Ansbert is mentioned, who, writing on several matters of faith, or articles of religion, also makes mention of baptism, approaching herein very closely the language, or, at least, the sense of the holy apostles, which appears from the following testimonies:

Bapt. Hist., page 568. Ansbert (on Rev. 19), says, according to the words of Christ, John 1:13: “Which were born not of blood ... but of God.” “Of God, that is, through the preached word and the washing of regeneration, by which mysteries (namely, preaching and the washing of regeneration, that is, baptism) Christ still daily begets and brings forth unto himself heirs.”

He here connects the word of God, or preaching, with the washing of regeneration, or baptism, and says that by them Christ begets and brings forth unto himself heirs. How could anybody more plainly declare: 1. what true baptism is; 2. what belongs to it; and 3. what fruit proceeds from it. For, firstly, what true baptism is, he expresses by these words: Washing of regeneration, according to Tit. 3:5, indicating thereby, that true baptism is peculiar only to the regenerate; that is, to the penitent. Secondly, what belongs to baptism he expresses by these words: The preached word; for, as the apostle declares, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” Rom. 10:17. The preached word is therefore the means by which to attain to the faith, and faith is the foundation upon which truly to receive baptism. As necessary, then, as faith is, in order to be truly baptized, upon it, so necessary also is the preached word, in order to truly believe; consequently, Ansbert has justly joined the preached word to baptism, as a proof that it belongs to it, according to the words of Christ (Mark 16:15,16): “Preach the Gospel ... he that believeth and is baptized.” Thirdly, what fruit proceeds from such baptism, when it is accompanied with regeneration and the preached word of God, he expresses with these words: “By which mysteries Christ still daily begets and brings forth unto himself heirs,” which well agrees with the words of Paul, Gal. 3:26,27: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” These, then, who by this means become children of God, also become his heirs and joint heirs with Christ. Rom. 8:17. Hence, said words of Ansbert are conformable to the holy Scriptures, and speak of the baptism of the regenerate, but in no wise of infant baptism.

Page 569. Ansbert (on Rev. 21) teaches: “The trinity of the Godhead we dare not, and shall not pass by unnoticed, especially when we are baptized upon the confession of the holy Trinity, and are saved in the faith of the unity of the same.”

Here he again connects baptism with confession and faith, yea, he says that we are baptized upon confession, and saved in faith. Certainly, there is not a letter in the above passage, which savors of infant baptism, but every word denies, yea, opposes it, inasmuch as here such a baptism only is spoken of, as is received with faith and the confession of the same; but that this can be done by infants, militates not only against the holy Scriptures, but also against nature.

Page 574. Ansbert (on Rev. 1) says: “He that has been washed in baptism from dead works, and, after such washing, again commits sins unto death, it avails him nothing that he was washed; hence, the Lord, through Isaiah (chap. 1, verse 16), admonishes thus: ‘Wash ye, make you clean.’ He washes and cleanses himself, who commits no new sins after baptism. But he that conducts himself thus that after such washing, he again pollutes the white robe with sin, let him still not despair of remission, if he desires to be washed again; for there is yet another baptism, with which publicans and harlots are always baptized--and what other is it but the well-spring of tears? in which Mary Magdalene, polluted with many a stain of vice, and Peter, when he had thrice denied the Lord, washed themselves.”

This whole passage is a warning to those who, having committed sins unto death, were baptized for the remission of the same, that they should not rely upon this, otherwise they might be deceived; hence, against such, there are spoken these words: “He that after such washing again commits sins unto death, it avails him nothing that he was washed.” Then follows an admonition, not to fall into new sins after baptism; yet that any who had fallen into them, should still not despair. But to such there is pointed out another baptism, namely, the baptism of tears, that is, weeping and sorrowing for committed sins. Then it is told what persons were once baptized with this baptism of tears, namely, publicans and harlots, Mary Magdalene, and Peter, for denying Christ.

Judge now, whether the above-stated things can be done by infants, or whether they are peculiar only to the adult and intelligent, and we are fully confident, that, if you are impartial, you will choose the latter, and reject the former.

About A. D. 938.--Very near the time of Ansbert, a place is accorded, in this century, to Smaragdus, who, having, it seems, at some time previous to his conversion, or, at least, to his enlightenment, maintained infant baptism, now gave such testimony concerning baptism as completely excludes infant baptism, inasmuch as he, writing of the nature, virtue, practice, and benefit of baptism, very closely follows the language of Christ and his holy apostles.[147]

[147] What Smaragdus has written on 1 Pet. 2, saying: “Such holy, pure, and innocent childhood, the mother, the church of Christ, gains through the grace of baptism,” gave cause to consider whether by the word childhood he meant infants of the cradle, and by the words grace of baptism, infant baptism; but it is also interpreted as having reference to the believing children of God, according to Gal. 3:26, and to the baptism of believers, according to Mark 16:16. As to the exposition, however, which he is stated to have made on John 13, it is held that it took place before his enlightenment.

This appears from his exposition of the institution of Christ respecting baptism.

“First,” he writes: “all nations were taught, and then they were baptized with water; for it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the truth of the faith; for they were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Again: “This excellent ordinance of baptism commands the apostles, first to teach all nations, then to incorporate them by the baptism of faith, and then, after faith and baptism, to teach them what they were to observe.” Smaragdus, on Matt. 28.

N. B. “Thus,” says the writer who has recorded this, “the light of truth must shine forth in the midst of darkness; for, where did Christ institute another ordinance of baptism, for infants?” B. H., page 570, num. 7.

Though this last passage is very acceptable and worthy of being considered, and confirms in no small measure the point we have in view we will nevertheless let the writer keep it to himself, it being only a comment on the aforementioned matter.

We will, therefore, return to the matter itself, namely, to the words of Smaragdus, and we shall soon find that his aim was, to connect faith with baptism, yea, to admit no other baptism than that which is accompanied with the truth of the faith. For, what else does he intend to say with these words: “For it is impossible for the body to receive the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the truth of the faith?” May we not firmly conclude from this, that this man knew nothing of infant baptism, or, at least, that he, when he wrote this, utterly denied and rejected it? Certainly, no one could oppose, or reject, infant baptism more flatly and plainly; for if it is impossible, as he says, to receive baptism aright without having previously accepted the truth of the faith, etc., he establishes that it is impossible to baptize infants aright, seeing they, because of their disqualification in regard to power as well as knowledge, cannot previously accept the truth of the faith. Unless some one would say that he held, that there is a certain faith, or germ of faith, as others call it, in infants from their birth (as was afterwards advanced by the Lutherans), upon which, some were wont to assert, they ought to be baptized. But this is easily refuted; for, besides this, that in the time of Smaragdus, as far as can be seen, they knew nothing of this hidden faith, or germ of faith, in infants, much less baptized them upon it, he plainly indicates that he is speaking of another faith, which he calls the truth of the faith, that is, a true and genuine faith; which true and genuine faith no one ever, to our knowledge, not even to the present day, claimed for infants, in order to establish infant baptism upon it.

Moreover, Smaragdus required of the candidates for baptism, not only the truth of the faith, but also regeneration, as appears from his comments on John 3, where he says: “He that is regenerated through water and the Spirit, is invisibly changed into a new man, and from a carnal man is made a spiritual man; and he is therefore rightly called, not only spiritual, but also spirit.” B. H., p. 573, num. 11.

In this passage again there are several things mentioned, which indicate nothing else than that he is speaking of the baptism of adults. For, besides that the words, John 3, were not spoken to an infant but to Nicodemus, a master in Israel, the circumstances adduced by Smaragdus in regard to it also indicate, that it is to be understood of none but adult persons. For, what else does he mean to say by the word regenerated, than that the baptized person who has previously truly prepared himself for baptism, gives up his old, earthly birth, and becomes a new creature? Thus also, when he says that the baptized person is changed into a new man; for, how shall any one be changed into a new man, who was not an old man before? And also, when he adds, that such an one, from a carnal man is made spiritual; for, how is it possible, from a carnal man to become spiritual, if one has not previously been carnal or lived after the flesh? Therefore, to become spiritual, does not simply mean, to receive the Spirit of God, but to live after the Spirit, in the fear of God, and in all the Christian virtues. Gal. 5:21–24.

This being so, we will leave the testimony of Smaragdus and proceed to others of his cotemporaries, who held the same belief and left it to us in their writings.

A. D. 952.--It is stated that in the time of the Emperor Otho the Great there lived and wrote, in Greece, a very virtuous and learned man called Theophilact, who, writing on various matters of faith, also makes mention of baptism, not differing herein, as far as we have been able to ascertain, from the Anabaptists of the present day, but agreeing with them very well on the subject of baptism upon faith.

Bapt. Hist., page 571, Theophilact on Luke 15, says: “As many of us as have been baptized have put on Christ.”

These are the words of Paul, Gal. 3:27, which the apostle does not speak to infants, but to the believing saints of the Galatian church, namely, that they had indeed, become children of God by faith, but had put on Christ by baptism.”

Continuing he says: “Then he puts on our hand (namely, to us who through baptism have put on Christ) the ring, the seal of Christianity, which works in us.” Again: “Every one that is baptized, is also made a child of God, yea, readopted as such; he is also, when he is washed from sin, made a partaker of the fatted calf, and becomes the joy of the Father and his servants, the holy angels and men, even as one that has arisen from the dead, and who was lost, and is found.”

He here compares the candidates to the prodigal son who, repenting of his evil life, arose to go to his father, to seek grace, and was received by him with outstretched arms. Thus, he would say, it is also in baptism: The sinner seeks grace, confesses his sins, manifests sorrow for them, yea, prays and supplicates for forgiveness. God, the Lord, who is the true Father of all men by reason of creation, meets him, embraces him with the arms of his grace, yea, pardons all his past sins, and, in token thereof, commands one of his servants to baptize him. This he compares to the putting on of the ring, saying: “Then he puts on our hand the ring, the seal of Christianity.” What he further says concerning the killing of the fatted calf; and the joy of the Father and his servants, has regard to the joy that is in heaven over the repentance of such a penitent (and thereupon baptized) sinner, which is greater than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Luke 15:7.

Hence, when Theophilact compares the candidate for baptism to the prodigal son, in the manner shown above, it is evident enough, yea, as clear as midday, that he is treating of no other baptism than the baptism of adults, and this of such adults as manifest sorrow for their past sins.

Page 572. Theophilact on John 8, says: “Since Christ came to take away the sins of the world, we can obtain remission of sins in no other way than, by means of baptism (however properly speaking the blood of Christ is the effective cause of the remission and taking away of sins), yet it is impossible that he that has not believed, be baptized (aright); hence, the unbeliever must afterwards die in his sins, for he has not put off the old man, because he has not been baptized.”

Though several things are said here, which confirm our preceding explanation of the words of Theophilact, we shall nevertheless notice only these words: “It is impossible that he that has not believed, be baptized (aright);” for here certainly every baptism which is not received with faith is denied; hence, infant baptism cannot be admitted here, because it is without all faith, yea, it is utterly denied here. And thus, the words of Theophilact concerning baptism, are not only clear, but also Christian-like and apostolical.

Page 572. Theophilact on 2 Cor. 3, says: “Even as silver, exposed to the sun, does itself emit rays, because the sun shines upon it; so also we, when we are purified in baptism, by the Holy Ghost, and illumined by his rays, emit a spiritual radiance, perceived only in the soul, and are changed into the same image, by the Spirit of the Lord, to our glory.” And, a little further on: “All believers are illumined in baptism by the Holy Ghost, that their souls shine (or, emit radiance) thereby.” Again: “As we are all dead by one sinner, even so we are all made alive, and are risen through Christ, in baptism; and we justly recognize no one as believing, who lives after the flesh, that is, who leads the old, carnal life; but all who are regenerated by the Spirit, begin a new, spiritual life.”

The words which Theophilact speaks from or on 2 Cor. 3, concerning the candidates, Paul speaks of believers; and the simile borrowed by the aforementioned writer from the silver, which, when the sun shines upon it, reflects his rays, which he applies to the candidates, who become illumined by the Holy Ghost, and reflect a spiritual radiance of virtues, confirms, in a good degree, that he is speaking of such candidates as can be illumined by the Holy Ghost, and live virtuously, to the honor of God, the edification of their neighbor, and to the salvation of their own souls. What he says after that, fully confirms our opinion, namely, that he is speaking of believing candidates; for, this he clearly expresses with these words: “All believers are illumined in baptism by the Holy Ghost.” What he adds finally, tends in the same direction, for he says that, “As we are all dead by one sinner (Adam), even so we are all made alive and are risen, through Christ, in baptism.” Who does not see that this making alive and rising (in baptism) has respect to the renewing of the old life, according to the teaching of Paul (Rom. 6:4): “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” That this is his meaning, he indicates by the following words, when he calls those whom he has previously termed candidates, believers and regenerated persons, saying: “We justly recognize no one as believing, who lives after the flesh; but all who are regenerated (thus he calls the candidates or the baptized) by the Spirit, begin a new, spiritual life.”

Page 573. Philophilact on 2 Tim. 1, says: “The Holy Ghost hovers over us at baptism; now, if we keep this Spirit, and do not drive him away by wicked works, he keeps us and what we have received from God; therefore, use all diligence, that you keep the Holy Ghost, and he, who has been given you, will also keep you.”

It seems that in the days of Theophilact there was a failing among some of the candidates, or, at least, among the unbaptized Christians, that, instead of stirring up the grace of the Spirit of God, which had been given them (after baptism), and thereby increasing and proceeding in virtues, they decreased and retrograded, yea, fell into wicked works. This, Theophilact opposed, warning them to be careful not to drive the good Spirit of God away from them by wicked works, seeing he will not dwell in a malicious soul, nor in a body that is subject unto sin. Wisdom of Sol. 1:4.

Secondly, he admonishes them affectionately and consolingly, to keep the gift of the Holy Ghost (after baptism), pointing out also, the means by which this could be done, namely, by avoiding wicked works, and using diligence, that is, such diligence by which the worship of God and the common edification could be promoted. The consolation which he, for such, adds to his admonition, is expressed in these words: “Therefore, use all diligence, that you keep the Holy Ghost, and he ... will also keep you.” But, what fruit his warning, and consoling admonition had on those persons, is not stated there; hence we will take our leave, and proceed to other writings which he has left.

Same page as above. Theophilact on John 3, says: “It is not enough for the preservation of purity, to be baptized; but one must also use great diligence, that the image of the sonship of God, which is represented in baptism, is kept unspotted. There are many who have received, in baptism, the grace of adoption as children of God, but who, through negligence, have not remained children of God unto the end.

Here he greatly laments the apostasy of the children of God, namely, of those who, having been baptized, and having received the grace of adoption as children of God, but through negligence had apostatized so that they, as he calls it, had not remained children of God. Certainly, this was a sad matter; but notwithstanding we rejoice that in those times people were baptized upon faith (as has been shown above), that they might receive the grace of adoption as children of God; and that there were yet persons (as appears from Theophilact) who taught this doctrine and reproved the opposing abuses; to which, has been our sole aim.

Page 575. Theophilact (on 1 Tim. 6, where the apostle says: “Thou hast professed a good profession before many witnesses”), writes: “This profession takes place at the instruction of those who are to be baptized; and we profess by it that we will forsake Satan, and pitch our tent with Christ, that we may fully adhere to him.”

How could any one speak more clearly and truly of baptism according to the institution of Christ and the practice of the apostles? He says here, that the good profession of which Paul writes (1 Tim. 6:12), took place at the instruction of those who were to be baptized; by which he indicates that in his time the candidates were not only instructed at and before baptism, namely, in the Christian faith, but that they were also required to make a profession of what they believed, which consisted (as can be gleaned not only from Theophilact, but also from other writers of that time) of two parts: firstly, in the confession of faith in God and in his Son Jesus Christ; and secondly, in the renunciation of Satan, the world, the flesh, and all its lusts.

Same page as above. Theophilact on Mark 1, says: “All who came to be baptized by John, were delivered through repentance from the bond of their souls, if they believed on Christ.”

He says of those who came to John’s baptism, that they were delivered through repentance from the bond of their souls (that is, from sin), if they believed on Christ; by which he indicates that two things were required of those candidates, in order that they might be delivered from sin; 1. repentance; 2. faith in Christ. Which things, since he adduces them for the instruction of his cotemporaries, were also required of the candidates of his time, namely, that they had to repent and believe on Christ. For, to what purpose should he otherwise, by way of instruction, have adduced them?

Page 581. D. J. Vicecomes (lib. 3, cap. 3, on Heb. 6), quotes from Theophilact: “When you were to be baptized, you repented of dead works, that is, rejected the works of Satan.”

In Lib. 5, cap. 37, Vicecomes expresses the opinion, that in the time of Theophilact the holy Supper was still administered to the baptized, after baptism.

Whether we cast our eyes upon the words of Theophilact, or upon those of Vicecomes, we see that both tend in the same direction. As regards the words of Theophilact, he informs us concerning the candidates of his time, that they, before baptism, or, at least, when they were about to be baptized, repented of dead works, which, as every one knows, can only be done by adults, and not at all by infants; for, one that is to desist from dead works, and repent, must first have committed dead works; this is incontrovertible.

As to the words of Vicecomes, they confirm the foregoing; for, if the holy Supper was then administered to the baptized after baptism; which Supper, as is taught in 1 Cor. 11:27, had to be received with proper examination, and qualification, as, according to history, was then still done, it follows that the baptism of infants could not have been maintained among those who practiced this, seeing infants are unfit for such examination and qualification, and, consequently, also unfit to become partakers of the holy Supper, which Vicecomes also notices; for, referring, in the same place, to some among the Romanists, he says: “But when the baptism of infants was introduced, they [the infants] did not understand the virtue of the heavenly food, the church abolished this custom (namely, of administering the Supper to the baptized), that this holy sacrament might not be dishonored thereby.”

From this it is quite evident, that at that time, not only some who had separated from the Roman church, but even some who belonged to the Roman church (perhaps, whole churches of the Romanists), still had the custom of administering the holy Supper to all that had been baptized, and this with all proper devotion; so that in those churches, it seems, nothing was known, even as late as that time, of infant baptism, or, at least, that it was not observed there, until the Pope, or some council ordained otherwise; for this is clearly expressed in the words: “But when the baptism of infants was introduced, the church abolished this custom.”

Touching what is adduced (B. H., p. 308, from D. Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 37), concerning the infant Supper, as though it might have obtained in the time of Theophilact, it is refuted by the writer himself, in said passage; for he explains it as having reference to the Supper of believing, baptized Christians, saying, that it was administered to the baptized till infant baptism came into vogue, and that it was then (because infants were unfit for it) abolished.

In regard to this, the writer who records it, has the following words to the shame of those who did so: “Cannot these foolish saints,” says he “for the same reason, also abolish infant baptism, which is not a less, but, on account of the effectual regeneration, a greater sacrament, than the Supper?” B. H., page 308. He means to say: If the Supper, which it was customary to administer to believers after baptism, was abolished, when infant baptism came into vogue, because infants have not the ability to worthily prepare themselves for the Supper; how great a folly is it, then, that infant baptism was not also abolished for the same reason; seeing that not less, but more, is required for baptism than for the Supper, namely, an effectual regeneration? For which reason also baptism is a greater sacrament than the Supper. Certainly, this was a forcible argument in refutation of those who, having introduced infant baptism, had therefore abolished the Supper which used to be administered after baptism; and who considered infants better qualified for baptism than for the Supper.

About A. D. 980.--Bapt. Hist., pages 578, 579. Vicecomes quotes from Simon Metaphrastes, lib. 1, cap. 5, the following occurrence: “That Theridates, with his wife and the chief persons of the land were baptized in the river Euphrates.”

Page 580. “Greg. Martyr enjoined upon Theridates and those who desired to be baptized, a fast of thirty days, then instructed them one after another, and thereupon baptized them in the Euphrates.” From Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 6.

D. Vicecomes (lib. 1, cap. 14), relates how Namesius, came to the water, towards evening, descended into it, and was baptized, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. From Metaphr., in vita Steph.

In lib. 3, cap. 3, he writes, how Olympius, with his wife, Exuperia, and his only son, Theodulus, in the night came to Sympronius, fell down at his feet, and said: “We have recently learned to know the power of Christ, that he is truly God. We therefore pray thee, to see that we receive baptism, in the name of Christ, whom thou preachest.” Sympronius answered them: “If you repent with your whole heart, God will be so gracious as to receive you as penitents.” Then said Olympius: “This we will immediately do.” From Metaphr., in vita Steph. B. H., page 579, num. 10.

Page 580, num. 14. “This same Olympius, when he desired to become a Christian, was bidden to break the idols with his own hands, to melt the gold and silver of which they were made, with fire, and to gather the poor, and distribute it among them. This, the writer says, Olympius faithfully did.” D. Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 13.

NOTE.--Page 851, it is related of Placidus, his wife Trajana, and his two sons, how they went to the teacher, etc.; and how the latter instructed and eventually baptized them; changed their names; administered the Supper to them; wished everything good to them, and said: “Depart! the true peace of Christ go with you.” From Metaphr., according to Vicecom., lib. 5, cap. 45.

Still other similar examples, which it would take too long to recount, are adduced in said place, and elsewhere, in the History of Baptism. The persons mentioned in all these examples, those who were baptized as well as those who baptized, we pass by without commenting on them; our object here being simply to show that said Simon Metaphrastes, who is stated to have lived and written about this time, described the foregoing matters as good and praiseworthy examples of the believing, baptized Christians, and left them to posterity, for instruction.

About A. D. 1000.--Or at the close of the tenth century, there is noticed in Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism, Fulbertus Carnotanses, who compares the descending in baptism to the burying of Christ in the earth, and the arising from baptism to the resurrection of Christ from the grave, or, properly speaking, to the awakening of Christ to life.[148]

[148] What Fulbertus says, in this comparison, of baptism, is, as far as the sense is concerned, identical with that which Paul, Rom. 6:4, declares of the baptism of believers, saying: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

His own words can be found, translated into German, page 581, from Fulbert. Carnot. in Epist. ad Adcodatum. Herewith we conclude our account of baptism in the tenth century, and proceed to the pious martyrs who suffered in those days for the name of Jesus Christ.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE TENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS WHO SUFFERED IN THE TENTH CENTURY.

[About the year 910, we again refer to Giselbert (see our Account of Holy Baptism), who teaches, as it were, for the consolation of the martyrs who could not receive water baptism, that it is in God’s power to show mercy to them on account of their good will.

Lamentable persecution of the Christians in the region of Cordova, by the Arabians, instituted by their King Habdarrhaghman, A. D. 923.

Eugenia, an upright Christian woman, beheaded for the testimony of Jesus Christ, near Cordova, in said year, 923.

Pelagius, a lad of thirteen years, beheaded after his arms and legs were cut off, on account of the true Christian faith, at Cordova, A. D. 925.

An extract from the account of P. J. Twisck, touching the martyrdom of the youth Pelagius.

Note containing further explanation respecting the confession of faith of Eugenia and Pelagius.

Of the cruel persecution instituted by the Danish King Worm against the Christian believers, A. D. 926.

A note containing further explanatory remarks concerning the last-mentioned persecution, and that other similar persecutions are to be understood and explained in the same manner.

A deplorable persecution of the Christians, caused by Udo, the Sclavonian prince, A. D. 950.

Marginal note, of the terrible pillage and burning perpetrated by the Saracens among the Christians in Syria, A. D. 964.

Circumstantial account of the severe persecution of Christians by the Vandals, in the borders of Hamburg, Brandenburg, Havelburg, and the adjacent countries, A. D. 984.

Marginal note, how, seven years afterwards, namely, A. D. 991, the Normans came from Denmark into Germany, and there, for about forty years, greatly vexed the Christians; and that the Arabians, from A. D. 622 to 1300, committed much mischief in nearly every country of Europe, or Christendom.]

ABOUT THE YEAR, A. D. 910.

In our account of holy baptism for A. D. 910, we introduced the very learned, but, by his adversaries, much accused, Giselbert, who, through the exigency of that time, had to live under the Roman church, though he decidedly opposed her superstitions, especially in the matter of baptism. He taught concerning holy baptism as connected with regeneration and a good will. He also added, for explanation (on John 3:5): “If any one (through obstacles, or otherwise) cannot receive external baptism, it is in God’s power to graciously accept his good will.” Ex. Cent Magd. 10, cap. 4. Bapt. Hist., 2d part, page 567.

Hence, when Giselbert here consoles, in some measure, those who, from necessity, had to remain without baptism, with the mercifulness of God, who has it in his power to show mercy, even in the absence of baptism, to those who are of a good will, it seems that at that time there must have been an oppression or persecution of the Christian believers; for at such times it frequently happens that there are people of a good will, namely, who desire to be baptized upon the true faith on Jesus Christ, but who nevertheless, on account of the persecution, and the dispersion of the churches and their teachers, cannot attain to it, as we have shown by living examples, in different places of our account of the martyrs.

Thus, when people who had not been baptized, yet had a desire to be baptized, were apprehended and put in bonds for the testimony of the Lord, it was frequently seen, that they could not obtain complete peace in their hearts, though they firmly believed in the Lord, and had resolved to give expression to, and confirm, such faith not only by words, but also in deed, yea, with their blood and steadfast death. On these occasions, or against these emergencies, the pious and soul-seeking teachers often consoled such people, strengthened their hearts, and caused them to hope instead of despair; since God has it in his power, to show mercy to, yea, to save, such, even without baptism, for the sake of their good will or intention, if it has not been neglected on purpose and presumptuously.

This the above mentioned Giselbert taught, and thus he consoled the well-disposed unbaptized; hence, our foregoing conclusion may be regarded as true, namely, that there was, at that time, a persecution on account of the word of the Lord, which made it necessary to add said consolation for the aforementioned persons. But as this is based merely on a probable conjecture, since it is not expressed in clear words, we will leave it, and give an account of a certain persecution which, about thirteen years after this, was raised by the Arabians against the Christians, and ended after much misery and distress.

A LAMENTABLE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE REGION OF CORDOVA, BY THE ARABIANS, INSTITUTED BY THEIR KING HABDARRHAGHMAN, A. D. 923.

A. D. 923, a terrible persecution was raised by the Arabians against the Christian believers, in the region of Cordova. This occurred mainly through the wickedness of the Arabian King Habdarrhaghman IV., who allowed himself to be called protector of the law of God, and king of the believers; but, being filled with bitter hatred against the true law of Jesus Christ, and, consequently, also against the true Christian believers, he considered and declared all Christians unbelievers and despisers of the law of God. But he did not stop at this, but raged against them in an awful manner, yea, persecuted them with fire and sword. One thing, however, in connection with this grieves us to the very heart, namely, that the records of the pious witnesses of Jesus Christ who were killed by him, have all been lost, except of two, namely, Eugenia and a youth of thirteen years; of whom we shall give an account presently. Touching said persecution; compare A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 312, col. 2, with Ruderic., Archiep. Tolet., and Alii. Rer., Hisp. Script.

EUGENIA, AN UPRIGHT CHRISTIAN WOMAN, BEHEADED FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, NEAR THE CITY OF CORDOVA, A. D. 923.

It is recorded that A. D. 923, an upright Christian woman, called Eugenia, was apprehended in the aforementioned persecution, and, remaining steadfast in the confession of the faith in the Son of God, was beheaded, on the sixteenth of March, A. D. 923, through the tyrant and persecutor Habdarraghman.

It is stated that in digging the foundation of some building, in a village called Marmolejos, near Cordova, where she was martyred, an epitaph was found, the first letters of each line of which spelled her name: Eugenia Martyr, that is, Eugenia the Witness (namely, of Jesus), as a token that she had died for the testimony of Jesus her Savior. There could be gathered from it, further, the time when this took place, as well as the manner in which she was put to death, namely, that she was beheaded with the sword, at the time indicated above.[149]

[149] For further comments respecting Eugenia’s confession of faith, see the explanation which we shall append to the account of the death of Pelagius.

PELAGIUS, A LAD OF THIRTEEN YEARS, AFTER MUCH SUFFERING FOR THE TRUE CHRISTIAN FAITH, AT CORDOVA, HAS HIS ARMS AND LEGS CUT OFF, AND IS FINALLY BEHEADED, A. D. 925.

It is stated that about two years after, namely, A. D. 925, a lad of thirteen years, called Pelagius, was put to death for the name of Christ, in Cordova, which occurred as follows: His uncle, Ermoigus (who by some writers is called a bishop), having been apprehended and imprisoned at Cordova, by the Arabian King Habdarrhaghman, said Ermoigus, in order to be released, left his nephew, who was then only about thirteen years old, in his stead, as a pledge, which for more than three years was not redeemed, either through the neglect of his friends, or because the King would not let go the youth, who was now very comely and well-mannered.

In the mean time, this lad exercised himself diligently in the Christian religion, to prepare himself for his martyrdom, which seemed to him to be drawing near. When he was about thirteen and a half years old, he was brought before the King, and, standing there, immediately began to confess his faith, declaring that he was ready to die for it.[150] But the King, having in view something else than to hear the confession of the Son of God, or of the Christian faith, proposed to the youth, who was quite innocent in evil, some improper things, which this hero of Christ valiantly and in a Christian manner refused, willing rather, to die an honorable death for the name of Christ, than to live shamefully with the devil, and pollute both soul and body with such an abominable sin. The King, hoping that he could yet be persuaded, commanded his servants to ply him with fair promises, to the effect, that, if he would apostatize, he should be brought up with royal splendor at the court of the King. But the Lord, in whom he trusted, strengthened him against all the allurements of this world, so that he said: “I am a Christian, and will remain a Christian, and obey only Christ’s commands all the days of my life.”

[150] To die for the name of Christ, our author says.

The King, seeing that he remained steadfast, was filled with rage, and commanded his guards to take him, suspend him by iron tongs, and pinch him and haul him up and down until he should either die or renounce Christ as his Lord. But having undergone all this, he was as fearless as ever, and refused not to suffer still more tortures, even unto death.

When the tyrant perceived the immovable steadfastness of this youth, he commanded that they should cut him limb from limb, and throw the pieces into the river. As he thus stood before the King, dripping with blood, from his previous tortures, he prayed to none than to Jesus Christ our Lord, saying: “O Lord, deliver me out of the hands of my enemies.” When he lifted up his hands to God [in prayer], the executioners pulled them apart and cut off first one arm, and then the other; thus also his legs, and, lastly, his head. When this was done, the pieces were thrown into the river.

Thus this young hero and pious witness of Jesus Christ ended his life, on the 29th of June, A. D. 925, his martyrdom having lasted from seven o’clock in the morning until evening. See the first mentioned writer, who has given the account of the Arabian persecution, on the page referred to, third column, compared with Raguele in Append., ab Eulog., super Pelagium.

EXTRACT FROM THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK, TOUCHING THE MARTYRDOM OF THE YOUTH PELAGIUS.

“When Habdarrhaghman, the King of the Arabians, had, from bishop Ermoigus, his nephew Pelagius, as a pledge or hostage, the tyrant tore him with red-hot tongs; and, having been torn limb from limb, he was thrown into the nearest river, when he was scarcely thirteen years old.” Chron., 10th book, fol. 329, col. 1, from Merulae., fol. 621.

NOTE.--Neither of Eugenia nor of the youth Pelagius have we been able (as in the case of other martyrs before these), to ascertain the particulars of their confession of faith, though we have exerted ourselves not a little in this direction. It is almost as if the records which no doubt treated more fully of it, were buried in the earth, like the epitaph of Eugenia. O, that this were certain, and that the spot were known--without contradiction, no pains would be spared to obtain them, if it were possible; since thereby, according to our opinion, the bright light of evangelical truth would come to light pure and clear in many points; whereas now, others, especially those of the Roman church, have, whenever it has pleased them, dimmed and perceptibly obscured, with the smoke of their human inventions, the blessed confessors of Jesus Christ and their confessions.

But what do our lamentations avail? We must content ourselves with what has remained. It may be that said particular confessions, together with the records of the suffering and death of many other martyrs (of which we spoke in the beginning) were lost through the violence of the persecution, or perished in some other way.

This persecution has not been so fortunate an one for the searchers of ancient memoirs, as some of the preceding ones of which we know; for these other persecutions already spoken of, however severe and fierce they may have been, besides giving clearer light as regards the confessions, have through the carefulness of some writers, generally furnished and left for remembrance, a respectable number of martyrs either mentioned or unmentioned; while this persecution, although very many were slain in it, tells us of but two persons.

But though we, unable to obtain more, must content ourselves with the bare circumstances, still the aforementioned martyrs, Eugenia and Pelagius, shall not be esteemed the less by us; yet not, that we would regard them without fault in all points, for who on earth is perfect? but we hold that they were free from such blemishes as separate one from Christ or deprive him of the name of a true martyr, though he might suffer for his faith’s sake. The uprightness of said persons, in faith as well as in life, may readily be inferred from the circumstances mentioned in the account of the ancients, which, though brief and few, nevertheless indicate these things.

What the faith of Eugenia and Pelagius was, appears from their confessions. Eugenia is for this reason called martyr, which signifies according to the Greek language, the witness; by which name, even in and about the time of the apostles, those were wont to be called, who had laid down their lives, or, at least, had suffered much, for the pure and genuine testimony of Jesus their Savior.

Of the youth Pelagius, the authors write that he confessed his faith and declared that he was ready to die (upon said faith) for the name of Christ. Also, that in his suffering he called upon no other than his Lord Jesus Christ, saying: “O Lord, deliver me out of the hands of my enemies.”

Concerning the life of both of these martyrs, it appears to have been upright in every respect, as regards the grand resolution which each severally had--not only to confess the Lord with the mouth, and to follow him with works in the regeneration, but also to honor and magnify his holy name, by offering up their lives through a violent death; as well as that they not only had resolved and determined to do this, but also actually fulfilled their resolution, which is the most important of all.

From the accounts given we have learned that Pelagius said: “I am a Christian, and will remain a Christian, and obey only the commandments of Christ all the days of my life.” He desired to obey only the commands of his Savior, and not human inventions, and this, to the end of his life; which he also did, according to his ability. Moreover, we have not found anything, either of Eugenia or of Pelagius, in authentic writers, which conflicts with the above good testimony respecting the faith and life of said two persons; nor of priestcraft, nor of papal or episcopal inventions, nor of Roman factitious practices, although these things were much in vogue at that time. With this, we think to have treated the matter sufficiently, and hence we will leave it and proceed in our account.

A CRUEL PERSECUTION, INSTITUTED BY THE DANISH KING WORM AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS, A. D. 926.

It is recorded that A. D. 926, there appeared, from another quarter than the one of which we have spoken, namely, from Denmark, a cruel tyrant who was King of said country, and whose name accorded well with his deeds. His name was Worm, and whatever he did was gnawing, biting, and devouring, so that he inflicted much vexation, misery and grief upon the followers of the Christian faith, in persecuting, tormenting, and, as appears, killing and destroying them.

Of this tyrant, P. J. Twisck makes mention with these words: “At this time, there was in Denmark, King Worm, a cruel tyrant and persecutor of the Christian faith.” Chron., fol. 329, col. 1. from Leonh., lib. 4, fol. 190.

NOTE.--King Worm was not the first tyrant that had arisen in Denmark, seeing we spoke in the preceding century of the tyranny which the Danes then practiced against the Christian believers. Just before the account of this Danish persecution we lamented, and this, for good reasons, that not more than two martyrs are mentioned in the whole persecution; and but very little of their confessions, except the circumstances. But here we have still more reason for regret, since not a single person is mentioned of all those who were persecuted and martyred, though their number, it seems, was very great. Moreover, their confession of faith, upon which, nevertheless many, to all appearance, suffered and were martyred or put to death, is not mentioned at all. Still, this matter, is not utterly devoid of light or information, seeing it is stated of the tyrant who instituted said persecution, that he was a persecutor of the Christian faith.

Whether, then, he persecuted all who bore the name of Christians, or only the Christian believers (who seem to have been had in view here), it is evident, that the true and sincere believers, who, having no settled place of abode, being scattered throughout the world, did not escape; for they necessarily often had to live among the nominal, yea, among the wicked Christians, with whom they frequently, when distress arose, had to suffer, though not for the same reason. I will not speak of the fact that the wicked Christians themselves, whenever it pleased them, persecuted the faithful and good Christians exceedingly, and, after many torments, put them to death in a worse manner than the heathen did; so that, to all appearance, said tyrant, when he persecuted the Christian believers, or, as our author says, the Christian faith, he puts to death not a few, or, at least here, and there some, of the orthodox and true Christians, on account of their faith; besides what they often had to suffer from others.

Here we will let the matter rest, and will take a similar view, and judge in like manner, according to the nature and rule of divine love, also of other persecutions of the Christian believers, of which we may subsequently speak; taking care, however, not to present persecutions concerning which there may be evidence that those persecuted were not faithful and sincere, but merely apparent or professed Christians; for the former, we shall search, but the latter we shall avoid. We shall now proceed in our task.

A MISERABLE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, CAUSED BY UDO, THE PRINCE OF THE SLAVES (SLAVONIANS), A. D. 950.

About twenty-four years after the beginning of the aforementioned persecution, instituted by the Danish King, a very dark cloud arose over the Christian believers, from Slavonia, which threatened a heavy rain or outpouring of the blood of the innocent and defenseless Christians. For, one Udo, Prince of the Slaves, manifested himself very cruelly against the Christian believers, and proved to be a great tyrant over them. But he finally received his reward from one of his own stamp, though a Saxon, who took his life. Concerning this, we read in Chron. van den Onderg., page 334, col. 2, the following words (except the parenthesis): “Udo, the Prince of the Slaves, an atrocious persecutor of the Christians, and a great tyrant (who lived at this time), was thrust through by a Saxon.” From Hist. Andr., fol. 182.

Compare this account with the explanation contained in the note on the persecution of A. D. 926; as the circumstances of the persecution of A. D. 950 must be explained in the same manner.

NOTE.--A. D. 964, fourteen years after the last persecution, the Christians in Syria had to suffer much; yet not so much on their bodies as in their property. This was done through the violent pillage and burning perpetrated by the Saracens, of which I have found this account, among others: “A. D. 964, in the reign of this Emperor (namely, N. Phocas, the fifty-seventh who reigned in the Orient, at Constantinople), the Saracens did great damage to the Christians in Syria, by robbing and burning.” See P. J. Twisck, page 340, col. 1, from Chron. Melancth., lib. 4. Who shall say that this was not brought upon them on account of the confession of the Christian faith? or that among said people there were not some faithful and sincere Christians, who suffered for living according to their true faith? This could hardly be said, much less proved, since the orthodox, though sometimes few in number, could be found in almost every country; however, since said matter is obscure, we will not enter further into it.

A SEVERE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS, BY THE VANDALS, IN THE BORDERS OF HAMBURG, BRANDENBURG, HAVELBURG, AND THE ADJACENT COUNTRIES, A. D. 984.

In the time of Emperor Otho III., or A. D. 984, Mistavus, King of the Vandals, instituted (according to the testimony of the ancients) a severe persecution against the Christian believers, in the borders of Hamburg, Brandenburg, Havelburg, and the adjacent countries; we will say nothing of his tyranny at Altenburg, since this, as can be seen, was directed chiefly against the Romanists.

This persecution was caused by the hatred which the King of the Vandals held against Otho III., because the latter, having intended to give him his daughter in marriage, afterwards refused to do it, on account of the opposition of Theodoric, Margrave of Brandenburg, who said that he ought not to give such a noble maiden to a dog (so he called Mistavus, the King of the Vandals). Mistavus, enraged at this, resolved to revenge himself of it, yet not on those who had injured him, namely, Otho and Theodoric, who were the chiefs of said countries; but on their subjects, who were certainly quite innocent of that which their chiefs had done; but this is generally the case that subjects must suffer for the misdeeds of their rulers.

He then assailed those Christians who lived nearest, persecuting them in an atrocious manner, a grievous matter for human nature, but pleasant for the spirit, namely, of those who, through love, were inseparably united to their God and Savior, and, hence, could say with Paul: “Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Rom. 8:38,39.

Concerning the tyrant Mistavus, the author of their distress, it is stated that he raised a violent persecution, A. D. 984, against the Christians living in the countries lying nearest; also, that Hamburg, Brandenburg, and Havelburg, had their share of said persecution. Compare P. J. Twisck, page 348, col. 2, with the account of Merula, fol. 649, and Georg. Hist., lib. 5.

The reader, in order to understand aright our object in noting this persecution, will please read, and accept as explanatory of the last mentioned persecution, the different notes which we have placed throughout this century.

NOTE.--Seven years after the persecution which we have just related, namely A. D. 991, the Normans came from Denmark into Germany, where they began to greatly vex the Christians, which lasted about forty years, that is, for over thirty years after the close of this century. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 351, col. 1, from Chron. Avont, lib. 4. Vinc., fol. 502. Moreover, that the Arabians (of whom we made mention in our account of the first open persecution in this century, for the year 923), not only at this time, but from A. D. 622 to 1300, like a swarm of destructive grasshoppers, overran nearly every country of the known world, to the great distress and misery of many Christian believers, can be read at large in the history of the Turks; of which brief mention is made in A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 312, col. 4, and fol. 313, col. 1.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

[In the beginning of the eleventh century, the celebrated Anselm is introduced, who declares that baptism is the “fulfilling of all righteousness;” that the baptism of Christ is a “washing of water in the word;” that every one, in his day, was baptized in the name and the faith of God; that believers were then baptized upon, or in the name of Christ; that the adults had first to be instructed in the Christian doctrine; that after baptism one must not again lay the foundation of repentance from dead works, Heb. 6:1–3; that believers are brought into the church of Christ (understand, through baptism); that the twelve Ephesian men (Acts 19) were rebaptized by Paul.

Algerus speaks of the power and operation of God in baptism; also, that the lasciviousness of the flesh is quenched or washed off in or through baptism.

Buchard of Worms gives an excellent explanation touching baptism, saying that the examinations in the faith were for the purpose of ascertaining whether the holy words of the faith confessed, were rooted deeply in the heart of the candidate, and whether he intended to continue steadfastly in the faith.

Lanfrancus opposed infant baptism.

The testimony of Bruno and Berengarius against infant baptism as well as against transubstantiation is presented and amply commented on; the time when they began their doctrine, and when they finished the same; also their death.

A certain book of ceremonies by the ancient Beroldus is introduced; what we read in it concerning baptism: namely, of the first address made to the novices at baptism, the way of wisdom and faith, being presented to them.

An account of Ado Trevirensis, and to what he admonished the candidates of his time; also, how he baptized the believing woman Syranna and her son, after previous instruction.

The last witness adduced about baptism is Juo of Carnuto, who, besides various other matters, makes this salutary and true declaration with regard to baptism: “That the novices would confess the creed before baptism; that they were then, while answering, washed from the old wickedness; that their baptism took place on the holy Easter Sabbath, and that they were first instructed; that those who desired baptism had to throw off, by prayers, the yoke of the devil; that they were asked: Do you believe on God,” etc. Thereupon it is noted what said passages of Juo indicate. Finally it is shown that he also opposed monachism, discrimination as regards food. Conclusion.]

* * * * *

The thousandth year is finished; we have come to the years that follow it; which time is called the eleventh century. We will wander through it in our thoughts, and investigate how it then stood with the true church of God, whether the ordinances of Christ, especially in the matter of baptism; and its requirements, were rightly observed. In order to begin and finish this aright, we will turn to some of the ancient authors who wrote about the condition of said matters, at that time, or, at least, who subsequently made mention of what then occurred with regard to religion.

About A. D. 1010, or, as Jacob Mehrning puts it, “In the beginning of the eleventh century,” there manifested himself, by various writings, the celebrated and almost universally known Anselm, who, having at one time, it seems, advocated infant baptism, with divers forcible, yet human arguments, now and also subsequently showed, that the opposite belief had taken root in him; concerning which, it is stated, that there have remained even to the present day, several excellent things, which cannot well be reconciled with infant baptism, yea, which, when viewed with spiritual eyes, militate against it. Of these we will present a few as examples, confident that, if you judge impartially, you will concur with us, or, at least, assent to it.[151]

[151] With regard to what is attributed to Anselm, concerning the suspicion in reference to infant baptism, namely, that he (on Eph. 4 and Hebr. 10.) agreed with Meginhard (de Fide at Gunth.), we let those say, who can show more evidence of it, than we have yet met with. In the mean time, we have weighty reasons, which induce us to show the contrary concerning him. The same is true also with regard to what he is said to have written, touching said doctrine, on Matt. 15; 1 Cor. 7, and in Concordia Gratia, and lib. Arbitrii, etc.; which things as well as the above, we leave without comment, reserving our explanation of them to ourselves.

In Bapt. Hist., page 582, from Cent. Magd. XI., cap. 4, of baptism, Anselm teaches on Matt. 3, that baptism is necessary, and says: “Baptism is a fulfilling of all righteousness; a man may be never so righteous, pious, benevolent, abstemious, and chaste, yet, it avails him nothing, if he lacks the grace of holy baptism.”

It is evident that Anselm has regard here to what Jesus Christ our Savior said to John, when the latter refused to baptize him with water. “Suffer it to be so now,” the Lord said, “for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness,” Matt. 3:15; which took place, according to Luke 3:23, when Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, and the people, who came from Jerusalem, were baptized by John in Jordan.

It having been observed then that Anselm has regard to the baptism of Christ, and that Christ calls it the fulfilling of all righteousness, it is manifest, that he does not speak of infant baptism here, since in the same no righteousness at all, much less, all righteousness, can be fulfilled; which is the more obvious, when he says, in the same place, that however righteous, pious, benevolent, abstemious and chaste one might be, it would avail him nothing, if he lacked the grace of holy baptism: for, righteousness, piety, etc., are not exercises or works of infants, but only of intelligent, yea, of devout persons.

On the same page, Anselm, on Ephes. 5, says: “The baptism of Christ is a washing of water in the word; if you take away the water, it is no baptism; if you take away the word, it is likewise no baptism.”

What else is indicated thereby, than that the word of God cannot be separated from baptism? which word of God, in baptism, does not consist simply in this, that a few words of holy Scripture are pronounced in or over baptism, or over those who are baptized; but that the word of faith is preached to the candidates, before and at baptism. Mark 16:15,16; Rom. 10:8.

On page 583, num. 6, Anselm (Enarrat. in Evang.) says: “That the Father was heard in a voice; that the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove; and that the Son, in his humanity, was baptized; this clearly indicates the Holy Trinity, in whose name and in the belief of which, every one of us is baptized.”

Here he again has reference to the baptism of Christ, concerning which the holy evangelists state, that, when he, being about thirty years of age, was baptized, the heavens were opened above him; that the Holy Ghost descended like a dove upon him; and that a voice came from heaven (or, from God, his heavenly Father) saying: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matt. 3:16,17; Mark 1:10,11; Luke 3:22.

All this, as has been stated above, can serve only as a type of the baptism of the adult, intelligent, and believing followers of Christ; which Anselm plainly indicates, when he says: “In whose name and in the belief of which, every one of us is baptized.” Notice, when he says, “Every one of us,” etc., he indicates each severally and all in general, namely, all who belodged as members to the church of Christ; so that, according to the language employed by him, each and all among them were baptized, not only in the name of the Holy Trinity, but also in or upon the belief of the same.

On page 585, Anselm, on Rom. 6, says: “We are baptized into the death of Christ, that we, believing in his death, and following it, may live as those who are dead; but since we, through baptism, are dead to sin, we must not again live unto sin, so that it is necessary again to die unto it; for, we are baptized into the death, that is, in the likeness of the death, of Christ; that, as he once died, and ever lives, even so we, having once died to evil, should ever live to the good; and, as a dead person can sin no more; thus also we, if we have died with Christ, shall not let ourselves be entangled again in mortal sins.”

The sense of the words of Anselm is this: that we must be careful, not to live in sin again after baptism, since the former sins, in which we lived, have died through baptism, and have been laid in the grave as it were, through the death of Christ. Hence, said words can only be applied to the baptism of the believing and penitent, but in no wise to the baptism of infants; because it is certain that the things indicated as requisite for baptism cannot exist in infants. For, how can baptism be, in infants, a dying of their former sins, when they have never lived in sin? How can they have their sins buried, through baptism, into the death of Christ, who never could nor need die unto sin?

Thus, Anselm, in the aforementioned passage, speaks only of the baptism of the adult, intelligent, and penitent Christians, who, having died unto their former sins, had them buried through baptism into the death of Christ, to rise to a new life.

Page 588, num. 6, Anselm writes on Matt. 3: “The adults had first to be instructed in the Christian doctrine.” S. Clement and others imposed upon those who had lived in wickedness, and, becoming converted, desired to be baptized, a fast of seven days, and sometimes more, as a preparation; moreover, a considerable time, before baptism was also prescribed to the catechumens who were to be baptized.

N. B. “Thus,” says the writer who has noted this, “the light of the testimony of the truth shines forth brightly in the midst of the darkness of popery.”

We will not enlarge on what the writer has added here, but turn to words of Anselm, which we cannot view without plainly seeing that he treats of the baptism of the believing and penitent; for, when he speaks of the adults; of those who were first instructed in the Christian doctrine; of those who, having lived in wickedness, becoming converted; of those who desired to be baptized; of the seven days’ fast imposed upon them; of the considerable time prescribed the catechumens who were to be baptized, etc., it is clearly expressed thereby, that the baptism of which he here speaks, is far different from the baptism of infants, since these things can in no wise be said of them.

On page 593, num. 5, D. Vicecomes quotes, lib. 2, cap. 4, the following language of Anselm on the words of Paul, Heb. 6:1–3: “We will not lay again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of baptism, of doctrine, etc., that is, the doctrine which was delivered to you in the beginning.”

He explains the words of the apostle (Heb. 6:1–3), which, as every one knows, were written to the believing Hebrew brethren, who, having accepted Christ at the beginning of their faith, had had the same sealed through baptism. They are here exhorted to constancy in the faith accepted, and that they should not return to the principles of the Christian religion, upon which they had been baptized, but must go on to the perfection of the same. This is what Anselm, from said words, sought to impress, in his time, upon his fellow-believers in the faith, to the end, that they might observe their baptism and the confession of the same, to the honor of God, the edification of their neighbor, and the salvation of their own souls.

On same page, Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 35, Anselm, on Luke 2, says: “Even as Jesus, after the purification, was brought into the temple, so those who become believers, are brought into the church of Christ.”

When he speaks of those who, becoming believers, are brought into the church of Christ, he has respect to such as, having been baptized upon faith, are through this means, recognized and received as members in the Christian church; for this is the purpose for which this passage of Anselm is adduced in Bapt. Hist.

As to the twelve Ephesian men, of whom we read, Acts 19:1–5, who had been baptized with the baptism of John, he asserts in his explanation on Matt. 3, that they were re-baptized by Paul, assigning as a reason of this, that the baptism of John could not properly give remission of sins, because the blood of Christ which blots out sin, had not then been shed; again, because John, who was a forerunner of Christ’s preaching, was also (according to his explanation) a forerunner of baptism.

About A. D. 1024, close to, or a little after, the time of Anselm, a place is given to one Algerus, who, though writing somewhat obscurely on baptism, gives so much light on the subject, that an impartial Christian heart can readily decide from it, that, in said matter, he followed the evangelical truth, according to the doctrine of Christ and the practice of his apostles; in proof of which we will present a few examples.

In Bapt. Hist, page 583.--Algerus says (lib. 3, de Euchar. cap. 3): “Who can regenerate a child of the devil to a child of God, except God the Father? Who can justify sinners, except he who died for our sins? And, since every thing which is done in baptism, is spiritual, who can perform it, except the Holy Ghost?”

He tells in the above place, whence baptism has its power, and whence its operations chiefly proceed; and, certainly, he does not seek, find, or show it in the water, as is done by many who, at the present day, baptize infants, especially by the Romanists; but he seeks, finds, and shows it in the operation of God the Lord, whom he calls by the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. To God the Father he ascribes, that he regenerates the candidate from a child of the devil to a child of God. Of the Son he states, that he, having died for our sins, justifies sinners when they are baptized. Of the Holy Ghost he says, that, since all that is done in baptism, is spiritual, so all that is effected in baptism, is spiritually performed by the Holy Ghost. Now, let every one judge, without prejudice, whether such operations can have place in infants, or in adults (when they are baptized); and we are confident that the instant reply will be, that not the former, but the latter, is conformable to the truth.

Page 585, num. 9. Of the power and benefit of baptism, Algerus says (lib. 3, de Euchar., cap. 4,): “In order that the grace of God may abound over us, it has reference, in the sacramental form (namely, of baptism) not so much to worthiness and respectability, as to their equal fitness; for, as water quenches, cleanses and purifies, better than all other liquids, even so baptism quenches the lasciviousness of the flesh, and washes off the impurity of sin, of actual sins as well as,” etc.

Here, again, several things are mentioned, which are not applicable to infant baptism, but speak sufficiently against it. For, in the first place, when it is here said of the grace of God, that it has reference, in the sacramental form (namely, of baptism) not so much to the worthiness or respectability, namely, of the persons to whom the sacramental form, or baptism, may be administered, as to their equal fitness; there is certainly indicated, in the candidates, some fitness to which the grace of God has regard; but what fitness can there be in the candidates, to which the grace of God may have regard, if it is not faith in Jesus Christ, true repentance, obedience to God’s commandments, and such like things as are requisite to baptism?

In the second place, when it is averred in said passage, “that baptism quenches the lasciviousness of the flesh, and washes off the impurity of sin, of actual sin as well as,” etc., it is evident, again, that he treats of such a baptism and of such candidates, wherein lasciviousness of the flesh, impurity of sin, yea, actual sins, etc., can be washed off; for, otherwise he would contradict himself. But what kind of persons these are, in whom such sins can have place, and who need to be washed from them, whether infants or adult persons are meant thereby, the intelligent may judge.

About A. D. 1042.--Or almost in the middle of the eleventh century, Buchard of Worms (in Germany) flourished, who makes mention, among other things, of the examinations in the faith, to which it was customary, either in his time or before, to subject the candidates, at baptism. Concerning this, D. Vicecomes (lib. 2, cap. 28), in his allegations respecting baptism in the eleventh century, gives the following account, which is also found in Bapt. Hist., page 592, num. 1: “Buchard of Worms (lib. 6, de Sacram. Eccles.) says: ‘The examinations are for the purpose of ascertaining whether he (the candidate), after renouncing Satan, has the holy words of the faith confessed, deeply rooted in his heart, and intends to continue steadfastly in the faith.’”

This is certainly plain language concerning baptism upon faith and the confession of the same, according to the institution of Christ, and the example of the apostles and the first apostolical church; hence we need add not a word of explanation, and will therefore proceed to others who, in or about that time, taught the same doctrine, and, as much as lay in their ability, confirmed it in their deeds.

A. D. 1051.--This is the year in which the learned Lanfrancus, who also showed himself opposed to infant baptism, and dissuaded from it, is introduced by the writers. See P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 383, col. 1, from Guitmundus, and Sebastian Franck, fol. 58.

A. D. 1060.--Two eminent, learned, and well-meaning persons, who were greatly celebrated on account of their great learning and boldness, at this time displayed their greatest strength in rejecting infant baptism and other articles of the Roman church. One of these was Bruno, Bishop of Angiers in France; the other, Berengarius, his deacon. They had begun to teach said doctrine as early as the year 1035, and continued therein for many years, yea, Berengarius, besides the article against transubstantiation, maintained it, as the chronicles show, until the year 1079.

But, in order to sum up all this briefly, we will present what is recorded, concerning this matter, in the Introduction to the Martyrs Mirror, page 48, col. 2, we read: “In A. D. 1035, Berengarius, archdeacon of Angiers, in France, together with Bruno, the Bishop of said city, began to teach against transubstantiation and infant baptism. Their doctrine immediately spread throughout all France and Germany. Against it, Pope Leo IX. held, A. D. 1050, two Synods, one at Rome, the other at Versailles (Baron., A. D. 1050, num. 1), in which the doctrine of these two men was condemned.

Afterwards, when Berengarius did not cease to promulgate his doctrine, another synod was held, A. D. 1055, at Tours in France (Baron., A. D. 1055, num. 4), in which Berengarius feigned repentance; but as soon as Hildebrand, who afterwards became Pope, had gone away, he again maintained his doctrine.

“Afterwards, Pope Nicholas II. held a Synod (Baron., A. D. 1059, num. 3, 4), and summoned Berengarius before it, who, for the second time, either from fear or human weakness, pretended to recant, burning the writings of Johannes Scotus, from which he had derived his views respecting transubstantiation; but seeing immediately opportunity again, he returned to his old belief; and composed different writings concerning it, against which some others have written.

“Subsequently, Hildebrand, who had now become Pope, and was called Gregory VII., held a synod in Rome, A. D. 1079, where, as Baronius, who judges as a Romanist and papist, says, Berengarius, again renounced his doctrine. But how true this is, we leave to God.

“It is evident,” says the author to the Introduction, “that he maintained this doctrine for forty-four years, and filled Germany and France with it; from which it can be inferred, that the same, even as it had itself proceeded from previously existing writings, in its turn left many disciples.” Introd., page 48, col. 2, and 49, col. 1.

But though the doctrine of Bruno and Berengarius commenced in the year 1035 and ended about A. D. 1079, as far as these two persons are concerned (for, otherwise it is a doctrine that began with Christ and will end only at the end of the world), yet, said doctrine displayed its greatest power, through these two persons, and encountered the most opposition, about the year 1060, as appears from the account of Jac. Mehrning and H. Montanus, who unanimously state the following:

“A. D. 1060, Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius, his deacon, rejected infant baptism.” See Guitmundus, Bishop of Avers, and Durandus, Bishop of Luyck. These are their words: “Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius of Tours, annul the baptism of infants as much as is in their power; so that they, discarding infant baptism, counsel men to plunge themselves without fear into the deep abyss of all manner of wickedness; saying that they are not to be baptized, until they attain to years of understanding.” Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., pp. 591, 592. H. Montan. Nietighd., pages 82, 83, from Guitm. in Principio Dialogi de Veritate Eucharistiae. Durand, in Epist. contra Brunon and Berengarium; also, Baron., A. D. 1035, num. 1; also, Alan., lib. 1, contra Hæretic. sui Temporis, pages 103, 104, 105.

It seems that the matter of the accusation of these two men, Bruno and Berengarius, rose to such a pitch, that they were subjected to an examination, in order to ascertain the grounds of their faith, and to judge them accordingly.

The author of an anonymous manuscript found in the library of Baron Caraw. de Clepton., writes of the examination of said Bruno, saying, that he himself was present when Bruno, the defender of Berengarius, was interrogated in regard to his faith; and that they both, Bruno and Berengarius, said that infant baptism was not necessary to salvation. See also J. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 685.

About A. D. 1068.--D. Vicecomes quotes from a manuscript book of ceremonies, by Beroldus, which, treating of certain religious ceremonies of that time, makes mention also of baptism, and how it was administered then among those of whom he writes. But, to come to the matter; when, noting from this book, the first address made to novices (whom he terms children, according to the manner of Christ, who also called his disciples children, John 21:5), he says, that, the door having been opened, they were thus addressed: “Enter, ye children, into the house of God; hear your father (the teacher) teach you the way of wisdom.” Bapt. Hist., page 592, num. 3, Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 43.

He then relates what occurred when the doors were closed, and the novices were in the assembly; how the bishop or teacher then delivered to them the symbol, that is, the creed; and how he presented or repeated to them the faith, according to the language of the gospels, and then said: “Hear the faith: I believe on God the Father.” Above page, Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 14.

The other circumstances related there we pass by; it suffices us to have seen that then the novices (before they were baptized), were taught the way of wisdom; that the faith was presented to them, and that they were instructed in it, which are things that cannot be done with infants, and, hence, prove, that in the church where this practice was observed, infant baptism was unknown, or, at least, was not practiced there.

About A. D. 1076, or right after Beroldus, one Ado, surnamed Trevirensis, a teacher of that time, is introduced; of whom it is stated that, in administering baptism, he admonished the candidates not only in the knowledge of the faith, but also to the practice of it, that is, to fast, to humble themselves. Of these matters an instance is given, which is related as follows in Bapt. Hist., page 593, num. 4: “When a certain woman, called Syranna, became a believer, he (Ado) thanked God for her, imposed a fast upon her, and told her how she should humble herself, and having thus instructed her, together with her son, he baptized them.” Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 12.

A. D. 1090.--At this time lived and wrote, it is stated, the teacher and historian Juo, surnamed Carnotensis, from the place Carnuto, where he resided. According to the testimony of ancient writers, he opposed common popery in various points of doctrine, teaching in such a manner concerning the only Mediator, Christ Jesus, church-service, against monachism, against the difference of meats, and of the Supper, that the papists took offense thereat, and considered him a seditious and schismatical person.

NOTE.--Juo Carnotensis makes some mention also of the origin of infant baptism, how the same arose in the Roman church. “The church,” he says, “having now been sufficiently spread and gathered among the Gentiles; in order that her children, who departed this life before they had attained to the years of understanding, might not remain strangers to the communion of Christ, it was desired to provide them with this medicine of salvation (with baptism); and thus they were baptized with the sacrament of faith.” Bapt. Hist., pp. 587, 588, from Cent. Magd. XI., cap. 6.

However, it is not our purpose to write here of all these things; partly, because this, through default of the authors, cannot be done circumstantially; and partly, because we only intended to write something of baptism, with regard to which we will also adduce the testimony of Juo. What he may have written concerning this subject, in other respects, while he was yet unenlightened, we pass by, and will only speak of that which he, when he had become enlightened and had attained to knowledge, wrote salutarily and correctly on this article.

Bapt. Hist., page 588, num. 6, Juo writes: “To the hearers of the new life, the apostolic creed is delivered, which they publicly confess before baptism.” Ex Meginh. de Fide.

Page 590, num. 14, the following is quoted from Juo: “During the answers to the threefold question, the catechumen (that is, the novice who has learned the faith) is washed from the filth of the old wickedness (namely, through baptism), and puts on the new man.”

Page 594, num. 7. D. Vicecomes (lib. 1, cap. 25) quotes the following account from Juo: “Then those who were to be baptized on the holy Easter Sabbath, were led, in the fourth week of the forty days’ fast, and on the fourth day of said week, to the church (or, to the assembly), to be taught and examined in the catechism (that is, in the instruction of the faith), and further instructed, how they should fight against spiritual wickedness; yet, their baptism was deferred till holy Easter Sabbath.” Serm. de Sacram. Initiat.

Same page as above. “On that day, those who desire baptism, come to the church (or, to the assembly), that they may be received into the order (or number) of the catechumens, and may throw off, by holy prayers, the yoke of the devil.” D. Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 30.

Page 595.--Juo (from August.) adduces these words: “At the water of baptism, before we baptized you, we asked: Do you believe on God the Almighty?” D. Vicecom., lib. 4, cap. 7.

From these five passages of Juo it is evident, virtually as well as from the circumstances, that he treats of no other baptism than that which is accompanied with instruction, faith, confession of the faith, and observance of the same; in short, that he speaks of a baptism which, as appears from his own words, cannot well, yea, not at all, be reconciled with infant baptism. For, in the first passage he makes mention of a creed, which the candidates had to confess publicly before baptism. In the second passage he speaks of the answers which the catechumens gave to the threefold question put to them before baptism; and that they were then washed from the filth of the old wickedness, and did put on the new man. In the third passage he relates how those who were to be baptized on the holy Easter Sabbath, were first examined in the faith, and further instructed, in the fourth week of the forty days’ fast. In the fourth passage he says that on that day those who desired baptism, came to the church or assembly, to be received into the order or number of the catechumens, and to pray. In the fifth passage he mentions what the candidates were asked at the water of baptism, namely, whether they believed on God, the Almighty.

All these are things that pertain only to the adult and intelligent, and cannot be comprehended, much less practiced by infants.

We will conclude this with the account of P. J. Twisck, who, besides what he has mentioned concerning baptism, briefly notices several other articles which Juo taught contrary to the common belief of the Roman church. He writes: “Juo, Bishop of Carnuto, zealously taught of Christ, the only Mediator, of church-service, against monachism, against the difference of meats, and of the Supper.” Chron., page 416, col. 2, from Catal. Test., Tom. 2, fol. 346.

It is very probable, since we have never heard of his having recanted, that this Juo, who began his doctrine, or, at least, maintained it the most vigorously, in the year 1090, continued therein to the end, and thus concluded the eleventh century with it. Hence, we will close here, and see which pious witnesses of Jesus Christ suffered at this time.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

[A simile of the moonlight and the stars, which shine most in the darkest nights, forms the beginning of our account, representing the condition of this time.

Fourteen persons, the chiefest of whom was called Stephen, are burned as heretics, for the testimony of the truth, by the papists, A. D. 1022, at Orleans in France.

Then follows a note concerning the accusations brought against the aforementioned persons; and also, further observations touching said fourteen martyrs, according to the accounts of various papistic and other writers, noted in the Second Book of the Persecutions, fol. 437, col. 3, 4.

The great craftiness of the Papist, Gretserus, in altering the titles of the books of the ancients, to the detriment of the belief of the Waldenses; some of their martyrs called firstlings, which is circumstantially noticed in the margin.

Some pious Christians at Goslar, called Manicheans by the papists, hanged for the confession of the evangelical truth, A. D. 1052. It is shown, 1. that they claimed to lead a true apostolical life; 2. that they would neither lie nor swear; 3. that they maintained that the sacrament of the altar was nothing but bread; 4. that they denied baptism, that is, infant baptism. One papist, as Thuan against Radulph, etc., opposed to each other in their testimony against these people.

Henry and Alfuard, two good Christians, the former beheaded in the uttermost parts of Sweden, the latter slain among the Normans, for defending the evangelical doctrine, A. D. 1067.

Marginal notice explanatory of their belief.

Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius, his deacon, are condemned in different councils, through the Roman Pope, on account of their views against infant baptism, transubstantiation, the mass, etc.; the first time, A. D. 1050, both together; the second time, A. D. 1079, Berengarius alone. The inconstancy of Berengarius in some matters is shown, but also his sorrow for it, and his perseverance to the end, on account of which he is accounted among the martyrs.

Many of the followers of Berengarius, called Berengarians, are anathematized by order of the Pope, at Piacenza, in Italy, A. D. 1095, and afterwards persecuted unto death, about A. D. 1100. Conclusion.]

* * * * *

Even as the shining moon and the glittering stars give the most light, and adorn the blue expanse of heaven the most gloriously, in the darkest nights, so it was also after A. D. 1000, as regards spiritual matters, which concern the honor of God and the salvation of the souls of men. For, about the year 1000, as well as many years before and after, but particularly then, the world lay sunken, as it were, in an arctic, six-month’s night, through the thick, and palpable darkness, which had arisen, with heavy vapors of superstitions, from the Roman pit. Yet, notwithstanding the state of the times, some undefiled persons, as bright heavenly signs, and stars, began to shine forth the more, and to let their light of evangelical truth illumine the dark nights of papal error. Yea, some, like the polar star, served as a sign to sail by; I mean, to accomplish safely and in a godly manner, through the turbulent waves of perverted worship and human inventions, the journey to the heavenly fatherland. Others, like the morning-star, or the lovely, blushing Aurora, announced the approaching day; we mean, they pointed to the true day of the Christian and evangelical worship of God, and revealed it, as much as they were able, to those who sat in the darkness of error.

We will no longer speak by simile; what we mean is this: That there were men in those dark times, who maintained God’s truth, in various points, according to the needs of that time, and bore witness to and sealed it not only with the mouth, but with the deed, yea, with their blood and death.

FOURTEEN PERSONS, THE CHIEFEST OF WHOM WAS CALLED STEPHEN, BURNED AS HERETICS FOR THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRUTH, BY THE PAPISTS, AT ORLEANS, IN FRANCE, NEAR THE CLOSE OF A. D. 1022.

A. D. 1022, near the close of the year, it seems, or, at the latest, A. D. 1023, there were apprehended and publicly burned, in France, in the presence of King Robert, an account of heresy (so-called by the papists), certain fourteen persons, some of whom were common people, while the others were of noble descent,[152] and of whom the chiefest was called Stephen. They were accused of having spoken evil of God, and the holy sacraments, that is, of holy baptism (namely, infant baptism, for this was what the papists generally practiced, and concerning which disputes were of frequent occurrence), and of the body and blood of the Lord (that is, the sacrament of the altar, which the Romanists were wont to call the body and blood of the Lord); also of marriage, etc.

[152] Laymen and nobles, etc., the papist writer says.

“This appears,” says the writer, “to have been the first execution (that is, by burning), of persons accused of heresy in the Roman church.” Continuing he says: “In an old book we find an account, that this heresy was brought into this country from across the sea, namely, from Bulgaria, and that thence it was spread into other provinces, where it subsequently was much in vogue, principally in Languedoc, around Toulouse, and in Gascony.”

He also states there, that the people who maintained this doctrine, were called Albigeois, and also Bulgarians, because they came from Bulgaria. Vignierii Hist. Eccl., A. D. 1022, ex Glabro and Massonio in Annalibus, and alio Antiquo Authore, compared with Abr. Mell., fol. 381, col. 2, and fol. 436, col. 1.

Touching the accusations which were brought against the aforementioned fourteen persons, they were, as is related: That they had spoken against the article concerning God; against the holy sacraments, both baptism and the sacrament of the altar; against marriage, etc.; on account of which there was inflicted upon them the very cruel, dreadful, and miserable death by fire.

But what they believed and maintained with regard to said points, according to the account of impartial writers, shall be amply explained afterwards, in the Confession of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who held the same belief; since said persons are held to have been the firstlings of those who maintained the doctrine of the Albigenses (though long before their general rising). See the authors cited above, especially the last one.

Then it will be seen, that they believed and spoke nothing but what we at the present day believe and speak; also, as regards baptism, that they baptized believers, and opposed infant baptism; and, touching the Supper, that they observed it according to the institution of Christ, but rejected the mass and transubstantiation; again, that they denied revenge, the swearing of oaths, auricular confession, the invocation of departed saints, purgatory, etc.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS TOUCHING SAID FOURTEEN MARTYRS, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS PAPISTIC AND OTHER WRITERS, NOTED IN A. MELLINUS’ SECOND BOOK OF THE PERSECUTIONS, FOL. 437, COL. 3, 4.

“Robert Altisidorensis states of said martyrs of Orleans, that they were of the best or chiefest laymen of Orleans, and that for this reason a council was convened there against them, in which they were unanimously condemned and sentenced, as heretics, to the fire; and that they were thus burned alive.”

This testimony is confirmed by Johannes, a monk of Floriax, who gives a somewhat fuller account of the matter, in his letter to Oliva or Olivarius, abbot of the church of Ansona, saying: “Meanwhile I will inform thee of this heresy (thus he calls the true faith of these people), which was on Innocent’s day, in the city of Orleans; for it is the truth if thou hast heard aught of it. King Robert caused fourteen of the best or most nobly born laymen of said city to be burned alive; who, (O, what a great falsehood!) abominable before God, and hated by heaven and earth, utterly denied the grace of holy baptism (he means infant baptism, for thereupon the grace of salvation was promised to children, which these men denied) as well as the consecration of the body and blood of the Lord, and denied that one could thereby obtain remission of sins, after he had committed a crime.” Masson Annal. Franc., lib. 3, in Hugo and Robert.

Glaber Radulphus (in Hist. Gall., lib. 3, cap. 8), gives a much more circumstantial account of these martyrs, relating not only how this (so called) heresy was discovered, but also how it was brought to Orleans and propagated; which we, in order to be brief, pass by.

He mentions, among others, two of these people by name, namely, Heribert and Lisoius, who were greatly esteemed and beloved by the king and the lords of the realm, as long as their case was not known. Glaber further relates how they were discovered. They sought, at Rouen, to bring a certain priest over to their belief, through some whom they probably had expressly sent to this priest, to expound to him the mystery of their doctrine, and who endeavored to persuade him by saying that very soon all the people would fall over to them.

When the priest understood this, he immediately went to Richard, the Count of that city, and told him the whole matter. The latter instantly sent letters by express messengers to the King, informing him of this secret pestilence (as he calls the true faith). King Robert, much grieved at this, without delay convened a council of many bishops, abbots, and other religious persons (thus he calls this bloodthirsty council), and, through them, caused very strict investigations to be made, both as to the authors and the adherents of said heresy. When inquiry was made among the laymen, as to what the belief and faith of each several one was, the aforesaid Heribert and Lisoius immediately discovered themselves, that they differed in their belief from the Roman church, and afterwards others also declared that they adhered to Heribert and Lisoius, and that they could in no wise be drawn away from their faith. Being interrogated more closely, whence and by whom this presumption had originated, they gave this answer: “This is what you have long called a sect, which you now, though late, recognize. But we have waited for a long time, that you as well as all others, of whatever law or order, might come over and unite with this sect; which, we also believe, will yet take place.”

They then immediately presented their belief, undoubtedly after the manner of the Albigenses and Waldenses, as shall be shown hereafter.

When the King and all those present saw that they could not be moved from their belief, he commanded that a very large fire of wood should be kindled not far from the city, in order that perhaps, terrified thereby, they might desist from their belief. But when they were about to be led out to the fire, they cried aloud, saying, that they greatly longed for it, and gave themselves into the hands of those who were to draw them to the fire. They, thirteen in number, were committed to the flames, and all who afterwards were found to be their adherents, were put to death by the same means.

Again, in the records of the parish church of Orleans, called St. Maximus’ church, the time is specified, when this took place. It occurred, it is there stated, publicly at Orleans, A. D. 1022, in the twenty-eighth year of King Robert, on the fifth induction, when the arch-heretic Stephen and his companions were condemned at Orleans, and burnt.

The above citations are taken from the writings of papists; hence, the reader is admonished, to judge charitably with regard to the accusations which these inveterate adversaries have so bitterly cast up against these pious witnesses of Jesus Christ.

NOTE.--We have related above, that said fourteen martyrs have been considered, by the ancients, as the firstlings of the Waldenses; but the papists called them heretics. However, this is not to be wondered at; since, in the course of time, they adopted the practice of calling heretics and the Waldenses by the same name. Of this we will present a few examples. The priest Reinerius wrote a book, which he called, Summa contra Hæreticos, that is, “A Summary against the Heretics.” To this book the Jesuits subsequently gave the title Contra Waldenses, or, “Against the Waldenses;” as if all the errors opposed in said book, were peculiar to the Waldenses, which is as untrue as falsehood itself. Compare Reinerius’ book with A. M., 2d book, fol. 437, col. 4.

Everhard Berthuniensis gave to his book the title, Antiheretisin, which is equivalent to saying Against Heretics, etc.; but the Jesuit Gretserus, when he published said book, called it, Everhardus contra Waldensen; as if Everhard had written only against the Waldenses, notwithstanding only the smallest part militates against them. Nevertheless, it was sought, by this title, to accuse the poor Waldenses of all the heresies mentioned in that book.

Afterwards, one Ermegard wrote a book against the grossly erring spirits who maintained in their confession, that the world and all visible things were not created by God, but (O what an awful falsehood!) by Satan; which belief is imputed, by most of the ancient writers, to the Manicheans; yet, the last mentioned falsifier, namely, Gretserus, has not hesitated to head such a page of said book, Ermegard against the Waldenses; though the author specially refuted the Manicheans, with whom the Waldenses had nothing in common. See the abovementioned authors and books, and also the comments of Balthasar Lydius on the disputations of said persons. Hence it follows from the foregoing, that it need not seem strange to the reader, that the papists called the orthodox Waldenses, or, at least, such as opposed the Roman doctrine, as well as the priests and monks, by the odious name of Manicheans or heretics, as was frequently the case, and shall presently be shown, with regard to the good martyrs, who, through the malice of the papists, were hanged at Goslar.

SOME PIOUS CHRISTIANS, CALLED MANICHEANS AND HERETICS BY THE PAPISTS, HANGED FOR THE CONFESSION OF THE EVANGELICAL TRUTH, AT GOSLAR, A. D. 1052.

It grieves us to our very soul, that in regard to the testimonies of the holy martyrs, we have to resort to the writings of papists, their most inveterate enemies, as well as to other writers who did not hold the same faith with us, and who, consequently, made the faithful records of the pious witnesses of Jesus our Savior incline to their opinion, and explained them according to their own views. This mischief has met us before, and now again falls to our lot; still, we hope that the intelligent and attentive reader will distinguish light from darkness, and judge impartially, and as a Christian.

Herman Contractus, Count of Veringen, writes at the close of his life, hardly one or two years before his death, of certain persons at Goslar, who were accused by their adversaries, the Romanists, of being Manicheans; for at that time no other or better name was known for the true Christians, who were opposed to the Roman church, notwithstanding they had nothing at all in common with the Manicheans; and thus this Herman Contractus, a strong maintainer of the papal religion, also called these persons, after Roman fashion, Manicheans, saying: “The Emperor Henry III. (some say II.), A. D. 1052, celebrated, at Goslar, the Lord’s birthday, and there caused some heretics (thus he calls the true Christians), who, among other perverse opinions according to the sect of the Manicheans, abhor the eating of all kinds of meat (which he unjustly imputes to these people, as shall be shown), and who were condemned, by common consent (of the bishops or lords of the realm), as heretics; to be hanged on the gallows, in order that the contagion should not spread further and contaminate many others. Herm. Contr. Chron., A. D. 1052.

But they cared not so much (A. Mellinus writes), about the eating of flesh, as about many other points of doctrine, which Herman Contractus passes over silently; namely, such as Radulph Ardens makes mention of, relating that at the close of said century there were some (so-called) Manicheans at Aix la Chapelle in France. He there says (Homil. Dominical 8, post Trinit.): “Such are at the present day the Manichean heretics, who have polluted our country of Aix la Chapelle with their heresy; who pretend to lead a true apostolical life, saying that they do not lie; that they do not swear, and, under the cloak of abstemiousness, they reject the eating of flesh. They also maintain that the sacrament of the altar is nothing but mere bread; they deny baptism (namely, infant baptism, for this was the point in question) and say that none can be saved but those who are baptized by their hands.”

It is true that said papistic writer charges them with several other things as belonging to their doctrines, of which we deem it unnecessary to speak here, since Mellinus to whom we referred above, answers all these for us, saying (2d book, fol. 437): “All these errors, except that of baptism and of the mass or transubstantiation (that is, against the mass and transubstantiation), are unjustly imputed to them by these papistic authors, as Thuan, writing of the Waldenses, himself confesses (Hist. sui temp. A. D. 1550). He then quotes from Thuan the confession of these people, in which no errors at all, much less Manichean heresies, are found; but which contains chiefly such things as are publicly taught by us, at the present day, and maintained with the power and authority of the holy and divine Scriptures, against the superstitions of popery.

Having quoted the confession of these people, from Thuan, Mellinus says: “This is certainly a square and unfeigned confession of Thuan, which alone is sufficient to refute all the preceding slanders (namely, which had been flung against the holy martyrs).”

Thus, even according to the testimony of the papist Thuan, and the statement of the Calvinistic Mellinus, the abovementioned martyrs were not guilty of Manichean errors; they only spoke against the Roman church, principally in the matter of baptism (that is, infant baptism) and in regard to the mass or transubstantiation; hence, they may be reckoned among the true witnesses of Jesus Christ, who testified to their living faith, not only with the mouth, but also with their blood, yea, with their death; and whom the Lord will hereafter, in the resurrection of the just, reward and crown, according to his promise. Rev. 2:10.

NOTE.--We here place one papist against another: Thuan against Radulph. In the meantime, we are induced to receive the best testimony concerning said martyrs from these two differing writers; since they both had no other purpose than to speak to the detriment of said people. Thuan says: “Their points of doctrine are said to be these: That the Roman church has forsaken the true Christian faith; that she is the Babylonian whore, and the dead tree which Christ cursed and commanded to be cut down; that therefore no obedience is to be rendered to the Pope and the Bishops who consent to his errors; that Monachism is a veritable sink of all the corruption of the church, and an infernal pool; that all monastic vows are vain and unavailing, and tend only to lasciviousness; that the orders of the priesthood are marks of the great beast, of which mention is made in the Apocalypse; that purgatory, the mass, church consecration, the worship of saints, masses for the dead, etc., are genuine inventions and institutions of Satan. These, says the writer, are the principal and certain articles of their doctrine. The others, concerning marriage (that they deemed it evil), the resurrection (that they denied it), the state of the soul after death (that they spoke improperly of it), and concerning meats (that they rejected all eating of flesh), are unjustly imputed to them. Thuan in Hist. de Waldens. Temp., A. D. 1550, compared with A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 437, col. 3.

We have shown this the more circumstantially, to demonstrate the innocence of said martyrs, and that their doctrinal points were not Manichean heresies, but strictures upon the Roman church, which stirred up the animosity of the papists, so that, as it seems, they vented the spleen of their manifold accusations against said people.

HENRY AND ALFUARD, TWO PIOUS CHRISTIANS, THE ONE BEHEADED IN THE UTTERMOST PARTS OF SWEDEN, THE OTHER SLAIN AMONG THE NORMANS, FOR DEFENDING THE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE, A. D. 1067.

A. D. 1067, there was a godfearing man, whose name was Henry, and whom the Romish historian calls a stranger, perhaps because he was obliged to live secretly or as a stranger among the Romanists. It is stated of him, that he preached the Gospel of Christ in the uttermost parts of Sweden, and that he was apprehended for this cause and beheaded for the name of Christ.

Another pious Christian, named Alfuard, after living for a long time secretly, yet leading a pure and holy life among the Normans, could not thus even in secret remain Christ’s own. Because he sought to protect, or to do good to, his enemy, he was slain by his friends, or those at least who ought to have been his friends. Adam., in Histor. Sued., 1067, compared with Abr. Mell., fol. 384, col. 3.

The records of these two martyrs, Henry and Alfuard, are very brief, because the writer, as he states, would neither add to, nor take from, the truth of the matter, but wished to record it just as it was stated to him, which is an evidence of the verity of said matter. Therefore we also did not feel at liberty to extend the relation of the same, or to add, for amplification, the opinions of other authors. However, this is not necessary, since, in said account, all that is needful for the cognizance of said martyrs, is briefly, yet sufficiently, shown. For, of Henry it is stated that he preached the Gospel of Christ (not papal traditions), and that he was apprehended on this account. Of Alfuard the author writes, that he lived for a long time secretly, though leading a pure and holy life, among the Normans; also, that he could no longer secretly remain Christ’s own; understand, not the Pope’s, or the so-called mother, the Roman church’s own, but Christ’s own. More might be added, but for the well-disposed we deem this sufficient.

BRUNO, BISHOP OF ANGIERS, AND BERENGARIUS, HIS DEACON, CONDEMNED IN SEVERAL COUNCILS, THROUGH THE ROMAN POPE, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR VIEWS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM, TRANSUBSTANTIATION, THE MASS, ETC.; THE FIRST TIME, A. D. 1059, THE LAST TIME, A. D. 1079.

In our account of holy baptism for the year 1060, we made mention of Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius, his deacon, and showed, according to the accounts of different writers, that they, in opposition to the common belief of popery, denied infant baptism and transubstantiation, with all that pertains to it, as has been shown in said place.

Of Bruno we find no further account, only that when he was examined he answered as has been related; and that his doctrine, together with that of Berengarius, was condemned by Pope Leo IX., in two different synods, the one of which was held at Rome, and the other at Versailles. But what further happened to him after said papal condemnation, is not mentioned by the ancients, or, at least, has not come to our knowledge.

But of Berengarius it is stated, that besides the aforementioned two condemnations by Pope Leo the Ninth, which he suffered together with Bruno, he was subjected to three examinations and as many condemnations, in three successive Synods, once at Tours, and twice at Rome. But to our sincere regret we cannot omit mentioning that in the last three examinations, either from fear of death or for some other reason, he did not acquit himself altogether manfully or in a Christianlike manner; inasmuch as in each examination, if what the ancients have written concerning it is correct, he denied his belief before men; though after each denial, upon regaining his freedom, constrained in his conscience, he reavowed the same.

His denial, from whatever cause it may have proceeded, was a fault of such magnitude that it could not be tolerated even in an ordinary Christian, much less in a martyr, unless it be that the name of a good Christian or martyr be withheld from him. However, when, against this, there is taken into consideration, the heartfelt sorrow and grief which he manifested every time, and that he again taught the people as before, and this, as is stated by many, to the end of his life; the name of a Christian, yea, even of a martyr (though in weakness), on account of the manifold troubles he met with because of his belief, may still be accorded him.

The holy apostle Peter, after his threefold denial of Christ, though this was a dreadful sin, was not rejected by Christ, when he manifested sincere repentance; seeing the Lord afterwards commanded him to feed his lambs and sheep, yea, foretold him that he should be bound, for his name’s sake, and glorify God by his death, that is, that he should have to die as a martyr, which also happened to him in the reign of Nero, as is shown in the first century, A. D. 69.

Berengarius lived to the age of about ninety years, according to the papist Baronius, who says that he remained separated from the Roman church,[153] as a schismatic, to the end of his life, though Bellarmine thinks differently, which we leave to him, till better proof than the opinion of a monk of Malmsbury, from whom, it seems, Bellarmine has derived his opinion, can be furnished. Compare Bellarm., in Chron., A. D. 1058, with Hist. Angl., lib. 3, touching the opinion of the monk of Malmsbury.

[153] A. Mell., fol. 395, ex Baron., in Chron. Eccl., 1088. Art. 15, 20, 21

As regards the time of his death, it is fixed A. D. 1088, on the day of Epiphany. The last words which he is said to have uttered, are adduced by a certain bishop of Cenomana, called Hildebert, in the third book of the English History, where he says that Berengarius, sighing deeply, said: “To-day, on this day of Epiphany, my Lord Jesus Christ will appear to me, as I hope unto glory, because of my repentance, or, as I fear, on account of other things unto punishment.” A. Mell., fol. 395, col. 1.

These words, it seems, are misinterpreted by the monk of Malmsbury, as though Berengarius, in speaking of his penitence and good hope, had intended to imply that, in the aforesaid articles, he had returned to the Roman church; and that, in mentioning his fear of punishment, he had reference to the punishment of which he might have stood in fear, because of the views which he had maintained against the Pope and the Roman church. But, besides that we see no clear proof in the opinion of said monk, this utterance of Berengarius can very fitly be taken in another and better sense, namely, thus: That Berengarius, when he spoke of his repentance and good hope in the appearance of Jesus Christ, was confident, that the merciful Jesus, his beloved Savior, because he had now repented, and was sorry for his denial, to which the papists had compelled him, would graciously forgive his sins; since the Lord, when his disciple Peter had fallen into a like, or still greater sin of denial, forgave him when he repented of it. Yet, on the other hand, that he was not entirely without fear, because he had committed said denial against his conscience, and because the Lord is as just as he is merciful, especially in punishing sins that are committed against the conscience, or with premeditation.

Nevertheless, from his words (if they have been quoted correctly), it is evident, that his hope was greater than his fear, since he speaks first of the former, as well as of his sorrow or repentance, yea, of the glory of the blessed; for what else could he mean to indicate, when he said: “To-day, on this day ... my Lord Jesus Christ will appear to me, as I hope unto glory, because of my repentance?” As to the words that follow, they seem to have been added from Christian carefulness and humility, since no living man could stand before the justice of God, if he were not merciful; much less one who had notably sinned against his most divine and holy majesty; which agrees with Job 9:2; Ps. 130:3; and 143:2.

In the mean time, men had very different views respecting the decease of Berengarius; for some, namely, those who were rigid Romanists and papists, had, it seems, an evil opinion of him; hence they knew nothing good to say of him, as appears from the account of Papirius Massonius, who, in his history of France, for the year 1088, says: “In this year, on the day of Epiphany ... that corrupt arch-heretic, Berengarius, who so often deceived the (Roman) church by feigning to repent of his views, departed this life.” Annal. Franc., lib. 3.

But others, who were his good friends, had a better opinion of him. Among these, the above mentioned Hildebert was not the least; he, as some have observed, composed a very beautiful epitaph upon his death, the last words of which were as follows: “He (Berengarius) was truly a wise man, and, in every respect, perfectly blessed; who enriched heaven with his soul, and the earth with his body. God grant, that after my death I may live and rest with him, and that my lot or inheritance may be no better than his.” See the above cited book, compared with Abr. Mell., fol. 395, col. 1, 2.

We will close here, and commit his cause to God. Meanwhile, the church of God, or, at least, the little flock of believers, sustained a great loss in his death. Hence, we may say, as was lamentingly said by one of old: “The day when Berengarius died was an evil day.” Sam. Veltius., Geslacht-register, page 128.

MANY OF THE FOLLOWERS OF BERENGARIUS, CALLED BERENGARIANS, ANATHEMATIZED BY ORDER OF THE POPE, AT PIACENZA, IN ITALY, A. D. 1095, AND AFTERWARDS PERSECUTED UNTO DEATH, ABOUT A. D. 1100.

It is stated that after the death of Berengarius, his doctrine (spoken of above) in reference to baptism and the Supper, against the belief of the Roman church, gained much favor among his followers, who were called Berengarians; so that England, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and even part of the Netherlands, became filled with it. A certain writer says: “They did not adhere to Berengarius as to a reed which is swayed by the wind; and their faith did not rest on men, however pious or godly these might have been, but upon the pure word of God, which abides forever.”

Hence, Pope Urban II., A. D. 1095, by constraint as it were, convened a great council against them, in the city of Piacenza, in Italy; to which there came many bishops from Italy, Burgundy, France, Germany, Bavaria, and other countries, so that there was no church large enough to hold all the people, but they had to meet without the city, in an open field.

Bertoleus Constantiensis says, that in this council a canon or rule was established, by which the views of Berengarius, which were called a heresy, were again, as had repeatedly been done previously, anathematized or cursed, but the views of the Roman church, confirmed as a precious matter. Compare Bertho. Constant., in Chron., A. D. 1095. Baron. Annal., T. 11, with A. Mell., fol. 395, col. 2, 3.

Hence it came, that a great persecution and dire distress arose, particularly about A. D. 1100, over said Berengarians, so that, at first, some were exiled here and there, from the Roman dominion, some expelled, and some were punished with death, yea, with death by fire, as shall appear more fully in the account of the martyrs in the following century. In the mean time, see A. M. fol. 395, col. 3, from Thuan., Pref. Also, in Hist. Henr. 4.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

[The last year of the preceding century, namely, A. D. 1100, is introduced here by way of introduction to the following century; in which it is shown, that in and shortly after that time there existed the Waldenses and Albigeois, of whom we shall speak more fully about the middle of this century.

For the year 1105, some persons are introduced, who opposed infant baptism, transubstantiation, and the Roman church; also some, for the year 1119, who condemned the mass.

Certain people, who held the same views as were afterwards held in the time of Peter Waldus. Their views against the Pope, infant baptism, the mass, image worship, secular power of the church, persecution, etc.

Rupert Tuiciensis gives an excellent exposition of the baptism of the ancients; he teaches, that, in order to be baptized, one must first believe, and confess the faith; that many who are baptized with water, are not renewed inwardly, because their heart is not right, though they make confession with the mouth; that the truly baptized, from servants of sin, become children of God; that the word of God was preached to the Christian youth throughout the whole year to prepare them for baptism. What a certain pedobaptist, D. J. V., has written on said words of Rupertus; what P. J. Twisck and H. Montanus have noted from the writings of Rupert; that even some learned men of the Roman church accorded with Rupert. Johannes Bohemius and Ludovicus Vives, and their belief against the Roman church.

Many Christians at Arles, Narbonne, Toulouse, in Gascony, and other parts of France, called Petrobrusians; they, according to Peter, abbot of Cluny, reproved the abuses of the Roman church.

Of Arnald of Brescia, and Peter Abelard, who also opposed infant baptism.

Henricus Petri Tholossanus opposes fifteen articles to the papists, which are all fully stated.

Some peasants in France, called Apostolics, also teach against infant baptism, purgatory, praying for the dead, invocation of the saints.

The Albigenses, from the province Albi, and the Waldenses, the followers of Peter Waldus, now arise; the conversion of Peter Waldus, and how he, having separated from the Roman church, gathered unto himself much people, to whom he taught the doctrine of the holy Gospel, and who became his followers.

Of the dispersion and the different names of the Waldenses; that there were three divisions of them, one of which agreed in all articles of religion with the Anabaptists; that said people were called Anabaptists; that they rejected infant baptism; their views with regard to the office of secular authority, against war, the swearing of oaths, and against nearly all articles of the Roman church; full statement of the confession of faith of the Waldenses, in fourteen articles; another confession of theirs, in twelve articles, made to those of Merindol and Cabriere; some precepts, which they left to their church; some testimonies by ancient writers, respecting the virtuous life of the Waldenses; how they have been unjustly accused by their inquisitors and accusers; the time in which the Waldenses lived and flourished, namely, more than three hundred years, in France, as well as in Italy; the places where they sojourned; that almost a thousand towns were filled with them. Conclusion.]

* * * * *

As a fire of small coals, when water is poured over it, though emitting a spark occasionally, yet smoulders for the most part, stifled as it were, by the smoke, but finally breaks forth with great power, so that the flame, leaping above the smoke, can no longer be extinguished with water, or kept down; so it was, in the twelfth century with the fire of the Gospel, and particularly as regards the article of baptism upon faith. Over this, the Pope of Rome, with his cardinals, bishops, priests, and monks, had thus poured, in the preceding century, the water of so many false doctrines, that scarcely a few sparks could rise before it was instantly sought to extinguish them, till finally through the contentions and dissensions of the Romish so-called clergy, each striving to rise above the other, the fire of the Gospel, as having been, it was supposed, sufficiently quenched, was left, in some measure unmolested; in consequence of which it began to rekindle and burn with such power that its flames, having surmounted the smoke of papal superstitions, could not be extinguished by the water of persecution, suffering, or death; yea, the severest persecutions and the greatest torments were, at that time, like oil in the fire.

This shall be shown in the proper place; but first we will speak of the persons who then opposed infant baptism and other Roman superstitions, and, in order to do this systematically, we will begin thus:

For A. D. 1100, the last year of the eleventh, or the beginning of the twelfth century, P. J. Twisck gives this account: “It appears from writers, that at this time and shortly after, there existed the Waldenses and the Albigeois, who opposed the papal errors, and infant baptism, and had to suffer much misery and persecution from the tyrants. Chron., page 423, col. 1. However, in the proper place we shall speak more fully of it.

A. D. 1105.--This is the year in which mention is made by writers of certain persons who were accused of having no good opinion of infant baptism as well as of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; and of reviling the Roman church. P. J. Twisck, page 428, col. 2, from Merul., fol. 726; also, H. Mont., p. 83.

We briefly mention this here, simply to show the belief of those people; however, when we come to the account of the martyrs of this time, we shall show how many there were of these persons, what befell them on account of their faith, and where, and through whom this happened.

A. D. 1119.--It is recorded that at this time there were certain people, who, under the name of religion, besides other things of the Roman church, also reviled infant baptism and the mass. J. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 685, from Joh. de Oppido, inquisit. Tholoss., in Chron. Also, A. Mell., fol. 422, col. 1.

A. D. 1120.--Jean Paul Perrin Lionnois makes mention, in his History of the Waldenses and Albigenses, 3d part, 3d book, cap. 1, pages 163, 164, of a certain manuscript dated A. D. 1120, containing certain sermons of such people as were afterwards, in the time of Peter Waldus, called Waldenses and Albigenses. Besides said sermons, there is also a tract against the Pope of Rome, who is there called antichrist.

But above all it is worthy of note, that among the marks ascribed there to antichrist, infant baptism upon a dead faith is also enumerated, and is called the third work of antichrist. Then there are further denounced, the mass, image worship, and relics, or the bones of the saints.

“The sixth work of antichrist,” these people said, “consists in this, that he tolerates open sins, and does not excommunicate or separate the impenitent.”

“The seventh work of antichrist consists in this, that he does not govern or protect his unity through the Holy Spirit, but by secular power, uniting the latter with spiritual things, for his aid.”

“The eighth work of antichrist is, that he persecutes the members of the church of Christ, searches out, apprehends and kills them.”

Thus it is quite evident, that in these early times, there were already very many who not only confessed the purity of the true faith, but even attacked, with spiritual weapons from God’s holy word, the Roman see, notwithstanding, as appears from the eighth work of antichrist, they were persecuted, searched out, apprehended and killed; of which we shall speak more fully in the proper place.

A. D. 1124.--At this time, appeared Rupert Tuiciensis with many writings. He did not hesitate to point out the decay, and the manifold superstitions of the Roman church, presenting at the same time, the practice of the first Christian and the apostolical church; by which course he gave the Romanists of his time sufficient cause to be ashamed and convinced, especially with regard to the abuse of baptism, which originally had been administered upon faith, but was now given by them to infants. All this we hope to show in proper order, from the writings he has left.

First of all he establishes, that in order to be truly baptized, faith and confession of the same are required.

Jac. Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 659. Rupert (lib. 13, on John 18) says: “Every one that is to be baptized, must first believe and confess, and not until then be baptized, upon (or into) the death of Christ, and be buried with him by baptism in order to arise.”

Who does not see that Rupert here censures and refutes the practice of those who at his time, namely, among the Roman church, baptized infants, without regard to faith or confession of the same, as well as without dying unto, and burying of, former sins, much less, with arising unto a new life, since these things cannot exist in infants; for why should he have connected faith, confession of it, and baptism, if he had not considered them as belonging together? Why should he say, that every one that is to be baptized, must first believe and confess? which is just what Christ taught, Mark 16:16, and Philip required of the Ethiopian, Acts 8:37.

Thus it is also with what he says of being baptized upon, or into, the death of Christ, and of being buried with him by baptism, in order to arise, etc.; for this the apostle applies to those who, having been baptized upon their faith, had become members of the church at Rome, Rom. 6:3,4, whose faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom. 1:8.

Page 657. Rupert (lib. 11, on John 15) says: “They (the teachers) can visibly administer water baptism, but they cannot give the Holy Spirit, in whom, nevertheless, all the virtue of baptism consists.”

These are words that overthrow the authority and power of the Romish priests, who, when baptizing infants, were wont to pretend that they did not only wet them with water, but that they also expelled Satan from them, and imparted the Holy Ghost, which they supposed to bring about by certain exorcisms and blessings; but this is opposed by Rupert, with the aforementioned words.

Same page. Rupert (lib. 3, on John 2) says: “There are many who are indeed baptized with water, but are nevertheless not renewed in the spirit of their mind, because they do not put off the works of the old man, though they are baptized in the water, and confess that they put on the new man.”

Here the reason is shown, why many, though baptized with water, are not renewed in the spirit of their mind; however, the blame is charged upon the candidates themselves, and not upon the teachers, who had not blessed them; but it is because those who were baptized, did not themselves, though it was their duty, put off the works of the old man. For, God’s wisdom (that is, the Spirit of God) does not enter into a malicious soul; nor does it dwell in the body that is subject unto sin. Sap. 1:4.

It must be noted, moreover, that when he speaks here of being baptized in the water, of confessing something, and of putting on the new man, and that all this is said of the candidates of his time, it is clearly evident, that then, in the church of which he speaks, adult and intelligent persons were baptized, who, confessing their former sins, could put on the new man, that is, a sinless and godly life.

Page 662, num. 17. Rupert (lib. 2, on John 1) says: “To be baptized with the Holy Ghost, is to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, who does not [only] point out sin, but helps against sin, making us, from servants of sin, children of God.” Again: “He baptizes us with fire, when he, through the Holy Spirit, makes us strong in love, constant in faith, shining in knowledge, and burning with good zeal.”

He has respect here to the promise which John gave to those who came to his baptism, saying: “He (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire,” Matt. 3:11; John 1:33; which, as everyone knows, is a promise given not to infants, but to adult persons; hence Rupert also has such in view here.

This appears still more clearly, when he says of said candidates, that they, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, were made, from servants of sin, children of God; for no one can in truth be called a servant of sin, who has not first served sin; and no one can be made a child of God, who has not first been a child of the world; for what one becomes or will become, he has not been before.

With what he says further, of being “strong in love, constant in faith, shining in knowledge, and burning with good zeal,” he certainly indicates that he is speaking of such persons as, having attained to the use of their reason, have knowledge and ability for true love, faith in God, the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and a good zeal for the observance of the commandments of the Lord; for by such, and none else, can these things be undertaken, and, with God’s blessing, carried out.

In another place Rupert relates what customarily took place as regards the candidates, baptism itself, and some of the circumstances pertaining to it. He says: “All the youth of the church, whom they had sought to win to God, during the year, through the preaching of the word, gave in their names, on the fourth day of the week in lent, when Easter approached; and when each of them, in the subsequent days till Easter, heard the rule of faith, in which he had been begotten and had grown up, he finally died (that is, he put to death sin), and rose with Christ (that is, to a new life), confessing the faith with full confidence, at baptism.” Bapt. Hist., page 706, D. Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 14, from Rupert, lib. 4, cap. 18.

Upon this, a certain pedobaptist, D. J. V. (same page), once said: “But the Christian fear of God pleases us better, since the baptism of the ancients, and with it the ancient custom (namely, of baptizing upon faith), are abolished, and the believers now give to their children their names, at baptism, before the eighth day after their birth; for this agrees best with the practice of the Jews, who gave to their children their names on the eighth day of circumcision, and with the custom of the heathen, who did the like to their children, on the eighth, ninth, or tenth day after their birth.”

This is certainly plain language. He says that the baptism of the ancients (that is, the baptism according to the institution of Christ, Mark 16:16), and with it also the ancient custom (namely, of baptizing upon faith), are abolished (that is, by those who have introduced infant baptism), and he praises this as a Christian fear of God, saying, that it pleases him better. How would any one dare speak with greater presumption and shamelessness of the commandments of Jesus Christ? It grieves me to say more about this and I will leave it, adding, however, the remarks of Jacob Mehrning in referring to these words: “A fine arrangement this! Christians are no longer to conform to the baptismal ordinance of Christ, but Christ is to accommodate himself with his baptism, to the practice of the Jews and the custom of the heathen. Fie, Satan! how brazenly dost thou here disclose thy cloven foot!”

P. J. Twisck and H. Montanus quote the following words from the writings of Rupert: “Formerly it was customary to renew the children, throughout the year, with the word of God, in order to present to them, on the approach of Easter, the faith, which they had to confess at baptism; but, that Christianity might grow, and the net of the Gospel become full, it pleased the church (that is, the Roman church), because of the danger of temporal death, that the children of Christians should be baptized immediately.” Chron., page 443, col. 2, Nietigh., page 83, from Rupert, lib. 4, de Divinis Officies, cap. 18.

“With Rupert,” writes Twisck, “several learned men of the Roman church in this last century agree, as is adduced from their books. John Bohemius says: ‘Formerly it was customary to administer baptism only to those who had previously been instructed in the faith, and who were examined seven times in the weeks preceding Easter and Whitsuntide; but when baptism was afterwards deemed essential to eternal life, it was ordained that new-born infants should be baptized, and that sponsors should be provided, who, in their stead, confessed the faith, and renounced Satan.’” Same page, from J. Boh., lib. 2, de Gent. Morib., Loop der Werelt, page 41.

“This is confirmed by Ludovicus Vives, who says: ‘No one was brought to baptism among us, until he had reached his years, and when he knew what the mystic water signified, and himself desired to be washed with it.’” Same page, from Lud. Viv., in Annat. Civit. dei Augustini, lib. 1, cap. 27, also, H. Mont., page 88.

But, to return to Rupert, Twisck says, he wrote not only on baptism, but also composed many other books, against the papal views, of the holy Scriptures, of justification, of two sacraments, of the Supper under both forms, and of the spiritual presence of Christ. He also says of antichrist, that he will send his messengers and preachers throughout the whole world; he will first convert (that is, turn to himself) and overcome the Kings and princes, and then, through their instrumentality, will raise persecution over all the nations who will sincerely confess Christ. Chron., page 444, col. 1, from Rupert, in Apoc., lib. 3, cap. 13, Johan. Fobri., fol. 158, Anth. Jac., fol. 113, John Munst., fol. 140.

A. D. 1126.--At this time, there were many Christians at Arles, Narbonne, Toulouse, in Gascony, and at different other places in France, who were afterwards called Petrobrusians, after one Peter Bruis,[154] their most prominent teacher, and who also neither sanctioned nor practiced infant baptism. This is attested by Peter, abbot of Cluny, who says, in the beginning of his tract against the Petrobrusians: “They deny that infants who have not yet attained the years of understanding, can be saved by the baptism of Christ; and say that the faith of another cannot help those who cannot use their own faith; for, according to their view, not the faith of another, but each one’s own faith saves with baptism, because the Lord says: ‘He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.’” Bapt. Hist., page 598, H. Mont. Nietigh., page 83, from Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 12, part 2, fol. 206. Also, Baron., A. D. 1126.

[154] This Peter de Bruis, with his disciple Henry, was known, A. D. 1130, throughout all France, on account of his learning and his boldness in reproving the abuses of the Roman church. Bapt. Hist., page 686.

The foregoing is so clearly opposed to infant baptism and in favor of baptism upon faith, that it is unnecessary to add a single word of explanation; hence, we will let the matter rest, and proceed to others who maintained and confirmed the same belief, both in and after those times.

NOTE.--A. D. 1128. Arnulph, Bishop of Lyons, an excellent preacher of the Christian doctrine, was secretly murdered at this time, through craftiness, by the clergy, because he reproved too severely their luxuriousness, lewdness and gross errors. He presented to them, for their imitation, Christ’s poverty, and his most holy life and walk. P. J. Twisck, page 446, col. 1, Chron. Platinæ, fol. 273, Histor. Andr., fol. 57; Histor. Georg., lib. 5.

A. D. 1131.--About this time, also Hildebert, Bishop of Mayence, wrote and preached vehemently against the power and authority of the Pope, whom he did not hesitate to charge with tyranny; declaring also, that the city of Rome had been made by him the seat of all mischief and wickedness, because the fear of God and love were banished from it. For this he was imprisoned at Rome, and treated very cruelly. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 448, col. 2, and page 449, col. 1, from Paul Merul. Tytthres., fol. 746.

A. D. 1139.--A little before or after this time, as Baronius says, Arnald, a lector, at Brescia, in Italy, taught against infant baptism; as did also Peter Abelard, of whom Arnald had obtained his doctrine, in France. Concerning this much might be related here, but, as we afterwards, in the proper place, shall have to speak of the martyrdom of these persons, we will say no more of this here, deeming the statement that they opposed infant baptism sufficient for the present. As regards their doctrine, as well as what happened to them, see Bapt. Hist., page 598, H. Mont. Nietigh., page 84, from Baron., A. D. 1139, Num. 3, also A. D. 1145, Num. 3, and A. D. 1147, Num. 6.

NOTE.--“In the year 1139 or 1140,” writes P. J. Twisck, “there was in Italy an honorable, godly, and learned man, simple in his life, called Arnold of Brescia, who dared teach and preach mightily against the power and authority of the Pope and against the monks and priests; on account of which he was excommunicated by Innocent, the Pope of Rome, and greatly persecuted. Arnold, therefore, fled into Switzerland, and remained at Zurich, exposing all the abominations of the papists.” Chron., page 466, col. 2, from Hist. Georg., lib. 5. Chron. Car., lib. 4. Leonh., lib. 5. Zegh., fol. 292. Hist. Eccl. Casp. Hedio., 3d part, cap. 11, D. Andr. Hond., lib. 2, cap. 26. Seb. Franck,. fol. 26, 39. Merul. Tytt., fol. 750, 753, 757, 760, 761, 853. Jan. Cresp., fol. 281. Of his death we shall speak in the history of the martyrs, for the year 1145.

A. D. 1147.--Henricus Petri Tholossanus, that is, Henry of Toulouse, at this time and afterwards, vigorously attacked infant baptism, with the spiritual weapons of divine truth; which he had commenced already in the time of Peter Bruis, as was mentioned for the year 1126; and he did not cease to pursue it until, and after the death of said Peter Bruis; which matter is described by Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 664 as follows: “Now Peter de Bruis having been condemned and burnt, Henry strenuously maintained his doctrine; for he was a co-worker with Peter, and had not a few followers of his doctrine.” Peter Cluniacensis writes, that among other things, he taught:

1. That children may not be baptized or saved through the faith of another; but they must be baptized and saved through their own faith; for baptism without individual faith, saves no one.

2. That individual faith without baptism is also useless.

3. That children that have not yet reached the years of understanding, cannot be saved by the baptism of Christ.

4. That those who have been baptized in infancy, must, when they become older, be re-baptized, for this, he says, is not re-baptizing, but, much rather, baptizing aright.

5. That the body and blood of Christ are not offered up in the public mass; and that this sacrifice has no virtue to the salvation of souls. Again, that the altars ought to be cast down or broken in pieces.

6. That the doctrine of the forms and of the transubstantiation of the sacrament is false.

7. That the Supper ought not to be administered any more (as their accusers charged them with maintaining), it having been given once by Christ to the apostles.

8. That the sacrifice of the mass, prayer, alms, and such like, works of the living for the dead, are folly, wickedness, and of no avail.

9. That monks and priests should marry, rather than commit fornication, and live continually in lewdness.

10. That crucifixes should not be honored or worshiped; and the many crosses, which tend to superstition, ought much rather to be abolished than retained.

11. That men ought not to build so many costly churches, which are frequently not used for hearing the word of God; and those that are built should be demolished.

12. That by the bawling church-singing of the priests and monks God is mocked, and not reconciled.

13. That flesh may be eaten on Sunday and other days.

14. That they do not receive all the books of the Old and the New Testaments, namely those which are called apocryphal; but the Gospel only.

15. That they believe only the holy Scriptures, but do not place the writings of the fathers on an equality with them.

This doctrine, and these articles, Peter Cluniacensus, who quoted them from the writings of Henry, undertook to refute; but the Centuriatores Magdeburgenses accept them for the most part, and refute Peter. See concerning this, Bapt. Hist., pp. 665, 666.

Said articles certainly show of what faith and persuasion Henry was, and that he did not continue to adhere to monachism, although he had first embraced it; for, to be a monk and to make such a profession, are incompatible with each other. On this account he had to suffer much ignominy and calumny from Bernhard, who was regarded as a saint among the Romanists. The latter not only called him an ignorant fellow and an apostate from the Roman church, but also charged him with many unbecoming, and ungodly things, though by other writers, of greater note and credibility, he has been exempted, and acquitted of them.

We will close our remarks concerning Henry, and give, if necessary, a fuller account of the matter, when we shall speak of his sufferings for the truth; however, in reference to this, we refer the reader briefly, to Bapt. Hist., pages 685, 686, from A. M., fol. 423, 424, ex Petr. Cluniac. Duae, epist. 141 and 142, ad Comit. Tholoss. and Tholossanos, idem, Serm., 65, 66, super. Cant. vitae Bernh., cap. 3. Cent. Magd. XII., cap. 5, and Illyr. Cat. Test. Verit., lib. 15, tit. Petri de Bruis, etc.

A. D. 1155.--This is the time in which, according to Nicholas Sander (but according to Cesar Baronius, A. D. 1147), there were in the vicinity of Toulouse, in France, certain humble people, who, by other writers, are called peasants, but who properly were termed Apostolics, that is, followers of the apostles. It is stated of them, that they would hold only to the apostolic writings, and that they therefore condemned infant baptism, as well as purgatory, praying for the dead, the invocation of the saints, etc.

More might be related here, but as some of them have attained to the martyrs’ crown, and we consequently shall afterwards have to speak more fully with regard to them, we will leave the matter until then, being satisfied, meanwhile, that they professed this good profession, and rejected the evil. See concerning this, P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 469, col. 2, from Nicol. Sand., Hist. der Mart. Doops-ges., A. 8, D. Anth. Jac., fol. 118; also Bapt. Hist., page 599. H. Montan. Niehtigh., page 84, etc.

A. D. 1160.--This is the year which, of old, was noted with joy by many pious and well-meaning Christians, who detested popery; and in which, even to this day, not a few of the godfearing rejoice. For then, and especially, shortly after, popery and her superstitions received the severest blow of which we read in history; and the divine truth, which, almost to this very time, seemed, in many respects, to be trampled under foot most atrociously, now joyfully raised her head and triumphed. The doctrine against infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, war, in short, against nearly all the evil practices and perverted worship of the Roman church, of which one formerly dared speak only with fear and trembling, and that often only in private, was now boldly, yea, frequently, publicly preached and defended, and, notwithstanding the threats of the Pope of Rome, maintained. This was first commenced chiefly by Peter Waldo at Lyons, in France, and carried out by his successors; however, in order to treat the matter systematically, we will begin with the conversion of Peter Waldo, and then go on to his successors.

OF THE CONVERSION OF PETER WALDO, AND THE RISE OF THE WALDENSES, ETC.

M. Matthias Flaccius Illyricus (in his Catalog. Tesitum Veritatis, between fol. 263, and fol. 277, according to Jac. Mehrning in Bapt. Hist., page 601), writes: “About A. D. 1160, several of the principal citizens of Lyons were together, conversing on various matters, as is customary in the summer season, in Italy and France. As they were thus standing together, one of them suddenly fell down to the ground and expired, before their eyes.

“This awful occurrence, an example of the mortality of man, and of the divine wrath, terrified one of their number, namely, Peter Waldo, a man who was very wealthy. He began to reflect and resolved (Impelled, no doubt, by the Holy Spirit), to repent, amend his life, and be more diligent in the fear of God than he had hitherto been. He therefore began to distribute alms liberally, and at convenient seasons, to put his household and others who came to him, in mind of the good, and to admonish them to repentance and true godliness.

“When he had thus for some time, done much good to the poor, and was becoming the longer the more zealous to learn, as well as to teach others, the people also came to him more and more; he therefore began to present to them, not his own ideas, but the holy Scriptures, and to expound and explain the same in the common French language.

“But the bishop and the prelates, who, as Christ says, have the key of heaven, and yet do not go in themselves, nor will suffer others to enter, were greatly vexed that this (in their opinion) unlearned and common man, should bring the holy Scriptures into the vernacular language, and expound the same, and that already great numbers came into his house, whom he instructed and admonished.

“However, he was greatly in earnest, to promote both the honor of God and the salvation of men; and the people were so eager for the word of God, which, in the churches, was not preached pure, nor publicly, that they could not be turned away by the command of these papistic Pharisees and highpriests; hence, both the teacher and those taught said, that one ought to obey God rather than men.

“Waldo therefore resolved, notwithstanding the commands of the wicked, to sustain the hungry Christians not only with his temporal living, which, owing to the liberal distribution, decreased day by day, but also with the word of God, and good instructions and admonitions; and since the prelates, by tyranny and unchristian decrees, sought to suppress and exterminate the simple and true preaching of the word of God, sufficient reason was thus given to Waldo and his adherents, to inquire the more diligently into the religion and intentions of the priests, and to speak the more boldly against them.

“The contest with the priests becoming the longer the more violent, more confusions and superstitions were discovered in the papistic religion, and attacked. At this time Waldo also read, in the vernacular, certain testimonies from the writings of the fathers, with which he defended his own not only with the holy Scriptures, but also with the testimonies of the ancients, against the enemies of the truth.

“When the bishop with his papistic Pharisees and scribes saw with what constancy Waldo and his adherents taught the word of God, and were pained, that their own infamy, ignorance, and fickleness in doctrine, and other absurdities, were attacked by Waldo and his followers, they excommunicated them one and all. Not long afterwards, perceiving that also by excommunication they could not be deterred from their purpose, they relegated them into misery, persecuted them with imprisonment, the sword, and fire, and treated them very atrociously, in order that they might be compelled, on account of the existing distress and danger, to remove from Lyons and disperse into various countries.

“It is presumable, that the congregations of Waldo, or some of them, whom he taught at Lyons, were there for four or five years, until they were utterly driven away from that city; for Waldo was a man of powerful abilities, and is said to have had many relatives, and, hence, could not be checked or suppressed in a trice; besides, he did not immediately, at the beginning, attack the priests of the Pope.

“Finally, these godly people were proceeded against with great fury, throughout Christendom; they were sent hither and thither by the inquisitors; for which we have to thank those atrocious wolves that go about in sheep’s clothing, and call themselves monks.” Bapt. Hist., pages 601–4, from Matt. Flacc.

Claude de Rubis relates, that Waldo and his followers were completely expelled from Lyons; while Albert de Capitaneis says, that they could not be expelled entirely. We have not been able to ascertain anything further about this first persecution, save that the Waldenses, so called after Waldo, after escaping from Lyons, followed him, and then dispersed, in different bands, into various countries. Balthas. Lydius, History of the Waldenses, printed at Dortrecht, 1624, 1st book of the first part, cap. 1, Page 3, col. 1, from Claud. de Rub. Hist., p. 269. Albert de Cap., book of the origin of the Waldenses, page 1.

NOTE.--Peter Blesensus, a learned man, well known by his writings, taught, A. D. 1167, that Rome was the true Babylon of which John has prophesied; that the officials of the Roman court were genuine harpies, and the priests, true calves of Bethel, priests of Baal, Egyptian idols, and that at Rome everything could be had for money. Chron. van den Onderg., page 479, col. 1, from Merula, fol. 767.

About A. D. 1170.--For the year 1160, we gave an account of Peter Waldo and his conversion, as well as of his having brought many who sat in the darkness of popery, to the light of the holy Gospel. It is stated of these people, that in doctrine, faith, and life they were like the Apostolics, of whom we made mention for the year 1155, and stated, that they were opposed to infant baptism, purgatory, etc. The rise of these people, called Waldenses and Albigenses, is fixed about A. D. 1170, that is, ten years after Peter Waldo began to teach them; which matters shall hereafter be treated more fully and circumstantially. Compare Bapt. Hist., page 599, with Nietigh., page 85; also, Introduction to the Martyrs Mirror, fol. 50, col. 1, 2, (although the principal rising of said people is there fixed A. D. 1176) from Bar. in Chron., A. D. 1176, num. 1, 2, 3.

NOTE.--It appears from several ancient writers, that the Waldenses, or, at least, people who held the same belief, existed long before the year 1170, yea, before 1160; seeing that already in the year 1160 they had increased to such an extent, that they were summoned to Rome before a synod, and were condemned there as obstinate heretics. Johan. de Oppido. The same occurred A. D. 1164, in the synod of Tours, Bapt. Hist., p. 676. Hence, when their beginning is fixed A. D. 1170, this must not be understood of their origin, but of their rising, progress, and greatest prosperity.

OF THE DISPERSION AND THE VARIOUS NAMES OF THE WALDENSES OR FOLLOWERS OF PETER WALDO.

When Peter Waldo with his adherents, through the cruel hatred of the papists, had to leave the city of Lyons, on account of his faith, they became distributed and scattered into different parts of the world, and, hence, received various appellations, with regard to the places where they resided, as well as with regard to their faith, and to the accusations brought against them, especially by the Romanists.

In the History of the Waldenses, by D. Balthasar Lydius, 1st book of the first part, cap. 3, page 4, col. 2, and page 5, col. 1, the following account is found of the various names of said people:

“They, in the first place, called them Waldenses, after Waldo, who was a citizen of Lyons; and, after the district of Albi, they called them Albigenses.

“And because those who adhered to the doctrine of Waldo, left Lyons, stripped of all human means, having had to leave behind the most of their goods, they were derisively called, The Poor Men of Lyons.”

“In Dauphine they were by way of derision called Chaignards, that is, Dogs.

“Also because a part of them crossed the Alps, they were called Transmontani.

“After Joseph, one of Waldo’s disciples who preached in the bishopric of Dije, Lower Dauphine, they were called Josephists.

“In England they were called Lollards, after Lollardus, one of those who preached there.

“After two priests, Henry and Esperon, who taught the doctrine of Waldo in Languedoc, they were called Henricians and Esperonists.

“After Arnold, one of their pastors or teachers, who preached in Albigeois, they were called Arnoldists.

“In Provence they were called, in an unknown tongue, Siccars.

“In Italy they were called Fratricellii, that is, Little Brothers, because they lived like brothers in true unity.

“Also, as they observed no other day of rest or holiday, than Sunday, they were styled Insabbathi or Insabbathas, that is, Sabbathless, or not observing Sabbaths.

“Because they were continually subject to, and underwent sufferings, they were called Patarins or Patariens, that is, Sufferers, from the Latin word pati, to suffer.

“Because they, as poor wanderers, fled and traveled from country to country, they were termed Passagenes, that is, Travelers or Vagrants.

“In Germany they were called Gazares, which signifies, Accursed and Abominable; but thus the Pope of Rome has always been accustomed to call those who oppose the Roman faith.

“In Flanders they were called Turilupini, that is, Dwellers with Wolves, because, on account of persecution, they were often compelled to hide and live in wildernesses and forests, in close proximity to wolves.

“Sometimes they were named after the region or district where they lived, as Albigenses, from Albi; Toulousians, from Toulouse; Lombards, from Lombardy; Picards, from Picardy; Lyonists, from Lyons; Bohemians, from Bohemia.”

Thereafter, the origin and cause of said names, according to Jean Paul Perrin Lyonnois, who has noted the same, is further explained by D. Balthasar Lydius, in his treatise on the Various names of the Waldenses, 3d chapter of Perrin, from page 48, col. 1, to page 82, col. 2; in which the true innocence and uprightness of said people, though they were sometimes called bad names, is demonstrated in all simplicity and clearness.

But that nothing may be wanting here, we will, for additional information, subjoin several other names of the Waldenses, passed over by B. Lydius (from J. P. Perrin), but mentioned by Abr. Mellinus, in his History of the Persecutions and Martyrs, for A. D. 1619, fol. 449, col. 3, 4, by misprint, but, properly, fol. 439, col. 3, 4, and some of them, further explained. For, among other things, he writes there, that said people were also “called Catharists, that is, Heretics, because they were called heretics by their opponents.

“They were called Publicans, because they were compared by the Romanists to publicans or open sinners.

“From the Latin word lolium, signifying weed, they were called Lollards; though, as stated above, this name was also given them from Lollardus, a teacher; however, they were likened to lolium, a weed that grows among the corn, because they, (the papists said) ought to be rooted out like the tares from among the corn; this name they also retained in Germany, Sarmatia, Livonio,” etc.

“They were called Runcari because they lived near Runcalia, not far from Piacenza.

“They were called Barrini, from Mount Barrio or Barian, a place in the district of Crema, in Italy. Also Cotterellos, because they lived on the mountains known as the Cottian Alps. They were also called Comists, because they lived in the city of Como, in Italy.

“In Germany they were called Grubenheimer, that is, Cave-dwellers, because necessity compelled them to live underground, in pits and caves.

“In France they were termed Texerants, that is, Weavers, because there were many weavers among them.”

These and similar names have been given the Waldenses in former times; which we have deemed necessary to notice briefly, in order that the readers, in the sequel of our history, whenever these or similar persons are spoken of, may know who and of what belief they were.

OF THE WALDENSES WHO IN ALL RESPECTS WERE OF ONE BELIEF WITH THE BAPTISTS (ALSO CALLED ANABAPTISTS); OF WHOM WE SHALL SPEAK THROUGHOUT OUR ACCOUNT.

Although Peter Waldo, from whom the Waldenses derived their name, was enkindled with a true zeal for the divine and evangelical truth; yea, so that in the beginning very many, through his doctrine and life, burned as with a heavenly fire, and were zealous with him for God and the pure truth; yet not all remained steadfast in the truth; which appears to have been caused from their being dispersed into different countries and becoming separated from one another, by reason of the persecutions.

Some were also called Waldenses though they had no fellowship with them, and never were true brethren with these people.

Others, though they had once been members of that church, had joined themselves to others, thus forsaking, either from fear of death, or for some other reason, their former confession, especially in the article of the meekness and patience of Jesus.

Others, notwithstanding that they filled worldly offices, yea, even engaged in war, were sometimes, though perversely, as shall be shown in the proper place, called Waldenses or Albigenses; only (as can be inferred) for the reason, that some Waldenses or Albigenses lived under their protection, who were tolerated by connivance, or otherwise countenanced by them.

We shall therefore pass over all those concerning whom there is evidence that they only bore the name of Waldenses, but were not such in deed; and turn to those of whom ancient history testifies that they confirmed the name by the deed, in faith as well as in doctrine.

Sebastian Franck, in Chron. van de Ord. en Sect. der Rom., fol. 153, col. 3, writes, that the Waldenses were divided into two, or, as some maintain, three divisions, one of which, in all points, held the same tenets with the Anabaptists (Baptists), having all things in common. They baptize no infants, and do not believe at all in the presence of the Lord’s body in the sacrament. A little before this, he says: “They invoke no saints or creatures, but only God. They do not swear at all, yea, they regard this as improper for a Christian. They also have no images, and do not bow before or worship them. They allege, that the sacrament ought not to be worshiped, but Christ, at the right hand of his Father, and God, in Spirit and in truth. They suffer no beggars among them, but help and assist each other as brethren.” See concerning them, Seb. Franck, Chron. Rom. Ketter, fol. 121, col. 2. Introduction, page 50, col. 2. H. Mont. Nietigh., page 86, Jac. du Bois contra Montanum, page 158.

These are the true Waldenses, whom we have chosen, and who shall be the aim of our whole account.

HOW THE WALDENSES WERE CALLED ANABAPTISTS BY THE ROMANISTS THEMSELVES.

This is stated by Jacob Mehrning in different places, after he has declared, upon the testimony of ancient writers, that they were called by the peculiar names of those who were previously already termed Anabaptists. “From Berengarius,” says he, (Bapt. Hist., page 666), “they were called Berengarians; from Peter de Bruis, Petrobrusians; from Henry, Henricians; from the apostles, Apostolics; from Peter Waldo, Waldenses, and so forth. Among us Germans,” he writes (pp. 695, 696), “the papist, Lutheran, and Calvinistic pedobaptists still contemptuously call them Anabaptists; in the Netherlands they are called Mennists, from Menno Simons, one of their principal teachers.”

Thus, according to this testimony, the ancient Waldenses agreed in faith not only with Berengarius, Peter Bruis, Henry Tholossanus, and the Apostolics, of whom we have given an account before; but also with the Mennonites or Baptists of the present day, who by nearly all the rest in so-called Christendom are stigmatized with the contemptuous appellation of Anabaptists, even as their former brethren, the abovementioned Waldenses, were called by those from whom they were separated, namely, the papists.

On pages 677 and 678, these Waldenses are several times called Anabaptists, with the statement, that long before the time of John Huss, they lived in Poland and Bohemia, as well as in France, as is noted in that place. From Hagecus, Dubravius, Micchovius, Cromerus, Jacob Usserius, Jounetus, M. Glaneus, Keyser’s Car. Edict.

It is true, that by some of said papistic authors these people are represented in a very bad light, with regard to their faith, as well as their life; however, the writer of the History of Baptism refutes said representation, saying (p. 679, from M. Flaccius and Cent. Magd.), that they were slandered by their accusers, and that in doctrine and life they were very pious, orthodox, and godly Christians.

Although we might stop here, as having sufficiently proved, that the ancient Waldenses were one people with the Baptists of the present day, yet, since this is a much assailed point, we will add, for further confirmation, a few more testimonies from papistic writers. Abbot Peter Cluniacensis, in the first article of Peter Bruis and Henry Tholossanus, makes mention of the belief of the Waldenses, and says, that “they (with said two men) denied that infants in the years of their irrationality can be saved by the baptism of Christ, and maintained, that the faith of another cannot help them, because they cannot use their own faith.” Hence, they said: “Though the infants are baptized by the papists, yet, since they cannot believe, their infancy preventing them, they are by no means saved by baptism. But we choose a proper time of faith, and do not rebaptize men, as is alleged against us, since they know their God, and are prepared to believe on him; but we then baptize them aright, lest it might be said, that they are rightly baptized, who, though baptized in infancy, are not baptized with the baptism by which sin is washed away.” This the Waldenses are wont to say, says the writer. Bapt. Hist., page 687.

The writer of the History of Baptism makes the following comments on the twelfth of the Magdeburg Centuries, pp. 428, 429: “Concerning the origin of the Waldenses, who sprung from Peter Waldo, Mellinus relates all that has been given above from Flaccius. Hence it came, that all his disciples, followers and adherents were at that time called Anabaptists by the malicious papists; and also, Poor Men of Lyons, of which name they needed not to be ashamed for Christ’s sake, who also, for our sakes, became poor, that through his poverty he might make us rich. But when they subsequently, through persecution, became dispersed from France into other countries, as, England, Poland, Livonia, etc., other names were given them.” B. H., p. 695.

Here it is expressly stated that the Waldenses, from ancient times were designated by the papists by the name of Anabaptists; doubtless, because they baptized those who had been baptized in their infancy again, or, at least, aright, afterwards, when they had attained to the faith; for these are words of the Waldenses themselves, as has been shown above. Moreover, that said people were scattered from France not only into England, Poland, and Livonia, but also into many other countries, yea, almost over the whole known world, has previously been proven in part, and shall hereafter, if necessary, be demonstrated still more fully.

Bapt. Hist., page 710. D. Vicecomes (lib. 2, cap. 2), gives evidence from Bernhard, that the Waldenses were anabaptists, as the ungodly now call the Christian baptists (the Baptists), who did not believe in infant baptism.

It is certainly clearly and plainly said, that the Waldenses were anabaptists, or, at least, that they were called by that name; the reason why is also shown, namely, because they, like the Baptists of the present day, did not believe in infant baptism.

Jacob Mehrning, having noted that the Waldenses were called anabaptists, says (p. 696): “But their right, proper, and true name is, and should be, by rights, Christians and Christian-baptists; because they, according to the command and ordinance of Christ, baptize none but those who, according to Christ’s baptismal ordinance, know Christ from his holy Gospel, believe on him, and upon such faith, are rightly baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

VARIOUS TESTIMONIES THAT THE WALDENSES REJECTED INFANT BAPTISM.

In Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism there is introduced the testimony of Reinerius, in former times a priest of the order of Dominicans, who lived in and about the time of the rise of the Waldenses, and who gives the following with regard to their belief: “They (the Waldenses) say, that the washing of baptism given to infants is of no use.” See concerning this, Bibliotheca Patrum, Tom. 13, page 300. Also, H. Montan. Nietigh., page 86, which also agrees with the confession that Jean Paul Perrin relates in his History of the Waldenses, art. 7.

On pages 618 and 619, several articles are quoted from a very ancient book, which, in papistic manner, are imputed to them as errors, though they spoke correctly and according to truth with regard to them.

1. They reject all the sacraments of the church (that is, as they were administered according to the Romish custom).

2. Of the sacrament of holy baptism they say, that the questions of the catechism are put in vain [that is, to infants, who do not comprehend such questions, and do not have the ability to reply to them; whereby they sufficiently rejected infant baptism, which it was not customary to administer without putting said questions to the unintelligent infants.]

3. That the absolution which is pronounced over infants (at baptism) is useless.

4. That the sponsors (who were accustomed to recite the creed as out of the child’s mouth) do not understand what they answer to the priests.

By the fourth as well as the third article, not only is infant baptism itself abolished, but also its appurtenances of absolution and sponsors are derided and declared a vain, useless, and ridiculous performance. But in the first article already, where it is said, that they rejected all the sacraments of the (Roman) church, among which sacraments infant baptism was not one of the least, but one of the chief ones; it is plainly taught, that they did not believe at all in infant baptism, but like other ancient papal institutions, trampled it under their feet and rejected it.

From said ancient book, which is ascribed to Reinerius, the Waldenses are charged with various other things respecting their faith; of which, in the ninth and tenth charge, the following is said with reference to baptism (page 629, art. 9): “As regards baptism, some (he means the Waldenses) err, saying: ‘Infants are not saved by baptism, Mark 16:16. But he that believes and is baptized, shall be saved; but the child does not believe, and, hence, is not saved (by baptism).’ Thereupon the priest Reinerius replies: ‘The child is baptized upon the faith of the parents;’ ergo.”

Art. 10 confirms the preceding; only it treats also of something more, namely, of the imposition of hands, which was customarily done among the Waldenses, at baptism, to the adult candidates. They also reprove therein the practice which the priests had, of interrogating the sponsors who would come with children to baptism, in an unknown tongue, to which the sponsors then replied, without knowing, however, what they had been asked. This the Waldenses also take as a reason for rejecting infant baptism and the pedobaptistic superstitions. However, to this, said Reinerius replies: “Suffer little children to come unto me.” Matt. 19.

On page 733, de Centuria XIII., cap. 5, fol. 216, 217, it is stated from Cesarius, that the Waldenses and Albigenses rejected baptism and said that baptism possessed no virtue and was of no use; which they understood of infant baptism, which is administered without doctrine and faith; for otherwise the Waldenses esteemed the baptism of Christ, which is administered according to his ordinance, very highly.

P. J. Twisck, beginning to write of the Waldenses for the year 1100, calls them by the name of Brethren, and says that they opposed infant baptism. His words are these: “It is evident from the writers, that in these times and shortly after, there existed the Waldensian or Albigensian Brethren, who opposed the papal errors and infant baptism.” Chron., page 423, col. 1.

This is confirmed by the writers of the Introduction to the Martyrs Mirror, page 50, col. 1, who say, With, or from, Baronius, that among other things they held, that infant baptism is not necessary to salvation.

We finally come to the testimony of Jean Paul Perrin Lionnoys, who, according to the translation of B. Lydius, also confirms the foregoing, although the translator, Lydius, as well as J. M. V., after the manner of pedobaptists has endeavored to give said belief of the Waldenses a different appearance; however, it will appear sufficiently from the matter itself, who has been the more honest, the author or the translator. We will therefore enter upon our work and commit this to the judgment of the reader.

In the third chapter of the first book of the History of the Waldenses, various things of which the papists accused the Waldenses are related, some of which were true, and some false. Among them, mention is made of their views against infant baptism, which is expressed in these words: “The fourth calumny was, that they rejected infant baptism.” Lib. 1, part 1. Hist. Waldenses, cap. 3, page 6, col. 1, from St. Bernh., Hom. 66 on Cant.

These things, B. Lydius (page 10) endeavors to refute, as though the Waldenses deferred the baptism of their children, not in consequence of their belief, but from necessity through want of teachers; in which he agrees with his colleague, Abraham Mellinus, preacher of the Calvinists, in St. Anthony’s Polder; who, remarking that various writers testify that the Waldenses left their children unbaptized, says (Hist. Mart. 435, col. 3): “That the children of the Waldenses often got to be rather old, before they could receive baptism, was not a voluntary matter on their part, but was owing to the lack of teachers; for the harvest among them was great, but the laborers few, who could administer the sacraments, especially baptism, which they held in great esteem. Hence, as their ministers were frequently scattered far and wide, through the violence of persecution, or had gone into other countries to preach, they were often compelled to postpone the baptism of their children, and thus it happened that their children not seldom got to be almost of age, before they could obtain baptism.” Thus far, A. Mellinus.

But who does not see, that this is only a fabrication, yea, an artifice, by which not only Lydius, but also Mellinus, both strong Calvinists, seek to force it upon the Waldenses that they omitted infant baptism not as a matter of faith, but of necessity. For, that they needed not to omit it from necessity, or through want of teachers who administered baptism, if, otherwise they had held infant baptism to be right, appears from various authors; for they had their churches, which could not well be without teachers, not only in kingdoms, principalities, earldoms, and provinces, but even in nearly every city, as we shall show more fully in the proper place. Who, then, can believe, that they from necessity, through want of teachers, left their children unbaptized, yea, suffered them to grow up until they became of age, without baptism?

It is evident, therefore, that they did not leave their children unbaptized from necessity or through want of teachers, but because of their belief; as holding that baptism without faith could not conduce to salvation, as is manifest from the confessions which they professed in those times already. Thus both B. Lydius and A. Mellinus have committed no small blunder, in endeavoring to force infant baptism upon the Waldenses, of which they apparently never thought in such a light, and to deprive them of baptism upon faith, which they had confessed so many times.

But, as the compass, though its point be turned East, West, or South, ultimately returns to North; so it is also with the truth: though she be forced from her proper place, she will eventually return to it. This is the case here; for, said translator, who first intended to prove, that the Waldenses administered baptism not only upon faith, but also without faith, to infants, states in another place, that it was always administered with faith and repentance. For, what else is indicated by the words, that they received the sacraments (that is, not only the Supper, but also baptism) with faith and repentance, and this invariably? as is stated in the first book of the third part of the History of the Waldenses, cap. 9, page 138, col. 1, art. 8.

If, then, not only the second, but also the first sacrament, as it is called, namely baptism, is received with faith and repentance, it cannot be said that it was administered to infants, seeing these have neither knowledge nor ability either to believe, or to manifest repentance, and, hence, lack the whole foundation upon which baptism was administered by the Waldenses.

In the tract of the Waldenses, as to which are the works of antichrist, several reproaches against the Pope of Rome and the Roman church are treated of; among other things, it is said, after the second article has been treated: “The third work of antichrist consists in this, that he ascribes the renewing of the Holy Ghost to the external, dead faith (namely, to the creed which the sponsors used to recite at baptism, as from the mouth of the children), and that he baptizes the children in that faith, pretending that by it baptism and regeneration must be obtained.” History of the Waldenses, 3d book, 3d part. Tract against Antichrist, Art. 3, page 162, col. 1, page 163, col. 2.

In another place there is quoted, from Reinerius, this accusation against the Waldenses: “They also censure many things in the (papal) sacraments, and say that the baptism of infants is of no avail to them.” B. Lydius, Tractaet van de Kerke, page 86, col. 1.

Having, then, sufficiently proved, that the true Waldenses were not only called Anabaptists, but that they also actually rejected infant baptism, we will proceed to other articles of their doctrine, which they had in common with the present Baptists.[155]

[155] Doopsgesinde, German, Taufsgesinde.

THE BELIEF OF THE ANCIENT WALDENSES RESPECTING THE OFFICE OF THE SECULAR AUTHORITY.

It is altogether manifest, that the true Waldenses, in their beginning as well as in their progress, did not accept of secular power and authority, but forsook, yea, fled from it. This appears, in the first place, from those who were the originators, or at least, no insignificant representatives of their religion, namely, Peter Waldo and John of Lyons, both of them influential and very wealthy men, who voluntarily abandoned their riches, and taught their followers to do likewise--to resign not only authority, but also the means which furnished occasion thereto, and to be content with such things as might be needful to them for a modest and sober manner of life. For this reason they were called not only Waldenses, but also Poor Men of Lyons. See Bapt. Hist., page 599. H. Mont., page 85.

To this belongs also, that, though their number was great, they suffered themselves to be martyred like sheep for the slaughter, after their expulsion from Lyons, to which they had not offered the least resistance; concerning which, ancient history affords an abundant evidence, and which, God granting us time, we shall notice more fully in the proper place.

As regards what the Waldenses, long after they had left Lyons, believed and taught with reference to this point, it is expressed in one of their articles as follows: “But he (Christ) also exercised no temporal jurisdiction or authority, in the state of his humiliation.” Abr. Mell., 2d book, fol. 446, col. 2.

By these words the Waldenses indicate that even as Christ exercised no temporal authority in the state of his humiliation, so his followers also, here, ought not to exercise any such authority, but that they themselves should be subject to secular authorities, as the whole article shows, both in the preceding and in the following words.

In another article they say, that they are truly poor in spirit, and, for righteousness and faith’s sake do not exercise authority, but suffer persecution. Bapt. Hist., page 617, in the fourth error of their first article, as the Romanists call it.

THE VIEWS OF THE ANCIENT WALDENSES AGAINST WAR.

Their departure from Lyons, their wandering about in foreign countries and cities, their innocent and patient suffering, their steadfastness unto death, and all this without any resistance, retaliation, or self-defense, sufficiently indicated the faith they had, and by what spirit they were actuated. But in order to treat this subject in a proper manner, we will here add what they, as regards this matter, believed and, themselves or in the name of others, indicated.

In an old book of parchment, supposed to have been written three hundred years ago, by a certain priest called Reinerius, various matters are alleged as charges against the Waldenses, which he, in a certain place, comprises in three articles, each of which he then divides into sections. In the tenth section he says, “That the Pope and all the Bishops are murderers, because of the war that they carry on.” Bapt. Hist., page 617. B. Lydius, 3. Tract of the Faith of the Waldenses, page 85, col. 1, Art. 10.

This he gives as an article of the faith of the Waldenses, calling it, however, an error or heresy; but how can he, who has not learned otherwise, speak differently?

Jean Paul Perrin Lionnoys, or his translator, charges the Waldenses also with the following, which accords well with the preceding: “Seventhly, (he says) that they (the Waldenses) maintained, that the Pope commits mortal sin, when he sends forth to make war upon the Turks; and that they likewise commit mortal sin, who obey him in waging war against the heretics.” History of the Waldenses, 1st part, 1st book, cap. 3, page 6, col. 1.

Who cannot see, that this article of the Waldenses opposes war and everything that can be called warfare? yea, in such a manner, that it does not admit of it at all.

For, if one should look for a just cause to wage war, how could he find one more just, than against the Turks? howbeit, it is unjust against all men; but we speak by way of comparison. How could one find greater reason to wage war, than against those whom he considers heretics? for of such it was customary to say that they were worse than murderers, seeing murderers kill only the body, but they, it was said, souls. Nevertheless, the Waldenses reproved the Pope for such action, yea, declared, that he committed mortal sin thereby; as well as those who allowed themselves to be used as instruments by the Pope for this purpose.

What is added by the translator (lib. 1, part 1, Hist. Wald., cap. 4, page 11), for explanation, which however, serves much more to obscuration, we pass by, as unworthy of consideration and which will fall of its own accord.

Yea, it seems, that the Waldenses not only held that they themselves might not wage war or kill any one, but that they also denied the right of secular authorities who wished to be called Christians, to kill, even if the persons whom they should put to death were malefactors. Concerning this, we find in P. J. Twisck’s Chronijk, that the “Poor Men,” “Insabbathi,” or “Waldenses,” taught, that no judge who would be a Christian, might put to death any one, not even a malefactor. _Chron., page 534, col. 2_l and page 535, col. 1, from Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 202, and Enca. Sylvio.

Moreover, in the account of Gabriel Prateolus and Guilielmo Reginaldus, who have noted the accusations regarding the doctrine of the Waldenses, also this charge is found against them: Art. 17. “They (the Waldenses) teach that no judge may condemn any one to any punishment; to which end they adduce that it is written: ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged.’” A. Mell. 2d book, fol. 434, col. 1, Elench. Haeres. Tit. Paup. de Lugd. Calvin. Turcismi., lib. 2, cap. 5.

Touching what G. Prateolus and G. Reginaldus add by way of accusation, we let them answer for it. It suffices us that in this they came very near the truth; but they went too far in what the Waldenses understood with regard to capital punishment, namely, that authorities may punish no one with death; this they applied to every kind of punishment, as though the Waldenses had censured the authorities for punishing any one, even a great offender, in any wise; which we are not aware that the Waldenses ever opposed in any formal article, unless some particular one among them held such views.

In the mean time it appears, from the last as well as from the preceding testimonies, how exceedingly fearful these people were in the matter of punishing any one with death; so that they not only desired to be clear from it themselves, but also spoke against the same in the secular authorities. Still more did they reprove open warfare, in which not only a few, but very many are killed, and this for trifling reasons. This being true, we will proceed to other points of their faith, which they had in common with the Baptists.

NOTE.--That the Albigenses also, who were one with the Waldenses, were defenseless, peaceable, and meek people, living in quiet under certain papistic authorities, who protected them. See, among others, Introduction, page 50, col. 2, and page 51, col. 1, from Baron, in Annal.

THE VIEWS OF THE ANCIENT WALDENSES AGAINST THE SWEARING OF OATHS.

In regard to this point the Waldenses were of the same opinion with us, teaching that the fathers of the Old Testament were permitted, when necessity required it, to swear an oath, in or by the name of the Lord; but that for Christians it is quite unlawful, according to the teaching of our Savior, who says: “Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all.” Matt. 5:33,34.

In the first book of the first part of the History of the Waldenses, written by Jean Paul Perrin Lionnoys, and translated by J. M. V., chap. 3, page 6, col. 1, the following point, among others, is adduced as an accusation against the Waldenses: “The sixth (tenet) which they (the Waldenses) maintained, was, that men should not swear on any account.” From Albert de Capit. and Reiner. Also, P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 534, col. 2, page 535, col. 1.

How the compiler of these things seeks to explain said matter, we here pass over, as this is not the proper place to speak of it. But when necessary, we shall consider it our duty to give an account of it.

Far more pertinent and important, however, is that which is recorded in Bapt. Hist., page 624, where it is stated that in regard to the swearing of oaths they believed thus: “Art. 9. That every oath is a mortal sin; saying: Swear not at all; but let your communication be, Yea, that is yea; Nay, that is nay.” Extracted from an old book of parchment, ascribed to Reinerius. Also, A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 432, col. 4.

In the articles ascribed by G. Prateolus and G. Reginaldus to the Waldenses, as having constituted their faith, mention is made of their views in regard to the swearing of oaths, concerning which, the eighteenth article contains the following: “They (the Waldenses) say that all manner of swearing is unlawful for Christians, so that it is nowhere lawful to swear, not even before the judge, when he constrains one thereto, to testify to the truth.” A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 434, col. 1. Elench. Haeres. Calv. Turcism., lib. 2, cap. 5.

It is true, Mellinus, after the manner of the Calvinists, of whom he was a leader, endeavors to explain, as it were, this article of the Waldenses, as though thereby they did not prohibit all swearing of oaths, but only frivolous swearing. His words are these: “The eighteenth article has reference only to unjust and perjurious swearing, as said author owns, (he means the author who charges them with those articles) saying: ‘The occasion which led them into this belief, was the fact that they so often and continually heard the people swear for trifling reasons, and because thereby one easily falls into perjury.’”

But hear what he further says, as he adds a jeering comparison, saying, “That the heretics, who never swear, are like the devil, of whom we do not read that he ever swore.” Page 434, col. 3.

I pray thee, beloved reader, see now, by what author Mellinus seeks to establish his case. It is true, he first quotes this author when presenting the articles of the Waldenses, and this for the reason that the latter has presented them in such a manner that they in every part militate against the Roman church; but now, seeing that said author has presented the article respecting the swearing of oaths (in which the Waldenses deny all swearing) in such a way that it militates against the Calvinistic church, he begins, in order to make the matter doubtful, and to deprive the Waldenses of the article relative to non-swearing, to quote from said author again, and this, in mocking and impious language.

But, becoming more discreet, he commences to extol that which is expressed in the eighteenth article, relative to the swearing of the Waldenses, above the manner of the papists, saying: “But they (the Waldenses) who have learned from Christ, ‘Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil’ (Matt. 5:37), will judge, that the papists, among whom the practice of daily swearing so frivolously is in vogue, are more like that Evil One, that is, the devil, than the Waldenses, who guarding against lying and swearing, and in their daily conversation, are wont to say only, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; as this same writer acknowledges in regard to them. They guard against back-biting, foul words, lying, and swearing, and, as another inquisitor has said: They are prudent in their words, avoid all lying and swearing; also, they teach to avoid all lying, back-biting, and swearing.” A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 434, col. 3, from Frehed. Hist. Bohem., page 232.

With these and like passages from the preceding authors, Mellinus has sought to embellish the Waldenses, to indicate, that they were pious, upright and moral people; but in the mean time he forgot himself, not once thinking that thereby he abundantly establishes that which in other places he endeavors to refute, namely, that the Waldenses rejected all swearing of oaths.

Here we see how excellent truth is, that it cannot remain hid, but is brought to light even by its opponents, either unintentionally or otherwise. I should here leave this subject, but as Mellinus has helped me on the way to show him his perverted zeal, I find it necessary to enter more deeply into the matter. This good, but perversely zealous man, having put all his arguments aside, plainly relates, from an old papistic work of three hundred years ago, that the Waldenses believed all oaths to be mortal sins; yea, that they considered him who would compel another to swear, worse than a murderer. A. Mell. 2d book, fol. 432, col. 4, from Illyrie. Catal., lib. 15, Tit. Waldens. See also, Conferedit. Freher. in Hist. Bohem. and Gretser. Sweluc. Tudens.

Of such and similar passages the writers who present the views of the Waldenses, are full to overflowing, so that it is as clear as the sun, that these people rejected the swearing of oaths and everything that resembles it, even to the saying of the word, Verily, or Certainly, etc.; of which the aforesaid writer also makes mention, saying: “They (the Waldenses) do not say to one another, Verily, Certainly, or the like.”[156] Fol. 432, col. 4.

[156] P. J. Twisck, in his Chronijk, shows expressly that the Waldenses would not swear, etc. Book 14, page 743, col. 2. from Henr. Boh., fol. 27.

All this was done from fear of swearing in any wise, because the Lord had so expressly said, “Swear not at all.” Matt. 5:34; hence, they avoided all manners which bore any resemblance to the swearing of oaths.

But, lest any should think that the Albigenses, who were one people with the Waldenses (though others distinguish between them), differed from them in their views, belief, and practice as regards this point, let him read what is noted in the Martyrs Mirror, edition of 1631, page 51, col. 2; where it is stated, from Baronius, for A. D. 1178, num. 3, 4: “That many of the Albigenses, from fear of severe punishment, feigned return to the Roman church; but when an oath was demanded of them, they refused to swear; hence they were pronounced heretics and solemnly, with burning tapers, excommunicated, with an injunction to all Catholics, to shun them; and to all (Romanistic) princes, to expel them from their dominions.

OF THE VIEWS OF THE WALDENSES AGAINST NEARLY ALL ARTICLES OF THE ROMAN CHURCH.

Reinerius, who has written against the Waldenses, gives the following testimony respecting them, as the Jesuits confess in their own print.

Cap. 2, Ingolstadt edition, page 54. “Among all the sects that ever were and still are, there is none more pernicious for the church than the sect of the Lyonists (thus he calls the Waldenses), and this for three reasons.

“Firstly, because it is the most ancient; for, some say that it has existed from the time of Sylvester; others say, from the time of the apostles.

“Secondly, because it is more general (that is, more widely diffused) than other sects; for there is no country where this sect is not found.

“Thirdly, because, whereas all other sects, by their abominable blasphemies against God, cause those who hear them, to loathe their belief, this sect, on the other hand, has a great semblance of godliness, because they lead a godly life before men, have a true belief in all things concerning God, and hold correct views in regard to all the twelve articles of the faith; only they condemn the Roman church and the clergy, in which the unlearned too readily credit them.”

In the fifth chapter he says that their doctrine can be brought under these three heads: 1. Invectives against the Roman church and her institutions. 2. Errors against the sacraments and the saints. 3. Rejection of all church usages.

He then specifies their doctrine in the following manner:

1. That the Roman church is not the church of Christ, but the church of malediction; and that she decayed in the time of Sylvester, when the poison of temporal riches insinuated itself.

2. That all sins and defects are in the Roman church, and that they (the Waldenses) alone live holily.

3. That almost no one observes the doctrine of the holy Gospel, except they (the Waldenses).

4. That they, in truth, are poor in spirit, and suffer persecution for righteousness and faith’s sake.

5. That they are the church of Jesus Christ.

6. That the Roman church is the whore described in John’s Revelation.

7. That they contemn all the statutes of the (Roman) church, because of their multiplicity and laboriousness.

8. That the Pope is the head of all errors.

9. That the prelates are scribes, and the religions, or members of orders, Pharisees.

10. That the popes and bishops, with respect to the wars they carry on, are murderers. (This article is treated of in another place.)

11. That God alone is to be obeyed, and not the prelates.

12. That one is not greater than another (before the Lord), but that all are brethren. Matt. 23.

13. That no one may bow his knees before the priests; because the angel said to John, “See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant.” Rev. 22:9.

14. That men should not give tithes (to the papistic clergy), because it was not customary formerly to give tithes to the church.

15. That the clergy ought not to have property of their own; because it is written, “The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel ... the Lord is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them.” Deut. 18.

16. That the inmates of monasteries ought not to have prebends.

17. That bishops are not entitled to the regalia; these being things which are the prerogative of kings and rulers.

18. That no churches and monasteries ought to be founded and endowed.

19. That wills ought not to be drawn up by ecclesiastical persons.

20. They reject the clergy, on account of their idleness, and because they do not labor with their hands, as the apostles did.

21. They reject the names, pope and bishop.

22. They will not admit that any one should be compelled to the faith.

23. They reject all ecclesiastical (papistic) offices, and pay little regard to ecclesiastical privileges.

24. They do not admit, that churches and ecclesiastical persons should be exempt from the power and punishment of the secular authorities, for, under that cover of liberty the clergy used to do as they pleased.

25. They hold in contempt councils, synods, and all (papistic) ecclesiastical assemblies.

26. They say, that all human rules respecting persons in orders, are Pharisaical institutions.

These and various other articles respecting the belief of the Waldenses, all directed against the Pope, the clergy, and the whole Roman church, were found in an old parchment written three hundred years ago, and ascribed to Reinerius. It was afterwards followed by various authors. See Balth. Lyd. 3, Tract of the Waldens., page 84, col. 1, and page 85, cols. 1, 2. A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 430, col. 4, fol. 431, cols. 1–4. Bapt. Hist., pages 616, 617, 618. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 451, col. 2. Also, Nicol. Eymeric., printed at Rome, A. D. 1585.

THE CONFESSIONS OF THE WALDENSES, OR THEIR OWN CREEDS.

Since the Waldenses were very ancient, and were spread over very many parts of the world, it came that they, from time to time were compelled, by the demand of those with and among whom they lived, to give an account of their faith; hence it is, that different creeds of the Waldenses were made and are still extant. However, it is not our intention, to relate them all, but simply to present to you one or two, which have been celebrated from ancient times, and are judged to be of the best.

Jean Paul Perrin Lionnoys, in his History of the Waldenses, translated from the French into Dutch, by J. M. V., first part, first book, page 43, makes mention of a certain confession of the Waldenses, in which they speak of various matters of faith, particularly of the holy Scriptures. It reads thus:

Article I. We believe and hold fast all that is contained in the twelve articles of the Apostolic Creed; and regard as error all that differs therefrom, and does not agree with said twelve articles.

Article II. We believe that there is one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Article III. We confess and hold as holy canonical Scriptures, the books of the Holy Bible, namely these: The five books of Moses, called Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth. The historical books, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. The didactic books, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomon. The greater prophesies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. The lesser prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

Then follow the books of the Apocrypha, which were not received by the Hebrews; hence we read them, as Jerome says, in the preface to the Proverbs, for the edification of the people, but not for the purpose of confirming church doctrines. They are: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom; Ecclesiasticus, or Jesus Sirach; Baruch, with the letter of Jeremiah; the additions to the book of Esther, from the tenth chapter to the end; the Song of the Three Men in the Fiery Furnace; the History of Susanna; of the Dragon at Babel; the three books of the Maccabees.

Then follow the books of the New Testament. The Gospels, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The Acts of the Apostles. The epistles of Paul, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John. (How it comes that 3 John is not mentioned, we do not know). The epistle of Jude, the Revelation of John.

Article IV. The aforementioned books teach this: That there is one God, who is omnipotent, all-wise, and alone good, who has created all things according to his goodness; for he created Adam after his image and likeness; but that, through the envy of the devil and the disobedience of Adam, sin came into the world, and that we are sinners in and through Adam.

Article V. That Christ was promised to the fathers, who received the law, that by it they might know their sin, unrighteousness and unfitness, and long for the coming of Christ; to which end he atoned for sin and himself fulfilled the law.

Article VI. That Christ was born at the time appointed by his Father; namely, when all manner of wickedness abounded; and this not for the good works’ sake, for they were all sinners; but to show us grace and mercy, as being the true and faithful one.

Article VII. That Christ is our Way, Truth, Peace, Righteousness, Shepherd, Advocate, Sacrifice, and High Priest; who died for the salvation of them that believe, and was raised for our justification.

Article VIII. And, consequently, we maintain, that there is no other mediator and advocate with God the Father, than Jesus Christ. But as regards the virgin Mary, we hold, that she was holy, humble, and full of grace; likewise we believe of all the other saints, that they ... wait for the resurrection of their bodies in the day of judgment.

Article IX. We believe that after this life there are but two places; the one for the blessed, the other for the damned; and utterly deny purgatory, which is a dream and invention of antichrist against truth.

Article X. We have likewise always believed, that all human inventions are an unspeakable abomination before God; such as feast days, vigils of the saints, the so-called holy water, abstaining from flesh on certain days, and like things, especially masses.

Article XI. We abhor all human inventions, as proceeding from antichrist, and which carry with them destruction, and prevent the freedom of the spirit.

Article XII. We believe that the sacraments are signs of holy things, or visible representations of invisible grace; and deem it well, that believers should from time to time use these visible signs or representations, when it is possible for them to do so; nevertheless, we also believe and hold, that said believers can be saved, though they do not receive these signs; that is, when they have no place or opportunity where to receive or use them.

Article XIII. We have never confessed that there is any other sacrament than baptism and the Supper.

Article XIV. We must honor the secular authorities with subjection, obedience, willingness, and taxes.

The above fourteen articles are extracted from the book called by the Waldenses, “The Spiritual Almanac,” and from the “Memoirs of George Morel.” Also, “Hist. of the Waldens.,” 1st part, 1st book, cap. 12, pages 43–48.

As regards said articles, they are wholesome and good, if observed in simplicity; hence we will leave them and proceed to another confession, of said Waldenses and Albigenses, drawn up by those of Merindol and Cabriere, and sent to the King of France. The same was publicly read, as A. Mellinus informs us, in the King’s Parliament at Paris, and its contents are, word for word, as follows.

CONFESSION OF THE WALDENSES AND ALBIGENSES, DRAWN UP BY THOSE OF MERINDOL AND CABRIERE, AND SENT TO THE KING OF FRANCE.

I. We believe that there is but one God, who is a Spirit, and the Creator of all things, the Father of all, over and through or in all, in us all; who is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth; to whom alone we look, as the Giver of life, raiment and food, as well as of health and sickness, prosperity and adversity; him we love as the author of all good, and fear him as the discerner of our hearts.

II. We believe, that Jesus Christ is the Son and the image of the Father, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead; by whom we know the Father; who is our Mediator and Advocate; and there is no other name under heaven given unto men, whereby we may be saved. In his name alone we worship the Father, and pour out no prayers before God, save those contained in the holy Scriptures, or which fully agree with the sense of the same.

III. We believe, that we have the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; by whose inspiration we pray, and through whose effectual operation we are regenerated. This Holy Ghost operates in us all good works, and by him we are led into all truth.

IV. We believe in a holy church, the congregation of all the elect (believers) of God, from the foundation (or beginning) of the world unto the end; the head of this church is our Lord Jesus Christ. This Church is governed by the word of God, and led by the Holy Ghost. All true Christians are bound to live in her; for she prays without ceasing for all, being acceptable to God, who is her refuge, and out of which church there is no salvation.

V. It is an established rule with us, that the ministers of the church, namely, the bishops and the pastors, must be blameless in manner and doctrine; and if not, that they must be removed, and others put in their stead, who do better fill their place and office. No one takes unto himself this honor, unless he is called of God, like Aaron; feeding the flock of God, not greedy of filthy lucre, nor lording it over his church; but, with a willing mind, setting a good example to the godly, in word, intercourse, love, faith, and purity.

VI. We believe, that kings, princes, and magistrates are ordained by the Lord as his ministers, to whom obedience ought to be rendered; for they bear the sword, to protect the innocent, and punish the evil; hence we are in duty bound to show them all proper honor, and to pay tribute; and no one can evade this subjection, if he would be called a Christian, according to the example of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for he paid tribute; but exercised no temporal jurisdiction or dominion, drawing the sword of the heavenly word in the state of his humiliation.

The last clause is translated by J. M. V., in Hist. Wald., thus: Who himself would pay tribute, but was not willing to accept of worldly dominion.

VII. We believe, that the water in the sacrament of baptism is an external, visible sign, representing to us that which the power of God works within us, namely, the renewing of the Spirit, and the mortifying of our flesh in Christ Jesus, by whom we also become members of the holy church; in which church we show forth the confession of our faith, and the reformation of our life.

VIII. We believe, that the holy sacrament of the communion, or of the Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a holy memorial and, a thanksgiving for the benefits bestowed upon us through the death of Christ; which we all ought to observe and celebrate in the congregation of the godly, in faith, love, and self-examination; and that in thus receiving the bread and the cup, we also become partakers of the body and blood of Christ, as we are taught in the holy Scriptures.

IX. We confess, that marriage is good, honorable and holy, yea, instituted by God himself, and that therefore no one ought to be prohibited from marrying, unless the word of God intervene.

X. We believe, that the godly and godfearing ought to conduct themselves praiseworthily before God, keeping themselves engaged in good works, which God has ordained that they should walk therein; these works are: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, piety, modesty, temperance, and other good works commanded in the Scriptures.

XI. On the other hand, we confess, that we must beware of false prophets, whose aim is, to draw the people away from the religious worship which we owe to the Lord our God alone, and to cause them to adhere to the creatures, and put one’s confidence in them; to neglect the good works commanded us in the holy Scriptures, and to follow the fables of men.

XII. We hold the Old and the New Testament as the rule of our faith, and follow the Symbol or Creed of the Apostles. If any one be found who says that we confess another doctrine, we shall show, if permitted to do it legally before the regular judges, that he is greatly in error and deceives others.

The above Confession of the Waldenses and Albigenses is taken from Carolus du Moulin’s book of the Monarchy of the French, p. 65. A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 446, col. 1, 2, 3, from Joh. Crespin. Acta Mart., lib. 3. Lancelot du Voisin Poplin. Poplinerii Hist. Franc., lib. 1, edition 1585, fol 26. Joach. Camer. Hist. Narrat., p. 565. To be found in Car. Molin’s book, De Manarchia Francorum, in the third volume of his works, edition Paris, A. D. 1612, part 2, pp. 578, 579, 616, 617. Also, Jean Paul Perrin, Hist. of the Wald., 1st part, 1st book, cap. 13, pp. 49, 50.

Abraham Mellinus, having noted said confession, in his large work, says: “Thus far extends the confession of faith of the Waldenses and Albigenses, from whom those of Merindol and Cabriere have sprung; which confession we have placed at the close of the twelfth, and in the beginning of the thirteenth century, in order to anticipate and refute all the shameful doctrines which have been unjustly imputed, not only to the Waldenses, as has appeared above, but, particularly, also to the Albigenses, as though they had been Manicheans.” Hist. Mart., 2d book, fol. 446, col. 4.

But who cannot see from the above confession of faith, that it does not differ in substance from the confession of the Baptists? notwithstanding A. Mellinus endeavors to draw them to the Calvinists or so-called Reformed. For, to speak of but a few points, just look at their confession in the article concerning God; what do the Waldenses say there? “We believe,” say they, “that there is but one God, who is a Spirit, the Creator of all things, the Father of all, over and through or in all things, in us all, who is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth.” Here certainly no mention is made of three self-existent, separate persons in the Divine Being. However, by the confession of the Waldenses in this point, the truth of Father, Son and Holy Ghost constituting the one God, is not excluded; neither is this done in any way by the Baptists.

Besides the preceding, consider the article concerning the Son of God, or of the incarnation of Christ. What is the confession of the Waldenses in this respect? “We believe,” say they, “that Jesus Christ is the Son and image of the Father, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead, by whom we know the Father.” Certainly, nothing is said here, that the eternal Son of God took his whole humanity, consisting of body and soul, from the substance of the virgin Mary, and that this assumed humanity died for us, but that the true, eternal Son of God remained alive, as the Calvinists say; but as the apostle says: “He (the man Christ) is the image of the invisible God,” Col. 1:15; and again: “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” Col. 2:9, as is also declared in the confession of the Anabaptists.

Further, observe the article of the Waldenses respecting the office of authority. “We confess,” say they, “that kings, princes, and magistrates are ordained by the Lord as his ministers, unto whom obedience ought to be rendered.” But what do they add by way of explanation, that a Christian may fill such an office, as the Calvinistic church says? O no; but they say (that we must submit to it) according to the example of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; for he paid tribute, but exercised no temporal jurisdiction or dominion, drawing the sword of the heavenly word in the state of his humiliation; even as also the Anabaptists confess.

Continuing, notice their article respecting baptism. “We believe,” say they, “that the water in the sacrament of baptism is an external, visible sign, representing to us that which the power of God works within us, namely, the renewing of the spirit and the mortifying of our flesh in Christ Jesus, by whom we also become members of the holy church, in which church we show forth the confession of our faith and the reformation of our life.” Now, notice; is there a single word said in this whole article, about infant baptism, which latter is nevertheless so strenuously maintained at the present day, by the Calvinistic church? O no; but the contrary is sufficiently expressed, when it is said: “That the water in the sacrament of baptism is an external, visible sign, representing to us that which the power of God works within us, namely, the renewing.” For, who does not know, that infants have no knowledge of this external, visible sign? much less, that they should understand, that said sign represents to them that which the power of God should work within them, namely, the renewing? And, to be brief, how can infants, who have never walked in the old life, be sealed, by baptism, unto a new life? In said article it is also said, “That baptism signifies the mortifying of the flesh.” But how can children be reminded by baptism, that they must mortify the flesh, who, before baptism, never lived after the flesh? Hence it follows, that the Waldenses, in this article, did not once, it appears, think of infant baptism.

Then, A. Mellinus presents certain doctrinal points which, for the most part unjustly, he says, were imputed, by their adversaries, to the Albigenses, and, consequently, also to the Waldenses, since they were one people; they consisted of twenty-eight articles, the first half, or first fourteen of which, he promptly rejects, saying, after presenting them: “These are the chief articles with which the Albigenses are charged by the papists; the first fourteen have been willfully fabricated, and falsely imputed to them, by their adversaries (which, we will not dispute); the other fourteen they have, for the most part, in common with the Waldenses, as well as with us.”

But, beloved reader, what are the contents of these last fourteen articles which A. Mellinus seems to admit so unequivocally? First of all, the first article (the fifteenth if we count the preceding ones), attracts our attention. “They (the Waldenses) overthrow,” says their accuser, “all the sacraments of the Roman Catholic church, and totally reject holy baptism (that is, the baptism of infants, for at that time nothing but infant baptism was known in the Roman church) as useless and unnecessary; and say that the external water of holy baptism differs in no respect from the water in the rivers.”

Coming to the article concerning the swearing of oaths, which, reckoned with the preceding, is the twenty-sixth, it is expressly stated there: “They teach that it is utterly unlawful to swear.” A. Mell., same book, fol. 447, col. 1.

Here it is to be observed, that if these last articles, respecting baptism and the swearing of oaths are justly imputed to the Waldenses, which has previously been proved to be true, and is also admitted here by A. Mellinus; whether those who made this confession, can justly be reckoned with the Calvinistic church, which, as regards said articles, has quite a different confession; or whether they may be reckoned with the church of the Anabaptists, who, as far as these articles are concerned, agree with their confession; namely, that infant baptism is useless, and that we ought not to swear in any wise.

As regards the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, the office of authority, and other points, it has been said above, that the Waldenses and Albigenses did not differ from, but much rather, agreed with, the Anabaptistic Christians.

SOME MORAL PRECEPTS LEFT BY THE WALDENSES TO THE CHURCHES.

We turn again to Jean Paul Perrin, whose testimony regarding matters of the faith of the Waldenses has, from of old, been very highly esteemed. Among other things, he gives an account of the precepts which they left for the building up of a virtuous life; in regard to which, the following is designed to promote a virtuous and godfearing deportment towards those that are without. In the History of the Waldenses and Albigenses, 3d part, 1st book, 10th chapter, page 153, we read literally, in the Waldensian and in the English [Dutch, the original says] tongue, as follows:

En qual modo le poble se de aver a aquilli guae son de fora?

“How shall our intercourse be with those that are without?”

1. Non amar lo mond.

We must not love the world.

2. Fugir la mala consortia.

We must shun evil company.

3. Si es possible aver paz cum fuit.

We must, if possible, live in peace with all men.

4. Non contendre en judici.

We must not go to law.

5. Non veniar si meseine.

We must not avenge ourselves.

6. Amar li ennemic.

We must love our enemies.

7. Voler sustenir trabails, calomnias, menasas, reprovance, vergognas, eriurias, & totas generations de tormens per la verita.

We must willingly bear labor, calumny, threats, rejection, shame, injuries, and all kinds of torment, for the truth’s sake.

8. Possessir las armas in patientia.

We must possess our souls in patience.

9. Non amenar joug cum li non fidel.

We must not be yoked together with unbelievers.

10. Non communicar a las malas obras, & totalment a las, sabent idolatria, & del servici sentent zo meseine, & enaimi de las autes.

We must have no fellowship with evil works, especially with such as savor of idolatry, and all services which tend in that direction; and thus we are to judge of like matters.

In said tenth chapter some further rules of these people are found, which have reference to the believers themselves, how they must well govern their own lives and bodies. They read as follows:

Encar en qual maniera li fidel debian regir li lor corps.

“Also, how believers are to govern their own bodies, or themselves.”

1. Non servir a li desirier mortal de la carn. They shall not serve the deadly lusts of the flesh.

2. Gardar li lor membres quilli non sian armas d’iniquitas. They shall keep their members that they do not become instruments of wickedness.

3. Regir li lor sentiment. They shall govern well their thoughts.

4. Sot mettre la corps a l’espirit. They shall keep the body in subjection to the spirit.

5. Mortificar li membres. They shall mortify their members.

6. Fugir la ocioseta. They shall shun idleness.

7. Gardar sobrieta & mesura en maniar & beavre, & en parolas & en las curas del mond. They shall observe temperance and sobriety in eating and drinking, as well as in their words, and in the cares of this world.

8. Far obras de miseridia. They shall practice works of mercy.

9. Viore per fe, & per vita moral. They shall live in faith and morality.

10. Combatre contra li desirier. They shall fight against lusts.

11. Mortificar las obras de la carn. They shall mortify the works of the flesh.

12. Istar en temp debit a la Religion. They shall, at the proper time, attend divine worship.

13. Ensemp recordar la divina volunta. They shall speak to one another of the will of God.

14. Examinar diligentament la conscientia. They shall diligently examine their consciences.

15. Mundar & esmendar, & pacificar l’espirit. They shall purify, improve, and compose the spirit or mind.

These and like precepts the Waldenses presented to their fellow-believers, that they might know how to lead a virtuous and pious life, with regard to God, as well as to their neighbor, and to themselves.

TESTIMONY OF ANCIENT WRITERS, REGARDING THE VIRTUOUS LIFE OF THE WALDENSES.

Above all things it is a matter of astonishment, that the most violent opponents of the Waldenses, who accused them the most on account of their faith, could nevertheless find nothing to censure in their life, notwithstanding exceeding attention was given to this point. It is true, that some, from deadly hatred against these people, vented many lies in order to tarnish their reputation; but they were instantly contradicted by their copartners who had a somewhat higher regard for the truth.

Jacob de Riberia, who allowed himself to be used as a persecutor of the Waldenses, says: “That for a long time they resided in Narbonne, or Gaule Narbonnoise, in the bishoprics of Albi, Rhodes, Cahors, and Aix la Chapelle; and that at that time those who would be called ecclesiastics and bishops, were held in little esteem, because nearly all those priests were either unworthy or illiterate. Hence it was easy for the Waldenses, says he, to gain the ascendency among the people, by their eminent learning.” Hist. of the Wald., 1st part, 1st book, cap. 5, p. 21, from Jac. Rib., in his account of the city of Toulouse. Chassagnon, in his History of the Albigenses, page 27.

Reinerius, a Dominican friar and cruel inquisitor against the Waldenses, assaying to defame them because they frequently read the holy Scriptures, said: That when the Waldenses wished to display their learning, they adduced many things relating to purity, humility, and other virtues, showing that sin must be shunned, and quoting thereto the words of Christ and his apostles.

He also adds, that they taught, from the Gospel and the writings of the apostles, how the followers or disciples of Christ must be, saying: “That those alone are followers of the apostles, who follow their lives.” In conclusion he says: “That the Pope, the bishops, and the clergy, who possess the riches of this world, and do not follow the holiness of the apostles, are no rulers of the church of Jesus Christ.” Same page, from Reinerius’ book, De forma Heret., fol. 98.

Their extraordinary virtue is also very evident from the tract of Reinerius concerning the manners of the Waldenses, yea, it is astonishing, how excellently this writer, who had no other intention than to say the worst of them, yea, to brand them as heretics, presented their virtue, so that the papists should justly feel ashamed over it; for, these are the words of him who was their inquisitor: “It can be seen also from their manners and words, that they are heretics; for their manners are modest and grave; they exercise no pride in their clothing, for they wear neither costly nor very mean clothing; they do not engage in any commerce; they avoid lying, swearing, and cheating, but maintain themselves by the labor of their hands, as mechanics. Their teachers are weavers and shoemakers, who do not heap up great riches, but are content with the necessaries of life. The Lyonists (the Waldenses) are also chaste, temperate in eating and drinking, and do not frequent taverns, etc.” Bapt. Hist., pages 646, 647.

Concerning the manner in which the Waldenses prayed, the following is found in an ancient papistic book: “The Waldenses observe this manner in praying: they bow down with bended knees upon the ground, leaning against a bench or something suitable for this purpose. Thus, with bended knees, and body bowed down, they generally continue in prayer as long as it might take to repeat the Lord’s prayer and the amen thirty or forty times. This they do every day with great reverence.” Again: “They say, teach, or have, no other prayer than the Lord’s prayer, or the paternoster. The angelic Salutation, or the Ave Maria they condemned.” Bapt. Hist., page 647.

Among other things, the ancients make mention of some of the Waldenses, who are called apostles, teachers, angels, and brethren; but who nevertheless obtained their names not because of their nobility, high descent, or great worldly learning, but, to all appearance, on account of their virtue. For, as regards their descent, and standing in this world, they were very humble; their names were: Nicholas of Poland; John of Poland, a peasant’s son; Walrich of Hardeck, a shoemaker by trade; Conrad of Gmund, in Suabia, a peasant’s son; Simon of Salig, in Hungary, a tailor by trade; Herman of Mistelgen, a peasant’s son, and blacksmith by trade.

“But,” says the writer who accuses them, “they lead this kind of life and walk: first, they fast three or four days in the week, living on bread and water unless they have to do very hard work; then the chief among them take care that their subjects appear before them. (If by the terms, chief and subjects, there are understood teachers and common people, or master tradesmen and servants, or the like, there is no ambiguity). They pray seven times a day; the oldest (among them) begins the prayer.” Bapt. Hist., page 649.

These and like testimonies respecting the virtues of the Waldenses, even from their bitterest accusers, indicate that they were very merciful, virtuous, and godfearing people, and that they were thus greatly calumniated by those who sought to maintain the contrary in regard to them. But, how unjustly some have proceeded in accusing said people, with regard to their faith as well as to their life, of this we will presently give some account.

HOW THE WALDENSES WERE UNJUSTLY ACCUSED BY THEIR INQUISITORS AND ACCUSERS.

In the second book of the first part of the History of the Waldenses, by Jean Paul Perrin, translated by J. M. V., 3d chapter, page 74, col. 2, there is an account of one Jan Veileti, a monk, and inquisitor over the Waldenses, and how very unfaithfully and deceitfully he or his clerk acted in the case of these people, from which it can be inferred, how it also was with others of their accusers. The words read as follows:

But in the processes which were instituted by this monk Jan Veileti, we have observed an exquisite kind of villainy and low cunning; for, having gotten these proceedings into our hands, we found in them little billets, upon which this commissary (Jan Veileti) had noted the answers of the accused, simply, and just as they had come from their lips; but these simple answers, we afterwards, in the proceedings, found extended, and frequently given in a form contrary to, and quite different from what the sumptum, that is, the aforementioned answer as noted in the proceedings, implied and contained; thereby perverting the meaning of the defendent, and causing him to say that of which he had never thought.

For example, when he was asked whether he did not believe, that as soon as the sacramental words were pronounced by the priest, in the mass, the body of Christ was in the host, just as he was on the tree of the cross, and the Waldenses answered, No, Veileti or his clerk set down as his answer: That he had confessed that he did not believe in God.

Again, when it was asked, whether the saints must not be invoked, the reply was, No, they wrote: That they had reviled, and spoken evil of, the saints.

When it was asked, whether the virgin Mary must not be saluted and invoked in our extremity, and the answer was, No, they wrote: That they had reviled the virgin Mary.

“Behold, such was the faithlessness of the monks and inquisitors in such important matters, and it is not without a certain evidence of God’s providence,” says the writer, “that these villainies have been preserved and have remained to the present time, as a means by which to show, what spirit actuated those men having, by manifold frauds, oppressed and ultimately killed and burnt the believing members of the church of Christ, yet have the audacity to ask us, where the church, and the believers, whom they themselves put to death, were before our coming.”

“Now, if the reader is desirous to know,” says our author, “how said proceedings fell into our hands, we reply, that this occurred likewise through the providence of God.” He then relates, how the archbishops of Embrun, John Rostan, and others had these papers and proceedings under lock and key in their chests and chanceries, until the city where they resided, was taken, A. D. 1585. The house of the archbishop having taken fire on this occasion, many of these processes held in former times against the Waldenses, were thrown in bags into the street. One Calignon, chancellor of Navarre and a certain councilor of Grenoble, who were present, ordered them to be picked up and delivered into their hands; and thus, it is stated, the perfidious calumnies against the Waldenses came to light, which, otherwise, would have gone among the papists, as true accusations against them. But it is as the common adage says: Lies fly swiftly, but truth overtakes them. We will now close our account of the true faith and good practice of the Waldenses, and show, how long and in what times they existed.

CONCERNING THE TIME OF THE WALDENSES.

Of this, H. Montanus gives this account: “The persuasion of the Waldenses or Lyonites obtained, in France as well as in some cities of Italy, secretly as well as openly, according to the condition of the times, for more than three hundred years, from the year 1170 or 1180 to 1545, as may be seen in Sleidanus, lib. 16, Comment.” H. Mont. Nietigh., page 86.

Their beginning we have fixed, according to the common reckoning of ancient writers, A. D. 1170; but it appears that they existed long before; for even as early as the year 1120, people of the same profession declared, by open writings, their views against the Pope, whom they called antichrist, censuring him in many things, as stated above.

Moreover, P. J. Twisck gives the following account, for the year 1168: “The Waldenses, of whom mention is made for the year 1159, had at this time so many followers and such great success with their doctrine, in France, Spain, Italy, and Germany, that those of their profession, as Guil. Nebriss, writes, numbered as many as the sand of the sea; who, when they were summoned by the Pope of Rome, to give an account of their doctrine, would not appear, saying that they were not obliged to obey the Pope, who was the antichrist and had declared them schismatics.” Chron. page 479, col. 1.

A. D. 1199.--It is stated that at this time the Albigenses, who were one church with the Waldenses, had so increased in the earldom of Toulouse, that, as the papists complained, “almost a thousand cities were polluted with them.” Introduction M. M., page 52, col. 1, from Baron. A. D. 1199, num. 13.

With this the lord of St. Aldegonde concurs, when he says (in’t Tafereel der Geschil., cap. 12, fol. 142): “That, notwithstanding Peter de Bruis was burnt as a heretic, at St. Giles, near Nismes, their doctrine nevertheless was spread throughout the province of Gascony, into the earldom of Fois, Querci, Agenois, Bourdeloicx, and almost throughout all Languedoc, and the earldom of Jugrane, now called Venice. In Provence also this doctrine was almost universally accepted, and the cities, Cahors, Narbonne, Carcassonne, Rhodes, Aix la Chapelle, Mesieres, Toulouse, Avignon, Mantauban, S. Antonin, Puflanrens, Castres, Minerve, Begiers, Beaucaire, Lombes, Pannes, and the country of Bigorre were filled with it, together with many other cities which were favorable to them, as Tarascon, Marseilles, Perces, Agenois, Marmande, and Bordeaux; whereby this doctrine spread still further, from the one side into Spain and England, from the other, into Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, Moravia, Dalmatia, and even into Italy.

“Indeed in such a manner did this doctrine spread that however sedulously the popes and all their minions exerted themselves, aided by the princes and the secular magistrates, to exterminate them, first by disputations, then by banishment and papal excommunication and anathemas, proclaiming of crusades, indulgences and pardons to all who would commit violence upon them, and finally, by all manner of tortures, fire, gallows, and cruel bloodshedding, yea, in such a manner that the whole world was in commotion on account of it; yet, they (the papists) could not prevent the ashes from flying abroad, and becoming scattered far and wide, almost even to all the ends of the earth.” Introduction M. M., page 52, col. 1, 2.

The above seems marvelous, but it is not marvelous with regard to the Lord God, with whom nothing is wonderful or impossible. In the mean time, we see how God permitted this grain of mustard seed of the Waldenses, or Poor men of Lyons, to grow up a large tree, and this in the midst of their persecutions. O, the great power, wisdom and love of God, who never forsakes his people!

P. J. Twisck, having finished his account of the twelfth century, concludes as follows, with which we will also conclude our account: “As regards the state and condition of ecclesiastical affairs in the preceding hundred years, we find no special change, nor reformation, except that in this century we have many praiseworthy men who opposed popery with the holy Scriptures, rejecting images, pilgrimages, masses, and other papal superstitions, and also infant baptism; concerning which you may consult the years 1145, 1159, 1168, 1182, 1198. Thus the Baptists and many others (who had better views than the papists), and their followers or fellow-believers lived for a long period, or even to this time, in various countries and places, under many severe persecutions.” Chron., 12th book, page 511.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

[In the beginning mention is made of this salutary, but bloody century, in which the pious witnesses of the Lord come in multitudes to receive the crown of martyrdom on the battle field of Christ.

Four persons, having no good opinion of infant baptism and transubstantiation banished from the bishopric of Treves, A. D. 1105.

Some of the followers of Berengarius, in the same bishopric, follow their fellow-companions, and are not only banished, but also expelled, one year after, namely, A. D. 1106.

The persecutions increase in violence; some who maintained the doctrine of Berengarius, burnt alive at Treves and Utrecht, in the year 1135.

Arnald, a lector at Brescia, opposes infant baptism and the mass; on account of which he is persecuted, and, finally, having come to Rome, deprived of his life by fire, A. D. 1145.

The teacher of said Arnald, namely, Peter Abelard, follows, in the persecution, in the footsteps of his disciple, and is, by order of the Pope, imprisoned in the dungeon of a monastery, where he ends his life, same year as above.

Peter Bruis, burnt at St. Giles; Henry of Toulouse, apprehended and put out of the way by the Pope’s Legate; also many other persons put to death at Paris, for the true evangelical doctrine, about the years 1145, 1147.

Certain peasants, called Apostolics, put to death for maintaining the doctrine of the apostles, near Toulouse in France, A. D. 1155.

Gerard, with about thirty persons, men as well as women, come to Oxford, in England, where they, for maintaining the evangelical doctrine, are branded on the forehead, and scourged out of the city, where they perish from cold, A. D. 1161.

Arnold, Marsilius, and Theodoric, together with five other men and two women, burned alive, at Cologne and Bonn, A. D. 1163.

Many pious Christians, throughout all France and England, for maintaining their true belief, cast into the fire alive, where they expire under great pain, A. D. 1182.

Many Christians in Flanders, put to death by fire for the same reason; many others miserably perish in other places, in the year 1183.

One year after the death of the last-mentioned martyrs, namely, A. D. 1184 or 1185, a decree of Pope Lucius III. is published against the Waldenses, who are called by various names.

The bloody decree of Ilphons, King of Arragon, published against said Waldenses, A. D. 1194, circumstantially presented.

Origin of the inquisition, instituted by Pope Innocent III. against the Waldenses and Albigenses, about the year 1198; to which end, mention is made of three letters which he wrote with regard to this matter; whereupon it followed that, A. D. 1200, five men and three women were burnt at Troyes, in Campania, and some expelled from Metz.]

* * * * *

Hereafter we shall not have to confine ourselves to such scanty material, in the account of the martyrs, as we have necessarily had to do in some of the preceding centuries, when we, through the absence of ancient histories and records, were frequently compelled to break off our account of the sainted confessors of Jesus Christ prematurely; which often grieved us to the heart.

Now, however, comes the salutary, though bloody century, in which abundant matter is furnished us, from which to accomplish our object; the pious witnesses of the Lord now come in multitudes, who willingly suffer themselves to be put to death for the proclamation of the only saving truth; crowns of martyrdom are now proffered to all Christian champions, who have well acquitted themselves on the field of martyrdom, under the bloody banner of Jesus Christ.

Excommunication is the beginning of their conflict; then follow fire, sword, and much other dreadful violence; in and under which, they, calling upon God, end their lives, quit the earth, and take their rest under the wings of their Savior, or under the altar of God, until the number of their slain brethren shall be fulfilled. We then turn, first, to the portal or entrance of the arena of the Christian martyrs, where we perceive that some persons must leave their country, and are banished as heretics.

FOUR PERSONS, WHO HAD NO GOOD OPINION OF INFANT BAPTISM AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION, BANISHED AS HERETICS, FROM THE BISHOPRIC OF TREVES, A. D. 1105.

Here, that which is noted for the year 1105, concerning those who opposed infant baptism in the twelfth century, claims our attention, namely, that then, under the archbishop of Treves, four persons were banished as heretics, because they had no good opinion of infant baptism, and denied, that in the Supper the bread and wine were changed into the real body and blood of Christ. Merul., fol. 726. P. J. Twisck, Chron. H. Montan., Nietigh., page 83. Jac. Mehrn., B. H., page 592.

CERTAIN PERSONS, CALLED BERENGARIANS, BANISHED OR EXPELLED FOR THE SAME REASON, AND FROM THE SAME BISHOPRIC (AS THE FORMER PERSONS), A. D. 1106.

We related, for the year 1035, of Berengarius, deacon of Angiers, that he, with Bruno, the bishop of said city, began to teach against transubstantiation and infant baptism, and this, the most strenuously, about A. D. 1060; which the Roman popes, at different times, endeavored by councils and otherwise to put a stop to, as was shown in its place. And though Berengarius at times, from fear of death, showed himself wavering and very weak in his maintenance of said matters, he still effected so much, that many who were friendly to his doctrine, concurred with him therein, so that some of them, who came into the bishopric of Treves, and maintained their (abovementioned) views, were, like the four persons mentioned previously, banished or expelled by the archbishop of that place, A. D. 1106. Dispersed thence, they departed into the Netherlands, into the country of Liege, and to Antwerp, and thereabouts, scattering, whithersoever they came, the good seed of their true belief. In the meantime, though these had been expelled from the bishopric of Treves, some nevertheless remained, who held their meetings in secret, and taught. In the 2d book of the History of the Persecutions, page 395, col. 3, from Thuan. Prefat., in Hist. sui temp. ad Reg. Honr. 4, where for A. D. 1060, read A. D. 1106.

NOTE.--The authors state of the aforementioned people only that they were expelled, etc., but as no formal expulsion can take place, without a previous condemnation, we are quite inclined to think, that they were first banished, and then expelled.

SEVERAL PERSONS WHO MAINTAINED THE DOCTRINE OF BERENGARIUS, BURNT ALIVE AT TREVES AND UTRECHT, A. D. 1135.

We read in the ancient chronicles, that in the year 1135, several persons were burnt alive by the Emperor Lotharius, at Treves and Utrecht; concerning which the Chron. Sax., in particular, expressly mentions, that they were burnt as heretics. However, in what their alleged heresy consisted, is not clearly expressed. This, however, is certain: that they separated from the Roman church, and opposed her errors.

Abraham Mellinus concludes, from the circumstances mentioned with regard to them, that they were Berengarians, or followers of Berengarius. “For,” says he, “the reader must know, that after Berengarius’ death very many were condemned as heretics, simply because they had the same belief with Berengarius, respecting the Lord’s Supper, and opposed the bread-god of the mass.” Second book, fol. 395, col. 3, from Chron. Sax.

ARNALD, A LECTOR AT BRESCIA, AFTER MUCH PERSECUTION, BURNT AT ROME, FOR HIS VIEWS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM, THE MASS, ETC., A. D. 1145.

In our account of those who opposed infant baptism, in the twelfth century, we made mention, for the year 1139, of one Arnald, a lector at Brescia, in Italy, and stated, that, having been instructed by Peter Abelard, he, besides the doctrine he maintained against the mass and transubstantiation, also taught against infant baptism; on account of which Pope Innocent II. commanded him to be silent. Thereupon he fled into Germany or Switzerland, where for a time he continued to teach. Thence, after the death of the aforesaid Pope, he came to Rome. But obtaining there an incredible number of followers, and being severely persecuted by the Popes Eugenius and Adrian, he fled to the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who delivered him into the hands of the Pope; and thus he was finally, at Rome, placed to the stake, burnt to ashes, and the ashes thrown into the Tiber, lest the people should show him honor. It is recorded that this occurred A. D. 1145, after he had, as is reckoned, strenuously maintained the above doctrine for about six years. Bapt. Hist., page 598, from Baron., A. D. 1139, num. 3, and A. D. 1145, num. 3; also, H. Montan., Nietigh., page 84.

Abraham Mellinus, writing of the belief of Arnald, says: “He also taught quite differently concerning the sacrament of the altar, and (notice), of infant baptism, from that which was taught in the Roman church at that time. He doubtless, in this respect, held the views of Peter de Bruis and Henry of Toulouse (of whom we shall speak afterwards), rejecting transubstantiation, and denying that the mass is a sacrifice for the living and the dead, and that (notice again) either baptism or the faith of others saves infants.” Thus far, A. Mell., 2d book, page 425, col. 3.

NOTE.--Abraham Mellinus, who states this concerning the belief of Arnald, was a preacher of the Calvinistic church, in St. Anthony’s Polder, and, consequently, himself an advocate of infant baptism. Nevertheless, he distinctly says of Arnald, whom he recognized as a pious martyr, that he taught quite differently concerning infant baptism, and also that this baptism and the faith of others do not save children, etc., the opposite of which the Romanists maintained.

Further Observation.--As regards the manner in which he maintained, promulgated, and inculcated said doctrine, and himself kept it to the end, as well as what happened to him on this account; that is, all the circumstances, and also a summary of the matter, see Otto Friesing, lib. 1, cap. 27, 28, and lib. 2, cap. 20, de Gest. Frid. L. Imp. Gunth. Ligur., lib. 3, de Gest. Frid. 1. Bernhard. Epist., 196, 189, 195. Sigon. de Regno Ital., lib. 11, from A. D. 1139 until 1146. Abent., lib. 6. Annal. Boio Gerhohus Reichersp., lib. 1, de Invest. Antichrist. apud Gretser in Proleg. Script. contra Walden., cap. 4, Tom. 4, Concil. edition 1612, p. 23, compared with Bapt. His., p. 686.

PETER ABELARD, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED BELIEF, IS CONFINED, BY ORDER OF THE POPE OF ROME, IN THE DUNGEON OF A MONASTERY, AND DIES THERE, A. D. 1145.

H. Montanus states, from Cesar Baronius, that this Peter Abelard was the one from whom the aforementioned Arnald had obtained the doctrine against infant baptism, drawn, however, chiefly from the holy Scriptures; which is not contradicted, but sufficiently confirmed, by Mellinus, when he says: “That said Arnald was a disciple of Peter Abelard, from France, where he had pursued his studies.” Second book, page 425, col. 3.

He then adds this account: “That Pope Innocent, after the great synod which he had held, at Rome, against the abettors of this doctrine, wrote letters to Samson, Archbishop of Rheims, Henry, Archbishop of Sens, and Bernhard, abbot of Clairvaux, against Arnald of Brescia, and his teacher Peter Abelard; charging the former, that wherever they should find these two, they should confine them each separately, in a monastery, as originators of a perverted doctrine, and antagonists of the Catholic faith, and burn their books or writings wherever they should discover them.”

“As to what was the belief of Peter Abelard,” says Mellinus, “and in what points he assailed popery, can be seen and read in all his works, which have just been published in print in France; where it will also be found, in his letters, how much he had to suffer for his belief.”

Touching his belief and death.--Concerning Peter Abelard and his belief, especially how he opposed infant baptism, and instructed his disciple, Arnald, in this point, see Jacob Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 598. Baron., A. D. 1139, num. 3, and A. D. 1145. H. Montan. Nietigh., page 84. Also, Introduction, fol. 49.

Mellinus finally states, from ancient writers, that Peter Abelard, after much suffering, died in the monastery in which he had been confined, by order of the Pope, on account of his faith. This happened, according to our reckoning, about the year 1146, after the death of his disciple Arnald.

PETER BRUIS, BURNT AT ST. GILES; HENRY OF TOULOUSE APPREHENDED AND PUT OUT OF THE WAY, BY THE POPE’S LEGATE; AND MANY OTHER PERSONS PUT TO DEATH AT PARIS, FOR THE TRUE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE; ABOUT THE YEARS 1145, 1147.

P. J. Twisck gives the following account in his Chronijck, for the year 1145: “About this time there were famous in France, Peter Bruis, formerly a priest, and his disciple, Henry of Toulouse; both had been monks, were learned men, and greatly censured the papal errors, sparing neither great nor small. They called the Pope the prince of Sodom, and the city of Rome the mother of all unrighteousness, abomination, and execration. They spoke against the mass, images, pilgrimages, and other institutions of the Roman church. They renounced infant baptism, saying that none but the believing were entitled to baptism.

When Peter had preached about twenty years, namely, from before the year 1126 until 1145, the people flocking to him in great numbers, he was finally publicly burnt in the city of St. Giles, also called St. Aegidius.

His disciple Henry, who followed him in the doctrine, was intercepted and apprehended some time after by the legate of the Pope, and put out of the way, so that his fate is not known. This is held to have occurred two years after the death of Peter Bruis, namely A. D. 1147.

After their death a cruel persecution arose against all those who had followed their doctrine, many of whom went joyfully to meet death. In short, however assiduously the popes with all their shaven heads aided by princes and secular magistrates, exerted themselves to exterminate them, first, by disputations, then by banishment and papal excommunications and anathemas, proclamation of crusades, indulgences, and pardons to all those who should do violence[157] to said people, and, finally, by all manner of torment, fire, gallows, and cruel bloodshedding, yea, so that the whole world was in commotion on account of it; yet, could they not prevent this persuasion from spreading everywhere, and going forth into every country and kingdom, holding their worship secretly as well as openly, with great or small numbers, according to the tyranny, cruelty or persuasion of the times, and continuing until the year 1304; of whom over a hundred persons were put to death, or burnt, at Paris; and thus their descendants, as history states, continued, though under much tribulation, until this time. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 450, from Philip Marnix Tafer, 3d part, cap. 12, fol. 141, 142. Merula, fol. 748, 853. Hist. Mart. Doopsg., fol. 15. Also, Introduction, page 49.

[157] War, says the writer; but this signifies violence, vexation, etc.

CERTAIN PEASANTS, CALLED APOSTOLICS, PUT TO DEATH FOR MAINTAINING THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLES, NEAR TOULOUSE, IN FRANCE, A. D. 1155.

It is stated, that about A. D. 1155 there were in the above part of France, certain simple but truth-loving peasants, who, pointing to no other author of their doctrine or belief, than to the apostles, called themselves Apostolics, as though they would say, that their doctrine and belief were derived from the apostles. Bernard,[158] abbot of Clairvaux, greatly inveighed against them in divers sermons, calling them a sort of despised, boorish rabble, ignorant and altogether weak. “They,” he says, “are boorish people, idiots, and completely sold; but they must not be dealt with imprudently.” “From this it appears,” writes Abraham Mellinus, “that they must not have been so very dull and ignorant after all.”

[158] “Zealous Bernard,” writes Mellinus, “allowed himself to be bribed, and dared to preach and write whatever he heard said.” Second book, fol. 438, col. 2, in the margin.

In the mean time, Bernard continues to rail against them, after papistic fashion. “Inquire,” says he, “for their author; of what sect they are? They will not be able to name any one. But what heresy is there, that has not its author from among men? The Manicheans had Manes as their head and master; the Sabellians had Sabellicus; the Arians, Arium; the Eunomians, Eunomium; the Nestorians, Nestorius; likewise every other similar pest had its separate master among men, from which it derived both its origin and name; but what name or title shall be given or accorded to these? None at all,” he says, “because they received their heresy neither from nor by men; nevertheless, far be it from us to say that they received it through the revelation of Christ.”

Continuing, he shows in what their so-called heresy consisted, saying: “They ridicule us, that we baptize infants; that we implore the intercession of the saints, and the like. It has been found, that they would rather die, than be converted (namely, to the Roman church). Many a time the believers (he means the papists), laid hands on some of them, drew them forth; and being asked concerning their faith, they would not confess their wickedness, but openly protested, that they taught the true godliness, and were ready to die for it. In the meantime, the people that stood by, were not less ready to put them to death: and falling upon them, they made these new heretics martyrs of their own faith.” “Some wonder at this, that, when led forth to death, they were not only joyful, but also patient; but it is to be deplored, that not only secular princes, but also, it is said, some ecclesiastics, yea bishops, who ought much rather to have persecuted them, upheld them for lucre’s sake, saying: ‘Why should we condemn them as heretics, who have not been convinced of heresy, nor have confessed the same?’”

Thus far, Bernard, who was called, The Mellifluent, but who nevertheless poured forth nothing but bitter gall against these people. In Serm. 16 and 66, on Cant. Also, Epist. 240, oldest edition.

From this it is sufficiently apparent, writes Mellinus, that they persecuted these poor people unto death, not on account of Manichean doctrines, which Bernard unjustly and covertly imputes to them, but because they opposed the Roman church and her errors. Second book, fol 438, col. 1, 2.

NOTE.--These were the same people of whom we made mention, in our account of those who, in the twelfth century, opposed infant baptism, from Nicholas Sander, who states concerning them: “That they were called Apostolics, because they professed to walk in the footsteps of the apostles, and declared to hold themselves only to the apostolical writings; that they contemned infant baptism, purgatory, praying for the dead, invocation of the saints, swearing of oaths, etc.; that they accepted no evidence save from the New Testament; and went joyfully unto death.” Nic. Sand., lib. and Histor. Doopsg., A. 8. D. Anth. Jac., fol. 118. H. Montan. Nietigh., page 84. Introduction, page 50, Jacob Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 599. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 469. B.

GERARD, WITH ABOUT THIRTY OTHERS, MEN AS WELL AS WOMEN, FOR MAINTAINING THE APOSTOLICAL DOCTRINE, AT OXFORD, IN ENGLAND, ARE BRANDED IN THE FOREHEAD, SCOURGED OUT OF THE CITY, AND MISERABLY PERISH WITH COLD, A. D. 1161.

It is recorded[159] that A. D. 1161, in the eighth year of Henry II., King of England, about thirty persons, men as well as women, natives of Germany, sailed over to England. The papists called them erring spirits and publicans, saying that they had sprung from an unknown author;[160] but others have called them Petro-brusians, Berengarians, Poor Men of Lyons, etc., because they, it appears, had their views against infant baptism, transubstantiation, and other errors of the Roman church, in common with Peter Bruis, Berengarius, and the Poor Men of Lyons.

[159] Vignierus, in Hist. Eccl.

[160] The papistic writer says: “From an unknown author.” The Calvanistic Mellinus however says: “But perhaps from Peter de Bruis, Henry of Toulouse, or Berengarius himself.” Second book fol. 439, col. 4, in the margin.

“There were upwards of thirty of them,” says the papistic writer, “who, concealing their errors, had peaceably come into the land, in order to propagate their belief. Their principal leader was one Gerard, upon whom they looked as their lord and master; for he alone had a little learning, while all the rest were illiterate idiots, a very low and boorish class of people, and of the German nation and language. But they could not long remain concealed, since some made very diligent inquiries regarding them; and when it was found that they belonged to a strange sect, they were apprehended.”

THEIR ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RESPECTING THEIR FAITH.

The king, not willing to release or to punish them unheard, convened, on this account, a council at Oxford; where the most learned of the prisoners, namely, Gerard, being solemnly interrogated concerning their religion, answered in the name of all, saying: “That they were Christians, and regarded the doctrine of the apostles.” And when they were properly questioned respecting all the articles of the faith, they answered well with regard to the nature of the supreme Physician; but as regards the means with which he has been pleased to heal our weakness, that is, respecting the divine sacraments, “they,” says the papistic writer, “judged perversely. For they aspersed baptism (he means infant baptism, for this was the baptism then held in esteem by the Roman church) and also the thank-offering (the mass).”

SUMMARY OF THE DOCTRINE OF WHICH THEY WERE ACCUSED.

The doctrines with which they were charged, consisted of the following points (from Abr. Mellinus,[161] 2d book, fol. 440): “That their belief concerning the sacraments, of baptism and the Supper, as well as respecting marriage, was different from what had been decreed by the Roman church, whom they called the whore of Babylon, because she had forsaken the true faith in Christ; they said that she was like the barren fig-tree which our Lord Jesus Christ cursed. They also said that the Pope and the bishops must not be obeyed when they command anything that is contrary to the word of God; also, that monachism was a stinking carrion, also, that all monastic vows are vain and useless, yea, that they foster lasciviousness; also, that all the orders and degrees of the priestly dignity are marks of the great beast; also, that purgatory, masses, church consecrations, worship of the saints, anniversaries for the dead, etc., are genuine inventions of the devil.”

[161] All these passages, Mellinus has taken from the account of Guido Perpigna, in lib. de Haeresib. Bal. Cent. 2, in Append. ad Gervasium Giestrensem. Guido was of the opinion, that said people belonged to the Poor Men of Lyons, that is, the Waldenses.

“These,” says Mellinus, “were about the principal articles which the fathers of the Oxford council could not brook, and on account of which they scourged and banished them out of their country, yea, let them freeze to death.”

THEIR CONDUCT TOWARD THE FATHERS IN THE COUNCIL IN OXFORD, AND WHAT THE COUNCIL DID IN THE MATTER.

We return to the papistic author, to hear from his own lips, how they dealt with these upright and simple people. “When the fathers of the council,” he writes, “admonished them to do penitence and manifest sorrow for their belief, that they might be united with the (Roman) church, they despised this advice, as well as the threats with which they were menaced in order that they, through fear, if by no other means, might be driven to conversion; yea, they scoffed at them, saying: ‘Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.’”

“In order, then,” he writes, “that the poison of their heresy might not spread further, the bishops publicly pronounced them heretics, and delivered them over to the Catholic prince, for corporal punishment. The latter commanded that they should be branded on their foreheads, as an infamous mark of their heresy, and publicly, in the sight of all the people, scourged out of the city, strictly prohibiting any one from taking them into his house, or affording them the least comfort or assistance.” From William Neubrig. Hist. Engl., lib. 2, cap. 13.

JOYFUL GOING OUT OF THESE PEOPLE TO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, AND THEIR MISERABLE DEATH.

This sentence having been pronounced, they were led out to punishment. They went with gladness and in great haste, their leader, namely, Gerard, going before them, singing: “Blessed are ye,” says the Lord, “when men shall hate you, for my sake.”

They were then, according to the rigor of the sentence, branded on their foreheads, their leader receiving a double brand, one on his forehead, the other on his chin, as a sign that he was their leader. Thereupon their upper garments, to the waist, were cut from their bodies, and they were publicly scourged, and cast out of the city. But it being a bitter cold winter, and no one showing them the least mercy, they miserably perished by the intense cold, which they were unable to bear on their naked bodies. William Neubrig. Hist. Engl., lib. 2, cap. 13, 8th year of Henry II. King of England.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS TOUCHING THE ORIGIN AND FAITH OF THESE MARTYRS.

“For further explanation of this history,” writes Mellinus, “which has been written by a bitter papist, the reader must be reminded to imitate the bee--which extracts honey from the same flower out of which the toad draws poison--and, contemning the bitterness of the words of our adversaries, to pay regard only to the matter itself.

That he (the papistic writer) says, that these Christians, whom he calls Publicans, had their origin from an unknown author,[162] leads Vignierius to suppose, that they may have sprung from Peter Bruis, or from his companion, Henry of Toulouse. Guido of Perpigna, however, thinks they belonged to the Poor Men of Lyons, that is, the Waldenses. In lib. de Haeresib. Bal. Centur. 2, in Append. ad Gervasium Giestrensum. See also Abr. Mell., 2d book, fol. 440, col. 1.

[162] From the writings of Gascony.

NOTE.--In regard to what was the belief of Peter Bruis and his companion, Henry of Toulouse, as well as of the Poor Men of Lyons, that is, the Waldenses, we have already shown, that it is not at variance with the belief of the Anabaptists, but much rather accords with it; and hence it is evident that these thirty persons, who made said confession, were true martyrs, since they suffered for the true faith, and the truth of Jesus Christ. Concerning these martyrs, see also five years later, Mart. Paris, lib. 5.

ARNOLD, MARSILIUS, AND THEODORIC, WITH FIVE OTHER MEN, AND TWO WOMEN, BURNED ALIVE AT COLOGNE AND BONN, A. D. 1163.

“In the year of our Lord 1163,” says the papistic writer Orithemius, “certain heretics of the sect called Cathari,” (by which are understood the Waldenses, whose confession of faith we have above shown not to be at variance with the Anabaptists of the present day), “came from Flanders to Cologne, and there secretly abode in a certain barn, near the city. But as they did not come to church, even on Sundays, they were detected by those living near them. Having been brought to an examination therefore, by our mother, the holy church (he means Roman church), they were found to be confirmed heretics.” Orith. Chron. Hirsaug. With this he closes. And hence in order to explain the matter more fully, we must of necessity have recourse to papistic writers, though they were the adversaries of these people.

ECBERT’S ACCOUNT OF THE VIEWS OF THESE PEOPLE, AS OPPOSED TO THE ROMAN CHURCH.

Concerning them, Ecbert, a monk of Schonaugh, who himself disputed with them, writes thus: “Behold, certain perverted, and perverting men (thus he calls good Christians), who had concealed themselves for a long time in hiding-places, and had corrupted the Christian faith in many plain and simple people, are at this time so greatly multiplied throughout all the lands, that the Christian church suffers great injury from the very pernicious poison (so he calls the truth of the Gospel) which they everywhere vent against her.” Serm. 8, contra Catharos, T. 2. Auctor. Bybl. S. S. Patrum, edition Paris, A. D. 1610, p. 831.

TRITHEMIUS’ ACCOUNT OF THEIR EXAMINATION, AND DISPUTATION WITH ECBERT; ALSO OF THEIR DEATH.

Trithemius gives a brief description of their examination, and disputation with Ecbert, abbot of the monastery of St. Florian in Schonaugh, in the bishopric of Treves:

The clergy and the chief men of the city of Cologne, by messengers and letters, requested Ecbert to come to Cologne, as being a very learned man, in order to examine said heretics. Abbot Ecbert arrived at Cologne, August 2d, A. D. 1163, and entered into a public disputation with three of these heretics, Arnold, Marsilius, and Theodoric, who seemed to possess better abilities than the rest.

However, he does not state precisely, what were the articles of the discussion, unless we are to glean them from his following words: “They contemned all the rulers of the church, prelates, priests, and clerks, calling them soul-deceivers and snares of the devil. They ridiculed the sacraments of the Roman church (among which was included infant baptism), and denied the holy body and blood of the Lord (that is, transubstantiation in the sacrament of the altar). Now, when they could neither by arguments, nor by authority (namely, from the testimony of the fathers), nor by admonitions, be induced to renounce their errors (thus he calls their true faith), but obstinately persisted in their purpose, they were utterly cast out from the church, and delivered into the hands of the laity, that is, into the power of the secular authorities, who led them, eight men and two women, out of the city, and committed them to the flames, on the fifth day of August of the same year.” Frith., in Hist. Also, 2d book of the Persecutions, fol. 441, col. 3, 4.

OF THE CONSTANCY OF THESE MARTYRS IN THE FIRE; AND HOW ECBERT MOCKED THEM.

Cæsarius of Heisterbach writes, that this took place in the Jewish cemetery, and that Arnold, as he stood with his disciples or fellow-believers in the fire, said: “Remain steadfast in your faith, for this day you shall be with the holy martyr, Laurence.” Cæsar., lib. 5, cap. 19.

Ecbert made sport of the death of these pious people; for it appears, that, despising infant baptism, they had said, that in order to be saved it was necessary first to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire, in consequence of which this wicked man inquiringly said: “And has not the city of Cologne thus baptized (namely, with fire) your arch-heretic Arnold with his accomplices, and the city of Bonn, Theodoric with his copartners?” Serm. 8, advers. Catharos.

O awful blasphemy! But the Lord shall render to every man according to his righteousness and faithfulness. 1 Sam. 26:23.

NOTE.--P. J. Twisck relates of these people that, out of hatred, they were called Adamites, Catharists, Patarini, and Passaginians, and that the Emperor Frederick published some decrees against them. “But thus, those who seek to live in the fear of God, are always exterminated. In this manner, certain persons, eight men, two women, and a girl, who had gone from Flanders to Cologne, were burned in a barn before the city, on the fifth of August.” Chron., page 476, col. 1, 2, from Abbot Trithem. Mer., fol. 765. Neoburgens., lib. 11, cap. 15.

MANY PIOUS CHRISTIANS THROUGHOUT FRANCE AND ENGLAND, CAST ALIVE INTO THE FIRE, AND BURNT, FOR MAINTAINING THEIR ORTHODOX BELIEF, A. D. 1182.

William of Armorica and Roger of Hovedon state that at this time, namely, about the year 1182, in various places throughout the entire kingdom of France, very many Waldenses or Albigenses were burnt under the name of Publicans.

Concerning this, the aforesaid William writes in his history of Philip, King of France as follows: “All the opposers of our faith, commonly called Publicans, having been compelled to come forth from their hiding-places, were brought before the court, and, upon the law being applied to them, convicted of heresy, and, hence, were cast into the fire and burnt alive.” Philippidos, lib. 1.

Roger of Hovedon adds, for the end of the year 1182, that the King of England, Henry II., notwithstanding there were very many of these Publicans, that is, Waldenses or orthodox Christians, in his land, he would in no wise tolerate them, but commanded that they should likewise everywhere be burnt, as in France.[163] Annal. part 2, at the close of the year 1182.

[163] The reader must know that the writers who have given vent in this most odious manner to said testimonies respecting the holy martyrs, were papists.

As to the belief of the Waldenses and Albigenses, who were also called Publicans by their enemies, it has already, in their own confession, been shown not to militate against the confession of the Anabaptists; as we have said once for all, and to which we here again call attention.

MANY GODFEARING PEOPLE PUT TO DEATH, IN FLANDERS, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR VIEWS AGAINST THE ROMAN CHURCH, BY THE COUNT OF ALSACE, A. D. 1182.

Magister[164] John Andriess, P. J. Twisck, H. Montanus, and various other authentic writers, unanimously state, that A. D. 1182, there were put to death, by Count Philip of Alsace, many Christians, who were called heretics because they contemned infant baptism, the sacrament of the altar, and the sacrifice of the mass, etc. See J. Andr., in his History of the Antiquity of the Faith, letter E. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 489. H. Montanus, Nietigh., p. 86. Also, Hist. Mart. der Doopsg., A. 8. Also, Martyrs Mirror, printed A. D. 1631, Introduction, p. 52.

[164] Master, or sir; a title of the middle ages, equivalent to the modern title of doctor.

MANY CHRISTIANS BURNT IN FLANDERS, A. D. 1183, AND VERY MANY PUT TO DEATH IN OTHER PLACES.

For the year 1183 we read of many more such people, who were called publicans (of which name we have already spoken) and whom Philip, Count of Flanders, and William, Archbishop of Rheims, caused, most unmercifully, to be burnt.

Concerning this, Rigordus, an ancient historian of those times, writes as follows for said year: “At this time, very many heretics (thus this papistic writer calls the true Christians), were burnt in Flanders, by the reverend bishop of Rheims, cardinal priest of the title of Sancta Sabina, Legate of the Pope, and by Philip, the illustrious count of Flanders. Rig., p. 168, edit. Wechelian.

“The same year,” says the above author, “over seven thousand Cottarelli (thus he calls the pious witnesses of Jesus, also called Waldenses and Albigenses), were slain in the province of Bourges, by the inhabitants of the land, who all united against them, as against the enemies of God.”

Notice here, that they must all have been defenseless people, since so great a number suffered themselves to be put to death by so few people as there were at that time in the small province of Bourges; however, we leave this to God.

The same writer adds also this: “In the same year, Pope Lucius condemned as heretics those who in Italy were called Humilitani, and in France, Poor Men of Lyons (the Albigenses and Waldenses), whereupon, as may well be supposed, no small persecution took place in those hot times.

This decree, it seems, was first published, or else renewed, A. D. 1184, or, as others state, A. D. 1185. according to the account of Mellinus, 2d book, fol. 443, col. 2.

DECREE OF POPE LUCIUS III. AGAINST THE WALDENSES, ETC., WHO ARE CALLED BY VARIOUS NAMES.

In the year 1184, or, as others write, 1185, Pope Lucius made a decree in the city of Verona, in the presence of the Emperor Frederick, which reads as follows:

“In order to eradicate the wickedness of various heresies that have begun to manifest themselves in many countries throughout the whole world, the power of ecclesiastical discipline must be called into requisition.

“Therefore, relying on the presence and power of our most beloved son, the Roman Emperor Frederick, we, with the common advice of our brethren, as well as of other patriarchs, archbishops, and many princes, who have assembled here from different parts of the realm, have, by this general resolution of our present decree, set ourselves against the heretics, who from various errors have received various names, and by apostolical authority, through this our constitution, have condemned all heresies by whatever name they may be called. First, the Catharists and the Patarini, and those who falsely and fictitiously call themselves Humiliati (humiliated ones) or Poor Men of Lyons; as well as the Passaginians, Josephists, Arnoldists; all these we lay under an everlasting curse.

“And since some, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof, as the apostle says, have assumed the authority to preach, though the same apostle says, How shall they preach, except they be sent? all those to whom this is forbidden, or who, not being sent, presumptuously dare preach, secretly or publicly, without authority from the apostolic see, or consent from the bishop of the place; and all who believe otherwise or do not fear to teach otherwise than the Roman church preaches and maintains, in regard to the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, or to baptism (namely, infant baptism), or to the confession of sins, that is, auricular confession, or to marriage, and other sacraments of the church; and, in general, all those who will not condemn those as heretics whom the Roman church, or any bishop in his bishopric, with the advice of his clergy, or, in case of the decease of their own bishop, the clergy themselves, with the advice of the neighboring bishops, have declared as such, all these, I say, we bind with the bond of an everlasting ban. Likewise those who take them into their houses, and defend them, and all who uphold said heretics, fostering in them the heretical wickedness, whether they be called Consolati, Credentes, Perfecti, or by whatever other similar name, we include them all in this sentence of condemnation.”

Thus far, the decree of Pope Lucius. We will now give some explanation of a few strange names that occur in the same. As regards the common names of the Waldenses, of which mention is made in the decree of Lucius, namely, that they were called Catharists, Patarini, Humiliati, Poor Men of Lyons, Passaginians, Josephists, Arnoldists, etc., these we have already sufficiently explained. There remain therefore to be explained only their special distinctive names, as Consolati, Credentes, and Perfecti. Consolati, that is, comforted; by this name were called those who had recently come into the church, and were not yet firmly established in the faith.

Credentes, that is, believing; by this name were called those who were confirmed in the faith, and had increased in it to a considerable extent.

Perfecti, that is, perfect; by this name were called those who applied themselves to faith and godliness to the full extent of their ability, so that they seemed to be perfect therein. These were also called Boni Homines, that is, good men.

The most of this can be gleaned from Alanus, who wrote at the close of the twelfth century, namely, A. D. 1194. In edit. Paris, A. D. 1612, p. 110. Also, Abr. Mell., 2d book, p. 443, col. 3. Thus, the diversity of names does not indicate a diversity of people or faith, but simply the lesser or greater perfection in the faith in those who together were but one people.

BLOODY DECREE OF ILPHONSUS, OR ALPHONSUS, KING OF ARAGON, AGAINST THE WALDENSES, PUBLISHED A. D. 1194.

“Ilphonsus, by the grace of God, King of Aragon, to all archbishops, bishops, and other prelates of the church of our kingdom; to all earls, viscounts, soldiers, and to all the people in our realm and under our dominion, greeting, and good wishes that the Christian religion may be maintained entire.

“Whereas, it has pleased God, to place us over his people, it is right and just that we should constantly, and according to our ability, care for the safety, happiness and protection of said people; therefore, as faithful successors of our ancestors, and as being justly obedient to the ordinances of the church, who have deemed it well, that the heretics should everywhere be rejected, condemned and persecuted, from the face of God and of all Catholics; namely, the Waldenses or Insabbathi (that is, those who do not observe the Sabbaths or holy-days of the Roman church), who call themselves Poor Men of Lyons, and all other heretics, of whom there are so many that they cannot all be enumerated, who have been excommunicated by the holy church, from our whole realm and dominion, as enemies of the cross of Christ, dishonorers of the Christian religion and our person, and open enemies of our realm, we command them to depart and flee from our kingdom.

“If from this day on, any one shall receive said Waldenses and Insabbathi, or other heretics of whatever confession, into his house, or hear their pernicious preaching in any place, or give them food, or dare show them any other favor, be it known to the same, that he has incurred the disfavor of God and of us, that he is punishable for the crime of leze-majesty, and that his goods shall be confiscated without appeal.

“And we command that this our decree and perpetual ordinance, in every city, castle, and village of our kingdom and jurisdiction, and throughout all the lands of our dominion, shall be read and presented every Sunday to the people for observance, by the bishops and other rulers of the church, and by our governors, bailiffs, justiciaries, and other magistrates, and that upon all offenders the aforesaid punishment shall be inflicted.

“Be it further known: If any person, noble or ignoble, shall find any of the aforementioned heretics anywhere in our lands, who, after three days’ proclamation, knowing this our decree, do not speedily depart, but obstinately remain; and shall inflict upon them every evil, ignominy, and disgrace, death and maiming alone excepted, he shall have to fear no punishment for it, but shall know, that he has much rather merited our favor thereby, and that his deed is pleasing and acceptable to us.

“We, however, give these infamous heretics, though above their deserts and against reason, a respite till to morrow, which is All-saints-day, to leave, or to begin leaving, our land. If thereafter any do still remain, we give to each and all of our subjects full authority, to rob and plunder them, to beat them with sticks, and to maltreat them shamefully.”

This decree was signed with the seal of Ilphonsus, King of Aragon, as well as with the seal of Bishop Regimund of Terragona, of the Bishop of Tiracisca, and of other bishops. The decree itself was made by William de Bassa, the King’s notary, A. D. 1194. Abr. Mell., 2d book, fol. 444. A. from Fr. Pegna Direct. Inquisit., part 2, Comment 39. Also, Joan. Mariana Prefat., in Lucani Tudens.

But what sort of execution followed upon this decree of Ilphonsus against the poor Waldenses in the kingdom of Aragon, it is not easy to know, since it seems that the historians of this century have purposely passed by the cruelty exercised against them, doubtless because they felt ashamed of the matter.

ORIGIN OF THE INQUISITION AGAINST THE WALDENSES AND ALBIGENSES, BY POPE INNOCENT III., A. D. 1198.

A. D. 1198, Innocent III. became Pope in the place of Celestine. At his consecration he applied to himself the words which John the Baptist spoke of Christ: “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice.”

Upon these words Innocent addressed his bridesmen, the cardinals, archbishops and bishops as follows: “And am I not the bridegroom, and every one of you a friend of the bridegroom? Yea, I am the bridegroom; for I have the noble, rich, and highly exalted, yea, the honorable, pure, gracious, and holy Roman church for my bride, who, by the ordinance of God, is the mother of all the faithful, and the supreme mistress over all the churches. She is wiser than Sarah, more prudent than Rebecca, more fruitful than Leah, more agreeable than Rachel, more devout than Anna, purer than Susanna, more valiant than Judith, more beautiful than Edessæa. Many daughters have gathered great riches; but she has excelled them all. I have espoused her sacramentally. This bride has not been wedded to me portionless, but has given me her rich dowry, namely, the fullness of spiritual and of temporal power.” Innocent. 3, in Consecra. Pontif., Serm. 3, page 19.

Pope Innocent III. was the first who instituted the office of the inquisition, with ordained inquisitors; to which end he also wrote a letter, in the first year of his popedom, on the first day of April, to the archbishop of Auxitana; in which he greatly complains of the enemies of St. Peter’s Shiplet, as he calls it, and then speaks as follows:

“We desire that you and your fellow-bishops, by your prudence, shall guard the more vigorously against this malady (meaning the doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses), and oppose it the more strenuously, as you see the more reason to fear that the sound part of the body may become infected by the disease; lest by such contagions, which spread gradually like a cancer, the minds of the faithful become infected by a general corruption.

“Therefore we send you brotherly love, and charge you most earnestly by this apostolic letter, that you do your utmost, to exterminate (all) heresy, and to banish from your province all those that are contaminated therewith; and that against them and all those who are contaminated therewith, or have any fellowship with them, or who are openly suspected of having familiar intercourse with them, you do not only exercise all the rigor of church discipline, without intervention of appeal, but also, if necessary, subdue or punish them by the power of the material sword, by princes or by the people.”

On these words the papistic commentator remarks, in the margin: “Up to this time, no inquisitors had yet been sent or appointed by the Pope.”

In the same month, namely on the 21st of April, 1198, twenty days after the writing of the first letter, Pope Innocent III. wrote another letter, not only to the abovementioned Bishop of Auxitana, but also to the archbishops of Aix, Narbonne, Vienne, Arles, Ebredun, Tarragon, Lyons, etc., and at the same time appointed one Reinerius and one Guido as his commissaries or inquisitors, to apprehend those who sought to escape the dominion of the Roman church. The contents of the letter were directed against the Waldenses, and commanded that they should be caught, as little foxes that spoil the vineyards. Finally he commands them to be driven out of the country. Epist. de Cretal., lib. 1, pages 56, 57, edit. Colon.

In the following month, namely on the 13th of May, Innocent wrote still another letter for the same purpose; in which he again commanded that the little foxes should be caught, and promises to send the inquisitors, adding:

“We pray, admonish, and entreat you all together, in the name of the Lord, and charge you, unto remission of sins, that you receive them (the inquisitors, Reinerius and Guido), kindly, aid them manfully and vigorously, and lend them a helping hand by good counsel and with the deed.

“But, as brother Reinerius, for urgent and important matters of the church, has first, by order of the apostolical see, gone to Spain, we will and command nevertheless, that you archbishops and bishops, draw the spiritual sword, when requested so to do by said brother Guido, against the heretics whom he shall name to you; but let the lay power confiscate their goods, and banish them from the country, and thus separate the chaff from the wheat.

“Furthermore, to all who in this great difficulty which now threatens the church, shall faithfully and devotedly assist her in maintaining the Christian faith, we grant the same indulgence, pardon, or remission of sins, which we have granted to all those who go on a pilgrimage to St. Peter’s or St. Jacob’s church. Given at Rome, on the above day, A. D. 1198.” Page 98.

FIVE MEN AND THREE WOMEN BURNT AT TROYES, IN CHAMPAGNE, A. D. 1200; AND SOME EXPELLED FROM METZ.

About two years after Pope Innocent III. had issued those three bloody letters, for the persecution and suppression of the true, defenseless Christians, who were commonly called Waldenses, but by their enemies or persecutors, Publicans and sinners, it came to pass, in the last year of the twelfth century, namely A. D. 1200, that in the city of Troyes, in Champagne, there were apprehended, by order of the Pope and the reigning authorities, eight persons, five men and three women, who made the same confession as was stated above with regard to the Waldenses, contradicting the authority of the Pope, infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, the office of criminal authority, and whom the papistic author of the large Chronicle of the Netherlands calls Popelitatnos.

However, these persons were not accused by the papists of any evil works, but simply on account of their faith; in which faith they desired to remain steadfast unto death, without, in any wise departing from it. Hence they were all sentenced to the fire, in said year, and offered up their bodies unto God as a burnt-sacrifice, having commended their souls into his hands.

THE EXPULSION OF THE CHRISTIANS FROM METZ, AND THE BURNING OF THEIR BOOKS.

At the same time, many Christians at Metz, who professed the same faith and were called Waldenses, were shamefully expelled from Metz, and their books burnt, because they had translated the Holy Scriptures into their mother tongue.

The papistic author of the large Belgic Chronicle, upon the authority of the ancient historian Albericus, calls them a Waldensian sect, and says: “That certain abbots were sent to preach against them; who burnt some books translated from the Latin into their mother tongue, and thus extirpated said sect. Mon. Nuciensis Magn. Chron. Belgicum, edit. Frankfort, A. D. 1607, page 189.

This serves to confirm the preceding narrative. We will now conclude our account of the persecutions which occurred in the twelfth century, and proceed to the thirteenth century.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

[The thirteenth century is commenced with the thirteenth and last Centuria, with which the Magdeburg Centuriators have concluded their Ecclesiastical History; which is, as it were, a mournful farewell air, on account of the lamentable desolation caused by the Pope of Rome, in the worship of God. Several Roman superstitions mentioned, which were commanded as solemnly as the word of God, and are called the baptism of necessity, the baptism by women, heretics, etc.; also, how to baptize a child that is in danger of death.

Some strange passages from Thomas Aquinas, touching infant baptism; added decree of the bishops of Nemansa, as to how to deal with a child, concerning which there may be doubt of its having been baptized aright; also the formula of words to be used by the priest over the child. Explanation that all this was done to gain respect for infant baptism, among the common people.

Of the true baptism, and how God, in the midst of these storms, preserved his church.

The followers of the doctrine of Peter Bruis and Henry of Toulouse, who, in many respects, concurred in the belief of the Anabaptists of the present day, increase to such an extent, A. D. 1206, that in the provinces of Languedoc, Narbonne, Gascony, but few people were found who did not adhere to their doctrine; also the three articles of their doctrine against the Roman church.

The ancient Waldenses again appear, A. D. 1218, and, though excommunicated by the Pope in the bull of the Lord’s Supper, declare against the swearing of oaths, taking the life of evil-doers, the faith of the Roman church, ungodly priests, the Pope.

Circumstantial account, that these people, A. D. 1230, were so numerous, that one traveling from his country to Milan, could lodge every night with one of his persuasion.

The increase of the Waldenses in France and Flanders, is again stated for, A. D. 1238.

Statement, for 1242, that they not only confessed their belief with the mouth, but also suffered for it.

Thirty-eight years after, namely, A. D. 1280, it is shown, that their doctrine had penetrated not only into Lombardy, but even into Sicily; several articles of their doctrine described in full.

Their increase in various countries of Christendom is again shown, for the year 1284, as a proof that notwithstanding the persecutions raised against them, they did not diminish.

A certain doctrine of Alexander, namely: that baptism must be administered on confession of faith; whereupon the Waldenses and Albigenses are introduced once more, for the last time, and it is stated that they considered infant baptism of no virtue.

Conclusion, being Jacob Mehrning’s reply to Mellinus, respecting baptism.]

* * * * *

This is the century, writes Jacob Mehrning, with which the Magdeburg Centuriators have closed their church history, etc. Concerning this time they write in the preface as follows: “This is the calamitous time, in which the Roman Pope exalted his might to the highest, in the occidental churches, and the Turk his power, in the Orient; where, then, the divine and pure doctrine became most abominably adulterated in every respect.

Yea, the ground of doctrine, and all external ceremonies, as well as all points of doctrine,--all these, without reservation, the Pope of Rome would have under his control; in consequence of which such a blindness and darkness arose among men, that almost all of them took upon them the yoke, submitting whatever they spoke or wrote, with more fear to the judgment of the Pope, than of God himself, or of his church. Rules were established, by which all controverted articles were to be decided and judged; namely, the corrupted writings of the fathers, and the decrees or resolutions of councils. The word of God entirely lost its honor, dignity and credit; yea, it was thenceforth accepted only as far as the opinion of the fathers and councils allowed. Moreover, the word of God was no longer expounded from the Holy Scriptures, but according to the apprehension of their own imagination, etc. Besides, too much concession was made to the heathen subtleties of Aristotle; yea, with such folly, that the obscure writings of this heathen were introduced into the schools, brought into the pulpit, and mixed with the articles of faith, etc. Jac. Mehrn. Bapt. Hist., p. 717, from Cent. Magd. XIII, chap. 13.

As regards infant baptism, because the same was much contradicted, yea, utterly rejected, at this time, by the Waldenses and Albigenses, those of the Roman church, in order to provide for this, and to maintain it, ordained various things, called baptism of necessity (private baptism), baptism by women, baptism by heretics.

The Madgeburg Centuriators quote the following (chap. 6, fol. 242) from a synodal book, written jointly by some bishops, at Nemansa, A. D. 1251: “We command, that an infant, just born and in peril of death, so that it can not be brought to the priest, be baptized by the men present, whether in warm or in cold water, but with no other liquid, and this in a wooden, stone or other vessel. But if there be no men present, let the women who are there baptize the child, or even the father or the mother, in case there be no one else present, to baptize the child.” Bapt. Hist., pp. 727, 728.

By these and similar means the Romanists at this time, sought to maintain the credit of infant baptism, which was greatly opposed; to which end tended also the words of Aquinas, which are as follows: “The proper administrator of baptism shall be a priest, whose province it is by virtue of his office, to baptize; but in cases of necessity, not only a chaplain, but also a layman, or a woman, yea, even a heathen or a heretic may baptize, if he only observes the form of the church, and purposes to do what the church does. But if a person, from necessity, is baptized by such an one, he indeed receives the sacrament, so that he need not be baptized again; but he does not receive the grace of baptism, because he is considered as not having been baptized aright.” Thom. Aquin. de Art., Fid., chap. 14, in Bapt. Hist., p. 725.

In the same direction tends what is adduced in Cent. Magd., XIII., chap. 6, fol. 242, from the above mentioned synodal book of the bishops of Nemansa: “But,” say they, “if a child, in case of necessity, has been baptized by a layman, according to the form prescribed, we command, that said child, if it survives, be brought as soon as possible to the priest, who shall diligently examine how it was baptized; and if he find that the form prescribed was not observed aright, he shall baptize the child (again), according to the form of the church. But if he doubt whether it was rightly baptized, or not, since perhaps the baptizer did not properly consider the words which he spoke in baptism, or because the bystanders were not agreed in this, or because there is no certainty whether it was baptized or not, the priest shall baptize it with these words: ‘If thou art baptized, I baptize thee not again; but if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ In such doubtful cases, however, one witness is sufficient when more can not be had.” Bapt. Hist., p. 728.

Who does not see that the Roman church, when infant baptism was contradicted, endeavored by these and similar absurdities, to make it appear to the common people as though infant baptism were absolutely necessary to salvation, yea, so necessary that rather than neglect it for want of a priest, even women, yea, heathen and heretics whom they otherwise were accustomed to burn, might baptize the infants if they only observed the form of baptism employed by the church. Oh strange theology! Merely to maintain the error of infant baptism, many other errors were maintained.

OF THE TRUE BAPTISM.

Nevertheless, in the midst of these storms and billows of antichrist, God preserved the ark of his church, so that many persons still remained, who, notwithstanding the manifold troubles and persecutions that came upon them on this account, practiced and maintained the true worship of God, particularly in opposition to infant baptism, the office of criminal authority, the swearing of oaths, and almost all other superstitions of the Roman church.

A. D. 1206.--In the beginning, yea, before the beginning of this century, and so through a number of years, the doctrine of the ancient Anabaptists increased not a little, which appeared more particularly in the year 1206, when they had so increased in many countries, that the wiles and power of the Roman church were not sufficient to bring them to apostatize, much less to exterminate them.

Concerning this, P. J. Twisck gives the following description: “The adherents of the doctrine of Peter de Bruis and Henry of Toulouse, Anabaptists, mentioned for the year 1135, which doctrine afterwards was also followed by the Waldenses (see the year 1159), multiplied so greatly about this time, namely, A. D. 1206, that few were found in the provinces of Albi, Languedoc, Narbonne, Gascony, Rouergue, and Toulouse, who did not adhere to said doctrine, notwithstanding Pope Innocent III. very cruelly opposed it. See account for the year 1198.

The principal points of their doctrine, besides others, were these: 1. That the Roman church was the whore of Babylon. 2. That her polity was impure and corrupted. 3. That the mass was a work replete with wickedness, and instituted neither by Christ nor by his disciples. Chron. p. 523, col. 1 and 2, from Chron. Nicol. Gill., fol. 286. Guil. Merul., fol. 798, Henr. Boxh., fol. 22.

A. D. 1218.--For this year mention is made by Sebastian Franck, of the ancient Waldenses, whom he calls by three different names, The Poor, Insabbatati and Waldenses. However, that they together were but one people, has already been proved. Said author writes thus concerning them: “These originated A. D. 1218, under Emperor Louis IV. They are also excommunicated in the bull of the Lord’s Supper, and hold:

1. “That men ought not to swear at all, not even to the truth.

2. “That no Judge, who would be a Christian, may put to death any one, not even a malefactor.

3. “That the pious person who holds to the faith of the Roman church, can not be saved.

4. “That an ungodly priest can not consecrate.

5. “That the church perished at the time of Sylvester.

6. “That they are not subject, neither intend to be, to the Pope or to other prelates.”

Then follow several other articles of their doctrine, which, for the sake of brevity, we will pass over; for instance, that they held: “That outside of their church there was no sacrament nor baptism (which completely overthrows the infant baptism of the Roman church); that they denied purgatory; that they counted the mass, alms, and prayers for the dead of no value, yea, that they regarded them as the inventions of priestcraft; that honoring the saints had not the slightest merit, and that they do not hear our prayers in heaven.”

These and similar articles are adduced there, from Aeneas, Sylvius and other writers, as charges against the Waldenses; of which the intelligent may judge. Seb. Fr. Chron. der Rom. Kett., fol. 119, col. 4, letter P.

A. D. 1230.--It is stated that the Waldenses, whose good confession we have already shown, declared at this time in the proceedings which it seems they had against the Pope, that their numbers were so great in Germany, France and Italy, and especially in Lombardy--where their teachers lived, to whom they annually sent sustenance from other countries--that any one of them traveling from his country to Milan, could lodge every night with one of his own persuasion, whom they recognized by by certain marks on the door or upon the roof. P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 546, col. 2, from Henr. Boxh., fol. 25.

A. D. 1238.--Or about 1239, the Waldenses had thus increased in France and Flanders, that a certain Dominican monk, Robert Boulgre, sent as inquisitor by Pope Gregory IX., put to death a countless multitude of them; of which more will be said hereafter. P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 554, col. 1.

A. D. 1242.--At this time, said people had to suffer much from popery, on account of their faith and religion, which in the bishopric of Toulouse alone, appeared in the case of about two hundred persons, who held said belief, and were called Waldenses; of whose imprisonment and death we shall speak in the future. P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 557, col. 1.

A. D. 1259.--At this time, or thereabouts, Gerard Sagarellas, an Italian, but a doctor of Paris, wrote a book against the Franciscans, whereupon Bonaventura, General of the Franciscan order, replied; however, of this Gerard and his belief, as also of that of the Waldenses, we shall speak more fully hereafter. We would only stop to say that from this time on, his disciples, the Fratricelli, or Little Brothers, after the year 1285, called Dulcinists, began secretly (from fear of persecution) to hold their meetings in the mountains of Piedmont, and Novara, in Lombardy, professing the doctrine of the Waldenses. However, from the different places where they lived, they received different names; but the appellation Fratricelli or Frerots, was especially given them, because they called each other brethren in Christ; nevertheless the mouths of the scorners thus spoke only the truth, since Christ himself so called his disciples, saying: “All ye are brethren,” Matt. 23:8; and “I will declare thy name (O God) unto my brethren; in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee,” Hebr. 2:12.

A. D. 1262.--At this time the Waldenses are again mentioned, who lived in Lombardy, and in the country of Genoa, and professed a sound profession, though they were called heretics by the papists, and were oppressed and persecuted by open decrees of the Roman see; which shall be spoken of more fully elsewhere. Compare Bzov., A. D. 1262. Art. 3, ex Decret. Epist. Alexand. IV., with A. Mell., Hist., fol. 470, col. 2.

A. D. 1280.--In this year it is recorded that said people professing the above profession (namely, the Waldenses, then called Waldois, after Waldo and his adherents, were expelled from Lyons), so multiplied in Lombardy that their doctrine, having spread in Italy, penetrated even into Sicily; as is attested by the open letters emitted against them by the Emperor Frederick II.

As regards their faith, the following articles, over and above what has already been mentioned, respecting their views against infant baptism, the office of criminal authority, the swearing of oaths, etc., were laid to their charge, as can be gleaned from the writings of Reinerius, the priest: That in the matter of salvation we must believe only the holy Scriptures, and in no wise depend on men. That said Scriptures contain everything that is necessary to salvation; and that nothing is to be received but what is commanded of God. That there is but one Mediator (Christ), and, consequently, that the saints ought not to be invoked. That there is no purgatory, but that all who are justified in Christ, enter into life everlasting, and those who do not believe, shall be cast into eternal death; thus denying that there is still besides a third or fourth place.

They accepted and admitted but two sacraments, namely, holy baptism and the holy Supper. They said that all masses, particularly those for the dead, should be rejected; likewise all human institutions, and that they ought not to be considered necessary to salvation. They also taught that the chanting, the hours, the fasting connected with certain days, superfluous feast-days, distinction of food, the many degrees and orders of priests, monks, and nuns, the benedictions and consecrations of creatures, vows, pilgrimages, in short, the vast medley of ceremonies which in the times past had been brought into vogue, ought to be abolished. They denied the supremacy of the Pope, especially as exercised by him over secular government, and admitted no other degrees in church offices than bishops, teachers (then called priests), and deacons. They said that the Roman see is the true Babylon, and the Pope the fountain of all misery; that the marriage of the priests (or teachers) is good, and necessary in the church; that those who hear and rightly understand the word of God, are the true church, to which Christ has given the keys, to let the sheep in, and to drive away the wolves. “Behold here,” says the writer, “the sum of the doctrine of the Waldoes (or Waldenses), which was oppugned by the enemies of truth, and on account of which they, according to the testimony of their opponents, were persecuted.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 605, col. 2, and p. 606, col. 1, from the Staet der Kerchen, Jan. Cresp., fol. 314, 315, 316. Merul., fol. 843. Henr. Boxh., fol. 19, 25.

A. D. 1284.--At this time the Waldenses, according to Twisck, multiplied more and more in France and other countries of Christendom, though they were sought with craftiness and cruelly persecuted, and even previously every means and all diligence had been employed to utterly extirpate them; which greatly astonished certain bishops of that time, and also certain lawyers of Avignon, in certain consultations held against them, and still extant. P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 611, col. 2.

Concerning the form or mode of baptism, Alexander[165] (p. 4, q. 11, m. 1), in this century, says: “Baptism shall be administered in confession of faith in the Holy Trinity.” Jac. Mehr., Bapt. Hist., p. 726.

[165] We will say nothing of this Alexander, but merely speak of his doctrine.

Centuria 13, of the Madgeburg Centuriators, cap. 5, fol. 216, 217, from Cesarius, states “That the Waldenses and Albigenses rejected baptism at this time, saying that it was inefficacious and useless; which they, as Jacob Mehrning writes, understood of infant baptism, which is administered without instruction and faith; for the Waldenses had a very high regard for the baptism of Christ, as administered according to his ordinance.” Bapt. Hist., pp. 733, 734.

NOTE.--A. D. 1287.--Probus, Bishop of Tullo, was at this time so enlightened of God that he not only opposed Pope Honorius IV., but also delivered an excellent oration, in which he freely exposed the errors of the papists. Compare Catal. Test. fol. 654, with the 13th book van den Ondergang, p. 614, col. 1. A. D., 1299.--In the year 1299 certain Albigenses and Waldenses, called Fratricelli, or Little Brothers (of whose faith and life we have spoken elsewhere), became so odious to Boniface VIII., Pope of Rome, on account of their uprightness, which the papists called falseness, that he declared them heretics; but as we intend elsewhere to speak more fully of their belief and walk among men, we will content ourselves here with merely mentioning them; it being sufficient for us that these people and their doctrine existed until the very close of this century. See in the large Christen Martelaersboeck, edition 1619, fol. 471, from Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug.

Proceeding to the close of the century, we will close with the conclusion of Jacob Mehrning, which is a reply to A. Mellinus, who did his best to show that the Waldenses did not well accord with the Anabaptists in the article of baptism. Mehrning replies to him as follows: “Abraham Mellinus (in his large Nederlandtsch Martelaers book) dared to say: ‘The Waldenses would not agree with the so-called Anabaptists in the article of infant baptism.’ But the good man forgets that he himself has adduced testimonies from Bernard, Peter Cluniacensis, and from the Madgeburg Centuries,[166] which refute and condemn this supposed error of the ancient Waldenses, namely, that they should have believed in infant baptism.” Bapt. Hist, p. 736.

[166] The following words are obscure in the author; hence we experienced difficulty in translating them.--Van. Braght.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

[The way and entrance to the martyrs of this century is through the valleys of Albi and throughout France, England, and other countries, where the pious witnesses of Jesus laid down their lives for the evangelical truth.

From the year 1209 throughout this century, crusades are preached in the name of the Pope; which were the cause of the destruction of thousands of Albigenses, who lived quietly and peaceably under certain papistic authorities; for certain reasons, however, we have not finished this account.

Remarks with eight reasons unanimously indicating the non-resistant principles of the true Albigenses; nevertheless, for important reasons, we have placed the account of their martyrdom for the most part in a marginal note, for the years 1210 and 1211.

One hundred and eighty persons called Albigenses, burnt without the castle Minerve, A. D. 1210.

Sixty of those people end their lives by fire, for their faith, at Casser, about A. D. 1211.

About one hundred persons, who confessed the same doctrine, burnt alive in a tower at Cassas, about the close of A. D. 1211. Fifty of their fellow-believers likewise lose their lives by fire, at Chastelnau d’Ari, about the close of A. D. 1211.

Over four hundred persons, who professed the same profession, though called Induti, at Lavaur, or Vaurum, rather suffer themselves to be burnt to death by the terrible flames than accept the Roman faith.

ACCOUNT PROPER OF THE HOLY MARTYRS.

Great persecutions of the believers, A. D. 1206.

A man, at London, in England, burnt alive for the faith of the Waldenses, A. D. 1210; and twenty-four persons at Paris, in France, likewise put to death by fire, for the same religion.

In the year 1212, about one hundred persons called Waldenses, are put to death by fire at Strasburg; thirty-nine at Bingen, and eighteen at Mentz.

Account of a cruel inquisition, A. D. 1214, over the doctrine of the Waldenses; Conrad of Marpurg, the chief inquisitor, and his mode of examination with red-hot iron, as well as with hot and cold water; also, the oath which the inquisitors in the bishopric of Utrecht were wont to put to those who were then called heretics, about A. D. 1215.

About eighty persons called Waldenses, burnt for the faith, at Strasburg; also some Christians at Toulouse, about A. D. 1215.

Gerard de la Motte, a deacon of the Christians called Albi-Waldenses, with some of his fellow-believers, sacrificed by fire, at Borriens, A. D. 1227.

Several papal statutes and ordinances against the Waldenses, related for the year 1229.

Severe persecution, through the Inquisition, in Germany, where very many Waldenses are burnt for the faith, A. D. 1230.

Three decrees of Emperor Frederick II. are successively described, for the year 1230; another severe persecution of the Anabaptistic Waldenses, in Germany, A. D. 1231.

Nineteen persons of the same profession, burnt in the bishopric of Toulouse, A. D. 1232; also, two hundred and twenty-four in a place near Toulouse, A. D. 1243; a rigorous inquisition in the aforesaid bishopric, A. D. 1251, which was carried also into the following year.

Decree of Pope Urban III. against the Waldenses and Albigenses in Lombardy and about Genoa, A. D. 1262; great persecutions, about A. D. 1280, 1283, 1284.

Gerard Sagarellus burnt at Parma, A. D. 1285; Herman, Andrew, and Guillemette [Wilhelmina], exhumed, A. D. 1299. Conclusion.]

* * * * *

The valleys of Albi, the region around Toulouse, yea, all France, England, and other kingdoms, furnish us, during this century, many martyrs, who, though, they, with reference to the severity of their tortures, according to the flesh, were pitiable and most miserable, suffered nevertheless with good cheer, yea, with joy, in consideration of their sure hope and unshaken confidence in the Lord, as being their shield and exceeding great reward.[167]

[167] Gen. 15:1.

As regards the persecutions that occurred in this century, against the Waldenses and Albigenses, they by far surpass all other persecutions of which we read in the preceding centuries; for it seemed now as if the very furies of hell, so to speak, had broken loose, to destroy all believers, yea, almost the whole earth.

In the years 1209–12, 1225, 1234, yea, throughout the entire thirteenth century, crusades, or so-called holy, voluntary preparations of war were preached, by order of the Pope, for the extermination of the Waldenses and Albigenses, all over the world, but more particularly in the kingdom of France.

These crusades consisted in great armies of Roman Catholics, who voluntarily enlisted in this so-called holy warfare; each distinguished by a white cross on his breast, or one of white cloth sewed on his garment; on account of which crosses these armies were called Crusades.

But that they might acquit themselves the more courageously and intrepidly, in exterminating the Albigenses and Waldenses, yea, that they might suffer none of them to remain alive, but kill them by fire, sword, gallows, and other means, the Pope most solemnly promised to all who by so doing should meet death, or fall by the weapons of the princes seeking to protect the Albigenses and Waldenses, full remission of all their past sins, yea, that they should straightway go to heaven.

This had the effect, that countless multitudes flocked together, as it were, to the honor of God, and for the extirpation of the so-called heresies, in order to obtain forgiveness of sins, and thus dying find salvation; and having, under certain chieftains, been formed into armies they marched forth and engaged alone in murdering, burning, desolating and tyrannizing among the Waldenses and Albigenses, sparing not even the infant in the cradle. It is impossible to relate how great a multitude of these innocent people perished, and under what severe torments, simply on account of their true faith.

REMARKS IN REGARD TO THE DISTINCTION OF THE PEOPLE CALLED ALBIGENSES OR WALDENSES.

I deem it necessary here, to insert a caution, which I desire that it be borne in mind wherever the Albigenses and Waldenses (who are introduced as witnesses of our faith) are spoken of, namely, that we here speak only of such people as, besides the confession of their and our most holy faith respecting the points necessary to salvation, were opposed to war, and willingly and patiently, as defenseless sheep of Christ appointed for the slaughter, entered the path of death through manifold torments inflicted upon them by the enemies of the faith, to the glory of God, the edification of their neighbor, and the salvation of their own souls.

It is true, that in ancient histories mention is made of people who, though improperly, were called Waldenses or Albigenses, who resisted, yea slew their enemies; but of such we do not speak here, indeed, all of whom there is reason so to think, we would positively pass by.[168]

[168] In those times there was a sect sometimes, though improperly, called Albigenses. Their proper name, however, was Ruptuarii or Routiers; that is, desolators or rioters, because they made resistance. See 2d book of the Persecutions, fol. 460, col. 4. But of such we have purposely avoided to speak, as they do not belong here.

It must also be observed here, that the princes who had taken the defenseless Albigenses and Waldenses under their protection, and even their soldiers, were sometimes (through sheer ignorance) called Albigenses or Waldenses, simply because they protected them. However, of these we do not here speak, but only of those who, according to their confession, lived peaceably and meekly under their protection.

That many of them dwelt, as defenseless sheep, under the government of such princes, and that on this account war was sometimes waged by their enemies against these princes, so that one had to suffer with the other, is evident from the accounts of the ancients; however, we have, to the utmost of our ability, distinguished them; so that as far as we know, not one of those whom we have mentioned as martyrs, had any part or lot with revenge, much less with war.

In addition to this, I will briefly adduce from ancient writers, for the benefit of the truth-seeking reader, several arguments, showing that the Waldenses and Albigenses dwelt defenselessly and in all quiet under the protection of their magistracies; and that in consequence of this, said magistrates were also called Waldenses and Albigenses, and war waged against them; who, when they resisted, were the cause that it was said that the Albigenses or Waldenses had resisted, yea, actually fought.

First Argument.--Abraham Mellinus, from Innocent III., epist. 84, states: That the Pope, through letters, as well as legates, gave orders, throughout France, to the ecclesiastics as well as the seculars, to exterminate the Albigenses; however, Raymond, count of Toulouse had already taken upon him to defend the Albigenses. For this reason Pope Innocent wrote to the Archbishop of Narbonne, and to other bishops, abbots, and prelates, and among these especially to Radulph, canon of Narbonne, and also to the abbots of the great valley, and of Cisteaux, that they should speak to the count and persuade him to persecute the heretics (that is, the Albigenses); but, if he should reject their counsel, that they should excommunicate him; both of which took place. Second book, fol. 449, col. 1.

Second Argument.--Chassanion states: That shortly after the departure of the count of Toulouse and the King of Aragon, the abbot of Cisteaux, first legate of the Pope, sent the bishop of Toulouse in France, to preach the crusade against Count Raymond, and to instigate the whole world against him and his country, saying that he rebelled against the (Roman Catholic) church, and protected all the heretics (namely, the Albigenses) that were within his territory. Chassan. Hist., lib. 3, cap. 10.

Third Argument.--The legate of the Pope summoned Raymond, count of Toulouse, to Arles, indicating that his case (namely, his protecting the Albigenses) would be considered there. When he came, several articles by which he was to be governed were laid before him; one of which was: That he should expel from his territories all the heretics (namely, the Waldenses, who lived quietly and peaceably under him), together with their adherents, friends, and kindred. Also: That he should deliver up into the hands of the Legate, and Count Montfort, all those whom they should name to him (namely, those who professed the same belief), that they might do with them according to their pleasure; and this within one year. Chassan., Hist. Alb., lib. 3, cap. 9, 10. A. Mell., fol. 455, col. 1.

Fourth Argument.--Robert of Auxerre concludes his Year-book with the papal excommunication against Raymond, count of Toulouse, whose territory was given as a prey to all who wished: because he was found (says the writer) to extend favor and assistance to the heretics (the Albigenses and Waldenses), and was, therefore, declared a renegade of the faith and an open enemy of the (Roman) church. Chron. Altiss., A. D. 1211, Deceased A. D. 1212.

Who does not see that this Count was excommunicated simply because he permitted these so-called heretics, termed Albigenses and Waldenses, to live under him? on account of which his whole territory was given for a prey.

Fifth Argument.--In the year 1212 the city of Penne, or Pene, in the territory of Aix la Chapelle, was besieged by the count of Montfort; but before the enemy arrived, the Governor burnt the suburb, and retreated with his people into the citadel. Finally the city was taken, and seventy soldiers who were in it (the writer says) were hanged; but all the rest (namely, the defenseless) that maintained the error of the Albigenses, were burnt. Thuan. Hist., lib. 6, A. D. 1550. Forte ex Vincentio Bello Vacensi and Petro Sarn.

From this also it certainly is more than evident that the Albigenses lived quietly under their magistrates, and offered no resistance to the enemies; hence they were not hanged, like the conquered soldiers, but burnt as heretics.

Sixth Argument.--“Thus the Count of Montfort,” writes Paul Emilius, “scoured the whole country, and brought all the cities and castles, especially in Agenois and Rouergue, under his power. Not because they all held an ungodly doctrine (that is, were Albigenses), but in order that they might not be able to protect or assist the ungodly,” that is, the heretics, as they called them. Hist. Gal., lib. 6, in Phill., Aug. 2.

Here it is also evident beyond contradiction, that the Albigenses who lived under those magistrates, did not only carry no arms, but also held a belief entirely different from that of their authorities; for, otherwise they would have called both by the same name, that is, ungodly, but as it is, only the Albigenses are called ungodly, while of the magistrates it is stated, that they did not hold this doctrine; although sometimes the magistrates and the subjects were called by the same name, as has been said.

Seventh Argument.--This is still more confirmed by the words with which the Dominican friars in those times were accustomed to conclude their sermons, saying: “Behold, here ye can perceive, most beloved, how great the wickedness of the heretics (the Albigenses) is, yea, what is still more, they have accepted the protection of the secular lords.” Vinbert. Burgund. Serm., part 2, Serm. 64.

From this, and similar passages which we might adduce, it is sufficiently evident that not the Albigenses or Waldenses, but the magistrates under whom they lived, had recourse to arms and carried on war; hence, they do wrong, who confound the Albigenses with their magistrates, and lay, whether through ignorance or on purpose, what their magistrates did, to the charge of the Albigenses. Their own confession has already been given; in which they confess: That they follow the example of Christ, who exercised no temporal jurisdiction or dominion.

Eighth Argument.--But, for still further proof of said matter, we will add the following, contained in the Introduction to the Martyrs Mirror, edition 1631, p. 50, col. 1: “A. D.,... there existed in Toulouse in France, the Albigenses, so called because they arose principally in the province of Albi; otherwise they were of the same doctrine and belief as the former (the Waldenses); hence it is presumable, that they were one people notwithstanding that they are called by different names.”

“Baronius writes that their belief, among other things, was: That infant baptism was not necessary to salvation; that an unworthy, sinful priest could not administer the sacrament; that no one might become a bishop, who was not blameless; that no churches ought to be erected to the honor of God or the saints; that confession (of sins) could be made to any one; that it was not lawful to swear any oath, etc.; all of which things they said could be found in the New Testament, to which alone they held.” From Baron., A. D. 1176, num. 1, 2, 3.

Continuing, we find, in the aforementioned Introduction (same page, col. 2), respecting their views against war, and in refutation of those who impute this to them, the following words: “For this reason we must also consider, that when we read here of the wars waged against them, and the resistance which they offered, this ... is to be understood of the princes and magistrates who took them under their protection; as the King of Aragon, the count of Toulouse, the count of Foix, and others; further, of those who were employed under the authority of the aforementioned persons; but it is neither probable nor reasonable, that such people should be counted among them, who, according to Baronius, regulated their conduct only by the New Testament, which they observed so strictly, that they would not even swear an oath, which is much less than to engage in war.”

This is confirmed by what Baronius says, namely, that war was waged by the Pope and his adherents, against the aforesaid princes, for the reason that the latter would not persecute the Albigenses, and expel them from their territory; but when this was done, after the said princes had been brought into subjection, the Albigenses, he writes, soon became extinct. Bar., A. D. 1210, num. 3, and 1228, num. 3.

This could not have been the case if so numerous a people had opposed their persecutors with force of arms. Introduction, page 51, col. 1.

DEMONSTRATION OF A PLAIN DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ALBIGENSES AND THEIR MAGISTRATES AND FELLOW-CITIZENS.

The last-mentioned writer, proceeding to the violence and vexation suffered by the Albigenses from the papists--ecclesiastics as well as seculars, makes mention of Raymond, count of Toulouse, and of the count of Turenne, saying: That they went to Peter, the cardinal and legate of the Pope, in order that they should kill or slay the heretics (the Albigenses), if the latter should not be converted to the Roman church through the cardinals’ preaching. Having arrived at Toulouse, they made the citizens swear an oath that they would name all the Albigenses they knew. Many of them were now betrayed, and among these, also Peter Moranus, one of their principal men. When he was examined, he freely confessed his faith; and was instantly condemned as a heretic, and all his property confiscated. Introduction, p. 51, col. 1, 2, from Baron., A. D. 1178, num. 2.

NOTE.--From the aforementioned eight arguments, but especially from this last demonstration, it appears incontrovertibly, that a great distinction must be made, between the Albigenses and their magistrates, as well as the citizens among whom they lived in the cities; so that whenever resistance, war or conflict are spoken of, in which the inhabitants of this or that city or place engaged, it is to be understood throughout of the magistrates and their soldiers, who guarded said cities or places, as also, of the common citizens; but not of the true Albigenses, since these, in accordance with their faith, as has already been sufficiently stated, exercised no revenge or resistance against any one, but lived peaceably under their magistrates; to whom they also, as was proper, paid their taxes.

However, that we may not give offense to our fellow-believers, if any should entertain a different opinion in regard to this matter, although it has been sufficiently explained by us, we shall adduce the principal confessors who suffered in the besieged cities for the doctrine of the Albigensian religion, not as infallible witnesses, but as incidental matters; which the kind reader will please regard as having been done by us from no other motive than Christian prudence.

ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY PERSONS CALLED ALBIGENSES, BURNT WITHOUT THE CASTLE MINERVE.

In the year of our Lord 1210, a large sacrifice of believers, called Perfecti or Albigenses took place near the castle Minerve; so that at one time about one hundred and eighty persons, men as well as women, who, forsaking the Roman antichrist, desired to adhere steadfastly to Jesus Christ and his divine truth, were publicly burnt; these, having commended their souls to God, are now waiting for the crown and reward of the faithful.

As to the manner in which this occurred, different papistic writers give this account: That the Pope of Rome caused a second crusade or campaign to be preached, in order to annihilate with might and main the Albigenses wherever they might be concealed; promising forgiveness of sins, yea, eternal salvation to all who in this campaign should well acquit themselves in murdering and burning the Waldenses.

In the meantime there were in the castle of Minerve very many Albigenses called Perfecti (perfect ones), who resided under the lord of the castle, and were protected by him.

This castle, situated on a high rock, was besieged by the legate of the Pope, and so hard pressed, that the lord of the same was finally, through lack of water, compelled to surrender. The legate commanded that all who would not unite with the Roman church, should be put to death.

Those within, however, (namely, the defenseless Albigenses) said: “We do not wish to forsake our faith; we reject your Roman faith; your labor is vain, for neither death nor life shall cause us to depart from our faith.” Such was the answer and resolution of the men, who were all assembled together in one house. The women, who were in another house, were found by the abbot so courageous and undaunted that with all his fine words he could make no impression upon them.

The count of Montfort then caused them all (namely, these confessors) to come out of the castle, the men as well as the women, and having ordered a large fire to be kindled, he had them all cast into it, to the number of one hundred and forty; all of whom were burnt alive, except three women, who, having apostatized through weakness, escaped the fire. All the others that were in the castle (namely, the lord with his servants and soldiers, who had guarded the castle), complied with the will of the papal legate.

Peter Sarnensis, speaking of these people that were put to death, says, that these hundred and forty martyrs were of the Albigenses called Perfecti; and adds, that they would rather be burned alive, than unite with the Roman church. In Hist. Albigens. Also, Joh. Chassan., Hist. Albig., lib. 3, cap. 7, ex Hist. Languedoc.

From the account of Robert of Auxerre, a strong papist, who wrote at that time, and, it seems, was an eye-witness of the steadfast death of these people, it appears, that about forty more than the preceding writers have stated were burned; which might well be the case, namely, that the former first, and the latter afterwards, confessed themselves to be of the same faith, and thus were punished alike with death. He writes as follows: “In A. D. 1210 a great expedition was undertaken by our bishops, as well as by the lords and princes of the realm, and by the common people. This expedition was a very noted one, and was undertaken from pure devotion, or by vow; partly through the zeal of faith enkindled in the hearts of the believers (so he calls the papists), against the destroyers of the faith (thus he calls the true Albigenses), and partly, in order to merit the forgiveness of sins, promised by the apostolical see (the Pope of Rome); hence they marched with their assembled army before the castle of Minerve, which was a very strong place.”

At last the besieged offered to surrender; but when it was proclaimed to all, that those who would turn from their heresy, should be left free and unmolested, about one hundred and eighty were found (namely, Albigenses) who rather suffered themselves to be burnt alive, than desist from their heretical wickedness (thus he calls their true faith).

Those who witnessed this, he writes, were astonished at the inexorable obstinacy of these miserable people, who would not listen to any salutary admonitions (thus he calls the fables of the papists), because their reason was smitten, and thus they voluntarily hastened to the punishment of death. Rob. Aux. Chronol. Altiss., A. D. 1210, compared with A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 454, col. 2.

SIXTY PERSONS CALLED ALBIGENSES, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT CASSER.

In the year 1211, or a little before, when the count of Montfort, by order of the Pope, was exercising great tyranny for the purpose of exterminating the Albigenses, he learned, through an informer, or in some other way, that in a place called Casser, there resided many of these people, under the protection of the lord of said place. He therefore went to lay siege to it; but those within (namely, the garrison), seeing that they would not be able to hold out long, notwithstanding the place was tolerably strong otherwise, capitulated, with this agreement, that they would deliver into the hands of the enemy, those called heretics (or Albigenses); these the bishops sought to persuade to renounce their faith, but they could not prevail upon them in the least; in consequence of which sixty persons were burnt for the sake of that religion. Chass. Hist., Albig., lib. 3, compared with A. M. Hist., fol. 456, col. 4.

ABOUT ONE HUNDRED PERSONS CALLED ALBIGENSES, OR HERETICS, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, IN A TOWER AT CASSAS.

About the close of the year 1211, it is recorded, the legate of the Pope, having gone forth utterly to extirpate all those that professed the confession of the abovementioned Albigenses, was apprised, that over eighty, but according to others, about a hundred of that sect or heresy, as it was called, were concealed on, or in, a tower at Cassas. They had been sent thither by those of Rogueville (who, it seems, were not willing that any of these defenseless people should remain among them), that they might save their lives, until this blood-thirsty man should have passed by. Having learned this, the legate very easily surprised, captured and demolished this tower, and caused all those that were in it--like sheep for the slaughter in the fold, who would not abandon their faith, to be burned alive as heretics. Chass., lib. 3, cap. 15. Also, A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 457, col. 1.

FIFTY PERSONS CALLED ALBIGENSES, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT CHASTELNAU D’ARI, AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR 1211.

This fire of the papal legate continued, like a thunder-bolt, to burn and scorch among the defenseless flock of Christ, called Albigenses, or heretics, who had concealed themselves here and there, wherever they thought they might be secure.

In the mean time, there were fifty of these people at Chastelnau d’Ari, shut up and closely besieged, together with all that were in that place, by the count of Montfort, the commander-in-chief of the papal legate. Finally, the place having been taken, all these persons, as they would not depart from their faith, were burnt alive, and thus, having commended their souls unto God, they gave their bodies for a burnt sacrifice.

Chassanion writes, that when the Count of Montfort had taken the city of Chastelnau d’Ari, fifty persons were found in it, who would rather be burnt alive than return to the papistic religion. Compare Chassau., lib. 3, cap. 16, with A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 457, col. 1.

OVER FOUR HUNDRED PERSONS CALLED INDUTI, OR ALBIGENSES, BURNT FOR THEIR FAITH, AT LAVAUR, OR VAURUM, A. D. 1211.

Previously we stated, that the Albigenses, whose confession we showed to be good and Scriptural, were called by various names. Besides those names already explained, they were also called Induti, or Vestiti, that is, the clothed, or covered, either because they had to cover or conceal themselves on account of persecution, or for some other reason.

This, at least, is certain, that they are compared by Mellinus, 2d book, page 443, col. 3, to the Albigenses, called Perfecti; who were also styled, as he shows, Boni homines, that is, good men, because they, as it seems, were good and upright in their walk. Very many of these good, upright, and not less believing people, were burnt for the faith, as heretics, suffering it innocently and patiently, in the city of Lavaur, also called Vaurum, about the year 1211. Their number, according to ancient chronicles, amounted to over four hundred.

Nicholas Bertrand quotes the following from the papistic chronicle of William de Podio Laurentii: “Simon, count of Montfort, hastened with the Lord’s (the Roman Pope’s) army, to lay siege to the fortress or city, of Vaurum, which Amerius, lord of Montreal and Laurack, brother of the lady Geralda, had undertaken to defend for her sake. Within there was no small number of those heretics called Induti, who did not always reside there, but had congregated at that time from distant countries.”

“The army of God, therefore,” he writes, (namely, the army of the Pope) “encompassed the fortress, or city, and gave the besieged no rest night and day. Those within perceiving,... surrendered unconditionally to the beleaguers.”

He then goes on to relate how they dealt with those who had guarded the city, or fortress, and coming then to the abovementioned people who, to live according to their faith, had resided quietly and peaceably among the other inhabitants, he says: “The heretics called Induti, that is, clothed, about three hundred, others write, over four hundred, he caused to be burned alive. Nich. Bertrand de Gest. Tholosan., fol. 27. The lives of the common people, however, were spared upon certain conditions.

A large fire was made of wood, says Robert Altissiodorensis, and the choice was given to all, either to turn from their errors (so he speaks, after the manner of the papists), or to be burnt alive; whereupon a great number, over four hundred, as stated, were found who were so obstinate in their error (as he calls their true faith) that they would rather be burnt than confess the Roman Catholic faith. Chronol., page 106. Also A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 456, col. 2, 3.

COMMENCEMENT PROPER OF THE HISTORY OF THE MARTYRS OF THIS CENTURY.

GREAT PERSECUTIONS OF THE BELIEVERS, IN THE YEAR 1206.

In the year 1206, it is recorded, that Pope Innocent III. exercised great cruelty against the followers of the doctrine of Peter Bruis and Henry of Toulouse, who, among other things, rejected infant baptism, the mass, and transubstantiation, as has already been stated. The manner, however, in which this cruelty was manifested toward them, is not expressed. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 523, col. 1.

Undoubtedly, the Pope then caused to be carried out what he had threatened, A. D. 1198, in his three letters, against the Waldenses and others that were called heretics, namely: That they should be spoiled of their goods, expelled from the country, and the material sword of the princes used against them. In regard to said three letters and threats, see A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 444, col. 2, 3, and fol. 445, col. 1.

A MAN BURNT ALIVE, AT LONDON, IN ENGLAND, FOR THE FAITH OF THE WALDENSES, A. D. 1210.

In various ancient histories we read, that not only in France and Germany, but also in England, the doctrine of the Albi-Waldenses[169] obtained a foothold, so that in said Island, especially at London, numbers were found, who made this profession, to the great detriment of the Roman religion. On this account, the popish clergy, unable to brook this, became filled with great bitterness against them, so that they, it seems, determined to punish one of them in such an exemplary manner, that it would deter the rest, and cause them to leave the country, or at least, to desist from confessing and speaking otherwise than those of the Roman Catholic church.

[169] Albigenses, says the writer; however they were of the profession of the Waldenses; but because of their origin from the province of Albi, they were called Albigenses.

Thereupon they apprehended one of their number, whose name we have not been able to learn because they, afterwards perhaps, were ashamed of the deed, and in order to give their design some semblance [of justice], they charged him with having reviled the clergy, and that he, consequently, was not fit to live, but deserved to die an ignominious and miserable death. He was accordingly burnt alive, A. D. 1210.

Concerning this, Balaeus writes, from the Chronicle of London: That the Albigenses in England (according to the Papists) reviled the clergy, and that in consequence thereof a man was burnt alive by them, at London, A. D. 1210. Cent. 3, Script. Britt., in Append. ad Gualterum Horganium, page 258, compared with A. Mell. Hist., fol. 455, col. 4.

P. J. Twisck, having given some account of many Waldensian martyrs at Strasburg, for the year 1210, proceeds thus: “The Chronicle of London states, that also in England a great number, namely, of Waldenses, or, as has been stated, Albigenses, who were of the same faith, were found, and that one of them was burnt at London. Chron., page 526, col. 1.

NOTE.--P. J. Twisck, after relating said matter concerning the Albigensian martyr, at London, adds: “A. D. 1210. In the city of Narbonne one hundred and thirty persons were put to death by the priests, because they reproved the great abuses and idolatry of the popes. In the same year there were also killed at Paris, in France, twenty-four martyrs and witnesses of the truth, because they would not consent to the false doctrine of antichrist.” Chron., p. 526, from Guil. Merul. Tijdtthresoor, fol. 800. Hist. der Mart. Adri., fol. 39. Chron. Zeg., fol. 299. Henr., Box. fol. 23.

TWENTY-FOUR PERSONS BURNT ALIVE FOR THE BELIEF OF THE WALDENSES, AT PARIS, A. D. 1210.

Christian Massaeus, having noticed the case of a great company of martyrs who, having been found in the castle Minerve, were all burnt alive as heretics, adds this account: “At that time, namely, A. D. 1210, also at Paris, twenty-four who were of the same obstinacy (thus he, after the manner of the papists, calls the steadfastness of these people), were burnt alive.” Christ. Mass. Chron., lib. 17, A. D. 1210, compared with the large Christen Martelarersboeck, edit. 1619, fol. 455, col. 4.

The writer, after the manner of the papists, calls these people heretics, and their steadfast faith obstinacy; but how can anything good proceed from the mouth of the wicked? However, this must not offend us, since not only these, but even the ancient holy prophets, apostles, and servants of God, were stigmatized with many opprobrious names, yea, titles of the devil, by evil worldly men.

ABOUT ONE HUNDRED PERSONS CALLED WALDENSES, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT STRASBURG; THIRTY-NINE AT BINGEN; AND EIGHTEEN AT MENTZ, A. D. 1212.

A. D. 1212, the true doctrine of the Gospel began to manifest itself to a great extent in Alsace, among the Waldenses, who were one people and of the same faith with the Albigenses. But the prince of darkness, unable to endure this great light, exerted every means to extinguish it, so that in said year, in Strasburg alone, about a hundred persons, men as well as women, were burnt alive on the same day, for this confession, by the servants of antichrist, particularly through the bishop of that city.

Concerning this, the papistic writer H. Mutius writes: “A. D. 1212 a heresy arose in Alsace, by which noble and ignoble were led astray. They maintained that it was lawful to eat flesh every day throughout the whole year, and that there is as much excess in the immoderate eating of fish, as of any kind of flesh.” Again: “That they do very wrong who forbid marriage; since God has created all things, and everything may be used in a holy manner, with thanksgiving.”[170]

[170] What the Waldenses held with regard to infant baptism, the mass, and transubstantiation, has been previously shown.

“This, their opinion,” he writes, “they maintained very firmly, and many believed them. Moreover, they did not hesitate (hear how the papists speak), to revile the most holy lord, the Pope, because he prohibited ecclesiastical persons from marrying, and bade them abstain on certain forbidden days from some kinds of food. The Pope of Rome therefore commanded that these people should be made away with and put to death. Hence, about a hundred were burnt together on the same day, by the bishop of Strasburg. H. Mut., Chron. lib. 19.

Bruschius, in his history of the Monasteries of Germany, relates, that at the same time, thirty-five, or, as others read, thirty-nine persons, inhabitants of Mentz, were brought to Bingen, and there burnt alive for the doctrine of the Waldenses; and at another time, by the same bishop of Mentz, eighteen others for the same confession. Also A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 457, col. 3; also P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 526, col. 1, from Guil. Merulae Tijdt-thresoor, fol. 800.

CRUEL MODE OF INQUISITION OVER THE DOCTRINE OF THE WALDENSES, OR OF THOSE CALLED HERETICS, A. D. 1214.

In the year 1214, Conrad of Marpurg, a Dominican friar, was appointed by Pope Innocent III., grand inquisitor of the faith over all Germany, and sent by him closely to search out and examine such as were said to have strayed from the faith of the Roman church. This commission he carried out with such cruelty for full nineteen years, that an incredible number of persons, declared heretics by him, were put to death, partly by fire and partly with the sword. Trithemius speaks of the manner of this inquisition, saying: “That this inquisitor, Conrad of Marpurg, used to try the heretics (the true Christians), by giving them a red-hot iron into their hands, and to deliver all those that were burnt by it as heretics unto the secular judge, to be sentenced to the fire.” Hence it came that only very few escaped, but that all who were once accused and brought to him for examination were, without mercy, condemned by him as heretics to be burned.

“There were some,” he writes, “who held that he condemned very many innocent persons, because the red-hot iron, finding none without sin, although they otherwise had never been tainted with any heresy, burned almost every one that took it.” Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug., A. D. 1214 and 1215. Also A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 459, col. 3; also fol. 466, col. 4.

THE PRECEDING INQUISITION CONTINUED.

This was the most cruel and dreadful time which one could live to see; for this entire infernal inquisition, which was carried on with red-hot iron and other intolerable means, had penetrated even into the Netherlands, so that there, not less than in Germany, this tyranny was carried on in the same manner, and even worse.

I cannot forbear here to inform you, though with a terrified and shuddering heart, of what I have found with respect to this matter, in a certain account which has just fallen into my hands, as it were, for this occasion. Marcus Zueris van Boxhorn, author of the Nederlandtsch Historien, in his first book, p. 23, printed A. D. 1649, at Leyden, and dedicated to the H. M. Lords States, gives the following account with reference to it:

The trial by red-hot iron.--If a person charged with holding sentiments contrary to the doctrine of the Roman church, from fear of a cruel death, denied it, the accused was delivered into the hands and custody of a priest, who was to find out the truth. Before making the trial, then commonly called the ordeal, they together spent three days ostensibly in fasting and prayer. This done, they went together to the church, where the priest, in his sacerdotal attire, placed himself in front of the altar, upon which he laid a piece of iron, first chanting the song of the three children in the fiery furnace: “Praise the Lord, all his works,” etc., and then pronouncing a blessing over the altar, and the fire in which the iron was to be laid. The iron, while heating on the coals, was repeatedly sprinkled with holy water, and in the mean time mass was read. When the priest took the wafer into his hand, he adjured the accused, praying meanwhile (ostensibly) to God that by his righteousness he would discover the truth of the matter, using among others these words:

The priest’s prayer over the red-hot iron.--”‘Lord God! we pray thee that thou wouldst clearly manifest the truth in this thy servant; thou, O God, who hast in former times done great and wonderful signs by fire, among thy people; who didst deliver Abraham, thy son, from the fire of the Chaldeans, by which many perished; who didst preserve Lot, thy servant, when Sodom and Gomorrah were justly laid in the ashes by the fire; who, in the sending of the Holy Ghost by the light of fiery and flaming tongues, didst separate the believers from the unbelievers; grant us the grace, while we make this trial, that through this red-hot fire we may discover the truth. If this, thy servant, who is now being tried, is guilty, let his hand be seared and burnt by the fire. But if, on the contrary, he is innocent, let him not be hurt by the fire. Lord God, to whom all secrets are known, however hid they are, fulfill, by thy goodness, the expectation of our confidence and faith, while we make this examination; that the innocent may be acquitted; but the guilty detected and punished.’

“When the priest had uttered this prayer,” writes M. S. Boxhorn, p. 24, “he again sprinkled the red-hot iron with holy water, and pronounced this blessing over it: ‘The blessing of God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, come down upon this iron, that by it we may be enabled to pronounce a true judgment.’”

How the iron was given into the hand of the accused.--This having been said, the flaming iron was given into the hand of the accused, who had to carry it nine paces. The hand was then closely wrapped up with cloth by the priest, and sealed, for three days, at the end of which it was inspected. If it was wounded, the accused was judged to be guilty; if not, he was acquitted.

O, cruel inquisition! by which not only men, but even God was tried and tempted to the utmost. “Thou shalt not,” says Christ, “tempt the Lord thy God.” Matt. 4:7.

Another examination, by hot water.--Sometimes also a kettle with hot, boiling water was used, into which the accused had to thrust his hand up to the elbow, in order to ascertain his guilt or innocence. This procedure was called Ketel-vang, in the ancient Netherlands, and particularly in the Friesian statutes and laws.

The trial by cold water.--Likewise, and for the same purpose, the cold and consecrated water of the canals or rivers was used. The accused were cast into it, and from the sinking or floating of their bodies, the righteousness or unrighteousness of their case was judged. This mode was carried out in the following manner at that time: A priest, one of the judges, went with the accused, and a great train of others, to a deep canal, ditch, or river, near by; and standing on the shore or brink, he adjured the water with these words: “I adjure thee, O water.” However, first he gave the accused a cup of holy water to drink, saying: “This holy water be for a test to thee this day.” Turning then to the water, he exclaimed: “I adjure thee, O water, in the name, etc., who created thee in the beginning, and would have thee serve to meet the necessities of man, and be separated from the waters above.” He then adjured the water again in the name of Christ, and then in the name of the Holy Ghost, and finally in the name of the Holy Trinity; and this, with such hard, stern and severe words that I am shocked, and afraid in my very soul to repeat them.

“Thereupon followed,” writes M. S. Boxhorn, “several additional solemn adjurations (these, however, he does not relate), which, when the priest had finished, the accused was stripped stark-naked, and cast or driven into the water. If he sank, he was considered innocent; but if he floated, he was forthwith condemned and punished by fire, as being guilty.” Page 26.

If any one should desire to read a full account as regards said papistic adjurations over the water, let him consult M. S. Boxhorn, Nederlandtsch Hist., 1st book, pp. 25, 26.

THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE TRIALS WERE COMMENCED IN THE NETHERLANDS, ABOUT THE YEAR 1215.

Before bringing persons to the trial with red-hot iron, hot or boiling water, or in cold rivers, which was called the severest or extremest examination, milder means were employed, especially in the Netherlands; however, with such intricacies, and so many snares, that an honest soul, that would act candidly, and without dissimulation, could not escape, but was in danger of losing his life.

The above-mentioned Boxhorn, describing the manner of examination used at that time against the Vaudois, who also belonged to the Poor Men of Lyons, and were at that time one people with the Albigenses and Waldenses, but afterwards differed with them in various articles, relates: That the Dominicans, a certain order of monks, were at that time sent by the Pope here into the Netherlands, as inquisitors; who, in order to well execute their office as it were, had put in writing a certain mode of examination, which literally read as follows:

Examination.--“When any one in the Netherlands is brought before the judge, suspected and accused of heresy, he shall first be asked: Why are you apprehended? Does any one know of your imprisonment? Have you not learned from any one the cause of your apprehension? If he say: I do not know; answer him: They say that you, seduced by certain teachers who keep themselves concealed, have, to a considerable extent, departed from the Christian faith, as it is publicly taught in this country and elsewhere, throughout all Christendom. Let him answer as well or as much as he will, and let forthwith an oath be demanded and put to him, unless his youth does not admit of his swearing. Before he takes the oath, these words shall be spoken to him: See, you are to swear here, that you will tell in all sincerity the truth as it is known to you, concerning yourself as well as others in regard to whom you will be questioned. If he refuses to swear,[171] he shall be suspected so much the more.

[171] From this it is quite evident that said people had an aversion to the swearing of oaths. But some one may say: This has reference to adjuring their belief. To this it may be replied, that the oath demanded here did not aim at anything further than the telling of the truth, as the preceding words declare.

“See well to it also, that he have no reason to say that he was compelled by threats or otherwise to swear; but if he is ready willingly to take the oath, present these words to him:

The oath administered by the inquisitors, near the chapter-house of Utrecht, to those who at that time were called heretics.--“I, N. N. N., swear to God Almighty, my lord of Utrecht (or otherwise) and the lords present in his stead, that I will tell the pure truth, without fear, of all matters known to me, concerning which I shall be questioned here; not only in regard to myself, but also to others. So help me God and his holy mother, in my last hour.” Boxhorn, Nederl. Hist., p. 15.

In this manner the inquisitors proceeded, and then observed the following mode of examination, which it seems they had to employ as their fundamental rule, against those who were called heretics:

“If he is not known to you (says this rule) question him thus: What is your name? Where were you born? Who was your father? Again: How often have you confessed to the teachers of the heretics, who secretly circulate that they have come into the world in place of the apostles, to go from place to place, preaching the Gospel?[172]

[172] It seems that these inquisitors thought that these people also observed auricular confession; which is a grave misapprehension, seeing their confession avowed the contrary.

Again: “How long have you resided here? How old were you when you began to give audience to these heretics? When did you last confess to them? For whom did you take them? Do they also wear crowns [the tonsur] and the priestly garb? What penance did they impose on you? Did they not charge you to say an Ave Maria? Did you believe that it was in their power to forgive your sins? Who first directed you to these heretics? To how many heretics have you confessed? What was the name of the first? the second? the third? etc.

“Did your parents also hold this heretical belief? How often have you received the body of Christ? Have you also confessed to our priests? Have you also confessed to them, that you hold this heretical belief? Why did you not confess it? How often have you heard them teach? where first? in what houses, or places? in what room or chamber? by day or at night? in the morning or evening? Who were there besides you? What did your teachers preach respecting purgatory? Is there a purgatory? How many times a day do you pray for the souls of your parents, friends, and benefactors? What alms have you given for them? How many days have you fasted for them? How many masses have you had read for them?

“Can you say the Ave Maria? Say it. Can you say any prayers to the saints? Do you believe, that the holy Mary, and other saints, are acquainted with our distresses, and that they are filled with compassion on this account, and pray for us? Who is the patron of your parish? When is his day celebrated? Have you properly celebrated him? What kind of a saint is it? Is it an angel? or a martyr? or a confessor? or an apostle? or a virgin? or a widow? What did you bring as an offering on their feast-day? Have you chosen for yourself a certain apostle? Who is your apostle? “What do you hold with regard to the worship of the holy cross? the nails? the crown of thorns? the spear? and the images of the saints?

“Have you ever journeyed to Rome, to obtain forgiveness of your sins? Have you sprinkled yourself with holy water? Have you tasted the consecrated salt? Have you consecrated twigs and tapers in your house? Have you done this with a pure and upright heart, as do other Christians, who by your people are called Strangers? or have you done it merely for appearance’ sake, so as not to be detected in your heresy? Tell the simple truth.

“Do you not believe that St. Martin has become a saint, and that his holy soul is now in the kingdom of heaven? Will you drink in the name and to the remembrance of St. Martin? Do you know any hymns to the honor of God, or his holy mother? and so forth.

“Say, finally: Will you desist with all your heart from your errors, and separate yourself from the heretics, and henceforth have no fellowship with them? If so, then swear thus:

The second oath administered by the inquisitors to those who were at that time called heretics; which none of the true martyrs ever swore.--“I, N. N. N., swear an oath, to God Almighty, my lord, bishop N. N., and the lords present in his stead, without any dissimulation, that henceforth I will go no more to the people that call themselves, etc., and will have fellowship neither with them nor with their leaders, teachers, etc., as long as they remain heretics. Moreover, I forswear (see what papistic tricks these are), all manner of unbelief that is contrary to the open faith taught and maintained everywhere in the holy Roman church and in Christendom. And that I will also submit to penance for my transgressions, when and as it shall, though in mercy, be imposed upon me. So truly help me God and his mother, in my last hour.” Boxhorn, page 18. Concerning the examination, see page 15–17.

NOTE.--Who does not see, beloved reader, that these were snares from which the pious could not extricate themselves without losing their lives? for it was certain that the Poor Men of Lyons, in those times, whether called Vaudois,[173] Waldenses, or Albigenses, did not swear at all; which, especially as regards the Waldenses and Albigenses, has been distinctly proved in our previous explanation. This, then, was the first snare which they could not escape.

[173] That the very odious name Vaudois, was given the Poor Men of Lyons, need offend no one; since Christ himself and his holy apostles were often called evil and opprobrious names, by their adversaries.

In the second place, by the form of that oath it was proposed to them, that they should forsake their entire religion, faith, and worship, and join themselves to the Roman church which they held to be worse than Babylon. How could this be done by them with a good conscience? In no wise. This snare, therefore, they could likewise not escape. What, then, had they to expect? Nothing less than certain death; yea, a cruel, ignominious, and accursed death, though blessed for those who, remaining steadfast, suffered it. I will say nothing now of the cruel and horrible manner of inquisition, by red-hot iron, hot water, as also in open rivers;[174] which generally followed upon the examination just stated.

[174] For further information respecting the method of the inquisitors, see our account of the martyrs for the year 1301, etc.

What heathen or barbarians have ever acted thus? It is true, they put the pious witnesses of Jesus to death in a very painful manner; however, that was the end of it; and, besides, sometimes means remained by which it was possible to escape death, and yet keep the faith. And we nowhere read, that they ever had such a mode of inquisition over matters of faith; but the Romanists, who call themselves Christians, were not afraid or ashamed of it.

Certainly, here one or the other, either the body or the soul, had to be sacrificed by the martyrs; for if they would save the body, by forsaking the faith, which they, in their conscience, recognized as the genuine, yea, the only and eternal truth, they were in danger, yea, fully assured of losing their souls; on the other hand, if they sought to preserve their souls, by their good confession, and by forsaking the superstitions of popery, they had to lose their bodies, and this by the most cruel, horrible, and miserable death; which, according to the custom at that time, was to be placed alive into the flames until death ensued.

In this manner, very many, yea, almost a countless number, of pious Christians, called Albigenses and Waldenses, perished in those times; who, constrained by the love of Christ, to hold fast the confession of their faith, willingly exchanged this earthly for the heavenly; suffering here the tabernacle of their body to be dissolved, in order to have a building with God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 Cor. 5:1.

We will now see, what persons perished for the faith, in that cruel inquisition, particularly under the test of red-hot iron, not in the Netherlands, but in Germany, where it first originated.

ABOUT EIGHTY PERSONS CALLED WALDENSES, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT STRASBURG, A. D. 1215.

Now, when the throne of antichrist began to suffer much detriment through the doctrine of the Waldenses, and infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, the secular power and dominion, the authority of the Pope of Rome, the mass, purgatory, absolution or forgiveness of sins by the so-called clergy, pilgrimages, visitations of the holy sepulchres prayers, or sacrifices for the dead, and other things pertaining to popery, were opposed by them, they saying, that these things ought to have no place in the true church of Christ; it came to pass, A. D. 1215, that this cruel man, Conrad of Marpurg, of whom it was stated, for the year 1214, that he had been sent into Germany, as grand inquisitor, by Pope Innocent III., apprehended over eighty persons, both men and women, who were called Waldenses and made the same confession. They were also examined, concerning their faith, in that horrible manner of which we have already spoken, namely, by taking a red-hot iron into their bare hands; and having all of them endured it patiently, and remaining steadfast, they were finally condemned to be burnt alive as heretics; which was done to them all on the same day, at Strasburg, in said year of their apprehension, A. D. 1215.

Of this the papistic writer Trithemius gives the following account: “At this time, namely A. D. 1215, there were very many who were heretics secretly, men as well as women, who spread divers strange errors throughout all Germany, France, and Italy; of whom great numbers were apprehended and burnt alive. For in said year more than eighty were apprehended in Strasburg, at the same time, among whom but very few were found innocent; for if any of them denied the heresy,[175] Conrad of Marpurg, the Pope’s inquisitor, would try them by giving them a red-hot iron into their hands, and deliver all those that were burnt by it, to the secular judge, as heretics, to be sentenced to the fire.” Trith. Chron. Hirsaug. Also, A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 459. C. Mellinus calls these martyrs Waldenses, fol. 457, col. 3; and their confession he has shown, fol. 446, col. 1, 2.

[175] It is necessary here to understand that by the word heresy those people did not mean their orthodox faith; but all that could truly be called heresy; and this they then disavowed; whereby this inquisitor, (to all appearance) though he was very crafty, was greatly misled.

SEVERAL CHRISTIANS BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT TOULOUSE, A. D. 1215.

About that time, Pope Innocent III. had advised Dominic, that by means of constant preaching and disputation he should wondrously execute the office of inquisition, which he had entrusted to him, namely, against the so-called heretics; and that he should reconcile to the Roman church those who should ostensibly become converted; but should justly condemn such as remained refractory, that is, steadfast in their faith. Sixtus 5, in Diplom. instit. Festi S. Petri Mart.

Dominic discharged his inquisitorial office so energetically in the city of Toulouse, against the heretics mentioned, that is the Christians called Waldenses, that several who had been cast into prison, were, by his advice, delivered to the secular judge, to be burned. For, when in those times people could not be overcome by way of argument, with the word of God, they began to dispute with fire and sword against them; and then it was an easy matter to conquer them, not in regard to the truth, but in regard to their bodies and lives. This was also the case with these pious people of Toulouse, who would rather lose their lives than forsake the truth; which they confirmed in the flames by their death, having commended their souls into the hands of God, in the year of our Lord 1215.

The papist Theodoric, in his biography of Dominic, makes mention of these martyrs, saying: “When he (Dominic) was preaching, at this time, in the parts of Toulouse, it happened that some heretics were apprehended in that city and were convicted by him; whom, when they would not return to the Catholic church, he delivered to the secular Judge. When they had been condemned to be burnt.” Theod. in vita Dominici, citate Bzov. ad A. D. 1215, Art. 11, 12. Also, A. Mellinus, 2d book, fol. 460, col. 4.

NOTE.--A. D. 1220 lived the strong and celebrated theologian Almaricus; he reproved as idolatry the invocation of saints, and denied transubstantiation; on which account he was burnt at Paris. P. J. Twisck, page 537, col. 1, from Hist. Andr., page 162.

A. D. 1218.--In a certain ancient history of the martyrs of this time, I have found the following account, in which one of the orthodox believers presents a summary of the doctrine of the papists, as opposed to the true doctrine of the true church of God in those times; it reads as follows:

1. “They found their church upon the succession and derivation of the bishops (though erroneously) from the times of the apostles.

2. “They call those bishops, who consecrate churches, chapels, and altars; who make mass-priests and sanctuaries of the altars.

3. “They regard the Pope as the supreme Bishop, the head of their churches; who may be reproved by none but God.

4. “They are divided into many contending sects; some are ecclesiastics, some seculars. The ecclesiastics have separated themselves from the common people--whom they call the laity--and are themselves variously divided. Some are called monks and nuns; who vow, not to marry; to submit to voluntary poverty; to observe human institutions, such as, to have nothing to do with money; to wear a gray, white, or black cap; to eat no flesh; to be dumb at times; and other similar false and invented forms of holiness. Others are called secular priests; who also may not marry, but like the others, have to do a great amount of muttering and reading.

5. “They have priests, who are consecrated by the bishops, to offer up sacrifice for the living and the dead.

6. “All these ecclesiastics hold themselves exempt from punishment by civil authority, and bear no burdens with the citizens, since they are exempt.

7. “They seek their salvation out of Christ, in their own works and merits, which they also sell to each other for money; such as masses, indulgences, pilgrimages, and the merits of departed saints, which they also sell to the dead, who, they say, are in purgatory.

8. “They have an idol or patron for every city, village, or hamlet.

9. “They divide the power and honor of God among the departed saints; thus, seamen invoke St. Nicholas, St. Christopher, and St. Anna; women in travail, St. Mary; for gum-boils, St. Appollonia; against pestilence, St. Rochus and St. Anthony.

10. “They set up images in their churches; they light tapers, torches, and lamps before them; they clothe them in cloth, silk, velvet, silver and gold; they carry them with great reverence on their shoulders; they visit them in different places, and offer gifts to them (to which practice the popes and bishops append indulgence for sins); they kneel before them; they kiss, and worship them.

11. “In their oaths they swear by God and all his saints, etc.

12. “They pray to, and call upon God, without considering their need, and without thinking why they call upon him; they give him their prayers by the number, as apples are bought; they read, in the hours, rosaries, etc.

13. “They create many sabbaths, which they call holidays, in honor of departed saints; on which days manual labor is forbidden on pain of punishment; while drinking to excess, bartering, and gambling remain unpunished. On these days they generally commit shameful idolatry; the services are read in an unknown tongue; water is conjured; the organ is played; and the dead are called on for help and assistance.

14. “To the two sacraments, or signs of grace, instituted by Christ in his church, namely, holy baptism and the holy Supper, which they have shamefully corrupted, they have added five others, namely, confirmation, matrimony, ordination of mass-priests, auricular confession, and extreme unction.

15. “In baptism they leave out the most important part, namely the preaching of the Gospel; and add of their own, conjured salt, grease, spittle, and tapers, and exorcise the devil from the child which he never possessed.

16. “They also baptize bells, giving them names.

17. “They have changed the Lord’s Supper into an offering for the living and the dead; they conjure the bread with five words,[176] and persuade the people, that the bread is changed into flesh, and the wine into blood.

[176] Hoc est enim corpus meum, i. e. for this is my body.

18. “They withhold the wine from the laity, contrary to the command of Christ, who said: ‘Drink ye all of it.’

19. “They worship the bread, and say that it is their God; they enclose it in coffers and ciboria; they carry it through the streets; they burn torches and tapers before it, also at noon-day; they address and salute it; but it answers not.

20. “In their churches they have altars draped with linen, upon which burning tapers are placed at day-time, when mass is read.

21. “Mass is read by a mass-priest, who is hired to do it for money, or a yearly salary; he comes clothed in strange attire, after Jewish fashion, with a drinking cup of silver or gold in his hand, and accompanied by an attendant. He then says his confession before the altar, in Latin (though the attendant does not understand it), and invokes the assistance of the dead saints. Then, having kept up his mummery for a considerable time, having spoken loud and low, turning himself hither and thither, kissing and licking, he finally takes bread and wine, and forthwith offers the same to God, for the redemption of souls, for the hope of salvation, and the health of those present. Thus they reject thy sacrifice, O Christ Jesus, which thou once didst make for our salvation. O God, says the writer, how canst thou suffer this? He then calls the dead saints to the feasts, desiring to be aided by their merits. Over the bread he breathes these five words: Hoc est enim corpus meum, that is: For this is my body; supposing that thereby the bread will be changed into flesh. He then holds it above his head, for the people to worship it. So he does also with the cup. Then he prays for all those who sleep in Christ, that they may obtain a place of refreshing. Thereupon he prays to the Father, to accept his Son, whom they believe to have there, as graciously as he accepted the offering of Melchisedec and of Abel. Finally, he worships the bread, calling it the Lamb of God. Having worshiped the Lamb, he breaks it in pieces, and eats it up, also quaffing the wine, which he imagines to be the Lamb’s blood. This is the glorious mass of the papists, which, says our author, is a shameful corruption of the Supper of Christ, and has been reprehended by many godly men, who on this account had shed their blood.

22. “Such masses they read in honor of dead saints, of the sacrament, of the cross, the spear, and the nails.

23. “They sell the same as a remedy against all sickness, against storm, thunder, lightning, hail, tempests at sea, and every calamity. Every man is served according to his money; they who give little, have a dry mass, or a wet mass without singing; those who give much, get a half-sung mass, or one partly sung, according as to how much they give.

24. “They teach, that their invented sacrament of confirmation is of more importance than the sacrament of baptism, instituted by Christ; and that baptism is incomplete without confirmation.

25. “They dissolve marriage, in order that the husband or the wife may become spiritual, that is, a priest, monk, or nun, contrary to the command of Christ: What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”

“Time would fail me,” writes this zealous man, “if I were to recount all the falsities of the papists, in life, doctrine, and sacraments; and still they can endure no admonition to reform, but persecute with fire and sword, those who admonish and reprove them.” Ex Author. Tempor., A. D. 1218, compared with the History of the Martyrs, by J. S., edition 1645, fol. 32, col. 1–3. Gerard de la Motte, deacon of the Christians called Albi-Waldenses, with some of his fellow-believers, burnt for the faith, at Borriens, A. D. 1227.

When the believing defenseless Albi-Waldenses[177] had enjoyed rest for a season, and the lily of their true faith was beginning, in some measure, to grow and blossom, in all purity and beauty (as compared with former times), the thorns of persecution immediately arose over it; inasmuch as these pious and upright people were forthwith deprived of their liberty, by the Romanists; so that as soon as it was noticed, that they increased, here or there, though secretly, under the protection of their authorities, means were sought without delay, to subdue, yea, utterly to exterminate, them.

[177] Albigenses says one writer.

This appeared A. D. 1227, when, upon the mere report that a few of these people resided in the town of Borriens, the whole place (in order to apprehend them), was besieged and enclosed by Humbert of Beaujeu, who, having made himself master of the place, and having entered it, apprehended said people, and, as they would not desist from their faith, caused them to be burnt alive; all of whom testified to the truth and uprightness of their faith, as gold in the furnace, by their steadfast death in the midst of the flames.

Certain papistic writers say, that there were some in Borriens, who were said to be heretics, and who, as they would not desist from their belief, were burnt alive; among whom there is mentioned one Gerard de la Motte, who, it is said, was their deacon or minister. This is stated to have occurred A. D. 1227, in the time of Humbert of Beaujeu, whom the king had left in Languedoc. Vignier, Hist. Eccles., from Vincentius and others already cited, and Chron. Montfortensi Hist. Adde Gaguin., lib. 7, and Paul. Aemil., lib. 7, de Cest. Franc. in Lud. 8. Also, Abr. Mell., 2d book, page 464, col. 3.

OF VARIOUS PAPAL STATUTES AND ORDINANCES INSTITUTED AGAINST THE WALDENSES, OR SO-CALLED HERETICS, ABOUT A. D. 1229.

Franciscus Pegna, a Romanist, in a tract written by him to John Calderinus, touching the manner of proceeding against the heretics, declares to have found in past years, in the Vatican Library, as well as in an old parchment manuscript book, which had been brought from the inquisition from Florence to Rome, information respecting various councils held in those times against the Waldenses, in France. Among others, of one held in the year 1229 in Toulouse, a place where the Anabaptists, called Waldenses, greatly increased. The statutes and ordinances enacted there were published by Cardinal Romanus, Legate of the Pope. Franc. Pegna. T. 11. Doctor., part 2, fol. 410. edition Venet., 1584.

Among other things adduced by the aforementioned Franciscus Pegna, in said tract, from the second council of the prelates of France, there is also found the ecclesiastical ordinance concerning the general abjuration of heresy, which reads as follows:

Of the abjuration of heresy.--“In order that, through the help of God, the heretics may be more easily exterminated, and the Roman Catholic faith the sooner planted in the land, we decree, that you shall perfectly observe all the statutes, ecclesiastical ordinances, laws, and commandments that have been enacted regarding this matter, by the apostolical see (the Pope and his legates), and by the princes. Moreover, that you make all males as well as females, the male sex from fourteen years and upwards, the female sex from twelve years and upwards, abjure all heresy, and, besides, promise with an oath, that they will observe the Roman Catholic faith, defend the Catholic church, and persecute the heretics. All those who, after such abjuration, shall be found to have apostatized, and not to have observed or fulfilled the penance imposed upon them, shall be punished with the proper punishment, such apostates deserve.”

Of the demolition of the houses of the Waldenses.--The fifth chapter of the council of Toulouse contains the following brief ecclesiastical ordinance respecting the demolition of the houses of the heretics, namely, of the Waldenses and Albigenses: “We ordain, that the house in which a heretic is discovered, shall be razed to the ground; and the land or farm upon which a heretic is found, shall be confiscated.”

Of the forfeiture of all their goods.--In the 35th chapter of the council of Beziers we read: “Also the houses in which any heretic shall be found, living or dead, accused or condemned, being there with the knowledge or consent of the proprietors of said houses, provided said proprietors have attained their legal age, you shall cause to be demolished, and shall confiscate all the goods of those who live in them, unless they can legally prove or show their innocence or ignorance.” This much of the year 1229, in the second book of the History of the Persecutions, page, 465, col. 3.

SEVERE PERSECUTIONS BY THE INQUISITION IN GERMANY, VERY MANY WHO WERE CALLED WALDENSES, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, A. D. 1230.

In the year 1230, in many provinces of Germany, especially in the archbishopric of Treves, very many schools and secret congregations of those who professed the doctrine of the Waldenses, were discovered by Conrad of Marpurg, Inquisitor General over Germany. They were said to be heretics, because they denied transubstantiation in the mass, and purgatory, saying that the prayers and intercessions of the living for the dead served to no purpose, and could avail the deceased nothing.

As regards their rejecting infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, revenge or wars, together with all the traditions of the Roman church, and their desiring to hold only to the truth of the Holy Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, this has already been shown.

“From their processes, and from the confessions made by them on the rack,” says A. Mellinus, “it was seen that the number of their adherents and accomplices, throughout Germany, France and Italy, but especially in Lombardy, was very great.”

About this time a severe inquisition was raised against them, throughout Germany and Italy, by which very many were discovered and burnt alive.

Abr. Mellinus (contra Trithemius) refutes the calumnies cast against them, saying: “This is a willful falsehood and slander, fabricated by this monk (Trithemius), because they accused the Pope.” A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 465, D. Also P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 546, col. 2.

In the meantime we will produce some decrees by which, it seems, the aforesaid inquisitor was made the more bold and daring in putting into execution his unprecedented cruel inquisition and tyranny against the innocent Christian believers, who had separated from the Roman church.

OF THE FIRST DECREE OF EMPEROR FREDERIC II., AGAINST THE DEFENSELESS ALBIGENSES AND WALDENSES, ABOUT A. D., 1230.

Mellinus relates, from Abraham Bzovius, who completed the Annals of Baronius, that Emperor Frederic II., at the request of Pope Gregory IX., issued his decrees against the Albigenses; however, under different names given them by the Emperor, saying: ”(Petr. de Veneis lib. 1, epist. 27.) Here commence the chapters or articles of the constitution of the Emperor against the Patarini (Waldenses). He then adds some other names which do not properly belong here.

“Men, as well as women, whatever name they may bear, we sentence to perpetual infamy, that neither oath nor faith shall be kept towards them; but we banish them, and order that their goods be confiscated, never more to be returned to them.

“We likewise ordain by this decree that all officers, burgomasters, and rulers, in whatever office they may be, shall, for the defense of the faith, publicly swear an oath that they will, in good faith, and to the best of their ability, endeavor to expel from the districts under their jurisdiction, all heretics indicated to them by the church.

“But if any temporal lord, having been requested and admonished thereto by the church, shall be found negligent in purging his land from heretical wickedness, let him be warned that, one year after the admonition, we shall give his land for a prey to all Catholics, who, after they shall have driven out the heretics, shall possess the same without molestation, and preserve it in the purity of the (Catholic) faith.

“We also banish those who believe (the Waldenses and Albigenses), or receive them into their cities or houses, protect or favor them, ordaining: That if any one having been noted as being in communion with these believers, does not satisfy the church within a year, he shall be considered infamous from that time on.

“We add here that one heretic may convict another, and that the houses of ..., or of their harborers, protectors, and favorers, or where they have taught or imposed hands upon other, shall be demolished, never to be rebuilt. Given.”

OF THE SECOND DECREE.

By the chancellor of this Emperor, A. D., 1230. (Same place, Epist. 25, Petri. de Veneis).

In another letter of Peter de Veneis, we find another decree of Frederic II., which reads as follows:

“We therefore decree and ordain that heretics, of whatever name, shall receive condign punishment, throughout the empire, wherever the church shall condemn them as heretics, and deliver or indicate them to the secular judge.

“But if any of the aforesaid, after their apprehension, deterred by the fear of death, shall desire to return to the unity of the Catholic faith, they shall according to the requirement of the church ordinances, be imprisoned for life, to do penance.

“Moreover, all heretics, in whatever city, village or place, of the realm they may be found by the inquisition sent by the Apostolic see, or by other zealous adherents of the Catholic faith, shall receive like punishment.

“All those, then, who shall have jurisdiction there, shall be bound, on the denunciation or intimation of the inquisitors, or of other Catholics, to apprehend and closely keep them, until they, after their being condemned by the censure of the church, shall punish them with death.

“We ordain like punishment for those whom the crafty enemy stirs up to be their advocates, or who are their improper protectors.”

At the end of the decree are these words: “But the heretics whom they shall point out to you, you shall, each in his jurisdiction, be bound to apprehend and keep in close custody, so that they, after the judgment of the church, shall be punished according to their deserts; knowing, that in the execution of this matter, if you will do your utmost unitedly with these brethren (the Dominicans and Franciscans),[178] to expunge from our dominion the blot of this unheard-of heretical wickedness (thus he calls the true faith), you will render unto God a pleasing, and unto us a commendable, service.

[178] The Dominicans and Franciscans, though they seemed to be very simple and modest, were nevertheless the principal actors in this matter.

“But if any be slack or negligent herein, and unprofitable before the Lord, he also shall be justly worthy of punishment in our eyes.” Given at Pavia.

OF THE THIRD DECREE OF EMPEROR FREDERIC II. AGAINST THE AFOREMENTIONED PERSONS, A. D., 1230.

Peter de Veneis (Lib. 1, Epist. 26), relates in his letters a third decree of Emperor Frederic II., in which he gives fuller information concerning the surname of the Waldenses, namely, Patarini, as well as regarding their belief, and their spreading into all the provinces of the empire; it reads as follows:

“The sects of these heretics (says the Emperor), are not called by the name of any ancient heretics, lest they should become known; or, what is perhaps still more shameful, they are not content with the ancient names, that is, to borrow their names, like the Arians from Arius, the Nestorians from Nestorius, or from other like heretics; but, after the example of the ancient martyrs, who suffered martyrdom for the Catholic faith, they likewise, from their suffering, call themselves Patarini, that is, delivered unto passion or suffering.

“But these miserable Patarini, who are estranged from the holy faith of the eternal Godhead (thus he speaks of the true believers), destroy with one sweep of their heretical wickedness, three things at once, namely, God, their neighbor and themselves. They destroy God because they do not know the faith and the counsel of God; they deceive their neighbor because, under the cover of spiritual food, they administer the pleasure of heretical wickedness; but far more cruelly they rage against themselves, because, after destroying their souls they, as extravagant squanderers of their life, and improvident seekers of their death, ultimately also expose their bodies to a cruel death, which they might have escaped by a true confession of, and constancy in, the orthodox faith (thus he calls the priest’s faith).

“And what is hardest of all to say, those who survive are not only not deterred by the example of others whom they see die before their eyes, but they even strive to be burnt alive in the sight of men,” as he afterwards speaks of it in this same decree.

“Therefore we cannot refrain,” says the Emperor, “from drawing the sword of just vengeance against them, the more vigorously to persecute them, as it is judged and known that they practice the more extensively the knavery of their superstition (thus he calls the virtue of these people), to the clear exclusion of the Christian faith, on account of the Roman church, which is held to be the head of all other churches, as it is known that they came from the borders of Italy, and especially from Lombardy, where, as we have ascertained, their wickedness overflows far and wide, and that from thence they have directed the rivulets of their unbelief even into our kingdom of Sicily.

“It is furthermore the will of the Emperor, that the crime of heresy, and all kinds of accursed sects, of whatever name, shall be reckoned among the public crimes, or those deserving of death; yea, that the heresy of the Patarini (also called Waldenses), shall be considered, before all the world, as more abominable than the crime of lese-majesty, that is, than the crime of him that has offended the Imperial Majesty.

“The Emperor also wishes that, as the Patarini (or Waldenses) walk in darkness, in order to conceal themselves from the heat of persecution, endeavors shall be made to discover them, and to earnestly seek them out, even though no one accuses them, and that the officers of the Emperor, when they have found them, shall keep them in bonds, in order that at the proper time they may be called before the inquisition, or brought to the rack.

“And if they are accused only upon slight suspicion, we command that they shall be examined by ecclesiastical persons and prelates; and though they may err from but one article of the (Roman) Christian faith, and, after admonition, continue obstinately in their error, we ordain by this, our present decree, that the Patarini (or Waldenses) shall be condemned to death, and burnt alive; and let no one dare intercede for them, for against him that shall do this, we will justly direct our anger. Given, etc.” Second book of the Hist. of the Persecutions, p. 466, a. b. c. from Abr. Bzovius, and A. Bzovius, from Petr. Vinc., lib. 1, epist. 26.

GREAT PERSECUTION IN GERMANY OF THE ANABAPTIST WALDENSES, MANY OF WHOM WERE BURNT FOR THE FAITH, A. D. 1231.

The above-mentioned decrees against the Christians called Waldenses, issued by Emperor Frederic II., were not long without their influence and effect; inasmuch as in the year following, A. D. 1231, a severe persecution arose in Germany over the innocent lambs of Christ, who, keeping themselves concealed in quietness, were informed against and made manifest, through the rack and otherwise. The consequence was, that many of them, continuing steadfastly and immovably in their belief, were burnt to death, and thus, having commended their souls unto God, offered up an acceptable sacrifice well pleasing unto God.

The following may serve as a confirmation of this account:

Abraham Bzovius relates, from a fragmentary history by an unknown author, that in the year 1231 a great persecution arose in Germany against the so-called heretics, who kept themselves concealed in great numbers among the papists, in cities, castles and villages, and brought over to their belief all whom they could turn from their faith; many of whom were apprehended and convicted in the presence of the clergy and the people, and that they held the belief of the Waldenses.

He writes further that “Brother Conrad of Marpurg, a monk of the Dominican order, punished those who were convicted of heresy, according to the manner prescribed by the ecclesiastical ordinances, namely, with fire.” Abr. Bzov., T. 13, Annal. Baron., A. D. 1232, Art. 7. Also in the second book of the History of the Persecutions, fol. 466, col. 3, 4.

“The Waldenses,” writes P. J. Twisck, “suffered severe persecution at this time, from the papists, and though they sought to conceal themselves in wildernesses, mountains and deep valleys, yet, their schools were discovered, their assemblies broken up, and all cruelly killed, especially in the bishopric of Treves, which state of things lasted three years.” Chron., p. 546, col. 2.

NOTE.--From this account of P. J. Twisck, it appears that the above persecution commenced already in the year 1230, just when the decrees of Emperor Frederic II. had been issued, and that it continued for three years, namely, to the close of the year 1233; during which time doubtless very many believers perished, of whom we shall notice a few with whom we have met.

NINETEEN PERSONS CALLED WALDENSES, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, IN THE BISHOPRIC OF TOULOUSE, A. D. 1232.

In the year 1232 the bishop of Toulouse apprehended, in his dominion or bishopric, nineteen persons, who were said to be heretics, because they adhered to the belief of the Waldenses, whose confession we have already shown not to be at variance with ours; all of which persons the bishop of Toulouse caused to be executed, that is, burnt alive. Vignier, A. D. 1232. Hist. Eccles. Also in the second book of the History of the Persecutions, fol. 466, col. 4.

TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FOUR PERSONS, CALLED WALDENSES, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, IN A PLACE NEAR TOULOUSE, A. D. 1243.

When the north wind[179] of persecution, which, from the year 1233 on, had done but little harm in the garden of the true Christians, began to raise again, A. D. 1243, there were apprehended, near Toulouse, two hundred and twenty-four persons, called Waldenses, who are to be distinguished, and were also then distinguished from others, who carried arms and called themselves Albigenses, but had no communion with the true Albigenses and Waldenses, both of whom were opposed to all revenge, professed the same confession respecting suffering and bearing for the name of Christ.

[179] Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Solom. S. 4:16.

These two hundred and twenty-four defenseless and innocent lambs of Christ, having been apprehended, and refusing to forsake the Great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ, and his holy commandments, as also the faith in his name, were all condemned to death, and burnt alive, thus offering up a living holy sacrifice, acceptable unto God, A. D. 1243.[180]

[180] This great number of martyred Waldenses, through the carelessness of some writers, has been mingled under the mire of certain erring persons, from whence we have drawn them forth again, though not without labor. An ancient writer says: “I seek pearls in the mire.”

Concerning these persons, as well as their imprisonment and death, see Vignier Hist., Eccl. A. D. 1243; also, second book of the History of the Persecutions, fol. 469, col. 3, also in an old manuscript chronicle, same date.

NOTE.--Besides the above authors, P. J. Twisck, also, it seems, makes mention of these two hundred and twenty-four persons, from the account of Henry Boxhorn, though he differs somewhat in regard to the time when this happened, as well as to the number of persons put to death; for, instead of A. D. 1243, he has it A. D. 1242, and instead of two hundred and twenty-four, he has about two hundred.

However, this difference is easily reconciled, if, first, in regard to the time, A. D. 1242, is understood to mean the end or close of said year, and A. D. 1243, the beginning; the number of persons put to death, about two hundred, to mean over two hundred, or two hundred and twenty-four, as expressed.

The words of his account are as follows: “A. D. 1242, the Waldenses had to suffer much from popery, on account of their faith and religion. At this time, about two hundred persons, together with two of their preachers, were apprehended in the bishopric of Toulouse, by the bishop of Narbonne and Albi, and the Seneschal of Carcassonne, and were all burnt alive, continuing steadfastly in their religion.” In the 13th book of his Chronicle, p. 557, col. 1, from Henr. Boxhorn, fol. 25.

SEVERE INQUISITION OF BELIEVERS IN THE COUNTRY AROUND TOULOUSE, A. D. 1251.

At this time there was as yet no abatement of the constraint of conscience exercised over the faith of the orthodox Christians, who had fled from Babylon, and, for the sake of the welfare of their souls, could no longer trust themselves in Romish Egypt. This appeared from the new inquisition, which, by order of the Pope, through appointed inquisitors, suffered the minds of the true believers to have no rest, until they left the Roman territories, or made an oral disavowal, or, remaining steadfast, exchanged their life for a violent death.

Regarding this most wicked and unjust inquisition, I have found the following account:

“In the year 1251, the Pope appointed, or sent, inquisitors to Toulouse, from the orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans, who exercised an inhuman tyranny over the Christians there. The same thing was done at Worms, by Conrad Dorfo and his disciple John, also Dominicans and inquisitors; who, condemning there many innocent men to the fire, were therefore themselves, ultimately, as by the hand of God brought to a very lamentable, though just death.” Bal. Cent. 4, in Append., ad Richard. Wich., p. 301, compared with A. Mell., fol. 470, col. 1.

CONTINUATION OF THE PRECEDING INQUISITION IN THE YEAR 1252.

That the aforesaid inquisition or examination of the faith did not end with the close of the previous year, but continued also in the succeeding time, is so manifest that proof is almost unnecessary; still, it experienced a brief cessation, caused through the sudden and unexpected death of Peter of Verona, who administered at that time the office of inquisitor.

Concerning this, the abovementioned author relates the following: “In the year 1252, Peter of Verona, inquisitor in Lombardy, justly perished near the city of Milan, on account of his tyranny against the Waldenses, and, twenty-four days after, was canonized, that is, placed on the register of the saints of the Roman church, by the antichrist, the Pope of Rome, Innocent IV.”

NOTE.--In the following year, namely, A. D. 1253, Robert, bishop of Lincoln, was deposed from his bishopric, by said Pope Innocent IV., because he frequently in his preaching, though with discretion, had openly reproved the avarice, ambition, arrogance, and tyranny of the Pope, yea, had expressly written him severe letters, in which he accused him of exhausting almost all England, by unusual taxes, in order to enrich his illegitimate children, nieces and nephews. When the Pope cited him to Rome, he appealed from the papal tyranny to the judgment and tribunal of Jesus Christ, whereupon the Pope soon died. Bal. Cent. 4, cap. 18, in Roberta Grossoreste ex Annalis. Johan. Buriens. Ranulpho, Mattheo and Fabiano, compared with A. Mell., Hist., p. 470, col. 1.

In the year 1258, the Jacobines and Dominicans, in the bishopric of Cambray, caused a great number of Christians, whom they had condemned as heretics, to be burned alive. Balens Cent. 4, cap. 26, ad Matt. Paris. Append., p. 315, ex Th. Cantiprat., lib. 2, cap. 56. Also, A. Mell., Hist., lib. 2, p. 470, col. 2.

In the year 1260, Pope Alexander IV. wrote letters to the inquisitors from the order of the Dominicans, in Lombardy and the margravate of Genoa, to persecute the heretics (as they were called) there. Moreover, he decreed that the inquisitors might compel, by excommunication, the secular authorities, whoever they might be, to execute, without delay, the sentence of the inquisitors against those suspected of heresy. Compare the last-mentioned author, in the place cited, with Bzov., A. D. 1260, Art. 4, ex Decret. Epist. Alexand. 4.

OF THE MANDATE OF POPE URBAN IV. AGAINST THE WALDENSES AND ALBIGENSES IN LOMBARDY AND AROUND GENOA, A. D. 1262.

The aforesaid distress among the believers, continued on, through the severe inquisition commenced eleven years before, namely, A. D. 1251; for, although the first inquisitors had departed this life, as by the vengeance of God, it did not remain so, since Pope Urban IV. took up the pen to issue bloody edicts against the orthodox Waldenses and Albigenses who were scattered abroad in all parts. These decrees he caused to be proclaimed to his minions, who bore the name of ecclesiastics. This is stated in the following words by an ancient papist: “In the year 1262, Pope Urban IV. made an ordinance against the heretics in Lombardy and in the margravate of Genoa, and sent a copy of it to the order of the Dominicans in said parts, to persecute the Waldenses and Albigenses, who were mostly scattered there.” Bzov., A. D. 1262, Art. 3, ex Decr. Epist. Alex. 4. Also, A. M., Hist., fol. 470, col. 2.

Thereupon, as it appears, no small persecution arose; but as to the manner in which the same occurred, and the persons who then suffered for the faith, we have not been able to find any account, notwithstanding we have made diligent search. No doubt, it fell chiefly upon the heads of the Waldenses and Albigenses, since they were mentioned by name in the mandate of the Pope.

We deem what we have here shown sufficient for this time; hence we will leave it, without adding any more.

NOTE.--A. D. 1270, eight years afterwards, Peter Caderita and William Colonicus, Dominicans, persecuted the (so-called) heretics in the kingdom of Aragon. Bzov., A. D. 1270, ex Surita, lib. 2. A. Mell., Hist., fol. 470, col. 2.

In the year 1280, the moon was completely changed into the color of blood; which by many was held to signify the very bloody and lamentable state of the church of God; the more so since at that time, not only a dire persecution prevailed, but also, a destructive crusade, under the sign of the cross, such as was formerly waged against the Saracens, was undertaken the following year, namely, 1281, by the papists, by order of the Pope, against the Albigenses in Spain. Compare the large book of Christian martyrs, fol. 470, col. 2, 3, with Bal. Cent. 4, Append. ad Greg. de Brid. Lington., p. 446, from Everildenas.

SEVERE PERSECUTION OF THE ANABAPTIST WALDENSES IN FRANCE, ABOUT A. D. 1280.

P. J. Twisck, having noticed, in the first part of his Chronijck, for the year 1280, the doctrine of the Waldenses, whom he calls Waldois, after their leader, Peter Waldus, finally he speaks of their persecutions, saying: “Matthias Illyricus, in his Register of the witnesses of the truth, says, that he has in his possession the consultations of certain advocates of Avignon, also, of the three bishops of Narbonne, Arles, and Aix, and of the bishop of Alban, tending to the extermination of the Waldois, or Waldenses, and written three hundred years previously; from which it is evident, that at that time and before, a great number of the believers were scattered here and there throughout France.

“We can also infer from the consultations of the aforesaid archbishops, that even as their number was great, so was also the persecution against them very cruel; for at the end of this consultation it is written: ‘Who is so great a stranger in France, as to be ignorant of the damnatory sentence (thus speak these papists themselves) which has now, for a long time, been most justly used against these heretical Waldois (Waldenses); and should we doubt a matter so notorious and common, which has cost the Catholics so much money, sweat, and labor, and has been sealed with so many condemnations and executions of unbelievers (thus he calls the true believers)?’

“Hence appears,” writes Twisck, “what massacres of believers occurred at this time, and what cruelties the subjects of antichrist employed against them. ‘And it can be proven,’ says Boxhorn, ‘even from the testimony of their greatest enemies, that they declared, maintained, and testified in the midst of the fire, that they had received this their faith unaltered, from hand to hand, from the times of the apostles; and they continue even to the present time, having never been entirely exterminated.’” P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 606, col. 1, 2.

CONTINUATION OF THE PRECEDING PERSECUTION, A. D. 1283.

Mellinus writes that “A. D. 1283, the Waldenses had again greatly increased in France, as also in other countries throughout Christendom, notwithstanding they had been very cruelly sought out and persecuted up to this time.” In the second book of the History of the Persecutions, fol. 470, col. 3, from Vignier, Hist. Eccl., A. D. 1283.

FURTHER SPREADING OF THE AFORESAID PERSECUTION, IN WHICH THE WALDENSES WERE BURNT IN GREAT NUMBERS, A. D. 1284.

P. J. Twisck gives the following account for the year 1284: “The Waldois or Waldenses, of whom, since the year 1159, much mention is made, increased at this time more and more, in France and other countries of Christendom, notwithstanding that they were craftily sought and cruelly persecuted, and that all diligence and every means had first been employed, utterly to exterminate them; which greatly astonished certain bishops and advocates of Avignon of that time.” “They were burnt,” he writes, “in great numbers.” Chron., fol. 611, 612, from Henr. Boxhorn, fol. 26.

GERARD SAGARELLUS, BURNT IN THE CITY OF PARMA, FOR THE FAITH OF THE WALDENSIAN ANABAPTISTS, A. D. 1285.

In the year 1285, there became known, and were proclaimed heretics by the adherents of popery, Gerard Sagarellus of Parma, and Dulcinus of Novaria. Both of them were particularly accused, on account of various articles opposed to the Roman church and her superstitions, with which they were charged, of having fallen into heresy, and having borrowed their belief from the Waldenses, which, writes Abr. Mellinus, is quite presumable.

As to the articles which they confessed contrary to the belief of the Roman church, and on account of which they were called heretics, they are written in the second book of the Hist. of the Persecutions, fol. 470, col. 3.

Finally, as Gerard Sagarellus would not depart from, but continue steadfast in, the truth of his Savior, Jesus Christ, he was (in the same year, it is supposed) burnt alive in the city of Parma, by the blood-thirsty inquisitors. A. Mell., p. 470, col. 3. Also, Bal. Cent. 4, cap. 30, in Append. ad Laurent. Angl.

Dulcinus, who, besides the charge of his true faith, was also assailed with great calumnies, was put to death in great steadfastness some years afterwards. However, of this a fuller account will be given for the year 1308.

NOTE.--Since the death of Dulcinus did not occur the year in which Sagarellus died, but long afterwards, we will reserve the account of the same for the proper time and place. Bear this in mind.

HERMAN, ANDREW AND GUILLEMETTE[181] EXHUMED AND BURNT, A. D. 1299.

[181] Wilhelmina.

A. D. 1299, the Fratricelli, that is, the Albi-Waldenses, who were called Little Brothers, were declared heretics, by Pope Boniface VIII., because their belief was contrary to the Roman church, as we have already shown. Said Pope caused these Fratricelli (or Albigenses) to be persecuted with so much violence that he not only spared not the living, but not even the dead; for he caused one Herman, who had been one of their principal teachers, to be exhumed twenty years after his death, and his bones burnt to ashes, notwithstanding the papists, who were his enemies, had, in his life time, regarded him as a holy man. Thus they did also with the dead bodies of one Andrew, and of his wife Guillemette, who were also greatly noted for their remarkable godliness.

The Fratricelli (or Albi-Waldenses) were nevertheless, though unjustly, accused of many and abominable crimes. Hence, many of the ancients presume that these slanders were invented against them for the express purpose of making them the objects of the hatred and envy of the people; since they [the slanders] were utterly antagonistic to the doctrine which they professed, and with their life. For it is recorded of them, that they called themselves true followers of the apostles, and the true church of Christ, and that they on their part reproved the corrupt morals of the prelates. There were also ascribed to them all the opinions, or articles of faith, of the Waldenses who, as already shown, also rejected infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, revenge towards enemies, the mass, and almost all the superstitions of the Roman church; hence it is probable, that they were of their persuasion and had only given themselves different names, according to the different places where they resided. In the second book of the Hist. of the Persecutions, fol. 471, col. 2, from Trithem., Chron., Hirsaug., A. D. 1299. Also, Vignier, A. D. 1298. Hist. Eccl., ex Platina, Sabellico, Mari. Hist. Antonino Bernhardo de Lutzenb. Bal. Cent. 4, Script. Brittan. Append. 2, ad Joan Rufum, page 384.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.

[The beginning is of the congregations or churches of the Waldenses; concerning whom it is shown that they existed not only in this century, but long before and after, teaching that the baptism of infants is of no avail.

The seventh article of the confession of the faith of the Waldenses, touching baptism, is presented; which treats of their confessing the faith, and change of life. The belief of Dulcinus and his wife Margaret adduced, of whom the papists say, that they were exactly like the Waldenses.

For the year 1315, persons are introduced, whom the papists regarded as heretics, because they held a belief different from that of the Roman church; of which two articles are presented: 1. of baptism; 2. of the swearing of oaths; which is further explained by us. For the year 1218 there is also shown, by way of censure, the confession of the papists.

Certain pious people, called apostate Minorite friars present themselves, who are accused, by Pope John XXII., of five articles, one of which is against the swearing of oaths, and the other four against the papal church and her clergy.

Mention is made, for the years 1319, 1330, and 1365, of the Waldenses, whose confession of faith has, in preceding centuries, been shown not to militate against that of the Anabaptists; a representation of the severity with which the papists then proceeded against them.

John Wickliffe, A. D. 1370 adduces among other things, a certain article, declared to militate against infant baptism; also an article against the swearing of oaths, etc.

For the years 1372 and 1373, mention is made of certain people, who, by John Tilius, are called Turilupins, but by others are declared to have been true Waldenses.

Judicial proceedings (A. D. 1390) instituted against the Waldenses, in the countries on the Baltic Sea; with the statement that people of this profession existed in the Saxon countries full two hundred years before the time of John Huss.

Walter Brute confesses, A. D. 1392, that it is not lawful in any case, to swear, neither by the Creator, nor by the creatures. He also makes a good confession regarding baptism. This is also called the doctrine of W. Swinderby.

J. Mehrning cites a very ancient confession of faith of the Waldenses, which he has had in his own hands; in which it is declared that in the beginning of Christianity no infants were baptized.

Cursory notice of the Thessalian brethren, who agree with the so-called Mennists in all articles of religion; also, of the custom in Thessalia, of baptizing on Whitsuntide; and how Charles, Bishop of Milan, exhorted the teachers, diligently to expound the mystery of baptism to the hearers in order that the confession of the Christian name might become them.

St. Barnabas preaching the holy Gospel at Milan, baptizes in running water. Thereupon mention is made, in a note, for A. D. 1394, of certain people in Bohemia, who sided with the Anabaptists. This is the conclusion.]

* * * * *

“That the church of the Waldenses,” says Jacob Mehrning, “after her origin in France and her violent persecution in that country, spread far and wide into Bohemia, Poland, Lombardy, Germany, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, and remained there from the twelfth century until the year 1545 (as is recorded in Bibliotheca Patrum, Tom. 15, p. 300), teaching the invalidity of infant baptism, is testified to by the histories adduced in the preceding centuries, and may be seen in Sleidanus Comment. 16, Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 737, and H. Mont. Nietigh., page 86.”

Continuing, J. Mehrning in said place, gives an account of the article of baptism from the confession of faith of the Waldenses, saying: “J. Paul Perrin of Lyons, in his history of the Waldenses, relates their confession, the seventh article of which is as follows: ‘We believe that in the sacrament of baptism the water is the external and visible sign of the invisible power of God, working in us the renewing of the spirit and the mortifying of our members in Christ Jesus; by which also we are received into the holy congregation of the people of God, testifying and declaring, before the same, our faith and a change of life.’” Concerning this, see also H. Mont. Nietigh., page 86, extracted from Charles du Meulin’s book of the Monarchy of the French, page 65.

Who does not see that in this place the Waldenses expressly say that in baptism they testify and declare before God, their faith and change of life? which was well observed afterwards by Jacob du Bois, preacher of the Calvinists at Leyden, though he endeavored to obscure it by his expositions, Contra Montanum, printed A. D. 1648, pages 162, 163; but the truth of the command of Christ: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), is stronger and prevails.

A. D. 1305.--The learned Leonard Krentzheim, in his Chronicle, writes the following concerning Dulcinus: “Dulcinus and Margaret founded a new sect or heresy (thus the papists speak) in every respect like the Anabaptists; which continued until A. D. etc.” P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 646, col. 1.

A. D. 1315.--D. A. Mellinus gives an account, for this year, of many orthodox Christians, as he calls them, who by the papists were nevertheless styled heretics. He notices several of their articles, which the papists charged as heresy against them, but which we, in order to avoid prolixity, shall not adduce here, save what is brought against them with regard to baptism and oaths.

THEIR VIEWS ON HOLY BAPTISM.

Concerning baptism he writes, that it was reported of them, that they had ridiculed the sacrament of baptism.

But who does not know, that if they ridiculed the sacrament of baptism, they meant it only as far as infant baptism is concerned; for this was the mooted question at that time. However, Mellinus gives his opinion, which does not conflict with ours, as to what was their belief in this matter. His words are these: “As regards the article of the sacrament of baptism (namely, that they should have entirely rejected it), it must not be understood with reference to the true institution of Christ, but to the belief of the papists, who bind the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost to the external water of baptism.”

THEIR VIEWS IN REGARD TO THE OATH.

As regards the oath, the papists charged them with holding that perjury is no sin. “But,” says A. Mellinus, “let us examine these false articles a little more closely.” Coming to the article of the oath, he speaks as follows, in order to demonstrate the falsity of this accusation: “How should they have considered perjury no sin, when the papists themselves (in the History of the Waldenses) declare of them, that they were so loth to swear an oath, desiring that they should be believed on their yea and nay, in order to avoid all lying, slandering, perjury, and frivolous swearing?” Thus far. Mellinus, in the 2d book of the Hist., fol. 479, col. 1, 2.

Hence, these people sought to avoid not only false oaths, but all manner of swearing, desiring on this account, to be believed on their yea and nay, in accordance with the teaching of Christ: “Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” Matt. 5:37.

The same year as above, A. D. 1315.--At this time, Pope John XXII., issued a papal decree against some apostate (?) Minorites, in which he accuses them of the following points:

“Firstly, that they asserted, that there were two churches; the one, carnal, abounding in the riches, luxuries and lusts of this world, polluted with all manner of sin and shame, and governed by the Pope of Rome and the prelates. The other, spiritual, temperate, pure, virtuous, honorable, and poor; to which latter they and their adherents alone belong.

“Secondly, that they declared the priests of the church, and all her ministers, divested of the jurisdiction and authority of their order, so that they could give neither sentence nor advice, nor administer the sacraments, nor teach the church under them; thus depriving them of all their ecclesiastical power, and that, on the other hand, they boasted that all ecclesiastical authority rested with them alone, since they ascribed the holiness of the spiritual life only to themselves.

“Their third error,” as the Pope says, “agrees with the error of the Waldenses; since they both maintain that men ought in no case to swear, teaching that it is a sin unto death to swear an oath.”

The fourth supposed error, the Pope acknowledges, likewise to proceed from the Waldenses: “That the priests who are confirmed or ordained legally, according to the form or order of the church (as he calls it), if they are laden with any crimes or sins unto death, cannot prepare, nor administer, the sacraments of the church.”

The fifth error, as the Pope says, was, that they said that the gospel of Christ, which hitherto had been covered, nay, almost entirely extinguished, was, at this time, fulfilled in them alone. In explanation of this article, the Pope adds that they said that they ascribed the promise of our Lord, concerning the sending the Holy Ghost, to themselves in such a manner as to exclude the general (the Roman) church from the general apprehension and observance of the holy Gospel.

“But see,” says A. Mellinus, who has recorded this, “how the Pope perverts the meaning of these people; for they never denied that the Holy Ghost, according to Christ’s promise, was poured out richly upon the apostles; but they denied that the Popes of Rome, who called themselves apostolic, and successors of the apostles, had part or lot in the sending of the Holy Ghost.” Second book of the Hist., fol. 480, col. 1, 2.

Besides these five articles, the Pope imputed additional errors to these pious people, though he did not mention them all. Hence, it appears that they concurred for the most part with the belief of the Waldenses; and that their belief was opposed, not only to the swearing of oaths, but also to infant baptism, revenge, the sacrament of the altar, the mass, and other superstitions of popery, has already been more than sufficiently shown.

A. D. 1319.--At this time, Pope John XXII., through his inquisitors, raged mightily against the Waldenses, who made the above-cited confession, which corresponds with that of the Anabaptists. Of their sufferings and end we shall speak afterwards, in the proper place. Concerning this, see Bzov. Annal., A. D. 1319, art. 10, ex M. S. Bibl. Vaticane. Also A. Mell., fol. 480, col. 3.

A. D. 1330.--At this day said Waldenses were greatly oppressed by the inquisitors, in the Kingdoms of Bohemia and Poland (see the large Book of Christian Martyrs, fol. 483, col. 1); which is a proof that the defenders of the above confession existed then not only in France, but also in Bohemia and Poland. Yea, Matthias Flaccius Illyricus professes to have the inquisitorial books of the proceedings held at that time by the inquisitors, in Bohemia and Poland, under King John, against the Waldenses. Catalog. Test. Verit., l. 16, art.: The Waldenses.

NOTE.--In Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism we read, p. 609: “I have in my possession the inquisition which, A. D. 1330, in the time of King John, was held, in Bohemia and Poland, against the Waldenses.”

A. D. 1365.--The author of the books of the Persecutions and Martyrs, records the following for the year 1365: “As there were everywhere throughout France innumerable Beghards and Beguines (in the second book, page 479, at the foot of the fourth column, he calls them Waldenses), who scattered their heresy, as the papists called it, far and wide, Pope Urban VI., A. D. 1365, charged all the prelates of France, and the inquisitors of the faith in that country, by an express bull, that they should not suffer the heretics to live with impunity, but should exterminate the erring spirits (thus the Pope calls the true believers), together with their errors, with the sickle of ecclesiastical discipline. Second book of the History of the Persecutions, fol. 488, col. 1, from Bzov., A. D. 1365, Art. 8.

A. D. 1370.--“At this time,” writes Jacob Mehrning and others, “John Wickliffe, a teacher in England, and pastor at Lutterworth in the bishopric of Lincoln, taught, among other things, that baptism is not necessary to the forgiveness of original sin; thereby sufficiently opposing, or, as H. Montanus says, rejecting, infant baptism, which is founded upon the forgiveness of original sin. On this account, forty-one years after his death, his bones, by order of the Pope, were exhumed, burnt, and the ashes thrown into the water.” J. Mehrn., B. Hist, pp. 737, 738, H. Mont. Nietigh., p. 87. Also Thom. Waldens., Tom. 2, c. 96. Bellarm., Tom. 3, lib. 1, de Sacr. Bapt., cap. 4, Vicecom. de Observat. Eccles., lib. 2, cap. 1.

NOTE.--Further explanation.--That the above words of John Wickliffe are to be understood in no other way than as having reference to the rejection of infant baptism, and not of baptism upon faith, is confirmed by the fourth article, extracted from Wickliffe’s Trialogue, by William Widefort, a Minorite, and quoted by A. Mellinus. It reads as follows: “Those who say,” says John Wickliffe, “that the children of believers, which die without baptism, are not saved, are much too presumptuous and bold.” A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 494, col. 3.

Moreover, that John Wickliffe opposed not only infant baptism, but also oaths sworn to men, is testified to in the forty-second article of his confession, delivered in the council of Constance, and condemned there. It reads thus: “Oaths sworn in civil contracts and commercial transactions are unlawful.[182] Colon. apud Orthun. Grat. A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 496, col. 1.

[182] Hence, when Wickliffe rejects the swearing of oaths in civil or human contracts, he rejects all swearing of all oaths that have ever been in question; for not the promises which are made to God, but the oaths that are sworn to men, have been from ancient times, and are still, the matter in question.

This article relative to the swearing of oaths, from the confession of John Wickliffe, is stated by some as follows: “An oath sworn for the purpose of confirming human contracts and proper transactions, is not appropriate.” Seb. Franck, Chron., der Rom. Kett., fol. 105, col. 1, letter J., John. Also P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 720, col. 1, 2. Tract. Kort Verhael van den Loop der Werelt, by F. H. H., p. 99.

P. J. Twisck and others write that John Wickliffe, having fled from England to Bohemia, propagated his doctrine there jointly with the Waldenses, who, for the most part, agreed with it.

Wickliffe also taught that the substance and essence of the bread and wine remain in the sacrament of the altar after the consecration.

That Christ is not bodily in the sacrament. That the mass is not instituted by Christ, but is the devil’s obedience and word. That confirmation, fasts, consecrations of priests, the baptizing of temples, and bells, are retained by the Pope and the bishops only from the desire for gain.

That universities, studies, doctorates, colleges, grades, and masterships, are things which we have inherited from the heathen, and are altogether of as much use to the church as the devil. An improper oath is, etc.

Merula and others state that Wickliffe wrote full two hundred books, and diligently instructed, and turned from popery, John Huss (see A. D. 1415 and 1416), when the latter was still young, together with many others. P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 720, col. 1, 2, from Leonh., lib. 6. Hist. Andr. Junii, fol. 45. Jan. Crespin., fol. 354. Guil. Merula, fol. 886. Toneel. Niclaes, fol. 119. Zegh., fol. 119.

NOTE.--That John Huss (though the Calvinists would like to claim him, as well as John Wickliffe), was opposed to the swearing of oaths, and had other articles in common with the Waldensian Anabaptist brethren, and that he learned this from John Wickliffe, and Wickliffe from said Waldensian brethren, we hope to make clear in its proper place.

As to the article which Wickliffe was said to have taught, namely, that everything happens by an absolute or unavoidable necessity, on this D. A. Mellinus, a Calvinistic preacher, remarks: “We suspect that this has been unjustly put on Wickliffe, by the malicious enemies of the truth” (2d book, fol. 495, col. 4). Afterwards, explaining it still further, he says that “This is a wanton slander and devilish lie, fabricated from nothing, and cast into the face of innocent John Wickliffe.” Fol. 496, col. 1.

Thus it is evident, that John Wickliffe, even according to the testimony of the Calvinists, did not maintain the article of precise predestination, as some before him, though wrongly, have believed.

NOTE.--If John Wickliffe did not hold the article of predestination or unavoidable necessity, as one of the Calvinistic teachers here asserts and holds as truth, what, then, did he retain, in the matter of his belief, that accords only with the Calvinistic church? Certainly nothing.

A. D. 1372.--John Tylius, in his Chronicle of the Kings of France, writes, for the year 1372, concerning certain people whom he terms Turilupins, and, in papistic manner, very contemptuously calls a superstition, as follows: “The superstition of the Turilupins (a kind of Waldenses), who took their surname from the poverty common to them all, were this year condemned as heretics, together with their writings, books and clothes.” J. Tyl., Chron., Reg. Gall. A. Mell., fol. 497, col. 3. Of their faith we shall presently speak.

A. D. 1373.--Vignierus writes concerning these people called Turilupins, and their doctrine, that they were pronounced heretics at Paris, by the inquisitors, and their books publicly burnt, together with one of their women. Hist. Eccles., A. D. 1373, ex Guil. de Nangis. A. Mell., same place. More anon.

NOTE.--A fuller account of the death of this woman will be given in its proper place, in the history of the martyrs.

OF THE UPRIGHTNESS OF THESE PEOPLE.

The author of the second book of the Persecutions, relating how these people, called Turilupins, were accused by some papistic writers, of not living honestly, replies in their stead, saying: “But these poor people are lamentably slandered; for they were upright Waldenses, to whom the papists imputed whatever they would.” Fol. 497, col. 3.

OF THE NAME OF THESE PEOPLE.

As regards their name, Joachine Caudarius states that they obtained the name of Turilupins, in Flanders, Artois, and Hainault, because they lived in wildernesses, among the wolves. In lugibri Narrat. de excidio Wald. Alb., A. M., same place.

OF THE BELIEF OF THESE PEOPLE.

It may be observed here, that if these Turilupins were true Waldenses, as has been declared, they rejected infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, revenge towards enemies, the mass, and all other Roman inventions, as appears from their own confession shown above.

NOTE.--Henry de Haffra, at Vienna, A. D. 1376, wrote on Genesis, and greatly reproved the lies of the Romish legends, and about the merits of the saints. In a letter he also censured the clergy and their head, the Pope, for many errors. Joh. Munst., fol. 174, compared with the Chronicle of the Destruction of the Tyrants, p. 724, col. 1.

Also: A. D. 1380, Michael Cesenas, formerly a Minorite friar, or monk, wrote against the Pope, calling him (from 2 Thess. 2,) antichrist, and the Roman church, Babylon, and the congregation of those drunk with the blood of the saints. The Pope deposed him from his dignity; but he adhered steadfastly to his opinion. Joh. Munst., fol. 171. Catal. Test., fol. 691, compared with P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 731.

Also: In the same year Nicholas Clemongis opposed the superstitious feast-days, excessive eating and drinking, (evil) speaking, and other improper things. See the last-mentioned chronicle, p. 732, from Joh. Munst., fol. 170.

Also: About A. D. 1382, M. Matthaeus Parisiensis, a Bohemian, appeared, and wrote a large book concerning antichrist, (the Pope), saying that he had already come, and could be found in Rome. Thus did also Lupoldus de Bedenborgh. Compare P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 734, col. 1, with Catal. Test., fol. 794, 796. Merula, fol. 890.

Also: A. D. 1384, John Muntziger, Rector of the school at Olm, read in his oration, that the supposed body of Christ should not be made God, and, hence, should not be worshiped as God. See the last-mentioned author, fol. 736, col. 1, compared with Hist. Joh. Munst., fol. 171.

A. D. 1390.--Or about that time, mention is made of the Waldenses in the countries lying on the Baltic Sea; concerning whom Matthias Flaccius Illyricus states that he has an entire inquisitorial book, full of the proceedings held against the godly Waldenses who lived in those countries.

Said Illyricus also had among his writings, another brief inquisition or investigation against the Waldenses; such as formerly was practiced against them in the bishopric of Mayence. He moreover says that he has still another, large book, full of proceedings held by the inquisitors against the Waldenses; in which 443 Waldenses are mentioned by name, who, about A. D. 1391, in Pomerania, the Mark, and the adjacent places, were put on the rack and examined on the articles once confessed by the Waldenses. Many of these martyrs or confessors freely testified and confessed that they had been, one twenty, another thirty years, among this sect. Also, that their forefathers held the same doctrine. Matth. Flacc. Ill. Catal. Test. Verit., lib. 18. Lib. 15, Title, De Waldensibus.

NOTE.--From this it appears, writes a certain author, that the Saxon countries were full of Waldenses, that is, orthodox Christians, already two hundred years, and more, before the time of Huss. For it can easily be computed, that when the 443 Waldenses were examined at once, there must have been an incomparably greater number who were not examined in regard to their faith, but concealed themselves, or took to flight, in order to escape the danger. And, truly, those who are noticed in the book, as having been examined, frequently mentioned very many others of their belief, who were not present.

Among other points relating to their trials, recorded in this inquisitional book, were these: “That they were sober and frugal people, discreet in their speech, careful to avoid lying, swearing, etc.” A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 505, col. 3, 4. Also, P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 743, col. 2, from Henr. Boxhorn, fol. 27. In the margin of the same page, Twisck says: “The Wandenses (or Waldenses) will not swear.”

NOTE.--A. D. 1390, the Lord raised up Richard Withe, who wrote many glorious things against the Pope, or the blasphemy of the so-called antichrist. Bal. Cent., lib. 7, cap. 10, compared with Chron. van den Ondergang, page 734, col. 1, 2.

A. D. 1392.--On the 13th of January of this year, Walter Brute, a layman, but nevertheless a learned man, from the bishopric of Hereford, appearing personally before Lord John, Bishop of Hereford, maintained, among several other articles militating against the Roman church, this point: “That Christians are not permitted, for any reason, in any case, to swear, either by the Creator or by his creatures.” A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 506, col. 3.

NOTICE.--THE BELIEF OF WILLIAM SWINDERBY COMPARED WITH THAT OF WALTER BRUTE.

Since Walter Brute is called (Fol. 505, col. 4,) a defender of the articles of William Swinderby, who was afterwards burnt for the faith, in Smithfield, London, it is quite evident, that William Swinderby must have held the same belief, which, as well as many other articles, they both had in common with the Waldenses. Besides, this article of non-swearing, together with the other two related in this connection, is unmistakably called William Swinderby’s article (Fol. 506, col. 3), so that both of them, speaking as with one tongue, are also together charged here, with having prohibited all manner of oaths.

THAT, BESIDES THE ARTICLE RESPECTING THE OATH, HE ALSO MADE A GOOD CONFESSION IN REGARD TO HOLY BAPTISM.

It appears, moreover, from the confession of faith of Walter Brute, that also infant baptism was not recognized by him; for he speaks in the following manner concerning the burial of Christ: “He (Christ) was buried, that we all by baptism, might be buried together with him into his death; in order that having died unto sin (notice, this is no work for infants), we should live unto righteousness.[183] A. M., from Fox Angl., p. 440.

[183] This article has direct reference to the words which Paul wrote to the believing Romans: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Rom. 6:3.

OF A CERTAIN ANCIENT CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE WALDESIAN BRETHREN.

Jacob Mehnring, writing on the fourteenth century, touching baptism, says: “I have had in my hands a very old confession of some Waldesian brethren in Bohemia, printed in the German language, in which they expressly confess that in the beginning of Christianity no infants were baptized; and that also their forefathers did not do it,” as John Bohemius writes. Lib. 2, Gentium Moribus: “In former times baptism was wont to be administered only to those who were previously instructed in the faith, and examined seven times in the week before Easter and Whitsuntide; these were then baptized upon the confession of their faith; but when baptism was afterwards deemed necessary to salvation, it was also ordained, by the papists, that newborn infants should be baptized, and that sponsors should be assigned them, who confessed the faith, and renounced the devil, in their stead.” Bapt. Hist., p. 738.

About A. D. 1400.--D. J. Vicecomes cites from this century (from Nicephorus Callistus), lib. 1, cap. 23, that in Thessalia, baptism was administered only on Whitsuntide;[184] on which account many died without baptism.

[184] Others say, on Easter.

“Thus,” remarks Jacob Mehrning on this, “we are informed, that even at this day there are brethren and Christians in Thessalonica, who agree with the Mennists in all articles of religion.” These are J. Mehrning’s own words (page 739), of which we shall speak more fully hereafter.

OF CHARLES, BISHOP OF MILAN.

Bapt. Hist., p. 740, D. Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 45, writes: “Charles, bishop of Milan, admonished the teachers, diligently to expound to their hearers the mystery of holy baptism, and to earnestly exhort them to a Christian walk, in order that the confession of the Christian name (upon which baptism was wont to be administered), might well become them.”

What else does this indicate, than that the teachers should exhort their hearers to the baptism, which ought to be administered upon confession of faith, and, consequently, not in infancy?

Galvaneus, in the History of Milan, (B. H., page 741, D. Vicecomes, lib. 1, cap. 4), writes: “St. Barnabas, when he first preached the Gospel at Milan, baptized in running water.”

This manner and these circumstances plainly indicate, as stated elsewhere, that infant baptism was then not practiced at that place.

NOTE.--For the year 1394, mention is made of a number of people in Bohemia, who sided with the Anabaptists. Seb. Fr. Chron. der Rom. Kett., p. 121, col. 2, letter P., Picardy.

A. D. 1400.--It appears that when the last year of this century had come, various persons opposed popery, not only with regard to baptism, but also to many other articles; of which, among other things, mention is made in the fourteenth book of the Ondergang der Tyrannen, p. 749, col. 1, 2, 3; where we have this declaration: “The Pope has no absolute power or judgment, so that he cannot err; so all, even the papists, have taught for about fourteen hundred years. The ancient fathers, the Greek as well as the Latin, regarded Pope Honorius I. as a Monothelitic[185] heretic. Likewise, the sixth synod, in which he was condemned as a heretic, and his letters burned. From Perkins, fol. 421.

[185] Others say, a Monocholite.

NOTE.--If this condemning of the Pope as a heretic, as also the burning of his letters, was done from envy, or bitterness, we would by no means defend, much less praise, but far rather condemn it. But since, as the matter appears to us, it was done from a good intention and godly zeal, we find nothing censurable in it. For the word condemn does not always signify eternal damnation, as the Holy Scripture uses it,[186] but it is also understood as meaning, to sentence or pronounce guilty. Thus, also, the name heretic, when rightly considered, signifies only a schismatic, headstrong person, who follows his own opinion, instead of the Holy Scripture. Now, that the Pope of Rome was such a person, will not soon be contradicted by those who give due honor to God, and allow themselves to be governed by reason. The burning of his letters we regard as having been done from carefulness, lest any might be seduced or brought into error by them. This will satisfy the well-disposed, who, imitating the bee, will extract honey, instead of gall, from it.

[186] To an English reader this explanation will seem not only superfluous, but, perhaps, even obscure and contradictory. Let him be reminded that the work originally was written in the Dutch language, in which such explanation of the word in question (verdoemen) is entirely in place. Transl.

SAME YEAR AS ABOVE, A. D. 1400.

The universities of Prague, in Bohemia, Oxford, in England, and Paris, in France, wrote against the apostasy of the Roman church, and demanded a reformation, saying that the scandalous life of the Pope and the cardinals could not be tolerated; that the popes and cardinals were liable to err, and had frequently erred; and that the blessed Son of God, though having suffered much from the synagogue of the Jews, had to suffer much more from the princes of the papal synagogue. Concerning similar censures, read the books of Ulric of Hutten, the Frankish knight, printed A. D. 1520.

SAME YEAR AS ABOVE, A. D. 1400.

John Tauler, a German divine, said, at this time, in his book of sermons: “Our prelates (he means the rulers of the Roman church), are blind, and leaders of the blind; and it is to be feared that they both together will be condemned.”

He also spoke much of the persecution, tribulation, hardship, and suffering, a Christian must expect here; but did not say that one should inflict sufferings one upon another.

Read all his sermons, but particularly the 11th, 15th and 31st chapters in his book, where he treats of suffering; also the first-mentioned author, in the place indicated.

NOTE.--That John Tauler was a very pious and highly educated man, appears from very many testimonies given concerning him. Truly, he was as a flaming torch in his time, to lighten up, by his doctrine as well as his life, the dark night of perversely religious popery. But if he still erred in anything, which may easily have been the case, it is all overbalanced by his virtue and learning. Nevertheless, we could not defend errors, neither in him nor in others. Our love must never be so blind as to hinder us from seeing a blemish (if there is any) in what we love. But he who has not lived so that his errors are apparent, should, herein, if he is otherwise well disposed, be borne with; and this the more, when he has to live among so disorderly a people, as popery was then composed of, and can obtain no other liberty. Such was John Tauler, and as such we will recognize him. Our love will and shall bear his weakness. Hence, dismissing this, we will turn to the pious witnesses of the Lord, who laid down their dear lives for the truth which they confessed.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.

[The exordium to the entrance of this century is taken from the places where most of the martyrs suffered at this time, as also from the circumstances of their suffering and death.

The manner of inquisition over the believers in these times, shown in divers articles, for the year 1301, according to the account of Jean Paul Perrin Lyonnois.

Dulcinus and his wife Margaret, who, as L. Kreutzheim says, founded a sect alike in every respect to the Anabaptists, are torn limb from limb; and with them one hundred and forty others, burnt for the same faith, at Novaria, in Lombardy, A. D. 1308.

Very many persons at Crema (probably Krems), in Austria, burnt for the religion of the orthodox Waldenses; also at Steyer, in the same Austrian territories, and at Zuidenitz, in Poland, all of whom are put to death by being burned, A. D. 1315.

Two years after, namely, A. D. 1317, four persons, called Brethren of the Poor Life, or Waldenses, miserably perish, on red-hot coals, at Marseilles, in France.

A persecution of the believing Waldenses, instituted by Pope John XXII., set forth for the year 1319, from the accounts of the ancients. This persecution extended A. D. 1330, into Bohemia and Poland; one Eckhard burned for the beforementioned faith.

NOTE.--For the years 1336, 1340, 1350 and 1360, of the frankness of John de Pistoia, Conrad Hager, John de Landuno, John de Rupe Scissa, who did not hesitate to point out to the Pope his errors. Also what happened to them on this account.

Another persecution of the Waldensian brethren in France, originated A. D. 1365, by Pope Urban VI., adduced from his own bull.

Eight years after, namely, A. D. 1373, still another persecution is shown, which arose in Flanders, Artois and Hainault, in which Peronne, of Aubeton, a pious woman of the Waldesian religion, offered up her life to God, by fire.

Thirty-six persons called Waldenses are burnt for the faith, at Bingen, A. D. 1390.

A severe persecution of ancient Waldenses arises again on the Baltic Sea, four hundred and forty-three of whom are severely tortured, and put to death, in the Mark and in Pomerania, A. D. 1391.

The sufferings of the Christian believers, caused by those of the Roman church, in which one William Santrus, who censured the Pope, loses his life, circumstantially shown, for the last year of this century, A. D. 1400.

In a note, the testimony of Franciscus Petrarcha against the Pope is brought to recollection; on account of which opposition he had to suffer expulsion and persecution from the Roman dominions. Conclusion of the tragedy of the fourteenth century.]

* * * * *

With few steps we shall make a long journey, and our course will be not less wonderful than sad. The places through which we will first travel are the mountains of Lombardy, near Novaria. In the midst of our journey, we will come to the cities Crema and Steyer, in Austria, Zuidenitz, in Poland, and Marseilles, in France. Thence we propose to proceed into Bohemia; and at last to finish our journey in the countries on the Baltic Sea.

What will we meet on our way, dear friends? Certainly nothing that is pleasing to the flesh; for fire and flames shall threaten us on our right hand, and deep waters on our left. Between them there is nothing but bloody scaffolds, gallows, wheels, stakes and countless horrible instruments of death and torture, which cause men to die slowly, as by a thousand deaths. The company is composed altogether of bodies burned, drowned, beheaded or otherwise murdered; so that our footsteps must tread through the midst of skulls and dead men’s bones; to say nothing of the crimson blood, which seems to flow in rivulets, yea, sometimes in large streams, along the ways which we must travel.

Nevertheless, our heart is full of joy, and we are delighted with this journey, and draw life in the valleys of death; for here is the portal of heaven, the door of the blissful palace, which is indeed strait, yea, on the posts of which flesh and blood remain; but through which is the entrance into the spaciousness of the heavenly halls, and into the infinite and ever-blooming garden of the blessed paradise. Here are heard, with the ears of faith, as near by the glad voices of the holy angels,[187] to which no singing of nightingales in earthly groves can be compared; nay, the most lovely instruments of music, when compared with these sound harshly and unpleasantly to the ear. There are also beheld, as with unclouded eyes, the majesty of God, Jesus, the Savior of the world, and the heavenly societies. We dare not further speak of it,[188] for human ear hath not heard nor eye seen; neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 1 Cor. 2:9.

[187] “Glory to God in the highest.” Luke 2:14.

[188] And (he) heard unspeakable (unrevealed) words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 2 Cor. 12:4.

All this is there perceived in the soul, though the bodies suffer great distress; but this is soon over. Have we no reason, then, to long for this journey? Certainly. Hence, let us go on. The Lord guide us and show us the right way, that we may not only begin well, but also finish well.

O ye slain and martyred multitudes, who have testified with your blood to the name of your and our God, we have come to behold your martyrdom, and to make it known, by writings, to our fellow brethren; not that we intend to make a pilgrimage to the places of your death, to salute you in the manner of worship, or to bring you an oblation, after the manner of the priests, by no means; for this would profit neither you nor us; but we seek to bring to remembrance your good examples. With this we will begin.

NOTE.--Before we approach the sad mountains and fields of the miserable, but nevertheless well comforted martyrs, it will be necessary to give an account respecting the mode of the inquisition which, having commenced in the preceding century already, had continued even to this time, and was the cause of all the harm and distress which now came upon the believers, and through which they had to suffer, first in their consciences, and then in their bodies, yea, were subjected to the most bitter and cruel death.

In the preceding century, for the years 1214 and 1215, we showed the beginnings of the inquisition; we now come to its progress and extension.

OF THE MODE OF INQUISITION OVER THE BELIEVERS, IN THESE TIMES, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF JEAN PAUL PERRIN LIONNOYS, AND THE TRANSLATION OF J. M. V., AND B. LYDIUS.

“As regards the deceitful course,” says the translator, “which the aforementioned inquisitors were wont to take in the execution of their office, we would have no knowledge, save what some believers who escaped the Spanish Inquisition, could have told us concerning it. But it was not the will of God that these, their wiles, should remain hid, and that we should obtain no copies thereof, written by themselves. Behold, then, the cunning artifices of the inquisitors, which served them for rules and instructions, in conducting the processes against the Waldenses.

RULES OF THE INQUISITORS.

1. It is not permitted or advisable to dispute concerning the faith in the presence of the laity.

2. No one is to be regarded as converted, if he will not accuse all those whom he knows to be such as he is.

3. He who does not accuse those who are such as he is, must be severed from the church as a diseased member; that the sound members may not become corrupted by it.

4. After any one is delivered to the secular judge, great care must be exercised, that he be not allowed to prove his innocence, or show his harmlessness before the people; for if he is put to death, the people will take offense; and if he is discharged, the (Catholic) faith will be endangered.

5. Care must be taken not to promise his life, before the people, to him who is condemned to death (namely, if he indicates his willingness to become converted); seeing that no heretic would allow himself to be burned, if he could escape by such a promise; and if he should promise conversion before the people, and his life would not be granted him thereupon, the people would take offense at it, and think that he were put to death unjustly.

6. Observe: The inquisitor must always take the deed for granted, without any consideration, and ask the questions only in regard to the circumstances of the matter, not saying: Have you made confession to the heretics? but, How often have you made your confession to the heretics? Again, do not ask: Have they slept in your house? but, In what room of your house did they sleep? and the like.

7. The inquisitor may look into a book, as though he had noted down in it, the life and conduct of the accused, together with everything in regard to which he is interrogating him.

8. The accused must be threatened with death, if he will not confess, and be told that his doom is sealed; that he must regard his soul, and, first of all, forsake his heresy; “For,” it shall be said, “you must die; accept with patience whatever shall befall you.” If he then answer: “Since I must die, I would rather die in this my faith, than in the faith of the Roman church,” rest assured, that previously he only pretended to be desirous of becoming converted; and therefore he must then be brought to justice.

9. The thought is not to be entertained of overcoming the heretics by skill of learning, or knowledge of the Scriptures, since the learned men are much sooner confounded by them; the result of which is, that the heretics are then still more confirmed and encouraged, seeing they thus outwit even those who are educated.

10. It is to be well observed, that the heretics never speak right out, and that, when compelled by much questioning, they generally allege that they are simple and unlearned men, and, hence, know not how to answer; and that, seeing that the bystanders are moved to compassion for them, as though they were wronged, regarding them as simple and harmless people, they take courage from this and pretend to weep, as poor, miserable men, and, imploring their judges, make strenuous efforts to free themselves from the inquisition, saying: “My Lords, if I have erred in any matter, I will gladly accept the penance for it; but assist me to free myself from this reproach, in which I have fallen through hatred and envy, without having transgressed.”

But the courageous inquisitor must then in no wise be moved by such entreaties, nor give credit to such dissimulations.

11. Moreover, the inquisitor shall announce to them beforehand, that they will gain nothing by swearing falsely (from necessity); since they (the lords) have matter enough to convict them by witnesses; and that therefore they need not think that by means of swearing they will escape sentence of death; but it must be promised them, that as far as they voluntarily confess their error, they shall obtain mercy; for in such perplexity many are found, who confess their errors, in order to escape.

“Behold,” says the writer of this inquisition, “these are the cunning artifices formerly employed by the inquisitors throughout Europe, against the Waldenses,” etc. In the second book of the first part of the History of the Waldenses, by J. P. P. L., pages 62, 63, 64.

NOTE.--About this time (A. D. 1303) Peter Johannis taught that the Pope was the antichrist, and the Roman synagogue the great Babylon. About his martyrdom, however, we have not been able to learn anything. See P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 643, col. 2, from Georg. Pac., cap. 11.

DULCINUS AND HIS WIFE MARGARET, TORN LIMB FROM LIMB; AND, WITH THEM, AN HUNDRED AND FORTY OTHERS BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT NOVARIA, IN LOMBARDY, A. D. 1308.

About the year 1305, the light of the evangelical doctrine began to arise with power also on the mountains of Lombardy, called the Alps, through a pious man, called Dulcinus of Novaria, and his wife, who, having accepted the orthodox faith of the Waldensian brethren, excelled most gloriously in doctrine and life, so that Dulcinus by his doctrine, and his wife by her good example, and both by their living and effective faith, opened the eyes of several others, and caused them to separate from popery, and follow Jesus Christ, in true penitence and uprightness of life, which they did in full earnestness for the love of Jesus Christ and the salvation of their souls.

But even as it was in the time of John the Baptist, that many unregenerated Pharisees and Sadducees came to his baptism, so it seems also to have been here; for it appears that some who seemed to adhere to his doctrine, lived at the same time in anger, revenge, and after the flesh; which, as may be presumed, grieved this good man and his wife, as also the church which he had founded, and which desired piously to adhere to the doctrine of Christ, very greatly.

In the meantime, about the year 1307, Pope Clement V., receiving information thereof, condemned said pious man Dulcinus and his wife Margaret as arch-heretics, and commanded them, as well as their adherents, to be exterminated. To accomplish this, many Romanists, who had marked themselves with the sign of the cross, lent their services; who charged the misdeeds of the hypocrites also upon the pious, and thus endeavored to extirpate them both together; the pious, however, with far more severe and intolerable torments, than the hypocrites.

Thus it happened that this pious man Dulcinus and his wife, refusing to depart from the faith, were torn limb from limb by them, burnt to ashes, and the ashes scattered to the winds. The principal members of the church, one hundred and forty in number, loving Jesus Christ, whom they had confessed, more than this temporal life, were all, as they steadfastly adhered to the accepted truth burnt alive, and thus, having commended their souls to God, offered up a living sacrifice acceptable unto God, about the year 1308.

NOTE.--These were the people of whom Leonhard Krentzheim has written in his Chronicle, as already noted, saying: “Dulcinus and Margaret founded a new sect or heresy (thus speak the papists) alike in every respect to the Anabaptists, which continued until, etc.”

Touching their martyrdom, A. Mellinus writes, from some ancient books of history, that they were first torn limb from limb, and then, as we stated above, burnt to ashes. This martyrdom, the papistic historians themselves confess, not only the men, but also the women, endured very steadfastly unto death, in the city of Novaria, in Lombardy. In the second book of the Persecutions, fol. 477, col. 4, fol. 478, col. 1, from Prat. de Haeres Tit. Dulcin. ex Bernhardo Lutzenburgh.

FURTHER OBSERVATION--WHAT P. J. TWISCK HAS WRITTEN CONCERNING IT.

“This year,” he writes, “many pious people were cruelly destroyed for their religion, by order of Pope Clement V. Over four hundred persons were killed by hunger, cold, and the sword (of these, however, we do not speak here), and one hundred and forty were burned (these are the ones of whom we speak), the principal teacher of whom, together with his wife, very steadfastly endured death.” Chron., page 649. A. from Henr. Boxh., fol. 26.

NOTE.--The reader should observe here, that said hundred and forty martyrs, who at Novaria were put to death by fire, are called special followers of the doctrine of Dulcinus, are to be clearly distinguished from a certain other number of about four hundred persons who, having been surrounded on the mountains, by the Pope’s crusade, lost their lives by hunger, cold, and the sword; for not the latter, but the former, are the ones whom we would notice here.

TOUCHING THEIR FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF A. MELLINUS.

Concerning their faith, A. Mellinus says: “From this it can be clearly inferred, that Dulcinus and his wife, and many other martyrs with them, died for the true confession of the doctrine of the Waldenses; because they opposed the Pope of Rome, and the Roman church, maintaining him to be the antichrist, and her the Babylonian whore prophesied of in John’s Revelation.” Second book, fol. 478, A.

VERY MANY PERSONS BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT CREMA, IN AUSTRIA, A. D. 1315.

A. D. 1315, very many orthodox Christians were sought, found, and burnt as heretics, by the Dominicans, or inquisitors, in the city of Crema, (probably Krems), under the bishopric of Passau, in the archduchy of Austria. In the second book of the Persecutions, fol. 479, col. 1, ex Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug., A. D. 1315, p. 211, edit. Freheri.

CONCERNING THESE MARTYRS, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF TRITHEMIUS.

The papist Trithemius says: “There were further, in Austria, in different places, very many burnt alive at this time (namely, A. D. 1315), all of whom unanimously, yet obstinately (we say steadfastly), continued with great joy, unto death. Trith. in Chron. Hirsaug., and Chron. Sponh., same year.

WHAT P. J. TWISCK HAS WRITTEN CONCERNING THIS.

In Austria, near Passau, a great number of the Waldenses or believers were apprehended for their religion, and publicly burned alive in the city of Crema, adhering steadfastly to their faith, and evincing in the midst of the flames, that the death and pain which they suffered for the honor of God, and the truth, were sweet to them. Chron., p. 657, col. 1, from Henr. Boxh., fol. 27. Phil. Marnix Tafer., fol. 141.

NOTE.--Immediately after the account of the martyrs, noticed for the year 1315, the same author speaks of their teacher, their great number, and comfortful martyrdom; for, after saying, that to many of them death and pain were sweet, he adds these words: “Which, among others, appeared also in the case of their teacher, called Lolhard, who confessed in his trial, that in the countries of Austria and Bohemia alone he could find eighty thousand persons who were one with him in religion.” Chron., page 657, col. 2, taken from the writers cited.

NOTE.--These are the same people whose confession relative to baptism, the swearing of oaths, and other articles, we have shown to accord well with that of the Anabaptists. Concerning this, see our account of the orthodox faith for the fourteenth century, year 1315, and the testimonies adduced there.

MANY PERSONS CALLED WALDENSES MARTYRED AT STEYER, IN AUSTRIA, AND GREAT NUMBERS OF THEM BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT ZUIDENITZ, IN POLAND, A. D. 1315.

Matthias Flaccius Illyricus (Catal. Test. Verit., lib. 19, Tit. Stier.) declares to have heard from the the lips of Michael Stifelius, that in a certain monastery, in the city of Steyer, situated between Austria and Bavaria, three large books containing the confessions and examinations of very many persons who had departed in belief from the Roman church, were found.

I presume, says Illyricus, they were Waldenses, a great number of whom were formerly scattered not only in Austria and all Germany, but also throughout all the countries of Europe.

“And truly,” says a certain author, “Illyricus is not mistaken in his conjecture.” In the meantime he calls them martyrs, but does not state in what their martyrdom consisted, or with what death they confirmed the power of their faith. See the large Book of Christian Martyrs, fol. 479, col. 3, 4.

OF THE ACCOUNT OF ALBERT KRANTZ, CONCERNING THE DEATH OF THESE MARTYRS.

Albert Krantz also writes, in his History of the Vandals, of very many such (so-called) heretics, namely, Waldenses, in Poland, in the city of Zuidenitz, concerning whom, he says, according to the manner of the papists, that they disturbed the church there, in consequence of which, having been convicted of heresy against the Roman church, great numbers of them ended their lives in the flames. Hist. Vand., lib. 8, near the end. Also, A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 479.

Their confession, which agrees with that of the Anabaptists has already been explained, which explanation it is not necessary to repeat; hence it is not to be doubted, but is an established fact, that these people were all pious witnesses of Jesus Christ, who for his name’s sake did not spare their lives even unto death.

FOUR PERSONS, CALLED BRETHREN OF THE POOR LIFE, OR WALDENSES, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT MARSEILLES, IN FRANCE, A. D. 1317.

Now when the light of the Gospel began to break forth greatly from the doctrine of the Waldenses, which militated against the papal inventions, this also manifested itself in a monastery, among the Franciscan monks; so that particularly four of the order of the Minorites, their eyes being opened, separated from monachism, and at the same time from the superstitions of popery, desiring thenceforth to follow and serve Jesus Christ, their Savior, not in a simulated, but in true poverty, with, in, or among the cross-bearing church of God, called the Poor Men of Lyons, Brethren of the Poor Life, or Waldenses; who also opposed infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, revenge against enemies, and other articles of the Roman church.

Against this, Pope John XXII. issued a papal decree, directed against the Fratricelli (Little Brethren) or the Brethren of the Poor Life, prohibiting them from holding secret or public assemblies, from electing pastors or teachers over them, and from practicing their worship; because they despised the sacraments of the (Roman) church, and had departed from the Roman Catholic faith; hence they were excommunicated by him, together with all those who in any measure defended or followed them, and therefore delivered to the inquisitors, to be examined concerning their faith. See Bzov., A. D. 1317, art. 18.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us