Part 60
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.”