Part 75

Also A. D. 1340, Conrad Hager, having about this time, taught for twenty-four years, that the mass was by no means a sacrifice either for the living or the dead, and, that the taking of money by the priests, for dying men, was nothing but theft and sacrilege--in consequence of which many departed from obedience to the Roman church--was apprehended and secretly murdered. See in the last mentioned chronicle, _page 691, col. 2_, from _John Munst., fol. 169, Hist. Andr., fol. 64, Pac. cap. 11_.

Also A. D. 1350, John de Landuno, of Ghent, a highly learned man, vigorously attacked and censured the high power, supremacy, and false doctrine of the Pope; but what happened to him on this account, our author has omitted to say. _Page 703, col. 1_, compared with _Joh. Munst., fol. 168_.

Also A. D. 1360, John de Rupe Scissa publicly spoke against the Pope, saying: “Who is there among you, most holy father, and most gracious cardinals (for these were the titles by which they were called) that dare say that Peter or Sylvester (namely, the upright) ever rode with a train of two or three hundred horses, as is now common for you ... to do? but they were reserved and quiet, and like other pastors and preachers, made no parade or display, and were also well content with simple food and clothing.” He also said that the Popes employed the goods given, or received by them, in pride, wantonness, and tyranny. Who would think that the Pope received this candid censure in good part? Compare _Joh. Munst. Tract., fol. 53_, with the account in the _Chron. van den Ondergang, page 711, col. 2_.

In the mean time, we learn that said John de Rupe Scissa, three years afterwards, was burnt at Avignon, because he defended the truth. See the last mentioned chronicle, for the year 1363, _ex Georg. Pac., cap. 11_.

PERSECUTION OF THE WALDENSIAN BRETHREN, IN FRANCE, BY POPE URBAN VI., A. D. 1365.

A. D. 1365, it is recorded that Pope Urban VI. charged all the prelates in France, and the inquisitors of the faith there, by an express bull, that they should not suffer the heretics (the Waldenses, who were then called Beghards and Beguines) to live with impunity, but should exterminate these erring spirits (thus he calls these pious people) together with their errors, with the sickle of ecclesiastical discipline. See the papistic writer _Bzovius_, for the year 1365, _art. 8_; also, the Calvinist _Mellinus, 2d book, fol. 488, col. 1_.

As to how the Waldenses in those times were called Beghards, and were persecuted, see _A. M., same book, fol 479_, below in the fourth column.

The confession of faith of these people we have shown in its proper place, and repetition is not necessary.

SEVERE PERSECUTION IN FLANDERS, ARTOIS, AND HAINAULT; IN WHICH PERONNE OF AUBETON, A PIOUS WOMAN, IS PUBLICLY BURNT FOR THE FAITH, ABOUT A. D. 1373.

In the midst of these persecutions, which, in the years 1372 and 1373 were carried on against the Waldenses, who were called Turilupins, because in Flanders, Artois, and Hainault they had to live in forests inhabited by wolves (as we have already stated), it occurred, that among a great number of these people, who were burnt as heretics, with their writings, books, and clothes, also a certain woman, called Peronne of Aubeton, who had accepted that doctrine and faith, and refused to depart from it, was condemned as a heretic to be publicly burned; which, as is stated, took place with her, at Paris, A. D. 1373; and thus, continuing steadfast, she testified that the “Trial of her faith was more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire.” 1 Pet. 1:7.

NOTE.--Respecting the offering of this woman, as also, the accusations, cast by the papists against the Waldenses, called Turilupins, and how A. Mellinus, preacher of the Calvinists, replies in their stead, saying that these poor people were lamentably slandered, and that they were upright Waldenses; also, that the papists imputed to them whatever they would. See large Book of _Christian Martyrs, 2d part, fol. 497_.

THIRTY-SIX PERSONS CALLED WALDENSES, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT BINGEN, A. D. 1390.

The holy apostle Paul very aptly wrote (2 Tim. 3:12), “And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution;” for this appeared, A. D. 1390, in the case of certain pious Christians, who, being citizens of the city of Mentz, in Germany, had not less their citizenship in the new and heavenly Jerusalem; having accepted the faith and doctrine of the Son of God, whereupon they, as obedient followers of Christ (as may be inferred) had been baptized according to the confession of the Waldensian brethren, in order thus to work out, in the footsteps of faith, their salvation with fear and trembling, according to the rule, Phil. 2:12.

But since the rulers of darkness could not bear this light of truth, it came to pass, in the city of Bingen, that thirty-six (not of the least) of said children of light, were apprehended, and, refusing to depart from the truth once confessed, were condemned to death, namely to be executed with fire; that is, to be burnt alive; which was also done with them, and thus they, through fire, offered up a living, holy sacrifice acceptable unto God.

Concerning the offering of these people, mention is made in the _2d book_ of the _Hist. of the Persecutions, fol. 505, col. 3, ex Matth. Flacc. Illyr. Catal. Test. Ver._ Said Illyricus also confesses that at that time (A. D. 1390) thirty-six citizens of Mentz were burnt alive at Bingen, for the faith of the Waldenses.

NOTE.--Some one may ask himself, whether these martyred persons, who were called citizens of Mentz, and were put to death at Bingen, were not the same martyrs spoken of in a certain place in the preceding century; since it is also stated of them, that they were inhabitants of Mentz, and lost their lives at Bingen; however, this cannot well be reconciled, since there is a great discrepancy, in regard to the time, as well as the number of the persons. For as regards the time, the former lived one hundred and eighty-seven years earlier than the latter; as they were dead already in the year 1212 (according to the account of _Bruschius_, in his _History of the German Monasteries_; also, _A. Mell., fol. 457, col. 3_); but these last mentioned ones were put to death A. D. 1390, as has been shown. Regarding the number of persons, that of the former is given as thirty-nine, but that of the latter as thirty-six--a discrepancy of three. As to their citizenship or residence at Mentz, which is stated of both, as well as that they were both put to death at Bingen, are facts that need not cause any one to think, that because there is an agreement in these respects, that the same people have been noticed twice by the writers; for it may be, that at that time those of Mentz had no court of their own, or power to pronounce sentence of death, and that, hence, they had to deliver those of their prisoners who were confined for capital crimes, to those of Bingen, or at least had to bring them to trial there, as is customary, even at the present day, in many other cities.

GREAT PERSECUTION OF THE BELIEVING WALDENSES ON THE BALTIC SEA; FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY-THREE OF THEM SEVERELY TORTURED AND PUT TO DEATH, IN THE MARK AND POMERANIA, ABOUT A. D. 1390.

About the year 1390 there began, in the countries on the Baltic Sea, the very severe persecution of the Waldenses, of which we made mention of our account of the true faith in the fourteenth century; which, continuing until into the year 1391, was the cause that, among very many others, four hundred and forty-three of these people, whose names are mentioned, in Pomerania, the Mark, and the adjacent places, were brought to torture or the rack; who, refusing to apostatize, freely confessed their faith, and how many long years they had believed and confessed the truth of their faith, which was called a heresy. They are stated to have been sober and frugal people, discreet in their speech, careful to avoid lying, swearing, etc. _Second book_ of the _History of the Persecutions, fol. 505, col. 3, 4, ex Catal. Test. Verit., lib. 18. Matt. Flacc. Illyr., lib. 15. Tit. de Waldensibus. Vignier recutil de histoire de l’Église, A. D. 1391._

NOTE.--It seems that these people were not only persecuted and tortured for the faith, but also put to death; according to the account of P. J. Twisck, who says: “Of the believers or Waldenses more than four hundred and forty were apprehended and put to death for their religion, in the countries of Saxony and Pomerania, whose confession showed that they had received that doctrine from their parents, and that their teachers came to Bohemia; and the proceedings in their trial shows among other things that they were sober, and discreet in their speech, carefully avoiding lying, swearing, and all dishonorable practices.[189] _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 743, B._, from _Henr. Boxh., fol. 27_.

[189] These virtues have previously already been ascribed to them, and are distinctly asserted of them by various other writers.

OF THE PERSECUTION AND SUFFERING OF THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS, BY THOSE OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, A. D. 1400.

That the intelligent and godfearing J. Tauler called the prelates of the Roman church blind and leaders of the blind, and taught his fellow-believers much concerning the persecution and suffering of the true Christians, we set forth in our account of Holy Baptism, for the year 1400.

In the meantime some of the sheep of the flock of Christ were devoured by the Roman wolf; their names, however, are not known to us, except one, and even respecting him we have not been able to obtain sufficient information with regard to his whole faith, save this much, that in his belief he was opposed to antichrist, that is, the Pope of Rome; on which account the cruel death by fire was inflicted upon him, because he would not apostatize. Concerning this, the following words, among others, are found in the _Chronijck van den Ondergang_: “William Santraus also opposed the (Roman) antichrist at this time; he fell into the power and custody of the archbishop of Canterbury, where he, after a whole year’s confinement, ultimately, though with great steadfastness, ended his life in the flames.” _Chron., page 750, col. 1._

NOTE.--A. D. 1400, Franciscus Petrarcha wrote mightily against the Pope, saying, 1. That the Pope was antichrist; 2. That his court was Babylon and the whore that sitteth upon many waters (of which we read in John’s Revelation), yea, the mother of all idolatry and whoredom; 3. That Rome was a school of errors, a temple of heresy, and a nest of treachery. But speaking thus the truth, the writers say, he could find no shelter, but was persecuted and driven away by the Pope. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 750, col. 1_, compared with the twentieth letter of F. Petrarcha, and the poem composed on it; also, _Phil. Marn. Tract, fol. 213_.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.

[In the beginning of this century, the decree _Statutum ex Officio_, of King Henry IV., of England, published against the Wickliffites, is mentioned.

Thereupon follows a recital of fifteen articles of said Wickliffites, which by the inquisition were laid before them, for recantation; the twelfth article of which declares, that a child, though it die unbaptized, will be saved; and the thirteenth article, that neither the Pope, nor the prelates, nor any ordinary, can compel any one to swear; the other articles are against the superstitions of the Roman church.

Another article charged against these people, namely: that if they had an infant, they would not have it baptized by the hands of a priest in church.

William Thorpe is charged with five articles, the last of which is: That he taught that one ought not to swear.

Thirteen articles, mostly against the Roman superstitions, are ascribed to John Huss, the thirteenth or last of which declares that one ought not to swear in any wise.

A notice concerning the followers of John Huss; also, the article of holy baptism, as professed by the Taborites.

An account for the year 1455, of many Waldenses in the bishopric of Reichstadt, who had twelve teachers; also of some of them who resided in Austria, A. D. 1471, and in the bishopric of Eichstædt, A. D. 1475.

The edict of King Matthias against the Moravians, or Moravian Brethren, who are called _Old Waldenses_, as also Baptists (Anabaptists), is shown for the year 1481.

Conclusion to the fifteenth century; in which it is shown by different reasons, how it comes, that there were so few public testimonies of the old continuous Waldenses. Here we take our leave, with the close of this century.]

* * * * *

In this following century we find some persons who are opposed to oaths, some to war, some to infant baptism, and other articles in opposition to the Roman church; of which we will give a brief account.

_A. D. 1401._--A certain celebrated writer relates, from _John Fox’s English History of the Persecutions_, that then, in the month of January, King Henry IV. held a parliament at London, in which a decree or bloody edict was issued against the Wickliffites, of whose belief against infant baptism and oaths we have already written, in speaking of their leader John Wickliffe; and who at that time, after the English custom, were called Lollards. This decree or edict was called: _Statutum ex Officio_, or Edict of King Henry IV. against the disciples of Wickliffe, in England. See _2d book of the History of the Persecutions, fol. 514_, and _fol. 515_, from _John Fox’s Angl., fol. 481_.

TOUCHING THE ARTICLES OF THEIR FAITH, LAID BEFORE THEM BY THE INQUISITION, FOR RECANTATION.

Continuing, said author relates, from Fox, some articles drawn up by the inquisition, with or besides the abovementioned edict; containing the principal tenets of the Wickliffites, which the inquisition placed before them for renunciation, or abjuration. They read as follows:

1. “That the mass or the worship which is performed before the holy cross, and is ordained by the whole church, is idolatry.

2. “That all who worship before the cross, commit idolatry, and are to be regarded as idolaters.

3. “That the real flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the sacrament of the altar after the priest has pronounced the words of consecration over them.

4. “That the sacrament of the altar is sacramental bread, without life, and only instituted in remembrance of the suffering of Christ.

5. “That the body of Christ, so-called, which is taken from the altar, is a figure of Christ’s body, as long as we see the bread and the wine.

6. “That the decrees and ecclesiastical ordinances of the prelates and the clergy, in the province of Canterbury, in their last assembly, held, with the consent of the King and the nobles, in the last parliament, against him who was recently burnt alive in the city of London, were not powerful enough to change the purpose of that martyr; because the substance of the material bread, in the sacrament of the altar, is the same as it was before, and no change is made, in the nature of the bread by consecration.

7. “That any layman, though he have not studied at College, has a right to preach the Gospel everywhere, and that he may teach (provided he has been properly elected thereto by his church, as has been stated elsewhere) upon his own authority, without permission from his ordinary bishop.

8. “That it is sin to give anything to the Dominicans, Minorites, Augustinians, and Carmelites.

9. “That we ought not to sacrifice at the funerals of the dead.

10. “That auricular confession of sins to the priest is unnecessary.

11. “That every good man, though he be unlearned, is a priest before God.

12. “That a child, though it die unbaptized, will be saved.”

NOTE.--This is putting down infant baptism out and out as of no value; since the papists were not ashamed to say, that it were better, that a whole country should sink out of sight, than that a child should die without baptism; maintaining, that all unbaptized infants would go to hell, and be eternally damned.

13. “That neither the Pope, nor the prelates, nor any ordinary, can compel any one to swear, either by any of God’s creatures, or by the Bible, or by the New Testament.”

Here it must be observed, that these people thereby denied all manner of swearing of oaths, not only that which is done by the creature, but also by the Creator himself; since even in England they did not, at that time, swear by the creature; but in the form of swearing this custom was observed by the papists, namely, he who was to swear, knelt down, and laid his hand upon the Bible, or the Testament, and said: “I swear by God and his holy Gospel, etc., so truly help me God.”

But who does not know, that the Gospel or the word of God is no creature? And though it be that in swearing the hand was laid upon the Bible, or upon the Gospel book, in token of the testimony, the swearing was not done by the material book; as also in our countries, when in swearing (among those who hold thus) the hand or the finger is held up, the swearing is not done by that hand or that finger.

Hence, said people were opposed not only to the manner of swearing, but to swearing itself, even though they have been required to swear, not by the creature, but by the Creator himself. Concerning this, see their own confession.

14. “That the bishop as well as a common man, and a layman as well as the priest, are of equal authority, as long as they live aright.

15. “That no one is bound to accord any bodily reverence (that is, by bending the knee and worshiping, as was then customary in England), to any prelate.”

These are briefly the chief articles which, according to the preceding decree of the King, and the ecclesiastical ordinance, or much rather inquisition of the archbishop, were laid before the Christians in England, for recantation. See large Book of _Christian Martyrs, fol. 517, col. 3, 4_, from _John Fox, Hist. Angl. 485_.

_A. D. 1402._--About this time, Thomas Walsingham, a bitter papistic historian records some articles of the abovementioned people, which, as he states, one Louis of Clifford, formerly a defender of the faith of these people, had discovered to the archbishop of Canterbury. The fifth of those articles reads as follows: “If they (the said people) had a new-born infant, they would not have it baptized in church, by the hands of the priest.” _Thom. Wals._, in _Hist., Reg. Angl. and Hypodigmate Neustrie, A. D. 1402_.

To this article several words are immediately added; but these are denied by a certain writer, who quotes said passage, and says, that the apostate, Louis of Clifford, in order to please the archbishop, or the bishop himself, surreptitiously added these words; therefore we will leave it as it is. _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 518, col. 1._

_A. D. 1407._--Or about this time, William Thorpe, formerly an English priest, was apprehended for the faith, who, as it is stated, had been persecuted greatly already in the year 1397. He was charged with holding as his faith these five articles:

1. “That in the sacrament of the altar, also after the consecration, that is, after the priest has read the canon, it still remains real bread.

2. “That images are not to be worshiped, nor any honor shown them.

3. “That no pilgrimages ought to be made.

4. “That the priests have no right to appropriate the titles to themselves.

5. “That men ought not to swear.”

These articles are fully acknowledged to be his articles; but, in order to give them a somewhat different coloring, especially with regard to the article respecting non-swearing, some of the Calvanistic writers, one copying from another, as it seems, have made some expositions on them, as if William Thorpe himself replied to them, and signified by the words: “Men ought not to swear at all,” that he did not mean that men ought to refrain altogether from swearing; but only that one ought not to swear by the creature, neither trivially, as is especially maintained by the Calvinistic Mellinus, preacher in St. Anthony’s Polder, in his large book, _2d part, fol. 524, col. 2_.

But other writers, of no less credibility and repute, flatly contradict this, saying positively that he rejected all manner of oaths.

Indeed, Mellinus himself, as if forgetful of what he wrote, indicates it quite clearly when he (_page 519, col. 3_), compares this William Thorpe, in faith, to William Swinderby, who, being burnt for the faith, at London, among others, confessed this article, which Walter Brute understood to defend, namely: “That it is not lawful for Christians to swear on any account, in any case, either by the Creator, or by his creatures.” _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 506, col. 3._ This article is spoken of elsewhere.

_Further observation._--In _Kort Verhael van den Loop der Werelt_, compiled from various chronicles and histories by F. H. H., A. D. 1611, the following is contained in the account relative to the swearing of oaths, _page 99_: “A. D. 1397, William Troppe, otherwise called W. Thorpe, was much persecuted in England, on account of his religion. He confessed that the sacrament of the altar remained true bread after the consecration, and that men ought not to swear.”

_Touching the same matter._--P. J. Twisck writes: “William Thorpe, a priest in England, disputed earnestly with the priests of antichrist. He taught against images, _the oath_, the sacrament of the altar, and like abuses.” _Chron., p. 758, col. 2._

_Conclusion._--Hence, it appears from the preceding testimonies, that this man sincerely, plainly, and undisguisedly taught against oaths of whatsoever kind, according to the words of the Lord. Matt. 5:34, and James 5:12;[190] to which more could be adduced; but we think enough has been said in the matter, and, hence, we will dismiss it.

[190] “But I say unto you, Swear not at all.” Matt. 5:34. “But above all things, my brethren, swear not.” James 5:12.

_A. D. 1412._--The loss to the Roman, and the upbuilding of the true Christian, church, were at this time facts existing in no small degree in the French country, around Paris, but particularly in that city itself; since various distinguished persons, and in point of learning not the least, did not hesitate to attack the Italian Babylon, that is, Rome, and her perverted worship; however, not with external, but with spiritual and evangelical weapons. Notwithstanding the hatred of the papal clergy, they dared openly reprove the errors and abuses of the Roman church. But whether they expressly mentioned, or otherwise included, the article of infant baptism among the number, is not clearly stated by the ancients; hence we must content ourselves with what they have written of it in a general way.

NOTE.--John of Ferrara,... in Italy, said about this time, among many other articles, that the Pope, by sheer violence, and without right, had seized countries and cities; that the clergy carried their conscience in their caps, and that they were more avaricious and worse than the laity; that the churches and monasteries of the clergy were nets with which to draw to themselves the property of the laity, etc. _P. J. Twisck, Chron. for the year 1412, p. 770, col. 2._

Concerning this there is the following account: “At this time (A. D. 1412), also at Paris, various excellent, learned men rose against popery, pointing out the errors and abuses of the Roman church; by which they gained small thanks from the clergy.” _Catal. Test., fol. 857, Meru., fol. 910_, compared with the _Chronijck van den Ondergang, p. 771, col. 1_.