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.