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.