France, through his inquisitors, the Jacobine, or Dominican, monks;
who, having convicted many of them, as papistic writers say, of their
belief (namely, that they were Waldenses), delivered them to the
princes and secular authorities for punishment. _Bzov. Annal. A. D.
1319, Art. 10_, from a manuscript in the Vatican library. Also, in the
second book of the _Hist. of the Persecutions, fol. 480, col. 3_.
Touching the names of these people, as also the manner of their
martyrdom, suffering and death, I have not been able to ascertain
anything, except that, professing the belief of the Waldenses (as we
have already stated), they were therefore subjected to persecution and
suffering.
NOTE.--A. D. 1328. At this time Marsilius de Padua enjoyed distinction;
he wrote against the Pope, and also various things against the Roman
church, but his work was condemned as heresy, and the reading of it
strictly prohibited. _Merul., fol. 870, Georg. Pac. cap. 11_, compared
with _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 685, col. 1_.
PERSECUTION UNTO DEATH AGAINST THE BELIEVING WALDENSES, IN BOHEMIA AND
POLAND; IN WHICH ALSO ONE ECKHARD WAS BURNT FOR THE SAME FAITH, A. D.
1330.
A. D. 1330, the aforementioned persecution against the Waldensian
brethren rose to its highest point in Bohemia and Poland; concerning
which the following account is found in ancient histories: “In that
year, A. D. 1330, very many of those who adhered to the doctrine of the
Waldenses, were persecuted unto death and executed, by the inquisitors,
in the kingdoms of Bohemia and Poland. In the large Book of _Christian
Martyrs, 2d part, fol. 483_.
TOUCHING SAID PERSECUTION; ALSO ABOUT ECKHARD, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT
OF P. J. TWISCK.
Richard, also called Eckhard, formerly a Dominican monk, was condemned
as a heretic, because he fearlessly preached the Gospel, and reproved
the abuses of the papists. And in the kingdom of Bohemia and Poland
many were put to death for their religion or faith. _Chron., page 685,
col. 2_, extracted from _Hist. Adri., fol. 64, Herm. Mod. fol. 271,
Henr. Boxh. fol. 27_.
NOTE.--John Aston, a well learned man of Oxford, for teaching that
the bread of the holy Supper remained unchanged, was apprehended as
a heretic, A. D. 1330, by the archbishop of Canterbury, and died in
prison. See the authors referred to above in connection with Eckhard.
Others add here, says Nicholas Vignier, that in said year (A. D.
1330) a certain Jacobine monk, Eckhard by name, whom others, though
erroneously, call Richard, was publicly burnt, because he steadfastly
maintained said opinions of the Waldenses. _Nich. Vign., Hist. Eccl._,
A. D. 1330. Also in the second book of the _Hist. of the Persecutions,
fol. 483_.
FURTHER OBSERVATION.
“I am of the opinion,” writes A. Mellinus, “that this Eckhard is the
same German (apostatized) Dominican, of whom Trithemius makes mention
in his Register of Ecclesiastical Writers, stating that he was a very
learned man, and wonderfully experienced in the word of God. _A.
Mell._, from _Trithem. De Script. Eccles., fol. 483_.
NOTE.--A. D. 1336, on the 23d of June, John de Pistoia was publicly
burnt at Venice, because he maintained the supposed heresy of the
evangelical poverty. _Chron. van den Ondergang, page 689, col. 2_,
compared with _Merula, fol. 873_.
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.