Chapter XLVII: Conclusion: Of the Matters Here Related (21)

But though the doctrine of Bruno and Berengarius commenced in the year 1035 and ended about A. D. 1079, as far as these two persons are concerned (for, otherwise it is a doctrine that began with Christ and will end only at the end of the world), yet, said doctrine displayed its greatest power, through these two persons, and encountered the most opposition, about the year 1060, as appears from the account of Jac. Mehrning and H. Montanus, who unanimously state the following:

“A. D. 1060, Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius, his deacon, rejected infant baptism.” See _Guitmundus, Bishop of Avers, and Durandus, Bishop of Luyck_. These are their words: “Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius of Tours, annul the baptism of infants as much as is in their power; so that they, discarding infant baptism, counsel men to plunge themselves without fear into the deep abyss of all manner of wickedness; saying that they are not to be baptized, until they attain to years of understanding.” _Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., pp. 591, 592. H. Montan. Nietighd., pages 82, 83_, from _Guitm. in Principio Dialogi de Veritate Eucharistiae. Durand, in Epist. contra Brunon and Berengarium_; also, _Baron., A. D. 1035, num. 1_; also, _Alan., lib. 1, contra Hæretic. sui Temporis, pages 103, 104, 105_.

It seems that the matter of the accusation of these two men, Bruno and Berengarius, rose to such a pitch, that they were subjected to an examination, in order to ascertain the grounds of their faith, and to judge them accordingly.

The author of an anonymous manuscript found in the library of Baron Caraw. de Clepton., writes of the examination of said Bruno, saying, that he himself was present when Bruno, the defender of Berengarius, was interrogated in regard to his faith; and that they both, Bruno and Berengarius, said that infant baptism was not necessary to salvation. See also _J. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 685_.

_About A. D. 1068._--D. Vicecomes quotes from a manuscript book of ceremonies, by Beroldus, which, treating of certain religious ceremonies of that time, makes mention also of baptism, and how it was administered then among those of whom he writes. But, to come to the matter; when, noting from this book, the first address made to novices (whom he terms children, according to the manner of Christ, who also called his disciples children, John 21:5), he says, that, the door having been opened, they were thus addressed: “Enter, ye children, into the house of God; hear your father (the teacher) teach you the way of wisdom.” _Bapt. Hist., page 592, num. 3, Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 43._

He then relates what occurred when the doors were closed, and the novices were in the assembly; how the bishop or teacher then delivered to them the symbol, that is, the creed; and how he presented or repeated to them the faith, according to the language of the gospels, and then said: “Hear the faith: I believe on God the Father.” _Above page, Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 14._

The other circumstances related there we pass by; it suffices us to have seen that then the novices (before they were baptized), were taught the way of wisdom; that the faith was presented to them, and that they were instructed in it, which are things that cannot be done with infants, and, hence, prove, that in the church where this practice was observed, infant baptism was unknown, or, at least, was not practiced there.

_About A. D. 1076_, or right after Beroldus, one Ado, surnamed Trevirensis, a teacher of that time, is introduced; of whom it is stated that, in administering baptism, he admonished the candidates not only in the knowledge of the faith, but also to the practice of it, that is, to fast, to humble themselves. Of these matters an instance is given, which is related as follows in _Bapt. Hist., page 593, num. 4_: “When a certain woman, called Syranna, became a believer, he (Ado) thanked God for her, imposed a fast upon her, and told her how she should humble herself, and having thus instructed her, together with her son, he baptized them.” _Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 12._

_A. D. 1090._--At this time lived and wrote, it is stated, the teacher and historian Juo, surnamed Carnotensis, from the place Carnuto, where he resided. According to the testimony of ancient writers, he opposed common popery in various points of doctrine, teaching in such a manner concerning the only Mediator, Christ Jesus, church-service, against monachism, against the difference of meats, and of the Supper, that the papists took offense thereat, and considered him a seditious and schismatical person.

NOTE.--Juo Carnotensis makes some mention also of the origin of infant baptism, how the same arose in the Roman church. “The church,” he says, “having now been sufficiently spread and gathered among the Gentiles; in order that her children, who departed this life before they had attained to the years of understanding, might not remain strangers to the communion of Christ, it was desired to provide them with this medicine of salvation (with baptism); and thus they were baptized with the sacrament of faith.” _Bapt. Hist., pp. 587, 588_, from _Cent. Magd. XI., cap. 6_.

However, it is not our purpose to write here of all these things; partly, because this, through default of the authors, cannot be done circumstantially; and partly, because we only intended to write something of baptism, with regard to which we will also adduce the testimony of Juo. What he may have written concerning this subject, in other respects, while he was yet unenlightened, we pass by, and will only speak of that which he, when he had become enlightened and had attained to knowledge, wrote salutarily and correctly on this article.

_Bapt. Hist., page 588, num. 6_, Juo writes: “To the hearers of the new life, the apostolic creed is delivered, which they publicly confess before baptism.” _Ex Meginh. de Fide._

_Page 590, num. 14_, the following is quoted from Juo: “During the answers to the threefold question, the catechumen (that is, the novice who has learned the faith) is washed from the filth of the old wickedness (namely, through baptism), and puts on the new man.”

_Page 594, num. 7._ D. Vicecomes (_lib. 1, cap. 25_) quotes the following account from Juo: “Then those who were to be baptized on the holy Easter Sabbath, were led, in the fourth week of the forty days’ fast, and on the fourth day of said week, to the church (or, to the assembly), to be taught and examined in the catechism (that is, in the instruction of the faith), and further instructed, how they should fight against spiritual wickedness; yet, their baptism was deferred till holy Easter Sabbath.” _Serm. de Sacram. Initiat._

_Same page as above._ “On that day, those who desire baptism, come to the church (or, to the assembly), that they may be received into the order (or number) of the catechumens, and may throw off, by holy prayers, the yoke of the devil.” _D. Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 30._

_Page 595._--Juo (from August.) adduces these words: “At the water of baptism, before we baptized you, we asked: Do you believe on God the Almighty?” _D. Vicecom., lib. 4, cap. 7._

From these five passages of Juo it is evident, virtually as well as from the circumstances, that he treats of no other baptism than that which is accompanied with instruction, faith, confession of the faith, and observance of the same; in short, that he speaks of a baptism which, as appears from his own words, cannot well, yea, not at all, be reconciled with infant baptism. For, in the first passage he makes mention of a creed, which the candidates had to confess publicly before baptism. In the second passage he speaks of the answers which the catechumens gave to the threefold question put to them before baptism; and that they were then washed from the filth of the old wickedness, and did put on the new man. In the third passage he relates how those who were to be baptized on the holy Easter Sabbath, were first examined in the faith, and further instructed, in the fourth week of the forty days’ fast. In the fourth passage he says that on that day those who desired baptism, came to the church or assembly, to be received into the order or number of the catechumens, and to pray. In the fifth passage he mentions what the candidates were asked at the water of baptism, namely, whether they believed on God, the Almighty.

All these are things that pertain only to the adult and intelligent, and cannot be comprehended, much less practiced by infants.

We will conclude this with the account of P. J. Twisck, who, besides what he has mentioned concerning baptism, briefly notices several other articles which Juo taught contrary to the common belief of the Roman church. He writes: “Juo, Bishop of Carnuto, zealously taught of Christ, the only Mediator, of church-service, against monachism, against the difference of meats, and of the Supper.” _Chron., page 416, col. 2_, from _Catal. Test., Tom. 2, fol. 346_.

It is very probable, since we have never heard of his having recanted, that this Juo, who began his doctrine, or, at least, maintained it the most vigorously, in the year 1090, continued therein to the end, and thus concluded the eleventh century with it. Hence, we will close here, and see which pious witnesses of Jesus Christ suffered at this time.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

[A simile of the moonlight and the stars, which shine most in the darkest nights, forms the beginning of our account, representing the condition of this time.

Fourteen persons, the chiefest of whom was called Stephen, are burned as heretics, for the testimony of the truth, by the papists, A. D. 1022, at Orleans in France.

Then follows a note concerning the accusations brought against the aforementioned persons; and also, further observations touching said fourteen martyrs, according to the accounts of various papistic and other writers, noted in the _Second Book of the Persecutions, fol. 437, col. 3, 4_.

The great craftiness of the Papist, Gretserus, in altering the titles of the books of the ancients, to the detriment of the belief of the Waldenses; some of their martyrs called firstlings, which is circumstantially noticed in the margin.

Some pious Christians at Goslar, called Manicheans by the papists, hanged for the confession of the evangelical truth, A. D. 1052. It is shown, 1. that they claimed to lead a true apostolical life; 2. that they would neither lie nor swear; 3. that they maintained that the sacrament of the altar was nothing but bread; 4. that they denied baptism, that is, infant baptism. One papist, as Thuan against Radulph, etc., opposed to each other in their testimony against these people.

Henry and Alfuard, two good Christians, the former beheaded in the uttermost parts of Sweden, the latter slain among the Normans, for defending the evangelical doctrine, A. D. 1067.

Marginal notice explanatory of their belief.

Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius, his deacon, are condemned in different councils, through the Roman Pope, on account of their views against infant baptism, transubstantiation, the mass, etc.; the first time, A. D. 1050, both together; the second time, A. D. 1079, Berengarius alone. The inconstancy of Berengarius in some matters is shown, but also his sorrow for it, and his perseverance to the end, on account of which he is accounted among the martyrs.

Many of the followers of Berengarius, called Berengarians, are anathematized by order of the Pope, at Piacenza, in Italy, A. D. 1095, and afterwards persecuted unto death, about A. D. 1100. Conclusion.]

* * * * *

Even as the shining moon and the glittering stars give the most light, and adorn the blue expanse of heaven the most gloriously, in the darkest nights, so it was also after A. D. 1000, as regards spiritual matters, which concern the honor of God and the salvation of the souls of men. For, about the year 1000, as well as many years before and after, but particularly then, the world lay sunken, as it were, in an arctic, six-month’s night, through the thick, and palpable darkness, which had arisen, with heavy vapors of superstitions, from the Roman pit. Yet, notwithstanding the state of the times, some undefiled persons, as bright heavenly signs, and stars, began to shine forth the more, and to let their light of evangelical truth illumine the dark nights of papal error. Yea, some, like the polar star, served as a sign to sail by; I mean, to accomplish safely and in a godly manner, through the turbulent waves of perverted worship and human inventions, the journey to the heavenly fatherland. Others, like the morning-star, or the lovely, blushing Aurora, announced the approaching day; we mean, they pointed to the true day of the Christian and evangelical worship of God, and revealed it, as much as they were able, to those who sat in the darkness of error.

We will no longer speak by simile; what we mean is this: That there were men in those dark times, who maintained God’s truth, in various points, according to the needs of that time, and bore witness to and sealed it not only with the mouth, but with the deed, yea, with their blood and death.

FOURTEEN PERSONS, THE CHIEFEST OF WHOM WAS CALLED STEPHEN, BURNED AS HERETICS FOR THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRUTH, BY THE PAPISTS, AT ORLEANS, IN FRANCE, NEAR THE CLOSE OF A. D. 1022.

A. D. 1022, near the close of the year, it seems, or, at the latest, A. D. 1023, there were apprehended and publicly burned, in France, in the presence of King Robert, an account of heresy (so-called by the papists), certain fourteen persons, some of whom were common people, while the others were of noble descent,[152] and of whom the chiefest was called Stephen. They were accused of having spoken evil of God, and the holy sacraments, that is, of holy baptism (namely, infant baptism, for this was what the papists generally practiced, and concerning which disputes were of frequent occurrence), and of the body and blood of the Lord (that is, the sacrament of the altar, which the Romanists were wont to call the body and blood of the Lord); also of marriage, etc.

[152] Laymen and nobles, etc., the papist writer says.

“This appears,” says the writer, “to have been the first execution (that is, by burning), of persons accused of heresy in the Roman church.” Continuing he says: “In an old book we find an account, that this heresy was brought into this country from across the sea, namely, from Bulgaria, and that thence it was spread into other provinces, where it subsequently was much in vogue, principally in Languedoc, around Toulouse, and in Gascony.”

He also states there, that the people who maintained this doctrine, were called Albigeois, and also Bulgarians, because they came from Bulgaria. _Vignierii Hist. Eccl., A. D. 1022, ex Glabro and Massonio in Annalibus, and alio Antiquo Authore_, compared with _Abr. Mell., fol. 381, col. 2_, and _fol. 436, col. 1_.

Touching the accusations which were brought against the aforementioned fourteen persons, they were, as is related: That they had spoken against the article concerning God; against the holy sacraments, both baptism and the sacrament of the altar; against marriage, etc.; on account of which there was inflicted upon them the very cruel, dreadful, and miserable death by fire.

But what they believed and maintained with regard to said points, according to the account of impartial writers, shall be amply explained afterwards, in the Confession of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who held the same belief; since said persons are held to have been the firstlings of those who maintained the doctrine of the Albigenses (though long before their general rising). _See the authors cited above, especially the last one._

Then it will be seen, that they believed and spoke nothing but what we at the present day believe and speak; also, as regards baptism, that they baptized believers, and opposed infant baptism; and, touching the Supper, that they observed it according to the institution of Christ, but rejected the mass and transubstantiation; again, that they denied revenge, the swearing of oaths, auricular confession, the invocation of departed saints, purgatory, etc.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS TOUCHING SAID FOURTEEN MARTYRS, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS PAPISTIC AND OTHER WRITERS, NOTED IN A. MELLINUS’ SECOND BOOK OF THE PERSECUTIONS, FOL. 437, COL. 3, 4.

“Robert Altisidorensis states of said martyrs of Orleans, that they were of the best or chiefest laymen of Orleans, and that for this reason a council was convened there against them, in which they were unanimously condemned and sentenced, as heretics, to the fire; and that they were thus burned alive.”

This testimony is confirmed by Johannes, a monk of Floriax, who gives a somewhat fuller account of the matter, in his letter to Oliva or Olivarius, abbot of the church of Ansona, saying: “Meanwhile I will inform thee of this heresy (thus he calls the true faith of these people), which was on Innocent’s day, in the city of Orleans; for it is the truth if thou hast heard aught of it. King Robert caused fourteen of the best or most nobly born laymen of said city to be burned alive; who, (O, what a great falsehood!) abominable before God, and hated by heaven and earth, utterly denied the grace of holy baptism (he means infant baptism, for thereupon the grace of salvation was promised to children, which these men denied) as well as the consecration of the body and blood of the Lord, and denied that one could thereby obtain remission of sins, after he had committed a crime.” _Masson Annal. Franc., lib. 3_, in _Hugo and Robert_.

Glaber Radulphus (in _Hist. Gall., lib. 3, cap. 8_), gives a much more circumstantial account of these martyrs, relating not only how this (so called) heresy was discovered, but also how it was brought to Orleans and propagated; which we, in order to be brief, pass by.

He mentions, among others, two of these people by name, namely, 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.

Rupert Tuiciensis gives an excellent exposition of the baptism of the ancients; he teaches, that, in order to be baptized, one must first believe, and confess the faith; that many who are baptized with water, are not renewed inwardly, because their heart is not right, though they make confession with the mouth; that the truly baptized, from servants of sin, become children of God; that the word of God was preached to the Christian youth throughout the whole year to prepare them for baptism. What a certain pedobaptist, D. J. V., has written on said words of Rupertus; what P. J. Twisck and H. Montanus have noted from the writings of Rupert; that even some learned men of the Roman church accorded with Rupert. Johannes Bohemius and Ludovicus Vives, and their belief against the Roman church.

Many Christians at Arles, Narbonne, Toulouse, in Gascony, and other parts of France, called Petrobrusians; they, according to Peter, abbot of Cluny, reproved the abuses of the Roman church.

Of Arnald of Brescia, and Peter Abelard, who also opposed infant baptism.

Henricus Petri Tholossanus opposes fifteen articles to the papists, which are all fully stated.

Some peasants in France, called Apostolics, also teach against infant baptism, purgatory, praying for the dead, invocation of the saints.

The Albigenses, from the province Albi, and the Waldenses, the followers of Peter Waldus, now arise; the conversion of Peter Waldus, and how he, having separated from the Roman church, gathered unto himself much people, to whom he taught the doctrine of the holy Gospel, and who became his followers.

Of the dispersion and the different names of the Waldenses; that there were three divisions of them, one of which agreed in all articles of religion with the Anabaptists; that said people were called Anabaptists; that they rejected infant baptism; their views with regard to the office of secular authority, against war, the swearing of oaths, and against nearly all articles of the Roman church; full statement of the confession of faith of the Waldenses, in fourteen articles; another confession of theirs, in twelve articles, made to those of Merindol and Cabriere; some precepts, which they left to their church; some testimonies by ancient writers, respecting the virtuous life of the Waldenses; how they have been unjustly accused by their inquisitors and accusers; the time in which the Waldenses lived and flourished, namely, more than three hundred years, in France, as well as in Italy; the places where they sojourned; that almost a thousand towns were filled with them. Conclusion.]

* * * * *

As a fire of small coals, when water is poured over it, though emitting a spark occasionally, yet smoulders for the most part, stifled as it were, by the smoke, but finally breaks forth with great power, so that the flame, leaping above the smoke, can no longer be extinguished with water, or kept down; so it was, in the twelfth century with the fire of the Gospel, and particularly as regards the article of baptism upon faith. Over this, the Pope of Rome, with his cardinals, bishops, priests, and monks, had thus poured, in the preceding century, the water of so many false doctrines, that scarcely a few sparks could rise before it was instantly sought to extinguish them, till finally through the contentions and dissensions of the Romish so-called clergy, each striving to rise above the other, the fire of the Gospel, as having been, it was supposed, sufficiently quenched, was left, in some measure unmolested; in consequence of which it began to rekindle and burn with such power that its flames, having surmounted the smoke of papal superstitions, could not be extinguished by the water of persecution, suffering, or death; yea, the severest persecutions and the greatest torments were, at that time, like oil in the fire.

This shall be shown in the proper place; but first we will speak of the persons who then opposed infant baptism and other Roman superstitions, and, in order to do this systematically, we will begin thus:

For A. D. 1100, the last year of the eleventh, or the beginning of the twelfth century, P. J. Twisck gives this account: “It appears from writers, that at this time and shortly after, there existed the Waldenses and the Albigeois, who opposed the papal errors, and infant baptism, and had to suffer much misery and persecution from the tyrants. _Chron., page 423, col. 1_. However, in the proper place we shall speak more fully of it.

_A. D. 1105._--This is the year in which mention is made by writers of certain persons who were accused of having no good opinion of infant baptism as well as of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; and of reviling the Roman church. _P. J. Twisck, page 428, col. 2_, from _Merul., fol. 726_; also, _H. Mont., p. 83_.

We briefly mention this here, simply to show the belief of those people; however, when we come to the account of the martyrs of this time, we shall show how many there were of these persons, what befell them on account of their faith, and where, and through whom this happened.

_A. D. 1119._--It is recorded that at this time there were certain people, who, under the name of religion, besides other things of the Roman church, also reviled infant baptism and the mass. _J. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., page 685_, from _Joh. de Oppido, inquisit. Tholoss., in Chron._ Also, _A. Mell., fol. 422, col. 1_.

_A. D. 1120._--Jean Paul Perrin Lionnois makes mention, in his _History of the Waldenses and Albigenses, 3d part, 3d book, cap. 1, pages 163, 164_, of a certain manuscript dated A. D. 1120, containing certain sermons of such people as were afterwards, in the time of Peter Waldus, called Waldenses and Albigenses. Besides said sermons, there is also a tract against the Pope of Rome, who is there called antichrist.

But above all it is worthy of note, that among the marks ascribed there to antichrist, infant baptism upon a dead faith is also enumerated, and is called _the third work of antichrist_. Then there are further denounced, the mass, image worship, and relics, or the bones of the saints.

“The sixth work of antichrist,” these people said, “consists in this, that he tolerates open sins, and does not excommunicate or separate the impenitent.”

“The seventh work of antichrist consists in this, that he does not govern or protect his unity through the Holy Spirit, but by secular power, uniting the latter with spiritual things, for his aid.”

“The eighth work of antichrist is, that he persecutes the members of the church of Christ, searches out, apprehends and kills them.”

Thus it is quite evident, that in these early times, there were already very many who not only confessed the purity of the true faith, but even attacked, with spiritual weapons from God’s holy word, the Roman see, notwithstanding, as appears from the eighth work of antichrist, they were persecuted, searched out, apprehended and killed; of which we shall speak more fully in the proper place.

_A. D. 1124._--At this time, appeared Rupert Tuiciensis with many writings. He did not hesitate to point out the decay, and the manifold superstitions of the Roman church, presenting at the same time, the practice of the first Christian and the apostolical church; by which course he gave the Romanists of his time sufficient cause to be ashamed and convinced, especially with regard to the abuse of baptism, which originally had been administered upon faith, but was now given by them to infants. All this we hope to show in proper order, from the writings he has left.

First of all he establishes, that in order to be truly baptized, faith and confession of the same are required.

_Jac. Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., page 659._ Rupert (_lib. 13, on John 18_) says: “Every one that is to be baptized, must first believe and confess, and not until then be baptized, upon (or into) the death of Christ, and be buried with him by baptism in order to arise.”

Who does not see that Rupert here censures and refutes the practice of those who at his time, namely, among the Roman church, baptized infants, without regard to faith or confession of the same, as well as without dying unto, and burying of, former sins, much less, with arising unto a new life, since these things cannot exist in infants; for why should he have connected faith, confession of it, and baptism, if he had not considered them as belonging together? Why should he say, that every one that is to be baptized, must first believe and confess? which is just what Christ taught, Mark 16:16, and Philip required of the Ethiopian, Acts 8:37.

Thus it is also with what he says of being baptized upon, or into, the death of Christ, and of being buried with him by baptism, in order to arise, etc.; for this the apostle applies to those who, having been baptized upon their faith, had become members of the church at Rome, Rom. 6:3,4, whose faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom. 1:8.

_Page 657._ Rupert (_lib. 11, on John 15_) says: “They (the teachers) can visibly administer water baptism, but they cannot give the Holy Spirit, in whom, nevertheless, all the virtue of baptism consists.”

These are words that overthrow the authority and power of the Romish priests, who, when baptizing infants, were wont to pretend that they did not only wet them with water, but that they also expelled Satan from them, and imparted the Holy Ghost, which they supposed to bring about by certain exorcisms and blessings; but this is opposed by Rupert, with the aforementioned words.

_Same page._ Rupert (_lib. 3, on John 2_) says: “There are many who are indeed baptized with water, but are nevertheless not renewed in the spirit of their mind, because they do not put off the works of the old man, though they are baptized in the water, and confess that they put on the new man.”

Here the reason is shown, why many, though baptized with water, are not renewed in the spirit of their mind; however, the blame is charged upon the candidates themselves, and not upon the teachers, who had not blessed them; but it is because those who were baptized, did not themselves, though it was their duty, put off the works of the old man. For, God’s wisdom (that is, the Spirit of God) does not enter into a malicious soul; nor does it dwell in the body that is subject unto sin. _Sap. 1:4._