MARTYRS MIRROR

[turnorburn]

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, on account of heresy (socalled by the papists), certain fourteen persons, some of whom were common people, while the others were of noble descent,* 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., "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. hignierzi Hist. Eccl., A. D. 1022, ex Glabro and Massonio in Annalibus, and alio Autiquo Authore, compared with Abr. Mell., fol. 381, col. 2, and fol. 436, col. 1.

Touching the accusations which were brought against the afore-mentioned 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 after-

* Laymen and nobles. etc. the papist writer nays. wards, 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.

 

[turnorburn]

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 ought of it. King Robert caused fourteen of the best or most nobly born laymen of said city to be burned alive; who, (Oh, 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 Driest 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 blood-thirsty council), and, through them, caused very strict investigations to be made, both as to the authors and 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 mean pAgain, 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 Hareticos, 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, Antiheretism, 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 (Oh, 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 above-mentioned 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 nanists. were hanved at Goslar.

 

[turnorburn]

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 Saviour 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. Heron.. Contr. Chron., A. D. 1052.

But they cared not so much (A. Mellinus writers), 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 thins as belonging to their dotrines, 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 Thua.n 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 above-mentioned 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.

 

[turnorburn]

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 God-fearing 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.

 

[turnorburn]

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 afore-mentioned 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. Howeverl' 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,* 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.

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, "Today, 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 Saviour, 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.

* A. Mell., fol. 395, ex Baron., in Chron. Eccl., 1088. Art. 15, 20, 21.

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, "Today, 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 meantime, 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 abovementioned 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 Bererngarius died was an evil day." Sam. heltius., Geslacht-register, page 128.

 

[turnorburn]

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, f rom 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 meantime, see A. M. fol. 395. col. 3, from Thuan., Pref. Also, in Hist. Henr. 4.

 

[turnorburn]

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY: SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY

[In the beginning mention is made of this salutary, but bloody century, in which the pious witnesses of the Lord come in multitudes to receive the crown of martyrdom on the battlefield of Christ.

Four persons, having no good opinion of infant baptism and transubstantiation banished from the bishopric of Treves, A. D. 1105.

Some of the followers of Berengarius, in the same bishopric, follow their fellow companions, and are not only banished, but also expelled, one year after, namely A. D. 1106.

The persecutions increase in violence; some who maintained the doctrine of Berengarius, burnt alive at Treves and Utrecht, in the year 1135.

Arnald, a lector at Brescia, opposes infant baptism and the mass; on account of which he is persecuted, and, finally, having come to Rome, deprived of his life by fire, A. D. 1145.

The teacher of said Arnald, namely, Peter Abelard, follows, in the persecution, in the footsteps of his disciple, and is, by order of the pope, imprisoned in the dungeon of a monastery, where he ends his life, same year as above.

Peter Bruis, burnt at St. Giles; Henry of Toulouse, apprehended and put out of the way by the pope's legate; also many other persons put to death at Paris, for the true evangelical doctrine, about the year 1145, 1147.

Certain peasants, called Apostolics, put to death for maintaining the doctrine of the apostles, near Toulouse in France, A. D. 1155.

Gerard, with about thirty persons, men as well as women, come to Oxford, in England, where they, for maintaining the evangelical doctrine, are branded on the forehead, and scourged out of the city, where they perish from cold, A. D. 1161.

Arnold, Marsilius, and Theodoric, together with five other men and two women, burned alive, at Cologne and Bonn, A. D. 1163.

Many pious Christians, throughout all France and England, for maintaining their true belief, cast into the fire alive, where they expire under great pain, A. D. 1182.

Many Christians in Flanders, put to death by fire for the same reason; many others miserably perish in other places, in the year 1183.

One year after the death of the last-mentioned martyrs, namely, A. D. 1184 or 1185, a decree of Pope Lucius III is published against the Waldenses, who are called by various names.

The bloody decree of Ilphons, King of Arragon, published against said Waldenses, A. D. 1194, circumstantially presented.

Origin of the inquisition, instituted by Pope In nocent III against the Waldenses and Albigenses, about the year 1198; to which end, mention is made of three letters which he wrote with regard to this matter; whereupon it followed that, A. D. 1200, five men and three women were burnt at Troyes, in Campania, and some expelled from Metz.]

Hereafter we shall not have to confine ourselves to such scanty material, in the account of the martyrs, as we have necessarily had to do in some of the preceding centuries, when we, through the absence of ancient histories and records, were frequently compelled to break off our account of the sainted confessors of Jesus Christ prematurely; which often grieved us to the heart.

Now, however, comes the salutary, though bloody century, in which abundant matter is furnished us, from which to accomplish our object; the pious witnesses of the Lord now come in multitudes, who willingly suffer themselves to be put to death for the proclamation of the only saving truth; crowns of martyrdom are now proffered to all Christian champions, who have well acquitted themselves on the field of martyrdom, under the bloody banner of Jesus Christ.

Excommunication is the beginning of their conflict; then follow fire, sword, and much other dreadful violence; in and under which, they, calling upon God, end their lives,.quit the earth, and take their rest under the wings of their Saviour, or under the altar of God, until the number of their slain brethren shall be fulfilled. We then turn, first, to the portal or entrance of the arena of the Christian martyrs, where we perceive that some persons must leave their country, and are banished -as heretics.

 

[turnorburn]

FOUR PERSONS, WHO HAD NO GOOD OPINION OF INFANT BAPTISM AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION, BANISHED AS HERETICS, FROM THE BISH OPRIC OF TREVES, A. D. 1105

Here, that which is noted for the year 1105, concerning those who opposed infant baptism, in the twelfth century, claims our attention, namely, that then, under the archbishop of Treves, four persons were banished as heretics, because they had no good opinion of infant baptism, and denied, that in the Supper the bread and wine were changed into the real body and blood of Christ, Merul., fol. 726. P. 7. Twisck, Chron. H. Montan., Nietigh., page 83. Jac. Mehrn., B. H., page 592.

CERTAIN PERSONS, CALLED BERENGARIANS, BAN ISHED OR EXPELLED FOR THE SAME REASON, AND FROM THE SAME BISHOPRICK (AS THE FORMER PERSONS, A. D. 1106

We related, for the year 1035, of Berengarius, deacon of Angiers, that he, with Bruno, the bishop of said city, bean to teach against transubstantia-tion and infant baptism, and this, the most strenuously, about A. D. 1060; which the Roman popes, at different times, endeavored by councils and otherwise to put a stop to, as was shown in its place. And though Berengarius at times, from fear of death, showed himself wavering and very weak in his maintenance of said matter, he still effected so much, that many who were friendly to his doctrine, concurred with him therein, so that some of them, who came into the bishopric of Treves, and maintained their (above-mentioned) views, were, like the four persons mentioned previously, banished or expelled by the archbishop of that place, A. D. 1106. Dispersed thence, they departed into the Netherlands, into the country of Liege, and to Antwerp, and thereabouts, scattering, whithersoever they came, the good seed of their true belief. In the meantime, though these had been expelled from the bishopric of Treves, some nevertheless remained, who held their meetings in secret, and taught. In the 2d book of the History of the Persecutions, page 395, col. 3, from Thuan. Prefat., in Hist. sui temp. ad Reg. Honr. 4, where for A. D. 1060, read A. D. 1106.

NOTE.-The authors state of the aforementioned people only that they were expelled, etc., but as no formal expulsion can take place, without a previous condemnation, we are quite inclined to think, that they were first banished, and then expelled.

 

[turnorburn]

SEVERAL PERSONS WHO MAINTAINED THE DOC TRINE OF BERENGARIUS, BURNT ALIVE AT TREVES AND UTRECHT, A. D. 1135

We read in the ancient chronicles, that in the year 1135, several persons were burnt alive by the Emperor Lotharius, at Treves and Utrecht; concerning which the Chron. Sax., in particular, expressly mentions, that they were burnt as heretics. However, in what their alleged heresy consisted, is not clearly expressed. This, however, is certain that they separated from the Roman church, and opposed her errors.

Abraham Mellinus concludes, from the circumstances mentioned with regard to them, that they were Berengarians, or followers of Berengarius."For," says he,"the reader must know, that after Berengarius' death very many were condemned as heretics, simply because they had the same belief with Berengarius, respecting the Lord's Supper, and opposed the bread-god of the mass." Second book, fol. 395, col. 3, from Chron. Sax.

 

[turnorburn]

ARNALD, A LECTOR AT BRESCIA, AFTER MUCH PERSECUTION, BURNT AT ROME, FOR HIS VIEWS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM, THE MASS, ETC., A. D. 1145

In our account of those who opposed infant baptism, in the twelfth century, we made mention, for he 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 A:nald, says, "He also taught quite differently concerning the sacramentof 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. EQist., 196, 189, 195. Sigon. de Regno Ital., lib. 11, from A. D. 1139 until 1146. Abent., lib. 6. Annal. Boio Gerhohus ReichersQ., lib. 1, de Invest. Antichrist. aped Gretser in Proleg. Script. contra Walden., cap. 4, Tom. 4, Concil. .edition 1612, p. 23, compared with Bapt. His., p. 686.

 

[turnorburn]

PETER ABELARD, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED 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 Caesar Baronius, that this Peter Abelard was the one from whom the afore-mentioned 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.

Mell inus 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.

 

[turnorburn]

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 EVAN GELICAL 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 smal. They called the Pope the prince of Sod om, 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* 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. 1. 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.

 

[turnorburn]

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 truthloving 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. Bemard,** abbot of Clairvaux, greatly inveighed against them in divers sermons, calling them a sort of despised, boorish rabble, ig-


*"War", says the writer; but this signifies violence, vexation, etc.
*"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. norant 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."

In the meantime, 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, EQist. 240, oldest edition.

From this it is sufciently 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 apos olical 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, Ba¢t. Hist., page 599. P. I. Tzeusck, Chron., page 469. B.

 

[turnorburn]

GERARD, WITH ABOUT THIRTY OTHERS, MEN AS WELL AS WOMEN, FOR MAINTAINING THE APOS TOLICAL DOCTRINE, AT OXFORD, IN ENG LAND, ARE BRANDED IN THE FOREHEAD, SCOURGED OUT OF THE CITY, AND MISERABLY PERISH WITH COLD, A. D. .1161

It is recorded* 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;** 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., "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


* Vignierus, in Hist. Eccl.
* The papistic writer says, "From an unknown author." The Calvinistic Mellinus, however says, "But perhaps from Peter de Bruis, Henry of Toulouse, or Berengarius himself."-Secound book fol. 439. col. 4, m the margin. 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 thankoffering (the mass)."

 

[turnorburn]

SUMMARY OF THE DOCTRINE OF WHICH THEY WERE ACCUSED

The doctrines with which they were charged, consisted of the following points (from Abr. Mellinus,* 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.", "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."

 

[turnorburn]

THEIR CONDUCT TOWARD THE- FATHERS IN THE COUNCIL IN OXFORD, AND WHAT THE COUN CIL 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


* All these passages, Mellinus has taken from the account of Guido Perpiggna 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.


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.

 

[turnorburn]

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.

 

[turnorburn]

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,* 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.

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.

* From the writings of Gascony.
Page 296

 

[turnorburn]

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.

 

[turnorburn]

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 2, 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 bapti-mI and denied the hnlv hodv anti 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, cot. 3, 4.