Historical Outline Part 3

Last part: After Year 1300.

Part One (70-990) Part two (990-1300)

A.D. 1381: Wycliffe Bible translated

An early English translation of the entire Bible from the Latin is accomplished by John Wycliffe, and his followers. It has been determined that most likely Wycliffe himself worked on the New Testament portion. There is a great deal of backstory that leads up to this point: The people who wrote and preached alongside and after Wycliffe, possibly before him, were known as “Lollards” in England. We find that there were people in the Netherlands (modern Netherlands and Belgium) at an earlier date than Wycliffe, who had much the same name as this. The historian Johann Mosheim (1693 – 1755) deals with a description of this group as below:¹

“As the clergy of this age took little care of the sick and dying, and deserted such as were infected with those pestilential disorders which were then very frequent, some compassionate and pious persons at Antwerp formed themselves into a society for the performance of these religious offices, which the sacerdotal orders so shamefully neglected. In the prosecution of this agreement, they visited and comforted the sick, assisted the dying with their prayers and exhortations, took care of the interment of those who were cut off by the plague, and on that account forsaken by the terrified clergy, and committed them to the grave with a solemn funeral dirge. It was with reference to this last office, that the common people gave them the name of Lollards.[n]² The example of these good people had such an extensive influence, that in a little time societies of the same sort of Lollards, consisting both of men and women, were formed in most parts of Germany and Flanders, and were supported, partly by their manual labours, and partly by the charitable donations of pious persons. The magistrates and inhabitants of the towns, where these brethren and sisters resided, gave them peculiar marks of favour and protection on account of their great usefulness to the sick and needy. But the clergy, whose reputation was not a little hurt by them, and the Mendicant friars, who found their profits diminished by the growing credit of these strangers, persecuted them vehemently, and accused them to the popes of many vices and intolerable errors. Hence it was, that the word Lollard, which originally carried a good meaning, became a term of reproach to denote a person, who, under the mark of extraordinary piety, concealed either pernicious sentiments or enormous vices.”

(footnote)³“[n] Many writers have given us copious amounts concerning the sect and name of the Lollards; yet none of them are to be commended for their fidelity, diligence, or accuracy on this head. This I can confidently assert, because I have carefully and expressly inquired into whatever relates to the Lollards, and, from the most authentic records concerning them, both published and unpublished, have collected copious materials from which their true history may be compiled. Most of the German writers, as well as those of other countries, affirm, that the Lollards were a particular sect, who differed from the church of Rome in many religious points; and that Walter Lolhard, who was burned in this century at Cologne, was their founder. How so many learned men came to adopt this opinion, is beyond my comprehension. They indeed refer to [Johannes] Trithemius as the author of this opinion: yet it is certain, that no such account of these people is to be found in his writings. I shall therefore endeavor, with all possible brevity, to throw all the light I can upon this matter, that they who are fond of ecclesiastical history may have a just notion of it. The term Lollhard, or Lullhard, or, as the ancient Germans wrote it, Lollert, Lullert, is compounded of the old German word lullen, lollan, lallen, and the well known termination hard, with which many of the old High Dutch words end. Lollen, or lullen, signifies to sing with a low voice. It is yet used in the same sense among the English, who say, lull a-sleep, which signifies to sing any one into a slumber with a sweet indistinct voice. See Franc. Junii Etymologicon Anglicanum, ab Edvardo Lye editum Oxon. 1743, fol. under the word Lollard. The word is also used in the same sense among the Flemings, Swedes, and other nations, as appears by their respective Dictionaries. Among the Germans, both the sense and pronunciation of it have undergone some alteration; for they say, lullen, which signifies to pronounce indistinctly, or stammer. Lolhard, therefore, is a singer, or one who frequently sings. For as the word beggen, which universally signifies to request any thing fervently, is applied to devotional requests, or prayers; and in the stricter sense in which it is used by the Germans, denotes praying fervently to God; in the same manner the word lollen, or lullen, is transferred from a common to a sacred song, and signifies, in its most limited sense, to sing a hymn. Lolhard, therefore, in the vulgar tongue of the ancient Germans, denotes a person who is continually praising God with a song, or singing hymns to his honour. Hocsemius, a canon of Liege, has well apprehended and expressed the force of this word in his Gesta Pontificum Leodiensium, lib. i. cap. xxxi. in Jo. Chapeauvilli Gestis Pontificum Tungrensium et Leodiensium, tom. ii. p. 350. ‘In the same year (1309), says he, certain strolling hypocrites, who were called Lollards, or praisers of God, deceived some women of quality in Hainault and Brabant.’ Because those who praised God generally did it in verse; to praise God, in the Latin style of the middle age, meant to sing to him; and such as were frequently employed in acts of adoration, were called religious singers. And, as prayers and hymns are regarded as a certain external sign of piety towards God, those who aspired to a more than ordinary degree of piety and religion, and for that purpose were more frequently occupied in singing hymns of praise to God than others, were, in the common popular language, called Lollhards. Hereupon this word acquired the same meaning with the term Beghard, which denoted a person remarkable for piety; for in all the old records, from the eleventh century, these two words are synonymous: so that all who were styled Beghards, are also called Lollards, which may be proved to a demonstration from many authors, and particularly from many passages in the writings of Felix Malleolus against the Beghards: so that there are precisely as many sorts of Beghards as of Lollards. Those whom the monks now call Lay Brothers, were formerly called Lollard Brethren, as is well observed by Barthol Schobinger, ad Joach. Vadianum de colegiis monasteriisque Germaniæ Vater. lib. i. p. 24. in Goldasti Scriptor. rerum Alemannicarum, tom. iii.

“The Brethren of the free spirit, of whom we have already given a large account, are by some styled Beghards, by others Lollards. The followers of Gerard Groote, or Priests of the community, are frequently called Lollard Brethren. The good man Walter, who was burned at Cologne, and whom so many learned men have unadvisedly represented as the founder of the sect of the Lollards, is by some called a Beghard, by others a Lollard, and by others a Minorite. The Franciscan Tertiares, who were remarkable for their prayers and other pious exercises, often go by the name of Lollards. The Cellite Brethren, or Alexians, whose piety was very exemplary, no sooner appeared in Flanders, about the beginning of this century, than the people gave them the title of Lollards, a term much in use at that time. A particular reason indeed for their being distinguished by this name was, that they were public singers, who made it their business to inter the bodies of those who died of the plague, and sang a dirge over them in a mournful and indistinct tone as they carried them to the grave. […] Hence we find in the Annals of Holland and Utrecht, in Ant. Matthæi Analect. ve. ævi., tom. i. p. 431. the following words: ‘Die Lollardtjes die brochten de dooden by een, i. e. the Lollards who collected the dead bodies;’ which passage is thus paraphrased by Matthæus, ‘The managers of funerals, and carriers of the dead, of whom there was a fixed company, were a set of mean, worthless creatures, who usually spoke in a canting mournful tone, as if bewailing the dead; and hence it came to pass, that a street in Utrecht, in which most of these people lived, was called the Loller street.’ The same reason that changed the word Beghard from its primitive meaning, contributed also to give, in process of time, a different signification to that of Lollard, even to its being assumed by persons that dishonoured it. For among those Lollards who made such extraordinary pretences to piety and religion, and spent the greatest part of their time in meditation, prayer, and the like acts of piety, there were many abominable hypocrites, who entertained the most ridiculous opinions, and concealed the most enormous vices, under the specious mask of this extraordinary profession. But it was chiefly after the rise of the Alexians, or Cellites, that the name Lollard became infamous. . .”

Thus far, an explanation of the Lollards of the Netherlands.

Here we see that the terms Beghard and Lollard were interchangeably used one for the other by the people of Netherlands at this time. It is further the case that the historian Mosheim above tries to link the Lollards (as they were called in the Netherlands), with the Cellites or Alexians. But we note: that there was a series of papal edicts from 1259 to 1311 which exclusively condemned those called Beghards.⁴ Equally importantly, the Cellites and Alexians did not begin to exist until 1365, so the term could not be referring to them before that date. We also read that the Cellites or Alexians, despite existing, did not receive any official sanction from the state until 1472, as historian Mosheim states.⁵ So then, we see that the term Beghard could not have become synonymous with Cellite and entered into universal disrepute, until at least the year 1365. During the time in which we are interested before this, Beghard or Lollard was a profession in the Netherlands and parts of Germany that was unilaterally condemned by Catholic officials. And during this early time, these people were in disrepute only with state church officials, while the rest of society saw them as useful for dealing with the plague, as noted by the historian.

The first so-called Beghard or Lollard community originated in Antwerp in 1228,⁶ which is about the same time that the Council of Toulouse took place in the south of France. This is the Council which, in the following year of 1229, established the papal inquisition, which has already been discussed. No sooner had the occupation known as Lollard or Beghard spread to additional cities than was it quickly targeted for persecution by the inquisitors. Further support for this state of affairs may be drawn from Gieseler, another historian. In the later years, the officials of Catholicism were having difficulties pinpointing exactly the group they were trying to destroy from among these communities. In 1377, one group called “personae pauperes” were given indulgences by the pope of Rome, but in 1395 another group called “Beghardi, seu Lullardi et Zwestriones” were made a target for the Inquisition to destroy.⁷ Gieseler remarking upon this concludes, “…the treatment of all these communities depended entirely upon the decision of the bishops and inquisitors, and these Papal protective laws guaranteed to the … pauperes no more security than they had without them.”

This also appears to be the earliest etymology for the Lollards of England, a group who appeared in the 1300s, soon after its Netherlands counterpart. In common English usage however, the word instead gradually came to represent those with a Christian doctrine who identified with John Wycliffe, who was intent on providing Biblical education and knowledge to the masses, rather than representing a particular living community, or profession or line of work. Yet we find that the name Lollard, and the doctrine,⁸ both predate Wycliffe.

About Walter Lolhard in particular – who it seems certain was a real person, but whether he ever came to England: the nearest source about him, as mentioned above by the historian Mosheim, appears to be silent on the subject. Consider the writing of Trithemius, Chronicon Hirsaugiense, pp. 235r-236.

The handwritten record from Trithemius, penned down sometime around 1499, copied from a digital scan above, seems to be the true source of information on Walter. There it reads, “MCCCxxij. Colonie deprehensus fuit lolhardus quidam nomine Walterus magister et princeps schole hereticorum illius secte…” or, “at Cologne in 1322, there was detected a certain ‘lolhardus’ whose name was Walter, the magister and principal of a school of heretics, belonging to the sect earlier mentioned…” This writing by Trithemius continues on to allege various offensive doctrines⁹ to this man and finally adds that he was burnt at the stake after all this. But no mention of England exists, not in this entry.

There is some information to glean from this. To the extent that Walter was a principal of a school of those called “lolhardus” in or around the city of Cologne, in the year 1322. A question remains whether his surname “Lollard” was a name that he himself held, or else, as was often the case with surnames, his adopted profession; and whether this individual had visited Britain before this must be left as a possibility. Many have claimed this as the explanation – and no better explanation has been provided – for how that name became widespread in England in the 1300s after these events, but an explanation must be made.

One last point about the names of the Lollards remains. In the Britannica article, we are told the following description of the name.

“LOLLARDS, the name given to the English followers of John Wycliffe (q.v.); it is of uncertain origin; but the generally received explanation derives it from the verb lollen or lullen, to sing softly. The word is much older than its English use; there were Lollards in the Netherlands at the beginning of the 14th century, who were akin to the Fratricelli, Beghards and other sectaries of the recusant Franciscan type.”¹⁰

We should completely discount the association of these persons with the Fraticelli, as we have explained that group’s antinomian origins in part two of this outline.¹¹ The unusual description given of the Lollards of ‘recusant Franciscan type’ leaves significant space to wonder, what is meant by the authors of the Britannica here. Recusing an order would seem to leave one as diametrically opposed to it, as we see that recusing means to “refuse, reject or challenge.” If someone is recusing something, it makes little sense to associate them as being a type of that same thing. This term “being a recusant type” makes little sense whatsoever. We might as well describe a Nicolaitan as being of the recusant Christian type.

Notwithstanding all of this, some other resources on church history really have attempted to compare the Lollards or Beghards with the strict Franciscans, which was another monastic order that was involved in the inquisition. However similar these two groups could have possibly appeared on the surface, they bear no resemblance whatsoever as they were spiritually worlds apart. One were targets and the other were the enactors of the Inquisition itself. The former as we noted had no legal protection at all and were subject to papal displeasure starting from 1259. The Franciscans, which participated in the Inquisition, enjoyed vast privileges under the temporal law. To compare the two is ludicrous.

To account for the significant presence of this group in England, there is a mention of them in the chronicle of Knighton, which was written in 1396, just fourteen years after the fact, giving the following details:¹²

“(Year 1382.)
Willelmus de Swyndurby associated in this year with some of the sect of Wyclyf, at a certain chapel of St. John the Baptist, near the dwelling-place of the lepers. This sect was held in the highest honor in those days, and was multiplied to such an extent, that it was difficult to pass by two men in the way without one of them being a disciple of Wyclyffe.”

This would have been in the year after Wycliffe finished his Bible translation.

With regard to Wycliffe (c. 1328 – 1384), some enlightening quotes from him:
“We have a perfect knowledge of all things necessary to salvation, from the faith of Scripture.”¹³
“The merit of Christ is of itself sufficient to redeem every man from hell: it is to be understood of a sufficiency of itself, without any other concurring cause.”¹⁴
“All that follow Christ, being justified by his righteousness, shall be saved as his offspring.”¹⁵

Possibly the most very classic words of Wycliffe are those memorialized by his enemies through a quotation, in the Council of Constance, made long after his passing. This was John Wycliffe’s refutation of the idea of transsubstantiation, which is reproduced from the council records as follows:¹⁶

“Since heretical falsehood about the consecrated host is the most important point in individual heresies, I therefore declare to modern heretics, in order that this falsehood may be eradicated from the church, that they cannot explain or understand an accident without a subject. And therefore all these heretical sects belong to the number of those who ignore the fourth chapter of John: We worship what we know.”

It is appropriate also to mention the fact that has come to our attention that some large number of Wycliffe’s books – especially those of later years as it seems – were destroyed. This is as Thomas Crosby pointed out in 1738:

“And when [Wickliffe] set himself to reform Religion, he knew, all the Power and Malice of that corrupt Church he had left, would be bent against him. Therefore, it is probable, he might use all proper Means to prevent his Books as well as his own Person, from falling into the Hands of his inveterate Enemies. Yet after all, it is manifest, that many of his Books were burnt and destroyed;”¹⁷

This path of destruction follows from the burning of Peter Valdo’s work, which was yet another translation ruthlessly suppressed by the Council of Toulouse in 1229, in addition to any other treatise that was written by the targets of the Inquisition for destruction. It has to be openly admitted that the greater part of their work has been destroyed. This has resulted in some cases of only the hostile accounts surviving, of those that burned these writings and in some cases the people that wrote them. However, two things can be learned right away from this. First, the forces of the Inquisition were never able to destroy the Bible itself, the most important and irreplaceable record that mankind has ever possessed. Manuscript evidence supporting the received text has been preserved through all this time, despite the efforts employed toward its destruction and replacement with an altered version of Scripture more suited to the interests of the inquisitors. Secondly, we see that the state (or at least the state church) was not in complete control of the book copying process during this time. Otherwise, there had never been a need for destroying voluminous copies of the books produced by the targets of the inquisition.

Anne of Bohemia (1366-1394), the Queen Consort of England, had also been an avid collector of Wycliffe’s works. Her followers after 1394 had brought these writings back into Bohemia, where they reached the proto-reformer Jan Hus. After this, upwards of two hundred of these books were burned at Prague, under order from a papal edict in 1410.¹⁸

Back in England in 1382, a bill for suppressing “heretics” was passed by the various high church officials in the court of fifteen-year-old Richard II. Even though parliament disowned and condemned that pretended law in the year following, these same officials suppressed this, and went after the Lollards to the fullest extent their 1382 bill would allow them to go. But we might say that, through Wycliffe and others, the confessors of the faith gained for themselves a great number of eminent guardians of good reputation for a significant amount of time. This provided for them – it seems – such an open field for them to teach and preach freely in England, that notwithstanding every legal restriction set up in 1382 and beyond, the driving out of these believers from Britain (England and Wales) had clearly been an impossible task.

There are still examples of this style of teachers going under several different titles as well during this period. From Mellinus, writing in 1619, we learn this about France in this time:¹⁹

“John Tilius writes, in his Chronijcke bande Coninghen van Djanckrijck, on the year 1372, respecting the sect of Turlupinen, the following: ‘The superstition of the Turlupinen, whose surname originated from the common poverty of them all, were condemned in this year as heretics, and all of their writings, books and clothes were burned together.’

“Vignier writes concerning the sect of Turlupinen in 1373, that in Paris they were denounced as heretics by the Inquisitor, Bernardus van Lutzenburch, who openly burned their books, and with these, one named Peronne from Aubeton; and who identified these Turlupinen with a certain sect, namely the Beghards and Beguinen, charging that they derived their doctrine from the old natural philosophy of the Cynics— that is, that they taught according to the rule that one should not be ashamed of those things which have been received by nature: in this way were the Turlupinen accused.”

From Matthias Flacius writing in 1556, we learn this about Germany.²⁰

“I possess another book full of proceedings, in which 443 named Valdenses are examined in Pomerania, Marchia,²¹ and neighboring countries, circa A.D. 1391, where the above-mentioned articles are confessed. Many of them testified, that for 20, or 30 years they had continued in the sect: many affirmed, for even longer. This observation indicates, that he [the writer of the book] was in the frequent habit of speaking with the teachers²² of these men, which are now in Bohemia. It appears that these regions of Saxony have had orthodox, ‘security-minded’ Christians, far preceding Hus, by two hundred years or more. Take note that when the 443 named were examined, it follows easily by reason, that there were many others not examined, who either remained concealed, or chose to flee from giving such a counsel: and of course, those who were examined at this time, in their sayings, mentioned the names of many men who were not there.”²³

In other words, it seems from these authentic historical records, that there were plenty of believers who were targeted by the inquisition of Rome, but continued to exist undeterred, as we see, in France and Germany.

We have already found evidence of the predecessors of the Vaudois traveling to Germany-Rhineland (in Letter of Everwin, A.D. 1143.), Netherlands (Synod of Arras, A.D. 1025.), England (Council of Oxford, A.D. 1160.) and Spain (Adelphonsus’ proclamation, A.D. 1194.) according to all of the records given in part two of this history (appendix D, E, F, G), and it supports the fact that we see here of some who also traveled into the colonies of eastern Germany according to this account. For two hundred years before 1391 (as it says in the record given by Matthias Flacius) proceeds back to the time period when the very first German colonists came to this area of Pomerania and Marchia. These facts tend to support the account, which appears to be commonly reflected by all these historical records together. We see that the Petrobrusians, Henricians, non-gnostic Albigenses, Leonists, and the Vaudois or Valdenses all share the same history. The disappearance of one and the subsequent appearance of another occurs in perfect congruity.

The common intention in ascribing each of these names was the attempt to belittle the origins of these churches, as being something other than Christ’s church.

Now, with regard to many of the Lollards of England who knew Wycliffe directly, we shall obtain a very favorable account of some of their activities, which is in quite a contrast to most of the hostile witnesses we find that remain against Wycliffe himself. For this, we may turn, at last, to the books written by Pastor Joshua Thomas, a Pastor who lived in the 18th century and who has contributed much to the historical record in this regard, in providing some help in accounting for their activities. He is quoted below in his description of Wales and the churches there.²⁴

“Olchon, or perhaps more properly Golchon, is a small, narrow Valley, in the parish of Clodock, and county of Hereford: nearly on the line between the Hay and Abergavenny, but somewhat nearer to the former, and about 10 miles or more from Hereford. The Western side of it is formed by a long, steep, and lofty hill: part of what is called, the Black Mountain. The situation is rather singular, as in, or near, this valley, the three counties of Hereford, Monmouth, and Brecknock meet; and likewise the three dioceses of Hereford, Landoff, and St. David.

“This spot, and parts adjacent have been always inhabited by Cambro-Britons, or properly Cymry, usually called Welsh or Welch. The writer of this preached there about twice in the month statedly from June, 1746 to November, 1754; always in the British language, except a person happened to be present who did not understand it. But many English gradually intermingling, the language now of course is mixed. […]”

“Wickliff’s ministry met with great acceptance and amazing success. One of his zealous disciples was Walter Brute. What follows makes it probable that he was born and lived in or near Olchon.

“He was of the Diocese of Hereford, and he gloried in being a Briton by father and mother. It is recorded that he was a graduate of Oxford, a gentleman of rank, learning, and parts; though reputed a layman by the popish clergy. Trevnant (rather Tresnant) Bishop of Hereford chargeth Brute with seducing the people as much as he could, from day to day, teaching openly and privily, as well the nobles as the commons. Messrs. William Twinderby and Stephen Bell, were preachers of note then, intimate friends of Brute, and zealous all for Wickliff’s doctrine. By a commission from Richard the II, about 1392, it appears that Twinderby and friends were fled into Wales, out of the diocese of Hereford. Very probably they were gone among the mountains about or beyond Olchon, where so many counties and dioceses met; which was a very favorable circumstance, in persecuting times. They had then, by means and help of Brute an opportunity to inform and instruct the ancient Britons among those lofty hills.

“Fox in his martyrology, gave a large account of Brute, his sentiments and zeal taken from the register of the Bishop of Hereford. He refuted many popish errors and reformed much in the article of Baptism. He pleaded that faith should preceed that ordinance; and yet that salvation did not essentially depend on it. Mr. Thomas Davye, in his Treatise of Baptism, 1719, page 96-197, supposes that Brute was more a Baptist than represented by Fox, as the latter was not so himself.”

“King Richard, above named, directed a letter to the nobility and gentlemen of the county of Hereford, and to the Mayor of the city, charging all to prosecute Brute, accused of preaching heresy, in the diocese and places adjacent; and also of keeping conventicles. […] He lived about a century before printing began in England.”

So we see that Walter Brute (given alternately as Walter Brut or Brit) was a contemporary and friend of Wycliffe who was known to keep conventicles in the furrowed valleys of Wales when the persecution of laws, as we have earlier described, began under King Richard II. Moreover, there is available evidence of Brute’s preaching from plenty of other sources.²⁵ In particular, this book²⁶ says, (translating from the Welsh):

“Walter Brute was known from the diocese of Hereford, who was learned, and a diocesan counselor to godliness, though he was a poor man. He convinced his countrymen regarding charm words, or holy water, reminding them that Jesus’ name did not lend itself to Sceva’s measures.²⁷ He explained how opposed to Christ the common attitude was, because Christ commands love, not bloodshed, and the gospel abolishes fleshly rituals, but the Pope brings them back.”

Any account of Walter Brut after the year 1393 is neither known by J. Thomas, nor any other source that I have found. So we leave the final mention of this man as a preacher last known to be teaching at Olchon.

Not long afterward, the clergy, who had assisted Henry IV to usurp the crown in 1399, also continued to push strongly for a death penalty against those Lollards whom they had already confined under the 1382 decree. At length, they persuaded Henry IV to grant this. Thus beginning with the Act titled De Heretico Comburendo in 1401, a death penalty against the Lollards in England continued with interruptions until the Act of Toleration (1 Will & Mary c 18) in 1688.

The first enforcement of this law was carried out against a man who had converted from the state church whose name was William Sawtre. Already imprisoned for previous “offenses,” William was taken to the stake and burned to death in Smithfield in 1401. In a way, this mirrors the deaths mandated against the rebaptizandi by the emperors Honorius and Justinian. Since they could not find any reasonable way to deal with the situation of believers who converted from their camp, they turned to suppression by violence. However, it is written that every work shall be brought into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:14

Some of the most prominent executions followed not long after this one. The first to be burnt in neighboring domain Scotland was John Resby, who was condemned as a Lollard in 1405 having entered the country. The fire for his burning was set in Perth, Scotland,²⁸ but remember that the love of God was so great for this country, that He gave His own Son Christ, the only begotten Son, also.

An interesting event occurred after this, when preacher William Thorpe was taken from Shrewsbury (a stronghold of faith in those times) in 1407, to Saltwood Castle, where the following historical account is found, being translated into modern, 1825 English.²⁹

“Thus protected, the Lollards, as the disciples of Wiclif were opprobriously styled, spread over the kingdom. … One of these, master William Thorpe, a priest, came to Shrewsbury in 1407, and on the 3d Sunday after Easter, mounted the pulpit in St. Chad’s church, from whence he condemned the favourite tenets of popery, transubstantiation, images, and pilgrimages. This boldness may be regarded as no mean proof of the general encouragement which these preachers of reformation had received in this part of the kingdom. But the clergy had taken the alarm; and as the king, feeling the instability of usurped dominion, found it necessary to conciliate that powerful body by a show of zeal for their interests, they had obtained an act in the second year of his reign, by which heresy was made a capital felony.³⁰

“Either in consequence of instructions which the corporation of Shrewsbury received from the court, or from their own attachment to the established religion, Thorpe was thrown into prison in this town, where he lay for a month or more, and was then conveyed to Lambeth. After a confinement of several months, and, as it may be presumed, in the Lollards’ Tower of that palace, he was in August following convened before the archbishop of Canterbury, then resident at his castle at Saltwood, on a complaint exhibited against him by ‘the bailives and worshipful cominalte’ of this town. Of his examination we have a rude but curious account written by himself; a picture of the age, and drawn with apparent fairness, considering that the narrator is the hero of his own tale. We see the prelate, conscious of his high birth and station, boisterous, yet at the same time evidently anxious to save his prisoner, and no incompetent master of the theology of his day: the culprit, steady to the truth, and zealous in his support of scripture, which he sometimes misunderstands and sometimes misrepresents; yet behaving with a decent respect, seldom seen in the conduct of a zealot towards his spiritual superior.

“The result of the trial, and the subsequent history of Thorpe, we no where find. Fox, the martyrologist, who, with his many and very great merits, cannot be called a very candid historian, (which indeed, at the time when he wrote, was scarcely to be expected,) conjectures that he was either made away in prison, or died of sickness and hard usage. But as it seems certain that our Salopian reformer did not retract his opinions, (for he records his own perseverance,) and as in confinement he would hardly have been permitted to write the account which we have of his conduct, it appears much more probable that he obtained his liberty on the decease of the archbishop, which took place seven years after. Such passages of his examination as are at all of a local nature are here subjoined.

“Archbishop. ‘Lo! here it is certified against thee, by worthy men and faithful of Shrewsbury, that thou preachedst there openly in St. Chad’s church, that the sacrament of the alter was material bread after the consecration: what sayest thou?’ And I said, Sir, I tell you truly, that I touched nothing there of the sacrament of the altar, but in this wise: as I stood there in the pulpit, busying me to teach the commandment of GOD, there knilled a sacring bell, and therefore mickle people turned away hastily, and with great noise ran from me, and I, seeing this, said to them thus, ‘Good men! ye were better to stand here full still and to hear GOD’s Word. For, certes, the virtue and the mede of the most holy Sacrament of the Altar standeth much more in the Belief thereof that ye ought to have in your soul, than it doth in the outward Sight thereof. And therefore ye were better to stand quietly to hear GOD’s Word, because that through the hearing thereof, men come to very true belief.’ And otherwise, Sir, I am certain I spake not there, of the worthy Sacrament of the Altar. […]
Archbishop. ‘But I command thee now, answer me shortly, Believest thou that, after the consecration of this foresaid Sacrament, there abideth substance of bread or not?’ And I said, Sir, as I understand, it is all one to grant or to believe that there dwelleth substance of bread, and to grant or to believe that this most worthy Sacrament of Christ’s own body is one Accident without Subject. But, Sir, for as mickle as your asking passeth mine understanding, I dare neither deny it nor grant it, for it is a School matter, about which I busied me never for to know it: and therefore I commit this term ‘accidens sine subjecto’, to those Clerks which delight them so in curious and subtle sophistry, because they determine oft so difficult and strange matters, and wade and wander so in them, from argument to argument, with pro and contra, till they wot not where they are! nor understand not themselves! But the shame that these proud sophisters have to yield them to men and before men, maketh them oft fools, and to be concluded shamefully before GOD. Archbishop. ‘I purpose not to oblige thee to the subtle arguments of Clerks, since thou art unable thereto! but I purpose to make thee obey to the determination of Holy Church.’ And I said, Sir, by open evidence and great witness, a thousand years after the Incarnation of Christ, that determination which I have, here before you, rehearsed was accepted of Holy Church, as sufficient to the salvation of all them that would believe it faithfully, and work thereafter charitably. But, Sir, the determination of this matter, which was brought in since the Fiend was loosed by Friar Thomas³¹ again, specially calling the most worshipful Sacrament of Christ’s own body, an Accident without Subject; which term, since I know not that GOD’s law approveth it in this matter, I dare not grant: but utterly I deny to make this friar’s sentence or any such other my belief; do with me, GOD! what Thou wilt! Archbishop. ‘Well, well! thou shalt say otherwise ere that I leave thee!’ ”

Another brief account can be found regarding John Badby who was burned from inside of a barrel at Smithfield in 1410. The court presided over by Archbishop Thomas Arundel, and his brother-in-law William, passed the sentence themselves. The martyr’s saying was this: “If every host consecrated at the altar were the Lord’s body, then there be 20,000 Gods in England.”

Another martyr and scholar of distinction was sentenced by the tribunals of England in 1418, whose name was Sir John Oldcastle. The account of John Bale:

“In the Christmas following was Sir Roger Acton, Knight, Master John Browne, Esquire, Sir Roger Beverley, a learned preacher, and divers other more, attached for quarrelling with certain priests, and so imprisoned.

“The complaint was made unto the King of them, that they had made a great assembly in St. Giles’s field at London, purposing the destruction of the land, and the subversion of the commonwealth. As the King was thus informed, he erected a banner (saith Walden) with a cross thereupon (as the Pope doth commonly by his legates, when he pretendeth to war against the Turk), and with a great number of men entered the same field, whereas he found no such company. Yet was the complaint judged true, because the Bishops had spoken it at the information of their priests. […] In the mean season Sir John Oldcastle, the Lord Cobham, escaped out of the Tower of London in the night, and so fled into Wales, whereas he continued more than four years after. […]

“In the year of our Lord 1415 died Thomas Arundel, which had been Archbishop of Canterbury more than thirty-two years to the great destruction of Christian belief. Yet died not his prodigious tyranny with him, but succeeded with his office in Henry Chicheley, and in a great sort more of that spiteful spirituality. For their malice was not yet sated against the good Lord Cobham. But they confedered with the Lord Powis (which was at that time a great governor in Wales), feeding him with lordly gifts and promises to accomplish their desire. He at the last thus monied with Judаs, and outwardly pretending him great amity and favour, most cowardly and wretchedly took him, and, in conclusion, so sent him up to London, whereas he remained a month or two imprisoned again in the Tower. And, after long process, they condemned him again of heresy and treason by force of the aforenamed act, he rendering thanks unto God that He had so appointed him to suffer for His name’s sake.

“And this was done in the year of our Lord anno 1418, which was the sixth year of the reign of King Henry the fifth, the people there present showing great dolour. How the priests that time fared, blasphemed and cursed, requiring the people not to pray for him, but to judge him damned in hell, for that he departed not in obedience of their Pope, it were too long to write. This terrible kind of death with gallows, chains and fire, appeareth not very precious in the eyes of men that be carnal, no more than did the death of Christ when he was hanged up among thieves. ‘The righteous seemeth to die,’ saith the wise man,³² ‘in the sight of them which are unwise, and their end is taken for very destruction.’

“The more hard the passage be, the more glorious shall they appear in the latter resurrection. Not that the afflictions of this life are worthy of such a glory, but that it is God’s heavenly pleasure so to reward them. Never are the judgements and ways of men like unto the judgements and ways of God, but contrary evermore, unless they be taught of him. ‘In the latter time,’ saith the Lord unto Daniel, ‘shall many be chosen proved, and purified by fire: yet shall the ungodly live wickedly still, and have no understanding that is of faith.’ (Daniel 12:10) By an angel from heaven was John earnestly commanded to write that ‘blessed are the dead which hence departeth in the Lord.’ (Revelation 14:13) ‘Right dear,’ saith David, ‘in the sight of God is the death of his true servants.’ (Psalm 116:15) Thus resteth this valiant Christian knight, Sir John Oldcastle, under the altar of God (which is Jesus Christ) among that godly company which, in the kingdom of patience, suffered great tribulation with the death of their bodies for His faithful word and testimony, abiding there with them the fulfilling of their whole number, and the full restoration of His elects. The which He grant in effect at His time appointed, which is one God eternal. Amen.

“Sir John Oldcastle was burnt in chains at London in St. Giles’s field, under the gallows, among the lay people, and upon the profane working day, at the Bishops’ procurement. And all this is unglorious, yea, and very despisable unto those worldly eyes. What though Jesus Christ his master afore him were handled after a very like sort? For he was crucified at Hiеrusаlеm, without the city, and without the holy synagogue, accursed out of the church, among the profane multitude, in the midst of thieves, in the place where as thieves were commonly hanged, and not upon the feastful day but afore it, by the Bishops’ procurement also.”

Accompanying is Pastor Thomas’ account:³³

“The famous Sir John Oldcastle comes next in course. Oldcastle as Bradwardine is the name of a parish adjoining to Clodock, and situated on the side of the same hill, which forms the western part of Olchon; but is in Monmouthshire. It is natural to conclude that Sir John had part of his instruction in the Gospel from Brute and Bradwardine’s writings. His character, suffering and death, are so fully given by Church historians and martyrologists, that it is needless to expatiate on these here. The valiant Henry 5th was born at Monmouth and highly regarding his countrymen, he promoted [Oldcastle] to be one of his domestic lords with the title of Earl of Cobham. He was commonly styled Lord Cobham. Yet this Noble Briton, then in the Kings Court, like Daniel, was full of zeal against popery, and the corruption of those times.

“Yet after many consultations, they found ways and means to work so far upon the king, as to have Sir John apprehended, and brought to trial in 1413, about 20 years after the last account I saw of Brute. Lord Cobham was soon condemned to die and under that condemnation was committed to the tower. But he soon found means to liberate himself from that confinement. It is supposed that it was under the influence of and with the approbation of His Majesty that he returned to his native country. The Memoirs of Monmouthshire say p. 87, that he lay concealed among his tenants and friends at, or about Oldcastle above four years. Then he was treacherously taken, and barbarously burnt in London. Where Rafim relates this tragical affair, his translator adds this note, ‘As this was the first noble blood shed in England by popish cruelty, so perhaps never any suffered a more cruel martyrdom.’ ”

One local history written in 1898 further pinpoints the location of Oldcastle during his escape.³⁴

“After luncheon the President made some remarks respecting the associations of Sir John Oldcastle and the mediæval Baptists with this locality.

“Olchon Court is a farm building with substantial walls of masonry, a 14th century doorway, and square-headed and mullioned windows. One room on the ground floor, in which we lunched, has a recess like an aumbry, and one of the windows retains its original antiquity. The window in a room above, pointed out traditionally as the window through which Sir John Oldcastle escaped from his pursuer, has undergone restorations since his period. The escape of Sir John Oldcastle is as fresh to-day in the current traditions of this locality as if it had taken place within the lifetime of the oldest inhabitant. This farmhouse is also locally known as Court Walter. It is supposed to have been the home of Walter Brute, one of the earliest Lollards in Herefordshire, a man of considerable talents and learning, who was in 1391 cited to appear before Trevenant, Bishop of Herefore, for heresy. It is not positively known what became of him, though some think that he was put to death at Bodenham. Sir John Oldcastle, afterwards Lord Cobham, was in his youth a favourite companion of Henry V. before his accession to the throne, and was, so says Coxe, ‘awakened to virtue by a sense of religion.’ In 1413 he was charged with a breach of the Statute, and with encouragement of the Lollards, particularly in the Dioceses of London, Rochester, and Hereford, by sending out ‘unlicensed preachers,’ and himself attending their meetings, and was committed to the Tower. Upon his escape from the Tower, a rising of the Lollards occurred round London, and Sir John fled into Wales, when a reward of 1,000 marks was offered for his capture dead or alive. Owing to his friendship with the Brute family, it is believed that he sought refuge in this secluded valley, where he is supposed to have remained concealed for a period of four years. Eventually, after his escape from Olchon Court, he was betrayed by some followers of the Earl of Powis, taken prisoner at Broniarth, in Montgomeryshire, and thence again conveyed to London, where, being adjudged as ‘traitor and heretic,’ he was hanged and burnt hanging…

“There is in Herefordshire a third Oldcastle, on the western border of Deerfold Forest, between Lingen and the ruined abbey, or nunnery, of Limebrook, but neither history nor investigation encourage us to support the statement of some antiquaries that he may have been born there; that he may have visited this locality is possible enough since we know that William de Swynderby (William the Hermit) was there in 1390, and that many Lollards for a long time remained in the Forest of Deerfold, and most probably conducted their religious services in the Chapel Farm. (See the excellent paper by Dr. Bull in Transactions 1869, page 168, on ‘The Lollards in Herefordshire,’ and the accompanying illustration of the beautiful 14th century roof of Chapel Farm.)”

Dealing with the general treatment of the masses of Lollards found in England around this time, there were a number of different “abjurations” which churchmen of the state caused their captives to recite. This was done by force, of course. The practice of compelling abjurations might be compared to more modern-day indoctrination practices, which try to break down any resistance to re-education by first assaulting the integrity of a person, causing the subject to excessively repeat and affirm things they know to be untrue – likewise, to repeat and deny things they know to be true. Here is one example of such a “formula” that men were forced to repeat, the content of which testifies as further evidence to examine about Lollard doctrine during this time period.³⁵

“On the 2d of May, in the year 1511, six men and four women, most of them being of Tenterden, appeared before Archbishop Warham, in his manor of Knoll, and abjured the following errors.
First, that in the sacrament of the alter is not the body of Christ, but material bread.
Secondly, that the sacraments of baptism and confirmation are not necessary nor profitable for men’s souls.
Thirdly, that confessions of sins ought not to be made to a priest.
Fourthly, that there is no more power given by God to a priest than to a layman. […]
…Ninthly, that a man should pray to no saint, but only to God.”

One further example:³⁶

“Besides these, we also find in the said old manuscripts within the diocese of Norfolk and Suffolk, specially in the towns of Beccles, Ersham, and Ludney, a great number both of men and women to have been vexed and cast into prison, and after their abjuration brought to open shame in churches and markets, by the bishop of the diocese, … so that within the space of three or four years, that is, from the year 1428 to the year 1431, about the number of one hundred and twenty men and women were examined, … and some of them were put to death and burned … Now as touching their articles which they maintained and defended:

“To make it more odious to the ears of the people, the notaries gave out the articles, as if they held that the sacrament of baptism used in the church by water is but a light matter and of small effect.
Other articles were objected against them, as these which heretics follow:
That auricular confession is not to be made to a priest, but to God only; because no priest has any power to absolve a sinner from his sin.
That no priest has power to make the body of Christ in the sacrament of the altar; but that, after the sacramental words, there remains pure material bread as before.
That every true christian man is a priest to God.
That no man is bound under pain of damnation to observe Lent, or any other days prohibited by the church of Rome.
That the pope is antichrist […]
…That prayers made in all places are acceptable to God.
That men ought not to pray to any saint, but only to God.”

The common thread of faith between these two examples cannot be missed. The mention of baptism is present, but is so slightly remarked upon by the writer in comparison to the other points, that the natural explanation here is that the people being abjurated did not completely disregard water baptism itself. If they had no water baptism at all, then it would have been plainly presented as one of their beliefs to be rejected. Rather, they only did not recognize some particular aspect of the baptisms that the state church performed. For example, such as applying baptism to infants to whom no faith could be accounted. And if this is so, then these people called Lollards would likewise be called “anabaptists” according to the later categorization of doctrines (i.e. after the Münster Rebellion rendered the so-called “anabaptist” cause of sufficiently ill repute³⁷). These beliefs and professions by these early nonconformists come as no surprise considering that Brut, Oldcastle, and likely many more were, according to most or all of our sources, well known to be “true Christians,” as we now know.

The burnings of the Lollards continued unabated through the reigns of Henry IV, V, VI. In the latter’s time, 1453, the war in France was finally lost. A division in the country followed this, during the Wars of the Roses, in which supporters of the house of York (white rose) came against Henry’s house of Lancaster (red rose). One incident taken from the judicial records, during this remission from the religious persecution, to prove this point, is the following:³⁸

“29 September, 1465.
[W]e have received the grievous complaint of our beloved in Christ Isabella Stephens of Alyesford in our diocese, stating that John Keyser of East Peckham, within our immediate jurisdiction for his manifest contumacy, rebellion and offence in not obeying our certain lawful monitions to him at the instance of the said Isabella rightly and lawfully made, is by our ordinary authority involved in the greater excommunication, and in such greater excommunication rightly, duly and lawfully denounced for eight months and more, hath hardily persevered, and as yet doth persevere with incorigible disposition, wickedly despising the authority of the holy mother church, and the said John Keyser as publick fame reports, and as we understand by the notoriety of facts, and by the evidence of witnesses worthy of belief, advisedly asserts, declares and affirms that such mandates are not to be feared, and that he doth not fear the same, and although we or our commissaries have excommunicated him, that he doth not care for the same, because ‘as to God he is not excommunicated,’ and that this was true as he asserted it, plainly appeared from this, that in last autumn so standing excommunicated he had as great a plenty of corn and of other grain for the quantity of his land as any of his neighbours, and he shows his field of corn to his neighbours, saying to them in derision, that an excommunicated person ought not to have such corn, from which premisses and others we have justly suspected the said John of heresy…”

However, the secular tribunal at King’s Bench decided that the Archbishop had no cause for imprisoning Keyser or anyone else under “suspicion of heresy,” and he was released(!)

During the next era of persecution under Henry VII and Henry VIII, a substantial number of the “anabaptists” who were tried during that time claimed to have joined first to the cause of the faith during the relatively subdued period preceding it under King Edward IV (1461-70, 1471-83).³⁹

One of those tried during the era of Henry VII gives the following testimony, in which he presents a very clever “recantation,” wherein he managed to re-state and even argue in favor of his nonconformist views:⁴⁰

Thomas Boughton of Hungerford: response given in year of our Lord 1499:
“Sith the tyme of my first acqueyntaunce with the said heretikes I haue had a great mynde to here sermouns and prechynges of doctours and lerned men of the church. And, as long as they spack the veray woordys of the gospels and the epistles such as I had herd afore in oure Englissh bookys, I herkned wele vnto them and had great delight to here them. But as sone as they began to declare scripture after their doctouris, and brought in other maters, and spack of tythes and offrynges, I was sone wery to here them and had no savour in their woordys, thynkyng that it was of their owen makyng for their profight and avauntage.”⁴¹

Our entry lastly includes appendix J, which is another contemporary account of the Lollards of England, as described by Reginald Pecock in the year A.D. 1449.

c. A.D. 1462: Renaissance Humanism

For a number of years starting in the 1300s, the rulers of Europe were divided on who they recognized as pope, with multiple different figures being put forward, leading to the increasing prominence of universities at the expense of Rome. As the historic shift toward absolute monarchy began to unfold, the court of Rome as a response to this took increasingly grand titles for itself. Drawing from the work of the historian Gieseler, we even note the following example of this attempt at aggrandizement:

“Zenzelinus, A.D. 1325, in his gloss to Extravag. Jo. XXII. Tit. XIV. C. 4, in fine says: ‘Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam, conditorem dictae decretalis, sic non potuisse statuere, prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.’ So also in the Lyons editions of 1584 and 1606, and in the Paris editions of 1585, 1601 and 1612: in the later editions the Deum is left out.”⁴²

Translating the latin text above, this law says: “But to believe that our Lord God the Pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical.”

The explanation for this is as follows, as reported from the same historian:

“Augustini Triumphi, Qu. IX. Art. 1. Utrum Papae debeatur honor, qui debetur Christo secundum quod Deus? Videtur:—quia honor debetur potestati, sed una est potestas Christi secundum quod Deus et Papae: quod probatur, quia potestas Christi secundum quod Deus est peccata dimittere juxta illud Marc ii. quis potest peccata dimittere nisi solus Deus? istud autem convenit Papae, quia quodcumque ligat vel solvit super terram, est ligatum vel solutum in caelis.”⁴³

Again, translating the latin text yields: “Question IX, Whether the Pope deserves the same honor, as that is due to Christ as God? It appears: that honor is rendered for power, but identical is the power of Christ according to both God and the Pope; this is proved, that the power of Christ as God to forgive sins is according to Mark ii, who can forgive sins but God only? This is likewise true of the Pope, that whatsoever you shall bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven.”⁴⁴

Despite this, the major universities started to become the real centers of power in European continental affairs. Due to the political infighting, two or three popes at a time began to excommunicate all those that opposed them in every direction. The university of Paris often became the arbiter in these disputes. It was through the arbitration of the major universities, whose prestige began to grow immensely, that many systems of government became restructured. It came to pass, at the beginning of religious unification talks with the state church of the Greeks, who were soon to be overtaken by the Turkish muslims of Asia, that one of the leaders from a Greek faction⁴⁵ had a meeting with officials from Italy and traded ideas with them, leading to the founding of the “Platonic academy” (actually more of a small group or conventicle), in the city of Florence. This was commonly called the Florentine academy. This group was headed by one of the Catholic officials of Italy from about 1462 to 1492, and had the dual purpose of translating and promoting the forgotten works of Plato, Platonists, and also the neoplatonists.⁴⁶⁴⁷⁴⁸ This cultural exchange is sometimes referred to as part of the Renaissance.⁴⁹ Many scholars who followed after this school also were inspired by various gnostic works, as these were related to the neoplatonist ones. Many of the same “Renaissance” scholars began to dig into more studies of various kabbalistic and apocryphal sources as well.⁵⁰⁵¹⁵²⁵³

In quite the contradiction, these books on thoroughly gnostic and anti-Christian philosophies were being freely published at the same time that the ban was firmly in place against the Holy Bible: both Tyndale’s translation in 1525, as well as earlier translations of the Bible.

The Bible prohibition was repeated in 1564, and sounded like this:

“Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.”⁵⁴

In contrast, however, encouragement for the creation of occultic books flourished in Italy and elsewhere, under the same regime during this time.

From said philosophical studies, new techniques of evading the truth were developed, such as the use of “mental reservations,” as they are so called, by some agents as a way to cover up the truth, and other similar ‘situational codes of ethics,’ used cynically by the nobility in order to justify a lie. One such example is the ideal of the ‘pious fraud,’ taught by Machiavelli. He taught that ‘the prince’ was to promote superstitions, under the concept of a ‘noble lie,’ and was to put on a show of being religious and devout, so far as it resulted in material gain for him. These unashamedly dishonest practices are worthy of being roundly condemned according to Scriptural standards.⁵⁵

One final, grave offense to add to all of this was the envelopment of these same philosophies within yet another subversive false teaching, known as pantheism. A typical description of pantheism appears here:

“In general, Spinoza commits a great error wherein he obviously misuses words to denote terms that have other names elsewhere to the rest of the world, while on the other hand takes away the meaning that they have everywhere: thus he calls ‘God’ that which is everywhere called ‘the world’; ‘justice’ that which is everywhere called ‘power’, etc.”⁵⁶

Likewise, advocates of humanism will sometimes promote a “God” of sorts, as they often refer to this being as such, but in fact what they mean to describe in uttering the word “god” is merely a disembodied, impersonal deity that is not a Lord at all,⁵⁷ neither is it a person at all. The thing they refer to by the word “god” is merely a disembodied force, perhaps one for ‘good’ – or perhaps the world itself. That again is pantheism. In other words, they still choose not to acknowledge the Lord, and in the Creator’s rightful place they imagine more like some manmade concept of a great disembodied force. This is a force that may work sometimes, but it only does so through nature, and by natural selection. What this might be called is a “god of forces” or munitions.⁵⁸ This impersonal being is incapable of acting or judging. It is merely a placename for the forces of nature.

The disembodied force also might not be called “god” at times. It might instead be called by the name “progress.” The worshippers of progress then are “progressives.” What they call “progress” amounts to their god, similar to the pantheists. Some also claim secularism as their belief (or secular humanism). This is because they choose to worship the world (the root word of secular) in their words and their actions. This is due to the simple fact that there are no such thing as ‘neutral’ values.⁵⁹ Everyone has priorities, values, and, whether they use the word “god” or not, they have something they worship. But this idea of pantheism is not a very original nor a true idea. We have already shown that the exact same false idea can be found within similar refrains that gave rise to what we categorize as older pantheist cults, such as the medieval dualists, and so on. Likewise, these later groups are of the same stripe, as they ineffectually try to change power into ‘justice’ by a near-identical misuse of words. This is seen in the modern “woke” movement, in cancel culture, and in their forerunners, both political correctness and the “politically conscious,” and so on.

See Amos 4:12, however— “prepare to meet thy God,”

2 Timothy 3:9— “But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men,”

A.D. 1523: Zürich organization

Within one year of Luther’s first German translation of the New Testament being typeset and published, a spiritual front began to open in the eastern part of Switzerland, 1523, in the city of Zürich. Here, the townspeople had enough consciousness of the Bible to not only withstand the ecclesiastical fasting laws, as many other cities did – but in this particular town, they also came to the true knowledge of Scripture to the extent that a large gathering began to debate the legal standing of infant baptism, which was by law imposed on their city by that point as well. In other words, with no other prompting besides the availability of the Bible – as they saw there was no example anywhere in the New Testament, they began to question how lawful this form of baptism had been. It can be commented, what a difference one word from above can make.

Due to the leadership of Huldrych Zwingli, one of the Reformers, in this city, a new translation in the local dialect of German was quickly started, which is called the Zürich Bible, progressing so rapidly that it became the first complete Bible in that language, in 1531. This was about three years before Martin Luther finished his Old Testament translation to complete his work. The official title of this translation was Die Gantze Bibel.⁶⁰ Credit for this translation probably belongs to a team, rather than a single translator, where Zwingli was part of the effort, as well as the contribution to the translation that they derived from Luther’s New Testament.

At almost this same time, Tyndale completed his New Testament in 1526, and he added to this a translation of the Pentateuch as early as 1530. These were, of course, the English translations that first appeared from the original Greek and Hebrew text. The timeline of these English and German translations therefore runs approximately parallel. Earlier translations predating these had mostly used Latin as their source. An exception was the Wessex Gospels, which did use the Greek as its source, back in year 990. But it was translated into Old English, which is not the English of Tyndale’s time, therefore in an obscure language and not well known at that time.

However, it was from one of these groups of Bible believers in Zürich, from which Zwingli would also emerge, and he would attempt to direct all the assemblies of the city to stay in line with various council decisions. Zwingli ultimately changed his view from an acceptance of the need to abolish the sacrificial mass, to the rejection of that position. He would also change his view from being against infant baptism⁶¹ to advocating for it. This change of views all happened in the span of time from 1525-1527. At first glance, the reformer’s reason for changing these views seems to be in keeping with the will of the city council, but of the true reason, we cannot be sure. In that short window of time, the council quickly moved to create new laws outlawing believer’s baptism on March 7, 1526. The first was drowned according to the penalty for believer’s baptism on January 5, 1527. This might be considered an important moment in the creation of a state church in that locality, or the maintenance of that view, and soon after these events, the “Protestant” alliance spread to other cities. The Dutch martyrologist Van Bright has the following to say about this juncture:

“Felix Manz assisted in bringing about a reformation of opinion in Germany; but because he practised, taught, and preached the professed truth of the gospel with great zeal, he was envied, accused, and apprehended by his adversaries, and eventually drowned at Zürich, for the truth of the gospel, and as a witness of the sufferings of Christ. This event took place, A.D. 1526; he left the following for the consolation and admonition of his brethren:

“My soul rejoices in God, who has given and imparted to me much knowledge, that I may escape an eternal, unending death. I praise thee, therefore, Jesus, Lord of heaven, that thou avertest my sorrows and afflictions; thou whom God sent to me as a Savior, an example, and a light, who has called me in time to his heavenly kingdom, that I may be made partaker with him of everlasting joy; and love him, together with his righteousness, which exists throughout time and eternity, without which righteousness nothing can subsist; hence, so many are deceived with a bare opinion, destitute of the substance. Alas! how many are found at this day who make their boast of the gospel, teach much concerning it, and announce it unto others, but are nevertheless full of hatred and envy, destitute of divine charity, whose deceit is manifest to all; as we have experienced in these latter days, that those who come to us in sheep’s clothing, are inwardly ravening wolves; they hate the pious, and obstruct the way to life, and to the true fold. Thus act the false prophets and the hypocrites of this world, out of whose mouth proceed cursing and praying, whose life is disorderly, who call upon the magistrates to put us to death, thus destroying the very nature of christianity. But I will praise Christ the Lord, who is of great compassion toward us; he instructs with his divine grace; he displays his love unto all men according to the nature of God, his heavenly Father, which is done by none of the false prophets...

“I hereby resolve that I will remain faithful to Christ, and put my trust in him who knows my every distress, and is mighty to deliver. Amen. 1 Peter 5:2, John 16:20, 5:42, 10:2, Matthew 7:15, 20:26, 2 Thessalonians 3:2, Acts 2:38, Luke 6:36, Genesis 3:6, 4:8, 1 John 2:15, John 5:42.”⁶²

There is another witness that presents us a unique insight, because this witness shows us that Bible distribution reached Franconia in central Germany as early as 1528, and has been inserted below. It takes the form of a letter written from prison:

“Beloved brethren! I have received the tablets, and the account of our worship, doctrine and faith, and likewise, six candles and quills; but the bible I did not receive, as is written in the fore part of the tablets; but it is my request, that you will send it to me, if it can still be found; I would like to have it above all things, if it was the will of God that it should be so; for I need it greatly, and suffer great hunger and thirst for the Word of the Lord for many years; To God and His church I make this complaint; the days of my miserable imprisonment are twenty years, wanting eight weeks. The Wednesday after All-Saints will be the anniversary. I John Bair of Lichtenfels, who am the most miserable of the miserable, and the most forsaken of the forsaken, a prisoner of Jesus Christ our Lord, make this complaint to God, to His angels, to all His laborers, churches, and communities. Now, my most dearly beloved brethren and sisters in the Lord, pray to God in my behalf, that He may release me from this peril and great distress, which is indescribable; this God knows, and I, miserable man, and you know it also with me; I herewith commend myself to God. Writing in a dungeon at Bamberg, A. D. 1548.

“—He remained in confinement three years after the writing of this letter, that is, twenty-three years in all; when, in the year 1551, he fell asleep in the Lord, in his prison, and obtained the crown of martyrdom. Amos viii. 12. Eph. iv. 8; vi. 18, 19. 2 Tim. ii. 3.”⁶³

Around this time, the Council of Trent, of the state church of Rome, eventually passed a mandate similar to what we have read so far⁶⁴ due to the growing perception of a spread of “anabaptists” in the many lands where Bibles were being shared, particularly in areas close to the Alpine region like Switzerland and Tyrol, as well as in Alsace and Lorraine. Similar to how there were observed to be great masses of Lollards of the English variety in England and Wales, these congregants now likewise seemed to appear in every place independently. This apparently happened despite the fact that none of them had any magisters or officials on their side, ordering their doctrines, or representing them. Indeed, very few state officials were even willing to tolerate them. Strasbourg was a key city for many in these years, because it had relatively tolerant officials. However, they still exiled some preachers merely for not recognizing infant baptism. Gradually, over time some continental European areas such as Bohemia and various Swiss cities opened up more and allowed a move, for those baptizing believers, from conventicle churches back to open meetingplaces or meeting houses; meanwhile, Henry VIII of England continued to pursue those that he derided as anabaptists.

In accounting for the preservation of scripture up to this time, here are some excerpts about the churches of those people called Vaudois, from the account of Theodore Beza⁶⁵ which he wrote in his book on history, which is translated out of the French as follows:

“Thus in the year 1536 the Faithful of the Valleys of Piedmont, who were always beseiged and horrified by the Romans, and who had never in successive times declined in their piety, or in their doctrine, sent unto Guillaume Farel at Geneva, who was renowned for his doctrine and piety, two characters, one named Jean Girard, who has since been a printer in said city, and the other, called Martin Gonin, who having been imprisoned on his return to Grenoble, was secretly drowned there on 26 of April, to the chagrin of the Inquisitor, after having so resisted the adversaries of truth that they dared not execute it by day.”⁶⁶

“The Vaudois, who are so called, from time immemorial in opposition to the abuses of the Roman Church, have been so pursued, not by the sword of the word of God, but by every kind of violence and cruelty, joined with a million slanders and false accusations, forcing them to expand everywhere or to have little, wandering through the deserts like poor wild beasts; always having the Lord preserve and keep their abode, that notwithstanding the rage of the world, they are maintained, as they still are maintained in three countries well removed from each other: some in Calabria, others in Boismé and surrounding countries, and the others in valleys of Piedmont, which have been scattered through the districts of Provence for about two hundred and seventy years, mainly in Merindol, Cabrieres, Lormarin and surrounding neighborhoods.”⁶⁷

“Their lives by attestation and public voice has been peaceful to all. They were agreeable to their neighbors, gaining a reputation of being loyal, charitable and marvelous people, gaining fans in their debates, and generally being enemies of vices. As for Religion, they never adhered to papal superstitions. . .”⁶⁸

“Now, to return to our history, after the above-mentioned heard the grace that God did in some cities of Germany and Switzerland, they sent there for their part Georges Morel de Freissiniere of Dauphine, a minister whom they themselves had supported at the schools, and one Pierre Masson de Bourgongne, who conferred diligently of all the points of doctrine, both in Basel with John Œcolampade, in Strasbourg with Capito and Martin Bucer, and in Bern with Berthold Haller, prime minister of that Church. By their report, they understood little by little the purity of the doctrine that remained between them, and gave orders sending as far as Calabria⁶⁹ to their brothers, to whom everything was restored to better condition; and since the year 1535 they have printed at their expense, at Neuchatel in Switzerland, the first printed French Bible of our time, translated from the Hebrew by Pierre Robert Olivétan,⁷⁰ with the help of Jean Calvin, who has often since amended it in a few passages. As for the translation of French Bibles printed during the darkness of ignorance, this was only falsehood and barbarism.”⁷¹

Boyer in 1691 remarked: “O marvelous! God, by his wise providence has preserved the purity of the Gospel in the Valleys of Piedmont, from the times of the Apostles to our times.”⁷²

Following the publication of the Olivétan Bible in 1535, a second edition was proofread by John Calvin, so that this first Bible later became the basis of the French Geneva Bible (published in 1560, the same year as the English Geneva Bible). Olivétan, meanwhile, on a trip to Rome over questions of Hebrew translation, disappeared.⁷³ An excerpt from his original preface to the Bible will be given later in this article.

The state of evidence left behind leads us to a conclusion that by the year 1523 of which we have been discussing, there still remained a stronghold of faith, which is commonly referred to as the peoples and churches of the Vaudois located in their Valleys. In English literature, they have historically been described as “Waldensians” frequently, although those closest to them referred to them by the French term “Vaudois.” Living still in the valleys where the Henricians had once passed, and the original evangelists had in the early centuries of Christ before them, these churches remained so close to that initial site of the papal Crusade against them in 1209, the closest to Rome itself, the remnant also, perhaps, of those North Italians that still had not relinquished the faith once delivered unto the saints, all the way until that time. This is despite all of the efforts, apparently, that Rome had previously undertaken to remove them. They were the “faithful of the Valleys,” as Beza described them. In their hands they still held the light of the gospel, and with a part to play, one more journey to begin.

As the scripture says in Ephesians 2, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

And so, because of this, there will be given a brief description (in appendix K) of the place in which these people lived, and there will be a brief summary, from all the information, of the true recountings of the things that happened here.

A first item of note is the message sent from some prelates to the papacy during the heat of the Crusade. At one time they complained to the archbishops of Arles and Narbonne (Hugues Béroard and Petrus Amelii) that there was not enough limestone or sand to build prison space for all of the captives they had gathered,⁷⁴ many of whom would have been ancestrally related to the later Vaudois of this region. The prelates in their message were asking for further instruction on what to do with all of the captured ‘heretic’ prisoners, as they simply did not have enough prison cell space for them. Therefore, they would have to keep the rest of the prisoners which they had taken under constant guard. This complaint occurred in 1228, just before the infamous Council of Toulouse in the following year against the Albigensians.

Another date of mention is the edict of 1332 in which a pope identified Angrogna as the main meeting place of this group of Christians in that year, and also mentioned the valleys Lucerna and Perosa as two valleys in which they lived.⁷⁵ Just as noted by the 1332 pope, there are the two primary valleys. This is so because, S. Martin, which is commonly described as the third great valley, is tributary to Perosa. Despite these pronunciations, there are no records to show whether anything further came of it.

Next we move forward to the year 1400 to the details of a major event in the history of what became the Vaudois. It was Christmas of 1400 when a major attack was planned. An inquisitor and monk who had been appointed by a second pope in Avignon twenty years prior, had spent the former years leading up to 1400 engaged in the task of entrapping the Vaudois on the western side of their border in Dauphine. From Leger we learn that 130 men and women were killed by the inquisitor in these efforts, including these four names: “Guillaume Marie, Pierre Long, Jean Truchi, and Albert Vincens.”⁷⁶

But then a major atrocity, a criminal and cowardly act, was to be made by this man on that winter night of 1400. A plan was conceived, where, on Christmas night,⁷⁷ a certain village hamlet was to be spitefully attacked and ambushed with no warning or pretext whatsoever. It was to be executed so that before anyone from the neighboring areas could be notified, the damage would be done.

The event’s description is simple enough; A band of armed men, having secretly prepared in advance for that villainous deed, at their chosen time suddenly broke into the square with no warning. This caused the greater part of the village to escape from their sudden attack to a place that has ever since been called Albergam or Refuge, aside the valley of Massello. This location is visible on the map below as Mt. Albergam. As night fell, the occupiers stationed for one night in the abandoned homes of those who were were faced with the choice to flee or be cut down without any mercy. At this same time the survivors were forced to hide, in the very dead of winter, at that empty clearing in the snow which has the name “Refuge” ever since then. Leger gives the description of what happened:

“Again the poor escaped, surprised, by night, on the Mountains, and among the snows were pitiful wanderers, tormented by hunger and cold: several even had their feet and hands frozen, and a few others were found frozen solid among the snows. Among others fifty poor little Children were found icy, some in their little cradles, and others in the arms of their poor dead Mothers as well as themselves.”⁷⁸

Perrin wrote: “The inhabitants of that valley look upon this persecution to be the most violent, that in their time, or in the time of their forefathers, they had ever suffered. They speak of it to this day, as if the thing were but lately transacted, and fresh in their memory; so often have they from generation to generation made mention of that sudden surprise, which was the occasion of so many miseries amongst them.”⁷⁹

Wylie⁸⁰ wrote in 1880: “In the Valley of Pragelas, to this day, sire recites to son the tale of that Christmas tragedy.”⁸¹

Now it happens that, the limited number of “home” Valleys which the Vaudois still lived in at this point— aside from the other numerous settlements, which we find their people were in all ages travelling and evangelizing into – were reduced in number after 1487, which is when a new war, or crusade perhaps, was declared against the entire people living in this region. This time, thousands of troops were sent in from both sides, from France and from Italy. And countless thousands fell in 1487 and the following year, to this sudden violence and assault. This could only be described as being attacked because of a hatred of their way of life, and it was done by those that did not understand them.

Not only were the valleys attacked in a military campaign which is about to be described, but also the commissioner who oversaw this, namely Archdeacon Alberto de’ Capitanei [Albertus de Capitaneis], gave separate instructions at this time “to all Dukes, Princes and potentates” by way of a papal commission, “so that you make it clear that the same Inquisitor is received and admitted to the free exercise of his Office, and that by your remedies you might induce the very abominable Sectateurs of the Sect of the Vaudois, & others tainted with any such heresy, to abjure their Errors, and obey the Commandments of the same Inquisitor,” and they were supposed, “all together with you, to carry out their execution, to take up arms against the so-called Vaudois, and other heretics, and of a common intelligence to crush them as poisonous Asps.”⁸² Leger places the total number killed by this campaign in 1487-1489 throughout all of Europe (France in particular), to exceed one hundred thousand,⁸³ which is not an entirely unrealistic number, when compared to later figures that we see, though most later historians either downplay, or more often simply ignore or sadly are unaware of this event and its significance in history.

The campaign within the valleys itself happened in three theaters. The first two parts of the campaign have fewer surviving accounts. The first area that we will start out with is the Western part of the valleys, which extends into what was Dauphine, which today is in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur administrative region of France. On the confrontation made against the Vaudois in this region:⁸⁴

“The method of harassing the Vaudois by war was never known till that time [1487]; but Albert de Capitaneis, Archdeacon of Cremona, sent against them by Pope Innocent VIII, began to desire the aid and assistance of the King’s Lieutenant in Dauphiny, called Hugues de la Palu, who for this service levied troops, and marched those to places where the said Albert told him any of the Vaudois were, in the valley of Loyse. … Upon their arrival at the said val Loyse, they could meet with none of the inhabitants, for they had all fled into their caverns on the top of the mountains, having carried thither with them their little children, and whatsoever they accounted most precious, and fit for their sustenance and nourishment. This Lieutenant of the King caused a great quantity of wood to be placed at the entrance of their caves, and to be set on fire, so that either the smoke by suffocating, or the fire by burning them, constrained a great number to throw themselves headlong from their caverns upon the rocks below, where they ended their lives, being dashed in pieces. If there were any one amongst them who dared to stir, he was immediately slain by the soldiers of Palu. That persecution was very severe: for there were found within the said caverns four hundred little children, suffocated in their cradles, or in the arms of their dead mothers.

“Among the Vaudois dwelling in the adjacent valleys, above three thousand persons, men and women, belonging to the said valley, then perished. To say the truth, they were wholly exterminated; so that thenceforward that valley was peopled with new inhabitants […] That Lieutenant of the King having destroyed the inhabitants of the valley of Loyse, fearing lest the Vaudois in the neighbouring country should settle there again, and that they might not hereafter be put to a second trouble to expel them, he gave the goods and possessions of the valley to whom he pleased; which were not so soon divided, but that the Vaudois of Pragela and Fraissinière⁸⁵ had made provision for their safety, expecting the enemy at the passage and narrow straits of their valleys; so that when the Lieutenant of the King came to invade them, he was obliged to retreat. Albert de Capitaneis’s commission called him elsewhere, he substituted a Franciscan monk, named Ploieri, who began to exhibit fresh informations against the Vaudois of Fraissinière, in the year 1489. […]

“In the same parcel of writings, containing the process against the Vaudois, we find one drawn up against François de Gerondin and Pierre de Iacob, two barbes [pastors], who were taken, about the hill in the side of the plain, in 1492. Being asked the reason why the sect of the Vaudois multiplied and increased so fast, and for a long time together had spread itself into so many places, this monk wrote down the answer of Gerondin after this manner, that ‘the dissolute and debauched lives of the priests was the cause of it; and because the cardinals were covetous, proud, and luxurious, it being manifest to all, that there was neither pope, cardinal, nor bishop, who kept not their concubines, and few or none who were not guilty of unnatural crimes; and therefore it was an easy matter for the pastors of the Vaudois to persuade the people, that the religion of such scandalous persons could never be good, since the fruits of it were so bad.’ […]

“That persecution was extremely severe; for the Vaudois being condemned as heretics by the Inquisitor, Ponce the Counseller, and Oronce the Judge hurried them to the fire, without suffering their appeal.”

Leaving this account of the western regions, the next area to account for is the valley of Pragelas, in Italy. This is the one valley that specially forms the passageway between Italy and France, because of its Alpine torrent which flows into Italy— passing north of the other valleys, then turning east to Pinerolo. The SP23R route follows this route today. The battle of Pragelas was fought here, according to Monastier. The movement of one army from France was meant to link up with the main force on the Italian side, led by the Archdeacon,⁸⁶ which would then complete the entrapment of the Vaudois within the last valleys on the eastern side. This attack through the mountain passage is according to the following account:

“A corps detached from the army that was assembled in Dauphiné, on the western side of the Alps, crossing the elevated defiles of the mountains, came suddenly by Cesane, on the eastern side, into the valley of Pragelas, or Clusone, the most northern of all the Vaudois valleys. The hostile force, falling unexpectedly like an avalanche on a people occupied as usual in their peaceful labors, surprised them without the means of defence, threw them into consternation, laid waste and ravaged their towns, pillaged their cottages, and massacred the inhabitants. The fugitives themselves were not able to escape the fury of their pursuers. As in the vale of Loyse, inflammable materials were heaped at the entrance of the caverns, to which they had retreated from the fury of their pitiless adversaries; and if they tried to escape from the flames that devoured, or the smoke that stifled them, they were instantly slain by the sword.”⁸⁷

Until this year, this ancient passageway thrived by every account for 1400 years, that is fourteen centuries – before being stricken by this attack. The amount of scorched earth here however was to such an extent, according to our sources, that little on earth remained at the end of the march.

Another stronghold yet remained behind after this. On the final front, in the Eastern Italian side of the passage, a description is given of the enemy forces assembled there:

“This Papal Commissioner, assisted by the forces of all the Princes & Potentates as he pleased, tormented in a strange way the poor Vaudois in various places. But over all, the Valleys of Piedmont were not lacking in his recommendation in a special way, as they were meeting in Italy, & were those closest to Rome. So he went against them with an army made up of 18,000 men, not including an incredible multitude of Volunteer Piedmontese, who, to have part in the indulgences of the Pope as well as in the spoils of the poor Vaudois, joined him with a merriment of heart.”⁸⁸

The description of the ensuing battle and its environment:⁸⁹

“We now turn to the Piedmontese portion of this army. It was led by the Papal legate, Cataneo, in person. It was destined to operate against those valleys in Piedmont which were the most ancient seat of these religionists, and were deemed the stronghold of the Vaudois heresy. […]

“The first step of the invaders was to occupy the town of La Torre, situated on the angle formed by the junction of the Val Lucerna [valley of Light] and the Val Angrogna [valley of Groans], the silver Pelice at its feet and the shadow of the Castelluzzo covering it. The soldiers were probably spared the necessity or denied the pleasure of slaughter, the inhabitants having fled to the mountains. The valley beyond La Torre is too open to admit of being defended, and the troop advanced along it unopposed. […]

“Immediately behind Bobbio shoots up the ‘Barion,’ symmetrical as Egyptian obelisk, but far taller and more massive. Its summit rises 3,000 feet above the roofs of the little town. Compared with this majestic monolith, the proudest monument of Europe’s proudest capital is a mere toy. Yet even the Barion is but one item in this assemblage of glories. […] In this unrivalled amphitheatre sits Bobbio, in summer buried in blossoms and fruit, and in winter wrapped in the shadows of its great mountains, and the mists of their tempests. What a contrast between the still repose and grand sublimity of nature and the dreadful errand on which the men now pressing forward to the little town are bent […]”

One detachment, a full 700 footsoldiers if it can be imagined, was sent to march over one of the alpine passes, via a small footpath between the major valleys. Once crossed over, in an unstoppable formation they were to descend on Prali valley, to the unsuspecting villagers. What actually happened was not according to plan. All but one of the attackers fell to the defenders there, so the remaining stretch of that valley was saved. In the Psalms: “thou hast given commandment to save me: for thou art my rock and my fortress.”

The one and only survivor of this failed assault on the village retreated into the slopes of the mountain, where he hid for several days in a convenient spot where the snow had melted. He then made the decision to surrender due to the cold and hunger he suffered, and was sent home unharmed by the inhabitants of Prali. It is not known whether the man afterward changed his way of life, but the burden of reporting this defeat was his as he traveled down the stream to the army leaders in Pinerolo.

The primary detachment of the army had turned north at La Torre, heading for the valley of Angrogna at the center of the mountain formation. All of the inhabitants of this region had retreated into a narrow passage,⁹⁰ where a description of this battle of two days begins:

“The inhabitants concentrated themselves on the most inaccessible points; the enemy, on the contrary, were spread out over the plain, and whether from incapacity for strategy, or from his pride moving him to make a grand display of his military force, Cattanée thought proper to commence an attack upon all points at once; so that from the village of Biolets, situated in the marquisate of Saluces, to that of Sezanne, which belonged to Dauphiny, his lines, without any depth, occupied all the country. He proposed to destroy by a single effort the hydra of heresy. […] The weapons employed in this combat were only pikes, swords, and bows. […]

“There was, however, one post where, notwithstanding the vigour of their defences, the enemy seemed on the point of forcing a passage. It was the central point of this great line of operations on the height of St. John, where they abut upon the mountains of Angrogna, at a place called Rochemanant. The crusaders had invaded this quarter from beneath, mounting step by step, and closing their ranks around that natural bulwark behind which the Vaudois had sheltered their families. Seeing their defenders yield, these families threw themselves upon their knees with many tears; women, and children, and old men united together in fervently crying, ‘O Dio aiutaci! O Lord, help us! O my God, save us!’ This cry of prayer was the only cry which broke from their hearts in their distress, and arose to heaven. But their enemies laughed at it, and seeing this company upon their knees, hastened their advance. ‘My fellows are coming—they are coming to give you your answer’ exclaimed one of their chiefs, surnamed the Black of Mondovi; and immediately, joining bravado to insult, he raised the visor of his helmet, to show that he was not afraid to encounter the poor people whom he insulted. But at that moment a steel-pointed arrow, let fly by a young man of Angrogna, named Peter Revel, struck this new Goliath with such violence, that it penetrated into his skull, between his eyes, and laid him dead. His troop, struck with terror, fell back in disorder; a panic seized them; the Vaudois took advantage of the moment, and impetuously rushed forward, hurling their adversaries before them, and, eagerly continuing the pursuit, swept them into the very plain, where they left them vanquished and dispersed. Then, re-ascending to their families so miraculously delivered, they flung themselves upon their knees, and all together gave thanks to the God of armies for the victory which they had just gained.

“ ‘O Dieu de mon salut, Dieu de ma delivrance!’ might they have sung, if that beautiful hymn had then been composed. But they had all its sentiments in their hearts. It is trust in God which is the real strength of man…

“A new attempt was made next day to seize on that formidable post, where the strength of victory from on high seemed seated with these heroic mountaineers. The enemy took a different route; ascending by the bottom of the valley of Angrogna, in order to penetrate to the Pra du Tour [Meadow of the Tower], whence, mounting by La Vachera, they would have been masters of the whole region. But a dense and dangerous mist, such as sometimes unexpectedly appears in the Alps, settled down upon them just at the very moment when they were entangled in the paths most full of difficulty and of peril.”⁹¹

Undaunted by this rout in a day of desperate struggle, the crusade commander with new legions went into the valley,⁹² determined to accomplish his aim. The remaining survivors had now withdrawn their defense to the last possible place, where they hoped for life they could remain safely until the evil was past.

“…These, he knew, were with the men of Lucerna in the Pra del Tor. Between him and his prey rose the ‘Barricade,’ a steep unscaleable mountain, which runs like a wall across the valley, and forms a rampart to the famous ‘Meadow,’ which combines the solemnity of sanctuary with the strength of citadel.

“Must the advance of the Papal legate and his army here end? It seemed as if it must. Cataneo was in a vast cul-de-sac. He could see the white peaks round the Pra, but between him and the Pra itself rose, in Cyclopean strength and height, the Barricade. He searched and, unhappily for himself, found an entrance. Some convulsion of nature has here rent the mountains, and through the long, narrow, and dark chasm thus formed lies the one only path that leads to the head of Angrogna. The leader of the Papal host boldly ordered his men to enter and traverse this frightful gorge, not knowing how few of them he should ever lead back. The only pathway through this chasm is a rocky ledge on the side of the mountain, so narrow that not more than two abreast can advance along it. If assailed either in front, or in rear, or from above, there is absolutely no retreat. […] Here lateral fissures admit the golden beams of the sun, which relieve the darkness of the pass, and make it visible. There a half-acre or so of level space gives standing-room on the mountain’s side to a clump of birches, with their tall silvery trunks, or a châlet, with its bit of bright close-shaven meadow. But these only partially relieve the terrors of the chasm, which runs on from one to two miles, when, with a burst of light, and a sudden flashing of white peaks on the eye, it opens into an amphitheatre of meadow of dimensions so goodly, that an entire nation might find room to encamp in it.

“It was into this terrible defile that the soldiers of the Papal legate now marched. They kept advancing, as best they could, along the narrow ledge. They were now nearing the Pra. It seemed impossible for their prey to escape them. Assembled on this spot the Waldensian people had but one neck, and the Papal soldiers, so Cataneo believed, were to sever that neck at a blow. But God was watching over the Vaudois. […] The instrumentality now put in motion to shield the Vaudois from destruction was one of the lightest and frailest in all nature; yet no bars of adamant could have more effectually shut the pass, and brought the march of the host to an instant halt.

“A white cloud, no bigger than a man’s hand, unobserved by the Piedmontese, but keenly watched by the Vaudois, was seen to gather on the mountain’s summit, about the time the army would be entering the defile. That cloud grew rapidly bigger and blacker. It began to descend. It came rolling down the mountain’s side, wave on wave, like an ocean tumbling out of heaven—a sea of murky vapour. It fell right into the chasm in which was the Papal army, sealing it up, and filling it from top to bottom with a thick black fog. In a moment the host were in night; they were bewildered, stupefied, and could see neither before nor behind, could neither advance nor retreat. They halted in a state bordering on terror.

“The Waldenses interpreted this as an interposition of Providence in their behalf. It had given them the power of repelling the invader. Climbing the slopes of the Meadow, and issuing from all their hiding-places in its environs, they spread themselves over the mountains, the paths of which were familiar to them, and while the host stood riveted beneath them, caught in the double toils of the defile and the mist, they tore up huge stones and rocks, and sent them thundering down into the ravine.”⁹³

Monastier adds:

“At this juncture, the Angrognines, emboldened by this interposition of Providence in their favour, issued forth from all their retreats, vigorously attacked their perplexed aggressors, whom they defeated, put to flight, and pursued. Profiting by the knowledge they possessed of the locality, they soon came up with them, by crossing the rocks, and took them in the flank. The fugitives, choking up the narrow road, were crowded together, and in pressing forwards precipitated one another over the rocks into the foaming waters. The fog, the precipices, the rocks, and the torrent, made more victims on that day than the swords of the Vaudois. The number of deaths was very considerable. Tradition has preserved a faithful memorial of one of the men whom the hand of God smote in this defeat—a captain Saguet, or Saquet, of Polonghera, in Piedmont, a man of colossal size, who filled the air with his blasphemies and his menaces against the Vaudois. His foot slipped over the edge of a rock, he fell into the boiling waters of the Angrogna, was carried away, and thrown by them into a whirlpool or basin, which still goes by his name; Tompi Saquet [Gulf of Saquet].”⁹⁴⁹⁵

What few troops remained behind were deterred from further expeditions, their morale and numbers being so depleted from the fight. They realized they could not battle nature itself, which lended itself to the aid of the defenders. That is to say that the 18,000 regular soldiers and more irregular troops, commissioned by a papal decree and despite being in combination with the French army, had been unable to accomplish their task, but instead were forced to retreat at the end. It is likely because of this one event, the legacy of the Vaudois was singlehandedly saved, instead of being lost or forgotten.⁹⁶ Winter then fell on the country. In this time, the Duke Charles I of Savoy, in whose domain the Vaudois valleys were included, had a change of mind. The account of Leger on the aftermath in 1489 is translated as follows:⁹⁷

“This murderous army was reduced to a state of not being able to do them much harm. So that Charles I Prince of Piedmont, then reigning, was obliged to put an end to a war so pernicious and fatal to his subjects, and so unrewarding for him. God even softened his heart so much towards this poor people, that in testifying to his regret for what he had been obliged to undertake, he said loudly and repeatedly, recalling, that he ‘did not have such good, so faithful, & so obedient subjects as these Vaudois,’ and that for this he would not allow them to be treated so cruelly in the future by force of arms. And as to what happened, he ordered, pro forma, that twelve of them come to Pinerol, where he was making his residence for the time, to obtain pardon for having dared to take up arms against him, which they did. Having received them very humanely, he had them send at the same time a general amnesty for all that had happened during the war, admitting that he recognized that he had been very badly informed as much as regards their persons and their Religion. However, he wanted to see some of their Children, in order to clarify even touching what they had made him believe, that they were extremely monstrous, having only one eye in the middle of the forehead, having four rows of teeth, all black, and many similar things. These Deputies being accompanied by their own Mothers, and this Prince having considered them with admiration, as finding them very well made, and of a very pleasant sight, having even taken pleasure in hearing their little jargon, could not help but testify the great irritation which he had against the impudence of the impostors who had dared to persuade him of these Deceits.

“This is why he not only confirmed the Privileges and immunities of these poor Vaudois, but even graciously promised them that he would make sure that they would be left in peace in the future. And do not doubt that it was for the sincere resolution of this Prince, that afterwards, the importunity of the Inquisitors, joined to their pious frauds, still obtained to make several more frauds, even with the assistance of the secular arm.”

Turning back to the account of Beza, more is described of the segment of these Christians in the valleys which remained in France after this incident, of which Beza is more familiar and speaks of more frequently.⁹⁸

“The churches of the valleys of Piedmont—namely of Angrongne, Lucerne, S. Martin, and other countries inhabited from time immemorial by a part of those who are remnants of the former persecutions prepared against those called Albigois & Vaudois—when, considering the cruelty exerted against their colleagues in Cabrieres and Merindol, would not have been considered to be under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Turin; and during the wars between the [French] King, and the Emperor Charles (supporting the Duke of Savoy, his brother-in-law), they would have been in no way spared by the governors of Piedmont. . .”

Our histories next state, briefly, that in 1534, the archbishop and Inquisitor of Turin connived to have Charles III, Duke of Savoy, (titled “the Good,”) send a man called ‘the Noble, Pantaleon Bressour, of the Community of Rocheplatte,’ to attack the Vaudois community again. We learn that some 500 men of Bressour went into the Valleys in 1534 and committed complete massacre, until they were cut off from behind and only some of the attackers managed to escape with their lives.

The Duke realized at this point that “the skin of a deceased Vaudois always cost him fifteen, or came from those of his good Catholics” so that he instead set up bandits paid for by him to stalk the exits of the valleys and ambush them when they came out. Leger’s history continues:

“There were several who in the long run fell into these disastrous traps, and were the prey of these brigands, who after having resented them mercilessly, did not allow their life to be taken away, cruelly: but all these torments did not prevent them from constantly persevering in the profession of the truth until their last breath, either to the point that they were slaughtered by these Executioners: or even that their sufferings must be of longer breath.

“Observe Catalan Girard, of S. Jean in the Lucerne Valley, who having been condemned to be burned in Reuel Ville de Piedmont, when he was laid down on the stake, had the courage to ask for two stones, and (according to his own executioners) holding them in his hands, to cry out aloud in these words: ‘you believed, miserable persecutors, to root out our poor Churches entirely by this way: but know that it will be as impossible for you to ever come to the end of it, as it would be to chew and digest these stones at present.’ […]

“George Morel confessed, in 1530, that, even after all this, there were still more than eight hundred thousand of the Vaudois⁹⁹ Religion.”¹⁰⁰

Indeed, these methods were quite variously used by the Romans. Consider once again Perrin, who in 1618 wrote this testimony about the time period:

“A.D. 1487: We may observe a remarkable piece of villany in the process formed by this monk Veiliti. Having the said process in our hands, we discovered little bills, wherein the said commissioner used to take the answers of the persons accused, simply and nakedly, as they came out of their mouths, but we found them afterwards stretched and extended in the process, altogether contrary to what they were in the sumptum, as they called it, altering therein the intention of the said person, making him to say that of which he never thought.

“Inquiring, whether he believed, that after the words of consecration were pronounced by the priest in the Mass, the body of Christ was present in the Host in as gross and extensive a manner as it was upon the Cross? if the Waldenses¹⁰¹ shall answer, ‘no,’ Veiliti, or his clerk, dictating it, set down the answer thus: ‘he confessed he believed not in God.’ Inquire whether we ought not to pray to the saints? if he answer, ‘no,’ they set down, ‘he reviled and spake evil of the saints.’ Inquire whether we ought to reverence the Virgin Mary, and pray unto her in our necessities? if he answer no, they write, ‘that he spake blasphemy against the Virgin Mary.’ Thus you may see the fidelity of the inquisitors in so weighty and important an action. It could not be without the great Providence of God, that the history of such villanies should be preserved till now, that men might see by what spirit they were actuated and inspired, who cut the throats of, and burnt the faithful members of the church, after they had loaded them with impostures; demanding of us notwithstanding, where these faithful members of the church were, whom they had massacred before our time.

“If the reader desires to know how the process and indictments fell into our hands; here he will again see the great Providence of God, in causing the very same persons, who were the authors and actors of those cruelties and villanies, to keep the said papers and process in their libraries, and other places wherein their records are laid up; the archbishops of Ambrun themselves, John and Rostain, and others, until the city was recovered out of the hands of the rebels in the year 1585. Then all the said process and proceedings, attempted and contrived for many hundred years together against the Vaudois, were flung out into the street, because the archbishop’s palace was set on fire by the enemies themselves.”¹⁰²

Even after all of the above-detailed injustice, in 1545 another great branch of these churches in France were massacred, at Mérindol and in “many villages,” as is commonly known as the Massacre at Mérindol, this attack being another unprovoked military action against the church which gained the approval of both the king of France and the Roman pope.

Inscription on this event: “In memory of the *Vaudois of Provence who died for their faith.*”

This is noteworthy because this siege of 1545 is commonly supposed by many historians as start of the Wars of Religion in France. But in actuality these wars first began much earlier, as we see in our sources. The Wars actually began with the attack by Hugues de Palu on the inhabitants of Vallouise, when the French army was instigated to a crusade by the Archdeacon Cataneo in 1487. These wars continued until 1545 and beyond.

Regarding the doctrine of the Vaudois much has been written, but one extract from their work is copied below, taken from a document called On Antichrist, (which dates most likely to A.D. 1120, the original claim – due to its language structure and for its denunciations having been limited to Roman superstitions that already existed at that time, not mentioning ones invented later.¹⁰³¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁵):

“…The second Work of the Antichrist is, that he robs and bereaves Christ of his Merits, together with all the sufficiency of Grace, of Justification, of Regeneration, Remission of Sins, Sanctification, Confirmation, and spiritual Nourishment, and imputes and attributes the same to his own authority…
“The third Work of Antichrist consists in this, that he attributes the Regeneration of the Holy Spirit unto the dead outward work, baptizing Children in that Faith…”

For the moment, this will suffice. Later in this article we will refer to additional material from the Vaudois. Finally, with regards to the etymology of the name “Baptist,” the following three quotes provide us with additional historical grounding:

“Baptists” in The Edinburgh Encyclopedia (1830): “It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. It is but justice to acknowledge, that they reject the latter appellation with disdain; and maintain, that as none of the forms adopted by other churches are consonant to scripture, the baptism of these churches is in reality no baptism. Hence, in their opinion, they do not re-baptize. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.”¹⁰⁶

In S. Baptismi Historia (1647): “From Peter de Bruis they were called Petrobrusians; from Henry, Henricians; from Peter Waldo, Waldenses, and so forth. […] Among us Germans, the papist, Lutheran, and Calvinistic pedobaptists still contemptuously call them Anabaptists.”¹⁰⁷

In Summary of the British settlements in North-America (1748): “The Anabaptists, at their first appearance in New-England, were enthusiastically troublesome; they chose among themselves the meanest of the people for their ministers; they call themselves Baptists by way of abbreviation of the name Anabaptists, after the Lollards[d] (who were the first in the Reformation) followed the Lutherans and Anabaptists. Some of them vainly imagine, that they ought to be called by that name in a peculiar manner; their baptism being the only scriptural baptism: they would not communicate with persons baptized in infancy only; if occasionally in a congregational meeting, upon a child’s being presented for baptism, they withdrew, to the great disturbance of the congregation: fines were enacted; Holmes,¹⁰⁸ because he would not pay his fine, was whipped thirty lashes.

(included footnote) “[d] The Lollards (so called from Walter Lollard, the author of this sect in Germany in the thirteenth century) were our first Reformers; their name is now lost, the first Reformation being subdivided into many denominations. They first appeared in England, under Wickliff, D.D. of Oxford, about the middle of the fourteenth century; they clamoured against transubstantiation, auricular confession, celibacy of the clergy, hierarchy, and several pecuniary perquisites of the Roman catholic clergy; with some enthusiastical notions, viz. the church consists only of the predestinated,¹⁰⁹ converting of church-effects to other uses is no sacrilege, neither public nor private succession is indefeasible, &c.”¹¹⁰

From the above enlightening quotations, we see that the same people were called by many different appellations. And we see that none of these titles were of their own choosing, except that of “Baptists.” We find this term only in the sources we can find which are not hostile to this group. In hostile accounts, they are called by one name or another in an effort to degrade and denounce them. Sometimes they were called names with an intent to imply that they were gnostics, when this was not the case. Three other interesting quotes regarding these churches are as follows:

“Here our Anabaptists again disclose their ignorance, when they teach that no one should be compelled to that which is good, or to the faith… They resemble the ancient Anabaptists, the Donatists, in every respect. […] These were of the opinion, that heretics should be allowed to live without restraint and with impunity in their faith;”¹¹¹

“For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing.”¹¹²

In response to their presence in England, one Bp. Ridley also wrote, in 1550, another rejoinder which, through sheer inadvertency came not far from arriving at truth:

“If this reason should take place, ‘The apostles used it not, ergo it is not lawful for us to use it’—or this either, ‘they did it, ergo we must needs do it’—then all Christians may have no place abiding, all must, under pain of damnation, depart with their possessions, as Peter said they did, Ecce nos reliquimus omnia,¹¹³ &c.; we may have no ministration of Christ’s sacraments in churches, for they had no churches, but were fain to do all in their own houses; we must baptize abroad in the fields as the apostles did; we may not receive the holy communion but at supper, and with the table furnished with other meats, as the Anabaptists do now stiffly and obstinately affirm that it should be; our naming of the child in baptism, our prayer upon him, our crossing, and our threefold abrenunciation, and our white chrisom, all must be left, for these we cannot prove by God’s word, that the apostles did them. And, if to do anything which we cannot prove that they did (!!) be sin, then a greatest part is sin that we do daily in baptism. What followeth then other things, than to receive the Anabaptists’ opinion, and to be baptized anew? O wicked folly and blind ignorancy!”¹¹⁴

A.D. 1534: The Münster rebellion

In the German city of Münster, an event took place which was of retrospective significance. Strictly lasting from 1534-1535, the Münster uprising came to be a landmark in history among Reformation theologians and scholars, and for the next three hundred years or so. Its long term significance was as slander against those who still maintained the argument against infant baptism. For centuries afterward, popular rhetoric claimed that all baptists originated from this event. Of course, today we know it is not true (although the idea is still sometimes posited as factual), because of the manifold proof of the existence of these Christians, apart from the doings of Münsterite rebels¹¹⁵¹¹⁶ which is simply too overwhelming. They simply could not have originated from that event. Certainly, the source from which these Christians claim all doctrine and practice, the Bible, dates to the time of the apostles. The exact term anabaptist, however, is seldom mentioned¹¹⁷ before the Münster rebellion, as these churches went under different names. This has been discussed in aforementioned entries.

The idea that the origins of these numerous churches happened at Münster, where the label of anabaptist appeared, was simply a rhetorical tool of adversaries. It made it seem as though the people, who observed Biblical teachings in churches across many countries, do not represent the church founded by Christ, but instead were merely a rebel group. The idea was that these churches would be easy to defeat and destroy if thought of this way. This is because many still feared and believed the promise of Christ in Matthew 16:18, which says that the gates of hell “shall not prevail” against the church. They knew that the church founded by Christ would last from its foundation until the Son’s return in glory. Because of this, a wicked group that was soundly rebuked by the church had to quickly grasp for a way of creating a false origin for the churches of these believers. They finally settled, after 1534, on the Münsterite origin theory. Thus the myth or narrative of the Münsterite origin lasted for a number of centuries, before eventually collapsing due to its significant flaws. Also, in 1881 another narrative about origins of the baptists emerged from the writings of Henry M. Dexter, centered around John Smyth. This one has gained some popularity today, while the Münsterite origins theory that once held sway is largely forgotten. In any case, after the scene of rebellion in 1534, it became standard to call our true Christians “anabaptists,” which is the same term also used of the specific rebels here. This often leads to confusion between the two groups, even today. This is despite the vast differences between the anarchistic rebels of Münster and the numerous orderly Christian churches of true New Testament tradition; Even as much as existed between these peaceful churches and the radical gnostics at the time of the Albigensian Crusade.

Zwingli, for example, in 1527 had not called them anabaptists but catabaptists.¹¹⁸ Recall that this work of theological dispute with the baptists in Switzerland was still before the Münster rebellion. Hence, they were not yet called anabaptists. However, Bullinger in 1560 called them anabaptists. In fact, we can date virtually all uses of this new term to after the rebellion in 1534-35. Even if not intended, this new usage of terms created a very unnatural link between a general set of beliefs regarding the practice of believer’s baptism and the events of the Münster rebellion. Although untrue, this link was very convenient for the suppressors of many other supposed “anabaptists,” long after the Münsterite fires were extinguished.

The story of this rebellion begins with a travelling preacher named Bernhard Rothmann, who left Strasbourg in 1531 and entered Münster. According to his personal confession of faith, published in 23 January 1532, he was Lutheran at this time. In it, almost every point was copied from the Wittenberg confession.¹¹⁹ On 10 August, Rothmann became the political leader of the city, taking advantage of a vacancy in the bishopric of Münster. Having solidified his power base, he quickly established his faction in command of all the churches in the city. This is, of course, not in accord with congregational church polity. On 16 August, Rothmann published a new personal confession of faith, where, in article six he speaks directly against Luther and for Zwingli.¹²⁰ From this fact we see that in fewer than seven months, Rothmann changed his view from being almost fully supporting Luther, to being diametrically opposed to Luther.

But let us continue. Around this time, on 6 September 1532, Rothmann wrote an epistle to a friend where he harshly criticized the so-called anabaptists. The “anabaptists” in this context would have included a few preachers who were opposed to infant baptism who entered Münster in the same year: Hendrik Slachtscaep and Johannes Campanus. From these, we might trace the Münsterite origin of the anabaptist mark, as soon after this letter Rothmann would change his mind yet again, so that by 6 May 1533 he had clearly reversed his opinion on baptism to being in agreement with these anabaptists. Throughout this time Rothmann remained the leader of the bishopric in the city. Opportunity then struck when a band of radical spiritualists entered the town later that year. From here, the more well known history of the city under the severely deluded rule of Jan Matthijsz commenced. The city became the New Zion (according to Matthijsz), and with it, the worldly kingdom of the Lord was instated. Instead, lawlessness, debauchery and polygamy commenced. Our focus should be on higher things than to recount everything committed here. Matthijsz claimed to receive private revelations, and quickly he gained the real leadership in the city. Rothmann seems to have handed over control to Matthijsz willingly. While these men may have opposed infant baptism, they also held apocalyptic “spiritualist” views and their city descended into a lawless madness. This was more akin to the gnostics of earlier times, than to anything peaceful or orderly.

Those with half a mind to escape this impending disaster did so – it is not known whether Rothmann survived the invasion and recapture of the city in 1535. The most influential aspect of this event was that the blame for this catastrophe was pinned for centuries on (ana)baptists. This is notwithstanding the fact, that Rothmann had been a state-church minister with non-baptist views.¹²¹ In 1538 the first burning of “anabaptists” in England nevertheless took place in Smithfield.¹²²¹²³¹²⁴

Three years earlier, another account of fourteen Christians being martyred does not mention the term “anabaptist,” although they are now considered to have been the same group, and they share the similarity of being Dutch immigrants who were burned in England in the 1530s. This event is recorded in the following account:

“Mr. Lewis begins his Account of the English Baptists, page 38. of his Brief History; and there tells us from Stow, ‘That on the 25th of May, 1535. nineteen Men and six Women were examined in Saint Paul’s Church London; that fourteen of them were condemned, a Man and a Woman of them burnt in Smithfield, and the other twelve sent to other Towns, there to be burnt.’ …
Mr. Lewis adds, ‘That Bishop Latimer said in one of his Sermons before King Edward VI. that he had heard, of credible Men, that they [the aforesaid fourteen Persons] went to their Death even intrepidè, as ye will say, without any Fear in the World.’ ”¹²⁵

A.D. 1550: Stephanus text produced

The Biblical manuscript scholar Robert Estienne or Stephanus made a very important contribution to scholarly critical textualism in the year 1550. Having more than redone the efforts of Greek manuscript compilers in previous times, Stephanus compiled and published a comprehensive series of the New Testament in the original language, which is commonly called textus receptus. In his 3rd, and most refined, 1550 edition, the T.R. truly began to take its complete shape. The work of Stephanus in this regard cannot be overlooked, as he brought it closer to accuracy than had been accomplished by any other scholars of his age. By reference to his access of the original Greek manuscript copies, Stephanus was able to correct significant amounts of inaccuracies that were found to exist in the version of the original Greek text published by Erasmus a few decades prior. He could only have done this by reference to a more complete set of manuscripts.

Ever since Stephanus’ contribution, all textual criticism from a Biblical perspective has remained within a close proximity to this very accurate edition. The textus receptus of Stephanus, and the subsequent work of Beza after him, always remained very closely aligned to the 1550 edition, and these all quite accurately reflect the state of the Greek manuscripts that still existed at that time. Ones that were buried or forgotten are, importantly, not included. This is important because it is stated in God’s word that, “the word of our God shall stand for ever.”¹²⁶. And In Psalm 119, “Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” It also says in Luke 16:17, “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” And also in Proverbs, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Someone who agrees with this prophecy could not also think that part of the Bible was lost during this or any time. Nor could they think that at any time it was successfully corrupted. Nor could they think that it was confused by the church with a counterfeit at any time.

This is in contrast to the thinking behind the modern versions, which are based on many different critical texts that are partially reliant on new discoveries. Indeed, they even openly market the modern versions as being updated from new discoveries. Although, each modern version is actually a unique mix of new and traditional readings, rather than being purely based on one family of manuscripts, one with a common, and unbroken history, like the received text. As it says in Matthew 4:4, “He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” It is important therefore that we receive every word with due care, not carelessly.

Through this process of being published in the 16th century and onward, the T.R. has been the vehicle by which the Lord has been able to preserve all Biblical readings within, for the future, against all attrition of individual manuscripts from that point onward. The 1551 edition was the first to include the New Testament verse divisions, still in use today. Consequently because of this, modern versions that remove verses yet try to retain Stephanus’ ever-popular verse scheme are often left with gaps where no text is present in a verse. This is in places such as at Matthew 18:11 or Acts 8:37 where, both times the whole verse is completely removed, and so the verse numbering in that translation must skip over that number. More often, multiple verses are dramatically reduced by the deletion of modern editors, such as in Luke 9:55-56¹²⁷.

By 1557, translations were also produced at Geneva which made reference to the improved Greek sources made possible by Stephanus. In 1557 first came the Geneva New Testament– and later the complete Geneva Bible of 1560. However, the examination of our Greek text never completely stopped. The scholar Theodore Beza reproduced Stephanus’ work almost exactly in several more rounds of T.R. editions from 1556-1604.¹²⁸ This work by Beza over the incredible course of nearly fifty years reflects the careful process of gathering together and compiling all of the manuscripts that could ever be gathered from the preserved manuscript sources at that time. From the vast resources collected in these tasks, Beza, Stephanus, and several other compilers also, all individually arrived at virtually the same New Testament text. The variation is minor: most of the differences between the editions are over miniscule spelling differences that would always translate the same way. This then reflects the definitive state of the manuscript evidence at that time. We see, by comparison of them, how so little variation existed among the manuscripts. Consequently, these works became preserved sources for our times, in this way conserving the chain of preserved manuscripts in the Greek that runs unbroken, from the 1st century until today, which is ultimately unchanged during all that time.

Of course, any claim or implication that all of these Biblical scholars were blindly following Erasmus (as many books that disparage the received text or KJV in fact claim) is shown here to be entirely incorrect, as well as being narrow-minded, ahistorical and overly simplistic.

A.D. 1689: Nonconformity allowed

In the year A.D. 1688, William of Orange, the Prince of Orange, Stadtholder and head of state in the Dutch republic, entered England to accept the crown alongside his wife Mary, after being invited by a group called “The immortal seven” to take over from the pro-Catholic former monarch James II. Thereby he became William III & II, in a joint rule with Mary II. In the following year the Act of Toleration (1688) received their assent. This declaration helped the cause of the baptists in England, as far as allowing the church to legally assemble once more in open places. The church at this point began to be legally recognized by the law of the land as having a right to exist.

The presence of the church, in Britain, at least, can be traced back to an ancient heritage long preceding this.

The oldest site known to be dedicated explicitly to Christian study is discussed in the entry on A.D. 395. But as far as the oldest congregation of the church, we conclude by taking into account the known facts that— Christianity in its primitive, early church and Bible-believing essence during this time could only have had a succession in the most exceedingly humble and modest places of shelter found on the British Isles. Often they must have been forced to meet privately, especially in England proper and other places where the state church cast its darkest shadows. The Bible-believing churches of true Christians, we learn, were often comprised of those who were only recently escaped from adversity and hardship, sometimes refugees made to start anew in a land. The world has always been a place where the majority of people are unsympathetic to the view of Christians. That was true in the first century and it remains true today. The cause of Christianity was often hindered, from A.D. 597 in England and 1093 in Wales, until 1689, by the state church. This being beside the fact that this opposition by the state was constitutionally unlawful. The Magna Carta and Charter of Liberties speaks to that. Nevertheless, throughout the dark ages the cause of Christ outlived this persecution in glorious fashion, by still continuing all the way until the year 1689, when persecution by the state church could not (legally) be maintained throughout the dominion. As the Lord says, “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”¹²⁹

Nevertheless, more challenges lay ahead, as seen in history. With regards to the oldest meeting sites for the churches in Britain during this time, we have spoken to this in detail in the A.D. 1093 entry. The older church buildings built by the resourceful Britons – who were pushed into Wales by the Anglo-Saxons – were wooden, as opposed to the stone church buildings used by other groups in Britain in the dark ages. Because of this, and because of the deterioration of wood over time, many of their physical remains are not available. However, Joshua Thomas, a Pastor in the late 18th century, was one who described the “Olchon church” as a relatively early meeting ground in Britain, giving this account:

“Olchon, or perhaps more properly Golchon, is a small, narrow Valley, in the parish of Clodock, and county of Hereford: nearly on the line between the Hay and Abergavenny, but somewhat nearer to the former, and about 10 miles or more from Hereford. The Western side of it is formed by a long, steep, and lofty hill: part of what is called, the Black Mountain. The situation is rather singular, as in, or near, this valley, the three counties of Hereford, Monmouth, and Brecknock meet; and likewise the three dioceses of Hereford, Landoff, and St. David. This spot, and parts adjacent have been always inhabited by Cambro-Britons, or properly Cymry, usually called Welsh or Welch.”¹³⁰

“But for a moment let us observe what Mr. Vavasor Powell says of this subject. He was as well acquainted with the state of religion in Wales about 1640, and for 20 years after, as most, if not as any living. He throws some light upon this subject in his brief narrative of the former propagation and the late restriction of the Gospel (and the Godly preachers and professors thereof) in Wales. The 2nd Edition printed in 1662, and prefixed to his Bird in the Cage Chirping. There he says that in or about 1641, the professors of religion were exceeding rare and few, unless in some corners of two or three counties, about which time was the first, if not the only gathered church in all the country. This begins in the very first page of the narrative and in p. 8 he says ‘In the beginning of the wars (which was still about 1641 or 1642) there was but one or two gathered congregations in all Wales.’ Here it may be noted that Llanfaches church was constituted in 1639. We may be certain he reckoned that for one in 1641. Those in some corners of two or three counties agree exactly with the situation of Olchon, but not at all with Llanfaches, which is near the center of Monmouthshire. But the former being a small and obscure society, having no university person for their pastor, Mr. Powell seemed to look upon it so diminutive that he was rather at a loss whether it were right to style it a gathered church or not; though in the two passages he could not be quite willing to leave it out. In one he says ‘The first, if not the only gathered church.’ In the other, ‘one or two gathered congregations.’ Now let others judge of these things with freedom. I can give no better account of them. My sentiments are that there had been a few famous people in and about Olchon a long time, yet very probably there had been ebbings and flowings. When they were baptised and formed into a Baptist church I have never been able to learn to satisfaction, though so carefully inquired for near 50 years.

“In the last century there was a good man in the society, of considerable note and property, whose name was John Rhys Howell. He was not pastor of the church, but an occasional assistant in the ministry. He sailed to America in the persecuting time, but returned home to finish his days. He died about 1692, very aged. About 1770 the writer of this was told, that this aged man had left a chest full of papers, which was then in a certain house in Olchon. In 1775 he went thither, but it was too late, the valuable papers were demolished. Thus it happened to many papers, which if preserved had been of great services to cast light on others.”¹³¹

“Olchon may be styled the Cathedral of their church, though never very pompous, yet there is antiquity to boast of. No doubt the aged people there well remembered the former troubles, before 1640. From 1660 to 1688 they were much persecuted despised, yet a remnant continued through the whole.

“They met to worship in various places where they could; sometimes in a friend’s house and often out. One day or night they would meet in some retired place of the Black Mountain, but when they understood that informers had heard of the place; then they would change it and fix upon another spot; thus they shifted from place to place. A noted rock, they frequented for the purpose, is called, Y Darren ddn, on the west side of Olchon, and well known still. A little below it, there was then a large wood, there is part of it now; that wood was often their meeting place. That was the estate of Mr. Hugh Lewis, a gentleman of property and influence but no persecutor. His son, Mr. Nathan Lewis, was a strong advocate for the persecuted Baptists. Mr. Thomas Lewis, another son, was a Baptist after and lived at Abergavenny. There was also a daughter, who was a member.

“At times when they met to worship at friends’ houses, it was running great risk and hazards. A place called Wern-wen, where Mr. David Watkins and his brother Daniel lived, was often their meeting house. They both were worthy members of this persecuted society. Mr. Thomas John William’s house was another place of worship: he was a plain man, but much adored the Gospel in his life and death. Before the persecution was over, it is said that Mr. John Gilbert encouraged them to meet at his house…”¹³²

However, Thomas also notes that the records of the pastorship at Olchon were not definitely known until the year 1649. He also records that in the time period between 1633 and 1649 at least two other churches had formed semi-openly so that they were well known, one in Llanfaches and the other at Swansea.

As we have shown earlier, the meeting site at Olchon was also the place where Walter Brut, who was a contemporary of John Wycliffe in the 14th century, until 1393, was last seen preaching; as has been discussed, this location was ideally situated between the juncture of three separate counties. Two of these counties were in Wales and one (Herefordshire) was in England. Another local history, written in 1898, tells us more about this site and these activities. It says:

“In ‘Herefordshire Biographies’ Mr. John Hutchinson says that Sir John Oldcastle was born about the year 1360, and this author shares with Robinson in his ‘Castles of Herefordshire’ the belief that Oldcastle in Almeley was most probably the place of his birth. There is in Herefordshire a third Oldcastle, on the western border of Deerfold, between Lingen and the ruined abbey, or nunnery, of Limebrook, but neither history nor investigation encourage us to support the statement of some antiquaries that he may have been born there; that he may have visited the locality is possible enough since we know that William de Swynderby (William the Hermit) was there in 1390, and that many Lollards for a long time remained in the Forest of Deerfold, and most probably conducted their religious services in the Chapel Farm. (See the excellent paper by Dr. Bull in Transactions 1869, page 168, on ‘The Lollards in Herefordshire,’ and the accompanying illustration of the beautiful 14th century roof of Chapel Farm).

“Mr. John Howells, in his pamphlet ‘The Old Baptist Church at Olchon, and Life and Martyrdom of Sir John Oldcastle,’ published in 1886, says, on page 41, ‘Olchon may, upon the whole, be looked upon as the birthplace of the first Reformers, the first Nonconformists, and the first Baptists among the Welsh; the district must be deemed a consecrated spot by many. It is certain that a church was gathered here as early as 1415, and probably much earlier.’ Vestiges of foundations near Olchon Court show the site of the old chapel, and tombstones bearing date 1387 have been dug up in the burial ground belonging to the church.”¹³³

Another meeting site, which was at an unknown location, was mentioned in the following 14th-century chronicle, which makes it a contemporary of the medieval Olchon:

“(Year 1382.) Willelmus de Swyndurby associated in this year with some of the sect of Wyclyf, at a certain chapel of St. John the Baptist, near the dwelling-place of the lepers. This sect was held in the highest honor in those days, and was multiplied to such an extent, that it was difficult to pass by two men in the way without one of them being a disciple of Wyclyffe.”¹³⁴

Another ancient church site, aside from these, can also be shown in the north of England – at an area not too distant from Wales, but again at the juncture between two counties in England, which is the church site located at “Hill Cliff.”

A unique monument here is the underground, and concealed, “well cemented” stone baptistery, which was later uncovered by the church during building renovations and expansion in the year 1800. The only reason to construct an underground, adult-sized baptistery would be the need to maintain the practice of baptising but in the security of absolute secrecy. It is not surprising that by 1800, the existence of this centuries-old monument had been forgotten already. The hidden baptistery was only rediscovered by accident during renovations. Some time after this occurred, records regarding this church site were obtained. These records pertained to a certain Pastor of a Baptist church, who was surnamed Weyerburton, according to which he shepherded this church at Hill Cliff until his passing away in 1594.¹³⁵ Other pastors at Hill Cliff following Mr. Weyerburton were Mr. Daynteth, followed by Mr. Thomas Tillam (also a pastor at Hexham at various times), and Mr. Thomas Lowe. Lowe represented this same church at the great convention in 1689,¹³⁶ ninety-five years after Weyerburton had pastored there. However in the interval between these two dates, it is not known if this meetingplace was actively being used during a visit to the same church site by Oliver Cromwell and his men in August 1648,¹³⁷ where he spent a Sunday during his northern campaign against the Scots.

This meetingplace could be as old as Olchon, or nearly as old – there is simply no record of its time of founding. Giving further attention to the situation at Hill Cliff, or Hill Cliffe, we also take notice of a directory from the year 1825, which records the presence of an additional, “Baptist Meeting-Room in Bridge Street.”¹³⁸ This street would be located 4.5 km to the north of the main site of Hill Cliff, where the underground baptistery was located. It is located just across the river Mersey.¹³⁹ No additional information is given for this meeting-room, which is simply described as, “an elder branch of the early Meeting-House at Hill Cliff.” This meeting room on Bridge Street would have provided an alternate meeting place located across county borders in Lancashire. If threats of persecution came from the authorities in Cheshire, the church would have another meeting place to assemble outside of that jurisdiction, similar to Olchon’s situation.

Documentation of the ministers at these Baptist churches likewise has an acceptable level of consistency. The following is from Crosby in the early 18th century:

“I did observe from this Author, tho’ Mr. Lewis takes no Notice of it, how he endeavoured to shew the near Agreement there was between the Anabaptists and the Puritans; and that the Doctor did acknowledge, that there were several Anabaptistical Conventicles in London, and other Places; and that some of their Ministers had been bred at our Universities. So that, from this Author, Mr. Lewis could not but see there were many Anabaptists, and learned ones too, before the Year 1600. Now such was the State and Condition of the Church of England, in those early Days of the Reformation, that great Diversity of Opinions were found amongst them. Those stiled, by way of Contempt, Puritans, inveighted against some Abuses; refused to comply with some Ceremonies, and question’d the Superiority of the Bishops. They set up a new Model of Church Discipline, and, in the End, resolved to further a Reformation of the Church, without waiting for the Consent of the Magistrate. How ridiculous then is Mr. Lewis’s contemptible Sneer upon the Anabaptists in the Year 1615; when he says, ‘These were so far come to their Senses, as to acknowledge Magistracy to be God’s Ordinance’? ”¹⁴⁰

Similarly, from J. Thomas we receive the following history:

“John Perry—M.A. according to historians, was born in Wales. Some say ‘Mountains of Wales and County of Brecknock.’ This still, is the description of the vicinity of Olchon. Mr. Perry might have been born, near, or further westward. We have sufficient evidence that he was affectionately concerned for the salvation of his countrymen. The very titles of two books published by him in 1588, amount to a full proof of that. The first runs thus, ‘A View of some parts of such public wants and disorders as are in the service of God, written her Majesty’s country of Wales; with an humble petition to the high court of Parliament for their speedy readiness.’ There in is shown the necessity, and the way to reform in that country. The other title is ‘An exhortation unto the governor’s and people of Her Majesty’s Country of Wales to labor earnestly, to have the preaching of the Gospel planted among them.’ These titles are taken out of Ath. Oxon. where an account is given of many other books written by him. […]

“Mr. Neale, in his History of the Puritans saith, that Mr. Perry was a Welsh divine, and gives him an excellent character for learning, piety, ministerial gifts, diligence, etc., though not a hint that he was a Baptist. However, A. Wood, in Ath. Oxon. many years before Neale, speaks out plainly saying, that Perry ‘was a notorious Anabaptist, of which partly he was the Coryphous (or leader).’ He was educated at Oxford, and went to Cambridge, preached at both places; and was, says Wood himself, ‘esteemed by many a tolerable Scholar, and edifying preacher, and a good man.’ This was a great character given by those authors to a Baptist in those days. The noted Strype wrote sufficiently acrimonious against Mr. Perry blaming him for saying that popery then was intolerable in Wales. Though even Mr. Strype owns that Mr. Perry expressed a great concern for his native country; yet chargeth him with anabaptistery. So great was the rage and fury against him in those days, that he was apprehended, condemned and put to violent death in 1593 or 1594, aged 34. Dr. Henry Sampson names Mr. Perry among ‘the several persons that were troubled, deprived, and silenced by Whitgist or agents in the high commissions court, the star chamber, and the courts’ ecclesiastical.’ The Dr. S. Calamy’s Abridgement, second edition preface.”¹⁴¹

J. Thomas adds:

“One considerable motive for my conjecture, that [William Tyndale] was a native of those parts is, that Llewelyn Tyndale, and his son Hezekiah, were members of the Baptist Church at Llanwenarth, near Abergavenny at the close of the last century. There are some of the Tyndale stock still about Abergavenny. I knew one of the names at Hereford about 1740, 55 years ago. If Mr. W. Tyndale was born in, or near Olchon, as he was young moved to Oxford, then to Cambridge, and after that settled for some years in Gloucestershire, it is not to be supposed, that he could much instruct his friends in his native land… Of his translating the scripture into English the first time; of his other writings, his sufferings from the papists, how they persecuted him even beyond the sea, for his zeal to promote truth and the salvation of sinners, and how at last they prevailed against him, had him apprehended, condemned, and burnt in 1536, see Fox, Wood and most of our ecclesiastical historians.”¹⁴²

Thomas’ information accords with the DNB.¹⁴³

Past 1603, the transition from Elizabeth I to James I & VI did not see the freeing of our nonconformists. Although James was already King of Scotland when he inherited the crown, and he was inclined much toward John Knox and his style of Presbyterianism, James I still did not lift the legal and policy clamps on Nonconformist churches. His motto became: “No bishop, no king!”

Of congregational church polity, he said: “it agreeth as well with a monarchy as God with the Devil. Jack and Tom and Will and Dick shall meet and at their pleasures censure me!”

Thus the “Act to retain Her Majestie’s Subjects in due obedience,” of Elizabeth I remained in force, which mandated “12d. every Lord’s Day¹⁴⁴ that they did not attend to hear the Word of God preached or expounded in His Own House on His Own Day—unless they can produce a sufficient cause of absence…” The law remained. The only distinction was the change in perception by James as to what “His Own House” was. Despite this inconsistency, which is glaring, this fine was necessarily paid by many nonconformist church members if they did not meet the church attendance duty.

The events that we will next describe seem to originate mainly from the reigning style of Charles I, the successor of James I. Beginning around 1629, there were a series of disruptive actions, known as the ‘personal rule’ of Charles I, as well as “Laudianism,”¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁶ which seems to have backfired tremendously by raising awareness to the dangers lurking within the “state church,” most specifically in its potential for tyranny. The disruptions caused by the king and his ministers then made it necessary to declare for or against it, rather than to try to remain neutral.¹⁴⁷ In this process of time, Baptist churches grew in prominence – the dangers of the state church, and its vulnerability to corruptions, villainy and abuse by absolute tyrants were simply too obvious. As these nonconformist churches replenished the country, the effects and indeed the original purpose of De Heretico Comburendo were thus unwittingly undone by the rash actions of Charles I and his administration. His greatly disruptive policies raised significant questions over the “separation of powers.” The three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland would soon fall into a Civil War (1639-51). This is known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, with the primary conflict of all being the English Civil War. The “blowback” of Charles’ attempt to rule against parliament proved far greater than anticipated. As an unintended result, there was no more energy within the state apparatus to attack evangelical, i.e., nonconformist Christians.

This split had an effect on the American colonies’ church structure as well:

“After some time, [nonconformists] became more moderate and sociable; they converted the designation Independent, to that of congregational: although they retained the notion of an independent supreme ecclesiastic power in each congregation; they allowed, that sometimes it may be expedient to have the advice of synods and councils: thus insensibly and naturally, for sake of good order, they fall into the Presbyterian mode; and, in fact, have had several synods appointed by the civil legislature. In August 30, 1637, in Newtown¹⁴⁸ was called an universal synod to condemn the errors of the Rigids and Antinomians; M. Williams, Mr. Vane, and Mrs. Hutchinson were their leaders; this synod continued three weeks: this occasioned an emigration, and the settling of the colony of Rhode-island.”¹⁴⁹

This historian adds, speaking more particularly of Roger Williams:¹⁵⁰

“Anno 1634, Roger Williams, minister of Salem, was banished because of his [b] Antinomian and [c] fanatical doctrines; after some removes, with his disciples, he settled on the south side of the Patucket river and called their settlement Providence plantations, which name it retains to this day; they purchased it of the Indians, or had liberty from them to settle there:”

“[b] Antinomians hold, that the law of Moses is unprofitable under the Gospel; that justification is without good works; that morality and good works are no help to salvation, but rather a hindrance: such pernicious doctrines are inconsistent with civil society, and with goodness and honesty, or a private life.”

“[c] The various enthusiastical modes, at their first appearance in the world, were frantic with a violent, indiscreet, religious zeal: they generally agree in two pernicious articles; 1. They disclaim a civil magistracy and temporal punishments; and, 2. Their own wild notions are by themselves called impulses from GOD.”

From this account we see clearly that charges of antinomianism had continued into later times. As a matter of fact, the only idea from these two footnotes that can be truthfully attributed to the baptists of America at this time would be the statement, “that justification is without good works.” The rest is simply an attempt to make the church seem lawless, when it really is not, as can be demonstrated to a point from their own writings of these times. We will see some of their writings shortly.

In 1636, while the catastrophic split in the Church of England was unfolding, Williams, along with a small party, led the settlement of a new colony, which was initially at a place near Rumford, Rhode Island; however the Plymouth colony claimed the area, so Williams then moved west across the Seekonk where there were no claims. Here, Williams used his language skills with the native Narragansett to purchase new ground for a settlement called Providence. This became the administrative capital of what has ever since been Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

Under the administration of Williams, this colony became the first outpost where the state was separate from the church, as many of those who had been burdened by church taxes in the other colonies came here. He was also an early advocate for abolishing slavery in the colonies, as well as an excellent negotiator and diplomat for establishing trade with the natives in the area.

In 1637, Williams added to his jurisdiction several of the small islands nearest to the home city, which were a gift from the chieftain Miantonomoh that were given along with his purchase of the northern half of the larger Prudence Island (later sold to other interests). One of the sayings that Williams was known to teach his children in identifying the islands was, “Prudence, Patience, Hope, and Despair; And little Hog Island, right over there.”

“Hope” is also the motto of Rhode Island and appears on the state seal, in reference to the passage “Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul,” in Hebrews 6:19.

Also in 1637, what is now Aquidneck Island was negotiated by Williams to be purchased by other colony leaders, such as John Clarke, who was a buyer, and city builder and administrator on that larger island, which was for a time called Rhode Island.

At the same time as this was happening, another leader, who would oversee a church in New Hampshire, was the baptist pastor Hanserd Knollys. By renouncing his orders from the Church of England, he resigned his living in 1632. The occasion that caused him to leave England for the colonies was, that in 1636 he was arrested and imprisoned for a short time in Boston, England due to the King’s increased efforts against “nonconformists.” It appears the keeper deliberately allowed him to escape, and he quickly entered, with his wife and child, on a ship departing from London.

His autobiography states, after arriving in Boston early 1638: “Being very poor, I was necessitated to work daily with my hoe, for the space of almost three weeks. The magistrates were told by the ministers that I was an Antinomian, and desired that they would not suffer me to abide in the patent.”

At this time, two men approached Knollys with an offer. They requested him to fill the office of pastor at their church which they were forming in New Hampshire. With this offer, Knollys moved to the settlement at Dover, on the right bank of the Piscataway¹⁵¹ River, along the border with Maine. Upon his arrival there, Knollys was prevented from taking his post immediately by Governor George Burdett. Eventually, in September, Burdett was expelled for misconduct-related reasons, allowing Knollys to take his position and to earn a livelihood as a pastor, in this way forming the first church in Dover in 1638.

Another arrival to Dover in 1640 was the English clerical minister Thomas Larkham. The influence of Larkham, which was freely allowed by the others, resulted in a second main faction being formed in Dover. Larkham claimed both church and civil authorities over the entire town for himself. For these reasons the town dealt with serious turmoil, as both Knollys and Larkham were individually removed and re-established in their respective offices.¹⁵²¹⁵³ Larkham called in some allies from Boston, and commissioners arrived in 1641 to adjudicate the dispute in his favor. Dover and the entire province of New Hampshire were also annexed by Boston into its jurisdiction for some time.

Knollys heeded a call from his aging father to return to England, and left with his wife and (second) child, while the remaining congregation relocated itself to a remote area of Long Island. In 1664, this church was forced to move again because of English annexation, as New Amsterdam became New York City. They sold or carried off what they could and moved to the wilderness of New Jersey, at a township they called Piscataway, still existing today, which was named after the original river they lived near in New Hampshire. Mr. Knollys, meanwhile, was present in England where he, as a Pastor, signed the 1646 [2nd] edition of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith as well as, forty-three years later, the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession.

In the same year as the Dover church was getting started, John Clarke, previously mentioned, was helping to lay the groundwork for the cities of Portsmouth and Newport in Rhode Island, on its namesake island.¹⁵⁴ The compact for the plot stated:¹⁵⁵

“The 7th day of the first month, 1638. We whose names are underwritten do here solemnly, in the presence of Jehovah, incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick, and, as he shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of his given us in his holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby. Exod. 24, 3-4. 2 Cron. 11, 3. 2 Kings 11, 17.”

A baptist congregation on the island was started by Clarke at some point between 1638-1641, probably having its beginnings in 1638.¹⁵⁶¹⁵⁷ One very important step in securing this future was performed by Clarke some time later, after these island settlements united with the government of Williams.¹⁵⁸ Roger Williams first obtained a patent guaranteeing religious liberty for his entire colony in 1644, by sailing in person to England. He was able to obtain this, due to the disarray of the Civil War that was ongoing in Britain. But later mistrust between the colonists in Rhode Island, and the end of the Civil War in England, with the grand Restoration of Charles II, in 1660, threatened this arrangement.

When the Restoration occurred, John Clarke was already in England to work for the colony for a strengthened charter, and this time it would need the assent of the new King. Through details that are little known to us, Clarke managed to secure a much stronger royal charter in 1663, one that guaranteed even further protections. This accomplishment is especially surpising, given how much the new King Charles II was otherwise opposed to dissent. In 1662, Charles II had passed the Act of Uniformity, which brought back the main restrictions that earlier kings had placed on all English subjects requiring compulsory church service. But quite different to that, the Rhode Island Royal Charter of 1663 saved all of the favorable terms of the 1644 charter, including the guaranteed separation between church and state, which was called the freedom of conscience, and is often characterized as rights of religious freedom. The Royal Charter states that no resident of this colony shall be “molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question for any differences in opinion in matters of religion”. This charter also, critically, granted the right of the colonists to legislate for themselves.

Clarke’s mission ensured that his one jurisdiction, that of Rhode Island, was safe from conformist policies. This had an effect on the balance of power in all colonies. This charter prevented any one from realistically attempting to control religious policies in all the colonies as a whole.¹⁵⁹ Those who were kicked out or banished from one colony were not driven into the wilderness, as Rhode Island and Providence Plantations would take them. This fact made it more difficult for Puritan strongholds, such as Boston, to threaten colonists to agree to their terms. Hence, this charter had an effect on all the colonies.

Inscription on the Rhode Island Statehouse in Providence.

The petition by John Clarke reads more fully as follows: “That they might be permitted to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be maintained, with a full liberty in religious concernments; and that true piety, rightly grounded upon gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligation to true loyalty.”¹⁶⁰

With this charter, the idea of forcing religious unity in the states was never seriously considered again. As this charter had been signed by the king, there was no realistic way to make it happen. Somewhat contradictorily, the same king also passed the Act of Uniformity in 1662, which brought back the (mandatory) state church in England. This difference in religious policy between colonies and the motherland resulted in a great mass of dissidents migrating out of Britain from 1662-1688, which had an effect on future differences of ideology between the inhabitants of the two territories. It is for this reason that Dr. Clarke’s renewed charter seems to have had quite a significant impact on history past this point.

William Kiffin is another name we find as a signature on both of the London Baptist Confessions – the 1644 (and 1646 2nd edition) as well as the 1689 Confession. Mr. Kiffin was a pastor of one of the seven baptist churches of London in 1644. He wrote this about his own confession: “I used all endeavors, by converse with such as were able, and also by diligently searching the Scriptures, with earnest desires to God that I might be directed in a right way of worship; and, after some time, concluded that the safest way was to follow the footsteps of the flock, namely, that order laid down by Christ and His apostles, and practised by the primitive Christians in their time, which I found to be, after conversion they were baptized, added to the church, and continued in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers.”¹⁶¹

Independent church organization in America occurs at least as early as 1649, when Dr. John Clarke went to Seekonk, Massachusetts to help start a new church. One of the men he baptized there was Obadiah Holmes. After his conversion, he ended up moving to Newport as authorities were angered by Clarke’s action of baptising an adult.¹⁶²

Two years later, Clarke, Holmes and John Crandall were apprehended during a visit to an senior gentleman in northern Massachusetts, named William Witter, for whom they were conducting religious services. They were forced by the authorities to attend a Puritan service, but refused to remove their hats. At the end of the service Dr. Clarke stood and explained to those assembled the reason why they refused to remove their hats. Being taken to Boston afterward, they were charged with violating religious laws, including “maintaining that infant baptism was false baptism.” They were sentenced without any witness against them coming forward.

The penalties assigned were £30 to Holmes, £20 to Clarke, and £5 to Crandall. Sympathizers quickly paid the fines for the latter two. Holmes, however, was able to prevent the payment of his fine, and in return for his refusal he was given 30 lashes with a three-corded whip. The injury he received from this was frequently called by him “marks of the Lord Jesus.” Governor Williams, the founder of Providence, wrote the tract “The Bloody Tenent yet more Bloudy”¹⁶³ in response to the event.

In closing our account then, another major event occurred for church history in 1649 when one congregation in Wales sent their missionary to America across the Atlantic. J. Thomas presents the following account:

“It does not appear when Mr. [John] Miles sailed for America, when he landed in that country, nor what family, friends, or neighbors accompanied him. The first account we have of him west of the Atlantic is in Mr. Backus’ History, Vol. 1, Page 353, naming Mr. Miles among the ejected ministers¹⁶⁴, it is added, ‘upon which, he and some of his friends came over to our country, and brought their church Records with them.¹⁶⁵ And at Mr. Butterworth’s in Rehobath, in 1663, John Miles, elder, James Brown, Nicholas Tanner, Joseph Carpenter, John Butterworth, Eldad Kingsley, and Benjamin Alby, joined in a solemn covenant together.’

“This was the first Baptist church in that part of America as noted above. It seems the men members of it were only seven. What number of women members there were we know not. It does not appear that any of the men members went with Miles to America, but Mr. Nicholas Tanner, who was said in the records to have been baptized on the 11th of the 11th month, 1651. This young church was then in Plymouth Colony; where they had quiet about four years: but at a court holden at Plymouth, 2nd July 1667, the society was fined in a considerable sum of money, and ordered to remove from that place. On the 30th of October ensuing, that court made them an ample grant in another place, which Mr. Miles and his friends called Swanzay.¹⁶⁶ It seems they so spelled Swansea in Wales then. ‘There they made a regular settlement which has continued to this day … Their first meeting house was built a little west of the great bridge which still bears his name,’

“In an Indian war, which broke out in 1675, Mr. Miles house was made the headquarters (Page 419). And in page 460 it is said, ‘The Baptist Churches in Wales gathered by our Mr. Miles and others, published a confession of their faith.’ […]

“Page 506 etc. says, ‘The learned and pious Mr. Miles having returned to his flock in Swanzay fell asleep in Jesus on Feb 3rd, 1683. And his memory is still precious among us. We are told that being once brought before the magistrates, he requested a Bible: and upon obtaining it he turned to these words: ‘Ye should say, why persecute we him? Seeing the root of the matter is found in Me’ (Job 19:28). Which having read he sat down, and the word had a good effect upon their minds, and moved them to treat him with moderation if not kindness.’

“It may be but right to add what a famous American writer, no less than the celebrated Dr. Cotton Mather, says of him; mentioning some godly Anabaptists, as he thought proper to style them, he names Mr. Hanford Knollys, then says: ‘And Mr. Miles of Swanzay who afterwards came to Boston, and is now gone to his rest. Both of these have a respectable character in the churches of this wilderness.’ (Crosby, Vol. 1, 120).

“Dr. Calamy, in his Account of the Ejected Ministers, 2nd edition, said not more of this worthy minister than, ‘Ilston, Mr. John Miles, an Anabaptist.’ The name is wholly omitted in the index. Mr. Palmer only says, ‘A Baptist, he afterward went to New England.’ ”

This is our account of the origins of baptists in Britain and the colonies.

On continental Europe, there are reports of numerous communities of believers, all of whom maintained distinctive attributes of the church. Some of these were by this point in history very well established in the record. They met either openly or in conventicle, depending on their legal status. For examples of the writings of these churches, see appendix L and appendix M. We note specifically about appendix M that some of the Vaudois confessions – namely those written in 1532 and 1535 – did contain allusions to infant baptism in them. This can be seen in the account of Morland,¹⁶⁷ which was Protestant¹⁶⁸ and accepting of infant baptism. Nevertheless this teaching runs contrary to some of the older documents than these that Morland also provided, where the baptism of infants or nonbelievers was entirely renounced. This paints a complex state of affairs in the Waldensian valleys by this time, suggesting that by the second quarter of the 16th century some of the inhabitants may have changed their views toward baptism, or else they were not ready to openly renounce the state church on this point. The ultimate reasoning for this decision in the 1532 and 1535 confessions that runs contrary to the earlier confessions is a question of history. See appendix Y and appendix Z for confessions from the translators of the first English and French translations, and compare these also to what is found in appendix L and M. To make a final remark about the Vaudois, we know at least some of their teachers and leaders removed themselves into Switzerland according to Beza’s account of the year 1535. This may have been due to upheavals at that time. At least one of them became a printer responsible for reproducing translations of the Scripture into various European languages. From there, the doctrine of the Vaudois (as a witness to the Biblical non-state church that existed before the medieval Inquisition), was propelled to the ends of the earth, as it states in Acts 19, So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

Other examples of independent congregation organization can be seen early in the American colonies. A Pastor, William Screven, was sent by the church of John Miles at Swansea to start a church in Kittery, Maine in 1682. They were later forced to move by the local mob, and relocated to Charleston, South Carolina in the year 1696, thus marking the beginning of baptist churches in the southern states. Another group of settlers from England, Wales and Ireland, who had immigrated individually, were gathered together in Pennepeck, Pennsylvania with a Pastor, Samuel Jones, in 1686. The first church in Philadelphia was formed in 1698 from English Baptists sent from Hanserd Knolly’s church in London.

Another example of this was a church who constituted themselves before traveling to America; their pastor’s name was Thomas Griffiths. They sailed from Milford Haven in Wales, landing together at Philadelphia in 1701. They removed however in 1703 to a territory called Welsh-tract, granted to them by William Penn. This tract of land now straddles the Maryland-Delaware border, and is near Newark, Delaware. They soon planted a second church in 1714 at a place called London Tract, which actually is in Pennsylvania. They also became the source for another branch of churches in South Carolina.¹⁶⁹

We may note that First Baptist Church in Newport, c. 1638, helped to establish early churches at Groton, Connecticut in 1705 and at North Kingston, New Hampshire in 1710. The Connecticut church sent more members to start the First Baptist Church of New York in 1712.

Church planting was not only the result of movement between states. I found one list of people which meet the following conditions: Pastors of a Particular Baptist church in America before 1770, who were also first-generation immigrants. Apart from those already mentioned, their names are: Hugh Davis, Abel Morgan, David Evans, Benjamin Griffiths, Richard Jones, Thomas Davis, Morgan Edwards, John Thomas, Caleb Evans.

-updated version 8/15/21

Unknown: Abomination of Desolation

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
— 2 Thessalonians 2:7

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judаеа flee to the mountains:
And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:
And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.
But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.
For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
— Mark 13:14-19

Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lᴏʀᴅ shall be a light unto me.
— Micah 7:8

signed by – Аndrеw Тоllеfsоn

_________
Extra material:
Appendix 1 and Appendix 2

Appendix J

The Repressor of Reginald Pecock
His refutation against the Lollards (A.D. 1449), as found in the book:

First Part, First Chapter

“Thre trowingis or opiniouns ben causis and groundis of manie and of weel nygh alle the errouris whiche manie of the lay partie holden, and bi which holding thei vniustly and ouermyche wijten and blamen the clergie and alle her othere neighbouris of the lay side, which not holden tho same errouris accordingly with hem, and therfore it is miche nede forto first gheue bisynes to vnroote and ouerturne tho thre trowingis, holdingis, or opiniouns, bifore the improuyng of othere; sithen if tho thre be sufficiently improued, that is to seie, if it be sufficientli proued that tho thre ben nought and vntrewe and badde, alle the othere vntrewe opiniouns and holdingis bildid vpon hem or upon eny of hem muste needis therbi take her fal, and lacke it wherbi thei mighten in eny colour or semyng be mentened, holde, and supportid.

“The firste of these thre trowingis, holdingis, or opiniouns is this: That no gouernaunce is to be holde of Cristen men the seruice of the lawe of God, saue it which is groundid in Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament, as summe of the bifore seid men holden; or namelich, saue it which is groundid in the Newe Testament or in the Oold, and is not bi the Newe Testament reuokid, as summe othere of hem holden. In this trowing and holding thei ben so kete and so smert and so wantoun, that whanne euer eny clerk affermeth to hem eny gouernaunce being contrarie to her witt or plesaunce, though it ligge ful open and ful sureli in doom of resoun, and ther fore sureli in moral lawe of kinde, which is lawe of God, forto be doon; ghit thei anoon asken ‘Where groundist thou it in the Newe Testament?’ or ‘Where groundist thou it in Holi Scripture in such place which is not bi the Newe Testament reuokid?’ And if thei heere not where so in Holi Scripture it is witnessid, thei it dispisen and not receyuen as a gouernaunce of Goddis seruice and of Goddis moral lawe. This opinioun thei weenen to be groundid, Mat. xxij. c., where Crist seide to the Saduceis thus: ‘Ye erren, not knowing Scripturis, neither the vertu or strengthe of God. In the resurrectioun forsothe thei schulen not wedde neither be weddid, but thei schulen be as aungelis of God in heuen. Han not ye rad of the resurrectioun of dede men, that it is seid to us of God, I am God of Abraham, God of Ysaac, God of Iacob, et cætera.’ Also thei weenen this opinioun be groundid, Iohun v. c., where Crist seide to the Iewis thus: ‘Serche ye Scripturis, for ye trowen you forto haue euerlasting liif in hem, and thei ben whiche beren witnes of me.’

“The secunde trowing or opinyoun is this: That what euer Cristen man or womman be meke in spirit and willi forto vndirstonde treuli and dewli Holi Scripture, schal without fail and defaut fynde the trewe vndirstonding of Holi Scripture in what euer place he or sche schal rede and studie, though it be in the Apocalips or oughwhere ellis: and the more meke he or sche be, the sooner he or sche schal come into the verry trewe and dew vndirstonding of it, which in Holi Scripture he or sche redith and studieth. This ij. opinioun thei wenen to be groundid in Holi Scripture. Ysaie lxvj. c. in the bigynnyng, where God seith thus: ‘To whom schal y biholde but to a litle pore man, broken in herte, and trembling at mi wordis?’ And also Iames the iiij. c., and i. Petre v. c., where it is seid thus: ‘God aghenstondith proude men, and he gheueth grace to meke men.’ Also Ysaie lvij. c., where it is seid, ‘that God dwelling in euerlastingte dwellith with a meke and a contrite spirit, that he quykee the spirit of meke men and that he quykee the herte of contrite men.’ And in othere dyuerise placis of Scripture mensioun is mad that God gheueth goode thingis to meke men more thanne if thei were not so meke.

“The iij. trowing or opinioun is this: Whanne euere a persoon hath founde the vndirstonding of Holi Scripture into which he schal come bi the wey now bifore seid of the ij. opinioun, he or sche oughte bowe awey her heering, her reeding, and her vndirstonding fro al resonyng and fro al arguyng or prouyng which eny clerk can or wole or mai make bi eny maner euydence of resoun or of Scripture, and namelich of resoun into the contrarie, though the mater be such that it passith not the boondis neither the capacite of resoun forto entermete therwith and forto iuge and gheue kunnyng ther upon; which trowing and opinioun to holde and fulfille thei wenen hem be bede bi Poul, Colocens ij. c., where he seith thus: ‘Y seie to you these thingis, that no man bigile you in heighte of spechis.’ And soone after there, Poul seith thus: ‘Se ye that no man bigile you bi philsophi and veyn falsnes aftir the tradiciouns of men and after the elementis of the world, and not aftir Crist.’ Also i. Cor. i. c., weelnygh thorugh al the chapiter, Poul meeneth that Cristen bileeuers oughten not recche of wisdom such as wise worldli men vsen and setten miche therbi. [End chapter]”

Mr. Pecock’s book from this point forward is meant as a refutation of these opinions. We find a useful account of what these opinions are in this first chapter.

Return to (the end of) entry A.D. 1381

Appendix K

Geographical description of the Valleys:

In Encyclopædia Britannica 12th ed., “Waldenses,” (Vol. 28, p. 255):

“The Waldensian valleys lie to the south-west of Turin, in the direction of Monte Viso […] The principal town near the valleys is Pinerolo (Pignerol). Just to its south-west there opens the chief Waldensian valley, the Val Pellice, watered by the stream of that name […] near Torre Pellice the side glens of Angrogna and Rora join the Pellice valley. To the north-west of Pinerolo, up the Chisone valley, there opens at Perosa Argentina the valley of St. Martin, another important Waldensian valley, which is watered by the Germanasca torrent, and at Perrero splits into two branches, of which the Prali glen is far more fertile than that of Massello, the latter being the wildest and most savage of all the Waldensian valleys.”

The following is written in Samuel Morland’s description from 1658:¹⁷⁰

“I shall intreat the courteous Reader to spend with me a few minutes in viewing the situation of those Valleys, where not onely those poor people then inhabited, but where, in all humane probability, their Forefathers and Ancestours have both had their abode, and protest the same Religion, ever since the days of the Apostles.

“Now because the said valleys are for the most part inclosed within the Confines of Piemont, it will not be amiss in the first place to give a brief Description of the whole Province, which indeed is but a little Spot of Earth in comparison, and of a very small Extent, yet as pleasant for situation, and likewise by its incredible fruitfulness, bringing in as great a Revenue (in proportion) to its Prince, as any Province of Europe.

“This Province of Piemont (so called, because situated a pede montium, or at the feet of the Alps, which separate Italie from France) the County of Nizza being thereto adjoyned, has for its Confines, on the East, the Duchy of Milan, Montferrat, and the Common-wealth of Genoa; on the South-side it has for a Trench, the Mediterranean Sea; on the West and the North part, it has the Alps for a Wall or Bulwark, and is by them separated on the West-side from Provence and Dauphine, and on the North-side from Savoy, and the Countrey of Valley¹⁷¹ […]

“The Valley of Clusone otherwise called Pragela, that is to say, the High and the Low Communality […] was the ordinary Passage of the French Armies into Italie.

“These Valleys, especially that of Angrogna, Pramol, and S. Martino, are by nature strongly fortified, by reason of their many difficult Passages, and Bulwarks of Rocks and Mountains, as if the All-wise Creatour had from the beginning designed that place as a Cabinet, wherein to put some inestimable Jеwel, or (to speak more plainly) there to reserve many thousands of souls, which should not bow the knee before Baal […]

“The Communalty of La Torre, took its name from an ancient and high Tower, which stood upon a little Hill near Bourg. Francis the first, King of France, considering the great prejudice that this Citadel, being so near the conflux of the two Rivers of Lucerna and Angrogna, in the very centre of the said Valley of Lucerna, might bring to the affairs and interest of France, and the safety of Pignerole, caused it to be demolished. And this is the place where the Duke of Savoy did rebuild that Citadel, 1652 which served before as a Slaughter-house to murder and make away with so many innocent souls […] “The Valleys of Perosa and S. Martino are on the North of Lucerna, Angrogna, and Roccapiatta […] The Valley of Perosa, being about six miles long, is distributed part in Mountains, part in fair Plains, and very fruitfull Hills. At the lower part thereof it hath the Communalities of Porte, S. Germano, and Villaro; in the middle, Pinachia, and in the higher part, that of Perosa, where there is the City and Citadel of Perosa, from whence the Valley takes its name […]

“The Valley of S. Martino containing eight miles in length, is on the West of the Valley of Perosa, inclosed between the Valley of Lucerna and Clusone, in the highest part of the Alps… and comprehend eleven Communalties, namely, Rioclaret, Faet, Prali, Rodoretto, Salsa, Macel, Maneglia, Chabrans, Traverses, Bovili, and S. Martino, which gives the name to this Valley. This is the poorest of all, but yet the strongest by reason of its situation, wherein for this reason the Barbes or Ministers, (of whom we shall hereafter speak) had anciently their chief residence, or abode, for security and preservation against the rage of their malicious Adversaries […]

“Before the late horrible dispersion of those poor Protestants in the Year, 1655. There were in the said Valleys which were peopled with Waldenses, fourteen Churches, which composed two Classes or Colloques […]

“The one of these two was called the Colloque of the Valley of Lucerna, comprising the Churches of S. Giovanni, La Torre, Villaro, Bobio, Rorata, and Angrogna, which belong to the Valley of Lucerna, and the Church of Roccapiatta, which is between the Valley of Lucerna, and Perosa, situated upon those little Hills which separate the two Valleys, and is annexed to the said Colloque of Lucerna.

“The other Colloque which was called the Colloque of the Valley of Perosa and S. Martino, contained the other seven Churches, namely, four in the said Valley of Perosa, and three in the Valley of S. Martino. Those of Perosa were Villaro and S. Germano, joyned together and making one onely Church; Pinachia, La Capella, and Pramol; And those of S. Martino were Villa Secca, Maneglia, and Prali.

“The Church of S. Giovanni contains within itself a very fair Plain, and little Hills, very fertile and abounding in Grain, Vines, Chestnuts, Figs, Olives, and all sorts of Fruits. But for as much as the whole is thus employed in Husbandry, there is want of Pastures and Woods, which is the reason that they have not there much Cattel […]

“The Church of La Torre is the same for situation and quality with that of S. Giovanni, containing one Plain, where is the Town of La Torre, and also Hills adorned with the same kindes of Fruits as the said Church of S. Giovanni.

“The Church of Bobbio confineth with that of Villaro, being a little higher towards the Mountain on the West, but as fertile every way as that of Villaro. And as the said places are environed with a multitude of Mountains and fat Pastures, so the Inhabitants had a very great number of Oxen, Kine, and smaller Cattel, together with Milk and Wool in abundance, which returned them a considerable profit, as also the Chestnuts which they dried and cleansed to sell, or exchange for other Commodities.

“The Church of Rorata is a little Dale or Valley situated on the other side of the River Pelice, on the West of Lucerna, being bounded by the Mountains of Villaro. The said place abounds in Pastures, and is otherwise very fertile, especially in Chestnuts.

“The Church of Angrogna is North-west to that of S. Giovanni, inclining towards Perosa, in a mountainous Countrey, but fertile in Chestnuts, Grain, and Pastures, incompassed with very beautiful and fertile Mountains for Pasturage in the Summer Season.

“The Church of Pramol, is situated upon a Mountain, between the Valley of Lucerna and Perosa, at the feet whereof grows a little quantity of Wine, and very good Fruits, but in the highest part thereof grows nothing but Grain, and abundance of Wood, and there is also Pasture-ground; this is the Native Countrey of Captain Jaher […]

“The Church of Chiotti or Villa Secca, is at the lowest part of the Valley S. Martino, where there is almost no Plain, save onely there where the River Germanasca takes its course. The little Hills which lie South from the said River said are very cold, so that there grow no Vines near them. But those that lie North, whose sides open towards the South, are hot, and by that means have on them store of Vines. In sum, all the parts thereof are tolerably fruitfull in Grain, Fruits, and Pasture.

“The Church of Prali, is situated in the upmost part of the Valley of S. Martino, and contains two Communalties, namely, Prali and Rodoret, which are confined on the South, by the Alps, with the Valley of Lucerna, on the West by the Valley of Queyras in Dauphine, and on the North by the Valley of Pragela: there grows here nothing but Hay, and a great quantity of Herbage.

“Generally in all these Churches (unless it be on the tops of the Mountains) there is found great plenty of Fruits, but especially Chestnuts; yea, there are some places thereof where are vast spaces of Ground yielding almost nothing else; as for example, in the little Hills of Bubiana, and all along the Valley of Lucerna, and the South parts of the Valley of Perosa, which look towards the North; in so much that the Inhabitants of those places dry and cleanse great quantities of them, a part whereof they lay up for their own spending, and the rest they sell or exchange for Corn, and that, quantity for quantity, with the Inhabitants of the Plain (this being a great part of their food in Piemont.) They likewise make of these Nuts, dried in an Oven, or upon a Kiln, an excellent sort of Bisquet, which in France they call Marrons; These they frequently make use of, instead of Macqueroons, or such other kinde of Confects.”

Return to previous spot in entry A.D. 1523

Appendix L

“A Clear Refutation,” from The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck, pp. 62-67.

[below is a section from a treatise originally written in 1531, which has been translated out of German by Klaassen and Klassen in 1978 – the author is not known but the writing is commonly attributed to Marpeck, who was in Strasbourg at that time]

“So take a lesson from the clarity of vision present before His coming; how much more clearly is He known since His coming. Scriptures speak more clearly of Him after His coming than they had done before. After He came, He is clearer and more powerful than He was before, as He said Himself (Mt. 13). Many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, but did not see it; they longed to hear what you hear, but did not hear it. Therefore, the present world, since His coming, will experience sharper condemnation than did the one before He came (Mt. 10, 11, 12; Lk. 10). For, since we are now more able to know Him and can say more about Him, we can pattern ourselves after Him, and more fully partake of the divine nature and spiritual good.

“Thus, revenge is no longer permitted in the New Testament for, through patience, the Spirit can now more powerfully overcome enemies than it could in the Old Testament. Therefore, Christ forbade such vengeance and resistance (Lk. 9, 21; Mt. 5), and commanded the children who possessed the Spirit of the New Testament to love, to bless their enemies, persecutors, and opponents, and to overcome them with patience (Mt. 5; Lk. 6).

“Such a powerful Spirit, a Spirit promised for the last days, could not come as long as Christ was personally upon the earth with His disciples (Jn. 12, 16). Now we are to reflect upon Him spiritually, upon what kind of a mind, spirit, and disposition He had, and how He lived; the more we reflect upon His physical words, works, deeds, and life, the better God allows us to know His mind, and the better He teaches and instructs us (Jn. 6). Whoever does not think of Him, reflect upon Him, pray, or seek Him will not receive from Him (Mt. 7, Luke 11, 13; 1 Chron. 29). The more one now learns to know Him and see Him spiritually (Jn. 6, 17; Heb. 12), the more one learns to love Him, to become friendly and pleasant toward Him and, through such knowledge, receives Him into the heart and grows therein (2 Pet. 1, 2). Finally, one jumps with Peter himself, freely and voluntarily (Jn. 21), into the sea of tribulations and, concentrating on Christ, casts aside the mantle or the old garment. Through such a knowledge of Christ, man also comes to the knowledge of God (Jn. 8, 14; 2 Cor. 4) and partakes of divine nature, but only if he is willing to flee from the lusts of this world, under God’s rule. […]

“Whoever retains, practices, or accepts baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or anything else, even Scriptures, word or deed, according to the command, attitude, form, essence, or example of the Antichrist is a child, member, and brother of the Antichrist, worships the image of his being, and with him will inherit destruction.

“But whoever retains, practices, and accepts such ceremonies according to the command, attitude, form, essence, and example of Christ and the apostles, indeed according to the instruction and urging of the free Spirit, participates without blemish, misunderstanding, or abomination […]

“Whoever practices or receives such ceremonies and matters without true faith, because of an external urge or other reasons, errs even though there is, externally, correctness of words and procedures. Such mistakes some have confessed to have made, but they confess it only out of anger and not for the good, which makes them unbelieving and unloving; these I admonish to believe and to genuine confession.

“Whoever has been inwardly baptized, with belief and the Spirit of Christ in his heart, will not despise the external baptism and the Lord’s Supper which are performed according to Christian, apostolic order; nor will he dissuade anyone from participating in them. Rather, he should willingly accept them and practice them, not merely imitating them externally in a beastlike manner, but in truth and in the spirit with which the true worshipers use external means, such as the mouth, hands, and knees. For, as one can see, the heart moves our external members. Whenever one laughs, is compassionate, rejoices, or gets angry, then the mouth, eyes, head, hands, and feet laugh, are compassionate, rejoice, get angry, move, and grasp without delay the external things which correspond to anger, joy, mercy, or laughter. The opposite is also true. So it is with baptism and the Lord’s Supper.”

“In summary: The believer will retain, undissolved or unchanged, the commandment of his Master and will be a faithful disciple, who does not long to be master or to run ahead of Christ; he will diligently seek to be faithful in all things (2 Cor. 2), to fulfill all righteousness (Mt. 3), not only inwardly before God, but also externally before man (2 Cor. 8, Tit. 2). If anyone acts differently, he is not to be believed, whatever boastful claims he may make. Yes, even if an angel were to come from heaven and teach differently than Christ and His apostles one taught and commanded, he should not be believed.

“Whoever teaches that believers do not need external baptism and the Lord’s Supper, or teaches that these ceremonies are not expected of believers or given to them, errs, for Philip demands that faith go before (Acts 8). Christ also places faith first (Mk. 16) and, according to the Acts of the Apostles, faith always precedes baptism. […]

“May God grant it to all who desire it from their hearts. May He strengthen us, build us, lead us, and keep us in His knowledge, love, long-suffering, friendliness, meekness, patience, and other fruits and powers of the Spirit. Through these powers, and through true faith in Christ by whom, and none other, we accomplish to His praise our acting and willing, life, cross, and death, we may grow and increase in divine, quiet nature without causing others to be offended by the only name that saves, the name which cannot be deceived and does not deceive, Jesus; that name will not be put to shame (1 Pet. 2).

“This man and Lord is Jesus of Nazareth, a future Judge and avenger (Jn. 5; Acts 10; 2 Thess. 1) who is Christ (Jn. 20; Acts 19), who was before Abraham (Jn. 8). Whoever denies this is a liar (1 Jn. 2). Whoever does not believe this is so will die in his sins (Jn. 8), for such an unbeliever is not born of God (1 Jn. 5). Indeed, this Jesus Christ is also true God (Rom. 9; 1 Jn. 5) and eternal life. To Him be praise unto eternity. Amen. 1531”

Appendix M

Writings of the Vaudois churches, copied from the report of Samuel Morland in 1658.¹⁷² Four excerpts are contained below, taken from the ancient commentaries and confessions written by their leaders and pastors from c. 1120 to 1535 AD.

The following is written in a Vaudois document (c. 1120) titled “Of Antichrist”:

“Q: What are the works [of Antichrist] that proceed from these first works?
“A: The first is, that it perverts the service of Latria, that is, the worship properly due to God alone, by giving it to the Antichrist himself and to his works, to the vain creature, whether rational or not, sensible or senseless; to the rational, as to mankind, deceased Saints, and unto images, carcasses, or relics. His works are the Sacraments, especially the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which he adoreth as God, and as Jesus Christ, together with the things blessed and consecrated by him, and prohibits the worshipping of God alone.

“The second work of Antichrist is, that he robs and bereaves Christ of his merits, together with all the sufficiency of grace, of justification, of regeneration, remission of sins, of sanctification, of confirmation and Spiritual nourishment; and imputes and attributes the same to his own authority, to a form of words, to his own works; and unto Saints and their intercession, and unto the fire of the Purgatory; and separates the people from Christ, and leads them away to the things aforesaid, that they may not seek those of Christ, nor by Christ; but only in the works of their own hands, and not by a lively faith in God, nor in Jesus Christ, nor in the Holy Spirit, but by the will and pleasure, and by the works of Antichrist, according as he preacheth, that all salvation consists in his own works.

“The third work of Antichrist consists in that he attributes regeneration unto the dead outward work, baptizing children in that faith,¹⁷³ and teaching that thereby Baptism and regeneration must be had, and therein he confers and bestows Orders and other Sacraments; and herein he groundeth all his Christianity, which is denying the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

“The fourth work of Antichrist is, that he hath placed all Religion and holiness of the people in going to Mass, and hath patched together all manner of ceremonies, some Jеwish, some Gentile, and some Christian: and leading the congregations thereunto, and the people to hear the same, doth thereby deprive them of the spiritual and Sacramental meat,¹⁷⁴ and seduceth them from the true Religion, and from the Commandments of God, and withdraws them from the works of compassion, by his offerings; and by such a Mass hath he lodged the people in vain hopes.

“The fifth work of the Antichrist is, that he doth all his works so that he may be seen, that he may glut himself with his insatiable avarice, that he may set all things to sale, and do nothing without simony.

“The sixth work of the Antichrist is, that he allows of manifest sins, without any Ecclesiastical censure,¹⁷⁵ and doth not excommunicate the impenitent.

“The seventh work of Antichrist is, that he doth not govern nor maintain his unity by the Holy Spirit, but by the secular power, and maketh use thereof to effect spiritual matters.

“The eighth work of the Antichrist is, that he hates, and persecutes, and searcheth after, despoils and destroys the members of Christ.

“These things are in a manner the principal works which he commits against the truth, they being otherwise numberless, and past writing down.”

—
The following is written in “An ancient Confession of Faith of the Waldenses, copied out of certain Manuscripts, bearing date Anno Dom. 1120.”

Article 7.
That Christ is our life, truth, peace, and righteousness, as also our Pastour, Advocate, Sacrifice, and Priest, who died for the salvation of all those that believe, and is risen for our justification.

Article 8.
In like manner, we firmly hold, that there is no other Mediatour and Advocate with God the Father, save onely Jesus Christ. And as for the Virgin Mary, that she was holy, humble, full of grace¹⁷⁶: and in like manner do we believe concerning all the other Saints, viz. that being in Heaven, they wait for the Resurrection of their Bodies at the Day of Judgment.

Article 9.
Item, we believe that after this life, there are onely two places, the one for the saved, and the other for the damned, the which two places we call Paradise and Hell, absolutely denying that Purgatory invented by Antichrist, and forged contrary to the truth.

Article 10.
Item, we have always accounted as an unspeakable abomination before God, all those Inventions of men, namely, the Feasts and the Vigils of Saints, the Water which they call holy. As likewise to abstain from Flesh upon certain Days, and the like; but especially their Masses.

Article 11.
We esteem for an abomination and as Anti-Christian, all those human Inventions which are a trouble or prejudice to the liberty of the Spirit.

Article 12.
We do believe that the Sacraments are signs of the holy thing, or visible forms of the invisible grace, accounting it good that the faithfull sometimes use the said signs or visible forms, if it may be done. However, we believe and hold, that the abovesaid faithfull may be saved without receiving the signs aforesaid, in case they have no place nor any means to use them.

Article 13.
We acknowledg no other Sacrament but Baptism and the Lords Supper.

Article 14.
We ought to honour the secular powers, by subjection, ready obedience, and paying of Tributes.

—
In “Another Confession of Faith of the Waldenses, extracted out of Charles du Moulin de la Mon: des Francois,” the following is written:

Article 5.
We hold that the Ministers of the Church, as Bishops and Pastours, ought to be irreprehensible, as well in their life as Doctrine. And that otherwise they ought to be deprived of their Office, and others substituted in their place. As likewise, that none ought to presume to take upon him this honour, but he who is called by God as was Aaron, feeding the Flock of God, not for the sake of dishonest gain, nor as having any Lordship over the Clergy, but as being sincerely an Example to his Flock, in Word, in Conversation, in Charity, in Faith, and in Chastity.

Article 6.
We confess, that Kings, Princes, and Governours, are ordained and established as Ministers of God, whom we ought to obey. For they bear the Sword for Defense of the Innocent, and for the punishing of evil Doers, for which cause we are bound to give them honour, and to pay them tribute; from whose power none can exempt himself; it being likewise forbidden by the Example of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was willing to pay tribute, not pretending jurisdiction over the temporal powers.

Article 7.
We believe, that in the Sacrament of Baptism, Water is the visible and external Sign, which represents unto us that which (by the invisible virtue of God operating) is within us; namely, the renovation of the Spirit, and the mortification of our members in Jesus Christ; by which also we are received into the holy Congregation of the People of God, there protesting and declaring openly our faith and amendment of life.

Article 8.
We hold, that the holy Sacrament of the Table or Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ is an holy commemoration, and giving of thanks for the benefits which we have received by his Death and Passion; that we ought to assemble together in Faith and Charity, examining our selves, and so to eat of that Bread, and communicate of that his Bloud, in the very same manner as he hath prescribed in the holy Scripture.

Article 9.
We confess, that Mariage is good, honourable, holy, and instituted by God himself; which ought not to be prohibited to any person, provided that there be no hindrance specified by the Word of God.

—
In “The ancient Discipline of the Evangelical Churches in the Valleys of Piemont, Extracted out of divers Authentick Manuscripts, written in their own Language,” the following excerpt is written:

“Minister: By what Mark knowest thou the false Ministers?
“Answer: By their fruits, by their blindness, by their evil works, by their perverse Doctrine, and by their undue administration of the Sacraments.

“Min. Whereby knowest thou their blindness?
“Answ. When, not knowing the truth, which necessarily appertains to salvation, they observe human Inventions as Ordinances of God. Of whom is verified what Isaiah says, and which is alleged by our Lord Jesus Christ, This People honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men.

“Min. By what Marks knowest thou evil works?
“Answ. By those manifest sins of which the Apostle speaks, saying, That they which do such things, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

“Min. By what Mark knowest thou perverse Doctrine?
“Answ. When it teacheth contrary to Faith and Hope; such is Idolatry of several sorts, viz. towards a reasonable, sensible, visible or invisible Creature. For, it is the Father alone with his Son and the Holy Spirit, who ought to be worshipped, and not any creature whatsoever. But when on the contrary they attribute to man and to the work of his hands, or to his words, or to his authority, in such a manner that men ignorantly believe that they have satisfied God by a false Religion, and by satisfying the covetous Simony of the Priests.

“Min. By what Marks is the undue Administration of the Sacrament known?
“Answ. When the Priests not knowing the intention of Christ in the Sacraments, say, that the grace and the truth is included in the external Ceremonies, and persuade men to the participation of the Sacrament without the truth, and without the faith.¹⁷⁷ But the Lord chargeth those that are his to take heed of such false Prophets, saying, Beware of the Pharisees, that is to say, of the Leaven of their Doctrine. Again, Believe them not, neither go after them. And David hates the Church or the Congregation of such persons, saying, I hate the Church of evil men.¹⁷⁸ And the Lord commands to come out from the midst of such people, Depart from the tents of the wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in their sins.¹⁷⁹ And the Apostle, Be ye not unequally yoaked with unbelievers. For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness, and what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel. And what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye seperate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you.¹⁸⁰ Again, Now we command you, Brethren, that you withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly.¹⁸¹ Again, Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”¹⁸²

[…]

“Minister: What is the third virtue necessary to salvation?
“Answer: Hope.

“Min. What is hope?
“Answ. It is a waiting for Grace and Glory to come.

“Min. How does a man wait (or hope) for Grace?
“Answ. By the Mediatour Jesus Christ, of whom St. John saith, Grace comes by Jesus Christ. Again, We have seen his Glory, who is full of Grace and Truth. And we have all received of his fullness.

“Min. What is that Grace?
“Answ. It is Redemption, Remission of sins, Justification, Adoption, and Sanctification.

“Min. Upon what account is this Grace hoped for in Christ?
“Answ. By a living Faith, and true Repentance, saying, Repent ye, and believe the Gospel.

“Min. Whence proceedeth this Hope?
“Answ. From the gift of God, and the promises of which the Apostle mentioneth, He is powerfull to perform whatsoever he promiseth.¹⁸³ For he hath promised himself, that whosoever shall know him, and repent, and shall hope in him, he will have mercy upon, pardon, and justify, &c.

“Min. What are the things that put us beside this hope?
“Answ. A dead faith, the seduction of Antichrist to believe in other things beside Christ, that is to say, in Saints, in the power of that Antichrist, in his authority, words, and benedictions, in Sacraments, Reliques of the Dead, in Purgatory, which is but forged and contrived, in teaching that faith is obtained by those ways which oppose themselves to the truth, and are against the Commandments of God. As is Idolatry in divers respects. As also by wickedness and Simony, &c. Forsaking the fountain of living water given by grace, and running to broken cisterns, worshipping, honouring, and serving the creature by Prayers, by Fastings, by Sacrifices, by Donations, by Offerings, by Pilgrimages, by Invocations, &c. Relying upon themselves for the acquiring of grace, which none can give save onely God in Christ. In vain do they labour, and lose their money and their lives, and the truth is, they do not onely lose their present life, but also that which is to come; wherefore it is said, that the hope of fools shall perish.”¹⁸⁴

Return (to previous spot) in entry A.D. 1689

Appendix Y

Preface of Robert Olivétan to his Translation of the Bible into French
Printed at Neuchatel, June 3, A.D. 1535.

“This book needs neither the favour, support, or protection of humane powers or principalities, nor indeed any patronage though never so Sovereign, but thine onely, O poor little Church, together with those thy faithfull ones, who have truly learned and known God in Jesus Christ, his onely Son and our Lord; I mean not that Church which triumphs with pomp and riches; neither do I mean the Church militant which defends itself by force of arms: No it is Thee alone to whom I present this precious treasure (whereof thou mayst say מן הוא as the Children of Israel,¹⁸⁵ yet hoping that it shall never create thee any trouble) in the name of a certain poor people thy friends and brethren in Jesus Christ, Who ever since they were blessed and enriched therewith by the Apostles and Ambassadors of Christ, have still enjoyed and possessed the same. And being now willing to gratifie thee with what thou desirest so earnestly, they have given me a commission to draw this precious treasure out of the Hebrew and Greek cabinets, (and having wrapt up the same in a French mantle, to the best of my skill, and according to that talent which the Lord hath given me), forthwith to present thee with it, O poor Church, on whom no man bestows any thing. And indeed I see no reason why it should be presented to any but thyself, for what can be given to those that have all things, and to whom every one gives what he hath? As for this, which is of as great, yea of much greater value than all worldly wealth or riches, I say it is for thee, O poor Church, whose substance they would much sooner diminish than increase. To thee, I say, who art so unprovided of all things, who art so thin and lean, and out of heart, and hast nothing left thee but the voice onely, no I say, Thou hast nothing left thee but voice and words (yet) the word of truth and life, The word of God, which endureth for ever: and whereby thou hast been created and begotten.”

“[…] Now then, O noble and worthy Church, that art the happy spouse of the King’s Son, accept and receive this Word, Promise, and Testament […] For his name, who here speaks, and who desires to be known and heard, is of such authority, that there is no ear but ought to be open to receive the true and living word of his Eternal and immutable will, by which word all things do subsist; which blessed and holy will of God he will have to be entertained by the ears of our hearts, there to remain and dwell, that so in stead of our wicked and depraved lusts, we may here be furnished with the holy and immutable will of God, to whose favour (O poor little Church) we heartily recommend thee; From the Alpes, 12 of February, 1535.

“En Dieu tout. (God is all-sufficient.)

“Fear not little flock, For it is your Father’s good will to give you the Kingdom. Luc. 12.”¹⁸⁶

Appendix Z

Prologue of William Tyndale to his translation of the New Testament into English,
Printed at Cologne, in quarto, A.D. 1525.

“I have here translated (brethren and sisters most dear and tenderly beloved in Christ) the new Testament for your spiritual edifying, consolation and solace: Exhorting instantly and beseeching those that are better seen in the tongues than I, and that have higher gifts of grace to interpret the sense of the Scripture, and meaning of the Spirit, than I, to consider and ponder my labor, and that with the spirit of meekness.

==The gospell or evangelion
“Evangelion (that we call the gospell) is a Greek word; and signifieth good, merry, glad and joyful tidings, that maketh a man’s heart glad, and maketh him sing, dance, and leap for joy. As when David had killed Goliath the giant, came glad tidings unto the jеwеs, that their fearful and cruel enemy was slain, and they delivered out of all danger: for gladness whereof, they sung, danced, and were joyful. In like manner is the Evangelion of God (which we call Gospel; and the New Testament) joyful tidings; and as some say, a good hearing published by the apostles throughout all the world, of Christ the right David how that he hath fought with sin, with death, and the devil, and overcome them. Whereby all men that were in bondage to sin, wounded to death, overcome of the devil, are with out their own merits or deservings, loosed, justified, restored to life, and saved, brought to liberty, and reconciled unto the favour of God, and set at one with him again: which tidings as many as believe, laud praise and thank God; are glad, sing and dance for joy. This evangelion or gospell (that is to say, such joyful tidings) is called the new testament. Because that as a man when he shall die appointeth his goods to be dealt and distributed after his death among them which he nameth to be his heirs. Even so Christ before his death commanded and appointed that such evangelion, gospell, or tidings should be declared through out all the world, and there with to give unto all that believe all his goods, that is to say, his life, where with he swallowed and devoured up death: his righteousness, where with he banished sin: his salvation, where with he overcame eternal damnation. Now can the wretched man (that is wrapped in sin, and is in danger to death and hell) hear no more joyous a thing, then such glad and comfortable tidings, of Christ. So that he cannot but be glad and laugh from the low bottom of his heart, if he believe that the tidings are true.

“To strength such faith with all, God promised this his evangelion in the old testament by the prophets (as Paul sayth in the first chapter unto the romans). How that he was chosen out to preach God’s evangelion, which he before had promised by the prophets in the holy scriptures that treat of his son which was born of the seed of David. In the third chapter of Genesis, God saith to the serpent: I will put hatred between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed, that self seed shall tread thy head under foot. Christ is this woman’s seed, he it is that hath trodden under foot the devil’s seed, that is to say sin, death, hell, and all his power. For with out this seed can no man avoid sin, death, hell and everlasting damnation. Again Gen. xxij. God promised Abraham saying: by thy seed shall all the generations of the earth be blessed. Christ is that seed of Abraham sayth saint Paul in the third to the Galathyans: He hast blessed all the world through the gospell. For where Christ is not, there remaineth the curse that fell on Adam as soon as he had sinned; So that they are in bondage under the domination of sin, death, and hell. Against this curse blesseth now the gospell all the world, in as much as it crieth openly, who so ever believeth on the seed of Abraham shall be blessed, that is, he shall be delivered from sin, death and hell, and shall hence forth continue righteous, living, and saved for ever, as Christ him self saith (in the xi. of Ihon) He that believeth on me shall never more die.”

“[…] In the old testament are many promises, which are nothing else but the evangelion or gospell, to save those that believed them, from the vengeance of the law. And in the new testament is oft made mention of the law, to condemn them, which believe not the promises. Moreover the law and gospell may never be separate: for the gospell and promises serve but for troubled consciences which are brought to desperation and feel the pains of hell and death under the law, and are in captivity and bondage under the law. In all my deeds I must have the law before me to condemn mine unperfections. For all that I do (be I never so perfect) is yet damnable sin, when it is compared to the law, which requireth the ground and bottom of mine heart. I must therefore have always the law in my sight, that I may be meek in the spirit, and give God all the laud and praise, ascribing to him all righteousness, and to my self all unrighteousness and sin. I must also have the promises before mine eyes, that I despair not, in which promises I see the mercy, favour, and good will of God upon me in the blood of his son Christ, which hath made satisfaction for mine unperfections, and fulfilled from me, that which I could not do.

“Here may ye perceive that two manner of people are sore deceived. First they which justify them self with outward deeds, in that they abstain outwardly from that which the law forbiddeth, and do outwardly that which the law commandeth. They compare them selves to open sinners and in respect of them justify them selves condemning the open sinners. They see not how the law requireth love from the bottom of the heart. If they did they would not condemn their neighbours. Love hideth the multitude of sins, saith Saynct Peter in his first pistel. For whom I love from the deep bottom and ground of mine heart, him condemn I not, neither reckon his sins, but suffer his weakness and infirmity, as a mother the weakness of her son, until he grow up in to a perfect man.

“Those also are deceived which with out all fear of God give them selves unto all manner vices with full consent, and full delectation, having no respect to the law of God (under whose vengeance they are locked up in captivity) but say: god is merciful and christ died for us, supposing that such dreaming and imagination is that faith which is so greatly commended in holy scripture. Nay that is not faith, but rather a foolish opinion springing of their own nature, and is not given them of the spirit of God. True faith is (as saith the apostle Paul) the gift of God and is given to sinners after the law hath passed upon them and hath brought their consciences unto the brim of desperation, and sorrows of hell.

“They that have this right faith, consent to the law that it is righteous and good, and justify God which made the law, and have delectation in the law (not with stonding that they can not fulfill it, for their weakness) and they abhor what soever the law forbiddeth, though they cannot avoid it. And their great sorrow is, because they cannot fulfill the will of God in the law, and the spirit that is in them crieth to God night and day for strength and help with tears (as saith Paul) that cannot be expressed with tongue.

**A justiciary
“The first, that is to say a justiciary, which justifieth him self with his outward deeds, cosenteth not to the law in ward, neither hath delectation therein, yea, he would rather that no such law were. So justifieth he not God, but hateth him as a tyrant, neither careth he for the promises, but will with his own strength be favour of him self: no wise glorifieth he God, though he seem outward to do.

**A sensual man
“The second, that is to say the sensual person, as a voluptuous swine, neither feareth God in his law, neither is thankful to him for his promises and mercy, which is set forth in Christ to all them that believe.

**A Christen man
“The right Christen man consenteth to the law that it is righteous, and justifieth God in the law, for he affirmeth that God is righteous and just, which is author of the law, he believeth the promises of God, and so justifieth God, judging him true and believing that he will fulfill his promises. With the law he condemneth him self and all his deeds, and giveth all the praise to God. He believeth the promises, and ascribeth all troth to God, thus every where justifieth he God, and praiseth God.

“Whatsoever is our own is sin. Whatsoever is above that, is Christ’s gift, purchase, doing, and working. He bought it of his father derely with his blood, yea with his most bitter death and gave his life for it. Whatsoever good thing is in us, that is given us freely with out our deserving or merits for Christ’s blood’s sake. That we desire to follow the will of God, it is the gift of Christ’s blood. That we now hate the devil’s will is also the gift of Christ’s blood, unto whom belongeth the praise and honour of our good deeds, and not unto us.”

Prologue of William Tyndale to his translation of the Bible
Printed at Antwerp, A.D. 1530.

“When I had translated the new testament, I added a pistel unto the latter end, in which I desired them that were learned to amend if ought were found amiss. But our malicious and wily hypocrites which are so stubborn and hard hearted in their wicked abominations that it is not possible for them to amend any thing at all (as we see by daily experience, when both their livings and doings are rebuked with the truth) say, some of them that it is impossible to translate the scripture into English, some that it is not lawful for the lay people to have it in their mother tongue, some, that it would make them all heretics, as it would no doubt from many things which they of long time have falsely taught, and that is the whole cause wherefore they forbid it, though they other cloaks pretend. And some or rather every one, say that it would make them rise against the king, whom they themselves (unto their damnation) never yet obeyed. And lest the temporal rulers should see their falsehood, if the scripture came to light, causeth them so to lie. And as for my translation in which they affirm unto the lay people (as I have heard say) to be I wot not how many thousand heresies, so that it cannot be mended or correct, they have yet taken so great pain to examine it, and to compare it unto that they would fain have it and to their own imaginations and juggling terms, and to have somewhat to rail at, and under that cloak to blaspheme the truth, that they might with as little labour (as I suppose) have translated the most part of the bible. For they which in times past were wont to look on no more scripture than they found in their Duns or such like devilish doctrine, have yet now so narrowly looked on my translation, that there is not so much as one i therein if it lack a tittle over his head, but they have noted it, and number it unto the ignorant people for an heresy. Finally in this they be all agreed, to drive you from the knowledge of the scripture, and that ye shall not have the text thereof in the mother tongue, and to keep the world still in darkness, to the intent they might sit in the consciences of the people, thorow vain superstition and false doctrine, to satisfy their filthy lusts, their proud ambition, and unsatiable covetousness, and to exalt their own honour above king and emperor, yea and above God himself.

“Which thing only moved me to translate the new testament. Because I had perceived by experience how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order, and meaning of the text: for else whatsoever truth is taught them, these enemies of all truth quench it again, partly with the smoke of their bottomless pit whereof thou readest Apocalypse ix. that is, with apparent reasons of sophistry, and traditions of their own making, founded without ground of scripture, and partly in juggling with the text, expounding it in such a sense as is impossible to gather of the text, if thou see the process, order, and meaning thereof.

“And even in the bishop of London’s house I intended to have done it. For when I was so turmoiled in the country where I was that I could no longer there dwell (the process whereof were too long here to rehearse) I this wise thought in myself, this I suffer because the priests of the country be unlearned, as God it knoweth there are a full ignorant sort which have seen no more Latin than that they read in their portesses and missals which yet many of them can scarcely read, (except it be Albertus de secretis mulierum¹⁸⁷ in which yet, though they be never so sorrily learned, they pore day and night, and make notes therein and all to teach the midwives as they say, and Linwode¹⁸⁸ a book of constitutions to gather tithes, mortuaries, offerings, customs, and other pillage, which they call, not theirs, but God’s part and the duty of holy church, to discharge their consciences withall: for they are bound that they shall not diminish, but increase all things unto the uttermost of their powers) and therefore (because they are thus unlearned, thought I) when they come together to the ale house, which is their preaching place, they affirm that my sayings are heresy. And besides that they add to of their own heads which I never spake, as the manner is to prolong the tale to short the time withall, and accused me secretly to the chancellor and other the bishop’s officers. And indeed, when I came before the chancellor, he threatened me grievously, and reviled me, and rated me as though I had been a dog, and laid to my charge whereof there could be none accuser brought forth, (as their manner is not to bring forth the accuser) and yet all the priests of the country were the same day there. As I this thought, the bishop of London came to my remembrance whom Erasmus (whose tongue maketh of little gnats great elephants and lifteth up above the stars whosoever giveth him a little exhibition) praiseth exceedingly among other in his annotations on the new testament for his great learning. Then thought I, if I might come to this man’s service, I were happy. And so I gat me to London, and, thorow the acquaintance of my master came to sir Harry Gilford, the king’s grace’s controller, and bought him an oration of Isocrates which I had translated out of Greek into English, and desired him to speak unto my lord of London for me … But God which knoweth what is within hypocrites, saw that I was beguiled, and that that counsel was not the next way unto my purpose. And therefore he gat me no favour in my lord’s sight.

“Whereupon my lord answered me, his house was full, he had more than he could well find, and advised me to seek in London, where he said I could not lack a service. And so in London I abode almost a year, and marked the course of the world, and heard our praters, I would say our preachers how they boasted themselves and their high authority, and beheld the pomp of our prelates, and how busied they were as they yet are, to set peace and unity in the world (though it be not possible for them that walk in darkness to continue long in peace, for they cannot but either stumble or dash themselves at one thing or another that shall clean unquiet all together) and saw things whereof I defer to speak at this time and understood at the last not only that there was no room in my lord of London’s palace to translate the new testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England, as experience doth now openly declare.

“Under what manner therefore should I now submit this book to be corrected and amended of them which can suffer nothing to be well? Or what protestation should I make in such a matter unto our prelates those stubborn Nimrods which so mightily fight against God, and resist his holy spirit, enforcing with all craft and subtlety to quench the light of the everlasting testament, promises, and appointment made between God and us: and heaping the fierce wrath of God upon all princes and rulers, mocking them with false feigned names of hypocrisy, and serving their lusts at all points, and dispensing with them even of the very laws of God, of which Christ himself testifieth, Matt. v. that not so much as one tittle thereof may perish, or be broken. And of which the prophet saith, Psalm cxviiij.¹⁸⁹ Thou hast commanded thy laws to be kept meod, that is in Hebrew exceedingly, with all diligence, might and power, and have made them so mad with their juggling charms and crafty persuasions that they think it a full satisfaction for all their wicked lying, to torment such as tell them truth, and to burn the word of their souls’ health, and slay whosoever believe thereon.

“Notwitstonding yet I submit this book and all other that I have either made or translated, or shall in time to come, (if it be God’s will that I shall further labour in his harvest) unto all them that submit themselves unto the word of God, to be corrected of them, yea and moreover to be disallowed and also burnt, if it seem worthy when they have examined it with the Hebrew, so that they first put forth of their own translating another that is more correct.”
[Note: He had translated the Pentateuch already by 1530. Over the next five years, would further translate Joshua through 2 Chronicles, and the book of Jonah, before his betrayal and execution. Moreover, this was a Hebrew translation before Olivétan’s time, and a Greek translation before Stephanus’ publications. Tyndale’s work however has a far-reaching influence on English Biblical phraseology and English language.]

Return (to previous spot) in entry A.D. 1689

Appendix 1

The Noble Lesson
The following was written in Occitan verse by an unknown author

I.
1 O brothers, hear a noble lesson:
2 Often we must watch and keep ourselves in prayer,
3 For we see this world near ruin;
4 We should be very eager to do good works,
5 For we see this world approaching the end.
6 There are already a thousand and one hundred years fully accomplished,
7 Since the hour it was written we are at the last time;
8 We should not covet because we are at the latter end.
9 Every day we see the signs coming to their fulfillment,
10 The increase in evil and decrease in good.
11 These are the perils that Scripture says:
12 The Gospel tells it, and so does Saint Paul,
13 That no man living can know the end;
14 So we should fear more, for we are not sure
15 If death will take us today or tomorrow.
16 But when it comes to the day of judgment,
17 Everyone will receive a full payment,
18 Whoever has done wrong, and whoever has done well.
19 And the Scripture says, and we must believe it,
20 That all men go two ways away from the world:
21 The good will go to glory and the wicked to torment.
22 But let him who does not believe in this counsel,
23 Search the scriptures to the end from the beginning,
24 From the time Adam was formed, to the present day.
25 He can find there, if he has understanding,
26 How few are saved, from the rest.
27 But each person who wishes to do the good works
28 Must have the name of God the Father in the beginning,
29 And call upon his glorious and dear Son for help,
30 Son of Saint Mary,
31 And on the Holy Spirit, that he might set us right.
32 These three, the Holy Trinity,
33 Must be prayed as one God,
34 Full of omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness.
35 We often have to pray and require it,
36 Let him give us strength against enemies,
37 So that we may defeat them before we die,
38 Them, that is to say the world, the devil and the flesh;
39 May he give us wisdom with kindness,
40 So that we may know the way of truth,
41 And keep pure the soul which God has given us,
42 Soul and body, in the way of charity;
43 So let us love the Holy Trinity,
44 And our neighbor, for God commanded it,
45 Not only those who do us good, but even those who do us harm,
46 Let us ask for faith and hope in the heavenly king,
47 So that in the end he may lodge us in his glorious abode.
48 But whoever does not do what is in this lesson,
49 Will not enter the holy house.
50 But this is hard to observe for the bad people,
51 Who love gold and silver,
52 And despise the promises of God,
53 And do not keep the law and the commandments,
54 And do not suffer good people to keep them,
55 But prevent them to the utmost of their power.

II.
56 How came evil unto mankind?
57 Because Adam has sinned from the very beginning,
58 For he ate the apple despite this being forbidden,
59 And the grain of the bad seed has taken root in others;
60 He died for this and so did the others who followed.
61 We can say that this was a bad song.
62 But Christ redeemed the good by his passion.
63 Alas, we find in this lesson
64 That Adam was disbelieving towards God his Creator.
65 So we can see that they’re getting worse now,
66 Those who abandon God, the Almighty Father,
67 And believe in idols, to their own destruction,
68 Which is forbidden by the law from the beginning.
69 It is called natural law, common to all people,
70 God put it in the heart of man’s first form;
71 He gave him freedom to be able to do right or wrong;
72 He forbad him from evil and ordered him to do good.
73 You can clearly see by this that it was badly kept,
74 We have all left the good and practiced evil,
75 As did Cain, Adam’s first son,
76 Who killed his brother Abel for no reason,
77 But because he was good
78 And had faith in the Lord, not in any creature.
79 Here we can take an example of the law of nature,
80 Which we have corrupted, passing the measure.
81 We have sinned against the Creator, and offended the creature.
82 It was a noble law that God had given us;
83 In the heart of every man he put it in writing,
84 So that he could read it, keep it and follow righteousness,
85 Love God in his heart more than any creature,
86 And fear and serve him, and this without measure,
87 For this law is not [only] revealed in Holy Scripture.
88 This law commanded him to keep marriage firmly, that noble accord,
89 To live in peace with the brothers, to love all other people,
90 To hate pride, to love humility,
91 To do to others as he would have to be done by,
92 And if one has done the contrary, he should be punished.
93 There were few who kept the law;
94 There were many who transgressed,
95 Abandoned the Lord, denying him honor,
96 But they believed the devil, and his temptation,
97 Loved the world too much, and paradise too little,
98 And served the body more than the spirit.
99 So we find that many have died.

III.
100 Here can be reproved any man that says,
101 That God did not make people to let them perish.
102 But let everyone beware that what happened before might happen to him,
103 For the flood came and destroyed the felons
104 But God made an ark, and he locked up the good.
105 The evil had increased so much and the good had diminished so much,
106 That in the whole world there were only eight saved.

IV.
107 We can take example, in this sentence,
108 To keep us from evil and to repent entirely.
109 For Jesus Christ said it, and it is written in Saint Luke,
110 Let all who do not repent perish.¹⁹⁰
111 But to those who escaped, God promised them
112 That the world would never perish by water.
113 These believed and multiplied.
114 Of the good that God did to them, few remembered,
115 But their faith was so weak and their fear so great,
116 That they did not really believe the word of the Lord;
117 But fearing that the waters would still drown the world,
118 They said to make a tower to take refuge there;
119 They started it well, according to what is written;
120 They said to make it wide, and so tall, and so great,
121 That it reached heaven, but they couldn’t do as much,
122 For it displeased God, and God made them see it.
123 Babylon was the name of this great city,
124 And now it’s called confusion because of its perversity.
125 There was only one language among humanity;
126 But so that they would not get along, God made a partition there,
127 So they would not finish what they had started.
128 Languages were spread by everyone;
129 Then men sinned seriously, abandoning the law, that is to say the law of nature,
130 Because Scripture says it and we can prove it
131 That five cities perished, which did evil:
132 God condemned them to fire and sulfur;
133 He destroyed the felons and delivered the good ones:
134 It was Lot and those of his house, the angel brought him out;
135 There were four in all, but one condemned herself:
136 It was the woman, only because she turned around despite the defense.
137 Here is a great example for all people,
138 They must guard themselves against what God forbids.

V.
139 At that time Abraham was a man pleasing to God;
140 He fathered a patriarch from whom the Jеws descended.
141 It was a noble nation in the fear of God;
142 They lived in Egypt among a wicked people,
143 There they were oppressed and constrained for a long time,
144 And cried to the Lord, who sent Moses,
145 Delivered his people and destroyed the other nation:
146 Through the Red Sea they passed as if by a beautiful exit;
147 But their enemies, who pursued them, all perished there.
148 God did many other miracles for his people;
149 Fed them forty years in the desert and gave them the law;
150 On two stone tables, he transmitted it by Moses;
151 They found it nobly written and orderly.
152 It showed that there is a Lord for mankind,
153 We have to believe in him and love him wholeheartedly,
154 And fear him and serve him until the last day;
155 Everyone must love his neighbor as himself,
156 Advise the widows, support the orphans,
157 Shelter the poor, clothe the naked,
158 Feed the hungry, bring back the lost,
159 Keep well your law.
160 To those who would observe it, he promised the celestial kingdom;
161 He forbad the worship of idols,
162 Homicide, adultery, all fornication,
163 Lying, perjury, false witness,
164 Usury, rapine, evil coveting,
165 Also greed and all wickedness;
166 To the good, he promised life, and gave death to the bad people.
167 Justice then reigned in his lordship,
168 For those who sinned and misbehaved
169 Were dead and destroyed without forgiveness.
170 Scripture says, and it is very manifest,
171 That thirty thousand remained in the desert,
172 Thirty thousand or more, according to what the law says.
173 They died by the sword, the fire and snakes,
174 And many others perished by extermination:
175 The earth opened and hell received them.
176 Here we can blame ourselves for our great drowsiness.
177 But those who pleased the will of the Lord,
178 Inherited the promised land.
179 There were many, and excellent ones of this sort,
180 Like David, and the King Solomon,
181 Isaiah, Jeremiah, and many other men,
182 Who fought for and defended the law.
183 God had one elected people out of all the world.
184 Enemies were numerous around them to persecute them.

VI.
185 We can take a great example in this lesson:
186 When they kept the law and the commandments,
187 God fought for them against the other nations;
188 But when they sinned and did wrong,
189 They were dead and destroyed, and taken by the others.
190 The people grew so much and were so full of great wealth
191 That he began to pull his sandals against the Lord.
192 So we find in this lesson,
193 That the king of Babylon put them in his prison;
194 There they were oppressed and constrained for a long time;
195 They cried out to the Lord with a repentant heart:
196 Then he brought them back to Jеrusаlеm.
197 A few were obedient to keep the law,
198 Who were afraid of offending their King.
199 But there were some people full of great falsehood:
200 These were the Pharisees and the other scribes;
201 It was very obvious that they were observing the law,
202 That they might be seen and honored;
203 But it is not worth much, this honor which soon falls into ruin.
204 The saints and the righteous and the good were persecuted,
205 And with tears and groans prayed to the Lord
206 That he came down to earth to save this world,
207 Because all the human lineage was going to perdition.
208 Then God sent the angel to a noble maiden of the royal line;
209 He greeted her gently, for he came by command,
210 Then he said to her, Fear not, Mary,
211 For the Holy Spirit will overshadow you;
212 From you will be born a son whom you shall call Jesus:
213 He shall save his people from the sin they have committed.
214 Nine months did the glorious virgin bear him in her womb,
215 But so that she wouldn’t be blamed, Joseph espoused her.
216 Pure was our lady, and Joseph also;
217 We have to believe it, because the Gospel says it,
218 When the child was born, they put him in a manger;
219 They wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and he was poorly housed:
220 Here can be exposed the envious and the miserly,
221 Who never want to stop increasing their assets.
222 There were many miracles when the Lord was born:
223 God sent the angel to announce him to the shepherds;
224 In the East appeared a star to three wise men;
225 Glory was given to God in heaven, and on earth peace to the good.
226 But soon after they suffered persecution.
227 The child grew in grace and in age,
228 And in divine wisdom, in which he was instructed.
229 And he called twelve apostles who were well named.
230 He wanted to change the law he had previously given;
231 He did not change it, so that it was abandoned,
232 But he renewed it so that it was more strongly guarded.
233 He received Baptism in order to give salvation,
234 And went and said to the apostles to baptize the people,
235 For then the renewal began:

VII.
236 The old law forbids fornicating and committing adultery,
237 But the new catches the eye and lusts.
238 The old law allows to break the marriage,
239 And you had to give a divorce letter,
240 But the new says not to take the abandoned,
241 And let no one separate what God has united.
242 The old law curses the breast that does not give birth,
243 But the new advises to guard the virginity.
244 The old law only forbids perjury,
245 But the new says don’t swear at all,
246 And let your conversation be only yes or no.
247 The old law orders to fight against enemies and to render evil for evil,
248 But the new says, Do not seek revenge,
249 Leave vengeance to the heavenly King;
250 Let those who hurt you live in peace,
251 And you will obtain forgiveness from the celestial King.
252 The old law says, Love your friends and hate your enemies,
253 But the new says, You will not do so again,
254 But love your enemies and do good to those who hate you,
255 Pray for those who persecute and accuse you,
256 So that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.
257 The old law commands those who do evil to be punished,
258 But the new says: Forgive everyone,
259 And you will obtain forgiveness from the Almighty Father;
260 For if you do not forgive, you will not find salvation.
261 No one should kill, or hate any kind,
262 We must not even despise the simple or the poor,
263 Neither despise a vile stranger who comes from another country,
264 For in this world we are all pilgrims.
265 All we that are brethren, must serve God.
266 This is the new law that Jesus Christ told us to keep.

VIII.
267 He called his apostles and ordered them
268 To go out into the world, to instruct men,
269 And preach to the Jеws, to the Greeks and to all;
270 He empowered them over snakes,
271 And told them to cast out demons, to heal the infirm,
272 To raise the dead, to cleanse the lepers,
273 And do to others as he had done to them.
274 They were to have neither gold nor silver,
275 But be satisfied with food and clothing;
276 To love each other and live on good terms.
277 Then he promised to them the kingdom of heaven,
278 And to those who would be poor in spirit.
279 But we would quickly count, if we knew,
280 Those who want to be poor by their own free will.
281 He began to tell them about the future,
282 How he was to die, then rise again.
283 He told them the signs and the demonstrations
284 Which were to come before the end.
285 He said to them and to all many beautiful parables,
286 Which were written in the New Testament.
287 But if we want to love Christ and know his doctrine,
288 We need to watch and read the Scripture.
289 We can find there, after reading,
290 It was only for doing good that Christ was persecuted.
291 He raised the dead by divine virtue,
292 He made the blind to see who had never seen,
293 He purified the lepers, made the deaf hear,
294 And cast out demons, performing many more miracles,
295 And the more good he did, the more he was persecuted.
296 It was the Pharisees who persecuted him,
297 And those of King Herode and those of the clergy,
298 For they envied him because the crowd followed him,
299 Because they believed in him and in his commandments.
300 They resolved to kill him and place great torment on him,
301 Spoke to Judаs and agreed with him,
302 That if he delivered this to them, he would have thirty pieces of silver.
303 And Judаs was greedy and committed treason,
304 And delivered his Lord to evil people.
305 It was the Jеws which crucified him,
306 They nailed hard his feet and hands,
307 And placed on his head a crown of thorns;
308 Addressing him with many reproaches, they blasphemed him;
309 He said he was thirsty: they quenched him with gall and vinegar.
310 The torments were so bitter and painful,
311 That the soul parted from the body, to save sinners.
312 The body remained hanged on the cross,
313 In the middle of two thieves.
314 They began with four wounds on him, not to mention the other blows,
315 Then made the fifth, to complete the number,
316 For one of the horsemen came and opened his side:
317 So there came out blood and water together.
318 All the apostles fled, but one returned,
319 And he was standing there with two Marys near the cross.
320 All were in great pain, but especially Our Lady,
321 When she saw her dead son, naked and fastened to the cross.
322 He was buried by the good and guarded by the felons.
323 He rose again from d’enfern [hell] the third day,
324 And appeared to his own, as he had told them.
325 Then they were very glad when they saw the Lord,
326 And they were strengthened, for before they had great fear;
327 He spoke with them until the day of the ascension.
328 Then our Savior went up into glory,
329 And said to his apostles and to the other disciples,
330 That until the end of the centuries he would always be with them.

IX.
331 When at Pentecost he remembered them,
332 He sent to them the Holy Spirit, who is the Comforter;
333 He instructed the apostles of divine doctrine,
334 And they knew tongues, and Holy Scripture.
335 Then they remembered what he had said;
336 Without fear they announced the doctrine of Christ,
337 Preached to Jеws and Greeks, working miracles,
338 And baptized the believers in the name of Jesus Christ.
339 Then was made a people of new converts:
340 They were called Christians because they believed in Christ.
341 But we find that Scripture says,
342 That they were greatly persecuted by Jеws and Saracens;
343 But the apostles were so strong in the fear of the Lord,
344 As well as the men and women who were with them,
345 That for them they ceased neither to act nor to speak,
346 To the point that many killed them, as they had killed Jesus Christ.
347 Great were the torments, as it is written,
348 And only because they showed the way of Jesus Christ.
349 But those who persecuted didn’t have to suffer so much,
350 For they had no faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,
351 Like those who now seek accusation and persecute so much,
352 They must be Christians, but they are a poor semblance.
353 But in this is a reprisal to those who persecute, and a comfort to the good:
354 Because you don’t find in any lesson,
355 That the saints persecuted or put any in prison.
356 But after the apostles were qualified doctors,
357 Who showed the way of Jesus Christ, our Savior;
358 There are still some in the present time,
359 Which are known only to very few people;
360 They would be very eager to show the way of Jesus Christ,
361 But they’re so persecuted that they can do it only a little;
362 So many false Christians are blinded by error,
363 And more than others those who are pastors,
364 For they persecute and kill those who are better,
365 And let those live quietly, who are false and deceivers.
366 But here is where we can recognize that they are not good pastors,
367 Because they love sheep only for fleece;
368 But Scripture says, and we can see,
369 That if there is some good man who wants to love God and fear Jesus Christ,
370 Who doesn’t want to curse, swear, or lie,
371 Neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor take that which is another’s,
372 Neither take revenge on his enemies,
373 They say he is vaudés [Vaudois] and worthy of being punished,
374 And they find an accusation, by falsehood and deception,
375 To be able to take away from him what he has by his just labor;
376 But let him take courage, he who is persecuted for the fear of the Lord,
377 For the kingdom of heaven will be prepared for him out of this world;
378 Then he will have great glory, after having had dishonor.
379 But here is how their wickedness is very obvious:
380 It’s because whoever wants to curse, lie, swear,
381 Lend for usury, kill, commit adultery,
382 And take revenge on those who harm him,
383 They call him prud’homme [proud man] and account him as loyal;
384 But at the end he should take care not to be deceived:

X.
385 When the deadly evil comes, death presses him and he can barely speak,
386 He asks for the priest and wants to confess;
387 But according to the Scriptures, it is too late, because it orders and says:
388 Confess yourself healthy and alive, and don’t wait for the end.¹⁹¹
389 The priest asks him if he has any sin,
390 He answers him two or three words, and soon ends speaking.
391 The priest tells him well that he could not be forgiven,
392 If he does not return all that is to others, and if he does not correct his wrongs well.
393 But when he hears that, he thinks for a long time,
394 And thinks to himself that, if he renders everything,
395 What will be left to his children, and what will people say?
396 He commands his children to amend their wrongs,
397 And he concludes a contract with the priest to be able to be absolved:
398 If he leaves a hundred Livres to others, or even two hundred,
399 The priest acquits him for a hundred Sous,
400 And sometimes for less, when he can get no more,
401 And tells him a long story and promises forgiveness;
402 That he will have masses said for him and for his parents,
403 And he promises him forgiveness, though he be just or guilty;
404 So he puts his hand on his head;
405 When he leaves, moreover, he makes great celebration,
406 And makes him understand that he is very much absolved;
407 But he has badly made amends to those he has harmed;
408 He will be deceived by such absolution,
409 And whoever made him believe it, he sinned to death.
410 For me, I dare say, that because this is true,
411 Of all the popes, from Silvestre until now,
412 And all the cardinals, and all the bishops and all the abbots, and the like,
413 They don’t have enough power to absolve, that they can forgive
414 To any creature one mortal sin.
415 God alone forgives, which no one else can do.

XI.
416 But here is what those who are pastors should do:
417 They should preach to the people and stand in prayer,
418 Shepherd often with divine doctrine,
419 And punish sinners by giving discipline,
420 That is to say, true admonition, so that they repent;
421 That they first of all confess, without any reserve,
422 And to repent in this present life,
423 Fasting, giving alms and praying with a burning heart,
424 For by these things they shall find absolution.¹⁹²
425 So we Christians, bad Christians, who have sinned,
426 Abandoned the law of Jesus Christ,
427 Having no fear, faith, or charity,
428 Must confess, and without delay;
429 With weeping and repentance we need to amend
430 The offense that we made by three mortal sins,
431 Lust of the eyes, enjoyment of the flesh,
432 And pride of life, because we have done evil.
433 This is the way we have to stand,
434 If we want to love and follow Jesus Christ:
435 We must observe spiritual poverty from the heart,
436 Love chastity, serve God in humility;
437 Then we would follow the way of Jesus Christ,
438 So we would defeat our enemies.

XII.
439 Here is the brief recount of this lesson.
440 Of the three laws that God gave to the world:
441 The first law shows, to him who has sense and reason,
442 The knowledge of God and the honor to their Creator;
443 For whoever is intelligent can think for himself,
444 That he did not form himself, nor any thing else;
445 So he can know here, who has sense and reason,
446 That there is one Lord God who shaped the whole world.
447 And, knowing him, we must honor him very much,
448 For those who did not want to do this were damned.
449 The second law, the one that God gave Moses,
450 Teaches us to fear God and to serve Him strongly,
451 For he condemns and punishes every man who offends him.
452 The third law, which is to the present day,
453 Teaches us to love God with good heart and to serve him purely,
454 For he waits for the sinner and gives him time,
455 So that he can repent in the present life.
456 We should no longer have any other law,
457 Than to follow Jesus Christ, to do his will,
458 To keep firmly what he commanded,
459 And to be well advised when the antichrist comes,
460 So that we do not believe in his actions, or his words.
461 According to Scripture, there are now many antichrists:
462 For he is an antichrist who is contrary to Christ.
463 Many signs, grand demonstrations
464 Will be from that moment until the day of judgment.
465 Heaven and earth will burn, all the living will die,
466 Then all will revive as not to die anymore,
467 And whatever has been built will be overturned.
468 Then the last judgment will be made:
469 God will divide his people as it is written;
470 To the wicked, he will say: Separate yourself from me,
471 Go to the fire of hell which will never end;
472 There you will be subject to three harsh conditions,
473 Multitude of sorrows, and torments,
474 And damnation without return:
475 God protect us, by his good will,
476 And that we are given to hear, before it is long, what he will declare to his own,
477 When he says, Come with me, blessed of my Father,
478 To have the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world,
479 Where you will have enjoyments, riches and honors.
480 May this Lord, who formed the world,
481 Let us be chosen to remain in his court.
Thanks be to God. Amen.

Appendix 1, second part.
The following are three Letters from the churches in Britain.
Excerpts from the record of Joshua Thomas, from The History of the Baptist Churches in Wales.¹⁹³

Letters From the Church in London:

In [1650] there was a letter sent from the church at the Glasshouse in London to the Churches of Christ in Wales as follows:

“Beloved in the Lord in Christ our Head:

“We salute you, praying daily for you, that God would be pleased to make known his grace to you, so that you may be made able to walk before him in holiness and without blame all your days. We assure you it is no small joy to us to hear of the goodness of God to youward; that now the scriptures, again are made good, namely, to those who sit in darkness God hath wonderfully appeared; even to you whose habitations were in dark corners of the earth. The Lord grant that we may acknowledge his goodness in answering prayers, for we dare boldly affirm it to be so, for we have poured out our souls to God, that he would enlighten the dark corners of the land, and that to them who sit in darkness God would arise, and God hath risen indeed. We cannot but say that God sent our Bro. Miles to us; we having prayed that God would give to us some who might give themselves to the work of the Lord, in those places where he had work to do; and we cannot but acknowledge it before the Lord, and pray that it may be more than ordinary provocation to us to call upon our own hearts, and upon each other’s hearts to call upon that God who hath styled himself, God hearing prayers. And now brethren, we pray and exhort you to walk worthy of the mercies of God, who hath appeared to you; and that you exhort one another daily to walk with God, with an upright heart, keeping close to him in all your ways, and to go forward, pressing hard after the mark, for the mark, for the prize of the high calling which is in Christ Jesus. The Lord grant that you may be strengthened against the wiles of that evil and subtil enemy of our salvation, knowing that he and his servants turn themselves into glorious shapes, and make great pretences, speaking swelling words of vanity, endeavoring to beguile souls: but blessed be God, we hope you are not ignorant of his devices. Time would fail us to tell you how many ways many have been ensnared and have fallen; yet praised be his name, many have escaped his snares, even as a bird from the hand of a cunning fowler. So committing you to God, and the word of his Grace, we take leave, subscribing ourselves:

“Your brethren in the faith and fellowship of Christ, according to the Gospel:

“William Consett, Edward Cressett, Joseph Stafford, Edward Roberts, John Harmon, Robert Bowes.”

This letter happened not to be dated in the records; but the next is dated “At the Glasshouse, London, 12th of the 11th month, 1650,” which was written to the young church at Llanharan.

[…]

[T]here is a letter from the church at Llantrisaint, to the churches of Christ at Ilston, Hay and Carmarthen, dated Llantrisaint 17th of the 8th month, 1652. It is not a long letter, but as it is a good one, and Mr. Backus was so kind as to send it, we shall insert it here, thus:¹⁹⁴

“Honored and endeared Brethren:

“We bend our knees to the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he goes along the countries, enlarging the kingdom of his dear Son, delivering souls that were held captive under Satan, who is called the God of this world, and the prince of the power of the air. Oh, the admirable love of God to us! that he should bring us from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God; to receive remission of sins, and an inheritance among those who are sanctified, through the faith that is in Jesus! That he should fetch us home when we wandered from him, and manifested himself to us, who were alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that was in us, because of the blindness of our hearts! He hath made us near to himself, to be sons and heirs of God in Christ, who were afar off, even enemies and strangers to the covenants of promise. Our good God give us hearts to consider the wonderful things he hath done for us, and the inestimable things he hath promised to us; that we may be wise and watchful, how to walk worthy of such great mercies… Dear brethren it behoveth you and us, to consider whither the goodness of God leadeth us, and whether we be better thereby, does it lay any ties or engagements on our spirits to keep close to the Lord, and to walk more holy before him; seeing the Holy Ghost hath told us, this is the will of God even your sanctification? Indeed we have great cause to mourn, and to walk humbly with our God in the sight and sense of our manifold failings and frailties; but our corruptions are so strong, and our graces so weak; that our God is so full of mercies to us, and we so empty in thankfulness to him; that he hath done us so many honors above all about us, in upholding, sparing, and protecting us, against all men’s imagination that were designed against us, But oh! we have done little honor to God; we have been wanting to God, to ourselves, and to one another, in sundry duties, in our several stations. Let the word of the Lord be dear and precious to your souls, by which you were called to the knowledge of God the Father, and of his Son Jesus Christ.

“In all your actions, let your candle be lighted by the word, as David made it a lantern to his feet, and a light to his path; so shall you be taught how to walk one towards another and towards all men, and how to order the church of Christ. If your knowledge and gifts be increased, let grace humble you, lest jealousy swell you up. Oh! that the Lord would teach you and us to condescend one to another in things indifferent, minding the counsel of the Apostle, none to please himself, but every one to please another. Take heed of judging one another as void of grace upon every failing, lest all fall to judge one another as carnal, and as bite and devour one another, till you be consumed one of another: for it is not one act that makes one gracious, nor one failing that makes one ungodly. Let there not be such a spirit among you that strives to prepossess others against a brother or sister, to work prejudice or hard thoughts one against another, for that may divide the hearts of saints, and if our hearts be divided we shall be found faulty (Hos. 10: 2), and the grace of love will be lost among us. In the word we are advised to love one another, and that all our things be done in love. Saith the Apostle, love envieth not, thinketh no evil, suffereth long, is kind, doth not behave itself unseemly, is not easily provoked (1 Cor. 13: 4). Oh dear brethren! cry to the father that this grace may abide and abound in and among us; so shall we have much joy and delight in the society of each other, and be amiable in the sight of others; do not lie open to Satan’s onsets: for it is his design to make breaches, and to enter in at all the breaches he hath made, to hinder the peace of the churches. Beware of watching faults in each other, but watch over one another, in love, to prevent faults. Watch to see corruptions in yourselves. So will you be humble in yourselves, and tender towards others. If some grace appears among many weaknesses in a brother, let the sight of that grace stir your affections to endeavor, in love, to recover the brother from his corruptions; and be not embittered by his weaknesses to deny or disown that grace which is to be seen in him. It is rich mercy that grace is to be seen in a Brother; and we must consider, there is more corruption than grace in the best. Let all the gifts and graces that God hath given you be employed to the edification of the body. Obey them who have the oversight of you, and esteem them for their work’s sake.

“Let not discipline be slacked or neglected among you. Let not him that hath five talents despise him who hath but two; and let not him that hath two envy him that hath five. Let every member study how to serve the body in his place and calling. Let not the foot say ‘because I am not the eye, or the ear, therefore I am not of the body.’ Take heed of being wanton under mercies received; search the word and your own hearts, to bring them both together, and be not wise above what is written… We the rather take occasion to call these things to mind, to you and to ourselves because of the willingness and watchfulness of the enemy to work upon any distemper that may arise in or among you or us; for Satan is busy here with us, presenting his designs afresh, seeking to delude unstable souls, and if it were possible to deceive the elect, to slight and suspect the ways and word of God, and the ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ.

“Wherefore, dear brethren, Let us cleave close to the Lord, his word and ordinances, and to each other, through whose grace we stand unshaken against the power of antichrist; and the Lord is adding to us such as believe.

“Now dear brethren, desiring you to mind us before your and our Father, that he will continue his goodness to us, and pour of his Spirit of grace upon us, that we may stand unmoved, and go on in wisdom and power of his Spirit, to bear witness to his truth; as we shall likewise for you. We commit you to God and to the word of his Grace, to strengthen, settle, and establish you in every good word, work and rest.

“Your brethren in the faith of Christ and fellowship of the gospel.

“David Davis, Howell Thomas, Thomas Jones, Edward Prichard, Wm. Thomas, and Thomas Evans.”

[…]

In the Abergavenny records there is a letter thus prefaced, “A copy of the first letter we have received from the church at Ilston, for the church of Christ at Abergavenny.” It bears no date, but by the contents it is probable that it was sent this year, 1653, either before or after the Association. It is an epistle of friendly advice, the close of it runs thus:

“Endeavor to have peace with all men; speak and deal kindly with the poor blind world, pitying their sad condition as infants cast into the open field to the loathing of their persons. Endeavor in love to turn them to righteousness; for then you shall shine as the stars for evermore. Love and honor all saints, though as to baptism hitherto dissident: yet take heed lest your affections to them make you too much to bear them in their disorder. Go not you to them in their error, but let them come to you, who are in the truth; only be sure that your carriage towards such be very meek and affable. Take all seasonable opportunities to persuade them to their duty. Dear Brethren, we pray you, accept of these few exortations as the fruit and testimony of our dearest and tenderest affections towards you; so desiring to salute everyone of you in the Lord, we recommend you to our Father’s Grace, desire your prayers, and rest.

“Your brethren in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel of Christ,

“John Davis, William Thomas, John Price, Lyson Davis, Hugh Matthew, John Miles, Harry Griffeth, Thomas Proud, John Gwilim, Matthew Davis, William Rees, Owen David, Simon Butler, Thomas Farmer, Evan Lewelyn, Thomas Hopkins, Morgan Jones, Thomas Ab Evan, Lewis Thomas, Evan Thomas, Llewelyn Ab Evan, Edward Hilzey.”

Appendix 2

The Acts of the Abitinian Martyrs¹⁹⁵
The following is taken from Bibliothèque National Latin Ms. 5297.
[primarily from the translation of Tilley from Latin to English in 1996]

Warning: Some graphic depictions follow.

§ In the times of Diocletian and Maximian, the devil waged war against the Christians in this manner: he sought to burn the most holy testaments of the Lord, the divine scriptures, to destroy the sanctuaries of the Lord, and to prohibit the sacred rites and the most holy assemblies from celebrating in the Lord. But the army of the Lord did not accept such a monstrous order and it bristled at the sacrilegious command. Quickly it seized the arms of faith and descended into battle. This battle was to be fought not so much against human beings as against the devil. Some fell from faith at the critical moment by handing over to unbelievers the scriptures of the Lord and the divine testaments so they could be burned in unholy fires. But how many more in preserving them bravely resisted by freely shedding their blood for them! When the devil had been completely defeated and ruined and all the martyrs were filled with God’s presence, bearing the palm of victory over suffering, they sealed with their own blood the verdict against the traitors and their associates, rejecting them from the communion of the Church. For it was not right that there should be martyrs and traitors in the Church of God at the same time.

Now when the war trumpet sounded in the city of Abitina, the glorious martyrs set up the standards of the Lord in the house of Octavius Felix. While they were celebrating the sacraments of the Lord, as was their custom, they were taken into custody by the magistrates of the town and by the soldier stationed there. Those arrested were Saturninus and his four children, i.e., Saturninus Jr. and Felix, the lectors; Maria, the consecrated virgin; and the child Hilarianus. Also arrested were: Dativus, the one who was a senator, Felix, another Felix, Emeritus, Ampelius, Rogatianus, Quintus, Maximus, Telica, Rogatianus, Rogatus, Januarius, Cassianus, Victorianus, Vincentius, Caecelianus, Restituta, Prima, Eva, Rogatianus, Givalius, Rogatus, Pomponia, Secunda, Januaria, Saturnina, Martinus, Clautus, Felix, the elder Margarita, Honorata, Regiola, Victorinus, Pelusius, Faustus, Dacianus, Matrona, Caecilia, Victoria, Hecretina, and another married woman named Januaria.

§ Here the martyrs of Christ first received the chains they had longed for, and formed into a line, happy and cheerful, they sang hymns and songs to the Lord all along the road from this city to Carthage. When they arrived at the office of Anulinus who was then the proconsul, they stood in battle formation, steadfast and brave. Their steadfastness in the Lord beat back the blows of the raging devil. But when the fury of the devil could not prevail over all the soldiers of Christ together, he demanded them in combat one by one.

When it comes to the struggles of their battles I shall not proceed so much in my own words as in those of the martyrs so that the boldness of the raging enemy may be known in the torments and the sacrilegious invective, and the power of their leader Christ the Lord may be praised in the endurance of the martyrs and by their confession itself.

§ Therefore, since they were handed over by the local officials to the proconsul and since it had been proposed that the Christians be sent by the officials of Abitina—for they celebrated the Lord’s Supper against the prohibition of the emperors and caesars—the proconsul first asked Dativus what his station in life was and whether he had come to the assembly. When he declared that he was a Christian and that he had come to the assembly, the proconsul demanded the name of the leader of this most holy assembly. Immediately he ordered the official on duty to put Dativus on the rack and, once he was stretched out, to prepare the claws. The executioners carried out their cruel orders with dreadful speed, and standing there filled with rage as they were appointed, with the claws raised, they threatened the wounded sides of the martyr which were already stripped and exposed.

Next Tazelita, the bravest martyr, in front of everyone submitted himself to torments and exclaimed, “We are Christians.” He said, “We do assemble.” Then the anger of the proconsul blazed hot. Groaning and severely wounded by a spiritual sword, the executioner struck the martyr of Christ with heavy blows as he hung there on the rack. He stretched him out and tore at him with the horrible grating claws. But in response, in the midst of the fury of the executioners, Tazelita, the most glorious martyr, poured out his prayer of thanksgiving to the Lord in this manner: “Thanks be to God. In your name, O Christ, son of God, free your servants.”

§ Blood flowed out along with his voice as he prayed to the Lord, and, mindful of the precepts of the gospel, he asked for forgiveness for his enemies even as his body was being torn apart. Then in the midst of the most severe tortures of the blows he reproached his torturers and the proconsul equally with these words: “You act unjustly, you wretches, you struggle against God. O God most high, do not hold these sins against them. You are sinning, you wretches, you struggle against God. We keep the precepts of God most high. You act unjustly, you wretches. You tear apart the innocent. We are not murderers. We are not criminals. O God, have mercy. To you be thanks. For your name’s sake, give me endurance. Free your servants from the captivity of this world. To you be thanks. I cannot thank you enough.”

His sides shook violently as claws bit into them like a plow. A wave of gore flowed out from the blood-red furrows. He heard the proconsul saying to him, “You are only beginning to feel what you ought to suffer.” But Tazelita continued, “To glory. I thank you, God of all kingdoms. May the eternal kingdom come, an incorruptible kingdom. Lord Jesus, we are Christians; we serve you. You are our hope, you are the hope of Christians. God most holy, God most high, God omnipotent, we praise you for your name.”

He prayed this way while the devil, through the judge, said, “You ought to obey the law of the emperors and the caesars.” From a body now tormented, a victorious spirit answered with a strong and persistent voice, “I respect only the Law of God which I have learned. This is what I obey. I die for this. I am consumed by it, by the Law of God. There is no other.” By saying such things, it was the most glorious martyr himself who tormented Anulinus even worse than his own great torments. Finally, his anger sated with ferocity, Anulinus said, “Stop,” and he bound over to a well-deserved passion the martyr confined to his prison.

§ Next Dativus was strengthened for battle by the Lord. He had been closely associated with Tazelita. While he was tortured, he observed Tazelita hanging on the rack. Repeatedly, Dativus bravely proclaimed that he was a Christian and had taken part in the assembly.

The brother of the most holy martyr Victoria, Fortunatianus, arrived on the scene. He was quite a distinguished Roman citizen, but at that time he was hostile to the practice of the most holy religion. Now he was reproving the martyr hung on the rack with unholy words, “Sir,” he said, “this is the man who in the absence of our father kept trying to seduce our sister Victoria while we were studying here. He lured her from this most splendid city of Carthage all the way out to the town of Abitina along with Secunda and Restituta. He never came into our house except to lead their young hearts astray with his proselytizing.”

But Victoria, the most distinguished martyr, did not endure her associate and fellow martyr being assailed by the lying senator. With Christian candor she immediately said, “No one persuaded me to leave and it was not with him that I went to Abitina. By the testimony of the citizens I can prove this: I did everything on my own initiative and by my own free will. Certainly I have been a member of the assembly; I have celebrated the Lord’s Supper with my brothers and sisters because I am a Christian.”

Then her shameless legal counsellor flung even more foul-mouthed abuse against the martyr [Dativus]. But from his place on the rack, the glorious martyr refuted all the charges with his truthful rebuttal.

§ Meanwhile Anulinus grew more angry and ordered the claws to be applied to the martyr. Immediately the executioners attacked his sides which had been stripped and prepared for their blows by his bloody wounds. Their savage hands flew, more swift than their speedy orders. In the midst of these events, the mind of the martyr stands firm and even if his limbs were broken, his viscera torn to pieces and his sides ripped apart, nevertheless, the martyr’s soul endures whole and unshaken.

Finally, mindful of his dignity, Dativus the senator poured out his prayer to the Lord as follows in the presence of the mad executioner: “O Christ, Lord, let me not be put to shame.” With these words¹⁹⁶ the most blessed martyr merited so easily what he had so succinctly requested from the Lord.

Finally now, the mind of the proconsul was deeply disturbed. In spite of himself he burst forth: “Stop!” The executioners stopped, for it was not right that the martyr of Christ should be tortured for the sake of Victoria his co-martyr.

§ Although Pompeianus the savage prosecutor attacked him with unjustified suspicion and initiated a slanderous suit against him, the martyr fixed a look on him and deeply affected him saying: “What are you doing in this place, you devil? What are you trying to do to the martyrs of Christ?” The senator of the Lord and martyr overcame both the power and rage of this lawyer. But how the most famous martyr had to be racked for Christ!

Questioned whether he had been in the assembly, he firmly confessed and said that when there was an assembly, he had come; along with his sisters and brothers he had celebrated the Lord’s supper with a devotion befitting his religion; and that there was one single organizer of this most holy assembly. This again so readily incited the proconsul against him and his savagery broke out again. The dignity of the martyr is redoubled as he is flogged with the furrowing claws. But the martyr tormented in the midst of his most cruel wounds repeated his original prayer: “I beseech you, O Christ, let me not be put to shame. What have I done? Saturninus is our presbyter.”

§ While the harsh and grim executioners scraped Dativus’ sides with crooked claws, as if their teacher were Cruelty itself, showing them the way, Saturninus the presbyter is summoned to the battle. In his contemplation of the heavenly kingdom, he considers these things truly small and of no consequence. He began to support his fellow martyrs and to fight alongside them. The proconsul said, “You acted against the order of the emperors and the caesars when you gathered all of these people together.” Saturninus the presbyter, with the prompting of the Spirit of the Lord, fearlessly responded, “We celebrated the Lord’s supper.”

The proconsul said, “Why?” He responded, “Because it was not possible to neglect the Lord’s supper.” When Saturninus had said these things, the proconsul immediately ordered Dativus to be prepared for torture. Dativus meanwhile observed the tearing of his body rather than grieve. His mind and spirit depended on the Lord. He thought nothing of the pain in his body but only prayed to the Lord saying, “Come to my aid, I pray. O Christ, have pity on my soul. Care for my spirit. Let me not be put to shame, I pray, O Christ.”

The proconsul said to him, “It would have been better, if you had called others from this most splendid city to a right disposition, and if you had not acted against the order of the emperors and the caesars.” But steadfastly and constantly he cried out, “I am a Christian.” Overcome by this reply, this devil said, “Stop!” Throwing him also into prison, the proconsul set this martyr aside for a worthy passion.

§ But while the presbyter Saturninus hung on the rack anointed by the newly shed blood of the martyrs, he was incited to persist in the faith of those in whose blood he stood fast. While he was being interrogated whether he had been the organizer and whether he had gathered everyone together, he said, “I was there in the assembly.” Contending alongside the presbyter, Emeritus the lector springing up for battle said, “I am the organizer in whose home the assemblies were held.” By now the proconsul had so often been gotten the better of, that he shook with horror at the attack of Emeritus. Nevertheless, turning toward the presbyter, he said, “Why did you act against the order? What do you get out of confessing?” Saturninus said to him, “The Lord’s supper could not be neglected; so the Law orders.” Then the proconsul said, “Nonetheless, you should not have made light of what was forbidden but rather you should have observed the order of the emperors and not acted against them.” And with a voice well practiced against the martyrs, he admonished the torturers to begin to torment him.

He is obeyed with willing compliance. The executioners fall on the elderly body of the presbyter and, with their anger raging, they tear the broken bonds of his sinews. You should have seen the lamentable tortures and the exquisite torments of a new kind inflicted on the priest of God. You should have seen the executioners vent their anger as if they had a rabid hunger for wounds as food and for the entrails now open to the horror of those watching. Amidst the red of the blood, the bones gleamed white. Lest his soul being pressed out from his body desert it in the delays between rackings, the presbyter prayed to the Lord in this way: “I beseech you, O Christ, hear me. I give you thanks, O God. Order me to be beheaded. I beseech you, O Christ, have mercy. Son of God, come to my aid.”

The proconsul said to him, “Why do you act against the order?”

The presbyter said, “Thus does the Law order. Thus does the Law teach.” At last, frightened by the mention of the Law, Anulinus said, “Stop!” Throwing him back into the confinement of prison he destined him for the suffering for which he hoped.

§ Once Emeritus was charged, the proconsul said, “Were assemblies held in your home against the order of the emperor?” Emeritus filled with the Holy Spirit said to him, “We did hold the Lord’s supper in my home.” In reply the proconsul said, “Why did you permit them to enter?” He responded, “Because they are my brothers and sisters and I could not prevent them from doing so.” Then the proconsul said, “You should have prevented them.” In response Emeritus said, “I could not because we cannot go without the Lord’s supper.”

At once the proconsul ordered him to be stretched out on the rack, and once stretched out, to be tortured. After new executioners came on duty, while he was suffering heavy blows, he said, “I beseech you, O Christ, come to my aid. You wretches are the ones acting against the command of God.”

The proconsul interrupted, “You should not have admitted them.” Emeritus responded, “I could not but admit my brothers and sisters.” Then the sacrilegious proconsul said, “But the order of the emperors and the caesars takes priority.” In reply the most pious martyr said, “God is greater—and not the emperors. I pray, O Christ, praise to you. Give me endurance.”

The proconsul interrupted him as he prayed, “Do you have any scriptures in your home?” He responded, “I have them but they are in my heart.” “Do you have them in your home,” he said, “or do you not?” Emeritus the martyr said, “I have them in my heart. I plead, Christ, praise to you. Free me, Christ. I suffer in your name. Briefly do I suffer, freely do I suffer, O Christ. Lord, let me not be put to shame.”

Once he heard this, the proconsul said, “Stop!” and recalling to memory Emeritus’ profession, along with the rest of the confessions, he said, “For all your misdeeds, you will pay the punishment merited by your confession.”

§ But now with his countenance changed, the proconsul’s wild rage faded, appeased by the torments of the martyrs. But when Felix, both by name and suffering, had marched forward into combat and the entire battle line of the Lord stood uninjured and unconquered, the tyrant’s mind was destroyed, his voice dispirited, his soul and body torn asunder. He said, “I hope that you will choose to obey orders so that you may live.” In response the confessors of the Lord spoke as if with one voice: “We are Christians. We can do not other than to keep the Law of the Lord even unto the shedding of blood.” Battered by such speech, the enemy said to Felix, “I am not asking whether you are Christians but whether you held assemblies or whether you have any scriptures.” He said, “If you are a Christian, shut up about it,” and he added, “Answer whether you were in the assembly.” Felix added, “We celebrated the most glorious assembly. We always gathered to read the scriptures of the Lord at the Lord’s supper.”

Deeply disturbed by this profession, Anulinus united to the heavenly council the lifeless martyr, who had been struck down by the blows of cudgels and was at that moment hastening to the heavenly judgment seat now that his suffering has been completed.

§ But another Felix follows Felix, equal in name and confession, similar in his very suffering. Contending with equal strength, he was battered by blows of cudgels. Laying down his life in the torments of prison, he was united with the previous Felix as a martyr.

After these, Ampelius, guardian of the Law and most faithful protector of divine scripture, took up the contest. When the proconsul asked whether he was part of the assembly, lighthearted and secure he answered with a vigorous voice. He said, “I held an assembly with my brothers and sisters, I celebrated the Lord’s supper, and I have with me the scriptures of the Lord. They are written in my heart. Christ, I give you praise. Hear me, Christ.” When he had said these things, he was bruised about the neck. He was happy to be bound up with his brothers, there in prison, like a light in the tabernacle of the Lord.

Rogatianus followed him. Having confessed the name of the Lord, he was joined unharmed to the aforementioned brothers.

Then Quintus, having been charged and having confessed the name of the Lord uncommonly well, magnificently, was struck down by blows and thrust into jail, to be held for a well-deserved martyrdom.

Maximus followed him, his counterpart in confession, similar in combat, equal in the triumph of victory.

Following him, the younger Felix proclaimed the Lord’s supper as the hope and salvation of Christians. He himself fell, similarly beset by blows. He said, “With a faithful spirit, I celebrated the Lord’s supper. I held an assembly with my brothers and sisters because I am a Christian.” By this confession, he was worthy to be associated with his aforementioned brothers.

§ Now the younger Saturninus, the holy offspring of the priest Saturninus, quickly approached the anticipated battle, hastening to equal the most glorious virtues of his father. The proconsul under the influence of the devil said to him, “And you, Saturninus, were you mixed up in this?”

Saturninus responded, “I am a Christian.” The proconsul said, “I didn’t ask you that, but whether you attended the Lord’s supper.”

Saturninus responded, “I attended the Lord’s supper because Christ is the saviour.” When he heard the name of the saviour, Anulinus grew angry and prepared the rack used on the father for the son. When Saturninus had been stretched out, he said, “Saturninus, what evidence do you offer? Consider your situation. Do you have any scriptures?” Saturninus responded, “I am a Christian.”

The proconsul said: “I am asking whether you assembled and whether you have any scriptures.” He responded, “I am a Christian. There is no one else we ought to consider holy except Christ.”

The devil, enraged by this confession, said, “Because you have remained obstinate, it is fitting to question you by torture to see whether you have any scriptures.” And he said to the officials, “Torture him.”

The weary torturers attacked the sides of the son with lacerations like those of his father and they mixed the father’s blood which has dampened the claws with the corresponding blood of the son. Through the furrows of the open wounds you saw the father’s blood dripping from the sides of the son and the blood of the son mixed with the father’s dripping from the dampened claws. But the youth, reinvigorated by the mixture of familial blood, felt it a healing remedy rather than a torment. Fortified by his torments, he exclaimed with loud cries, “I have the scriptures of the Lord, but I have them in my heart. I beg you, Christ, give me endurance. In you there is hope.”

Anulinus said, “Why did you act against the order?”

He responded, “Because I am a Christian.”

When he heard that, Anulinus said, “Stop,” and as soon as the torments were discontinued, Saturninus was joined in fellowship with his father…

[After this, the remaining church members were sent into the prison without any food or water.]

§ Truly the living Spirit, the Holy Spirit, directed the minds of the confessors by infusing them with eternal and divine discourse. Then, after the cruel calamity and the horrible threats of persecution, when by these threats tyrannical rage had attacked the Christian religion, so that the eternal peace of the Christian Name might shine ever more pure and more serene, there was lacking neither intense deception on the part of all those traitors nor the conspiracy of the noxious remainder of those whose faith had been shipwrecked. These were brought together by diabolical art which, under the guise of religion, attacked faith, overturned law and disturbed divine authority. When Mensurius, so-called bishop of Carthage, polluted by the recent handing over of the scripture, repented of the malice of his misdeeds, he then began to reveal greater crimes: he who had had to beg and implore from the martyrs’ pardon for burning the books, raged against the martyrs with the same resolve with which he handed over the divine laws: thus adding to his transgressions even more shameful acts. More ruthless than the tyrant, more bloody than the executioner, he chose Caecilian his deacon as a suitable minister of his misdeeds and he stationed him before the doors of the prison, armed with whips and lashes so he might turn away from the entrance and exit all those who brought food and drink to the martyrs in prison. Thereby, he further harmed those already wronged by grave injustice. People who came to nourish the martyrs were struck down right and left by Caecilian. The cups for the thirsty covered in chains were broken. Food was scattered at the entrance of the prison, to be consumed by dogs. Before the doors of the prison, the fathers of the martyrs fell and the most holy mothers. Shut out from the sight of their children, they kept their vigil day and night at the entrance of the prison. There was the dreadful weeping and the bitter lamentation by all who were there. To keep the pious from the embrace of the martyrs and to keep Christians from a duty of piety, Caecilian was more ruthless than the tyrant, more bloody than the executioner.

[Finally is the account of how these martyrs made a judgment to remove Caecilian from communion due to his actions. A few years after this text was written, Caecilian was appointed the bishop of Carthage by Roman Catholicism.¹⁹⁷]

§ Meanwhile neither the squalor of prison nor the pain of the flesh nor, finally, the lack of anything disturbed the martyrs of Christ. But already near to the Lord by their merits and their confession, they directed those who succeeded them, the renewed progeny of the Christian name, to be separated from all filth and communion with traitors by this warning: “If anyone communicates with the traitors, the same will have no part with us in the heavenly kingdom.” And they endorsed this verdict of theirs by the authority of the Holy Spirit written in such evidence: “It is written,” they said, “in the Apocalypse, ‘Whoever adds to this book one part of a letter or one letter, to him will the Lord add innumerable afflictions. And whoever blots them out, so will the Lord blot out his share from the Book of Life.’¹⁹⁸ If, therefore, a part of a letter added or a letter omitted cuts off a person at the roots from the Book of Life and if such constitutes a sacrilege, [then] it is necessary that all those who handed over the divine testaments and the honored laws of the omnipotent God and of the Lord Jesus Christ to be burned in profane fires, should be tormented in the eternal flames of Hell and inextinguishable fire. And, therefore, as we have already said, if anyone communicates with the traitors, the same will not have a share with us in the heavenly kingdom.”

Sharing in these judgments, one by one, they hurried off to the glory of suffering and to the ultimate testimony. Each one of the martyrs signed the judgment with their own blood. Accordingly, the Holy Church follows the martyrs and curses the treachery of the traitor Mensurius.

§ Therefore, these things being so, would anyone who is strong in the knowledge of divine law, endowed with faith, outstanding in devotion and most holy in religion, who realizes that God the Judge discerns truth from error, distinguishes faith from faithlessness, and isolates false pretense from sure and intact holiness, God who separates the upright from the lapsed, the unimpaired from the wounded, the just from the guilty, the innocent from the condemned, the custodian of the Law from the traitor, the confessor of the name of Christ from the denier, the martyr of the Lord from the persecutor, would that person think that the church of the martyrs and the conventicle of traitors is one and the same thing? Of course, no one does. For these repel each other so and they are as contrary to each other as light is to darkness, life to death, a holy angel to the devil, Christ to the Antichrist. As Paul the Apostle said: “Do not be joined to unbelievers. For what sharing is there between justice and iniquity, or what communion between light and darkness? What accord is there between Christ and Belial, what small share between a believer and an unbeliever, what agreement between the temple of God and idols? For you are the temple of the living God. He says, I will live in them and I will walk among them, and I will be their God and they shall be my people. Because of this, go out from their midst and separate, says the Lord God almighty, And do not touch the unclean, and I will take you back, and I will be a father to you and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord almighty.”¹⁹⁹

On account of all this, the good must flee the conspiracy of the traitors, the home of hypocrites, and the judgments of the Pharisees, and the devout must always avoid them. Would that those spiritually born²⁰⁰ should worthily succeed to adoption as the sons and daughters of God in the holy Church and would that they not be sunk in the crimes of others,²⁰¹ acquiring darkness instead of light, death instead of life, destruction instead of salvation! Such is the nature of the Church of the Lord that I do not say “this part” because it is one alone and cannot be split or divided into two parts.²⁰² But after the horrible night of persecution, and the pestilential whirlwinds of tyrants, the Devil by a craftiness of the most nimble fraud devises for himself a council of the shipwrecked to deceive the innocent and to plunder the people. Thus if he cannot swallow down people in the clear disaster of persecution, and if he cannot hold them fast in the bonds of transgression in a sacrilegious sect in the service of idols for their everlasting destruction, joining those to himself with polluted traitors, he destroys them under pretext of most holy religion. Then spurious rites of the holy and pretended mysteries are celebrated not so much for salvation as for the ruin of those wretches, since the impious man erects the altar, the profane celebrates the sacraments, the guilty baptizes, the wounded cures, the persecutor venerates the martyrs, the traitor reads the Gospel, the one who burned the divine testaments promises the inheritance of heaven. It is these whom the Lord rebukes and reproves in the gospel saying: “Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you circle the sea and the dry land to make a single proselyte. And when you have made him, you make him a son of Gehenna more duplicitous than you yourselves are.”²⁰³ Rejecting their polluted sacrifices, he said through the prophet, “Their sacrifices are like the bread of affliction; anyone who has touched it will be defiled.”²⁰⁴ Through Haggai the most famous prophet: “The Lord says, Ask the priests about the law, If a person receives consecrated meat in the fold of the garment and the fold of the garment touches another portion of bread, wine, or oil, will it be made holy? And the priests will say, No. And the Lord said, If a person polluted in his soul touched anything of these things, will it be polluted? And the priests said, It will be polluted. The Lord said, Thus it is with this people and this nation before me.²⁰⁵ So says the Lord and whoever will be like this will be polluted.

§ Therefore, one must flee and curse the whole corrupt congregation of all the polluted people, and everyone must seek the glorious lineage of the blessed martyrs, which is the one, holy, and true Church, from which the martyrs arise and whose divine mysteries the martyrs observe. They, and they alone, broke the force of infernal persecution; they preserved the law of the Lord even to the shedding of blood. In them the virtues of the people are cultivated in the presence of the Holy Spirit, saving baptism is performed, life is renewed forever.

God remains ever merciful to them. The Lord Christ is here and with the Holy Spirit rejoices and is glad, the victor among the confessors, the conquerer among the martyrs.

This is the end of the confessions and the judicial records of the martyrs Saturninus the presbyter and his companions.²⁰⁶

Historical Outline Part 2

second part of outline, through year 1300.

Part One Part Three

Note: The early part of this page has some dense sections, but this will bring light to the background for the rest of the outline.

A.D. 1093: First Occupation of Wales

Following the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, William the Conqueror begins making invasion plans for Wales. This is accomplished under his son William II in 1093. This first invasion, however, was rolled back by a successful revolt by the Welsh in 1094, leaving England only in control of the southern region, but including the region of Brecknock and Monmouth where the Olchon baptist church was later located.¹²³ The later King Henry II, who ruled from France, would continue these efforts but he suffered defeats. Wales maintained its separation until the end of the reign of its ruler Llywelyn ap Gruffydd in 1282. His brother Dafydd ap Gruffydd was executed by Edward I on October 3, 1283.⁴ The title Prince of Wales then entered its current usage.

Despite the relative isolation of Wales during this intervening time, outside contact between nobility was still maintained; it is noted that the last regions in Wales synchronized their calendars to the Catholic calendar by 768.⁵

No fewer than sixteen different colleges⁶⁷ were observed and recorded in Wales at various times throughout the pre-conquest period. These structures dedicated to religious study were not to be confused with ordinary churches.⁸⁹ In this culture, a particular form of monasticism existed, tied to training in scribe work, languages, translations and copyists. While these might be called monasteries, we have noted instead that with regard to similar structures that also existed in early Scotland and Ireland: “it has been justly observed, that they may more properly be viewed as colleges, in which the various branches of useful learning were taught, than monasteries.”¹⁰¹¹ It is reasonable to extend McGavin’s conclusion to the same colleges in Wales in the same era, lasting until the conquests of 1093-1283. There is less specific information about the churches themselves. Manuscript transcription was done at the colleges, while the church buildings that these people used (the Welsh or Britons) were traditionally of wood.¹² Remains of stone buildings, meanwhile, are those of the Anglo-Saxon, and later Norman and English churches.

The evidence of a preserved line of manuscripts during this time, the Anglo-Saxon translation of the four Gospels, has lasted until today.¹³ This translation lines up with the received text of the New Testament, and not the Latin Vulgate— and could have been possessed in the original tongue then subsequently translated by native speakers into a common dialect of Old English, namely the “Wessex” dialect.¹⁴¹⁵¹⁶

A.D. 1103: The Investiture Controversy

Sharing of power and authority, between Kings and state-Bishops, became a very great controversy around this time. This dispute made its way to England in a major way around the year 1103. Many ceremonial rights in the state-appointed churches were put into question at this time. Further, deciding what temporal authority held the right of selecting (or of merely confirming) the nominations of state-bishops, the order of priority in cases of disagreement, and the ownership of symbolic objects that represented these supposed rights were greatly disputed.¹⁷ However, this entire controversy admittedly amounted to a political exercise, as it was unrelated to any doctrinal matters.¹⁸

By 1103 there was already an existing dispute between the (Holy Roman) Emperor, Henry IV, who maintained one side of the dispute, and the sitting Bishop of Rome on the other side. This latter office, since 756, had been successively instated by the Emperors. The early popes had been created by the Frankish kings, this title merely existing as a continuation of Byzantine traditions. These popes, being subjects, had very little political power.¹⁹²⁰ In 1059, they created an electoral college, no longer content to remain under the power of a weaker sovereign.²¹ This was around the time that the term Pope began to be used only to refer to bishop of Rome in particular. No one else in the West took the Latinised title for “Father” past this date in the 11th century.²²²³ Also around this time, strife arose regarding rights claimed by the popes placing themselves over the German emperors.

The controversy spread to England when the archbishop was told not to return to England in 1103, due to his similar arguments against King Henry I of England having predominance over him.²⁴ The archbishop’s hand was weakened in this second dispute by the papal need for Henry I of England against the German Henry IV. This was because the Roman pope was wary of supporting the English archbishop, as long as the pope needed the English king as a threat against the German emperor. Further weakening the archbishop’s position was the existence of yet a third dispute, the Canterbury-York dispute, where the archbishop of York, another archbishop, fought for privileges over Canterbury. The English Henry relied on the archbishop of York to perform ceremonial rites while the archbishop of Canterbury was alienated.²⁵ So, this second dispute strengthened the York side of the third dispute. The Pope was wary of influencing this third dispute in a way that might alienate either party, whose help might be useful at some future time in some other political dispute, such as his own dispute at present with the Emperor.

Around this time, King Henry I of England had his faction of the state church pen the strongly pro-royalist Tractatus Eboracenses.²⁶ This tractate dealt with perceived standards of time of the king’s preeminence in handling all state matters in the church of England, which would include over the whole institution of state church. This tract exists as sort of a final rebuke against any concept of “outside” interference in what are seen by it as “internal” state affairs, including the state-related matters in which the Roman state church (or its potential allies in the offices of the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York), now began ambitiously to claim its own rights. The Tractatus Eboracenses, drafted at such an early date, stands in contrast to all later claims of papal or other foreign precedence. We see from this unusual diplomatic posture by the King of England that attempted interference against the King of England would only draw the two states of Rome and England into conflict.²⁷

The nature of these disputes is typified in the feud in 1163 that occurred between Archbishops Roger de Pont L’Évêque and Thomas Becket as part of the Canterbury-York dispute. They argued for three entire days over who should have the more honorable seat placement at the council.²⁸ Finally, in 1352, during the plague, it was decided that the archbishop of York should be “Primate of England,” while the archbishop of Canterbury should be “Primate of all England.”

With regard to the second dispute, the kings, at least in England, always had the upper hand over the popes when needed.²⁹ The right of the king not to be betrayed to agents of Rome was guarded very carefully against.³⁰ Poor policy decisions that occurred in this time therefore, were attributable to the judgments of the sovereign monarchy.

Finally, the primary Investiture dispute was settled at the Concordat of Worms in 1122. Unlike that of London, this agreement became a destabilizing compromise and changed the political balance. The emperor kept his rights in his personal sub-kingdom of Germany, but he lost them in both kingdoms of Italy and Burgundy, where he remained emperor, but would no longer be allowed to select his own archbishops. Predictably his son Henry V reignited the controversy for his ancestral rights, and political fighting lasted until the end of Frederick II, the last Hohenstaufen. After Frederick’s death in 1250, the emperor’s authorities were degraded so far that no holder of that office would ever obtain absolute sovereignty over the lands that his family had.³¹ Independent states sprang up in Central Europe, giving marginal recognitions and privileges to the later Emperors. Stronger polities, such as Italian city-states, and the Confederation of the Swiss would force themselves free from this, maintaining their own armies. Due to this situation, minor disputes would arise among the ruins of this empire, and factions for and against Rome would take sides in all of them.³² The result then became that the state church was less monolithic after 1122, having a shorter reach than the Ottonian dynasty that it replaced had once been, as it had no clear head for over a hundred years, til the death of Frederick II. One thing that did change is that the state of Rome became an electorate, rather than a vassal, as it had been. The obvious contradiction remained in that this elected ruler was actually a fief-lord over part of central Italy including Rome. Therefore, this was a continuation of the state-church, as the two offices of overlord and archbishop were now merged.

c. A.D. 1119: Petrobrusian and Henrician uprising

Starting in around 1119, a powerful resistance occurred in the south of France against state church appointments. At issue were the Roman state church doctrines of infant baptism, the rite of Communion, prayers for the dead and icon venerations, which were proclaimed as idolatry. Many Petrobrusians in the south and east of France, objected to these appointments and insisted that one must be baptised after a profession of faith. A contemporary writer, Peter the Venerable³³, writing in A.D. 1146, gives an explanation of their doctrine:

“They say, Christ sending his disciples to preach, says in the gospel, ‘Go ye out into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature: He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.’ From these words of our Saviour it is plain that none can be saved, unless he believe, and be baptized; that is, have both christian faith and baptism; for not one of these, but both together, does save: so that infants, though they be by you baptized, yet since by reason of their age they cannot believe, are not saved. It is therefore an idle and vain thing, for you to wash persons with water, at such a time when you may indeed cleanse their skin from dirt in a human manner, but not purge their souls from sin: But we do stay till the proper time of faith; and when a person is capable to know his God, and believe in him, then we do, not as you charge us, re-baptize him, but baptize him; for he is so to be accounted, as not yet baptized, who is not washed with that baptism, by which sins are done away.”³⁴

Leaders of this movement were Peter of Bruys, active throughout the south of France during the early stages, and Henry of Lausanne, who was sometimes called by his opponents Henry of Bruys,³⁵³⁶ as he continued the controversy after Peter was killed in 1126 at Saint-Gilles. Henry was known to have traveled further north, into Le Mans and Poitiers before eventually being arrested in 1134. The uprising or controversy was still ongoing fully in areas such as Languedoc as of 1163,³⁷ and there is no record of any settlement ending this controversy which some people had with the Roman-appointed leaders and bishops.

The Papal faction was also dealing with populist uprisings against them around the same time in Italy, as so-called “Arnoldist” leaders and everyday civilians had taken control of the city of Rome, establishing the short-lived “Commune of Rome” by taking over the city during 1144-1188.³⁸ Each of these incidents, despite occurring at roughly the same time span for the same reason, are rather unusually treated in Roman state records as separate and unrelated outbreaks of heresy. Each instance of rejection of their policies at that time is typically labelled according to various leaders of the movements, and the doctrines of those that proceeded with them were impugned with various accusations of gnosticism.³⁹ Although there was indisputably a presence of gnosticism around this time, that is not the whole story- and there is good reason to believe that most of these accusations were false. At the same time, there is clearly a common thread between these contemporaneous groups by the objections that they are known to have raised regarding baptism (and particularly, the rejection of infant baptism) as well as other doctrinal matters of significance.⁴⁰ Each of the uprisings mentioned so far also rejected new Roman appointments of leaders to govern them, as well as their churches- something that had not been done in the former era when the state of Rome had held a vassal status, being entirely subject to the Emperors. So, this change from the emperor to the pope would serve a common motivation behind the political reactions in different regions about this time. The state church from Rome, led by a new figurehead, was not willing to be so lenient as the German state church had been.⁴¹

*As one example of popular mislabelling in official documents, consider that the Arnoldists in Rome were also being labelled Poplecans, as reference to the Paulician uprisings which had occurred in Armenia, centuries earlier; this was charged as if what was happening in Rome were a continuation of a much more obscure group- a group which had likewise already been charged with gnosticism.

†A historical pattern is established, where serious opposition to the state church of Rome is labelled according to a contemporaneous leader, and when necessary, derided either as a rival state church to itself, or else charged with gnosticism. These labels serve a propagandist purpose, and are known to be not accurate, as may easily be shown by fuller examination of the evidence. The reality behind the situation is that there have, simply, always been conscientious Christian objectors to the state church from fourth century until now, who also oppose its policy of baptising infants, as well as its various alterations to scripture. It must be through these Christians that the uncorrupted Scriptures were preserved and kept available until now – which provides an answer to the question of where the “received text” of Scripture comes from.

Division along these lines, indeed, predates Peter of Bruys in these “Italian” and “Occitanian” regions, as evidence for the dispute reaches back to the year 1025 by an older group⁴² (also holding the baptist distinctives⁴³) which are part of a larger group of Christians which was later labeled as Paterines.⁴⁴⁴⁵ Although false doctrines were also attributed to this group. See appendix D for further information. The signal dispute against the metropolitan clergy in the region appears to pre-exist this further still, to an obscure group known simply as “Prophets,” which was in A.D. 945 denounced by Atto of Vercelli, for “by the words of simple brutes [having] left the holy mother Church, that is, the priests,”⁴⁶. Information as to what these “Prophets” did except for leaving the state church priests is not given there.

Turning to the records of state churches of these times, there is more evidence suggesting that the practice of paedobaptism (that is, infant baptism) had not yet firmly spread or established itself through all state churches before the ninth century. From Joseph de Vicecomes, a paedobaptist writing in 1620, we gather the following:

“Alcuin, in the chapter on baptism, writes: ‘For the purpose of the baptism of the elect, who are examined, according to the rule of the apostles, consecrated by fasting, and instructed by diligent preaching, two seasons are set apart, [namely] Easter and Whitsuntide.’ If these examinations were held according to the rules of the apostles, they must needs have been observed; but subsequently, when infant baptism came into vogue, this necessary practice was abolished by the church. A. D. 860, in the reign of the Emperors Lothaire and Louis; of which abundant proof exists.”⁴⁷

So by this account, state church policy regarding baptism, whether it was to be an infant or a believer, it was still in an undecided state within the Carolingian state church – in Germany and Burgundy. This accords with our earlier understanding that the Roman law of Justinian had not had any time to establish in these “barbarian” areas. This also accords with other accounts of officials of the time, who protested often and severely against some of the Frankish-installed popes.⁴⁸⁴⁹⁵⁰ If the Roman mode of infant baptism had not fully extended beyond the borders of the Ravenna exarchate, it would explain why it wasn’t established even in the state churches of Francia, lands to the north and west of Italy, until around 860. It comes as little surprise that we find followers of “the Italian, Gundulf” (see the above appendix) free to send evangelists to Arras, nor, afterward, some Petrobrusians or Henricians defending themselves against the recent, strange impositions by the decrees of an overlord, which had until recent times been a vassal of the emperor. Peter of Cluny explained according to his account in A.D. 1146, they were also “anabaptists.”⁵¹

These sentiments are comprehensible as reactions against the new forms of governmental interference that came in the aftermath of the Concordat of Worms in 1122, not among the least of which is forced infant baptism. Likewise, image worship had also likewise long been denounced in the provinces.⁵²⁵³⁵⁴ Therefore Peter of Bruys was not teaching anything new- the new thing in those years is the appointment of officials from Rome to impose new ideas such as infant baptism and images to the region by force. And it is simply a fact that not every person was going along with this.

A.D. 1209: First Albigensian Crusade

At the start of the 13th century, the Roman Catholic state launched an invasion into southern France, in the domain of the Count of Toulouse— not yet incorporated at that time into the domain of the crown of the kings of France.

This is none other than the very same region where the Henrician uprising had been ongoing (as we read before) as late as the year A.D. 1163, with no signs of stopping.

At some point in the 12th century, various gnostic ideas had spread through the towns of the area, due to the religious liberty allowed under Count Raymond VI of Toulouse. This would later become the pretext for an invasion and papal crusade against the rebaptizandi which had evaded Justinian’s grasp — as the historian Mézeray notes, that the gnostics were regularly confused and confounded with the baptists.⁵⁵ With the exception of Peter of Cluny’s description of their practice in 1146, we see similar mistakes, mistakes just as Mézeray describes, in state church literature of the time.⁵⁶⁵⁷⁵⁸ Yet we also know that the Patarines had allegedly appeared as early as the year 1025, when two of their evangelists (sent, as they confessed, by the Italian ‘Gundulf’) were interrogated at the Synod of Arras⁵⁹, also that these were of the same belief and heritage as were later called the Vaudois or Waldenses.⁶⁰ This second fact is confirmed by the inclusion of those two both as the same church, comprehended under different names in Ad Abolendam (1184), in our previous footnote (note: the “Poor of Lyons” was another derogatory name for the Vaudois⁶¹).

We have then three prominent groups living in the domain of Toulouse on the eve of this first crusade in 1209: First, catholics of the various state churches; second, the gnostic Cathars; Third: Petrobrusians or Henricians (formerly known as Paterines, and ‘rebaptizandi’, which is another word for anabaptists, anciently). The heritage of this third group would later outlive the Crusade, by turning to the Valleys of Piedmont within Savoy, bordering to the east of this region; In later times, the surviving remnant of these churches were known as Vaudois, meaning, “those dwelling in the valleys.”⁶²

A peculiar event of the initial invasion of 1209, involves the battle or massacre of Béziers. On the first day of the army’s arrival, this first city fell into the hands of the crusaders. Caesarius of Heisterbach, writing from Westphalia about thirteen years after these events, relates the following account:

“When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot ‘Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.’ The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied ‘Kill them all, for the Lord knoweth them that are his (2 Tim. ii. 19)’ so countless number in that town were slain.”⁶³

The crusade saw prolonged warfare, as Count Raymond VI later regained control over the capital. Raymond VI had lost it for some time to Simon V de Montfort, who was a Roman-backed candidate intended to replace him. Simon V died while besieging Toulouse in 1218, a man perhaps accursed by the atrocities he committed.

A.D. 1229: Inquisition established

Even before the first phase of the Albigensian Crusade was over, the Pope brought fresh requests for a renewed crusade. This time, the plan was to annex the region to France. This brought a renewed assault from the French in 1225.

The count Raymond VII did not resist the onslaught for long, and in 1229, he decided to sue for peace, where he ceded the greater part of his lands to France. The rest was to be inherited from him on his death, if he were obedient to France and acted to assassinate nonconforming Christians. At this point, the Inquisition was set up to seek out all non-Catholic Christians in as many lands as possible, especially in southern France. The “inquisitors” were commissioned, a sort of prosecutor with unlimited immunities, and the state⁶⁴ participated by carrying out the executions. This was started at the Council of Toulouse, 1229. Banned from possession were all Bibles.⁶⁵ This was its response to the translation of the whole Bible that had been paid for by Peter Valdo in the previous century. Information on how widely Valdo’s translation had been spread is now difficult to determine. Another legal article of interest is the following:

“It is prohibited by a perpetual edict: Not by the laity, but rather by the canons of the Pontiff shall elections⁶⁶ be decided.
If an election should, perhaps, be undertaken, it shall have no force: notwithstanding the fact this may be contrary to the custom, it ought rather be called the corruption of things.”⁶⁷

By this decree, it was imposed upon the churches that all offices of the growing state church were to be appointed by the pope himself. Furthermore, votes by the local church to elect their pastors were now being called a corruption. Not long after this, the supposed right of the popes to replace even the leader or king of a nation and for the pope to dissolve all loyalties to that leader or king was retroactively reasoned by Thomas Aquinas, as can be found in one isolated entry in his book, Summa Theologica – Under the section on “oaths”:

“Sometimes what is promised under an oath is such, that there is doubt about whether it is right or wrong, advantageous or harmful, either in itself or under a particular circumstance; In a case like this, any bishop can grant a dispensation [of the oath]. Sometimes, however, what is promised under an oath is something that is clearly lawful and useful; And in a case of this sort there seems to be no room for a dispensation or commutation [of the oath], unless something better to do for the common good comes up, which would seem to pertain especially to the power of the Pope, who has the charge of the universal Church; even an absolute relaxation [of the oath], for this too belongs to the Pope in all matters of ecclesiastical administration, over which he has the fullness of power. In fact, any man may cancel an oath made by one of his subjects in matters that come under his jurisdiction; for instance a father may annul his daughter’s oath (Numbers 30:6), and a husband his wife’s, as stated above with regard to vows.”⁶⁸

Now it happened in A.D. 1252, that additional grants were given to the inquisitors in which they were permitted to torture their captives in order to acquire information from them. This was followed soon by an inquisitor’s manual or handbook, of which copies still survive today. The author of this is attributed the name Pseudo-Reinerius, and it was probably written sometime around 1254-1259 in Passau. In it, a straightforward account is given about the doctrine of the Waldenses from this time period.

“Reineri, Ordinis Praedicatorum Liber Contra Waldenses Haereticos, Ch. IV.
“-The sects of the ancient heretics.
“Among the sects of ancient heretics, there have been more than seventy: all of which, thanks to God, have been destroyed, except the sects of the Manicheans, the Arians, the Runcarians and the Leonists, which have infected Germany. Among all the sects, which are, or which have been, there is none more pernicious to the Church, than that of the Leonists. This is for three reasons. The first reason is; because it is the more ancient⁶⁹ among them: for some say, that it has lasted from the time of Sylvester; others, from the time of the Apostles.
“The second reason is; because it is more general: for there is hardly any land, in which this sect is not. The third reason is; because, While all other sects, through the enormity of their blasphemies against God, strike horror into their audience, this the way of the Leonists, has a great appearance of piety; the fact that they live justly before men, and they believe all good things about God, as are contained in the articles of the Creed; only they blaspheme the Roman Church, and Clergy, which the multitude of the Laity are ready enough to believe. And as we read in the book of Judges; Samson caught many different foxes, but tied their tails together: so the heretics, by sects, are divided among themselves, but in impugning the Church, are united. If heretics should be in one house, each of the sects condemns the other, at the same time the Roman Church attacks: And so it subdues the little foxes, and the vineyard of the Lord, that is, the Church, is purged of error.”⁷⁰

The authenticity of this book is not all that surprising. Since this was an inquisitor’s manual, it was written for professional use, not for propaganda. This is clear from the lack of any attempts by Pseudo-Reineri to cloud the pure reputation of these Leonists;⁷¹ he is not spreading propaganda here, but wished to clear away any wrong expectations about these people, Christians, in advance for a new inquisitor reading this manual. We gain a better than normal insight from this document. All too often, in other publications there was an attempt to muddle these same Leonists in various official proclamations, and make them one party along with the Manichaeans or gnostics, so as to bring all into ill-repute— so to harm the reputation of the “Leonists” thereby, who were separate from the catholics. However as can be seen in this authentic mid-13th century document, they are treated differently when speaking candidly. They are treated as they are, simply as very pious Christian churches.

Picking up on the subject of the different names which the Vaudois – this same group – were originally called: to attempt to cast some light upon this hard subject we examine the Histoire des Vaudois, written by Jean-Paul Perrin in 1618. There, he relates the following:

“-The names that the Vaudois have been assigned by their adversaries, and what blasphemies they have charged them with.
“THE inquisitor monks, mortal enemies of the Vaudois, not being content to bind them every day with the secular arm, have also charged them with reproaches, respecting the heresies that are in the world, which they repudiate; and often [they] impute that such monsters were forged only from the Vaudois: as if only they⁷² had been the vessels of all errors.
“They therefore first called them, from Valdo a citizen of Lyons, Vaudois: and from the country of Albi, Albigeois.⁷³
“In Dauphine they were called Chaignards by mockery.
“Also because a part of them crossed the Alps, they were called Tramontains.
“And for one of the disciples of Valdo named Joseph, who pressed in Dauphine to the bishopric of Dye, they were called Josephites.
“In England Lollards, named after Lollard who taught there.
“Of two pastors who taught the doctrine of Valdo in Languedoc named Henry and Esperon, they were called Henricians and Esperonnistes.
“From one of the Barbes who preached in Albigeois named Arnaud Hot, they were called Arnoldists.⁷⁴
“In Provence they were called Siccars, from an unknown tongue that means purse-snatchers.
“In Italy they were called Fraticelli,⁷⁵ that is, little brothers, because they lived as brothers in true unity.
“Also, as they observed no other day of rest than Sunday, they were called Insabathas, because they did not observe the Sabbaths.⁷⁶
“And because they were exposed to continuous suffering, they were called Patarenians or Sufferers, from the Latin word Pati, which means to suffer.
“And since, as momentary passengers, they fled from one place to another, they were called Passagenes.
“In Germany, they are called Gazares, a word which means excerable and insignificant.
“In Flanders, they are called Turlupins, inhabitants with wolves, because on account of persecution, they were often forced to live in woods and deserts.
“Sometimes they were named from the countries and regions they inhabit, such as: from Albi, Albigeois; from Toulouse, Toulousains; from Lombardy, Lombards; from Picardy, Picards; from Lyons, Leonists; from Bohemia, Bohemians.
“Sometimes to make them more execrable, they make them accomplices of the ancient heretics, but nevertheless under ridiculous pretexts. For as much as they make profession of purity in their life and belief, they call them Cathars. And because they deny that the host of the monstrous Priest at the Mass is God, they have called them Arians, with respect to the Divinity of the eternal Son of God; And when they rejoined that the authority of the Emperors and Kings of the earth does not depend on the authority of the Popes, they called them Manichaeans, as constituting two principles. And for other such imaginary causes they have likewise called them Gnostics, Cataphrygians, Adamites, and Apostolics.”⁷⁷ [on ‘insabatati’: please read appendix E.]

As we previously mentioned, it was after the times of inquisition that the people came to be called Vaudois. The surname, from thereafter crystallized into its current meaning, signified those remnants that outlasted the Inquisition, in an area, from where once, there had been many and widespread. As we read, the remote Valleys where they lived on the Alpine slopes, were both remote and difficult to access for large bodies of armed forces. In this region, through some succeeding centuries, a lineage of Biblical scholarship passed, from man to man, eventually into the halls of the academy in Geneva, a location bordering on the north of these Valleys, in the time of Calvin and Beza. This is of some interest to us because we can trace from here the Geneva Bible translated to English in 1557, which became an influence on the Authorized King James Bible.⁷⁸

Very revealing with respect to the position of these “anabaptists” on baptism, and other doctrines, are the corresponding records found in many neighboring countries at this time: See the letter of Everwin of Steinfeld, dated A.D. 1143, written in appendix F; and the Council of Oxford, dated A.D. 1160, which we have here written in appendix G.

Carrying on from the Council of Oxford decision in 1160, where the chroniclist William of Newburgh writes, “And this rigorous severity cleansed the kingdom of England from the creeping pest, but also prevented its future intrusion,” we see that this was very evidently not the case. From Roger of Howden, another chronicler, is recorded:

“[A.D. 1182] About the time at which this vision took place many of the ‘Publicani’ heretics were burned in many places throughout the kingdom of France, a thing that the king would in nowise allow in his territories, although there were great numbers of them.”⁷⁹

Whether the people in this account were located on the isle of Britain, over which Henry II was king, or in his French domains (which took up about the western half of that country) is unclear. But it was possible for population to transfer to and from England through this connection. This was then called the Angevin Empire. Part of these domains, especially in Gascony in the south-west, were connected to England until 1453, when France annexed the rest. This provided a means of escape from southern France through Gascony to England.

However, it is certain that this act did not manage to remove them all from the kingdom, nor did it prevent them from continuing to be present; because, in another place, Henry Knighton, another chronicler, gives this short entry:⁸⁰

“(Year 1208.) Certain Albigensian heretics came to England, of whom some were burnt alive.”

This atrocity was in the year 1208, just one year prior to the Crusade, suggesting that some may have escaped from the impending Crusade out of southern France, in this direction, where some of the refugees were burnt alive presumably by order of the king or his delegates. The chronicle entry here specifically says they were Albigensians and that they came to England. However this cannot have removed them, as the London Chronicle, another chronicle by another author, tells us this:⁸¹

“Albigensians, which infected England, have reviled the clergy, on account of which one man was burnt alive at London in the year of our Lord 1210.”

We see from these accounts that these people were not absent in Britain, but they were found within England itself, so that one of them was burnt alive in London. The account says there were multiple of them. Now, we might give one last example which appears to us with special significance for this period, which is the following account. Of events in Strasbourg at around this same time, the following record was found:⁸²

“In the year of our Lord 1212, there was a heresy in Alsace by which both the nobles and the common were led astray. They affirmed that it is lawful to eat flesh every day of the year, and that there is as much excess in the immoderate consumption of fish, as of meat in general; also, that it is an evil thing to prohibit marriage, since God has created all things, and all holy things may be received with thanksgiving by them which believe. They tenaciously defended this opinion, and a multitude believed them; and doubtless they blasphemed the holy lord the Pope because he forbade ecclesiastical persons from marrying and commanded them to abstain from certain kinds of food on certain days. Thus the Pope of Rome commanded that these men should be taken away. On a certain day, about one hundred men were burnt together by the bishop of Strasbourg.”

Though the above Chronicle mentions nothing of it, we must make notice the similarity of a Biblical passage, with this event, especially the underlined section.

1 Timothy 4:1-5
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

The pinnacle of the Inquisition lasted until the Great Famines of 1315/1317. About that time, the Germans elected Louis IV who was solidified in his claim after the Battle of Mühldorf. Louis IV then created a rival pope in 1328, contributing in this way to the whole downfall in disgrace of that false religion.

To close this entry, soon after the original Council of Toulouse in 1229, indulgences also became widespread, as local peddlers would make contracts with the officials in each area for the business of selling indulgences, which were sold reportedly for a single mite. This deterioration to this situation was denounced by the last generations of troubadours which still spoke the local Provençal language in Toulouse, southern France and its surrounding towns:

“The clergy call themselves pastors and are butchers. Kings and Emperors once used to rule the world: now priests exercise lordship with theft and treason — with hypocrisy, force and threats. They are not satisfied unless every thing is surrendered to their hands, and, though there be delay, in the end it is brought about. The higher their rank, so much the less virtue they possess and the more folly, the less truthfulness and the more falsehood, the less learning and the more faults, and withal so much the less courtesy. —The priests are so full of ambition, that they can not bear to see any one in the whole world hold sway except themselves. They work with all their might to draw over the whole world to themselves, whoever may be the sufferer; they win such persons with obsequiousness and gifts — with pardons and hypocrisy — with indulgences — with eating and drinking — with preaching and cursing — with God and the devil. Vultures and birds of prey scent not the mouldering carrion so swiftly as they scent a rich man. Immediately he is their friend; sickness lays him low, he must heap gifts on them to the prejudice of his relations. Frenchmen and priests gain the praise of superior wickedness.”⁸³ — Peire Cardenal, troubadour (fl. 1220)

“Rome, you make it a game to send Christians to martyrdom. But in which book have you read, that you must exterminate the Christians?
Rome, you are practicing nefarious sermons against Toulouse; ugly, like an angry snake, you wound the hands of the small and the great. Let the excellent count live for another two years, he shall make France repent for having submitted to your impostures.
Rome, it is my consolation that you will soon fall into ruin, when the Righteous Emperor shines forth and does as he should; truly, Rome, you will see your power crumble! God, save the world let me experience that soon!”⁸⁴ — Guillem Figueira, troubadour (fl. 1244)

“Ha, ye false priests, liars, traitors, perjurers, whoremongers, infidels, so much open wickedness ye work day by day, that ye have thrown the whole world into consternation. St. Peter never drew revenues from France, nor extorted usury — no, he held upright the balance of justice. Ye do naught of the kind. For money ye unjustly pronounce and recall sentence of excommunication; without money there is no redemption for us.”⁸⁵
— Bertran Carbonel, troubadour (fl. 1255)

c. A.D. 1262: Antinomianism

Around this time, several shadowy groups of antinomianists first appear in the records. These were on matters of substance no different than the Manichaeans, who had previously been defeated militarily at Montségur,⁸⁶ yet they differed from these in various externalities. Many now openly affirmed the position of antinomianism (which can be summarized as, “the only sin is that which offends the conscience”) leading to the most horrendous of degenerate behavior. This is similar to what had resulted with the former Manichaeans⁸⁷ or Cathari and the ‘imperfecti.’⁸⁸ Also like the medieval Cathari that came before them, the antinomians were murderous menaces, which provided a convenient casus belli (or cause of justification) to the inquisitors that also abounded in this era. We have little reason to doubt many of the horror stories regarding these groups. They were often conflated, whether intentional or mistakenly, with the regular, congregational and orderly Christian churches, which also were driven underground by the inquisitors. Sometimes the same slur was applied to both groups indiscriminately, just as “Albigensians” had originally been used, at the time, to portray both Vaudois and Manichaeans as though they were one group.⁸⁹

The primary group which emerged around this time were the Brethren of the Free Spirit. They appeared some time between 1262 and 1280. We have explained their belief: they taught that nothing is sin except what offends oneself. There is nothing else to say about that, nor a sharper possible condemnation, aside from what Scripture already tells.

Around 1263 another event related to this occurred, which we took a brief note of in the former entry: The appearance of another sect called Fraticelli.⁹⁰ It is possible that at some point, some of the Vaudois were confused with this group which got its start in Italy. The story behind this is, a man named Gerard Segarelli was denied entry into the order of Franciscan friars, so around the year 1263 he gathered a large following of similar-minded spiritualists. Spiritualists are known by their claim to have personal revelations. So they reject the word of God in favor of their own ideas, even though these have nothing to do with scripture. Segarelli’s successor, Friar Dolcino, led the violent band into the Sesia valley, near Biella, Italy. When asked why he pillaged and butchered the people of this valley during his occupation, to this Dolcino replied: “To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. – (Titus 1:5)”⁹¹

These groups of Friars called themselves Apostolics or Apostolical Brethren, because they insisted that their alleged voluntary poverty or other acts gave them freedom to violate every other commandment and law. Another early antinomian in this movement was named Angelo da Clareno, a man who got his start in Italy in 1278. From the records we can conclude that these were dissident monastics. These antinomians first appeared in Italy around 1263, and they mostly operated in the Mediterranean provinces. The antinomians are not to be confused with the Lollards of the Netherlands which we will discuss in the third article, although the latter may very well have been accused of being the same as them in some sources.

A.D. 1267: Statute of Marlborough

In 1267, the closing days of the Second Barons’ War, King Henry III restored peace to England by making a full commitment to the Magna Carta with this statute. The events that led up to this however, started in the year 1205.

Under King John (1199-1216), the archbishopric had been contested between two men who had both been elected by separate groups to fill the office. The pope chose this moment to strike and create a conflict between himself and the king, and he did this by nullifying both elections and having another chapter of Englishmen elect Stephen Langton to fill the office, and held him up as the true replacement. The king, weakened by his recent loss of Normandy to France, was opposed to this. He was obliged to oppose it, because this action challenged his right as king to make the selection. Soon many churchmen withdrew or were expelled from the domain of the English King, in response to the subsequent dispute that took place. However, King John lacked military support to a worse degree than he knew, so that his schemes were gradually outdone.

Through increasing pretensions, the pope eventually declared that the king of England was deposed from his rule of England. Then, in January of 1213 the pope gave the king of France the warrant and indulgences to invade the country, and to violently kill and destroy that land, just as he had done (or was going to do) to Toulouse in the south of France.

The king of France eagerly pursued this, gathering a navy of 1700 sails and summoning all the vassals of his kingdom in preparation for this invasion of England.⁹² Additionally, the English King John had just the prior year been forced to cancel his planned expedition into Wales by reports that many of his own barons were planning to take the other side against him. They were angry at his military losses and he stood accused of improprieties. Finally, giving in to fear, John came to Temple Ewell near Dover, England on May 15, 1213 to become a vassal and surrender his crown to the legate (representative) of the pope.

A line engraving by W. Blake (1797)
King John absolved on May 15, 1213

Immediately, the sides shifted. Now the nobles of the realm were opposed to not only France but also directly opposed to King John and the pope. The king meanwhile found himself with full and unrestrained papal support. In a turn that no one expected, Stephen Langton now took sides with the nobles, and met with them first at Westminster in August 25, 1213. They resolved themselves to uphold the privileges of the kingdom in opposition to any ruler who stood in their way.⁹³ Stephen then called to their attention the existence of a charter given by Henry I in 1100: the Charter of Liberties. It had guaranteed the rights of the subjects to retain the ancient laws of the land.⁹⁴ This document had been written down from oral traditions by several individuals who had been in the kingdom before the invasion of 1066.

The events are described in this way:

“The barons had entered into a confederacy for the restoration of their ancient privileges. They were encouraged and supported in their design by the archbishop of Canterbury, who, being of a generous and liberal spirit, was anxious to promote the real interests of the kingdom. At a numerous meeting of the barons summoned by him at St. Edmondsbury, under pretence of devotion, he produced an old charter of Henry I. of which he exorted them to demand the renewal and observance; and represented in such strong colours the arbitrary conduct of their sovereign, that they all swore before the high altar to support each other, and to make endless war upon the king, till he should grant their demands.”⁹⁵

This second meeting took place on November 20, 1214 in Bury St. Edmunds, in Suffolk, England.⁹⁶ A little known fact about this alliance of nobles is its name: ‘Army of God and Holy Church.’

The rebels had support from the population anywhere they went. John met with them in 1215, and after several revisions they agreed upon the first version of what would be called the Magna Carta and both parties signed it. However, John claimed it was signed under duress, and the pope upon hearing about it annulled his signature to the document. This led to the First Barons’ War, which didn’t end until John was dead, whereupon his young son quickly gained preference by the English populace over the French invader. This invading prince had landed in England and was still seeking to fight John and take the English throne for himself, ever since the pope had given him the original indulgences to invade.

As part of the path toward reconciliation with the rebels, the young Henry III proposed a new edition of the Magna Carta in 1216, which loosened some of the restrictions on the king, making it more a more realistic constitution. However, this proposal by the new king was not respected. However after peace had been achieved with France, as a final gesture of reconciliation, Henry issued the Magna Carta libertatum (along with the Charter of the Forest) in 1217. This 1217 version is often cited as the original Magna Carta.

However, at a later opportunity, Henry III claimed that he had signed the document under duress, since he had only been ten years old in 1217 and he threatened to act in disregard to the charter. Thus in 1225, he signed a new edition of the charter, which was updated with the line that he had signed it of his “spontaneous and free will.” This was in return for additional taxes.

However, in 1227 at the age of twenty, Henry had himself proclaimed “of age and able to rule independently.” He announced that all future charters had to be issued under his seal, therefore raising questions over his 1225 agreement. He continued to threaten to overturn the law whenever it was convenient until 1253, when he signed a new edition of the charter in exchange for taxation. However, during this time he generally stayed close to the bounds of this law, so that his threat would remain potent.

Nevertheless, in 1258 there was a coup d’état against the king, led by barons who wanted a more strictly enforced charter. Notwithstanding this however, these barons’ proposal, called the Provisions of Oxford did not have a necessary level of approval, and ultimately the country slipped into the Second Barons’ War. Finally in 1267, the sixty-year-old king signed the Statute of Marlborough as part of the peace deal, which came with a full commitment to uphold the terms of the charter. His son Edward I also reconfirmed it again in 1297.⁹⁷

It is a lesser known fact, that the circumstances that brought about the writing and commitment to the principles of the Magna Carta, a document which is so remembered today, was the need to impede papal influence, as formerly cited from the Edinburgh Encylopedia from its article on England: “to promote the real interests of the kingdom.” Thus, the exhalations of threats breathed out from Rome seemed to lose their weight, and became as air upon reaching the solid shores of this island.

But this was not the only law passed in England in order to prevent exposure to these interferences from the ruler of Rome. Among the early acts of Edward I during his reign was to codify the whole law of England, along with the Charter, into 51 chapters.⁹⁸ Additionally, he passed laws further intending to restrict foreign church land holdings.⁹⁹ See appendix H for an overview which we have copied by the lawmaker Sir William Blackstone on this history. The so-called Peter’s pence, a tax to Rome, was also paid for a very long time, until the year 1327 when the King ended this practice as well.

c. A.D. 1271: Beginnings of Secular Humanism

From around A.D. 1271 the syncretist Rаmоn Llull, a scholar of Arabic and other languages, begins to write works which acquire a more recognizably humanist tone than before.¹⁰⁰¹⁰¹ Having drawn from many aspects of Islam, as well as tаlmudіsm and neoplatonist gnosticism, many of these works were reference points in the future fields of secular humanism, Catholicism, and rаbbіnіcal scholarship. Also in a key point of development for tаlmudіsm, the kаbbаlаh was expanded, with the Zohar being written in Iberia, year 1291.¹⁰² These works especially emphasized the Gnostic Manichaean principle of unifying the ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ planes.¹⁰³¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁵

This is not a philosophy built on anything other than finding common ground between majorities of people, and thus at least in theory, winning a majority; which, some seem to suppose, in the absence of any firm truth such as the truth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, will bring about their cause. See A.D. 242: Manichæism and A.D. 245: Neo-platonism in part one for more. End of part two.

Link: Part three (final) of this Outline

Appendix D

The following is written in Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Amplissima Collectio,
Vol. 19, col. 424-425:

SYNODUS ATTREBATENSIS [The Synod of Arras, 1025.]
A Gerardo Cameracensi & Attrebatensi Episcopo celebrara anno MXXV
[translated from the Latin]

“In the year of our Lord 1025. Eighth indiction. To Lord Gerard of Cambray and Arras. It came about that after Christmas and Epiphany had been observed with solemn ceremony within the see of Cambrai, in accordance with the custom annually followed the Prelate was to stay for several days in the see of Arras. There, while they were performing appropriate church functions, he was informed that certain men had come to that locality from Italy, which were introducing certain new heretical doctrines, attempting to overthrow the instruction of evangelical and apostolical sanctions; they established a certain justice, asserting that men were purified by it alone, and that no other Sacrament in the Church could save them.

“On hearing these things, the lord Bishop sought to inquire of these men, and gave orders for them to be found. Upon hearing of their search, they prepared to leave secretly, but they were prevented by the magisters and drawn before the Bishop. Being occupied with other matters, he exchanged only a few words with them on their belief; perceiving that they were fascinated by certain wicked dogmatical errors, he ordered them to be held in custody until the third day; and the next day he imposed a fast on all clerics and Monks, that the grace of God might cause the prisoners to recover their understanding of the catholic faith.

“On the third day, which was a Sunday, the Bishop returned, together with his Archdeacons carrying crosses and gospel texts, surrounded by a great throng of all the clergy and people, proceeding to the church of blessed Mary to hold a great synod; after the antiphon ‘O God arise,’ the whole Psalm was completed. Then the Bishop sat in his consistory, as did each Lord Abbot, with his monks, and the Archdeacons on either side, and the rest, according to the rank of their ordination, according to their degree, and then the men were brought in. At first, the bishop made some general remarks about them to the people. Then, he turned to them with these words: ‘What,’ he asked, ‘is your doctrine? what is your law and way of life, and who is the originator of your discipline?’ They replied, that they were followers of one Gundulf, from certain parts of Italy, and that he had instructed them in the commandments of the gospel and the apostles, that they accepted no other scripture than what they had received, but to this they held in word and deed. However, the Bishop had in fact received notice of them, that they utterly abhorred the holy mystery of Baptism, that they rejected the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, that they denied the work of penance to the lapsed, that they openly maintained the invalidity of the church, that they cursed lawful marriages, that they saw no special power in the gifts of the holy Confessors, and that they thought none but the Apostles and martyrs should be venerated.

“On these things the Bishop asked: ‘How has it come to pass,’ he asked, ‘that what the evangelical and apostolic institutions hold, is contrary to what you preach?’ He narrated, ‘in the text of the gospel, unto the prince and Ruler Nicodemus, who regarded those signs and wonders as signifying that Jesus was of God, the Lord continued to answer, “that no confession alone could merit a role in the kingdom of heaven, unless a man be born again of water and the spirit.” So either you are able to receive regeneration from this mystery, or else the gospel words must conflict with what Jesus said.’

“To these things they gave this answer as follows: ‘The law and discipline we have received from our Master will not appear contrary either to the Gospel decrees or apostolical sanctions, if we carefully examine these. This discipline consists in leaving the world, in bridling carnal concupiscence, in providing our own livelihood by the labor of our hands, in seeking the harm or hurt of no one, and in affording our charity to our fellowservants who are of the same purpose. Now if we have safeguarded this righteousness, then Baptism will add nothing further to this; and if we have transgressed against this truth, then Baptism will not profit to salvation. This is our greatest justification, to which baptism can accrue nothing, for this is the end of all the apostolical and evangelical institutions. But if any man among you shall say, that some hidden sacrament lies within baptism, that is thrown off by three causes. First, because the reprobate life of the minister itself is not able to provide life to the person to be baptized. Second, because whatsoever sins are renounced at the font, shall be repeated later in life. Third, because a strange will, a strange faith, and a strange confession do not seem to belong to, or be of any advantage to a little child,¹⁰⁶ who neither wills nor runs, who knows nothing of faith, and is altogether ignorant of his own good and salvation, in whom there can be no desire of regeneration, and from whom no confession of faith can be expected.’

“And the Bishop responds: . . .” End quotation. [Because of this one response, they are afterward charged of Manichaeism, of dissolving marriages, and more…]

Note: The rest of chapter I, and then chapters II – XVI, consist entirely of the Bishop’s prepared remarks.¹⁰⁷
In chapter 1, it is implicated that they rejected water baptism, and instead practiced foot washing.
In chapter 2, it is implicated that they rejected the Eucharist.
In chapter 3, it is implicated that they denied that a church is the house of God.
In chapter 4, it is implicated that they objected to the altar and the use of incense.
In chapter 5, it is implicated that they objected to the use of bells in churches.
In chapter 6, it is implicated that they objected to ordination.
In chapter 7, it is implicated that they objected to the use of holy burial grounds because of simony.
In chapter 8, it is implicated that they denied the efficacy of penance.
In chapter 9, it is implicated that they objected to prayers for the dead.
In chapter 10, it is implicated that they objected to the institution of marriage.
In chapter 11, it is implicated that they objected to auricular confession.
In chapter 12, it is implicated that they objected to psalmody in church services.
In chapter 13, it is implicated that they objected to veneration of the Cross.
In chapter 14, it is implicated that they objected to images of Christ on the Cross or saints because they were the work of human hands.
In chapter 15, it is implicated that they opposed the hierarchy.
In chapter 16, it is implicated that they held a heretical doctrine of justification.
In the conclusion, it is stated that the men are released after being “stunned into silence” and agreeing with all of the Bishop’s rebuttals.

No further record of direct testimony of the accused men exists. It is often assumed that the men were gnostics as the Bishop of Arras mantained against them. However, the only direct record of testimony from the accused men is recorded from the initial part of Chapter I, as given by the above translation.

Return to entry A.D. 1119

Appendix E

The following is written in Maxima Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum,
Tome 25, p. 190:

“Aldephonsus Dei gratia…
[translated from the Latin]

-A.D. 1194
“Aldephonsus, by the grace of God, King of Aragon, and Count of Barcelona, and Margrave of Provence, to all Archbishops, Bishops, and all the rest of the Prelates of the Church of this Kingdom, to all the Earls, Viscounts, soldiers, and to the entire people of the kingdom and our dominion, greeting, and good wishes for the integrity of the Christian religion. As it has pleased God to place us over his people, it is right that we should take great concern to, according to our ability, tend to the salvation and defense of our people. For this reason, in faithful continuity with our predecessors, and in rightful obedience to the canons that all heretics before God and Catholicism should be cast down, condemned and persecuted— the Waldenses or Insabbatatos, who are called the Poor of Lyons, and all other heretics who are so many they are beyond numbering, have been anathematized by the holy Church, from all of our kingdom and dominion, as enemies of the Cross of Christ, a dishonor to the Christian religion and our person, and public enemies of the kingdom itself, and are commanded to go out and flee into exile. And from this day on, if any one shall meet and receive these Waldenses and Insabbatatos, or other heretics of whatever profession, into their homes, or listen to their deadly preaching in any place, or give them food, or dare to show them any other favor, then he has incurred the wrath of God omnipotent, and of ourselves, and his goods shall be confiscated without appeal, for he has committed the crime of lese majesty.

“This is our edict and the continuing ordinance for every city, castle and village in our kingdom and dominion, and throughout all the land of our jurisdiction, which shall be recited by the Bishops each Sunday; Church leaders, as well as Governors, Bailiffs, Justiciaries, Merinis, and Zafalmerinis, and all the people, shall observe it, so that the aforementioned penalty shall be inflicted upon all offenders. Be it further known, that if any person, noble or ignoble, shall find any of these wicked spirits anywhere in our lands, after the three days’ proclamation, who, knowing our decree, do not speedily depart, but rather remain stubbornly, then there shall be no punishment for any evil, disgrace, or hurt, except death or maiming, inflicted upon them; and he shall rather merit my favor, and he shall know that this is acceptable to us. We shall give a respite from this (though beyond their deserts, and against reason) until tomorrow, which is All Saints Day, to leave our land; and if any are found remaining, we give full lenience to rob and dispossess them, to fashion clubs and to beat them, to shamefully abuse them.”

Return to entry A.D. 1229

Appendix F

The following excerpt is from “The letter of Everwin of Steinfeld”
Dated A.D. 1143.
Title: “The heretics of our time.”

EPISTOLA CDXXXII.
EVERVINI STEINFELDENSIS PRÆPOSITI AD S.BERNARDUM
[translated from the Latin]

“There have been lately some heretics discovered amongst us. […]

“When they saw they could go no further, they desired that a day might be appointed for them, upon which they might bring along with them men skilful in their belief, promising to return to the Church, provided they should find their masters defective in answering what was opposed to them; but that otherwise they would rather die than depart from their judgment. Upon this their declaration, after that for three days together they had been admonished, and found unwilling to repent, they were seized by the people, being incited by overmuch zeal, and put into the fire, and burnt; and (what is most wonderful) they entered to the stake, and bare the torment of the fire, not only with patience, but with joy and gladness. In this case, O holy Father, were I present with you, I should be glad to have your answer, how these members of the Devil could with such courage and constancy persist in their heresy, as is scarcely to be found in the most religious in the faith of Christ.

“Their heresy is this:” [a description of Manichaeism follows here: the belief that souls are fallen angels, the doctrine of voluntary poverty, also abstenance from ‘all milk, and whatsoever is made of it,’ transsubstantiation, as well as the following:] “…They also openly confess, that besides water, they baptized also with fire and the Holy Ghost, and had been so baptized themselves; alleging to this purpose the testimony of St. John the Baptist baptizing with water, and saying concerning Christ, ‘He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:’ (Matth. III, 11); and in another place ‘I indeed baptize you with water, but there stands one in the midst of you, whom you know not, who shall baptize you with another baptism besides that of water.’ (John, I, 26), And that this other baptism was to be performed by the imposition of hands, they endeavored to make out by the testimony of St. Luke, who, in the Acts of the Apostles, describing Paul’s baptism, which he received from Ananias at the command of Christ, makes no mention of water, but only of the laying on of hands; and whatsoever else we find, whether in the Acts of the Apostles or in St. Paul’s Epistles, they apply to this baptism; and they say, that every Elect (for so they call all those that are baptized amongst them) hath power to baptize others whom they find worthy, and to consecrate the body and blood of Christ at their meals. For first, by their laying on of hands they receive some of their auditors into the number of believers, and then they have leave to be present at their prayers, until that, after having had sufficient trial of them, they make them Elect. They contemn our baptism, condemn marriage; but the reason why, I could not get out of them, either because they durst not own it, or rather because they knew none.¹⁰⁸

“There are also some other heretics in our country, who are altogether different from these, by whose mutual discord and contests they were both of them discovered to us. These deny that the body of Christ is made on the altar, because all the Priests of the Church are not consecrated. For the apostolical dignity, say they, is corrupted, by engaging itself in secular affairs, and the sitting in the chair of Peter; yet because it does not wage God’s warfare as Peter did, it has deprived itself of the power of consecrating, which was so great in Peter; and what it has not itself, the Archbishops and Bishops, who live like men of the world, cannot receive from it, viz. the power of consecrating others: to this purpose alleging these words of Christ, ‘The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’s chair; what therefore they bid you do, that do.’ (Matth. XXVIII, 2, 3): As if such as these had only the power of preaching and commanding, but nothing more. Thus they make void the Priesthood of the Church,¹⁰⁹ and condemn the Sacraments besides Baptism only; and this only in those who are come to age, who, they say, are baptized by Christ himself, whosoever be the Minister of the Sacraments. They do not believe infant baptism; alleging that place of the Gospel, ‘Whosoever shall believe, and be baptized, shall be saved.’ (Marc. XVI, 16). All marriage they call fornication, besides that which is between two virgins, male and female;¹¹⁰ quoting for this the words of our Saviour, wherewith he answers the Pharisees, ‘What God hath joined, let no man separate;’ as if God did only join such together, as he did our first parents: as likewise those words of our Saviour, which he speaks to the Jеws, in answer to what they objected to him about the bill of divorce, ‘From the beginning it was not so;’ and the following words, ‘Whosoever marrieth her that is divorced, commits adultery;’ (Matth. XIX, 6-9); and that of the Apostle, ‘Let marriage be honourable to all, and the bed undefiled.’ (Hebr. XIII, 4).

“They put no confidence in the intercession of the saints; they maintain that fasting, and other afflictions which are undertaken for sin, are not necessary to the just, nor to sinners; because at what time soever the sinner repents of his sin, they are all forgiven to him; and all other things observed in the Church, which have not been established by Christ himself or his Apostles, they call superstitions. They do not admit of any purgatory fire after death; but that the souls, as soon as they depart out of the bodies, do enter into rest or punishment; proving it from that place of Solomon, ‘Which way soever the tree falls, whether to the south or to the north, there it lies:’ (Eccl. XI, 3); by which means they make void all the prayers and oblations of believers for the deceased.

“We therefore desire you, holy Father, to employ your care and watchfulness against these manifold mischiefs, and that you would be pleased to direct your pen against these wild beasts of the reeds; not thinking it sufficient to answer us, that the tower of David, to which we may take our refuge, is sufficiently fortified with bulwarks, that a thousand bucklers hang on the walls of it, all shields of mighty men. For we desire, Father, that for the sake of us simple ones, and that are slow of understanding, you would be pleased by your study to gather all these arms in one place, that they may be the more ready to be found, and more powerful to resist these monsters. I let you know also, that those of them who have returned to our Church, told us, that they had great numbers of their persuasion scattered almost every where: and that amongst them were many of our Clergy and Monks.”

. . .Two years later, Bernard gave a sermon in response to this letter (Bernard. super Cantic. serm. lxvi. p. 766.) and he seems to include there a response to the “heretics” described in Everwin’s epistle. However he makes no effort to distinguish the two groups, as Everwin had done. In all points Bernard confounds the two groups that, as Everwin noted, had been debating when Everwin found them. Yet Bernard treats them as if they were one. They are all charged with the same charges of outright condemning all marriages, with abstaining from meats, and also mocking at infant baptism and prayer for the dead. Towards the end of this sermon, in speaking about them some additional information seems to be revealed, translated below:

“When as they, after their manner, denied all things whereof they were suspected, being examined by the trial of water, they were found liars: and being no longer able to deny it, because they were found guilty, by the water not admitting of them, they confessed their crimes, offered themselves to defend them to the death, and were knocked on the head by the people.”

This sermon given in 1145 gives an extra insight into the thought process at that time. Everwin gave Bernard all of the information which he thought might be useful by a private letter written to him in 1143, which we still have today. Everwin informed Bernard of the two groups and how the two groups differed. Two years later when preaching in public about them, Bernard seems to make a deliberate attempt to make the two groups equal, despite being given the letter by Everwin which distinguishes the two groups. Furthermore, Bernard seems to inadvertently reveal information that one would only know firsthand, namely that their custom (as he says, ‘after their manner’) was to deny all these charges, namely, that they denied being gnostics. Furthermore, Bernard dismisses the sacrifice of their lives as being for an unworthy cause. Following this, Bernard chastises the people supposedly because they rushed to murder these men. But he does not rebuke them for the act of murder, but only for denying the opportunity for them to be taken and condemned formally in court first before being killed.

Return to entry A.D. 1229

Appendix G

The following is written in Historia rerum Anglicarum,
Book 2, ch. XIII:

De hæreticis Angliam ingressis, et quomodo exterminati sunt.
[translated from the Latin]

“About that same time some heretics came into England, of that sect, as it is believed, which are commonly called Publicans. These are they who have in many regions spread the virus of their heresy, which had originated from an unknown author in Gascony.¹¹¹ Such a number have been infected with this heresy throughout the extensive provinces of France, Spain, Italy and Germany, that we may pronounce, in the words of the prophet, ‘Lord, how are they increased that trouble me.’ (Ps. 3:1). In short, when the bishops of the churches, and the magistrates of the provinces are too lenient toward them, these subtle foxes come out from their dens and, under the pretension of piety, lead astray the simple, and lay waste grievously and widely to the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts. However, when the zeal of the faithful is kindled against them by the inspiration of God, they lie hidden in their dens, and become less noxious; however, in secret they spread their virus still, and so the harm does not come to an end. Rustics and idiots, dwellers in the fields are they, and consequently they are slow to understand their errors; so that when once tinctured with this heresy, they are inflexible to all discipline, so that it very rarely happens that they will be converted, when dragged out of their hiding-places.

“Of course, England has always been immune from pests such as these and other heretics, of which so many have sprang up in other parts of the world. Now, when this island had been under the tribes of the Britons, it gave birth to Pelagius, the future heresiarch in the East, and was under the same error herself: unto which the Gallican church in her great foresight sent forth once and again the blessed Germanus. However, once the English had completed the expulsion of the Britons from this island, so that it was no longer Britain, but England, it has been said, that none of the pestilence of the virus of heresy has ever issued forth: and it was not until the reign of Henry II, that it propagated and expanded in. And at this time, also, by the assistance of God, the pest, which has now crept in, has been blocked, so that it would fear to enter again into this island.

“There were a little more than thirty men and women who, hiding their error, came in, in order to graciously propagate their plague here, under the leadership of Gerard, to whom the rest looked as a commander and ruler. He alone was learned among them: the others were illiterate and idiots, men who were rude and rustic, who were of the German nation and language.

“During their stay in England, they entrapped one woman, who it is said was bewitched by certain sorceries, and so joined them. They could not remain long concealed, for certain persons had carefully examined them and found they were of a foreign sect, and they were arrested as such, and confined in public prisons. The King was not willing that they should be released or punished without an examination, therefore he commanded that a council of bishops be convened at Oxford.¹¹² At that time, when the suit was brought concerning their religion: the man who appeared literate, and who was best informed of their cause, spoke on behalf of all, testifying that they were Christians, and that they venerated the Apostolical doctrine. Under interrogation on all the articles of the faith, it was found that they answered rightly concerning the nature of the supreme Physician; but regarding the means which He has used to heal our infirmities, that is, the divine sacraments, they answered perversely; the holy baptism, the eucharist, and marriage, they detested— and the catholic unity, they derogated, which admits of these divine assistances.

“And when they were taken off course by the testimony of the holy scripture, they all said that they believed as they were taught, and were not willing to respond to a dispute about their faith. Being warned to repentance, to be united to the body of the church, they all despised this counsel. When they were menaced with godly threats, inducing them to become wise through fear, they despised this, abusing the word of the Lord, ‘Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.’ (Matthew 5:10). The bishops therefore, to prevent the spread of the heretical virus, pronounced them publicly as heretics, and delivered them to the catholic prince for corporeal punishment. He commanded their foreheads to be branded with the mark of heretical disgrace, and they be whipped in the eyes of the people, and expelled from the city, and strictly forbade anyone to receive, or supply, or provide them with any comfort whatsoever. After the sentence was read, they were led out to punishment rejoicing, their leader leading on before them in haste, and singing ‘Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you.’ To such a degree, the seducing spirit deceived their minds. The woman whom they had led astray in England confessed her error and was reconciled, having departed them for fear of punishment. Moreover, this detestable band, with branded foreheads, was subjected to just severity: and he who had the supremacy over them, for a sign of his leadership, was seared with two brands, one on his forehead and one on his chin. Their garments being torn down to their waists, they were publicly scourged, and while the lash yet resounded, they were expelled from the city, to the intolerable cold, for it was winter; so they perished in misery, and no person showed them the smallest mercy. And this rigorous severity cleansed the kingdom of England from the creeping pest, but also prevented its future intrusion, by the terror which it so struck into heretics.”

Note: A question to be raised here is, why did the annalist in this description go to the extra trouble to specifically describe the first sacrament as ‘holy’ baptism if the group of ‘heretics’ renounced all baptism altogether? It seems to reason that this specific distinction of ‘holy baptism’ over simply ‘baptism’ was made likely because they only disregarded infant baptism (which the writer called holy baptism), but not water baptism altogether.

Note: With regard to the other charge that they detested marriage, I can think of three equally valid explanations. First, it is possible that what this group spoke against was the common practice of divorce and remarriage. If this is the case, then the annalist transformed this into a charge that they condemn all marriage. In that case, the reality is that the group simply holds different standards, teaching that divorce and remarriage is adultery – and for this they were (wrongly) accused of condemning all marriage. Second, it is possible they were accused of condemning marriage in total for the sole reason simply to make them appear to be Manichaeans. In this case, a false charge was added by someone, along with the rest of the charges made against the group, simply to make sure that the group of foreigners would surely be viewed as wrong overall in their teachings; it follows after all that condemning all marriage would be incompatible with Christian society, which recognizes and protects marriages. Third, it is possible that someone manufactured this charge against the group by a leap of logic from the fact that, as we know, the group did not recognize the priests. If the group did not recognize the priesthood, then was simply assumed without merit that the group would deem marriages performed by such priests illegal. By the logic of their time, marriage was one of the ‘seven sacraments,’ and thus by their reasoning could only be performed by a “valid” priest. Though, as we have discussed, baptists differ from this in that they hold only two ordinances, of which marriage is not considered an ordinance: hence, there is no need to assume that this group would not recognize marriages just because of the fact that they would not recognize the priesthood. Any of these three explanations for the (false) charge against the group of not recognizing marriage would suffice, along with the explanation of ‘holy’ baptism, the baptism which they would not recognize, being a euphemism for ‘infant’ baptism.

Mellinus also made the below remark about the same group at the end of his own account of the council of Oxford of 1160, but the provenance for this is less clear:¹¹³

“They said that [the Roman church] was like the barren fig-tree, which our Lord Jesus Christ had cursed: they also said, regarding the commandments of the Pope and the Bishops, that they should not be obeyed if they strive against God; also, that Monasticism was a stinking carrion, and that monastic vows are nothing more than a curse, yea, that they foster lasciviousness¹¹⁴; also, that the titles and orders of the Priestly dignity are the marks of the great beast: they said that purgatory, masses, church consecrations, worship of the Saints, yearly memorials for the dead, etc., are genuine inventions of the devil. And these were without a doubt the most famous articles that the Fathers of the Oxford Council could not brook, on account of which they scourged and banished them out of their country, yea, let them freeze to death.”

Return to entry A.D. 1229

Appendix H

The following is written in Sir William Blackstone’s
Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Ch. VIII, pp. 109-112, 115:

“[L]et us now return to the statutes of praemunire, which were framed to encounter this overgrown yet increasing evil.

“King Edward I., a wise and magnanimous prince, set himself in earnest to shake off this servile yoke. He would not suffer his bishops to attend a general council, till they had sworn not to receive the papal benediction. He made light of all papal bulles and processes: attacking Scotland in defiance of one: and seizing the temporalities of his clergy, who under pretence of another refused to pay a tax imposed by parliament. He strengthened the statutes of mortmain; thereby closing the great gulph, in which all the lands of the kingdom were in danger of being swallowed. And, one of his subjects having obtained a bulle of excommunication against another, he ordered him to be executed as a traitor, according to the antient law.(6) And in the thirty-fifth year of his reign was made the first statute against papal provisions, being, according to sir Edward Coke, the foundation of all subsequent statutes of praemunire, which we rank as an offence immediately against the king, because every encouragement of the papal power is a diminution of the authority of the crown.

“(6) But because that lawe had not of long time beene put in execution, the chancellor and treasurer kneeled before the king, and obtained grace for him, so as he was onely banished out of the realme.

“In the weak reign of Edward the second the pope again endeavored to encroach, but the parliament manfully withstood him; and it was one of the principal articles charged against that unhappy prince, that he had given allowance to the bulles of the see of Rome. But Edward the third was of a temper extremely different: and to remedy these inconveniences first by gentle means, he and his nobility wrote an expostulation to the pope; but receiving a menacing and contemptuous answer, withal acquainting him, that the emperor, (who a few years before at the diet of Nuremberg, A.D. 1323, had established a law against provisions,) and also the king of France, had lately submitted to the holy see; the king replied, that if both the emperor and the French king should take the pope’s part, he was ready to give battle to them both, in defence of the liberties of the crown. Hereupon more sharp and penal laws were devised against provisors, which enact severally, that the court of Rome shall not present or collate to any bishoprick or living in England; and that whoever disturbs any patron in the presentation to a living by virtue of a papal provision, such provisor shall pay fine and ransom to the king at his will, and be imprisoned till he renounces such provision; and the same punishment is inflicted on such as cite the king, or any of his subjects, to answer in the court of Rome. And when the holy see resented these proceedings, and pope Urban V. attempted to revive the vasalage and annual rent to which king John had subjected his kingdom, it was unanimously agreed by all the estates of the realm in parliament assembled, 40 Edw. III., that king John’s donation was null and void, being without the concurrence of parliament, and contrary to his coronation oath: and all the temporal nobility and commons engaged, that if the pope should endeavor by process or otherwise to maintain these usurpations, they would resist and withstand him with all their power.

“In the reign of Richard the second, it was found necessary to sharpen and strengthen these laws, and therefore it was enacted by statutes 3 Ric. II. c. 3. and 7 Ric. II. c. 12. first, that no alien should be capable of letting his benefice to farm; in order to compel such as had crept in, at least to reside on their preferments: and, afterwards, that no alien should be capable to be presented to any ecclesiastical preferment, under the penalty of the statutes of provisors. By the statute 12 Ric. II. c. 15. all liegemen of the king, accepting of a living by any foreign provision, are put out of the king’s protection, and the benefices made void. To which the statute 13 Ric. II. st. 2. c. 2. adds banishment and forfeiture of lands and goods: and by c. 3. of the same statute, any person bringing over any citation or excommunication from beyond sea, on account of the execution of the foregoing statutes of provisors, shall be imprisoned, forfeit his goods and lands, and moreover suffer pain of life and member.

“In the writ for the execution of all these statutes the words praemunire facias, being (as we said) used to command a citation of the party, have denominated in common speech not only the writ, but the offence itself of maintaining the papal power, by the name of praemunire. And accordingly the next statute I shall mention, which is generally referred to by all subsequent statutes, is usually called the statute of praemunire. It is the statute 16 Ric. II. c. 5. which enacts, that whoever procures at Rome, or elsewhere, any translations, processes, excommunications, bulles, instruments, or other things, which touch the king, against him, his crown, and realm, and all persons aiding and assisting therein, shall be put out of the king’s protection, their lands and goods forfeited to the king’s use, and they shall be attached by their bodies to answer to the king and his council: or process of praemunire facias shall be made out against them as in other cases of provisors.

“By the statute 2 Hen. IV. c. 3. all persons who accept any provision from the pope, to be exempt from canonical obedience to their proper ordinary, are also subjected to the penalties of praemunire. And this is the last of our antient statutes touching this offence; the usurped civil power of the bishop of Rome being pretty well broken down by these statutes, as his usurped religious power was in about a century afterwards. . .”

“This then is the original meaning of the offence, which we call praemunire; viz. introducing a foreign power into this land, and creating imperium in imperio, by paying that obedience to papal process, which constitutionally belonged to the king alone, long before the reformation in the reign of Henry the eighth: at which time the penalties of praemunire were indeed extended to more papal abuses than before; as the kingdom then entirely renounced the authority of the see of Rome, though not all the corrupted doctrines of the Roman church. And therefore by the several statutes of 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12. and 25 Hen VIII. c. 19. & 21. to appeal to Rome from any of the king’s courts, which (though illegal before) had at times been connived at; to sue Rome for any licence or dispensation; or to obey any process from thence; are made liable to the pains of praemunire.”

Return to entry A.D. 1267

Historical Outline Part 1

Preface

Providing historical context can often be helpful. The following three articles, starting with this, will provide an overview of some widely known events and cover some lesser known events in church history. I intend to keep descriptions brief so that this can overall serve as an outline. This one is a long read, and it covers a large number of subjects, so be prepared. I would also say any other well-sourced information which is reliable is also welcome to be included. Please make use of the comments area below, if you like.

While many of the events covered here may be related to Biblical prophecy, they are not explicitly taken out of the Scripture so our understanding of these events may not be complete. For some important events, we only have access to the accounts of the opposing side of an issue of interest to us.

I should note that these historical outlines are presented as they are, not as arguments for the existence of the validity and purity of God’s church, for that must be gathered from Matthew 16:18, the Great Commission and the other words of Christ, which state that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against his church. These are the truths that everyone can believe in. This is the understanding from which all things can be viewed. People should be saved by hearing God’s word and enter the church for the same reason today as they did when the words of the Bible were first spoken. What is covered below should be considered an extra subject by comparison.

There is one subject to note at the outset. The word which God has revealed by inspiration (see Titus 1:2¹), has always existed, and those words were originally in existence before all things. There were never any real uncertainties about what the Word of God is. From the time of the inspiration of God’s word, it has never been a question to the church what these holy Scriptures were, because they are preserved, which again is exactly as we have discussed throughout this site. Consider:
Psalm 119:160², Deuteronomy 29:29³, Proverbs 30:5-6⁴, Luke 16:17⁵,
1 Peter 1:23⁶, John 18:37⁷, Hebrews 4:12-13⁸. Also, John 8:47⁹.

Therefore, no council of men decided the canon of Scriptures. So, you will not find a point in the outline where a council allegedly determined the composition of Scripture, wherefrom their authority is supposed to be taken as the reason why we have the word of God. In fact, it can further be said that such misguided efforts which did take place, only managed to include apocrypha erroneously. This proved their inability to discern scriptures and disqualification in those cases. The church, who has known the word of God, never needed a council to determine this to begin with. Saved people have known God’s word in a direct way. They know that it is from God, which is why they are saved. The “believers” knew the authority of the word, knowing that it should be believed, upon hearing it. That is something that needed no council. Thus, we do not present any kind of theological council as a historical point in the outline below. The only thing that has ever been needed to know what is true from false is the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.

The truth was not decided upon a majority either. This is because the majority is often in error with respect to the truth. Nor yet was the preservation of the same Bible reliant merely upon a majority of people approving of it. In fact, quite the contrary.

Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
– Mark 13:33

I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
– Romans 16:19

–Dedicated to the Lord.

Here follows the first part of the history from A.D. 70 – 990, with three appendices included at the end.

A.D. 70: Second Temple defiled

Before the close of the Biblical period, the Roman General (future Caesar) Titus beseiged and laid waste to the city of Jеrusаlem in the land of Judеа.

A.D. 136: Bar Kokhba Revolt

In the time of the end (after the book of Revelation), a political revolt in Judеа, led by a Jеwish “savior figure,” is ended by the Roman empire, under Hаdriаn.¹⁰ The city of Jеrusаlеm is completely levelled to the ground, is replaced by a colony (Aеlia Cаpitolinа) and, by law of Rome, ongoing ethno-religious cleansing of the whole city is decreed. The whole province is renamed to Syria Pаlаеstinа.¹¹

One effect of this was a geographic redistributing of phаrisаical or pre-tаlmudіc predecessors, and those which at that time did not want to acknowledge Christ, to places outside of the Levant where the kingdom had been located. Early Judаіsm in these times made its primary stronghold in the city of Babylon, which was eastward and outside the reach of Roman laws.¹² Meanwhile, Christianity continued to grow elsewhere, especially at that time in the opposite direction towards the West.

A.D. 140: Marcionism

Marcion travels to Rome and attempts to join the church there in 140, while preaching from apocryphal book “Gospel of Marcion.” He was excommunicated or banned in 144, so afterward he changed locations to continue his gnostic sect.¹³ The Marcionites counted 115 years and 6 months from the time of Christ until their founding, making them a relatively old, but false sect.

Marcion himself became the apparent source of many characteristic “gnostic” doctrines, such as physical-spirit dualism. Dualism regards all matter as evil in essence, employs self-abuse of the body in various ways, and separates the “good God” of the New Testament, from the Creator. The Creator from the Old Testament is termed malorum factorem (“the author of evils”); and furthermore, gnostics of this type claimed that Jesus is not the Messiah, and the Old Testament was a false promise. Rather, they claimed, that he came from an “higher plane” and took a non-physical body. Also it was claimed that the descent into Hades was meant to redeem those who had resisted the “malevolent creator” such as Cain, who was seen by the Gnostics as a hero. He was approved by the Gnostics because he resisted the Creator. Likewise, resurrection of the spirit was accepted, but of the body, denied. Marcion taught asceticism, fasted on Sundays (to resist the “malevolent creator,”) and abstained from all meat, except for fish— he appealed at a dispute in 144 to the passage of Scripture in Luke 6:43.¹⁴ Many ideas of dualism have been adapted into other “gnostic” sects, so that Marcionites were similar to other versions of gnosticism, which have appeared in numerous local forms in history.

Marcion was also the author of the Antitheses, a work which very methodically went through the entire Old and New Testament and tried to find contradictions, in order to make a case for the ill intent of the Creator of the Old Testament. He was also the first person known to produce a corrupted Bible. He rejected the four Gospels, except his own version of the Gospel of Luke, which removed everything before v. 4.31 and every other passage which acknowledged the Creator. Marcion was the one who started the tradition of arranging a “council” in which the correct books of the Bible were proclaimed. But this was done falsely by including in it only Paul’s epistles (but not the pastoral epistles of 1, 2 Timothy and Titus) and adding his own corrupted gospel. Therefore, Marcion excluded some or all of the work of every author of the Bible.

A.D. 157: “Old Italic” Bible translated

The “Old Italic” or Vetus Latina translation of the Scriptures is produced by this date, at the latest.¹⁵¹⁶ This line of Biblical transmission continued through the Vaudois, a population that was located in the extreme north of Italy, in alpine valleys bordering on France, Switzerland.¹⁷ This line of Biblical manuscripts would later be acquired by the Geneva translators for reference in producing French, Italian, English and other Bibles.¹⁸ This early Latin translation predates and is unrelated to the Vulgate.

c. A.D. 213: Sabellian Controversy

An early Christological controversy occurred around this time involving the main faction of Trinitarians disputing the modalist Sabellians. Referring incorrectly to John 10:30,¹⁹ they taught that the Son was a mere aspect of a unitary god and they denied the distinct personhood of the Son being fully God.²⁰²¹ Beyond a general description, there is not much reliable information. Controversy continues with various unitarians.²²

c. A.D. 240: Hexaplar Septuagint first produced

Sometime on or before this date, Origen of Alexandria produced the Hexaplar Septuagint, which is his version of the (older) LXX— a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.²³²⁴ The Septuagint of today can always be traced back to Origen. Also included in this work were many apocrypha. See linked article (goes to another page) for more information on the Hexaplar Septuagint and its various differences from the Old Testament.

A.D. 242: Manichæism

Around 240, Mani travels to India to study religions. He later returns to his homeland in Persia in 242 with a new religion resembling Hinduism, Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism. It is composed of six books (such as “the book of Giants”), written in Syriac, with one additional picture book.²⁵²⁶

Manichaeism grows into one of the most widespread religions of the world at the time, before disappearing in the 8th century. Mani’s literature had a lasting effect on formative rаbbіnіc judаіsm and on gnosticism. This effect is still found to be present in those traditions.²⁷²⁸ This was aided by the fact that Mani’s writings were originally in Syriac, which was common language in the near East.

A.D. 245: Beginnings of Neo-platonism

Plotinus establishes his school of “Platonic” thought in Rome in 245, resulting in his systematic theology, which has been called Neoplatonism by later historians. This term is used to distinguish it from Plato’s philosophy, from which neoplatonism drew many of its ideas. This ‘newer platonic’ philosophy has deeply influenced gnosticism and judаіsm.²⁹³⁰ Its malign influence can still be seen today.³¹ It also deeply influenced later “kаbbаlists” and self-described “enlightenment humanists.”³²³³³⁴ A key thing to note is that neoplatonism is, in essence, a philosophy that is anti-Christian. This is evidenced, as its founder Porphyry was, as noted by the footnotes in the above paragraph.

A.D. 250: The Decian Persecution

The emperor Decius (died in 251) mandates that everyone throughout the Empire must make pagan ritual sacrifices to the Roman gods.³⁵

A.D. 251: Novatianism

After the end of the Decian Persecution, a large camp of churches decided that any Christians who had bowed to the persecution and made pagan ritual sacrifices should never be permitted to rejoin the churches under any circumstance.³⁶ This movement of churches was initially headed by Novatian, an inhabitant of Rome. Novatian, an influential early church figure, helped to establish mirror churches throughout the empire that maintained this common view, which existed for several centuries before the term ‘Novatianist’ fell into obscurity. However the self-description which they gave themselves of Cathari, meaning pure, would continue to be used in later times.

A.D. 303: The Diocletianic Persecution

Co-emperors Diocletian and Galerius issued a series of edicts targeting all Christians, thus making a universal persecution: The first two prohibited all assemblies, and demanded confiscation of property, and particularly the burning of their Scriptures. Many buildings were also razed. On the basis of professed Christianity, its adherents were instantly deprived of any status of court recognition, which resulted in some becoming re-enslaved.³⁷

In the third edict, the imprisoned were given conditional release if they would participate in ritual sacrifices. Harshness varied greatly. Some were burned alive, but others were officially declared to have sacrificed and released without having done anything.³⁸ By the time of the fourth edict, enforcement of these laws had ceased in the Western half of the Empire. The overlords in the East in their last edict required a group or collective sacrifice to the Roman gods to be made by each church, with punishments of different severity.

By late 306, Constantine and Maxentius had ended the persecution in the Western half and rewarded property back. In 311, Galerian pronounced the Edict of Serdica (Sofia, Bulgaria) which fully reversed all the persecutions.³⁹ Maximinus, however, revived the persecutions in his district of Asia and Egypt until his defeat in 313.⁴⁰

A.D. 313: Constantinian Shift

Following the Battle of Milvian Bridge, the emperor Constantine enacts the Edict of Milan in 313 which in his view, officially recognizes and tolerates Christianity. By 325, Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea: creating a state-established church (or a state church) for his empire. At first, the Arians⁴¹ are exiled from the state church and the empire, but later in 335, Constantine reinstates Arius.⁴² The order of events later on in Constantine’s rule gradually morphs his initial toleration of Christianity towards just one approved state church doctrine. This doctrine is devised by Constantine and the pro-Constantine faction of bishops. It was set forth under the ruse of being state policy and yet ‘consensus’ as well, with an eye to pursuing unity in the empire, which was a matter of importance to Constantine.

A.D. 313: Donatist Controversy

In many provinces of Caesar’s realm, a controversy arose over some churches not accepting the appointment of church leaders of those who had, formerly, subverted the church in the Persecutions. Donatism, according to its common description, differed from Novatianism, however, by accepting these people as members if they underwent valid baptism, but disqualifying them from leadership positions.⁴³ This was not useful for appointing the emperor’s selections for church leaders, so this obviously did not receive favor from Constantine. The Emperor singlehandedly decided against them.⁴⁴ The people of the church should reasonably have sought toleration for their practices by the sovereign ruler, who was the emperor. Nevertheless, the fact they made an appeal to him was later counted against them. Constantine himself did not embark on a crusade against these churches, except for an initial skirmish, when they were attacked and had property forcibly taken from them and given to the state church. He made peace with “the Donatists” in 321. The council of Nicaea then took place in 325. Later Romans would continue to attack these churches through enacting of laws against them.

The “Donatist” churches were so named after the prominent North African bishop Donatus (later exiled in 347), although it was claimed elsewhere to have been started before this by Majorinus.⁴⁵ Despite the death of Majorinus in 313-315, this faction existed throughout the entire empire. These churches, which were solidly rooted in the Scripture as we noted before, made up a significant number of the so-called “pars Majorini,” or Donatists. In addition to scriptural roots, they also held some historical roots in a council of churches that took place some hundred years earlier at Carthage, around 215, which had been led by Agrippinus.⁴⁶ His policy had been that those who were converted had to join the church by baptism, and he firmly maintained that any other immersions prior to this point were regarded as nothing – not only by reason of invalid mode or an invalid minister, but by the reason that the convert had not been converted at the time of the prior immersion, therefore making it invalid.⁴⁷ These churches and Agrippinus, therefore, would have been considered “re-baptizers” by those who eventually upheld infant baptism as the standard. Of course, it is not likely that infant baptism or the idea of baptismal regeneration existed as early as 215, because the evidence for it existing this early is lacking. It may be added also, the practice of baptism by immersion⁴⁸ as method of entrance into the church, upon confession of faith, and not before this, exists clearly in the New Testament. The evidence for that is presented in this article. So then, it was in the year 313, when the churches were ordered for the first time to accept invalid baptisms by allowing such leaders to be appointed over them by Constantine, that the controversy became unavoidable. By implication, these churches had coexisted peacefully in separation from those which did not practice Biblical baptism prior to this time, as no order had been placed on them to accept such leaders.

One segment of “Donatists” remained politically influential in North Africa, with many churches of other doctrinal beliefs also persisting in the area, but largely agreeing on baptism (against Rome) and thus being collectively labeled by those who favored Rome, as “Donatist,” until the conquest of the Umayyad dynasty around 670. This means that the term Donatist was usually tied to a specific doctrinal position, not to a specific group in Africa. In the later Reformation era, Baptists were once again labeled as Donatists in reference to this divide.⁴⁹ This initial series of incidents surrounding Emperor Constantine, the Council of Arles in 314, and Majorinus, may therefore also be known as the Catholic controversy or the Baptist controversy. However, this controversy may rightly be seen as a byproduct of the ecclesiastical or state church ordering controversy (which has effects on the policy of baptism), which in turn exists as a result of a greater historical divide over final authority either in Scripture or in traditions.⁵⁰ Those who wanted to follow Scripture did not want to have their church leaders appointed over them, and did not want to change baptism away from what it was. Those that instead believed in development of “traditions” apart from Scripture, went along with these changes implemented by Constantine and the pro-Constantine faction. The pro-Constantine faction was comprised of personalities in the state church of Rome, which – after the reign of Theodosius – came to be known as Roman Catholicism.

The Donatists of the city of Carthage, for their part, maintained a separation of church and state in the wider dispute with Rome, which also took political dimensions. To Donatus was attributed the remark “Quid est imperatori cum ecclesia?” or, “What has the emperor to do with the church?”⁵¹ Following the era of Constantine was the reign of his son Constans, who attempted sometime after the year 343 to induce prominent Donatist leaders to join his cause. When offers of material riches and subversion failed, the legates of Constans— named Macarius and Paul— next turned to violent persecution.⁵² It was in the town of Bagai in Numidia that a clash occurred, but whether the rebel leaders, Donatus of Bagai and Marculus, were killed, or whether they threw themselves upon the rocks— in line with the fanaticism of the Circumcellions at that time— is unclear. It is arguable that their lifeless bodies were thrown over the ledge after they were killed, and were accused afterward of throwing themselves down. In any case, these two were hailed as martyrs in the aftermath of the battle, and the legate Macarius, by carrying out the will of Constans and of his accomplices, was widely denounced as an imperial puppet and “prophet of antichrist,” and as a malign persecutor who was sent by Emperor Constans to corrupt the nonconformist church which observed Scripture, and the old ways, uncorrupted. To view that account, please see appendix A (linked) of this article.

A.D. 325: Arian Controversy

The political battle to be recognized by the emperor for state church authority, continues past Constantine’s personal appointment Arius to official state priesthood in 335.

Arius was a prominent figure who taught that the Son of God is a lesser, created entity, and not of the same essence as God the Father. Evidence suggests that many passages of scripture were altered by the Arian faction around this time, including 1 John 5:7.⁵³⁵⁴ Particularly, emperor Constantius II went to great lengths to promote the dominance of his favored Arian bishops, such as at the Council of Ariminum in 359, in which the Roman state-approved bishops all (wrongly) recognized Arian doctrine as the orthodox state church doctrine for the Roman church.⁵⁵

The pattern of Emperors reinstating Trinitarians and subsequently Arians continues, until Theodosius. In the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, he declares by his authority the 325 Council to be one state-approved official religion.⁵⁶ After the year 380, the Arians are commonly presumed to have lost their place in the seats of power at Rome.

The newly created offices of the state bishop, head-bishop, or archbishop take on more political significance, starting in 313, as offices of imperial favor. These positions are given out by the governing Caesar to favored officers and lieutenants, and not elected by members. Churches observed by these rulers as not adapting to accept this state policy begin to be deprived of various privileges and rights at various times, momentarily favoring the politically-favored state church/state churches, whether Arian or otherwise. Sacerdotalism is a teaching seen as politically advantageous by the rulers after Constantine which becomes widely adopted, and synonymous with the state church.⁵⁷⁵⁸ The reverse teaching to this is “priesthood of the believer.”

c. A.D. 350: Gothic Bible translated

The agent Ulfilas writes a Bible translation into the local language, and an alphabet, for the barbarian Goths.⁵⁹ He uses this to preach Arianism to the Gothic tribes on the north of the Danube, with official state charter of the Roman state church, under Constantius II.⁶⁰

The raiding Goths would later take a part in the migration period during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, spreading Arianism into Hispania (Visigoths) and Italy (Ostrogoths) and establishing rival Arian state churches in these places.⁶¹

Due to the fact that the Arians did not baptize with the formula as given in Matthew 28, trinitarians regarded their baptism as not valid, and regularly baptized converts from Arianism into their churches.⁶² Also, churches widely regarded as “Donatists” did not regard baptism performed on the unregenerate, or administered by those unqualified, and they regularly baptized converts into their churches.

c. A.D. 395: Christian College founded in Wales

Sometime during the reign of Theodosius, a college devoted to Biblical studies was founded in Wales, near Llantwit Major. It is known as Cor Tewdws, a name given retrospectively from the era of Theodosius.⁶³ Despite being ransacked some fifty years after this, the college was rebuilt in the sixth century and flourished for many centuries during Wales’ existence, as it was for a long time separate from rule of foreign powers. It was surpassed by the English academies of late and became defunct at the dissolution of the monasteries.⁶⁴⁶⁵⁶⁶ The national sovereignty of Wales was also separate from the nearby Anglo-Saxons and England until 1283. Wales had a separate order of churches, unassociated to that of England, during this time.⁶⁷

A.D. 405: The Catholic Persecutions

At the death of Theodosius and the reign of his weak son Honorius as Caesar of the West in A.D. 395, the state church faction began exerting a greater control over laws and imperial matters. On February 12, 405, non-conforming churches, those which were sometimes called “Donatist” and peacefully continued in non-acceptance of the state church’s baptism, were attacked, beginning with the official edict⁶⁸ in Imperatoris Theodosii, which decreed that any persons which they considered to be “rebaptizandi” should suffer loss of all property, and extending also for their children, unless their children recanted.

However, this law was— seemingly— not sufficiently far enough, because on March 21, 413, a further law was decreed by the same legislator,⁶⁹ which increased the severity of the penalty to death for both the baptized person and the minister, who were both deemed “rebaptizandi.” Thus, individual baptist churches would be expressly included as outlawed by this law, along with the Novatians⁷⁰ and Donatists⁷¹, who were expressly named in separate titles under this law. This order of events seems to suggest that the first law was viewed as not effective enough in its time, likely because those churches continued on despite these laws, so that they decided to make a more severe penalty by raising the punishment to death in 413.

However, the true extent of the enforcement of this law was likely not everywhere. This is because the reign of Honorius also marked the start soon after of Caesar’s power crumbling in the West. Enforcement of this law would have required resources that were not available at that time. In the year 414, all of the Roman legions had to be withdrawn from Britain to contain rebellions on the continent. The Rescript of Honorius released the land and people of Britain at this time, leaving them to their own defense.⁷²

c. A.D. 415: Pelagianism

Following an open controversy caused by Pelagius, at Diospolis (near Lod, Isrаеl) in the year 415, a round of preachers began to openly teach his newfound Pelagian doctrine across Europe.⁷³

Pelagius was educated in Britain before taking these teachings to the continent, in which he claimed that man was capable of choosing good or evil of his own will and volition. That is, man makes himself a good creature, without grace provided by God, and is supposed to do this. The teaching equates to a works gospel. The state churches, while condemnatory, were not capable of preventing this until the wave of Pelagian preachers finally died out around 455.⁷⁴

A.D. 482: The Arian Persecution

An intense period of sustained persecution befell those in Africa who confessed the divinity of Christ.

In 429, the Roman Bonifacius allowed the Vandal chief, Genseric, to cross into Africa. Bonifacius— who, since 413, was the official responsible for enforcing the Catholic persecutions in Africa— had, despite the close advisement of Augustine of Hippo against the matter, converted to Arianism sometime before 424.⁷⁵

Bonifacius had taken in a number of Arian concubines, and at some point he was temporarily misled into believing that he had a quarrel with the establishment in Rome, so had allowed the Vandal troops (also Arians) to ferry across. They immediately overwhelmed the undermanned provincial areas and secured the large fleets of ships kept there. They would proceed to capture Sicily and other isles with these ships, and conduct a sack of Rome. This was the most dogmatical Arian regime that Africa had ever seen, owing to their desire for religious unity, especially among the victorious upper class,— and so, little space was given for any Trinitarianism. For instance, four loyal servants of Genseric, Spaniards, were nevertheless tortured and put to death for later rejecting Arianism.⁷⁶ Thus, they chose to reject religious unity with their sovereign, although they had been loyal.

However, the persecution became universal in the kingdom under the reign of that sovereign’s son, Hunneric. While content with a situation of mutual tolerance for the first five years of his reign (477-481), Hunneric perceived the winds of politics shifting quickly. Suddenly, the Catholics and other Trinitarians were no longer favorable to him. Thus, any churches he found that did not conform to Arianism were scattered and destroyed, its members exiled into the Saharan deserts or to cut timber in Corsica.⁷⁷

The Catholic state church in north Africa, as previously discussed starting in 405, had engaged in 25 years of assassinations against non-conforming churches there.⁷⁸⁷⁹ From 413 until 429 in Africa, rebellion from the authorities in Rome by baptizing separately from them was even punished by death sentences. Now, under the Arian regime, openly professing the divinity of Christ was considered treasonable by that king. In fact, during the intensification of this persecution, the laws that were passed in A.D. 413 against the “rebaptizandi” were now extended by Hunneric⁸⁰ to all who remained opposed the Arian state church. These were none other than the same persecutions enacted by Rome which Augustine of Hippo had formerly argued were just to be employed against non-conforming churches. See appendix B.

The most remembered moment of this period was the imposition of an Arian bishop on the port town of Typasa, which happened sometime between 483 which was the height of the persecution, and Hunneric’s death in 484. This bishop tried first by persuasion and then by threats to urge the church there into unity under his leadership. Finally, he sent an accusation against them to the king, who ordered that their tongues and right hands should be publically maimed, which was done. After the persecution was over these persons were still able clearly to frame their words that “Jesus is Lord,” thus testifying to His divinity. This was verified by many witnesses of that time.

A.D. 529: Justinian’s law codices

With approval from the Eastern Emperor Zeno, the Arian-led Ostrogothic army conquers Italy in 493.⁸¹ After a “night of the long knives,” Theoderic kills off his rival Odoacer and rules over Italy and nearby regions for 33 years. Similarly the Visigoths, also Arians, drive out the Romans from the Iberian peninsula, and the Franks, who were ruled by Chalcedonians— so named after an A.D. 451 council— invade the vast areas of Soissons and Alemannia.⁸² By the year 500, all of Western Europe had fallen outside of Roman control.⁸³⁸⁴

This situation was somewhat reversed for a time by the reign of Justinian in the Eastern Roman empire. Shortly before his conquest of western lands, this Emperor had written in his law code, in the year 529, a copy of the law, passed by Honorius from 116 years earlier.⁸⁵ This law declared the death penalty for baptism outside of the state church. He would attempt to reimpose the Roman law in Italy, wherever he could. Book 1, Title 6 was in fact a special section on its own, reserved only to condemn what it called “rebaptizandi.” In the entire law code, this was the only statute that made a profession of belief in itself a capital crime, other than to separately condemn Arianism.⁸⁶ This suggests that, according to Justinian, he perceived that there was still rebaptizandi in some places in A.D. 529, when the law code was written.

Judаіsm and other beliefs conformable to the state church meanwhile were tolerated.⁸⁷

Justinian, with his general Belisarius, re-conquered Italy, North Africa and intervening lands in the period 533-562.⁸⁸ How much time the Romans had to actually impose their new laws is another question. In the year 568, the Lombards had migrated southward into Italy to control the greater part of the war-torn area. The eastern Romans, who were culturally Greek, lost control once again, although they held on to Rome itself (Exarchate Ravenna).⁸⁹ The Plague of Justinian also took a vicious toll during this time, as more than 10%, possibly 20% of the world population died. Thus the new Roman law was yet not firmly established in much of Italy, especially in the North.

With regard to the Vaudois in the far north of Italy, who were mentioned earlier as possessing early Latin translations of the Scripture: the Franks victoriously took control of what became Swiss and Savoyard regions,⁹⁰ while the Lombards took control over the neighboring Aosta Valley region and Turin. These were two “barbarian” kingdoms. The Romans therefore never firmly controlled the area to impose this law against re-baptism again.

A.D. 603: Canterbury excommunication

Augustine of Canterbury, an archbishop who had recently established his office inside England in the year 597, attempts to impose various measures on the churches in Wales. However, the leaderships of these churches strongly refused to recognize or associate with him at all. The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms at this time had no means to enforce a uniformity with these older churches, which were located in an area of what was formerly Roman Britain which they had not already conquered, bordering to the West of their domain. However, the delegation of 1200 Christians was killed. This instance is related in the Latin chronicle, Flores Historiarum, among others. See appendix C for the account of this.

*As can be seen in the records, these populations also sent some of their people to the continent in Armorica (modern Brittany) and Gallaecia (modern Galicia).⁹¹⁹²

A.D. 692: Latin Bibles made in Britain

The oldest surviving complete Bible in Latin was commissioned in northern England (kingdom of Northumbria) by Ceolfrid of Jarrow, also around the same time and place as the historian Bede lived.⁹³ This Bible, however, follows the Vulgate mold, not the Vetus Latina,⁹⁴ and has in fact been used as the primary source in reconstructing Jerome’s original. It survives because one of the three copies was misplaced on its way to Rome in 716. This copy, Codex Amiatinus, found its way instead to Mount Amiata in Tuscany at Abbazia di San Salvatore, where it was located in 1036.

This version of the Bible is of interest because it is possible one of the other copies⁹⁵ eventually found its way to the Synod of Chelsea in 787, when the Anglian king Offa of Mercia created the archdiocese of Lichfield in the north. He did this as a way to diminish the influence of Canterbury, and to elevate his own loyal officer, Hygeberht, to the rank of archbishop in order to perform a ceremony. It is likely the sitting archbishop in Canterbury, being controlled by a rival king, refused. But Rome went along with Offa’s decision.⁹⁶ Hygeberht was then used to consecrate Offa’s son Ecgfrith as the royal heir.⁹⁷ This occurred with a ceremony— involving likely this Bible, and likely at Brixworth Abbey.⁹⁸ However, Mercian King Ecgfrith ultimately only reigned for a mere 141 days, being taken by a sudden illness. Only a few pages from Chronicles survive of the copy that remained in Britain. This would make a very ancient example of the ceremonial use of Bibles for vows and oaths in the English part of Britain. However, later Bibles, such as the Wessex Gospels, would be written in common vernacular, not Latin, and sourced from the received text, of the original Greek gospels.⁹⁹

Offa is also the king who built the still-standing Offa’s dyke, a landmark which, at one time, divided England and Wales.¹⁰⁰

A.D. 732: Battle of Tours

A battle was fought between the invading Umayyad army and the forces of Frankish ruler, Charles Martel. Victory in battle went to the Franks, and the tide was turned against the muslim armies in Western Europe.¹⁰¹ East of Vienna – toward the Balkans and Asia, these would remain a threat. They would also initiate a piratical reign of terror in the sea as well until the response of Norman, Pisan and Venetian (as well as other) naval powers in defense— the practice of islamic piracy did not fully end until the 19th century.¹⁰²¹⁰³¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁵¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁷

A.D. 785: First Saxon Capitulary

The Frankish king Charles I¹⁰⁸ enacts a set of 34 laws in response to his forces’ successful expansion into the non-Christian Saxony. The 19th of these laws mandates that all infants must be baptised within a certain time on penalty of severe fine.¹⁰⁹ The ostensible purpose of this law is to convert the Saxons, and while it demonstrates one aspect of state enforcement of paedobaptism, it is also true that this law would place baptistic churches throughout the realm under persecution. This is because if an infant were baptised under fear of this law, to avoid the penalty, but in later years of maturity, elected for a Biblical mode of baptism to join a church, they would be prohibited by the state church perception that this is a rebaptism. This law effectively brought back official persecution of the churches for as long as it was enforced.¹¹⁰

A.D. 793: Lindisfarne attacked

The first recorded Viking raid happened on a small island near the coast of Britain, initiating a long period of instability.¹¹¹

Full-scale invasions and settlements by the pagan Norse raiders begin, and soon Orkney, Mann and the Hebrides become active settlements.¹¹²¹¹³ The death of Charlemagne’s son in 840 fractures the empire into opposing parts, increasing the occasion for raiders.¹¹⁴ In Britain, Beorhtwulf takes control of Mercia, again disuniting the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. By 850 the Norsemen had also taken complete control of Frisia and Holland, and had constructed large coastal towns in Ireland, marking its first invasion. After this came the invasion of England by the Great Heathen Army, led by Ivar the Boneless in 865, supposedly in revenge for the execution of Ragnar Lodbrok.¹¹⁵

A parallel realm known as the Danelaw existed in Britain: After 878 and the Battle of Edington, this area too was overseen by a Christian ruler.¹¹⁶ Around this time, the English king Alfred the Great¹¹⁷ ordered translations from selections in the Old and New Testament, which are now presumed lost.¹¹⁸¹¹⁹ He also encouraged the study of the scriptures in Anglo-Saxon, as opposed to Latin. Separately, around A.D. 911 the Norse leader Rollo negotiated his position to rule (upon his conversion) in what is now called Normandy.¹²⁰ Norsemen forces also occupied Brittany for a time after 919. These would later become known instead as Normans. Starting with Ælfred, England and later Britain would go through a succession of monarchs of different Christian backgrounds, including from those of the French-speaking Normans in 1066.¹²¹ Meanwhile Charlemagne’s empire would dissolve into the earliest precursor kingdoms of France, Germany, Italy and Burgundy. The area of the Vaudois remained on the Alps near these borders, in a remote corner of Italy. From the death of (Emperor) Frederick II, the County of Savoy would take hold in that area, with Upper Burgundy, and later, the Old Swiss Confederacy taking hold immediately to the north after 1536.¹²²¹²³

c. A.D. 990: Wessex Gospels translated

A translation of the four Gospels from the original Greek into Old English is commissioned during the reign of supreme Anglo-Saxon king, Æthelred the Unready.¹²⁴¹²⁵ This translation features the full passages of Mark 16:9-20, of Luke 17:36 and of John 7:53-8:11. It also includes the original Greek reading of both Matthew 6:11 and John 3:5, as opposed to the Vulgate variations. It is conjecture, but nevertheless a fascinating one to offer at this point that the college in Wales had supplied this source. The existence of some source, though, is beyond doubt.

The source could not have been the Vulgate because it does not contain the Vulgate’s alterations but it follows the original Greek text, in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Also produced around this time was the Junius Manuscript, which contains within it the much older “Genesis A” fragment, written in very early Anglo-Saxon.¹²⁶ Genesis A, as it is called, is a paraphrase of the first 22 chapters of Genesis (though fragments are missing today) which shows an awareness of other Biblical passages in respect to this. This commentary, written in an Old Saxon dialect, suggests that these ancient writers, centuries even before the Wessex Gospels, were aware of said Old Testament and New Testament passages, and the connections between them, as well as the book of Genesis.¹²⁷

Link: For Part two of this Outline

Appendix A

The following is written in, “Passio benedicti martyris Marculi”:

[based on the translation of Tilley, 1996]
“§ Here begins the Passion of the blessed Marculus which took place three days before the Kalends of December. (Nov. 29, AD 347)

“§ Vicious rumblings of the Macarian persecution thundered forth from the tyrannical home of king Constans and from the pinnacle of his palace. Two beasts were sent to Africa, viz., the same Macarius and Paul. In short, an accursed and detestable war was declared against the Church, so that the Christian people would be forced into unity with the traitors, a unity effected by the unsheathed swords of soldiers, by signals given by the standard bearers and by the shouts of crowds. But while Macarius, the more fearsome of the two beasts, had for a long time carried on this bloody business in the rest of the provinces in an underhanded way, however, in Numidia, he made public charges against the renowned Marculus of barbarous cruelty and unheard of ferocity.”

[According to the account following, Marculus was one of a group of ten chosen pastors who were sent specifically to meet with Macarius in hopes of resolving a peaceful solution, or if necessary, to serve as the first to fall in resistance – to risk their own captivity if necessary before that of others. Marculus had given up a secular study of law, according to this account, to become what they call a summus pontifex.¹²⁸]

“§ But truly, as soon as the enemy had devised an exquisite and grim form of death, it immediately led him with them under a strict guard of soldiers to the citadel of Nova Petra which is situated near the precipice of a steep mountain by the same name.

“§ Then, because the rest were afraid, one of the number of those soldiers, the most repulsive executioner, he who alone had been prepared by the devil to bring about the death of this distinguished man, anticipated the deed in his speech. He began to explain the martyrdom, in detail to all who listened. He himself had seen it in some sort of dream. ‘When I was being held by the quiet of night, suddenly I saw you appearing to me as if you were tied with rough bonds and utterly weighed down by heavy ropes. Then I untied the ropes with my own hand. Because of this, hope for mercy and for a pardon to be followed by your release.’

“It was not an absurd dream, an incongruous vision, which the executioner saw. Not without cause did he repeat what he had seen. But he followed the example of the impious Caiaphas who when he was about to kill the Lord, prophesied about his passion.¹²⁹ Rightly now had he seen the martyr tied up. So not without some logic had the executioner dreamt that he had untied him.

“By those cruel hands Marculus had to be separated from his body with the help of death. When we are freed from this world and hurry to the Lord, we are released from heavy bonds. The Apostle demonstrates this when he says: ‘It seems much better to be released and to be with Christ.’¹³⁰ For by similar reasoning the most just Simeon pointed this out, aroused by the certainty of his approaching death. He rejoiced that he would be able to escape the troubles of this world. He said: ‘Now, O Lord, you dismiss your servant in peace, for my eyes have seen your salvation.’¹³¹

“§ Then no delay, no span of time came to pass before the most cruel executioner attacked as in a predawn robbery, to bring to pass what he had already seen. Immediately turning hostile, he urged that the witness of God be brought forth from custody and be led to the rugged heights of the natural rock, a precipice of rough stone. The bloodthirsty and barbaric exactor of profane ‘unity,’ and the cruelty of the traditors accursed for all ages, chose this harsh mode of death. The glorious Marculus left the building surrounded by a squad of guards and a division of soldiers, honored even by his persecutors. He left resolute in the constancy of his Christian virtue, leaving behind the dwellingplace of humanity, hurrying on to the abode of angels. He left joyful in appearance, accelerating his pace, thinking not so much of the present punishment as of future glory. He was led along the road to the sacrifice which had been prepared for him. Banks of earth were built up on both sides, piles of stone rising little by little. He arrived at the summit notorious for his passion. The very nature of the mountain made itself useful, so that first treading the lower slopes of the hill, then the lofty heights, as if he were mounting up to the top by some sort of steps, he approached heaven and the stars in his body itself.

“When he had ascended to the very summit of the rock, all the soldiers pulled back, some from fear, some from distress, and they kept their distance from the singularity of the crime. Even if they were present with a guilty fear, they did not want to be involved in the deed.

“§ Then the savage executioner with a double dose of cruelty, there on the precipice, armed with a sword, wielded a double death with his hands. He hurled the martyr downward with his cruel right arm. He believed he had thrown into the dark depths the man to whom belonged the heights of heaven. In fact, once the solidity of the earth was removed, Marculus’ body, descending from on high to the depths, was borne through the empty expanse of air. The moderation of his speed was managed from on high so that his limbs, exempt from all adversities, might be placed atop the harshness of the rocks as if on the softest bed or the calmest waves. Then his victorious soul, by its natural progress, sought heaven more swiftly than his body had descended to earth; so with his own passion completed, both entities should be returned to the ancient sources of their origin by the hands of the omnipotent God, who always kindly cared for the martyr. He ordered that his spirit should be placed in its eternal dwelling place by the assistance of the angels and that his intact body, encircled by caressing breezes, supported by gently assisting winds, should be laid at the center of the base of the rocks.

“§ The exquisite schemes of the persecutors and the evil counsels of the traitors were brought into disarray by the help of Christ. They had planned on such a punishment as this so that the memory of the martyr might never be honored by the people of God in their testimony. For they erroneously thought that the body might be mangled on the precipice, that it might be torn by the sharp-edged rocks, so that the one deprived of life might not even have need for burial. They thought that nothing could even arrive at the ground which the pious fraternity might collect and bury, since each of the limbs might be held in the recesses of the high mountain or the entire body might be swallowed up all at once in some cleft in the fissures of the rocks or in the fractured recesses of the cliffs. But look! The hard stones and rough rocks spared his consecrated limbs. The mountains feared to harm the man whom the traitors did not fear to slay. Except for those people, every creature adores its Creator and in this respect the mountains could not lack the capacity to deserve God’s favor. Scripture even gives them a voice for his praise.¹³²

“§ Meanwhile, the fact that the glorious Marculus had achieved blessed victory in his struggle was concealed within the individual recollections of the soldiers. So in the silence of the night they brought the crime to its conclusion so secretly that not even in the fortress in which he was guarded could outsiders or the brethren have known about it, had not divine help and heavenly signs disclosed what had happened. For as soon as entry of the dawning of the day poured into the pale light of the orb of the night, and the dissimilarity of the dark and the light changed the variously colored face of heaven, immediately a magnificent cloud appeared at the center of the base of the mountain. While lightning flashed, the cloud bore witness concerning the body of the martyr with its caressing light. That cloud, heavy with morning dew, failed to throw any shadow, like a dark cover, on the vividly colored hills, but all aglow it wrapped his auspicious limbs with a bright fleecy cover. While human ceremonies might have been omitted at that time, in a way the cloud seemed to take the place of a shroud. Meanwhile, the cloud was occasionally pierced by bright lightning and it glimmered through the winding clefts so that by wondrous mighty feats it might alert the ignorant about his passion, or, because the darkness of the night still hung over the area, it might show those who were piously searching a way to find the body.

“§ Therefore, the excitement of the association of believers flamed bright, kindled by these admirable works of God, and suddenly the entire area resounded with a ringing shout, and they declared to each other their common commitments in their pious scurrying to and fro. People of both sexes equally and of every age left their homes in a hurry and flew to the mountain and the cloud in their longing for the martyr. Neither the impairment of old age nor the weakness of youth nor the fragility of sex could hold back any soul from the place. The ardor of their common faith set them all aflame. As the scurrying throng had come to those places which lay beneath the precipice, their common purpose in running had brought them together into one crowd; then their concern for finding the body dispersed them over the whole mountain. There you could see the duties of piety divided up among the people. Some with impulsive hands explored the briar patch with its rough stalks; others cast their eyes as witnesses into the crooked crevices in the gaping rocks; still others went back over the rocks they had already looked behind with their anxious eyes, lest their haste make fools of them. In the end, because their search could not be successful without the Lord, lightning was sent to that place to reveal the location which they were all seeking. The radiance of the cloud served as an indicator to point out the body longed for by the brethren. On that spot, what weeping mixed with all their joy! What embraces round his distinguished limbs! At last, when with difficulty they were all satisfied, funeral rites were celebrated with great joy by the brethren and the honor of a religious burial was restored with the greatest jubliation. For the glory of his name, the Lord revealed everything that the enemy had tried to conceal.

“§ O the memorable and extraordinary martyrdom of blessed Marculus! O the example of unshaken virtue so eagerly sought by all the devout! O the exemplar necessary for all the ranks of the clergy, by which he came to the palm, the reward of his praiseworthy life. He renounced the world in his catechumenate, showing himself worthy of the priesthood as a neophyte. In his priesthood the office of martyrdom was honored; in his martyrdom a testimony to the power of the Divine. To whom be honor and glory and power forever and ever. Amen.”

Return to entry A.D. 313

Appendix B

An examination and reply to the Letter of Augustine, dated A.D. 408,
titled, “To Vincentius, my brother dearly beloved, Augustine sends greeting.”

In 408, the prominent theological writer Augustine of Hippo wrote a short apologetic, written out in the form of a letter, to explain the actions of the early state church of Rome, regarding its persecutions, which began at least three years prior to the writing of this letter. I will provide excerpts and some comments in the form of a potential response under each section where appropriate.

Augustine¹³³ wrote (blue text):

§1. “I have received a letter which I believe to be from you to me: at least I have not thought this incredible, for the person who brought it is one whom I know to be a Catholic Christian, and who, I think, would not dare to impose upon me. But even though the letter may perchance not be from you, I have considered it necessary to write a reply to the author, whoever he may be. You know me now to be more desirous of rest, and earnest in seeking it, than when you knew me in my earlier years at Carthage, in the lifetime of your immediate predecessor Rogatus. But we are precluded from this rest by the Donatists, the repression and correction of whom, by the powers which are ordained of God, appears to me to be labour not in vain. . .”

§2. “If we were to overlook and forbear with those cruel enemies […] as that nothing at all should be contrived and done by us with a view to alarm and correct them,¹³⁴ truly we would be rendering evil for evil. For if any one saw his enemy running headlong to destroy himself when he had become delirious through a dangerous fever, would he not in that case be much more truly rendering evil for evil if he permitted him to run on thus, than if he took measures to have him seized and bound?”

Response (white text):
Scripture tells us, “But them that are without God judgeth.”¹³⁵ A church is comprised only of voluntary members. Those who do not join of their own accord are not part of the church, so “alarming and correcting” others by using force against them is not the right of the church, but of God only.

§4 “Not every one who is indulgent is a friend; nor is every one an enemy who smites. Better are the wounds of a friend than the proffered kisses of an enemy.”

Rendering evil for evil, destroying violently what another has built up, or inflicting torment upon the body, is not the “wound of a friend.” Those not in the church, whom we are called to be separate from (cf 2 Corinthians 6:14-17), will be judged by God. Furthermore, many prayers and intreatments to turn from evil, the rebuke of wisdom, are the wounds of a friend (Proverbs 27:6); not killings, inquisition and persecution. As it is written, rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.¹³⁶

§5 “You are of opinion that no one should be compelled to follow righteousness; and yet you read that the householder said to his servants, ‘Whomsoever ye shall find, compel them to come in. . .’¹³⁷¹³⁸”

§6 “ ‘…But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now;’ whence those who have understanding may perceive that it is rather the Catholic Church which suffers persecution through the pride and impiety of those carnal men whom it endeavours to correct by afflictions and terrors of a temporal kind. Whatever therefore the true and rightful Mother does, even when something severe and bitter is felt by her children at her hands, she is not rendering evil for evil, but is applying the benefit of discipline to counteract the evil of sin, not with the hatred which seeks to harm, but with the love which seeks to heal.”

In this we find that those who the writer, at one point, claims to be the Mother’s “children” who are being “disciplined,” according to him, he also says of the same that they need to be “compelled to come in,” which seems to imply as though they were not in. Someone cannot both be inside and outside of the church at the same time. So both analogies cannot work together, and they are individually faulty.

In response to this, if we keep in mind that the kings of the earth fall under the authority of the higher powers, as mentioned in the epistle to the Romans chapter 13,¹³⁹ then we will see, that the state and the church are separate entities. As one passage applies to one, other passages apply to the other, and these entities need not to be confused. In Acts 2:47,¹⁴⁰ it is written that such as should be saved were added to the church. And not all. This contradicts the concept of a coercive militant church which afflicts and terrorizes the unwilling, through force of arms – into joining it.

§9 “You say that no example is found in the writings of the evangelists and apostles, of any petition presented on behalf of the Church to the kings of the earth against her enemies. Who denies this? None such is found. But at that time of prophecy, ‘Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth: serve the Lord with fear,’¹⁴¹ was not yet fulfilled. . .
In the age of the apostles and martyrs, it was fulfilled which was prefigured when the aforesaid king [Nebuchadnezzar] compelled pious and just men to bow down to his image, and cast into the flames all who refused. Now, however, is fulfilled that which was prefigured soon after in the same king. The earlier time of that king represented the former age of the emperors who did not believe in Christ, at whose hands the Christians suffered because of the wicked; but the later time of that king [of Babylon] represented the age of the successors to the imperial throne, now believing in Christ, at whose hands the wicked suffer because of the Christians.”

Does the above sound right? Later in this letter, this writer claims that the times of the end have not yet begun. He uses this as the basis for another argument. But as we see in this place, in the very same letter, contradicting his other claim, the writer of the letter says that the things prefiguring ‘the times of the end’ have been fulfilled, and uses this as an argument.

But regardless of this inaccuracy, we notice this statement: ‘There is no example found of any petitions on behalf of the church to the kings of the earth against her enemies.’ Exactly! This is an important concession by the writer and it represents the central part of why the ‘state church’ is not Biblical. Since there is no Biblical example of it, every church who wants to follow the Biblical example of the church cannot resort to it. Biblically, churches cannot resort to using kings of the earth to persecute, kill or harm their enemies. Even the writer of this letter agrees that there is no Biblical example of this.

The interesting, but not satisfactorily explained application of prophecy from Daniel here does not detract from the above plainly-admitted fact. We do recognize however that the state-church is a type of Babylon, so it is of some interest that The writer himself in the blue text above just nonchalantly links Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon to the state church, and acted as if it was a good thing. (!)

§14 “The Emperor, as you know, in that case decreed for the first time that the property of those who were convicted of schism and obstinately resisted the unity of the Church should be confiscated.¹⁴² If, however, the issue had been that your predecessors who brought the accusations had gained their case, and the Emperor had made some such decree against the communion to which Caecilianus belonged, you would have wished the emperors to be called the friends of the Church’s interests, and the guardians of her peace and unity. But when such things are decreed by emperors against the parties who, having of their own accord brought forward accusations, were unable to substantiate them, and who, when a welcome back to the bosom of peace was offered to them on condition of their amendment, refused the terms, an outcry is raised that this is an unworthy wrong, and it is maintained that no one ought to be coerced to unity, and that evil should not be requited to evil to any one. What else is this than what one of yourselves wrote: ‘What we wish is holy?’ And in view of these things, it was not a great or difficult thing for you to reflect and discover how the decree and sentence of Constantine, […] should be in force against you; and how all succeeding emperors, especially those who are Catholic Christians, necessarily act according to it as often as the exigencies of your obstinacy make it necessary for them to take any measures in regard to you.”

How would the writer of this letter choose to reply against the Arians, who later invaded Africa under the Vandal invasion twenty one years after this letter was written? We would like to know from the writer, if it was possible, since Africa was likely his provincial home. Should every church have accepted the appointment of Arian ministers, which took place, so to keep unity with them? Should he take his advice then? If some wisely choose not to join in with Arians, should the decrees of Vandalic king Hunneric be employed in force against them as well, just as the edicts of Constantine were employed against Donatists and others?

It is seen that the ‘unity’ of the state church is an unstable thing, changing itself one day and the next, being false, like shifting sand;¹⁴³ that it renders evil for evil,¹⁴⁴¹⁴⁵ and that the gospel of Jesus Christ with which we are charged is one of peace,¹⁴⁶¹⁴⁷ not of envy and strife. There is no coercion into unity¹⁴⁸, rather there is peaceable separation from those which cause divisions and offences.¹⁴⁹ Yet also, “as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”¹⁵⁰ The following of these things is what marks the church. Because, as it says, on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.¹⁵¹ And also: Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein.¹⁵²

“…Why should those whom Christ has sown in His field, that is, in this world, and has commanded to grow alongside of the tares until the harvest,— those many thousands of believers in all nations, whose multitude the Lord compared to the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea, to whom He promised of old, and has now given, the blessing in the seed of Abraham,— why, I ask, should the name of Christians be denied to all these, because, forsooth, in regard to this case, in the discussion of which they took no part, they preferred to believe the judges, who under grave responsibility gave their decision, rather than the plaintiffs, against whom the decision was given?”

If the judges were judges of Hunneric and the Arians instead, what would be his conclusion? Should all people prefer to simply believe the judges set up by Hunneric and the Arians? Equally, what about the fact that Constantine was the judge who promoted Arius? Does the writer propose this to make Arius’ doctrine Christian to be believed? In other words, If they were to follow this writer’s advice, they would also follow after emperor Hunneric’s decisions to set up Arianism! And in fact many really did follow after the error of this writer and became Arians!

The answer to this is that they should always resort to keeping things which were once delivered, the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.¹⁵³ They are commended to God and to the word of his grace.¹⁵⁴ Paul also says in another place, “continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them”.¹⁵⁵ This means we should continue in the doctrine of Scripture, wherein we have learned, which is of the apostles who delivered this revelation to us, the faith once delivered unto the saints, regardless of what the current rulers say.

§15 “The deeds of guilty parties which either cannot be proved to those who are innocent,¹⁵⁶ or cannot be believed by them, bring no stain upon any one, since, even when known, they are borne with in order to preserve fellowship with those who are innocent. For the good are not to be deserted for the sake of the wicked, but the wicked are to be borne with for the sake of the good; as the prophets bore with those against whom they delivered such testimonies, and did not cease to take part in the sacraments of the Jеwish people; as also our Lord bore with guilty Judas, even until he met the end which he deserved, and permitted him to take part in the sacred supper along with the innocent disciples; as the apostles bore with those who preached Christ through envy,— a sin peculiarly satanic; as Cyprian bore with colleagues guilty of avarice, which, after the example of the apostle, he calls idolatry.”

The wicked and depraved are not to be praised, called righteous or part of the church, but the believers are told by the Lord to separate from them.¹⁵⁷¹⁵⁸ The Proverbs relate this: “He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.”¹⁵⁹

The deeds of guilty parties that are known should be dealt with accordingly.¹⁶⁰ Some things have been brought to light and they cannot remain hidden or be swept away. Especially not in respect of persons of wealth.¹⁶¹¹⁶²¹⁶³¹⁶⁴

The fact that a deed is known makes all the difference and will be judged accordingly and should not be allowed in the church, as 1 Corinthians 5 delineates.¹⁶⁵

Prophecy tells us moreover:
“My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.” — Proverbs 1 : 15-16

Choosing to join in the transgressions with the openly guilty, to call them righteous, or to walk in their path, or to knowingly tell them godspeed in a case that it is known for certain what they do in ungodliness, that is not Biblical.

Again, the apostle says:
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
but rather reprove them.” — Ephesians 5:11

§17 “For originally my opinion was, that no one should be coerced into the unity of Christ, that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason, lest we should have those whom we knew as avowed heretics feigning themselves to be Catholics. But this opinion of mine was overcome not by the words of those who controverted it, but by the conclusive instances to which they could point…”

These instances are anecdotal. These “instances” have nothing to do with Scripture, words, arguments or force of reason, or anything of that sort referenced to whatsoever.

Earlier in the same letter, the writer tells us that, “[Christians] are (rightly) admonished to consider what they suffer, and wherefore, and are taught to prefer the Scriptures which they read to human legends and calumnies.“

Yet in the above place, if it is authentic, this same writer is suddenly preferring human legends over Scriptures. He admits that his opinion was changed by anecdotal instances, not by words! Whoever this writer is, he shows that his whole view in this regard is based not on the word of God. Elsewhere in the letter he called upon this for authority, but has now contradictorily conceded that his reasons for leaving the truth are due to things other than that word, such as anecdotes. This, not Scripture, becomes the reason why he changed his mind, despite what was said about following Scripture over human legends. Can the writer not even practice what he preached? And should we believe things like this letter in place of the 1st century apostles in the Bible? The answer is that we should not believe the author of this letter which has the name Augustine attached to it – we ought rather believe the Scriptures which we read above human legends and calumnies.

§30 “For the same Church of holy and good believers is both small if compared with the number of the wicked, which is greater, and large if considered by itself… It is the same Church which is occasionally obscured, and, as it were, beclouded by the multitude of offences, when sinners bend the bow that they may shoot under the darkened moon at the upright in heart.”

Scripture does say that the wicked have drawn out their sword and bent their bow so as to slay such as be of upright conversation. But also, that their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.¹⁶⁶ The same Psalm tells us that the wicked plotteth against the just.¹⁶⁷ It says that the Lord’s saints are not forsaken, his saints are preserved forever, but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.¹⁶⁸ Notice the distinction. We don’t place the wicked in among with the saints, just as the Psalm does not. Because of what the Scriptures command, as we have said formerly.¹⁶⁹¹⁷⁰

§41 “It is true that those who then stood most resolute, and were able to understand the treacherous phrases used by the [Arians], were few in number when compared with the rest; but some of them it is to be remembered were then bravely enduring sentence of banishment, and others were hiding themselves for safety in all parts of the world. And thus the Church, which is increasing throughout all nations, has been preserved as the Lord’s wheat, and shall be preserved unto the end, yea, until all nations, even the barbarous tribes, are within its embrace. For it is the Church which the Son of man has sown as good seed, and of which He has foretold that it should grow among the tares until the harvest. For the field is the world, and the harvest is the end of time.”

By the letter’s own reasoning then, the Arians were numerous in the Roman Empire for a time while Trinitarians were yet hiding for safety in all parts of the world. However, the letter also says:

§9 The earlier time of that king represented the former age of the emperors who did not believe in Christ, at whose hands the Christians suffered because of the wicked; but the later time of that king represented the age of the successors to the imperial throne, now believing in Christ, at whose hands the wicked suffer because of the Christians.

Which is it, we must ask. Are false teachings predominant with men today? or is truth? Clearly, the former, not the latter. And the idea that the state church causes the wicked to suffer by the edict of the world’s kings is false. We have shown that already. The thesis of this writer, about the state church ushering in utopia is disproved easily by the events of centuries that occurred after 408 A.D. when the letter was written. Thus, the claims of the letter are shown to be untrue by plain facts. The events after the year 408 aid to dispell the myth of this false prophecy. The simple truth here is that the second coming of Christ and time of the Lord taking rule, as it says in the book of Revelation, did not happen then. It still remains to be fulfilled, over 1600 years after this letter, as this is being written now. This is the reason why the writer of the letter in 408 A.D. cannot be correct in his assertions about this.

Every church which obeys the truth continues to patiently and peacefully await the return of Christ before their reign in earth can begin.¹⁷¹¹⁷²¹⁷³¹⁷⁴¹⁷⁵ As it says, ‘the Lᴏʀᴅ loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.’¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁷

And also Scripture says: ‘Wait on the Lᴏʀᴅ, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.’¹⁷⁸ And also: ‘Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;’¹⁷⁹ Also: ‘unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.’¹⁸⁰

§42 “[I]t is beyond question that no man in the unity of Christ can be stained by the guilt of the sins of other men if he be not consenting to the deeds of the wicked, and thus defiled by actual participation in their crimes, but only, for the sake of the fellowship of the good, tolerating the wicked, as the chaff which lies until the final purging of the Lord’s threshing-floor. These things being so, where is the pretext for your schism?”

The answer of where is the pretext for separation from the world is as follows. We are commanded by the Lord that, we are “not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”¹⁸¹

Those that disregard such a commandment, and do it so very openly, are manifestly false prophets. They do this by making the word of God of none effect, as mentioned by the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in Mark’s Gospel, ch. 7.¹⁸²

Therefore, as the first epistle of John declares, they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.¹⁸³ This is shown by a visible non-adherence to the doctrine of separation. As soon as these false doctrines of unity with the ungodly were revealed, of concord with Belial,¹⁸⁴ it was made manifest that these teachers of false unity¹⁸⁵¹⁸⁶ were among those that had, in places, crept in privately and unawares.¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁸ And this false doctrine of unity was surely a greater subversion to uncover upon finding it,¹⁸⁹¹⁹⁰¹⁹¹ requiring even more absolute separation.¹⁹²¹⁹³ This is to ensure the commandment of God is followed, and in the faith of the continuation of all things, as the operation of God continues even now. So true unity, around the truth, cannot exist with false unity that hides from the truth.

False prophets of this variety were appointed over the unstable by an abject respect of persons through the emperor Constantine. All things were inappropriately performed there, and were of none effect. After all, they taught that one may be baptised despite having not believed, even as infants. This goes against the council of Agrippinus, A.D. 200. More importantly still, it contradicts the clear requirements of scripture, which is our guiding light.¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁵ These ceremonies were also very widely performed by political appointees who we know to have been false teachers of the sort already mentioned. This helps to explain why so many have known it to be wrong and avoided it. It is a fact of ungodliness manifest. The Gospel says we shall know the corrupt by their corrupt fruit which they bring forth.¹⁹⁶

ENDING:
3. “Many whom we know well, when arguments had been brought before them, and the truth made apparent by testimonies from the word of God, answered us that they desired to pass into the communion of the Catholic Church, but were in fear of the violence of worthless men, whose enmity they would incur; which violence they ought indeed by all means to despise when it was to be borne for righteousness’ sake, and for the sake of eternal life.”

This writer admits that violence should be despised (that is, not regarded) when it is incurred for righteousness’ sake. It is the same for those that use violence to compel joining Catholicism, the writer’s cause, or anything else.

Do not “compel others to righteousness,” using force as this writer would argue in this letter.¹⁹⁷ We are not to viciously threaten others to induce them to fear, these things ought not to be. That is something not Biblical and not the gospel of Christ. We should continue to hear the record that God gave of his Son in Scripture¹⁹⁸ and not fear these violences.

We are rather to fear God’s word.¹⁹⁹ Fear him which is able to cast and destroy both soul and body in hell.²⁰⁰ Paul also reasoned with Felix the governor, of righteousness, temperance, and judgement to come.²⁰¹ This is all done through words. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”
— 1 Corinthians 1:18

Return to entry A.D. 482

Appendix C

The following is written in Flores Historiarum:

“A.D. 603. Ethelfrid, king of the Northumbrians, fighting against the Britons at Caerleon, slew a great number of religious men belonging to the abbey of Bangor.

“At this time the man of God, Augustine,²⁰² availing himself of the authority and assistance of king Ethelbert, summoned to his synod the bishops and doctors of the nearest province of Britain to the place which, in the language of the Angles, is called to this day Augustines-ac, that is to say, the Oak of Augustine, on the borders of the West Saxons and the Wiccii, and began to persuade them with fraternal admonitions to hold the catholic faith with him, and to unite with him in undertaking the joint labour of preaching the gospel to the nations for the sake of the Lord ; as hitherto they had celebrated the sacred feast of Easter and done many other things in a manner contrary to the unity of the church. And after a long discussion, when they would not assent to either the prayers or exhortations of Augustine, he said, ‘Brethren, let us pray to Almighty God that he will vouchsafe, by his heavenly tokens, to declare to us, which tradition is to be followed, and which is the true way to his heavenly kingdom. Let some sick man be brought, and let all belief be placed in, and all authority given to, that party by whose prayers he is cured.’ And when his adversaries, though against their will, had agreed, a sick man was brought in, deprived of his eyesight. And when he had been submitted to the bishops of the Britons, but had derived no advantage from their ministry, at length Augustine bent his knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, entreating him to restore sight to the blind, in order that, by the bodily illumination of one man, God might kindle the grace of spiritual light in the heart of many believers. And immediately the blind man received his sight, and Augustine was proclaimed by every one as the true messenger of the highest right. Then the Britons confessed they understood then that that was the true way which Augustine preached, but still they said that they could not, without the consent of their chiefs, forsake their ancient customs, so that they begged that another synod might be held, consisting of more members. And when that had been decided on, there came, as it is related, seven bishops and many most learned men of the Britons, especially from their most noble monastery, which, in the language of the Angles, is called Bangorneburg, over which, at that time, Dionotus is said to have presided as abbot. And they, when on their way to the aforementioned council, came first to a holy and prudent man, who had led the life of a hermit among them, and consulted him whether they ought to desert their own traditions at the preaching of Augustine. And he answered them, ‘If he be a man of God, follow him.’ They said, ‘And how can we prove this?’ He said to them, ‘The Lord has said, “Learn of me, because I am meek and lowly of heart.” If, therefore, that Augustine is meek and lowly of heart, it is credible that he himself both bears Christ’s yoke himself, and offers the same to you to take upon you. But if he be stern and haughty, then it is plain that he is not of God, nor are you to regard his words.’ They replied again, ‘And how are we to discern this?’ ‘Contrive,’ said the hermit, ‘that he shall first arrive with his friends at the place of council, and then if he, of his own accord, rises up when you approach, you may know that he is a servant of Christ, and obediently listen to him. But if he disdains you, and will not rise up to you, though you are more in number, then he, likewise, may be disdained by you.’ It therefore so happened, that when they arrived, Augustine was sitting in his chair. And they, on seeing this, presently fell into a passion, and considering him full of pride, set themselves to contradict every thing he said. And Augustine said to them, ‘If you are willing to comply with me in three things only, namely, so as to celebrate Easter at its proper time, to fulfil the ministry of baptism, by which we are regenerated to God, according to the customs of the Roman Church, and to preach the word of God to the nation of the Angles in union with us, we will patiently tolerate your other customs, though contrary to ours.’ But they declared that they would do none of these things, and that they would not consider him as archbishop, arguing with one another, ‘If he would not rise up to us, how much more will he slight us, if we once become subject to him?’ And the man of God, Augustine, is related to have said to them, ‘If they would not have peace with their brethren, would they accept war from their enemies? And if they were unwilling to preach the way of life to the nation of the Angles, he told them they would endure the revenge of death at their hands.’ And all this came to pass in every respect as he had foretold, through the working of God’s vengeance. And not long afterwards, Ethelfrid, king of Northumberland, a man of great courage and a most ferocious pagan, having collected a great army in the city of Legions, which is called by the Britons Caerleon, and which was called the city of the Legions, because the Roman Legions used to be stationed there, made a great slaughter of them. For being about to engage in battle with the Britons, when he saw that their priests, who had come together to address their prayers to God on behalf of the soldiers who were occupied in war, were stationed in a safe place, he asked who they were, or what they were going to do there. For there were a great many of them from the monastery of Bangor, which is said to have contained such a number of monks that they were divided into seven classes with seven rectors, and no division contained fewer than three hundred religious brethren. And the greater part of them having kept a fast for three days, met together with other priests also for the sake of praying to God, having Brochimallus for their defender, to protect them from the swords of the barbarians while they themselves were engaged in praying. And when the tyrant Ethelfrid had learnt the object of their presence, he said, ‘And if these men invoke the aid of their God against us, then, they are fighting against us, although they do not bear arms, for they assail us with their prayers.’ Therefore he directed the attack to be made on them first, and then destroyed the rest of that wicked army, not without great loss to his own forces. In that battle it is said that of these men who had come to pray, there were about twelve hundred men slain, and that only fifty escaped by flight. Brochimallus fled also with his men at the first onset of the enemy, and left those whom he ought to have defended, unarmed and exposed to the swords of their slayers. And thus the prophecy of the blessed pontiff Augustine was fulfilled.”

Return to entry A.D. 603

Last part: After Year 1300.Part One (70-990) Part two (990-1300)

A.D. 1381: Wycliffe Bible translated

c. A.D. 1462: Renaissance Humanism

A.D. 1523: Zürich organization

A.D. 1534: The Münster rebellion

A.D. 1550: Stephanus text produced

A.D. 1689: Nonconformity allowed

Unknown: Abomination of Desolation

Appendix J

Appendix K

Appendix L

Appendix M

Appendix Y

Appendix Z

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

second part of outline, through year 1300.Part One Part Three

A.D. 1093: First Occupation of Wales

A.D. 1103: The Investiture Controversy

c. A.D. 1119: Petrobrusian and Henrician uprising

A.D. 1209: First Albigensian Crusade

A.D. 1229: Inquisition established

c. A.D. 1262: Antinomianism

A.D. 1267: Statute of Marlborough

c. A.D. 1271: Beginnings of Secular Humanism

Link: Part three (final) of this Outline

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Appendix H

Preface

A.D. 70: Second Temple defiled

A.D. 136: Bar Kokhba Revolt

A.D. 140: Marcionism

A.D. 157: “Old Italic” Bible translated

c. A.D. 213: Sabellian Controversy

c. A.D. 240: Hexaplar Septuagint first produced

A.D. 242: Manichæism

A.D. 245: Beginnings of Neo-platonism

A.D. 250: The Decian Persecution

A.D. 251: Novatianism

A.D. 303: The Diocletianic Persecution

A.D. 313: Constantinian Shift

A.D. 313: Donatist Controversy

A.D. 325: Arian Controversy

c. A.D. 350: Gothic Bible translated

c. A.D. 395: Christian College founded in Wales

A.D. 405: The Catholic Persecutions

c. A.D. 415: Pelagianism

A.D. 482: The Arian Persecution

A.D. 529: Justinian’s law codices

A.D. 603: Canterbury excommunication

A.D. 692: Latin Bibles made in Britain

A.D. 732: Battle of Tours

A.D. 785: First Saxon Capitulary

A.D. 793: Lindisfarne attacked

c. A.D. 990: Wessex Gospels translated

Link: For Part two of this Outline

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Last part: After Year 1300.

Part One (70-990) Part two (990-1300)

second part of outline, through year 1300.

Part One Part Three