The Bloody Theatre, or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians / who baptized only upon confession of faith, and who suffered and died for the testimony of Jesus, their savior, from the time of Christ to the year A.D. 1660

by Thieleman J. van Braght

Thus, even according to the testimony of the papist Thuan, and the statement of the Calvinistic Mellinus, the abovementioned martyrs were not guilty of Manichean errors; they only spoke against the Roman church, principally in the matter of baptism (that is, infant baptism) and in regard to the mass or transubstantiation; hence, they may be reckoned among the true witnesses of Jesus Christ, who testified to their living faith, not only with the mouth, but also with their blood, yea, with their death; and whom the Lord will hereafter, in the resurrection of the just, reward and crown, according to his promise. Rev. 2:10.

Note.—We here place one papist against another: Thuan against Radulph. In the meantime, we are induced to receive the best testimony concerning said martyrs from these two differing writers; since they both had no other purpose than to speak to the detriment of said people. Thuan says: “Their points of doctrine are said to be these: That the Roman church has forsaken the true Christian faith; that she is the Babylonian whore, and the dead tree which Christ cursed and commanded to be cut down; that therefore no obedience is to be rendered to the Pope and the Bishops who consent to his errors; that Monachism is a veritable sink of all the corruption of the church, and an infernal pool; that all monastic vows are vain and unavailing, and tend only to lasciviousness; that the orders of the priesthood are marks of the great beast, of which mention is made in the Apocalypse; that purgatory, the mass, church consecration, the worship of saints, masses for the dead, etc., are genuine inventions and institutions of Satan. These, says the writer, are the principal and certain articles of their doctrine. The others, concerning marriage (that they deemed it evil), the resurrection (that they denied it), the state of the soul after death (that they spoke improperly of it), and concerning meats (that they rejected all eating of flesh), are unjustly imputed to them. Thuan in Hist. de Waldens. Temp., A. D. 1550, compared with A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 437, col. 3.

We have shown this the more circumstantially, to demonstrate the innocence of said martyrs, and that their doctrinal points were not Manichean heresies, but strictures upon the Roman church, which stirred up the animosity of the papists, so that, as it seems, they vented the spleen of their manifold accusations against said people.

HENRY AND ALFUARD, TWO PIOUS CHRISTIANS, THE ONE BEHEADED IN THE UTTERMOST PARTS OF SWEDEN, THE OTHER SLAIN AMONG THE NORMANS, FOR DEFENDING THE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE, A. D. 1067.

A. D. 1067, there was a godfearing man, whose name was Henry, and whom the Romish historian calls a stranger, perhaps because he was obliged to live secretly or as a stranger among the Romanists. It is stated of him, that he preached the Gospel of Christ in the uttermost parts of Sweden, and that he was apprehended for this cause and beheaded for the name of Christ.

Another pious Christian, named Alfuard, after living for a long time secretly, yet leading a pure and holy life among the Normans, could not thus even in secret remain Christ’s own. Because he sought to protect, or to do good to, his enemy, he was slain by his friends, or those at least who ought to have been his friends. Adam., in Histor. Sued., 1067, compared with Abr. Mell., fol. 384, col. 3.

The records of these two martyrs, Henry and Alfuard, are very brief, because the writer, as he states, would neither add to, nor take from, the truth of the matter, but wished to record it just as it was stated to him, which is an evidence of the verity of said matter. Therefore we also did not feel at liberty to extend the relation of the same, or to add, for amplification, the opinions of other authors. However, this is not necessary, since, in said account, all that is needful for the cognizance of said martyrs, is briefly, yet sufficiently, shown. For, of Henry it is stated that he preached the Gospel of Christ (not papal traditions), and that he was apprehended on this account. Of Alfuard the author writes, that he lived for a long time secretly, though leading a pure and holy life, among the Normans; also, that he could no longer secretly remain Christ’s own; understand, not the Pope’s, or the so-called mother, the Roman church’s own, but Christ’s own. More might be added, but for the well-disposed we deem this sufficient.

BRUNO, BISHOP OF ANGIERS, AND BERENGARIUS, HIS DEACON, CONDEMNED IN SEVERAL COUNCILS, THROUGH THE ROMAN POPE, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR VIEWS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM, TRANSUBSTANTIATION, THE MASS, ETC.; THE FIRST TIME, A. D. 1059, THE LAST TIME, A. D. 1079.

In our account of holy baptism for the year 1060, we made mention of Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius, his deacon, and showed, according to the accounts of different writers, that they, in opposition to the common belief of popery, denied infant baptism and transubstantiation, with all that pertains to it, as has been shown in said place.

Of Bruno we find no further account, only that when he was examined he answered as has been related; and that his doctrine, together with that of Berengarius, was condemned by Pope Leo IX., in two different synods, the one of which was held at Rome, and the other at Versailles. But what further happened to him after said papal condemnation, is not mentioned by the ancients, or, at least, has not come to our knowledge.