The doctrines with which they were charged, consisted of the following points (from Abr. Mellinus,[161] 2d book, fol. 440): “That their belief concerning the sacraments, of baptism and the Supper, as well as respecting marriage, was different from what had been decreed by the Roman church, whom they called the whore of Babylon, because she had forsaken the true faith in Christ; they said that she was like the barren fig-tree which our Lord Jesus Christ cursed. They also said that the Pope and the bishops must not be obeyed when they command anything that is contrary to the word of God; also, that monachism was a stinking carrion, also, that all monastic vows are vain and useless, yea, that they foster lasciviousness; also, that all the orders and degrees of the priestly dignity are marks of the great beast; also, that purgatory, masses, church consecrations, worship of the saints, anniversaries for the dead, etc., are genuine inventions of the devil.”
“These,” says Mellinus, “were about the principal articles which the fathers of the Oxford council could not brook, and on account of which they scourged and banished them out of their country, yea, let them freeze to death.”
THEIR CONDUCT TOWARD THE FATHERS IN THE COUNCIL IN OXFORD, AND WHAT THE COUNCIL DID IN THE MATTER.
We return to the papistic author, to hear from his own lips, how they dealt with these upright and simple people. “When the fathers of the council,” he writes, “admonished them to do penitence and manifest sorrow for their belief, that they might be united with the (Roman) church, they despised this advice, as well as the threats with which they were menaced in order that they, through fear, if by no other means, might be driven to conversion; yea, they scoffed at them, saying: ‘Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.’ ”
“In order, then,” he writes, “that the poison of their heresy might not spread further, the bishops publicly pronounced them heretics, and delivered them over to the Catholic prince, for corporal punishment. The latter commanded that they should be branded on their foreheads, as an infamous mark of their heresy, and publicly, in the sight of all the people, scourged out of the city, strictly prohibiting any one from taking them into his house, or affording them the least comfort or assistance.” From William Neubrig. Hist. Engl., lib. 2, cap. 13.
JOYFUL GOING OUT OF THESE PEOPLE TO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, AND THEIR MISERABLE DEATH.
This sentence having been pronounced, they were led out to punishment. They went with gladness and in great haste, their leader, namely, Gerard, going before them, singing: “Blessed are ye,” says the Lord, “when men shall hate you, for my sake.”
They were then, according to the rigor of the sentence, branded on their foreheads, their leader receiving a double brand, one on his forehead, the other on his chin, as a sign that he was their leader. Thereupon their upper garments, to the waist, were cut from their bodies, and they were publicly scourged, and cast out of the city. But it being a bitter cold winter, and no one showing them the least mercy, they miserably perished by the intense cold, which they were unable to bear on their naked bodies. William Neubrig. Hist. Engl., lib. 2, cap. 13, 8th year of Henry II. King of England.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS TOUCHING THE ORIGIN AND FAITH OF THESE MARTYRS.
“For further explanation of this history,” writes Mellinus, “which has been written by a bitter papist, the reader must be reminded to imitate the bee—which extracts honey from the same flower out of which the toad draws poison—and, contemning the bitterness of the words of our adversaries, to pay regard only to the matter itself.