Bible Description This church is divided into two sections. The last stage was divided into the church of the Paulicians and the Bogomils. Verse 18 of Chapter 2, Revelation.
And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service and faith, and thy patience, and thy works. So, the last works of this particular church stage were greater than the first of that stage. So, when we read about this church in history, there are a few things against it. The main thing you will find about this church is the charity, the outgoing love, the service. Secondly, it mentions that very thing, the service they rendered to other people and then the faith they had; fourth, He mentions their patience. So, those four things you will find in history as you read about this church. Also you will find this church is divided into two divisions. The first works superceded and surpassed by the last works. Notwithstanding, He has these things against them. Because they allowed that false church, the great woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess (an inspired revealer with the authority to establish truth) and that they allowed the false church to teach and seduce God's servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols. This is the same thing we read of back in the previous stage of the church. The church, even in these stages, shows that it wasn't pure from the time of Smyrna to the time of Philadelphia. It isn't pure. He didn't have anything against the church at Smyrna, but then each of the intervening church stages, God had against them the compromising with the false church. Also, the idolatry and allowing the false woman to baptize their members, to administer communion and everything else. To teach and seduce God's people to commit spiritual fornication in their religious meetings and also to eat things sacrificed to idols. Christmas, Easter, and all the others. And God gave this great false church space to repent of the fornication and she didn't repent, so she is going into a bed and everyone guilty of committing adultery with this great false church is going into the great tribulation unless they repent. Then, finally, God is going to kill the children of this great false system with death and then all the churches are going to know that God is the One who sets the Truth and the way you worship Him and that guides you in your ways of worship, searches the reins which guide and lead and direct. He gives to everyone of them according to their works. He mentions one other thing in verse 24:
This He mentions again. Notice why He mentions it again. And the last to be more than the first.
But I say unto you and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan. So, a lot of people were innocent. They didn't know that Satan's system had penetrated so deeply into the religious services and some things they practiced in their religion, they didn't know stemmed from Satan's false system, whatsoever. They didn't know the depths of Satan. He is going to put upon them none other burden, but that which you have already, hold fast till I come. He does show that this church would be here when Christ returns. Notice verse 25. He didn't say that about Smyrna, Pergamos nor any of the other preceeding this. He does show that the church of Thyatira will still be in existence when Christ returns.
But that which you have already, hold fast till I come. And He mentions overcoming in these scriptures, and the reward for overcomers.
Three Apostles Now this particular stage of the church is the first you find supervised by three separate leaders. These aren't the two separate divisions of the Thyatira church, but the three are the ministers or apostles of the first stage of that church. The first of these men was Peter DeBruy. The second one is Arnnold of Brescia. The third minister or apostle of this group was Henri of Lausanne. You will find they were actually known by different names than these.
Peter DeBruy was the leader and the first one to take the Truth from the Bogomils and then after he was put to death, Arnold of Brescia began to carry on the Truth. After he was put to death, Henri of Lausanne began to carry on the same Truth.
Here, again, they are listed as a sect and not a denomination. That is one thing about the church. No matter what the stage, you will never find they are called a denomination. Lutherans are always referred to as a denomination. Look up Baptists. They are always listed under a denomination, but if you look up stages of the true church, they are always called a sect, like this one.
From the Encyclopedia Americana, article Petrobrusians: A follower of Pierre De Bruy, who in Languidoc during the 12th century [you will notice the date is quite uncertain as you will find in other books], founded a sect.
A sect of religious extremists. Religious extremists. God's people were always told, "You carry things too far, to the extreme."
His tenets included the advocacy of adult baptism. That is one of the outstanding traits he was against...baptism of children...which at this time was beginning to be a great consideration of other churches.
The abolition of church buildings. That is the second point about him. He didn't believe in spending a lot of money on great churches. He didn't think you needed church buildings. You will see a little later that was one of the outstanding things they held against him.
The dis-use of crosses as objects to be set up and venerated. Here again, you carry on from the Bogomils and you will see the cross carried a major part in each stage of the church from here on. The very way they would decide between someone who was a Bogomil and who was not a Bogomil you will remember, was to put a cross at one end of a courtyard and a fire at the other and tell you to make a choice. You are going to find that, from here on out, of each church stage.
People say, "Why, if you don't believe in the cross — that's the very symbol of a Christian — you are not even a Christian then, if you don't accept the cross."
Notice the third point. The dis-use of crosses as objects to be set up and venerated
Number four, a denial of the real presence in the eucharist [or trans-substantiation], whose elements he said were symbols.
The elements of wine and unleavened bread were mere symbols.
For 20 years his doctrines were propagated with fiery zeal and the number of his followers in Southern France rapidly increased. Peter, abbot of Cluny, wrote a treatise to refute him and he incurred the anger of the people by the demolition of altars and churches in 1126, and was burned to death by the mob at St. Jillus near Nimes.1
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, article Petrobrusians. Heretics, 12th century, so named from their founder, Peter of Bruys. Our information concerning him is derived from the treatise of Peter the venerable against the Petrobrusians and from Abelard. You will see a little later that this Henri was one of the disciples of this Abelard.
Peter was born perhaps in Bruy, in Southeastern France. The history of his early life is unknown, but it is certain that he was a priest who had been deprived of his church. He began his propaganda in the dioceses of Embrin, Dye and Gap, probably between 1117 and 1120. Twenty years later, the populace of St. Jillus near Nimes, exasperated by the burning of crosses, cast him into the flames. The bishops of the above mentioned dioceses suppressed the heresy, but it gained adherence at Narbonne, Toulouse and Gashony. Henri of Lausanne... So notice the Catholic Encyclopedia shows who took it up after the murder of Peter de Bruy and who became another minister. He wasn't the next one, but he followed the Petrobrusians teachings.
Henri of Lausanne, a former Clunyic monk, adopted the Petrobrusians teachings about 1135 [which was even after Arnold had preached it] and spread it in modified form after the author's death. Peter of Bruys admitted the doctrinal authority of the gospels in his literal interpretation. He rejected the authority of the fathers and the church. His contempt for the church [Catholic Church] extended to the clergy. In his system, baptism is indeed a necessary condition for salvation. What about today in your church? Is baptism necessary for salvation? In his system, they say it was.
But it is baptism preceded by personal faith so its administration to infants is worthless. Could you explain it any better way? That baptism must be preceded by faith so that its administration to infants is worthless.
The mass and the eucharist are rejected because Jesus Christ gave His flesh and blood but once to His disciples and repetition is impossible. Doesn't your Bible say He sacrificed once for all? That is the way he felt.
All external forms of worship, ceremonies and chants are condemned as the church consists not in walls, but in the community of the faithful. Notice what he said! The church isn't a building, the church isn't a hall, property, or an expensive structure at all. The church doesn't consist of walls, but in the community of the faithful.
Church buildings should be destroyed for we may pray to God in a barn as well as in a church and be heard, if worthy, and in a stable as well as before an altar. No good works of the living can profit the dead. No prayers for the dead, no intercessions for the dead, no rosaries for the dead, no masses for the dead.
No good works of the living can profit the dead. Crosses as the instrument of the death of Christ cannot deserve veneration [because they are the instruments of death], hence they were for the Petrobrusians objects of desecration and were destroyed by bonfires.2
Secular View In the History for Ready Reference, by Larned, we find information you don't get out of most encyclopedias on the Petrobrusians:
Petrobrusians — Henricians [they are exactly the same]. The heretics who for about 20 years attempted the restoration of a simple religion in Southern France... That was his ambition. A restoration of a simple religion in Southern France.
The well-known Pierre De Bruy, a native of Gap or Embrin, warred against images and all other visible symbols of worship. He questioned the expediency of infant baptism, the soundness of the doctrine of trans-substantiation, and opposed prayers for the dead. He professed poverty for himself and would have equally enforced it upon all the ministers. He protested against the payment of tithes [and you will see this in other books, too... the priests were already rich and living off the fat of the people and that is why he protested it, as you will see in these encyclopedias] he protested against the payment of tithes [although he believed in tithing, as we will read a little later] and it was probably owing to this last heinous offense that he was, toward 1130, burned with slow fire by a populace maddened by the priest at St. Jillus on the Rome. His followers rallied and changed their name of Petrobrusians to that of Henricians when the mantle of their first leader rested on the shoulders of Henri, supposed by Mosheim to have been an Italian Aramaic monk.3 This is from an irreligious source...from a man who was writing a secular history.
Notice the different date this time. This time they say the early part of the 11th century.
From the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, by Brown, we learn: Petrobrusians: The followers of Peter De Bruis, a reformer in Languidoc and Province in the early part of the 11th century.
He said that no persons were to be baptized before they came to the full use of their reason [that's why he rejected infant baptism]. Number 2, that it was an idle superstition to build churches, that is, superb and expensive buildings for the service of God who will accept a sincere worship wherever it is offered and that such had no peculiar sanctity attached to them by consecration. Number 3, crucifixes should be disregarded as instruments of idolatry and superstition. Number 4, that the real body and blood of Christ were not the eucharist. Yet, you notice the Catholic Encyclopedia said they rejected the eucharist, which was a half truth. They rejected the eucharist the way the Catholic Church administrated it, but that's the only way it should be administrated according to their opinions and if you don't accept it the way they do it, then you reject the eucharist. We ought to notice that! When you read the history out of the encyclopedia, don't be duped and don't be gullible to such tricks. Notice what this says:
That the real body and blood of Christ were not in the eucharist, but were only represented in that holy ordinance by the elements and symbols. Number 5, that the oblations, prayers and good works of the living could not in any respect be advantageous to the dead.4 He gives you five general traits of doctrines that were earmarked as Petrobrusian teachings.
Restore Original Purity
In the Cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, by Sanford: Petrobrusians: Followers of the heretic Peter of Bruys who was burned at St. Jillus about A.D. 1125. The only authorities from which any knowledge of the sect can be gained are a passage by Abelard and a book by Peter the venerable. The title is "Adverses Petrobuchianos Hereticos." Peter of Bruys appears to have been an ecclesiastic holding some benefice in the South of France where he first began to publish his heresy and gained many followers among the Cathari at Aries and elsewhere. Afterwards, he preached with great success at Narbonne and Toulouse, but was eventually seized and condemned to death. He professed to restore Christianity to its original purity and accepted the gospels to which he would only grant a literal interpretation. He would not allow infant baptism, declaring the church being invisible [the church is invisible] no buildings were necessary as places of worship for the church exists only in the hearts of people [the people are the church] he denied not only the real presence in the eucharist, but also that any sacramental character is attached and regarded it simply as a historical incident in Christ's life. He objected to elaborate ritual of any kind to prayers for the dead. They abolished the adoration of the cross as being instruments of our Lord's torture. After his death the sect continued to flourish for some time, but finally became merged in that of the Henricians.5
Records From Their Enemies
Notice it mentions the principal doctrines of Peter De Bruys were more ably extended by his more powerful successor, Henry the Deacon. So, watch for that name!
From the Dictionary of Sects and Heresies, by Blunt: Petrobrusians: The sect of Petrobrusians, or as they are commonly, but less correctly, called Petrobusians, was the earliest of the anti-sacridotal communities, which the profound discontent inspired by the tyranny of Rome called into existence at the beginning of the 12th century. They were the followers of an eloquent, but ignorant, heretic named Peter De Bruys. The date of his birth is unknown, nor are we better informed as to his family, early life or character. All the information which has reached us of this remarkable person is contained in a tract or epistle composed for the refutation of his doctrines and is addressed to certain bishops of Donena and Polvents at that time feasts of the Roman Empire by Peter the venerable, abbot of Cluny, afterwards renowned as the protector of Abelard. Although the account of an enemy is always to be read with suspicion [and he admits that the records of the Petrobrusians come from their enemies, so the account of an enemy is always to be read with suspicion]. The high and disinterested character of the abbot of Cluny gives more than ordinary value to his narratives. The time of the composition of the refutation, body of which was the earlier date, was shortly after the death of De Bruys, which took place about 1125. At this time the author tells us the heresy had been flourishing for 20 years. Like many others of the reformers, Peter De Bruys was an ecclesiastic, apparently one of the secular clergy and it would seem, the possessor of the benefice in some diocese in Southern France, a region where the defamation of the clergy had reached its lowest point of infamy. An ambitious man, he quitted his meager benefice and un-honored profession for the popular role of reformer. His principal doctrines which, with one exception, his repugnance to the cross, were more ably extended by his more powerful successor, Henry the Deacon.
They were partly rationalistic, partly what is this day termed evangelical. At first the preaching of Peter seems to have been confined to the invocation of a loose system of general morality [see 5 dogmatic errors listed previously]. Besides these, to the capital errors must be added a total prohibition of chanting. Puritanical as some of these seem, De Bruy was no lover of asceticism. He inculcated marriage, even of priests, as a high religious usage and would have abolished the fasts of the church. Notice those two points! He says marriage is one of the highest and most noble and most opportune things in a Christian life, and he wanted to abolish all the church fasts.
The deleterious effects of his teachings are thus summed up by the authority we have quoted. The people are re-baptized, churches profaned, altars overturned, crosses are burned, meat is eaten openly on the day of the Lord's passion. [See how that is, how terrible, to eat meat openly on Friday?] Priests were scourged, monks were cast into dungeons and by terror, monks were constrained to marry.6 Strangely enough, the popular heretic met his death at the hands of the people, seized by a mob in an immute caused by his preaching, but which some assume to have been organized by the ecclesiastical authorities, he was committed to the flame at St. Jillus in the Arlintensian diocese. His career which commenced about A.D. 1104 was thus terminated about A.D. 1125.
Petrobrusians Become Henricians
Now, you need to notice that when you read it in history, because they admit that the only things we have had come down about them comes from these two writers, Peter the venerable and Abelard. So what later writers tell of him is only guesswork.
In the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Peter of Bruys and the Petrobrusians. Peter of Bruys is known to us only through the book of Peter the venerable and from a passage in Abelard's writings. What later writers tell of him is only guesswork.
He was a pupil of Abelard and his general aim may be described as a restoration of Christianity to its original purity and simplicity, but his criticism was as ill-judged as his reforms were violent. He accepted the gospels, but the traditions he rejected altogether. For the gospels he considered a literal interpretation and application as necessary. Notice how the man who wrote this Encyclopedia admits this — how you go about restoring Christianity to its original simplicity and purity. Notice what he says!
Since his ambition was to restore Christianity to its original simplicity and purity, thus he rejected infant baptism. That's what you have to do to get it back to its original simplicity and purity. So, the man who wrote this is a little bit accountable. He knew better than what he says here.
Referring to Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16. [These were the two scriptures they used against infant baptism] with respect to the Lord's supper, he not only rejected the doctrine of transsubstantiation, but he also denied the sacrament characteristic of the act, considering it a mere historical incident in the life of Christ. Church buildings were an abomination to him for the church is the community of the faithful and the place where they gathered whether a stable or a palace is of no consequence. Church officials, bishops and priests, he represented as mere frauds. They weren't descendants of Christ. They weren't the leaders of the true church. They were mere frauds.
Generally he demanded the abrogation of all external forms and ceremonies. In Southern France where the Cathari were numerous, he found many adherents, and in the dioceses of Oral, Embrin, Dye and Gap he caused much disturbance. Churches were destroyed, images and crucifixes were burned, priests and monks were mal-treated. At last, the priests were able, by aid of the secular power to put down the movement and to expel the leaders. But soon after, Peter of Bruys appeared at the dioceses of Narbonne and Toulouse where he preached for nearly 20 years and with still greater success. In 1126 he was seized, however, and burned at St. Jillus by a mob. But the party of Petrobrusians did not immediately disappear. Peter Venerable visited them, preached to them, but without any result. They joined Henri of Lausanne and finally disappeared among the Henricians.7
Arnold's Preaching Moves Even Rome From the Chamber's Encyclopedia, under the article on Arnold spelled Arnold and Arnald):
Arnold of Brescia was a native of that town and was distinguished by the success with which he contended against the corruption of the clergy in the early part of the 12th century. He was educated in France under Abelard and adopted this monastic life. By his preaching the people of his native place were exasperated against their bishop and the fermentation and insurrectory spirit spread over a great part of the country, when he was cited before the second Laterin council and banished from Italy. So you find this Peter De Bruys was banished from France and went to Italy. Arnold was banished from Italy and went to France. The same thing happened to Henri.
He retired to France and experienced the bitter hostility of St. Bernard who denounced him as a violent enemy of the church. He thereupon took refuge in Zurich where he settled for several years. Meanwhile, his doctrines exerted a powerful influence in Rome and ended in a general insurrection against the government, whereupon Arnold repaired thither and endeavored to direct the movement. He exhorted the people to organize a government similar to the ancient Roman republic with its council, tribunes and equestrian order but they, provoked by the treachery and opposition of the Papal party and disunited among themselves, gave way to the grossest excesses. So everything you read about the Arnoldists, don't think Arnold taught them or preached it or was a party with them.
The city indeed continued for 10 years in a state of agitation and disorder. Lucius II was killed by the populace in an insurrection in 1145 and Eugenius III to escape a similar fate, fled into France. [So his preaching was so strong the pope had to flee into France.] These violent struggles were subdued by Pope Hadrien IV fearing the weakness of a temporal authority, turned to the spiritual and resorted to the extreme measure of laying the city under ex-communication. Arnold, whose party became discouraged and fell to pieces, took refuge with certain influential friends in Campania. On the arrival of the emperor Frederick I for a coronation in 1155, Arnold was arrested, brought to Rome, tried, hanged, his body burned and his ashes thrown into the Tiber.8
Apostolic versus Apostate Church In the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, article Arnold of Brescia:
Born at Brescia at the beginning of the 12th century, died in Rome in 1155. First appearance in the humble position of an elector in the church of his native city, afterwards in Paris under Abelard and became one of his most ardent adherents. Attracted upon his return to Brescia, general attention by the pure austerity of his life and the fire of his eloquence. He developed by degrees into an enthusiastic ecclesiastical reformer. His reforms were of a practical character to the doctrines of the Roman church seems to have very little opposition. By comparing the first Christian congregation, the church of the apostles, to the church of his own time, he felt scandalized at the difference. The root of evil he found in the wealth of the church, all the vices and worldliness of the clergy he ascribed to their riches. The first reform he demanded was that like the apostles, the priests should hold no property, but content themselves with the voluntary offerings of the faithful. How these ideas originated has been differently explained, but there is no reason to seek the origin outside his own moral consciousness. He was a gifted man, upright and fervent. The frightful corruption of the church naturally struck him and in the Bible itself he found the corrective. In Brescia and its neighborhood, his preaching made a deep impression and caused considerable commotion. Finally, Bishop Mahthrid laid the case before the senate, convened at the Laterin in 1139 and Arnold was banished from Brescia and forbidden to preach. He went to France where at that moment the controversy between Abelard and St. Bernard was at its height. With great zeal, Arnold espoused the cause of his teacher, Abelard, and thereby he only provoked the wrath of St. Bernard. He happened to be the Catholic priest. The Senate of Sens condemned both Arnold and Abelard and the pope, confirming the verdict, ordered the archbishop of Sens to imprison the two heretics. Arnold fled to Switzerland in 1140 and found protection in the diocese of Bishop Herman. But St. Bernard continued to pursue him and urged the bishop of Constance to expel or imprison him. He fled again and this time he found refuge with the Papal Legit, Cardinal Gido, a Costello, friend of Abelard. But even here, he was not safe. The abbot of Clairvaux was irreconcilable and the abbot dared not defy him. Meanwhile, Innocent II died and Arnold determined to return to Italy. During his absence from Italy, perpetual contests had taken place in Rome between the pope and the people. It is probably that Arnold's ideas were known in Rome, but he himself had never been there. After 1145, however, he began to preach publicly in Rome and with great success. For his religious ideas, the Romans had no sense but the practical consequences of these ideas and their influence on social life fired the enthusiasm of the light-minded populace. Then again, the enthusiasm of the audience reacted on the preacher. He, himself, forgot the religious starting point and inspired by the remembrance of the grandeur of old Rome, he became a political reformer. In 1155 an new constitution was framed and Adrian IV was demanded to sanction it. The pope refused and withdrew to Orviota. Shortly after, he laid the interdict on the city and put Arnold under the ban. As Frederick Barbarosa at the same moment approached the city at the head of a great army, panic caught the inhabitants. Arnold was expelled and the pope returned. For some time, Arnold found shelter with the nobility of Campania, but was afterwards surrendered to Frederick Barbarosa who mis-judging his most powerful ally in a contest with the papacy and eager to buy the crown at any price, surrendered him to the pope and by the pope was hanged, burned and his ashes thrown into the Tiber.9
In the Encyclopedia Britannica. Arnold, known as Arnold of Brescia, one of the most ardent adversaries of the temporal power of the popes. He belonged to a family of importance [That's something new. The rest of them say they couldn't decide anything about the family, but the Britannica says he belonged to a family of importance], if not noble, and was born probably in Brescia, in Italy, towards the end of the 11th century [notice this puts the date a little earlier; he says toward the end of the 11th century.] He distinguished himself in his monastic studies, and went to France about 1115. He studies theology in Paris, but there is no proof that he was a pupil of Abelard. Returning to Italy, he became a canon regular. His life was rigidly austere. He, at once, directed his efforts against the temporal ambitions of the high dignitaries of the church.
During the schism of Anacletus, the town of Brescia was torn by the struggles between the partisans of Pope Innocent II and the adherents of the anti-pope, and Arnold gave effect to his abhorrence of the political episcopate by inciting the people to rise against their bishop, and, exiled by Innocent II, went to France. St. Bernard accused him of sharing the doctrines of Abelard, and procured his condemnation by the council of Sens in 1140 at the same time as that of the great scholastic. This was perhaps no more than the outcome of the fierce polemical spirit of the abbot of Clairvaux, which led him to include all his adversaries under a single anathema. [That's why everybody assumes that Arnold was a student of Abelard. But notice the Britannica very plainly says that the abbot of Clairvaux was led to include all his adversaries under a single anathema.] It seems certain that Arnold professed moral theology in Paris, and several times reprimanded St. Bernard, whom he accused of pride and jealousy. St. Bernard, as a last resort, begged King Louis VII to take severe measures against Arnold who had to leave France and take refuge at Zurich. There he soon became popular, especially with the lay nobility; but denounced anew by St. Bernard to the ecclesiastical authorities, he returned to Italy and turned his steps toward Rome in 1145. It was two years since, in 1143, the Romans had rejected the temporal power of the pope. [Notice that! Two years before Arnold went down there, they rejected the power of the pope.]
The urban nobles had set up a republic [so they had already set up a republic when Arnold got there] which, under forms ostensibly modelled on antiquity (e.g.) patriciate, concealed but clumsily a purely oligarchical government. Pope Eugenius III and his adherents had been forced after a feeble resistance to resign themselves to exile at Viterbo. Arnold after returning to Rome, immediately began a campaign of virulent denunciation against the Roman clergy, and in particular against the Curia, which he stigmatized as a "house of merchandise and a den of thieves." [A direct quote from the words of Arnold. The only ones we have read so far. He stigmatized a house of merchandise and a den of thieves, using Jesus' own words.]
His enemies have attributed to him certain doctrinal heresies, but their accusations do not bear examination. According to Otto of Freising, the whole of his teaching, outside the preaching of penitence, was summed up in these maxims: "Clerks who have estates, bishops who hold fiefs, monks who possess property, cannot be saved." That's his summation of what Arnold believed.
His eloquence gained him a hearing and a numerous following, including many laymen, but consisting principally of poor ecclesiastics, who formed about him a party characterized by a rigid morality, and not unlike the Lombard Patarenes of the 11th century. [He says they are not unlike the Patarenes at all. No wonder they are not unlike them. They are the same church.]
But his purely political action was very restricted and not to be compared with that of Rienzi or a Savonarola. The Roman revolution availed itself of Arnold's popularity [you notice they took his name and some of his teachings and availed themselves of his popularity] and of his theories, but was carried out without his aid [notice that very plainly: it was used without his aid]. His name was associated with this political reform solely because his was the only vigorous personality which stood out from the mass of rebels, and because he was the principal victim of the repression that ensued. On the 15th of July in 1148, Eugenius III anathematized Arnold and his adherents, but when, a short time afterwards, the pope, through the support of the king of Naples and the king of France, succeeded in entering Rome, Arnold remained in the town unmolested, under the protection of the senate. But in 1152, the German king, Conrad III, whom the papal party and the Roman republic had in vain begged to intervene, was succeeded by Frederick I Barbarosa. Frederick, whose authoritative temper was at once offended by the independent tone of the Arnoldist party concluded with the pope a treaty of alliance [October 16, 1152] of such a nature that the Arnoldists were at once put in a minority in the Roman government and when the second successor of Eugenius III, the energetic and austere Adrian IV, [the Englishman, Nicholas Breakspear] place Rome under an interdict, the senate, already rudely shaken, submitted, and Arnold was forced to fly into Campania in 1155. At the request of the pope, he was seized by order of the emperor Frederick, then in Italy and delivered to the perfect of Rome, by whom he was condemned to death. In June, 1155, Arnold was hanged, his body burnt, and the ashes thrown into the Tiber. His death produced but a feeble sensation in Rome, which was already pacified and passed almost unnoticed in Italy. The adherents of Arnold do not appear actually to have formed either before or after his death, a heretical sect. It is probable that his adherents became merged in the communities of the Lombard Waldenses; [This tells you the next stage. You don't have to hunt and wonder. You don't have to guess and reason. You have been told in the Encyclopedia Britannica.] The Lombard Waldenses, who shared their ideas on the corruption of the clergy.
Legend, poetry, drama and politics have from time to time been much occupied with the personality of Arnold of Brescia, and not seldom have distorted it, through the desire to see in him a hero of Italian independence and a modern democrat. He was before everything an ascetic, who denied the church the right of holding property, and who occupied himself only as an accessory with the political and social consequences of his religious principles.
The bibliography of Arnold of Brescia is very vast and of very unequal value.10
In Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia, article Arnold of Brescia: An eloquent Italian reformer. [Notice they call him a reformer and not a politician.] Born at Brescia about 1100. He was a pupil of the celebrated Abelard of France, and adopted a monastic life. As a preacher, he boldly reproved the prevalent venality and luxury and corruption of the clergy. He affirmed that the clergy ought not to possess temporal power or property. [They had no business dabbling in politics. They had no business trying to unite church and state. That is what he believed.]
Frederick Barbarosa had him hanged in 1155, his body burned and his ashes scattered on the Tiber. A statue to him at Brescia was unveiled on August 14, 1882.11
Prophet Inspired by God
Why would they do that if he were a politician, trying certainly to establish democratic government in pagan Rome? That disagrees with what else they were trying to get across. They [these people in this country who followed him] looked on him as a prophet inspired of God.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, article Arnold of Brescia: They looked on him as a prophet inspired by God.
According to the author of a poem just discovered and he seems to be well informed, Arnold, when brought inside the gallows, faced his death courageously. When asked to recant his teachings, he added he had nothing to withdraw and said he was ready to suffer death for them. He asked only for a brief respite to pray and beg Christ's pardon for his sins. After a short mental prayer, he gave himself up to the executioner and offered his head to the noose. After hanging from the gallows for a short time, his body was burned and the ashes thrown into the Tiber for fear of the people might collect them and honor them as the ashes of a martyr. 'Forger of heresies, sower of schisms, enemy of the Catholic faith, schismatic, heretic' such were the terms used by Otto of Presengia.
Paulician and Petrobrusian Associate
Arnold held offensive views on baptism and the eucharist. The abbot of Clairvaux in one of his letters, accuses Arnold of being an enemy of the cross of Christ. 'But must we conclude from this that Arnold was a follower of Pierre De Bruy who condemned the adoration of the cross?'12 In the Dictionary of Sects and Heresies, Blunt relates in his article, Arnoldists:
The supporters of a movement against the temporal powers of the papacy lead by Arnold of Brescia and which placed it in a position of much danger for about 20 years in the middle of the 12th century. Arnold was in close alliance with the antisacramental heretics of his day. He, himself, was accused of unsoundness in respect to infant baptism and the sacrament of the altar. The opposition of St. Bernard points in the same direction, as do the terms in which he speaks of Arnold in his 119th epistle written A.D. 1140. There can be little doubt that he had obtained free thinking tones of mind from Abelard and his republican notions made him sympathize at least with the Paulician heretics. The Paulician heretics at that time existed in considerable numbers in France and Italy. Notice where he said the Paulicians had come...to France and Italy where these Henricians, Arnoldists and Petrobrusians arose in a few years.
After his death, the party of the Arnoldists was little heard of but they regard their leader as a saint and a martyr.13 The Arnoldists regarded him as a saint and a martyr, but not a politician.
From the History of the Middle Ages, Hallam shows how hard it is to distinguish between all these groups in Italy and France. So let us notice what he says:
It is difficult to specify all the dispersed authorities which attest the existence of the sects derived from the Waldenses and Paulicians in the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries. The name of the Albigenses does not frequently occur after the middle of the 13th century, but the Waldenses or sects bearing the denomination were dispersed over Europe. That is what he says about the Albigenses, even. If anyone chooses to call them Cathari, it will be just immaterial.
Stigmatize All Sects The Italian Manicheans were generally called Paterines, the meaning of which word has never been explained. We find a few traces of them in France at this time. Before the middle of that age, the Henricians, Petrobrusians and others appear in the new opinions and attracted universal notice. Some of these sectaries, however, were not Manicheans. The Acts of the Inquisition of Toulouse published by Limbert from an ancient manuscript contained many additional proofs that the Albigenses held the Manichean doctrine. Limbert himself can guide the reader to the principal passages. It is not unusual to stigmatize new sects with the odious name Manichese, though I know of no evidence of it with the ancient sect in the 12th century. I use the word Albigenses to pertain to the Manichese sects without pretending to assert that their doctrines prevail more in the neighborhood of Albigenses than elsewhere. The main point is that a large part of the Languidosean heretics against whom the crusade was directed had imbibed the Paulician opinions.14
Infant Baptism He mentions here that they rejected infant baptism, but were divided as to the reason, some saying that infants could not sin and did not need baptism, others that they could not be saved with out faith and consequently, it was useless. They held that sin after baptism was irremissible. [That is the unpardonable sin.] It does not appear that they rejected the sacraments. They laid great stress upon the imposition of hands, which seems to have been their distinctive rite.
Knowledge of Christian Antiquities The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, by Brown, on Arnold of Brescia states:
He was an eminent reformer of the 12th century. In 1136, by his bold and lofty spirit, his knowledge of Christian antiquities and the vehement eloquence of his public harangues, he aroused Italy, France and Switzerland against the Roman church and clergy and even converted the popes' legates to his opinions. He was charged with heresy and together with his adherents, was excommunicated by Innocent II, but it is probable, says Davenport, his real crime was his having taught that the church ought to be divested of its worldly possessions and reduced to its primitive simplicity. Dr. Wohl, who wrote a book on infant baptism, allows that he was condemned along with Peter De Bruy for rejecting infant baptism. In 1144, he appeared in Rome and there elevated the standard of civil and clerical reform with such success as to gain even the Roman Senate and for 10 years possessed the chief power in the 'eternal city.' The reformer was seized and taken back to Rome where he died by the hands of the executioner the same year, 1155, being excommunicated, crucified and burned. Such was the fate of the man who is universally to have been possessed with extra-ordinary eloquence and of irreproachable character, but the spirit of his doctrine descended through succeeding ages and his memory is now both admired and revered. He is classed by Benedict among the most distinguished of the ancient Baptists.15 That is nice to know. He is classed by Benedict among the most distinguished of the ancient Baptists. I am afraid Baptists baptize infants. I am afraid Baptists have crosses on their churches, do they not? Well, maybe he was off on those five points they listed in all these books, but he was still a Baptist. They have to trace their history somewhere, so they ignore his non-Baptist beliefs.
Mennonite Misclaims From the Mennonite Church History, by Hartzler and Kauffman, page 57, article Henricians:
About the year 1115, Henry, commonly known as the Deacon, burned with zeal against the corruption of Romanism; he preached in different parts of Switzerland but soon came to France where he was welcomed for some time but later was imprisoned. His followers were known as Henricians. That is all they say, leaving it for you to suggest that the Henricians were the ancient ancestors of the Mennonites. They did not say that, but they very wisely have Paulicians, Henricians, Petrobrusians, Albigenses and Waldenses. They really borrowed the history of the true church and tried to trace their history down the same way. I am afraid they were Mennonites, except they did not believe any of the things the Mennonites believed. But nonetheless, they say they were Mennonites.
Petrobrusians: This sect arose [the Mennonites are not a sect; they are a denomination] in Southern France about the beginning of the 12th century. Peter De Bruy became dissatisfied with the corruption in the Roman church. They did not say anything about infant baptism, crosses and all these other doctrines, did they? Under both names, all they comment is that they were dissatisfied with the history. If you think you will find those five points listed in the Baptist church history, you are badly mistaken.
And made an effort to restore Christianity to its primitive purity. He bitterly opposed infant baptism and held that prayers might be offered anywhere, therefore church buildings were useless. [So they mention two out of the five doctrines.] Images were burned or otherwise destroyed by his followers. They were immersionists but were non-resistant if the testimonies of his enemies were true. Peter preached for about 20 years and in 1126 was burned at the stake. Their leader being dead, his followers united with the Henricians.16
Gibbon's Testimony The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Gibbon, as impartial a history as you will find.
The trumpet of Roman liberty was first sounded by Arnold of Brescia, whose promotion in the church was confined to the lowest rank. That is how much they promoted him for his piety and hard work. Yet remember what the Catholic Encyclopedia said about him before he was a heretic; how great a man he was. So Gibbon chides and ridicules what they wrote about him, and says the trumpet of Roman liberty was first sounded by Arnold...whose promotion in the church was confined to the lowest rank.
His adversaries could not deny the wit and eloquence which they severely felt. They confessed with reluctance the special purity of his morals, and his errors were recommended to the public with a mixture of important and beneficial truth. In his theological studies, he had been the pupil of the famous, unfortunate Abelard, who was likewise involved in the system of heresy, but the lover of Eleosa was of a soft and flexible nature and his ecclesiastic judges were edified and disarmed by the humility of his repentance. From this master, Arnold probably imbibed some metaphysical definitions of the trinity, repugnant to the taste of the times. His ideas of baptism and the eucharist are roughly censored, but a political heresy was the source of his fame and misunderstanding. He presumed to quote the declaration of Christ, that his kingdom is not of this world. That is why he said the priests had no business managing the cities and the countries.
He boldly maintained that the sword and the sceptre were entrusted to the civil magistery, that temporal honors and possessions were lawfully vested in secular persons [here you really get the truth of what he taught and believed], that the abbot, bishop and the pope himself, must renounce either their state or their salvation. [So, notice these books quoted out of Gibbon and said that Gibbon said they either must give up their things and all their power or they had no chance for salvation. Notice, what did he say?] The abbots, bishops and the pope must renounce either their state or their salvation, and after the loss of their revenues, the voluntary tithes and oblations of the faithful would suffice. [So you see, he was not against tithing at all.] From the Mosheim Ecclesiastical History, article Henry of Lausanne:
Blending in the same discourse, the texts of Livey and St. Paul uniting the motives of the gospel and classic enthusiasm, he admonished the Romans how strangely their patience and the vices of the clergy had degenerated from the primitive times of the church of the city. He exhorted them to assert the inalienable rights of men and Christians to restore the loss and magistrates of the republic to respect the name of the emperor but to confine their shepherd to the spiritual government of his flock.17
Variously known as Henry of Bruys, Henry of Cluny, Henry of Toulouse and as the Deacon. His doctrine at that time appears to have been very vague. He seemingly rejected the invocation of the saints, and also rejected second marriages. Now, I am afraid that eliminates the Baptists! I am afraid the Mennonites but the dust right there, and so did the Jehovah Witnesses, did they not? They try to trace their history through these sects, too.
In 1139, however, Peter the venerable, abbot of Cluny, wrote a treatise, called Epistolisou Troctatus Adverses Petrobruciano.
Notice! They labelled him a Petrobrusian also. Against the disciple of Peter De Bruy and Henry of Lausanne whom he called Henry of Bruys and whom at the moment of writing he had inherited from Peter of Bruy. According to Peter the venerable, Henry's teaching is summed up as follows: rejection of the doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the church, recognition of the gospel freely interpreted as the whole rule of faith [only as observed by Catholics.] Condemnation of the baptism of infants, of the eucharist, of the sacrifice of the mass, of the communion of saints and of prayers for the dead and refusal to recognize any form of worship or liturgy. The success of this teaching spread very rapidly in the South of France. Speaking of this lesson, St. Bernard says the churches are without flocks, flocks without priests, the priests without honor.18
No Easter or Christmas According to the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, by Brown, article Henricians:
A sect, so called, from its founder, who undertook to reform the superstition and vices of the clergy. This reformer rejected the baptism of infants, severely censored the corrupt manners of the clergy, treated the festivals and ceremonies of the church with the utmost contempt. [He had no use for Christmas, Easter, Halloween, All Saints Day, St. Patrick's Day, or any of the other Catholic days.]19
Wandered With Peter of Bruy Convincing testimony comes from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, article Henry of Lausanne, or Henry of Cluny:
In 1116 he came to Le Mans and was received with enthusiasm and by his accusations on the corruption of the church and the depravity of the clergy, caused a tremendous popular excitement. The bishop, Hildeburt, drew him away and for some time he wandered together with Peter of Bruy. About his doctrine only very little is found and what the letters of St. Bernard contains bears such an imprint of passion that it cannot be accepted without restriction.20 Valuable ancestral tie-ins are given in the History of the Christian Church by Ruter:
The Albigenses, who derived their name from Albi, a considerable town of Vienne were a branch from this parent stock and in common with the Waldenses, they opposed the errors and superstitions of the Romish church. Such an enormity could not pass unpunished and Peter De Bruy, one of their first teachers was condemned to be burned.21 So they even say Peter De Bruy was one of the first Albigensian teachers and he says the Albigenses who derived their name from Albi, were a branch from the parent stock of the Waldenses. So that really ties in Peter De Bruy with the Albigenses and the Waldenses.
[Notice Henry, in the early years of his ministry, did have a man carry a cross. But notice that even Schaff-Herzog says it was Henry's custom in early times.]
Blunt in his Dictionary of Sects and Heresies records: Henricians: This sect of anti-sacridotalists was founded by Henry the Deacon known otherwise as Henry of Lausanne at the close of the first quarter of the 12th century. 'Central and Southern France was at this moment in a mood most favorable to receive his teaching, agitated as the country was with the deep discontent inspired by the arrogance and regular godlessness of the secular clergy. At first he didn't profess, or at least laid no stress, on the peculiarities of his own doctrinal system. His preaching wrought marvels on the morality of the almost barbarous populace. He was of imposing stature...a frame so robust as to bear with ease the utmost rigors of the climate, with a voice so powerful that his adversaries compared it to the roar of legions of devils. His rude eloquence, coupled with the ascetic life he lead and the manifest sincerity of his enthusiasm, appears to have favorably impressed even Hildeburt, the bishop of Le Mans. Upon Henry's arrival he was received with respect by this prelate who, on departure to Rome, accorded Henry free use of the pulpit of his diocese. The whole country yielded to his eloquence and gave themselves up to his direction. Henry dwelt much on two points. Although a monk by education and by profession and practice, he was emphatically an apostle of marriage and the uncompromising foe of the clergy.'
Henry and Peter De Bruy Together So universal was his influence, when in the insolence of popularity he proceeded to arraign the vices of the ecclesiastics, not only did the populace desert the churches, but even threatened the persons of the clergy. On the return of Hildeburt to his sea, his flock, instead of meeting him and advancing to receive his episcopal blessing with rejoicing, met him with the greeting, 'We have a father, a bishop, an advocate far above you in wisdom, worship and sanctity.' The wise and gentle bishop bore the indignity in silence by forcing Henry into a public interview, he asked him to recite the morning hymn. Through ignorance or insolence, Henry could not or would not even repeat it. The populace by no means feeling the indignation at this spectacle, could not but be gravely affected by it, having been attached as they were, to Henry's person, they took no step to protect him from further discomfiture. The bishop declared him a poor and ignorant man and to mark the contempt with which he inspired him, he took no harsher measure than that of expulsion from his dioceses. Henry therefore retired into the South of France and became a disciple of and a fellow worker with a heretic who held similar opinions named Peter De Bruy. This is denied on the grounds of the hostility of the heretic for the emblem of the cross which it was Henry's custom in early times to carry.22
The evidence of Peter the venerable is conclusive to the effect that Henry whom he terms 'pseudo apostolos' was also the 'hares neguta,' the inheritor of the wicked, of De Bruy. Adopting the heretical tenets of the latter, they were already at one in their morality. He recommended his heretical ministration in Southeastern France about the year 1119 and continued to preach there until the death of his co-agitator which took place about A.D. 1126. Henry escaped the fate of De Bruy and escaped to Gascony but some years afterwards ventured to enter the diocese of Orals where he was captured by the archbishop and sent a prisoner to Innocent II. The pope who was opposed to violent measures, himself an exile at Pisa, contented himself to placing him in the care and custody of St. Bernard. His confinement didn't last many years. He escaped and returned to Languidoc where he was protected by Ildephonse, count of St. Pillar and Toulouse. [Here again they show that after his death, Henry took over. Arnold and Peter De Bruy were about the same time, and Henry was a little later.]
Opposes Pagan Holidays! A short period sufficed for the re-establishment of all his ancient influence and again the churches grew deserted and indignities were heaped upon the clergy. He continued un-molested for some years for the times were busy and an advocacy of the second crusade employed all the resources of the Roman pontif. At length, Eugenius III dispatched Alberik, cardinal of Austria to restore order in a letter to Bernard which is the best testimony to the ability and character of the heresiarch. Heresy, says he, is an antagonistic that can only be thrown by the conquerors of Abelard and Arnold. The indefatigable Bernard acceded to the request and it is thus that he epitomizes the condition of the country. 'I have found, he writes, the churches without people, the people without priests, the priests without respect, the Christians without Christ, God's holy places denied to be holy, the sacraments no longer honored, the holy days without solemnities.' As ever, Bernard was victorious and shortly afterwards, Henry was taken prisoner by the arch bishop of Toulouse and sent to Rennes where Eugenius was engaged in presiding in a general council. At the intercession of the arch bishop, his life was spared but he was cast into prison where he shortly afterwards died, his career thus closing about the year 1149. Source of information...23
Then he gives you the bibliography there. The Petrobrusians: Besides the two sects just dealt with our period can show others with less notoriety. Of these, such as the Petrobrusians, have something in common with the Cathari, while others, for instance that of the Apostolic Brethren, have an affinity with the Waldensians. The Petrobrusians: At the beginning of the 12th century, a priest named Peter of Bruy preached for nearly 20 years in the South of France against infant baptism, the eucharist and mass, against the veneration of images, and the cross, against church buildings, prayers and offerings for the dead. He was burnt to death in St. Jillus in 1137 by a mob who were infuriated by his proceedings. After his death, his work was taken up by the Cluniac monk, Henry.
In Funk's Manual of Church History:
The latter, Henry, had already 20 years previously stirred up trouble at Le Mans by his preaching. He was indicted ultimately before the council of Rennes. As to what followed history is silent. This source says of the Pasagians: [Notice these were in exactly the same area where the Arnoldists, the Henricians, the Petrobrusians and the Waldenses were. Notice what it says about the Pasagians, which may be a branch of these others.]
Then referring to Arnold of Brescia: He claimed against the temporal powers and against the church's possessions of land and property. If we may believe Otto of Presingia he held that no cleric having property, no bishop holding fiefs, no monk who was not truly poor, could hope for salvation. After his condemnation before the Lateran Council in 1149 he went to France and from there to Switzerland and then returned to Italy. His connection with the revolution in Rome resulted in his execution by Barbarosa.
A small sect of Northern Italy in the 12th century insisted on the observance of the Mosaic law and looked on Christ as the first of God's creatures.24 [Notice he doesn't mention that he was a student of his, but did become acquainted with him.]
In the History of the Christian Church, by Walker: Bernard's ascetic and other worldly principals were represented curiously in a man whom he bitterly opposed, Arnold of Brescia. With all his deference to apostolic poverty, Bernard had no essential quarrel with the hierarchal organization of his day or hostility to its exercise of power in worldly matters. Arnold was much more radical. Born in Brescia, a student in France, he became a clergyman in his native city. Of severe austerity, he advanced an opinion that the clergy should abandon all property and worldly power, so only could they be Christ's true disciples. In a struggle between Innocent II and Anacletus II, he won a large following in Brescia but was compelled to seek refuge in France where he became intimate with Abelard and was joined with him in condemnation at Bernard's instigation by the Senate of Sens.
Bernard secured Arnold's expulsion from France. In 1143 the Roman nobles had thrown off the temporal control of the papacy and established what they believed to be a revision of the senate. To Rome Arnold went. He was not a political leader so much as a preacher of apostolic poverty. In 1145 Eugenius restored Arnold to church fellowship but by 1147 Arnold and the Romans had driven Eugenius out of the city. There Arnold remained influential until the accession of the vigorous Adrian II, the only Englishman who has ever occupied the papal throne. [Notice the truth finally comes out. Adrian the pope bargained with the German sovereign, Frederick Barbarosa, for the destruction... now what the pope wanted was the destruction of Arnold. That was the price for the imperial coronation of Frederick Barbarosa.]
Adrian in 1155 compelled the Romans to expel Arnold by proclaiming an interdict forbidding religious services in the city and bargained with the new German sovereign, Frederick Barbarosa, for the destruction of Arnold, as the price of imperial coronation.
In 1155 Arnold was hanged and his body burned, charged with heresy. These accusations are vague and seem to have little substance. Arnold's real offense was his attack upon the riches and temporal power of the church. Far more radical had been a preacher in Southern France in the opening years of the 12th century, Peter of Bruys, of whom origin or early life little is known. With his strict asceticism, he denied infant baptism, rejection of the Lord's supper in any form,
[Which isn't so, but the way the Catholics kept it, he did] the repudiation of all ceremonies and even of church buildings, rejection of the cross which should be condemned rather than honored as the instrument through which Christ had suffered. Peter also opposed prayers for the dead, having burned crosses in St. Jillus. He himself was burned by a mob at an uncertain date, probably from 1120 and 1130.
Peter's Disciple Reputed to be Peter's disciple but hardly so to be regarded was Henry, called Lausanne who once had been a Benedictine monk from 1101 to his death after 1145 in Western and especially Southern France. He was above all a preacher of ascetic righteousness. He denied the validity of sacraments administered by unworthy priests. His test of worthiness was ascetic life and apostolic poverty. By this standard he condemned the wealth and power of seeking clergy. Arnold, Peter and Henry have been proclaimed Protestants before the reformation. To do so is to misunderstand them.25
How Names Originated
[Notice who named them. They didn't call themselves Henricians or Petrobrusians.]
From Erdman's The Light in Dark Ages: By the 12th century there had come to exist in Western Europe widespread opposition to the position of the Roman church. The dissenters were known by many names according to their city, according to their leader or according to the ridicule of their foes.
In the documents of church councils and decrees of papacy and royalty we find references principally to Albigensian, Paterini, Pasaginia, Arnoldista, Petrobrusians, Henricians, Waldenses and others too numerous to mention. Although their names and numbers were very extensive, they can be classified with reasonable accuracy into two major groupings — Cathari and Waldenses. In view of the widespread revolt against the pretensions of Rome and the desire of the people for the truth of scriptures, there were many groups without much organic relationship between one another; for example an assembly of believers in Italy and another in Germany. Many of the groups were brought into being by itinerant merchants and artisans who were preachers of the word. They held few assemblies, similar to the other believers in distant places. Medieval documents and authorities confuse their various groups in view of their common position of alleged heresy. The inquisitors themselves made differentiation between them which lead the historian Van Limbrock in his account of the inquisition against the Albigenses to distinguish clearly between the Cathari and the Waldenses. [Which is exactly so. The Cathari were never the true church. The Waldenses were; and so were the Albigenses.]
Both groups held some views in common, that all oaths were unlawful and sinful.26
Soil Fertile for Reform
This book really sets the background for Arnold of Brescia and how they actually took advantage of his preaching and his name to carry out what they already started. So notice they had already started this independence of cities.
This is the Short History of the Christian Church, by Hurst: A long quarrel between Henry IV and the papacy gave rise to a new force in Italy which was now felt far and wide. The claims which the pope made to supreme authority awakened the alarm of certain serious minds who saw here an element of great danger to the spiritual interest of all Christendom. In addition to this, a desire for local independence was awakened. A process of violent disintegration went on, especially in the Italian cities.
The people arose to protest the high planes of ecclesiastical rule and cities vied with each other in an attempt to cut loose from such restrain. That the clergy should hold such power, not only in Rome but throughout Italy, was considered a curse which must be done away with and the sooner the better. It requires but little time for a great popular aspiration to find its incarnation. The strong desire of many thousands in Italy to reduce the powers of the clergy and the papacy to a primitive status of voluntary poverty and purely spiritual life and government found its representative in Arnold of Brescia. Born about the end of the 11th century, he had been taught in a good school. Though Italian, he had gone to Paris and placed himself under the care of Abelard whose spirit he had imbibed. He possessed rare gifts of eloquence and popular leadership. He returned to Italy where he boldly proclaimed against the excesses of the priesthood and indirectly against the bold claim of the pope to secular authority. He was guarded in his expression regarding the papacy and entered no theological protest, but against the universal life of the clergy he claimed inveterate hostility. He held that the priest should renounce all holdings of property and live on the free will offerings of the people. His fearless method and defiant expression of the prevailing vices of the time rallied to his standards multitudes of adherents, among them were many cultivated people and nobles who saw in him a safe and pure leader. But when the awakening he produced became alarming to the existing authority, he was exposed by the pope, Innocent II who banished him from Italy. He fled to France, then to Switzerland and in both countries continued to preach the need for universal reform and the return of the church to its original simplicity. Arnold had accomplished a great work in Rome. The popular sentiment was in his favor. The need for reform which he preached gathered strength during his absence and the people whom he had influenced now revolted against the pope. Arnold came back to Italy, went to Rome and stood at their head. He was not only the spiritual leader of the city but in a certain sense, he was also the political head. In the eternal city he was what Calvin was four centuries later in Geneva, 'administrator of ecclesiastical affairs.' Arnold's eloquence was overwhelming. The multitudes gathered about him with increasing enthusiasm. He forgot his religious standpoint and inspired by the remembrance of the grandeur of old Rome, he became a political reformer. Rome should stand free, independent of the pope and emperor, and be ruled by no single man, but by the senate and people then the old greatness would be restored. The citizens revolted against the rule of the pope, established a senate, drove the pope out of Rome, passed laws requiring the pope to live on voluntary offerings and throw off his temporal authority and invited the German emperor to come to Italy and establish the old imperial rule on the banks of the Tiber. Lucius II lead an army against the Romans but was killed during the seige of the city by a paving stone. Eugenius III, who succeeded him, fled to France and placed himself under the guidance of Bernard of Clairvaux. Eugenius was brought back to Rome by Roger, king of the Normans, but he was helpless. Arnold was still supreme and the Romans were devoted to him. A young Englishman who commenced life as a beggar turned to the priesthood, advanced through all subordinate stages until he became bishop of Albans and on the death of Eugenius III, succeeded to the papacy as Adrian IV in 1154. He had chosen a novel method of opposing the revered Arnold. He passed a law prohibiting all public worship in Rome. This one act produced a powerful impression and the people could not say it was not within his province and a purely ecclesiastical deed. The pope was now in power. Arnold was forced to flee from Rome a second time and was afterwards seized by the emperor Frederick Barbarosa who gave him up to his enemies in Rome. No mercy was now shown him. He was hanged in Rome, the scene of his greatest triumph, in 1155. To give additional indignity to his memory, his body was afterwards burned and his ashes cast into the Tiber.27
Offspring From Bogomils and Paulicians
Reading from Kurtz Church History: In point of fact, we know that the Vandals had transported shiploads of Manicheans to the shores of Italy. Probably, however, the number issued again from the East in all likelihood were from Bulgaria, where since the time the Paulicians had settled in that district of Bulgaria, Gnostic and Manichean views were widely entertained and zealously propagated. Even the names of these sects proved the correctness of this assertion. The more general designation was Cathari, but they were also called Burgari, or else a different mode of pronouncing the word. Publicani was probably a transposition by which the foreign term of Paulicians was converted into a well-known term of reproach. They were also designated Patareni, either in the original sense of that term or because of the contest between the Patari in Milan and the clergy. The term implied, in general, a spirit of hostility to the priesthood. Several of the charges preferred against them may probably have arisen from misunderstanding. The Paulician or Bogomil opinions embraced insistence on a literal observance of all the injunctions of the sermon on the mount and despite their great spiritualism, laid great stress on fasting and the frequent repetition of certain prayers, especially the Lord's prayer. Along with prayer, preaching occupied the most prominent place in their public service. Even their opponents admitted their deep and moral earnestness. Generally, they went to the stake with heroism and joyfulness of martyrs. Sects of this kind were, since the 11th century, discovered in several places. During the 12th century, they increased rapidly in membership and spread into different countries. The small sect of Pasageri in Lombardi, during the 12th century went to an opposite extreme from the Manichean rejection of the Old Testament by the Cathari.
Mosaic Law Except Sacrifices The Cathari did reject the Old Testament, but the Waldenses did not. [Neither did the Petrobrusians, the Henricians or the Arnoldists.] Notice the Pasageri went to an opposite extreme from rejecting the Old Testament.
With the exception of sacrifice, they insisted on the obligation of the old Mosaic law, including circumcision. The Petrobrusians, founded by Peter De Bruys, a priest in the South of France in 1104, rejected the outward or visible church, only accepting the true invisible church in the hearts of believers. He used crucifixes for cooking purposes. He was against celibacy, the mass and infant baptism. He ended his days at the stake. He was succeeded by one of his associates, Henry of Lausanne, formerly a monk of the order of Cluny. Under him the sect of the Petrobrusians greatly increased in numbers. St. Bernard succeeded in converting many of them from his errors. Henry was seized, condemned to imprisonment for life and died in 1149. In the New International Encyclopedia, article Bruys, Bruis, or Brueys:
Among these revolutionaries, we must include Arnold of Brescia, whose chief fervent oratory was directed against the secular power of the church. His followers long afterwards were called Arnoldists.28
Pierre De Bruy: French religious reformer, founder of the Petrobrusians, mentioned in the epistle 'Adverses Petrobrucianos Ariticos' written by Peter the venerable, abbot of Cluny to certain of the bishops of the province in Dophene not long after the death of De Bruy...his aim seems to have been to restore Christianity to its primitive simplicity. This meant for him rejection of infant baptism, trans-substantiation, prayers for the dead and in general costly churches. [Not tear down all the churches, but reject costly churches] His ill directed eloquence affected little save violence on the part of his followers.29
Then reading in Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History: A far better character than the other heretical leaders of his day was the presbyter, Peter De Bruys.
About the year 1010, Peter De Bruys attempted a restoration of true religion in Languedoc and Provence, provinces in France and having drawn many to follow him after journeying and laboring for 20 years, burnt by the enraged populace in St. Jillus in A.D. 1130. The whole system of doctrines inculcated by this Peter upon his followers called Petrobrusians is not known. Yet five of his opinions have reached us. Number 1, persons ought not to be baptized until they come to the use of reason; number 2, it is not proper to build churches and that such as were built should be pulled down; number 3, that the holy crosses ought to be destroyed; number 4, that the body and blood of Christ are not distributed in the sacred supper, but on the signs of them; number 5, that the oblation, prayers and good works of the living do not profit the dead.
Despised Festal Days He was followed by one, Henry, an Italian perhaps, an Aramite monk, the parent of the Henricians from Lausanne, a city of Switzerland. He came to Main. Being driven from there, he travelled through Poteay, Bordeaux and the adjacent regions; in the year 1147, he reached Toulouse. Everywhere he boldly proclaimed against the devices of the clergy, and the prevailing religion with the applause of the multitude. Being rejected from Toulouse by St. Bernard he took flight but was apprehended by some bishop, brought before Eugene III by the Roman pontiff, committed to prison and soon after died. An accurate account of the doctrines of this man also has not come down to us. [He admits both of these facts, and he is one of the most ancient historians.] We only know that he, too, disapproved of infant baptism, he was severely against the corrupt morals of the clergy, despised the festal days [pagan Roman days] and religious ceremonies and held clandestine meetings. Some represent him to be a disciple of Peter De Bruys, but on what authority they rely, I do not know.
In Italy, Arnold of Brescia, pupil of Peter Abelard, a man of learning and stern morals but of a restless temper, attempted a revolution both civil and ecclesiastical. Innocent II compelled him after being condemned in the Lateran Council to retire into Switzerland, but he returned. He is not named in the canon of this council, thus it refers rather to Peter De Bruys, where it recounts his errors, excommunicates the persons, delivers them over to the secular sword, but Arnold was not excommunicated nor committed to the executioner.
Otto of Presingian expressly states that Arnold, as well as the Petrobrusians, was condemned by this council. He was also banished from Italy and forbidden to return without permission from the pope.
Gunther, in his history, makes this just remark: 'He gave us many just rebukes, mixed with false ones. But our times would not bear faithful admonition.' [That is what a Catholic says about Arnold.]
After his banishment, Arnold went first to France and to Abelard, from him went to Gido, the papal legate who not long after was himself a pope.
Arnold returned on the death of Innocent and gave great trouble to the new pontiff Eugene. He maintained that all the wealth of the Roman pontiff, also of the bishops and the monks ought to be transferred to civil authorities and nothing be left for any of the ministers of God, but their spiritual powers and the tithes and the voluntary offerings of Christians. [He says the tithes should be left to the ministers. The voluntary gifts should be left to the ministers. Spiritual powers should be left, but that is all.]
Peter and Arnold Together
In Mosheim: There is pretty good evidence that early in the 12th century, Peter Bruy with his successor, Henry and their followers the Petrobrusians and Henricians, did at first reject infant baptism without discarding all baptism, but soon after, Peter Waldo arose and gave birth to the proper Waldensians and we hear no more of the Petrobrusians and Henricians. [No, they probably joined the Waldenses. They became the Waldenses. They disappeared.]30
Diligent New Testament Study From quite a thorough book, Witnesses For Christ, by Backhouse & Tylor:
The first noteworthy preacher and the doctrines in this century [12th century] was a priest named Peter of Bruy. Through the diligent study of the new testament he had acquired a clear concept of the worship of God in spirit and in truth. Notice, even Neander, who is one of the top church historians, says "What other result could be anticipated from the spirit of unbridled liberty pervading from so rude an age?" He says the age, the people, the desire to get from under these priestly errors, to get a little satisfaction, and feeling of spiritual things. It so pervaded them, it erupted this way!
Regarding faith as necessary to baptism, he rejected the baptism of infants and when in consequence of re-immersing those who had joined him, his followers were called Ana-baptists. They demurred to the name, alleging that the baptism performed in infancy was no baptism at all. [They said, no we are not Ana- Baptists; we are not re-baptizers. Those children have never been baptized.] He vehemently opposed the sacrifice of the mass which he regarded as the pillar on which the dominion of the priesthood chiefly rested. He explained to the people, 'trust not in those misleading clergy when they pretend to produce for you the body of Christ and to deliver it to you for the salvation of your souls.' He condemned prayers, offerings and alms for the dead. 'The state of a man after death,' he said, 'depends on his conduct during life. Nothing that is done afterwards can be of any avail.' Burdened with the pomp of public worship, the multiplied ceremonies which had converted it into a mechanical service and the artificial chanting which effected the senses rather than the heart, he says, 'God is mocked by such service. He to whom pious feeling alone is acceptable is neither brought near by loud vociferation nor propitiated by musical melodies.'
In like manner, he despised consecrated buildings. 'God is to be worshipped in the shop or market place equally as in the church. He hearkens to the sincere suppliant whether praying before an altar or in the workshop.'
Concerning the cross he said, 'Every representation of it ought, by way of avenging His death, to be cast away and destroyed. This maximas carried out by his followers only too literally. On a certain Good Friday, they brought together all the crucifixes they could collect and making of them a great fire, roasted meat and ate, and invited everyone to partake.'
Rude Age Fostered Rebellion They even proceeded to pull down altars, to scourge priests and compelled monks to marry. 'What other result,' asks Neander, 'could be anticipated from the spirit of unbridled liberty pervading from so rude an age?'
When you see that in the more advanced era of the reformation all the caution of the great reformation was insufficient to prevent men from confounding licentiousness with Christian freedom and to restore the wild burst of human passion. Peter preached first in Dauphine his native country, being driven thence. He travelled up and down for 20 years in Gascony, Languidoc and Provence, waging war against superstition, making many proselytes. In Provence there was nothing to be seen but Christian re-baptizing, altars profaned, crosses burned. But about 1124, being in the city of St. Jillus in Languidoc, Peter at the instigation of the clergy, was seized by an infuriated mob, hurried away and burnt at the stake, thus passing, says even the charitable Peter of Cluny, from temporal to eternal fire. The gospel was a light of action. Go right down the line, and start doing it. It is not a nice spiritual philosophy.
This abbot, being on tour in Gascony set himself to repair the breaches which he everywhere found in the church. He drew up a refutation of the errors as he deemed of the Petrobrusians, the followers of Peter De Bruy, and sent it to the bishops of Provence telling them it was their duty by preaching to drive the sectaries from their hiding places and if unable of themselves to do this, they must invoke the secular power.
It becomes Christian charity, he says, to labor rather for the conversation than for the extirpation of heretics authority and reason are the great means to be employed so that if they profess themselves to be Christians they may bow to the one or if they consider themselves to be men, they may acknowledge the other.
Henry Arises Whilst the abbot of Cluny was thus unconsciously seeking to quench the gospel light, a denizen of his own cloister had been visited by heavenly illumination and raised to be a witness for the truth. This was Henry of Lausanne, a monk of Cluny, who like Peter De Bruys, taking the New Testament for his guide saw that the gospel points to a life of practical activity, not to one of contemplative inaction.
He felt himself called a minister to the wants of the people who were either totally neglected or lead astray by hireling clergy. Accordingly he sallied forth in his monkish attire and waiting for no invitation he took up his abode in one house after another, preaching the spiritual life and was contented with such fare as was set before him. We know by other history books that he did that in the early days of his ministry. Afterward when he came into contact with Peter De Bruy, he quit using a cross.
From Lausanne, where he first preached, he came to Central France, where more like-minded joined him as he went along and an apostolic society formed under his direction. Having no controversy as Peter had with the symbol of the Saviour's passion, he caused to be carried before him a banner on which was worked a figure of the cross.
At first he confined himself to preaching repentance [not penance as one of the other books words it] and denouncing that sham Christianity in which the practices of a godly nation are wanting. Soon, however, he proceeded to warn men against a worldly minded clergy, those false guides whose teaching and example did more to promote wickedness than to restrain it. Especially, he accused their unchastity, and less enlightened than his compatriot on the subject of celibacy, he joined in with the monks in supporting the harsh degrees of Gregory VII. Henry's appearance itself was such as to command attention. The rapid changes in his countenance are likened by the contemporary chronicler to 'a ruffled and tempestuous sea.' He was as yet a young man, he wore short hair, his beard shaved, was large in stature, but very sorely clothed, walked apace, and went barefooted even in the heart of winter. His ordinary retreats were the cottages of peasants. He lived all day under porticoes, ate and slept on some hill or other in the open air. 'The women cried him up for a great servant of God and gave out that no person could have a greater faculty than he of converting the most obdurate hearts and that he was imbued with a spirit of prophecy.' They did not say that he was a prophet. They did not say he had a prophetess! They said he was endowed with a spirit of prophecy.
To discern the most inward recesses of the conscience and the most private sins. He had a natural eloquence and a tone of voice resembling thunder. Wouldn't you know they would use that word? They would almost have to use that word, thunder.
Accusations Were Lies
Contrited under the ministry of this Whitfield of the middle ages; people hastened to confess their sins and to renounce their loose manner of living. On Ash Wednesday, A.D. 1116, two of Henry's disciples appeared in the garb of penitence, with banners, at Le Mans, the chief city of the province of Maine. They came to ask if their master might visit the city as a preacher of repentance, during the season of Lent. That is what does it: the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Federation of Church Councils, Greater Federation of Churches...that is where the trouble always ends up.
Henry's fame had preceded him and the messengers 'were received by the people as messengers of angels'. The bishop, Hildeburt, a discreet and pious man, gave them a friendly reception, Henry having not come under the suspicion of heresy. Himself about starting to Rome, the bishop gave directions to his archdeacon that Henry should have liberty to preach. The effect of his preaching was wonderful. Not only were the common people drawn and bound to him by an invisible chain, but the younger clergy eagerly gathered around him and placed a stage in the public place from whence he could be heard by the whole city. Nevertheless, the higher clergy set their faces against him.
The higher clergy set their faces against him and when the citizens in revenge withdrew from the churches and insulted the priests, they applied for protection form the civil power. At the same time, they addressed a letter to Henry, upbraiding him for abusing the confidence reposed in him and for instigating the people to schism, sedition and heresy. They forbade them under pain of excommunication to preach in any part of the diocese. Henry refused to compromise and when the prohibitory letter was read in public, he shook his head at every sentence and exclaimed, 'thou liest.' When they accused him of something else, he would say, 'thou liest.' Not with the working classes only but the substantial citizens looked up to Henry as their guide. Gold and silver were freely given and placed at his disposal, so that if he had been activated by sordid motives, he might easily have been made rich. When Hildeburt returned from Rome, he found the tone of feeling in Le Mans strangely altered. He, himself, was no longer received with the customary feeling of joy and reverence. 'We have,' said the people, 'another priest and intercessor more virtuous in life, more eminent in knowledge, more exalted in authority.' The clergy hated Henry, because they are afraid that by means of the scriptures he will expose their licenses, their incontinence and their false doctrines. Those are the words which met Hildeburt when he came back. The people spoke right out.
Removes to Petrobrusian Area
Hildeburt saw the danger of trying to put down Henry's influence by force. Accordingly, he sought a private interview in which he prevailed upon him either by authority or argument quietly to leave the diocese and to take himself to some other field. Notwithstanding the allusion just made to the priests, it does not appear that Henry while he was at Le Mans made any attack either upon the dogmas or the ceremonial. It was when directing his course southward, he came to the country in which Peter Of Bruys had already labored, the abbot of Cluny in his treatise speaks of Henry of Lausanne as the heir to Peter's wickedness. Here Henry published a tract against the abuses of the church in which he gave a more systematic shape to the teachings of his predecessor. [Now, when he finally writes his doctrines in print, they are more like his predecessor, Peter De Bruys.] The clergy were greatly alarmed and the archbishop of Arals having succeeded in getting possession of Henry's person, carried him to the Council of Pisa at which Pope Innocent II presided. By this time he was pronounced a heretic, placed under custody of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and recovering his liberty, retired to the South of France and re-commenced preaching around Toulouse and Albi where the anti-Romish tendencies were strong and were favored by the feudelers who were striving to render themselves independent of their sovereigns. Here he labored for 10 years with remarkable success. Bernard, whose watchful eye took in the whole Gaelic church with its wants and perils, roused himself, called upon the count of St. Jillus and Toulouse to put down the heresy.
Doctrines We have heard of the great things Henry the heretic is doing every day in the churches of God. Wandering up and down, a ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing. The churches are without the people, the people without priests, the priests without becoming reverence and Christians without Christ. Invocation for the saints, offerings for the dead, the pilgrimage, the festivals are all neglected, and baptism is denied the infants who are thus robbed of salvation.
The bishops once more laid hands on Henry. He was carried in chains before a council held at Rennes in 1148, condemned to death at the intercession of Archbishop Sampson, imprisoned for life with a meager diet that he may be brought to repentance.31
Arnold's Name in Waldensian Genealogy Then Backhouse and Tylor mentions the following about the Publicani:
A similar movement [to the Henricians] was at work in Italy. Unhappily we know little of the man by whom it was carried on. The name most familiar to history is associated with a political revolution. Arnold, priest of Brescia and Lombardi, conceived the idea of bring the clergy back to the apostolic pattern, not their luxury and debauchery only, but their possessions of worldly property and their interference with secular matters seemed to him at variance with the teaching of the New Testament. His life corresponded to his doctrines. He assumed the monastic garb and lived in poverty in ascetic severity. Brescia and Lombardi cities in general were ripe for such teachings. His invectives against the pope and bishops fell on his hearers like a spark on straw. His eloquence is described by Bernard as sweet yet powerful, sharp as a sword, yet soft as oil. The agitation spread to Rome. Is that not something! The Waldenses have inscribed the name of Arnold of Brescia as one of their spiritual genealogical ancestors.
Now we note a very interesting quote: In 1130 he fled to France, from there to the Alps, where he may have re-kindled the embers still remaining. The church of the Waldenses has inscribed the name of Arnold as in her spiritual genealogy.
Bernard wrote to the pope to secure his person and to burn his books, but he remained unharmed in Switzerland for five years. This is what the priest writes the pope, explaining this martyrdom:
Bravery in Martyrdom If we look to the Rhine, we shall find the same tokens of religious fermentation. In the year in which Henry of Lausanne was put to death, Serbinus, provost of Steinfeld near Cologne, wrote thus to Bernard.
'There have been lately some heretics discovered amongst us, two of whom stood there before the assembly and maintained their tenets from the words of Christ and the apostles. When they could proceed no further, they desired that a day might be appointed when they might bring more skilful advocates, promising if they should fail, to return to the church. Whereupon, after they had been admonished for three days and were still unwilling to repent, the people incited by much zeal, seized them, hurried them to the stake where they perished.'
'What is most wonderful in all this is that they bore the flames not only with patience but with joyfulness, so that I should be glad, holy father, if you could tell me how these members of the devil could exhibit courage and constancy scarcely to be found in the most pious of the faithful?' So, that is what St. Bernard wrote about these people! They reject second marriages and mates may for Christ's Kingdom's sake forsake an unscriptural association! Do the churches who claim to trace their history through this body follow its fundamental practices even? The Baptists, the Mennonites, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists, or the Churches of Christ?
'They assert the church is to be found in them only.' [They claimed they were the only true church! Continuing the quote] They alone tread in Christ's footsteps and lead an apostolic life. That which we call a sacrament, they stigmatize as a shadow but they themselves in their daily meals, according to the example of Christ and the apostles, consecrate by the Lord's prayer the meat and drink. Besides water baptism they baptize, so they pretend, with the Holy Spirit, alleging the testimony of John The Baptist, and they assert that everyone of the elect has power to baptize and to consecrate at their meals.
Not Allow Adultery Second marriages they look upon as adultery. They put no confidence in the intercession of the saints, they have no confidence in confession at whatever time a sinner repents, his sins are forgiven. They put no confidence in the fire of purgatory.
The admissions however, which Bernard makes outweigh all the reproach which he casts upon these despised people. If you interrogate them regarding their faith, nothing can be more Christian.
This is a direct quote from St. Bernard! As to their conversation, nothing can be more blameless, and what they say they confirm by their deeds. They attack no one [take special note of that], they interfere with no one, they defraud no one, and their faces are pale with fasting. They eat not the bread of idleness, but labor with their hands. Where now is their fox? By their fruits you shall know them. Women forsake their husbands and husbands their wives to join them. Clergy and priests quit their people and churches and are found among them, unshorn and unshaven, herding with weavers and spinsters.32
Continuing Bernard's quote:
By their fruits you shall know them!
FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER IV
1. "Petrobrusians," Encyclopedia Americana.
2. "Petrobrusians," Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, XI, p. 781.
3. J. W. Larned, History for Ready Reference, Vol. IV, (Springfield: C. A. Nichols, 1895), p. 8.
4. "Petrobrusians," Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1838, p. 930.
5. "Petrobrusians," Cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, p. 734.
6. "Waldenses," Dictionary of Sects & Heresies.
7. "Peter of Bruys and the Petrobrusians," Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, III, p. 1818.
8. "Arnold of Brescia," Chambers Encyclopedia, I, pp. 426-427.
9. "Arnold of Brescia," Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, I, p. 149.
10. "Arnold," Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., I, II, pp. 632-633.
11. "Arnold of Brescia," Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia.
12. "Arnold of Brescia," Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, pp. 747-749.
13. "Arnoldists," Blunt, Dictionary of Sects & Heresies.
14. Henry Hallam, History of the Middle Ages, (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1909), pp. 820-821.
15. "Arnold of Brescia," Brown, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, p. 125.
16. Kauffman, Hartzler, Mennonite Church History, p. 57
17. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), pp. 275-280
18. John Lawrence Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, (New York: Harper & Bros., 1858), Vol. I, p. 330
19. "Henricians," Brown, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II, p. 612
20. "Henry of Lausanne," Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II, p. 972
21. Martin Ruter, A Concise History of the Christian Church (New York: Carlton & Lanhan, n.d.), p. 242
22. Blunt, "Henricians," Dictionary of Sects and Heresies.
23. Schaff-Herzog, Op. Cit.
24. F.X. Funk, Funk's Manual of Church History, (St. Louis B. Herder Co., n.d.), pp. 354-355.
25. Walker, History of the Christian Church, (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1926), pp. 297-298.
26. Raymond V. Edman, The Light in Dark Ages, (Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1949), pp. 297-298.
27. John Fletcher Hurst, Short History of the Christian Church, (New York: Harper & Bros., 1893), pp. 150-153.
28. W. Robertson Nicholl, ed., Kurtz Church History, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1844).
29. "Bruys, Bruis or Brueys," New International Encyclopedia.
30. John Lawrence Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History, (New York: Harper & Bros., 1858), pp. 331-332.
31. Backhouse, Tylor, Witness for Christ, (London: Hamilton, Adams & Co.), pp. 444-446.
32. Ibid., 468-469.