Page 246

Not the last of it, seeing other writers afterwards relate that he was sentenced and condemned in a certain council in the palace of Dusiacum, in the province of Rheims; moreover, that he was sent into banishment, laid in chains, and, two year after, deprived of both his eyes. However, these writers do not unanimously state that this happened to him solely on account of his rejecting infant baptism, but relate also, that it was done through the bitter hatred of the archbishop of Rheims, as well as from other reasons relating to popery. As to the time of this event, the papist Caesar Baronius fixes it, A. D. 871, though we, from comparison with other authors, should fix it five years earlier. Moreover, though we, as regards the life, and walk of said Hincmar, have found nothing but what is good, we dare not give him a place among the martyrs, because of the differing statements of the ancient writers; hence we commit him to God, who will judge his cause.

JOHANNES ERIGENA, A SCOTCHMAN, PUT TO DEATH BY HIS SCHOLARS FOR THE CONFESSION OF THE EVANGELICAL TRUTH,, THROUGH THE INSTIGATION OF SOME MONKS, AT MELDUM IN ENGLAND, ABOUT A. D. 884

Johannes Erigena, a Scotchman, and, hence, called Scotus, flourished, in the matter of his doctrine, in the time of the Emperor Louis the Pious, and his son Lothaire, somewhere in one of the cities of France. He was exceedingly virtuous, learned, and eloquent, and, consequently, for his eminent gifts, highly celebrated and esteemed. For, when Charles, one of the sons of the above Emperor, was desirous of having a good translation and, exposition of the books of Dionysius, the Areopagite, especially of the treatise Hierarchia,* John executed the same very laudably, and with marked ability, so that one Anasasius, who was librarian at the time, and composed a preface to it, writes of him thus, "It is astonishing how this barbariarl, (that is, foreigner or Scotchman), who hails from the uttermost parts of the world, was able to comprehend with his understanding such high things, and to translate them (said book of Dionysius), into another language, namely, from the Greek into the Latin; I refer to Johannes the Scotchman, concerning whom I have heard that he is a very holy and godly man.";

This is the testimony even of one of his adversaries, touching his learning and godliness; so that it is not necessary for us to adduce additional testimony relative to this point, from other authors, hence we let it suffice.

Afterwards, it seems he wrote a book on the Eucharist (that is, on the thankoffering of the Supper), in which he very profoundly and conclusively refuted the gross error of the papists in the matter

' This was a treatise on the name of God, and thr heavenly order of the angels. of transubstantiation, or the essential change of the bread into the body of Jesus Christ; also, the mass and the sacrifice which thereby, in popery, is offered for both the living and the dead. This was the cause of his death, as the sequel shows.

When he had written this book, it was greatly esteemed by some, among whom, subsequently, was Berengarius, deacon of the church at Angiers, of whom it is stated that he took and learned his belief respecting this point (and perhaps also against infant baptism, since he strenuously dissuaded from it), from.the writings of Johannes Scotus; of which we propose to speak more fully in the proper place. On the other hand, said book was exceedingly hated by those who were zealous defenders of the Roman superstitions, especially of transubstantiation and the mass; so much so, that when it had come before Pope Leo IX, the result was, that both (as appears) he and his book were condemned and anathematized as heretical; which was done chiefly in the council of Vercellis.

When this had thus happened, and he had incurred the hatred of the pope and many of the papists, he left the city of Paris-where he was rector of the University-and also, -France, and went to England, where he took up his residence at Meldum, supporting himself by teaching and instructing inexperienced youths. But after a few years, when the spite and hatred of some monks could tolerate him no longer, on account of his faith against the Roman church, they instigated his scholars against him, so that they stabbed him to death with awls and penknives.

Other writers are of the opinion that the monks did it themselves. Both may be true; the monks, having instigated the young men, and probably finding them too timid, may have led off in the murder, the youths following, with penknives, awls, etc., so that said martyr lost his life under their hands. This much is certain, that he died a cruel death for his faith, and that the monks, through the instumentality of his scholars, were in no small measure the cause of it, as the records of his death inform us. Compare the account of A. Mellinus, 2d book, fol. 343, col. 2, 3, and fol. 392, col. 4, and fol. 393, eol. 1, 2, taken from Trithem. de Script. Eccles., Item. Hist. Reg. Angl., in Alfredo, lib. 2. Hobed. Annal. parte Priore. Westmon., in Flor. Hist., A. D. 883. Idem, Hist. parte Prima. Chron. Car., lib. 4, sub. Henr. 4, Seniore. Lanfranc., lib. de Euch., contra Bereng. Baron. Annal. T. 11, A. D. 1059. Mamelsburi Regum Angl., lib. 2.Testibus. Lanfranco, Guytmando and Aliis.