[146] This was a treatise on the name of God, and the heavenly order of the angels.
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 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 instrumentality 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, col. 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, Guytmundo and Aliis._