catechism are put in vain [that is, to infants, who do not comprehend
such questions, and do not have the ability to reply to them; whereby
they sufficiently rejected infant baptism, which it was not customary
to administer without putting said questions to the unintelligent
infants.]
3. That the absolution which is pronounced over infants (at baptism) is
useless.
4. That the sponsors (who were accustomed to recite the creed as out of
the child’s mouth) do not understand what they answer to the priests.
By the fourth as well as the third article, not only is infant baptism
itself abolished, but also its appurtenances of absolution and sponsors
are derided and declared a vain, useless, and ridiculous performance.
But in the first article already, where it is said, that they rejected
all the sacraments of the (Roman) church, among which sacraments infant
baptism was not one of the least, but one of the chief ones; it is
plainly taught, that they did not believe at all in infant baptism, but
like other ancient papal institutions, trampled it under their feet and
rejected it.
From said ancient book, which is ascribed to Reinerius, the Waldenses
are charged with various other things respecting their faith; of which,
in the ninth and tenth charge, the following is said with reference to
baptism (_page 629, art. 9_): “As regards baptism, some (he means the
Waldenses) err, saying: ‘Infants are not saved by baptism, Mark 16:16.
But he that believes and is baptized, shall be saved; but the child
does not believe, and, hence, is not saved (by baptism).’ Thereupon the
priest Reinerius replies: ‘The child is baptized upon the faith of the
parents;’ _ergo_.”
_Art. 10_ confirms the preceding; only it treats also of something
more, namely, of the imposition of hands, which was customarily done
among the Waldenses, at baptism, to the adult candidates. They also
reprove therein the practice which the priests had, of interrogating
the sponsors who would come with children to baptism, in an unknown
tongue, to which the sponsors then replied, without knowing, however,
what they had been asked. This the Waldenses also take as a reason for
rejecting infant baptism and the pedobaptistic superstitions. However,
to this, said Reinerius replies: “Suffer little children to come unto
me.” Matt. 19.
On _page 733, de Centuria XIII., cap. 5, fol. 216, 217_, it is stated
from Cesarius, that the Waldenses and Albigenses rejected baptism and
said that baptism possessed no virtue and was of no use; which they
understood of infant baptism, which is administered without doctrine
and faith; for otherwise the Waldenses esteemed the baptism of Christ,
which is administered according to his ordinance, very highly.
P. J. Twisck, beginning to write of the Waldenses for the year 1100,
calls them by the name of _Brethren_, and says that they opposed infant
baptism. His words are these: “It is evident from the writers, that
in these times and shortly after, there existed the Waldensian or
Albigensian Brethren, who opposed the papal errors and infant baptism.”
_Chron., page 423, col. 1._
This is confirmed by the writers of the _Introduction to the Martyrs
Mirror, page 50, col. 1_, who say, With, or from, Baronius, that
among other things they held, that infant baptism is not necessary to
salvation.
We finally come to the testimony of Jean Paul Perrin Lionnoys, who,
according to the translation of B. Lydius, also confirms the foregoing,
although the translator, Lydius, as well as J. M. V., after the manner
of pedobaptists has endeavored to give said belief of the Waldenses
a different appearance; however, it will appear sufficiently from
the matter itself, who has been the more honest, the author or the
translator. We will therefore enter upon our work and commit this to
the judgment of the reader.
In the third chapter of the first book of the _History of the
Waldenses_, various things of which the papists accused the Waldenses
are related, some of which were true, and some false. Among them,
mention is made of their views against infant baptism, which is
expressed in these words: “The fourth calumny was, that they rejected
infant baptism.” _Lib. 1, part 1. Hist. Waldenses, cap. 3, page 6, col.
1_, from _St. Bernh., Hom. 66 on Cant._
These things, B. Lydius (_page 10_) endeavors to refute, as though the
Waldenses deferred the baptism of their children, not in consequence
of their belief, but from necessity through want of teachers; in
which he agrees with his colleague, Abraham Mellinus, preacher of
the Calvinists, in St. Anthony’s Polder; who, remarking that various
writers testify that the Waldenses left their children unbaptized, says
(_Hist. Mart. 435, col. 3_): “That the children of the Waldenses often
got to be rather old, before they could receive baptism, was not a
voluntary matter on their part, but was owing to the lack of teachers;
for the harvest among them was great, but the laborers few, who could
administer the sacraments, especially baptism, which they held in great
esteem. Hence, as their ministers were frequently scattered far and
wide, through the violence of persecution, or had gone into other
countries to preach, they were often compelled to postpone the baptism
of their children, and thus it happened that their children not seldom
got to be almost of age, before they could obtain baptism.” Thus far,
A. Mellinus.
But who does not see, that this is only a fabrication, yea, an
artifice, by which not only Lydius, but also Mellinus, both strong
Calvinists, seek to force it upon the Waldenses that they omitted
infant baptism not as a matter of faith, but of necessity. For, that
they needed not to omit it from necessity, or through want of teachers
who administered baptism, if, otherwise they had held infant baptism to
be right, appears from various authors; for they had their churches,
which could not well be without teachers, not only in kingdoms,
principalities, earldoms, and provinces, but even in nearly every
city, as we shall show more fully in the proper place. Who, then, can
believe, that they from necessity, through want of teachers, left their
children unbaptized, yea, suffered them to grow up until they became of
age, without baptism?
It is evident, therefore, that they did not leave their children
unbaptized from necessity or through want of teachers, but because of
their belief; as holding that baptism without faith could not conduce
to salvation, as is manifest from the confessions which they professed
in those times already. Thus both B. Lydius and A. Mellinus have
committed no small blunder, in endeavoring to force infant baptism upon
the Waldenses, of which they apparently never thought in such a light,
and to deprive them of baptism upon faith, which they had confessed so
many times.
But, as the compass, though its point be turned East, West, or South,
ultimately returns to North; so it is also with the truth: though she
be forced from her proper place, she will eventually return to it.
This is the case here; for, said translator, who first intended to
prove, that the Waldenses administered baptism not only upon faith,
but also without faith, to infants, states in another place, that it
was always administered with faith and repentance. For, what else is
indicated by the words, that they received the sacraments (that is, not
only the Supper, but also baptism) with faith and repentance, and this
invariably? as is stated in the first book of the third part of the
_History of the Waldenses, cap. 9, page 138, col. 1, art. 8_.
If, then, not only the second, but also the first sacrament, as it
is called, namely baptism, is received with faith and repentance,
it cannot be said that it was administered to infants, seeing these
have neither knowledge nor ability either to believe, or to manifest
repentance, and, hence, lack the whole foundation upon which baptism
was administered by the Waldenses.
In the tract of the Waldenses, as to which are the works of antichrist,
several reproaches against the Pope of Rome and the Roman church are
treated of; among other things, it is said, after the second article
has been treated: “The third work of antichrist consists in this, that
he ascribes the renewing of the Holy Ghost to the external, dead faith
(namely, to the creed which the sponsors used to recite at baptism,
as from the mouth of the children), and that he baptizes the children
in that faith, pretending that by it baptism and regeneration must be
obtained.” _History of the Waldenses, 3d book, 3d part. Tract against
Antichrist, Art. 3, page 162, col. 1, page 163, col. 2._
In another place there is quoted, from Reinerius, this accusation
against the Waldenses: “They also censure many things in the (papal)
sacraments, and say that the baptism of infants is of no avail to
them.” _B. Lydius, Tractaet van de Kerke, page 86, col. 1._
Having, then, sufficiently proved, that the true Waldenses were not
only called Anabaptists, but that they also actually rejected infant
baptism, we will proceed to other articles of their doctrine, which
they had in common with the present Baptists.[155]
[155] _Doopsgesinde_, German, _Taufsgesinde_.
THE BELIEF OF THE ANCIENT WALDENSES RESPECTING THE OFFICE OF THE
SECULAR AUTHORITY.
It is altogether manifest, that the true Waldenses, in their beginning
as well as in their progress, did not accept of secular power and
authority, but forsook, yea, fled from it. This appears, in the
first place, from those who were the originators, or at least, no
insignificant representatives of their religion, namely, Peter Waldo
and John of Lyons, both of them influential and very wealthy men, who
voluntarily abandoned their riches, and taught their followers to
do likewise--to resign not only authority, but also the means which
furnished occasion thereto, and to be content with such things as might
be needful to them for a modest and sober manner of life. For this
reason they were called not only Waldenses, but also Poor Men of Lyons.
See _Bapt. Hist., page 599_. _H. Mont., page 85._
To this belongs also, that, though their number was great, they
suffered themselves to be martyred like sheep for the slaughter, after
their expulsion from Lyons, to which they had not offered the least
resistance; concerning which, ancient history affords an abundant
evidence, and which, God granting us time, we shall notice more fully
in the proper place.
As regards what the Waldenses, long after they had left Lyons, believed
and taught with reference to this point, it is expressed in one of
their articles as follows: “But he (Christ) also exercised no temporal
jurisdiction or authority, in the state of his humiliation.” _Abr.
Mell., 2d book, fol. 446, col. 2._
By these words the Waldenses indicate that even as Christ exercised no
temporal authority in the state of his humiliation, so his followers
also, here, ought not to exercise any such authority, but that they
themselves should be subject to secular authorities, as the whole
article shows, both in the preceding and in the following words.
In another article they say, that they are truly poor in spirit, and,
for righteousness and faith’s sake do not exercise authority, but
suffer persecution. _Bapt. Hist., page 617_, in the fourth error of
their first article, as the Romanists call it.
THE VIEWS OF THE ANCIENT WALDENSES AGAINST WAR.
Their departure from Lyons, their wandering about in foreign countries
and cities, their innocent and patient suffering, their steadfastness
unto death, and all this without any resistance, retaliation, or
self-defense, sufficiently indicated the faith they had, and by what
spirit they were actuated. But in order to treat this subject in a
proper manner, we will here add what they, as regards this matter,
believed and, themselves or in the name of others, indicated.
In an old book of parchment, supposed to have been written three
hundred years ago, by a certain priest called Reinerius, various
matters are alleged as charges against the Waldenses, which he, in
a certain place, comprises in three articles, each of which he then
divides into sections. In the tenth section he says, “That the Pope
and all the Bishops are murderers, because of the war that they carry
on.” _Bapt. Hist., page 617. B. Lydius, 3. Tract of the Faith of the
Waldenses, page 85, col. 1, Art. 10._
This he gives as an article of the faith of the Waldenses, calling
it, however, an error or heresy; but how can he, who has not learned
otherwise, speak differently?
Jean Paul Perrin Lionnoys, or his translator, charges the Waldenses
also with the following, which accords well with the preceding:
“Seventhly, (he says) that they (the Waldenses) maintained, that the
Pope commits mortal sin, when he sends forth to make war upon the
Turks; and that they likewise commit mortal sin, who obey him in waging
war against the heretics.” _History of the Waldenses, 1st part, 1st
book, cap. 3, page 6, col. 1._
Who cannot see, that this article of the Waldenses opposes war and
everything that can be called warfare? yea, in such a manner, that it
does not admit of it at all.
For, if one should look for a just cause to wage war, how could he find
one more just, than against the Turks? howbeit, it is unjust against
all men; but we speak by way of comparison. How could one find greater
reason to wage war, than against those whom he considers heretics? for
of such it was customary to say that they were worse than murderers,
seeing murderers kill only the body, but they, it was said, souls.
Nevertheless, the Waldenses reproved the Pope for such action, yea,
declared, that he committed mortal sin thereby; as well as those who
allowed themselves to be used as instruments by the Pope for this
purpose.
What is added by the translator (_lib. 1, part 1, Hist. Wald., cap.
4, page 11_), for explanation, which however, serves much more to
obscuration, we pass by, as unworthy of consideration and which will
fall of its own accord.
Yea, it seems, that the Waldenses not only held that they themselves
might not wage war or kill any one, but that they also denied the
right of secular authorities who wished to be called Christians,
to kill, even if the persons whom they should put to death were
malefactors. Concerning this, we find in _P. J. Twisck’s Chronijk_,
that the “Poor Men,” “Insabbathi,” or “Waldenses,” taught, that no
judge who would be a Christian, might put to death any one, not even a
malefactor. _Chron., page 534, col. 2_l and _page 535, col. 1_, from
_Chron. Seb. Fr., fol. 202_, and _Enca. Sylvio._
Moreover, in the account of Gabriel Prateolus and Guilielmo Reginaldus,
who have noted the accusations regarding the doctrine of the Waldenses,
also this charge is found against them: _Art. 17_. “They (the
Waldenses) teach that no judge may condemn any one to any punishment;
to which end they adduce that it is written: ‘Judge not, that ye be not
judged.’” _A. Mell. 2d book, fol. 434, col. 1, Elench. Haeres. Tit.
Paup. de Lugd. Calvin. Turcismi., lib. 2, cap. 5._
Touching what G. Prateolus and G. Reginaldus add by way of accusation,
we let them answer for it. It suffices us that in this they came very
near the truth; but they went too far in what the Waldenses understood
with regard to capital punishment, namely, that authorities may punish
no one with death; this they applied to every kind of punishment,
as though the Waldenses had censured the authorities for punishing
any one, even a great offender, in any wise; which we are not aware
that the Waldenses ever opposed in any formal article, unless some
particular one among them held such views.
In the mean time it appears, from the last as well as from the
preceding testimonies, how exceedingly fearful these people were in the
matter of punishing any one with death; so that they not only desired
to be clear from it themselves, but also spoke against the same in
the secular authorities. Still more did they reprove open warfare, in
which not only a few, but very many are killed, and this for trifling
reasons. This being true, we will proceed to other points of their
faith, which they had in common with the Baptists.
NOTE.--That the Albigenses also, who were one with the Waldenses,
were defenseless, peaceable, and meek people, living in quiet under
certain papistic authorities, who protected them. See, among others,
_Introduction, page 50, col. 2, and page 51, col. 1, from Baron, in
Annal._
THE VIEWS OF THE ANCIENT WALDENSES AGAINST THE SWEARING OF OATHS.
In regard to this point the Waldenses were of the same opinion with us,
teaching that the fathers of the Old Testament were permitted, when
necessity required it, to swear an oath, in or by the name of the Lord;
but that for Christians it is quite unlawful, according to the teaching
of our Savior, who says: “Ye have heard that it hath been said by them
of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto
the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all.” Matt.
5:33,34.
In the first book of the first part of the History of the Waldenses,
written by Jean Paul Perrin Lionnoys, and translated by _J. M. V.,
chap. 3, page 6, col. 1_, the following point, among others, is adduced
as an accusation against the Waldenses: “The sixth (tenet) which they
(the Waldenses) maintained, was, that men should not swear on any
account.” From _Albert de Capit. and Reiner_. Also, _P. J. Twisck,
Chron., page 534, col. 2, page 535, col. 1_.
How the compiler of these things seeks to explain said matter, we here
pass over, as this is not the proper place to speak of it. But when
necessary, we shall consider it our duty to give an account of it.
Far more pertinent and important, however, is that which is recorded
in _Bapt. Hist., page 624_, where it is stated that in regard to the
swearing of oaths they believed thus: “_Art. 9_. That every oath is a
mortal sin; saying: _Swear not at all; but let your communication be,
Yea, that is yea; Nay, that is nay._” Extracted from an old book of
parchment, ascribed to Reinerius. Also, _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 432,
col. 4_.
In the articles ascribed by G. Prateolus and G. Reginaldus to the
Waldenses, as having constituted their faith, mention is made of
their views in regard to the swearing of oaths, concerning which, the
eighteenth article contains the following: “They (the Waldenses) say
that all manner of swearing is unlawful for Christians, so that it is
nowhere lawful to swear, not even before the judge, when he constrains
one thereto, to testify to the truth.” _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 434,
col. 1. Elench. Haeres. Calv. Turcism., lib. 2, cap. 5._
It is true, Mellinus, after the manner of the Calvinists, of whom
he was a leader, endeavors to explain, as it were, this article of
the Waldenses, as though thereby they did not prohibit all swearing
of oaths, but only frivolous swearing. His words are these: “The
eighteenth article has reference only to unjust and perjurious
swearing, as said author owns, (he means the author who charges them
with those articles) saying: ‘The occasion which led them into this
belief, was the fact that they so often and continually heard the
people swear for trifling reasons, and because thereby one easily falls
into perjury.’”
But hear what he further says, as he adds a jeering comparison, saying,
“That the heretics, who never swear, are like the devil, of whom we do
not read that he ever swore.” _Page 434, col. 3._
I pray thee, beloved reader, see now, by what author Mellinus seeks
to establish his case. It is true, he first quotes this author when
presenting the articles of the Waldenses, and this for the reason that
the latter has presented them in such a manner that they in every part
militate against the Roman church; but now, seeing that said author
has presented the article respecting the swearing of oaths (in which
the Waldenses deny all swearing) in such a way that it militates
against the Calvinistic church, he begins, in order to make the matter
doubtful, and to deprive the Waldenses of the article relative to
non-swearing, to quote from said author again, and this, in mocking and
impious language.
But, becoming more discreet, he commences to extol that which is
expressed in the eighteenth article, relative to the swearing of the
Waldenses, above the manner of the papists, saying: “But they (the
Waldenses) who have learned from Christ, ‘Let your communication be,
Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil’
(Matt. 5:37), will judge, that the papists, among whom the practice of
daily swearing so frivolously is in vogue, are more like that Evil One,
that is, the devil, than the Waldenses, who guarding against lying and
swearing, and in their daily conversation, are wont to say only, Yea,
yea; Nay, nay; as this same writer acknowledges in regard to them. They
guard against back-biting, foul words, lying, and swearing, and, as
another inquisitor has said: They are prudent in their words, avoid all
lying and swearing; also, they teach to avoid all lying, back-biting,
and swearing.” _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 434, col. 3_, from _Frehed.
Hist. Bohem., page 232_.
With these and like passages from the preceding authors, Mellinus has
sought to embellish the Waldenses, to indicate, that they were pious,
upright and moral people; but in the mean time he forgot himself,
not once thinking that thereby he abundantly establishes that which
in other places he endeavors to refute, namely, _that the Waldenses
rejected all swearing of oaths_.
Here we see how excellent truth is, that it cannot remain hid, but
is brought to light even by its opponents, either unintentionally or
otherwise. I should here leave this subject, but as Mellinus has helped
me on the way to show him his perverted zeal, I find it necessary to
enter more deeply into the matter. This good, but perversely zealous
man, having put all his arguments aside, plainly relates, from an old
papistic work of three hundred years ago, that the Waldenses believed
all oaths to be mortal sins; yea, that they considered him who would
compel another to swear, worse than a murderer. _A. Mell. 2d book, fol.
432, col. 4_, from _Illyrie. Catal., lib. 15, Tit. Waldens._ See also,
_Conferedit. Freher. in Hist. Bohem. and Gretser. Sweluc. Tudens._
Of such and similar passages the writers who present the views of the
Waldenses, are full to overflowing, so that it is as clear as the sun,
that these people rejected the swearing of oaths and everything that
resembles it, even to the saying of the word, _Verily_, or _Certainly_,
etc.; of which the aforesaid writer also makes mention, saying: “They
(the Waldenses) do not say to one another, _Verily, Certainly, or the
like_.”[156] _Fol. 432, col. 4._
[156] P. J. Twisck, in his Chronijk, shows expressly that the
Waldenses would not swear, etc. _Book 14, page 743, col. 2. from
Henr. Boh., fol. 27._
All this was done from fear of swearing in any wise, because the Lord
had so expressly said, “_Swear not at all._” Matt. 5:34; hence, they
avoided all manners which bore any resemblance to the swearing of oaths.
But, lest any should think that the Albigenses, who were one people
with the Waldenses (though others distinguish between them), differed
from them in their views, belief, and practice as regards this point,
let him read what is noted in the _Martyrs Mirror, edition of 1631,
page 51, col. 2_; where it is stated, from _Baronius, for A. D.
1178, num. 3, 4_: “That many of the Albigenses, from fear of severe
punishment, feigned return to the Roman church; but when an oath was
demanded of them, they refused to swear; hence they were pronounced
heretics and solemnly, with burning tapers, excommunicated, with an
injunction to all Catholics, to shun them; and to all (Romanistic)
princes, to expel them from their dominions.
OF THE VIEWS OF THE WALDENSES AGAINST NEARLY ALL ARTICLES OF THE ROMAN
CHURCH.
Reinerius, who has written against the Waldenses, gives the following
testimony respecting them, as the Jesuits confess in their own print.