is no sin. “But,” says A. Mellinus, “let us examine these false
articles a little more closely.” Coming to the article of the oath,
he speaks as follows, in order to demonstrate the falsity of this
accusation: “How should they have considered perjury no sin, when the
papists themselves (in the _History of the Waldenses_) declare of them,
that they were so loth to swear an oath, desiring that they should be
believed on their yea and nay, in order to avoid all lying, slandering,
perjury, and frivolous swearing?” Thus far. _Mellinus_, in the _2d
book_ of the _Hist., fol. 479, col. 1, 2_.
Hence, these people sought to avoid not only false oaths, but all
manner of swearing, desiring on this account, to be believed on their
yea and nay, in accordance with the teaching of Christ: “Let your
communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these
cometh of evil.” Matt. 5:37.
_The same year as above, A. D. 1315._--At this time, Pope John XXII.,
issued a papal decree against some apostate (?) Minorites, in which he
accuses them of the following points:
“Firstly, that they asserted, that there were two churches; the one,
carnal, abounding in the riches, luxuries and lusts of this world,
polluted with all manner of sin and shame, and governed by the Pope of
Rome and the prelates. The other, spiritual, temperate, pure, virtuous,
honorable, and poor; to which latter they and their adherents alone
belong.
“Secondly, that they declared the priests of the church, and all her
ministers, divested of the jurisdiction and authority of their order,
so that they could give neither sentence nor advice, nor administer the
sacraments, nor teach the church under them; thus depriving them of all
their ecclesiastical power, and that, on the other hand, they boasted
that all ecclesiastical authority rested with them alone, since they
ascribed the holiness of the spiritual life only to themselves.
“Their third error,” as the Pope says, “agrees with the error of the
Waldenses; since they both maintain that men ought in no case to swear,
teaching that it is a sin unto death to swear an oath.”
The fourth supposed error, the Pope acknowledges, likewise to proceed
from the Waldenses: “That the priests who are confirmed or ordained
legally, according to the form or order of the church (as he calls it),
if they are laden with any crimes or sins unto death, cannot prepare,
nor administer, the sacraments of the church.”
The fifth error, as the Pope says, was, that they said that the
gospel of Christ, which hitherto had been covered, nay, almost
entirely extinguished, was, at this time, fulfilled in them alone. In
explanation of this article, the Pope adds that they said that they
ascribed the promise of our Lord, concerning the sending the Holy
Ghost, to themselves in such a manner as to exclude the general (the
Roman) church from the general apprehension and observance of the holy
Gospel.
“But see,” says A. Mellinus, who has recorded this, “how the Pope
perverts the meaning of these people; for they never denied that the
Holy Ghost, according to Christ’s promise, was poured out richly upon
the apostles; but they denied that the Popes of Rome, who called
themselves apostolic, and successors of the apostles, had part or lot
in the sending of the Holy Ghost.” Second book of the _Hist., fol. 480,
col. 1, 2_.
Besides these five articles, the Pope imputed additional errors to
these pious people, though he did not mention them all. Hence, it
appears that they concurred for the most part with the belief of the
Waldenses; and that their belief was opposed, not only to the swearing
of oaths, but also to infant baptism, revenge, the sacrament of the
altar, the mass, and other superstitions of popery, has already been
more than sufficiently shown.
_A. D. 1319._--At this time, Pope John XXII., through his inquisitors,
raged mightily against the Waldenses, who made the above-cited
confession, which corresponds with that of the Anabaptists. Of their
sufferings and end we shall speak afterwards, in the proper place.
Concerning this, see _Bzov. Annal., A. D. 1319, art. 10, ex M. S. Bibl.
Vaticane_. Also _A. Mell., fol. 480, col. 3_.
_A. D. 1330._--At this day said Waldenses were greatly oppressed by the
inquisitors, in the Kingdoms of Bohemia and Poland (see the large _Book
of Christian Martyrs, fol. 483, col. 1_); which is a proof that the
defenders of the above confession existed then not only in France, but
also in Bohemia and Poland. Yea, Matthias Flaccius Illyricus professes
to have the inquisitorial books of the proceedings held at that time by
the inquisitors, in Bohemia and Poland, under King John, against the
Waldenses. _Catalog. Test. Verit., l. 16, art.: The Waldenses._
NOTE.--In Jacob Mehrning’s _History of Baptism_ we read, p. 609: “I
have in my possession the inquisition which, A. D. 1330, in the time of
King John, was held, in Bohemia and Poland, against the Waldenses.”
_A. D. 1365._--The author of the books of the Persecutions and Martyrs,
records the following for the year 1365: “As there were everywhere
throughout France innumerable Beghards and Beguines (in the second
book, page 479, at the foot of the fourth column, he calls them
Waldenses), who scattered their heresy, as the papists called it,
far and wide, Pope Urban VI., A. D. 1365, charged all the prelates
of France, and the inquisitors of the faith in that country, by an
express bull, that they should not suffer the heretics to live with
impunity, but should exterminate the erring spirits (thus the Pope
calls the true believers), together with their errors, with the sickle
of ecclesiastical discipline. Second book of the _History of the
Persecutions, fol. 488, col. 1_, from _Bzov., A. D. 1365, Art. 8_.
_A. D. 1370._--“At this time,” writes Jacob Mehrning and others, “John
Wickliffe, a teacher in England, and pastor at Lutterworth in the
bishopric of Lincoln, taught, among other things, that baptism is not
necessary to the forgiveness of original sin; thereby sufficiently
opposing, or, as H. Montanus says, rejecting, infant baptism, which
is founded upon the forgiveness of original sin. On this account,
forty-one years after his death, his bones, by order of the Pope, were
exhumed, burnt, and the ashes thrown into the water.” _J. Mehrn., B.
Hist, pp. 737, 738, H. Mont. Nietigh., p. 87._ Also _Thom. Waldens.,
Tom. 2, c. 96. Bellarm., Tom. 3, lib. 1, de Sacr. Bapt., cap. 4,
Vicecom. de Observat. Eccles., lib. 2, cap. 1_.
NOTE.--_Further explanation._--That the above words of John Wickliffe
are to be understood in no other way than as having reference to
the rejection of infant baptism, and not of baptism upon faith,
is confirmed by the fourth article, extracted from Wickliffe’s
_Trialogue_, by William Widefort, a Minorite, and quoted by A.
Mellinus. It reads as follows: “Those who say,” says John Wickliffe,
“that the children of believers, which die without baptism, are not
saved, are much too presumptuous and bold.” _A. Mell., 2d book, fol.
494, col. 3._
Moreover, that John Wickliffe opposed not only infant baptism, but also
oaths sworn to men, is testified to in the forty-second article of
his confession, delivered in the council of Constance, and condemned
there. It reads thus: “Oaths sworn in civil contracts and commercial
transactions are unlawful.[182] _Colon. apud Orthun. Grat. A. Mell., 2d
book, fol. 496, col. 1._
[182] Hence, when Wickliffe rejects the swearing of oaths in civil or
human contracts, he rejects all swearing of all oaths that have ever
been in question; for not the promises which are made to God, but the
oaths that are sworn to men, have been from ancient times, and are
still, the matter in question.
This article relative to the swearing of oaths, from the confession of
John Wickliffe, is stated by some as follows: “An oath sworn for the
purpose of confirming human contracts and proper transactions, is not
appropriate.” _Seb. Franck, Chron., der Rom. Kett., fol. 105, col. 1,
letter J., John._ Also _P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 720, col. 1, 2. Tract.
Kort Verhael van den Loop der Werelt, by F. H. H., p. 99_.
P. J. Twisck and others write that John Wickliffe, having fled from
England to Bohemia, propagated his doctrine there jointly with the
Waldenses, who, for the most part, agreed with it.
Wickliffe also taught that the substance and essence of the bread and
wine remain in the sacrament of the altar after the consecration.
That Christ is not bodily in the sacrament. That the mass is not
instituted by Christ, but is the devil’s obedience and word. That
confirmation, fasts, consecrations of priests, the baptizing of
temples, and bells, are retained by the Pope and the bishops only from
the desire for gain.
That universities, studies, doctorates, colleges, grades, and
masterships, are things which we have inherited from the heathen, and
are altogether of as much use to the church as the devil. An improper
oath is, etc.
Merula and others state that Wickliffe wrote full two hundred books,
and diligently instructed, and turned from popery, John Huss (see A.
D. 1415 and 1416), when the latter was still young, together with many
others. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 720, col. 1, 2_, from _Leonh., lib.
6. Hist. Andr. Junii,_ _fol. 45. Jan. Crespin., fol. 354. Guil.
Merula, fol. 886. Toneel. Niclaes, fol. 119. Zegh., fol. 119._
NOTE.--That John Huss (though the Calvinists would like to claim him,
as well as John Wickliffe), was opposed to the swearing of oaths, and
had other articles in common with the Waldensian Anabaptist brethren,
and that he learned this from John Wickliffe, and Wickliffe from said
Waldensian brethren, we hope to make clear in its proper place.
As to the article which Wickliffe was said to have taught, namely, that
everything happens by an absolute or unavoidable necessity, on this D.
A. Mellinus, a Calvinistic preacher, remarks: “We suspect that this has
been unjustly put on Wickliffe, by the malicious enemies of the truth”
(_2d book, fol. 495, col. 4_). Afterwards, explaining it still further,
he says that “This is a wanton slander and devilish lie, fabricated
from nothing, and cast into the face of innocent John Wickliffe.” _Fol.
496, col. 1._
Thus it is evident, that John Wickliffe, even according to the
testimony of the Calvinists, did not maintain the article of precise
predestination, as some before him, though wrongly, have believed.
NOTE.--If John Wickliffe did not hold the article of predestination
or unavoidable necessity, as one of the Calvinistic teachers here
asserts and holds as truth, what, then, did he retain, in the matter of
his belief, that accords only with the Calvinistic church? Certainly
nothing.
_A. D. 1372._--John Tylius, in his _Chronicle of the Kings of France_,
writes, for the year 1372, concerning certain people whom he terms
Turilupins, and, in papistic manner, very contemptuously calls a
superstition, as follows: “The superstition of the Turilupins (a kind
of Waldenses), who took their surname from the poverty common to
them all, were this year condemned as heretics, together with their
writings, books and clothes.” _J. Tyl., Chron., Reg. Gall. A. Mell.,
fol. 497, col. 3._ Of their faith we shall presently speak.
_A. D. 1373._--Vignierus writes concerning these people called
Turilupins, and their doctrine, that they were pronounced heretics at
Paris, by the inquisitors, and their books publicly burnt, together
with one of their women. _Hist. Eccles., A. D. 1373, ex Guil. de
Nangis. A. Mell., same place._ More anon.
NOTE.--A fuller account of the death of this woman will be given in its
proper place, in the history of the martyrs.
OF THE UPRIGHTNESS OF THESE PEOPLE.
The author of the second book of the _Persecutions_, relating how these
people, called Turilupins, were accused by some papistic writers, of
not living honestly, replies in their stead, saying: “But these poor
people are lamentably slandered; for they were upright Waldenses, to
whom the papists imputed whatever they would.” _Fol. 497, col. 3._
OF THE NAME OF THESE PEOPLE.
As regards their name, Joachine Caudarius states that they obtained the
name of Turilupins, in Flanders, Artois, and Hainault, because they
lived in wildernesses, among the wolves. In _lugibri Narrat. de excidio
Wald. Alb., A. M., same place_.
OF THE BELIEF OF THESE PEOPLE.
It may be observed here, that if these Turilupins were true Waldenses,
as has been declared, they rejected infant baptism, the swearing
of oaths, revenge towards enemies, the mass, and all other Roman
inventions, as appears from their own confession shown above.
NOTE.--Henry de Haffra, at Vienna, A. D. 1376, wrote on Genesis, and
greatly reproved the lies of the Romish legends, and about the merits
of the saints. In a letter he also censured the clergy and their head,
the Pope, for many errors. _Joh. Munst., fol. 174_, compared with the
_Chronicle of the Destruction of the Tyrants, p. 724, col. 1_.
Also: A. D. 1380, Michael Cesenas, formerly a Minorite friar, or monk,
wrote against the Pope, calling him (from 2 Thess. 2,) antichrist, and
the Roman church, Babylon, and the congregation of those drunk with
the blood of the saints. The Pope deposed him from his dignity; but
he adhered steadfastly to his opinion. _Joh. Munst., fol. 171. Catal.
Test., fol. 691_, compared with _P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 731_.
Also: In the same year Nicholas Clemongis opposed the superstitious
feast-days, excessive eating and drinking, (evil) speaking, and other
improper things. See the last-mentioned chronicle, _p. 732_, from _Joh.
Munst., fol. 170_.
Also: About A. D. 1382, M. Matthaeus Parisiensis, a Bohemian, appeared,
and wrote a large book concerning antichrist, (the Pope), saying that
he had already come, and could be found in Rome. Thus did also Lupoldus
de Bedenborgh. Compare _P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 734, col. 1_, with
_Catal. Test., fol. 794, 796. Merula, fol. 890_.
Also: A. D. 1384, John Muntziger, Rector of the school at Olm, read in
his oration, that the supposed body of Christ should not be made God,
and, hence, should not be worshiped as God. See the last-mentioned
author, _fol. 736, col. 1_, compared with _Hist. Joh. Munst., fol. 171_.
_A. D. 1390._--Or about that time, mention is made of the Waldenses
in the countries lying on the Baltic Sea; concerning whom Matthias
Flaccius Illyricus states that he has an entire inquisitorial book,
full of the proceedings held against the godly Waldenses who lived in
those countries.
Said Illyricus also had among his writings, another brief inquisition
or investigation against the Waldenses; such as formerly was practiced
against them in the bishopric of Mayence. He moreover says that he has
still another, large book, full of proceedings held by the inquisitors
against the Waldenses; in which 443 Waldenses are mentioned by name,
who, about A. D. 1391, in Pomerania, the Mark, and the adjacent
places, were put on the rack and examined on the articles once
confessed by the Waldenses. Many of these martyrs or confessors freely
testified and confessed that they had been, one twenty, another thirty
years, among this sect. Also, that their forefathers held the same
doctrine. _Matth. Flacc. Ill. Catal. Test. Verit., lib. 18. Lib. 15,
Title, De Waldensibus._
NOTE.--From this it appears, writes a certain author, that the Saxon
countries were full of Waldenses, that is, orthodox Christians, already
two hundred years, and more, before the time of Huss. For it can easily
be computed, that when the 443 Waldenses were examined at once, there
must have been an incomparably greater number who were not examined in
regard to their faith, but concealed themselves, or took to flight, in
order to escape the danger. And, truly, those who are noticed in the
book, as having been examined, frequently mentioned very many others of
their belief, who were not present.
Among other points relating to their trials, recorded in this
inquisitional book, were these: “That they were sober and frugal
people, discreet in their speech, careful to avoid lying, swearing,
etc.” _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 505, col. 3, 4._ Also, _P. J. Twisck,
Chron., p. 743, col. 2_, from _Henr. Boxhorn, fol. 27_. In the margin
of the same page, Twisck says: “The Wandenses (or Waldenses) will not
swear.”
NOTE.--A. D. 1390, the Lord raised up Richard Withe, who wrote many
glorious things against the Pope, or the blasphemy of the so-called
antichrist. _Bal. Cent., lib. 7, cap. 10_, compared with _Chron. van
den Ondergang, page 734, col. 1, 2_.
_A. D. 1392._--On the 13th of January of this year, Walter Brute, a
layman, but nevertheless a learned man, from the bishopric of Hereford,
appearing personally before Lord John, Bishop of Hereford, maintained,
among several other articles militating against the Roman church, this
point: “That Christians are not permitted, for any reason, in any case,
to swear, either by the Creator or by his creatures.” _A. Mell., 2d
book, fol. 506, col. 3._
NOTICE.--THE BELIEF OF WILLIAM SWINDERBY COMPARED WITH THAT OF WALTER
BRUTE.
Since Walter Brute is called (_Fol. 505, col. 4_,) a defender of the
articles of William Swinderby, who was afterwards burnt for the faith,
in Smithfield, London, it is quite evident, that William Swinderby
must have held the same belief, which, as well as many other articles,
they both had in common with the Waldenses. Besides, this article of
non-swearing, together with the other two related in this connection,
is unmistakably called William Swinderby’s article (_Fol. 506, col.
3_), so that both of them, speaking as with one tongue, are also
together charged here, with having prohibited all manner of oaths.
THAT, BESIDES THE ARTICLE RESPECTING THE OATH, HE ALSO MADE A GOOD
CONFESSION IN REGARD TO HOLY BAPTISM.
It appears, moreover, from the confession of faith of Walter Brute,
that also infant baptism was not recognized by him; for he speaks in
the following manner concerning the burial of Christ: “He (Christ) was
buried, that we all by baptism, might be buried together with him into
his death; in order that having died unto sin (notice, this is no work
for infants), we should live unto righteousness.[183] _A. M._, from
_Fox Angl., p. 440._
[183] This article has direct reference to the words which Paul wrote
to the believing Romans: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Rom. 6:3.
OF A CERTAIN ANCIENT CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE WALDESIAN BRETHREN.
Jacob Mehnring, writing on the fourteenth century, touching baptism,
says: “I have had in my hands a very old confession of some Waldesian
brethren in Bohemia, printed in the German language, in which they
expressly confess that in the beginning of Christianity no infants
were baptized; and that also their forefathers did not do it,” as
John Bohemius writes. _Lib. 2, Gentium Moribus_: “In former times
baptism was wont to be administered only to those who were previously
instructed in the faith, and examined seven times in the week before
Easter and Whitsuntide; these were then baptized upon the confession
of their faith; but when baptism was afterwards deemed necessary to
salvation, it was also ordained, by the papists, that newborn infants
should be baptized, and that sponsors should be assigned them, who
confessed the faith, and renounced the devil, in their stead.” _Bapt.
Hist., p. 738._
_About A. D. 1400._--D. J. Vicecomes cites from this century (from
Nicephorus Callistus), _lib. 1, cap. 23_, that in Thessalia, baptism
was administered only on Whitsuntide;[184] on which account many died
without baptism.
[184] Others say, on Easter.
“Thus,” remarks Jacob Mehrning on this, “we are informed, that even at
this day there are brethren and Christians in Thessalonica, who agree
with the Mennists in all articles of religion.” These are J. Mehrning’s
own words (page 739), of which we shall speak more fully hereafter.
OF CHARLES, BISHOP OF MILAN.
_Bapt. Hist., p. 740, D. Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 45_, writes: “Charles,
bishop of Milan, admonished the teachers, diligently to expound to
their hearers the mystery of holy baptism, and to earnestly exhort them
to a Christian walk, in order that the confession of the Christian name
(upon which baptism was wont to be administered), might well become
them.”
What else does this indicate, than that the teachers should exhort
their hearers to the baptism, which ought to be administered upon
confession of faith, and, consequently, not in infancy?
Galvaneus, in the History of Milan, (_B. H., page 741, D. Vicecomes,
lib. 1, cap. 4_), writes: “St. Barnabas, when he first preached the
Gospel at Milan, baptized in running water.”
This manner and these circumstances plainly indicate, as stated
elsewhere, that infant baptism was then not practiced at that place.
NOTE.--For the year 1394, mention is made of a number of people in
Bohemia, who sided with the Anabaptists. _Seb. Fr. Chron. der Rom.
Kett., p. 121, col. 2, letter P., Picardy._
_A. D. 1400._--It appears that when the last year of this century had
come, various persons opposed popery, not only with regard to baptism,
but also to many other articles; of which, among other things, mention
is made in the fourteenth book of the _Ondergang der Tyrannen, p.
749, col. 1, 2, 3_; where we have this declaration: “The Pope has no
absolute power or judgment, so that he cannot err; so all, even the
papists, have taught for about fourteen hundred years. The ancient
fathers, the Greek as well as the Latin, regarded Pope Honorius I. as a
Monothelitic[185] heretic. Likewise, the sixth synod, in which he was
condemned as a heretic, and his letters burned. From _Perkins, fol.
421_.
[185] Others say, a Monocholite.
NOTE.--If this condemning of the Pope as a heretic, as also the burning
of his letters, was done from envy, or bitterness, we would by no means
defend, much less praise, but far rather condemn it. But since, as
the matter appears to us, it was done from a good intention and godly
zeal, we find nothing censurable in it. For the word _condemn_ does not
always signify eternal damnation, as the Holy Scripture uses it,[186]
but it is also understood as meaning, to sentence or pronounce guilty.
Thus, also, the name heretic, when rightly considered, signifies only a
schismatic, headstrong person, who follows his own opinion, instead of
the Holy Scripture. Now, that the Pope of Rome was such a person, will
not soon be contradicted by those who give due honor to God, and allow
themselves to be governed by reason. The burning of his letters we
regard as having been done from carefulness, lest any might be seduced
or brought into error by them. This will satisfy the well-disposed,
who, imitating the bee, will extract honey, instead of gall, from it.
[186] To an English reader this explanation will seem not only
superfluous, but, perhaps, even obscure and contradictory. Let him be
reminded that the work originally was written in the Dutch language,
in which such explanation of the word in question (_verdoemen_) is
entirely in place. _Transl._
SAME YEAR AS ABOVE, A. D. 1400.
The universities of Prague, in Bohemia, Oxford, in England, and Paris,
in France, wrote against the apostasy of the Roman church, and demanded
a reformation, saying that the scandalous life of the Pope and the
cardinals could not be tolerated; that the popes and cardinals were
liable to err, and had frequently erred; and that the blessed Son of
God, though having suffered much from the synagogue of the Jews, had
to suffer much more from the princes of the papal synagogue. Concerning
similar censures, read the books of Ulric of Hutten, the Frankish
knight, printed A. D. 1520.
SAME YEAR AS ABOVE, A. D. 1400.
John Tauler, a German divine, said, at this time, in his book of
sermons: “Our prelates (he means the rulers of the Roman church), are
blind, and leaders of the blind; and it is to be feared that they both
together will be condemned.”