Their Views In Regard To The Oath.

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.

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, 312 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.