Their Views In Regard To The Oath.

As regards the oath, the papists charged them with holding that perjury 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.

311

“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.

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.

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.