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 show that this accusation is false: "How could they have held perjury to be no sin, when the papists themselves (in the History of the Waldenses) say of them that they were so unwilling to swear an oath, and asked to be believed on their yes and no, in order to avoid all lying, slandering, perjury, and frivolous swearing?" Thus far Mellinus, in the second book of the History, folio 479, columns 1 and 2.

So these people sought to avoid not only false oaths, but every kind of swearing, asking on this account to be believed on their yes and no, according to the teaching of Christ "Let your communication be, Yes, yes; No, no; for whatever is more than these comes of evil" (Matthew 5, verse 37).

The same year as above, in the year 1315. At this time Pope John the Twenty-second issued a papal decree against certain apostate (?) Minorites, in which he accuses them of the following points

"First, that they asserted that there were two churches: the one carnal, abounding in the riches, luxuries and lusts of this world, polluted with every kind of sin and shame, and governed by the pope of Rome and the prelates. The other spiritual, temperate, pure, virtuous, honorable, and poor; and to this second church they and their followers alone belong.

"Second, that they declared the priests of the church, and all her ministers, stripped of the jurisdiction and authority of their order, so that they could give neither sentence nor counsel, 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; for they both hold that people ought in no case to swear, teaching that it is a sin leading to death to swear an oath."

The fourth supposed error the pope likewise acknowledges to come from the Waldenses: "That the priests who are confirmed or ordained lawfully, according to the form or order of the church (as he calls it), if they are burdened with any crimes or sins leading to death, cannot prepare or administer the sacraments of the church."

The fifth error, as the pope says, was that they said the Gospel of Christ, which until then had been covered over, indeed almost entirely put out, was at this time fulfilled in them alone. In explanation of this article the pope adds that they said that they applied the promise of our Lord concerning the sending of the Holy Ghost to themselves in such a way as to shut the general (the Roman) church out from the common understanding 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 History, folio 480, columns 1 and 2.

Besides these five articles, the pope charged these pious people with further errors, though he did not mention them all. So it appears that they agreed for the most part with the belief of the Waldenses; and it has already been shown more than sufficiently 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.

In the year 1319. At this time Pope John the Twenty-second, through his inquisitors, raged mightily against the Waldenses, who made the confession cited above, which agrees with that of the Anabaptists. Of their sufferings and their end we shall speak later, in the proper place. On this, see Bzov. Annal., in the year 1319, article 10, from the manuscript in the Vatican Library. Also A. Mellinus, folio 480, column 3. [n461-2]

In the year 1330. At this time the said Waldenses were greatly oppressed by the inquisitors in the kingdoms of Bohemia and Poland (see the large Book of Christian Martyrs, folio 483, column 1); which proves that those who held the confession given above were then found not only in France, but also in Bohemia and Poland. Indeed, Matthias Flaccius Illyricus claims to have the inquisitors' books of the proceedings held at that time in Bohemia and Poland, under King John, against the Waldenses. Catalog. Test. Verit., book 16, article: The Waldenses. [n461-3]

NOTE. In Jacob Mehrning's History of Baptism we read, page 609: "I have in my possession the inquisition which was held in the year 1330, in the time of King John, in Bohemia and Poland, against the Waldenses."

In the year 1365. The author of the books of the Persecutions and Martyrs records the following for the year 1365: "Since there were everywhere throughout France countless Beghards and Beguines (in the second book, page 479, at the foot of the fourth column, he calls them Waldenses), who spread their heresy, as the papists called it, far and wide, Pope Urban the Sixth, in the year 1365, charged all the prelates of France, and the inquisitors of the faith in that country, by an express bull, that they should not let the heretics live unpunished, but should root out the erring spirits (this is what the pope calls the true believers), together with their errors, with the sickle of ecclesiastical discipline." Second book of the History of the Persecutions, folio 488, column 1, from Bzov., in the year 1365, article 8.

In the year 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; in this way plainly opposing, or, as H. Montanus says, rejecting, infant baptism, which is founded upon the forgiveness of original sin. For this reason, forty-one years after his death, his bones were dug up by order of the pope and burned, and the ashes thrown into the water." J. Mehrning, B. Hist., pages 737, 738. H. Mont., Nietigh., page 87. Also Thom. Waldens., volume 2, chapter 96. Bellarm., volume 3, book 1, de Sacr. Bapt., chapter 4; hicecom., de Observat. Eccles., book 2, chapter 1. [n461-4]

NOTE. Further explanation. That the words of John Wickliffe given above are to be understood in no other way than as referring to the rejection of infant baptism, and not of baptism upon faith, is confirmed by the fourth article, taken 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 who die without baptism are not saved, are much too presumptuous and bold." A. Mellinus, second book, folio 494, column 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 as follows: "Oaths sworn in civil contracts and commercial transactions are unlawful." Colon. apud Orthun. Grat. A. Mellinus, second book, folio 496, column 1.

This article about the swearing of oaths, from the confession of John Wickliffe, is given 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., folio 105, column 1, letter J., John. Also P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 720, columns 1 and 2. Tract. Kort Verhael van den Loop der Werelt, by F. H. H., page 99. [n461-5]

P. J. Twisck and others write that John Wickliffe, having fled from England to Bohemia, spread his doctrine there together 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 was 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 kept up by the pope and the bishops only out of 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, and so on. [n461-1]

Merula and others state that Wickliffe wrote a full two hundred books, and that he diligently instructed John Huss (see the years 1415 and 1416), and turned him from popery, while Huss was still young, together with many others. P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 720, columns 1 and 2, from Leonh., book 6. Hist. Andr. Junii, folio 45. Jan. Crespin, folio 354. Guil. Merula, folio 886. Toneel. Niclaes, folio 119. Zegh., folio 119. [n461-6]

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 held other articles in common with the Waldensian Anabaptist brothers, and that he learned this from John Wickliffe, and Wickliffe from the said Waldensian brothers, 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 laid upon Wickliffe by the malicious enemies of the truth" (second book, folio 495, column 4). Afterwards, explaining it still further, he says that "This is a wanton slander and devilish lie, made up out of nothing, and cast into the face of innocent John Wickliffe." Folio 496, column 1.

So it is clear that John Wickliffe, even by the testimony of the Calvinists, did not hold the article of precise predestination, as some before him have believed, though wrongly.

NOTE. If John Wickliffe did not hold the article of predestination or unavoidable necessity, as one of the Calvinistic teachers here asserts and holds for truth, what, then, did he keep in his belief that agrees only with the Calvinistic church? Certainly nothing.

In the year 1372. John Tylius, in his Chronicle of the Kings of France, writes for the year 1372 about certain people whom he calls Turilupins, and whom, in papist fashion, he 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. Mellinus, folio 497, column 3. Of their faith we shall speak presently.

In the year 1373. Vignierus writes about these people called Turilupins, and their doctrine, that they were pronounced heretics at Paris by the inquisitors, and their books publicly burned, together with one of their women. Hist. Eccles., in the year 1373, from Guil. de Nangis. A. Mellinus, same place. More of this shortly.

NOTE. A fuller account of the death of this woman will be given in its proper place, in the history of the martyrs.