Chapter LIV: Conclusion: Of the Matters Here Related (28)

NOTE.--About this time (A. D. 1303) Peter Johannis taught that the Pope was the antichrist, and the Roman synagogue the great Babylon. About his martyrdom, however, we have not been able to learn anything. See _P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 643, col. 2_, from _Georg. Pac., cap. 11_.

DULCINUS AND HIS WIFE MARGARET, TORN LIMB FROM LIMB; AND, WITH THEM, AN HUNDRED AND FORTY OTHERS BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT NOVARIA, IN LOMBARDY, A. D. 1308.

About the year 1305, the light of the evangelical doctrine began to arise with power also on the mountains of Lombardy, called the Alps, through a pious man, called Dulcinus of Novaria, and his wife, who, having accepted the orthodox faith of the Waldensian brethren, excelled most gloriously in doctrine and life, so that Dulcinus by his doctrine, and his wife by her good example, and both by their living and effective faith, opened the eyes of several others, and caused them to separate from popery, and follow Jesus Christ, in true penitence and uprightness of life, which they did in full earnestness for the love of Jesus Christ and the salvation of their souls.

But even as it was in the time of John the Baptist, that many unregenerated Pharisees and Sadducees came to his baptism, so it seems also to have been here; for it appears that some who seemed to adhere to his doctrine, lived at the same time in anger, revenge, and after the flesh; which, as may be presumed, grieved this good man and his wife, as also the church which he had founded, and which desired piously to adhere to the doctrine of Christ, very greatly.

In the meantime, about the year 1307, Pope Clement V., receiving information thereof, condemned said pious man Dulcinus and his wife Margaret as arch-heretics, and commanded them, as well as their adherents, to be exterminated. To accomplish this, many Romanists, who had marked themselves with the sign of the cross, lent their services; who charged the misdeeds of the hypocrites also upon the pious, and thus endeavored to extirpate them both together; the pious, however, with far more severe and intolerable torments, than the hypocrites.

Thus it happened that this pious man Dulcinus and his wife, refusing to depart from the faith, were torn limb from limb by them, burnt to ashes, and the ashes scattered to the winds. The principal members of the church, one hundred and forty in number, loving Jesus Christ, whom they had confessed, more than this temporal life, were all, as they steadfastly adhered to the accepted truth burnt alive, and thus, having commended their souls to God, offered up a living sacrifice acceptable unto God, about the year 1308.

NOTE.--These were the people of whom Leonhard Krentzheim has written in his _Chronicle_, as already noted, saying: “Dulcinus and Margaret founded a new sect or heresy (thus speak the papists) alike in every respect to the Anabaptists, which continued until, etc.”

Touching their martyrdom, A. Mellinus writes, from some ancient books of history, that they were first torn limb from limb, and then, as we stated above, burnt to ashes. This martyrdom, the papistic historians themselves confess, not only the men, but also the women, endured very steadfastly unto death, in the city of Novaria, in Lombardy. In the _second book_ of the _Persecutions, fol. 477, col. 4, fol. 478, col. 1_, from _Prat. de Haeres Tit. Dulcin. ex Bernhardo Lutzenburgh_.

FURTHER OBSERVATION--WHAT P. J. TWISCK HAS WRITTEN CONCERNING IT.

“This year,” he writes, “many pious people were cruelly destroyed for their religion, by order of Pope Clement V. Over four hundred persons were killed by hunger, cold, and the sword (of these, however, we do not speak here), and one hundred and forty were burned (these are the ones of whom we speak), the principal teacher of whom, together with his wife, very steadfastly endured death.” _Chron., page 649. A._ from _Henr. Boxh., fol. 26_.

NOTE.--The reader should observe here, that said hundred and forty martyrs, who at Novaria were put to death by fire, are called special followers of the doctrine of Dulcinus, are to be clearly distinguished from a certain other number of about four hundred persons who, having been surrounded on the mountains, by the Pope’s crusade, lost their lives by hunger, cold, and the sword; for not the latter, but the former, are the ones whom we would notice here.

TOUCHING THEIR FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF A. MELLINUS.

Concerning their faith, A. Mellinus says: “From this it can be clearly inferred, that Dulcinus and his wife, and many other martyrs with them, died for the true confession of the doctrine of the Waldenses; because they opposed the Pope of Rome, and the Roman church, maintaining him to be the antichrist, and her the Babylonian whore prophesied of in John’s Revelation.” _Second book, fol. 478, A._

VERY MANY PERSONS BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT CREMA, IN AUSTRIA, A. D. 1315.

A. D. 1315, very many orthodox Christians were sought, found, and burnt as heretics, by the Dominicans, or inquisitors, in the city of Crema, (probably Krems), under the bishopric of Passau, in the archduchy of Austria. In the _second book_ of the _Persecutions, fol. 479, col. 1, ex Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug., A. D. 1315, p. 211, edit. Freheri_.

CONCERNING THESE MARTYRS, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF TRITHEMIUS.

The papist Trithemius says: “There were further, in Austria, in different places, very many burnt alive at this time (namely, A. D. 1315), all of whom unanimously, yet obstinately (we say steadfastly), continued with great joy, unto death. _Trith. in Chron. Hirsaug._, and _Chron. Sponh., same year_.

WHAT P. J. TWISCK HAS WRITTEN CONCERNING THIS.

In Austria, near Passau, a great number of the Waldenses or believers were apprehended for their religion, and publicly burned alive in the city of Crema, adhering steadfastly to their faith, and evincing in the midst of the flames, that the death and pain which they suffered for the honor of God, and the truth, were sweet to them. _Chron., p. 657, col. 1_, from _Henr. Boxh., fol. 27. Phil. Marnix Tafer., fol. 141_.

NOTE.--Immediately after the account of the martyrs, noticed for the year 1315, the same author speaks of their teacher, their great number, and comfortful martyrdom; for, after saying, that to many of them death and pain were sweet, he adds these words: “Which, among others, appeared also in the case of their teacher, called Lolhard, who confessed in his trial, that in the countries of Austria and Bohemia alone he could find eighty thousand persons who were one with him in religion.” _Chron., page 657, col. 2_, taken from the writers cited.

NOTE.--These are the same people whose confession relative to baptism, the swearing of oaths, and other articles, we have shown to accord well with that of the Anabaptists. Concerning this, see our account of the orthodox faith for the fourteenth century, year 1315, and the testimonies adduced there.

MANY PERSONS CALLED WALDENSES MARTYRED AT STEYER, IN AUSTRIA, AND GREAT NUMBERS OF THEM BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT ZUIDENITZ, IN POLAND, A. D. 1315.

Matthias Flaccius Illyricus (_Catal. Test. Verit., lib. 19, Tit. Stier._) declares to have heard from the the lips of Michael Stifelius, that in a certain monastery, in the city of Steyer, situated between Austria and Bavaria, three large books containing the confessions and examinations of very many persons who had departed in belief from the Roman church, were found.

I presume, says Illyricus, they were Waldenses, a great number of whom were formerly scattered not only in Austria and all Germany, but also throughout all the countries of Europe.

“And truly,” says a certain author, “Illyricus is not mistaken in his conjecture.” In the meantime he calls them martyrs, but does not state in what their martyrdom consisted, or with what death they confirmed the power of their faith. See the large Book of _Christian Martyrs, fol. 479, col. 3, 4_.

OF THE ACCOUNT OF ALBERT KRANTZ, CONCERNING THE DEATH OF THESE MARTYRS.

Albert Krantz also writes, in his _History of the Vandals_, of very many such (so-called) heretics, namely, Waldenses, in Poland, in the city of Zuidenitz, concerning whom, he says, according to the manner of the papists, that they disturbed the church there, in consequence of which, having been convicted of heresy against the Roman church, great numbers of them ended their lives in the flames. _Hist. Vand., lib. 8_, near the end. Also, _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 479_.

Their confession, which agrees with that of the Anabaptists has already been explained, which explanation it is not necessary to repeat; hence it is not to be doubted, but is an established fact, that these people were all pious witnesses of Jesus Christ, who for his name’s sake did not spare their lives even unto death.

FOUR PERSONS, CALLED BRETHREN OF THE POOR LIFE, OR WALDENSES, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT MARSEILLES, IN FRANCE, A. D. 1317.

Now when the light of the Gospel began to break forth greatly from the doctrine of the Waldenses, which militated against the papal inventions, this also manifested itself in a monastery, among the Franciscan monks; so that particularly four of the order of the Minorites, their eyes being opened, separated from monachism, and at the same time from the superstitions of popery, desiring thenceforth to follow and serve Jesus Christ, their Savior, not in a simulated, but in true poverty, with, in, or among the cross-bearing church of God, called the Poor Men of Lyons, Brethren of the Poor Life, or Waldenses; who also opposed infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, revenge against enemies, and other articles of the Roman church.

Against this, Pope John XXII. issued a papal decree, directed against the Fratricelli (Little Brethren) or the Brethren of the Poor Life, prohibiting them from holding secret or public assemblies, from electing pastors or teachers over them, and from practicing their worship; because they despised the sacraments of the (Roman) church, and had departed from the Roman Catholic faith; hence they were excommunicated by him, together with all those who in any measure defended or followed them, and therefore delivered to the inquisitors, to be examined concerning their faith. See _Bzov., A. D. 1317, art. 18_.

In the meantime, it appears, the above four persons, refusing to depart from the truth which they had confessed and accepted, were condemned to death as heretics, and, having commended their souls to God, were burnt alive.

In regard to this, the papistic writer Vignier says: “In the same year (A. D. 1317) four Minorite friars were burnt alive on St. Michael’s eve, at Marseilles, in France, because they maintained against the Pope the heresy of poverty.” Also, _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 480_.

NOTE.--As regards their faith, said Pope John XXII., who had first excommunicated them, made, the following year, A. D. 1318, in a certain decree, among other things, this statement: “Their third error coincides with the error of the Waldenses; because they maintained that men ought not to swear on any account, teaching that it is a sin unto death.” _Bzov. Annal., Tom. 14, A. D. 1318, art. 1._

At the close of the fourth article are these words: “So that it appears from this, that these Franciscan monks had apostatized from popery to the doctrine of the Waldenses.” _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 480._

PERSECUTION OF THE BELIEVERS CALLED WALDENSES, BY POPE JOHN XXII., A. D. 1319.

A. D. 1319, Pope John XXII. again began to persecute the Waldenses in France, through his inquisitors, the Jacobine, or Dominican, monks; who, having convicted many of them, as papistic writers say, of their belief (namely, that they were Waldenses), delivered them to the princes and secular authorities for punishment. _Bzov. Annal. A. D. 1319, Art. 10_, from a manuscript in the Vatican library. Also, in the second book of the _Hist. of the Persecutions, fol. 480, col. 3_.

Touching the names of these people, as also the manner of their martyrdom, suffering and death, I have not been able to ascertain anything, except that, professing the belief of the Waldenses (as we have already stated), they were therefore subjected to persecution and suffering.

NOTE.--A. D. 1328. At this time Marsilius de Padua enjoyed distinction; he wrote against the Pope, and also various things against the Roman church, but his work was condemned as heresy, and the reading of it strictly prohibited. _Merul., fol. 870, Georg. Pac. cap. 11_, compared with _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 685, col. 1_.

PERSECUTION UNTO DEATH AGAINST THE BELIEVING WALDENSES, IN BOHEMIA AND POLAND; IN WHICH ALSO ONE ECKHARD WAS BURNT FOR THE SAME FAITH, A. D. 1330.

A. D. 1330, the aforementioned persecution against the Waldensian brethren rose to its highest point in Bohemia and Poland; concerning which the following account is found in ancient histories: “In that year, A. D. 1330, very many of those who adhered to the doctrine of the Waldenses, were persecuted unto death and executed, by the inquisitors, in the kingdoms of Bohemia and Poland. In the large Book of _Christian Martyrs, 2d part, fol. 483_.

TOUCHING SAID PERSECUTION; ALSO ABOUT ECKHARD, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK.

Richard, also called Eckhard, formerly a Dominican monk, was condemned as a heretic, because he fearlessly preached the Gospel, and reproved the abuses of the papists. And in the kingdom of Bohemia and Poland many were put to death for their religion or faith. _Chron., page 685, col. 2_, extracted from _Hist. Adri., fol. 64, Herm. Mod. fol. 271, Henr. Boxh. fol. 27_.

NOTE.--John Aston, a well learned man of Oxford, for teaching that the bread of the holy Supper remained unchanged, was apprehended as a heretic, A. D. 1330, by the archbishop of Canterbury, and died in prison. See the authors referred to above in connection with Eckhard.

Others add here, says Nicholas Vignier, that in said year (A. D. 1330) a certain Jacobine monk, Eckhard by name, whom others, though erroneously, call Richard, was publicly burnt, because he steadfastly maintained said opinions of the Waldenses. _Nich. Vign., Hist. Eccl._, A. D. 1330. Also in the second book of the _Hist. of the Persecutions, fol. 483_.

FURTHER OBSERVATION.

“I am of the opinion,” writes A. Mellinus, “that this Eckhard is the same German (apostatized) Dominican, of whom Trithemius makes mention in his Register of Ecclesiastical Writers, stating that he was a very learned man, and wonderfully experienced in the word of God. _A. Mell._, from _Trithem. De Script. Eccles., fol. 483_.

NOTE.--A. D. 1336, on the 23d of June, John de Pistoia was publicly burnt at Venice, because he maintained the supposed heresy of the evangelical poverty. _Chron. van den Ondergang, page 689, col. 2_, compared with _Merula, fol. 873_.

Also A. D. 1340, Conrad Hager, having about this time, taught for twenty-four years, that the mass was by no means a sacrifice either for the living or the dead, and, that the taking of money by the priests, for dying men, was nothing but theft and sacrilege--in consequence of which many departed from obedience to the Roman church--was apprehended and secretly murdered. See in the last mentioned chronicle, _page 691, col. 2_, from _John Munst., fol. 169, Hist. Andr., fol. 64, Pac. cap. 11_.

Also A. D. 1350, John de Landuno, of Ghent, a highly learned man, vigorously attacked and censured the high power, supremacy, and false doctrine of the Pope; but what happened to him on this account, our author has omitted to say. _Page 703, col. 1_, compared with _Joh. Munst., fol. 168_.

Also A. D. 1360, John de Rupe Scissa publicly spoke against the Pope, saying: “Who is there among you, most holy father, and most gracious cardinals (for these were the titles by which they were called) that dare say that Peter or Sylvester (namely, the upright) ever rode with a train of two or three hundred horses, as is now common for you ... to do? but they were reserved and quiet, and like other pastors and preachers, made no parade or display, and were also well content with simple food and clothing.” He also said that the Popes employed the goods given, or received by them, in pride, wantonness, and tyranny. Who would think that the Pope received this candid censure in good part? Compare _Joh. Munst. Tract., fol. 53_, with the account in the _Chron. van den Ondergang, page 711, col. 2_.

In the mean time, we learn that said John de Rupe Scissa, three years afterwards, was burnt at Avignon, because he defended the truth. See the last mentioned chronicle, for the year 1363, _ex Georg. Pac., cap. 11_.

PERSECUTION OF THE WALDENSIAN BRETHREN, IN FRANCE, BY POPE URBAN VI., A. D. 1365.

A. D. 1365, it is recorded that Pope Urban VI. charged all the prelates in France, and the inquisitors of the faith there, by an express bull, that they should not suffer the heretics (the Waldenses, who were then called Beghards and Beguines) to live with impunity, but should exterminate these erring spirits (thus he calls these pious people) together with their errors, with the sickle of ecclesiastical discipline. See the papistic writer _Bzovius_, for the year 1365, _art. 8_; also, the Calvinist _Mellinus, 2d book, fol. 488, col. 1_.

As to how the Waldenses in those times were called Beghards, and were persecuted, see _A. M., same book, fol 479_, below in the fourth column.

The confession of faith of these people we have shown in its proper place, and repetition is not necessary.

SEVERE PERSECUTION IN FLANDERS, ARTOIS, AND HAINAULT; IN WHICH PERONNE OF AUBETON, A PIOUS WOMAN, IS PUBLICLY BURNT FOR THE FAITH, ABOUT A. D. 1373.

In the midst of these persecutions, which, in the years 1372 and 1373 were carried on against the Waldenses, who were called Turilupins, because in Flanders, Artois, and Hainault they had to live in forests inhabited by wolves (as we have already stated), it occurred, that among a great number of these people, who were burnt as heretics, with their writings, books, and clothes, also a certain woman, called Peronne of Aubeton, who had accepted that doctrine and faith, and refused to depart from it, was condemned as a heretic to be publicly burned; which, as is stated, took place with her, at Paris, A. D. 1373; and thus, continuing steadfast, she testified that the “Trial of her faith was more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire.” 1 Pet. 1:7.

NOTE.--Respecting the offering of this woman, as also, the accusations, cast by the papists against the Waldenses, called Turilupins, and how A. Mellinus, preacher of the Calvinists, replies in their stead, saying that these poor people were lamentably slandered, and that they were upright Waldenses; also, that the papists imputed to them whatever they would. See large Book of _Christian Martyrs, 2d part, fol. 497_.

THIRTY-SIX PERSONS CALLED WALDENSES, BURNT FOR THE FAITH, AT BINGEN, A. D. 1390.

The holy apostle Paul very aptly wrote (2 Tim. 3:12), “And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution;” for this appeared, A. D. 1390, in the case of certain pious Christians, who, being citizens of the city of Mentz, in Germany, had not less their citizenship in the new and heavenly Jerusalem; having accepted the faith and doctrine of the Son of God, whereupon they, as obedient followers of Christ (as may be inferred) had been baptized according to the confession of the Waldensian brethren, in order thus to work out, in the footsteps of faith, their salvation with fear and trembling, according to the rule, Phil. 2:12.

But since the rulers of darkness could not bear this light of truth, it came to pass, in the city of Bingen, that thirty-six (not of the least) of said children of light, were apprehended, and, refusing to depart from the truth once confessed, were condemned to death, namely to be executed with fire; that is, to be burnt alive; which was also done with them, and thus they, through fire, offered up a living, holy sacrifice acceptable unto God.

Concerning the offering of these people, mention is made in the _2d book_ of the _Hist. of the Persecutions, fol. 505, col. 3, ex Matth. Flacc. Illyr. Catal. Test. Ver._ Said Illyricus also confesses that at that time (A. D. 1390) thirty-six citizens of Mentz were burnt alive at Bingen, for the faith of the Waldenses.

NOTE.--Some one may ask himself, whether these martyred persons, who were called citizens of Mentz, and were put to death at Bingen, were not the same martyrs spoken of in a certain place in the preceding century; since it is also stated of them, that they were inhabitants of Mentz, and lost their lives at Bingen; however, this cannot well be reconciled, since there is a great discrepancy, in regard to the time, as well as the number of the persons. For as regards the time, the former lived one hundred and eighty-seven years earlier than the latter; as they were dead already in the year 1212 (according to the account of _Bruschius_, in his _History of the German Monasteries_; also, _A. Mell., fol. 457, col. 3_); but these last mentioned ones were put to death A. D. 1390, as has been shown. Regarding the number of persons, that of the former is given as thirty-nine, but that of the latter as thirty-six--a discrepancy of three. As to their citizenship or residence at Mentz, which is stated of both, as well as that they were both put to death at Bingen, are facts that need not cause any one to think, that because there is an agreement in these respects, that the same people have been noticed twice by the writers; for it may be, that at that time those of Mentz had no court of their own, or power to pronounce sentence of death, and that, hence, they had to deliver those of their prisoners who were confined for capital crimes, to those of Bingen, or at least had to bring them to trial there, as is customary, even at the present day, in many other cities.

GREAT PERSECUTION OF THE BELIEVING WALDENSES ON THE BALTIC SEA; FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY-THREE OF THEM SEVERELY TORTURED AND PUT TO DEATH, IN THE MARK AND POMERANIA, ABOUT A. D. 1390.

About the year 1390 there began, in the countries on the Baltic Sea, the very severe persecution of the Waldenses, of which we made mention of our account of the true faith in the fourteenth century; which, continuing until into the year 1391, was the cause that, among very many others, four hundred and forty-three of these people, whose names are mentioned, in Pomerania, the Mark, and the adjacent places, were brought to torture or the rack; who, refusing to apostatize, freely confessed their faith, and how many long years they had believed and confessed the truth of their faith, which was called a heresy. They are stated to have been sober and frugal people, discreet in their speech, careful to avoid lying, swearing, etc. _Second book_ of the _History of the Persecutions, fol. 505, col. 3, 4, ex Catal. Test. Verit., lib. 18. Matt. Flacc. Illyr., lib. 15. Tit. de Waldensibus. Vignier recutil de histoire de l’Église, A. D. 1391._

NOTE.--It seems that these people were not only persecuted and tortured for the faith, but also put to death; according to the account of P. J. Twisck, who says: “Of the believers or Waldenses more than four hundred and forty were apprehended and put to death for their religion, in the countries of Saxony and Pomerania, whose confession showed that they had received that doctrine from their parents, and that their teachers came to Bohemia; and the proceedings in their trial shows among other things that they were sober, and discreet in their speech, carefully avoiding lying, swearing, and all dishonorable practices.[189] _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 743, B._, from _Henr. Boxh., fol. 27_.

[189] These virtues have previously already been ascribed to them,
and are distinctly asserted of them by various other writers.

OF THE PERSECUTION AND SUFFERING OF THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS, BY THOSE OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, A. D. 1400.

That the intelligent and godfearing J. Tauler called the prelates of the Roman church blind and leaders of the blind, and taught his fellow-believers much concerning the persecution and suffering of the true Christians, we set forth in our account of Holy Baptism, for the year 1400.

In the meantime some of the sheep of the flock of Christ were devoured by the Roman wolf; their names, however, are not known to us, except one, and even respecting him we have not been able to obtain sufficient information with regard to his whole faith, save this much, that in his belief he was opposed to antichrist, that is, the Pope of Rome; on which account the cruel death by fire was inflicted upon him, because he would not apostatize. Concerning this, the following words, among others, are found in the _Chronijck van den Ondergang_: “William Santraus also opposed the (Roman) antichrist at this time; he fell into the power and custody of the archbishop of Canterbury, where he, after a whole year’s confinement, ultimately, though with great steadfastness, ended his life in the flames.” _Chron., page 750, col. 1._

NOTE.--A. D. 1400, Franciscus Petrarcha wrote mightily against the Pope, saying, 1. That the Pope was antichrist; 2. That his court was Babylon and the whore that sitteth upon many waters (of which we read in John’s Revelation), yea, the mother of all idolatry and whoredom; 3. That Rome was a school of errors, a temple of heresy, and a nest of treachery. But speaking thus the truth, the writers say, he could find no shelter, but was persecuted and driven away by the Pope. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 750, col. 1_, compared with the twentieth letter of F. Petrarcha, and the poem composed on it; also, _Phil. Marn. Tract, fol. 213_.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.

[In the beginning of this century, the decree _Statutum ex Officio_, of King Henry IV., of England, published against the Wickliffites, is mentioned.

Thereupon follows a recital of fifteen articles of said Wickliffites, which by the inquisition were laid before them, for recantation; the twelfth article of which declares, that a child, though it die unbaptized, will be saved; and the thirteenth article, that neither the Pope, nor the prelates, nor any ordinary, can compel any one to swear; the other articles are against the superstitions of the Roman church.

Another article charged against these people, namely: that if they had an infant, they would not have it baptized by the hands of a priest in church.

William Thorpe is charged with five articles, the last of which is: That he taught that one ought not to swear.

Thirteen articles, mostly against the Roman superstitions, are ascribed to John Huss, the thirteenth or last of which declares that one ought not to swear in any wise.

A notice concerning the followers of John Huss; also, the article of holy baptism, as professed by the Taborites.

An account for the year 1455, of many Waldenses in the bishopric of Reichstadt, who had twelve teachers; also of some of them who resided in Austria, A. D. 1471, and in the bishopric of Eichstædt, A. D. 1475.

The edict of King Matthias against the Moravians, or Moravian Brethren, who are called _Old Waldenses_, as also Baptists (Anabaptists), is shown for the year 1481.

Conclusion to the fifteenth century; in which it is shown by different reasons, how it comes, that there were so few public testimonies of the old continuous Waldenses. Here we take our leave, with the close of this century.]

* * * * *

In this following century we find some persons who are opposed to oaths, some to war, some to infant baptism, and other articles in opposition to the Roman church; of which we will give a brief account.

_A. D. 1401._--A certain celebrated writer relates, from _John Fox’s English History of the Persecutions_, that then, in the month of January, King Henry IV. held a parliament at London, in which a decree or bloody edict was issued against the Wickliffites, of whose belief against infant baptism and oaths we have already written, in speaking of their leader John Wickliffe; and who at that time, after the English custom, were called Lollards. This decree or edict was called: _Statutum ex Officio_, or Edict of King Henry IV. against the disciples of Wickliffe, in England. See _2d book of the History of the Persecutions, fol. 514_, and _fol. 515_, from _John Fox’s Angl., fol. 481_.

TOUCHING THE ARTICLES OF THEIR FAITH, LAID BEFORE THEM BY THE INQUISITION, FOR RECANTATION.

Continuing, said author relates, from Fox, some articles drawn up by the inquisition, with or besides the abovementioned edict; containing the principal tenets of the Wickliffites, which the inquisition placed before them for renunciation, or abjuration. They read as follows:

1. “That the mass or the worship which is performed before the holy cross, and is ordained by the whole church, is idolatry.

2. “That all who worship before the cross, commit idolatry, and are to be regarded as idolaters.

3. “That the real flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the sacrament of the altar after the priest has pronounced the words of consecration over them.

4. “That the sacrament of the altar is sacramental bread, without life, and only instituted in remembrance of the suffering of Christ.

5. “That the body of Christ, so-called, which is taken from the altar, is a figure of Christ’s body, as long as we see the bread and the wine.

6. “That the decrees and ecclesiastical ordinances of the prelates and the clergy, in the province of Canterbury, in their last assembly, held, with the consent of the King and the nobles, in the last parliament, against him who was recently burnt alive in the city of London, were not powerful enough to change the purpose of that martyr; because the substance of the material bread, in the sacrament of the altar, is the same as it was before, and no change is made, in the nature of the bread by consecration.

7. “That any layman, though he have not studied at College, has a right to preach the Gospel everywhere, and that he may teach (provided he has been properly elected thereto by his church, as has been stated elsewhere) upon his own authority, without permission from his ordinary bishop.

8. “That it is sin to give anything to the Dominicans, Minorites, Augustinians, and Carmelites.

9. “That we ought not to sacrifice at the funerals of the dead.

10. “That auricular confession of sins to the priest is unnecessary.

11. “That every good man, though he be unlearned, is a priest before God.

12. “That a child, though it die unbaptized, will be saved.”

NOTE.--This is putting down infant baptism out and out as of no value; since the papists were not ashamed to say, that it were better, that a whole country should sink out of sight, than that a child should die without baptism; maintaining, that all unbaptized infants would go to hell, and be eternally damned.

13. “That neither the Pope, nor the prelates, nor any ordinary, can compel any one to swear, either by any of God’s creatures, or by the Bible, or by the New Testament.”

Here it must be observed, that these people thereby denied all manner of swearing of oaths, not only that which is done by the creature, but also by the Creator himself; since even in England they did not, at that time, swear by the creature; but in the form of swearing this custom was observed by the papists, namely, he who was to swear, knelt down, and laid his hand upon the Bible, or the Testament, and said: “I swear by God and his holy Gospel, etc., so truly help me God.”

But who does not know, that the Gospel or the word of God is no creature? And though it be that in swearing the hand was laid upon the Bible, or upon the Gospel book, in token of the testimony, the swearing was not done by the material book; as also in our countries, when in swearing (among those who hold thus) the hand or the finger is held up, the swearing is not done by that hand or that finger.

Hence, said people were opposed not only to the manner of swearing, but to swearing itself, even though they have been required to swear, not by the creature, but by the Creator himself. Concerning this, see their own confession.

14. “That the bishop as well as a common man, and a layman as well as the priest, are of equal authority, as long as they live aright.

15. “That no one is bound to accord any bodily reverence (that is, by bending the knee and worshiping, as was then customary in England), to any prelate.”

These are briefly the chief articles which, according to the preceding decree of the King, and the ecclesiastical ordinance, or much rather inquisition of the archbishop, were laid before the Christians in England, for recantation. See large Book of _Christian Martyrs, fol. 517, col. 3, 4_, from _John Fox, Hist. Angl. 485_.

_A. D. 1402._--About this time, Thomas Walsingham, a bitter papistic historian records some articles of the abovementioned people, which, as he states, one Louis of Clifford, formerly a defender of the faith of these people, had discovered to the archbishop of Canterbury. The fifth of those articles reads as follows: “If they (the said people) had a new-born infant, they would not have it baptized in church, by the hands of the priest.” _Thom. Wals._, in _Hist., Reg. Angl. and Hypodigmate Neustrie, A. D. 1402_.

To this article several words are immediately added; but these are denied by a certain writer, who quotes said passage, and says, that the apostate, Louis of Clifford, in order to please the archbishop, or the bishop himself, surreptitiously added these words; therefore we will leave it as it is. _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 518, col. 1._

_A. D. 1407._--Or about this time, William Thorpe, formerly an English priest, was apprehended for the faith, who, as it is stated, had been persecuted greatly already in the year 1397. He was charged with holding as his faith these five articles:

1. “That in the sacrament of the altar, also after the consecration, that is, after the priest has read the canon, it still remains real bread.

2. “That images are not to be worshiped, nor any honor shown them.

3. “That no pilgrimages ought to be made.

4. “That the priests have no right to appropriate the titles to themselves.

5. “That men ought not to swear.”

These articles are fully acknowledged to be his articles; but, in order to give them a somewhat different coloring, especially with regard to the article respecting non-swearing, some of the Calvanistic writers, one copying from another, as it seems, have made some expositions on them, as if William Thorpe himself replied to them, and signified by the words: “Men ought not to swear at all,” that he did not mean that men ought to refrain altogether from swearing; but only that one ought not to swear by the creature, neither trivially, as is especially maintained by the Calvinistic Mellinus, preacher in St. Anthony’s Polder, in his large book, _2d part, fol. 524, col. 2_.

But other writers, of no less credibility and repute, flatly contradict this, saying positively that he rejected all manner of oaths.

Indeed, Mellinus himself, as if forgetful of what he wrote, indicates it quite clearly when he (_page 519, col. 3_), compares this William Thorpe, in faith, to William Swinderby, who, being burnt for the faith, at London, among others, confessed this article, which Walter Brute understood to defend, namely: “That it is not lawful for Christians to swear on any account, in any case, either by the Creator, or by his creatures.” _A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 506, col. 3._ This article is spoken of elsewhere.

_Further observation._--In _Kort Verhael van den Loop der Werelt_, compiled from various chronicles and histories by F. H. H., A. D. 1611, the following is contained in the account relative to the swearing of oaths, _page 99_: “A. D. 1397, William Troppe, otherwise called W. Thorpe, was much persecuted in England, on account of his religion. He confessed that the sacrament of the altar remained true bread after the consecration, and that men ought not to swear.”

_Touching the same matter._--P. J. Twisck writes: “William Thorpe, a priest in England, disputed earnestly with the priests of antichrist. He taught against images, _the oath_, the sacrament of the altar, and like abuses.” _Chron., p. 758, col. 2._

_Conclusion._--Hence, it appears from the preceding testimonies, that this man sincerely, plainly, and undisguisedly taught against oaths of whatsoever kind, according to the words of the Lord. Matt. 5:34, and James 5:12;[190] to which more could be adduced; but we think enough has been said in the matter, and, hence, we will dismiss it.

[190] “But I say unto you, Swear not at all.” Matt. 5:34. “But above
all things, my brethren, swear not.” James 5:12.

_A. D. 1412._--The loss to the Roman, and the upbuilding of the true Christian, church, were at this time facts existing in no small degree in the French country, around Paris, but particularly in that city itself; since various distinguished persons, and in point of learning not the least, did not hesitate to attack the Italian Babylon, that is, Rome, and her perverted worship; however, not with external, but with spiritual and evangelical weapons. Notwithstanding the hatred of the papal clergy, they dared openly reprove the errors and abuses of the Roman church. But whether they expressly mentioned, or otherwise included, the article of infant baptism among the number, is not clearly stated by the ancients; hence we must content ourselves with what they have written of it in a general way.

NOTE.--John of Ferrara,... in Italy, said about this time, among many other articles, that the Pope, by sheer violence, and without right, had seized countries and cities; that the clergy carried their conscience in their caps, and that they were more avaricious and worse than the laity; that the churches and monasteries of the clergy were nets with which to draw to themselves the property of the laity, etc. _P. J. Twisck, Chron. for the year 1412, p. 770, col. 2._

Concerning this there is the following account: “At this time (A. D. 1412), also at Paris, various excellent, learned men rose against popery, pointing out the errors and abuses of the Roman church; by which they gained small thanks from the clergy.” _Catal. Test., fol. 857, Meru., fol. 910_, compared with the _Chronijck van den Ondergang, p. 771, col. 1_.

_A. D. 1415._--At this time John Huss lived, who, having examined and studied the books and writings of John Wickliffe (of whom we said in the preceding century, that he opposed infant baptism, and the swearing of oaths), retained and accepted therefrom, among other articles, that it does not become a Christian to swear.

How and in what manner the writings of John Wickliffe fell into the hands of John Huss, and how eagerly he exercised himself therein, is described by _A. Mellinus, 2d book, p. 495, col. 1_; but that he ever, by this means or otherwise, learned the article of non-swearing, Mellinus, as well as other Calvanists, would deny, saying: “That which is imputed to him, regarding his unwillingness to swear, has respect only to the abjuration of his faith, or religion, but not to the oath itself.”

Besides that I have never found such an explanation in any credible writer of that time, though I have earnestly sought to investigate it; the circumstances of the matter itself, however, indicate that the article of non-swearing was one of the articles of his faith.

TOUCHING THE ARTICLES OF FAITH WHICH JOHN HUSS HAD DERIVED FROM THE WRITINGS OF JOHN WICKLIFFE.

Sebastian Franck writes as follows: “John Huss, a disciple and fellow believer of this Wickliffe, received the Wickliffite doctrine from Jerome of Prague, who carried it with him from England to Bohemia as a sacred treasure.”

Continuing, he relates the articles which John Huss had learned and adopted from Wickliffe’s writings.

1. “That the Roman church has no right to divide the sacrament, and has wrongfully deprived the laity of one form.

2. “That the Roman bishop is just like other (ordinary) bishops.

3. “That under all circumstances there is no purgatory.

4. “To pray for the dead is vain and unavailing, and is invented by the avarice of the priests.

5. “Images of God and the saints are not to be tolerated, and should be abolished.

6. “The wicked devils have invented the unspiritual mendicant orders.

7. “The priests ought to be poor, and live only from alms.

8. “Outward, auricular confession is altogether false and man’s invention. It is sufficient to confess one’s sins in the closet to God.

9. “The ceremonies and usages of the (Roman) church are vain things.

10. “Touching several things concerning the sacrament, etc.

11. “The time is uselessly consumed by the seven hours.[191]

[191] Prayers which the priests of the Roman Catholic church have to
read from the breviary at stated seasons of the year. _Trans._

12. “There is no merit in the fasts instituted by the church, and in many other errors.

13. “Men shall not swear in any wise. Hence he said to those who urged him vehemently to swear an oath: ‘I am afraid every way; if I swear, eternal death is my portion; but if I swear not, I cannot escape your hands; but it is better that I fall into your hands without sin than to sin in the sight of God.’”

Here we certainly clearly see that the doctrine of not swearing in any wise, was an article of his faith; and if it was the case that he was requested to abjure his faith or religion, he refused to abjure it, not only because he would not forsake his faith or religion, but also because he held that one ought not to swear at all, as the 13th article declares: “Men shall not swear in any wise,” that is, not at all. _Seb. Fr. Chron., 3d part, fol. 105. Tract, van den Loop Werelt, fol. 100._ Also _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 764. A._

NOTICE CONCERNING THE FOLLOWERS OF JOHN HUSS, WHO, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNTS OF JACOB MEHRNING, WERE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THEIR LEADER.

When in the fifteenth century, John Huss began to teach in Bohemia, and gained a great number of adherents, many Waldenses united with them; who rejoiced, and hoped that thereby the light of the Gospel, which, up to this time, had for so long a period been so abominably quenched and persecuted by the papists, would begin to shine more clearly, burn more vigorously, and proceed the more unobstructedly. But when, after the death of John Huss and Jerome of Prague, who had both been burnt by the papists, at Constance, on the Lake of Constance, contrary to the safe conduct granted by the Emperor, the Hussites in Bohemia, commenced an atrocious and bloody war against Emperor Sigismund and the German electors, and other princes, which they, after carrying it on for a long time, finally adjusted, and when said Hussites, as totally estranged from their teacher and leader, John Huss, united with the papists in many doctrinal points and church ceremonies, many of the Waldenses, who had at first joined the Hussites, found themselves shamefully deceived in their hope, and bethought themselves better, that is, according to the doctrine of the holy Gospel, to have nothing at all to do with such a bloody war. Again, they also began to protest against it. They also turned away from the Hussites, in the points of doctrine and church usages, and established a separate church, being afterwards called _Taborites, Grubenheimer_[192] dwellers in caves, etc.

[192] These Grubenheimer are to be distinguished from others who also
bore this name.

This greatly grieved the so-called Hussites, and they, therefore, through the instigation of M. John Rockenzahns and others, began to dreadfully hate and persecute, not only the old faithful Waldenses, who had never been united with them, but also these newer ones, who separated from them. _Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d part_, from _Lydius, in the Hist. of the Waldensibus_.

FURTHER OBSERVATION CONCERNING THE MISDEEDS OF THE FOLLOWERS OF JOHN HUSS.

From the above, we certainly clearly see that the orthodox Waldenses had existence also in the fifteenth century; some of whom, having, from a good intention, united with the Hussites, who followed their master John Huss, neither meekly nor faithfully, were shamefully deceived by them, seeing said Hussites commenced to take up arms and wage severe wars against their enemies, something to which the Waldenses were certainly not accustomed, as is shown by their own confession. Having therefore separated from the Hussites, they, as well as their brethren, the old Waldenses, with them, were severely persecuted by them; thus indicating that the church of Christ on earth is not a kingdom of triumph and victory, but a school of suffering and death for the name of Christ.

THAT THE WALDENSES WHO HAD BEEN UNITED WITH THEM, CALLED TABORITES, WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THEIR OLD BRETHREN, AND WHY.

Now when these Waldenses, called Taborites who, having been united with the Hussites, had separated from them on account of war and other errors, desired to re-unite with the old Waldenses, who had been their brethren, these, from sorrow of mind, refused them, that the unchristian conduct of the Hussites might not be laid to their charge, seeing these seceders, as they thought, had been so intimate with the Hussites.

See here, beloved reader, how pure, upright and unfeigned was the conduct of these old Waldenses in this respect; how steadfastly and blamelessly they practiced their confession, desiring to bear not even the appearance of having fellowship with those who waged war and fought against their enemies.

THAT THEY NEVERTHELESS PROFESSED A GOOD CONFESSION.

Nevertheless, these Taborites, because of their aversion to war and the superstitions, had separated from the Hussites, and also truly held in those times, as cannot be inferred otherwise, the true confession of the Waldenses, although, as it is thought, some endeavored to force in infant baptism among them; however, their confession in regard to this article, delivered in the year 1431, at Prague, in Bohemia, to M. John Rockenzahn, makes no mention at all of it, yea, they employ such expressions therein as is utterly impossible to apply to infant baptism.

In _J. Mehrning’s History of Baptism, p. 611_, we read these words: “I have before me the confession of the Taborites, drawn up A. D. 1431, which in all respects agrees with our doctrine, and which I intend to have printed at the proper time.”

Concerning the difference between the Hussites proper and Taborites, who were united with them, D. Balthazar Lydius gives this explanation: “The followers of John Huss were divided into two sects, the one called _Praguers_, the other _Taborites_; of whom the Taborites were the stricter. Tract entitled: ‘_Where the church was before the year 1160, or before the time of the Waldenses;’ printed in the year 1624, p. 25_.”

Their confession is as follows: “First, concerning the sacrament of baptism,--which is the first sacrament by which God imparts, especially the first sacramental grace, if we are spiritually regenerated; because it is a sign of the spiritual regeneration proceeding from God,--we hold, according to the tenor of the holy Scriptures, and sincerely confess from the heart, that the sacrament of baptism is the ablution of man, performed by another with water, who pronounces the words prescribed by Christ, which effectually signify the ablution of the soul from sin, which is expressly founded in the Gospel; for Christ, with words as well as by deed, taught that those who believe in him should be thus baptized. He taught this with words when he said to the apostles: ‘Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Matthew, 23:19. He taught it by deed when he himself was baptized by John, in Jordan. Matt. 3. _Bapt. Hist._, second part, _pp._ 743, 744, from _B. Lyd. Wald., pp. 10, 11_.

_A. D. 1431._--At this time, also Scotland, though otherwise very superstitious, experienced no inconsiderable reformation in the true worship of God, which was effected by various persons zealous for the honor of God and the welfare of his church. So that some resolved and endeavored to reform not only the article of baptism, which was shamefully, and not less to the detriment of many innocent souls, abused by the Roman church, but also various other articles which, from sheer superstition, were maintained by them according to human opinion. They were determined to retain the good, and abolish the evil.

Among those who at this time undertook the reformation of the same, one Paul Craus is especially mentioned, who also opposed auricular confession, the invocation of the saints, the idolatrous sacrament, etc. For this he was condemned as a heretic; but how he finally ended will be shown at the right time and place. Compare the account in the fifteenth book _van den Ondergang, p. 796, col. 1_, _with Vinc. Cal., fol. 368, Georg. Pac. c. 11. Herm. Mod., fol. 274._

NOTE.--Whether this Paul Craus was fully enlightened in all other articles pertaining to the worship of God, we cannot definitely prove; even as, on the other hand, we have found nothing which might tend to derogate his belief; though we have sought in good faith for that which would be derogatory to him; as well as for that which would make him acceptable; hence we have deemed it well to accord also to him a place among the good confessors of the evangelical truth.

_A. D. 1455._--About this time there were many Waldenses (erroneously called Wandois) in Germany, in the bishopric of Reichstadt, of whose orthodox confession an account was given for the year 1170. They had among them twelve preachers, or teachers, of their religion, who, each in his district, went out secretly, on account of the severe persecution, to preach. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., p. 829, col. 2_, from _Henr. Boxh., fol. 27_.

NOTE.--A. D. 1460.--At this time Roderic Simotensus severely reproved the human institutions and abuses of the papists, such as excommunication, fasts, feasts, auricular confession, and the mass, as appears from his book, entitled _The Mirror of Human Life. Chron., van den Ondergang, p. 835, col. 1._

Again, same year as above; Nicholas Siculus said at this time, that a believing person who rightly adduces the holy Scripture should be believed more than the Pope, and a whole council that rejects the holy Scripture. He further said, that a council may err; also, that some of the popes lived as though they did not believe that there would be a resurrection of the flesh after this life. See the aforementioned chronicle, in the place indicated, taken from _Joh. Munst., fol. 190_.

Also, same year, Dionys. Rickel, a learned man, said that in the primitive church the Sacrament (or Supper) was given to believers under both forms, that is, with bread and wine; to which the Roman church acted contrary at this time. Compare the author first indicated with _Joh. Fabr., fol. 164_.

_A. D. 1465._--Nicholas Casanus now vehemently attacked the Pope with the word of God; he called him antichrist, rejected human institutions, etc. In his book on the Peace of the Faith, compared with _P. J. Twisck, Chron. page 841, col. 1_.

_A. D. 1467._--Anthony Rosellus, an Italian doctor, writes that the Pope is not to be regarded as the lord of the world; that he neither can nor ought to command the Emperor; that he neither may nor ought to wield the secular sword. _P. J. Twisck, Chron. page 845_, from _Joh. Munst., fol. 295_.

_A. D. 1470._--At this time a book was issued, entitled _Spiegel des heiligen kercken-Regements_, without the name of the author, in which particularly the mendicant monks and the Pope were censured. The author adduces Anthony the Hermit, and says that the monks have departed from the word of God, and, from hypocrisy, have adopted all sorts of human institutions. _Catal. Test. Verit., fol. 884_, compared with _P. J. Twisck, page 847, col. 2_.

_A. D. 1471._--At this time, says a celebrated author, there were not very many Waldenses in Bohemia, on account of the violent persecution; but in Austria there were still some, who had also been dispersed for the most part, through the cruelty of the torments, and the terror of persecution.

But how they were afterwards united, as it is alleged, by one Peter Textor, or (as Mellinus explains), Peter the Weaver, in the city of Landskron, in Bohemia, with the Moravian and Bohemian brethren; so that they subsequently held no separate church meetings, save only with the Bohemian and Moravian brethren, is described by Mellinus, in the second book of the _Persecutions, fol. 592, col. 4_, and _fol. 593, col. 1_.