_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.