Claes Jacob Heijndericksz
Puritan Board Freshman
Some time ago, I came across a confession attributed by M. Zuerius van Boxhorn to a group of Waldensians who once lived in the Low Countries. Personally, I am not convinced that it is genuinely Waldensian. For one thing, the persecutions of the Vaudois to which Van Boxhorn refers earlier in his work were centered in the French-speaking region of Arras, whereas the confession he cites is written in Dutch. Nonetheless, it is an intriguing anonymous document.
The spelling and language of the confession resemble Dutch writings from the first half of the 16th century. Moreover, the text shows no trace of Anabaptist or enthusiastic (i.e. charismatic or mystical) tendencies, which leads me to suspect that it predates 1530. Its theological content also aligns closely with the views of the Sacramentarians, who were the dominant Protestant group in the Netherlands during the 1520s. The Sacramentarians were especially critical of the Mass and, in particular, of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
The real question is whether this confession can be dated to the pre-Reformation period, and whether the text contains other internal clues that might help determine its origin. If anyone has suggestions or insights on this matter, I would be eager to hear them.
Below is a translation of the so-called Waldensian Confession as found in M. Zuerius van Boxhorn, Nederlantsche Historie, Leiden, 1649, pp. 36–42:
“I am well assured that this account of the dealings of the Vaudois in the Netherlands will be viewed with suspicion by many, being taken with a certain prejudice—on the one hand, as if their doctrine only began in the time of Luther and Calvin, those truly noble and courageous men in the restoration of the pure and sorely oppressed worship of God; on the other hand, because all their life and conduct has been portrayed by some of their enemies as frightful and devilish. But for the complete refutation of these falsehoods, there shall serve sufficiently and fittingly the following Confession of Faith, which has come into my hands, briefly presented in Questions and Answers, as once drawn up by them—worthy to be inserted and preserved here for eternal remembrance.
QUESTION. What is required of a Christian?
ANSWER. Faith in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, is required; three persons and yet one God.
QUESTION. Is more required of a Christian?
ANSWER. We must believe in Him, love Him with all our heart and all our strength, and our neighbor as ourselves.
Q. How then is it that faith does not justify us?
A. It truly does. Faith alone, as Paul says, justifies us.
Q. Why then does Paul say: “Though I have all faith and have not love, I am nothing”?
A. It is true. For how can I love Him in whom I do not trust? And how can I trust Him whom I do not love? Faith and love are joined together, and love is included under faith.
Q. How must we love our neighbor?
A. To love our neighbor is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, and do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Q. Then is it necessary for salvation to do good works, and is faith alone not sufficient?
A. That does not follow. For it is certain that we are saved through faith; yet it is necessary that Christians, to follow their Lord and Master Christ, do good works. But one must not therefore say that these serve for salvation. For when we have done all that is commanded us, we are still unprofitable servants. Therefore, it is faith in the blood of Jesus Christ alone that saves us.
Q. How many Sacraments are there?
A. Two: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Q. No, are there not more, namely seven?
A. In what Scriptures do you find that? Nowhere in the Old or New Testament.
Q. Tell me, what do the two Sacraments signify?
A. Through the Sacrament of Baptism I am washed with water, and born again through the Spirit and the blood of Christ, and this washing is a sign to me that I am a child of God. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is given to me as a sure testimony and seal that I am a partaker of the eternal Kingdom of God through the blood of Christ, shed for me on the cross.
Q. What do you receive in the bread? Do you not receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ?
A. No indeed, I do not believe as many erring people do. For in the Supper I receive neither flesh nor blood physically, but bread and wine; which bread, when broken and wine, when drunk as the Lord ordained, we become through the Holy Spirit and faith and the lifting of our hearts to heaven, partakers of the body and blood of Christ, which were broken and shed for us. And with the bread and wine, I receive also the benefits that came through the breaking of His body and the shedding of His blood on the cross for my sins.
Q. How is that? Does Christ not say these words: "Take, eat, this is my body"? Do you desire clearer words? Does He not say it is His body?
A. I confess with you that He said it, and He also said: “I am the vine,” “I am the door,” yet He is neither a vine nor a door. If I were to eat the actual physical body and drink the natural blood of Christ, I would deprive myself of my salvation; or else it would be necessary that Christ had a hundred bodies. For if you receive the body of Christ as the Apostles are said to have received it, it would follow that the body they ate was not the one broken on the cross, or if it was broken on the cross, then the Apostles did not eat it.
Q. Is it not possible that Christ, by His power, can cause His body to be eaten and broken, just as it was possible for Him to be born of a woman without male seed and to walk on water with His body, and many other miracles He performed by His power?
A. Indeed, if God had willed to perform a miracle during that meal when He instituted His Supper, He could have done so. But I say that His intention was not to perform any miracle then, but only to teach and show that He is our true nourishment and eternal food. Now I ask you to answer your own question: Where was Christ when He said, "Take, eat, this is my body"? Was He not at the table? At that moment, He was still alive and did not suffer until the next day. What else did He take, and what else did He give but bread? Let us take careful note of this: what He took, He broke; what He broke, He gave; what He gave, was eaten, and meanwhile, He Himself sat at the table with His disciples.
Q. Some may say: You base your faith on such people who say both yes and no, who contradict themselves, and not on the Church, which you ought to believe.
A. But I do not. I ground my faith on the Word of God, not on the Church. For if the Church is the true Church, her faith must be confirmed by the Word of God, and not the Word of God by the Church, nor my faith. If I believed the Church because of her antiquity, how could I believe this Church that withholds and denies me part of the Lord’s Supper and does not allow people to receive it in both kinds; which, (as the Papists say,) belongs to them alone? So they would rob us of part of our salvation. I say it is a wicked Church, and not the Bride of Christ, but of the Devil and the Antichrist. For she has altered the Lord’s Supper by additions and omissions. I say that God shall add accordingly and multiply the plagues He has ordained over such a Church and shall omit by blotting them out of the book of life. You have not learned this from Paul, who gave the Supper to the Corinthians as he had received it from the Lord, namely, in both kinds. Should I believe in such a Church? Far be it.
Q. That was done with good intent, to guard against heresy that had begun to arise.
A. Why should the Church change the will of God and His ordinance with good intent? What happened to King Saul with his good intention? Thus, we do not believe, though the Pope with good intent may have ordained differently and contrary in many ways: That there are three kinds of confession—the first of faith, needed daily; the second of love, which happens when I have offended my neighbor and seek reconciliation; the third, when out of distress of conscience one seeks counsel from a learned man or minister of the congregation, to be comforted out of the Word of God. That priests may marry wives, and that the promise is not allowed to nullify the Word of God. That it is not within our power to remain chaste, but the grace of God has to grant it. That we are free only through Christ. That man has no free will in divine matters. That there is no purgatory written or found in Holy Scripture. That all times are equally holy, and yet it is good to gather during the week (as it happens on Sunday) to hear the Word of God and pray for all pressing needs. That one should make no distinction in foods, as though one were more forbidden than another. That we must not invoke deceased saints, or honor them as intercessors, but rather call upon God and serve Him alone. That we also have no other mediator than Jesus Christ, who has been given to us by God as mediator, as Scripture says. That in the saints we are to observe only the grace and blessings of God, and to praise God in His saints, not the saints themselves.
Q. What do you hold concerning the Virgin Mary?
A. That she was a person whom Almighty God had blessed to be the mother of His most high Son and that by grace, not by merit. That the Pope has no power to condemn anyone; for such belongs to God alone. It is well known how the ban is to be used; not to damn, but to correct the rebellious and stubborn, so that he may acknowledge his sins and repent, and therefore be excluded from the congregation of God until he returns and desires to be received again. Thus are also rejected all foreign and ornate worship, and ornate mediators and intercessors. True inward worship of God consists in faith, love, obedience, hope, patience, innocence, purity, and mercy. Outward worship of God consists in the preaching of the divine Word and the use of the Sacraments.
This then was their doctrine in the Netherlands; this they confessed with their mouths and sealed with their blood under severe persecution. If any who read this may not find the style of writing here used to their liking, let them kindly remember that such proofs could not easily be maintained at that place and time—yet from them alone the sincerity and purity of their worship of God is evident, which has otherwise been most shamefully slandered by others against all justice and reason. And from this doctrine one may also rightly judge their way of life.”
The spelling and language of the confession resemble Dutch writings from the first half of the 16th century. Moreover, the text shows no trace of Anabaptist or enthusiastic (i.e. charismatic or mystical) tendencies, which leads me to suspect that it predates 1530. Its theological content also aligns closely with the views of the Sacramentarians, who were the dominant Protestant group in the Netherlands during the 1520s. The Sacramentarians were especially critical of the Mass and, in particular, of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
The real question is whether this confession can be dated to the pre-Reformation period, and whether the text contains other internal clues that might help determine its origin. If anyone has suggestions or insights on this matter, I would be eager to hear them.
Below is a translation of the so-called Waldensian Confession as found in M. Zuerius van Boxhorn, Nederlantsche Historie, Leiden, 1649, pp. 36–42:
“I am well assured that this account of the dealings of the Vaudois in the Netherlands will be viewed with suspicion by many, being taken with a certain prejudice—on the one hand, as if their doctrine only began in the time of Luther and Calvin, those truly noble and courageous men in the restoration of the pure and sorely oppressed worship of God; on the other hand, because all their life and conduct has been portrayed by some of their enemies as frightful and devilish. But for the complete refutation of these falsehoods, there shall serve sufficiently and fittingly the following Confession of Faith, which has come into my hands, briefly presented in Questions and Answers, as once drawn up by them—worthy to be inserted and preserved here for eternal remembrance.
QUESTION. What is required of a Christian?
ANSWER. Faith in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, is required; three persons and yet one God.
QUESTION. Is more required of a Christian?
ANSWER. We must believe in Him, love Him with all our heart and all our strength, and our neighbor as ourselves.
Q. How then is it that faith does not justify us?
A. It truly does. Faith alone, as Paul says, justifies us.
Q. Why then does Paul say: “Though I have all faith and have not love, I am nothing”?
A. It is true. For how can I love Him in whom I do not trust? And how can I trust Him whom I do not love? Faith and love are joined together, and love is included under faith.
Q. How must we love our neighbor?
A. To love our neighbor is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, and do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Q. Then is it necessary for salvation to do good works, and is faith alone not sufficient?
A. That does not follow. For it is certain that we are saved through faith; yet it is necessary that Christians, to follow their Lord and Master Christ, do good works. But one must not therefore say that these serve for salvation. For when we have done all that is commanded us, we are still unprofitable servants. Therefore, it is faith in the blood of Jesus Christ alone that saves us.
Q. How many Sacraments are there?
A. Two: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Q. No, are there not more, namely seven?
A. In what Scriptures do you find that? Nowhere in the Old or New Testament.
Q. Tell me, what do the two Sacraments signify?
A. Through the Sacrament of Baptism I am washed with water, and born again through the Spirit and the blood of Christ, and this washing is a sign to me that I am a child of God. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is given to me as a sure testimony and seal that I am a partaker of the eternal Kingdom of God through the blood of Christ, shed for me on the cross.
Q. What do you receive in the bread? Do you not receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ?
A. No indeed, I do not believe as many erring people do. For in the Supper I receive neither flesh nor blood physically, but bread and wine; which bread, when broken and wine, when drunk as the Lord ordained, we become through the Holy Spirit and faith and the lifting of our hearts to heaven, partakers of the body and blood of Christ, which were broken and shed for us. And with the bread and wine, I receive also the benefits that came through the breaking of His body and the shedding of His blood on the cross for my sins.
Q. How is that? Does Christ not say these words: "Take, eat, this is my body"? Do you desire clearer words? Does He not say it is His body?
A. I confess with you that He said it, and He also said: “I am the vine,” “I am the door,” yet He is neither a vine nor a door. If I were to eat the actual physical body and drink the natural blood of Christ, I would deprive myself of my salvation; or else it would be necessary that Christ had a hundred bodies. For if you receive the body of Christ as the Apostles are said to have received it, it would follow that the body they ate was not the one broken on the cross, or if it was broken on the cross, then the Apostles did not eat it.
Q. Is it not possible that Christ, by His power, can cause His body to be eaten and broken, just as it was possible for Him to be born of a woman without male seed and to walk on water with His body, and many other miracles He performed by His power?
A. Indeed, if God had willed to perform a miracle during that meal when He instituted His Supper, He could have done so. But I say that His intention was not to perform any miracle then, but only to teach and show that He is our true nourishment and eternal food. Now I ask you to answer your own question: Where was Christ when He said, "Take, eat, this is my body"? Was He not at the table? At that moment, He was still alive and did not suffer until the next day. What else did He take, and what else did He give but bread? Let us take careful note of this: what He took, He broke; what He broke, He gave; what He gave, was eaten, and meanwhile, He Himself sat at the table with His disciples.
Q. Some may say: You base your faith on such people who say both yes and no, who contradict themselves, and not on the Church, which you ought to believe.
A. But I do not. I ground my faith on the Word of God, not on the Church. For if the Church is the true Church, her faith must be confirmed by the Word of God, and not the Word of God by the Church, nor my faith. If I believed the Church because of her antiquity, how could I believe this Church that withholds and denies me part of the Lord’s Supper and does not allow people to receive it in both kinds; which, (as the Papists say,) belongs to them alone? So they would rob us of part of our salvation. I say it is a wicked Church, and not the Bride of Christ, but of the Devil and the Antichrist. For she has altered the Lord’s Supper by additions and omissions. I say that God shall add accordingly and multiply the plagues He has ordained over such a Church and shall omit by blotting them out of the book of life. You have not learned this from Paul, who gave the Supper to the Corinthians as he had received it from the Lord, namely, in both kinds. Should I believe in such a Church? Far be it.
Q. That was done with good intent, to guard against heresy that had begun to arise.
A. Why should the Church change the will of God and His ordinance with good intent? What happened to King Saul with his good intention? Thus, we do not believe, though the Pope with good intent may have ordained differently and contrary in many ways: That there are three kinds of confession—the first of faith, needed daily; the second of love, which happens when I have offended my neighbor and seek reconciliation; the third, when out of distress of conscience one seeks counsel from a learned man or minister of the congregation, to be comforted out of the Word of God. That priests may marry wives, and that the promise is not allowed to nullify the Word of God. That it is not within our power to remain chaste, but the grace of God has to grant it. That we are free only through Christ. That man has no free will in divine matters. That there is no purgatory written or found in Holy Scripture. That all times are equally holy, and yet it is good to gather during the week (as it happens on Sunday) to hear the Word of God and pray for all pressing needs. That one should make no distinction in foods, as though one were more forbidden than another. That we must not invoke deceased saints, or honor them as intercessors, but rather call upon God and serve Him alone. That we also have no other mediator than Jesus Christ, who has been given to us by God as mediator, as Scripture says. That in the saints we are to observe only the grace and blessings of God, and to praise God in His saints, not the saints themselves.
Q. What do you hold concerning the Virgin Mary?
A. That she was a person whom Almighty God had blessed to be the mother of His most high Son and that by grace, not by merit. That the Pope has no power to condemn anyone; for such belongs to God alone. It is well known how the ban is to be used; not to damn, but to correct the rebellious and stubborn, so that he may acknowledge his sins and repent, and therefore be excluded from the congregation of God until he returns and desires to be received again. Thus are also rejected all foreign and ornate worship, and ornate mediators and intercessors. True inward worship of God consists in faith, love, obedience, hope, patience, innocence, purity, and mercy. Outward worship of God consists in the preaching of the divine Word and the use of the Sacraments.
This then was their doctrine in the Netherlands; this they confessed with their mouths and sealed with their blood under severe persecution. If any who read this may not find the style of writing here used to their liking, let them kindly remember that such proofs could not easily be maintained at that place and time—yet from them alone the sincerity and purity of their worship of God is evident, which has otherwise been most shamefully slandered by others against all justice and reason. And from this doctrine one may also rightly judge their way of life.”
