Preliminary remarks on the origin of the Vaudois
The origin of the Vaudois forms one of the most interesting questions of ecclesiastical history. I regret that the narrow limits of this work, and the want of sufficient resources of learning within my reach, do not permit me to treat it so thoroughly as I would have desired. It merits a lengthened and profound discussion; it is a subject much richer than it at first sight appears. A man of learnings and possessed of the necessary means for the investigation of this question, would doubtless find his labour abundantly rewarded.
All that I can do at present, is to lay before the reader a few considerations, such as have occurred to me in my studies, and which have sufficed to determine my own opinion on this point. There are, however, persons of high standing, who do not agree with me concerning the existence of the Vaudois anterior to Valdo. The passages which I proceed to quote are extracts from private correspondence; I hope their publication will not be thought an indiscretion, but rather a tribute of respect to the learning of the writers, and an evidence of my own impartiality.
"I believe," says M. Schmidt, "that the Vaudois Church has no need of any attempt to exalt her reputation, by placing before her historic period a sort of fabulous period, remounting to the days of the apostles; that church appears to me to have sufficient claims to respect, when she is regarded as tracing her origin to a simple layman of Lyons, whose piety, moderation, and courage may always be an example to us. To have clearly asserted the doctrine of the gospel three centuries before the Reformation, and to have maintained it thenceforward with heroic fidelity, in the midst of persecutions and of martyrdoms, is, in my estimation, so honourable, that I have not even a wish to embellish this indisputable fact, by the addition of a long period which is not certain at all. ... Having, then, the positive fact of Valdo, why should I not be satisfied with it, at least so long as it cannot be proved that there were Vaudois before him?"[1] "On the point now under consideration, the most eminent ecclesiastical historians of Germany, MM. Gieseler and Neander, have long ago renounced the opinion which refers the origin of the Vaudois to the days of the apostles. They trace them back only to Valdo. ... You bring forward the edict issued by Otho IV. in 1209, and thence conclude that the Vaudois must have been numerous and ancient in the valleys of the Alps. Numerous let it be granted that they were, although in strictness it might be disputed. ... But as to their being ancient, that is, more ancient than Valdo, I do not think that it follows. Valdo began his career at Lyons about 1170; nine years afterwards he solicited from Pope Alexander III authority to preach. After the lapse of other five years, in 1184, Lucius III pronounced an anathema against his disciples. From 1184 to 1209 is a period of twenty-five years, or rather from 1170 to 1209 are thirty-nine years; during this interval of nearly forty years, the Vaudois may have spread far enough, and in fact they did; only consider the facility with which the adversaries of Rome then propagated their doctrines; consider, in particular, the state of mind then prevailing throughout Upper Italy. ... I shall say nothing of the arguments which you deduce from the Milanese ritual, and from the Epistle to the Laodiceans. ... How I think on these points you may see from my last letter."--He reckons these arguments insufficient.--"All the certain facts, established by historic documents, are without exception subsequent to 1170, that is to say, to the appearance of Valdo. Prior to this epochs there is not so much as one. Produce me the least possible fact anterior to this epoch, and I lay down my arms."[2] "You quote to me a bull of Urban II, mentioning the Vallis Gyrontana as a focus of heresy in 1096. In the first place, allow me to say, I have never maintained that there were no manifestations of an anti-catholic spirit before the days of Valdo. But in order to establish a true historic connection, a perfect identity of doctrines, it would be necessary to know that heresy of which the focus was in the aforesaid valley. ... Even admitting that the heresy in question was analogous to the Vaudois doctrines, this would only prove that before Valdo there were already persons who believed something similar to what he afterwards believed; but to conclude, therefore, that he derived either his birth or his doctrine from these men, is to make a great saltus in probando.[3]
The reader will here observe that M. Schmidt grants almost all that I desire, for it is by no means necessary to prove that Valdo was descended from the Vaudois; it is enough if the Vaudois be acknowledged to have existed before his time.
I think it my duty also to quote the words of M. Gieseler on this subject, from a letter which he was kind enough to address to me:-- "In the first place, you remind me that, according to the testimony of authors comparatively recent, Peter de Bruys was sprung from a certain valley, which Urban II, in the year 1096, describes as infested with heresy; and thence you think yourself entitled to infer, that the doctrine which Bruys held in common with Valdo, flourished in that valley before Valdo's time. Indeed, it cannot be doubted that before the days of Valdo, Peter de Bruys and Henry condemned the errors of the Catholic Church, as well as the monstrous opinions of the Cathari, and sought to return to the pure doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. Nor is it improbable that Peter sowed the seeds of his doctrine in his native valley, and left followers there; and thus we can explain how Urban might call that valley full of heretics. And it is also likely enough, that of the remaining disciples of Peter and Henry, many joined the Valdenses (Vaudois), in whom they found the same zeal for the doctrine of the Bible; and thus it probably came to pass, that no trace of the Petrobrusians and Henricians appears at any subsequent period. But that the Vaudois themselves existed before the days of Peter de Bruys, and that Peter himself was one of them, I can by no means admit. For, in the first place, he taught many things very contrary to the doctrine of the Vaudois. He denied that infants ought to be baptized, and that the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ was celebrated after its celebration by Christ himself. He required monks to marry. On the other hand, it is well known that the Vaudois did not at first oppose the doctrine and institutions of the Catholic Church, and that they sought only the free preaching of the simple doctrine of the gospel. Moreover, they held celibacy in high estimation; and their leaders themselves lived in celibacy."[4] Such is the principal argument of M. Gieseler in this letter, of which a part only is here given. The opinions of Neander, Herzog, and Schmidt on this point are substantially the same. I cannot discuss it here; but I must observe, 1st, that the doctrines of Bruys are more extreme than those of the Vaudois; 2d, that doctrines held in protestation against the Romish Church existed before the birth of Bruys, in the very valley in which he is said to have been born;[5] 3d, that Bruys may have derived from the valley of his birth, and which was one of the Vaudois valleys of Dauphiny, the germs of that opposition to the Romish Church which became the leading characteristic of his own opinions, after these had become independent of the influences predominant around him in his earliest years; 4th, that the extremeness in the opinions of Bruys, discordant with the moderate character of the Vaudois, may itself have led him to withdraw to a distance from them, in order to make proselytes elsewhere; 5th, that this spirit of moderation, which it is generally acknowledged that the Vaudois have displayed, is the usual fruit of time and experience; and that if it was already manifested among them in the days of Bruys, it would be an evidence of the long previous existence of those whom it characterized; and, 6th, that whilst the antiquity of the Vaudois would explain the calm maturity of their doctrines, the excitable character of Bruys would account for the violent extremeness of his. All analogies appear to me to be in favour of my opinion.
In these various letters the difficulty has also been represented to me of deriving the name Vaudois from Vaux, or Valdenses from Vallis, as well as the vagueness of the expressions of Otho IV in his edict of 1209, and the want of documents anterior to the 12th century. I have examined most of these objections in other parts of this work. My readers will estimate for themselves the value of these objections, and of the answers made to them. But I think it right still to add here a few of the reasons which lead me to regard the Vaudois of the Alps as of greater antiquity than the days of Valdo of Lyons.
In the first centuries of the Christian era, each church founded by the disciples of Christ had a unity and an independence of its own. They were united by the same faith, but that faith was not imposed by authority upon any one. Each of these churches thus had its independent organization, as each individual may have his particular constitution and mode of life, whilst the general characters of human life are common to all men. That desire for a visible unity, which characterizes all human governments, impelled the Emperor Constantine to seek the union of all the Christian churches of the empire under a uniform legislation. The spirit of domination soon extended from the civil government to the ecclesiastical; the institution of patriarchs[6] preceded that of the papacy;[7] the latter was slowly matured,[8] and the exclusive character which its organization finally assumed, caused the separation which then took place between the Eastern and Western churches.[9]
Scarcely had this rupture taken place when Popery stirred up the Crusades,[10] and soon afterwards those internal persecutions by which it effected the destruction of the Albigenses.[11] But down to this time the Bible had been read in the vulgar tongue in France;[12] and in Piedmont[13] the diocese of Milan maintained its independence, the Ambrosian ritual preserved there the recollections of the 4th century, and the Vaudois could still find shelter and peace behind this venerated shield.[14]
St. Ambrose did not acknowledge any authority on earth as superior to that of the Bible;[15] and he wished that for the study of it, men would recur to the original text.[16] If any passage appeared obscure, he did not admit that the word of man should interfere with the word of God in order to determine its sense, but he recommended the Christian to endeavour to decide for himself the doctrinal import of obscure passages, by comparing them with other passages of Scripture relating to the same subject.[17] The Bible was to be elucidated only by its own light. Moreover, he declared that nobody could pretend to call himself the successor of St. Peter, unless he had the faith of St. Peter; and he said with regard to a certain pope. Pope Liberius, that he was a decided Arian.[18] The sinner, according to him, is justified only by the merits of Christ;[19] we can derive no merit from our own works,[20] the sacraments confer no grace of themselves, they are only the visible sign of that which we receive from the Saviour.[21] St. Angustine, who was the disciple of St. Ambrose, admitted only two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and there is no reason to believe that his master ever acknowledged a greater number. Nor was the worthy Bishop of Milan any more a believer in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist,[22] or in the renewal of his sacrifice at each celebration of the sacrament of the Supper.[23] It may readily be believed that he must have rejected as idolatrous all worship rendered to other objects than the Divine Being;[24] and as to the worship of images, he called it Paganism.[25]
St. Ambrose occupied the see of Milan for twenty-three years, he died in the year 397, and the influence of his evangelical doctrines long continued to be felt in his diocese. Nor did he stand alone in the maintenance of these doctrines. One of his contemporaries, Philastrius, Bishop of Brescia, condemned also, like him, the worship of images,[26] maintained the authority of the Bible, rejected that of Rome,[27] rejected also all pretension to meritorious works,[28] and added to the influence of St. Ambrose by that which he himself exerted. His successor, Gaudentius, and Bufinus of Aquileia, maintained the same doctrines.[29] The latter, a simple priest, having been condemned by Pope Anastasius, as a partizan of the followers of Origen; the Bishop of Aquileia, to whose authority he was immediately subject, maintained him notwithstanding in the post which he occupied, thus affording us a proof of the ecclesiastical independence which the north of Italy enjoyed at that period. This bishop, who is called by St. Jerome one of the best instructed and most pious prelates of his time, did not, any more than his predecessors, recognize any authority superior to that of the Bible,[30] and it ought to be observed that in explaining the passages on which it has since been attempted to found the doctrine of purgatory, he makes no mention of that popish dogma.[31] His successor, Niceas, who lived about the year 420, also formally rejects the whole theory of personal satisfaction and expiation, acknowledging the right to pardon sins as belonging to God alone, and the merits of Christ as obtaining pardon for us.[32]
The end of this century was disturbed by the invasions of the barbarians. Aquileia and Milan were ravaged by Attila; the Huns, the Heruli, and the Goths successively burst into Upper Italy; and we need no written testimonies to convince us that Rome, with difficulty able to defend herself could not then extend over these countries an authority to which they had not been subjected before, and from which we afterwards find them free.
In the commencement of the following century, St. Laurence, who was translated from the see of Novara to that of Milan, about the year 507, declares, contrary to the opinions at present received among Papists, that repentance is the only means by which we can obtain the pardon of our offences, and that pardon cannot come to us by the intercession of any creature whatever, nor by any human absolution, but only by grace and the love of Christ. Finally, says he, we must trust in God rather than in men.[33] Ennodius, in his life of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Pavia, in relating the circumstances which attended the death of that prelate, makes no mention of confessor, or absolution, or indulgence, or cross, or banners, or images, or holy water, or litanies, or any of the other things which are so prominent at the present day in the popish ceremonial on such an occasion.
About the middle of the 6th century, a part of the bishops of Upper Italy[34] refused to adhere to the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, held in 553; and in 590, nine of them separated themselves from the Roman Church, or rather they solemnly renewed the protestation of their independence of it. The bishops being then elected by the people of their diocese, we may presume, without doing any violence to history, that the latter were imbued with the same doctrines and with the same spirit.
The permanence of this state of things in Upper Italy, is attested in the 7th century by a new Bishop of Milan, Mansuetus, A.D. 677. To combat the opinion that the pope is the head of the church, he directs attention to the fact that the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Chalcedon, and many others, had been convoked by the emperors, and not by the pope. This bishop himself was not afraid to condemn Pope Honorius as a Monothelite;[35] and thus gives us a new proof of the independence then enjoyed by the diocese of Milan, across which the Vaudois would have been obliged to pass, in order to reach Rome.
The kingdom of Lombardy itself was solicitous for the preservation of this independence. Thus everything contributed to its maintenance; and it may be supposed that, satisfied with the first successes obtained in the towns, Rome thereafter paid less regard to the relics of independence which might still subsist in the mountains. We know, moreover, that ancient manners and ancient liberties have at all times been less easily eradicated from such situations.
However, we are not reduced to the necessity of supporting this idea by mere inferences; and the 8th century still presents us with examples of resistance to the pretensions of the papal see in Upper Italy. As these pretensions are more strongly urged, we find the resistance also becoming more vigorous in the following centuries, and we can follow its traces quite on to the 12th century, when the existence of the Vaudois is no longer doubted by anybody.
The Council of Narbonne, at which a number of bishops of Upper Italy were present, recommended to the faithful no other prayers than the Pater and the Credo, The Council of Frankfort, at which also Italian prelates were present, formally condemned the worship of images. St. Paulinus, Bishop of Aquileia, maintained, like his predecessors, the symbolical character of the Eucharist,[36] the nullity of satisfactory works,[37] the sovereign authority of the Bible in matters of faith,[38] and the efficacious mediation of one only mediator between God and man, even Jesus Christ.[39]
But the grasping ambition of the Church of Rome, overcoming by degrees the resistance made in quarters nearest to its centre of action, forced back towards the chain of the Alps, the limits, still becoming narrower, of that independence inherited from past ages, which had at first opposed it over the whole of Upper Italy. This independence was defended, in the 9th century, by Claude of Turin; in whom, at the same time, we behold the most distinguished advocate of evangelical doctrines whom that age produced. Whilst the Bishop of Milan[40] contented himself with deploring the corruption of the Roman Church,[41] by which he had been reduced to subjection, but in whose iniquities he did not take part, the Bishop of Turin boldly declared against the innovations which she had so long sought to introduce into the sphere of his influence and power. The numerous works of this prelate on different books of the Bible,[42] had prepared him for defending it against the attacks of Popery; and strong in the might of truth, Claude of Turin owned Jesus Christ as the sole Head of the church,[43] attached no value to pretended meritorious works, rejected human traditions, acknowledged faith alone as securing salvation, ascribed no power to prayers made for the dead, maintained the symbolical character of the Eucharist, and, above all, opposed with great energy the worship of images, which he, like his predecessors, regarded as absolute idolatry.[44]
Thus the doctrines which characterized the primitive church, and which still characterize the Vaudois Church at the present day, have never remained without a witness in the countries inhabited by the Vaudois; and if men had been silent, the Bible would have spoken. In the 10th century, Atto, Bishop of Verceil, still appears as their defender; he maintains the authority of the word of God, and does not admit that of the fathers of the church, except in so far as they agree with it; insisting that the church is founded only upon the Christian faith, and not upon the pre-eminence of any apostle or pontiff--that the pope has no administrative authority beyond the see of Rome, and that all the faithful ought to partake of the Eucharist.[45]
But the oppressive tendencies of the Church of Rome manifested themselves in the cruel measures of which the Jews were then the victims. Ignorance and superstition made rapid progress. The light of human learning passed for a time to the midst of Mahometanism. The conflicts in Spain and in Italy against the Mahometan power, were for a little while an obstacle in the way of the pontifical despotism.
In the 11th century, although there were already numerous monasteries in Lombardy, the vows of those who entered them were not yet rendered irrevocable by any other authority than that of their own consciences; and in the 12th century all the priests of Upper Italy were still free from the yoke of the celibate. This independence, so long disputed by Rome and maintained by the Lombard clergy, was a protecting shield for the Vaudois Valleys.
Thus we see that the Apostolic Church of Italy, disowned and proscribed by papal pride, gradually retired from Rome, withdrew into Upper Italy, and sought a retreat in the wilderness to preserve her purity. We see her first sheltered in the diocese of Milan, where Popery still pursues her. She then retires into the diocese of Verceil, and thither also the hostile pretensions of Popery are extended. She takes refuge in the diocese of Turin, but Popery still gains upon her, and at last she seeks an asylum in the mountains. We find her in the Vaudois valleys!
The inhabitants of these valleys, previously unregarded, became an object of attention from the 12th century, not because they were new opponents of Rome's domination, but because they remained alone in their opposition. Bendered distinct by her isolation, their church found her own pale a separate one for this reason only, that she herself had never changed. But as they did not form a new church, they could not receive a new name; and because they inhabited the valleys, they were called Vaudois.
Let us now see how these events are reflected in their own writings.
St. Peter and St. James, in addressing their epistles to the Catholic Church, show us that it was something very different from Catholicism. They meant by the Catholic Church the whole body of Christians of that time--Christians who were apostolic. Now the Vaudois, in their most ancient works, written in the Romance tongue, at a date when there existed schismatical sects which have now disappeared, speak of themselves always as being in union with the Catholic Church,[46] and condemn those who separate from it,[47] but, at the same time, the doctrines which they set forth in their works are only those of the primitive Catholic Church, and not at all those of later Catholicism. The successive corruptions which gradually constituted it, were everywhere introduced by small degrees, and did not for a long time reach the threshold of their secluded valleys.
When they did become known there, the Vaudois boldly stood up against that variety of invented things,[48] which they called a horrible heresy,[49] and unhesitatingly pointed them out as the cause why the Church of Rome had departed from the primitive faith.[50] They no longer give to Popery the name of the Catholic Church, but speak of it as the Roman Church; and then also they openly separated from it,[51] because it was no longer the primitive church, such as theirs had been left to them by their fathers, but a corrupt church, delighting in vain superstitions.
Here, let me remark, we have one of the strongest intrinsic proofs of the apostolic descent of the Vaudois, for the Church of Rome was also, in its origin, the Apostolic Church, being under the guidance of St. Paul, and if the Vaudois had been separate from it from the beginning, they could not have been apostolic themselves; if they had separated from it at a later period, without previously having had any independent existence, their existence would only have dated from that separation. But, on the contrary, they had existed from the commencement of the common life; that life had been preserved amongst their mountains; they might probably believe that it was also preserved elsewhere, and when its corruptions became so striking, that the primitive apostolical character of the Church of Rome was completely effaced, they refused to give it the name of Catholic, and showed in what it had departed from true catholicity.
It may, perhaps, be said, that there were no Christians in the Alps in the time of the apostles. But the Apostolical Church did not die with the apostles; in the era of the martyrs the seeds of it were sown all over Italy. The Ambrosian office, which the Vaudois were reproached for having retained after it had been abolished elsewhere,[52] was not set up except in the 4th century; and the Epistle to the Laodiceans, which they preserved in some of their manuscripts,[53] also leads us back to the same date.
Thus the name Vaudois, in its original use, did not designate a particular sect, but merely the Christians of the valleys. When this name had become a term of reproach among the Papists, the ignorance of the middle ages made it synonymous with magician or infidel;[54] but the Vaudois themselves called themselves only by the name of Christians, and above all, endeavoured to merit it.
That the Vaudois, notwithstanding their small number, remained the representatives of the universal church, and were the precursors and not the disciples of the Reformation, is entirely owing to the word of God, the gospel of Christ. It may be that they did not understand it always so well as the Reformers; that they shared in some of the religious forms of the Romish Church; that they even admitted doctrinal articles which we do not admit at the present day (the distinction, for example, betwixt mortal and venial sins); it is not their infallibility for which we would contend, but that which gave them their strength, their unity, their perseverance in the gospel, in one word, their individuality as a church, at once Catholic when viewed in reference to the Bible, and Protestant when viewed in reference to Catholicism; their maintenance of the absolute authority of the word of God, and of the doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ. The Vaudois, therefore, are not schismatics, but the continued inheritors of the church founded by the apostles. This church then bore the name of Catholic, and was persecuted by the Pagans. Afterwards, becoming powerful and persecuting in its turn, it underwent a vitiation of its very nature in Catholicism, whilst it was preserved in the Vaudois valleys simple, free, and pure, as in the time of persecution.
We find, accordingly, that the writers nearest to the time of Valdo do not speak of the Vaudois as if they were the disciples of that reformer, but present them to our notice as if they derived their origin from their valleys.[55] Moreover, it was in these valleys that, according to writers of the same country, opponents of the Vaudois, Peter de Bruys, the precursor of Valdo, was born;[56] from which it would follow that the doctrines common to these two reformers must have been known in these valleys before the appearance of Valdo. These doctrines, in fact are already alluded to before that period, and even in official documents.[57]
The name of Valdo seems to have been neither a baptismal[58] nor a family name.[59] If it was only a designation, we may suppose that it was given in consequence of his connection with the Vaudois of the Alps,[60] and his propagation of their doctrines. But even if a Christian at Lyons named Valdo,[61] had participated in these doctrines, and had left his disciples the name of Vaudois, it would not follow that the Vaudois of the Alps were the disciples of Valdo. We even find this name and these doctrines in a poem in the Romance tongue anterior by half-a-century to Valdo. But the date of the poem has been disputed; it shall be examined in a subsequent part of this work.[62]
The edict of Otho IV, of date A.D. 1209, ascribes to the Vaudois of Piedmont a notoriety and an influence so great, that it may be presumed they were already of long standing in the country.[63] Supposing that the disciples of Valdo had taken refuge in the Alps about the end of the 12th century, it would be very difficult to admit that they could have so filled both the Vaudois valleys of Dauphiny and those of Piedmont in less than one generation, as to have acquired that influence which is ascribed to them, alike by this edict on the one hand, and by that of Alphonso of Arragon, Marquis of Provence, on the other.[64] It would be impossible to account for such an increase, save on the supposition that the new refugees had already in that country brethren of their own religion;[65] whilst their settling in that country can hardly be explained but by supposing the previous existence of their brethren in religion there.[66] On either of these suppositions, the Vaudois of the Alps must have been prior to the disciples of Valdo.
The idiom of the Nobla Leyczon being the language of the Alps, and not that of the Lyonnais,[67] this poem must have been written by inhabitants of the mountains, and not by strangers. But since it cannot have been composed, except between the years 1100 and 1190[68]--since in 1100 the disciples of Valdo of Lyons were not yet in existence--since in 1190 scarcely six years had elapsed from the time of their banishment from Lyons,[69] and it is not probable that in so short a time they could have acquired a new language, so as all at once to endow it with the most perfect works which it had yet produced--since, moreover, in the precarious position in which they were placed, they must have had something else to do than to write poems--and, finally, since in the Nobla Leyczon there is no mention of Valdo nor of his disciples, not even an allusion to their existence, I am compelled to believe that it is not among the disciples of Valdo that we are to look for the author of that poem.
In fact, if the Vaudois of Lyons had found it necessary to write such a work, it is evident that they would have written it in the language which was familiar to them, that is to say, in the idiom of the Lyonnais, and not in that of the Alps. And, even supposing that they could have known the latter idiom, I confidently say that they would not have employed it, at least, not unless there had been already in the Alps natives who held the same doctrines with themselves, for otherwise, these natives would have been their adversaries, and the disciples of Valdo, whose object it was to conceal themselves, would have avoided the language of their adversaries, rather than made choice of it. Whence I conclude, that these poems were not their productions;--that they are to be ascribed to natives of the Alps who spoke that language;--and that these natives were Vaudois anterior to Valdo.
Their history is only a portion of the great history of the martyrs; they acquired new importance, from century to century, by the very calamities which they endured. Their importance, always religious, does not secure their title to a place in the political records of the nations; yet the place of this people, so small in numbers, is one of such prominence in the records of human opinion, that the course of their history through calm and storm up to the present day, is to be traced with the greatest interest.
Their existence, by exceptional provision, under an oppressive and violent government, has now terminated. The era of the martyr people has lately been brought to a close by the hand of modem liberty. Let us trust that we may look upon the past as a history concluded, and that a new career opens up to the Vaudois of glorious progress in the future. May they always carry along with them the true spirit of Christianity!
Notes: