Reformers before Martin Luther: Peter Waldo and the Waldensians

The Waldensians are better known than the Henricians and other early reformation movements, but they shared in common a rejection of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. The name Waldensian comes from its founder Waldes, later called Peter Waldo, who was a wealthy merchant in Lyon, France. Around the year 1170, Waldo paid for the translation of the Bible into the vernacular so that he and others could study it in their own language, and in the process, he became convinced that he should give away his wealth and dedicate his life to preaching the Bible.

As with many of these early reform movements, most of the information that we have about them come from those who opposed them. One of the difficulties of discerning what the Waldensians believed is that several medieval authors who wrote against the Albigensians (such as Ermengardus and Ebrardus) referred to them as Waldenses, and as a result, lumped both movements together.

But Reinerius Saccho was a Dominican inquisitor who was involved in the interrogation of both Albigensians and Waldensians so he understood the differences that existed between these two movements and was able to distinguish them from each other. He wrote at length about the beliefs of the Waldensians whom he referred to as Leonists since they were from Lyon:

“Among all these Sects, which still are, or have been, none is more pernicious to the Church than that of the Leonists; and this for three reasons. The first is, because it is older; for some say that it has existed from the time of Sylvester, some from the time of the Apostles. The second, because it is more general; for there is scarcely any country in which this Sect is not. The third, because, while all other Sects excite the abhorrence of their hearers by the outrageousness of their blasphemies against God, this (namely of the Leonists) has a great appearance of piety; and they believe all things concerning God, and which are contained in the Creed, rightly—only they blaspheme the Romish Church; which blasphemy a great multitude of the Laity are easily induced to believe” (As cited by S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents Illustrative of the History, Doctrine, and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses, p. 405-406).

The following is a lengthy selection from him about their beliefs in his work Of the Sects of the Modern Heretics written in 1254:

“Observe, that the sect of Poor Men of Lyons, who are also called Leonists, arose in the following manner—once when the principal citizens were assembled in Lyons, it happened that one of them died suddenly, in the presence of the company; whereby one of them was so much alarmed, that he immediately distributed a large property to the poor. And from this cause a great multitude flocked to him, whom he instructed to embrace voluntary poverty, and to be imitators of Christ, and the Apostles. And as he had some little learning he taught them the text of the New Testament, in the vulgar tongue; and when he was reproved for this rashness, he derided it, and began to urge his doctrine, telling his disciples that the clergy, who were immoral persons, envied their holy life, and doctrine. When the Pope excommunicated them, they persevered in contempt of it, and so, to this day their rancorous doctrine flourishes everywhere. Observe three things—First, concerning the blasphemies wherewith they blaspheme the Romish Church, and its statutes, and all the clergy—in the second part their errors respecting the Sacraments of the Church and the saints are stated—in the Third part, observe the abomination in which they hold the decent, and approved, customs of the Church. First, They say that the Romish Church, is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but a church of malignants and that it apostatized under Sylvester, when the poison of temporalities was infused into the church. And they say, that they are the church of Christ, because they observe both in word, and deed, the doctrine of Christ, of the Gospel, and of the Apostles. 2. Their second error is that all vices and sins are in the church, and that they alone live righteously. 3. That scarcely anyone in the church, but themselves, preserves the evangelical doctrine. 4. That they are the true poor in spirit, and suffer persecution for righteousness and faith. 5. That they are the Church of Jesus Christ. 6. That the Church of Rome is the Harlot in the Apocalypse, on account of its superfluous decoration which the Eastern Church does not regard. 7. That they despise all the statutes of the Church, because they are heavy and numerous. 8. That the Pope is the head of all errors. 9. That the Prelates are Scribes; and the Monks, Pharisees. 10. That the Pope and all Bishops are homicides on account of wars. 11. That we are not to obey Prelates; but only God. 12. That no one is greater than another in the church. Matt. 23. ‘All of you are brethren.’ 13. That no one ought to bow the knee before a priest. Rev. ii. where the Angel says to John ‘See thou do it not.’ 14. That tithes are not to be given, because first fruits were not given to the church. 15. That the clergy ought not to have possessions. Deut. xviii. ‘The Priests and all the tribe of Levi, shall not have part and inheritance with the people of Israel, because they eat the sacrifices, and they shall receive nothing else.’ 16. That the clergy, and monks, ought not to have Prebends. 17. That the Bishops and Abbots ought not to have royal rights. 18. That the land, and the people, are not to be divided into parts. 19. That it is a bad thing to found and endow churches and monasteries. 20. That wills are not to be made in favour of Churches—also, that no one ought to be a tenant of the church—also, they condemn all the clergy for idleness, saying that they ought to work with their hands as the Apostles did—also, they reprobate titles of dignity such as Pope, Bishops, &c.—also, that no one is to be forced into belief—also, that they make no account of all ecclesiastical offices—also, that they care nothing for ecclesiastical privileges—also, they despise the immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons and things—also, they contemn Councils, Synods, and Assemblies—also, they say that all parochial rights are inventions—also, they say that monastic rules are the traditions of the Pharisees. Secondly, they condemn all the Sacraments of the Church; in the first place, as to baptism, they say that the Catechism is nothing—also, that the ablution which is given to infants profits nothing—also, that the Sponsors do not understand what they answer to the priest. . . . Also, they reprobate all exorcisms, and benedictions of baptism—also, they reprobate the sacrament of confirmation and wonder why Bishops only are allowed to confirm—also, concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist, they say that Priests in mortal sin cannot consecrate—also, they say that transubstantiation does not take place in the hand of him who unworthily consecrates, but in the mouth of him who worthily receives; and that consecration may be made at a common table, Malachi, ‘In every place there shall be offered to my name a pure offering’—also, they reprobate this, that the faithful communicate once in a year, because they communicate every day—also, they say that transubstatiation may take place by words in the vulgar tongue—also, they say that the mass is nothing, because the Apostles had it not, and that it is done for the sake of gain—also, they do not receive the canon of the mass, except only the words of Christ in the vulgar tongue—also, they call the singing in the Church an infernal clamour—also, they reprobate the canonical hours—also, they say that the offering which is made by priests in the mass is nothing, and does not profit—also, they reprobate the kiss of peace, and of the altar. Concerning the sacrament of Penance, they say, that no one can be absolved by a bad priest—also, that a good layman has the power of absolving—also, that they can remit sins by the imposition of hands, and give the Holy Spirit—also, that it is better to confess to a good layman, than to a bad priest—also, that such penance as is not heavy is to be enjoined; by the example of Christ, ‘Go and sin no more’—also, they reprobate the public penances, as chains, especially in the case of women—also, that a general confession is not to be made every year. Also, they condemn the sacrament of Marriage, saying that married persons sin mortally if they come together without the hope of offspring—also, they disregard compaternity—also, they despise the degrees of affinity, carnal and spiritual, and the impediments of Orders, and of public decency, and of ecclesiastical prohibitions—also, they say that a woman after child-bearing does not require benediction, or introduction—also, they say that the church has erred in prohibiting the marriage of the Clergy, while even those of the East marry—also, they say that the continent do not sin in kisses and embraces. The sacrament of Unction, they reprobate, because it is only given to the rich; and because several priests are required for it—also, they say that the sacrament of Orders is nothing—also, they say that every good layman is a priest, as the Apostles were laymen—also, that the prayer of an evil priest does not profit—also, they deride the clerical tonsure—also, that Latin prayer does not profit the vulgar—also, they make it a matter of ridicule that illegitimate persons and wicked sinners are raised to eminence in the church—also, they say that every layman, and even woman ought to preach, I. Cor. xiv. ‘I would that ye spake in tongues, that the church might receive edification’ —also, whatever is preached which cannot be proved by the text of Scripture they consider as fabulous—also, they say that the Holy Scripture has the same effect in the vulgar tongue, as in Latin; wherefore they consecrate in the vulgar tongue and give the sacraments—also, they know by heart the text of the New Testament, and a great part of the Old—also, they reject the Decretals and Decrees, and sayings and expositions of the fathers, and adhere only to the text—also, they despise excommunication, and care nothing for absolution—also, they reject the indulgences of the church, deride its dispensations, and have no notion of irregularity—also, they believe none to be a saint but the Apostles, and none to be holy but God alone—also, they despise canonizations, translations and the vigils of the Saints—also, they deride those laymen who chose saints by lot at the altar—also, they never read the litany and laugh at the legends of the saints—also, they despise the relics of the saints—also, they consider the cross as mere wood—also, they abhor the sign of the cross on account of the passion of Christ; nor do they ever sign themselves—also, they say that the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles is sufficient for salvation without the statutes of the church—that the tradition of the church is the tradition of the Pharisees; and that there is more made of the transgression of a human tradition than of a divine law. Matt. xv. ‘Why do ye transgress the commands of God by reason of your traditions?’ Also, they reject the mystical sense in the holy Scriptures, principally as it regards the sayings and doings delivered in the Church by tradition; as that the cock upon the steeple signifies a doctor. As to the third point, observe, that with respect to the customs of the Church, they hold these errors. All the approved customs of the Church of which they do not read in the Gospel, they despise; as Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the reconciliation of penitents, the adoration of the cross on Good Friday, the festival of Easter—they despise the feasts of Christ and of the saints, because of the great number of them, and say that one day is like another; and therefore they privately work on the festivals—also, they do not keep the fasts of the church; Isaiah, Iviii. ‘Is this the fast as I have chosen?’—also, all dedications, benedictions and consecrations of candles, of meats, of palms, of chrism, of fire, of wax, of the agnus Dei, of women after childbirth, of pilgrims, of holy places, of holy persons, garments, salt, and water—they deride the church built with walls and look upon it as a barn, and call it commonly Stainhauf [a heap of stones] and say that God does not dwell there. Acts, xvii. ‘God dwelieth not in temples made with hands,’ and that prayers made there are of no more avail than those made in a chamber. Matt. vi. ‘Thou when thou prayest enter into thy closet,’ &c.—also, they care nothing about the dedication of the church or of the altar—also, they say that the decoration of the church is a sin and that it would be better to clothe the poor than to ornament walls—also, of the altar they say that it is a pity that the cloth should rot upon the stone, and that Christ did not give his disciples stoles, nor scarves, nor surplices—also, they consecrate in a common drinking vessel instead of a chalice—also, they say that the cloth which covers the host is no more than the cloth of their breeches—also, as to lights they say, that God, who is true light, does not need light, and that the only use of them in the churches is that the priests may not break their shins—also, they reprobate censing—they say that holy water is like common water—images, and pictures, they call idolatrous—also, they scoff at the singing in the church, and say that there is no meaning in the music, but only in the words—also, they deride the noise made by the laity—also, they reject the festive processions, as of Easter, and the mournful ones, as of the Rogation days, and at funerals—they say, also, that the chanting by day and night, which the church had not had before, was instituted by Gregory—also, they find fault that a priest is allowed to say many masses in one day—also, they rejoice during an interdict because at that time they seduce many—also, they say that men are compelled to go to church for the sake of lucre; and they also go in a hypocritical manner, offer, confess, communicate, but all hypocritically—also, they make pilgrimages, and so going to Lombardy, visit their Bishops—also, they despise the sepulchre of Christ and the sepulchres of the saints—also, they reprobate the ecclesiastical burial, Matt, xxiii. ‘Woe unto you that build sepulchres;’ they would even prefer being buried in a field, to being buried in a church-yard, if they were not afraid of the church—also, they say that the offices for the dead, the mass for the defunct, oblations of funerals, testaments, legacies, visitation of sepulchres, reading vigils, anniversarius, tricesimus, septimus, and other suffrages do not profit the souls [of the dead]—also, they discourage those associations of the laity and clergy which are called Zeche, and say that all these things are done for the sake of gain. All these errors they hold because they deny Purgatory, saying that there are only two ways—namely, one of the elect to heaven, the other, of the damned to hell. ‘Where the tree falls, there it shall be.’ For if he is good he wants no suffrage—if not, it will be of no service to him—also, they say that every sin is mortal, and none venial—also, they say that one Pater noster is more efficacious than the sound of ten bells, and more than the mass” (As cited by S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents Illustrative of the History, Doctrine, and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses, p. 407-415).

From this description, we are able to summarize their doctrinal beliefs. They believed in the freedom of religion and freedom from religious persecution since “no one is to be forced into belief.” Christian worship and Bible reading should be done in the language of the people so that they can understand what they are being taught. People need to hear “the words of Christ in the vulgar tongue” and read the Bible in their language since “the Holy Scripture has the same efiect in the vulgar tongue, as in Latin; wherefore they consecrate in the vulgar tongue and give the sacraments.” They rejected the sacrifice of the mass for the forgiveness of sins since “the offering which is made by priests in the mass is nothing.” The clergy should be given the freedom to marry because “the church has erred in prohibiting the marriage of the Clergy.” They affirmed the priesthood of every believer so that there was no need for a special order of priests since “they say that every good layman is a priest.”

They taught the doctrine of sola Scriptura since “whatever is preached which cannot be proved by the text of Scripture they consider as fabulous” and “all the approved customs of the Church of which they do not read in the Gospel, they despise.” The ultimate authority for Christian doctrine is the Bible alone since “they reject the Decretals and Decrees, and sayings and expositions of the fathers, and adhere only to the text.” The teachings of the Bible are sufficient to save us since “the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles is sufficient for salvation without the statutes of the church.” They dedicated themselves to the study of Scripture so that “they know by heart the text of the New Testament, and a great part of the Old.” And they sought to interpret the Bible literally rather than allegorically since “they reject the mystical sense in the holy Scriptures.”

As Martin Luther later did, “they reject the indulgences of the church.” They also “despise the relics of the saints” as well as the veneration of icons since “images, and pictures, they call idolatrous.” They believed that “suffrages do not profit the souls of the dead” because “they deny purgatory.” From these statements, we can see that the Waldensians were twelfth-century Protestants who lived before the sixteenth-century Reformation.

But did the Waldensians reject the practice of infant baptism like the Petrobrusians and the Henricians? The scholarly consensus is that they did not reject infant baptism. Michael Svigel and John Adair express this belief in their book on church history:

“The movement eventually developed an antagonistic relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, criticizing abuses in the clergy and the Catholic dogma of the Lord’s Supper, transubstantiation. However, once again, no evidence exists that this group practiced believer’s baptism” (Urban Legends of Church History: 40 Common Misconceptions, p. 109).

But Svigel and Adair have overlooked this testimony of Reinerius Saccho about them who has given us evidence that some of the Waldensians rejected infant baptism. In his description of “the sect of Poor Men of Lyons” that was quoted above, he said:

“Secondly, they condemn all the Sacraments of the Church; in the first place, as to baptism, they say that the Catechism is nothing—also, that the ablution which is given to infants profits nothing” [Quod ablutlo quae datur infantibus nihil prosit] (As cited by S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents Illustrative of the History, Doctrine, and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses, p. 410).

The Reformed historian Pierre Allix mistranslates this phrase from Saccho as “the absolution pronounced over infants avails them nothing” (Some Remarks Upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Church of Piedmont, p. 234) as if Saccho is saying that they did baptize infants but did not believe that it brought absolution or forgiveness of sins as the Reformed Church believes.

But the Latin word that Saccho uses is “ablutlo” which means “washing” or “ablution” to describe the act of washing them with water which profits them nothing. And if this washing profits them nothing, why would they practice it? On the other hand, the Latin word for absolution is “absolutio.”

There is also the testimony of Bernard Gui, a ruthless Dominican inquisitor who had a great deal of experience interrogating Waldensians before handing them over to the secular authorities to be punished. He wrote a manual for his fellow inquisitors where he described the errors of the Waldnesians in this way:

“The sect and heresy of the Waldenses or Poor of Lyons began about the year of our Lord 1170. Its moving spirit and founder was a certain citizen of Lyons named Waldes, or Waldens, from whom his followers received their name. He was a rich man who, having given up all his property, resolved to devote himself to poverty and to evangelical perfection, just as the apostles had done. He had procured for himself translations of the Gospels and some other books of the Bible in vernacular French, also some texts from St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory, arranged topically, which he and his adherents called ‘sentences.’ On frequently reading these over among themselves, although very seldom understanding them aright, they were carried away by their emotions and, although they had but little learning, they usurped the function of the apostles by daring to preach ‘in the streets and the broad ways.’ This Waldes, or Waldens, won over to a like presumption many people of both sexes, made men and women his accomplices, and sent them out to preach as his disciples. They, men and women alike, although they were stupid and uneducated, wandered through villages, entered homes, preached in the squares and even in churches, the men especially, and spread many errors everywhere. . . . The foolish followers and impious teachers of this sect hold and teach that they are not subject to our lord pope, the Roman pontiff, or to other prelates of the Roman Church, for they declare that the Roman Church persecutes and censures them unjustly and unduly. . . . Also, this sect and heresy ridicules the indulgences which are published and granted by prelates of the Church, asserting that they are of no value whatever. . . . Also, these Waldensians deny that there is a purgatory for souls after this life and, in consequence, declare that prayers, alms, celebration of masses, and other pious services done by the faithful on behalf of the dead are of no avail. . . . Also, they say and affirm in private that the saints in heaven hearken not to the prayers of the faithful nor do they heed the acts of veneration whereby we on earth honor them. They say that the saints do not pray for us and so it is useless for us to seek their help. . . . Also, they preach to their believers from the Gospels, the Epistles, and from other Holy Scriptures, which they corrupt as they expound them, like masters of error who do not know how to be disciples of truth, notwithstanding the fact that preaching is wholly forbidden to laymen. . . . They have no use for the salutation to the Blessed Mary, the Hail Mary, or for the Apostles’ Creed, ‘I believe in God,’ because, they say, these were provided and composed by the Roman Church, not by Christ, However, they do recite and teach seven articles of faith on divinity, seven on humanity, the ten commandments of the Decalogue, and seven from works of mercy” (Bernard Gui, Practica inquisitionis heretice pravitatis. As cited by Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages, p. 386-392, 394).

In addition to the testimony of those who opposed his Waldensian followers, we have the confession of faith of Waldo himself written in 1180 or 1181 which he submitted to the Catholic Church in order to demonstrate that his beliefs were orthodox and not heretical. Though some of his later followers said that the baptism of infants profits them nothing, Waldo affirmed that it is profitable for them because it washes away sin. His confession of faith is in agreement with much of Catholic theology and proves that he was a trinitarian and not a Cathar heretic:

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and of the Most Blessed Mary, ever virgin. Let it be known to all the faithful that I, Waldes, and all my brethren, with the Holy Gospels placed before us, believe in heart, perceive through faith, confess in speech, and in unequivocal words affirm that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons, one God, the whole Trinity of Godhead coessential, consubstantial, coeternal, and co-omnipotent; and that each Person of the Trinity is fully God, all three persons one God, as is contained in the creeds, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. We believe in heart and confess in words that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the one God to whom we testify is creator, maker, governor, and, in due time and place, disposer of all things visible and invisible, all things of the heavens, in the air, and in the waters, and upon the earth. We believe that the author of the New and Old Testaments, that is, of the Law of Moses and of the prophets and of the apostles, is one and the same God who, existing in the Trinity as we have said, created all things; John the Baptist, holy and righteous, was sent by Him and was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb. We believe in heart and confess in words that the incarnation of divinity came to pass, not in the Father or in the Holy Spirit, but only in the Son, so that He who in divinity was the Son of God the Father, true God from the Father, was true man from His mother, having true flesh from the womb of His mother and a rational human soul, of both natures at one and the same time; that is, He was both God and man, one Person, one Son, one Christ, one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ruler and author of all, born of the Virgin Mary by true birth of the flesh. We believe in heart and confess in words that He ate, drank, slept, and rested when weary from travel; He suffered with true passion of His flesh, died in a true death of his body, rose again with true resurrection of His flesh and true restoration of His soul; in that flesh He afterward ate and drank, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and in it shall come to judge the quick and the dead. We believe in one Church, Catholic, holy, apostolic, and immaculate, outside of which no one can be saved. We do not in any way reject the sacraments which are celebrated in it with the aid of the inestimable and invisible power of the Holy Spirit, even though they be ministered by a sinful priest, as long as the Church accepts him; nor do we disparage the ecclesiastical offices or the blessings celebrated by such a one, but with devout mind we embrace them as if performed by the most righteous. We approve, therefore, of the baptism of infants for we confess and believe that they are saved if they shall die after baptism before they commit sin. We believe, indeed, that in baptism all sins are remitted as well that original inherited sin as those which are committed voluntarily. We hold that confirmation performed by a bishop, that is, by the imposition of hand, is holy and worthy of reverent acceptance. We firmly believe and absolutely accept that the Eucharist, that is, the bread and wine after consecration, is the body and blood of Jesus Christ and in this nothing more is accomplished by a good priest, nothing less by an evil one. We acknowledge that God grants forgiveness to sinners truly penitent in heart, who confess in words and do works of satisfaction in accordance with the Scriptures, and most willingly will we consort with them. We venerate the anointing of the sick with consecrated oil. We do not deny that carnal marriage may be contracted, as the Apostle says; we utterly forbid that those united in lawful fashion may separate; also, we do not condemn a second marriage. We humbly praise and faithfully venerate the ecclesiastical orders, the is, the episcopate and the priesthood and the others of higher and lower degree, and all that is in good order appointed to be read and sung in the Church. We believe that the devil was made evil not by nature but by his will. We put no reproach at all upon the eating of meat. We believe in heart and confess in words the resurrection of the flesh which we bear and no other. We firmly believe and affirm that judgment is still to come and that each person will receive either reward or punishment for those things committed in the flesh. We do not doubt that alms, and the Mass, and other good works can be of benefit to the faithful who have died. And since, according to James the Apostle, ‘faith without works is dead,’ we have renounced the world; whatever we had we have given to the poor, as the Lord advised, and we have resolved to be poor in such fashion that we shall take no thought for the morrow, nor shall we accept gold or silver, or anything of that sort from anyone beyond food and clothing sufficient for the day. Our resolve is to follow the precepts of the Gospel as commands. We wholeheartedly confess and believe that persons remaining in the world, owning their own goods, giving alms and doing other good works out of their own, and observing the commandments of the Lord, may be saved. Wherefore, we earnestly assure Your Grace that if any shall chance to come to your vicinity, declaring that they come from us but having not this faith, you may know with certainty that they come not from us” (As cited by Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages p. 206-208).

In spite of this confession, Waldo was later condemned as a heretic at the Synod of Verona in 1184 and Waldensian doctrine was condemned as heresy at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Waldensians who survived until the sixteenth-century were integrated into the Protestant Church during the Reformation.

There is a confession of faith that has been called The Waldensian Confession of 1120. This document can be found on pages 30-34 of Samuel Morland’s The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont. Of course, 1120 is before the time of the Waldensians so it could not have been written by them. The document was most likely written around the time of the Protestant Reformation. If it was written in 1120, why was it not referenced by any of the Reformers as evidence for the antiquity of their movement?

Reformers before Martin Luther: Thomas Bradwardine