Mr. Robinson gives the statements of three classes of writers respecting the meaning of these names, which were borne by the Waldenses. But he rejects them all, alleging that these persons were led to these conclusions by the apparent meaning of the words, and not by the facts. Here are his words:—
“Some of these Christians were called Sabbati, Sabbatati, Insabbatati, and more frequently Inzabbatati. Led astray by sound without attending to facts, one says they were so named from the Hebrew word Sabbath, because they kept the Saturday for the Lord’s day. Another says they were so called because they rejected all the festivals or Sabbaths in the low Latin sense of the word, which the Catholic church religiously observed. A third says, and many with various alterations and additions have said after him, they were called so from sabot or zabot, a shoe, because they distinguished themselves from other people by wearing shoes marked on the upper part with some peculiarity. Is it likely that people who could not descend from their mountains without hazarding their lives through the furious zeal of the inquisitors, should tempt danger by affixing a visible mark on their shoes? Besides the shoe of the peasants happens to be famous in this country; it was of a different fashion, and was called abarca.”[893]
Mr. Robinson rejects these three statements, and then gives his own judgment that they were so called because they lived in the mountains. These four views cover all that has been advanced relative to the meaning of these names. But Robinson’s own explanation is purely fanciful, and seems to have been adopted by no other writer. He offers, however, conclusive reasons for rejecting the statement that they took their name from their shoes. There remain, therefore, only the first and second of these four statements, which are that they were called by these names because they kept the Saturday for the Lord’s day, and because they did not keep the sabbaths of the papists. These two statements do not conflict. In fact, if one of them be true, it almost certainly follows that the other one must be true also. There would be in such facts something worthy to give a distinguishing name to the true people of God, surrounded by the great apostasy; and the natural and obvious interpretation of the names would disclose the most striking characteristic of the people who bore them.
Jones and Benedict agree with Robinson in rejecting the idea that the Waldenses received these names from their shoes. Mr. Jones held, on the contrary, that they were given them because they did not keep the Romish festivals.[894] Mr. Benedict favors the view that it was because they kept the seventh day.[895] But let us now see who they are that make these statements respecting the observance of the Sabbath by the Waldenses, that Robinson alludes to in this place. He quotes out of Gretser the words of the historian Goldastus as follows:—
“Insabbatati [they were called] not because they were circumcised, but because they kept the Jewish Sabbath.”[896]
Goldastus was “a learned historian and jurist, born near Bischofszell in Switzerland in 1576.” He died in 1635.[897] He was a Calvinist writer of note.[898] He certainly had no motive to favor the cause of the seventh day. Gretser objects to his statement on the ground that the Waldenses exterminated every festival; but this was the most natural thing in the world for men who had God’s own rest-day in their keeping. Gretser still further objects that the Waldenses denied the whole Old Testament; but this charge is an utter misrepresentation, as we have already shown in the present chapter.
Robinson also quotes on this point the testimony of Archbishop Usher. Though that prelate held that the Waldenses derived these names from their shoes, he frankly acknowledges that many understood that they were given to them because they worshiped on the Jewish Sabbath. This testimony is valuable in that it shows that many early writers asserted the observance of “the Saturday for the Lord’s day” by the people who were called Sabbatati.[899]
In consequence of the persecutions which they suffered, and because also of their own missionary zeal, the people called Waldenses were widely scattered over Europe. They bore, however, various names in different ages and in different countries. We have decisive testimony that some of these bodies observed the seventh day. Others observed Sunday. Eneas Sylvius says that those in Bohemia hold “that we are to cease from working on no day except the Lord’s day.”[900] This statement, let it be observed, relates only to Bohemia. But it has been asserted that the Waldenses were so distinct from the church of Rome they could not have received the Sunday Lord’s day from thence, and must, therefore, have received it from the apostles! But a few words from D’Aubigné will suffice to show that this statement is founded in error. He describes an interview between Œcolampadius and two Waldensian pastors who had been sent by their brethren from the borders of France and Piedmont, to open communication with the reformers. It was at Basle, in 1530. Many things which they said pleased Œcolampadius, but some things he disapproved. D’Aubigné makes this statement:—
“The barbes [the Waldensian pastors] were at first a little confused at seeing that the elders had to learn of their juniors; however, they were humble and sincere men, and the Basle doctor having questioned them on the sacraments, they confessed that through weakness and fear they had their children baptized by Romish priests, and that they even communicated with them and sometimes attended mass. This unexpected avowal startled the meek Œcolampadius.”[901]
When the deputation returned word to the Waldenses that the reformers demanded of them “a stricter reform,” D’Aubigné says that it was “supported by some, and rejected by others.” He also informs us that the demand that the Waldenses should “separate entirely from Rome” “caused divisions among them.”[902]