« ForrigeFortsæt »
after time, and at "last die condemning and renouncing the gospel-> truths he preached !!!
But, we are told by Fox, this "principal” of “the worthies" was. . succeeded by "Peter Bruis, who preached at Toulouse, under the “ protection of an earl: and the whole tenets of the reformers, with the “ reasons of their separation from the church of Rome, were published “ in a book written by Bruis, under the title of ANTICHRIST;" a valuable composition, we have no doubt, and not to be excelled, for fable and falsehood, the Book of Martyrs of John Fox excepted. But what necessity could there be for Peter to preach under the protection of an earl, if he were commissioned, like the apostles of Christ, to teach all nations ? The apostles and the primitive fathers did not preach under the protection of men of this world, but against the passions by which men of this world are generally influenced. We could have wished that John Fox had given us some quotations from this famous work of Peter Bruis, published some hundred years before printing was invented !! Why did not John give an extract or two from this book, that his readers might have learned what the tenets of the earl-protected Peter were ? Fox has hitherto been sadly defective here; and we have frequently had to supply his omissions, as we shall do in the case of his friend Peter. Know then, reader, that this Peter de Bruis was a native of Dauphine in France, and began to dogmatize when but young, some time about the middle of the twelfth century. By an hypocritical demeanour, he gained reputation among the populace, and particularly women: while the writers of that time charge him with committing the most wicked actions, and being the most corrupt in morals. Mr. Butler tells us, in a note to his life of St. Dominic, that Peter the venerable, abbot of Cluni, wrote against the errors of Peter de Bruis, and reduced them to five, viz. “ That he denied the validity “ of infant baptism : condemned the use of churches and altars; and, “ wherever his rabble was strong enough, beat them down : rejected the
mass : denied that alms and prayers avail the dead, and forbade the singing of the divine praises in churches : rejected the veneration of
crosses, broke them down, and made bonfires of the wood, on which “ he boiled great pots of broth and meat, for a banquet, to which he
invited the poor.” This disposition is not much allied to the demeanour of
apostles and the primitive fathers, who neither stirred up sedition nor broke the peace of the country in which they preached. But if the doctrines of Peter de Bruis, be “ gospel-truths, according to “ their primitive purity," why do not the “ few plain Christians," who have edited this account, for the purpose of diffusing “ among their “ fellow-believers (or fellow-fanatics) a knowledge and love of the
genuine principles of Christianity,” follow the same gospel-truths ? We know that they have, like Peter de Bruis, rejected the mass and prayers for the dead, and the veneration of crosses ; but why not deny the validity of infant baptism also ? Why not knock down the churches, as well as destroy the altars? Why not forbid singing in the churches?. To be consistent, if these were gospel-truths” in the twelfth century, they must be “ gospel-truths” in the nineteenth. The truths for which the martyrs, heretofore recorded by Fox, laid down their lives, were ' divine revelations committed by Christ to his apostles, and by them to
their successors, all of which, and no more, have been held by the Catholic church from her first foundation to the present day; while it appears, from the account of John Fox, that the reformers, or dogmatizers against that church, could never agree on their "gospel-truths." The primitive Christians, too, be it observed, raised up churches and altars to offer up the august sacrifice of the mass, and assembled therein „to sing praises to the most High; but Peter de Bruis, we see, beat them down, and rejected the mass. Now, if Peter preached “ gospel"truths according to their primitive purity," the martyrs of the primitive ages could not be “ godly martyrs," though John Fox styles them so, because they were opposed to these “gospel-truths;" and truth, we all know, must be one and the same. It cannot be this to-day, and that to-morrow; but the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever. Leaving the “ few plain Christians” to get out of this dilemma, we will proceed a little further in our remarks.
Fox goes on, “In the year 1140, the number of the reformed was very great; and the probability of their increasing alarmed the pope, “who wrote to several princes to banish them their dominions, and
employed many learned men to write against them.” This latter admission is something in favour of Popery, since it is allowed that there were
learned men," who could WRITE against these pretended reformers, and we will add, with accuracy too. Many of their works are still extant, and are referred to as evidence of the impiety and inconsistency of John Fox's new allies. But what shall we say to the pope's writing to “ several princes” to “ banish” the reformers from their dominions ? Who were the princes, and to what part of the world were the reformers to be sent? The only place in Europe at this time infected with error was the south of France, all the rest of .this division of the globe was Catholic, therefore, to banish the reformers from their own country would only be to spread the error wider, and this we can hardly conceive the pope would consent to. Besides, to what country, as we before asked, could they be banished? Where were the vessels to convey them to foreign parts? It is manifest that Fox is here speaking at random, and with no regard to truth or the understanding of his readers; and had he not written before that period, we should have been led to suppose that he borrowed his idea from the report spread in the time of Oates's plot, which, though ridiculous in itself, was almost universally believed : namely, that the Jesuits intended to convert this kingdom to Popery, by cutting the throats of all the Protestants in it. A grand plan of proselytism. The fact, however, is, that besides the learned men employed to write against these pretended reformers, other zealous men were engaged to preach to them, amongst whom were St. Dominic and St. Bernard, who converted a great many of them back to the Catholic faith by the force of reason and the aid of miracles, which they worked in evidence of their divine commission, if we are to credit the most respectable writers of that age.
Fox next says, “ In 1147, Henry of Toulouse, being deemed their most eminent preacher, they were called Henricians, and as they “would not admit of any proofs relative to religion, but what could be " deduced from the scriptures themselves, the Popish party gave them
" the name of Apostolics." Why the disciples of this Henry should be
called, Apostolics, rather than Scripturists, which we think would have ... been a more appropriate term, if their potions were such as Fox describes them to be, we have not been able to learn. Indeed, we have every reason to believe that this term is an invention of Fox's brain, as we cannot trace it in any of the Catholic writers we are acquainted with. But what credit will the reader be benceforth, inclined to give John Fox; when he is informed that the Apostolics or Henricians, so far from deducing scripture proofs for their religious, or rather irreligious, opinions, actually rejected the old testament, and admitted only a part of the new. Following the customary rule of the church, as allowed by Fox in the case of the Monothelite beresy, a council was held in the year 1176, at Lombez; near Alby, where the errors were examined, proved, and condemned. Bousset says, the acts of this council are recited at length in Roger de Hoveden's Annals of England, who begins his account thus: “There were heretics in the pro“ vince of Toulouse, who would have themselves be called good men, so
and were maintained by the soldiers of Lombez. Those said, they “ neither received the law of Moses, nor the prophets, nor the psalms,
nor the old testament, nor the doctors of the new, except the gospels, " St. Paul's epistles, the seven canonical epistles, the acts, and the “ revelations." A very neat way of deducing proofs from scripture, and a very respectable set of "worthies," to preach gospel-truths
according to their primitive purity.” To shew the true character of the new allies of John Fox and his modern editors, to traduce the Christian faith now spread over the ld, we here subjoin the Rev. Mr. Butler's description of this " most eminent preacher," as Fox styles him, Henry of Toulouse. , “ His (Peter Bruis) disciple Henry, a pre“ tended hermit, an eloquent but illiterate man, propagated bis errors. .“ Hildebert, the zealous and pious bishop of Mans, famous for his
elegant letters, sermons, and other works, tells us, that while he “ went to Rome to procure the pope's leave, to retire to Cluni (which “ he did not obtain), that hypocrite, who went barefoot even in the “ middle of winter, and ate and slept on some hill in the open air, ob“ tained surreptitiously leave to preach penance in his diocess. When “ he had gained crowds of innumerable followers, by railing against “ their superiors and the clergy, then he openly discovered his heresies.
Regardless of the censures which the clergy fulminated against him, “ he continued his seditious discourses, though the clergy convicted “him of having committed adultery on Whitsunday, &c. Fanaticism “ often extinguishes, all sense of modesty and decency. Henry, attachso ing lewd women to his party, persuaded them that they obtained the
pardon of all past sins by public immodesties in the church, and “ made innumerable marriages among the people, all whịch he caused
to be contracted with the like shameful ceremonies, as is related “ in the history of the bishop of Mans, Acta Epise. Cenoman. Hilde“bert, upon his return, was surprised to see the havoc which the wolf “ had made in his flock, but in a short time regained their confidence, “ convicted Henry publicly of ignorance and imposture, and obliged him “ to leave his diocess, and return to his own country. Hist. de l'Egl. de
Fr. 1. 22. t. viii. p. 191. Now, we will here ask the reader what he thinks
of the “ few plain Christians," who have put out this Book of Martyrs with the view, as they say, of diffusing among their fellow-believers “ a knowledge and love of the genuine principles of Christianity ?” Could such a fellow as this Henry be a teacher of Christianity? And yet this book tells us, upon no authority whatever but the bare assertion of its author, that he was one of the “ most eminent preachers” of the réformed; one of the “worthies,” who had determined to shew the light of the gospel in its real purity; while the most unquestionable authorities represent him as' a lewd and corrupt hypocrite, an instigator of sedition, and a violator of the laws of morality. What precious auxiliaries have these “ few plain Christians” colleagued themselves with, in order to create a hatred and abhorrence of the (sup“ posed) corruptions and crimes of Popery and its professors !"
The next of these “ worthies" is the chief of the sect called Wal. denses, of whom Fox thus speaks : “ Peter Waldo, or Valdo, a native " of Lyons, at this time became a strenuous opposer of Popery; and “ from him the reformed received the appellation of Waldoys, or Wal
denses. Waldo was a man eminent for his learning and benevolence; “ and his doctrines were adopted by multitudes. The bishop of Lyons
taking umbrage at the freedom with which he treated the pope and “ the Romish clergy, sent to admonish him to refrain in future from * such discourses; but Waldo answered, Thạt he could not be silent " in a cause of such importance as the salvation of men's souls, wherein “ he must obey God rather than men.'” Such is the introduction given by Fox to the transactions narrated concerning these deluded and'unhappy sectarians ; for, that they did not follow the “ genuine principles of Christianity" must be taken as certain, since their notions never obtained general circulation like the revealed mysteries of the Catholic church, and were of themselves variable. Peter Waldo, by Fox's account, laid claim to the care of men's souls; but who gave him authority to do so ? He could produce no other title to preach “ gospet“ truths according to their primitive purity," than his own individual 'assertion, unaccompanied by any testimony of a divine charge; and was it likely that the whole Christian world would listen to such a fanatic? As well might the “ few plain Christians” have linked themselves with the mad prophet Brothers, or the cunning mother of the expected Shiloh, Johanna Southcott, to diffuse the "genuine principles of Chris" tianity" among their fellow-believers, as to ally themselves with Peter Waldo, the infatuated merchant of Lyons, He certainly succeeded in deluding the unwary in his days, as Brothers and Johanna have in our own; but happily their notions never became general, and therefore could not be genuine. By this statement, too, it is clear that persecution was not then an inseparable ingredient in Popery, as the “ few plain Christians” assert; for it appears that Waldo was only admonished, not punished, for his ahuse of the clergy. But we must now see what Waldo had to say against Popery, and what doctrines he taught, which Fox has placed under special titles, and we copy them literally.
ACCUSATIONS OF PETER WALDO AGAINST POPERY. “ His principal accusations against the Roman Catholics were, that they affirm the church of Rome to be the only infallible church of
“ Christ upon earth; and that the pope is its head, and the vicar of “Christ; that they hold the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, in"sisting that the bread and wine given in the sacrament is the very “ identical body and blood of Christ which was nailed to the cross ; “ that they believe there is a place called purgatory, where the souls of " persons, after this life, are purged from the sins of mortality, and " that the pains and penalties here inflicted may be abated according “ to the masses said by and the money paid to the priests ; that they
teach, the communion of one kind, or the receiving the wafer only, .“ is sufficient for the lay people, though the clergy must be indulged .“ with both bread and wine; that they pray to the Virgin Mary and
saints, though their prayers ought to be immediately to God; that they pray
for souls departed, though God decides their fate imme." diately on the decease of the person; that they will not perform the ,“ service of the church in a language understood by the people in
general; that they place their devotion in the number of prayers, “ and not in the intent of the heart; that they forbid marriage to the “ clergy, though God allowed it; and that they use many things in “ baptism, though Christ used only water. When pope Alexander the “ third was informed of these transactions, he excommunicated Waldo " and his adherents, and commanded the bishop of Lyons to extermi“ nate them : thus began the papal persecutions: against the Wal" denses."
TENETS OF THE WALDENSES. "1. That holy oil is not to be mingled in baptism. “ 2. That prayers used over things inanimate are superstitious.
“ 3. Flesh may be eaten in Lent; the clergy may marry; and auri“ cular confession is unnecessary.
“4. Confirmation is no sacrament; we are not bound to pay obe“ dience to the pope; ministers should live upon tithes; no dignity “sets .one clergyman above another, for their superiority can only be
drawn from real worth.
“5. Images in churches are absurd; image-worship is idolatry; the :“ pope's indulgences ridiculous; and the miracles pretended to be “ done by the church of Rome are false.
“ 6. Fornication and public stews ought not to be allowed; purgatory is a fiction; and deceased persons, called saints, ought not to “ be prayed to.
“ . Extreme unction is not a sacrament; and masses, indulgences, “ and prayers, are of no service to the dead.
“ 8. The Lord's prayer ought to be the rule of all other prayers."
Well, here we have the accusations of Peter Waldo, and the tenets he attempted to establish. For the first time, we have something in the shape of doctrine in the Book of Martyrs; and let us now compare these accusations and doetrines with the truths taught and believed by the primitive Christians. Hitherto Fox's “ godly martyrs” have been all of them Catholics ; but now, all at once, the reformers have become possessed of the “gospel truths preached according to their primitive
purity.”. The first of his principal accusations against the Roman Catholics, we are told, is," that they affirm the church of Rome to be “the only infallible church of Christ upon earth; and that the is