« ForrigeFortsæt »
" its head, and the vicar of Christ.” To be sure, the Catholics do insist upon this article; and would they not be fools to put their trust in a church which they believed to be fallible? What reliance could they have on the correctness of the tenets they believed, if they were not sure they had them from unerring authority? Would they not rest on human assurance, if the church they followed' was, liable to error? Would they not be more consistent by rejecting their church at once, if they thought her fallible? As to the church of Rome being the only infallible church, there can be but one true church, which must be infallible; and there is no other but the Catholic church that can lay claim to infallibility, because she, and she only, can trace her doctrines up to the apostolic ages. For example, by referring to page 39 of our Review, it will be seen that St. Ignatius, who is ranked by Fox a “godly martyr," and was cotemporary with the apostles, succeeding St. Peter in the see, of Antioch, held the infallibility of the church of Rome, and the supremacy of the bishop of that see over the whole church; consequently, Peter Waldo was opposed to this “ Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, who is termed by Fox “a zealous op
poser of heresies in general,” maintained in his writings, and sealed with his blood, the same doctrines held by St. Ignatius, see page 67. Tertullian also defended the infallibility of the church, see page 83. St. Cyprian, who lived in the third age, and whose doctrines were orthodox and pure,” according to the testimony of Fox himself, bore witness to the infallibility of the church, disputed by Waldo, as may be seen in page 90. St. Basil, admitted by Fox to have been a
pillar of truth,” and St. Gregory Nazienzum, cotemporary with St. Basil, both living in the fourth century, preached the doctrines of infallibility and supremacy, see pp. 166, 167, 169, 170. So much for the first accusation.
The second charge is," that they (the Catholics) hold the absurd “ doctrine of transubstantiation, insisting that the bread and wine given " in the sacrament is the identical body and blood of Christ which was “ nailed to the cross." Well, and in believing this doctrine, they believe no more than what the apostles taught, and the primitive Christians believed. See our preceding pages; namely, 40, for the sentiments of St. Ignatius on this point; p. 49 and 50, for those of St. Justin, a Christian philosopher, who suffered at Rome about the year 166; p. 71, for those of St. Cyprian; and pp. 169 and 170, for the belief of St. Basil and St. Gregory.
The third charge is, “ that they believe there is a place called pur
gatory.” So did St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazienzum, see our Review, p. 171, as a doctrine received from the apostles. Tertullian, in his work De Cor. Milit. p. 289, mentions “ oblations for the dead on “the anniversary day." And, in his treatise on single marriages, he advises the widow “ to pray for the soul of her departed husband, “entreating repose to him, and participation in the first resurrection, “ and making oblations for him on the anniversary days of his death ; “ whieh, if she neglected, it may be truly said of her, that, as far as in “ her lies, she has repudiated her husband.”—De Monogamia, c. x. p. 955. St. Cyprian says, on this point, " Our predecessors prudently
advised, that no brother departing this life should nominate any
" churchman his executor; and should he do it, that no oblation should “ be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose.”—Ep. 1, p. 2. Numberless other witnesses could be adduced in favour of this doctrine; but we think those we have produced, and who are admitted by Fox to have been supporters of orthodox doctrines and opposers of heresies, will be deemed sufficient by the reader.
The next charge is rather premature, and does not belong to Peter Waldo: it is, « 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." The receiving under one kind is not an article of faith, but a matter of discipline; and in Peter Waldo's time, it
that the laity as well as the clergy received under both kinds. It was not till John Huss began to dogmatize, that it was finally ruled by the council of Constance, that communion should be administered to the laity under one kind only. Thus, then, John Fox is at his old trade of lying, and nothing more need be said about it here.
Catholics are next accused of praying “ to the Virgin Mary and «.saints, though their prayers ought to be immediately to God.” On this point, we shall refer the reader to St. Basil and St. Gregory, both competent judges, by Fox's admission, whose sentiments will be found p. 172. Pope Martin, too, (see p. 179,) 'maintained the doctrine of honouring the Virgin Mary next to God; and surely, as he was a “.godly martyr," he could not be a heretic, and a preacher of Popish doctrines.
The rest of the accusations are not worthy of notice here, and would take more space than we can spare to refute them ; we will therefore content'ourself with observing, that as we have proved, by the evidence of unimpeachable witnesses, that the leading charges here made in Peter Waldo's name, against the church of Rome, apply with equal force against all the "godly martyrs” hitherto recorded by John Fox, the modern editors of his Book of Martyrs must either expunge them from this book, or put Peter Waldo among the list of heretics admitted by Fox to be such in his records of the acts of his godly Catholic martyrs. Of the tenets imputed by Fox to the Waldenses we must say a few words, because, like his other statements, they are fabulous and absurd. Of the first and second nothing need be said, they are rites instituted by the church, and not revealed articles of faith. So we may say of the third, with the exception of confession, which is of apostolic institution, and flesh meat is eaten by Catholics in Lent; but what will the reader say, when we shall prove that the Waldensés rejected marriage altogether, and held that confession was valid if made to laymen. Of the fourth, confirmation was not a subject of dispute with them; they held obedience to the pope until he condemned their errors; and instead of allowing ministers tithes, they were to hold nothing, but live upon alms. How would the established and dissenting clergy like such a tenet should be taught by any of their flocks ? And then as to the equality of dignity, is not this a thorough levelling system? Will the "plain Christians“ say that this tenet is one of the “ genuine prin
ciples of Christianity.” Of the fifth, there is not the least appearance in history that Waldo ever troubled his head about it; and of the sixth so far was he from disallowing fornication and stews, that he, as we before said, abrogated matrimony as unlawful, and encouraged the promiscous intercourse of the sexes. The rest we have already shewn to be contrary to the belief of the primitive Christians, and therefore could not be orthodox. Of the seventh, extreme unction was not a contested point, and masses were not wholly abolished, as one was allowed to be celebrated every year. In this denial we are borne out by Bossuet, in bis Variations of the Protestant Churches, who in his 11th book, vol. ir, after giving an account of a conference held between the Catholics and Waldenses, says, No. 80, “Without examining here which side
was right or wrong in this debate, it is plain what was the ground of “ it, and which were the points contested; and it is more clear than
day, that in these beginnings, far from bringing the real presence, " transubstantiation or the sacraments into question, they did not as “ yet so much as mention praying to saints, nor relicks, nor images."
As Fox has favoured us with his version of the tenets of the Waldenses, we will here give them as stated by his first antagonist father Parsons, on the authority of all the writers that exerted themselves to controvert the erroneous notions of these infatuated people, and lived contemporary with them.
“1. That all carnal concupiscence and conjunction is lawful when “ lust doth burn us?
“ 2. That all oaths are unlawful unto Christians for any cause what“soever in this world, because it is written, nolite jurare, Do not swear, « Matt. v. Jac. v.
3. That no judgment of life and death is permitted to Christians “ in this life, for that it is written, nolite judicare, Matt. 7. Luc. 6.
4. That the creed of the apostles is to be contemned, and no ac“ count at all to be made of it."
5. That no other prayer is to be used by Christians but only the “ Pater noster set down in scripture.
“6. That the power of consecrating the body of Christ, and of hearing confessions, was left by Christ not only to priests, but also to laymen if they be just. “7. That no priests must have any livings at all, but must live on alms, and that no bishops or other dignitaries are to be admitted in “ the clergy, but that all must be equal.
"8. That mass is to be said oncé only every year, to wit, upon Maunday Thursday, when the sacrament was instituted and the
apos“tles made priests: for that Christ said, do this in my remembrance to “ wit (say they) that which he did at that time.
"9. Item, That the words of consecration must be no other, but only the Pater noster, seven times said over the bread, &c."
These and other articles, to the number of thirty-three, were condemned by the church in council, as in the case of Arius, Donatus, and the Monothelites, mentioned by Fox; and we think it hut just that the author of the Book of Martyrs and his modern editors, the “few plain Christians,” should shew when and how the pope and prelates of the church lost the right of condemning error in doctrine. Besides, to what a wretched situation must the "plain Christians” be reduced, when they find it necessary to associate themselves with sectarians of
an immoral character, and who differed from them too in many points of doctrine as widely as Protestants do from Catholics, for the purpose of diffusing, they say," among their fellow believers a love and know"ledge of the genuine principles of Christianity," and "a hatred and
abhorrence of the corruptions and crimes of popery and its professors." But we must now leave the reader to form his own unbiassed conclusions on the tenets of the Waldenses, which are represented by Fox and his editors to be “gospel truths according to their primitive pu
rity," and enter into the historical transactions related by the martyrologist.
Fox writes, “ Waldo remained three years undiscovered in Lyons, " though the utmost diligence was used to apprehend him; but at “ length he found an opportunity of escaping from the place of his “ concealment to the mountains of Dauphiny. He soon after found
means to propagate his doctrines in Dauphiny and Picardy, which
so exasperated Philip, king of France, that he put the latter pro".vince, which contained most of the sectaries, under military execu" tion; destroying above 300 gentlemen's seats, erasing some walled
towns, burning many of the reformed, and driving others into Flanders and Germany.
“Notwithstanding these persecutions (Fox continues), the reformed “ religion seemed to flourish; and the Waldenses, in various parts,
became more numerous than ever. At length the pope accused them “ of heresy, and the monks of immorality. These slanders they, how
ever, refuted; but the pope, incensed at their increase, used all
means for their extirpation; such as excommuni tions, anathemas, "canons, constitutions, decrees, &c. by which they were rendered in
capable of holding places of trust, honour, or profit; their lands
were seized, their goods confiscated, and they were not permitted to “ be buried in consecrated ground. Some of the Waldenses having “ taken refuge in Spain, Aldephonsus, king of Arragon, at the instiga“tion of the pope, published an edict, strictly ordering all Roman • Catholics to persecute them wherever they could be found; and
decreeing that all who gave them the least assistance should be “ deemed traitors. The year after this edict, Aldephonsus was severely
punished by the hand of Providence; for his son was defeated in a great battle, and 50,000 of his men slain, by which a considerable
portion of his kingdom fell into the hands of the Moors. The re“ formed ministers continued to preach boldly against the Romish
church; and Peter Waldo, in particular, wherever he went, asserted, " that the pope was antichrist, that mass was an abomination, that the “ host was an idol, and that purgatory was a fable.”
Now, through the whole of this account we have not one single authority quoted to substantiate the accuracy of it, but, as usual, all is assertion, bare assertion. However, with the man of sense and penetration, the statement carries with it its own refutation. But unbappily there are too many hurried away by their own prejudices and passions to discover the specious mode of the narration, and therefore it is our duty to lay bare the falsity of this account. Of the pope,
the mass, and purgatory, enough has been said to shew that Waldo's notions were contrary to the belief of the "godly martyrs” of John Fox,
from the first to the eleventh century, therefore they could not be'
gospel truths' according to their primitive purity,” but were “opi“nions of private men, different from that of the Catholic and orthodox
church," which Dr. Johnson defines to be HERESY.-But to the narrative of Fox. Waldo, he says, was secreted at Lyons three years, notwithstanding all the diligence used to apprehend him, and at last escaping to the mountains of Dauphiny, he soon after found means to propagate his doctrines in that province and Picardy. This put the king of France in a passion, and “he put the latter province, which con"tained most of the SECTARIES,” we quote Fox's own words, “ der military execution ; destroying above 300 gentlemen's seats, erasing some walled towns, burning many of the reformed," and driving
others into Flanders and Germany." First let us observe, that let the tenets of Peter Waldo be what they might, they could not be the doctrines of the Christian church, because Fox says that those who held them were “ sectaries,” and Dr. Johnson tells us, a sectary is “
one who "divides from public establishments, and joins with those distinguish"ed by some particular WHIM;" not it appears by "gospel truths " according to their primitive purity," but some foolish WHIM of the human brain, and therefore worse than stupid must those be, who, in these enlightened days, entertain the idea that Waldo's tenets were right, and the doctrines of the church of Rome were wrong, when the latter had been in existence nearly twelve hundred years, and could be traced to the apostles themselves. Then we are told that the king was exasperated merely at the preaching of Waldo, and caused military execution to be enforced, towns to be erased, and a great number of gentlemen's seats to be destroyed. Now the fact is, Fox has jumbled the history of the Albigenses with that of the Waldenses, though he afterwards makes a section of the persecutions of the former. Let us come to dates and we shall soon see what reliance is to be placed on · Fox's assertions. Peter Waldo began to turn reformer, as these dogmatizers are unaptly termed, about the year 1160, in consequence of the sudden death of one of his fellow merchants, while conversing with others op business. Fox says he was sought for but remained undiscovered three years in Lyons ; Bousset, however, in his Variations, gives quite a different tale. The latter writer proves, from dates and autho-> rities, that Waldo preached about twenty years, before any official notice was taken of his conduct, when pope Lucius III, condemned their errors in 1181. The same writer states, that about the year 1194 a statute of Alphonsus or Ildephonsus, king of Arragon, reckons the Waldenses amongst heretics anathematized by the church. After " this pope's death," writes Bousset, “when in spite of his decree these "heretics spread themselves far and near, and Bernard, archbishop of
Narbonne, whọ condemned them after a great inquest, could not stem the current of their progress, many pious persons, ecclesiastics and others, procured a conference in order to reclaim them in an amicable
manner. Both sides agreed to choose for umpire in the conference, a "holy priest called Raimond of Daventry, a man illustrious for birth, “ but much more so for the holiness of his life. The assembly was
very solemn, and the dispute held long. Such passages of scripture, " as each party grounded itself on, were produced on both sides. The