166

re

"Guitmund, monk of the cross of St. Leufroi, afterward bishop of "Aversa, B. Maurillus, archbishop of Rouen, Bruno, afterward bishop "of Segni, Durand, abbot of Troarn in Normandy, B. Wholphelm, "abbot of Brunvilliers, near Cologn. Ruthard, monk of Corwei, after"ward abbot of Hersfield; Geoffery of Vendome, whose first writing was a treatise on the body of our Lord; St. Anastasius, monk of St. "Michael, afterward of Cluni, Jotsald, monk of Cluni, Albert, monk of "mount Cassino, Ascelin monk of Bec, Gosechin, scholastic of Liege, an anonymous author published by Chifflet, &c. See the History of "Berengarius, wrote by Francis le Roye, professor in laws at Angers, "in 4to. 1656: and by Mabillon in his Anacleta, t. ii. p. 477. and again "in his Acta Bened. t. ix. Fleury, Histor. Eccles. and Ceillier, t. xx. 56 p. 280. have followed this latter in their accounts of this famous heresiarch. But his history is most accurately given by FF. Clemences "and Ursin Durand, in their continuation of the Historie Literaire de la France, t. viii. p. 197, who have pointed out and demonstrated several gross mistakes and misrepresentations of Oudin and Cave, the “former in his Bibl. Scriptor. Eccles. t. ii. the latter in his Hist. Liter." From this statement, it is plain that Berengarius could not be a preacher of gospel truths, according to their primitive purity," as Fox asserts; nor did the popes, by whom his doctrine was condemned, do more than Fox allowed the popes had a right to do, in his account of the martyrdom of pope: Martin in the seventh century. By a reference to page 178 of our Review, it will be seen that Fox stated that Martin called a council of bishops, on the heresy of the Monothelites, by whom the heresy was condemned; and by the account quoted from Mr. Butler, it appears that Leo XI. and his successors did no more towards Berengarius. His opinion was new and novel, like the opinions of the Monothelites; and as such, it was condemned by the ministers of Christ's church, appointed to guard the faith delivered to them, that nó novelty or error may creep therein. The only difference that we can discover in the two cases is, that in the case of the Monothelites the civil powers were against the pope; whereas, in that of Berengarius, the temporal monarchs were in unity with the head of the church. In the case of pope Martin, he exhibited, in the persecu tions he suffered for defending gospel truths according to their pri"mitive purity," a mind impressed with the truths he preached, and a courage unshaken at the torments he endured; whereas Berengarius displayed baseness and treachery in his conduct, violating his solemn oath, and at last repenting his misdeeds, and declaring his doctrine, which Fox calls pure gospel-truths, to be no other than FALSEHOOD. Had Berengarius been inspired with the Spirit of Truth, as the apostles, and Catholic fathers, and bishops were, why did he not preach his doctrines with the same undeviating firmness as they did, sealing their conviction with their blood, and in every instance defying tortures and death to the renunciation of those truths which had been imparted to them? We see council after council called to consider and decide upon the new opinions of this heresiarch; we see all these synods agree in deciding against him, and yet we are told that he "preached gospel-truths according to their primitive purity." A very pretty worthy must he be, that could retract and return to his vomit time

after time, and at last die condemning and renouncing the gospeltruths he preached !!!

a valua

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 ; ble 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 66 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 the 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 66 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.

66

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 notions 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 henceforth 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 heresy, 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, " and were maintained by the soldiers of Lombez. Those said, they "neither received the law of Moses, nor the prophets, nor the psalms, ἐσ 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 world, 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 his 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, attaching 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 which he caused "to be contracted with the like shameful ceremonies, as is related "in the history of the bishop of Mans, Acta Episc. Cenoman. Hildebert, 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 "Sa 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 reformed; 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 c called Waldensés, 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 Waldenses. 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, That 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 "gospel"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 Christianity" 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 vadmonished, not punished, for his abuse 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.

66 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