« PreviousContinue »
the writings of the Manichèans, and as to their repudialing and detesting, with prompt minds, Scythianus, and Budda, and Manes, the princes of the sect?
This he has not done, though it would have been far more to his point than talking about the Latin version of Peter being a bad one.
As little, moreover,-though he denounces my superficiality on the score that I have never read Photius, and though, to give me the harder hit, he lauds that writer to the skies,—does he venture to impugn the accuracy of Mosheim's statement, that, even according to Photius, who is to demolish me root and branch, “the Paulicians ex. pressed the utmost abhorrence of Manes, and his doctrine."
Do Photius and Peter make, or do they not make, such declarations ?
Mr. Dowling gives no denial to the alleged fact, that these precise declarations have been made both by Peter and by Photius; though such a denial, had it been possible, would have been quite pat to his purpose. Nay, verily, he admits the fact, but assures us that “this evidently proves nothing."
Such, then, being the case, if Mr. Dowling be stoutly determined to manufacture a community of Manichéans, or quasi Manichèans, out of a race who rejected the writings of the Manichèans, and who formally repudiated Scythianus and Budda, and Manes himself to boot, I dispute not his Anglican right to deal in paradoxes, though I may doubt the beneficial tendency of his Anglican churchmanship. If he admits Bossuet's pretended facts to be actual verities, he stands pledged to meet Bossuet's actual dilemma, built upon these pretended facts. And if, with his hands good-naturedly tied up, according to the wily Gallican's very wish and intention, he be unable to escape one horn of the dilemma, he can only, so far as I am able to perceive--at least, on the supposition of his also assailing the continuity and orthodoxy of the Vallenses-escape a grievous impalement on the other horn by resolving incontinently to turn papist.
III. Lest the length of this epistle should alarm you, I beg to assure you, Mr. Editor, that I have neither wish nor intention to continue a very bootless controversy ; but since you have admitted two attacks made upon me by name, you cannot, in common equity, exclude a statement, with which, save for those two attacks, your pages would never have been encumbered. The Welsh justice, as I remember, made it a point, as being by far the least troublesome, to hear only one side of a question ; but the Editor of the British Magazine will never forget the wise old proverb-Audi alteram partem.
G. S. FABER. Sherburn House, Oct. 19, 1838.
HISTORY OF THE WALDENSES.
SIR,— The following remarks may possibly be useful in case of Mr. Maitland's “ Acts and Documents" coming to another edition :
1. I do not perceive that he employs the contemporary work of Alanus de Insulis, “ Adversus Hæreticos et Valdenses," edited by Papirius Masson, Paris, 1612. It is in two divisions; the 1st against the Albigenses, under the title of Hæretici, and the 2nd against the Valdenses. The very title and division of the work seems nearly fatal to the chimera of the witnesses. For the author, a native of l’Isle de Venaissin, or of l'Isle de Medoc, is understood to have died either in the middle of the 12th, or at latest at the very commencement of the 13th, century. See Roquefort in Biogr. Universelle, art. Alain de l'Isle ; and Alani Anticlaudianus, ed. Basil, 1536. He was the Doctor Universalis, and was buried at Citeaux with this epitaph,
Alanum brevis hora brevi tumulo sepelivit,
Scire suum, moriens, dare vel retinere nequivit. A complete edition of his works, by de Visch, appeared at Antwerp in 1654. Since this eminent and most ancient authority declares the Waldenses not to have been heretics, it is manifest that they could have been neither Berengarians, nor Iconoclasts, nor otherwise dissenters in any material point of doctrine as distinct from authority and discipline. Though hostile to both sects, he evidently well knew them to be entirely different. Since they were expressly acquitted of heresy then, and are now considered, and are, the most extreme of heretics (in the Romish acceptation), it follows of necessity-either, that the Romish doctrine as to orthodoxy has entirely changed, which all agree to be untrue; or else, that they themselves have, at or since the Reformation, completely changed from what they were in the twelfth century. The latter being the fact, how then have they testified during nearly 1260 years ? Having given contradictory testimony, they are unfaithful witnesses.
As illustrating this general change, by which their pretended testimonial character is destroyed, should not some remark be bestowed on their title of Pauvres de Lyons ? It belongs to the same interpretations of the baptismal covenant, and the scriptural texts concerning the rich and the poor, which had given rise to anachorets, eremites, or monks, to cænobites, and in their own days, to friars, and especially to their immediate opponents, the brothers, preachers, or friars of St. Dominic. Whatever be the faults or merits of the ascetic life, it was a part of that middle-age piety now commonly denounced by the name of monkery. Whatever was the precise extent or nature of Waldensian poverty, and however distinguishable from that celibatary orders, it belonged to the same system. The Calvinists of the Piedmontese valleys have no such discipline or doctrine now, and, like the Genevese, the Scotch, and indeed all other protestants, are not a bit poorer than they can help. Here is one striking circumstance to confirm the testimony of Alanus and others, that they were men of manners and opinions conformable in the main to the age in which they lived, and distinguished from it by no heresy. Here, at least, is such a material change as renders other great changes probable, and disproves a providentially preserved and uniform testimony.
2. Another curious document has escaped Mr. Maitland's persevering research. It is the dialogue between the Dominican Izarn and the Albigensian Sicard de Figueiras, son of Ermengaud de Figueiras; abridged in French from the Provençal, by Curne de St. Palaye, in his Hist. des Troubadours, vol. 2. Izarn is probably an unique specimen of the Provençal Troubadour and the Dominican friar united in one person. Sicard, converted by his persuasions, not only renounced his heresy, but promised, with much bonhommie, to become a persecutor (sic) of the heretics, and to deliver up Peter Capella and John de Colet, chief teachers of the Albigensians, unless they would consent to abjure their errors. Sicard's avowals come to us through the medium of Izarn, and of course are to be taken with that granum salis. Subject to that remark, all that Sicard says is in harmony with Mr. Maitland's documents and inferences. Sicard, himself a teacher with a congregation, admits that he had their wealth at his disposal, and so lived in luxury. It is, however, worthy of notice, that Peter Capella is called by Izarn a Vaudois, and yet is said by him to deny the creation of the world by God, (p. 49.) That would give us a Waldensian Manichee, and on the authority of a Tolosan inquisitor and Dominican, but in opposition to all the records and memorials of the Tolosan inquisition. However, considering the light popular way in which a French homme de lettres would be likely to approach such topics, we cannot safely conclude that the original contains any such word. I rather believe a Monsr. Mèon has since published the remains of the Troubadours in the original dialect, which should certainly be consulted on this head. Raynouard (vol. v.) only gives an extract or specimen of Friar Izarn, his whole work being on that wretched unsatisfactory plan. But in that portion we find him distinguishing the heretic from the Vaudois, and so establishing both the orthodoxy and the doctrinal Romanism of the latter,-e.g.,
Ja na fora crezens heretje ni Baudes,
Now he will believe neither the heretics nor the Waldenses. This makes it still less likely that he would call a Dualist infidel a Vaudois. It may not be by any means certain that Mons. de S. Palaye could construe it all correctly, as most of the helps for so doing are since his day.
Allow me to suggest what follows :—We are told, in effect, that priestly artifice has distorted the ancient immemorial name of Vallenses into Waldenses, in order to degrade that apostolic church into a recent sect introduced by Waldo. Latinity is certainly very silent about the Vallenses; but Latinity was the ecclesiastical tongue. It was not however that of Langue-d'oc, or Provence, or the Lyonnois, or any part of France. In that kingdom, the North and South Romances were the two prevailing tongues. They exist in the extensive remains (MSS. and printed) of their authors; in learned glossaries by Bovel, Beronie, Roquefort, &c., taken from those authors, and from the yet spoken dialects or patois; and lastly, in the mouths of the people who speak them. The Waldenses themselves spoke Romance (probably a dialect of the Occitanian); and the Troubadours, bitter enemies and satirists of the clergy, also used it. May not Mr. Maitland invite his opponents to adjourn the seat of war from their enemy's ground (where they must be at a disadvantage) into their own, and to expound to us, whether the Waldenses were ever known in plain vernacular un-ecclesiastical lingo by any name connected with vallis, a valley, and disconnected with Peter Waldo* or Pierre de Vaud ? (Vallois and Vallerie, or some such thing, would, I suppose, express Vallenses, and secta or dogma Vallensium.) If they be forced to reply in the negative, I apprehend they must choose between two propositions, both rather extravagant,- First, that Vaudois and Vauderie are words derived from vallis ; or secondly, that the priests had power to change the common language of a whole nation. Your obedient servant,
SCOTCH (PRESBYTERIAN) BAPTISMS. Sir-I am very desirous of obtaining some further instruction from your correspondents on the subject of Scotch baptisms, as, in the two letters which lately appeared in the pages of your Magazine, the question of their validity was, as appears to me, disposed of in a manner very unworthy the importance of the subject. The question, affecting not only presbyterian baptism, but applying with equal force to irregular baptisms, by whomsoever administered, is one which, as it cannot but deeply interest the true churchman, calls for every serious and solemn inquiry which its consequence demands.
If Englishmen are prepared to contend for the ancient purity and apostolical authority of their church, they are, on principle, bound to condemn the heresies and schisms of those who have wilfully corrupted the one, and contemptuously renounced the other; and if, animated by a regard for those principles of primitive truth and order which have long distinguished their church, they are determined to
• Peter Waldo, Petrus a Nemoribus, Pays de Vaud, Pagus Nemorensis. At least I presume the Upper-Suabian phrase die Waadt to have that meaning, as wald, weald, wold, &c., had. How that is, perhaps you may be prepared to state positively, The following glosses are from the Occitanic glossary printed at Thoulouse, val, valleè, Vaudes, Vaudois, Baudes, Vaudois. Also, Sabatat, sobriquet donnec aux Vaudois, [et aux Albigeois. qu.?) sabato, soulier; modern French, sabot. It seems to me that Xabatati in Latin and Essabatats applied to the Vaudois in Provençal are ex-sabatati—i.e., barefooted. So that some of them appear to have been distinguished by poor and rustic shoes, and others by no shoes at all. Izarn (in Raynouard's specimen) distinguishes the simple Waldensian, whom I take to be the sabatate or rough-shod, from the ex-sabatate or barefoot; saying,
pecatz D'eretj, o de Baudes, o dels Essabatatz,
peccata, Hereticorum, aut Baldensium, aut ex-sabatatorum. If this remark of mine holds water, it will tend to shew that among the pious enthusiasts of Waldo's connexion there were some (if I may so say) of the strict observance ; and so to corroborate my suggestion concerning the ascetic system. The orders of Dechaussès may mean well, and their pious intentions be accepted, but pro. testantism is not their ferte, and they are poor witnesses for it.
maintain the positive institutions of Christ, and the practice of his inspired apostles, to be of paramount obligation on all who call themselves Christians, they can never so far merge their duty to the church catholic, in their friendship for a sister establishment, as to make it a matter of indifference whether those “other sheep,” whom they are ever anxious to add to the fold, be suffered to break in irregularly, or obtain an entrance in the authorized and appointed way. Charity and liberality are terms which in these times are londly insisted on, and applied on all occasions where the path of principle is too narrow for those to pursue who adapt their course to what is called the “spirit of the age;" but as it is not the broadest way which is always the safest, nor those the best methods of performing our duty which are the easiest or most convenient, so would it be well if those false heralds who “cry peace where there is no peace” could bring themselves to reflect, that it can form no part of Christian duty to flatter and compliment men, however “charitably," when God's glory is promoted by obedience to his institutions, and Christ's “strait gate" passed by a due regard to his appointments. If we are to believe that there is but “one faith and one baptism,” (and such, I thank God, is the well-grounded doctrine of the church of England,) if there is but one holy catholic and apostolic church, with one founder and one authority, we can never, without gross inconsistency with ourselves, admit the validity of more baptisms than one, suffer heresy to grow on in the enjoyment of privileges it onght to forfeit, or the roots of schism, amid contempt of all authority, or the acknowledgment of any, to spring up among the branches of the true vine. That is indeed a pitiful charity in the fullness of which your correspondent “T. C." would absolve his brother from that spiritual obligation which would best ensure his spiritual advantages, the forfeiture of which he so much apprehends. What! is it come to this-that, to qualify us for Christian burial,* the irregularities of our baptism-our passport of admission to the Christian fold-shall be frittered away, palliated, overlooked? Are we thus to degrade the high and holy privileges of our Christian calling to the lowest of all standards, to make them available to the most indifferent, the most negligent, the most profane?—to sacrifice truth at the shrine of worldly expediency -temporal applause--and at the expense of that courage and firmness of principle which ought to excite us to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints,” to court the favour of a world that “passeth away”? God forbid.
Before offering the few remarks with which I shall trouble your readers, it may be as well to premise, that I consider baptism necessary to salvation only where it can be had from authorized hands, and that consequently in that case alone are the spiritual effects of the ordinance to be expected. With this view of the subject, together with my firm belief that it is incumbent on all to avail themselves of Christ's institutions, I maintain, that to prove a particular baptism to
"T.C." appears to have forgotten, that to have the burial office read over them is a privilege to which the presbyterians are wholly indifferent.