though tardy reformation has been virtually accomplished in the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church. Its most extravagant pretensions have been generally withdrawn; and if no important change has been introduced into the body of its doctrine, yet the abuse of some of its tenets has been in some places mitigated; and its discipline has been every where amended and purified. When it had lost the half of its dominions, it turned itself to improve and preserve the rest-from the blow which cleft its triple crown, it first began to learn the wisdom of moderation; and to discover in sackcloth and ashes, that its wisest counsellors and truest friends had ever been those, who had warned it to repent and amend.

Attempts to trace the continuity of the Protestant opinions to the Apostolical times.

II. Several learned and pious Protestants have attempted to trace the uninterrupted descent of their doctrines, or at least of some essential portion of them, even from the apostolic times. Great ingenuity and research have been employed for this purpose, partly to make it thus manifest, that the Almighty, while he permitted so much iniquity to be perpetrated in his name, did still nourish in secret his true and perpetual Church; partly, that the perpetual succession of the ministry might not seem wanting to the reformed communities; partly, because the reverence for antiquity, especially in ecclesiastical matters, has a powerful, perhaps an undue, influence on the greater part of mankind. For these reasons very much has been written about the "Lutheranism which was prevalent before Luther;" the unbroken series of "Witnesses of the truth;" the unceasing protestations which have been silently breathed in all ages, against the abuses of Rome *.

*This subject has been treated by Bossuet, in the eleventh chapter of his Variations, eloquently, learnedly, and of course not impartially and thus, while he has unquestionably established many of his positions, he has advanced others which are untenable. (1) Respecting the Albigeois. He has established that they were wholly distinct from the Vaudois: and that they held many opinions which are condemned by all Protestants. But he has failed in proving their Manichean origin-still more their Manichean doctrines -for to make out this identity he has invented so many marks or characters of Manicheism, wholly unconnected with its original and only true mark, the doctrine of the two principles, as to embrace under that name errors entirely dissociated from it. He calls them indeed new Manicheans, and admits that 'they had softened some of their errors.' But they had parted with the characteristic error, or, in fact, they had never held it. For the same reason he has failed in confounding them with the Catharists, Bulgari, &c., who were the real descendants of the Paulicians. (2) Respecting the Vaudois. He shows the great uncertainty, perhaps the entire vanity, of their claims to a separate descent from the Antenicene Church. He shows that, at their first appearance, their differences with Rome were less numerous and important than they became afterwards: that they adopted some new opinions after their union with the Protestants: that they were the same with the Leonists and the Insabbatés. But he does not establish his assertion, that they were founded by Peter Waldo of Lyons. (3) Respecting the Bohemian Brethren. He rightly supposes, that the Hussites were not descended from the Vaudois; and that the Brethren made some doctrinal concessions on their union with the Lutherans. But when he asserts that Huss had no doctrinal difference with the Church, except on the single communion; and that the same was the only subject of disaffection with the Calixtines; he has not fairly represented either the one or the other. The 'heresies' of Huss were less bold and numerous than those of Wicliff; those of the Calixtines than those of the Thaborites; and that respecting the cup was the most publicly professed; but it was associated with others less notorious. In the mean time, we must admit, that he has, in our opinion, established his two leading positions; viz., that the Protestants fail in their attempts to prove an uninterrupted succession; and that those whom they claim as their ancestors differed from them in numerous points of doctrine. We might notice some rash assertions on less important points-but our readers are aware that they should be cautious in following Bossuet on his own unsupported assertion-on that parole, ' toujours éloquente' (as Voltaire truly says of it) 'et quelquefois trompeuse.'

It is unquestionable, that so early as the beginning of the twelfth century, some of the Protestant opinions were openly professed, and atoned for by death. And it is equally certain, that, from the preaching of Peter de Bruis to that of Luther, there have subsisted in some quarter or other of the western community various bodies of Sectaries*, who were at open or secret variance with the Church of Rome-who rejected, according to their respective principles, in part or in whole, her tenets, or her ceremonies, or her ministry. It may be doubted, whether the Albigeois, in spite of the crusades of Innocent, and the Inquisition of Toulouse, were ever entirely extirpated. The Vaudois were certainly preserved through the perils of four centuries of oppression. The ashes of Wicliff were not lost in their rough descent into the ocean; and the spirit, which rose out of the funeral flames of Huss, survived to expand in the bosoms of his compatriots.

From this short catalogue we have purposely excluded innumerable denominations of heresy, of which there were scarcely any which did not, in some one respect, or in more than one, anticipate the Confession of Augsbourg. The various forms of Mysticism were universally opposed, in their progress as in their origin, to the outward pageantry of the Roman Church. The spiritual Franciscans, who questioned the omnipotence of the Pope, and denounced the corruptions, no less than the wealth, of the Clergy, are even placed by Mosheim among the forerunners of the Reformation. At least, it is certain, that their continued insubordination, combined with such high pretensions to sanctity, had its effect in preparing the downfal of Papacy; and thus they may properly be numbered among the instruments appointed to divide its strength, and betray its fortress by intestine discord to the foe without.

Again, among the sects, which we have mentioned as the more genuine precursors of Luther and Zuinglius †, there was not one which furnished in all respects a faithful model for their more perfect reformation. There were points on which they differed from each other. There were points on which they differed both from Roman Catholics and Protestants. There were even points in which they agreed with the former, and fell far short of the subsequent doctrine of the latter. But there were also many articles of essential importance, on which they opposed, with premature independence, their reason and their Bible to the abuses, and even to the authority, of the Church.

Such were the sects, from which the Protestants claim their descent, and to which they are justly grateful for having prepared their path, and set the example of non-conformity. But they sprang up before their season; their imperfect lights were unable to preserve them from error; curiosity and knowledge were yet too scantily distributed among the mass

It might seem scarcely necessary to remark, that we have frequently, in the course of this work, used the word Sect in its original and proper sense-of a body of men united by certain tenets,-the sense in which Tertullian used it (Apol. cap. v.) when he called the whole Christian community hanc Sectam. Only it is a common error to connect with this term the idea of cutting off, and thus to attach a degrading notion to it. In the same manner, the term Heresy (in its origin equally inoffensive), we have commonly applied to those, whom the church has denounced as heretics-without any reference whatever to the nature of their opinions.

+ Semler (Secul. xv. cap. iv. p. 218) enumerates a variety of opinions hostile to the Church, in the design to show that Luther was not so much the first who came into the design of vindicating the public Christian religion, as that he trod in footsteps clearly traced before him-so that those are in error, who consider the Reformation as a political, rather than a religious, movement.

of the people to give them a substantial footing there; and thus they fell before the established despotism, and shed their precious blood, both as an eternal testimony against the Church, and as the seed of more enlarged principles in a happier age.

In our journey back towards the apostolical times, these separatists conduct us as far as the beginning of the twelfth century;

but when we would advance farther, we are intercepted The Vaudois. by a broad region of darkness and uncertainty.

A

spark of hope is indeed suggested by the history of the Vaudois. Their origin is not ascertained by any authentic record; and being immemorial, it may have been coeval with the introduction of Christianity. Among their own traditions there is one, which agrees well with their original and favourite tenet, which objects to the possession of property by ecclesiastics. It is this that their earliest fathers, offended at the liberality with which Constantine endowed the Church of Rome, and at the worldliness with which Pope Sylvester accepted those endowments, seceded into the Alpine solitudes; that they there lay concealed and secure for so many ages through their insignificance and their innocence. This may have been so-it is not even very improbable, that it was so. But since there is not one direct proof of their existence during that long space; since they have never been certainly discovered by the curiosity of any writer, nor detected by the inquisitorial eye of any orthodox bishop, nor named by any Pope or Council, or any Church record, chronicle, or memorial, we are not justified in attaching any historical credit to their mere unsupported tradition. It is sufficient to prove, that they had an earlier existence than the twelfth century; but that they had then been perpetuated through eight or nine centuries, uncommemorated abroad, and without any national monument to attest their existence, is much more than we can venture, on such evidence, to assert. Here then the golden chain of our apostolical descent disappears; and though it may exist, buried in the darkness of those previous ages, and though some writers have seemed to discern a few detached links which they have diligently exhibited, there is still much wanting to complete the continuity*.

* The claims of the Protestant Mountaineers in Dauphiné appear to be somewhat stronger than those of the Vaudois; because (as has been mentioned) neither the worship of images, nor the pontifical jurisdiction was established in France, so early as in Italyprobably not till the middle of the ninth century. Now, as soon afterwards as the year 1025 we have records of the existence, at Arras, of certain erroneous opinions, which were supposed to have proceeded from "the Alpine borders of Italy." In this case, the interval of silence is reduced to rather less than two centuries: and though this space will seem to many sufficient to destroy all historical ground for asserting an uninterrupted succession, nevertheless, upon the whole, we are disposed to consider it as very probable, that on the sides and under the brows of those desolate mountains there may have existed in every age a few obscure peasants, whom all the innovations of Rome have never reached. Different persons will attach different degrees of importance to this result-we therefore refer the curious reader, with great pleasure, to Mr. Gilly's 'Memoirs of Neff,' where the subject is argued with learning and earnestness. At the same time it is proper to mention what those opinions really were which were condemned at Arras in 1025; lest it should be supposed, that they were at variance only with the Roman Catholic Church, and strictly in accordance with apostolical truth. (1.) It was asserted, that the sacrament of baptism was useless, and of no efficacy to salvation. (2.) That the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was equally unnecessary. (It would seem that the objections of the heretics on this point went beyond the mere denial of the change of substance.) (3.) That there was no peculiar sanctity in churches, (4.) nor holiness in the altar. (5.) That the use of bells, &c., to summon the people to worship, was objectionable. (6.) That the sacred orders of the ministry were not of divine institution. (7.) That the Church rites of sepulture are to be ascribed to the avarice of the clergy. (8.) That penance was altogether inefficacious. (This appears to have been an inference from their

When we turn to the history of the Albigeois, we find there still less to flatter our hopes, or encourage our pursuit. For The Albigeois. if we adopt the more probable opinion respecting the origin of that sect-that it was engendered by the contrast, so perceptible even to the least instructed, between the character of the Church and the first principles of Christianity-its birth must at least have succeeded the manifest corruption of the Church; nor is there any evidence to prove it more ancient, than the twelfth or perhaps eleventh century. If, on the other hand, we should identify those Dissenters (as some have done) with the Cathari, the Gazari, Paterini, Publicani, and others of the same age, who were collateral branches of the Paulician family, we are not, indeed, any longer at a loss to trace the succession to very high antiquity. It is also true, that the contempt of images, the disbelief in transubstantiation, and some other protestant principles, were faithfully perpetuated in that heretical race. But these attractive characteristics were tainted, more or less deeply, by the poison of Manichæism: and since it is our object to establish a connexion with the primitive Church, we shall scarcely attain it through those, whose fundamental principle was unequivocally rejected by that Church, as irrational and impious*.

Mysticism.

If the claim again be reduced from a succession of sects to a series of pious individuals, who in every age of the Church may have secretly protested against its abuses and its worldliness, it becomes equally impossible to prove its existence, and to deny its probability. The aspirations of mysticism, sometimes degraded into absurdity, sometimes exalted into the purest piety, have unquestionably pervaded and warmed every portion of the ecclesiastical system, from the earliest æra even to the present. Its perpetual existence alone shows, that in private bosoms, and especially in the abstractions of the monastery, a disaffection towards the ceremonies, towards the grosser abuses, and perhaps towards some of the sacraments of the Church, has been unceasingly nourished, even within its own precincts. But the names of these contemplative and unambitious individuals are, for the most part, lost in oblivion; and even if they were not so, the truth of the Protestant principles would gain little assurance, and their dignity little increase, from so slender, imperfect and precarious a connexion with the apostolical purity.

denial of the efficacy of baptism.) (9.) That alms, vicarious penance, &c., are of no use to the dead (which involved the denial of purgatory.) (10.) That marriage in general was contrary to the evangelical and apostolical laws. (11.) That saint-worship is to be confined to the apostles and martyrs—not extended to the confessors, i. e. holy men, not martyrs. (12.) That church music is reprehensible. (13.) That the cross is not an object of worship, (14) nor the Saviour's image on the cross, nor any other image. (15.) That the orders of the hierarchy are objectionable. (16.) That the doctrine of works (Justitia) supersedes that of divine grace, and every man's hope of salvation lies in his own deserts (see Labbai Concil. tom. xix. p. 423. Ex Dacherii Spicileg. 2 ed. vol. i. p. 607.) So mixed and various is the substance of those opinions, to which learned writers on this subject appeal with so much satisfaction.

* Manes, a Persian, (the pretended Paraclete,) propounded his system, for reconciling the Magian with the Christian opinions, in the third century. The system was, indeed, original, in as far only as it was a new application of the doctrine of the two principlesbut the doctrine itself had been (as we have seen) employed by the Gnostics for the corruption of Christianity, long before the time of Manes. It is for this reason, that we have not bestowed that attention on the system of the Persian fanatic, which it usually receives from ecclesiastical writers. It may suffice to refer the ordinary reader to Mosheim, cent. iii. p. 11. chap. v., and Bayle, Article-Manichéens.

Upon the whole, then, it seems impossible to establish on historical ground the theory of an uninterrupted transmission of the original faith from the primitive times to those of Luther. Indications of its occasional existence may be discovered, but no proof of its continuity. Yet is this no disparagement to those faithful witnesses, who were called into existence in the iron days of the Church. They bequeathed to their more fortunate successors their principles and their example. Nor were they in their own times without influence, nor even without peril to the pontifical predominance. Innocent III. did not despise their infancy: he beheld it, on the contrary, with such anxious apprehension, as to divert the engine, with which he was armed for other purposes, to their destruction. He knew the real character of his own despotism, and the secret of its weakness; and while, by his clamour for the crusades, he subdued the understanding of mankind, his own deeper penetration taught him, from what quarter the storm must really issue, which would finally overthrow his throne: and in the lineaments of that little cloud, which raised its prophetic hand in the horizon of heresy, he read the denunciation of future wrath, and heard the distant murmur of advancing reason.

On the treatment of Heretics by the Church.

III. It was not till the Popes had established their authority in most of the Courts of Europe, that the principles of persecution were displayed in their full extent, or the practice attended with much barbarity. The previous efforts of Alexander III. and Calixtus II. betrayed the disposition and showed the sting-but it was not yet armed and poisoned. The execution of the mystics of Orleans, at a still earlier period, was perpetrated by the king and the bishop, without any excuse of pontifical interference. In fact, the unity of the Church was not protected by the authorized use of the sword, until the reign of Innocent III. His great power enabled him not only to turn a casual storm against a particular sect of the heretics of the day; but to engage the temporal weapon, by a general and perpetual edict, in the service of the spiritual.

The third Canon of the Lateran council, held by that Pontiff, contained an injunction to the effect, that temporal lords be admonished, and, if necessary, compelled by censures, to take a public oath to exterminate heretics from their territories. If any one, being thus required, shall refuse to purge his land, he shall be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and his suffragans; and if he shall give proofs of still further contumacy, the Pope shall absolve his subjects from their fealty*...' Of Roman Catholic writers, those who would willingly cleanse their Church from the stain of blood, and those who disapprove of its claims to temporal authority, are equally perplexed by this edict. But while there are some who affect to doubt its genuineness; while others affirm, that it was directed only against feudatories, not against the supreme Lord; others, that it was dictated by Innocent to a council so servile, as even to impeach its authority; others again, that it was only levelled against the contemporary here

The words are these:-'Si vero Dominus Temporalis requisitus et monitus ab ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac heretica fœditate, per metropolitanos et cæteros episcopos comprovinciales excommunicationis vinculo innodetur. Et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significetur hoc summo pontifici: et extunc ipse vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos, et terram exponet catholicis occupendam...salvo jure domini principalis, dummodo super hoc ipse nullum præstet obstaculum, nec aliquod impedimentum opponat: eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos, qui non habent dominos principales.' See Labb. Concil. Collect. tom. xxii. p. 981, et seq., et supra chap. xviii. p. 349.