SECT. I.] Vallies of Piedmont and the Pyrenees. 859

purity, adhering to the simplicity of Christian worship, patiently bearing the cross after Christ: men distinguished by their fear of God, and obedience, to his will, and persecuted only for righteousness' sake.

Voltaire has so justly and beautifully described the ge neral state of Italy as it existed at a period some little time subsequent to that of which I am about to treat, that, I shall here introduce his words. "In the beautiful and trading cities of Italy," says he, "the people lived in ease and affluence. With them alone the sweets of life seemed to have taken up their residence, and riches and liberty inspired their genius and elevated their courage. Notwithstanding the dissensions that prevailed everywhere, they began to emerge from that brutality which had in a manner overwhelmed Europe after the decline of the Roman empire. The necessary arts had never been entirely lost. The artificers and merchants, whose humble station had protected them from the ambitious fury of the great, were like ants, who dug themselves peaceable and secure habitations, while the vultures and eagles of the world were tearing one another in pieces.”*

This pleasing picture, which, no doubt, is very correct, as it respects the civil affairs of men, is equally applicable to the inhabitants of Piedmont and the Pyrenees, as to those states of Italy of whom Voltaire speaks; but if applied to the concerns of the kingdom of heaven, the felicity resulting from it will be found to have been almost exclusively theirs, during several of the succeeding centuries. I shall not, however, with the view of justifying this remark, here anticipate occurrences which will come more properly under the reader's notice in prosecuting that branch of ecclesiastical history, on which we are about to enter.

The former chapter affords an ample insight into the

• General History, ch. 69.

gradual encroachments and domineering influence of the church of Rome, during the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries. But it ought to be noticed, that neither the prevailing corruptions of that church, nor the arrogant claims of its successive popes, were implicitly allowed by all the other bishops and churches, even in Italy itself. "In the year 590, the bishops of Italy and the Grisons (Swisserland), to the number of nine, rejected the communion of the Pope, as of an heretic. This schism had already continued from the year 553, and towards the close of the century, the emperor Maurice, having ordered them to be present at the council of Rome, they were dispensed with by the same emperor, upon their protesting that they could not communicate with Pope Gregory I.; so little were they persuaded at that time of the Pope's infallibility, that to lose communion with him was to lose the communion of the church, or that they held their ordinations from the hand of the Popes, and from the bishops subjected to their jurisdiction.”*

In the following centur a firm and noble stand was made against the papal usurpations by Paulimus, bishop of the church of Aquileia in Italy. This venerable man was born about the year 726, near Friuli; but of the earlier part of his life, we know little more than that he was in great favor with Charles the Great, king of France, and preached the gospel to the Pagans of Carinthia and Styria, and to the Avares, a nation of Huns. In the year 776 he was ordained bishop of Aquileia, in which office he continued labouring till his death, which took place in 804. He seems to have possessed a strong and an enlightened mind, for there are few of the abominations of his times which he does not appear to have combated. In the year 787, he, and some other Italian

* Dr. Allix Remarks on the Antient Churches of Piedmont, ch. v.p. 32.

SECT. 1.] Some account of Paulinus of Aquileia.

361

bishops agreed to condemn the decrees of the famous second council of Nice, which had established the worship of images,* declaring it to be idolatrous, and that, too, notwithstanding the council had received the sanction of Pope Adrian, who was present at its deliberations, and exerted all his authority to maintain its decisions. This shews that, at this time, the despotism of Antichrist was not universally owned, even throughout Italy itself. The city of Rome and its environs seem to have been at that period the most corrupt part of Christendom in Europe.

Amongst other corruptions which prevailed, the doc trine of transubstantiation then began to be generally propagated. Paulinus undertook to refute that absurdity, in a treatise on the eucharist, which he wrote at the request of Charles the Great, and which he dedicated to that monarch. He affirms that the eucharist was a morsel or bit of bread, and that it is either death or life to him that partakes of it, according as he hath or hath not faith in that which is signified by it. He pours the utmost contempt upon the sacrifice of the mass, opens up the scripture doctrine of Christ's priestly office, as after the order of Melchisedec, vindicates his incarnation and crucifixion as the true propitiatory sacrifice for sin, and thunders out the boldest anathemas against all human satisfactions, maintaining that the blood of none of those who have themselves been redeemed is capable of blotting out the least sin, for that this privilege comes alone through the Lord Jesus Christ. "The Son of God," says he, "our Almighty Lord, because he redeemed us by the price of his blood, is properly called the true Redeemer by all that are redeemed by him. He, I say, was not redeemed, because he was never captive; but we are redeemed, who

were captives sold under sin, and bound by the handwriting that was against us, which he took away, blotting it out with his blood, which the blood of no other redeemer could do, and fixed it to his cross, openly triumphing over it in himself,"

In opposition to the Arians, who attributed to Christ only an adopted Sonship, he thus illustrates John vi. 32

58. "Is it said, that he who doth not eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, hath not eternal life? "He that eats my flesh," saith Christ," and drinks my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day; my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." The power of raising up at the last day belongs to none but the true God; for the flesh and blood cannot be referred to his divine but to his human nature, by which he is the Son of man. And yet if that Son of man, whose flesh and blood this is (for that one and the same person is both the Son of God and Son of man) were not really God, his flesh and blood could not procure eternal life to those that eat them. Hence the evangelist John saith, "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth from all sin." Moreover, whose flesh and blood is it that gives life to those that eat and drink them, but the Son of man's whom God the Father hath sealed; who is the true and almighty Son of God. For, HE, the bread of life, came down from heaven for us, and gives his life for the world, to the end that whosoever eats thereof, shall live for ever." In reference to Christ's intercession, he says, "He is called the Mediator, because he is a middle person between both the disagreeing parties, and reconciles both of them in one. Paul is not a mediator, but a faithful ambassador of the Mediator." He then quotes his words, "We are ambassadors for Christ, praying you in Christ's stead, Be ye reconciled to God." "Our advocate," says he," is one that intercedes for those that are already re

SECT. i.] The writings of Paulinus of Aquileia.

369,

conciled, even as our Redeemer doth, when he shews his human nature to God the Father, in the unity of his person, being God-man. John doth not intercede for us, but declares Him (Jesus) to be the propitiation for our sins."

These extracts, which might be enlarged to a vast extent, are sufficient to give the intelligent reader some idea of the doctrinal principles of Paulinus. He denied the su premacy of Peter over the rest of the apostles-lays it down as an inviolable maxim of Christianity, that God alone is the object of our faith, in opposition to what was taught in the church of Rome-and, in short, to quote the words of a learned writer, "Whoever examines the opinions of this bishop, will easily perceive that he denies what the church of Rome affirms with relation to many of its leading tenets, and affirms what the church of Rome denies; and whatever colourable pretexts may be employed, it will be difficult not to perceive this opposition through them all."*

But the succession of events now leads me to call the reader's attention to the life and labours of CLAUDE, BISHOP OF TURIN. This truly great man, who has not improperly been called the first Protestant reformer, was born in Spain. In his early years he was a chaplain in the court of the emperor Lewis the Meek (Ludovicus Pius, king of France and emperor of the West) and was even then in high repute for his knowledge of the scriptures, and his first-rate talents as a preacher; in consequence of which, says the Abbe Fleury, Lewis perceiving the deplorable ignorance of a great part of Italy, in regard to the doctrines of the gospel, and desirous of providing the churches of Piedmont with one who might stem the growing torrent of image worship, promoted Claude to the see of Turin, about the year 817. In this event, the attentive reader will hereafter perceive the hand

* Allix's Remarks, p. 52.