# An Inquiry into the History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses/Book III/Chapter IV
## Contents of the chapter

* An account of Claude of Turin early in the ninth century - p. 306
* I. The pretended Arianism or Nestorianism of Claude - p. 306
* II. Propositions extracted from Claude s Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians - p. 311
* III. Claude s Letter to the Abbot Theutmir - p. 314
* IV. Claude s reference to the divided state of his diocese - p. 316
* V. The concurrent attestation of his enemy Dungal - p. 320
* VI. The decisive language of Claude in regard to the superstitions of the age - p. 324
* VII. The charge of Dungal as to the doctrinal agreement of Claude and Vigilentius - p. 325
* VIII. The testimony of the Prior Rorenco - p. 327

## Chapter IV. The antiquity of the Vallenses shewn from the history of Claude of Turin. (pp. 306-329)

[306]
DESCENDING with the stream of time, while corruption went on rapidly increasing through the provinces and in the rich towns of the now dislocated though partly restored Western Empire, we shall again, early in the ninth century, meet with the Piedmontese Vallenses in direct connection with their eminent Pastor, Claude, Bishop or Metropolitan of Turin.
I. Bossuet seems not quite to have made up his mind, as to whether Claude was an Arian or a Nestorian. One of the two, he confidently pronounces him to have been: and, so far as I can understand the ingenious Prelate, he rather inclines to the charge of Arianism. His authority is Jonas, Bishop of Orleans: who, prudently waiting for the death of Claude, when he could offer no contradiction, brought the charge against him in the Preface to his work concerning the
[307]
worship of images, addressed to Charles the Bald.
[308]
The very vagueness of the allegation, which hovers between the asserted Nestorianism of his early friend Felix of Urgel and a pretended Arianism of which even his bitter enemy Dungal could discover no traces during his life, may well, even on the first blush, induce a full presumption that Claude was a favourer of neither heresy.
[309]
Accordingly, in the Works of that remarkable man which have hitherto been brought to light,
[310]
nothing whatever appears to inculpate him: while we find abundance, both to shew his real sentiments, and also to explain why the Romish Priesthood have in his case diligently resorted to their old and familiar craft of abusive calumny.
A commentary on the epistle to the Galatians is the only one of his various writings, which has been published in full. But the Monks of St. Germain had in manuscript his Commentaries upon all the Epistles, which were found in the Abbey of Fleury near Orleans; as also those on Leviticus, which formerly belonged to the Library of St. Remi at Rheims. There exist likewise, both in England and elsewhere, several manuscript copies of his Commentary on St. Matthew. Papirius Masson, moreover, has published extracts from his Epistle to the Abbot Theutmir, which are prefixed to the violent attack of Dungal upon that Epistle, and which occur likewise in the Work of Jonas of Orleans written for the defence of images: and Mabillon has printed the dedication of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, addressed to the Emperor Louis the Pious.
Now, under such circumstances, could any real proof of heresy have been adduced from his writings, we should long since have heard of it: for, if Bossuet, from Claude's own compositions to which he had easy access, could have established the truth of his random accusation, he was not a
[311]
man to have contented himself with a meagre reference to the posthumous gossip of Jonas of Orleans.
II. I have mentioned a Work by Claude, his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, as having been published in full. That Work is now before me: and a brief account of its character and contents will fitly introduce those subsequent remarks, which I shall have occasion to offer.
The Work itself is a composition of beautiful Christian simplicity. From the superstitions of even the incomplete Popery of the ninth century, it is altogether free. And, throughout, with clearness and fidelity, it propounds the genuine doctrine of the Gospel.
So far as regards the claim of Rome, to the universal supremacy of Peter, and thence to the universal supremacy of his pretended successors the Latin Pontiffs, Claude maintains the equal authority of Peter and of Paul in their respective departments: Peter being at the head of the mis sion to the Jews; and Paul, similarly and inde pendently, being at the head of the mission to the Gentiles.
[312]
The doctrine of man's justification in all ages, through faith alone in the merits of Christ, and not by the works of the law whether ceremonial or moral, he strenuously asserts with the utmost fulness and unreserve and precision.
He virtually, without hesitation, sets aside the imaginary infallibility of the Church: for on the grand article of justification, he pronounces; that, as the Galatians had swerved from the true faith, so the same lamentable departure might also be
[313]
then observed in the existing Churches at large.
With an evident reference to the state of religion in his own time, he declares; that, what constitutes heresy, is a departure from that interpretation of Scripture which the sense of the Holy Spirit demands: and he remarks, at the same time; that real heretics of this description may be found within, as well as without, the pale of the visible Church. Finally, in respect to the posthumous charge of Arianism brought against him, he uses language,
[314]
which touches the very point that divided that heresy from the true catholic doctrine: the point, to wit, that Christ, by nature, not merely by adoption, is the Son of the Father; or, in other words, the specially discriminating point, that the Father and the Son are consubstantial.
III. When the never-changing genius of Popery is considered, it will be obvious, that the bold advocacy of primitive truth in such a declining age could not, in an ecclesiastic of Claude's high rank and influential character, pass without producing a considerable degree of annoyance to the pontifical faction: nor was he himself to be exempted from the calumnious imputation of being a presumptuous innovator, when, in reality, the proper
[315]
innovators were the persons who assailed him simply because he was a steady adherent to the soundness of Apostolical antiquity.
You declare yourself to have been troubled, says he to the Abbot Theutmir, because a rumour respecting me has passed out of Italy through all the Gauls even to the very borders of Spain; as if I had been preaching up some new sect, contrary to the rule of the Catholic Faith: a matter, which is utterly and absolutely false. It is no marvel, however, that Satan's members should say these things of me, since he proclaimed our very Head himself to be a seducer and a demoniac. I, who hold the unity, and who preach the truth, am teaching no new sect. On the contrary, sects and schisms and superstitions and heresies, I have alway, so far as in me lies, crushed and opposed: and, through God's help, will never cease to crush and oppose. But, certes, this trouble has come upon me, only because, when, sorely against my will, I undertook, at the command of Louis the Pious, the Burden of a Bishopric, and when, contrary to the order of truth, I found all the churches at Turin stuffed full of vile and accursed images, I alone began to destroy what all were sottishly worshipping. Therefore it was, that all opened their mouths to revile me: and, forsooth, had not the Lord helped me, they would have swallowed me up quick.
[316]
IV. This universalising language, however, must be viewed, as respecting one division only of the pious Bishop's people. The citizens of Turin and the inhabitants of the low country were vehemently against him; indignant like Micah of old, that he should have taken away their gods which they had made: but he had a flock among
[317]
the Alpine mountains and in the Alpine Valleys, who had not forgotten the days of Vigilantius, and who both symbolised and sympathised with their admirable Prelate; themselves, in truth, being partakers both of his reproach and of his affliction.
These things says he, in an extract from his Commentary on Leviticus published by Mabillon: These things are the highest and strongest mysteries of our faith: they are the characters most deeply impressed upon our hearts. In standing up
[318]
for the conformation and defence of such truths, I am become a reproach to my neighbours: insomuch that those, who see us, do not only scoff at us, but likewise, one to another, even point at us. God, however, the father of mercies and the author of all consolation, has comforted us in all our afflictions: that, in like manner, we might be able to comfort those, who are weighed down with sorrow and affliction. We rely upon the protection of him, who has armed and fortified us with the armour of righteousness and of faith; that tried shield for our eternal salvation.
Here we perceive a direct reference to the twofold state of the diocese over which he painfully presided.
Some of his neighbours, it seems, were so irritated at the doctrines which he preached, that they not only scoffed, but even literally pointed the finger of scorn at him.
Yet he had to comfort others, who, in like manner with himself, were pressed down with sorrow and affliction.
The distinction is marked with singular precision: and its import, I think, can scarcely be misunderstood.
In the scoffers, we may note the Riparii and the Desiderii of the day: those genuine successors
[319]
of Jerome's correspondents, who deemed their lowland parishes or suffragan dioceses polluted by a too great vicinity to the mountains and valleys of the Cottian Alps.
In the partakers of holy Claude's affliction; the objects, like himself, of ribald scorn and the pointed finger of self-satisfied apostatic disdain; men, who needed the evangelical consolations which the troubles of their invaluable Bishop had so well qualified him experimentally to communicate: in these strongly-characterised members of his extensive Metropolitanship, we may note the Leonistic Vigilantii of the times; those genuine successors of the primitive Bishops and People, who were honoured by Jerome's furious vituperation; kindred souls with the apostolic Claude; theologians, whose faith and practice stand out strongly reflected by the recorded sentiments of their superintending friend and pastor and adviser and comforter.
I am unwilling to call this obvious application of Claude's language by the name of a mere conjecture. From the Bishop's own statement to the Abbot Theutmir, we know, that Turin and its daughter cities were, as the Apostle speaks, wholly given to idolatry. And yet, from the evidence already adduced, we likewise know, that one large portion of his diocese, the valleys and mountains of the Cottian Alps, no less vehemently detested all modifications of the odious superstition
[320]
in question ; firmly, with their Bishop, holding to the doctrines and practices of the Gospel and the Primitive Church.
When these two matters are combined, I really see not what other satisfactory illustration the language of Claude is capable of admitting.
V. Accordingly, the illustration is fully borne out by his hostile contemporary Dungal, from whom we distinctly learn the precise fact which we wish to learn: the fact, namely, that the diocese of Claude was divided into two parts; the one part, comprehending those who adhered to the superstition of the day and who warmly opposed him; the other part, comprehending those who symbolised with him in doctrine and who are palpably the Vallenses of the Cottian Alps.
This book, I Dungal vowed to dedicate and compose, in honour of God and the Emperor, against the mad and blasphemous dirges of Claude Bishop of Turin: not that there lacked abundant reason for reclamation and complaint long before I came into this country, while I sighed to behold the Lord's harvest overrun with malignant weeds; but, lest I should seem only to beat the air, I long remained silent.-
The people in this region are separated from each other, and are divided into two parts, concerning the observations of the Church: that is to say, concerning the images and holy picture of the Lord's passion. Hence, with murmurs and con-
[321]
tentions, the Catholics say: that that picture is good and useful; and that, for instruction, it is almost as profitable, as Holy Scripture itself. But the heretic, on the contrary, and the part seduced by him, say: that it is not so; for it is a seduction into error, and is indeed no other than idolatry.
A similar contention prevails respecting the cross. For the Catholics say: that it is good and holy; that it is a triumphal banner; and that it is a sign of eternal salvation. But the adverse part, with their master, reply: that it is not so; inasmuch as it only exhibits the opprobrium of the Lord's passion and the derisive ignominy of his death.
In like manner, concerning the commemoration of the Saints, there is a dispute, as to the approaching them for the sake of prayer, and as to the venerating of their relics. For some affirm: that it a good and religious custom to frequent the churches of the martyrs; where their sacred ashes and holy bodies, with the honour due to their merits, are deposited; and where, through their intervention, both corporal and spiritual sicknesses are, by the divine grace and operation, healed most copiously and most presently. But others resist, maintaining: that the saints after their death, as being ignorant of what is passing upon earth, can aid no one by their intercession; and that, to their relics, not a whit more reverence is due, than to any ordinary bones of mere animals or to any portion of mere common earth.
[322]
After this specification, he proceeds, in his rambling and declamatory fashion, to answer
[323]
the Epistle of Claude addressed to the Abbot Theutmir: some portions of which, specially referred to by Dungal, Papirius Masson has pub-
[324]
lished and prefixed to the Work of Dungal himself.
VI. Here I need only to remark: that Claude and his faithful flock the Vallenses disclaimed all charge of innovation; while, with a force of argument to which Dungal's miserable and verbose reply affords a very curious contrast, they exposed the unscriptural vanity of image-worship and cross-worship and relic-worship and idle pilgrimages to Rome and formal penances and papal supremacy inherent in the chair of the Apostle.
All these things, says Claude, are mighty ridiculous: truly, they are matters, rather to be la mented, than to be committed to the gravity of writing. But, against foolish men, we are constrained to propound foolish things. Return to the heart which you have left, ye wretched prevaricators: ye, who love vanity and are become vain; ye, who crucify afresh the Son of God and put him to open shame; ye, who in this manner, even by whole troops, have made the souls of miserable men the companions of demons, alienating them from their Creator through the nefarious sacrilege of images, and thus casting them down into perpetual damnation. - Return, ye blind, to the true light which lighteneth every one that cometh into the world: the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness compre-
[325]
hendeth it not; the light, which perceiving not, ye are therefore in darkness, and walk in darkness, and know not whither you go because darkness hath blinded your eyes.
VII. I must not omit to remark: that, in an evidential point of view, Dungal's perpetual reference to Vigilantius is not a little striking and important.
He charges Claude and his Vallenses with teaching and maintaining the same doctrines, as those taught and maintained by the eminent individual in question: and his whole strain of uncomely vituperation serves only to shew; that, after a lapse of four centuries, the memory and influence of the admirable Leonist still, in the Valleys of the Cottian Alps, remained fixed and unimpaired. Accordingly, while he forgets not to mention the birth of Vigilantius at the Lugdunum Convenarum of the Pyrenees, he describes him, certainly with much correctness, as having been the neighbour of Claude: though it may be doubt-
[326]
ed, whether, with equal correctness, he asserts Vigilantius to have been the author of Claude's madness. The madness in question, as holy Claude well knew, existed in Scripture and in the Primitive Church, long before any of the contending parties, either in the fifth century or in the ninth century, had made their appearance upon the face of this nether world. Hence we may perfectly understand the immeasureable wrath of Dungal, that Claude, to confound idolatry, should actually have dared to quote Scripture.
Here, then, we have evidence, both for the continued existence and for the resolute unchangeableness of the Vallenses at the beginning of the ninth century. For, as it appears from a specific date in the Work of Dungal, Claude must have written his epistle to Theutmir shortly before the
[327]
year 820: and Dungal must have answered him, either in, or shortly after, that same year. The Vallenses, therefore, must have been in their native fastnesses, bearing their appointed testimony to scriptural truth and against paganising idolatry, at the commencement of the ninth century.
VIII. Nor can it justly be said, as some have imagined, that they owed their origin to the faithful preaching of Claude of Turin. No doubt, he greatly encouraged and strengthened them: but, as we have had direct evidence to their long prior existence, so a diligent authoritative investigation, conducted by a bitter enemy, has been found to bring out the very same result.
Shortly before the year 1630, Marco Aurelio Rorenco, Prior of St. Roch at Turin, was employed to institute a strict inquiry into the opinions and connections and antiquity of the mountaineer Vallenses: and his researches led to the production of two Works; the one, published in the year 1632; and the other published in the year 1649.
Now in the first of these Works, entitled, A narrative of the introduction of Heresies into the Valleys, he states: that The Valdenses were so ancient, as to afford no absolute certainty in regard to the precise time of their origination; but, at all
[328]
events, that, In the ninth and tenth centuries, they were even then not a new sect.
And, in the second of them, entitled Historical Memorials of the Introduction of Heresies, he makes some very important additions to his former statement; for he there tells us: that, In the ninth century, so far from being a new sect, they were rather to be deemed a race of fomenters and encouragers of opinions which had preceded them; further remarking, that Claude of Turin was to be reckoned among these fomenters and encouragers, inasmuch as he was a person, who denied the reverence due to the holy cross, who rejected the veneration and invocation of saints, and who was a principal destroyer of images.

## References

* ↑ Claude de Turin étoit Arien et disciple de Felix d'Urgel, c'est-à-dire, Nestorien de plus. Boss. Hist, des Variat. livr. xi. § 1. I subjoin the precise words of Jonas: for Bossuet, according to his established custom, never gives the originals. Ut relatione veridica didici, non modo error (de quo agitur) in discipulorum suorum mentibus reviviscit, quin potius (eo dicente) hæresis Arriana pullulare deprehenditur, de qua fertur quædam monumenta librorum congessisse, et ad simplicitatem et puritatem fidei catholicæ et apostolicæ oppugnandam in armario episcopii sui clandestina calliditate reliquisse. - Sufficere namque Claudio poterat, ad cumulum miseriarum suarum, error quern secutus est duorum scilicet hæreticorum, Eustathii et Vigilantii. Sed, his geminis pestibus minimè contentus, altiori perditionis suæ baratro sese præcipitem dedit, dum infestissimi hostis sanctæ Dei Ecclesiæ, Arrii se sectatorem discipulumque, et in vita, et in morte, extitisse monstravit: in vita quidem, docendo et prædicando; in morte quoque, in nefandis codicibus suis eundem errorem a se scriptum relin quendo. Secta quippe ejusdem Arrii, olim a sanctis patribus damnata, catholicoque mucrone sub perpetuo anathemate confossa, quæ sub eodem Claudio dicitur resuscitata, necesse est, ut, sagacissimo quæsitu et diligentissimo scrutamine, extat inventa, et in lucem perferenda, et cum resuscitatore suo ab ecclesiasticis viris rursus sanctarum scripturarum telis ferienda atque frustranda. Jon. Aurelian. de cult. imag. præfat. in Biblioth. Patr. vol. ix. par. prior, p. 91. It may be observed, that, as Jonas waited for the death of Claude ere he brought his charge of Arianism, so, even then, he adduces it purely as a matter of hearsay: fertur; dicitur. In justice to Jonas it ought to be stated: that, although, in the ninth century, he composed a work against Claude and in [308] favour or images; he has merited and received the censure of more advanced Romanists, at a later period, because he laboured under the grievous error of his age, in denying to them all religious adoration. Hence this pillar of the Church, as Bellarmine remarks, must be read cautiously by all good Catholics. Jonas Episcopus Aurelianensis, imperante Ludovico Pio, scripsit libros tres, qui extant, adversus Claudium Episcopum Taurinensem pro defensione sacrarum imaginum et signi sanctæ crucis et peregrinationum ad loca sancta. Sed hie tamen auctor cautè legendus est, quoniam laborat eodem errore, quo Agobardus et reliqui ejus ætatis Galli, qui negabant sacris imaginibus ullum debere cultum religiosum. Bellarm. de Scriptor. Eccles. in Biblioth. Patr. vol. ix. par. prior, p. 91. The editors of the Bibliotheca piously follow in the track of the Cardinal. Etsi Jonas laude dignus extiterit, quod, adversus iconomachos sacras imagines demolientes, strenuè veritatem catholicam, de retinendis et conservandis imaginibus, propugnaverit: et in eo merito rejiciendus, quod nullam sacris imaginibus adorationem aut venerationem deferendam existimaverit, qui fuit error nonnullorum gallicanorum magni nominis theologorum, uti prædiximus. Ob id, scripta ista Ionæ magno cum judicio et cautè legenda. Ibid. p. 90.
* ↑ Dungal has written a long and angry answer to what he calls the perverse sentiments of Claude of Turin: and, though he manifestly wished to speak all the evil of him that he could [309] do, he never once, the object of his wrath being then alive, has ventured to charge him with either Nestorianism or Arianism. He refers, in a single place, to Felix, as the author of the error, which Claude maintained, and which he (not very wisely for a man of such limited powers and such a rambling illogical head) had undertaken by the aid of mere verbose declamation to confute: but this error, against which he directs the whole of his small strength, is the rejection of image-worship, and saint- worship, and relic-worship, and cross-worship, and foolish pilgrimages to Rome, and perhaps still more foolish acknowledgments of papal supremacy in the chair of the Apostle; not the heresy either of Arius or of Nestorius. He simply says: in magistro hujus erroris Felice. Dungal. Respons. cont. pervers. Claud. Taurin. sentent. in Bibl. Patr. vol. ix. par. poster, p. 878. The hic error, is the subject of the entire Treatise, which extends through twenty two very closely printed folio pages. On this same Hic error, Dungal is very full and very angry: but not a syllable has he to say upon either the Nestorianism or the Arianism of the mad blasphemer and the hissing serpent, whose head, for the good of the Church and the preservation of the faith, he had undertaken to crush. Possibly some allowance ought to be made for the exuberance of his indignation: for the zealous Claude, disgusted, like Vigilantius, with the unscriptural folly of the cinder-men and bone-worshippers, certainly did not mince the matter. Dungal, at the close of his Treatise, reminds him, how he refused to attend a Convention of Bishops on the not very complimentary ground of their being a Congregation of Asses. Propter istam autem insanissimam per versitatem, renuit ad Conventum occurrere Episcoporum; vocans illorum Synodum Congregationem Asinorum. Dungal. cont. Claud. Taurin. in Bibl. Patr. par. post, vol. ix. p. 895.
* ↑ Absentibus illis qui priores facti erant Apostoli, Paulus a Domino pertectus est, ut, quando cum eis contulit, nihil esset quod perfectioni ejus adderent; sed potius viderent, eundem Dominum Jesum Christum, qui sine personarum acceptione salvos facit, hoc dedisse Paulo ut ministraret gentibus, quod ètiam Petro dederat ut ministraret Judæis. Claud. Taurin. Enar. in Epist. ad Galat. ii. 6. in Bibl. Pair. vol. ix. par. prior. p. 71. [312] In commune vero hoc eos habuisse propositi, ut Christo, ex cunctis Gentibus, Ecclesiam congregarent. Legimus enim, et a sancto Petro gentilem baptizatum fuisse Cornelium, et a Paulo in Synagogis Judæorum Christum sæpissim è prædicatum: sed tamen plena auctoritas Petro, in Judaismi prædictione, data dignoscitur; et Pauli perfecta auctoritas, in prædicatione Gentium, invenitur. - Petrum solum nominat, et sibi comparat; quia primatum ipse accepit ad fundandam Ecclesiam: se quo que pari modo electum, ut primatum habeat in fundandis Gentium Ecclesiis. Ibid. ii. 8. p. 72.
* ↑ Coguntur fateri, non legis operibus justificari hominem, sed fide. Simul etiam nos cogit intelligere, omnes antiques patres, qui justificati sunt, ex ipsa fide justificatos. Claud. Taurin. Enarr. in Epist. ad Galat. iii. 16. in Bibl. Patr. vol. ix. par. prior. p. 76. Lex ostendebat esse peccatum, quod illi, per consuetudinem cæcati, possent putare justitiam: ut, hoc modo humiliati, cognoscerent, non in sua manu esse salutem suam, sed in manu Mediatoris. Ibid. iii. 21. p. 77. Perdit ergo gratiam Christi, et evangelium quod tenuerat amittit, qui in aliqua observatione legis se justificari putat: et cum gratiam amisserit, a Christi fide destruitur, et in ejus opere [313] conquiescit. - Nunc tota lege generaliter comprehendit, nihil eos in Christi opere proficere, qui in quacunque observatione se crediderint justificandos, dicendo: Si ergo in lege spem ponitis, infirmam Christi gratiam judicatis; et, quod gratis jam accepistis, tanquam non habentes, propriis vultis laboribus adipisci. Ibid, v. 4. p. 83. Non in propria justitia vel doctrina, sed in fide crucis per quam mihi omnia peccata dimissa sunt. Ibid. vi. 14. p. 89.
* ↑ Nec mirum, si, recedente Apostolo, vase electionis, et in quo Christus Dominus loquebatur, Galatæ sunt mutati; cum etiam nunc, cernamus in Ecclesiis id ipsum fieri. Claud. Taurin. Enarr. in Epist. ad Galat. iv. 18. in Bibl. Patr. vol. ix. par. prior. p. 81.
* ↑ Hæresis autem Græcè ab electione dicitur, quod scilicet eam sibi unusquisque eligit disciplinam, quam putat esse meliorem. Quicunque igitur aliter Scripturam intelligit, quam sensus Spiritus Sancti flagrat, quo conscripta est, licet de Ecclesia non recesserit, tamen hæreticus appellari potest, et de carnis operibus est eligens quæ pejora sunt. Claud. Taurin. Enarr. in Epist. ad. Galat. v. 19-21. in Bibl. Patr. vol. ix. par. prior. p. 86.
* ↑ Adoptionem propterea dixit, ut distinctè intelligamus unicum Dei Filium. Nos enim, beneficio ct dignatione miseri oordiæ ejus, filii Dei sumus: ille, NATURA, est Filius; QUI HOC EST QUOD PATER. Claud. Taurin. Enarr. in Epist. ad Galat. iv. 5. in Bibl. Patr. vol. ix. par. prior. p. 70. The man who wrote this, could by no possibility have been an Arian. From a manuscript in the possession of Mr. Theyer, Dr. Allix gives, at considerable length, the sentiments of Claude respecting the Eucharist. The following brief extract may suffice. Quia panis corpus confirmat, vinum vero sanguinem operatur in carne: hic ad corpus Christi MYSTICE, illud refertur ad sanguinem. Claud. Taurin. Comment. in Matt. lib. iii. c. 14. The same passage contains yet another proof, that Claude could not have been an Arian. In flagello positus, Patri gratias agit ÆQUALIS. Ibid.
* ↑ Epistolam tuam, cum adjunctis subter capitulis, plemam [316] garrulitate atque stoliditate per quendam accepi rusticum por titorem: in quibus capitulis, denuncias, te esse turbatum, eo quod rumor abierit ex Italia de me per omnes Gallias usque ad fines Hispaniæ, quasi ego sectam quandam novam prædicaverim contra regulam Fidei Catholicæ; quod omnino falsissimum est. Nec mirum est, si de me ista dixerunt diaboli membra, qui ipsum Caput nostrum et seductorem et dæmoniacum proclamaverunt. Ego enim non sectam doceo, qui unitatem teneo et veritatem proclamo: sed sectas et schismata et superstitiones atque hæreses, in quantum valui, compressi, contrivi, et pugnavi, et expugnavi; et expugnare, in quantum valeo, prorsus Deo adjuvante, non cesso. Hoc autem idcirco provenit: quia, postquam coactus suscepi sarcinam pastoralis officii, missus a Pio principe sanctæ Domini Ecclesiæ Catholicæ filio Hlu dovico, et veni in Italiam civitatem Taurinis, inveni omnes basilicas, contra ordinem veritatis, sordibus anathematum imaginibus plenas. Et, quia quod omnes colebant, ego destruere solus coepi: et, idcirco, aperuerunt omnes ora sua ad blasphemandum me; et, nisi Dominus adjuvisset me, forsitan vivum deglutissent me. Claud. Taurin. Epist, ad. Abbat. Theutmir. in Bibl. Patr. vol. ix. par. post. p. 876. Jonas of Orleans is very indignant at the whole of this passage: and, in reference to its conclusion, he kicks the dead lion with all the energy of a popish controversialist. Id nulli, nisi tibi, imputandum est. Debueras siquidem cavere, ne sectatores Christi tarn iufaustè reprehenderes, eisque [317] sacrilegii notam inureres, traditionesque quas sibi a sacrosanctis patribus traditas sancta simpliciter tenet Ecclesia, etsi non voto tuo, saltern silentio, gravitate magistra comprobare. Jon. Aurelian. de cult. imag. lib. i. in Bibl. Patr. vol. ix. par. prior. p. 94. Good Jonas however, himself, as we have seen, must be read cautiously, because he denies that any adoration ought to be paid to images. Thus, in the judgment of better instructed Romanists, does the castigator of Claude actually tremble on the very verge of heresy. On this curious and interesting topic Bossuet, with much sound judgment, is profoundly silent. Jonas, however, sorely enacting the Marplot, quotes, in favour of his dangerous and semi-heretical opinion, Origen and Augustine and Lactantius. Hence we are warned, I suppose, against the following sufficiently distinct statement, which the Prelate of Orleans makes his own by adoption. Ut enim breviter, et omnia in unum collecta, definitione dicamus: Adorare alium, præter Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, impietatis est crimen. Ibid. lib. i. p. 95. Here, no doubt, Bellarmine and the Editors of the Bibliotheca would place a Lege cautè.
* ↑ Claud. Taurin. Comment. in Levit. apud Allix on the Anc. Church of Piedm. chap. ix. p. 79.
* ↑ Hunc itaque libellum, responsiones ex auctoritate ac doc- [322] trina sanctorum patrum defloratas et excerptas continentem, sub nomine et honore gloriosissimorum principum, christianissimorum Sanctæ Ecclesiæ rectorum, domini Hludovici maximi ac sere nissimi Imperatoris, ejusque filii nobilissimi Augusti Hlotharii, ego Dungalus, in Dei et eorum obsequio esse dicandum componendumque devovi, contra insanas blasphemasque Claudii Taurinenis Episcopi nænias: non quod ante jam dudum, ex quo in hanc terram advenerim, occasio mihi copiosa hac de re reclamandi conquerendique assiduè non occurreret, dum dominicam ubique messem malignis zizaniis lolioque infelici horrere cernendo suspirarem; sed ne conatus nostri, aërem, ut dicitur, verberando, incertave pro certis adfirmando, deluderentur; sub silentii diutina anxiaque obseratione ora continui, moerens dolensque murmur multum, antiquamque contentionem de corpore Christi, hoc est Ecclesia, in turbis fieri, quæ quondam præcessit de capite.- Sequestrato ab invicem in hac regione, ac diviso in duas partes, populo, de observationibus ecclesiasticis, hoc est, de imagine dominicæ passionis et sancta pictura, murmurantes et contendentes, Catholici dicunt: bonam et utilem esse eam picturam; et pene tantundem proficere ad eruditionem, quantum et Sacræ Literæ. Hæreticus, e contra, cum parte a se seducta, dicunt: non; sed seductio est erroris et idololatria. Talis de cruce contentio habetur, catholicis dicentibus: quod bona et sancta sit, vexillumque triumphale, et signum perpetuæ salutis. Pars adversa, cum suo magistro, e contra respondet: non; sed opprobrium tantum passionis, et irrisio mortis, in ea continetur et ostenditur ac memoratur. Pari ratione, de memoriis sanctorum causa orationis adeundis, et reliquiis eorum venerandis, obnituntur, aliis adfirmantibus: bonam et religiosam esse consuetudinem basilicas martyrum frequentare; ubi eorum sacri cineres et sancta corpora, quasi quæ- [323] dam venerabilia vasa a Deo acceptabilia, in quibus omnigena pro fide Christi tormenta sunt usque ad mortem perpessi, cum honore eorum meritis congruo, condita habentur; ubique, ipsis intervenientibus, corporales ac spiritales quotidie languores, divina operante manu et gratia coruscante, copiosissiè et præsentissimè sanantur. Alii vero resistunt, dicentes: sanctos post obitum nullum adjuvare nullique posse intercedendo succurrere, nihil eorum duntaxat scientes quæ in terris geruntur; illorumque reliquias nullam alicujus reverentiæ gratiam comitari, sicut nec ossa vilissima quorumlibet animalium, reliquamve terram communem. Dungal. Respons. cont. pervers. Claud. Taurin. sentent. in Bibl. Patr. vol. ix. par. post. p. 878. As a specimen of his intolerably turgid and wearisome style, I give Dungal's exordium at full length. He evidently thought it a piece of very fine writing, fit to be placed in most advantageous contrast with the straight-forward simplicity of Claude. Nothing can be more amusing, than the complacency with which he speaks of his opponent. Licet autem incondito ac rustico, utpote ab homine doctrinalis expertis scientiæ, sit hæc edita contextu epistola; tamen non magnopere de hoc excutiendo vel inquirendo curavi: sed tantum sensus dispar, et catholicæ contrarius fidei, adeo me movit et conturbavit. Ibid. p. 878. This rambling and declamatory mode of writing, which occupies with an endless Crambe recocta half-a-dozen pages where one would amply suffice, characterises all the modern popish controversialists with whom I am acquainted, save and except Bossuet. Would he were more honest: but, unlike some whom I could mention, he assuredly knows how to use his pen.
* ↑ See Claude. Taurin. Epist. ad Abbat, Theutmir. in Bibl. Patr. vol. ix. par. post. p. 876, 877.
* ↑ Claud. Epist. ad Theutmir. p. 877. I must not suppress the singular felicity of Dungal's retort courteous. He is quite sure that all Claude's contempt for relics is bottomed upon mere envy. If the Cathedral of Turin was but as well stocked with dead bones and old rags as the richer cathedral of Rome; truly Claude would then be as warm an advocate, as he is now an opponent. Dungal. Respons. p. 888. I do not recollect to have ever met with so palpable a hit. The suppression of it would have been a sin without benefit of Clergy.
* ↑ Dungal. Respons. p. 880, 881, 883, 888, 893, 895.
* ↑ Cognovit, quod ilia (scil. Hieronymus) contra suum vicinum suæque auctorem insaniæ Vigilantium hæreticum scripserit. Dungal. Respons. p. 883.
* ↑ Claude's appeal to Scripture runs, as follows:- Cum enim distinctè dicatur, non faciendam similitudinem omnium quæ in cælo sunt aut quæ in terra vel quæ sub terra; non de solis similitudinibus alienorum deorum intelligitur dictum, sed de cœlestibus creaturis aut quæ in honore Creatoris humanus sensus potuit excogitare. Claud. Taurin. apud Dungal. Respons. p. 880. On this tough morsel, his stupendously long-winded antagonist hammers, with most exemplary perseverance, through eight closely-printed and double-columned folio pages.
* ↑ Dungal. Respons. p. 879.
* ↑ Della loro origine non si puo haver certezza. - Nel nono e decimo secolo, non era nuovo setta. Rorenc. Narrat. dell'introdutt. delle heresie nella valli. in Muston. Hist. des Vaud. vol. i. p. 165.
* ↑ Nel nono secolo, non vi fu nuova setta, ma ben nuovo fomentatore delle precedenti: fra quali fu Claudio, vescovo di Torino, discepolo di Felice, che negava la reverenza alia santa croce, come anche la veneratione ed invocatione de Santi, e fu principale destrutor dell'imagini. Rorenc. Memor. Istoric. dell'introdutt. delle heresie. in Muston. Hist. des Vaud. vol. i. p. 166. It is somewhat extraordinary, that neither of these Works of Rorenco is in the Bodleian Library: but, as Dr. Muston gives the precise words of the author, I cannot reasonably doubt his accuracy. Had the Works been within my reach, I should have been much gratified by the perusal of them. As it is, [329] I am unable to specify the nature and amount of the evidence, which brought the Prior to his conclusion. That it was overwhelming and decisive, is certain: because, as in the case of Bossuet, it is the ordinary humour and practice of the Romish Divines to assert, that none of the Valdenses could claim a higher antiquity than the times of Peter the Valdo or the latter half of the twelfth century.