formation, as it is called, abrogated penitential works, and made the road to heaven as smooth and as easy as the most voluptuous epicurean could wish; while the Catholic church, ever guided by the Holy Spirit and unalterable in her doctrine, continued, and still continues, to hold fast what she has received from her Divine Founder through the apostles. The church of England as by law established, rejected the sacrament of penance, but she retains the form of absolution in her ritual, and acknowledges that Christ has "left power to his church to "absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him." So believes the Catholic. He admits the power of the church to absolve from sin, but the church enacts certain conditions before she consents to confer this grace. These conditions are, a hearty and sincere sorrow for the offence committed, a firm resolution of amendment of life, and a pledge to perform such religious acts as the absolver shall require. On these conditions absolution is given, and without this necessary disposition every Catholic knows the absolution would be null and void. But here, in this relation, the people are represented as kneeling down for absolution as a matter of course, and to a person too who is ignorant of what is craved. Then one of the leaders whispers into the ears of the cardinal that the humble petitioners were no other characters than the murderers of the Hugonots, and immediately the boon is granted without any further formality. There is one thing, however, in this statement, which Fox and his editors have overlooked. We have contended, that persecution never was a principle of Catholic faith, and that it is not, we think, is clearly shewn in this relation of the Book of Martyrs. Were it a principle of Catholic doctrine to persecute and murder heretics or Hugonots or Protestants, or any that differ from the church in faith, such deeds must be considered meritorious, and therefore not requiring absolution, which is only given to sinners; consequently, these "actors in the massacre" must have been conscious that they had not only transgressed the laws of God, but had placed themselves under the bans of the church, or why require an acquital or discharge for the offence from a minister of the church? Had indeed the editors said they asked the cardinal for his blessing instead of absolution, the statement might have passed off without detection, though we can never be brought to believe that such a sanction would ever be given by a minister of the Catholic church to murder in any shape, much so by wholesale; but by enlarging too much, the plain Christians" have clearly convicted themselves of falsehood; they have placed themselves in a dilemma out of which they will find it difficult to get extricated.

Of the sufferers stated to have been put to death in this pretended persecution, we do not find that many of them made a profession of their faith, and therefore it is difficult to know what they believed. It is true, some of them are charged with absenting themselves from mass, and others for singing psalms, but in general the charges are so vague and confused, as to render it extremely difficult to learn, as we just observed, whether they belonged to any church or no church, To us, supposing them to be real characters, they appear to be a set of ignorant fanatics and extravagant enthusiasts, incapable of defining what they professed, and professing the wildest notions that ever dis

turbed the brain of man.

We find, however, that the whole of them are represented by the Book of Martyrs to have been deeply learned in the scriptures, which must have been by inspiration, as the editions of the scriptures at that time, in the vulgar tongue, were all incorrect, and it is a matter of great doubt whether many of these gospel martyrs · could read at all. To shew the skill of these reformers in biblical lore, we will here cite a passage from the relation of the burning of "Robert Oguier, his wife, and two sons," at Lisle, in the year 1556.The provost of Lisle, with his sergeants, we are told, armed themselves on the 6th of March, in that year, at ten o'clock at night, (see how exact our martyrologists can be to time) to make a search after Protestants, but none were assembled at their houses. They came, however, to the house of Robert Oguier, which house we are further: informed was a LITTLE CHURCH, where both rich and poor were "familiarly INSTRUCTED in the scriptures.' From this statement we may infer that self-interpretation had not then been discovered, since it is here avowed that the rich and poor were equally and freely instructed, that is, taught to understand the scriptures. Now whether Robert Oguier was the teacher of the rich and poor, as well as the owner of the house-church, or church-house, which you like, we are not told; but we do hope that the "few plain Christians," and their fellowlabourers in the work of deception, the bible-distributors, will no longer be angry with, and abuse the Catholic clergy for familiarly instructing the rich and poor of their church in the scriptures. If the gospel-reformers were at liberty to instruct the rich and poor of their sect, in 1556, surely the priests of the Catholic church ought to have the same freedom of action now as they had before the period: named, notwithstanding the parsons of another church established by law, and the preachers of divers sects established by folly, have got it into their heads that the people ought to interpret the bible themselves, and pay them at the same time to do it. But to proceed.— When the provost and his sergeants entered Oguier's house, they found certain books which they carried away, but the principal person they wanted, that is Robert Oguier's son, was not in the way, he being gone abroad to commune and talk of the work of God with some of "his brethren.". Yet, strange to tell, he came home just in the nick of time to be caught, and so foolish was this wiseacre in scripture divination, that though his brother Martin (not Luther, reader) watched his return to warn him of his fate, he was bent on destruction, and got it into his head that his brother mistook him for some one else. So in he went, and fell into the hands of the sergeants. Thus obtaining the principal object of their search, they laid hold of the whole of the family in the emperor's name; however they left the two daughters to look to the house," which was very kind of them; the rest were taken to prison. What was afterwards done we must give in the mar◄ tyrologist's own words. "A few days after, the prisoners were "brought before the magistrates, and examined concerning their course of life. They first charged Robert Oguier with not only "absenting himself from the celebration of mass, but with dissuading "others from attending it, and maintaining conventicles' in his "house. He confessed the first charge, and justified his conduct by

"proving from the scriptures that the saying of mass was contrary to "the ordinances of Jesus Christ, and a mere human institution; and he "defended the religious meetings in his house by showing that they "were authorized and commanded by our blessed Saviour himself." Thus then it appears the gospel-reformers of those days, like the bibledistributors in our own, objected to the sacrifice of the mass, as an human institution, and they shewed, it is said, from scripture that they were authorized and commanded by our Saviour himself to hold religious meetings in their houses. What wonderful scripturists the pretended reformation has produced. They are so deeply versed in the art of interpretation, that they can shew us what is not to be seen, and make that of human origin which was instituted by God himself.

Well here we have something in the shape of doctrine. The mass is proved from scripture by these reformers and martyrs to be contrary to the ordinances of Jesus Christ. But how then came the primitive martyrs to believe and prove from scripture that the mass was an ordinance of Christ, and enforced by his apostles. By referring to page 40 of our Review, it will be seen that St. Ignatius, recorded by Fox as a holy martyr, held the doctrine of the mass as of divine institution. St. Justin, martyr, did the same, see pages 49, 50. St. Ire-' næus, described by Fox as a "zealous opposer of heresies in general” maintained the same faith regarding the mass as Catholics did in the sixteenth century and now do in the eighteenth, see page 71, and gave proofs from scripture for the same. Now we must suppose that a saint so learned as St. Irenæus was, ought to know the sense of scripture as well as Robert Oguier and his sons, and as the former was a zea"lous opposer of heresies in general," and held the doctrine of the mass, master Oguier must have been in error, for it is effrontery in the extreme to say that two opposite doctrines are to be proved from scripture at two distant periods. What was the word of God in the time of St. Irenæus was the word of God in the time of Robert Oguier, because God is Truth itself and is unchangeable. Therefore since Fox says that St. Irenæus was a "zealous opposer of heresies in general," and it is proved from his writings that he was a strenuous advocate for the divine institution of the mass, the doctrine of the modern editors of Fox, that the mass is of human institution is FALSE and HERETICAL, and poor Robert Oguier and his sons were false teachers. It is very easy for John Fox or his modern editors to assert that Robert Oguier, in the year 1556, proved from scripture that the mass was contrary to the ordinances of Jesus Christ " and a mere human institution;" but the man of common sense will very aptly inquire, If this be the case,-how came the primitive Christians to believe this ceremony of the mass to be of divine institution, received from the apostles? How came it about that every nation, on embracing Christianity, embraced the doctrine of the mass at the same time, as an ordinancee of Christ? And if the mass be of mere human invention, why not tell us by whom it was first invented, in what age, and in what country? These questions the "few plain Christians" will find very difficult to answer, but answer them they must, before they can overthrow the Catholic doctrine of the mass.

Besides the testimonies before referred to, there are many others who

66

of

"Be

stand high in the estimation of John Fox, and, of course, his modern editors likewise. Of this number we must rank St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in the third century. This great divine is one of Fox's martyrs, and recounted by him "an eminent prelate, and a pious ornament "of the church. His doctrines were ORTHODOX and PURE," Fox. says; "his language easy and elegant; and his manners graceful." Well then, surely such an ornament of the church must be better qualified to expound the scripture, and understand its right sense, than Robert Oguier's son, or Robert Oguier himself, and as St. Cyprian's doctrines were orthodox and pure, neither Fox nor his modern editors can dispute them. Let us then see what St. Cyprian says of the mass. Although I am sensible," he writes, "that most bishops, set over the churches of God, hold to the maxims of evangelical truth and divine "tradition, and depart not, by any human and innovating discovery, "from that which Christ our master taught and did; yet as some, through ignorance or simplicity, in the sanctification of the cup "the Lord, and in delivering it to the people, do not that, which Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, the teacher and founder of this sacrifice, "himself did and taught; therefore, I judge it necessary to write to you, in order that, if there be any one still in that error, when he sees the light of truth, he may return to the root and fountain of "Christian tradition." Then proceeding to the point, hesays: "then advised, that, in offering the cup, the rule, ordained by Christ, "be followed, that is, that the cup, which is offered in commemoration "of him, be wine mixed with water. For as he said: I am the true "vine; not water; but wine, is the blood of Christ. And what is in "the chalice cannot be thought the blood, by which we obtained re"demption and life, if wine be wanting, whereby that blood is shewn, which, as all the scriptures attest, was shed." Ep. lxiii. p. 148. "the priest Melchisedech we see prefigured the sacrament of the "Christian sacrifice, the holy scriptures declaring: Melchisedec king of "Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most "high God, and he blessed Abraham. (Gen. xiv.) And that he bore the "resemblance of Christ, the Psalmist announces: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec. (Ps. cix.) This order thus comes and descends from that sacrifice; that Melchisedec was the priest of the Most High; that he offered bread and wine; and that "he blessed Abraham. And who was so much a priest of the most high God, as our Lord Jesus Christ? He offered sacrifice to God the "Father; he offered the same as did Melchisedec, that is, bread and wine, his own body and blood: and the blessing given to Abraham, now applies to our people." But, in the book of Genesis, that the "blessing given to Abraham might be properly celebrated, the repre"sentation of the sacrifice of Christ, appointed in bread and wine, pre"cedes it; which our Lord perfecting and fulfilling it, himself offered " in bread and wine; and thus he who is the plenitude, fulfilled the "truth of the prefigured image." Ibid. p. 149. He afterwards adds : "If Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, be himself the high priest of his Father; and if he first offered himself a sacrifice to him, and com "manded the same to be done in remembrance of him; then that priest "truly stands in the place of Christ, who imitates that which Christ

66

66

"In

"did, and then offers in the church a true and complete sacrifice "to God the Father, doing what he ordained. For the whole disci"pline of religion and of truth is subverted, if that which was "commanded be not faithfully complied with."" Ibid. p. 155.—

Here then we find this orthodox martyr of the third century declaring that Jesus Christ, our Lord and GOD, was the teacher and founder of this sacrifice, and consequently the mass was of divine institution, and an ordinance of our blessed Saviour. What then becomes of Robert Oguier's doctrine? Could he be right and St. Cyprian too? Is there not a great inconsistency between these two expounders of scripture? Who then are we to believe? Common sense will tell us, he who had the testimony of the apostles and their successors received in all ages and all nations, and not the fanciful reveries of a no one knows who.

BOOK VII.

66 FARTHER ACCOUNT OF THE PERSECUTIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES."

SECTION I.

66 PERSECUTIONS IN BOHEMIA AND GERMANY."

We are now going back to the fourteenth century, for "the few plain Christians' seem to pay as little regard to order as they do to truth. The preceding book treated on the real and pretended enor, mities of the sixteenth century in France; the present takes us into Bohemia and Germany two centuries prior to the reformation so called, when printing too was not invented and the records of passing events very circumscribed. Nevertheless the statements are made with as much precision, but with as little regard to truth as in the former case, Before we proceed with our remarks we will here give the opening account of the Book of Martyrs of this part of church history. "The se "verity exercised by the Roman Catholics over the reformed Bohe"mians, induced the latter to send two ministers and four laymen to "Rome, in the year 977, to seek redress from the pope. After some "delay their request was granted, and their grievances redressed. "Two things in particular were permitted to them, viz. to have divine "service in their own language, and to give the cup in the sacrament "to the laity. The disputes, however, soon broke out again, the succeeding popes exerting all their power to resume their tyranny over "the minds of the Bohemians; and the latter, with great spirit, aiming "to preserve their religious liberties.

"Some zealous friends of the gospel applied to Charles, king of "Bohemia, A. D. 1375, to call a council for an inquiry into the abuses "that had crept into the church, and to make a thorough reformation. Charles, at a loss how to proceed, sent to the pope for advice; the "latter, incensed at the affair, only replied, 'Punish severely those presumptuous and profane heretics.' The king, accordingly, ba"nished every one who had been concerned in the application; and to "show his zeal for the pope, laid many additional restraints upon the "reformed Christians of the country.

"The martyrdom of John Huss and Jerome of Prague, greatly in"creased the indignation of the believers, and gave animation to their