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, A. H. 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, vallee, 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 protestantism is not their forte, 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 loudly 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 ought 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. be invalid is a sufficient ground for a due readministration of the sacrament; so that the question at issue-Ought schismatics, on their admission to the church, to be rebaptized or not?-may be thus resolved: If their baptism has been administered by one who possesses no authority, no commission, no credentials, for his spiritual office, the spirit of unity and order which animates the church catholic must unquestionably decide that they should. The practice of primitive antiquity, notwithstanding the great diversity of opinion which exists on the subject, appears clearly to sanction this course. The original power of baptizing was lodged solely and entirely in bishops, and both extraordinarily and ordinarily was derivatively conveyed from them to others; so that the truth of this (which can scarcely be gainsaid) annuls at once the validity of uncommissioned baptisms. In the first and second centuries, Ignatius* lays it down as a rule, that "without bishops, priests, and deacons, there is no church," and consequently no sacraments; and that" without the bishop it is not lawful to baptize;" while St. Hermast mentions no other than authorized baptisms in the greatest extremities. In the third century, Tertullian‡ refers us to the practice of the church whereby the bishop had the power of baptizing, and after him presbyters and deacons, yet not even they without the authority of the bishop. The right which this father is said to have assigned to laymen, to baptize in the absence of the clergy (and that only with the bishop's consent), was founded on the same erroneous plea as that on which women's baptism was admitted, viz., its absolute necessity, whether regularly administered or not. St. Cyprian§ declares baptism, without the episcopal commission, to be null and void; so does Firmilian, so does Novatus à Thamagade, so does Pomponius à Dionysiana,¶ so does Clarus à Masculi; and so does the forty-seventh canon in the apostolical constitutions. In the fourth century, Hilary the deacon,** fifty years after the council of Eliberis (the canons of which are sometimes quoted in favour of lay-baptism), bears his testimony that laymen did not then baptize Pacian,++ Bishop of Barcelona, teaches that the new birth cannot be effected but by episcopal baptism. Optatus‡‡ admits the baptism of both catholics and schismatics, but the schismatics of his day had been See his Epistles to the Smyrneans and Trallians. + Simil. XIX. See his book "De Baptismo," c. 17. Speaking of persons who had received heretical baptism, Tertullian says, "We have a rule among us to rebaptize them." De Pudicitia, c. 19. Edit. Rigal. Lutet. 1634. This evidence is transmitted to us by Basil. Ep. 1, ad Amphil. c. 1. Firmil. Epist. inter Ep. Cyp. 75, p. 159. These were Cyprian's colleagues in the Council of Carthage. See the proceedings of that Council in S. Cyp. Oper. p. 354. ** "Nunc neque clerici (inferior clergy) vel laici baptizant." Ambros. Com. in Ephes. iv. p. 948. tt S. Paciani Sermo ad Fideles Catech. de bap. Biblioth. Patrum. vol. iv. p. 247. * Optat. contr. Parmen. lib. v. p. 90. See Du Pin's Ecc. Hist. cent. iv. pp. 88, 89. episcopally commissioned. St. Basil annuls lay-baptism; so does St. Chrysostom+ and so most emphatically does St. Jerome.+ Thus might we go on through succeeding centuries to the same purpose; but that we have arrived at the almost unanimous opinion of the church, in her purest ages, on the subject of irregular baptism, is enough to satisfy us how contrary to true primitive principle is that course which would lead us to acquiesce in the numerous schisms that are rife in our land, to acknowledge the validity of the counterfeit passport by which their supporters claim admittance to the church of Christ, and so to add fuel to a flame of the full force of which we shall only then be aware when it comes to be extinguished by the prompt and active measures its virulence demands. Should any yet object, that it would be better to leave the parties concerned to the uncovenanted mercy of God than to rebaptize them, I answer, that while not to readminister this important sacrament to the convert may be construed into an admission of an usurped spiritual authority, we can have no right to decide in terms of the objection, when a validly commissioned baptism can everywhere be obtained, if they who want it will but qualify themselves to seek for and receive it. But in this course we are not left without a guide in the primitive church. In the Apostolical Constitutions§ there exists a canon which condemned that bishop or priest who should not rebaptize a converted heretic to deposition, as "one who derides the cross and death of Christ." The same decision was made at the council of Nice,|| with reference to the Paulianists; and the same determined by St. Basil,¶ as to the Puritans, Saccophorians, and Encratites. I have only to add to this (I fear) already too long letter, that while in early times irregular baptism was never at all acknowledged but on the plea of necessity, and then in a spirit of strict reverence and respect for the episcopal authority and commission, in these modern days there can be no schism other than a wilful schism; and the baptisms which we are called on to acknowledge, so far from having the mistaken plea of necessity to support them, are administered in open, avowed, and obstinate contempt of that authority which the church has determined to be indispensable to the rite. If, Sir, we adopt the course suggested by your correspondent "T. C.," the speedy destruction of our holy catholic church must be the inevitable consequence, the history of truth must soon be degraded into a mere idle fable, the example of Christ and his apostles scouted and scorned, and that sound as well as liberal guide of our Christian forefathers, "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus," must be contemptuously set aside, and rudely superseded by the indefeasible right of private judgment. If the self-chosen priest of any sect may adininister baptism lawfully, he may lawfully administer the Lord's Ep. ad Amphil. c. 1. + Chrysos. de Sacerdot. lib. iii. c. 5. See also his Homil. 61. Nic. Can. 19. Basil. Can. i. 47, 48. (Vade Mecum, vol. 2.) |