who are content to be ignorant of the MANNER how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three in one. But, though there seems no positive evidence of the heresy of Gillebert, the council of Rheims condemned some of his propositions, which were of a dangerous nature. Gillebert recanted them: Bernard candidly expressed his belief of the sincerity of the recantation; and the bishop of Poitiers was allowed to return to his bishopric *. I have examined the sentiments of Gillebert, and cannot, I own, form any determinate conception of their nature. He wandered in the misty region of abstruse metaphysics, and seems both to have lost himself, and to have been unintelligible to his readers. Bernard endeavoured to stop the mystic enquirer in his career; and this was no unprofitable employment; but again Mosheim is displeased with the conduct of the abbot, and seems to intimate, that he himself understood the opinions of Gillebert, and that Bernard did not, when he says, "these refined notions were far above the comprehension of good St. Bernard, who was by no means accustomed to such profound disquisitions, to such intricate researches t." Does Mosheim really mean what he says, or is the epithet good, synonymous with weak and ignorant? Bernard was, however, with the critic's leave, a man of sound understanding and of true wisdom; and, if it were worth while, I could easily furnish the reader with such specimens of Gillebert's subtilties, as would fully justify the account given of him at the beginning of this chapter. * Bern. Vol. II. p. 1138.-Du Pin's 12th Cent. Chap. VIII. + Quarto, Vol. II. p. 602. As Mosheim's work, translated by Maclain, is far better known than the original in England, I always quote the former, and would be understood, both here and elsewhere, to refer to that rather than to the latter. CENT. XII. CHAP. III. If to oppose the popedom with vigour and fortitude be in itself a certain criterion of a real Christian, Arnold of Brescia may justly be ranked among the most eminent saints. But the spirit and views of an innovator should be known, that we may determine, whether he deserve the character of a reformer. In Arnold, the spirit of an old Roman republican was united with the theological sentiments of a Socinian. He was the disciple of Abelard, and was in action as daring as that heretic had been in speculation. Bernard vehemently opposed his designs, and while he allowed his morals to be decent and regular, he guarded the Christian world against his ambition and secular artifices. The conduct of Arnold demonstrated, that Bernard penetrated into the real character of the man. For this disciple of Abelard, having gained over at Rome a large party to his views, by his address and dexterity stirred up a sedition against the pontiff; during the violence of which, private houses were burned; the property of the clergy and nobles was plundered; the pope was driven from Rome; and, in general, the civil government was disordered and convulsed. Flushed with success, Arnold planned a scheme for the restoration of the forms of the old republic: but Providence favoured not his designs. In the end he was seized and burned, and his ashes were thrown into the Tiber. His case demonstrates, that to oppose what is established, however great be the abuses or faults of an establishment, is an uncertain criterion of character. What is it, which men really mean to substitute in the room of that government which is established? This is a question to which every man, who fears God, should seriously attend, before he suffer himself, by countenancing innovations, to introduce anarchy and confusion. Here Arnold of Brescia failed entirely *. Bern. p. 187, &c. Vol. I. Berington's Abelard, p. 301, &c. Tanchelin in Flanders, and Peter de Bruys, with his disciple Henry, in France, were also famous innovators in this century. The first appears to have been altogether so worthless and extravagant a person, that I shall not detain the reader a moment concerning his character or his actions. Nor can I give such an account of the others as is very satisfactory to my own mind. They were both treated as heretics: they both made many converts to their sentiments; and were condemned by the then reigning powers. Peter was burnt to ashes, and Henry was put under a confinement, in which he seems to have ended his days. Peter of Cluni, from whose writings we have the most copious account of de Bruys, and doubtless a man of a mild and moderate temper, charges him with atrocious excesses, and represents him as supporting his tenets by violence and sedition *. The testimony against the moral character of Henry is still more peremptory. For Bernard charges him wit! scandalous impurities of practice, and refers to such proofs and circumstances, as might have led to a detection of the charges, if he had indeed been innocent. And it was very much by the authority of Bernard, that the credit and party of Henry were sunk in the Christian world ↑. These men, however, bore a striking testimony against the predominant corruptions of the Church. The superstitious rites, with which the primitive custom of infant-baptism was now disgraced, naturally gave a strong plausibility to their arguments in favour of adult baptism exclusively. They protested also against the extravagant sumptuousness of churches, the adoration of relics and images, and against masses, prayers for the dead, and transubstantiation. It is not worth while to discriminate Du Pin's Heretics, 12th Cent. Berington's Abelard. ↑ Vol. I. p. 238. Vol. II, 1139. CENT. XII. with minute accuracy, what were the tenets of Peter, and what were those of Henry. With no great difference from one another, they descanted on the topics just mentioned; they loudly inveighed against the papal and clerical abominations, under which Europe groaned at that time, and provoked a storm of vengeance, which proved their ruin. If we may judge from the accounts of their lives,—and they are very scanty and confused,-these men seem to have been rather bad citizens than heretics. The darkest circumstance relating to their character is, that they seem not to have been so clear and explicit in describing, what they approved, as what they condemned. Satire and invective are plants of rapid and easy growth in the malignant soil of human nature. Men of the greatest licentiousness, both in sentiments and practice, can discover and display, with sufficient ability, the evils of popery. It belongs only to souls truly humbled, and well-informed in scriptural principles, to erect in its room the edifice of real evangelical truth and holiness; and I wish I could show the reader that Peter and Henry performed this in any degree. But though, among the supposed heretics of this century, we have failed in attempting to discover any particular leaders, who carry the unquestionable marks of real Christians, yet that there must have been some who were really such, is evident, from the consideration, that there certainly were opposers of the Church of Rome at this time, who deserve the name of PROTESTANTS*. The writer, to whom I have already been indebted for some evidence of this nature, particularly in the account of Claudius of Turin, has, with singular learning and industry, illustrated this part of ecclesiastical history, and seems to have consulted the vey best onuments and records. It would be tedious to • Allix on the antient Churches of Piedmont, p. 139-183. XII. follow him through the mazes of a scene beyond CENT. may 1 |