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 reconciled, even as our Redeemer doth, when he shows 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 eins,"

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 supremacy 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 of God, so ordering the course of events in his holy providence as, in the very worst of times, to prepare "a seed to serve him, and a generation to call him blessed." The expectations of the emperor were amply justified in the labours of Claude; by his writings he ably illustrated the sacred scriptures, and drew the attention of multitudes to their plain and simple meaning, unadulterated by the cor

* Allix's Remarks, p. 52,

rupt glosses of the Catholic priesthood. "In truth," says Fleury, himself a Catholic writer, "he began to preach and instruct with great application." His first zeal was directed against images, relics, pilgrimages and crosses. It is not to be supposed that efforts such as his, directed against the prevailing superstitions of the age, should produce no ostensible effect; the monks were presently up in arms against him, reviling him as a blasphemer and a heretic, and his own people became so refractory that, in a little time, he went about in fear of his life. Supported, how

ever, by the testimony of a good conscience, and a confidence in the goodness of his cause, Claude persevered, and wrote comments on several books of scripture, of which, unfortunately, the only one that has been printed is his exposition of the epistle to the Galatians. "He bore a noble testimony (says Mr. Robinson, in his Ecclesiastical Researches, p. 447) against the prevailing errors of his time, and was, undoubtedly, a most respectable character.”

Of one whose reputation stands so high, it cannot be necessary to enter upon any formal vindication against the calumnies of his opponents, but it may be satisfactory to the reader to have before him a summary of the principles which he held, and for which he nobly contended. Let it be observed then, that, throughout the whole of his writings, he maintains that "Jesus Christ is the alone head of the church." This, the reader will perceive, struck immediately at the root of the first principle of Popery-the vicarious office of the bishop of Rome. He utterly discards the doctrine of human worthiness in the article of justification, in such a manner as overthrows all the subtle distinctions of Papists on the subject. He pronounces anathemas against traditions in matters of religion, and thus drew the attention of men to the word of God, and that alone, as the ground of a Christian's faith. He maintained, that men are justified by faith, without the deeds of the law-the doctrine which Luther, seven hundred years afterwards so ably contended for, and which so excessively

provoked the advocates of the church of Rome. He contended that the church was subject to error, and denied that prayers for the dead can be of any use to those that have demanded them; while he lashed in the severest manner the superstition and idolatry which every where abounded under the countenance and authority of the see of Rome.

The writings of Claude were voluminous; for he was indefatigable in explaining the scriptures, and in opposing the torrent of superstition. He wrote three books upon Genesis in the year 815, and also a commentary on the Gospel by Matthew, of which there are several copies in England. He wrote a Commentary on Exodus in the year 821, and another on Leviticus in 823, besides which he wrote comments on all the apostolic epistles, which have been since found, in manuscript, in two volumes, in the Abbey of Fleury, near Orleans, in France. These latter were drawn up at the express request of the emperor, Ludovicus Pius, to whom he dedicated his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians; also of Justus, bishop of Charroux, and of Dructeramnus, an abbot of celebrity, to whom he dedicated his Comment on the Epistle to the Galatians. As a specimen of his style and sentiments, the reader may take the following extracts from his illustration of the Lord's supper.

"The apostles being sat down at table, Jesus Christ took bread, blessed and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying to them, Take and eat-this is my body. The ancient solemnities of the passover, which were used in commemoration of the deliverance of the children of Israel, being ended, he passeth on to the new, because he would have the same to be celebrated in his church, as a memorial of the mystery of her redemption, and to substitute the sacrament of his body and of his blood, instead of the flesh and blood of the paschal lamb; and to show that it was he himself to whom God had sworn, and shall never repent, Thou art the eternal Priest according to the order of

Melchisedec.' Moreover, he himself breaks the bread which he gives the disciples, that he might represent and make it appear, that the breaking of his body would not be contrary to his inclination, or without his willingness to die; but as he himself elsewhere says, that he had power to give his life, and to deliver it up himself, as well as to take it again, and raise himself from the dead. He blessed the bread before he brake it, to teach us that he intended to make a sacrament of it. When he drew nigh to the time of his death and passion, it is said that, having taken the bread and cup, he gave thanks to his Eternal Father. He who had taken upon him to expiate the iniquities of others, gave thanks to his Father, without having done any thing that was worthy of death: He blesseth it with profound humility at the very time that he saw himself laden with stripes, no doubt to teach us that submission which we ought to exercise [under the chastening hand of God.] If he, who was innocent, endured, with meekness and tranquillity, the stripes due to the iniquities of others, it was to teach and instruct us what we ought to do when corrected for our own transgressions. In regard to his saying, 'This is my blood of the New Testament,' it is to teach us to distinguish between the new covenant and the old the latter of which was consecrated by the effusion of the blood of goats and oxen, as the [Jewish] lawgiver said at the sprinkling of it, 'This is the blood of the covenant that God hath commanded you:' For it was necessary that the patterns of true things should be purified by these, but that the heavenly places should be purified with more excellent sacrifices, according to what the apostle Paul declares throughout his whole epistle to the Hebrews, where he makes a distinction between the law and the gospel. Jesus Christ, when about to suffer, says, 'I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine, until the day that I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.' As if he had plainly said, 'I will no longer take delight in the carnal ceremonies of the synagogue, amongst the number of which, the great festival of