صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

the evil in us as well as the good; that the perfection of faith is to believe that God is just, though by his own will he renders us necessarily worthy of damnation, so as to seem to take pleasure in the torments of the miserable."-Vol. II. p. 135, note.

66

"In his work de Servo Arbitrio!" This reference, which is much like addressing a letter to any ordinary person "in London," is purposely given to bewilder the reader, and at the same time impress him with the idea of the writer's accuracy. Let us now see what Luther really does say, in his work de Servo Arbitrio." The words set down above are not meant to be, but to seem a quotation. Were the religious tourist asked to give the original of them, he would be not a little puzzled, and could only evade the difficulty by saying that they contained the substance of Luther's doctrine. This would not be true, as every one knows who is acquainted with the treatise in question, or with the peculiar views which it opposes. But to return to what Luther actually says.

And here we have it in the third volume of his "Let NONE suppose, when we say God (for to harden is to work evil) that He * * But let those who ascribe

Works, Jena, 1603, fol. 199. hardens, or works evil in us created evil in us anew. to us such opinions, consider, that, if God works evil by our means, this is not through the fault of God, but by our corruption. We are evil, He is good; and when He impels us by the energy of his omnipotence, He, although good, cannot act otherwise than work evil by an evil instrument; although, in His wisdom, He employs this evil for good, for his glory and our own salvation." The cause of Protestantism does not rest on Luther's views "de Servo Arbitrio," or on any other subject-it is a question between the Pope and the Bible. Nor did the cause of Popery rest on the honour of the Irish Gentleman, before the Papists universally acknowledged him their representative; which, we understand, is not far from the fact.* But, be that as it may, here is the value of his authority. He tells us that "Luther declares expressly that God works the evil in us as well as the good," and informs us where he says so. We go thither; and there we find that, if Luther does say so expressly, he has taken pains to explain himself, and that his doctrine is very different from what is here misrepresented. The Irish Gentleman gives us for Luther's opinion that the Deity takes pleasure in the torments of the miserable. Luther himself says that God makes even evil work for our salvation. Comment is unne

cessary.

Another accusation against Luther is thus expressed :

We find him declaring that, "if a Council were to order the Communion to be taken in both kinds, he and his would only take it in one, or none; and

*These Travels have been translated into Italian, French, and Spanish. See Philalethes, last page.

[ocr errors]

would, moreover, curse all those who should, in conformity with this decree of the Council, communicate in both kinds." Vol. II. pp. 146, 147.

The passage here quoted is, as usual in popish quotations, mutilated of the sentence which gives it its real meaning; a meaning which would be inconvenient for the purpose for which it is produced. We subjoin the context, marking in Italics the passage which the Irish Traveller pretends to quote, and in capitals the part which he has suppressed. We premise that Luther determines that the communion is to be received in both kinds. Expecting, however, that the decree of the Council of Constance would be objected, he replies, that no Council, of its own authority, could have any power to alter what Christ has expressly instituted. And that, even where Christ had commanded an observance, it were better to neglect it, than to perform it in virtue of authority claimed by a Council to institute such observance IN ITS OWN Right. It is plain that such a performance would not be obedience to the command of Christ, but to the commands of men usurping the authority of Christ; and, therefore, could be no act of religion. Luther has expressed himself with his characteristic vigour and broadness, and his meaning and expressions have considerable analogy to those of St. Paul in Gal. i. 8. "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (úválɛμa.) The meaning of the Reformer is as evident to a candid reader as that of the Apostle. The substance is this; a Council cannot, of its own authority, claim obedience in matters determined by Christ; for if it determine against him, we are bound to resist it; and if it determine on the same side, our obedience is rendered to Christ, and not to the Council, and it would be sinful to acknowledge any human authority in the matter. But Luther shall speak for himself:

"Neither ought any man to be influenced by the consideration, that they boast a Council, in which that" (communion in one kind)" has been enacted to be lawful. We have the rule of Christ; and we wish neither to wait on nor to listen to Councils, in matters which are manifestly doctrines of the gospel. And we affirm moreover, if by any chance a Council should decree or permit it OF ITS OWN AUTHORITY, then least of all would we wish to communicate in both kinds; yea, rather in contempt of such Council and of its decree, would we first communicate in either or neither, and by no means in both, and altogether anathematize (anathema habere) those who, BY THE AUTHORITY OF such Council or decree, should communicate in both. If this should surprise you, and

*Form. Miss.

"Si quo casu Concilium PROPRIA AUCTORITATE id statueret aut permitteret, tunc minimè omnium nos velle utrâque specie potiri, imò tunc primùm in despectum tam Concilii, quam statuti sui, vellemus aut alterutrâ aut neutrâ, et nequaquam utrâque

you ask the reason, here it is. If you know that Christ has appointed both bread and wine to be received by all, as the Gospels and St. Paul expressly assert, and our opponents are compelled to admit, and yet you dare not to believe and trust Him, and communicate thus, while notwithstanding you dare, if men in their Council so decree: Do you not then prefer men to Christ? Do you not' exalt sinful men above God, who is blessed and worshipped? Do you not trust more in the words of men than in the words of God? Verily you distrust the word of God altogether, and trust the word of men alone. But how great an

abomination is this, and how great a denial of the Most High God! What idolatry can be equal to this superstitious obedience to a Council of men? Were it not better to die a thousand deaths? Were it not better to communicate in one kind or neither, than to receive both in an obedience so sacrilegious and so apostate from the faith?"

We regret our inability, from want of room, to continue the quotation, which is one of the most splendid bursts of indignant eloquence which ever proceeded from the pen of Luther himself. But enough is done for the Traveller. Where is there "an unprincipled indifference to error or truth?" Had Luther been indifferent in such matters, he might have lived more calmly, and enjoyed the applause instead of the censure of such persons as the Irish Gentleman. All that Luther says is, that the authority of a council cannot make truth or error. The Irish Gentleman thinks otherwise; but if Luther had the misfortune to be less enlightened, still he is not to be charged with sentiments which are not his own.

Luther's marriage with Catharine de Bora is, of course, a fertile topic of scandal. We only notice it to remark an instance of shameless perversion:

There had, indeed, from the display and notoriety of the Reformer's fondness for her [Cath. de Bora], arisen rumours not very creditable to either of the parties. To these rumours he himself alludes, in one of his letters,—“ os obstruxi," he says, "infamantibus me cum Catharina Borana"-and his warm advocate, Seckendorf, states without any reserve, “that he had wished exceedingly for the girl, and used to call her his Catharine”—“ Optimè enim cupiebat virgini, et suam vocare Catharinam solebat.”—Vol. II. p. 217, note.

"Optimè cupiebat vigini," "he wished exceedingly for the girl"! If the popular conjecture has penetrated the Traveller's disguise, he knows Latin well enough to escape a blunder that would have ensured its perpetrator a sound flagellation in the lowest form of the humblest country "academy." We do not dispute that his scholarship is superior to this; but what is his honesty? Does he "wish exceedingly" for all the ladies he wishes well to? It would be but in the spirit of Popery,

potiri, ac planè eos anathema habere quicunque AUCTORITATE TALIS CONCILIÏ VEL STATUTI utrâque potirentur.”—Formula Missæ. Lutheri Opera. Jenæ. 1600. Vol. II. fol. 559.

if, in his next edition, he would alter Seckendorff's words into "maximè cupiebat virginem," and then he might retain his translation.

One more instance of shameless perversion-brief, but crowning. The Church of England, as might be expected, is abundantly honoured by the Traveller's abuse. He abuses her for "servility" and "hypocrisy"-he upbraids her with all her unworthy and insincere children, from the Hoadleys and Claytons, to the Rilands and Arnolds;—but he never ventures on her Articles, Homilies, Catechism, or any authentic exposition of her faith. We disclaim this mode of warfare for ourselves, though offering such immense advantages to Protestants; we disclaim it, on the principle of Aristides, because, however advantageous, it is not just. Infidel Bishops of Rome and Socinian Bishops of Bangor prove nothing either way. The existence of a Pascal cannot prove that Popery is true, nor can that of a Hooker do the like for Protestantism. We can reverence Southey and Chateaubriand, we can abominate revolutionary Belgian Priests and radical English Prebendaries, without feeling that the question discussed in these pages is thereby at all affected. But to return to our Traveller. In his list of hypocrites in the English Church, appears the name of Dr. Hey. After an abundant vituperation of the Church and her unworthy children, he proceeds :

Such all but avowal of the worst principles of Socinianism from men so high in the Church, both from station and talent, sufficiently prepares us for what otherwise would have seemed wholly incredible,—--an express proffer of the hand of fellowship to the whole body of Socinians, from no less a quarter than the chair of the Norrisian professor of Theology, at Cambridge!-In one of his otherwise most valuable Lectures, the late Dr. Hey thus speaks:-" We and the Socinians are said to differ,-but about what? Not about morality or about natural religion. We differ only about what we do not understand, and about what is to be done on the part of God; and if we allowed one another to use expressions at will (and what great matter could that be in what might be called unmeaning words?) we need never be on our guard against each other."-Vol. II. pp. 308, 309.

[ocr errors]

The passage from Dr. Hey is garbled, like most Popish quotations. But this is, comparatively, a light matter. The sentiments quoted as from Dr. Hey are BY HIM PUT INTO THE MOUTH OF AN OBJECTOR!!! On the character of the Irish Traveller we have not a syllable more to say. Our case is closed, and we calmly leave him to the verdict which a christian people will assuredly pass on him.

But all this notwithstanding, may not Popery be true? May not that "clever" and intelligent" "Protestant," "Mr. Green," the "Lover of Literature," have been in the right, when he "tremblingly" thought "that the first step of separation from the Church of Rome was the first to Infidelity?"* This must depend on the direction in which * Travels, Vol. II. p. 208.

[blocks in formation]

the step is made. From the edge of a precipice the first step may be to safety or destruction. Certain it is that many have made but one step from Popery to Infidelity. Believing the facts of the gospel and the legends of Rome to rest on the same authority, and finding this authority neither very distinct nor very competent, they have rejected truth and falsehood in one mass. They stood blindfolded on the precipice, and one step plunged them in the abyss. But it follows not hence that a step, taken in the daylight of Scripture, should do the same. The word which is a lamp to the feet and a light to the path,* guides us alike away from the dangers of Popery and the ruin of Infidelity.

This is, however, the very position that the Irish Gentleman would impugn. With him Scripture is still the ignis fatuus which allures religious travellers to ruin. He treats us with a most offensive neological lecture, for no purpose, apparently, save that of ridiculing Scripture and the religion of Scripture. And then he thus sums up :—

To give some notion of the strange tricks, in the way of theology and exegesis, which Fancy, under the demure mask of Reason, can play, I shall here string together, at hazard, a few of the leading results at which these inquirers into the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible,” have arrived.

In the Old Testament, the history of the Creation, of Paradise, and of Adam and Eve, are nothing but allegories or mythi. The Pentateuch, which may be looked upon as a sort of "Theocratic Épic," was not written by Moses, but compiled at a much later period; and Jehovah was but the Household God, or Fetiche, of the family of Abraham, which David, Solomon and the prophets promoted afterwards to the rank of Creator of all things. It is plain that Deuteronomy could not have been the work of Moses, nor Ecclesiastes that of Solomon, as, in each case, it would suppose the author to have related his own decease. The Psalms were a sort of Anthology to which David and other writers contributed; and the productions of the chief contributor are thus criticised by a grave theologian, Augusti: "David's Muse takes no high flight, but he succeeds best in Songs and Elegies." By critics of the same school Esther is pronounced to be a Historical Romance; while Ruth, they say, was written for the purpose of proving David to have sprung from a good family, and the story of Jonah is but a repetition of the fable of Hercules swallowed by a seamonster. As to the Prophets, the learned Eichhorn allows them the credit of having been sharp, clever men, who saw further into futurity than their contemporaries; while others, assigning to them a decided political character, “make them out," says Mr. Rose," to be demagogues and Radical Reformers." The Prophecy, in Isaiah, of the Fall of Babylon, was evidently written by some one who was present at the siege; and the predictions, supposed to refer to Christ, in the same rhapsodies, relate to the fortunes and ultimate fate of the race of Prophets in general †-Vol. II. pp. 231–233.

Ps. cxix. 105.

"There is a book by Scherer (a clergyman in Hesse Darmstadt), in which he represents the prophets of the Old Testament as so many Indian jugglers, who made use of the pretended inspiration of Moses and the revelations of the prophets to deceive the people."-Rose's State of Protestantism in Germany.

« السابقةمتابعة »