CHAPTER XII.

INFLUENCE OF THE REFORMATION ON CIVIL LIBERTY.

"The most striking effect of the first preaching of the reformation was that it appealed to the ignorant; and though political liberty * * cannot be reckoned the aim of those who introduced it, yet there predominated that revolutionary spirit which loves to witness destruction for its own sake, and that intoxicated selfconfidence which renders folly mischievous.”—Hallam.*

Puffing-Theory of government-Political liberty-Four things guarantied-Pursuit of happiness-The popes and liberty-Rights of property-Use made of confiscated church property-The Attila of the reformation-Par nobile fratrum-Spoliation of Catholics-Contempt of testamentary dispositions-The jus manuale abolished-And restored-Disregard of life—And crushing of popular liberty—The war of the peasants-Two charges made good-Grievances of the peasants-Drowned in blood-Luther's agency-Halting between two extremes-Result-Absolute despotism-Swiss cantons-M. D'Aubigné puzzled-Liberty, a mountain nymph-The old mother of republics-Security to character-Recapitulation.

THE friends of the reformation have been in the habit of boasting, that to it we are indebted for all the free institutions we now enjoy. Before it, there was nothing in the world but slavery on the one hand, and reckless despotism on the other after it, came liberty and free governments. In school-boy orations and Fourth-of-July speeches; in sermons from the pulpit and in effusions from the press; this assertion has been reiterated over and again with so much confidence, that many persons of sincerity and intelligence have viewed it as founded in fact. To such we would beg leave to present the following brief summary of facts bearing on the subject. Let them read both sides; and then will they be able to form an enlightened judgment.

• Co History of Literature," vol. i, p. 192.

M. D'Aubigné asserts roundly: "the reformation saved religion, and with it society."* We have already seen what it did for religion: we will now examine what it did for society. Did it really save society; or was society saved in spite of it? To narrow down the ground of the inquiry; did it really contribute by its influence to check political despotism, and to protect the rights of the people? Or, in other words, did it develop the democratic principle, and originate free institutions? Were we to decide according to the measure of its boasting, it certainly did this and much more. It had liberty forever on its lips: it loudly proclaimed that one great object of its mission was to free mankind from a degrading servitude, both religious and political. But was its practice in accordance with its loudly boasting theory? We shall see.

Political liberty guarantees security to life, to property, to character, and to the pursuit of happiness: and it does this with the least possible restraint on personal freedom. The greater the security to those objects, and the less the restraint on individual liberty, the more free and perfect. is the system of government. A well regulated democracy-where the people can bear it-best corresponds with this theory, and is therefore, with the condition just named, the best of all possible forms of government. And the nearer others approximate to this standard, the more do they verge to perfection. Such are the principles of our political creed: and by them we will judge of the influence of the reformation on free government. Did this religious revolution provide greater security to life, property, honor and the pursuit of happiness, with less restraint to individual liberty than had previously existed? If it did, then was its influence favorable to liberty; if not, then, however its advocates may boast, its influence was decidedly hostile to true democracy. We will abide this test, which, we are sure, our adversaries will not be disposed to reject.

* Vol. i, p. 67.

1. We will begin with the object of government last named-security to men in the pursuit of happiness. No government is free, which does not guaranty this. The highest, the most noble, and the only sure way of pursuing happiness, is by the path of religion. Without this, there is, and can be, no real or permanent happiness, either in this world, or in the next. This, we think, will be admitted by all who are imbued with the principles of Christianity. Now, there is manifestly no freedom in this exalted pursuit, without the guarantee of religious liberty. Hence, a system-which sapped the very foundations of religious liberty, could not guaranty one of the greatest objects of all free governments-security in the pursuit of happiness. We have already proved, that the reformation did not secure religious freedom: and therefore, the inference is irresistible, that it did not tend to promote free government.

We will pursue this line of argument a little farther. The reformation cast off the religious yoke of the Pontiffs and of the Catholic church; and wore, instead thereof, rivetted on its neck, that of the princes who espoused its cause. Was the exchange favorable to liberty? Did the union of church and state which necessarily ensued, secure to Protestants in Germany a greater amount of freedom than they had heretofore enjoyed? The pope was far off, and he generally interposed his authority only in spiritual matters, or in great emergencies of the state: the princes, who succeeded to his authority, were present, and interfered in every thing, both in church and state-they were in fact supreme in both. When they chose to play the tyrant, who was to oppose their will?

The reformed party were powerless: they had given up themselves, bound hand and foot, into the power of their princes. The voice of the Roman pontiffs, which had erewhile thundered from the Vatican, and stricken terror into the heart of tyranny, was now also powerless: the reformers themselves had drowned that voice in the maddening cla

mor of their opposition. What resource had they left to meet and repel tyranny? They had themselves, of their own accord, rendered powerless the only arm which could protect them, or redress their grievances.

The time has gone by, for men of sense and intelligence to clamor against the tyranny of the Roman pontiffs. Protestants themselves are beginning to view these much abused men in a more favorable light than they did heretofore. They no longer paint them as the unmitigated tyrants who lorded it over the world for their own selfish purposes and unhallowed ambition; but as the saviours of Europe, and the protectors of its political rights trodden in the dust by tyrants. Such Protestant writers as Guizot, Voigt, Hurter, Ranké, Newman, Pusey and Bancroft, have done justice to the popes: at least they have meted out to them a portion of justice.

The last named, says, speaking of Pope Alexander III, who lived A. D. 1167: "True to the spirit of his office, which during the supremacy of brute force in the middle age, made of the chief minister of religion the tribune of the people and the guardian of the oppressed, had written, ' that nature having made no slaves, all men have an equal right to liberty.'"* We might quote many similar acknowledgments made by Protestant writers: but the fact we have asserted will scarcely be questioned, and we refer to the works of the writers mentioned above-passim.

Nothing is, in fact, more certain than that the popes of the middle ages labored assiduously to maintain the rights of the people against the tyranny of their princes. Whenever they struck a blow, it was generally aimed at tyranny, and calculated to raise up the lower orders in the scale of society. The oppressed of every nation found a willing and a powerful advocate in Rome. When the Roman pontiffs threw around the people the broad shield of their protection, it was more effectual towards their defence

• History of the United States, vol. 1, p. 163.

against the tyranny which had ground them in the dust, than had been the eagles which had perched on the Roman standard of old. For Germany particularly, the deposing power, claimed by the popes of the middle ages, was a broad ægis thrown around the liberties of its people. When was that power ever exercised, but in behalf of the poor, the crushed, and the bleeding?

What would have become of the liberties of Europe in that period of anarchy and tyranny, but for its exercise? No other authority was available: because no other voice would have been heard or respected, amidst the general din of war and the confusion of the times. And by destroying that authority, the reformers broke down the most effectual barrier against tyranny, and destroyed the greatest security to popular rights.

2. But perhaps the reformation provided greater secu. rity for the rights of property, than had been made in the good old Catholic times ?-We have seen how the Protestant princes seized upon and alienated the vast property of the Catholic church. They diverted it from its legitimate channels, and generally embezzled it for their own private uses. Neither the public treasury nor the people profited much by this sacrilegious invasion of church property.

True, the Protestant princes, who became the heads of the reformed churches, promised, in some places, to employ at least a portion of this immense property thus seized on by violence, for the establishment of public schools and hospitals. But this promise was never carried into effect, at least to any great extent. Thus, in Sweden, a great portion of the church property was given to the nobles, as a reward for their co-operation with the monarch, Gustavus Vasa, in carrying out his favorite project of reform : another large portion was annexed to the crown; and the miserable remnant was doled out with a niggardly hand for the support of the Episcopal body-which was there retained-of the inferior clergy, and of the charitable and