Page images
PDF
EPUB

Eliseus, John the Baptist, Christ and the apostles, to know the Scriptures!-Alas! poor human nature!"* And yet the last twenty-nine years of his life had been devoted to the promulgation of the cardinal principle of his new religion that every one was fully competent to understand the Scriptures by his own private judgment! Well may we exclaim" Alas! poor human nature!"

Such was Martin Luther, after he had left the holy Catholic church! Compare his character then with what it was before that event; and then apply M. D'Aubigné's test given above, and the conclusion is irresistible-that he was not a chosen instrument in the hands of God for reforming the church, which "He had purchased with His blood." Before he left the church, he was, as we have seen, humble, patient, pious, devoted, chaste, scrupulousafterwards, he was, in every one of these particulars, directly the reverse! Does God choose such instruments to do his work? Was Moses, was Aaron, were the apostles such characters? He, like the apostles, forsooth! They were humble, chaste, patient, temperate and modest: he was proud, immoral, impatient and shameless. They had a mission from God, and proved it by miracles: he had not the one, nor did he claim the other; though challenged on the subject, by the Zuinglians and by the Anabaptists. Therefore God did not send him-and all of M. D'Aubigné's canting theory falls to the ground. What must the "lock" of the reformation be, if Luther's character be the "key"—which suits its internal structure? It would be easy to show, by unquestionable evidence, that the other reformers were not a whit better than Luther. We have seen already what testimony they bore to

* Florimond Remond, b. iii, ç. ii, fol. 287. Laign, vita Lutheri, fol. 4. † Acts xx, 28.

See Audin, p. 239. Stübner, an Anabaptist, asked him to produce his miracles. He was silent, though a little before, he had made the very same challenge to Karlstadt, and renewed it afterwards to the Zuinglians!

the character of each other; and we shall have occasion to recur to the subject in the sequel of our essay. "The historian, Hume, has truly characterized the reformers as 'fanatics and bigots;' but with no less justice might he have added, that they were (with one exception perhaps)* the coarsest hypocrites :† men, who, while professing the most high-flown sanctity in their writings, were in their conduct, brutal, selfish and unrestrainable; who, though pretending, in matters of faith, to adopt reason as their guide, were in all things else, the slaves of the most vulgar superstition; and who, with the boasted right of judgment forever on their lips, passed their lives in a course of mutual recrimination and persecution; and transmitted the same warfare as an heir-loom to their descendants. Yet, 'these be thy Gods,' O Protestantism!-these the coarse idols which heresy has set up in the niches of the saints and fathers of old, and whose names, like those of all former such idols, are worn like brands upon the foreheads of their worshippers." Whoever will read attentively the veridical history of the reformation, will admit the truth of this picture drawn by the great Irish bard.

* Melancthon.

† Bucer admits the justice of this reproach. Epist. ad Calvin. "Travels of an Irish Gentleman," &c. p. 200, 201. Doyle, New York, 1835.

Part II.

CHAPTER II.

CHARACTER OF THE REFORMATION-THEORY OF M. D'AUBIGNE EXAMINED.

The question stated-M. D'Aubigné's opinion-Mother and daughter— Argumentum ad hominem-Jumping at a conclusion-Second causes-Why Germany was converted-Why Italy and Spain were not-Luther and Mohammed-Reasoning by contraries-Why France continued Catholic.

WE have seen what was the character of the chief instruments who brought about the reformation in Germany; we are now to examine what was the character of the work itself, and how it was effected. Were the reasons assigned as the great motives for this alleged reform in religion, sufficient to justify it, according to the judgment of impartial men? Were the means employed for bringing it about such as would lead us to believe, that it was really a change for the better; and were they such as God would or could have approved and sanctioned? Finally, weighing these motives and these means, and making all due allowance for the condition of the times, was there any thing very remarkable in the rapid progress of the reformation? We will endeavor to solve these inquiries in the following chapters.

M. D'Aubigné devoutly believes, that the reformation was not only sanctioned by God, but that it was directly his work. Le us hear how he disccurses on the subject.. "Christianity and the reformation are, indeed, the same revolution, but working at different periods, and in dis

similar circumstances. They differ in secondary features -they are alike in their first lines, and leading characteristics. The one is the reappearance of the other. The former closes the old order of things-the latter begins the new. Between them is the middle age. One is the parent of the other; and if the daughter is in some respects inferior, she has in others, characters altogether peculiar to herself."* In opposition to this flattering theory, we will endeavor to prove that the reformation differs from Christianity, not only "in secondary features," but also "in its first lines and leading characteristics ;" and that, if the former was the daughter of the latter, she was a most recreant and degenerate daughter truly, with scarcely one lineament in common with her parent. Verily, she had" characters altogether peculiar to herself," and she was not only "in some respects," but in almost every thing, not only "inferior" to, but the direct opposite, of her alleged parent!

According to M. D'Aubigné, one of these "characters of the reformation peculiar to itself," was "the suddenness of its action." He illustrates the rapidity with which the reformation was established, by the figure employed by our blessed Saviour to denote the suddenness of his second coming: "As the lightning cometh forth from the west and shineth to the east, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." "Christianity," he says, "was one of those revolutions, which was slowly and gradually prepared ;" the reformation, on the contrary, was instantaneous in its effect: "a monk speaks-and in half of Europe the power and glory"—of the church of Rome"crumbles in the dust!" This rapidity he views as a certain evidence, that the reformation was the work of God. For "how could an entire people-how could so many nations, have so rapidly performed so difficult a work? How could such an act of critical judgment," on the neces

[blocks in formation]

sity and measure of the reform, "kindle the enthusiasm indispensable to great, and especially to sudden revolutions? But the reformation was a work of a very different kind; and this, its history will prove. It was the pouring forth anew of that life which Christianity had brought into the world."*

We trust to make it appear in the sequel, that the rapidity with which the reformation was diffused, was the result of the pouring forth" of a different spirit altogether. Meantime, we would beg leave to ask M.D'Aubigné to answer this argumentum ad hominem. If the suddenness of the reformation be a proof that it was brought about by the "pouring forth anew of that life which Christianity had brought into the world;" would not the contrary feature of Christianity-its gradual operationtbe a conclusive evidence, that this system was not the work of God? And if this argument be not valid, what truth is there in M. D'Aubigné's whole theory? Would not his reasoning, if reduced to the strict laws of logic, rather prove that the reformation, differing avowedly as it does in an essential feature from Christianity, was not effected by the agency of the Divine Spirit, but was the mere result of violent human passions, which usually bring about sudden revolutions, both in the religious and in the social system?

It is curious to trace the farther development of his theory. "Two considerations will account for the rapidity and extent of this revolution. One of these must be sought in God, the other among men. The impulse was given by an unseen hand of power, and the change which took place was the work of God. This will be the conclusion arrived at by every one who considers the subject with impartiality and attention, and does not rest in a superficial view. But the historian has a farther office to perform

* Preface, p. iv.

† This we merely suppose with M. D'Aubigné, who gives no proof of its truth.

« PreviousContinue »