Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

than present it to the reader's view as it has come from the hand of that admirable woman.

"There is a sedateness in his manner, which imposes; a sly gravity in his scepticism, which puts the reader more off his guard, than the vehemence of censure, or the levity of wit; for we are always less disposed to suspect a man who is too wise to appear angry. That same wisdom makes him too correct to invent calumnies, but it does not preserve him from doing what is scarcely less disingenuous. He implicitly adopts the injurious relations of those annalists who were most hostile to the reformed faith;* though he must have known their

Villers, in his Essay on the Reformation, (Mills's translation, p. 107.) offers the following observations, which go to support the above allegation, and deserve to be particularly attended to." It is well known with what fury the rage of party pours out calumny upon eminent men. Upon Luther, above all men, it has been discharged in torrents. Among other causes, it has been found out, that his zeal arose only from the discontent of the Augustins, who beheld, it is said, with envy the Dominicans invested by the Pope with the commission of preaching indulgences. That Maimbourg should have picked up such a story is nothing wonderful. But it is inconceivable, that Voltaire and Hume should have repeated it as a certain fact." This author then proceeds to expose the falsehood of the calumny, and refers to a note of Dr. Maclaine on Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, in which, he says, is "proved, beyond dispute, the absurdity of the imputation." The translator pursuing the same subject, goes on thus. "The credit of Voltaire is now so low in this country, that no means, however base, of forwarding a favourite object will be thought beneath him. He is now detected; and his authority is of very little value. But Hume, who through the whole course of his history lies in wait for an opportunity of throwing discredit upon the cause both of religion and of liberty, who possessed a rooted enmity against all the best interests of mankind, and whose actions exhibit more of deliberate misanthropy than those of any other man perhaps that ever lived, still enjoys a reputation and authority which he by no means deserves; and his writings contribute strongly to corrupt the public sentiments. Dr. Maclaine's note, referred to by Villers, is a full exposure, more full perhaps than was neces sary, of one of those instances of bad faith with which his history abounds. If any one were to publish an edition of his history, with notes, pointing out the eagerness with which he has used not only lawful but poisoned arms against religion and liberty, exposing the unfounded assertions, the weak reflections, and the barbarous phraseology which he so often employs, he would abate that false admiration so long attached to his works, and confer a great obligation upon the public." These charges against Hume may possibly not be sufficiently temperate and measured: but they contain in them much of truth: and the principal charge, that of historical bad faith, is undoubtedly made out by Dr. Maclaine, in the note alluded to; which note I here subjoin, not merely because it establishes the point at present under consideration, but because it so completely rescues the author of the Reformation from the unfounded calumnies which Hume had contributed to circulate, and which of late days an interested zeal has propagated in this country with more than usual industry.

"Mr. Hume, in his history of the reign of Henry the 8th, has thought proper to repeat what the enemies of the Reformation, and some of its du. bious or ill formed friends, have advanced, with respect to the motives that engaged Luther to oppose the doctrine of indulgences. This elegant and persuasive historian tells us, that the Austin friars had USUALLY been employed in SAXONY to preach indulgences, and from this trust had derived both pre

accounts to be aggravated and discoloured, if not absolutely invented. He thus makes others responsible for the worst things he asserts, and spreads the mischief without avowing

fit and consideration; that ARCEMBOLDI gave this occupation to the Domini cans; that MARTIN LUTHER, an Austin friar, professor in the University of Wirtemberg, resenting the affront put upon his own Order, began to preach against the abuses that were committed in the sale of indulgences, and, being provoked by opposition, proceeded even to decry indulgences themselves. It were to be wished, that Mr. Hume's candour had engaged him to examine this ac cusation better, before he had ventured to repeat it. For, in the first place, it is not true, that the Austin friars had been USUALLY employed in Saxony to preach indulgences. It is well known, that the commission had been offered alternately, and sometimes jointly, to all the Mendicants, whether Austin friars, Dominicans, Franciscans, or Carmelites. Nay, from the year 1229, that lucrative commission was principally entrusted with the Dominicans; and in the records which relate to indulgences, we rarely meet with the name of an Austin friar, and not one single act by which it appears that the Roman Pontif ever named the friars of that order to the office under consideration. More particularly it is remarkable, that, for half a century before Luther, (i. e. from 1450 to 1517,) during which period indulgences were sold with the most scandalous marks of avaricious extortion and impudence, we scarcely meet with the name of an Austin friar employed in that service, if we except a monk, named Palzius, who was no more than an underling of the papal questor Raymond Peraldus: so far is it from being true, that the Augustine Order were exclusively, or even usually employed in that service. Mr. Hume has built his assertion upon the sole authority of a single expression of Paul Sarpi, which has been abundantly refuted by De Priero, Pallavicini, and Graveson, the mortal enemies of Luther.

66

But it may be alleged, that, even supposing it was not usual to employ the Augustin friars alone in the propagation of indulgences, yet Luther might be offended at seeing such an important commission given to the Dominicans exclusively, and that, consequently, this was his motive in opposing the propagation of indulgences. To show the injustice of this allegation, I observe secondly, that in the time of Luther, the preaching of indulgences was become such an odious and unpopular matter, that it is far from being probable, that Luther would have been solicitous about obtaining such a commission either for himself or for his order. The princes of Europe, with many bishops and multitudes of learned and pious men, had opened their eyes upon the turpitude of this infamous traffic: and even the Franciscans and Dominicans, towards the conclusion of the 15th century, opposed it publicly, both in their discourses and in their writings. Nay more, the very commission, which is supposed to have excited the envy of Luther, was offered by Leo to the General of the Franciscans, and was refused both by him and his order, who gave it over entirely to Albert, bishop of Mentz and Magdeburg. It is then to be imagined, that either Luther, or the other Austin friars aspired after a commission, of which the Franciscans were ashamed? Besides, it is a mistake to affirm, that this office was given to the Dominicans in general; since it was given to Tetzel alone, an individual member of that order, who had been notorious for his profligacy, barbarity and extortion.

"But that neither resentment nor envy were the motives that led Luther. to oppose the doctrine and publication of indulgences, will appear with the utmost evidence, if we consider in the third place,That he was never accused of any such motives either in the edicts of the pontifs of his time, or amidst the other repro: ches of the contemporary writers, who defended the cause of Rome, and who were far from being sparing of their invectives and calumnies. All the contemporary adversaries of Luther are absolutely silent on this head. From the year 1517 to 1546, when the dispute about indulgen ces was carried on with the greatest warmth and animosity, not one writer

the malignity. When he speaks from himself, the sneer is so cool, the irony so sober, the contempt so discreet, the moderation so insidious, the difference between Popish bigotry and Protestant firmness, between the fury of the persecutor and the resolution of the martyr, so little marked; the distinctions between intolerant phrenzy and heroic zeal so melted into each other, that though he contrives to make the reader feel some indignation at the tyrant, he never leads him to feel any reverence for the sufferer. He ascribes such a slender superiority to one religious system above another, that the young reader, who does not come to the perusal with his principles formed, will be in danger of thinking that the reformation was

ever ventured to reproach Luther with these ignoble motives of opposition now under consideration. I speak not of Erasmus Sleiden, De Thou, Guicciardini, and others, whose testimony might perhaps be suspected of partiality in his favour: but I speak of Cajetan, Hogstrat, De Prierio, Emser, and even the infamous John Tetzel, whom Luther opposed with such vehemence and bitterness. Even Cochlaus was silent on this head during the life of Luther; though after the death of that great Reformer he broached the calumny I am here refuting. But such was the scandalous character of this man, who was notorious for fraud, calumny, lying, and their sister vices, that Pallavicini, Bossuet, and other enemies of Luther, were ashamed to make use either of his name or testimony. Now, may it not be fairly presumed, that the contemporaries of Luther were better judges of his character and the principles from which he acted, than those who lived in after-times? Can it be imagined, that motives to action, which escaped the prying eyes of Luther's contemporaries, should have discovered themselves to us who live at such a distance of time from the scene of action, to M. Bossuet, to Mr. Hume, and to other abettors of this ill-contrived and foolish story? Either there are no rules of moral evidence, or Mr. Hume's assertion is entirely groundless." Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. cent. xvi. sect. i. chap. 2. vol. ii. pp. 17, 18.

[ocr errors]

Dr. Maclaine has very properly observed, that the cause of the Reformation (which must stand by its own intrinsic dignity, and is, in no way, affected by the views or characters of its instruments) can derive no strength from this inquiry, but as it may tend to vindicate the personal character of a man, who has done eminent service to the cause of religion In truth, so far from looking for selfish and ignoble motives to account for Luther's zealous opposition to the publication of indulgences by Tetzel, one has only to read the account given by Mosheim of this transaction, to have his astonishment excited, that Luthers did not start up in thousands to raise their voices against it."This bold and enterprizing monk," he says, speaking of Tetzel, had been chosen, on account of his uncommon impudence, to preach and proclaim in Germany, those famous indulgences of Leo X. which administered remission of all sins, past, present, and to come, however enormous their nature, to those who were rich enough to purchase them. The frontless monk executed this iniquitous commission, not only with matchless insolence, indecency, and fraud, but even carried his impiety so far, as to derogate from the all-sufficient power and influence of the merits of Christ" The translator adds, in exemplification, that " in describing the efficacy of these indul. gences, Tetzel said, among other enormities, that even had any one ravished the mother of God, he (Tetzel) had wherewithal to efface his guilt. He also boasted, that he had saved more souls from hell by these indulgences, than St. Peter had converted to Christianity by his preaching."-Yet Hume could discover no cause for Luther's resistance of such indulgences, but that he had lost the sale of them himself.

really not worth contending for. But, in nothing is the skill of this accomplished sophist more apparent, than in the artful way in which he piques his readers into a conformity with his own views concerning religion. Human pride, he knew, naturally likes to range itself on the side of ability. He therefore skilfully works on this passion, by treating with a sort of contemptuous superiority, as weak and credulous men, all whom he represents as being under the religious delusion. To the shameful practice of confounding fanaticism with real religion, he adds the disingenuous habit of accounting for the best actions of the best men, by referring them to some low motive; and affects to confound the designs of the religious and the corrupt, so artfully, as if no radical difference subsisted between them." (Mrs. H. More's Hints for a Young Princess, vol. i. p. 156-158.) Thus does this elegant writer describe the pernicious tendencies of Hume's History, which, as possessing at the same time many of the beauties of style, she happily characterises in a word, as "a serpent under a bed of roses. (p. 155.)--And thus we see, that in no occupation of Mr. Hume, whether exercising himself as the light Essayist, the deep Philosopher, or the grave Historian, does he ever lose sight of the one great warfare, in which he had enlisted himself against truth, virtue, and religion.

In this Postscript to the foregoing Number, I have wandered far indeed from my subject; but by no means from my object. For if I shall have the good fortune of impressing any one of my youthful readers, with a just opinion and abhorrence of such writers as Bolingbroke and Hume, I conceive I shall have done no small service to the cause of truth, of virtue, and of religion.

No. LXX. ON THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ANNUAL EXPIATION UNDER THE LAW, AND THE ONE GREAT EXPIATION UNDER THE GOSPEL.

PAGE 49. (3)—The sacrifice on the anniversary of expiation seems to be distinguished from all others by a peculiar degree of solemnity, as if to mark its more immediate reference to the great sacrifice of Christ. Thus, on this day, we find the High Priest exclusively commanded to officiate: and on this day alone, in the stated exercises of his office, was he permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies, and to carry the blood of the victim into the presence of God, to offer it before that Glory, which, seated between the two cherubims, overshadowed the mercy seat, and represented the divinity-a circumstance, which the Apostle particularly marks, (Hebr. ch. ix.) as prefiguring the entrance of our great High Priest,

with the blood offered by him for our redemption, into the true presence of the Most High, the immediate habitation of God's holiness and glory. The High Priest also seems to have been selected for the solemn services of this day, as more adequately representing the whole assembly, in whose name he sacrificed and supplicated forgiveness; and therefore more properly typifying him, who, representing the whole human race, was to procure redemption by his blood for the whole assembly of mankind.

Whoever wishes for a more minute detail of the particulars of this solemn sacrifice, and of its peculiar fitness to represent the sacrifice of Christ, may consult Outram. de Sacr. lib. 1. cap. xviii. § 6, 7. lib. 11. cap. iii. § 2, 3, 4. He will also receive much satisfaction, from an examination of Ainsworth's comment on the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. For many valuable remarks, connected with the subject of this Number, Daubeny's Discourses on the Connexion between the Old and New Test. may be consulted. And in Rhenferdius's treatise De Comparatione Expiationis Anniv. Pontificis Max. V. et N. Test. Meuschen's Nov. Test. &c. p. 1013-1039.) a most copious and circumstantial enumeration is given, of the particulars, in which the annual expiation by the Jewish High Priest resembled the one great expiation of the New Testament. It may be proper to observe, that such is the force of the resemblance, that Socinus himself admits this anniversary sacrifice of atonement-inasmuch as "it was of special divine ordinance, at a stated season, offered by the High Priest, and appointed to atone for all the sins of all the people,”to be fairly accounted typical of the sacrifice of Christ. Socin. Oper. (Prælect. Theol. cap. xxii.) tom. 1.

p. 583.

No. LXXI.-ON THE NATURE AND IMPORT OF THE CE

REMONY OF THE SCAPE-GOAT.

PAGE 50. ()-On this, see what has been said in pp. 206, 207, of this work, and attend particularly to the 5th, 7th, and 10th verses of the xvith ch. of Leviticus, from which it appears, that the two goats are, throughout the chapter, spoken of as one sin-offering; being expressly so called in the first of these verses; presented jointly as the offering of the people in the second; and though separated into two distinct parts by the lot cast in the 9th verse, yet each described as contributing to the atonement for the people, as appears from the 10th verse compared with the 17th. Indeed, that the two goats made but one sin-offering on this occasion, the best commentators freely admit. See Jameson's observations on this ch. of Leviticus. The reason of this seems ob

« VorigeDoorgaan »