Page images
PDF
EPUB

chap. - I.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

14.

ch. xxiii. 29-28.

says, “Those who especially merit that title, were
* Luther, Calvin, Zuingle, Melancthon, Bucer, Mar-
* tyr, Bullinger, Beza, Oecolainfiadius and others.”
And he very justly observes, “They pretended not to
‘ be called to the work they undertook by visions, or
‘ internal illuminations and impulses;—they never
* attempted to work miracles, nor pleaded a divine
‘commission;—they taught no new religion, nor laid
* claim to any extraordinary vocation.”
15. Then what other fruits could be expected, but
such as a corrupt and aspiring hierarchy had always
produced, seeing they maintained their former stand-
ing, and derived their authority from the same cor-
rupt source with other lordly bishops ?
16. “They had recourse to reason and argument,
* (says the above writer,) to the rules of sound criti-
“cism, and to the authority and light of history.—
* They translated the scriptures into the popular lan-
“guages of different countries, and appealed to them
“as the only test of religious truth.” -
17. But who authorized them to set up their rea-
son, their argument, and rules of criticism above
their fellows 2 or to assert that their translation of the
scriptures is the only test of religious truth? For it
is plainly acknowledged that they were never sent of
God. Therefore, according to their own conces-
sions, they rank themselves with the false prophets
whom God spake of by the prophet Jeremiah.
18. The firoshets firoshesy lies in my name : I sent
them not, neither have I commanded them, neither
sfiake I unto them : they firoshhesy unto you a false vi-
sion and divination, and a thing of nought, and the
deceit of their own heart. Again : In the latter days
ye shall consider it fierfectly. I have not sent these
frofiñets, yet they ran : I have not shoken to them,
yet they firofthesied. And again : The firofthet that
hath a dream, let him tell a dream ; and he that hath
my word, let him sheak my word faithfully. What is
the chaff to the wheat 2 saith the Lord.
19. But these first reformers, according to the wri-
tings of their ablest defenders, had not even so much
as the chaff, not even so much as a dream or a vision,
or any internal illumination of the Spirit; nothing

but the suggestions of their own natural sagacity, * which in the sight of God is nothing less than a false vision and divination, the deceit of their own heart; and how much less then had they that eternal word which is as a fire : 20. But “these first reformers, were all men of “learning—they translated the scriptures into the ‘popular languages.” But what then 2 where is the 1 car. i. scribe where is the disputer of this world hath oi.... not God made foolish the wisdom of this world 2 hath 14. he not determined that the wisdom of their wise men shall perish : 21. “They maintained (says Maclaine,) that the “faith of Christians was to be determined by the ‘ word of God alone.” And what was this word of God alone, but the scriptures which they translated * And who authorized them to determine the faith of Christians, even by the words of the inspired writers, without having themselves any inspiration or divine commission ? The fact is, they had stolen the words from their neighbour Catholics, and they had stolen them from the apostles and true followers of Christ. 22. Therefore, well said the Lord by Jeremiah ; or sai. 28ehold, I am against the firoshhets, that steal my words so,3,3every one from his neighbour. Behold I am against the frosthets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He waith-Yet I sent them not, nor command£d them. 23. That such were the first reformers, is a fact that cannot be disputed, while it is strongly urged, by their ablest defenders, that they were conducted only by the suggestions of their natural sagacity, and had no divine commission. As no true gospel revolution ever was, or ever can be effected without divine authority, and as it is acknowledged that the first reformers had no such authority; therefore we must look for a very different cause from which all those mighty effects of the Reformation flowed. 24. For many centuries, the enormous power of the pope, and the horrid crimes and corruptions of every rank and order of the catholic church, had been increasing until it became replete with tyranny and all manner of wickedness ; while every attempt to

* reform those open and scandalous abuses, had proved ineffectual. realii. 25. “While the Roman pontiff slumbered in secu::. ‘rity at the head of the church, (says Mosheim,) and ‘saw nothing throughout the vast extent of his do“minion but tranquility and submission;–an obscure ‘and inconsiderable person arose, on a sudden, in the “year 1517, and laid the foundation of this long-ex‘pected change, by opposing, with undaunted reso‘lution, his single force to the torrent of Papal am“bition and despotism.” 26. “This extraordinary man was MARTIN LU“THER,” a monk of the Augustinian Eremites.” Who also saith of himself, in the preface to his works, “At first I was all alone ;” or as Collier hath it in his Historical Dictionary, under Martin Luther, where he praises his magnanimity, in having, “ opposed himself alone to the whole earth.” 27. The beginning of the Reformation arose from the private contentions of two monks, concerning the traffic of indulgences, and the pope's power in regard to the remission of sin. This contention was carried on with usual animosity, between MARTIN LUTHER, and John TEtzEL ; the latter a Dominican monk, who by public authority preached those famous indulgences of pope Leo X. 28. From this private quarrel, proceeded that memorable revolution, called the Blessed Reformation. The causes, and first means of its promotion are briefly stated, by that noted Protestant writer Dr. Robertson, in the following words: Hist, of 29. “It was from causes seemingly fortuitous, and $... ‘ from a source very inconsiderable, that all the migh# * : ty effects of the Reformation flowed—The princes ‘ and nobles were irritated at seeing their vassals * drained of so much wealth, in order to replenish ‘the treasury of a profuse pontiff-Even the most “unthinking were shocked at the scandalous behav“iour of Tetzel and his associates, who often squan‘dered in drunkenness, gaming, and low debauche“ry, those sums which were piously bestowed.” 30. Such then was the favorable state of affairs,

"The place of his birth was Aisleben, in Şarony, Germany.

when Luther first inveighed against the traffic of indulgences. The princes and nobles, being irritated at seeing their vassals, the common people, whom they themselves kept as slaves, drained of so much wealth, were ready to protect Luther's cause in order to support their own tyranny. 31. Luther published ninety-five theses or propositions against indulgences; “to the whole (says Ro‘bertson,) he subjoined solemn protestations of his ‘high respect for the apostolic [i. e. the papal] see, ‘and of his implicit submission to its authority.” 32. The friars of St. Augustin, Luther’s own order, though addicted to the papal see with no less ready obedience than the other monastic fraternities, gave no check to this publication. Luther had acquired extraordinary authority among his brethren ; for he, as well as they, professed the highest regard for the authority of the pope. 33. “And as a secret enmity, excited by interest “or emulation, subsists among all the monastic orders “in the Romish church, the Augustinians were high‘ly pleased with his invectives against the Domini“cans, and hoped to see them exposed to the hatred ‘and scorn of the people.” 34. “Nor was his sovereign the elector of Sarony, “dissatisfied with this obstruction which Luther threw “in the way of the publication of indulgences. He ‘secretly encouraged the attempt, and flattered him‘self that this dispute among the Ecclesiastics them“selves, might give some check to the exactions of ‘the court of Rome, which the secular princes had “long, though without success, been endeavouring ‘to oppose.” 35. It was therefore not from religious considerations that Luther was countenanced by the elector; his protection flowed entirely from political motives. 36. “Leo regarded with the utmost indifference ‘the operations of an obscure friar, who, in the heart * of Germany, carried on a scholastic disputation in a “barbarous style. Little did he apprehend, or Luther ‘ himself dream, that the effects of this quarrel “would be so fatal to the papal see. Leo imputed ‘the whole to monastic enmity and emulation, [and

CHAP.
I.

Hist. of Charlesw vol. ii. p. 112.

ibid. p. 113.

ihed. p. 126.

ibid. p. 115, 116.

chap, I.

raist. of CharlesV vol. ii. p. 116, 117.

+ki. p. 119, 120.

* such it really was, and seemed inclined not to inter-
‘pose in the contest, but to allow the Mugustinians
‘ and Dominicans to wrangle about the matter with
• their usual animosity.” So says Robertson.
37. Here then was the first cause from which the
mighty effects of the Reformation flowed; from guar-
relling, wrangling, and animosity, after the usual man-
ner of the monkish orders. The princes supported
the cause from political motives, first secretly, and
then openly, and at last by force of arms.
38. These contentions, being of a growing nature,
became at length a matter of serious concern to the
pope, who in July, 1518, summoned Luther to ap-
pear at Rome within sixty days, and at the same time
wrote to the elector of Saarony, not to protect him.
39. The professors in the university of Wittemberg,
after employing several pretexts to excuse Luther
from appearing at Rome, intreated the pope that his
doctrines might be examined by some persons of
learning and authority in Germany. The elector re-
quested the same thing of cardinal Cajetan, the pope's
legate or representative, at the diet of Augsburg.
40. And after all this quarrelling, and wrangling about
indulgences, “Luther himself who, at that time, was so
“far from having any intention to disclaim the papalau-
“ thority, that he did not even entertain the smallest
‘suspicion concerning its divine original, had written
“ to LEo a most submissive letter, promising an un-
* reserved compliance with his will.”
41. A striking evidence this, that Luther had no
divine commission ; but that he had altogether been
influenced by his own natural sagacity, and his usual
spirit of animosity, as the promoters of his cause
have testified.
42. The contention was now carried on between
Luther and Cajetan who was a Dominican. But as a
secret enmity prevailed between the orders of St. Mu-
gustin and St. Dominic, the dispute remained unde-
cided, and Luther secretly retreated and published
an appeal from the pope to a general council; but
still continued to express no less reverence than for-
merly for the papal see.
43. Upon this retreat of Luther, Cajetan wrote to

« PreviousContinue »