תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

pru

ingenuously acknowledge, that wisdom and dence did not always attend the transactions of those that were concerned in this glorious cause; that many things were done with violence, temerity, and precipitation; and, what is still worse, that several of the principal agents in this great revolution were actuated more by the impulse of passions, and views of interest, than by a zeal for the advancement of true religion. But, on the other hand, the wise and candid observer of things will own, as a most evident and incontestable truth, that many things which, when stripped of the circumstances and motives that attended them, appear to us at this time as real crimes, will be deprived of their enormity, and even acquire the aspect of noble deeds, if they be considered in one point of view with the times and places in which they were transacted, and with the frauds and crimes of the Roman pontifs and their creatures, by which they were occasioned. But after all, in defending the cause of the Reformation, we are under no obligation to defend, in all things, the moral characters of its promoters and instruments. These two objects are entirely distinct. The most just and excellent cause may be promoted with low views, and from sinister motives, without losing its nature, or ceasing to be just and excellent. The true state of the question here, is, Whether the opposition made, by LUTHER and the other reformers, to the Roman pontif, was founded on just and solid reasons? and this question is entirely independent of the virtues or vices of particular persons [x]. Let many of these persons be supposed as odious, nay, still more detestable, than they are pleased to represent them, provided the cause in which they were embarked be allowed to have been just and good.

K 4

APPENDIX

[x] The translator has added here some paragraphs, to Tender more palpable the important observation of the learned author.

CENT.

XVI. SECT. I.

APPENDIX I

Concerning the SPIRIT and CONDUCT of the first Reformers, and the charge of ENTHUSIASM (i. e. fanaticism), that has been brought against them by a celebrated Author.

THE

HE candour and impartiality, with which Dr MOSHEIM represents the transactions of those who were agents and instruments in bringing about the Reformation, are highly laudable. He acknowledges, that imprudence, passion, and even a low self-interest, mingled sometimes their rash proceedings and ignoble motives in this excellent cause; and, in the very nature of things, it could not be otherwise. It is one of the most inevitable consequences of the subordination and connexions of civil society, that many proper instruments and agents are set to work in all great and important revolutions, whether of a religious or political nature. When great men appear in these revolutions, they draw after them their dependants; and the unhappy effects of a party-spirit are unavoidably displayed in the best cause. The subjects follow their prince; the multitude adopt the system of their leaders, without entering into its true spirit, or being judiciously attentive to the proper methods of promoting it; and thus irregular proceedings are employed in the maintenance of the truth. Thus it happened in the important revolution that delivered a great part of Eurepe from the ignominious yoke of the Romanpontif. The sovereigns, the ecclesiastics, the men of weight,

piety, learning, who arose to assert the rights of human nature, the cause of genuine Christianity, and the exercise of religious liberty, came forth into the field of controversy with a multitude of dependants, admirers and friends, whose motives and conduct cannot be entirely justified. Besides, when the eyes of whole nations were opened upon the iniquitous absurdities of popery, and upon the tyranny and insolence of the Roman pontifs, it was scarcely possible to set bounds to the indignation of an incensed and tumultuous multitude, who are naturally prone to extremes, generally pass from blind submission to lawless ferocity, and too rarely distinguish between the use and abuse of their undoubted rights. In a word, many things, which appear to us extremely irregular in the conduct and measures of some of the instruments of our happy reformation, will be entitled to a certain degree of indulgence, if the spirit of the times, the situation of the contending parties, the barbarous provocations of popery, and the infirmities of human nature, be duly and attentively considered.

The question here is, what was the spirit which animated the first and principal reformers, who arose in times of darkness and despair to deliver oppressed kingdoms from the dominion of Rome, and upon what principles a Luther, a Zuingle, a Calvin, a Melancthon, a Bucer, &c. embarked in the arduous cause of the Reformation? This question, is not at all necessary to the defence of the Reformation, which rests upon the strong foundations of scripture and reason, and whose excellence is absolutely independant on the virtues of those who took the lead in promoting it. Bad men may be, and often are, embarked in the best causes; as such causes afford the most specious mask to cover mercenary views, or to disguise ambitious purposes. But until the

more

more than Jesuitical and disingenuous Philips resumed the trumpet of calumny [a] even the voice of popery had ceased to attack the moral characters of the leading reformers.

These eminent men were indeed attacked from another quarter, and by a much more respectable writer. The truly ingenious Mr Hume, so justly celebrated as one of the first favourites of the historical muse, has, in his history of England, and more especially in the history of the houses of Tudor and Stuart, represented the character and temper, of the first reformers in a point of view, which undoubtedly shews, that he had not considered them with that close and impartial attention that ought always to precede personal reflections. He has laid it down as a principle, that superstition and enthusiasm are two species of religion that stand in diametrical opposition to each other; and seems to establish it as a fact, that the former is the genius of popery, and the latter the characteristic of the Reformation. Both the principle and its application must appear extremely singular; and three sorts of persons must be more especially surprised at it.

First, Persons of a philosophical turn, who are accustomed to study human nature, and to describe with precision both its regular and excentric movements, must be surprised to see superstition and fanaticism [b] represented as opposite and jarring qualities. They have been seen often together,

holding

[a] See the various answers that were made to this biographer by the ingenious Mr Pye, the learned Dr Neve, and other commendable writers who have appeared in this controversy.

[b] I use the word fanaticism here, instead of enthusiasm, to prevent all ambiguity; because, as shall be shewn presently, Mr Hume takes enthusiasm, in its worst sene, when he applies it to the reformers; and in that sense it is not only equivalent to, but is perfectly synonymous with, fanaticism. Besides, this later term is used indiscriminately with enthusiasm, by this cele brated historian, in characterising the Reformation.

holding with each other a most friendly correspondence; and indeed if we consider their nature and their essential characters, their union will appear, not only possible, but in some cases natural, if not necessary. Superstition, which consists in false and abject notions of the Deity, in the gloomy and groundless fears of invisible beings, and in the absurd rites, that these notions and these fears naturally produce,is certainly at the root of various branches of fanaticism. For what is fanaticism, but the visions, illuminations, impulses, and dreams of an over heated fancy, converted into rules of faith, hope, worship, and practice? This fanaticism, as it springs up in a melancholy or a chearful complexion, assumes a variety of aspects, and its morose and gloomy forms are certainly most congenial with superstition, in its proper sense. It was probably this consideration that led the author of the article Fanaticism, in the famous Dictionnaire Encyclopedique, published at Paris, to define it [c] as" a blind and passionate zeal, which ariseth from superstitious opinions, and leads its votaries to commit ridiculous, unjust, and cruel actions, not only without shame, but even with certain internal feelings of joy and comfort;" from which the author concludes, that “fanaticism is really nothing more than superstition set in motion." This definition unites perhaps too closely these two kinds of false religion, whose enormities have furnished very ill-grounded pretexts for discrediting and misrepresenting the true. It is, however, a testimony from one of the pretended oracles of modern philosophy, in favour of the compatibility of fanaticism with superstition. These two principles are evidently distinct;

[c] The words of the original are: "Le fanatisme est un zele aveugle et passioné, qui nait des opinions superstitieuses, ct fait commettre des actions ridicules, injustes et cruelles, non seulement sans honte, mais avec une sorte de joye et de consolation. Le fanatisme donc n'est que la superstition mise en ouvement."

« הקודםהמשך »