that body and blood being received by the ungodly as well as the true believer. Here Luther was the most violent of all. The same mind which mastered by its gigantic powers almost every other subject, which penetrated the mysteries of popish superstition, and which, in the general exposition of Scripture, could unravel with the utmost sagacity the varying laws of human language, and the just rules of interpreting figurative expressions, was incapable of perceiving a point which for two centuries past hardly any tyro in Scripture criticism has for a moment doubted. But this was not the worst of the case. The first proposal of the true and simple interpretation came from so suspicious a quarter, and was connected with so much enthusiasm and violence, and even folly (we allude to Carolstadt), that our reformer unhappily pledged himself at once, and without any reserve, to his own view of the question; and, when once committed, maintained his opinion with a pertinacity and severity, and a want of charity, which were quite indefensible. Had a little more wisdom and love governed Luther and his associates on this topic from the first, as was really the case on almost every other, they might have imposed just as firmly their own sense on our Redeemer's words, but they would have left to the Swiss churches (to which the English joined herself on this point) the same liberty which they claimed themselves: they would not have made this subordinate matter prominent and essential; nor would they have separated and estranged the Protestant communities, and exhibited them to the popish body as divided by controversy, and weakened by schism. No historical topic can be more instructive to every class of readers, and especially to those whose opinions may have weight in a revival of religion, than this lamentable discussion. The only question on which Luther lost his temper, betrayed his cause, injured the progress of re formation, grieved the Spirit of grace, and split the infant church, was that in which he was most clearly wrong; so wrong, that, after three centuries, the Lutheran and Calvinistic churches have admitted the charge, by agreeing to bury the recollection of it in an ecclesiastical union. Let those who are in danger of magnifying points of dispute be warned by this example. Let them see how prone to error are the greatest and purest minds; let them be slow in committing themselves beyond the exact prescriptions of revealed truth; and, above all, let them dread creating such points into terms of communion, and erecting a lasting division in the affections of Christians. Mark only the fatal consequences in the case before us. When the league of Smalkald was formed by the Protestant princes, after the unjust decree of the diet of Augsburg, and most of the cities wished the Swiss to be admitted as parties to it, Luther refused, on the ground of this one speculative difference on the subject of the sacrament. From this time, asperity, estrangement of mind, and dispute, too much prevailed; and all intercourse between churches engaged in a common cause, and sincerely loving the same Master, was cut off. Then, after a lapse of years, when an opening for reconciliation took place, ambiguity and insincerity were unhappily admitted in the partial concord of Wittemberg-infinitely more injurious than if each party, retaining its own views without any dishonest compromise, had united on the common ground of charity and peace. In the mean time, the Church of Rome gloried in the rupture, and unknown injury was done to souls inquiring after truth, at that important juncture, by the plausible advantage thus given to the papal divines. Indeed, if we weigh calmly the one single mischief arising from Bossuet's use of this schism in his work on the Va. rieties of the Protestants, to which our author has frequently referred, in the course of his volume; a mischief which has been propagated for above a century, by the circulation of that artful performance in every country where the Roman Catholic religion prevails, and which, to this day, is one of the chief supports of the whole papal cause; we cannot sufficiently deplore the original fault from which it sprung. Perhaps the most painful sentence in all this volume, relates to this miserable dispute. Our author says, on the occasion of recording the death of Zuinglius and Ecolampadius, "I regret to say, that the censure here conveyed applies not only to the enemies of the Reformation, but even to many of the followers of Luther, and in some degree to Luther himself; for he abstained not altogether from harsh and uncharitable remarks on the removal of these two persons, who had differed from him on the subject of the sacrament.” It is lamentable to see the length to which prejudice may be carried among good men embarked in a common cause; and seldom is it carried further than when their difference is but upon a minor point. Things come to such a pass,' says Scultetus, that numbers' (meaning of those who had embraced the Reformation), 'could not endure the names of Zuinglius and Ecolampadius, regarding them as most pestilent heretics; and whatever proceeded from them they condemned unread, unheard, and unseen. p. 125. It is but due to the truth to subjoin on this humiliating topic "Subsequently, however, Luther wrote to Bullinger, that, after he had met Zuinglius at Marpurg, he thought him an excellent man; and that he had the same opinion of Ecolampadius; and that he therefore greatly lamented their death." "It appears to have been characteristic of Luther, to give always a strong utterance to his present feelings concerning any person, and in that particular view which he was then taking of his character or conduct; without expressing that limitation of his sentiments, which certainly existed in his own mind, or that compensating view which he perhaps had of other parts of the same character. This will often, to the reader who does not allow for the circumstance, give the appearance of inconsistency in the sentiments which he at different times expresses." p. 125. We will not add a word on the punishment inflicted by Almighty God, for this lamentable defect of charity. The reader has seen it in the detail of the consequences of the schism itself. We pass on to the last head of this division of our subject: for no one can lay down the volume without receiving a new impression of the anti-Christian character of the Church of Rome, and the important effects of the Reformation, directly and incidentally upon it. It is difficult to conceive, in a Protestant and enlightened period like the present, and with the backwardness of men to recal scenes of past times, the almost incredible ignorance, imposition, idolatry, and vice, which covered almost the whole of Christendom at the moment when Luther first drew forth primitive Christianity, from its long concealment, to the view of an awakened and astonished world. The pope was ANTI-CHRIST himself, the opponent of the person and glory of Christ; not of course in a way of open infidelity, but by the corruption of the Christian faith; by a blasphemous usurpation of the authority of Christ; by a virtual dethroning of the Divine Saviour, in the merit of his blood, and the efficacy of his Spirit; and by intruding in his stead the adoration of the Virgin Mary, and the intercession of the saints. Christ was considered as an angry Judge, and Mary as the fountain of grace. The sinner fled from Christ as a minister of vengeance, and transferred his confidence to the Virgin and the saints. The best gift of God to man, the religion of Jesus Christ, was converted into the very reverse of all the ends for which it was designed. The princes of the Roman empire, infatuated by the "cup of abomi nations," to use the emphatic lan guage of prophecy, and "given up to a strong delusion to believe the lie" of the Babylonish sorceress, agreed with one consent to give their power to the beast." Over the kings of the earth the mother of harlots reigned, partly by force and partly by artifice and craft. The light of truth was almost extinguished. The grossest ignorance as to the first principles of Christianity prevailed. Secret scepticism and even Atheism spread amongst the ecclesiastics. The few sermons delivered were declamations on vows, pilgrimages, and the merits of saints. The morals of the people from the highest to the lowest, not excepting the clergy, were sunk in the most flagrant vices: harlots, for example, were publicly escorted by the equipage of cardinals in the streets of Rome, and were allowed to follow prelates and legates, when deputed to attend ecclesiastical councils, whilst the office of the Confessional was employed to reconcile and patronise vice by purchases and commutations and superstitious impositions. In the mean time, the Bible had been first closed, then discountenanced, then forgotten, then superseded by the authoritative comments of the fathers, and, lastly, prohibited to the people. In the controversies of the day, not the Scriptures but the schoolmen were the sources of truth, and the arbiters of doctrine. It is, in short, impossible to conceive of a state of things more exactly fulfilling the predicted apostasy of the latter day ―a state so fatally destructive and ruinous to souls, that the outward tyranny and persecution, and the resistance to the progress of knowledge and happiness, by which it was produced, are only to be considered as appendages and instruments of the spiritual defection. In such a state of corruption, we wonder not that the Church of Rome roused herself to indignation at the proceedings of Luther. Nor do we wonder that she afterwards confirmed all the charges advanced against her, by the very manner in which she conducted her defence; by her threats and favours, her bribery and contrivances, her worldly spirit and profligate political schemes-by her open disregard of all care for truth, and her trifling with the souls of men; by her assertions at one time that the differences between the doctrine of the reformers and herself were merely verbal; and her admissions and treaties at another, made with the purpose of violating them, as soon as circumstances would allow. In short, imagine only in what way a church, corrupted as the Apocalyptical visions reveal, would be likely to act when a reformation was begun; and in that precise manner will it be found that Papal Rome did actually proceed against Luther and his noble associates. It was the kingdom of darkness disturbed by the kingdom of light, and resisting the disturbance. Half And yet the Papacy was, in thirty short years, shaken to its very base by a feeble monk. Europe espoused the Reformed tenets; and of the other half, the larger part testified no doubtful indications of inquiry and desire of change. The chief leaders of the Papacy themselves were compelled by the force of truth to admit, from time to time, the existence of the corruptions of the church, and the need of reform. The Archbishop of Saltsburg, for example, after the reading of the Confession of Augsburg, told every one, "That the reformation of the mass was becoming, the liberty of meats proper, and the demand to be disburdened of so many commandments of men, just; but that a poor monk should reform all, was not to be endured." pp. 24, 25. In the year 1537, a commission was at length actually issued by Paul III. to several cardinals, to inquire into the corruptions and abuses of the Roman court-from which, though nothing whatever was ultimately done, we deduce clearly enough the actual state of the dominant hierarchy. Nor did the mighty effects on the Papacy produced by the Reformation itself, fall short of what these admissions would lead one to anticipate. On the direct results, however, in the establishment of so many pure churches after the model of the apostolic doctrine, in the distribution of the Bible, and books of evangelical instruction, and the. conversion of souls, we need not say a word, after the remarks scattered throughout this article: we rather would advert to those effects on the popedom, which, though incidental, were of the greatest importance, and continue in operation to the present day. As early as the year 1530, Luther observes, that "the Catholic doctors borrowed from him, and learned to preach in quite a different manner than they had heretofore done." Three years afterwards Erasmus, the fickle, timid Erasmus, appears as a witness of the tacit effects of Lutheranism. After extracts from his work on Concord, our author justly and acutely observes,— "Almost all this, no doubt, is truly excellent: but, then, was it contrary to the doctrine of Luther? was it what his opponents had taught? was it even, as it would perhaps purport to be, intermediate between the two? Rather its being propounded in this manner by Erasmus is a proof of the extent to which Luther had prevailed in his attacks upon long-established error. Erasmus himself, it is probable, would never have written or thought as he here does, had it not been for Luther. Seckendorf justly observes, that most of the positions, which he thus lays down,' might be expressed, and nearly in the same words, from Luther himself; though Erasmus was accustomed so to temper his language, that it might not directly offend against the formularies of a party which he dared not desert. His doctrine of free will, for example, here proposed, avoiding all thorny disputations, as he calls them, is substantially that which Luther maintained. Only adhere to what is thus taught concerning human impotency and imperfection, and what becomes of the sort of merit for which Eccius, Faber, and all that class of men contended? The sentences, to which Erasmus objects, were not Luther's, but were calumniously imputed to him." So far the learned historical commentator on Lutheranism." pp. 160, 161. Then, eight years further on (1541), the concessions of the papal advocates on the doctrine of justification were surprising, and actually laid the foundation for an agreement, if that had been sincerely sought. The gradual improvement of the general tone of morals kept pace with the silent victories of truth; CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 301. and the Romish doctors were compelled, by the movements of men's minds and the spirit of inquiry, to enter far more into the questions of Christianity, to attend more to essential truths, and to discharge the functions of the Christian ministry with somewhat more of piety and diligence. The light penetrated in every direction. In fact, we should never have heard of such men as Jansenius and his followers in France, or of Borromeo in Italy, or of the affecting and powerful writings produced by the Roman-Catholic ecclesiastics on the great foundations of our common Christianity, or of the partial revivals of religion in different spots of the popedom, or of the salvation of souls, if Luther had not first dispelled the darkness by the widespread illumination of his flaming torch. These incidental effects were no doubt partial and inadequate. The vast mass of the popish body remained in the same, or nearly the same, depth of superstition and idolatry; and the ostensible church, the leading hierarchy, contrived by the decrees of the council of Trent to rivet the old chains by which their vassals had been bound, and to forge many new ones. But the main and important consequences of throwing open truth, asserting the principle of the religious liberty of mankind, appealing to the public only, proclaiming the abuses and corruptions of the existing superstition, proposing the fair and simple form of genuine Christianity, maintaining the peculiar doctrines of the merits and grace of Christ, exposing to view the distortions of the popish rule of faith and morals, and recalling men to the few and mighty principles and precepts of the Gospel ;-all these effects did follow, not only directly but incidentally, tacitly, by insinuation, in a thousand secret channels. These principles are working still, and will yet increasingly work, in proportion to the purity of the Protestant churches, the spirit of love and con H cord which unites them, and the holy lives and conduct which they exhibit. We care little for the boasted infallibility of the popish church; we care little for its vaunted unchangeableness of character. The last thing to which any public bodies are brought, is a formal retractation. Truth is invincible. Education and the Bible must, and will, and do, sap, by the grace of God, the very foundations of papal ignorance and superstition, and this in the bosom of their own communities. The bulls issued of late against the Bible societies will recoil upon the framers of them. The members of the popish communion will and must, individually, drop off and join their Protestant brethren, as light is diffused. The one thing, we are some times inclined to think, which conspires, with many others, to hold together the Papists in these Protestant dominions, is not so much the love of truth, or conscience, as that high political party-spirit which so unhappily mixes with their religion. Let that unnatural bond of union be loosened, and man left, in the present state of Europe, to the unimpeded effects of truth and knowledge, and the pope will soon totter on his ill-sustained throne, and the nations and individuals still adhering to his absurd and antiquated errors, will be only those who, deluded by their love of unrighteousness, are reserved for destruction at the coming of the Lord. The danger, accordingly, which threatens us as a Protestant people is, we are disposed to think, not so much from the arguments or craft which Popery may employ, as from our own apathy and indifference to religion generally; from infidelity and deism insinuating themselves under the guise of a loose and undefined Christianity; from the forgetfulness of the main characters and controuling discoveries of the Gospel; from provoking the God of mercy and truth by ungrate ful returns to him for all his goodness, and by a contemptuous disregard of his Word and Spirit. Our danger arises from the indecent le vity with which the differences between the Protestant and Popish creeds are sometimes treated by our public men, and this even in our senate. With an abstinence from political heats, we would combine the most wakeful jealousy of the portentous folly, superstition, and tyranny of the anti-Christian church. We would have men doubly alive to the unutterable evil of ido latry; the guilt of human inventions for pardon; the danger of uninspired commandments; the certain demo. ralization which is created by indulgences, satisfactions, and the merits of saints; and the total denial of all effective Christianity, which flows from a heap of unmeaning ceremoTM nies, adapted to fascinate the senses, from a blind acquiescence in human authority, from ignorance the most profound, jomed with dogmatism the most presumptuous,—from the exclusion of the Bible and the extinction of free inquiry. What the torpor and ignoratice of Protestant statesmen, combined with the incredible zeal of Papists, may effect, we know not. But the main preventative we conceive to be not political heats and animosities, but an aroused conviction of the spiritual enormities of the one system, and of the holy life-giving doctrines of the other; Popery presenting, on all sides, a direct contrast to the doctrines and precepts of the Gospel-Protestantism founded on the word of God, and that only. All the declarations made at different times in or out of parliament by public men, that we are not greatly accountable for our opinions that we have no better reason to assign for our adherence to the Protestant church than that we were born in a Protestant country—that questions about transubstantiation are of no more importance than the idle disputes agitated by the schoolmen-are of the worst tendency, and directly go to dig up the foundations of Christianity itself. In this view, the very erroneous impression which a celebrated statesman lately gave of the Protestant |