though one of the strongest fortresses and most important military stations in Europe, and though it has been the scene of battles and sieges which might have immortalized any other town, is seldom thought of or visited except as the place where Luther labored and where his bones are buried. Even Wallenstein, and Peter of Russia, and the great Frederic, and Napoleon, whose names may now be seen written with their own hands on the walls of Luther's study, were always small men at Wittenberg and objects of subordinate interest; and feeling it to be so, though some of their most important movements were made in and around the city, they seldom staid there long at a time, and generally hastened away as soon as they could.

The grave of Luther is secured by an iron grating and covered with a thick, heavy plate of bronze, on which is the following simple inscription: Martini Lutheri S. Theologia doctoris corpus h. l. s. e. qui anno Christi MDLVI, XII. Cal. Martii Eyslebii in patria S. M. O. C. V. ann. LXIII. MIIDX.

The emperor Charles V., in his wars with the Protestants, some years after Luther's death, besieged and took Wittenberg. The first place he inquired for was the grave of Luther. He read the inscription, folded his arms across his bosom, and stood looking down, absorbed in thought An officer stepped up to him and said, "Let me break open the grave and scatter the ashes of the heretic to the winds." Charles's fine eyes and noble features flashed with indignation at the mean proposal. "I have not come to war upon the dead (said he); I have enough to do with the living,"-and he hurried from the spot. Ever after the famous diet at Worms, Charles and Luther had uniformly manifested the most profound respect for each other.

NOTE. The foregoing account of the last days and death of Luther has been collected from a great variety of sources. Some of the most accurate and copious are the following, namely: Seckendorf de Latheranismo-Marheinecke, Geschichte des teutschen Reformation-Lomler, Dr. Martin LuTHIRD SERIES, VOL. I. NO. II.

13

ther's Deutsche Schriften-Andin, Histoire de la Vie, des Ecrits, et de la Doctrine de Mt. Luther-Mathesius, Leben Dr. Martin Luther in siebzehn Predigten.

ARTICLE II.

BUSH ON THE RESURRECTION REVIEWED,

By SAMUEL T. SPEAR, Pastor of the South Presbyterian Church of Brooklyn, N. Y.

Anastasis or the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body, rationally and scripturally considered. By GEORGE BUSH. New-York and London: Wiley & Putnam. 1845. pp. 396, 12mo.

It is a duty acccordant not less with the spirit of religion than of philosophy, to hail with gratitude whatever shall be adapted to increase the sum, either of human knowledge, or human happiness. Truth and virtue should be the ends of all rational inquiry. These are never subserved by a proscriptive reatment of him who proposes to make his intellectual faculties the organs of research, however widely he may differ from us a alleged results. The mere fact that he enunciates a new opinion, or attacks a standard doctrine, is not of itself sufficient à priori to secure his condemnation. He may be right, or he may be wrong, or he may present a combination of important truth and serious error. In either case the appropriate method is, to hear him-master his positions-consider the pertinency and weight of his arguments; and then decide upon the merits of his view, according to the evidence which he submits. It is to be regretted that, in this imperfect world, prejudice and the spirit of dogmatism should so often supersede the work of thought, and lead men to seal up their convictions so as to make their minds impervious to the

claims of reason. This is unfavorable to the dignity and prevalence of truth; paralyzes inquiry; precludes improvement; and is dishonorable alike to man and his Maker. Above all, to put down a man by popular appeals to ignorance -to faith rather than reason and the Scriptures; by the potent agency of the odium publicum vel theologicum, by mere epithets; is unfair, unworthy of a philosopher, be he Christian or Pagan. The fact is, every improved state of opinion in its inchoative stage, is a novelty; and if we adopt the doctrine of rejecting whatever comes under this title, we must stagnate intellectual progress ab origine; we must assume, that man, in the individual and collective sense, is already perfect in knowledge; or, if not perfect, we proscribe him from making any further attainments. I cannot suppose, that in this age, and especially in this country of free inquiry, it will be necessary to make a formal defence of these announcements. He who should deny them, would himself be a personified resurrection of the bigotry, prejudice and blindness of the dark ages; and would probably find himself a stranger to the spirit and glory of the age. We should all be careful, however, that we do not in practice commit ourselves to a course which in theory we are ready to condemn. This rule is never more important, never more signally honored by its observance, than when we are exposing what we deem a fundamental error. Our zeal for truth and our hatred toward error, while well in themselves, may undergo transmutations in their progress; and in proportion as they advance, lose their original spirit, till finally they shall be marked with some of the worst features of proscription and persecution. In the name of humanity and truth, which is its chiefest good, I plead for every man an exemption from this curse. This is the right of every one, commissioned to think by the edict of his Maker.

In the following review it will be the earnest effort of the writer to be governed by the views with which he has opened this discussion. The questions agitated by the author of the book placed at the head of this article, are among the

gravest upon which the human mind can fix its thoughts. Our present life is but a vapor; it soon vanishes away; and when we cross the tomb, we are met with an immense series of wonders. Future existence is a great problem-the greatest ever addressed to human thought. Our capacity to conceive of it, and make even some limited determination in regard to it, is among the highest attributes of our rational nature. The imperfection of our intellectual achievements upon this field, is a truth which all must concede. What we do know, however, is not the less certain, because we do not know the more; we need have no solicitude lest the unknown may contradict the known; and above all, the known should not be the less powerful in its motive character and action upon our hearts. Our knowledge of the future, and our knowledge of the present, seem coincident in one grand particular, viz., in both cases it is a knowledge of facts much more extensively than of modes. When in regard either to the present or the future we absorb ourselves chiefly in the latter to the exclusion of the former, we shall soon pass beyond the landmarks of science, and alleged discoveries will deserve no higher title. than that of mere dreams, or visions. It has cost the philosophical world much thought and many mortifying failures to find out the proper limits for human inquiry. Many splendid minds have been lost to mankind, while inhaling the gases of the veiled and inacessible region. On every account, therefore, let us be sober; let us know what we can do, and what we cannot do; let us approach the theme suggested by our author, desirous of seeing the truth, and willing to yield our powers, and confess their insufficiency, where the theme may transcend their range.

In entering upon the work before us, I desire to submit some general remarks, as prefatory to a more detailed investigation. In reference, then, to the spirit and aim of the author, so far as revealed in his book, I have been able to discover nothing demanding any special criticism. He professes to yield to no one in a profound regard to the Sacred Oracles; and it would certainly be unjust to assume, that this is a mere

guise, under which to assail the word of God. I am willing to grant-what I believe to be the truth-that he is actuated by an honest intention to enlarge the boundaries of human knowledge; that he has a sacred veneration for the Bible, and full confidence in its truths, its promises and its Saviour. This I deem an act of justice to the writer, since this spirit is certainly breathed throughout the entire book. In his preface, he seems to be aware that he is assailing a series of standard opinions, and of his consequent liability to the sudden and vehement charge of skeptical tendencies. Against this he very early puts in his solemn protest; and in the manly spirit of Christian philosophy and integrity, he implores the reader to spare himself the trouble of such apprehensions and feelings. This prayer seems to me to be one of conscious innocence, intermingled with many fears. He is unquestionably entitled to the full benefit of his own averments on this point, of which he is a better judge than his brethren. He is morally answerable to God in the premises, logically answerable to the world-to any man who chooses to call his positions in question. This concession, however, should not be construed into any recommendation of his work. The work itself is no better, as an intellectual production, for having proceeded from Christian hands. Men may be honest in propagating false sentiments; they may have sincere intentions, and teach destructive errrors; and there is undoubtedly a point where intellectual obliquity becomes conclusive evidence of a state of heart which no charity can cover, and no Christian fellowship can safely acknowledge. That the author has reached this point, I am not disposed to affirm. Were I empowered with the prerogatives of the Pope, I would not chase him with the thunders of the Vatican. I prefer to regard him as a Christian brother, wishing well to the cause of truth, and to reason with him upon the merits of his views.

It is apparent that the author indirectly sets up a claim to originality—that he has leaped from the beaten track of opinion -that he regards himself as proposing new views, if not "new truths," yet "new views of old truths;" that he is seeking to