piety, and 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. Be sides, when the eyes of whole nations were opened upon the iniquitous absurdities of popery, and upon the tyranny and insolence of the Roman pontiffs, 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 distinguished 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 at tentively 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, indeed, 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 independent on the vir tues 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 reflec tions. 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 biogra pher by the ingenious Mr. Pye, the learned Dr. Neve, and other commendable writers who have appeared in this controversy. [6] 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 sense, 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 latter term is used indiscriminately with enthusiasm, by this celebrated historian, in characterising the Reformation. holding with each other a most friendly correspondence; and indeed if we consider their na ture and their essential characters, their union will appear, not only possible, but in some cases natúral, 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 prac tice? This fanaticism, as it springs up in a melancholy or a cheerful 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 pas sionate 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 [c] The words of the original are: "Le fanatisme est un zele aveugle et passionné, qui nait des opinions superstitieuses, et 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 mouvement." These two principles are evidently distinct; be cause superstition is, generally speaking, the effect of ignorance, or of a judgment perverted by a sour and splenetic temper; whereas fanaticism is the offspring of an inflamed imagination, and may exist where there is no superstition, i. e. no false or gloomy notions of the Divinity. But though distinct, they are not opposite principles; on the contrary, they lend, on many occasions, mutual strength and assistance to each other. If persons accustomed to philosophical precision will not relish the maxim of the celebrated writer which I have been now considering, so neither, in the second place, can those who are versed in eccle, siastical history look upon superstition as a more predominant characteristic of popery than fanati cism; and yet this is a leading idea, which is not only visible in many parts of this author's excellent History, but appears to be the basis of all the re flexions he employs, and of all the epithets he uses, in his speculations upon the Romish religion. And nevertheless it is manifest, that the mul titudes of fanatics, which arose in the church of Rome before the Reformation, are truly innumer, able; and the operations of fanaticism in that church were, at least, as visible and frequent, as the restless workings of superstition; they went, in short, hand in hand, and united their visions and their terrors in the support of the papacy. It is, more especially, well known, that the greatest part of the monastic establishments (that alternately insulted the benignity of Providence by their austerities, and abused it by their licentious luxury), were originally founded in consequence of pretended illuminations, miraculous dreams, and such like wild delusions of an overheated fancy. Whenever a new doctrine was to be established, that could augment the authority of the pope, of fill the coffers of the clergy; whenever a new convent convent was to be erected, there was always a vision or a miracle ready to facilitate the business; nor must it be imagined, that forgery and im posture were the only agents in this matter;by no means;-imposture there was; and it was frequently employed: but impostures made use of fanatics; and in return fanatics found impostors, who spread abroad their fame, and turned their visions to profit. Were I to recount with the utmost simplicity, without the smallest addition of ludicrous embellishment, the extasies, visions, seraphic amours; celestial apparitions, that are said to have shed such an odour of sanctity upon the male and female saints of the Romish church; were I to pass in review the famous conformities of St. Francis, the illuminations of St. Ignatius, and the enormous cloud of fanatical witnesses that have dishonoured humanity in bearing tes timony to popery, this dissertation would become a voluminous history. Let the reader cast an eye upon Dr. Mosheim's account of those ages that more immediately preceded the Reformation, and he will see what a number of sects, purely fanatical, arose in the bosom of the Romish church. But this is not all-for it must be carefully observed that even those extravagant fanatics, who produced such disorders in Germany, about the commencement of the Reformation, were nursed in the bosom of popery, were professed papists before they adopted the cause of Luther, nay, many of them passed directly from popery to fanaticism, without even entering into the outward profession of Lutheranism. It is also to be observed, that besides the fanatics, who exposed themselves to the contempt of the wise upon the public theatre of popery, Seckendorf speaks of a sect that merits of this denomination, which had spread in the Netherlands, before Luther raised his |