[605] I am unwilling to give these pages too theological a cast by proving this statement, as I have the means of doing, by extracts from Luther’s own early writings. Milner’s very prolix history of this period is rendered less valuable by his disingenuous trick of suppressing all passages in these treatises of Luther, which display his Antinomian paradoxes in a strong light. Whoever has read the writings of Luther up to the year 1520 inclusive, must find it impossible to contradict my assertion. In treating of an author so full of unlimited propositions as Luther, no positive proof as to his tenets can be refuted by the production of inconsistent passages.
60. Whatever may be the bias of our minds as to the truth of Luther’s doctrines, we should be careful, in considering the Reformation as a part of the history of mankind, not to be misled by the superficial and ungrounded representations which we sometimes find in modern writers. Such is this, that Luther, struck by the absurdity of the prevailing superstitions, was desirous of introducing a more rational system of religion; or, that he contended for freedom of inquiry, and the boundless privileges of individual judgment; or, what others have been pleased to suggest, that his zeal for learning and ancient philosophy led him to attack the ignorance of the monks, and the crafty policy of the church, which withstood all liberal studies.
Real explanation of them. 61. These notions are merely fallacious refinements, as every man of plain understanding, who is acquainted with the writings of the early reformers, or has considered their history, must acknowledge. The doctrines of Luther, taken altogether, are not more rational, that is, more conformable to what men, à priori, would expect to find in religion, than those of the church of Rome; nor did he ever pretend that they were so. As to the privilege of free inquiry, it was of course exercised by those who deserted their ancient altars, but certainly not upon any latitudinarian theory of a right to judge amiss. Nor, again, is there any foundation for imagining that Luther was concerned for the interests of literature. None had he himself, save theological; nor are there, as I apprehend, many allusions to profane studies, or any proof of his regard to them, in all his works. On the contrary, it is probable that both the principles of this great founder of the Reformation, and the natural tendency of so intense an application to theological controversy, checked for a time the progress of philological and philosophical literature on this side of the Alps.[606] Every solution of the conduct of the reformers must be nugatory, except one, that they were men absorbed by the conviction that they were fighting the battle of God. But among the population of Germany or Switzerland, there was undoubtedly another predominant feeling; the sense of ecclesiastical oppression, and scorn for the worthless swarm of monks and friars. This may be said to have divided the propagators of the Reformation into such as merely pulled down, and such as built upon the ruins. Ulric von Hutten may pass for the type of the one, and Luther himself of the other. And yet it is hardly correct to say of Luther, that he erected his system on the ruins of popery. For it was rather the growth and expansion in his mind of one positive dogma, justification by faith, in the sense he took it (which can be easily shown to have preceded the dispute about indulgences[607]), that broke down and crushed successively the various doctrines of the Romish church; not because he had originally much objection to them, but because there was no longer room for them in a consistent system of theology.[608]
[606] Erasmus, after he had become exasperated with the reformers, repeatedly charges them with ruining literature. Ubicunque regnat Lutheranismus, ibi literarum est interitus. Epist. Mvi. (1528). Evangelicos istos, cum multis aliis, tum hoc nomine præcipue odi, quod per eos ubique languent, frigent, jacent, intereunt bonæ literæ, sine quibus quid est hominum vita? Amant viaticum et uxorem, cætera pili non faciunt. Hos fucos longissime arcendos censeo a vestro contubernio. Dccccxlvi. (eod. an.) There were however at this time, as well as afterwards, more learned men on the side of the Reformation than on that of the church.
[607] See his disputations at Wittenberg, 1516; and the sermons preached in the same and the subsequent year.
[608] The best authorities for the early history of the Reformation are Seckendorf, Hist. Lutheranismi, and Sleidan, Hist. de la Réformation, in Courayer’s French translation; the former being chiefly useful for the ecclesiastical, the latter for political history. But as these confine themselves to Germany, Gerdes (Hist. Evangel. Reformat.) is necessary for the Zuinglian history, as well as for that of the northern kingdoms. The first sections of Father Paul’s History of the Council of Trent are also valuable. Schmidt, Histoire des Allemands, vols. vi. and vii., has told the story on the side of Rome speciously and with some fairness; and Roscoe has vindicated Leo X. from the imputation of unnecessary violence in his proceeding against Luther. Mosheim is always good, but concise; Milner far from concise, but highly prejudiced, and in the habit of giving his quotations in English, which is not quite satisfactory to a lover of truth.
The essay on the influence of the Reformation by Villers, which obtained a prize from the French Institute, and has been extolled by a very friendly, but better-informed writer in the Biographie Universelle, appears to me the work of a man who had not taken the pains to read any one contemporary work, or even any compilation which contains many extracts. No wonder that it does not represent, in the slightest degree, the real spirit of the times, or the tenets of the reformers. Thus, e. gr., “Luther,” he says, “exposed the abuse of the traffic of indulgences, and the danger of believing that heaven and the remission of all crimes could be bought with money; while a sincere repentance and an amended life were the only means of appeasing the divine justice.” (p. 65 Engl. Transl.) This at least is not very like Luther’s antinomian contempt for repentance and amendment of life; it might come near to the notions of Erasmus.
Orlando Furioso.
62. The laws of synchronism, which we have hitherto obeyed, bring strange partners together, and we may pass at once from Luther to Ariosto. The Orlando Furioso was first printed at Ferrara in 1516. This edition contained forty cantos, to which the last six were added in 1532. Many stanzas, chiefly of circumstance, were interpolated by the author from time to time.