sincere. It is observed by Cowper, that none but Christians can fully enter into the beauties of Milton; and it is not too much to add, that they alone are the persons qualified to understand and decide upon the merits of the reformation. An infidel is a total stranger to the feelings of a Christian: but although he cannot understand what is meant by them, when professed, he can easily understand that they may be professed hypocritically if any motive should induce him to make such profession, he is conscious that it could not be otherwise than hypocritical. In his misconceptions, therefore, and misrepresentations, of the facts which constitute the reformation, he is not reduced to the necessity of a pure and entire violation of truth; for his own experience supplies him with sonie apparent probabilities in support of the conclusion to which his inclination leads

him.

But with respect to the seasonableness in particular of the present publication, let the author be heard for himself.

"Several persons, and even some of our leading senators, suppose that popery has long since been abundantly meliorated. But I wish they may not be nearer the truth who think that the spirit of protestantism has sadly degenerated. Both these points may receive much illustration from that part of this history which is yet unfinished. In the mean time the true nature and character of protestantism, as well as of popery, ought to be carefully examined, and ascertained with all possible accuracy. And for this purpose the diligent study of the same memorable period, and especially of the first eight years of it, from 1517 to 1525, will be found peculiarly useful. During these years, Luther stood almost alone; and the docu

ments contained in this volume will leave no

blood of martyrs, than the power of princes and prelates, they beautifully exhibit the native vigour of the reviving Church of Christ." Pref. pp. xii., xiii.

We now proceed to the history itself.,

In the extended and interesting account which Dr. Milner has given of two of the most conspicuous do. cuments concerning the reformation in the year 1520, namely, the letter which Luther was prevailed upon to address, to Leo X., for the purpose of producing a reconcilia, tion, and the bull which that pope fulminated against the reformer, we cannot help wishing that the author had settled, as he was eminently qualified to do, the chronological difference which has prevailed, from the first existence of these documents, with respect to their respective dates. Seckendorf had, in our opinion, decidedly proved, that the bull was actually prior to the letter; although reasons existed which in duced Luther to put an earlier date to his letter: a circumstance which misled even the first protestant writers, and has been improved by papal ones into an argument to justify the severity of the bull. Dr. Milner, by the place which he has assigned to these productions, has contributed to confirm the error. The before and after of consecutive events is the very soul of truth in history; and a violation of chronological order is of itself often productive of serious falsehood. Even in cases, when this effect is not to be apprehended, accuracy in the notation of time is far from being beneath the regard of any historian. We observe, too, that only sixty days are mentioned in the bull, whereas the time allowed the reputed heretic in which to retract

tuated, Then the doctrines of Luther are

well known to be, in the main, the doctrines

of every branch of the protestant reformation, These, with the rapidity of lightning, penetrated almost every part of Europe; became the fruitful source of various Chris tian institutions and establishments; and, as hitherto they were supported rather by the

additional sixty days, making 120 suspended on that condition, was all in all. Both Sleidan and Fra Paolo have committed the same oversight. But any one who will be at the pains to consult the bull itself, which is extant in Luther's Works, in

Piafii Introduct. in Hist. &c., and in other works, will perceive it to be an oversight. However, that, at any rate, this bull was not produced by Luther's letter, but was long before determined upon, is placed beyond all reasonable doubt from the single circumstance, that, in a letter of Giulio, Card. de Medici (afterwards Clement VII.), to Card. Bibiena, dated from Rome, March 27, 1519, the writer says of Cajetan-"Il legato vuole, che Fra Martin Lutero si condanni in ogni modo, o' l'opere sue*.

As it would be scarcely practicable to abridge the present history within any thing of a moderate compass; so neither have we thought it necessary or advisable to notice every passage deserving of attention, either on account of the intrinsic importance of the incidents recorded, or the manner of recording them, or the improvement deduced from them. Only readers of the work (and such we apprehend most of our readers have been, or will be) can form any conception of the difficulty to which we should have been reduced, had this been our plan. This, however, is the general propensity of reviewers; and we have been obliged to resist it in no common degree, in order to keep ourselves within due limits, But the following passage, as it impressed upon our minds a more striking sense of the value of the present volume, we cannot refuse ourselves the satisfaction of tran

scribing.

"Who can doubt, that there might be made a most valuable selection of instructive facts and circumstances relative to the expulsion of ignorance and superstition, and the first appearances of evangelical light, during the former part of this century, among the different nations of Europe? Much time, however, and perseverance, would be requisite for the execution of such a work. Many of the necessary authentic decuments lie almost buried in obscurity

* See the first volume of the Lettere di Puncipi

and oblivion: and as they have not been judged proper for general history, or even worthy of it, the difficulty of collecting them increases every day." p. 671.

The following observations had perhaps a greater degree of interest attached to them at the time they were written than now but they have still their importance; indeed their importance is permanent. They discover likewise a spirit of moderation and candour, which are deserving both of praise and of imitation.

"As the terms Helvetic and Calvinistic

denomination have been mentioned, and as even at this day the meaning of the words Calvinist and Calvinistic supplies matter for much dispute, and even contention, among religious persons, it may not be improper briefly to advertise the reader, that in the origin of these denominations, as distinguished from the Lutheran, there really existed no material difference of sentiment; at least this is true so far as the religious practice of fallen creatures, and their recovery of their eternal salvation in the next, depend upon a just application of the salutary remedies of the Gospel. It is one of the most mournful events attending the refor mation, that historical truth and method should require us to mention at all the difference here alluded to. Such as it was, it had, as yet, hardly appeared with perspicuity; but in the year 1524, and the several succeeding years, it grew into a tedious and violent comtroversy concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ is present in the Eucharist. This dispute, which has been called the sacramentary contest, after producing the inost deplorable animosities, terminated at length in a fatal division of those sincere friends of the reformation, who had embarked in the same cause, and who equally professed the essentials of godliness. The differences of sentiment among the contending parties were frequently indistinct, and almost entirely verbal, and if the Church of Christ could be viewed abstracted from every secular connection, such niceties would scarcely deserve a moment's consideration. But Christians must class themselves with some communi

the lost image of God in this world, and

ties, and are therefore compelled to give peculiar attention to the distinguishing fea

tures of that denomination to which they belong. Happy! did they but learn to do this in a spirit of candour and charity

And happier still! did they employ their zeal, their firmness, and their perseverance, in defending the foundations of religion, in imitation of St. Paul, who would not give place to false brethren by subjection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with the Galatians." p. 731

-735.

At p. 772 commences an account of the Sacramentarian Controversy, in which Luther had the misfortune, not only to embrace the erroneous side, but to be opposed by adversaries nearly equal to him in his better qualities, and superior to him in his worst. The violence and fanaticism of Carolstadt, his first opponent on this question, so far from being calculated to produce a conversion in his opinion, were not even adapted to moderate it. Had some of the more moderate and able opponents of this reformer been the first parties in the controversy, there is little doubt that the good sense, the candour, and humility of Luther would have led him to settle into a very different opinion con. cerning the sacrament in question, from that which he so irrationally adopted, and so obstinately persisted in. But these individuals unhappily made their appearance after the reformer had committed himself; and motives distinct from the merits of the cause, but often associated with them, had established him in the opinion which he at first adopt ed. These persons likewise laboured under the further disadvantage of appearing as the partisans of Carolstadt. But although it is in this deplorable controversy that the character of Luther suffers its worst stain, it was productive of this advantage, as far as Carolstadt was concerned, that it discovered how far removed the Saxon reformer was from fanaticism; as the part which he took respecting the anabaptists proved his abhorrence, both of scdition on the 'one hand, and of persecution on the other. Dr. Milner, who sustains the character both of the admirer and censor of Luther, has introduced the subject of the

Sacramentarian Controversy with these judicious remarks.

"In the year 1524 there arose among the friends of the reformation a tedious and fatal controversy respecting the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Luther bad rejected the doctrine of transub. stantiation, but maintained, nevertheless, that along with the elements of bread and wine the real body and blood of Christ were received by the partakers of the Lord's Supper. It is a meinorable instance of human imbecility, that a man, who had risen superior to the habits and prejudices of education in

so many other respects, and who, through written word, had been more completely the grace of God and the instruction of the emancipated frum vulgar and fashionable absurdities than any mere philosopher in any age had ever been, should in this single point remain so unreasonably attached to the opinion which he had imbibed in his youth. Our astonishment is increased by this circumstance, that he could allow the Scriptural expressions to be consistent with the ad

mission of the REALITY of the elements aç

cording to the plain testimony of our senses, sions do still imply that the partaker of the and yet should think that those same expres real bread and wine does also partake at the same time of the material substance of Christ's human body. Thus, however, the advocates for the doctrine of cONSUBSTANTIATION must argue. And the case before us shews, that great men are not so in all things; and that it is never wise to adhere implicitly to the authority of mere fallible men as teachers,

"Carolstadt was, in this point, the open time in endeavouring to develope the true antagonist of Luther. I have spent much controversy, not so much on account of the history of the origin of the sacramental merits of the argumentation which took place in the course of it, as of the contrary representations of the ecclesiastical writers respecting the motives of these two early reformers. After much reflection I am convinced, that what is certain in this matter is in very little room." p. 772, 773.

We have quoted this latter paragraph for the consolation of the reader, who will feel much confi dence in the relation which such a writer as Dr. Milner professes to have cost him much time, and whose interest it always is, that an unpleasant subject should be contained within narrow limits. A friend of

Carolstadt might object, that in the first paragraph of p. 791, Luther has made use of precisely the same argument against his opponent, which Celsus had long ago employed against the Christians in general.

The character and conduct of Erasmus form a prominent object in the period to which our attention is now particularly directed, and consequently in that volume of the Church of Christ at present before us. The influence of this great man upon the reformation is of a mixed, and, upon the whole, not of a favourable description. As far as his writings went to expose the ignorance and debaucheries of the monastic orders and other established institutions of the papacy, they directly concurred with the efforts of Luther and of all the sober reformers. But here, unfortunately, both for himself, and for the great cause then in agitation, his services stopped. With respect to any ulterior or more positive object, he was either neutral or hostile: and the character into which he finally subsided, after many irregular oscillations, was the latter. Whoever will give himself the trouble carefully to consult the large mass of letters written by this eminent scholar, and printed together in Le Clerc's handsome edition of his works, as far as they concern the reformation, will find reason to conclude, that, at first, his natural good sense and untempted piety led him to an almost perfect agreement with the substantial object of Luther and his associates. Yet even in the earlier stage of the affair his characteristic weakness and duplicity indaced him to use different language on the same subject to different persons. As, however, the trying circumstances of the times obliged him to assume a more decided character, to which he was much averse, we observe him gradually and increasingly diverging from the evangelical interest, until, at no later date than the year 1521, August

23, we find him so prevailed upon by the numerous suitors who urged an open warfare with Luther, as to tell Warham, archbishop of Canterbury at the time, that, in obe dience to the earnest solicitations of the papists, he had taken the resolution of reading the writings of Luther for the purpose of writing against him. The consequence was the commencent of actual and public hostilities between him and the reformer; who, nevertheless, had submitted to all lawful and honourable concessions, in order to prevent them. These hostilities, however, on the side of Erasmus, real as they undoubtedly were, were conducted with an evident consciousness of his own weakness, both with respect to the cause for which he contended, and with respect to the person with whom he had to contend. On the side of Luther they were, generally speaking, respectful, honest, and vigorous; but as plainly involuntary.-But we begin to suspect ourselves of a degree of impertinence, in thus taking the pen out of the hand of Dr. Milner, who has professedly undertaken this very subject, and of whose ability in the execution there can be but one opinion with all competent judges. But before we personally introduce the historian, it may be proper to observe, that, although the present opinion of the aspect of Erasmus on the reformation, with those who have studied the times in question, be pretty generally that which has been expressed, it remained for Dr. Milner, not only to establish this opinion by a more luminous body of evidence than has ever appeared, to our knowledge, or in our own language, before; but likewise, by the same evidence, to depress the character of this extraordinary man much lower in the scale of moral integrity and worth, than, we believe, most persons, even of extensive reading on the subject, had conceived to be the fact. The picture which the pages before us have