It is time, however, we should come to our more serious charge against the Reviewer; and we are sorry to be compelled to say, we think he has given a wilful and wicked misrepresentation of the opinions of Luther in general, and of his conduct and that of other Reformers of the 16th century, on one particular occasion.-We must at the outset enter our protest against the unfair and unsatisfactory manner in which he has brought forward his statements. He has produced the gravest charges against the "Speculative and Practical Theology of Luther," and against his "Biblical Criticism,"-charges which, if true, would totally alter our view of the character and life of that great man; and yet, he has not favored us with one single reference to his authorities; has not cited one page from any one author, to shew whence he drew his facts, and has thus put it out of our power to refer to the originals for the purpose of comparing them with the quotations he has extracted, and the inferences he has drawn from them. We are thus compelled to receive all on the ipse dixit of the Reviewer, who has shewn himself any thing but favorable to those "calling themselves Evangelical." Though he tells us, therefore, that he gives us Luther's sentiments" in his own words, literally translated," we think when we proceed to present our readers with a few flowers culled from the Reviewer's "hasty anthology of some of Luther's opinions," they will agree with us, that some reference to authorities was necessary to support such startling assertions. Leaving the conduct of Luther and the other Reformers, with reference to the Landgrave of Hesse, which the writer classes under "Practical Theology," we proceed to give an extract or two from what the Reviewer states of Luther's "Speculative Theology and Biblical Criticism," leaving it to our readers to judge of the probability of their being really Luther's own sentiments.

Speculative Theology.-" God pleaseth you when he crowns the unworthy; he ought not to displease you when he damns the innocent. The high perfection of faith is to believe, that God is just, notwithstanding that by his will he renders us necessarily damnable."

Biblical Criticism.- "The Books of the Kings are more worthy of credit than the Books of the Chronicles. The History of Jonah is so monstrous, that it is absolutely incredible. The Epistle of James, I account the writing of no Apostle. It is an Epistle of straw."

The Reviewer might as well have mentioned, in connection with this last opinion, which it is well known Luther did rashly advance, that when his judgment was better informed, he publicly retracted this unguarded assertion. In the same way, if, as perhaps we are bound to believe, the Reviewer has bona fide

extracted from Luther's writings the other opinions he has ascribed to him, we must suppose that they were uttered in the earlier part of his career, and could not be the real sentiments of his matured mind. It is difficult, however, to believe that Luther, or any one in their senses, could talk of "God's damning the innocent;" while it is well known to all who have studied the life of that great Reformer, that the light of Divine truth broke very gradually into his mind, and that it was long before, emancipated from the superstitions in which he was brought up, he received in all its fulness and clearness, "the truth as it is in Jesus*." But we must proceed to what the Reviewer calls the "Practical Theology" of Luther and the other Reformers, as shewn in their conduct with regard to the Landgrave of Hesse, who, proposing to take a second wife during the life time of his first, thought fit to consult them, not we fear, with the view of asking their advice, but of obtaining their sanction to what he had already made up his mind. We are by no means prepared to defend in every point the conduct of Luther and his colleagues: they were human, and therefore erring agents, and it would be as unwise as vain to attempt to justify every thing done or said by them. But we do not hesitate to assert, that the Reviewer has given a very unfair view of their conduct; and that any one who reads his account, would think it unjustifiable to a degree which the real state of the case does not warrant. In the absence of any reference to his authorities on the part of the Reviewer, we consulted the works within our reach, which we thought most likely to throw light on the subject, but to our disappointment, Mosheim says nothing on the matter, nor does Robertson in his "Charles the 5th" (as perhaps could hardly be expected) take any notice of this part of the Landgrave's history. We are compelled, therefore, to draw our refutation exclusively from Mr. Scott's continuation of Milner's Church History; and should he be thought likely to be unduly partial to

*It would be absurd to expect, as our Correspondent justly observes, that Luther's System of Theology should start forth at once in full vigor and maturity. His earlier works contain what may well be called "startling "expressions; many of them, however, have been gathered from his "Table Talk," a book (as is well known) without any authority, and many are the invention of his enemies. (See Boyle.) Luther, like the Apostles themselves, was subject to errors in doctrine, in argument and in practice, which no friend of his needs give himself the trouble to palliate or deny. But with all his faults, he was honoured by his master to be the instrument of carrying into effect a revolution, the greatest and the most influential which has ever blessed man, since the first establishment of Christianity by its Divine author. It was said of him by an eminent contemporary, and posterity has confirmed the judgment,

Japeti de gente prior majorque Luthero

Nemo fuit; sed nec credo futuris erit.-ED.

the Reformers, it will be seen, on reference to his works, that he always quotes his authorities, not to mention that the name of such a man, and the character ofhis works, are both guarantees for some degree of fairness and truth, and must at any rate outweigh the unsupported assertions of an anonymous writer.

The Reviewer states, that the Landgrave, "knowing of Luther and Melancthon having exhorted the king of England not to divorce his first queen, but to marry a second over and above," had applied, &c. &c.; now Mr. Scott, who quotes Sleidan, Seekendorf, and Luther's own letters, says, "The Protestant divines did indeed examine the question concerning Henry's divorce but the conclusion to which they came was not favorable to his views"-and Luther scrupled not to declare, "that Henry would violate higher and more sacred obligations in divorcing his wife, than he had done in marrying his brother's widow." Our readers may judge how far it is probable, after this, that they should have advised his "marrying a second wife over and above." The Reviewer goes on to say, that the Landgrave "had applied to the leading Doctors of the Reformation, for license to have a second wife; "and that they, after mentioning the possible case of a man detained captive in a foreign country, who might there take a second wife, a case how unlike that of the Landgrave, and which, therefore, they could never have meant as an encouragement to him-that after giving this case, they add, "In fine, if your highness be fully and finally resolved to marry yet another wife, they judge it ought to be done secretly, that no attacks or scandals of any moment might ensue." Now, can this in any way be taken as "authorizing, in the name of the Gospel, a dispensation of the moral law?" and yet, this is what the Reviewer considers it-or can it be regarded, in the words of Mr. Scott, as any thing more than "recommending, that if he carries his resolution into effect, the marriage should be kept secret, since reputed concubinage would be less reproachful and less mischievous than avowed bigamy." Mr. Scott further says, that "in their answer to the Landgrave, the divines seriously and faithfully charge his crimes home upon his conscience, and warn him of their consequences; they utterly reject his conclusions in favor of Polygamy generally; and the advice which they give seems fairly to admit of no harsher construction than this, that since the Landgrave professes to have made up his mind, and will hear of no other alternative between his present course of life and a second marriage, less scandal will be given, and perhaps less guilt incurred by the latter than the former." With regard to the Landgrave's" applying to the leading Doctors of the Reformation for license to have a second wife," Mr. Scott says, "having

contrived most sophistically to satisfy himself, that the Scriptures allowed him this indulgence, he resolved upon it, and sought to obtain the sanction of Luther, Melancthon, and Bruer."-We agree, however, with Mr. Scott, that "though there remains something in the case more than is known to us, yet it seems scarcely possible to conceive circumstances which could warrant their at all sanctioning the monstrous proceeding of the Landgrave." Indeed, as that wise prince the Elector of Saxony thought, "they might well have declined giving any advice, when the consulting party avowed that his mind was already made up."

If any credit then is to be attached to Mr. Scott's account, there was nothing in the conduct of the Reformers to justify the harsh view taken of it by the Reviewer. We envy not the feelings of the man who can look back to that glorious event, the Reformation, without gratitude and delight; who, instead of regarding it as the first breaking up of that long night of error and superstition which had reigned over the civilized earth, and viewing the memory of those chiefly concerned in it with affection and reverence, can occupy himself with a minute search into the mistakes that accompanied it, and a microscopic detection of the errors of those who led it-aggravating their errors in judgment into "authorizing a dispensation of the moral law," and considering the bold avowal of polygamy by a German rationalist" honorable, when contrasted with the skulking compromise of all professed principle, by men calling themselves Evangelicals." It ill becomes one of that Liberal School who are loud advocates for the freedom of the human mind, thus to throw discredit on the men who were the first to break the fetters which had so long shackled it; it ill becomes those who are continually calling for fresh changes, and fresh advances in the march of intellect-who are friends of REFORMATION in politics, in Government, in social and civil institutions; it ill becomes them to disparage that great Reformation which gave the first spring to reason and intellect-which first awoke the human mind from its long and deep slumber, and poured upon darkened and superstitious Europe that flood of intellectual and religious light, which was remotely the harbinger of that more universal and glorious light which we trust is yet to beam upon the face of the whole earth. If there is one event, since the days of the Son of man, which more than another calls for gratitude and joy, it is surely that great work which, begun by an obscure monk, and carried on by weak and sinful agents, was yet blessed of Heaven, to the overthrow of the most gross perversion of the Gospel of Christ, which the world was ever destined to witness; and unless with liberality on his lips, he has little See also p. 514.

of it in his heart, we cannot imagine what could induce one of the Liberal School to magnify into crimes the errors and misjudgments of those who may be said to have ushered in the so called march of intellect. It affords a striking proof what dislike to Evangelical principles will lead to in its opponents. The work containing this article is no unknown publication. The Edinburgh Review lies upon the table of almost every reading man, and is the organ of a well-known and powerful party. Its pages are viewed by many as paramount, and by still more as very high, authority; and taking into consideration how few have leisure or inclination to examine its assertions, and how many are prepared to receive its strictures on religion with eagerness, it is impossible to estimate the amount of mischief it may be the means of doing. A man's mind and opinions are in a great measure formed by his reading; and if the proverb 'noscitur a sociis' be true, we are confident 'noscitur a libris' is equally just. It is needful therefore to read the Edinburgh Review with a very jealous eye; no one can be more alive than we are to its talent and vigor-we only desire to guard against its ill-disguised and specious scepticism. When perused with a mind alive to the dangers it may contain, it may perhaps be harmless; but woe to the man who shall surrender his mind to be moulded by its opinions, and shall imbibe its sentiments long enough to become enamoured of them. They will lead him into that wide and hopeless field of sceptical conjecture, in which so many in our time are wandering, and out of which few we fear are ever extricated.

F.

Note. Since the above was written, we observe that the Edinburgh Review has a short note on the subject, in its CXXIInd. No. The note, however, is worthy of the article to which it refers, and when we inform our readers, that they are to take the Reviewer's ipse dixit for the truth of the following assertion, they will be able to judge of the degree of weight to be attached to the opinion the Reviewer has been pleased to form of what would have been the practice of the German Reformers. In our simplicity, we had imagined, that it was reserved to Omniscience to know what would have been the practice of any given persons under such and such circumstances; we find, however, that we have been mistaken, and that the Edinburgh Reviewer is able to tell us pretty accurately what would have been the conduct of the Leading Reformers. The following are the Reviewer's words, unsupported by one single reference to those writings from which he professes to have drawn what he advances.

"We now know from the evidence of their own writings, that both Luther and Melancthon speculatively held, that polygamy was lawful to a Christian; and are strongly disposed to believe, that had Munzer and the Anabaptists not brought the doctrine into bad odour, that it would have obtained more than a theoretical approval from the Leaders of the Reformation."

F.