as they describe each other. But first let me state who were the principal personages, by whom this great work was accomplished.

Luther, an Augustinian friar. Ecolampadius, a monk, Melanchton, a professor of Greek. Zuinglius, a curè in Switzerland. Bucer, a Dominican friar. Calvin, a French ecclesiastic. Ochin, a Capuchin friar. Henry the 8th in England. And in Scotland, John Knox, a priest, whom Dr. Samuel Johnson describes as " the ruffian of the Reformation."

Luther says of himself, that "while a Catholic he passed his life in austerities, in watchings, in fasts and praying, in poverty, chastity and obedience." (Tom. v. In cap. 1. ad Gal. v. 14.) But hear what he says of himself, after his "reformation." "As it does not depend on me not to be a man, so neither does it depend on me to be without a woman." (Ibid. Serm. de Matrim. p. 119.)

Melanchton, who was his very Boswell, testifies that he received blows from him, "ab ipso colaphos accepi." (Lett. to Theodore) "I tremble, says he, (writing to the same friend) when I think of the passions of Luther; they yield not in violence to the passions of Hercules."

Hospinian, another reformer, says, speaking of Luther, “This man is absolutely mad. He never ceases to combat truth against all justice, even against the cry of his own conscience."

Ecolampadius said of him, "He is puffed up with pride and arrogance, and seduced by Satan." And Zuinglius corroborates this testimony. "Yes," says he "the Devil has made himself master of Luther."

After the death of Zuinglius, however, Luther pronounced on him the following panegyric in return "Zuinglius, is dead and damned, having desired like a thief and a rebel, to compel others, to follow his error. (Tom. 11. p. 36. in Florim.)

The whole church of Zurick (against Luther's Confession, page 61,) writes as follows: "Luther treats us as an exeerable and condemned sect, but let him take care lest he condemn himself as an arch-heretic, from the sole fact, that he will not and cannot associate with those who confess Christ. But how strangely does this fellow allow himself to be carried away by his devils. How disgusting is his language, and how full are his words of the Devil of Hell! He says that the devils dwell now and forever in the bodies of the Zuinglians........He wrote his works by the impulse and the dictation of the Devil, with whom he had dealings, and who in the struggle seemed to have thrown him by victorious arguments." (Ibid.) In very truth," said Calvin," Luther is extremely corrupt.... (cited by C. Schlusomberg,) would to God that he had been attentive to discover his vices." (Theol. Calv. L. 11. fol. 126.) Calvin elsewhere speaks very contemptuously of the Lutheran Church; (in his reply to Westphal) he says, Thy school is nothing but a stinking pig-stye; dost thou hear me, thou dog? dost thou hear me, thou mad-man? dost thou hear me, thou huge beast?"

66

Of Carlosladius, Melanchton says, that "he was a brutal fellow, without wit or learning, or any light of common sense; who, far from having any mark of the Spirit of God, never either knew or

practised any of the duties of civilized life." To Calvin himself, however, the testimony of his brother reformers, is certainly not very favourable.

"Calvin," said Bucer," is a true mad dog. The man is wicked and he judges of people according as he loves or hates them." Boudoin could not bear him, because as he says, he found him to be vindictive and blood thirsty, "propter nemiam vindicta et sanguinis sitim." This was the reason alleged by him for renouncing Calvin's doctrine.

Stancharus, one of the Reformers, addressing his brother of Geneva, writes "what demon has urged thee, O Calvin! to declaim with the Arians against the Son of God?. . . . . .It is that antichrist of the north that thou hast the imprudence to adore, that grammarian, Melanchton." (de Mediat in Calv. instit. No. 4.) "Beware, Christian readers, (he continues,) above all, ye ministers of the word, beware of the books of Calvin. They contain an impious doctrine, the blasphemies of Arianism, as if the spirit of Michael Servetus had escaped from the executioner, and according to the system of Plato, had transmigrated whole and entire into Calvin." (Ibid No. 3.)

Now, Rev. Sir, if Catholics had written these things of the Reformers, I should not have troubled you with a single quotation. But these are the Reformers themselves, speaking of each other and of each other, in the exclusive capacity of Reformers! Their private character affords matter for quite as painful a chapter. But the question will naturally force itself on every reflecting mind, "if the promise of Jesus Christ failed, in preserving the purity of the doctrine which he brought from heaven, is it likely that these are the men whom God would have appointed to reform his church? If they spoke the truth of each other, then it is evident that they were lost to all principle of religious rectitude: but if they calumniated each other, it is clear that they were utter strangers to truth, and moral integrity." In either case their testimony proves, that both themselves and their doctrines stood quite as much in need of being reformed, after the "Reformation" as before.

But were the morals of their followers improved, by joining in that ecclesiastical insurrection of which they were the prime agitators ?— And through which they pressed onward, in the spirit of unanimous discord. Let us hear their own testimony on the subject.

66

"The world," says Luther, (Serm. in Postil. Evang. i. adv.) "grows every day worse and worse. It is plain that men are much more covetous, malicious, and resentful; much more unruly, shameless, and full of vice, THAN THEY WERE IN THE TIME OF POPERY." Formerly," says he, (Serm. Dom. 26 post Trin.)" when we were seduced by the Pope, men willingly followed good works, but now all their study is to get every thing to themselves, by exactions, pillage, theft, lying, usury." The writings of this prime Reformer, abound with similar testimonies, which proves that as regarded morals at least, the Reformation was all in the inverse ratio. Aurifaber, Luther's biographer, reports him to have declared that " since the appearance of Gospel" (meaning his own separation from all the

religions in the world as well as the Catholic church) virtue seems to be utterly extinct, and piety driven from the earth."

But however the Reformers may have quarrelled about their doc trines, they are unanimous in their testimony, as to the retrogradt movement of public and private morals, immediately subsequent to what they called the "preaching of the Gospel." Bucer's evidence accords exactly with that of Luther. "The greater part of the people," says he, " seem only to have embraced the Gospel, in order to shake off the yoke of discipline, and the obligation of fasting, penance, &c., which lay upon them in the time of Popery; and to live at their pleasure, enjoying their lust, and lawless appetites without control. They therefore lend a willing ear to the doctrine that we are justified by faith alone, and not by good works, having no relish for them." (Bucer de regn. Christ. L. i. c. 4.) Calvin's testimony is to the same effect. "Of so many thousands," says he, seemingly eager in embracing the Gospel, how few have since amended their lives? Nay, to what else does the greater part pretend, except by shaking off the heavy yoke of superstition, to launch out more freely, into every kind of lasciviousness." (Calv. 1. vi. de

66

scand.)

These testimonies, Rev. Sir, coming from such witnesses, will convince you that the morals of the people, (the low condition of which you have set forth as a plea for the insubordination of those spiritual chieftains,) instead of being improved, became absolutely deteriorated by their walking in the footsteps of the change;-and that the effect of the Reformation, was as Dr. Chalmers declares, "to reform men into vice."

Returning then, to the extravagant supposition, which for the present I shall not dispute with you, viz: that the gates of hell had prevailed against the church of Christ, contrary to his promise:—that she had ceased to be "the pillar and ground of the truth," as described by St. Paul;-and viewing the impiety of the Reformers' doctrine, on the uselessness of good works; the absence of free will in man,--the fatalism in all things, by predestination:-viewing the character which they themselves give of each other, the bitterness of their language,-the coarseness of their mutual denunciations ;the crimes and corruptions of the doctrines of Christ, reciprocally imputed;-viewing, in a word, the concordance of their testimony, as to the increasing depravity of morals which distinguished those who followed in the wake of the "Gospel;" ask yourself whether the religion of that undefinable compound called the "Reformation," can be the religion of Christ. Is there any resemblance between the doctrines of the one, and the blasphemies of the other? Between the Apostles of the one, and the inventors or revivers of the other? Between the moral effects of the one, and the progressive immorality of the other? Reflect, I pray you, on all this, and remembering that an infallible judge will review all our judgments, ask yourself, whether such doctrines, originated by such men, and followed by such consequences, are "the religion of Jesus Christ."

"The religion of the Reformation" teaches that there are two sacraments, according to the Calvinists; and it teaches also, that

there are no sacraments, according to the Quakers. It teaches that infant baptism is sufficient, according to the Presbyterians; and that infant baptism is not sufficient, according to the Baptists-"He that believeth, and is baptized shall be saved." It teaches that there is a real distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, according to the Episcopalians; it teaches that there is no such distinction, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith. It teaches that there is a hell for the wicked, according to the Methodists; it teaches that there is no hell according to the Universalist. It teaches that Christ is corporeally present in the Eucharist, according to Luther; it teaches that there is no such presence, according to Calvin; whilst, to the believers in the thirty-nine articles and the book of Common Prayer, it teaches that Christ is, at the same time, both absent, and present. Christ is "verily and indeed" received in the communion; although the communion is, "verily and indeed," nothing but bread and wine! It teaches that Christ is God, according to the Episcopalians; it teaches that Christ is not God, according to the Socinians. It teaches that there are a trinity of persons in the Godhead, according to the Baptists; it teaches that there is no trinity of persons in the God-head, according to the Universalists. It teaches that the

father alone is God, according to the Unitarians; it teaches that the father is not God, according to the Swedenborgians; that the Son alone, Christ, is God. ALL THIS "the religion of the Reformation" teaches; and you have unwittingly pledged yourself to the public, to prove that "the religion of the Reformation," is, "the Protestant religion," and that "the Protestant religion" is "the religion of Christ." Now, Rev. Sir, will you not find it rather difficult to prove that "the religion of Christ," teaches all this?

It is mere sophistry, to assert that the Protestant religion" is as old as the Bible." The Turk may say, with equal propriety, that his religion is as old as God himself. But the main question is, did the Protestant religion exist before Luther? If you say it did, then please to inform us of the time when, of the village where; and the name of at least one individual, by whom it was PROfessed. This is the touchstone of truth, which will test your assertion. I bespeak the attention of our readers to the ANSWER which you will give to this question. In the meantime I venture to predict that you will evade it; but let us not anticipate.

Again, it is well known, that the doctrine of Jesus Christ inculcates subordination to authority. This doctrine is eloquently put forth by Presbyterians themselves, whenever they wish to tame a disorderly brother in their own communion. And whenever he refuses submission, this authority strips him of all the ministerial and pastoral power with which it had invested him. Thus it is with the Rev. Mr. Irvine of London, at this moment; because forsooth, like a consistent Protestant, he wished to take his religion from "the Bible alone." Thus Luther had received his mission and ordination from the Catholic church, on the understanding that he should exercise his pastorship in communion with the church, and according to her doctrines. If the pastors of the Catholic church then, were not true pastors, it follows that the Christian ministry was

extinct. Are you prepared for this alternative? But if they were the true and legitimate pastors, then Luther in the first instance presented himself as a rebel against the injunction of Christ, and a disturber of that spiritual order, which Christ had established. He trampled on the vows of his ordination-violated the solemnity of his promise-he became an apostate and a traitor. If Luther's case were true of a Presbyterian parson, instead of a Catholic monk, how well the General Assembly, "that highest judicatory of the church," would know how to pass a just decision upon it.

But Luther was, at the period of his revolt, like Irvine, stript of all the spiritual authority he had received from the Catholic church. Now will you please to tell us, from what source, he derived those spiritual powers, by virtue of which he undertook to reform the church, which had excommunicated him? How came he to arrogate to himself, the title of "the Ecclesiasties of Wittemburg?" Whence did he derive his new authority after his excommunication? Was it from the Land-grave of Hesse, to whom he granted the privilege of having two wives at once, whereas he himself was satisfied with only one? Was it from Melanchton, the Professor of Greek? Or from the populace, whom his gross invective, and fiery declamation roused into madness and fury against the whole church? In a word, from whom did he receive his authority? And if he received no authority, by what right did he put forth his sacrilegious hand, to stay the ark of the living Ged, with which Jesus Christ promised, himself, to abide, "all days even to the end of time?" Whence did he receive his new authority? From a new Revelation ?--So, indeed, he asserts. But, at the same time, he informs us that the angel of this Revelation was no other than the devil himself, with whom he frequently disputed, and whom he describes as a first-rate logican and an elegant Latin scholar. But the question still returns, from whom did Luther derive his authority? He had been unfrocked by the Catholic church, from whom, I repeat, did he derive the new garment of authority? Will you have the goodness, Rev. Sir, to ANSWER this question. When Moses revealed the Jewish religion, he showed his authority. -When Christ revealed the Christian religion he showed his authority. But when Luther revealed the Protestant religion he showed No authority; judging probably with Mahomet, that the world was no longer worthy of miracles. The ways of God, Rev. Sir, and the conduct of men are almost equally mysterious. The people were incredulous both in reference to Moses and to Christ, with all their miraculous proof of divine authority; and they hearkened to Luther and his reforming followers, without requiring that even a particle of primitive or subsequent authority should be exhibited! It is true, indeed, that to be saved by faith ALONE, was a reformation of religion, well calculated to make converts. The soul could rise to heaven, much more rapidly, when borne on the wings of faith ALONE, than when its flight, (as before the Reformation,) was wont to be retarded by the superstition of good works. But the question is, whence did Luther derive his authority? Until you are pleased, Rev. Sir, to answer this all important interrogatory, I

1