CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REFORMATION.-XXVI. A NEW ERA. WITH the opening of the fifteenth century, humanity awoke from the torpor of three centuries. The Reign of Spiritual Terror is now rapidly coming to an end. The Church might still, and did, burn, torture, and murder those she called Heretics; but from the ashes of those she burns, there ever arise new foes. Mankind is no longer prostrate; a great idea has taken possession of men's souls, and they are ready to fight, ready to die (if need be), for it. Even the obedient sons of the Church, in matters of doctrine, are, to a great extent, adherents of the new idea. This new idea is that humanity was not intended to be the Slave of the Priest. The Church is no longer the irresponsible Despot that she was; men have begun to examine her commands, and to subject them to criticism. The Nations, as nations, have awakened to a sense of their independence; and patriotism is everywhere setting itself in opposition to the sacerdotal despotism which has hitherto been supreme. It is true, that there has been opposition before, but it has been on the part of heretics only, never of whole nations. The power and authority of the Church have yet remained intact; and the heresies have mainly arisen from disgust at the immorality and vice of the hierarchy, and especially of the Papal Court. The opposition now is of a different kind. There is a latent consciousness everywhere, that the old relations between Church and State should be altered; that in secular matters, at least, the State should be supreme-a consciousness which, ere long, we shall see finding an articulate expression in various ways. Civil rulers, strengthened by the feeling existent in the national mind, will no longer quietly tolerate the interference of the Church in temporal concerns; nay, in more than one instance, when their interest points that way, materially encroach upon what have hitherto been deemed the inalienable and sacred rights of the Church. The life of the European 'nations, was no longer pervaded and impressed, as it had formerly been, 'by ecclesiastical influence. The development of national character, and 'the separate organisation of the various monarchies, were making important ' advances. It thus became indispensable that the relation of the ecclesias'tical to the secular powers should be thoroughly remodified." Remodified it accordingly sought to be. It is true, that this movement is not to end in the severance of Church and State; for when the Church finds that she can no longer lord it over kings, with the same absolute sway as formerly, she will accept the new conditions on which the alliance of the kingly and priestly powers can be maintained, and will earn by her services to kings what she can no longer extort from their fears. The oppression of the people will remain the same. At the beginning of the fifteenth century, however, these new conditions have not been settled; and kings are using the changed feeling of the people for the purpose of wresting them from the Church. It is, therefore, a significant fact, that the two great Reformers of the time-Wycliffe and Hussare supported by the ruling State-authorities in their opposition to the Papacy and the hierarchy. We have seen Wycliffe defended by the Duke of Lancaster, the Earl Marshal, and the Queen-Mother; while Huss numbered among his earlier supporters the king, and a large portion of the nobility of Bohemia, as will be shewn in reviewing his career. It is not, of course, to be supposed that these movements on the part of *Ranke. History of the Popes, i. 31. the laity, and the glad reception of what the Church called heresy on the part of the English people, were unnoticed or unproductive within the Church. On the contrary, there had been growing up a new movement of reform within the Church. The first of such movements took place under Hildebrand, but that had turned out a failure, because the men who succeeded that great Pontiff were not governed by the same spirit, and because, also, the idea itself was one impossible of achievement. The present movement was not on the part of the Papacy but of the hierarchy, whose wisest members clearly saw that the clergy were losing the respect of the people, and therefore in danger of losing their power. They attributed, rightly or wrongly, the corruption and vice of the priesthood to the unlimited power of the Pope, and the interference of the Papacy in the national Church governments; they supported the Papacy as a centre of unity, but would subordinate the papal authority to the authority of the Church as represented by its Councils. Thus, at the beginning of the fifteenth century, we see the Papal autocracy attacked on various hands; a strong party of dissatisfied laity within the Church looking with suspicion both on Pope and hierarchy; a heretical party without the Church desirous to destroy it, and a party of reforming bishops desirous of renovating it. It was the signal failure which attended the efforts of this latter party which led the Church in the end to accept the alliance of the State on its own conditions. At this time, therefore, opposition was making itself apparent both within and without the Church. The former found its ultimate expression in the great Reforming Council of Constance; the latter was identified with John Huss. In such a threatening aspect of affairs, it is hardly possible to imagine that the state of things disclosed by history, with reference to the hierarchy and Papacy, could have subsisted. It would seem, indeed, that a judicial blindness must have fallen on the priesthood. The position can only be fully appreciated by imagining a vessel in the midst of a stormy sea, the crew all below, thinking nought of the surrounding danger; some sleeping, some carousing, and others quarrelling; while above, the captain and the officers are disputing as to who shall take the helm, and guide the ship into a safe port. Meanwhile the winds whistle ever shriller and more shrill; the big storm-clouds gather round; the seas mount higher and higher, and threaten the vessel with destruction; but still the crew pay no heed, and sleep, carouse, and quarrel only the more, while the captain and officers are as far as ever from having settled their dispute. This was, in fact, the position in which the Church was at the time when Wycliffe was completing his labours, and Lollards were becoming numerous-when John Huss commenced his work, and the great Bohemian revolt against Rome was soon to arise thereout; and when the better and more wary among the priesthood were arriving at the conclusion that some reform was necessary, and must be effected. Let us look for a moment at what was the aspect of things within the Church; and first, at the state of the morals of the clergy, and their capacity for meeting the spiritual wants of the people. John Trithemius, the Abbot of Spanheim, thus exposes the corruption of the priesthood in the fifteenth century:*- -"Unlettered and rude men," he says, "wholly destitute of merit, "rise to the priesthood. No attention is paid to purity of life, a liberal "education, or a good conscience. The bishops, occupied with temporal affairs, devolve the trouble of examining candidates upon persons of no "experience. The study of Scripture and learning are totally neglected by "the priests, who prefer occupying themselves with the training of dogs and "birds. Instead of buying books, they beget children; and instead of studying, make love to their concubines. They sit with tipplers in the taverns, "are addicted to gaming and debauchery, and destitute of the slightest fear "of God. They can neither speak nor write Latin, and scarcely know "enough of their own language to explain the Gospels. Nor is it a wonder "that the inferior priests are so illiterate, and averse to the study of Scrip"ture, considering that in this they have the prelates for a pattern, who are "appointed to their offices, not for superiority in learning, but for superior "skill in making money. Even they are seldom or never possessed of a Bible, and plainly show a hatred of science. They are blind leaders of the "blind; and in the place of guiding the people in the paths of righteousness, "rather misguide them. Hence they need not be at all surprised that the "laity despise, when they themselves despise, the commandments of Christ. 66 I very much fear, however, that something still more dreadful awaits them While such as we have seen was the state of the hierarchy, what is known as the great Schism of the West has deprived the Church of her Head-the fact of there being two Popes, mutually excommunicating and anathematising each other, rendering it impossible for Christendom to say who is the Pope and who is not. The existence of two rival Popes, was, in fact, tantamount to there being none. The source of this schism is found in the preponderance gained by France in the papal councils. French Cardinals, from national prejudice, and the rest under the pressure of French influence, having elected a series of French Popes, they changed the papal residence from Rome to Avignon. Rome has looked with impotent hate upon this, all kinds of influences have been brought to bear upon the Avignonese Pontiffs to induce them to return to Rome, but without effect. At last the Italians, exasperated by the failure of their efforts in this direction, elect a Pope of their own, and there is now a Pope at Avignon and one at Rome. This event took place a short time before the death of Wycliffe, who did not fail to take advantage of it to damage the papal idea in the minds of the people. Thus was the allegiance of Christendom divided; some of the nations declaring for the Italian, some for the French Pope. The two Popes lend a handle to the growing opposition by the shameful accusations which they fling at each other. It is exactly at this moment, too, that a little book appeared, entitled "On the Corruption of the Church," written by Clemangis, a Churchman and a member of the University of Paris. The effect produced by it was wonderful, scarcely short (if we take the authority of Michelet) of that wrought by Luther's tremendous book, "The Captivity of Babylon," written more than a century afterwards. This, however, is an exaggeration, but the book opened the eyes of many, and is useful as throwing light upon the state of feeling in the Church, and as exposing the vices of the Papacy and the priesthood in general. In it, we are told how the papal brokers scoured all Christendom to ascertain what beneficed clergymen might be ill, so that the Popes might put the benefices up for sale; how both Popes, like dishonest traders, would sell the same benefice to many, and having delivered the goods, put them up again and sell them a second, a third, and even a fourth time.† The papal Courts were the places in which every vice, and almost every crime, which disgraces humanity, might be found stalking with unabashed and brazen front, and the mutual recriminations of the Popes were really not without * Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, i. 182 3 Clarke's Theological Library. See Michelet's account. Hist. France, ii. p. 68. foundation, In the presence of facts like these, we cannot wonder that a strong spirit of opposition without the Church, and an earnest desire for reform within it, should have grown up; and now it is that those influences, of which we have already traced the gradual growth, will be found bearing their fruits, aided in this by the blindness and folly of the dominant party within the Church itself. To shew what these fruits were will be our business in succeeding papers. JAS. L. GOODING. THE NATURE OF A MIRACLE. NOTWITHSTANDING that, both abstractedly and historically considered, so much has been written by eminent men within the Christian Church against the ordinary theory of miracles, there seems to be a settled resolve, which is daily growing stronger, not to argue the matter as one which is open to doubt or criticism; but to rest content with declaring that, within a strictlydefined limit of time and space-from Noah to St. Paul, and within the borders of Egypt and Palestine-actual miracles were wrought, the history of which has been preserved. Men are not wanting who, as a whole, hold fast by the Church theory, and yet deny the portion of it which relates to miracles; they are, however, so few in number that, to the old-fashioned reasoners, their protest seems rather to strengthen than to weaken the popular belief. Moreover, the majority deny to the repudiating few the right of calling themselves Christians; for, agreeing with a great modern writer, they say of miracles, that, "by common consent of friends and foes, "their authority has been considered identical with the safety of Christianity "itself."* Their argument is, that the Christian religion rests upon a supernatural foundation, and that, unless it were thus authenticated, it would be utterly unworthy of credence. They are not persuaded of the intrinsic worth of any statement being equally the same, whether authenticated or not; and yet no truth can be more clear. Good food is not made bad by men not believing in its goodness; and if a maxim in morals be propounded, it is as difficult to perceive how testimony can demonstrate its truth, as it is to comprehend how the absence thereof would render it utterly worthless. And that which is true of morals is equally so of religion, for the truth of its propositions cannot be determined by the aid of ordinary evidence, and assuredly cannot be rendered clear by the aid of miracles. But although Christian believers, when dealing with miracles in a verbal and superficial manner, are almost unanimous, and loudly boast of their perfect agreement as furnishing a clear element for the Christian evidences, they are at variance with each other upon the fundamental points; they agree, that all men are bound to believe in miracles, but differ about the nature of that in which their perfect confidence is to be placed. When a Christian writer furnishes an inquirer with the definition of a miracle, he is set upon by his brethren in the faith, who repudiate his explanation, and deny his orthodoxy. They consent to believe in miracles, but only while their nature is left undefined-not when that nature is laid bare. And if it be said that their quarrel with any particular author rests, not upon their desire to prevent the nature of miracles from being explored and explained, but upon the fact of his having erred in his explanation, then it is competent to the inquirer to demand that some generally-received explanation shall be furnished. This has never been supplied, and simply because the authorities in the various * Journal of Sacred Literature, p. 26. April, 1854. Churches cannot agree upon any satisfactory explanation. Immediately they begin to define a variety of insuperable objections come into the field of intellectual vision; and, taking alarm at their appearance, the old position is fallen back upon, that it is better to accept in faith what we do not understand, than to lose our power of believing through labouring to understand. In the absence of any universally-approved definition, we are compelled to fall back upon the works of eminent divines, who have endeavoured to explain the matter; and it is curious to notice the various shifts to which they have been put, in order to escape the definition furnished by Hume, who says, a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature;" * and, in his note, adds, that "a miracle may be accurately defined as a transgression of a "law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition "of some invisible agent." It is not surprising that this author fell into the error of confounding the two parts of this interesting question, for he was by no means so careful in conducting his reasoning processes as many suppose. He tripped, and has been cleverly caught; yet, unhappily, they who detected his error have been far more careful to reply to his sophism than to answer the objectious which obviously were present to his mind. And, although all the modern authorities have endeavoured to avoid saying that "a miracle is a violation of a law of nature," they have endeavoured to use the idea in that sense. They would have all the advantages which result from such a belief, without stating the belief itself; but, if one side of the definition suit their purposes, there can be no fair argument against accepting the other. Dr. Cumming says: "A miracle is not, as some have attempted to show, contrary to nature. Never accept this definition of it, because, as I shall "show you in subsequent lectures, Strauss, one of the most subtle and most "able infidels of modern times, has laid hold of this, and tried to do great "mischief by it." So that the definition is to be rejected "because Strauss "laid hold of it;" but, surely, men are not to test the value of definitions by the theological opinions of those who furnish them. They might as well reject Mathematics, because the Pagan Euclid was their author; or declare that the theory of gravitation cannot be true, because Diderot used it, in order to aid him in his attempt to disprove the existence of God. If the definition be sound, what can it matter who used it? And if the contrary be true, then, for that reason alone, should it be repudiated. This author goes on to say: A miracle is not a thing against nature, but is a thing above and beyond what we call nature. For instance, when we read of our "Lord's healing the sick, and in other instances raising the dead, we hear it said, this is contrary to nature. It is no such thing. We call it contrary "to nature, because we say that sickness is natural. Sickness is not natural; "it is an unnatural thing; it is a discord in the glorious harmony; it is a "blot upon the fair creation; it is most unnatural, and was never meant "originally to be." § The absurdly contradictory nature of this passage is too palpable to need exposure; nor can it be necessary to point out, that no "miracles of healing sane man ever supposed 66 were against nature," because of believing that "sickness is natural." Their idea was clearly this, that a sudden cure, effected without recourse to the use of ordinary means, was to be viewed as unnatural," or, in other words, "at variance with the ordinary course of nature.” Neither do men believe that sickness is natural, in the sense of being an established condition of life," as this * Essays and Treatises, vol. ii. p. 122. Edit. 1784. |