And have we not heard Luther himself boldly avowing his agency in the whole transaction, and even boasting of it, with a kind of fiendish exultation? Had he not recommended the princes to have no pity on the peasants, and threatened them with the indignation of God, if they poured oil on their bleeding wounds?* Had he not said: "Give the peasants oats; and if they grow strong-headed, give them the stick and the cannon ball?"+

The unexceptionable Protestant historian of Germany, whom we have just quoted, furnishes the following fuller account of the revolt of the peasants, of the detailed grievances for which they sought redress, and of Luther's agency in having them cruelly butchered, for no other crime than their having dared ask for a very moderate share of popular liberty:

"The peasantry discovered extreme moderation in their demands, which were included in twelve articles, and elected a court of arbitration consisting of the Archduke Ferdinand, the elector of Saxony, Luther, Melancthon, and some preachers, before which their grievances were to be laid.

"The twelve articles were as follows:-1. The right of the peasantry to appoint their own preachers, who were to be allowed to preach the word of God from the Bible. 2. That the dues paid by the peasantry were to be abolished, with the exception of the tithes ordained by God for the maintenance of the clergy, the surplus of which was to be applied to general purposes and to the maintenance of the poor. 3. The abolition of vassalage as iniquitous. 4. The right of hunting, fishing, and fowling. 5. That of cutting wood in the forests. 6. The modification of socage and average service. 7. That the peasant should be guarantied from the caprice of his lord by a fixed agreement. 8. The modification of the rent upon feudal lands, by which a part of the profit would be secured to the occupant. 9. The administration of justice according to the ancient laws, not according to the new statutes and to caprice. 10. The restoration of communal property, illegally seized. 11. The abolition of dues on the death of the serf, by which the widows and orphans were deprived of their right. 12. The acceptance of the aforesaid articles, or their refutation as contrary to the Scriptures. "The princes naturally ridiculed the simplicity of the peasantry in deem

* Epist. Nich. Amsdorf, 30 Maii, 1525.

† Epist. to Ruhel, edit. de Wette, tom. ii, p. 669.

ing a court of arbitration, in which Luther was to be seated at the side of the archduke, possible, and Luther himself refused to interfere in their affairs. Although free from the injustice of denying the oppressed condition of the peasantry, for which he had severely attacked the princes and nobility, he dreaded the insolence of the peasantry under the guidance of the Anabaptists and enthusiasts, whom he viewed with deep repugnance, and, consequently, used his utmost endeavors to quell the sedition; but the peasantry believing themselves betrayed by him, gave way to greater excesses, and Thomas Münzer openly accused him of 'deserting the cause of liberty, and of rendering the Reformation a fresh advantage for the princes, a fresh means of tyranny.'

"The whole of the peasantry in southern Germany, incited by fanatical preachers, meanwhile revolted, and were joined by several cities. Karlstadt, expelled from Saxony, now appeared at Rotenburg on the Tauber; and the Upper German peasantry, inflamed by his exhortations to prosecute the Reformation independently of Luther, whom he accused of countenancing the princes, rose in the March and April of 1525, in order to maintain the twelve articles by force, to compel the princes and nobles to subscribe to them, to destroy the monasteries, and to spread the gospel. Mergentheim, the seat of the unpopular German Hospitallers, was plundered. . . . .

"This atrocious deed drew a pamphlet from Luther 'against the furious peasantry,' in which he called upon all the citizens of the empire 'to strangle, to stab them, secretly and openly, as they can, as one would kill a mad dog.** The peasantry had, however, ceased to respect him."

Such, then, were the tender mercies of the Reformation! Such its regard for the lower orders! Such its political code! The poor peasants were first stimulated to take up arms to secure their freedom, and then butchered by tens of thousands! In their tomb was buried whatever of liberty remained in Germany. The princes became omnipotent: the revolt once crushed, no one dared any longer to raise his voice in defense of freedom!

The Reformation had halted for a brief space between two dreadful extremes: that of absolute and uncrontrolled despotism on the one hand, and that of dreadful anarchy on the other. It at first favored the latter, but soon it threw the

* " Casper von Schwenkfeld said: 'Luther has led the people out of Egypt (the Papacy) through the Red Sea (the peasant war), but has deserted them in the wilderness,' Luther never forgave him." Menzel, ibid.

whole weight of its powerful influence into the scales of the former. The result has been, what might have been expected, absolute despotism and union of church and state in every country of Germany, where the Reformation obtained a solid footing! Had the reformers been really the friends of humanity and of liberty; had they urged the princes to redress the just grievances of the peasants; the issue of that struggle would have been very different. The lower orders would have been raised in the scale of society, and free institutions, which have not blessed Germany since the days of Luther, would have been established on a solid and permanent basis.

One of the most famous Protestant historians of the day, Guizot, once prime minister of France, tells us, in his Lectures on Civilization in Modern Europe: "that the emancipation of the human mind (by the Reformation!), and absolute monarchy triumphed simultaneously throughout Europe."* All who have but glanced at the political history of Europe, in the sixteenth century, must at once see the truth of this startling remark. In the Protestant kingdoms of continental Europe, this rule suffers no exception: in all of them, absolute monarchy, in its most consolidated and despotic form, dates precisely from the period of the Reformation.†

Witness Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, and, we may add, England for it is certain, that for one hundred and fifty years following the Reformation in England, the liberties of the people were crushed; the privileges secured by the Catholic Magna Charta were wantonly trampled under foot; and the royal prerogative almost swallowed up every other element of government. It was only at the period of the revolution, in 1688, that the principles of the great Catholic Charter were

* Page 300 of Lectures, etc., American edit., 1 vol. 12mo.

In the year 1848 some ameliorations were obtained or promised, but they were generally of a transient character. Even in Sweden, of whose popular institutions we sometimes hear or read, the Lutheran religion is firmly established by law, and a union of church and state in its very worst form exists, even down to the present day.

VOL. I.---31

again feebly asserted, and partially restored to their proper influence in the government.*

In Catholic countries, the necessity of strong measures of precaution against the seditions and tumults occasioned by the Reformation in every place where it had made its appearance, necessarily tended to strengthen the arm of the execu tive and in the general ferment of the times, the people willingly resigned most of the civil privileges they had enjoyed during the middle ages, in order, by increasing the power of their rulers, the more effectually to stem the torrent of innovation, and to avert the threatened evils of anarchy. Thus the political tendency of the Reformation, both directly and indirectly, favored the introduction of absolute systems of government throughout Europe.

And thus do we clearly owe to the "glorious Reformation," the despotic governments, the vast standing armies, and we may add, the immense public debts and the burdensome taxation, of most of the European governments. Guizot's assertion is then well founded, both in the principles of political philosophy, and in the facts of history. We may however remark, that it was a strange "emancipation of the human mind” truly, which thus avowedly led to the "triumph of absolute monarchy throughout Europe!"

It would seem that Switzerland at least was an exception to Guizot's sweeping assertion; as absolute monarchy never was established in its cantons, even after the Reformation. But the reader of Swiss history will not fail to observe, that wherever Protestantism was established in that country, there the democratic principle was weakened, there the legislative councils unduly interfered in spiritual matters, and there despotism thus often triumphed in the much abused name of liberty. Those cantons of Switzerland precisely are the freest,

* See an able essay on this subject in Nos. xv, xviii, xix, of the Dublin Review, "On Arbitrary Power, Popery, Protestantism;" republished in a neat 12mo volume by M. Fithian, Philadelphia, 1842, pp. 251.

which have remained faithful to the Catholic religion. In them, you read of no persecution of Protestants for conscience' sake, of no attempts to unite church and state, and of little departure in any respect from the original Catholic charter of Swiss liberties. It is a remarkable fact, that the three cantons which first asserted Swiss liberty-those of Schweitz, Uri, and Unterwald-have all continued faithful to the Catholic Church, as well as to the good old principles of democracy bequeathed to them by the Catholic founders of their republic.

D'Aubigné admits, and he is sadly puzzled to account for, this stern adherence of the oldest and freest Swiss cantons to the Catholic faith. He explains it in his own characteristic way, by appealing to the inscrutable ways of the Providence of God! He says:

"But if the Helvetic towns, open and accessible to ameliorations, were likely to be drawn early within the current of the Reformation, the case was very different with the mountain districts. It might have been thought that these communities, more simple and energetic than their confederates in the towns, would have embraced with ardor a doctrine, of which the characteristics were simplicity and force; but He who said-'at that time two men shall be in the field, the one shall be taken and the other left'-saw fit to leave these mountaineers, while he took the men of the plain. Perhaps an attentive observer might have discerned some symptoms of the difference, which was about to manifest itself between the people of the town and the hills. Intelligence had not penetrated to those hights. Those cantons which had founded Swiss liberty, proud of the part they had played in the grand struggle for independence, were not disposed to be tamely instructed by their younger brethren of the plain. Why, they might ask, should they change the faith in which they had expelled the Austrians, and which had consecrated by altars all the scenes of their triumphs? Their priests were the only enlightened guides to whom they could apply; their worship and their festivals were occupation and diversion for their tranquil lives, and enlivened the silence of their peaceful retreats. They continued closed against religious innovations."*

Sure enough: why should they change the religion which had sealed their liberties with its divine sanction, and the

* D'Aubigné, vol. i, p. 82, 83.