294

PROPHECY-RIDDEN PRINCES.

PROPHECY RIDDEN PRINCES.

In Pagan times, it has been asserted that popular superstitions blended themselves with the highest political functions, gave a sanction to national counsels, and oftentimes gave the starting-point to the very primary movements of the State. Prophecies, omens, miracles, all worked concurrently with senates or princes. "Whereas, in our days," says Charles Lamb, "the witch who takes her pleasure with the Moor, and summons Beelzebub to her sabbaths, nevertheless trembles before the beadle, and hides herself from the overseer." Now, as to the witch, even the horrid Canidia of Horace, or the more dreadful Erichtho of Lucan, seems hardly to have been much respected in any era. But for the other mode of the supernatural, they have entered into more frequent combinations with state functions and state movements in our modern ages than in the classical age of Paganism. Look at prophecies, for example: the Romans had a few obscure oracles afloat, and they had the Sibylline books under the state seal. These books, in fact, had been kept so long, that, like port wine superannuated, they had lost their flavour and body. On the other hand, look at France. Henry, the historian, speaking of the fifteenth century, describes it as a national infirmity of the English to be prophecy-ridden. Perhaps there never was any foundation for this as an exclusive remark, but assuredly not in the next century. There had been with us British, from the twelfth century, Thomas of Ercildoune in the north, and many monkish local prophets for every part of the island; but latterly England had no terrific prophet, unless indeed Nixon of the Vale Royal in Cheshire, who uttered his dark oracles sometimes with a merely Cestrian, sometimes with a national reference. Whereas, in France, throughout the sixteenth century, every principal event was foretold successively, with an accuracy that still shocks and confounds us. Francis I., who opens the century (and by many is held to open the book of modern history, as distinguished from the middle or feudal history), had the battle of Pavia foreshown to him, not by name, but in its results-by his own Spanish captivity-by the exchange for his own children upon a frontier river of Spain-finally, by his own disgraceful death, through an infamous disease conveyed to him under a deadly circuit of revenge. This king's son, Henry II., read some years before the event a description of that tournament, on the marriage of the Scottish Queen with his eldest son, Francis II., which proved fatal to himself, through the awkwardness of the Comte de Montgomery and his own obstinacy. After this, and we believe a little after the brief reign of Francis II. arose Nostradamus, the great prophet of the age. All the children of Henry II. and of Catharine de Medici, one after the other, died in circumstances of suffering and horror, and Nostradamus pursued the whole with ominous allusions. Charles IX., though the authorizer of the Bartholomew massacre, was the least guilty of his party, and the only one who manifested a dreadful remorse. Henry III., the last of the brothers, died, as the reader will remember, by assassination. And

LUTHER AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

295

all these tragic successions of events are still to be read more or less dimly prefigured in verses of which we will not here discuss the dates. Suffice it, that many authentic historians attest the good faith of the prophets; and finally, with respect to the first of the Bourbon dynasty, Henry IV., who succeeded upon the assassination of his brother-in-law, we have the peremptory assurance of Sully and other Protestants, countersigned by writers both historical and controversial, that not only was he prepared, by many warnings, for his own tragical death—not only was the day, the hour, prefixed-not only was an almanack sent to him, in which the bloody summer's day of 1610 was pointed out to his attention in bloody colours; but the mere record of the king's last afternoon shows beyond a doubt the extent and the punctual limitation of his anxieties. In fact, it is to this attitude of listening expectation in the king, and breathless waiting for the blow, that Schiller alludes in that fine speech of Wallenstein to his sister, where he notices the funeral knells that sounded continually in Henry's ears, and, above all, his prophetic instinct, that caught the sound from a far distance of his murderer's motions, and could distinguish, amidst all the tumult of a mighty capital, his stealthy steps.-Blackwood's Magazine.

THE REFORMATION-LUTHER AND TRANSUBSTAN

TIATION.

In the progress of the Reformation Luther himself, but for one doctrine, which had become the very life and soul of the man, would have been persuaded or alarmed into an accommodation with the Church of Rome. There was one period in the negotiations between the two parties, when, by mutual concessions, a compromise appeared possible, if Luther could but have relinquished his doctrine of "justification by faith alone." Writing of the great German reformer, Mr. White says in Eighteen Christian Centuries:- Hungering after better things than the works of the law-abstinence, prayers, repetitions, scourgings, and all the wearisome routine of mechanical devotion-he dashed boldly into the other extreme, and preached free grace-grace without merit, the great doctrine which is called, theologicaliy, 'justification by faith alone."" This other extreme was the sheet-anchor of the Reformation. And it is curious to notice that a doctrine on which Protestants are now divided, was precisely the doctrine which irrevocably separated the Reformed Churches, in the first instance, from the great Catholic hierarchy. So far as the Reformation depended upon Luther and his faithful disciples, it was the only vital point on which no compromise was possible. The doctrine of transubstantiation, which to the Protestants of a later period seemed the most astounding error of the ancient Church, was maintained to the last by Luther. Some slight modification he may have made, which is indicated in controversial language by the substitution of the term consubstantiation; but if Luther could have kept his disciples upon that line at which he himself rested, there would have been no incurable schism on this head. D'Aubigné gives us a most spirited

296

FABLES ABOUT LUTHER.

and graphic account of the conference held upon this subject before the Landgrave at Marburg, between the Swiss reformer Zuinglius and Martin Luther. Luther was supported by Melancthon, Zuinglius by (Ecolampadius. The Landgrave sat behind a table; "Luther, taking a piece of chalk, bent over the velvet cloth which covered it, and steadily wrote four words in large characters. All eyes followed the movement of his hand, and soon they read, Hoc est Corpus Meum. Luther wished to have this declaration continually before him, that it might strengthen his own faith, and be a sign to his adversaries." And no Catholic could have adhered more pertinaciously to the literal meaning of his text. "I differ, and shall always differ," he exclaimed. "Christ hath said, This is my body. Let them show me that a body is not a body. I reject reason, common sense, carnal arguments, and mathematical proofs. We have the word of God. This is my body," he repeated, pointing with his finger to the words he had written; "the devil himself shall not drive me from that. To seek to understand it is to fall away from the faith." Zuinglius objected that Christ's body had ascended into heaven ; and if in Heaven, it is not in the bread. Luther replied, "I repeat that I have nothing to do with mathematical proofs. I will not, when Christ's body is in question, hear speak of a particular place. I absolutely will not. Christ's body is in the sacrament, but it is not there as in a place." Then, no longer content with pointing his finger at the text he had written, he seized the velvet cover, tore it off the table, and held it up to the eyes of Zuinglius and Œcolampadius. "See! see!” he said, “this is our text; you have not yet driven us from it, and we care for no other proof."

Happily it is not one mind, however energetic, that can arrest or determine a movement like that of the Reformation. It ran its destined course. And now, looking round upon the nations of Europe, we may assuredly congratulate those countries in which, owing to favourable circumstances, the doctrines of the Reformed Church were able freely to develope themselves. There is no room for doubt or cavil on this head. It is not a question of subtle or disputable tenets. There is this broad matter-of-fact distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism, -the one is the religion of the book, the other of the Priest. In the one, every peasant consults his Bible as his sacred oracle; in the other, the Priest is his sacred oracle.-Blackwood's Magazine.

FABLES ABOUT LUTHER.

Dr. Forbes Winslow having indulged in some theories on the subject of Luther's supposed vision of spirits, as when he is said to have thrown the inkstand at the devil in the Wartburg, he has been replied to by Mr. C. H. Collette, as follows: "I am sure if Luther were alive he would be much obliged to Dr. Forbes Winslow for his elaborate 'psychological' disquisition on his case; but he would have, as I now propose to do, pointed out a much more simple solution of the difficulty. The fact is, Luther not only never had the privilege of an interview

PORTRAIT OF MOHAMMED.

297

with his Satanic Majesty, but he never said that he had. The story is one of the many hoaxes got up to bring ridicule not only on the 'great reformer' himself, but on the great work in which he was privileged to be a conspicuous and efficient actor. The alleged interview with the devil is one of the numerous perversions of Luther's writings after he was dead. The portion of Luther's writings (see vol. vii. p. 228, edit. Wittemb. 1557) upon which the traditionary tale of his interview with the devil is built, has been long since most completely exposed. The matter was decisively set at rest by Seckendorf, a Lutheran writer, who proved that one Justus Jonas, formerly a colleague in divinity of Luther, translated this piece of Luther's writings from the German into Latin, but garbled the text in many places, and left out these words, Meo corde; multas enim noctes mihi acerbas et molestas fecit,' which ought immediately to follow the first sentence, Satan mecum cæpit ejusmodi disputationem;' so that the passage would run thus, Satan began with me, in my heart, the following disputation.' (See Seckendorf's Commentarius de Lutheranismo, etc., lib. i. sec. cii. Lips. 1694).”

PORTRAIT OF MOHAMMED.

Dr. Arnold has drawn the following very interesting description of Mohammed's personal appearance and habits:

Mohammed is said to have been of middle stature; to have had a large head, strong beard, round face, and reddish-brown cheeks. His biographers state that his forehead was high, his mouth wide, his nose long and somewhat of an aquiline shape; that he had large black eyes; that a vein which extended from his forehead to his eyebrows enlarged when excited by anger; that his splendidly white teeth stood far apart; and upon his lower lip was a small mole. His hair hanging over his shoulders retained its dark colour to the day of his death: he sometimes dyed it brown, but more frequently applied to it odoriferous oils. It was only at his last pilgrimage that he had his head shaven. He trimmed his moustache and his finger-nails every Friday before prayer. His neck, it is said, "rose like a silver bar upon his broad chest." Between his shoulders he had a large mole, which was looked upon as the prophetic seal. A physician once wishing to remove it, Mohammed objected, saying, "He who made it shall also heal it.' His hands and feet were very large, yet his step was so light as "to leave no mark on the sand." Mohammed spoke but little, yet occasionally permitted himself a joke. A woman once came to him, saying, "My husband is ill, and begs thee to visit him;" upon which he inquired, Has not thy husband something white in his eye?" She returned in order to examine it. On her husband asking what she was doing, she replied: "I must see whether you have anything white in your eye, for the Apostle of God asked the question." Her husband at once recognising the joke, convinced her that this was common to all eyes. On one occasion, when an old woman conjured him to pray for her that she might enter paradise, he replied: "No old woman dares enter paradise!" As she

66

298

HISTORIC CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

began to weep, he reminded her of the verse in the Koran which declares that perpetual youth will be restored to women. The Arab prophet was compassionate towards animals, and would wipe down his horse when it perspired with his sleeve; but this was nothing extraordinary among his countrymen. His cat was lifted up to share his own dish; and a white cock which he had he called his friend, considering him a protection against devils, genii, witchcraft, and the evil eye!

ORIGIN OF KISSING THE POPE'S TOE, AND OF THE

LATERAN.

Some questions had been raised as to the propriety of Kissing the Pope's toe, and even theologians had their doubts touching so singular a ceremony. But this difficulty has been set at rest by Matthew of Westminster, who explains the true origin of this custom. He says that formerly it was usual to kiss the hand of his holiness; but that towards the end of the eighth century, a certain lewd woman, in making an offering to the Pope, not only kissed his hand but also pressed it. The Pope-his name was Leo,-seeing the danger, cut off his hand, and thus escaped the contamination to which he had been exposed. Since that time, the precaution has been taken of kissing the Pope's toe, instead of his hand; and lest any one should doubt the accuracy of this account, the historian assures us that the hand, which had been cut off five or six hundred years before, still existed in Rome, and was indeed a standing miracle, since it was preserved in the Lateran in its original state, free from corruption.

And as some readers might wish to be informed respecting the Lateran itself, where the hand was kept, this also is considered by the historian, in another part of his great work, where he traces it back to the Emperor Nero. For it is said that this wicked persecutor of the faith, on one occasion, vomited a frog covered with blood, which he believed to be his own progeny, and, therefore, caused to be shut up in a vault, where it remained hidden for some time. Now, in the Latin language, latente means hidden, and rana means a frog; so that, by putting these two words together, we have the origin of the Lateran, which, in fact, was built where the frog was found.-Buckle's Hist. Civilization, vol. ii. p. 291.

THE HISTORIC CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Certain Episcopal writers are prone to boast of their Churchmanship by hurling anathemas against sects. The historic Church of England, it is maintained, is not of this type. The late accomplished author of the Christian Year admits, in his edition of Hooker's works, that "numbers have been admitted to the ministry of the Church of England with no better than Presbyterial ordination ;" and that "neither Hooker, nor Jewel, nor Whitgift ventured to urge the exclusive claims of episcopacy."