ten was condemned in the costs of process (1514). Hochstraten and his followers paid no attention to this verdict, but quite despised the papal decision through the bishop; Reuchlin therefore again referred his suit to the Roman see, and the cause was now entrusted by Leo to Dominicus Grimani, a truth-loving and liberal minded man. He (on the 8th June, 1514), summoned both Hochstraten and Reuchlin to Rome; the latter had the privilege of not appearing personally, but sending a procurator; the former, amply furnished with money, proceeded to that capital. In the meantime, every means was employed by the Dominicans to secure a victory. To Grimani, was now added as a second judge, the Cardinal de St. Eusebio. And while the process was going on in Rome, the Colognese were very abusive towards Grimani, and publicly declared, 'that if the matter were not decided in their favour, they would revolt from the pope, and create a new schism; others despised the pope's sentence, and were of opinion that it little signified what he determined, for the church consisted of themselves only, and the pope would not be acknowledged as pope if they did not agree to it.' In Rome, they made every use of bribes and intimidation; and at length Leo was prevailed upon to grant a complete commission for the decision of this important matter, amounting to about eighteen members. After several sittings, on the 2nd July, 1516, a written vote, accompanied by the reasons for the decision, was required from each judge, and here the majority of voices was for Reuchlin, and Hochstraten was pronounced worthy of punishment.

Pending the process at Rome, the obscurantes in Germany vented their malice, and essayed to promote their cause by caricatures and libels, while their pulpits rang with the most audacious calumnies against their victim. Meantime, the confederacy of Reuchlinists, (and they were powerful and talented), were not idle; for, at this moment appeared a most tremendous satire, under the title of, Epistola Obscurorum Virorum.' Of all the works of the Reuchlinists none obtained so much attention, because none contained so striking a portraiture of the whole life and conduct of these obscurantes. Never,' says an able cotemporary, were unconscious barbarism, self-glorious ignorance, intolerant stupidity, and sanctimonious immorality, so ludicrously delineated; never did delineation less betray the artifice of ridicule.' The effect was prodigious. The persecution of Reuchlin was converted into a farce; the enemies of intellectual improvement were annihilated in public consideration; a reform in the German universities was determined; and it was even acknowledged by Luther's friends that no writing had

contributed so effectually to the downfall of the papal domination.*

Perhaps no anonymous publication of note was ever more misunderstood as to its aim and drift than these celebrated letters, both when they appeared, and for some time afterwards. completely did they hit the mark, that those against whom the ridicule was levelled, read the letters as the genuine product of their brethren, and even hailed the publication as highly conducive to the honour of scholasticism and monkery. Several even of the learned scholars and satirists of England have noticed the publication without any suspicion of the lurking Momus ;and among them, besides Michael Maittaire, who published, in 1710, the most elegant edition of these Epistolæ' that has yet appeared, we may class Sir Richard Steele in the Tatler,' Dr. Jortin in his 'Life of Erasmus,' and another late accomplished author, who asserts that they were written in imitation of Arias Montanus's version of the Bible (!); whereas that learned Spaniard was born about ten years subsequent to the supposed parody of his Interpretatio Literalis !'

The authorship of these epistles has been a matter of as much dispute and conjecture as the drift of them has been mistaken. No question perhaps in the history of literature has been more variously determined, except it be the authorship of the Letters of Junius. The 'Epistolæ have been regarded as the work of an individual,-of a few-and of many. Suffice it to say,' in the words of a learned writer in the Edinburgh Review some twelve years ago, that as yet there has been adduced no evidence of any weight to establish the co-operation of other writers in these letters besides Ulric von Hutten and Rubianus Crotus; and independent of the general presumption against an extensive partnership, there is proof sufficient to exclude many of the most likely of those to whom the work has been attributed, in particular, Reuchlin, Erasmus, and Erbanus. We propose to shew that Hutten, Erotus, and Buschius are the joint authors; and this, in regard to the first and last by evidence not hitherto discovered.'

The enemies of Reuchlin not finding means to injure him. personally, tried another plan to deprive him at least of outward repose. They found an opportunity for this in the enmity of Duke Ulrich to the family of the Huttens, and especially to Ulric von Hutten, one of Reuchlin's staunchest friends. Stuttgard was besieged by the duke, and eventually Reuchlin with

*Nescio,' says Justus Jonas, 'an ullum hujus soculi scriptum sic papistico regno nocuerit, sicomnia papistica ridicula reddiderit, ut hæ Obscurorum Virorum Epistolæ, quæ omnia minima, maxima, clericorum vitia verterint in risum.' -Epist. Anonymi ad Crotum.

drew thence to Ingoldstadt; here he lived in the house of Dr. Eck, and gave lectures on the Greek and Hebrew languages, whereby he gained many friends to Luther's cause. In a short time he removed to Tübingen, and taught for the second time in this university. But sickness at his great age gave much reason to fear for him. He continued to decline, and was obliged to retire to Stuttgard, where he died of the jaundice in June, 1522, in his sixty-seventh year. The following is one of the expressive epitaphs on him :

Inclyta magnum oculum amisit Germania: quando
Reuchlinus superos (morte ferente) petit.'

"When Reuchlin soar'd to God's eternal throne,
Fair Germany's great eye of light was gone.'

Art. VII. The Life and Defence of the Conduct and Principles of the venerable and calumniated Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London in the reign of Henry VIII. Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth, in which is considered the best mode of again changing the religion of this nation. By a Tractarian British Critic. Dedicated to the Bishop of London. Seely & Burnside. 8vo. pp. 382.

HISTORY has been defined to be, Philosophy teaching by example. If that be true, in reference to Church history, then the sage instructress is verily to be pitied: for there never was such a set of dunces and incapables as those pupils of the Church, which from age to age have been conning her first principles, and have not yet mastered them. The lessons have been plain enough, the ferula has not been spared, the fool's cap has been transferred from head to head, not green but grey, and yet the pupils are as obtuse as ever: they still persist in spelling church establishment, and in teaching all the lessons backward. Philosophy has just reason to complain that her undermasters have been treacherous, and her pupils perverse and inattentive, or long ere this they might all have learnt by heart that first momentous lesson of history, that church establishments through all nations, have never answered any other purpose than the personal benefit of civil and ecclesiastical rulers-that they never could promote, never have promoted, and never will promote the cause of Christ's religion, or the spiritual good of immortal souls, for which true religion is intended, but must necessarily lead, as they have invariably led, to the corruption of truth, the disquietude of nations, the oppression of conscience, and the support of arbitrary power. The mass of mankind

think that religion is essential to their happiness individually, as well as to the good order of society; and yet they cannot believe, that it has hold enough upon human nature to accomplish its divine behest without the reinforcement of civil power; that is, it cannot work adequately by reason, love, and truth, but must be backed by the truncheon, mace, and sword; or else, poor feeble thing, it would be trodden in the dust. Some allowance, however, may be made for these short-sighted and earthly notions of a divine institution, on the score of early habit and respect for ancestors. Some people love the convenience of arraying themselves in ready-made clothes, and entering ready-furnished lodgings; for though neither may be quite the thing, yet to busy people they save a world of trouble, and to those who do not calculate, they may seem to have the recommendation of cheapness. Philosophy, however, appears to be turning over a new leaf. She has enlisted a few superior teachers of late, and raised a new school for church history, which has wonderfully sharpened the wits of the old scholars, and made not a few of them play truant to their old instructors. The schoolmaster is indeed abroad, and the genuine lessons of philosophy are becoming the order of the day. Free-trade agitation is doing much to show the mischiefs of huckstering legislation in the temporal welfare of nations; and the standard of freedom for the Church of Christ has been erected, not by the regular leaders against establishments, but by a rebellious party of the old-school men, whose revolution, though conducted apart, will and must, inevitably, and before long, lead to the defence, in theory, of that which they have adopted in practice. Philosophy is, indeed, now teaching by example, and her lessons, though slowly and doubtingly admitted, will assuredly prevail. It is only a question of time. The great lesson must not be expected to commend itself intuitively, and all at once. Patience must be exercised by the teachers, for cramming will do no good in this school; it has done much harm in all others. Let the disciples well digest the first elements of church history; and if they be carefully and gradually led to the higher lessons of the great Interpreter, they will be the better able to comprehend them fully, hold them firmly, and propagate them extensively.

The present volume, which is history written satirically, as might be guessed from the title, and discovered upon the perusal of a few pages, is a very fair hit at the Puseyite faction, though it will not be severely felt, since they openly applaud, and, as far as their advocacy extends, maintain the principles of that proud and cruel prelate, named on the title-page. The vein of satire is not very deep, nor very rich. It may raise a smile occasionally at the idea of applauding the enormities in conduct,

and frivolities in opinion, for which the Bishop contended against the civil authorities of his time; but the subject is altogether, and throughout, too grave, and treated in too literal a manner, to admit a single hearty laugh. The Puseyites, as personified by the author, defending Bonner's character, explaining his sentiments, and running a parallel between them and their own, cannot fairly complain, while all those who are satisfied with the Church as it is, may probably congratulate themselves that the writer has done something to rebuke the evil spirit, and check the monster-power, that threatens to transform the religion of these realms. But the ridiculum acri becomes utterly powerless where there is a full, open, and explicit adoption of such sentiments as the bloody Bonner' upheld. His fearless and determined advocacy of them in times when they were not in full favour at the court, no less than his carrying them out to their natural consequences when they were, prove at least the consistency of the man, and render him an object of veneration to those who look more at the true churchman than at the true Christian, or whose standard of the latter lies in the former. The conflict in which Bonner engaged was the old cause of the church's dominion over the state. In his fall the state triumphed, and has kept its power ever since, with no inconsiderable increase thereof, as time has rolled on. But the great question, then, as between church and state, was far less a question of principles than of dominion. The state gained the supremacy which the church lost at the Reformation, and the church now is secking to regain its supremacy. If the issue depended upon sentiment, it is abundantly clear that the Puscyites or Bonnerites would win the day, and again be in the ascendant. Those who care anything for Protestant principles, or even understand them, are pitiably outnumbered by those who care for opposite sentiments, and those who care for none, so long as they can secure worldly interests. So that, after all, the chief security of the Protestant cause lies not in numerical strength; but, first, in the manly principles and spiritual vigour of those who arc its true friends; and, secondly, in the feeling of self-interest which the state may be expected to entertain for its own supremacy, until there should come a prince weak enough, false enough, or foolish enough, to prostrate his intellect at the feet of the church. The first is a living and lasting security, to some extent, in the hearts of the people and their leaders; the latter is a mere contingency-an accident or casualty of time.

The entire peril arises from the dulness of the people to perceive that grand lesson of history-that established churches must always keep up a strife for supremacy with the civil power, just as the spirits of ecclesiastics rise or fall in the assertion of