CHURCH HISTORY.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXIV, Issue 3, 4 January 1900, Page 2

CHURCH HISTORY.

♦ — — 10 IHB BDIIOB. Bib,— The Eev Father Goggan, m his reply to my challenge of his version of the term "Protestant," ignores the quotation from Bobaff, and dismisses Moßheim and D'Aubigne as unreliable. Hub is certainly a summary way of dealing with advene testimony. I oould quote other time honored authorities, but probably they would be treated m the same manner, 80 far ai appears, the Rev Father Goggen, on his part, relies ohieflj on the "logioal conclusions" of one Deharbe. Wandering from the point at isßuo he treatß ub to another little item that, to me at least, is new. Explaining the motives that led Luther, at the risk of his life, to defy Pope and Emperor, he states that be was aotnated by jealousy, beoauae, forßootb, the honor of preaohiog the Papal indnlgenae had been conferred on Tetzel, an inferior preaoher of a different order. Whoever can believe euoh a tale will have.no difficulty m aooepting Deharbe's logioal conclusions and much else of the same kind. But of what value, as history, ere books that contain each inoredible statements? However, ai tba Rev Father Goggan has furnished us with sufficient data from wbioh to form oar own oonolusione, we may dismiss Deharbe and his learned brethren, and trust our own oommon cense, The Reformers were called Proteßtantß because of the proteßt entered by them againßt the deoree of the Diet of Spiers (1529). What were the tarms of thil deoree? The Rev Father Goggan, quoting an authority, replies :—" The Ediot of Worms Bhould be maintained m the States where it had already been reoeivad, bat that the others might retain the new dootrines until the assembling of a general council, because it would be dangerous to abolish them ; that m the meantime no one should be per* I mitted to preaoh against the Saorament of the Altar ; that the mass Bhould not be abolished where it was still oelebrated ; and where it had been already abolished no one Bhould be molested for hearing or oelebnt* ing it m private, etc." This was the deoree carried by the Oatholio majority. The question is, were the Reformers m protest* ing guilty of intolerance ? We naturally ark what was involved m maintaining the Edict of Worms ? Again the Bey. Father Goggan, m effect, replies : The plaoing of those excommunicated by the ebnreh under the ban of the Empire. Now we know this meant fines, imprisonment, torture and frequently death. After the Diet of Worms, Luther's friends, fearing for him the fate that overtook John Hubs, the Bohemian reformer and martyr, peoluded him m the Oaßtle of Wart* burg. The Ediot of Worms waa ft terrible enactment. The other olauses of the deoree need not be referred to m detail. Their drift is evident. The deoree as a whole was intended to cipple and ultimately stamp out the Reformation movement. It threatened the liberties and lives of those who favored that movement But was it not intended to enforce the Ediot only m those Btateß that bad aooepted it ? fluoh States had aooepted the Ediot beoauae m them the Reformers were the minority and were not strong enough to reaißt bub* oessfoily as m other States. By the deoree of the Diet of Spiers these people were liable to be harried to death. It is to the oredit of the Reformers who had saoared a measure of liberty m their own States that m protesting they stood up not only for themselves bnt also for their less favoured bre 1 bren. The deoree of 1529 was certainly not the generously tolerant deoree oonoeived by the Rev. Father Goggan. II was deoidedly intolerant. The praotieal and oaloulated effect of it wbb to make impossible the further spread of tha Reformation by keeping it rigorously with* m the bounds of the Reformed Btateß, m the hope that m more favorable times it might be stamped out there aleo. Tat Reformers knew this well, and hence their protest. lam far from defending tbo Re* formers of the 16th century as models of tolerance m everything. Bnt surely it is clear as day, to any impartial student of history, that these men, m refusing to allow what they considered the sacred fire of divine troth to be quenobed, and In manful 1 -; contending for their liberties and the liberties of their brethren, were animated by no mean spirit. They were m the minority and had opposed to them the whole power of the Roman Onnroh and the Empire. Men m such ciroumstanoes doa't fight with shadows. To me it is moon* oeivable that these men, m olaim ng their religious and political liberties were m that aot guilty of intolerance. The Rev. Father Goggan has undertaken to prove the contrary. I don't envy him his ingraoiouß task. The course of history m the ltat three centuries is a triumphant testimony to the endoring worth of the famous protest, and, indireotly, to the nobility of the men who made it, For what do we see to™ day? Speaking generally, that those nations olosely identified with Bomtaism are deoadent or dying, whereaa no Proles tant nation oan be so described. •• A good tree oannot bring forth evil frail, neither oan a oorrupt tree bring forth good fruiJ." -lam.eto., W. 0. Bobi, January 2nd, 1900,