THE COUNTER-REFORMATION AND RELIGIOUS TROUBLES IN GERMANY
Causes of the Counter-Reformation--The weakness of Protestantism--The
revival in the Church--The influence of the Jesuits--Beginning of
the Counter-Reformation in Poland, in Germany, in the Austrian
dominions--Questions still unsettled in Germany, the position
of the Calvinists, the secularised lands, the ecclesiastical
reservation--Dangerous position of the Calvinists of the
Rhineland--The troubles of Donauwörth--Formation of the Calvinist
Union and the Catholic League--Constitutional difficulties between the
Emperor and the Bohemians--Revolt of the Bohemian Protestants--The
throwing from the windows.
[Sidenote: =Causes of the Counter-Reformation.=]
The reaction against Protestantism in Europe began to make itself
felt in the concluding years of the sixteenth century. Like all great
movements in the religious, as in the political, sphere, it owed its
existence to many complex causes. To some extent racial distinctions
asserted themselves. The Romance-speaking nations and the Sclavonic
peoples, roughly speaking, after a moment of hesitation declared
plainly against Protestantism. To a larger extent political reasons
dictated the attitude of governments, and governments were able to do
much towards defining the religion of their subjects. The determined
stand made by Spain in defence of Catholicism was greatly affected
by the ambition of Philip II. to make himself master of Europe. The
effective opposition to the domination of Spain offered by Elizabeth
was far more due to zeal for the independence and commercial prosperity
of England than to differences of faith. The final resolve of France to
remain distinctly Catholic was, as we have seen, due to the fact that
she prized her unity before everything, and the Huguenots were the
party of disruption.
[Sidenote: =Inherent weakness of Protestantism.=]
But after making all allowance for the influence of other
considerations, the reasons which determined the course of events
remained always religious. Protestantism was at the first the
expression of a great moral revolution. The religious and moral
nature of man rose in rebellion against a distorted faith, and an
immoral system which seemed incapable of reform. Based mainly on a
negative theology, it was at its strongest as long as its work was
almost wholly destructive. The overthrow of moral abuse, the attack
on wrongly defined faith was easy to men inspired with the zeal of a
crusade on behalf of truth. But when it, in its turn, was called upon
by the necessities of controversy to attempt to construct a system of
its own, to lay down principles, to explain truth, its weakness became
evident. Quickly divided into the two great schools named after Luther
and Calvin, in hopeless and virulent antagonism, it was soon seen that
in each division the tendency was still further to define and still
further to divide. Confession followed confession in the hopeless
attempt to arrive at unity through the expression of self-evident,
perfect, truth in human language. The only result was greater division.
Lutheranism, to avoid the danger of disruption, took refuge under the
wing of the State, and as it became more and more merely the moral
department of governments, it lost more and more its powers over
mankind. From the middle of the sixteenth century its progress began
to cease, and when progress stops in a religious movement, reaction
begins. Calvinism showed more vitality. It was more aggressive and
lent itself as readily to the aid of those opposed to governmental
centralisation, as Lutheranism did to the assistance of the governments
themselves. Its stern creed, with its strong tendency to fanaticism
and bigotry, produced a type of character always concentrated and
effective, and often lofty and severe. It was seen at its best when
combined with the spirit of patriotism and liberty in the Dutch and
the Swiss, at its worst when degraded into a pretext for selfishness
and faction in France and in Germany. At one time it looked as if it
was going to carry everything before it. Firmly rooted in Scotland,
Switzerland, the upper Rhineland, and among the Dutch, it was rapidly
winning over to its flag England, France, and Hungary, was making
rapid strides in the hereditary dominions of the House of Austria,
and had even made good its footing in north Italy and Spain. But like
Lutheranism it was more fitted to attack than to defend, to win than to
consolidate, and gradually the tide began to ebb. The long and bitter
struggle in the Netherlands ended in a division of territory. The seven
northern provinces became independent and remained Calvinist, in spite
of the utmost efforts of Philip II., but south and west of
the Scheldt the country adhered to Spain and Catholicism. England in
her national expression of religion, under the guidance of Elizabeth,
definitely refused to become Calvinistic, though many Englishmen
became Calvinists. France, as we have seen, having to choose between
Calvinism and unity, not only chose to remain Catholic and united, but
set herself deliberately to root out the political influence of the
Huguenot organisation.
[Sidenote: =Religious revival in the Church.=]
But after all, it was not the inherent weakness of Protestantism,
either in its philosophical, religious, or political aspects, which
finally put an end to its progress, and turned back the tide. It
was the greatly increased strength of Catholicism. The power of
Protestantism lay, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, in its
protest against wicked lives and a degraded system. By the end of the
century that protest was no longer needed, and no longer effective. The
Church, which had refused to reform itself after the horrors of the
great schism under the pressure of the councils of Constance and Basel,
and had answered the trumpet call of Savonarola with an excommunication
at the hands of Alexander VI., had at length been forced into
reform by the success of Protestantism. The Council of Trent left its
mark upon the Roman Church in two special ways. By the establishment
of the seminaries, and the enforcement of residence, it reformed
the clergy and taught them to be the teachers of the people. By the
acknowledgment of Papal supremacy it centralised the organisation of
the Roman Church, as an army is centralised under the absolute command
of its leader, to whom unquestioning obedience is due. From that time
the Pope has exercised influence over a smaller area of Europe than
before the Reformation, but with far greater power of compelling
obedience among his own adherents. The institution of new religious
orders, and the remarkable revival of the religious life in the Roman
Church in the century following the Reformation, is perhaps the proof
rather than the cause of the renewal of personal piety and the spirit
of self-sacrifice, but the foundation of the Society of Jesus marks
a turning-point in the religious history of the world. [Sidenote:
=Influence of the Jesuits.=] Ignatius Loyola was a soldier
before he was a priest, and his Society was a military organisation
for religious purposes. The conquest of heresy and infidelity was its
object, obedience and renunciation of personality were to it the first
of virtues. A Jesuit, who was thoroughly imbued with the principles
of his order, lost his individuality and became but a part of a great
machine. He lived, moved, felt, thought, but in his Society and for it
alone. Trained on one system, directed by the will of one man, bound
by its constitution to implicit obedience to the Pope, the Society
of Jesus, as it spread over the whole world in the ardour and pure
enthusiasm of its earlier years, formed a power in the hands of the
Papacy, which, from the intense concentration of its government, and
the immense diffusion of its activity, has never been equalled in the
world’s history. In Europe, where Protestantism was the great enemy to
be overthrown, it seized with characteristic dexterity upon education
as its chief work.
[Sidenote: =Their educational work.=]
Protestantism, though born of the Renaissance, had done little to
satisfy the demands for increased knowledge which the growing spirit
of free inquiry was making so loudly. It had trained some scholars,
it had done little for general education. The Jesuits seized the
opportunity. They offered to the world the best education attainable
free of cost, and before long they had far distanced all competitors.
The value of this to the Church in countries where Protestantism was
powerful but not dominant can hardly be exaggerated. It was a guarantee
that the rising intelligence of the country should be trained in the
most uncompromising school of churchmanship. No Catholic power found
itself able to dispense with their support. Even in France where
Calvinism was strong, under a king whose religion was always tempered
by policy, the Jesuits managed to make good their footing in spite
of the most virulent and active opposition of the Sorbonne. To the
rulers of Bavaria and Austria, who were sincerely anxious for the
rooting out of Protestantism, they were simply invaluable. Thus by
the end of the century the tables had become completely turned. Zeal,
devotion, learning, self-sacrifice, religious enthusiasm, were now on
the side of the Church. Superior in organisation, superior in religious
effort, superior in concentration, the Church presented a united and
effective front to her enemies, and was prepared, when the opportunity
should come, to initiate a crusade by the help of the Jesuits against
Protestantism in Europe, while a new world was being won for her across
the ocean by their missionary efforts.
The opportunity was not long in coming. In the concluding years of
the sixteenth century men attained to power in central Europe, whose
youth had been trained under the influences of the Catholic revival.
Already by the efforts of Philip II. and S. Carlo Borromeo,
with the assistance of the Inquisition, the movement in favour of
Protestantism in Spain and Italy had been crushed, and heresy driven
back behind the Alps and the Pyrenees. In 1587 Sigismund, the son of
John of Sweden and Catherine Jagellon, was elected to the throne of
Poland. [Sidenote: =The Counter-Reformation in Poland.=] Sigismund
was a staunch Catholic, and owed his election to the efforts of the
Catholics. He at once set himself to restore Poland to Catholicism.
He used the royal patronage, which was extremely extensive in Poland,
in favour of Catholics only. He called the Jesuits to his assistance,
supported them with money, and encouraged the sons of the nobility to
attend their schools. In disputed questions as to the right to the
ecclesiastical buildings he used the influence of the crown in favour
of the Catholics, and was so successful in this, that it is said that
Dantzig was the only town of importance in Poland where the Protestants
retained the use of the parish church. Thus in a few years the whole of
the official classes became Catholic; while large country districts,
especially in Livonia and Lithuania, were won back to the old faith by
the efforts of the Jesuit missionaries. [Sidenote: =In Germany.=]
In Germany recourse was had to still stronger measures, for in virtue
of the principle of the religious peace of Augsburg of 1555 it was
held that every ruler had the right of dictating the religion of his
subjects. Accordingly at Christmas 1595, the bishop of Bamberg issued
an edict banishing from the diocese all who refused to receive the
Eucharist according to the Catholic rite. Emboldened by his success,
the bishop of Paderborn followed his example a few years afterwards,
and established and endowed a Jesuit college in his cathedral city.
In the first years of the new century the electors von Bicken and
Schweikard of Mainz, Ernest and Ferdinand of Köln and Lothaire of
Trier, partly by governmental pressure, partly by personal influence,
restored Catholicism permanently in the three archbishoprics of the
Rhine. [Sidenote: =In Styria.=] But it was in south Germany that
the greatest results were obtained. In 1596 Ferdinand, the cousin
of the emperor Rudolf II., came of age, and succeeded to
the duchies of Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, formerly held by his
father the archduke Charles. Ferdinand was a man of resolute will and
deep religious convictions, which had been developed by his Jesuit
teachers into something little short of fanaticism. He looked upon
the restoration of Catholicism as the special work of his life, and
kneeling before the shrine of Loretto the year after his accession,
he solemnly swore to eradicate Protestantism from his hereditary
dominions. He did not sleep upon his promise. In 1598 edicts were
issued ordering all Protestant ministers to leave the country within
fourteen days. In the following year commissions were sent through the
country to enforce the edicts. The Protestant churches were thrown
down, the pastors ejected, and the inhabitants compelled to conform to
Catholicism. [Sidenote: =In Austria and Moravia.=] The Emperor,
seeing his cousin’s success, followed in his footsteps, and from 1599
to 1603 similar commissions were issued for Upper and Lower Austria,
and the Protestant ministers were driven out. Not content with this,
Rudolf proceeded to follow a similar policy in his other dominions.
In 1602 he suppressed the meetings of the Moravian brethren in
Bohemia and Moravia, and gave armed assistance to the efforts of the
Hungarian bishops to convert their Protestant flocks. [Sidenote: =In
Bavaria.=] Meanwhile by the exertions of William, duke of Bavaria,
and his son Maximilian, who came to the throne on the abdication of
his father in 1696, powerfully assisted by the great Jesuit college at
Ingolstadt, Catholicism had completely won the upper hand in Bavaria.
The beginning of the seventeenth century therefore saw the reaction
in favour of the Church in full flood tide of prosperity. At its head
stood a pope, Paul V. (Borghese), who, if somewhat deficient
in the grandeur of mind of Sixtus V., and the fervour of
piety which distinguished Pius V., yielded to none of his
predecessors, not even to Hildebrand himself, in the lofty conception
he had formed of the nature and prerogatives of his office, and in
the determination to make them respected. In Philip III. of
Spain, Maximilian of Bavaria, Ferdinand of Styria, and Sigismund of
Poland, he had lieutenants who had made the restoration and increase
of Catholicism the first object of their policy. Already their efforts
had been crowned with success in Poland and in south Germany, and the
influence of the movement had made itself felt all over the debatable
land subject to the Empire, which was not as yet definitely attached
to one side or the other. Even the imperial institutions themselves
were affected by its progress, and men noticed that the decisions of
the imperial courts of appeal were biassed by the religious opinions
of the judges and of the Emperor. [Sidenote: =Questions regarding
the peace of Augsburg.=] This was all the more important as it
happened that these particular courts were at that time being called
upon to decide a most interesting political question. The peace of
Augsburg, concluded in 1555, which attempted to establish peace between
the Church and the Lutherans in Germany, had left three problems
unsolved, which were certain sooner or later to be decided by the
sword, if no peaceful compromise could be arrived at in the meantime.
[Sidenote: =1. Position of the Calvinists.=] In the first place it
only applied to the Lutherans, for at the time of its conclusion the
Protestant princes of the Empire were all Lutherans, and they merely
thought of securing their own interests. Calvinism therefore had no
rights whatever in the Empire, and had still to win its recognition
from the law. [Sidenote: =2. The secularised lands.=] Secondly,
it had been laid down by the peace that the Church should no longer
have any rights over Church property lying within the territories of
Lutheran princes, which had been secularised by them or applied by them
to Lutheran purposes, before 1552; but differences had since arisen
between the two parties as to the bearing of this provision upon lands
secularised subsequently to 1552. It was argued by the Catholics,
that the very fact that lands secularised before 1552 were expressly
exempted from all the claims of the Church, clearly implied that lands
secularised after 1552 were not subject to that exemption, and had
therefore been taken from the Church illegally and ought to be at once
restored. The Lutherans, on the other hand, maintained that the treaty
intended to lay down a general rule, which was to apply to all lands
secularised under similar circumstances, and the date only referred to
the convention of Passau, which led to the religious peace, and was not
meant to create two different classes of secularised lands. Following
out this somewhat broad construction of the peace, large quantities of
Church land had been secularised since 1552 by Lutheran and even by
Calvinist princes, and used by them as a very convenient endowment for
younger sons and other relations. [Sidenote: =3. The Ecclesiastical
Reservation.=] A further difficulty arose with regard to what was
called the Ecclesiastical Reservation. It frequently happened, during
the earlier years of the Reformation, that a bishop or abbot, who was
a territorial prince in right of his bishopric or abbacy,--of which
there were a great number in Germany--became a Lutheran. In order to
preserve the rights of the Church in such a case, it was provided by
the peace of Augsburg, that a bishop or abbot who became a Lutheran
should at once vacate his dignity. But the Protestants maintained that
this Ecclesiastical Reservation, as it was called, was only intended
to apply to cases where a bishop or abbot, who had been elected by
a Catholic Chapter as a Catholic, became a Protestant, and did not
affect those cases where a Chapter which had itself become Protestant
elected a Protestant to be their bishop or abbot. In virtue of this
contention, eight of the great bishoprics of north Germany and many
abbacies throughout the country became practically secularised. The
Protestant bishop or abbot made no pretence to ecclesiastical position
or functions. He was merely a territorial prince who enjoyed the title
of bishop, or sometimes administrator, instead of that of duke or
landgrave, but his right to his title and his lands had never been
admitted by the imperial courts or the Diet.
As long as the tide was flowing in the direction of Protestantism the
Protestant view of these matters naturally prevailed, as being that
of the stronger party, and the Catholics had to content themselves
with protests. [Sidenote: =Danger of the Rhineland Calvinists.=]
But with the advent of the Counter-Reformation things became very
different. The division in the Protestant party was so envenomed,
that no Lutheran would stir a finger to claim the privileges of the
religious peace for Calvinists. The Catholics had now powerful friends
to back them in demanding back the secularised lands. It was almost
certain if the question could be brought before the imperial courts
that the decision would be in their favour. The Calvinists of the upper
Rhineland therefore found themselves in a dangerous position. Situated
between the Spanish power on the one side and Bavaria on the other,
without a shadow of legal claim to the protection of the religious
peace of Augsburg, without the chance of deriving any assistance from
the Lutheran princes of the north, they were in danger of being the
next victims of the Emperor and Maximilian, just flushed with their
triumph over heresy at home. [Sidenote: =The troubles of Donauwörth,
1607.=] A little incident showed how real the danger was. In 1607,
at Donauwörth, a free city on the Danube, in which the Protestants were
in a large majority, a Catholic procession was insulted and a religious
quarrel excited. The matter was at once brought to the notice of the
Imperial (Aulic) Council, a body entirely composed of nominees of the
Emperor. The ban of the Empire was pronounced against Donauwörth, and
Maximilian of Bavaria appointed to carry it out. He at once occupied
the town with his troops, but not content with establishing order and
taking security for the payment of his army, he proceeded to eject the
Protestants from the churches and restore the Catholic worship, on the
plea that the establishment of Protestantism there had been illegal,
and was not protected by the peace of Augsburg. The immediate result
of this action on the part of Maximilian, which was looked upon by the
Protestants as a distinct and indefensible act of aggression, was to
bring about the organisation of the two parties in two rival camps.
Christian of Anhalt, one of those sanguine and turbulent spirits,
whose advent to the leadership of affairs is a sure presage of war and
dissension, seized the opportunity to bind together the Protestant
states of the Rhineland in 1608 into a Union for self-defence, which,
when once formed, he hoped to be able to lead to the attack against
the House of Austria. [Sidenote: =Formation of the Calvinist Union,
1608.=] In the next year the Union was joined by the important free
cities of Strasburg, Nuremberg, and Ulm. The Elector Palatine was
acknowledged as its head, and Christian of Anhalt and the Margrave of
Baden-Durlach appointed its generals, and German Calvinism thus stood
ready to defend its interests to the death against the encroachments
of the Counter-Reformation. Nor were the Catholics far behind in their
preparations for war. [Sidenote: =Formation of the Catholic League,
1609.=]In 1609 the Catholic League was formed among the Catholic
bishops of south Germany, under the leadership of Maximilian of
Bavaria, to defend Catholic interests. The Pope gave it his approval
and Spain promised assistance. With the long head of Maximilian to
direct its policy, with his long purse to provide the sinews of war,
with his trained army under Tilly to fight its battles, and with
Spain and the Pope to fall back upon, the Catholic League bid fair to
distance its rival in the game for leadership in South Germany, which
was being played.
[Sidenote: =Weakness of the Emperor.=]
But just at this moment occurred two events which rapidly swung the
balance to the opposite side. The disputed succession to Cleves and
Jülich--followed as it was by the intervention of the Emperor and the
occupation of Jülich on his behalf, while the elector of Brandenburg
and the count palatine of Neuburg made themselves joint masters of
Cleves--brought about, as we have seen, a most formidable combination
of Protestant powers under the leadership of France, to overthrow the
House of Austria and put a stop to the progress of Catholicism in
Germany. At the very moment when he was thus threatened by foreign
attack, the unfortunate Rudolf found himself at the mercy of his own
revolted subjects. Already in 1606 his brother Matthias had taken
advantage of the unpopularity caused by the forcible restoration of
Catholicism in Austria and Hungary, especially among the nobility,
to put himself at the head of a combination of the estates of those
countries, in order to win for himself the sovereignty over them at
the price of granting religious toleration. The revolt was completely
successful. [Sidenote: =Religious toleration in Austria and
Bohemia, 1608–1609.=] In 1608 Rudolf made over to his brother the
government of Austria and Hungary, and Matthias, in his turn, appointed
a Protestant to be palatine in Hungary, and guaranteed the free
exercise of their religion, public and private, to all his subjects.
The Emperor was thus left with Bohemia and Moravia alone faithful
to him, but the Bohemians were no less quick than the Austrians had
been to see the profit that might be made out of the weakness of
their king. In 1609 the Bohemian estates extorted from him the Royal
Charter (_Majestätsbrief_) as the price of their loyalty, by
which freedom of conscience was secured to all who belonged to certain
specified creeds, and freedom of worship granted on all Crown lands;
but on private estates, and in towns, the consent of the landowner
and the town authorities was made necessary to the erection of any
church or the establishment of any religious worship. An arrangement
so one-sided as this, by which the king was obliged to grant freedom
of worship, while his subjects were not, was thoroughly unpractical.
Difficulties at once broke out about its interpretation, which ended in
1611 in the deposition of Rudolf, and the recognition of Matthias as
king of Bohemia. [Sidenote: =Death of Rudolf. Accession of Matthias,
1612.=] In 1612 Rudolf died and Matthias was elected emperor. The
change was in favour of peace. The death of Henry IV. in
1610, and the consequent withdrawal of France and England from the
combination against the House of Austria, made the Union less ready to
follow the fiery counsels of Christian of Anhalt. The Cleves-Jülich
question remained in abeyance after the imperial troops had been
expelled from Jülich, but was somewhat further complicated by the
conversion of the count palatine of Neuburg to Catholicism, and of the
elector of Brandenburg to Calvinism. [Sidenote: =Settlement of the
Cleves-Jülich question, 1614.=] Eventually by the treaty of Xanten
in 1614, subsequently modified in 1630, a division of the duchies
between the two claimants was agreed upon, by which the elector of
Brandenburg acquired Cleves, the Mark and Ravensberg, while Jülich,
Berg, and Ravenstein fell to the house of Neuburg. For eight years
Germany, freed from the impending horror of a desolating war, enjoyed
a truce; but still in Bohemia were to be heard murmurs that the Royal
Charter was not observed by Matthias, still flowed steadily and surely
the stream of the Counter-Reformation, and Maximilian of Bavaria
reinforced his army and amassed treasure, awaiting the day when the
sword, and the sword alone, should decide the religious question in
Germany.
[Sidenote: =The succession of Ferdinand to Austria, Hungary and
Bohemia recognised.=]
The truce was broken by the Emperor himself. Matthias was an old man
without children. His brothers, who were but little younger than
himself, were like him childless, and all the hopes of the Austrian
House were centred upon Ferdinand of Styria as the only Habsburg who
had an heir to succeed him. It became therefore the cardinal point
of the policy of the Emperor, during his later years, to secure the
succession of Ferdinand to the various dominions of the Austrian House
in Germany, and, if possible, his eventual election to the Empire. The
succession to the hereditary dominions of the Habsburgs only required
the consent of the senior members of the family and the approval of
Spain, and presented but little difficulty; but that to the crowns of
Hungary and Bohemia was a different matter altogether, as the crown
in both kingdoms was elective. By mingled address and assurance the
policy of Matthias triumphed for the time. The estates of Hungary duly
elected Ferdinand to be the successor of Matthias, and he was crowned
at Pressburg without a murmur of opposition being heard. In Bohemia
courage won the day. The estates were suddenly called together in
1617, and required to acknowledge Ferdinand as the lawful successor to
Matthias by hereditary right, and evidence was brought to show that
they had in former times acknowledged that the crown of Bohemia was
rightfully hereditary. Taken by surprise and subjected to pressure
from the court the estates acquiesced in this new assumption. No
leader appeared to question or refute the imperial case. Ferdinand
was recognised and crowned as hereditary king of Bohemia, and at his
coronation swore to observe the Royal Charter. But no sooner was
Ferdinand seated on the throne than the Bohemian Protestant nobility
began to realise what had been done. They had not only assisted in
placing the most determined enemy of their religion over them, but,
by setting aside the elective character of their monarchy, they
had dealt the greatest possible blow to their own importance. The
discontent found an able leader in count Henry of Thurn, who, like
another Christian of Anhalt, was not a man to let scruples stand in
the way of his determination to effect the dethronement of Ferdinand,
and the overthrow of the House of Austria. [Sidenote: =Revolt of the
Protestants in Bohemia. The ‘throwing from the window,’ 1618.=] A
meeting of the Protestant members of the estates was summoned, and a
petition to the Emperor agreed upon. On the reply proving unfavourable,
Thurn, at the head of a body of nobles, forced his way into the palace
at Prague on May 23d, 1618, and seizing the two regents of the kingdom,
Martinitz and Slavata, who were accused of being the real authors of
the obnoxious reply, threw them with their secretary Fabricius out of
the window in old Bohemian fashion. They fell sheer seventy feet into
the ditch below, but strange to say not one of them lost his life.
Thurn hoped by this deed of violence to render peace between Austria
and Bohemia impossible. He little thought that he had given the signal
for a war which was to desolate his country and all Germany for thirty
years, and throw them back in the race of civilisation for a century.