THE REFORMATION
_The Character of the Reformation_.--The Reformation, or Protestant
Revolution, as it is sometimes called, was a movement of such extended
relations as to be difficult to define. In general, it was the
liberalizing movement of the revival of learning applied to the church.
As the church had attempted to be all things to all men, the movement
was necessarily far-reaching in its results, affecting not only the
religious but the social, educational, and political affairs of Europe.
In its religious aspect it shows an attempt to reform the church. This
failing, the revolution followed, resulting in the independence of
certain parts of the church, which were then organized under separate
constitutions and governments. Then followed a partial reform within
the Catholic Church. The whole movement may be characterized as a
revolt against papal authority and ecclesiastical usurpation of power.
It was an assertion of independence of the mind respecting religious
beliefs and a cry for a consistent life of righteousness and purity.
The church had assumed an attitude which made either a speedy
reformation or else a revolution necessary. The "reforming councils"
of Pisa, Constance, and Basel failed to adopt adequate reform measures.
The result of these councils was merely to confirm the absolutism of
papal authority. At the same time there were a very large number of
adherents to the church who were anxiously seeking a reform in church
government, as well as a reform in the conduct of the papacy, the
clergy, and the lay membership. The papal party succeeded in
suppressing all attempts of this nature, the voice of the people being
silenced by a denial of constitutional government; nor was assurance
given that the intrigues of the papacy, and of the church in general,
would be removed.
{376}
The people had lost faith in the assumptions of infallibility of the
papacy. The great schism in the church, in which three popes, each
claiming to be the rightful successor of Saint Peter, each one having
the "keys," each one calling the others impostors, and seeking by all
possible means to dethrone them, was a great shock to the claims of
infallible authority. For many years, to maintain their position as a
ruling power, the popes had engaged in political squabbles with the
princes of Europe. While the popes at times were victorious, the
result of their course was to cause a feeling of contempt for their
conduct, as well as of fear of their power.
The quarrel of Henry IV and Gregory VII, of Innocent III and John of
England, of Boniface and Philip the Fair, the Babylonian captivity, and
many lesser difficulties, had placed the papacy in a disreputable
light. Distrust, fear, and contempt for the infallible assumptions
were growing. The papacy had been turned into a political engine to
maintain the temporal possessions of the church and to increase its
temporal power. The selfishness of the ruling prince became uppermost
in all papal affairs, which was so different from the teachings of the
Christ who founded his kingdom on love that the contrast became
observable, and even painful, to many devout people. Added to this,
the corruption of the members of religious orders, who had departed
from their vows of chastity, was so evident to the people with whom
they came in daily contact as to bring shame and disgrace upon the
cause of religion. Consequently, from these and other irregularities
there developed a strong belief that the church needed reforming from
the lowest to the highest offices.
_Signs of the Rising Storm_.--For several centuries before the
religious revolution broke out there were signs of its coming. In the
first place, the rise of the laical spirit was to be observed,
especially after the establishment of local self-government in the free
cities. The desire for representative government had extended to the
lay members of the church. There was a growing feeling that the
clergy, headed by the papacy, had {377} no right to usurp all the
governing power of the church. Many bold laymen asserted that the lay
members of the church should have a voice in its government, but every
such plea was silenced, every aspiration for democratic government
suppressed, by a jealous papacy.
There arose a number of religious sects which opposed the subordination
to dogma, and returned to the teachings of the Bible for authority.
Prominent among these were the Albigenses, who became the victims of
the cruel crusade instigated by the pope and led by Simon de Montfort.
They were a peaceable, religious people who dwelt far and wide in the
south of France, who refused to obey implicitly the harsh and arbitrary
mandates of the pope.
The Waldenses were another society, composed of the followers of Peter
Waldo, known at first as the "Poor Man of Lyons," believing in a return
to the Scriptures, which they persistently read. Like the Albigenses,
they were zealous for purity of life, and bitterly opposed to the
usurpation and profligacy of the clergy. They, too, suffered bitter
persecution, which indicated to many that a day of retribution was
coming. There were also praying societies, formed in the church to
read the Scriptures and to promote a holy life. All these had their
influence in preparing for a general reformation.
The revival of learning had specific influences in bringing about the
Reformation. The two movements were blended in one in several
countries, but the revival of learning in Germany was overtaken by the
Reformation. The former sought freedom of the mind respecting
philosophy and learning, the latter sought liberty of conscience
respecting religious belief. The revival of learning broke down
scholasticism, and thus freed the mind from dogmatic philosophy.
Seeking for the truth, the works of the church fathers were brought
forth and read, and the texts of the Old and the New Testament were
also used, as a criterion of authority. They showed to what extent the
papacy had gone in its assumption of power, and making more prominent
the fact that the church, particularly {378} the clergy, had departed
from a life of purity. The result of the quickening thought of the
revival was to develop independent characteristics of mind, placing it
in the attitude of revolt against ecclesiastical dogmatism.
_Attempts at Reform Within the Church_.--Many attempts were made,
chiefly on the part of individuals, to work a reform of abuses within
the church. Many devout men, scholars engaged in theological research
and living lives of purity, sought by precept and example to bring
about better spiritual and moral conditions. Others sought to bring
about changes in ecclesiastical government, not only in the "reforming
councils" but through efforts at the papal court and in the strong
bishoprics. Had the church listened to these cries of the laity and
zealously availed itself of the many opportunities presented, possibly
the religious revolution would not have come. Although it is difficult
to say what would have been the result had the church listened to the
voice of reform, yet it is certain that the revolution would at least
have taken a different course, and the position of the church before
the world would have been greatly changed.
Powerful individual reformers exercised great influence in bringing on
the religious revolution. The voices of John Wyclif, John Huss, John
Tauler, and John Wessel, like the voice of John the Baptist, cried out
for repentance and a return to God. These reformers desired among
other things a change in the constitutional government of the church.
They sought a representation of the laity and the re-establishment of
the authority of the general councils. Through influence such as
theirs the revolution was precipitated. Others in a different way,
like Savonarola, hastened the coming of the revolution by preaching
liberty of thought and attacking the abuses of the church and its
methods of government.
Wyclif in England advocated a simple form of church worship, rebelled
against the arbitrary power of popes and priests, preached against
transubstantiation, and advocated the practice of morality. He was
greatly influenced by William of {379} Occam, who asserted that the
pope, or even a general council, might err in declaring the truth, and
that the hierarchy might be given up if the good of the church demanded
it. Wyclif, in England, started a movement for freedom and purity
which never died out. His translation of the Bible was the most
valuable of all his work. Though he preceded the religious revolution
by nearly two centuries, his influence was of such great importance
that his enemies, who failed to burn him at the stake in life, ordered
his grave to be desecrated.
At first Wyclif had the support of the king and of the university, as
well as the protection of the Prince of Wales. But when, in 1381, he
lectured at Oxford against transubstantiation, he lost the royal
protection, and by a senate of twelve doctors was forbidden longer to
lecture at the university, although he continued preaching until his
death. As his opinions agreed very nearly with those of Calvin and
Luther, he has been called "the morning star of the Reformation." The
Council of Constance, before burning John Huss and Jerome of Prague at
the stake, condemned the doctrines of Wyclif in forty-five articles,
declared him a heretic, and ordered his body to be removed from
consecrated ground and thrown upon a dunghill. Thirteen years later
Clement VIII, hyena-like, ordered his bones to be burned and the ashes
thrown into the Swift. Thus his short-sighted enemies thought to stay
the tide of a great reformation.
John Huss, a Bohemian reformer, followed closely after the doctrine of
Wyclif, although he disagreed with him in his opposition to
transubstantiation. He preached for constitutional reform of the
church, reformative administration, and morality. He urged a return to
the Bible as a criterion for belief and a guide to action. Finally he
was summoned to the Council of Constance to answer for his heresy, and
guaranteed safe-conduct by the Emperor Sigismund, who presided; but,
notwithstanding this promise, the council declared him a heretic and
burned him at the stake with Jerome of Prague. This was one of the
results of the so-called reforming Council of {380} Constance--its
reform consisted in silencing the opponents of papal authority and
corruption.
John Tauler belonged to a group of people called mystic philosophers,
who, though remaining within the church, opposed dogmatism and
formalism and advocated spiritual religion. Their doctrine was to
leave formality and return to God. Many other societies, calling
themselves "Friends of God," sprang up in the Netherlands and in the
south and west of Germany. John Tauler was the most prominent of all
their preachers. He held that man is justified by faith alone, and
Luther, who republished Tauler's book on German theology,[1] asserted
that it had more influence over him than any other books, except the
Bible and the works of Saint Augustine.
Savonarola, a most powerful orator and great scholar of Italy, lifted
his voice in favor of reform in the church administration and in favor
of the correction of abuses. He transcended the teachings of the
schools of philosophy, departed from the dogma of the church, and
preached in the name of God and His Son. He was shocked at the signs
of immorality which he saw in common society. As a preacher of
righteousness, he prophesied a judgment speedily to come unless men
turned from the error of their ways. But in the ways of the world he
paid for his boldness and his enthusiasm, for the pope excommunicated
him, and his enemies created distrust of him in the hearts of the
people. He was put in prison, afterward brought to trial and condemned
to death, and finally hanged and burned and his ashes thrown into the
Arno--all because the pope hoped to stay the tide of religious and
social reform.
_Immediate Causes of the Reformation_.--Mr. Bryce, in his _Holy Roman
Empire_,[2] says:
"There is perhaps no event in history which has been represented in so
great a variety of lights as the Reformation. {381} It has been called
a revolt of the laity against the clergy, or of the Teutonic races
against the Italians, or of the kingdoms of Europe against the
universal monarchy of the popes. Some have seen in it only a burst of
long-repressed anger at the luxury of the prelates and the manifold
abuses of the ecclesiastical system; others a renewal of the youth of
the church by a return to primitive forms of doctrine. All these,
indeed, to some extent it was; but it was also something more profound,
and fraught with mightier consequences than any of them. It was in its
essence the assertion of the principle of individuality--that is to
say, of true spiritual freedom."
The primary nature of the Reformation was, first, a return to primitive
belief and purity of worship. This was accompanied by a protest
against the vices and the abuses of the church and of formalism in
practice. It was also an open revolt against the authority of the
church, authority not only in constitution and administration but in
spiritual affairs. According to Bryce, "true spiritual freedom" was
the prime motive in the religious revolution. And Guizot, in his
chapter on the Reformation, clusters all statements around a single
idea, the idea that it was freedom of the mind in religious belief and
practice which was the chief purpose of the Reformation.[3] But the
immediate causes of the precipitation of the Reformation may be stated
as follows:
_First_.--The great and continued attack on the unreasonableness of the
Roman Catholic Church, caused by the great mental awakening which had
taken place everywhere in Europe, the persistent and shameless
profligacy of the clergy and the various monastic orders and sects, the
dissolute and rapacious character of many of the popes, and the
imperial attitude of the entire papacy.
_Second_.--We may consider as another cause the influence of the art of
printing, which scattered the Bible over the land, so that it could be
read by a large number of people, who were thus incited to independent
belief.
{382}
_Finally_.--It may be said that the sale of indulgences, and
particularly the pretensions of many of the agents of the pope as to
their power to release from the bondage of sin, created intense disgust
and hatred of the church, and caused the outbreak of the Reformation.[4]
_Luther Was the Hero of the Reformation in Germany_.--He was not the
cause of the Reformation, only its most powerful and efficient agency,
for the Reformation would have taken place in time had Luther never
appeared. Somebody would have led the phalanx, and, indeed, Luther,
led steadily on in his thought and researches, became a reformer and
revolutionist almost before he was aware.
He began (1517) by preaching against the sale of indulgences. He
claimed that works had been made a substitute for faith, while man is
justified by faith alone. His attack on indulgences brought him in
direct conflict with one Tetzel, who stirred up the jealousy of other
monks, who reported Luther to Pope Leo X.[5] Luther, in a letter to
the pope, proclaimed his innocence, saying that he is misrepresented
and called heretic "and a thousand ignominious names; these things
shock and amaze me; one thing only sustains me--the sense of my
innocence." He had pinned his ninety-five theses on the door of the
church at Wittenberg. In writing to the pope he claimed that these
were set forth for their own local interest at the university, and that
he knows not why they "should go forth into all the earth." Then he
says: "But what shall I do? Recall them I cannot, and yet I see their
notoriety bringeth upon me great odium."
But Luther, in spite of the censure of the pope and his friends, was
still an ardent adherent to the papal power and the authority of the
church. He says to the pope: "Save or slay, kill or recall, approve or
disapprove, as it shall please you, I will acknowledge you even as the
voice of Christ {383} presiding and speaking in you." In writing to
Spalatine, he says that he may err in disputation, but that he is never
to be a heretic, that he wishes to decide no doctrine, "only I am not
willing to be the slave of the opinions of men."
Luther persisted in his course of criticism. To Staupitz he wrote: "I
see that attempts are made at Rome that the kingdom of truth, _i.e._,
of Christ, be no longer the kingdom of truth." After the pope had
issued his first brief condemning him, Luther exclaimed: "It is
incredible that a thing so monstrous should come from the chief
pontiff, especially Leo X. If in truth it be come forth from the Roman
court, then I will show them their most licentious temerity and their
ungodly ignorance." These were bold words from a man who did not wish
to become a reformer, a revolutionist, or a heretic.
Now the pope regarded this whole affair as a quarrel of monks, and
allowed Luther to give his side of the story. He was induced to send a
certain cardinal legate, Cajetan, to Augsburg to bring this heretic
into submission, but the legate failed to bring Luther into subjection.
Luther then appealed to the pope, and when the pope issued a bull
approving of the sale of indulgences, Luther appealed to the council.
Thus far Luther had only protested against the perversion of the rules
of the church and of the papal doctrine, but there followed the public
disputations with Doctor John Eck, the vice-chancellor of the
University of Ingolstadt, in which the great subject under discussion
was the primacy of the pope. Luther held that the pope was not
infallible that he might err in matters of doctrine, and that the
general council, which represented the universal church, should decide
the case. Now Luther had already asserted that certain doctrines of
Huss were true, but the Council of Constance had condemned these and
burned Huss at the stake. Luther was compelled by his shrewd opponent
to acknowledge that a council also might err, and he had then to
maintain his position that the pope and the council both might err and
to commit himself to the proposition that there is no absolute
authority on the {384} face of the earth to interpret the will of God.
But now Luther was forced to go yet a step farther. When the papal
bull condemning him and excommunicating him was issued, he took the
bull and burned it in the presence of a concourse of people, and then
wrote his address to the German nobles. He thus set at defiance the
whole church government and authority. He had become an open
revolutionist.
The Catholic Church, to defend itself from the position it had taken
against Luther, reasoned in this way: "Where there is difference of
opinion, there is doubt; where there is doubt, there is no certainty;
where there is no certainty, there is no knowledge. Therefore, if
Luther is right, that there is room for difference of opinion about
divine revelation, then we have no knowledge of that revelation." In
this way did the Roman Church attempt to suppress all freedom of
religious belief.
For the opposition which Luther made, he was summoned to appear before
the Diet of Augsburg, which condemned him as a heretic. Had it not
been that Charles V, who presided, had promised him a safe-conduct to
and from the diet, Luther would have suffered the same fate as John
Huss. Indeed, it is said that Charles V, when near his death,
regretted that he had not burned Luther at the stake. It shows how
little the emperor knew of the real spiritual scope of the Reformation,
that he hoped to stay its tide by the burning of one man.
The safe-conduct of Luther by Charles V was decided on account of the
existing state of European politics. The policy followed by the
emperor at the diet was not based upon the arguments which Luther so
powerfully presented before the diet, but upon a preconceived policy.
Had the Emperor of Germany been only King of Spain in seeking to keep
the pretentious power of the pope within bounds he might have gained a
great advantage by uniting with Luther in the Reformation. But as
emperor he needed the support of the pope, on account of the danger of
invasion of Italy by Francis I of France. He finally concluded it
would be best to declare Luther a heretic, but he was impotent to
enforce {385} punishment by death. In this way he would set himself
directly in opposition to the Reformation and save his crown.
Apparently Charles cared less for the Reformation than he did for his
own political preservation.[6]
From this time on the Reformation in Germany became wholly political.
Its advantages and disadvantages hung largely upon the political
intrigues and manipulations of the European powers. It furnished the
means of an economic revolt, which Luther, having little sympathy with
the common people in their political and social bondage, was called to
suppress from the castle of Wartburg.
The Reformation spread rapidly over Germany until the time of the
organization of the Jesuits, in 1542, when fully two-thirds of all
Germany had revolted from papal authority and had become Protestant.
After the organization of the Jesuits, the Reformation declined, on
account of the zeal of that organization and the dissensions which
arose among the Protestants.
_Zwingli Was the Hero of the Reformation in Switzerland_.--The
Reformation which was begun by Zwingli at first took on a social and a
political aspect and, being soon taken up by the state, resulted in a
decision by the Council of Zurich that no preacher could advance any
arguments not found in the Old or New Testament. This position, with
some variations, was maintained through the entire Reformation. The
moral and religious condition of the people of Switzerland was at a
very low ebb, and the course of the Reformation was to preach against
abuses. Zwingli drew his knowledge and faith from the Bible, holding
that for authority one ought to return to it or to the primitive
church. He advocated the abolition of image-worship, and, in addition,
the abolition of enforced celibacy, nunneries, and the celebration of
the mass. He held, too, that there ought to be a return to local
church government, and {386} that all of the cloisters should be
converted into schools. He objected to so many days being devoted to
the festivals of the saints, because it lessened the productive power
of the people. The whole tenor of his preaching was that the Bible
should be used as the basis of doctrine, and that there is no mediation
except through Jesus Christ. As to the doctrine of the sacrament, he
believed that the bread and wine are merely symbols, thus approximating
the belief as established by the Protestants of the present day. On
the other hand, Luther persistently held to the doctrine of
transubstantiation, though the organized Protestant churches held to
"consubstantiation."
The Reformation in Switzerland tended to develop more strongly an
independent political existence, to make for freedom and righteousness,
to work practical reforms in the abuses of both church and state, and
to promote a deeper spiritual religion among the people.
_Calvin Establishes the Genevan System_.--John Calvin was driven out of
France on account of his preaching. He went to Geneva and there
perfected a unique system of religious organization. Perhaps it is the
most complete system of applied theology developed by any of the
reformers. While it did not strongly unite the church and the state on
the same foundation of government, it placed them in such a close unity
that the religious power would be felt in every department of state
life. The Genevan system was well received in France, became the
foundation of the reform party there, and subsequently extended its
influence to Scotland, and, finally, to England. It became the
foundation of Presbyterianism throughout the world. While Calvinism
was severe and arbitrary in its doctrine, on account of its system of
administration, it greatly advanced civil liberty and gave a strong
impulse toward democracy. It was the central force in the Commonwealth
of England, and upheld the representative system of government, which
led to the establishment of constitutional liberty.
_The Reformation in England Differed from the German_.--The work of
John Wyclif and his followers was so remote from {387} the period of
the Reformation as to have very little immediate influence. Yet, in a
general way, the influence of the teachings of Wyclif continued
throughout the Reformation. The religious change came about slowly in
England and was modified by political affairs. People gradually became
liberal on the subject of religion, and began to exercise independent
thought as to church government. Yet, outwardly, at the beginning of
the sixteenth century, the followers of John Wyclif made no impression
upon religious affairs. The new learning, advocated by such men as
Erasmus, Colet, and More, was gaining ground rapidly in England. Its
quickening influence was observed everywhere. It was confined to no
particular field, but touched all departments, religious, social,
political. It invaded the territory of art, of education, of
literature. Henry VIII favored the new learning and gave it great
impulse by his patronage. But the new learning in England was
antagonistic to the Reformation of Luther. The circumstances were
different, and Luther attacked the attitude of the English reformers,
who desired a slow change in church administration and a gradual
purification of the ecclesiastical atmosphere. The difference of
opinion called out a fierce attack by Henry VIII on Luther, which gave
the king the title of "Defender of the Faith."
The real beginning of the Reformation in England was a revolt from the
papacy by the English king for political reasons. England established
a national church, with the king at its head, and made changes in the
church government and reformed abuses. The national, or Anglican,
Church once formed, the struggle began, on the one hand, between it and
the Catholic Church, and on the other, at a later date, against
Puritanism. The Anglican Church was not fully established until the
reign of Elizabeth.
The real spirit of the Reformation in England is best exhibited in the
rise of Puritanism, which received its impulse largely from the
Calvinistic branch of the Reformation. The whole course of the
Reformation outside of the influence of the new learning, or humanism,
was of a political nature. The {388} revolt from Rome was prompted by
political motives; the Puritan movement was accompanied with political
democracy. The result was to give great impetus to constitutional
liberty, stimulate intellectual activity, and to declare for freedom of
conscience in religious matters. Yet it was a long way from complete
religious toleration and the full establishment of the rights and
liberties of the people.
_Many Phases of Reformation in Other Countries_.--The Reformation in
Spain was crushed by the power of the church, which used the weapon of
the Inquisition so effectively. In Italy the papal power prevailed
almost exclusively. In the Netherlands we find almost complete
conversion to Protestantism, and in the other northern countries we
find Protestantism prevailing to a great extent. Indeed, we shall find
between the north and the south an irregular line dividing
Protestantism from Catholicism, in the north the former predominating,
in the south the latter. In France a long, severe struggle between
Catholicism and Protestantism took place. It was combined with the
struggle of political factions, and led to bitter, hard oppression. In
fact, the Reformation varied in different countries according to the
political, social, and intellectual state of each. Interesting as the
history of these countries is, it is not necessary to follow it to
determine the spirit and results of the Reformation.
_Results of the Reformation Were Far-Reaching_.--The results of the
Reformation interest us in this discussion far more than its historical
progress. In the first place, we shall find, as the primary result,
that the northern nations were separated from the power of Rome and the
great ecclesiastical power that the papacy possessed was broken. It
could no longer maintain its position of supremacy throughout the
world. Although it still was powerful, especially in Italy and
Austria, it could no longer rest its assumption on absolute authority,
but must demonstrate that power by intrigue and political prowess in
order to cope with the nations of Europe. In the second place, there
was a development of political liberty. The nations had freed {389}
themselves from the domination and imperial power of the church, and
were left alone to carry on their own affairs and develop their
national freedom. But there was something more in the development of
the Reformation than those things which made for religious liberty. To
the desire of freedom of the mind in religious belief the desire for
freedom in political life had joined itself, and we shall find that the
Reformation everywhere stirred up a desire for political liberty. The
fires of freedom, thus lighted, never went out, but slowly burned on
until they burst out in the great conflagration of the French
Revolution. Political liberty, then, was engendered and developed in
the hearts of men and nations.
Again, the foundation of religious toleration was laid by the
Reformation, although it was not yet secured, for it must be maintained
that even Luther was as persistent and dogmatic in his own position, as
intolerant of the beliefs of other people, as was the papal authority
itself. Convinced that he was right, he recognized no one's right to
differ from his opinion, even though he himself had revolted from the
authority of the church. He showed his bigotry and lack of tolerance
in his treatment of Zwingli, of Calvin, and of Erasmus. Most of the
early reformers, indeed, were intolerant of the opinions of others; the
development of religious toleration has been a very slow process, not
only in Europe but in America. The many and various phases of the
Reformation nevertheless made as a whole for religious toleration.
When in the Reformation in Germany it was decided at the religious
peace of Augsburg that Catholics and Protestants should have the same
privileges, only one division of Protestants was recognized, and that
was the Lutheran division. Calvinists were entirely excluded. It was
not until the peace of Westphalia in 1648, which closed the great
struggle known as the Thirty Years' War, that all denominations were
recognized upon the same basis. The struggle for religious toleration
in England is a history in itself, and it was not until the last
century that it might be said that toleration really existed {390} in
the United Kingdom, for during two centuries or more there was a state
religion supported by revenues raised by taxing the people, although
other churches were tolerated.
Another great result of the Reformation was the advancement of
intellectual progress. All progress rests primarily upon freedom of
the mind, and whatever enhances that freedom has a tendency to promote
intellectual progress. The advancement of language and letters, of
philosophy and science, and of all forms of knowledge, became rapid on
account of this intense activity of the mind. The revival of learning
received a new impulse in the development of man's spiritual nature--an
impulse which was felt throughout the entire world. In this respect
the Reformation was far-reaching in its consequences. The church no
longer assumed the sole power to think for the people.
Again, it may be said that the Reformation improved man's material
progress. The development of the independent individual life brought
about strength of character, industry, and will force, which, in turn,
built up material affairs and made great improvements in the economic
conditions of man. Everywhere that Protestantism prevailed there was a
rapid increase of wealth and better economic conditions. Trade and
commerce improved rapidly, and the industrial life went through a
process of revolution. Freedom upon a rational basis always brings
about this vital prosperity, while despotism suppresses the desires of
man for a better economic life. So we shall find that intellectual and
material progress followed everywhere in the course of the Reformation,
while those states and nations over which the papal authority retained
its strongest hold began to decline in intellectual power and material
welfare. Such was the force of the Reformation to renovate and
rejuvenate all which it touched. It made possible the slow evolution
of the independence of the common man and established the dignity of
labor.
Finally, let it be said that the Reformation caused a
counter-reformation within the Catholic Church. For many years {391}
there was an earnest reform going on within the Romanist Church.
Abuses were corrected, vices eradicated, the religious tone of church
administration improved, and the general character of church polity
changed in very many ways. But once having reformed itself, the church
became more arbitrary than before. In the Council of Trent, in clearly
defining its position, it declared its infallibility and absolute
authority, thus relapsing into the old imperial regime. But the
Reformation, after all, was the salvation of the Roman Church, for
through it that church was enabled to correct a sufficient number of
abuses to regain its power and re-establish confidence in itself among
the people.
The Reformation, like the Renaissance, has been going on ever since it
started, and we may say to-day that, so far as most of the results are
concerned, we are yet in the midst of both.
SUBJECTS FOR FURTHER STUDY
1. Needed reforms in the church and why they failed.
2. Enumerate the causes that led to the Reformation prior to Luther.
3. Compare the main characteristics in the Reformation in the
following countries: Germany, England, Switzerland, and France.
4. What were the characteristics of the Genevan system instituted by
John Calvin?
5. The results of the Reformation on intellectual development,
political freedom, scientific thought, and, in general, on human
progress.
6. The effect of the Reformation on the character and policy of the
Romanist Church (Catholic).
7. What was the nature of the quarrels of Henry IV and Gregory VII, of
Innocent III and John of England, of Boniface and Philip the Fair?
[1] _Theologia Germania_, generally accredited to Tauler, but written
by one of his followers.
[2] _The Holy Roman Empire_, p. 327.
[3] _History of Civilization_, vol. I, pp. 255-257.
[4] Recent writers emphasize the economic and national causes, which
should be added to this list.
[5] Luther sent his ninety-five theses to Archbishop Albert of Mainz.
[6] Luther had many friends In the diet. Also he was in his own
country before a German national assembly. Huss was in a foreign
country before a church assembly.
{392}