The period occupied by the great movement known as the Protestant Reformation stands identified, for the most part, with the period which marks the transition from the mediaeval to the modern era in European history. Taken within its narrowest limits, it may be looked upon as commencing with the year 1517 and as finding a certain consummation with the year 1545. In the former year Luther's theses, published at Wittenberg, represent the commencement of that direct and open renunciation of mediaeval doctrine which he initiated; in the latter year the assembling of the council of Trent marks the renewed sanction and promulgation of that doctrine whereby an insuperable barrier was erected between the communion of Rome and the churches of Protestantism. From that time each communion possessed its distinctive organiza-tion and formulary of faith, and the struggles which subsequently took place between Romanism and Protestantism represent, not attempts to bring about or to resist reform (whether of discipline or of doctrine), but endeavours on the part of both communions to bring about, if possible, the extinction of the opposed form of faith.

But, although the contest which Luther initiated had, long before his death, resulted in complete and irreparable rupture between the contending parties, it is certain that in order to understand the true nature and origin of that contest we must go back to events long anterior to 1517; while in order fully to estimate itJ effects we must follow the history of events long after 1545. In Germany, for example, the Beforniation can hardly be regarded as finding even a formal consummation before the peace of Augsburg (1555); in Switzerland the movement went on with important modifications down to the death of Calvin in 1564 ; in France the onward progress was not materially checked before the massacre on the eve of St Bartholomew (1572); in Bohemia its independent and peculiar fortunes found a final solution only with the battle of the White Hill in 1620; while in England and in Scotland, in the Netherlands, in Scandinavia, in Italy and in Spain, the movement assumed so much variety of character, and was decided by circumstances of time and place of so different a kind, that its essential features often become merged and almost lost in their combination with other and altogether extraneous elements.

Its three Nor are the considerations arising out of diversities of phases.
race, divergencies of political interests, and varied issues the only difficulties which attach to any attempt to treat the movement as a whole. We must also bear in mind the very different conceptions of the end to be attained which at successive stages of its history have modified its teaching and its organization, and eventually in a great measure determined its geographical limits. These conceptions may be distinguished as those involving (1) a reform of discipline, (2) a reform of doctrine, (3) a modifica-tion of the current dogmatic teaching. Of these three dis-tinct conceptions the first, taking its rise in the generally admitted corrupt practice of the Eoman Church, aimed at little more than a restoration of discipline,—a reform of morals, that is to say, among the clergy and the mon-astic orders, and the abolition of those various abuses which had grown up under the lax administration and baneful examples of successive popes and of the Curia; the second, although demanding a reform of doctrine as well as of discipline, sought simply to restore what was believed to be the teaching of the primitive as opposed to the mediaeval church; while the third, guided in the first instance rather by an only half-conscious instinct than by any avowed standard of belief, sought eventually to establish the right of private judgment, to the almost entire repudiation of authority, whether as expressed in the decrees of councils, in the confessions of the Reformed churches, or in the creed of Trent. And it is from this last point of view that the Reformation has gradually come to be regarded as a new commencement rather than as a restoration of belief,—as a point of departure towards a higher and more enlightened faith rather than as a return to an ancient, imperfectly ascertained, and possibly obsolete standard.

But, by whichever of these aims the movement in favour of reformation was guided, the dominant conception has not unfrequently operated quite independently of the other two. Demands for reform of discipline not unfrequently resulted in disunion where disagreement with respect to doctrine did not exist. The further definition of already accepted doctrine, again, even when made in connexion with some minor article of belief and involving but an almost imperceptible divergence of interpretation, often proved productive of a serious schism where in questions of discipline there was perfect unanimity. The right of private judgment, when urged in contravention of any of the newly formulated standards of discipline or belief, involved an equally decisive rupture with those who recognized only the traditional sources of doctrine. It is evident, therefore, that the Beformation, when regarded from a fairly comprehensive point of view, must appear as a highly complex movement carrying in itself the ele-ments of further controversy and conflict. Even the theory which would seem to aJbrd the most satisfactory solution of its varied phenomena—that which teaches us to look upon it as a Teutonic revolt, intellectual no less than re-ligious, against the traditions which the Latin Church in the course of centuries had invented and imposed on the faith and habits of thought of Western Christendom— often fails us as a clue to its widely different manifesta-tions, and other disturbing causes seem to forbid the effort to refer them to any general principle. The character and policy of the reigning Boman pontiff, the jealousies and divergent interests of the several European states and the special aims of their several rulers, the spell which imperial institutions and traditions long continued to exercise over the minds of all but the most advanced and independent thinkers, are all important factors in the movement. If, however, we endeavour to assign the causes which pre-vented the Beformation from being carried even to but partial success long prior to the l6th century, we can have no difficulty in deciding that foremost among them must be placed the manner in which the mediaeval mind was fettered by a servile regard for precedent. To the men of the Middle Ages, whether educated or uneducated, no measure of reform seemed defensible which appeared, in the light of an innovation. Brecedent was the standard whereby every authority, lay or clerical, was held to bt bound; and to this rule the only exceptions were a general council and the supreme pontiff. Even Gregory IX. or Clement V., when he assumed to promulgate additions to the existing code of the Universal Church, was understood to do so simply in his capacity of infallible expounder of essential and unalterable doctrine; while no reform, how-ever seemingly expedient or however recommended by its abstract merits, was held to be justifiable if it could be shown to be in conflict with ancient and authoritative tradition. The Beformers themselves always maintained that the doctrines which they enforced rested on Scriptural precedent and primitive example. Their assertion was frequently challenged by their antagonists ; and it may reasonably be doubted whether even Luther or Calvin could have commanded any considerable following had not their doctrinal teaching been combined with a demand for a reformation of discipline which rested on undeniable precedent, and to which the circumstances of the time imparted new and irresistible force,—a force, however, which had been long accumulating and had been derived in no small measure from the blind obstinacy of the Boman see in times long antecedent.

The existence long before the 16th century of a strong Desire desire to bring about a reformation of discipline within the for re-
church itself is attested by evidence which, it will suffice j°rm 0
disci'
to pass by with little more than an allusion. Among the piine. most notable instances are those afforded by the rise of the Dominican and Franciscan orders in the 13th century and of the Brethren of St Jerome (or the Brethren of the Common Life) in the 14th century,—efforts based upon general conviction, which resulted in spontaneous combina-tions. Similar in origin, though more strictly ecclesi-astical in character, were the designs of the great councils which successively assembled at Pisa (1409), at Constance (1414), and at Basel (1431). Among those who were dis-tinguished in these assemblies by their strenuous advocacy of reform, Pierre d'Ailly and his pupil Jean Charlier de Gerson, both successively chancellor of the university of Paris, and Nicholas de Clemenges, archdeacon of Bayeux, were especially conspicuous. Each alike upheld in the plainest language the superiority of a general council to the pope, and the obligation that rested on such a body to address itself to the task of church reform whenever the necessity might arise, and the supreme pontiff himself be found either incapable of such a labour or unwilling to initiate it. Of the widespread necessity for such reform, as shown by the condition of the clergy and the monasteries, the remarkable treatise by Nicholas de Clemenges, -De Corrupto Ecdesise Statu, affords alone sufficient evidence. By Michelet this powerful tractate has been compared, for its vigour and the effect which it produced, to the De Captivitate Ecclesix Babylonica of Luther; and it is a striking proof of the deep-rooted corruption of the whole church that such flagrant abuses should have continued to exist for another century with little or no abatement.

Cleinenges deplores in the strongest terms the state of the church in his day,—a condition of appalling degeneracy, which he ascribes mainly to the increase in wealth and luxury that had followed upon the development of a worldly spirit in its midst. His strictures leave no order or degree of either the ecclesiastical or the monastic life untouched,—the overwhelming ostentation of the Curia; the pride and rapacity of the cardinals, their immorality and addiction to simony ; the prevalence of the same vices among the episcopal order, filled with beardless youths, who, scarcely liberated from the dread of the schoolmaster's ferule, hastened to assume the pastoral office; the lower clergy in general so sunk in vice and sloth that scarcely one in a thousand (" vix inter mille unus ") was to be found living a godly and sober life; the nunneries, which he declares were brothels rather than sanctuaries (" non dico Dei sanctuaria, sed Veneris execranda prostibula "). We can feel no surprise at finding that in the 16th century Clement VII. thought it necessary to place this burning-diatribe by a great doctor of the church in the Index Ex-purgatorms. A few years later we find the evils to which Clemenges called attention emphasized by one of the most eminent ecclesiastics of the age, — the cardinal Julian Cesarini, when he was endeavouring to dissuade Pope Eugenius IV. from his design of dissolving the council of Basel (see POPEDOM, vol. xix. p. 502). In this letter he affirms that so strongly is popular feeling stirred against the clergy by their neglect of their duties and scandalously immoral lives that there is reason to fear that, if some remedy be not devised, the whole fabric of the Roman Church may be overturned.

The complete failure of these successive efforts to bring about any comprehensive measure of church reform is a familiar fact in European history. And not only were the evils which it was sought to abolish suffered to continue with but little abatement, but dissent even from the recog-nized discipline of the church was placed under a ban, and made, in common with dissent from doctrine, an offence punishable with the severest penalties. The mediaeval theory of the Boman hierarchy had indeed been reaffirmed by Eugenius IV. and his successors with a success which seemed almost to preclude the possibility of its ever being again challenged. But the main point here to be noted is that in none of these several efforts in the direction of reform, whether resulting from conciliar or popular action, was the doctrine of the church once called in question. The fate that overtook John Huss and Jerome of Prague appears to have been very generally regarded as a neces-sary example of just rigour in the suppression of heresy. We find, accordingly, that, when in the following century it was sought to associate the efforts of the reformers in the direction of doctrinal change with the efforts of a party within the church itself in the direction of disciplinary reform, the defenders of the traditional Catholic faith challenged the assumed precedent and altogether denied the parallel. "It is," wrote Bossuet in the 17th century, "an obvious illusion; for among all the passages which they adduce there is not one in which those teachers have ever dreamed of changing the belief of the church, of amending its worship, which consisted chiefly in the sacrifice of the mass, or of overthrowing the authority of her prelates and especially that of the pope, all which was the primary design of this new reformation of which Luther was the Task architect."2 It is not easy to gainsay the reasonableness of Re- of Bossuet's criticism. It was the fundamental theory of oimers. ^e Reformat}on that it involved the setting.aside of the development given in mediaeval times to tne doctrines and teaching of the early church, and proposed to substitute for these a totally different interpretation, which rejected the successive decisions of councils and popes as arbitrary and erroneous. Such a theory, however, necessarily im-posed on the Beformers the task of proving the validity of their own position, by showing that their repudiation of a practice and of precedents which had been accepted for so many centuries was justified by an appeal to yet more ancient and unquestionable authority. If indeed they failed in so doing, they must look forward to sinking in the estimation of Christendom to the level of heretics, and be prepared to stand before posterity in the same category as the Arians, the Albigenses, the Lollards, and the Hussites, and those other sects which, by their un-warranted assertion of the right of private interpretation, had provoked and incurred the formal condemnation of the church. It is not within the scope of this article to attempt to estimate the justice of the theological argu-ments by which the Beformers sought to vindicate their position; but there is good reason for concluding that the argumentative powers and personal influence of Luther and Calvin would have failed, just as the efforts of preceding reformers had failed, in effecting the desired result, had not the conditions and circumstances of the age been such as to lend new force to the arguments which they urged in favour of a fundamental change in the standpoint of religious faith.

The most notable feature in connexion with traditional belief which challenges our attention at the commence-ment of the 16th century is the manner in which the popedom was becoming less and less in harmony with the spirit of the age, and with those new forces which were now developing in the midst of Teutonism. The intoler-ance of the church in the repression of heresy had become more pronounced and was pressing with increasing rigour on free thought, when, owing to the influences of the New Learning, that thought was everywhere on the point of seeking to break through the traditional trammels; the corruption of the Curia and of both the regular and the secular clergy, the extension of the temporal power of the pontiffs in Italy, and the extortion of their emissaries in other countries had reached a climax just as, owing to the more independent spirit generated by the consolidation of the nationalities, the ruler and the people in each kingdom or principality were becoming increasingly impatient of the existence of such abuses. A brief consideration of these several features becomes, accordingly, quite indis-pensable, if we wish rightly to comprehend the forces at work in Europe at the time when the Beformers arose to combine them and give them more definite direction.

Not a few, and some very memorable, efforts had been Efforts made before the 16th century to bring about a reformation for re" of doctrine, but these had almost invariably been promptly ^J™,.^ visited with the censure of the church. Long after the " heresies " of the 4th century had died away and after the controversies of the turbulent 9th century—such as those on the Eucharist between Paschasius Badbertus and Batramnus, and on predestination between John Scotus Erigena and Gottschalk—had been silenced by the decisions of the pontiffs, we find movements arising, which, how-ever much they differ in other characteristics, all attest the existence of a widespread desire among large sections of the community to revert to a simpler form of religious belief and practice. The Paulicians (or Manichseans of the East), the Albigenses (or Manichaeans of the West), the Waldenses, the Cathari, and the Leonists (or Poor Men of Lyons)—sects which made their appearance mainly in the 12th and 13th centuries, and for the most part in Switzerland, Languedoc, and northern France—the Lollards in England and the Hussites in Bohemia, may-be looked upon as the ancestors in faith of the Huguenots and the Puritans of after-times, and were all more or less characterized by an aversion to the Boman ritual, to splendid churches, to crosses and crucifixes, combined with a more definite denial of such doctrines as that of baptismal regeneration, of transubstantiation, of masses for the dead, and of the obligation to observe Lent. The ultimate fate of these different sects was singularly similar. Of their earlier history, indeed, we have but few memo-rials, for their records, if-any existed, have mostly perished; and, as with their prototypes in the earlier Christian centuries, it became almost necessarily their policy to avoid all external demonstrations which would be likely to arrest the attention of the world. An inquisitor of the 13th century, when describing the Leonists (c. 1250), whom he speaks .of as both the most, ancient and the most widely spread of the sects then existing, represents them as by no means guilty, to all external appearance, of practices which could fairly be stigmatized as blasphemous, but as wearing a great semblance of piety, as being of good repute among their neighbours, and chiefly blamable as given to speaking against the Boman Church and its clergy and thus gaining, only too easily, the ears of the laity at large. To such characteristics, however, the Albi-genses in the 12th century had presented a remarkable exception. At the commencement of the pontificate of Innocent III. (1198) his legates had found nearly the whole of the rich and prosperous territory extending from Carcassonne to Bordeaux dominated by this powerful heresy,—a form of doctrine associated, moreover, not with austerity but with voluptuousness of life, with a profound contempt for the priestly profession, and with a warm admiration for the conceptions of chivalry and the poetry of the troubadour,—a heresy enriched by the devotion of its adherents to an extent which made it far wealthier than the church itself in those regions, and before which the representatives of the Boman orthodoxy seemed threatened almost with extinction. The suppression of this heresy by Simon de Montfort is a well-known episode, and would seem to have formed the point of departure for a new and more rigorous policy on the part of the church in its dealings with like manifestations of dis-obedience. In the year 1229 the statutes of the council of Toulouse formulated, as it were, the code of persecution, and, aided by the Inquisition, which probably took its rise about the same time, supplied a new machinery for the detection and suppression of heresy. To the terrorism thus established, after the sword of De Montfort had done its work, we may fairly refer the changed characteristics of the adherents of the heresies in France, as above de-scribed, in the middle of the 13th century. Influence But, the suspicions of the church having once been _ofpoli- thoroughly roused and the secular power incited and
tic^ cuided to its task, external conformity and inoffensive life,
motives o
the mountain hamlet and the secluded valley, proved alike unavailing to avert the cruelty of the persecutor. The Cathari in Italy did not long survive the fall of the Hohenstaufens, from whom they had received effective protection and support; and it added not a little to the offence of the doctrines proclaimed by the Spiritual Franciscans, whose tenets were condemned by the council of Vienne in 1311, that, while the order had taken its rise in a spirit of protest against the corruptions of the Curia, its members were known to be ready to favour and aid by all the means in their power the restoration of the imperial ascendency in Italy. The Spiritual Franciscans were the forerunners of the Apostolic Brethren, one of the most widely spread of the new sects, and must also be looked upon as the precursors of the Lollards. The intimate connexion between theological doctrine and political opinion that existed among the latter sect is well known. We find, accordingly, that heresy, long before Beformation times, was regarded by the papal power as associated with hostile political interests, and that a new incentive to its rigorous suppression was thus supplied.

On the other hand, the popedom itself, during the long sojourn of the pontiff's at Avignon (1309-78), became involved in a political alliance, wdiereby it alienated the sympathies of Europe at large to an extent which it was never afterwards able to regain. During that long and humiliating episode in its history the office was filled almost exclusively by Frenchmen, whose policy was con-ceived in complete subservience to that of the reigning French monarch; and the pontiff at Avignon thus came to be regarded both by the empire and in England as the pliant ally of a hostile power. During the following century it recovered much of its influence in Germany, where its pretensions were sometimes regarded not un-favourably by the electors as an equipoise to the too despotic sway of the emperor. Somewhat later we find it receiving the most efficient support from Spain. But it could never again command the same universal defer-ence in Western Christendom; and the apparently genuine devotion to its interests which may from time to time be discerned manifesting itself, now in one nation and now in another, was largely inspired by political considerations, and often dearly purchased at the expense of a corre-sponding hostility provoked among another people.

To the manner in which theological tenets, often purely speculative in their origin and innocuous in their bearing upon practice, thus came to be regarded as identified with secular questions of grave import and pressing for an immediate solution, we must rjartly attribute the jealousy with which the first symptoms of heresy were now watched for by Rome. Early in the 14th century the Fraticelli and the Apostolic Brethren, with other heretical sects, were anathematized. In the year 1324 Pope John XXII. demanded of the emperor the suppression of the Waldenses,2 who had reappeared in Lombardy; and, ably as Marsilius of Padua assailed the pretensions of the papacy, his pro-test seemed ineffectual amid the supreme humiliation of his patron, Louis of Bavaria. Driven alike from Italy and from France, the persecuted sect took refuge in Savoy and in Switzerland, and in the year 1489 the papal legate reported that their numbers were not less than 50,000. Lollardism was suppressed with unsparing hand in England; and John Sawtrey, the first of Wickliffe's followers to suffer martyrdom, was burnt to death in 1401, for refusing to worship the cross and for denial of the doctrine of transubstantiation. Fifteen years later John Huss and Jerome of Prague suffered the same fate at Constance, and the indignation excited among their fellow-countrymen, intensified as this feeling was by differences of race, gave rise to a memorable resistance, which eventually won religious freedom for the land. At the diet of Kutna Hora (Kuttenberg) in 1485 a truce was made between the Utraquists and the Catholics for thirty-two years, and the complete religious equality then established was made permanent at the diet of 1512. In England, on the other hand, the Lollard movement was almost completely extinguished. The political doctrines with "which it had become associated made it the object of suspicion alike to the ecclesiastical and to the civil power ; and Sir John

- They were not, however, known under this name ; in the 15tli and at the commencement of the 16th century they never so styled them-selves, and were rarely so styled by others. The name by which they were known among themselves was that of "The Brethren," See Ludwig Keller, Die Reformation und die alteren Reformparteien (18S5), p. 296.

Oldcastle, its chief leader, although he suffered martyrdom, altogether failed to win the popularity or the reverence which waited on the memories of the two Hussite leaders. The religious tenets of his followers were not, indeed, altogether suppressed, and continued to command a certain following down to the 16th century. As a tradition, however, they would seem to have survived in connexion with the early English Puritanism rather than with the Reformation; while between the Hussite movement and the Reformation the connexion is unquestionable and was recognized by Luther himself.

The New During the very time that the Roman pontiffs were Learning, -wielding thus effectually the weapons of bigotry and persecution against all manifestations of independent religious thought, their influence and patronage were largely given to the fostering of other influences, which ultimately proved highly favourable to that very freedom of judgment and of philosophic speculation which the Roman see has invariably sought to suppress. The relations in which the "New Learning," as it was then called, is to be found successively standing to the representatives of orthodox belief constitute an interesting and instructive study. At one time Greek had been held in reverence as the official language of the Roman Church; but, from the period when the popes were first enabled to shake off the yoke of the Eastern emperor in Italy, the use of the Greek language had been discontinued, its literature placed under a ban, and the study of both systematically discouraged in Western Chris-tendom. Then came the Renaissance; and under the patronage of pontiffs like Nicholas V. (1447-1455), and cardinals like Julian and Bessarion, Greek became as much in favour at the Curia as it had before been discredited. At first it seemed not improbable that this literary re-volution might prove a powerful aid not only in promot-ing Christian culture but in diffusing a more genuinely Christian and catholic spirit. While eminent ecclesiastics sought to bring about the reconciliation of the churches of the East and West, original thinkers like Pius II. and Maffeus Vegius put forth views on the whole subject of education which involved a decisive rupture with the traditions of medioevalism. It is unnecessary to describe the manner in which this promising future became over-clouded ; how learning in Italy became associated at once with scepticism and immorality; and how men of letters like Politian and Poggio and Bembo and Beccadelli, under the favour of pontiffs like Leo X., at once scandalized the devout and amused the fancy of the polite scholar. "This fable of Christ has been to us a source of great gain," a cardinal at the Vatican was overheard to observe. Such a tone of feeling, however, was not consonant with the spirit of the persecutor, and if the religious spirit was shocked by profanity it was less disgraced by bigotry. Earnestness of conviction was derided and disbelieved in ; and the prevalent sentiments at the Curia at the outbreak of the Beformation were those of idle and careless security. Signs, however, wore not wanting to prove to a later generation how little that false security was justifiable. Foremost among those who advocated reform and a policy of reconciliation in the first half of the 15 th century was Nicolas de Cusa, who, though German by birth, embraced with ardour the schemes projected for the regeneration of Italy and of the church at large. Neither Pius II. nor Nicholas V., who alike promoted him and honoured him, appears to have discerned the dangerous element that lurked in his bold spirit of inquiry. From Cusa, however, Laurentius Valla derived the guidance which led him on to his memorable attack on the fiction of the Donation of Constantine, and to that more general investigation of the claims of the popedom which marks the commencement of the historical scepticism which now began to develop with such startling results. To Valla succeeded Gregory of Heimburg, who exposed the papal pretensions with equal vigour, and made it for the first time apparent how formidable a weapon the New Learning might prove in the defence of those imperial and popular rights in Germany which Borne at that time contemptuously ignored. The conflict between Heimburg and Eugenius IV. foreshadowed, indeed, the greater contest between the Teutonic and the Latin power, and Heimburg has more than once been designated the prototype of Ulrich von Hutten.

In the whole history of the Reformation, and of the Political period by which it was immediately preceded, the politicalaims of relations of the popedom to the other European powers j°^e" and more especially to Germany, constitute, in fact, elements of primary importance. In the latter part of the 15th century those relations were still further em-bittered by the personal character and aims of the reigning pontiffs. At the very time when the existence of the popedom as a temporal power was menaced by the rising spirit of innovation, the reverence and sympathy of Europe were still further alienated by the spectacle of the career of Alexander VI. and of his end,—the result, it was commonly reported, of the poison which he had designed for the de-struction of another. The character of his successor, Julius II. (1503-1513), might

by the emperor Maximilian I. took place, with the object of re-establishing the imperial supremacy in Italy,—an expedition which was in some respects the counterpart of that of Charles, and to which Julius II. opposed a vacillating policy not unlike that of his predecessor. To the expedition of Maximilian succeeded the league of Cambray, designed to humble the republic of Venice, and warmly supported by Julius II. as a means whereby to gratify his resentment at the resistance offered by that pow-erful state to the encroachments of the popedom. No sooner was Venice sufficiently humiliated than Julius proceeded to concert measures for carrying out the great object of his ambition,—the expulsion of the foreigner from Italy. Never before had the aims of the papacy seemed so completely in conflict with those of every European power.

In France, Louis XII., on appealing to the representations of of the Gallican Church (council of Tours, September popedom 1510), soon found that national feeling entirely prevailed over Ultramontane sympathies, and that he might count
on their effectual support. Notwithstanding, therefore, the
remonstrances of his devout consort, Anne of Brittany,
he resolved upon a vigorous anti-papal policy. In concert
with the emperor Maximilian, he revived the long-dormant
demand for a general council; and a mimic assembly,
consisting of four cardinals, twenty Gallican prelates, cer-
tain abbots and other dignitaries, was actually convened
at Pisa in 1511. In this extremity Julius exhibited his
usual fertility of resource by organizing the Holy League,
and thus inducing Ferdinand of Aragon and the Venetians
to combine with him in opposing the designs of schismatic
France. The council, transferred to Milan, issued from
thence in April 1512 an edict suspending Julius from all
pontifical functions as a " notorious disturber of the
council, .the author of schism, contumacious, incorrigible,
hardened" (Baynaldus, sub ami.). The pontiff thereupon
excommunicated Louis XII., who rejoined by a formal
protest and by causing coins to be struck and circulated
bearing the arms of France and the ominous inscription
Perdam Babylonis nomen. In the meantime the fifth
Lateran council, the rival council convened by Julius,
commenced its sittings (May 1512), and forthwith de-
clared the acts of the assembly held at Milan to be those
of a schismatical body, while it proceeded to confirm the
papal censure on the king of France. The expulsion of
the French from Italy, after the fall of their heroic leader,
Gaston de Foix, seemed to threaten only a further widening
of the schism, when the death of Julius in 1513 opened the
door for negotiation—an opportunity of which Louis eagerly
availed himself—while the pliant disposition of the new
pontiff, Leo X. (1513-1521), afforded additional facilities
for arriving at an agreement. The French monarch now
disavowed the proceedings of the council which he had
before supported, and acknowledged the validity of the
acts of the council at the Lateran. Other points were still
under discussion when Louis died and was succeeded by
Francis I., January 1515.
with In the following year the Catholic king Ferdinand of
Castile Aragon died. The relations of Spain to the papacy during Aragon o ^lls rel8n and before that time had been very far from representing a policy of complete subserviency. By a concordat made in the year 1482 Pope Sixtus IV. had conceded to the sovereigns of Castile and Aragon the right of nominating to the higher ecclesiastical offices, although he had reserved to himself a corresponding power in con-nexion with the inferior benefices,—a privilege which soon resulted in the customary abuses and rendered the papal supremacy for a time scarcely more popular in Spain than in Germany. At nearly the same time the institution of the Inquisition in the former country is generally supposed to have first taken place (see INQUISITION),—an event which must not, however, be construed into a proof of the ascendency of papal influence. In its earlier stage the Inquisition was quite as much a civil as an ecclesiastical tribunal, being especially directed against the exclusive privileges and immunities claimed by the hereditary nobility; and, although under Cardinal Ximenes the re-pression of heresy became one of its chief functions, it was long regarded with no friendly feelings by Borne. The Boman doctrine and discipline were rigorously im-posed on the Spanish population, but Ferdinand himself showed little disposition to submit to the dictation of the Boman pontiff". In the year 1508 he sharply rebuked his viceroy, the count of Bivarzoga, for allowing a papal bull to be promulgated in the provinces without having previously obtained his sanction, and declared that if the bull were not forthwith withdrawn he would withdraw the two crowns from the obedience of the holy see. Five years later Cardinal Ximenes, in a like spirit, openly denounced the abuses that accompanied the traffic in indulgences.

The tone that Germany at this period was able to w assume was very different. The several states and princi- G palities, feebly protected by the imperial authority, which 111 could no longer be asserted as of yore, yielded an easy prey to the extortion of the papal emissaries. The national clergy, perhaps more corrupt than in any other Teutonic country, showed themselves completely subservient to the worst malpractices of Borne. It was from the laity at large that the first warning came that either reform or revolution must before long ensue. In the year 1511 a notable document, purporting to emanate from the German people at large, was laid before the emperor. Drawn up in the form of a petition, it enumerated and described the various abuses associated with the prevailing ecclesiastical practice and suggested the remedies. Fore-most among the specified grievances it placed the utter want of good faith shown by successive pontiffs in the manner in which they were accustomed altogether to dis-regard (often at the instance of most unworthy favourites) the privileges and immunities solemnly granted by their predecessors. It complained of the frequent nullifying of the elections of prelates canonically elected by their respect-ive chapters, of a like disregard for such elections even in cases where large sums had been.paid to the Curia by the chapters in order to secure the ratification of their choice, of the manner in which all the richest benefices were reserved for cardinals and proto-notaries, of the fre-quent anticipation of reversions (expeclativx gratix) and of the concentration of numerous benefices in the hands of single individuals, of the incessant lawsuits generated by these malpractices and the consequent waste of con-siderable sums both on the lawsuits themselves and on the obtaining of bulls which eventually proved inoperative, —"so that," said the petitioners, "it has become a common saying that, on obtaining a reversion from Borne, one ought to lay by one or two hundred gold pieces wherewith to defend the actions to which the maintenance of one's rights will infallibly give rise." Other matters of complaint were the frequency with which annates were demanded; the bestowal of livings on those utterly in-competent for the discharge of their duties,—"fitter," in fact, "to be muleteers than to be the instructors of their fellow-men"; the frequent issuing of new indulgences and revocation of the old, notwithstanding the repeated re-monstrances of the laity; the levying of tenths under pre-text of an expedition against the Turks when no such expedition was designed ; and the petition closed with the complaint, which had been rife almost ever since the days of Hilary of Aries, of the continual summoning of suits

to Rome which could be as satisfactorily and far more promptly decided before the national tribunals. Attitude While the popular feeling in Germany was being thus of Ger- effectually alienated from the papal see, the learning of learning Germany was also pursuing that ominous track, first delineated by Gregory of Heiinburg, which marks its com-plete divergence from the Italian humanism. The names of Johann von Goch (d. 1475), Johann Wessel (d. 1489), Johann Reuchlin (d. 1522), and Erasmus stand associated, although in different ways,._with a great movement which, by attacking at once the doctrine and the discipline of the church, opened up the way for Luther. Goch and Wessel were among the first to give systematic form to the opposi-tion to the existing ecclesiastical system, and their criticism included both popes and councils as ultimate authorities in matters of faith. They inveighed with especial force against the doctrines of indulgences, veneration of saints, and purgatory, and they denied that confession, the Lord's Supper, and extreme unction were to be regarded as sacraments of divine institution. During the years 1511 to 1516 Reuchlin carried on a memorable struggle against the monks of Cologne in defence of the New Learning and of improved canons of textual criticism. In the year 1516 Erasmus put forth the first edition of his Novum Instrumentum. Side by side with these more elaborate efforts there was going on another literary movement which in its influence on the popular mind was not less consider-able. Ever since the days of the early Lollards satire had been found a not altogether ineffectual weapon in assailing those abuses in the church which argument and remon-strance seemed powerless to reform. The Praise of Folly, from the pen of Erasmus, which appeared in 1511, seconded the graver efforts of Reuchlin, and successfully held up to ridicule those monastic orders of whose greed and dull obstructive activity Germany was already so weary. But even this brilliant effort paled in its effects when compared with the Epistolx, Obscurorum Virorum, which appeared in 1515-16. These letters, of which Ulrich von Hutten and his friend Crotus Bubianus were the principal authors, were a series of broadly humorous fabrications, purporting to be written by members of the obscurantist party them-selves. A more skilful mode of exposing the ignorance and imbecility of thought which characterized the average intelligence of the monks of those days could hardly have been devised; and the success of the artifice appeared complete when it became known that certain stolid monks had been led to approve the volume and even aid in its circulation as a genuine and valid defence of the views which they upheld.





These effective demonstrations, it is to be noted, were not merely the outcome of that widespread discontent above described, but resemble rather a series of sparks elicited by immediate contact between the German mind and Borne; and it is of no little interest to mark the effect produced on three of the most eminent representatives of the new movement by their visit, within a few years of each other, to the capital and by the contempla-tion of the splendour of the Curia and the moral degrada-Visit to tion of its members. Of these three observers the first E°m6us-WaS -^rasmus' wno vlslteCl the capital in 1506. His lively ' sense of the incongruous was not a little excited by the spectacle of the wTarlike pontiff, Julius II., whom, in his Praise of Folly, written a few years later, he describes as subverting alike the laws, peace, and religion. But Erasmus himself does not appear to have been greatly scandalized. He affects, indeed, to be somewhat uncertain wdiether it is Germany that has copied Borne or whether Borne has not rather copied a certain class of German prelates, who seem to look upon the battlefield as the fitting place where to render up their souls to God. Somewhat later, writing in a graver mood, he declares that nothing will ever efface his more pleasing recollections of the great city,—its freedom of discourse, its intellectual illumination, its works of art, its libraries, and its scholars. Four years of after Erasmus came an Augustinian monk from Erfurt, Luther; full of reverence for the traditions, the grandeur, and the sanctity of Bome. Martin Luther appears to have been less struck than was Erasmus by the unpriestly character of Julius II., who, as he admits, maintained order and watched over the sanitary condition of the Sacred City. But he was shocked beyond measure by the corruption, the profanity, and the immoral lives of the Roman clergy. The fond illusion of his monastic life was at an end; and he returned to Germany not only prepared to counsel resistance to papal extortion but shaken in his whole allegiance to the holy see. A few months after Luther of came Ulrich von Hutten. It would be difficult to select a Ulrich better representative of the temper and feeling of the higher classes in Germany at that time. To pride of birth and devotion to the New Learning he united a love of adventure which no physical suffering or misfortune seemed able to subdue, and a chivalrous spirit which could but impatiently brook the assertion of even legitimate authority. Already burning with resentment at the sys-tematic extortion to which his countrymen were subjected, his feelings were still further intensified as he listened to the contemptuous language and observed the supercilious demeanour which marked the Roman estimate of those who bore the German name. He heard from an eye-wit-ness a description of Julius II. as that pontiff had presented himself to the world at the siege of Mirandola, with "wild eye, brazen front, and threatening mien." On his return to his fatherland Hutten condensed into epigrammatic Latin verse, beside the suppressed fury of which the polished satire of Erasmus seems to pale, a description of what he had seen and heard, and denounced with terrible effect the whole system of bulls, indulgences, and other devices whereby an avaricious prelate was wringing dis-honest gains from a long-suffering nation. Few literary assailants have ever possessed a greater power of irritating an antagonist than did Ulrich von Hutten, and considera-tions of generosity or expediency rarely deterred him. It was generally expected when Leo X. ascended the pontifical throne that he would be anxious to sheathe the sword which his predecessor had wielded so vigorously, and his countrymen already hailed him as the " restorer of peace." By that epithet Hutten too vouchsafed to address him, but it was in a dedication to the pontiff of a rejjrint of Laurentius Valla's Treatise on the Donation of Constantine, and the seeming act of homage was thus artfully appended to pages exceptionally calculated to wound the papal susceptibilities.

It must, however, be admitted that the character of the German episcopate at this time was such that it scarcely of German episcopate.

appeared to advantage even when compared with that of the ecclesiastics of the Roman Curia. Its members were generally scions of princely houses, caring little for the spiritual interests of their dioceses, but delighting in field sports and martial exercises, given to building palaces for their own residence rather than to the erection of churches, and often without the slightest tincture of learning. Their primate at this time was Albert, brother of the elector of Brandenburg, archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, a young and ambitious voluptuary, caring for little but pleasure and display. On the great prelates the ex-tortion of Rome sometimes fell not less heavily than on the laity; and the archbishop, before he could receive his pallium, was called upon to pay the sum of 30,000 gulden into the papal exchequer. Leo X. was at that time intent on carrying out the great design of his predecessor, the rebuilding of St Peter's. It has been observed by Palla-vicino that the millions devoted to the erection of the material church were acquired at the cost of many more millions to the spiritual church. Leo proclaimed a fresh issue of indulgences, and the archbishop Albert was appointed his commissioner to carry out the sale in a large portion of Germany. He seized the occasion to prevail upon the pope to allow him to appropriate one half of the money collected for the indulgences in order to pay for Tetzel's his pallium. As his chief agent in the sale he imprudently cam- selected one Tetzel, a Dominican friar, whose unscrupulous-paign. negg jn gucj1 wor]j was so notorious that the papal collector at Mainz refused to employ him. In the course of his progress Tetzel came to Jiiterbogk, near Wittenberg, and his superstitious traffic and the impudent devices which he employed to cajole the people were thus brought directly under the notice of Luther. The young professor seized the opportunity of directing the attention of the university, where he was already highly popular, to the abuses associated with the sale of indulgences. He did not as yet impugn the doctrine of indulgences itself, and he expressed his conviction that their good father the pope must be altogether unaware of the extent to which such abuses were allowed to prevail. His celebrated theses were forwarded by himself to the archbishop, as well as to the elector of Saxony, his patron, and also the munificent founder of the university. The elector, who had seen with no slight dissatisfaction the manner in which his provinces were being plundered in order to pay for the extravagance of a neighbouring prelate, extended his protection to the courageous polemic, and Luther thus gained the all-precious interval of freedom from molesta-tion which enabled him to compose the memorable treatises whereby he produced such an immense effect on the minds and consciences of his countrymen. The nailing of his theses to the door of the church at WTittenberg, it is to be noted, was a very common method of procedure on the part of a university disputant; and nearly a year passed away before the events which so deeply agitated Witten-berg were recognized in their full importance by the world at large. Luther himself, indeed, in his notable letter to Leo X., written in 1518, tells us1 that, contrary to his wishes, his theses were translated into German, and circulated throughout the nation, and that his antagonists declared that he had set the world in flames. But in this language there is evidently something of exaggeration. Some two months after the appearance of Luther's theses Tetzel, by way of rejoinder, published at the university of Frankfort-on-the-Oder a hundred and six anti-theses, and these were subsequently burnt by the students of Wittenberg in the market-place. To Leo, however, the vague reports that reached Rome conveyed only the im-pression of a dispute between the two monastic orders of which Luther and Tetzel were respectively the representa-tives. He declared that Luther was a man of genius, and refused to interfere. Even Ulrich von Hutten, at that time residing not far from Wittenberg, seems to have shared in this misapprehension, and, writing to his patron, he expresses the hope that the two contending parties may eventually tear each other to pieces.

But in the course of a few months the importance of the struggle began to be more clearly apprehended. John Eck
1 Werkc, ed. 1833, i. 52& ~
of Ingoldstadt drew attention to the resemblance between Luther's the doctrines put forth in the theses and those of the relations Hussites, and at the mention of that undoubted heresy notWlth t!ie a few of Luther's supporters recoiled. His conduct was P°pe' certainly not wanting in astuteness, however genuine his enthusiasm. In 1518 he republished his theses, with addi-tions and explanations, under the title of Solutions. Like Hutten, he selected the supreme pontiff himself as the person to whom he dedicated the treatise. In the letter of dedication (the letter above referred to) he professes to make his unqualified submission to him whom he addresses, and at the same time endeavours to exculpate himself for thus republishing the theses. Notwithstanding the popular form, the vernacular language, in which they had already appeared, they were still so encumbered with the techni-calities of the schools that he could not conceive how they _ could be intelligible to the laity at large ("sic editas ut mihi incredibile sit eas ab omnibus intelligi"). He was therefore anxious, with the pontiff's sanction and approval, to republish them in a form less liable to misinterpretation. If, however, that sanction were withheld, he could only bow-to Leo's decision as to that of God's vicegerent on earth (" vocem tuam vocem Christi in te prassidentis et loquentis agnoscam "). While Luther was thus labouring under mis-apprehension, affected or real, with respect to the kind of doctrinal teaching that was likely to find favour in Bome, it would seem that Leo himself was very imperfectly informed regarding the state of feeling in Germany. The conditions which moulded his political action and his personal sympathies alike tended to distract his attention from the events which had recently been occurring in Saxony. The representative of a princely house, well versed in European affairs and in questions of statecraft, gifted with more than an ordinary share of Italian subtlety and powers of dissimulation, he was well qualified to cope with the difficulties by which he found himself surrounded. But his aims, chief among which was his desire to establish his brother Julian on the throne of Naples, were directed more to family aggrandizement than to national unit}'. They ran strongly counter to the growth of Spanish influ-ence, while with that stern policy which guided the rule of Ximenes, dictated by the desire to restore mediaeval doctrine and discipline and to suppress heresy, he had no sympathy. The ecclesiastic was almost lost in the patron of the arts, the urbane and polished scholar and voluptuary, the admirer of wit and epigram. In politics it was his main purpose to trim the balance between France and Spain; in church matters it was chiefly to stifle contro-versy. So indifferent was he to German affairs, and so little cognizant of the state of feeling among the people, that at the very moment when irritation at the extortion of his emissaries was at its height, and the fraudulent nature of that extortion had been thus ably exposed by Luther, he conceived it to be a suitable time for levying a contribution throughout the empire under pretext of an expedition against the Turks. The proposal roused a spirit of opposition even among the clergy themselves; and one of their number, a prebendary at Würzburg, issued a mani-festo, in the form of a pamphlet, in which he roundly de-clared that the true Turks were to be found in Italy. This pamphlet fell into Luther's hands, and with the instinct of genius he recognized the opportunity afforded by such a state of feeling for an appeal to a wider audience than he had hitherto addressed. He now took his stand as the de-nouncer both of abuses in the matter of discipline and of the extortion and oppression under which his countrymen laboured. And from that day to the day of his death he filled a place in their affection and esteem to which no other of their leaders could make pretence. The turning-point in his public career is marked by his appearance at Augsburg before the papal legate Cajetan and his subsequent flight from the city. In the disputation at Leipsic he could go so far as to repudiate the divine institution of the papacy and even pronounce against the infallibility of councils. He was still further confirmed in his doctrinal divergence by the influence of Melanchthon, who now began to call in question the doctrine of transubstantiation; and Valla's Treatise on the Donation of Constantine, with which he first became acquainted in February 1520, would seem to have dispelled the last v.estige of doubt in his mind with respect to the essential falsity of the claims of the papacy to temporal power. The contrast now presented by the tone and language of his writings to that of his letter to Leo, written two years before, is startling. In the month of April 1520 appeared his discourse De Libertate Christiana, inveighing against the abuses of the Curia and referring to Leo himself in terms of open irony. To this succeeded in tho following August his appeal, written in the vernacular German, "To the Christian nobility of the German nation," wherein he frankly confesses that his reliance is upon none of the ecclesiastical orders, but upon the newly-elected young emperor and the nobles ; and he reiterates his demand for a general council,—one that shall be really free, bound by no arbitrary canons, and holding its deliberations free from papal control. This again was succeeded in the ensuing October by his treatise on The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, wherein he examines, and for the most part repudiates, the sacramental theories of the mediseval church. The cause which he advocated now began to assume genuinely European proportions. From Nuremberg came an effective tribute from the youth-ful meistersanger Hans Sachs to the "Wittenberg Night-ingale," one of the earliest efforts of his genius. Ulrich von Hutten, at length perceiving the true character of the contest, followed up the address to the German nobility by translating into the vernacular his own treatise To Germans of every Class, and owing to his persuasions the powerful and chivalrous free knight Franz von Sickingen hastened to declare himself an uncompromising supporter of the Lutheran movement. Together they already dis-cussed plans which included nothing less than the estab-lishment of a national church altogether independent of Rome, with the archbishop of Mainz as its primate. The danger that menaced the Roman see could now no longer be disguised; and in June 1520 Leo fulminated his bull of excommunication against Luther. On the 8th of the following July he addressed a letter to Frederick of Saxony in which he deplores that he can no longer speak of Luther as a son. He feels certain that the elector will prove loyal to the church, although he does not disguise the fact that he has heard of his friendship for the heretical leader and that the latter relies on his support. He has ordered the bull to be circulated among the nobility of Saxony, and he feels equally assured that he may reckon on their assistance in extinguishing this "incendiary conflagration." As for Luther himself, he denounces him as one who is seeking to revive the heresies of the Waldenses, the Hussites, and the Bohemians, and who, by the manner in which he has condemned the burning of heretics, has clearly shown that he sympathizes with the Turks and aims at the destruction of the true church.

The bull of excommunication, along with numerous volumes of the decretals, was burnt by Luther himself at Wittenberg in the following December,—a proceeding by which he formally intimated his repudiation of the decrees and canons of the church. Such a measure necessarily roused the opposition of those learned bodies by whom the canon law was taught and elaborated, and on 21st April 1521 the university of Paris condemned as "heretical, schismatical, impious, and blasphemous " more than a hun-dred propositions extracted from Luther's writings; while, skilfully following up the line of attack indicated by the supreme pontiff, they enlarged upon the view that Luther-anism was little more than a specious reproduction of errors long ago proscribed and exploded. The university at the same time decreed that Luther's writings should be burnt; and the sentence was subsequently carried into effect in most of the capitals of Europe. In London the ceremony was performed at Paul's Cross on the 12th May, and Bishop Fisher in his sermon on the occasion declared that Luther by burning the decretals had made it clear that he would not have hesitated to bum the pope himself had the latter been in his power.

The Reformation in England had, however, already com- Beforma-menced, and its origin must be looked upon as in a greattion ™ measure independent of the Lutheran movement; as in En6'lan(i' Germany, it had been preceded by a kindred movement, an endeavour to bring about a reform of discipline. The nation was not compelled, as in Italy, to witness the cor-ruptions of the papal court, nor were the laity equally oppressed with the people of Germany by imposts and exactions of every kind. But the unsparing extortion practised by Wolsey's agents after his appointment as legatus a latere was severely resented, and appeared all the more grievous when contrasted with that immunity from arbitrary taxation which it was the Englishman's special boast to inherit as his birthright; and the arbitrary pro-cedure of the ecclesiastical courts and the licentious lives of the clergy were the subjects of loud and continual com-plaint. In the year 1514 the notable case of Bichard Hunne roused popular indignation to the highest pitch. He had been so bold as to resist what he regarded as an unjust exaction of mortuary fees, by pleading in the eccle-siastical court that the action brought against him was un-lawful by the Statute of Praemunire,—a plea which virtually raised the whole question of benefit of clergy. Hunne was committed to the Lollards' Tower and was shortly after found dead,—murdered, as it was popularly believed, by the contrivance of the chancellor of the bishop of London. The case gave rise to a fierce legal controversy, in which the authority of an Act of Parliament was opposed by the precedents established by a decretal of the church. It was followed by the memorable trial of Dr Standish (1515), by which the question of the royal supremacy was distinctly raised, and Henry himself not improbably led to conceive that theory of his legitimate authority in matters ecclesiastical which was afterwards attended with such important results. The state of discipline among the clergy at large was but little, if any, better than in Ger-many, and their addiction to secular pursuits and plea-sures, their covetousness, ambition, and licentiousness are attested not only by satirists like Roy and Skelton, but by grave and temperate censors such as Dean Colet, Arch-bishop Warham, Bishop Fisher, and Sir Thomas More, and form the subject of their earnest remonstrance and appeals for reform. Wolsey himself, than whom no states-man more clearly discerned the tendencies of the age, was especially anxious to raise the reputation of the whole body for learning and exemplary lives, and it was with this view that he founded Cardinal College (afterwards Christ Church) at Oxford, and invited some of the most promising young scholars at Cambridge to become instruc-tors within its walls.

It is also in connexion with the two universities that we meet with the first indications of a reformation of doctrine. During the years 1511-14 Erasmus had filled the post of Lady Margaret professor of divinity at Cam-bridge, and the publication of his Novum Instrumentum in 1516 was directly the outcome of his labours during that period. Thomas Bilney, the martyr, a member of Trinity Hall and one of the most eminent of the Beformers, expressly attributes his conversion to the influence of Erasmus's New Testament. Around Bilney there gathered a little band of Cambridge scholars,—Shaxton, Crome, Skip, Bogers, Lambert, Heynes, Taverner, Parker, and others. It was their custom to meet together at an inn known by the sign of the "White Horse." In the first instance, their attention was chiefly given to the Scriptures themselves, but subsequently to the writings of Luther. The inn then began to be styled " Germany" by their enemies; and such would appear to be the first commencement of the Beformation in England. That commencement was illustrated by an incident which not a little resembles the better-known incident associated with the career of Luther. On the appearance of the papal proclamation of indulgences in 1517 a copy had been affixed to the gate of the common schools in the university. The same night a young Norman student, of the name of Peter de Valence, wrote over the proclamation a few Latin words denouncing the theory of indulgences as a supersti-tion. He was forthwith summoned to appear before the vice-chancellor in order to account for his conduct, and on failing to do so was formally excommunicated. Henry In the month of January 1519 the emperor Maximilian I. VIII., died, and the imperial dignity, declined by Frederick of frTnd Saxony, descended to Charles V. Of the three monarchs Charles wno lla<l aspired to this supreme honour Henry VIII. was V. now in his twenty-ninth year, Francis I. in his twenty-sixth, and Charles V. in his nineteenth. The English monarch, at this time both zealous and devout, was eager to give some proof of his loyalty to the Catholic Church, and had he occupied the place of Charles the career of Luther would probably have been soon arrested. The great Reformer owed his safety at this critical period mainly to the armed chivalry of Germany, which rallied ominously to his support. On no occasion was its presence more sensibly felt than at the diet of Worms (May 1521). The memorable edict (see LUTHER), signed on the same day as that on which the pope and the young emperor concluded their compact for the reconquest of Milan from the French, marks the crown-ing triumph of the policy of Leo and Alexander. But Charles, who looked upon Luther as a means of bringing pressure to bear upon the pontiff which might prove useful in a future emergency, was determined not to surrender the bold professor, for the present, to his enemies. To Henry, who was influenced by no such secular considera-tions, Luther's contumacy appeared to call for authorita-tive rebuke in every land; and in July 1521 he produced, in reply to the treatise on The Babylonian Captivity, his Defence of the Sacraments. The book passed rapidly through several editions, was translated into German, and, to quote the expression of Cochlceus, " filled the whole Christian world with joy and admiration." Such an effort from such a quarter called for distinguished recognition. Francis was already styled the eldest son of the church. The imperial dignity presupposed a not less conspicuous fidelity. The titles of " Most Christian " or " Most Catho-lic " could not accordingly be vouchsafed to the English monarch. He was therefore rewarded with the newly-coined title of " Defender of the Faith." Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher both imitated their royal master's example by also compiling a tractate in reply to Luther; but the Beformer, in his rejoinder to the royal polemic, called its author a fool and designated him the "Pharaoh of England."

The death of Leo X. in 1521 was coincident with an im- Eventsin portant crisis in Italian history. Milan had been wrested Italy> from the French by the allied papal and imperial forces, lo21"26-and the realization of that scheme of national unity and independence for which he and his predecessor had laboured seemed no longer a dream of the future. In the midst of his exultation—partly, it is said, as the result of it—Leo died, and seldom in the annals of the papacy had an elec-tion to the office been attended with equal interest and excitement. Wolsey eventually was out-manceuvred by the imperial party, and the emperor's former preceptor, the irreproachable, austere, and rigidly devout Adrian (VI.) of Utrecht (1522-1523) succeeded to the papal chair. After a few months' tenure of the office he too gave place to another, and the house of Medici was again represented in the person of Clement VII. (1523-1534). In this election Wolsey was again a candidate, and a second time he had reason to believe that he owed his defeat to the emperor, an injury which he never forgave. In not a few respects Clement was admirably qualified to cope with the diffi-culties by which he found himself surrounded. He had been at once the most trusted and the ablest of Leo's advisers; his attainments and experience were such as in every way corresponded to the requirements of his office, for, while well versed in philosophy and theology, he had also mastered the political and ecclesiastical questions of the day, and his clear perception enabled him to grasp the essential features of his policy with remarkable skill and promptitude. His position, however, was one of extreme perplexity, alike in its diplomatic and its theological rela-tions. To no power had he and his house rendered greater services than to Spain; ever since, indeed, the pontificate of Alexander VI., the papacy had, often without designing it, been the instrument of imperial aggrandizement. With the accession of Clement, however, these relations are to be seen assuming a new phase. The election of Charles V. as emperor awoke in the proud representative of the great house of the Medici the sense of a new danger; and the prospect of Milan, Naples, and the empire being concentrated in a single hand was one which no Italian potentate could be expected to contemplate with equa-nimity. The retreat of Bourbon from Italy, on the other hand, had caused the Curia to look with altered sentiments on the policy of France; and if Clement's advice and good wishes could have availed aught the great disaster at Pavia would have been averted. The emperor was far from unaware how little he had throughout been indebted to Clement's good offices, and before he led his army into Italy had been heard to avow his intention of avenging himself "on that poltroon the pope." "Some day or other," he added, "perhaps Martin Luther may become a man of worth." The battle of Pavia (February 1525) followed, and its results seemed to threaten the overthrow of that balance of power which it was the aim of the chief leaders of the new nationalities to maintain; both WTolsey and Clement VII. alike now regarded with dismay the proportions which the power of Spain was assuming. " It is no trivial question, no single state, that is concerned in the coming contest," exclaimed Clement's minister; "this war will decide the freedom or the eternal slavery of Italy." In July 1526 the papal troops had already entered Lombardy.
Such were the circumstances under which the Clement-ine League (22d May 1526) was formed, with the general assent of the Italian states, but with the usual disregard of the state of opinion north of the Alps. But it was hardly reasonable to expect that Ferdinand of Austria would be solicitous to uphold the papal interests in Germany when the imperial interests were being thus vigorously assailed in Italy. Three months before, the sanction of the emperor had been given to the publication of certain " pro-visions " in matters of faith which had filled the Lutheran party with alarm. At Gotha and again at Torgau the Protestant leaders began to concert measures for actively repelling the policy of coercion which they anticipated would shortly be commenced. When, however, the diet assembled at Spires in June they found their apprehen-sions dispelled in an unexpected manner by the newly-aroused animosity towards the Roman pontiff and his policy. Never had the electors shown themselves more unanimous in counsel or submitted with better grace to the contributions imposed upon them. It was even pro-posed that the recently issued provisions should be publicly burnt and the Bible adopted as the only rule of faith. However, it was finally resolved that the respective states should be declared to be at full liberty, in relation to all questions of belief raised by the edict of Worms (see LUTHER), "to conduct themselves as each should here-after be ready to answer for towards God and the emperor," —terms which virtually implied permission to proceed ac-cording to their own discretion. " Such an enactment," ob-serves Banke, " containing as it does no mention whatever of the supreme pontiff, may be looked upon as the com-mencement of the Bef ormation properly so called, involving, in fact, the institution of a new church in Germany." Charles The effects of the concurrent action of religious and V.'s in- national sentiment thus brought about were soon to receive vasion oi a memorable illustration in Italy. The soldiers who made a y- their way under the leadership of Frondsberg, Ferdinand's lieutenant, across the Alps, in the snows of November 1526, into the plains of Lombardy, and afterwards mingled with the Spanish forces which Bourbon led on to the assault on Bome, were almost entirely avowed supporters of Luther's cause and full of fierce hatred of popery. Fronds-berg himself loudly declared that as soon as he had taken Bome he would hang the pope. The Spaniards, notwith-standing their unshaken devotion to Catholicism, entered the city burning with the spirit of national antipathy, and eager to revenge the long series of wrongs and exactions which their countrymen had suffered at the hands of Italian ecclesiastics. Among the horrors which followed upon the capture of the capital (May 1527) nothing more completely shocked the sense of Latin Christendom than the savage contempt manifested by the German soldiery for everything that symbolized the Boman faith, their wanton destruction of relics and images, mock religious services, and especial brutality in the treatment of priests. Even their Spanish confederates, though equally merciless in their excesses, looked on with indignation as they saw them disguising themselves as cardinals and holding a mock consistory under the windows of St Angelo for the purpose of elect-ing Luther as pope. But even the impressions thus pro-duced were evanescent when compared with the constantly renewed and unavailing regret which filled the breast of the scholar and the churchman in after years, as he realized the irreparable losses inflicted upon art and learning, the destruction of unique manuscripts and ancient records. Nor can it be a matter of surprise that a sentiment of deep revenge should have arisen in Bome against the Lutheran destroyer, and that even the Swabian and the Spanish invader alike should have afterwards been solicit-ous in a manner to disguise their own responsibility, by professing to look upon the blow thus struck at the sanctity and inviolability of the sacred city as a direct judgment of God. For a time, though only for a few months, it was believed, even by politicians so shrewd and well informed as Wolsey, that the emperor himself was designing to aid the Reformation. The approach of the Turks, who had overrun Hungary, and the hostility of France demon-strated the urgent necessity of maintaining concord among his subjects in the empire; and it is possible that he may really have contemplated placing himself at the head of the Lutheran movement and keeping Clement VII. per-manently a prisoner at Gaeta. But his Spanish blood, his education under Adrian of Utrecht, and the traditions of the imperial dignity proved too powerful a counterpoise, and Charles eventually not only deigned to lay before the courts of Europe a partial explanation and apology for the tragedy at Rome, but in a treaty (26th November 1527) with the pontiff he entered upon an agreement for the adoption of a distinct anti-Reformation policy. It has been asserted that Clement also undertook on this occasion not to declare the marriage of Henry VIII. and Catherine illegal, but no such stipulation appears in the existing treaty.

In pursuance of his anti-imperial policy Wolsey did Wolsey's not fail to seek to turn to the best account the sensation policy, caused by the triumph of the imperial arms. He enjoined the observance of a three days' fast and the offering up of prayers in every church in England for the captive pontiff's deliverance. He could not, however, but be conscious that his policy was regarded with but little favour by the nation at large. The young emperor was highly popular among the citizens of London, and the ancient amicable relations with the house of Burgundy and the actual important commercial relations with Flan-ders combined to render Spain in the eyes of Englishmen their natural ally, while France they still regarded as their hereditary foe. An expedient to which he had recourse about this time only served still further to fan this feeling. He had sought to render France, instead of the Low Countries, the main channel of the commerce between England and the Continent by making Calais the chief port for merchandise. The merchants of the Hanse towns took alarm; and, as it was in their vessels that Luther's writings, which were now eagerly purchased in England, even at exorbitant prices, chiefly found their way across the Channel, the preachers of the Beformation found no difficulty in representing to their countrymen that an Anglo-French alliance could not fail to prove inimical to the gospel. On the other hand, the Catholic party both 5n England and in Germany, as soon as the project of the divorce became noised abroad, could not but recognize in Catherine the representative of the interests of the true church, while they looked upon the emperor as her champion, and upon Wolsey as a traitor to the cause of truth and justice. During the last five years the cardinal's efforts to reform the clergy and repress the Reformation in England had been strenuous and constant. In the year 1521 he had enjoined all the bishops " to take order that any books, written or printed, of Martin Luther's heresies and errors should be brought in to the bishop of each diocese."1 The movement at Cambridge continued, however, to progress, and in 1523 some of the bishops suggested the appointment of a visitation to the university "for trying who were the fautors of heresy there." This proposition was not acted upon by Wolsey, who probably in his heart sympathized with the genuine spirit of learning developing in the university, and the matter was subsequently made the ground of an accusation against him by his enemies.2 We find, accord-ingly, George Stafford, a member of Pembroke Hall, venturing in the following year to adopt the example set by Luther, of taking the Scriptures themselves, instead of the Sentences of Peter Lombard (the theological text-book of the universities), as the basis of a course of divinity lectures. In the following year William Tyndal published at Antwerp the first edition of his translation of the New Testament, and in 1526 we hear of its intro-duction into Oxford by Thomas Garret, and of the volume being burnt at Paul's Cross. On 27th November 1527 Bilney and Arthur were examined at the Chapter House at Westminster before Wolsey and other ecclesiastics, as to whether they had preached or taught to the people the opinions of Luther or any others condemned by the church. Owing to the proximity of Cambridge to the seaports and commercial towns of the eastern counties, such as Yarmouth, Harwich, and Norwich, the university would appear to have become familiarized w7ith the Lutheran doctrines much sooner than Oxford. From 3d July to 20th September 1527 Wolsey was in France, intent on bringing about the marriage of Frincess Mary with the duke of Orleans, and on gaining the support of Francis in the matter of the royal divorce. Henry Henry himself had at this time fully resolved to carry VIII.'s the latter project into effect, and the doubts raised with divorce. regpect to the validity of his marriage and the legitimacy of Mary cannot be regarded as anything more than official formalities, designed to give a veil of decency to his real purpose. While in France Wolsey learned from Flanders that the emperor had become apprised of Henry's real intentions, and he himself now proceeded (to quote his own words) to employ "all possible ways and practices for the obtaining of the pope's consent." Unfortunately for the success of his efforts, Henry at this juncture con-ceived the design of sending another agent to Borne, to act altogether independently of Wolsey, and charged to procure, not only the appointment of a commission em-powered to dissolve the marriage with Catherine, but also a dispensation removing all obstacles to the king's second marriage with Anne Boleyn. Clement was still a prisoner in the castle of St Angelo, but on the evening of the 9th December 1527, disguised in a blouse and carrying a basket and an empty sack on his back, he effected his escape, and with the assistance of a guide arrived the next morning at Orvieto. From that day his resolve was probably definitively taken, and, notwithstanding his previous promises and his subsequent apparent conces-sions, he would seem to have been firmly resolved not to grant his consent to a measure deeply humiliating to him-self and certain to expose him to the full brunt of the emperor's resentment. But at Orvieto Henry's delegate, Knight, although untrained and ill qualified for the task of a diplomatist, obtained both a commission and a dispensa-tion, which, however, on his reaching England, were both found to be worthless, owing to designed non-observance of the necessary technicalities. In the following year Foxe and Gardiner were despatched on a like errand. The latter was far better suited for the work than Knight; and he did not scruple to threaten the trembling pontiff with the complete withdrawal of Henry's support, and to predict as the inevitable consequence the collapse of the already tottering apostolic see,—a result which, he de-clared, " would be attended by the applause and satisfac-tion of the whole world." By such menaces Clement was eventually induced again to grant a commission and a dispensation. A decretal bull, formally annulling Henry's first marriage, was handed to Campeggio, which he was instructed to show to the king and then to destroy. But in the meantime the celebrated brief executed by Julius II., in which the dispensation for Henry's first marriage was re-enacted in more precise and unqualified terms, was discovered in the Spanish archives. It was sought to show that the brief was a forgery, but to this view of the matter Clement altogether refused to assent. At length, however, in May 1529 the legate proceeded to open his court at Westminster. The courageous conduct of Catherine put honourable men to shame; and no slight impression was produced by Bishop Fisher's heroic declaration of his willingness to stake his life that her marriage with the king was perfectly valid. Campeggio, under various pretexts, still hesitated and delayed. In July the news of the peace of Cambray arrived, and it was known that the influence of the emperor would hence-forth be paramount in Italy, while it was believed that the projected marriage between the French monarch and the sister of the emperor augured a durable peace between the empire and France. Then the legate adjourned the court and the pontiff revoked the cause to Rome. All around Wolsey saw the plans which he had laid with so much toil and skill breaking up, and on him the royal displeasure vented itself. He died 30th November 1530, a victim to the wanton caprice of one whom he had served only too faithfully, and with him the ablest supporter of papal influence and the most formidable opponent of Beformation principles in England disappeared.

Henry would not condescend to appear before a Roman court, and as a last expedient it was proposed that the question of the legality of his first marriage should be submitted to the learned bodies, the universities and emi-nent canonists of Europe. This scheme had already been recommended by the episcopal bench, but to Cranmer's ingenuity is attributed the further suggestion that the opinion thus obtained should be carried into effect by a court convened in England. Commissioners, among whom Richard Croke appears as the most conspicuous and in-defatigable, were accordingly despatched on the proposed errand. The means to which they had recourse in order to obtain opinions such as their royal employer desired are plainly described by a contemporary writer, who says that "there was inestimable sums of money given to the famous clerks to choke them, and in especial to such as had the governance and custody of their universities' seals." The evidence more recently brought to light enables us to accept this statement as substantially correct. The unpopularity of the divorce among the nation at large was especially shown at the two universities, where the junior members made demonstrations of the greatest dissatisfaction, while their seniors were mostly bribed or in-timidated into acquiescence by the royal agents ; nor could the authorities at either Oxford or Cambridge disguise the fact that they found themselves at variance with the feeling of the country at large.





It is at this juncture that Cranmer assumes a foremost Cranmer. place as a leader of the English Reformation. He had written in defence of the divorce, and had taken a part in embassies sent by Henry to treat on the question with the emperor and the pope; and Clement had shown his sense of the value of his influence by appointing him to the lucrative post of grand penitentiary for England, in the hope of winning him over to the papal interests. Cranmer's whole policy, however, had been directly opposed to that of Wolsey. He had used his best efforts to con-firm the commercial relations with the Netherlands, and had superintended the negotiation of a commercial treaty between that country and England. He had resided for some months in Germany, and while there had married Margaret, the daughter of Andrew Osiander, a distin-guished preacher and leader of the Lutheran party at Nuremberg. From Germany he was now summoned back to England to become the successor of Warham, the pri-mate, who had died in August 1532. As there had as yet been no formal rupture with the see of Borne, it became necessary for him to apply to Clement for the customary bull of consecration, and also for his pallium as metropolitan, and on receiving these it was also requisite that he should take the oaths of canonical obedience and subjection to the Roman pontiff. His conduct in this dilemma has been generally regarded as indefensible. In order to show that he disclaimed the right of the pontiff to nomi-nate to ecclesiastical offices in England, he surrendered the several bulls, eleven in number, into Henry's hands; and, having done this, he took the usual oath of obedience to the see of Rome. Before doing so, however, he made a protestation to the effect that he did not intend thereby to bind himself to do anything contrary to the laws of God, the king's prerogative, or the commonwealth and statutes of the kingdom. On 23d May 1533 he proceeded, as archbishop and legate of the apostolic see, to pronounce the king's marriage with Catherine of Aragon null and void ab initio, as contrary to the divine law; and five days later he gave judicial confirmation to the royal marriage with Anne Boleyn. In the following year (23d March 1534) Clement rejoined by a manifesto declaring the validity of the first marriage, and calling upon Henry to take back his first wife and to observe " a perpetual silence " in relation to the question for the future. This decisive step was mainly the result of the parliamentary action that had in the meantime been going on. The parliament of 1529 had in various ways limited the privi-leges of the clergy, and by the Act 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13 had deprived them of the power of holding pluralities by virtue of licences obtained from Bome for money. Fisher, from his place in the House of Lords, vainly sought to combat these reforms by declaring that Lutheranism was spreading in the nation and by reminding his audience of Germany and Bohemia and the miseries that had already befallen those countries. The allusion to the Lutheran movement appears to have been, indeed, singularly inju-dicious, and there can be no doubt that at this period it was the aim not only of the king but of the bishops to dissociate the Reformation movement in England from the movement that was in progress in Germany. As yet the repudiation of the papal supremacy and a reform in matters of discipline were all that was contemplated either by the crown or the parliament. In 1531 appeared a pro-clamation making it penal to introduce bulls from Bome, and this was shortly followed by an Act visiting with severe penalties all who should be found going about the country for the purpose of carrying on the sale of indul-gences ; while under the famous Statute of Praemunire the whole body of the clergy were convicted of having recog-nized the validity of Wolsey's acts as papal legate, and thereby placed both their liberties and their possessions at the mercy of the king. In April 1533 there followed the Act providing that all causes should henceforth be tried in the courts of the kingdom, and forbidding appeals to Bome under any circumstances wdiatever,—the body "now being usually called the English Church" being held "sufficient and meet of itself to declare and deter-mine all such doubts and duties as to their rooms [i.e., offices] spiritual doth appertain." These successive enact-ments had already paved the way for Henry's final rejoinder to Clement's demands,—the Act of Supremacy (November 1534), whereby the king was not only declared to be supreme head of the Church of England, but was at the same time invested with full power " to repress and amend all such errors and heresies as, by any manner of spiritual jurisdiction, might and ought to be lawfully reformed."
While such was the progress of events in England and in Political Germany there had been going on in Switzerland a corre- condi-sponding movement, second only in importance to thatg ""^ initiated by Luther. The political relations of the Swiss ian<i,Zer* confederation at this period exercised a very appreciable influence over the whole course of the Reformation. With the commencement of the century the cantons had already reached the number of thirteen; and the confederates, in combination with the Leaguers, represented Italian as well as German interests. In great crises they were not incapable of presenting a combined front to the common foe ; but more generally they were divided by political jealousies and differences, while the majority of the men in each canton were mere military adventurers, ready to serve under the banner of the empire, France, the pope, or the duke of Milan, according as the one or the other power seemed likely best to reward their services. An important change in the ecclesiastical relations of the cantons had recently brought them into closer connexion with Bome. The six bishoprics into which Switzerland was divided—Lausanne, Sion (Sitten), Como, Basel, Chur, and Constance—had formerly been severally subject to the metropolitan jurisdiction of Mainz, Besancon, and Milan. But this jurisdiction had been superseded by the creation of the nunciatures, whereby each bishopric was brought into direct connexion with the papal see. The nuncios often exercised a potent influence on the political relations of the confederates. They negotiated with large bodies of Switzers the conditions of military service under the pope; they directed the traffic in indulgences; and they watched with especial jealousy the first appearance of schism. The experience, however, of those of the con-federates who accepted military service in Italy did not serve to increase their reverence for the Curia and its aims. They carried back with them to their homes a contempt for the whole administration of the Eoman see and its dependencies which communicated itself to their country-men, and at no centres were opinions adverse to Catho-licism now spreading more rapidly than at Zurich, Bern, and Basel.

Born in the same year as his brother Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli was scarcely less distinguished by commanding powers, devotion to study, and a yet more notable devo-tion to truth; but in the enlightened tolerance which marked his whole career we recognize the contrast between his early associations and those which nurtured the somewhat narrow though fervid patriotism of Luther. The latter, in the retirement of his monastic cell, had pondered over the profound speculations of Augustine, the imaginative subtleties of De Lyra, and the mysticism of Tauler. The other, at the universities of Vienna and Basel, had become familiarized with classic models, and his genius had gained a brighter inspiration from converse with the masterpieces of antiquity. It was in connexion with the church at Glarus that Zwingli first assumed the discharge of pastoral duties. It was characteristic of his true and discerning patriotic feeling that he strongly dis-approved of the acceptance of mercenary service by his countrymen, and more especially of the service of France, and his outspoken sentiments on the subject eventually rendered it necessary for him to quit Glarus for Einsiedeln. Here he was for a short time in receipt of a pension from the pope and was generally regarded as a supporter of ' Catholic institutions. In conjunction with the abbot of Einsiedeln he aimed, however, at the development of a less superstitious spirit among both the clergy and the laity, who resorted in great numbers to the monastery (a noted centre for pilgrimages). It was here that he formed the acquaintance of one of the most eminent of the Re-formers, Oswald Geisshausler (better known as Myconius) and through his friend's influence received in 1518 an invitation to settle in Zurich as the parish priest of the cathedral in that city. Here he at once began to discard the traditional mode of exposition which limited the preacher to certain prescribed sections of the Bible, and commenced instead a connected series of lectures on the New Testament. In the course of four years he thus completed a course of sermons on the whole of that portion of the Bible. This innovation, peculiar to the Reformed Church, was never adopted by Luther, although followed by most of the theologians of Switzerland and the upper Ehineland. It was in the year 1519 that Zwingli first became acquainted with Luther's early treatises; but his own views appear to have been formed quite independently of these. Shortly after his arrival in Zurich the Fran-ciscan Bernardin Samson visited the city on a like mis-sion to that of Tetzel and encountered in Zwingli another Luther. The grossness of the system of indulgences was so ably exposed by Zwingli that he carried nearly all who heard him with him, and Samson was obliged to return to Italy before his mission was fully accomplished. Even Faber, afterwards the opponent of Zwingli, could not but express to the latter his satisfaction at the result. Gradu-ally the voice of the Reformer was heard uplifted against other mediaeval superstitions and especially against Mari-olatry; his fame as a preacher rapidly spread, and he became known as one of the chief leaders of opinion in Zurich. The state of morality in the city was, however, exceedingly low, and he not only had to encounter considerable opposition but was repeatedly exposed to charges of heresy. Nevertheless the conviction which he produced among the more influential citizens of the truth of the tenets which he advocated was such that in the year 1520 an order was issued by the city council to the effect that all ministers should in future ground their discourses on the New Testament, " and prove their doctrine from the Bible alone, discarding all innovations and human inven-tions." While meeting with opposition in one direction, he was compelled himself to oppose the zeal of fanaticism in another. As at Wittenberg, an iconoclastic spirit had begun to manifest itself, and the question of the lawfulness of images in churches was warmly debated. In the months of January and October 1523 two conferences of the clergy and laity assembled in Zurich, in the course of which Zwingli put forth sixty-seven propositions, involving con-clusions adverse to the teaching and practice of the medi-aeval church. Among those who took part in the discus-sions were Faber, Meyer of Bern, Hofmeister, and Conrad Schmidt of Kussnacht, Knight Commander of the Order of St John, a man of eminent character and ability. Schmidt endeavoured, although in a temperate and rational manner, to defend the custom of placing images in the churches, but after a warm discussion Zwingli ultimately decided for their abolition. In the yet more important discussion that followed, with respect to the true nature and significance of the mass, whether it was to be regarded as of the nature of a sacrifice or simply as a commemorative ordinance, he expressed himself in favour of the latter interpretation. The issues raised by the sixty-seven propositions extended considerably in their scope beyond all that Luther had as yet advanced; and, as at Leipsic, it was soon discovered that the two contending parties were divided by an insuper-able difference with respect to the authority which they were disposed to accept as final,—the one party grounding their arguments solely on the Scriptures, the other on the councils and the fathers. It may be noted, as an illustra-tion of the extremely low status of the inferior clergy of the country at this period, that, in replying to Zwingli's demand for an intelligent and systematic study of the Scriptures by all pastors, it was urged as an objection that many pastors might be unable to afford to purchase a copy of the Bible for their own use ! Another notable theory supported by Zwingli was that known at a later period as Erastianism, according to which the authorities of the church were to be held to be ultimately amenable to the jurisdic-tion of the civil power. At his instance the church at Zurich next proceeded to repudiate the control both of the bishop of Constance and of the papal nuncio, constituting itself (1524) a separate ecclesiastical body, the supreme-authority over which was vested in the magistrates of the city. In the public services the Latin liturgy and the Gregorian chant were set aside for a German prayer:book and German singing. The rite of baptism was made more simple,—the ceremony of exorcism on which the Lutheran Church continued long after to insist being altogether dis-carded. In the year 1525 Zwingli published a more sys-tematic exposition of his tenets in his best-known work, his Commentary on True and False Religion, which he dedicated to Francis I. His conception of the sacraments and of original sin as here unfolded separates him still further from the doctrine of the mediaeval church, while in his remarkable catholicity of belief in regard to salva-tion he much resembles some of the early Greek fathers. Like Clement and Origen, he believed in the final happi-ness of the good and wise, including the good and wise of pagan antiquity; nor did he hesitate to express his con-viction that Socrates was a better and wiser man than any Dominican or Franciscan of his own day. On the other hand, he upheld the doctrine of predestination in its most rigid form, that afterwards known as " supralapsarian" (see PREDESTINATION).

In no country was the Reformation so closely associated Reform.** with political feeling as in Switzerland; and its upholders, g011^" amid surrounding despotisms, were advocates of republican lac(1 institutions. Zwingli and his followers looked on with shame and sorrow as they saw their countrymen hastening to cross the Alps to become the mercenaries of the pope. With no less sense of humiliation did they regard the venal spirit of their public officials stooping to become the pensioners of the French court. The progress of these new opinions was, as is usually the case, much more rapid in the large towns than in the more rural and moun-tainous regions. At Bern they were ably upheld by Anshelm, the historiographer of the city, and by Sebastian Meyer, and Haller; in the free city of Basel he had for his followers CEcolampadius and William Farel; and already in 1527 Conrad Pellicanus, afterwards his zealous follower, had conceived that admiration of his character and tenets which was attended by such important results. Wyttenbach, Zwingli's former preceptor, sustained his teaching in Biel, Joachim von Watt in St Gall, Biirgli, Blasius, and Dorfmann among the Grisons. In the cantons of Schwyz, Uri, Unterwalden, Lucerne, and Zug, on the other hand, the new doctrines found strenuous opposition; and the simple mountaineers listened wdth unfeigned sorrow and indignation when they heard that it was pro-posed to abolish pilgrimages, such as those to the field of Morgarten and the chapel of Tell, and to dispense with those priestly virtues of celibacy and fasting which so greatly enhanced their filial reverence for their village pastor. Another and yet more serious obstacle, which Contro-threatened to place the whole movement in peril, was that versies
presented by the differences of belief which now began to °' Re"
_ n ii T-i formers*,
rise among the Protestants themselves. <i oremost among
these points of difference was that respecting the Eucharist,
—the theory which Zwingli maintained being assailed with
peculiar acrimony and vehemence by Luther. Political
feeling added not a little to the animosity of that attack.
Difficult as it may seem to associate the efforts of one who
did so much for intellectual freedom with tyranny and

coercion, it is certain that Luther's influence after the year 1523 was not favourable to the political liberties of his countrymen. In that year both Sickingen and Hutten were removed by death, the victims of a policy to which Luther was always strenuously opposed,—the endeavour to enforce the redress of political and ecclesiastical grievances by recourse to arms. The iconoclastic ardour of Karlstadt and the fanaticism of Miinzer alarmed him beyond measure, and he regarded with the most genuine distrust the spread of their influence among the peasantry. The sequel justified his alarm. Ground between the exactions of the agents of the church on the one hand and the ooppression of the nobles on the other, the peasants rose at last in fierce rebellion. No such insurrection, so widespread, so sanguinary, and so ruthless in its vengeance, had ever before disquieted Germany as that which marked the close of the year 1524. The part played by Luther in relation to that gloomy episode will always be a matter for dispute among critics of different schools. To some he appears as lending his great influence to crush the efforts of down-trodden classes driven to desperation by in-tolerable oppression, to others as the champion of law and order against lawless miscreants intent on revolutionizing both church and state. Luther, himself considered that loyalty to the emperor and; to the civil authority was a primary duty, and that questions of religious reform should never be suffered to affect the citizen's fidelity to his politi-cal obligations. He probably held, that his views were justified by the sequel; but they were not shared by Ulrich von Hutten nor by Zwingli, who both maintained that the popedom and the empire were too closely associated to make it possible to attack the one without also attacking the other. The sacramental controversy runs parallel with the history of the Peasants' War, and it unfortunately happened that the theory of the Eucharist maintained by Zwingli was the same as that upheld by Karlstadt, whose iconoclastic successes at Wittenberg had made him an object of especial dislike to Luther. It was in vain, therefore, that Gicolampadius and Martin Bucer sought to mediate between the two parties. Luther, to whose view the republican doctrines and the sacramental theory _advocated by Zwingli appeared closely associated, believed he saw in the latter only a second Karlstadt; and he was thus led to assail him and his followers with an amount of coarse ridicule altogether unbecoming both the subject and the occasion. Zwingli replied in much more temperate fashion, but he did not hesitate to assert that the doctrine which Luther maintained was identical with that taught by the Church of Borne. To this Luther replied in his tractate entitled Belcenntniss vom Abendmahl Christi (1528). This pamphlet warfare only served, however, to embitter the relations of the two parties ; and, although the reaction-ary sentiments evinced by several of the princes at the second diet of Spires (15th March 1529) gave significant warning of the necessity for union and concord among the whole body of the Reformers, it was distinctly foreseen that the conference convened at Marburg a month later was not likely to lead to any healing of the schism (LUTHER). The excellent intentions of the landgrave of Hesse in con-vening the conference were altogether frustrated. The moral effect was, however, distinctly favourable to Zwingli. His demeanour towards his opponent had throughout been conciliatory and fraternal, while that of Luther had been of a different character. Although fourteen articles, em-bracing the most important tenets of the Christian faith, had been agreed upon almost without discussion, he could BOt regard as a brother the man who differed from him on the obscure and doubtful doctrine embodied in the fifteenth article. This intolerance, a sinister omen for the future of the Reformation movement, produced an unfavourable impression on the minds of not a few with respect to Luther's moderation, and caused them subsequently to espouse the side of Zwingli, among their number being the landgrave Philip and Erancis Lambert. The former, indeed, did not altogether despair of yet bringing about an alliance between the tw> parties, and was especially desirous of prevailing upon tiie Evangelical party (as the Lutherans now began to be called) to admit the congrega-tions at Ulm and Strasburg into their communion. With this design he caused the congress of Schmalkald to be convened on the 29th of November, an earlier date than that originally intended. His friendly purpose was, how-ever, again frustrated; and it soon became evident that the elements of difference between Luther and Zwingli— the reluctance of the former to engage in any line of action which might involve an appeal to arms, and the patriotic spirit of the other, which led him to look upon the assertion of political freedom as itself a Christian duty which it would be moral cowardice to evade—were such as it was hopeless to compose.
Such were the circumstances under which the emperor, imperial temporarily freed from graver political anxieties by the policy, treaty of Cambray, convened the diet of Augsburg; and on the 25th June 1530 the able and generally temperate ex-position of the Protestant faith drawn up by Melanchthon, known as the Confession of Augsburg, was read before the assembly and the people. The Catholic reply, composed by Eck and other theologians, was then presented, and finally the Reformers were called upon to renounce their distinctive tenets and return to their ancient faith. They were at the same time required to arrive at a formal decision within a stated period - and on the 13th of August the Evangelical princes notified to the emperoir their inability to comply with his command. On the 29th of the follow-League ing March, at a third congress, convened at Schmalkald, of they formed themselves into the memorable League, where-by each party to the compact pledged himself to the following agreement: "As soon as any one of them should be attacked for the gospel's sake, or on account of any matter resulting from adherence to the gospel, all should at once proceed to the rescue of the party thus assailed, and aid him to the utmost of their ability." It was like-wise resolved steadfastly to oppose the assembling of any council which was not summoned independently of the pope or was not in its composition fairly representative of the whole church. In the meantime the efforts made further to define doctrine had been attended with the usual, it might be said the inevitable, results. The tenth article of the Augsburg Confession had been rigorously formulated so as not merely to exclude the Zwinglian theory of the Lord's Supper but also to involve in censure any interpretation that deviated, however slightly, from that laid down by Luther himself. A certain section of the Evangelicals declined, accordingly, to sign the Con-fession, and the four cities of Strasburg, Constance, Mem-mingen, and Lindau shortly after drew up and submitted to the diet another confession, known as the Confessio Tetrapolitana,—the composition mainly of Bucer and Hedio. In this the influence of the Zwinglian party so far prevailed that the adoration of images, a point on which the Augsburg Confession had been silent, was specifically condemned. The four cities were, however, admitted to the League of Schmalkald in 1531. Other circumstances temporarily strengthened the hands of the Leaguers. The emperor had formed the design of raising his brother Ferdinand, king of Bohemia and Hungary, to the dignity of "king of the Romans"; but the project roused the jealousy of the house of Bavaria, and the reigning duke entered into a treaty with the Protestant League. Treaties were about the same time made with France and Denmark, and it was evident that the new confederation would be able to oppose a resistance which even the resources of the empire might not be able to overcome. At this juncture another circumstance formed an appreciable element in the imperial calculations. All attempts at arriving at an understanding with the Turks had proved without result, and Solyman's invasion of Hungary was imminent. At the advice of his brother, Charles accordingly condescended to treat with the mem-bers of the League, and in July 1532 the religious peace of Nuremberg afforded a temporary compromise, which it was provided should remain in force until a general council, of the character demanded by the Lutherans, was convened, or until the assembling of a new diet of the states of the empire. In the meantime the Lutherans were to be free from molestation and to be permitted to preach and publish the doctrines of the Confession of Augsburg. They were also to be left in possession of such church property as they still retained, and the jurisdiction of the courts of the empire in ecclesiastical questions was to be suspended. In return for these concessions the Leaguers pledged themselves to be loyal to the emperor, and to render aid both with money and men in the event of an invasion by the Turks. They likewise undertook not to afford protection either to the Anabaptists or to the followers of Zwingli. Contest The great leader of the Eeformation in Switzerland was in Swit- gfc this time no more. In the year 1531 the feud between zer an . tjie Qati10i¡c an¿ Protestant cantons had reached a climax; in the former the more bigoted section, aided by Ferdinand of Austria, had commenced an active persecution, and some, of the Protestant preachers had been put to death. In order to repel these aggressions a league was formed between Zurich, Strasburg, and the landgrave of Hesse, and Zwingli strongly advised that a combined attack should forthwith be made on their opponents in Lucerne and Schwyz, and freedom of conscience obtained by an armed demonstration. Divided counsels, however, pre-vailed ; and eventually Zurich was left to bear the brunt of the contest almost entirely alone. At the battle of Cappel (11th October 1531) Zwingli fell, and his followers sustained a defeat which, although they carried on a war of fierce retaliation, they were unable to retrieve, and a decided reaction in favour of Catholicism now set in. The death of (Ecolampadius took place soon after the battle of Cappel, and was followed in 1535 by that of Francis Kolb, the Bernese Reformer. The heroic end of Zwingli was a matter of exultation not only to his Catho-lic antagonists but even to Luther, who was ungenerous enough to class his brother Reformer with lawdess fanatics like Miinzer, and in a letter written in the following year even went so far as to warn Duke Albert of Prussia not to tolerate the followers of Zwingli within his territories. Progress In Germany, on the other hand, the Eeformation con-in Ger- tinued to progress. In 1533 Philip of Hesse, who was any- subsidized by France, inflicted a severe defeat on Ferdi-nand, and was able shortly after to reinstate Ulrich, duke of Wiirtemberg, in his dominions. The emperor at the peace of Kadan (29th June 1534) undertook to abstain from further interference in the ecclesiastical affairs of the duchy, and the understanding arrived at on that occasion is regarded by Eanke as marking the second important stage in the history of the Reformation in Germany. The Reformed faith was forthwith established throughout Wurt-emberg, and soon after was introduced into Holstein, Pomerania, the Mark of Brandenburg, Upper Saxony, Brunswick, and the Palatinate. The League of Schmal-kald wras thus strengthened by numerous and powerful accessions ; among the number was King Francis himself, who, although he was repressing the Reformation move-ment with severity in his own dominions, saw his advan-tage in siding with the Protestant princes against his chief enemy, the emperor. Henry VIII. declared himself also a supporter of the League. The city of Basel had already in 1534 put forth, independently, a new confession of faith, and this was followed in 1536 by a second, which received the approval of Luther and became known as the ': first Helvetic confession." In order, however, still further to unite the Protestant party, with a view to a general council, Luther, in conjunction with other theologians from Saxony, Swabia, and Hesse, drew up and transmitted to the Lutheran representatives at Schmalkald in February 1537 another confession. In this the doctrines contained in the Confession of Augsburg were reiterated, but in a far more uncompromising form. Luther denounced the pope as Antichrist and the mass as an abomination. Melanchthon declared himself unable to concur in this language, and in an additional article expressed his readi-ness to yield submission to the bishop of Eome as the highest dignitary in the church so soon as the latter should sanction really scriptural teaching.

As elsewhere, the history of the Eeformation in France Reforma-is that of a twofold struggle,—an endeavour to bring abouttion in a reform of discipline, and a contest which pointed in the Franoe-direction of doctrinal change. The abuses that prevailed in the Gallican Church at this period were scarcely less glaring than those in Germany. The appointments to the higher benefices were dictated solely by the most sordid motives,—political ambition, court favouritism, and family interest. Pluralism largely prevailed ; and both bishoprics and abbeys were granted in commendam to such an extent that residence was almost unknown. Preferments were often bestowed upon laymen, and even upon females and children. Pierre de l'Estoile, writing of the middle of the 16th century, states that the majority of the benefices in France were then held by persons who were by the canon law disqualified for their office. But in no country was the movement, that aimed at the correction of abuses such as these, more completely dissociated from the religious revolution contemplated by the Protestant leaders. In the first instance, the doctrines of Luther were favourably regarded by many of the nobility and of the episcopal order. The leader of the party wdiich represented those doctrines was Lefèvre d'Etaples, whose translation of the New Testament into French appeared in the year 1522. In the year 1521, having been singled out by the Sorbonne for special attack as a teacher of the tenets which the university had just so emphatically condemned, he deemed it prudent, notwithstanding the encouragement he received from Francis, to retire to Meaux. Here, under the pro-tection of Briçonnet, the eminent bishop of that diocese, he became the guiding genius of a movement which at one time seemed likely to transform Meaux into a second Wittenberg. This activity, however, was very early checked by the terrors of a commission. Lefèvre and his disciple Farel fled to Strasburg, the latter subsequently to Geneva, where his efforts founded the famous school of theology associated with the name of Calvin (see CALVIN) ; Briçonnet, alarmed at the prospect of a schism which threatened to prove permanent, reverted to Catholicism, and even acquiesced in a policy of persecution in his own diocese. Both Francis I. and his sister Margaret, queen of Navarre, were at this time disposed to support the Eeformation. When the Sorbonne condemned the Col-' loquies of Erasmus (May 1526) Francis gave orders that 24,000 copies should be printed and circulated throughout the country; he accepted with expressions of favour the dedication to himself by Zwingli of the latter's treatise On True and False Religion. His sister corresponded with Melanchthon and was openly assailed by the Sorbonne as a favourer of heresy, while, as the mother of Jeanne d'Albret, her memory was always cherished with peculiar regard by the great Huguenot party. But the loss of prestige which Francis incurred by his defeat at Pavia and his subsequent captivity inspired the Ultramontane party with greater confidence, and, in spite of his efforts, Louis de Berquin, a leader of the Reformers and one of the most eminent scholars in France, perished at the stake in 1529. The policy of Francis was indeed mainly dic-tated by one dominant motive—that of personal hostility to the emperor—and the apparent caprice with which he treated the Reformers was the result to no small extent of this feeling. It now became his aim to conciliate Pope Clement as an ally against his great rival, and with this view he took advantage of certain excesses committed by a few fanatics, after the example of Miinzer, to light the fires of persecution. At the same time, therefore, that he was supporting the League of Schmalkald he was burning heretics in his own dominions. On the death of Clement (September 1534), when he found the hopes which he had founded on an alliance with the Medici extinguished, since Paul III. proved less amenable to his plans, he again changed his tactics : he invited Melanchthon to come and take up his residence in France, and he set at liberty those who had been imprisoned for holding the Reformed doctrines. At the peace of Crespy (1544), again, he once more changed his policy, and sought to arrive at an agree-ment with Charles for the suppression of heresy and the restoration of discipline in the church.

mise in
Ger*
many.

At the period at which we have now arrived the main influences which guided the later history of the Reforma-tion may be discerned in full activity. Largely political almost from the commencement of the movement, they continued more and more to partake of that character or became mingled with elements not less secular. Foremost among these latter must be placed the appeal made to baser motives both in Germany and in England, by the manner in which the nobility of both countries were bribed to acquiesce in the suppression of the religious orders, by being allowed to become large sharers in the property and revenues of the monastic and conventual foundations. Among the lower classes, on the other hand, who were often painfully reminded of the loss they had sustained in the withdrawal of that charity which, amid all the de-generacy of the monasteries, had still been one of their recognized functions, a certain genuine sympathy with Catholicism and traditional regard for its institutions long continued to survive. But even among these classes men could not but be conscious that a higher standard of belief and practice had been introduced by the Reformation, while the superior ability shown by those who preached its doc-trines, in adapting their discourse to the comprehension and spiritual needs of the poor, invested them with a highly effective influence. Efforts at In Germany the policy of the emperor, neaiiy always compro- ambiguous, became complicated with new difficulties. Charles himself, from political motives, appears at this time to have been really desirous of bringing about a termination of the prevailing religious controversies, but his vice-chancellor, Held, on whom it devolved to carry out his intentions, pursued a singularly infelicitous line of action, which ultimately led to the formation of the League of Nuremberg (10th June 1538), whereby Ferdinand, the duke of Bavaria, Henry of Brunswick, Albert of Branden-burg, and George of Saxony entered into a combination for the purpose of opposing the League of Schmalkald.

Dissatisfied wTith such a result, Charles next endeavoured to bring about an understanding by a series of conferences ; and Paul III. was induced to send his legate to attend a diet in Batisbon (April 1541), where a project for re-union, known as the Batisbon Interim, was brought under formal discussion. " It resulted," says Gieseler, " as before at Augsburg : they quickly came together on merely specu-lative formulas; but as soon as they touched upon the external constitution and ordinances relating to the authority of the church the division remained." It was the last, perhaps the only occasion, on which an influential section on both sides (the party that followed Paul III. and the party that followed Melanchthon) was animated by a genu-ine desire for reconciliation. Their design was defeated by the ignoble political aims of Francis on the one hand, and by the theological illiberality of Luther and the elector of Saxony on the other. In the meantime Protestantism continued to advance: Hermann von Wied, elector of Cologne, became a supporter of its doctrines; and Pomer-ania, Anhalt, Mecklenburg, and the imperial cities were added to the territories in which it became the dominant faith. It was at this juncture, when the Reformation in Germany may be considered to have advanced to its high-est point, that Paul III. brought forward a proposal for assembling a general council,—a proposition to which it was decided by the Protestant party at the diet of Worms (March 1545) not to accede, inasmuch as it would be a council convened by the pope. In the following December, however, the council (see TRENT, COUNCIL OF) assembled, —the publication, in the meantime, of Luther's pamphlet Against the Popedom at Rome, founded by the Devil, having further contributed to foster theological rancour. The deliberations of this famous assembly resulted, as is well known, in the enactment of a series of canons condemna-tory of Protestant doctrine; and in this manner the hopes which down to this time had been cherished of bringing about a compromise with respect to those articles of faith on which agreement had before seemed not un-attainable were finally extinguished.

Two months after the first assembling of the council of Trent Luther died. His latter days had been embittered by the defection (as he regarded it) of Melanchthon to a hostile camp, in the espousal by the latter of the tenets maintained by G^colampadius and Bucer. The doctrine of the church having now been once more defined by the Tridentine decisions, the emperor, in the confident belief that theological divergence might be expiected soon to cease, next turned his attention to the removal of those abuses in matters of discipline which he held to be the chief obstacle to the return of Protestants to the church. With this view he brought about the acceptance of the Augsburg Interim (15th May 1548) by the diet, a com-promise which, while it roused the susceptibilities of the pope, altogether failed to meet the conscientious scruples of the Protestant party. In its place Melanchthon and Duke Maurice of Saxony put forth the Leipsic Interim, a singular admixture of Lutheran doctrine and Boman ritual, which subsequently gave rise to the controversy with the Adiaphorists. The imperial design, of thus bringing about the extinction of Protestantism either by coercion or by conciliatory measures, may be held to have been finally defeated at the diet of Augsburg (1555), when it was decided not only that every ruler of a separate state should henceforth be at liberty to adopt either the Augsburg Confession (see supra) or the Catholic faith as his personal creed, but that his subjects should also be called upon to conform to the profession of their temporal head. The Pro-effects of this arrangement cannot be held to have beentest^ beneficial. Wherever, as was not seldom the case, the versieB> ruler of one principality embraced a different doctrine from that professed by a neighbouring potentate, the carrying out of such a law could scarcely fail to generate or intensify feelings of aversion and enmity between their respective subjects, while its complete failure as a means of bringing about unanimity is shown in the rise of those numerous controversies which afterwards enabled the ad-herents of Romanism to launch so effective a taunt against the principles of Protestantism. Among these controversies were those of the Majorists (1551-1562), whose founder, Georg Major of Wittenberg, maintained the doctrine of the necessity of good works to salvation; of the Syner-gists (1555-1567), who held that men could not be saved unless the operations of the divine grace were seconded by the spiritual efforts of the individual soul; of the fol-lowers of Osiander (1549-1567), who supported a modified theory of the doctrine of justification; of the Crypto-Calvinists (1552-1574), who, led by Peucerus, the son-in-law of Melanchthon, maintained against Flacius Illyricus a theory of predestination differing from the Lutheran doctrine. In this last instance the feelings of enmity engendered by the controversy rose to such a pitch that the elector of Saxony was induced to send the leading Philippists to prison, while Flacius and his party celebrated the victory which they held to be theirs by a solemn service of thanksgiving and a commemorative medal. In the year 1580 an endeavour was made to bring about a reconciliation of the various contending parties by drawing up the celebrated Formula of Concord, but the design was attended with but little success. In the midst of this theological ferment, however, the divines of the university of Helmstadt, in the earlier part of the 17th century, were honourably distinguished by their systematic endeavours to allay the strife; and the career of Georg Calixtus, while affording a remarkable illustration of a gloomy chap-ter in the history of Protestantism, may be cited as a proof that a faithful adherence to the principles of the Reforma-tion was not incompatible with a regard for the right of private judgment and intellectual freedom. Eeforma- In the Scandinavian kingdoms the Reformation was j^^"! materially assisted by political motives; the introduction navia °^ Lutheranism into Denmark by King Christian II. in 1520 was to a great extent the result of his desire to raise the lower classes with a view to the corresponding depression of the nobility and the more powerful eccle-siastics of the realm. He sanctioned the marriage of the clergy and caused the New Testament to be translated into Danish. These measures, however, owing in no slight degree to the motives by which they were held to be inspired, involved him in a struggle with his subjects which eventually led to his deposition and to his passing the rest of his life in exile. But the new doctrines con-tinued to be effectively preached by John Tausen, who had been among Luther's pupils at Wittenberg; and the principles of the Reformation spread rapidly in Schleswig and Holstein. On the accession of Christian's successor, Christian III. (his cousin), the movement acquired fresh strength. The new monarch had been a witness of Luther's heroic conduct at Worms and had conceived the warmest admiration for the character of the great Reformer, and through his efforts the tenets of the Reformation were adopted in 1536, at a diet held at Copenhagen, as the religion of the state. In the following year the move-ment extended to Norway and shortly after that to Ice-land. In Sweden the Reformation was established concurrently with the political revolution which placed Gustavus Vasa on the throne. It was, however, only too apparent that the patriot king was largely influenced by the expect-ation of replenishing his exhausted exchequer from the revenues of the church, and, as in Germany and in Eng-land, the assent of the nobility was gained by their admission to a considerable share in the confiscated pro-perty. Among the powerful cities which represented the great Hanseatic confederacy, again, the acceptance of Lutheran doctrine turned largely on the keen commercial rivalry that then existed between that confederacy and Holland, and on the contests between the privileged and the unprivileged classes in the towns. In the prosecution of the former struggle the burghers of Liibeck appealed for assistance to Denmark, and, failing to gain the aid they sought, proceeded to organize an alliance with the object of restoring Christian II. to his throne; at the same time, with the view of outbidding their opponents in popularity, they unwisely proclaimed revolutionary principles scarcely less subversive than those of Munzer. In the civil war that ensued Christian III. ultimately triumphed over his enemies, and Wullenwever, the leader of the fanatical party, suffered death upon the scaffold. The Reformation was now firmly established, but in conjunction with the mon-archy reinforced by the power of the nobility, while the ecclesiastical constitution was remodelled ; and in the year 1539, at the diet of Odense, the new faith was proclaimed as the religion of the land.

In Bohemia the Hussite movement (see Huss and Bohemia. HUSSITES) must be held to have become almost absorbed in the broader current of Lutheranism, although the Calix-tines (or moderate Utraquists) and the Taborites (or ex-treme party) long continued to differ on questions of disci-pline. In the earlier part of the 17th century, however, the trained activity and energy of the Jesuits led to the almost entire expulsion of both parties, and Protestantism as a professed creed nearly ceased to survive.

In Poland Protestantism prevailed before the first Poland quarter of the 16th century closed. In Dantzic, Elbing, and Thorn it was established by overwhelming majorities. By the Pax Pissidentium, however, with a view to averting contests such as those that disturbed the peace of other lands, the principle of universal toleration was enunciated; and the duke of Anjon (afterwards Henry III. of France), on being elected to the vacant throne of Poland in 1573, notwithstanding his own attachment to Catholicism, found himself compelled to swear that he would strictly protect the adherents of the opposed faith from persecution and aggression. But here again the influence of the Jesuits ultimately proved victorious. The nobles were gained over by their arts, and Catholicism reasserted its ascendency.

In the Netherlands, where the free spirit of the great The mercantile communities was in singular harmony with the^fe*er movement, the progress was still more rapid. The details of the heroic struggle waged against Charles V. and Philip II. must be regarded as belonging rather to secular than to theological history; but it is to be noted, alike to the honour of the people and of the house of Orange, that the enact-ment of the principle of religious toleration followed upon the fierce and intolerant persecution to which the country had so long been exposed. Although the majority of the inhabitants professed the tenets of Calvinism, the Arminian party succeeded in bringing about a union of church and state, which, however, left the other communions almost entirely unrestricted in their religious freedom. The fol-lowers of Gomarus, indeed, early in the 17th century, seemed at one time likely to place this freedom in danger, not only by their assertion of more rigid Calvinistic doctrine, but also by their demand that the church should be constituted independent of the state. But eventually (see Motley, Hist, of the United Netherlands, c. Hi.) the party that favoured religious toleration triumphed; and the Dutch republic long continued to be an asylum for those whom the ascendency of the contrary principle in other lands drove into exile. The church organization was modelled on the political organization of the provinces, each province being subdivided into classes, while the mode of government was nearly identical with that known as Presbyterian. Later In England the reformation of doctrine made but little stages in progress during the reign of Henry VIII., for, although England. Dy the Ten Articles (1536) the royal assent was given to the adoption of the doctrine of justification by faith and to the recognition of the Bible and the three ancient creeds as the standard of belief, a marked reaction in favour of Catholic doctrine took place in the enactment of the Six Articles in 1539. For ..a brief period heresy became a statutable offence and death was inflicted under the new provisions. The anomalous position of the English Church became a scandal to Europe; for, while some men were burnt for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation or for refusing to admit the royal supremacy, others, as Barnes and Gerard, suffered at the stake for their profession of Lutheran opinions, and even Cromwell must be regarded as in some measure a victim of his attachment to German Protestantism. During the reign of Edward VI. Somerset in conjunction with Cranmer pressed on the work of the Reformation apace. Chantries and hospitals were everywhere suppressed and their endowments confis-cated. The bishops were compelled to acknowledge their direct subordination to the crown by being required to take out licences for the exercise of their jurisdiction. In 1549 the first Book of Common Prayer was published, and the Act of Uniformity prescribed its use, while that of all other forms of devotion was forbidden under heavy penalties. The canon law was revised by a body of com-missioners specially appointed for the purpose, and the new code was completed for future use, although it never received the young king's signature. By these and other similar reforms, carried out in a great measure under Cranmer's direction, it was sought to make the Reforma-tion in England a complete rejoinder to the proceedings of the council assembled at Trent. Scotland. In Scotland the Reformation assumed a different char-acter from that of the movement in England. It was inspired directly and solely by Germany, and may be regarded as commencing from the martyrdom of Patrick Hamilton in the year 1528, there being no evidence of any prior spontaneous efforts in the direction of doctrinal reform on the part of the people. Hamilton's designs were looked upon with the greatest disfavour by the clergy at large; and, as James V. was especially anxious to secure the support of that body in his conflict with his insub-ordinate nobility, he was altogether opposed to the adop-tion of the Lutheran tenets. He even aspired to succeed to the title, which Henry had forfeited, of " Defender of the Faith," and was encouraged to hope that he might succeed to the English crown. After his death (1542), however, under the regency of the earl of Arran, the Reformed doctrines began to be regarded with greater favour at court, while the merciless policy of Cardinal Beaton and the cruel fate of Wishart gave rise to an out-burst of popular indignation against the bishops to which Beaton himself fell a victim (1546). The country was now divided into two parties,—the bishops, the clergy at large, and the powerful influence of France (as represented by the Guises) being on the side of Catholicism, while many of the chief nobles and the laity at large were inclined to favour Frotestantism. The English influence, which, wisely exerted, might have operated powerfully on the same side, was, however, sacrificed by the injudicious policy of Somerset, who by his endeavour to enforce the marriage of Mary Stuart with the youthful Edward roused the national spirit. The sense of humiliation and resent-ment which followed upon the battle of Pinkie (1547), where the English were greeted by the Scottish soldiery with the cry of "heretics," produced a reaction in favour of Catholicism which was not arrested until the return of John Knox in 1555 from the Continent (see KNOX).

In Ireland the circumstances which favoured the intro- Ireland, duction of Protestantism in England were altogether wanting. The Boman ritual was in harmony with the genius of the people, whereas the aversion naturally inspired by a creed imposed at the dictation of the conqueror was in itself a formidable obstacle. The harsh and essentially un-Christian policy pursued by the constituted ecclesiastical authorities presented further difficulties. The Bible was not translated into the vernacular, and that idiom was equally ignored in the church services, where the choice lay between the Latin, hallowed in the minds of the people by immemorial usage, and the language of the oppressor. Notwithstanding, if the native population failed to attend the English Church services they were fined. Other abuses similar to those which had contributed so power-fully to render Germany Protestant,—non-residence on the part of the clergy, the bestowal of benefices on needy aliens, often altogether wanting in religious earnestness, and sometimes indifferent to the observance of ordinary morality,—still further intensified the feeling of alienation. Protestantism became odious in the eyes of the Irish people; and, when, after long years of oppression and neglect, it was sought to inaugurate a juster policy and to render the established church in some degree really national, the obstacles thus created could not be overcome.

Authorities.—The sources already named under POPEDOM, BEZA,
CALVIN, ERASMUS, HUSS, JESUITS, KNOX, LUTHER may be con-
sulted. The Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte of Gieseler (vol. iii. 2
pts.) gives a condensed and impartial summary of the main features
of the movement throughout Europe, together with a valuable
compendium of authorities. A translation has appeared in Clark's
Foreign Theological Library, and has been republished in a revised
form by Prof. Henry B. Smith (New York, 1868), but in its latter
form the valuable citations contained in the German work from
the original authorities are not given in full. Other standard works
are—Baur, Gesch. d. christlichen Kirche (1863); Guericke, Handbuch
der Kirchengesch., vol. ii. (Leipsic, 1866), which treats the subject
from the Lutheran standpoint; Hagrnbach, Hist, of lief, in Ger-
many and Switzerland (Clark's For. Theol. Lib., 2 vols., 1879),
written in sympathy with the Zwinglian movement; Dollinger,
Die Reformation, 3 vols. (1851), treating solely of the Lutheran
movement; Ranke, Deutsche Gesch. im Zeitalter d. Ref., 5 vols.;
Maurenbreeher, Gesch. d. hath. Ref., vol. i. (1517-34), 1880. The
Annales Ecclesiastiei of Raynaldus. the continuator of Baronius,
contains original documents. See also Häusser's Gesch. d. Zeitalters
der Ref. (1547-1648), 2d ed., by Oncken, 1879, in which the poli-
tical relations of the movement are succinctly brought out (Eng.
trans, by Mrs Sturge, 1873); Monumcvta Reformationis Lutheranse,
a selection from documents at the Vatican by Cardinal Balan (1883-
84); and Keller's Die Reformation und die alteren Reformparteien
(Leipsic, 1885). For the confessions successively adopted by the
different Evangelical and Reformed churches consult Schaff's His-
tory of the Creeds (1878), chaps, v., vi., and vii. The series known
as Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der
Lutherischen Kirchen, ed. Nitzsch, 8 vols. (1861-75), gives full bio-
graphies of the most eminent Evangelical teachers. The corre-
sponding work for the Reformed Church is the Leben und ausgew.
Schriften d. Väter u. Begr. d. ref. Kirchen, ed. Halenbach, 10 vols.
(1857-62). iOther biographies of special interest are—Geiger, JoJiann
Reuchlin, sein Leben u. seine Werke (Leipsic, 1871), and that of
Ulrich von Hutten, by Strauss (trans, by Mrs Sturge, 1874).
Hutten's Works (ed. E. Booking, 7 vols., Leipsic, 1871) and Das
Chronikon des Konrad Pellican (ed. Riggenbach, Basel, 1877) may
also be consulted. For the history of the subject in England, see
Foxe's Acts and Monuments, ed. Cattley, 8 vols. (1841); Jer.
Collier's Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, ed. Barham, 9 vols.
(1840-41); Burnet's History of the Reformation in England, ed.
Pocock, 7 vols. (1865); and the criticisms contained in vol. iii. of
S. R. Maitland's Tracts (1842), and also his Essays on Subjects con-
nected with the Reformation in England. The Records of the Reforma-
tion, by Pocock, 2 vols. (1870), contains important original docu-
ments ; to this work may be added Strype's Annals, 6 vols. (1822),
and Memorials, 7 vols. (1824); the works of the Reformers published
by the Parker Society (Cambridge, 1841-54), and the Zürich Letters,
3 vols, (same society); J. H. Blunt's Reformation of the Chiirch of
England (1514-47), 2 vols., 1869-80 ; and Dixon's History of the
Church of England from the Abolition of the Roman Jurisdiction
(1529-48), 2 vols., 1877-80. (J. B. M.)



Footnotes

Most of the details of the main facts connected with the German Reformation during Luther's lifetime are given under LUTHER.

Or by Dietrich of Niem ; the authorsh<r> is disputed.
Hist, de France, bk. viii. c. 3.

"Dissolutio cleri Alemanni*, ex qua laici supra moclum irritantur adversus statum eeelesiasticnm . . . inclinatus est arbor ut eadat, nee yotest diutius persistere." See Mn. Sylvius, Opera (ed. 1551), pp. 66, 70. 2 (Euvres (1865), ii. 303.

Max, Bibl. Patrum (1676), vol. xxv. p. 264.

"Sub quibus" (i.e., Alexander VI. and Julius II.) " etiam in negotiatione prebendaria multe iiovee technic reperto sunt ad pecunias undique corradendas, et ab illis recente sunt approbateque, magis fisei quam Christi rem agentibus." See the remarkable letter of Eubulus Cordatius to Montesius, prefixed to the reprints of the Treatises of Nicolas de Gemenges, ed. 1519.

See "Gravamina Germánica? Nationis cum Eemediis et Avisa-mentis ad Ca;sarem Maximilianum," in Freherus, Germanicarum Merum Scriptures, ii. 313. The existence of such grievances and their non-redress may serve partly to explain the obduracy with which the subjects of the empire received the simultaneous proposals of Maxi-milian in the direction of state - reform. See Janssen, Gesch. el. deutschen Volkes, i. 557-561. Janssen, it may be observed, makes no reference to the document above cited.

Balan, Monumenta Reformationis Lutfieranss (1884), pp. 1-3. This letter, published for the first time in this collection, differs entirely from that given in the Jena edition of Luther's works ; and Cardinal Balan in his preface (pp. 5-10) adduces satisfactory reasons for con-cluding that the letter which he prints from an original in the archives of the Vatican is the true letter, and that the other, if not a forgery, is a reproduction from some untrustworthy source.

1 Strype, Memorials, i. 56.
2 Burnet, Hist, of the Reform., ed. Pocock, i. 70.

Cavendish, Life of Wolsey, ed. Singer, p. 206.
See Croke's and other letters in Records of the Reformation, ed. Pocock, Nos. xcix. - cxxvi., cxxviii.-cxlvi., clvii. - cciii.

It should, however, he noted that Cranmer's oath as metropolitan contained the clause " salvo ordine meo," and this clause might prob-ably, in the judgment of canonists, render his subsequent reservation more defensible. See Sarum Pontifical in Camb. Univ. Lib. (Mm. iii. 21); Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, ii. 317 ; Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, App. No. VI.
Records of the Reformation, ii. 532.
It should, however, he noted that Cranmer's oath as metropolitan contained the clause " salvo ordine meo," and this clause might prob-ably, in the judgment of canonists, render his subsequent reservation more defensible. See Sarum Pontifical in Camb. Univ. Lib. (Mm. iii. 21); Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, ii. 317 ; Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, App. No. VI.

See Ranke's Deutsche Geschichte, iv. 107.
Deutsche Schriften, iii. 16.

De Wette, Letters, iv. Nos. 1429, 1430.
lb., No. 1445.