•YAIUE-'^MVEiaSinnr-

DIVINITY SCHOOL

TROWBRIDGE^IBRARY

luiim.uini.iii..M

THE REFORMATION
BEING AN OUTLINE OF
THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
FROM A.D. 1503 TO A.D. 1648

BY THE REV.
JAMES POUNDER WHITNEY, B.D.
CHAPLAIN OF S. EDWARD'S, CAMBEIDGE ; HULSEAN LECTURER (1906-7)
FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF KING'S COLLEGE ; LIGHTFOOT AND
WHEWELL SCHOLAR, CAMBRIDGE; FORMERLY PRINCIPAL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BISHOP'S COLLEGE
LENNOXVILLE, CANAUA

NEW YORK
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1907

EDITORIAL NOTE
~f TTHILE there is a general agreement among
* * the writers as to principles, the greatest
freedom as to treatment is allowed to writers in
this series. The volumes, for example, will not
be of the same length. Volume II., which
deals with the formative period of the Church,
is, not unnaturally, longer in proportion than
the others. To Volume VI., which deals with
the Reformation, is allotted a similar extension.
The authors, again, use their own discretion in
such matters as footnotes and lists of authorities.
But the aim of the series, which each writer sets
before him, is to tell, clearly and accurately, the
story of the Church, as a divine institution with
a continuous life.
W. H. HUTTON

PREFACE
rpHE series deals with the history of the
-*- Church Universal as a historic body : bodies
separated either from the Eastern or Western
Church have therefore only been dealt with
indirectly. I have tried to be fair to all schools
of thought and all the men of the time.
Some controversies I have not dealt with at
length. My own view of that on the continuity
of the English Church (the only view, as I think,
according with history) underlies my statement
of history in Chapter XII., although it has not
affected the treatment. The controversy on
Papal Infallibility reaches through the whole
period, but its historic beginnings go back to
medieval days, and its full discussion belongs
to a later volume. The Eeformation added
little to it, and many, both supporters and
opponents, failed to distinguish between the
primitive claims of the Church and the medi
eval claims of the Papacy.

THE REFORMATION

I must acknowledge my personal indebted
ness to my teacher and friend, Dr. A. W. Ward,
Master of Peterhouse ; in a less degree to the
late Lord Acton ; to the Eev. W. H. Hutton,
for much kindness and many suggestions ; Pro
fessor P. C. Burkitt, for corrections and the
reference to S. Cyprian on page 198 ; the Eev.
P. E. Hutchinson, Chaplain of King's College,
for much kind help with proofs ; the publishers
for much forbearance.
Volume IV. of the Cambridge History ap
peared too late for use, but I should like to add
a reference to it here. J. P. WHITNEY
<S'. Andrew's Day, 1906

CONTENTS CHAPTER I
Introduction . . . ... 1
CHAPTER II
The Papacy and the Lateran Council . . .15
CHAPTER III
Germany and the Reformation up to 1529 . . 23
CHAPTER IV
The Reformation in Switzerland and its connection
with Germany . . ... 63
CHAPTER V
The Reformation in Scandinavia and France . . 85
CHAPTER VI
Germany after 1529 . . ... 107
CHAPTER VII
The Council of Trent . ... 123
CHAPTER VIII
The Third Assembly at Trent . . . 167

THE REFORMATION

CHAPTER IX
PAGE
Close of the Council . . ... 216

CHAPTER X
Monastic Reform and the Jesuits . . . 264
CHAPTER XI
Germany : 1055-1648 . . ... 286
CHAPTER XII
England ... . . 320
CHAPTER XIII
The Netherlands : France : The Jesuits . . 376
CHAPTER XIV
Scandinavia: Russia: The Greek Church: Missions 398
CHAPTER XV
The Papacy after Trent . . . 429
Bibliography . . . 457
Note . .... 464
Index . _ 471

THE REFORMATION CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
THE great work of the Medieval Church had been
to evangelise the nations of the West. In the
East it had to maintain itself against Mahomedanism :
in the West it succeeded in gaining young and growing
nations and moulded them to new ideals Medieval
of life. The power of the Medieval world ideals and
lay partly in the loftiness of its ideals, and institutions.
partly in the strength of its institutions. No age ever
showed in individual lives a keener ,sense of duty, a
greater readiness for self-sacrifice; the ideals of the
monastic life, of the Mendicant Friars, of the greater
bishops and of the simpler parish priests, can hardly
be surpassed. ISTo age ever threw greater strength
into its institutions, as we see even more in religious
than in political or social life. The conception of
the great Christian society, with its common brother
hood and common life, appealed to the very best side
of Medieval nature. Under the leadership of the
great Eoman See, with its apostolic traditions, its
missionary zeal, its practical ability, and its advantages
inherited from the Empire, the younger nations of the

THE REFORMATION

West formed a real Christian commonwealth, expressed
in the Church and in the Holy Eoman Empire. As
these nations developed a more vigorous life of their
own, the importance of the Empire grew less, and
there were even signs, in legislation, in literature, and
in diversified tendencies, that it might be hard to
combine the vigour of the separate lives with the
common unity of the Church. But the Middle Ages,
never surprised at contradictions between ideals and
facts, had scarcely felt this difficulty to press.
The great Medieval Popes had been, as a rule, the
assertors of moral force, the guardians of ecclesiastical
unity. If sometimes they laid more stress on
Papacy. ^e organisation of the moral force than
on the principles underlying it ; if they did
not always discriminate between ecclesiastical unity
and their own control (which was the readiest means
of enforcing it), these tendencies were natural to the
time. For the Middle Ages turned naturally to organ
ising and forming institutions, and the genius of Eome
was at its best in practical order and detail. The
medieval mind, always quick to seize an idea, had
grasped with fervent faith the idea of ecclesiastical
unity; it was not given to criticising the forms in
which ideas were expressed unless some practical
difficulty arose. Broadly speaking, the unity of the
Western Church at the close of the Middle Ages
meant to most minds the power of the Papacy. The
separation of the Eastern Church was indeed a diffi
culty, but it stood remote from Western life, and at the
Council of Florence had reached a temporary union with
its brethren. But other issues had brought a greater
difficulty closer ; the contests of Popes and Emperors,

INTRODUCTION

the abasement of the sojourn at Avignon, the scandal
of the Schism, the discussions of the Conciliar move-
3 •
ment, the many questions raised between Popes and
kings, and even in the hierarchy itself : all these
had left behind a mass of thought and literature, un
digested by the generations who inherited it, remote
for the most part from their lives and need, but await
ing examination and certain to be. examined. But
Papal obedience and ecclesiastical unity had been so
long practically identical that to question the former
might easily seem to impair the latter. Far-sighted
critics like Sir Thomas More could see that here lay
the problem of the coming time.
The later Popes had indeed forced on this problem.
The connection between Italy and Germany — the
legacy of the Empire — had entangled the
Papacy in politics. Italy had a nicely Germany.
balanced State-system of its own, while
Germany, with its lack of central power and its sharp
local divisions, was politically the least stable State
of Europe. This relation, therefore, led to many
complications and disturbances, intensified by other
causes. The appearance of the French in Italy opened
up new possibilities to the Papacy after it safely
brought its power, increased rather than diminished,
through the storms of the Councils of the West. By
a process like that which had formed the Prince-
Bishoprics of Germany, the Papacy had gained pos
session of its states, and these now needed reconquest
and consolidation. Sixtus IV. (1 1484), like other
Italian princes, pursued dynastic schemes for the
benefit of his family; Alexander VI. (1492-1503),
with the help of his son, Cesare Borgia, aimed further

THE REFORMATION

at a re-establishment of the temporal power. Hence
forth the Papacy had its _ own territorial interests to
consider, and Italian politics brought it into rivalry
with France, Germany, and Spain. At a time when
the great nations were becoming strong and separate
powers, with objects of their own, a great strain was
thus put on the old ties of ecclesiastical unity. Forces
of disunion were at work which the Middle Ages had
developed but not brought to their fullest strength;
the task of maintaining Christian unity was harder
because the Papacy, hitherto its great and often un
selfish guardian, had now territorial and dynastic
interests of its own. These interests weighed strongly
with Popes, secular rather than spiritual in tone,
Italian in their diplomacy and state-craft.
The problem of the relations between the Papacy and
the monarchies of Europe had already presented itself
The to the Middle Ages, and was for them iden-
Papacy tical with the relations of Church and State.
and the But the great Councils of the West had
European br0Ught into greater clearness a conception
of an ecclesiastical unity distinct from
Papal supremacy, a distinction which increased histori
cal knowledge and study of primitive times was bound
to emphasise. Each nation, moreover, had its own
peculiar features. Germany had its Prince-Bishops,
laymen in all but name, sprung as a matter of course
from noble families, and involved in the dynastic and
local feuds that abounded there, independent in most
respects of Emperor or Pope. In Spain the Church
was noted for the rigid and spiritual lives of its bishops,
and had become closely bound up with the royal power,
itself deeply religious in tone. In France the bishops

INTRODUCTION

were practically dependent upon the Crown; liberty
from external meant subjection in internal control.
In England strongly -expressed anti- Papal legislation
was, as a rule, ineffective ; theoretical anomalies in
royal and Papal relations were disregarded. If the
Papal jurisdiction was exercised in much the same way
throughout Europe, these lesser differences ought not
to be overlooked, and it should be borne in mind that
the restraints placed by France and England upon
Papal taxation over the clergy had led to increased
demands upon Germany. That country had, there
fore, a special inter'est in administrative reform.
Many such questions of reform had been raised in the
great Councils ; but the. -Papacy, by its diplomacy, had
evaded the demands and emerged from the struggle
stronger than before. The Councils had failed to do
what was needed and expected : men looked to the
Papacy — the power which had overcome the Councils —
to succeed where they had failed. But the Papacy had
special objects of its own : the very concordats with
England and Germany by which it had gained its
victory, and the unsettled controversy on Gallican
liberties, not only tied its hands, but also recognised
the existence of national interests and division that
worked against unity. The unity of the Western
Church was threatened with inevitable dangers, made
more acute by the condition of the Papacy itself. For
the Papacy might indeed as before represent Western
unity; but it did little to strengthen or even pre
serve it.
But there was a further cause of danger. The
Middle Ages, strong in their institutions, regarding man

THE REFORMATION

Growth of as a member of a guild, a community, or a
Individual- church, had tended to repress the individual.
ism. But now in politics and in trade, in life gene
rally, individual character was asserting itself. The
change in art was typical. The great artistic works
had been up to now, and for the most part, buildings,
expressions of a corporate life in which the artist's
name and individuality were sunk ; art now threw
itself into channels where individual force and indi
vidual names were to be joined for ever. The founder,
for instance, of a new order, the teacher in a university
had been less than his order, less than his system.
S. Dominic is for us the first of his order ; S. Thomas
Aquinas, the writer of the Sum ma ; Wiclif, the almost
impersonal head of a movement. In the newer age
that was coming S. Ignatius Loyola is a personality
that inspires his order ; Erasmus and Luther are per
sonalities above all else. The contrast carried itself
into remoter corners ; it was certain the life of the
Church would be richer because more varied in its
individual parts, but it would not be easy" to balance
claims of authority and individual freedom which the
older world had hardly felt to conflict.
Much is often said of the moral disorders and licence,
partly due to growing riches and changing tastes, that
marked the fifteenth century. It was as easy to see
the ecclesiastical abuses; tardy or even corrupt
courts at Eome and elsewhere ; excessive fees and
corruption ; vows made but disregarded ; duties un
performed. The older monastic orders — themselves
products of earlier reformations — did little to mend
matters. The evidence for their widespread corrup
tion is inconclusive, especially in England, but they no

INTRODUCTION

longer served their original purposes. The average
monastic life was not indeed impure but it was no
longer strenuous, and new foundations were therefore
few. The Mendicant Orders — Franciscans and Domini
cans — had also, although to a smaller degree, grown
cold from their first enthusiasm. It was felt that the
exemptions from episcopal contact given so freely to
monasteries and generally to the Friars had been un
wise, and fresh powers of visitation were widely sought.
Archbishop Warham in England (1511) and Cardinal
Ximenes in Spain had exercised large powers of mon
astic visitation intended to quicken and reform religious
life. But the Church has never, even at its worst, rested
content in face of moral or administrative evils : the
quickening of life — always a strain and an effort — has
always been marked by the bringing out from its
treasuries of things new and old ; sometimes it puts
new life into old forms and institutions ; sometimes it
develops new organisations or new forms of devotion.
All these features we can see in the years just before
the sixteenth century ; apart from " the Reformation
in Head and Members " urged by the great Councils,
mysticism, a deeper religious learning, new discipline
of life, new forms of devotion, all bore witness to the
reviving strength of the Church, and the new demands
new needs made upon her. Pilgrimages, shrines,
relics, had never been more highly regarded: some
special cults (such as that of S. Anne) developed
rapidly at the end of the fifteenth century ; whatever
is thought of their virtue in themselves, their popu
larity is a sign of devotional feeling. As significant,
too, is the growth of religious literature in the popular

THE REFORMATION

tongues, the revival of popular preaching. Nor was
biblical study neglected ; Gerson, the great theologian
of France, wished to simplify theology upon this basis :
in Germany theologians like John Wessel (1420-89)
took the same line ; the University of Erfurt (founded
in 1392) was noted for its modernwpirit and its biblical
exegesis illustrated by Matthias Doering (+1469) ;
no less than fourteen translations of the Bible into
High German appeared before the days of Luther.
These attempts to remedy evils in life and to place
theology in a fresh light both for study and teach-
ing showed themselves in many ways in
Revivals Germany; in the monastic and semi-mon
astic orders they led to a return to orig
inal rules and a stricter visitation of evils. Among
the Benedictines John Busch, a monk near Bursfeld,
organised the Lower Saxon convents and set up a type
which was largely followed over a larger area ; seventy-
five foundations joined the Bursfeld congregation.
Among the Franciscans a lapse from original ideals
had brought on the struggle between the Conventuals
(who had already adopted laxer rules and more settled
homes) and the Observants (who desired a stricter
observance of the Founder's life of poverty and alms) :
here, again, a reform took place. Diedrech Coelde, writer
of a simple catechetical exposition of belief and duty,
The Mirror of the Christian, and a well-known itiner
ant preacher, reorganised his order in North Holland,
Belgium, and the Rhine district. The movement
spread to the Augustinian Friars, first organised by
Zolter (under Pius II. in 1438) and later by Andreas
Proles, their Vicar-General (1473-1503). John von
Staupitz, the teacher of Luther, carried on and ex-

INTRODUCTION

tended the work. All these were monastic reformers —
hating existing evils, inspired by the old monastic
ideals, spending themselves in education and preaching,
freely using the new ally of instruction, the printing-
press — animated by a deep love of their Saviour often
most touchingly expressed.
It was by an Italian continuation of this move
ment that (1504) the Italian Benedictines also were
reorganised ; that among the Camoldolites a separate
and strictly ascetic congregation was formed; that
Matteo de Bassi (1526) gathered the Capuchins — a
strict section of Franciscans marked by their more
Franciscan life and their pointed hood (cappucino).
The last — a genuine revival of their order, both in
their preaching and in their popular sympathies — did
much for the Church, and became a separate order in
1619. Among some members of "The Oratory of
Divine Love," formed among the more religious Human
ists at Rome (1523), arose the Order of Theatines (1524),
named from the" see (Theate) of a leading member,
Caraffa, afterwards Paul IV. Caraffa's sojourn in
Spain and his tastes brought him into touch with the
strictest Spanish theology and the stricter clerical life
of the seculars ; this element, combined with the better
impulses of the Renaissance, were seen in the Thea
tines, who, as secular priests under monastic vows,
devoted themselves mainly to preaching, care of the
sick, pastoral duties generally, and the training of the
clergy. Somewhat similar was the Order of the Bar-
nabites (1530). But the rapid growth and great in
fluence of the Jesuits — themselves a part of this
widespread movement — overshadowed these earlier
and lesser branches of it.

THE REFORMATION

The work of the learned Cardinal Nicholas (Krebs),
of Cusa, as Papal Legate in Germany (1451), was
similar. A former advocate of the Conciliar theory,
he now worked for the Papacy, whose power for
reform was, at any rate, not exhausted, as was the
Council's ; from Salzburg to the Netherlands he jour
neyed, preaching with great effect, holding Synods
(which were more frequent now), and visiting the
monasteries. " He," says Trithemius (himself a worker
of the same class), " appeared in Germany as an angel
of light appears in the midst of darkness and con
fusion; he re-established the unity of the Church,
strengthening the authority of the visible head, scat
tering abundant seeds of new life. . . . God was the
starting-point of all his knowledge — the glory of God
and the bettering of mankind the object of all his
wisdom." We are too apt to consider the work of
ecclesiastical and monastic discipline purely technical,
but this new and firmer discipline enforced a high
ideal where it was most needed on the priests and
teachers of all ; the restoration of monastic discipline
meant not only the removal of scandals, but the in
creased efficiency of what were at once schools, religious
communities, and the medieval counterparts of our
religious societies.
Amid general tendencies and broad results isolated
currents of thought can often be noticed. One such had
Mysticism, existed in Germany in the School of Mystics,
Brethren of necessarily more absorbed in the personal
the Common than the social side of religion. But even
such influence joined with others to keep
alive the ideal and the practice of the Church; they
were in no sense heretical in doctrine, they were not

INTRODUCTION

even anti-Papal in politics. Many of these influences
were grouped around centres of that remarkable society
the Brethren of the Common Life.
Founded by Gerhard Groot (about 1380 a.d.) with a
simple and practical aim — the improvement of life
and the work of education — the Brethren were after
wards organised upon a semi-monastic model. Their
spread was rapid, and they soon became the leading
influence in the Netherlands and North-West Ger
many. Copying of MSS., and later on the printing of
books, were among their practical works ; the love of
classics and a sound religious tone were the chief
marks of the education they gave. Not only the
Bible, but the Fathers also, were the objects of their
study: if some of their pupils equalled Italians in
their learning, most of them surpassed the Italians in
the purity of their lives. Germany, and not Italy,
was the earlier field of the Renaissance ; from 1456-
1506 no less than nine universities were founded, and
the movement there had an ethical and practical tone
lacking in Italy. Of the German Renaissance the
Brethren of the Common Life were, above all, the
forerunners and the authors. Their history belongs to
the century before the Reformation, but their import
ance is greatest in the Reformation period itself, for
their labours began a movement sometimes called the
Catholic Reformation, sometimes the Counter- Reforma
tion, a movement too often regarded as a mere reaction
against the Protestant Reformation, beginning only
when that had spent its force. But a truer conception
is to see the origin of both Protestant Reformation
and Catholic Reformation (or Counter-Reformation) in
a movement earlier than either, and containing the

THE REFORMATION

germs of both. In that earlier movement the Brethren
of the Common Life played a leading part.
The Revival of Learning — a phrase often used to
imply more ignorance on the part of the Middle Ages
The than they possessed — was to a large extent
Revival of a separate movement in Italy and Germany.
Learning. jn ^he former it was classical, artistic, and
even pagan; in the latter it was practical and edu
cational, allied to theology. In England, under Grocyn,
Colet, and More, it was more akin to the German type.
Under Nicholas V. the Renaissance captured the
Papacy. The Curia — that group of officials who often
bought their posts and lived on their fees, and whose
interest lay in opposing reform — was now deeply
tinged with the classical spirit, somewhat indeed with
the pagan. Absorbed in its politics, affected mainly
by the Italian side of Renaissance, the Papacy was out
of touch with the better side of ecclesiastical life. It
was a problem whether the energy and power of this
great movement could be controlled and guided by the
Church. Julius II. saw the problem, and so far as art
and architecture went, he solved it. But other Popes
hardly saw the difficulty or the chance, and the merits
of Leo X. have often been exaggerated in this direction.
The failure of the Conciliar movement had left the
Papacy the guardian of the Church's unity, the official
leader of any possible reform. But it was not to be
until well into the sixteenth century that it rose to the
height of its work. Hence it was that a man like
Erasmus, the product of the early German movement
for reform, was in imperfect sympathy with the Papacy
itself while an advocate of all that the Papacy stood for.
In Spain no less than in Germany the Church had

INTRODUCTION 13
passed through a critical time. The constant presence
of the Moors, the seeming need of a crusade against
these tangible enemies of the Cross, had given Spanish
Christianity a character of its own — serene, lofty,
enthusiastic on the one hand, but self-absorbed and
intolerant on the other. Circumstances had led to a
closer union of Church and State than was found else
where. The relations with the Papacy were regulated
by the Concordat of 1482, by which the Crown gained
the nomination to bishoprics converted under Adrian
VI. into the right of presentation. The royal right of
" Placet," together with the anti-Papal enactments of
the Cortes, had limited (much as in England) Papal
jurisdiction and taxation. The Inquisition had been
set up in Castile and Arragon (in the former of which
it was more popular than in the latter) in November,
1477. Twenty years later the right of appeal from it
to the Pope was done away with, and henceforth it
was an instrument of civil government at times too
strong for the power controlling it. The Papacy was
ready to restrain its powers, as desired to do by the
Cortes of Arragon under Charles V., had not the King
protested. Where the royal power was so great many
rulers would have used the Church purely for their
own political ends. It was the peculiarity of "the
Catholic sovereigns," as they well deserved to be
called, to place before themselves a high religious
ideal. Queen Isabella found a strenuous
fellow-worker in Cardinal Ximenes, a strict xfmtnes
Franciscan and her confessor since 1492,
In 1495 he was raised to the rich and important arch
bishopric of Toledo, although less aristocratic than his
predecessors. He carried on both among regulars and

i4 THE REFORMATION
seculars a work of reform. Strict monastic visitations
and the appointment to high offices and bishoprics of
men of only the highest character changed the ecclesi
astical tone of the country. And with him learning
as well as piety was essential. His own foundation,
the University of Alcala, produced the Complutensian
Polyglot, and its biblical studies were as famous as the
scholastic attainments of its older rival, Salamanca.
At the latter university the influence of Aquinas was
supreme, and hence Spanish theologians gained a repu
tation for depth and conservatism, joined to a high
level of life. It should be set against the cruelty of
the Inquisition that under Ximenes it was used to
enforce upon the clergy a rigorous purity and zeal.
If, then, the evils from which the Church suffered
were great, it was something that they were admitted
and that their removal had been attempted. Means of
reform — local movements of reform in varied directions
— were at hand to help a general movement. Higher
ideals of life, new heights of learning, had been held
up to the expiring Middle Ages. It was important
for the world, when political causes and jealousies —
national and dynastic — were rending it, to realise its
ecclesiastical and spiritual unity. But new forms of
life, new currents of thought, are hard to control.
And the future of Europe, at any rate, depended upon
the spirit and vigour in which the Church approached
her task. Signs of danger and of promise were
strangely mingled. Would the leaders of the Church
have the sagacity to see them both? Would they
have the power and the courage to seize the one and
escape the other ?

CHAPTER II
THE PAPACY AND THE LATERAN COUNCIL
ON August 18th, 1503, Alexander VI. (Borgia) died,
to the unspeakable joy of all Rome, it was said.
Even he had acknowledged, somewhat tardily, the need
for reform in discipline, although his great aim had
been to consolidate the states of the Church. A
commission had been appointed to consider what was
needed, and it had reported (1597) — sales of benefices
were to be prohibited, pluralities, even if held by
Cardinals, to be restricted. This impulse to better
things, however, soon passed away in the stress of
politics and dynastic projects. The Conclave that
followed his death — divided into French, Italian, and
Spanish parties — compromised by the election of
Pius III. (Cardinal Piccolomini, a nephew of Pius II.),
worthy in character but aged and sickly. Wide re
form and a council were promised. The Archbishop
of Mainz formulated the needs of Germany, which,
repeated in 1457, 1510, and 1522, may be sum
marised as mainly reforms in Papal relations, ecclesi
astical finance and patronage. But these hopes were
ended by the new Pope's death (October
18th). On All Saints' Day (1503) Julius J^us "¦'
Rovere succeeded and became Julius II.
His Papacy (1503-13) was filled by Italian wars, in
»5

16 THE REFORMATION
which as a patriot and even as a soldier the Pope
played a leading part. By the League of Cambrai,
formed against Venice (1508), he gained for the
Papacy Ravenna (that old rival of Rome), Rimini,
and Faenza ; by the Holy League, formed against
France by him with Venice, Spain, and England
(1511), he further gained Parma and Piacenza.
Thus he consolidated the temporal power. Criti
cism, both then and since, has dealt severely
with the warfare and diplomacy that gained his
end. That end was frankly secular; indeed, the
most spiritual feature of Julius was his grand and
deliberate employment of art at its best. But without
the Papal States the Pope would have been un
doubtedly weaker ; the absence of possessions does -
not always imply freedom from cares, nor the lack
of temporalities a gain of spirituality. For Italian
politics the Papal States were a necessity ; their exist
ence caused no more scandal than the possession by
a bishop of lands or fiefs. Claims to these territories,
variously founded and not always enforced, had been
acquired by a process centuries long. But when gained
the territories had been ruled more as estates or fiefs
than as an ordered State ; vassals inside and outside
had held the real power, and it was not until the days
of Julius II. that the Papacy really ruled in its own
territory. When churchmen elsewhere were striving
at high moral aims, the secure acquisition, or even the
peaceful ordering of territory seemed a poor ideal by
comparison. But this policy gave the Papacy a sure
footing in Italy, without which its influence at this
time would have been small. Italian sympathy went
with Julius ; his policy was manly and respectable,

THE LATERAN COUNCIL i7

even if his warfare was unsuited to a Pope. At any
rate, the Papacy was now a power to be reckoned
with in politics, and in Italian politics it was of the
first importance.
There was here nothing very lofty, such could hardly
be looked for from Julius' character, but his edict
against simony in Papal elections, published on his
accession and further recommended to the Cardinals
on his death-bed, was a sign of better days.
Lewis XII. of France, " the eldest son of the Church,"
when annoyed by Papal policy could retaliate upon
the Pope by exchanging spheres of action. Anti-Papal
Attacked by the Pope in politics he could Policy of
reply in spiritual matters. A French Synod Lewis XII.
called (September 14th, 1510) at Tours condemned
upon formal interrogation the Pope's action, affirmed
the King's right to defend himself even by withdraw
ing his obedience, and appealed for justice to a
General Council. Next year, in the midst of these
political difficulties and of a campaign where Julius
commanded in person, five discontented Cardinals,
headed by the Spaniard Carvajal, called a Council at
Pisa for September 1st. The Pope's reply was to
fulfil tardily his earlier promise by summoning a
General Council to meet at the Lateran on April 19th,
1512. Its objects were to extinguish schism, reform the
Church, and arrange a crusade against the Turks, a
constant danger to Europe. But taken as a reply to
Lewis this summons lost much of its grace and power.
The obedience of other sovereigns was not too certain.
Maximilian in Germany had not only assjyaettVbha"
title of Emperor, although not crowned/J>iy tfl£ Paper'

THE REFORMATION

but amid his countless plans had even dreamt of
becoming Pope as well as Emperor. And Diet after
Diet had placed ecclesiastical reform among the first
necessities of the Empire.
Maximilian sought advice at this time from the
great Heidelberg scholar Wimpheling. The Emperor
The na(l thought of introducing a Pragmatic
Emperor Sanction as in France (by which his juris-
Maximilian. di0tion and right of nomination to oifices
would be secured), of appropriating the annates (here
following Spanish precedents), and, lastly, of obtaining
practical independence for the Church in Germany
under the guidance of a permanent Legate with the
fullest power. Wimpheling's advice was to proceed
by reforming the financial and judicial relations be
tween Germany and the Curia rather than by such
radical changes as suggested. The evils he named had
been complained of in 1457, and were to appear in
German gravamina again and again before their final
appearance at Trent in 1561. The greater freedom of
France and England had increased the Papal demands
upon Germany, and the failure of all reforms in her
politics threw stress upon the needed ecclesiastical
reforms. The attempted Council at Pisa fell somewhat flat, in
spite of lukewarm support from France. The Council
called by Julius, on the other hand, was slightly post
poned by some French successes, but at length was
opened on May 3rd (1512) with an eloquent sermon
by Egidius of Viterbo on the need of reform and a
Turkish crusade. In the earlier sessions little was
done except to declare its rival at Pisa schismatic,
and a prorogation to November 3rd took place. By

THE LATERAN COUNCIL 19
that time Maximilian had given his adhesion to the
Lateran assembly, and sent Duke George of Saxony
to urge reform. The delicate question of the French
Pragmatic Sanction had also been begun, but affairs
moved slowly. On February 20th, 1513, Julius died.
The new Pope, Leo X. — Giovanni, son of Lorenzo
the Magnificent — was an Italian, skilled in politics, but
lacking the restless energy and force of
Julius II. ; in himself he was a child of the "'
Renaissance with all its love of ease and
beauty, but his official patronage of ,art and litera
ture was slight and ineffective. For a time the wars
of the Allies against France lingered on, but if the
aims of Julius, now the aims of Leo also, were to be
reached, and a schism to be avoided, peace had to
be made. The schismatic cardinals were pardoned,
and (December 19th, 1513) the submission of France
to the Council received. The easy schism thus easily
reconciled, questions of doctrine -came up for discus
sion, and the philosophic crudities of Italian philo
sophers led to a decree against deniers of the soul's
immortality. The committee appointed to prepare a
scheme of reform reported, but mainly in general
terms ; there were no adequate attempts to meet the
reasonable complaints of Germany and France; the
restrictions now placed on pluralities could be easily
evaded (May, 1514). Next year a decree limited
exemptions from episcopal control ; yearly visitations
of convents so exempted were to be made by the
diocesan. * 4
Another decree ordered that^ all cases concern
ing benefices (except those reserved by the Pope)
should, in the first instance, come before the bishop.

THE REFORMATION

A third decree, in the spirit of the Spanish Inquisi
tion, placed the control of all printing-presses in the
hands of the bishops.
The ideal of the assembly was thus seen to be not
new legislation, but the enforcement of old rules —
one most useful decree was that which insisted upon
the frequent meeting of Synods — a feature of ^Church
life which had shown itself in every period of medi
eval reform, and was specially marked in Spain and
Germany at this time. More, however, had been
looked for from the Council, and had it not been for
the opposition, hardly restrained by the Pope, between
cardinals and bishops, more might have been gained.
Against the Curia the bishops were powerless, but
against their old foes — monks and friars — they gained
more control both over their monasteries internally
and over their preaching outside. The weight attached
to the Council as a whole was seen when the tax
upon the clergy voted for the crusade was not paid
either by Spain, or by Germany; they waited until
they saw the war actually begun.
The repudiation of the Pragmatic Sanction and the
confirmation by the Council of the Concordat of
Bologna between Leo and Francis I. was less a gain
to the Church than to the Papacy. For the Pope
regained the annates, but the right of nominating to
bishoprics and other dignities fell to the King ; the
old Gallican liberties so closely bound up with the
Conciliar theory were, however, abandoned, and this
was in principle and for the time a victory for the
Pope. When the Council, which had never numbered much
more than one hundred cardinals and bishops, was dis-

THE LATERAN COUNCIL

solved (March 16, 1517) its actual accomplishments
were smaller than its significance. It had The
been the genuine outcome of the' two lead- Lateran
ing factors in the Church politics of the Council.
time — a wide and deep wish for reform, and the more
secular needs of the Papacy. The Papacy had for
many years gathered to itself nearly all ecclesiastical
power ; it had directed nearly all ecclesiastical work ;
men looked to it to undertake the pressing need of
reform, but this was beyond its power and outside its
wish. The Council was ready to undertake the work,
but it split on the rock of opposition between the
Curia and the Bishops — an opposition that was to grow
even stronger by the Council of Trent. The one fact
that did come out more clearly than ever was the
power of the Pope. He was " as a second God upon
earth," said one bishop. The high Papal theory had
never been more boldly stated than by the learned
Thomas de Vio (Cardinal Cajetan), General of the
Dominicans, in a sermon at the second Session (May,
1512). But as" yet the Papacy had not risen to the
call made upon it, and was led rather by minor
considerations than by religious impulse or principle.
There was a divergence, more marked as the century
went on, between this exaltation of Papal power and
this demand for reform which the Papacy had so far
failed to meet. While the Western Church, however,
had thus shown its needs and wishes, its ruling theory
and its lack of power, political combinations and new
social developments were changing everything. The
rulers of the West — like the Popes themselves — found
motives more inspiring than their unity or religious
faith. The Turk, who had crushed the Christianity of

THE REFORMATION

the East, was thundering at the gate of the West;
revolution, to gather force from political anarchy and
social change, was at hand. Germany, more than all
States bound up with Italy and with Rome, more open
than all States to the disorders of Church life, was to
be its seat.

CHAPTER III
GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION
UP TO 1529
CHURCH life in Germany early in the sixteenth
century had marked features of its own ; nowhere
were the higher offices of more political importance
and more secular in administration. At a date little
later a Bavarian prince was Archbishop of Germany
Koln and held four other sees without being at the
in priest's orders. Less striking cases of the o/fhe""^
same aristocratic abuse were common. The Sixteenth
princes to whose families this abuse was due Century.
were, moreover, drawing all power into their own
hands. Beneath all this there lay, however, both
the revival of learning with its great schools at
Deventer, Schletstadt, and elsewhere, and also the
deep movement towards a higher life among the
Brethren of the Common Life, the Benedictines,
Augustinian Friars, and others. Under better politi
cal circumstances, and with effective national institu
tions, these movements would have been more effective ;
in the fight of emperor, princes, cities, and peasants
they lost much of their force. A more efficient Church
unity — such as a strong and unselfish Papacy would
have directed — might have saved them; but it was
23

24 THE REFORMATION
here — in the relations of Papacy and the German
Church — that most faults had been already laid bare.
The Humanist movement in Germany was (as said
before) mainly Christian in tone and, above all, educa
tional. Intercourse with Italian Humanists
could not fail to bring in other and more
pagan elements, and a fresh cause of discord between
the Humanists and leading churchmen had arisen.
Reuchlin, the greatest of German scholars, not content
with Latin and Greek, turned to Hebrew, and on the
possible use of Jewish literature, a quarrel began
between him and the Dominicans. A converted Jew,
Pfefferkorn, wished to destroy all Jewish books, and
the Dominicans of Koln, especially the Inquisitor-
General, Jacob Hochstraten, agreed with him. Reuchlin
took the wiser side of tolerance ; the strife soon
became of literary, theological, and even of political
importance. From a summons to appear before the
Inquisition at Mainz, Reuchlin appealed to Leo X.
(1513). A Papal commission (July, 1516) sympathised
with the new learning, and acquitted him of heresy ;
but Leo, preferring personal peace to action, put off his
own decision.
In Germany, however, the whole strength of learning
had been thrown on the side of Reuchlin ; the oppo
nents, the reactionary party — which in ecclesiastical
matters so often claims to represent traditions greater
and better than its principles — had been consolidated ;
parties were strongly marked. When Leo (June, 1520)
gave his decision, condemning Reuchlin's book, the
Augenspiegel, the theological significance of the struggle
was exhausted ; but its literary and scholastic signifi
cance remained. Ulrich von Hutten, a knight, and there-

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 25

fore sharing the national feelings of that most impor
tant German class, a scholar whose patriotism was only
heightened by his study of ancient life, had mocked
the timid scholars of Koln in the Epistolce Obscurorum
Virorum, written by him along with Crotus Rubianus
and others. Hutten had previously satirised Julius II.
and the Papal Court ; the struggle about Reuchlin
threw the main literary strength of Germany on the
same anti-Papal side, where much of its political
strength had long been gathering.
The greatest name in Germany and far beyond it
was that of Erasmus. Born at Rotterdam about 1466,
he was educated partly at Deventer, partly
at Herzogenbusch, in schools of the Common ^SmUSI
Life. Here he received the best education the
dying Medieval world could give, tinged by classical
learning, directed towards the study of MSS. of the
Fathers of the Bible. Thus his youth was passed among
the reforming and creative influences already noted. At
an early date he received from a comrade his first im
pulse to the study of Jerome, the Father who was his
model and his type. In 1486 he made his profession
as a regular in the Augustinian Monastery of Stein,
but his tastes were those of a scholar, and for a scholar
travel was essential. In 1496 we find him, a priest of
four years' standing, at the University of Paris. Thus
he started on his life, emphatically that of a cosmo
politan scholar at home wherever learning was to be
found, and in his own case, since his birthplace was
amid the shifty politics of the Netherlands, with no
patriotism to counteract the wider tastes. Visits to
England brought him into touch with Colet — a deeply
religious teacher at Oxford and as Dean of St. Paul's —

26 THE REFORMATION
and with Sir Thomas More, the typical scholar of
England, akin to Germany rather than to Italy in his
tastes. But the influence of these two characters
upon him has often been over-estimated, for before
he knew them he had received the best impulses of his
life and laid down the lines of his future theology.
Residence at Oxford and Cambridge (where he was
Professor of Divinity) gave him further chances of
influencing others. In 1507 he visited Italy, and was
tempted to settle at Rome, an image of the world in
miniature, and after many movements between the
Netherlands and England he at last (1521) settled
down at Basel, his headquarters since 1514. Of his
many works, his Colloquies (Latin conversations on
topics mainly ecclesiastical and moral) and his Praise
of Folly were, and are still, the most popular. Their
humour is modern in its type and its delicacy of touch.
All the contradictions, the coarseness, the abuses, and
.the ignorance of the Medieval world come under the
lash of his satire. He did not spare the monks to
whom his old teachers of the Common Life stood in
hostility; he did not spare the abuses of administra
tion, the excrescences of devotion (such as the exaggera
tions of pilgrimages and relics), and the moral short
comings so freely pointed out by others. But it was
the distortions and not the spirit of Medieval Chris
tianity that he assaulted. On the positive side his
New Testament with paraphrases (1516), his editions
of Jerome, Cyprian, Augustine, and part of Athanasius
were great achievements, illustrating the theological
and educational instincts, at times also the critical
deficiencies, of the German Renaissance. In details his
critical work might be at fault, but the impulse and

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 27
the spirit were sound. "Good letters," a learned
theology, were to be the foundations of the Reforma
tion he wished to see. His whole ideal was based on
Church unity, which was indeed another and a higher
aspect of the common brotherhood of learning, for him
his very fatherland and home. It is significant how
all the movements of reform in various jjis
countries gather round him — in England, relation to
France, and Spain all look to him and Reform-
depend upon his letters. Those, on the other hand,
who distrusted the expansive spirit of learning instinc
tively opposed him, and in each of these lands he had
controversies upon his hands. He represents at their
strongest and best those earlier movements whose
influences we have seen. Amid the events that were
soon to happen this mental attitude seemed to hold
him aloof from revolution and reaction alike. It was
due to something more deeply rooted than either a
timid disposition or his criticism of Luther's acts.
Driven from Basel by the Eeformation, he significantly
passed to Freiburg in Breisgau, a quiet home of learn
ing. His name was almost obscured by that of
Luther, and as, in spite of pressure from Louvain, he
kept his former paths he was blamed for timidity
or half-hearted zeal.
Martin Luther, the son of a Saxon peasant and with
the strong, thorough Saxon temperament, had joined
the Augustinian Friars at Erfurt ; there he
came under the influence of the monastic Luther>
reform which Proles began and von Staupitz
carried on. In his visitations as vicar von Staupitz
became a spiritual guide to Luther, whose deep sense
of sin and rigid performance of duties were strongly

28 THE REFORMATION
marked ; by the vicar's advice he turned himself to
biblical study, the special characteristic of Erfurt.
The Elector Frederic the Wise had founded (1502) a
university at Wittenberg, which was from the first the
home of Humanism, and in the management of which
Staupitz had a great share. To this university Luther
was called (1508); he visited Rome (1510) on business
for his Order, and saw in Italy not only the abuses he
knew in Germany, but also an absorption in politics
with a more pagan form of scholarship and even life.
On his return he took his Doctor's degree, and began
to lecture and preach, while still keeping up his
biblical studies. In these years he came under the
influence of the mystic theologians, the school to which
Tauler, whose sermons he praised, and to whom he at
tributed the Deutsche Theologie, afterwards edited by him.
In the Middle Ages, as at all times, popular theology
had on many points outrun authorised theology : the
fifteenth century was overladen both in bold
Theology speculations and practical details by the re
sults of past generations. There were many
matters in which a large and fluctuating body of fluid
opinions and varying practices had gathered round a
small nucleus of admitted truth. This was notably
the case with the doctrine of Indulgences. The
Church as a body, with a discipline of its own, had
the power of imposing external penalties for sin, but
to ensure forgiveness contrition was needed in addition
to this penalty: furthermore, since the Church was
a divine body the performance or the neglect of any
duty prescribed by it had a real bearing upon the
spiritual life. The custom had grown up — purely as
a matter of practice — of granting an indulgence or

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 29
remission of these external penalties on account of
some special act of faith or charity duly performed.
In the Ely Registers of John de Fordham (1388-1426),
for instance, there are numerous entries of Indulgences
mainly for works of charity : repairs of roads, support
of the blind, of hermits, and of pilgrims, maintenance
of chapels, making good losses by fire, release of
captives, prayers for the success of the King in the
Welsh war (1405), prayers for the dead, and so on.
The tendency in later years was for the granting of
these Indulgences to pass more and more into the
hands of the Pope, in this respect as in others epis
copal power being weakened. But in any case the
process meant the substitution by some authority re
presenting the Church of a general act of penance for
a number of varied acts prescribed in separate cases
by an inferior authority.
All this, however, related solely to the outward act
of penance. As public penance had become rarer,
and sacramental confession laid stress on its
other elements — the confession and absolu- ,juigenceSi
tion — the act of penance had become more
and more nominal, more like the ordinary fines of civil
life as tabulated in Medieval codes. The conception
of fines, in short, devoted to religious or ecclesiastical
objects grew up, and was extended by the system of
Indulgences, reckoned for so many years in proportion
to the amount. But with the vivid Medieval notion
of Purgatory, the expression (say) of an Indulgence
for a hundred years (originally only a measure of scale)
was open to misconstruction, and in the hands of
ecclesiastical rulers not specially spiritual in mind the
system itself was open to abuse. From a war against

30 THE REFORMATION
the Turks the objects multiplied until (1509) Julius II.
issued an Indulgence for the rebuilding of S. Peter's.
But this simpler aspect of indulgences — which
however open to abuse did yet emphasise both the
idea of sin, and also the fact that all sin is no merely
private matter, but concerns the Church — was compli
cated by another doctrine, that of the Treasure of the
Church, its accumulation of prayers and blessings :
a complex subject upon which Medieval thinkers had
speculated widely. More and more the control of
Indulgences, the assumed power to use the Treasure
of the Church, had passed from the episcopate to the
Popes. Indulgences were a form of Papal income,
and as such at times opposed by jealous sovereigns :
they, like other branches of Papal income, were often
condemned both by isolated thinkers and popular
opinion ; the " questers," or preachers of Indulgences
were often hated and despised, even where freely
encouraged in their trade.
This doctrine and practice of Indulgence is specially
hard for us to estimate fairly; speculation and dis
cussion were still at work upon it ; both its scientific
and its popular expression were tinged by the ecclesi
astical, legal, and social ideas of the day. In practice
it touched on the one side the power and finances of
the Curia : on the other the defective clerical discipline
and the lax moral sense of the day. Indulgences had
caused discussion both on the scholastic and the
practical side : doctrinally they needed definition,
practically they needed reform. Efforts after a stricter
monastic and clerical discipline, the study of theology
on a more biblical basis, would make these needs more
apparent; both these elements were found in the

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 31
Saxon Augustinians under Staupitz ; a keen personal
sense of sin, and the apprehension of a living Saviour,
would deepen the sense of abuse : both these feelings
were found in Luther.
The charge of the Indulgence issued by Leo X. for
the rebuilding of S. Peter's was given along with half
the proceeds in his provinces of Mainz and Luther's
Magdeburg to Archbishop Albert of Bran- theses.
denburg; he could thus recoup himself for a gift to
Leo which had gained him the See of Mainz. For
political reasons the Elector of Saxony did not allow
Tetzel the Commissioner to preach it in his land,
but he visited the neighbouring places. Already a
visitation of the Augustinian convents of Saxony
(when he was deputy for Staupitz) had convinced
Luther as to the need of a reform of discipline :
already he had studied the Pauline epistles with
their insistence upon justification by faith, and
lectured upon them (1516). From this standpoint,
and also as a teacher who dealt with practical
questions and knew the views of the common man,
Luther was bound to oppose this development of
Indulgences. But the method of his opposition was
academic and Medieval ; he fastened ninety-five theses,
or subjects for argument, to the door of the Castle
Church. While he laid stress upon the spiritual pro
cess of repentance, Luther proposed, by the Medieval
process of disputation, to discuss the kernel of accepted
doctrine apart from accretions of opinion or unhealthy
practice : he wished to ascertain the true teaching of
the Church : from the Bishop of Brandenburg, his
ordinary, to whom he wrote, he received a reply ap
proving his views, but advising silence. Luther had

32 THE REFORMATION
no doubt but that the Pope would equally be on his
side. The area of the discussion widened : University
opinion had then more interest for princes and popu
lace than it has often had since. Political causes
intensified its tone, and it ceased to be a mere search
after truth. The Elector Frederick, from jealousy of
the House of Brandenburg, would naturally defend
Luther: others from interested motives would attack
him. Public and academic opinion was already excited
not only by the Reuchlin discussion, but by the demands
for Church reform, in Germany a question of politics.
Tetzel, naturally concerned, took up the opposition ;
his fellow Dominicans, still sore from the Reuchlin
incident, sided with him. Against Luther's theological
grounds stress was laid upon the power of the Pope
and ecclesiastical order. Not only Hochstraten the
Inquisitor, but a Dominican in higher place — Silvester
Mazzolini (Prierias), Master of the Palace to the Pope,
and a learned commentator upon Aquinas — issued
a reply. The Universal Church was in practice the
Roman Church : the Roman Church was in practice
the Pope : the custom of the Church was as binding
as law, and any doubt upon it was heresy. Ground was
thus deliberately chosen upon which no distinction of
doctrines, customs, or authority could be admitted. In
his replies (some of which were, like other pamphlets
of the day, coarse in tone), Luther was led on to draw
distinctions as to Papal power, and the doctrine of the
Church and S. Thomas Aquinas. But he was still
ready to submit to the decision of the Pope, and he
had no doubt what that must be.
Although called to Rome (July, 1518), it was finally

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 33
  \, ¦¦)¦' 
arranged Luther should appear instead before the E8ga&£
Cardinal Cajetan at the Augsburg Diet Luther and
(September). Thos. de Vio (Cajetan) was Cajetan,
the Dominican whose sermon at the Lateran x5l8'
Council had so strongly set forth the Curialist ideal
of the Papal power. His learning was undoubted;
he was far from accepting the vulgar view of In
dulgences, but his first anxiety was to silence the
controversy that had arisen. He and Luther went
some way towards meeting each other, but they started
from opposite points : it was hard to reconcile authority
stretched to cover existing customs, and faith stretched
to cover insubordination. The interview ended in
Luther's appeal to the Pope better informed, afterwards
enlarged to an appeal from the Pope to a Council.
The question had now grown larger. Luther had in
his favour his own personal vigour and force, backed
by the growing school of Wittenberg, by the Scotist
idealist reaction against the Thomist theology, by the
national feeling of Germans against the Papacy. But
the Embassy of Miltitz, wisely chosen by the Pope as
both a diplomatist and a Saxon, seemed likely to com
pose the strife even at this later stage (December,
1518). Luther was ready to admit the use, within
limits, of Indulgences, and the need of unity along
with respect for Papal commands : he would keep
silence if his antagonists did the same. From Mil
titz he gathered that the abuses he had attacked
were not likely to be maintained by the Papal Court.
It mattered little that the decretal of Leo X., borne
by Miltitz, stated as a minimum the doctrine of S.
Thomas, although not exactly the doctrine of Tetzel
(who was now, indeed, in disgrace) : by the power of
D

34 THE REFORMATION
the keys the sacrament of penance removed the guilt
of sin, and the Indulgence, by using the Treasure of
the Church, could remove its temporal punishment:
the Pope could, by the means of prayer (per modum
suffragii), transfer an Indulgence to souls in Purgatory.
Silence upon these lines was certainly possible, had
not the Leipzig disputation (June, 1519) raised wider
issues. John of Eck (Maier), of Ingolstadt, had grown from
a youthful prodigy into a scholastic gladiator, and was
The eager for distinction : Carlstadt, a former
Dispute colleague of Luther's, ill-balanced in mind,
with Eck. an(j in f;he en(j a preacher of revolution,
was equally eager to state his views. A literary
dispute between the two arose (May, 1518), and
Luther, who arranged a personal discussion between
them at Leipzig (June 27th, 1519), was in the end
drawn into it himself. Directly challenged upon the
primacy of the Pope and the Roman See, he was led
on to express views of it labelled by his opponents
as Hussite, and later on owned as such by himself.
It is hard to give blame to either party for breaking
the truce, but Luther, as the leader and as personally
pledged, had to bear the most of it : the negotiations,
complicated and unsatisfactory, were at an end: Luther
had taken up a new position, and the quarrel had
passed into its second stage. His language was not
at all times consistent, and the point had been raised
more by his adversaries than by himself. But it was
to be the controversy of the time, and Luther — a man
of impulse and instmct rather than reflection and
insight— now threw himself into it heart and soul.
He had not faced the question previously, but when

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 35
he did so, he found that unexpected logical results
were needed by his position.
Other theologians or writers — Wiclif in England
and Gregory of Heimburg, in Germany, for instance,
had reached the same position, but nothing
of importance came from their assertions. .In*|uences
Luther's fate differed from theirs, mainly 0f Luther.
because of the altered times and the
political circumstances of Germany. There was an
admitted need of reform, political and ecclesiastical,
there were difficult and strained relations between
Emperor, Pope, and Princes; above all, there was
a ferment of thought which led parties readily to
crystallise around a nucleus of definite assertion. The
Papal Nuncio Aleander said (1521) that the priests
joined in Luther's revolt, not for his sake, but from
hatred Of Rome ; five years before this he had heard
from many Germans that they were only waiting for
some foolish man to give the signal by opening his
mouth against Rome. Luther also drew to himself
some of the Hussite feeling never wholly dead : some
thing, too, of the old Conciliar sympathies went out
towards him, at any rate in the earlier stages of his
influence. The doctrine of Wiclif, carried to the young
University of Prague, had become the watchword of the
Bohemian nationalists eager to oppose the encroaching
German influence. The death of Huss — whose leading
works were bare literal copies of Wiclif 's — had been
followed by long wars, settled in outward form by the
Council of Basel. The compromise by which com
munion in both kinds was allowed to the Bohemians
had never been sanctioned by the Popes, but this out
ward mark of difference still continued, and its more

36 THE REFORMATION
extended use was urged later at Trent both by the
Emperor Ferdinand and the French ambassadors. Thus
the memory of a revolt against Papal authority joined
to doctrinal heresy was still kept alive ; the printing-
press by publishing some of Huss's works about this
time brought his views forward still more. At Erfurt,
too, where Luther had been trained, the Conciliar
theory of Church politics survived. In many ways, then,
a movement which was anti-Papal could depend upon
a sympathy more widely spread than could one which
was purely doctrinal or reformatory.
But it was more important that he also gathered
around himself the growing national feeling : a typical
German in virtues as in failings, in his hearty
erman sincerity as in his frequent coarseness and
Feeling. blunt independence, he now stood as a repre
sentative of his nation in a struggle where
more than academic and clerical interests were in
volved. His great writings of 1520 — his Address to
the nobility of the German nation and his Babylonian
Captivity — showed him to be every inch a popular
leader: the knights led by Ulrich von Hutten and Franz
von Sickingen, freelances, one in letters and the other
in the field, took up his cause ; in the tangled state
of politics he was a useful ally for some who did
not share his opinions ; the Bull of condemnation (June
15th, 1520) brought to Germany by Eck met with
little support : it was easy for a territorial prince to
shelter a subject in even greater dangers, and Frederic
the Wise was not likely to give up a professor of his
favoured University. He urged further consideration
upon the Pope, while Luther himself grew bolder and
bolder, until at the end of 1520 he burnt the Papal bull.

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 37
In January, 1521, the Diet of Worms met under the
new Emperor Charles V. in person : his election
(June 28th, 1519) had been carried against
the French party and had not been welcome JL ie
to the Pope. As the ruler of Spain and the 1$2I,
Netherlands he had other interests than
those of Germany alone to consider. The Spanish
influences of his youth (although he was brought up
in the Netherlands) had given him an ideal of a church
reformed after the Spanish model — righteous and dis
ciplined, but under the control of the State, and at
times not shrinking from an anti-Papal policy. His
religious principles were the real guide of his life, but
the needs of his scattered and discordant realms and
the constant poverty of his means made him less
effective for good than with more power he would
have been. Leo dreading lest Charles, master of
Naples as he was, should become too powerful an
Emperor, had supported the election of Francis I. of
France. Remembering this Charles's advisers were
willing to favour Luthe*r in order to embarrass the
Pope : not only they, but Aleander also saw Luther's
importance. In April Luther appeared before the Diet, and was
asked whether he were willing to withdraw his works :
after a day's consideration he refused unless convinced
from Scripture of their falsehood.- This was a formal
defiance of the Church, for to neither Pope nor Council
would he now submit : the fallibility of Councils he
indeed expressly asserted. Negotiations, with little
result, delayed the climax until (May, 1521) by the
authority of the Emperor, though against the wish
of some Electors, Luther was put under the ban of the

38 THE REFORMATION
Emperor : his teaching was to be suppressed, and his
books destroyed (Edict of Worms). It was significant
that this condemnation was held more really important
than that by the Pope. This very Diet, however, had
presented to the Emperor Wimpheling's old list of
complaints against the Curia, dealing mainly with fees,
patronage, and conflicts of jurisdiction ; at its close the
Archbishop of Mainz wrote to the Pope that the
number of Lutherans was increased, few laymen sided
with the clergy, the majority even of priests were
ashamed to support the Roman Church, "so hateful
was the name of the Roman Curia and the Papal
decrees." Thus a movement not more formidable at first than
others of no permanent effect had by the circumstances
. . of its origin and the manner in which it was
met become of the greatest moment. The
incident could not, as Leo blind to its gravity had
hoped, be speedily closed. The Emperor, a good
Catholic as he asserted, devout and orthodox in
doctrine as were his Spanish subjects, might have
small sympathy with Luther, although his advisers
saw possible political uses for this bold heretic. In
religion the Emperor and Pope were drawn together :
politics had thrown them together also, and Milan
(November 19th, 1521) had been seized by their allied
armies. England, too, rising under Wolsey's guidance
to a great position in Europe, was in their alliance.
At this very time, however, Leo died (December 1st,
1521), but not before he had heard the reward of his
alliance— the recovery of Parma and Piacenza for his
dominions. But the crisis in Germany, quieted only
for a time, outweighed this purely territorial gain.

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 39
On January 9th, 1522, Adrian of Utrecht, formerly
tutor to the Emperor and now his Viceroy in Spain,
was elected Pope, since neither French nor
Spanish could carry their candidates. A nan ''
native of Utrecht, educated in schools of
the Common Life, he had been a teacher of theology
at Louvain ; he was now Bishop of Tortosa and a
Cardinal of four years' standing, but with few Roman
interests : as a politician no less than as a man he was
righteous and diligent, but ineffective : his piety and
learning were undoubted, but more was required of a
Pope a,t this crisis. He had been Grand Inquisitor in
Spain, head of the office which the Cortes of Arragon
would have persuaded the Pope to restrain had not
Charles interfered. The Inquisition had therefore re
mained as an organ of royal influence and Church
reform ; if it had no sympathy with the newer thought
of the day, it had a keen interest in clerical discipline.
The same might be looked for from the next Pope.
But his treatment of Luther would probably be stricter
than Leo's had been ; theology was to him a matter of
vital importance.
One of Adrian's first acts was significant. Erasmus
— the type of a reformer bent on divine learning,
eager to repress evil in high and low, broad
in sympathy but orthodox in theology,
with a zeal for unity as fervent as that of S. Paul
himself — was asked to Rome. It is characteristic of
the way in which parties overlapped and yet were
distinctly forming that Erasmus was suspected of
writing both Henry VIII.'s attack upon Luther and
Luther's reply. The immediate result of " the Lutheran
tragedy " was that those who put unity before reform

40 THE REFORMATION
began to dread reform itself : that many of those who
hoped for reform began to think it incompatible with
unity. The cause of unity was thus weighted by mis
taken advocates with that of abuses : the cause of
reform was equally wrongly weighted with that of
revolution. It is easy for mistaken men of thought
or action to prejudice great issues in such a way. But
Erasmus was one who kept his head clear amid strife
and discord : the accession of Adrian seemed to promise
a reform furthered by the guardian of Western unity,
the Pope himself. He refused Adrian's invitation to
Rome, but stated his views of what was needed. A
Council must meet : everyone must give up something
for the common good. The evil had gone too far for
burning or amputation. To consider these questions
there should be called from every country men of un
sullied integrity, grave, mild, gracious, and without
passion, whose opinions — and here the letter breaks
off, a tempting field for conjecture.
But two elements of opposition very near the
Papacy had to be reckoned with — the officials of the
Curia dependent upon offices bought, in many cases, for
large sums, and the extreme conservative theologians
alarmed at the spread of a new learning they did not
sympathise with and a criticism they held dangerous.
The one deprecated change in the central adminis
tration, the other needed but to see a doctrine or
practice attacked to become convinced of its necessity
to guard more fundamental points. The former party
naturally had its stronghold at Rome; the latter in
the Sorbonne, at Louvain, Ingoldstadt, and Koln. In
theological matters they could also depend upon
Spanish ecclesiastics, but in matters of discipline the

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 41
Spaniards, trained up under a strict system themselves,
wished to see the same everywhere enforced.
The new Pope declared Luther's opinions insipid and
unreasonable ; he saw, however, how much support
they had gained from unchecked abuses Adrian
and political interests involved. He at and Re-
once addressed himself, therefore, to the form-
most urgent questions of practice and manners. First
. he took up the question of Indulgences and the ad
ministration of the Curia.
He desired a return to a more primitive discipline
of penance, which would restore Indulgences to their
former place, and lay stress upon two elements — the
inward feeling of the penitent, and the service done to
the Church by the deed of penance or the money
equivalent paid for the Indulgences. But an objection
was made by some of the Curia that any regulation of
the subject might be regarded as a confession of error
in the face of criticism, and so the unregulated opinions
and the practical abuses were left undealt with. The
officials, however, were charged to be more sparing and
cautious in their issue of indulgences. Unsuccessful
here, Adrian next turned to dispensations, especially in
cases of marriage. Here, again, the interests of officials
who had bought their offices and depended upon the
fees were concerned. This influence was powerful
enough to stay reform, but the Pope insisted upon care
in the issue of dispensations, and also by a decree
made void all reservations to benefices and dignities
granted since 1484. At home among theologians and
in the ecclesiastical atmosphere of Spain — although
even there he had not been very successful in his
dealings with men and worldly forces — Adrian was out

42 THE REFORMATION
of sympathy with the Roman Court, and failed to
understand its delicate politics. The interests of Italy,
he was told, made the action he suggested unwise, but
in one respect he and his advisers, Spanish theologians
and Italian men of affairs, were agreed — heresy in
Germany must be suppressed by strong measures, and
at once. The plea of Erasmus for unselfish reform
and abstinence from repression was disregarded.
In Germany the dread of the Turks and the religious
ferment were the leading features projected upon a
Confusion background of political anarchy. The Em-
in peror had returned (1521) to Spain, leaving
Germany, behind him a Council of Regency, in which
his brother Ferdinand and Frederick of Saxony were
the leading figures. For some years a very open state
of things existed. Plans for appropriating the annates
to the Turkish War and heavily taxing the monasteries
were proposed. Luther's temporary captivity in the
Wartburg — his " Patmos," in reality his refuge from all
dangers — left Melanchthon, the gentle scholar, Reuch
lin 's nephew and the leader of thought at Wittenberg,
and Carlstadt, the reckless and outspoken innovator,
to be leaders of the ecclesiastical opposition. The
Diet at Niirnberg (1522) listened to Adrian's sincere
promises of reform, qualified by assertions of its diffi
culty, but refused to carry out the Decree of Worms.
To many Germans the suppression of Luther appeared
to mean the sanction of felt abuses. Let the Pope call
a free Council in Germany to settle everything. Un
til that met the Gospel was to be preached " in the
true Christian sense." The utmost Germany would
promise was a vague regulation of preachers and a
censorship of the Press. But the execution of these

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 43
measures depended upon the local Princes, and was
therefore ineffective. Meanwhile the Lutherans had
declared monastic vows mistaken. Everywhere, espe
cially among the Augustinians, monks were leaving
their monasteries. Some, like Luther himself a little
later, were taking wives. Changes in the Mass were
demanded and sometimes made, not only the restora
tion of the chalice to the laity, but more radical
alterations. But these ecclesiastical questions were
overshadowed by politics — internally the warfare be
tween Franz von Sickingen helped by the knights
and some princes ; externally the rivalry of France
and Spain, with England thrown in as a deciding
weight. The Lutheran movement had passed into its
third stage — that of politics ; it was bound up with
German politics. Adrian was no politician, in spite of
his political experience. " Let a man be never so good,
how much depends upon the times in which he is
born," he said once, and his times and his responsi
bilities were hard indeed. He represented some of the
freshest currents of religious thought and represented
them at the centre of Christianity, but the theologian of
simple life (he lived on a ducat a day) was not strong
enough for his task. But these new currents of
thought had not yet lifted the Papacy from its
Medieval moorings. And it had as yet no great organi
sation for clerical reform (such as the Inquisition had
been in Spain) ready to its hand. When the Papacy
had been moved, and the organisation had been found,
Adrian's reform and cleansing of the Church might
be accomplished. Until then political complications
and the German tragedy were rending the Church's
life.

44 THE REFORMATION
Adrian's pathetic Papacy closed in 1523 (September
14th). His successor was Cardinal Giulio de Medici
(Clement VII.), a clever Italian diplomatist
VII im an<^ politician, a thorough man of affairs, as
popular in Rome as Adrian had been un
popular. Germany first of all called for his attention.
A Diet was to meet at Niirnberg (January, 1524), and
Cardinal Campeggio appeared as legate. His reception
was bad, and the utmost he could gain was an assur
ance that the Edict of Worms should be carried out
as far as possible. Once more a Council was demanded :
until it met a national assembly for the consideration
of grievances was suggested. Meanwhile the Word
of God was to be preached according to the Doctors of
the Church. The Emperor was as displeased as the
Pope at the disregard of the Edict so peculiarly his
work. A Council, however, he wished for, and urged
upon the Pope : Trent was even suggested as its seat.
Clement felt his difficulty and sought help from
Henry VIII.. Luther's royal antagonist. Pressure on
German merchants, applied by Henry, might be trans
mitted to German princes, and at any rate a protest
might be raised against Germany alone considering
and settling doctrines for Western Christendom.
Hostile camps — even in the Council of Regency
itself — were by this time clearly formed. Upon the
. . Pope's instructions the legate himself at
in Regensburg organised the Catholic party
Germany. (June, 1524). Ferdinand, the Emperor's
Regensburg brother, who held the Austrian lands, and
eague, Bavaria took the lead. In Bavaria the
1524* TTUniversity of Ingolstadt, where the con
troversialist Eck was a teacher, had been reorganised

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 45
in a Catholic sense, the Duke's Chancellor, Leonard
von Eck, strongly supporting the work.
A commission, independent of the Bishops, whose zeal
did not satisfy the Duke, was appointed to
degrade unworthy clerks ; in return for the Ra °.1C
support given to the Church the Duke was
granted a fifth of the ecclesiastical incomes in his terri
tory, a grant renewed from time to time. Bavaria, long
hesitating in its policy, now definitely took its stand on
the Catholic side, but the impulse to this step had come
from the State, inspired by the active influence of Eck.
The religious tone of Austria, where the ducal support
was secured in a like way, was the same, and these two
States formed the nucleus of a strong Catholic league.
If North Germany was the home of the Protestant re
volt, South Germany was thus the home of the reaction
against it. Around Bavaria and Austria gathered a
group of princes, mainly ecclesiastical : from Salzburg,
Basel (where the Bishop Christopher von Uttenheim, a
friend of Erasmus, had greatly raised the tone of life),
Augsburg, Strassburg, Passau, Brixen, Freising, and
Trent. Some of these, especially Basel and Augsburg,
had already begun reform and revival. The Conference
of Regensburg formed three commissions, for the quar
rels of clergy and laity, reform and doctrine respectively.
Preachers were to be licensed and ordered to abide by
the old Doctors of the Church : excessive fees were to
be reduced : the number of holidays to be lessened :
preachers were to be more earnest and priests more
holy : the too free and trivial use of excommunication
and interdicts, the abuses of Indulgences, were for
bidden : the clergy were to be more restrained in life and
dress : a commission of competent theologians in every

46 THE REFORMATION
diocese were to enforce these decisions ; at the same
time all Lutherans were to be expelled. Even thus
early it was found that where the chances of Catholic
reform were strongest, tenderness towards the Luther
ans and a wish for reconciliation were the weakest.
Thus the hostile camps were formed; there was a
party, of ecclesiastical reformers in sharp doctrinal
opposition to Luther, but their relations to the Papacy
were affected by political considerations, and especially
by the attitude of the Pope and Emperor to each
other. For the present, however, this party had
enough influence with Charles to bring to nothing
the proposed National Council. At a much later date
Charles was inclined to adopt this suggestion, fearing
it was his only way. of securing reform.
Inside the Lutheran movement varying tendencies
were seen. While in the Wartburg Luther began his
And in the ^"ew Testament (1522), followed by the Old
Lutheran Testament (to be finished only in 1534).
Movement Apart from its inestimable value to the
nation, its influence upon the language was
comparable to that of the English Bible upon England,
and it placed Luther even more in touch with the
national feeling. Already his boldness and his loud cry
for reforms long ago and repeatedly demanded by the
nation had given him a national position : now he
popularised the scriptural movement begun on a large
scale first by Erasmus. But if in some ways typically
German, Luther was also typically scholastic ; he never
departed from the standpoint of his master Staupitz,
as did other leaders of the revolt — unlike the Calvin-
ists, he kept the crucifix and the Catholic vestments :
unlike the Zwinglians he never denied the real and

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 47
bodily presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist : the
iconoclasm of men like Carlstadt met with no sym
pathy from him : his sacramental doctrine — Consub-
stantiation — was an illogical attempt to keep what he
regarded as essential in the Catholic doctrine, and at
the same time to deny the form — Transubstantiation
— in which that doctrine was generally and often
crudely explained. The one part of Church life for
which he felt no concern was that of government;
a fact which may be accounted for : Church polity had
been weakened by the stress laid upon Papal power,
lowering the historic importance of Episcopate and
priesthood : the monastic system instead of supple
menting too often weakened Church order : in Ger
many, owing to the inroads of the princely families
upon the sees and chapters, the Episcopate was
weaker than elsewhere. Luther lived under these
conditions, and — even if he disregarded his vows —
was a monk at heart, although technically a friar.
This was his doctrinal position, but he had been
led on, much as Wiclif had been before him, to re
pudiate the Papacy as anti- Christian. Looking too
exclusively upon the prevalent corruptions, he was abso
lutely free from any scruples as to a breach of unity
or from any regard for the Church polity that secured
it. It was here even more than in doctrine that he
differed from Erasmus, to whom unity of organisation
was an essential, the framework of Christian charity
and the bond that formed it. Luther was fitted by
his strong personality and his national enthusiasm to
lead a great movement : he was conservative in many
respects, but his conservatism lacked a sense of pro
portion : hence any movement led by him was likely to

48 THE REFORMATION
become even more revolutionary than he and his fol
lowers meant. Had the movement been treated other
wise than it was, had the sense of proportion been
supplied from outside, Luther might have led a great
revival inside the Church — an upheaval akin to that
wrought by the old monastic orders or the friars —
instead of a separation from it. The manner in which
he was met, his own lack of regard for unity, and the
political state of Germany, combined to make his
movement a schism.
Luther's comrade, Melanchthon — more learned and
more of a theologian — was doctrinally, although not
personally, more likely to lead a schism.
.. " His Loci Communes — first produced in 1521
and revised in later editions — has been
rightly called the first Protestant system of theology.
From this book — said by Luther to be worthy of a
place in the Canon — was derived a school of Protes
tant scholastics — building upon the Bible alone,
interpreting it through a doctrinal system purely
personal and subjective ; independent to begin with,
this school became later on more traditional, more
fettered by great names than Medieval scholasticism
itself. Broadly speaking, this system disregarded the
whole outward life of the Church, laid small stress
upon the Sacraments, and developed all theology from
the kernel of justification by faith. Too much stress
is often laid upon this the leading positive doctrine of
Luther, and it is forgotten that his negations were as
important in their effect. On the positive side many
in high office held views approaching his, but they did
not share his negations — his disregard of the Episcopate
and general Church order. This central doctrine led

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 49
to much controversy — of the most unprofitable
because most subjective kind — among Protestants
themselves; it was blamed as the cause of much
religious anarchy and moral licence. It was very
significant that Erasmus, when urged to write against
Luther, chose as his ground of attack the Free Will
of man (the point upon which the Leipzig Disputation
began) ; through the stress laid upon original sin and
the Divine grace man's responsibility and his depend
ence upon the means of grace were held too lightly :
this Erasmus felt, and hence his choice of topic.
The extreme doctrines of some preachers, such as
Carlstadt, and of others more fanatic and less educated,
joined to the social pressure upon the lower
classes, produced the Peasants' Revolt „x fe.me
' r Doctrines.
(1524-5) and the Anabaptist Rising; the
latter an attempt to set up a kingdom of God with com
munity of goods and licence of life. Both in Germany
and Switzerland there grew up an extreme wing of
Reformers, carrying some of the Lutheran and Zwing-
lian doctrines further than their authors did, and in
some cases combining religious innovation with social
discontent. Thomas Miinzer, at Zwickau (1521), and
others, had not only declaimed against the existing
system, and advocated change ; they went further, and
claimed direct inspiration; a new society — based on
this new life and new power— was to be constructed;
personal consecration and illumination was demanded
from its members, hence infants were excluded and
infant baptism denied; it was one of the many attempts
to form a holy and elect society; Taborite (Hussite)
influence helped in the earlier stages ; not all the leaders
were extreme or dangerous men; some were peaceful
E

So THE REFORMATION
if ignorant followers of the earlier mystics; Luther, and
even still more Zwingli, had stood in close relations
with them. At Ziirich the Anabaptist leaders were
among Zwingli's earliest disciples, and felt disappointed
when he would not join their separatist conventicles ;
he, for his part, was hurt at the discredit they brought
upon his principles and his movement, and hence his
measures against them were as harsh as their speech
against him. But they could fairly claim that his
principles could be stretched to cover their acts.
Something of this same connection existed between the
earlier Anabaptist movement and the Reformation in
other places. It would be unjust to put down to all
the Anabaptists the views of the extreme men, but
historically and politically the movement was led by
these. While Luther was in the Wartburg these teachers
of spiritual exaltation, hostile to learning, partly broke
Their UP tne University at Wittenberg; only
Practical Luther's sudden reappearance and exercise
Results. 0f gtrong personal influence and common-
sense checked the movement there (March, 1522).
Yet under Carlstadt and Miinzer it broke out again at
Miihlhausen, marked this time by fiercer iconoclasm
and attacks upon the monasteries (1524). But the
Peasants' Revolt soon swallowed up this other move
ment. Like the English Peasants' Revolt in 1381,
this was a complicated movement ; in some places, as
at Waldshut, an Austrian town, north-west of Zurich,
and at Groningen (south of Zurich), social and religious
causes worked together, in others the two were dis
tinct ; as the social movement grew, it emphasised the
democratic spirit of the religious revolution, objecting

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 51
to tithes, and claiming the appointment of the parish
priests. Early in 1525 the war broke out, and resulted
in the suppression of the peasants by the Princes.
Luther, dreading the anarchy that might result from
the rising, and not much in sympathy with its social
causes (here he differed from Zwingli), had exhorted the
Princes to act with firmness and strength. This they
did, and although the fanatic rising at Minister (1534)
was a later form of the movement, an extreme attempt
to realise a free kingdom on earth, Social Revolution
and aggressive Anabaptism perished together. The
result was that the Princes — already the foremost
element of the nation — had increased their power.
Luther had ceased to be popular among the democracy,
and his movement was discredited in the eyes of many
by its association with Anabaptism. Many who had
worked for reform, and looked to Lutheranis.m as
likely to hasten it, now drew away from any con
nection with it.
Before 1524 the Humanist current had split itself
into many diverse streams. Renaissance, Reformation,
Counter-Reformation were all parts of one Humanism
great movement aiming at improvement; and the
different elements were mingled in different German
proportions in them, but the general prob- e ormers-
lem before the world was to reject the evil elements
and preserve the good. To do this should have been
the special object of the Church. The Papacy, except
on the artistic side, had not so far shown itself alive
to this great need ; and had it not been for a few great
scholars like Erasmus, the Revival of Learning would
not have been utilised for the service of the Church.
Humanism had on the whole sympathised rather with

52 THE REFORMATION
Luther than with his opponents. But a few years made
a great difference. Ulrich von Hutten, discredited by
his alliance with von Sickingen in his private war,
noted for the licence of his life and the power of his
pen, represented one division of the Humanists;
Melanchthon, with all a scholar's enthusiasm and
much of a scholar's timidity, stood for another ; Eras
mus, through many years firm in his principles and
continuous in his work when all around were chang
ing, stood for another. And these took different sides
in the religious struggle. But there were others —
Johann Faber (Vicar-General of Constanz, an early
friend of Zwingli's and after a visit to Rome in 1522 an
opponent of his), Pirkheimer, of Niirnberg, Cochloeus,
and other scholars besides, who now definitely took up
their stand on the anti-Lutheran side. The gathering at
Regensburg (June, 1524) had been an expression of the
same tendency. The forces of defence were drawing closer
together against the forces of attack. But from this
time onward the main weight of the purely Humanist
movement was thrown upon the Catholic side ; reform
itself — much as it was desired — seemed to many of
less importance than unity and the maintenance of
faith. The Anabaptist movement and the Peasants'
War had helped to bring about this result. The death
of Ulrich von Hutten (end of August, 1523). one of the
more revolutionary Humanists, may be taken as the
water-shed between the Renaissance and the Reforma
tion. Refused — and with some reason — the friendship
of Erasmus at Basel, he found a resting-place at Zurich,
where Zwingli — himself the product of Humanism, and
with little regard for authority and tradition — be
friended him. From this time Zwingli stood apart, not

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 53
only from his former " master," Erasmus, but from his
old friend Glareanus (Loriti), " the shadow of Erasmus,"
as he was called. In September, 1524, the treatise
of Erasmus on Free-will marked his definite opposi
tion to the new movement. Luther he had considered,
so he said, a kind of necessary evil in the corrupt
state of the Church. From such a violent remedy he
had hoped for a return of health to the Christian body.
But now a new, rude, and intractable generation was
growing up ; the ranters who had arisen would ruin
both the Gospel and good letters. If he must be
a slave, he had rather be a slave to Pope and Bishops
than to these newly risen tyrants. It was for the sake
of good letters in the sacred sense understood by him
that Erasmus — much as he hated gladiatorial contests
— stepped into the hated arena.
In 1526 a Diet was to meet at Speier, but much
had happened before it met. The victory of Pavia
(February 25, 1525) had made Francis I. of The Diet
France a captive to Charles, and had thus of Speier,
given the Papacy reason to dread the Em- IS26-
peror : the possessor of Naples could not be allowed to
grow too powerful in Italy. At the very time the Diet
met the Papal troops and those of France and Milan,
with England as a cool ally, were fighting against
the Emperor. Francis had been set free by a treaty
(January 14th, 1526), in which, among other things,
he promised help against heresy. But Clement, for
political reasons, released Francis from the obliga
tion of his oath, which, indeed, sat only too lightly
upon him, and the anti - Spanish League of Cognac
followed (May 22nd, 1526). The Allies, however, met
with small success. In Germany too the Princes were

54 THE REFORMATION
considering alliances ; in July, 1525, Duke George of
Saxony, the Elector of Brandenburg, the Archbishop of
Mainz, and others met at Dessau to discuss a Catholic
league; in October the Landgrave, Philip of Hesse — the
ablest and least conventional of the Protestant leaders
— tried to form a Protestant alliance to hinder the pro
posed enforcement of the Edict of Worms and arrest
the persecution already begun of Protestant preachers.
At Gotha (February, 1526) Hesse and Saxony (where
the Elector Frederick had been succeeded by his brother
John, May, 1525) formed such a league, enlarged (June,
1526) by the adhesion of three Brunswick Princes,
Anhalt, and the city of Magdeburg. It was not likely,
therefore, that the ecclesiastical unity of Germany
could be maintained. The Emperor, keenly alive to
the danger of heresy and specially anxious to carry
out his own Edict of Worms, was not likely to concede
too much to the Pope. The old complaints against
the Curia and the Church were renewed when the
Diet met at Speier (June 25th, 1526); a majority
of the Princes decided in favour of the marriage of
priests, communion in both kinds, the reduction of
holidays, the abolition of private Masses, and a re
stricted use of German in the Mass and Holy Baptism ;
the appointment of Bishops — practically in the hands
of the Pope, Emperor, or Princes — was freely criticised.
But Ferdinand, who in the Emperor's absence took his
place, forbade in his name all innovations, and pending
a General Council (the national German Assembly
Charles would not at present hear of), urged the execu
tion of the Edict pf Worms. But the Princes, knowing
that Charles's relations with the Pope were now
altered, deemed him unlikely to press an Edict which

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 55

the cities held impracticable. It was resolved to consult
the Emperor, now in Spain, upon the point, and until
his opinion was received, a provisional arrangement
was made : " Every State should so behave, rule, and
believe as it should hope and trust to answer before
God, the Emperor, and the Empire."
This celebrated decision has often been described as
the basis of territorial religion in Germany — of the
principle, " Cujus regio, ejus religio." It was impossible
to get concerted action between an Emperor with other
realms to think of and funds too small for his needs,
a Pope led by political considerations, and Princes bent,
if orthodox, upon secularising bishoprics, if Lutheran,
upon the organisation of separatist bodies, and so this
temporary arrangement did become a permanent basis.
But it became so purely because of later facts and not
because it was meant to legalise the ecclesiastical
change that was widely carried out. It gave no legal
footing to Protestantism within the Empire, but no
legal sanction was needed in an anarchical realm for
anything with vitality enough to exist. The Emperor
could hardly approve the decision, but he acquiesced-
in its results. Some of his advisers recommended the
abolition of penalties for heresy and the summoning
of a Council to restore ecclesiastical unity. But
politics and unity went badly together. In Sack of
May, 1527, an Imperial army sacked Rome Rome,
itself, and the Pope was, in fact, a prisoner of May' I5271
the Emperor's. These strained relations — only partly
ended by the Pope gaining his freedom in November,
1527, and fully ended in June, 1529, by the Treaty
of Barcelona — allowed religious matters in Germany
to settle themselves.

56 THE REFORMATION
Ferdinand had been at first strongly anti-Lutheran ;
he gained greatly in income from the Church in his
duchies ; he had suffered much from the Peasants'
Revolt, but events withdrew him from too active
interference in Germany and gave him other interests.
The Emperor Maximilian, following old dynastic aims
and fortunate in their attainment, had married his
grandson Ferdinand to Anna, sister of Lewis II., King
of Hungary and Bohemia, while Lewis himself was
married to Ferdinand's sister Mary. In battle against
the Turks — the plague of Eastern Europe — Lewis fell
at Mohacs (August 30th, 1526). Bohemia elected Fer
dinand as King (October, 1526); he had to conform to
the compact of Basel and promise if possible to secure
an archbishop for the Utraquists, and hence at the
Council of Trent he was found urging the permission of
communion in both kinds. In Hungary, where Zapolya
was a dangerous rival, Ferdinand's sister Mary secured
her brother the throne, and in 1527 he was acknow
ledged as king there also. Thus the composite
Habsburg territories gained a large addition, and
- Ferdinand gained interests not purely German ; above
all, his new kingdom bound him to oppose the Turks
with all his strength.
In Germany the organisation of the new religious
bodies was now carried out in Electoral Saxony, Hesse,
The Ansbach, Anhalt (Kothen), Brunswick-Liine-
Reformed burg, East Friesland, Silesia, Schleswig-
Gefmin Holstein> and East Prussia. The last state
 iany' Albert of Brandenburg, Grandmaster of the
Teutonic Knights, secularised (1525) into a hereditary
duchy. The great cities of North Germany were also
by this time mainly Lutheran. The new ecclesiastical

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 57
organisation was in all cases made under the direction
of the civil ruler and by his authority. The principle
" Cujus regio, ejus religio " was so far accepted as to
give large powers to the Prince, both in forming the
religion of his state and settling its details. Every
prince, said the Strassburg preacher Capito later, was
head of the Church in his territory, appointed as such
by Christ in his own place. The organisation of
Saxony may be taken as a type : Four commissions
of laymen and clergy visited four divisions of the
Electorate ; stress was laid upon teaching, provided
for by catechisms modelled upon earlier works, and
upon preaching ; superintendents of the clergy were
appointed by the Elector, and these took the place of
bishops. German was used, of course, in the services,
and Luther's hymns added a further national element ;
the old portions of Scripture selected for epistles and
gospels were kept ; the continued use of the vestments
(although forbidden in Prussia), the crucifix and candles
upon the altars, made the breach of continuity less
noticeable. The Zwinglian model (yet to be spoken of), which
was to creep northwards in later years, made its entire
breach with the past more apparent ; the vestments
and altar ornaments were removed ; the polity set up
was congregational and democratic ; everything was
cut down to the barest. But the rise of this separate
movement and its historical importance have yet to
be noticed.
After the Conference at Regensburg (1524) the sup
pression of heretical opinions had become its
much stricter in the lands of the Princes Opponents.
present there ; nowhere, however, was it stricter than

58 THE REFORMATION
in the Netherlands, Charles's own dominions. His
dislike of Lutheranism grew ; he and the Pope felt
greater need of each other's help, and at length
(1527) Clement promised a Council. The year 1529
marked the height of Charles's power : the Treaty of
Barcelona (June, 1529), signed by him and the Pope,
recognised him as Emperor, while Florence was gained
for the Medici and the Papal States secured. The
Treaty of Cambrai which followed gave up the
French claims in Italy; all parties to these treaties
bound themselves to extirpate heresy. The same year
Charles was crowned, but at Bologna not at Rome
(February 24th, 1529) — the last Emperor crowned in
Italy. The German Diets had of late years been either
put off or been too poorly attended to do much business.
Now, with the Pope and Emperor in league with him,
and the ecclesiastical Princes upon his side, Charles
resolved to attempt a settlement of the religious diffi
culties. The Lutherans, on the other hand, were not
only alarmed at the turn of politics, but disturbed by
rumours of plots against them. Otto von Pack,
formerly a minister of Duke George of Saxony, showed
the Landgrave of Hesse a forged document indicating
such a plot, and the Elector prepared for war. The
discovery of the falsity of his information embit
tered both him and his opponents, so that the Diet
of Speier (February 21st, 1529) found parties even
more at discord than before. The Emperor was de
termined that the Decree of 1526 must be amended.
Ferdinand was anxious to suppress all heresy. Inside
the reformed camp a division, not merely one of the
many shades of differences that later on led to diver
sity, but a real and fundamental division had arisen.

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 59
The divergence of Zwinglian from Lutheran, and
their hatred of each other, gave the Catholic party
in the Diet a great advantage. Zwinglianism, more
over, struck at Habsburg power where it had old claims,
not urged of late, but never given up in theory.
Switzerland was a link between the Netherlands and
Italy, and Milan could not well be held without control
of Switzerland. Zurich, moreover, the seat of Zwingli's
movement, was akin to the cities of Southern Germany;
once an Imperial City like them, it had many ties of
interest and relation with them ; it now gave signs of
extending its power northwards, and so politically was
a special danger to the Empire. Thus the very
division that weakened the Protestants (to anticipate
the name they gained at this Diet) made Charles
more desirous to suppress them.
At Speier the consent of the Pope to a new Council
was declared, and it was proposed by the Emperor's
representatives to revoke the Decree of 1526, re
placing it by a declaration against any innovation.
This change of policy was favoured by the majority
of the Princes, who also wished to forbid any tolera
tion of sects denying the Sacrament of the Altar.
But the Landgrave of Hesse and some Imperial cities
wished to leave things as they were— the liberty practi
cally gained in 1526 had sent them much further on
the paths of change. Attempts at mediation, in which
one side was ready to sacrifice something — -the terri
torial power of the Bishops, and the other side to
throw over what they termed the " godless " followers
of Zwingli, led to no result.
From their formal protest against the final decision,
embodying an appeal to a free Council or a really

60 THE REFORMATION
national assembly, the party of change gained the
The Origin name of Protestant. The protestors were
of Pro- the Elector John of Saxony, the Margrave
testantism. 0f Brandenburg, the Landgrave of Hesse,
two of the Dukes of Liineburg, Wolfgang of Anhalt-
Kothen, and the cities of Strassburg, Ulm, Nurnberg,
Weissenberg, St. Gallen,Constanz, Lindau, Memmingen,
Kempten, Nordlingen, Heilbronn, Reutlingen, Isny, and
Windsheim. Their refusal to abide by the decision of
the majority emphasised (although it did not begin)
the break-up of the Empire : their declared intention
to stand by the Decree of 1526 put an interpretation
upon that which it had not been intended to bear.
Their real appeal was to revolution, and to the indi
vidual's right to choose his religion for himself; this
principle was not however extended, to begin with,
below princes and cities that were almost republics.
But it was in essence a repudiation of authority, and a
declaration of freedom, such as Luther had made for
himself at Worms. It involved first and foremost a
repudiation of the Papacy and Papal power in any
shape. Historically such a repudiation is the mean
ing of Protestant, although of late years the fashion
has been to apply the word more loosely to bodies
arising from the Reformation and in sympathy with
its aims. In either case it asserts the freedom of the
individual, and it has led to repeated divisions. The
historic Church might claim one sanction of Divine
authority: the individual conscience another like sanc
tion. It was an evil thing that a difference between
the two sanctions should be widely felt, and it was so
far as this difference arose from unreformed abuses a
reproach to the Church. But if the latter sanction, un-

GERMANY AND THE REFORMATION 61

checked by the former, were to be the guiding element
in religion divisions were bound to be multiplied. No
appeals to the force of great leaders — such as Luther
had now become — could well gloss over the dissension
that arose from appeals made solely to the varying
conscience of the individual. This was to be felt in
later years.
The decision of this Diet of Speier, against which
the protest was made, stood as follows : The Edict of
Worms should be enforced in the Catholic Results of
territories as before : in the territories the Diet of
which had become Lutheran no fresh inno- sPeier-
vations were to be brought in, and the Mass was not
to be prohibited. No ecclesiastical body should be
deprived of authority, property, or income. The sects
which denied the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of
Christ were to receive no toleration any more than
the Anabaptists. The agreement of Emperor and
Pope, the consolidation of the Catholic Princes, their
dread of the growing movement, and, lastly, differences
whieh had arisen in the movement itself, had brought
about this result. It was a decided check to the
Lutherans, for it set up again the jurisdiction of the
Bishops, never legally abolished so far as the Empire
was concerned. It is easy to point out the narrow
limits of toleration set up, the recognition of religious
differences, which it was yet wished to prevent from
growing. But the problem was a new one : the exist
ence of religious bodies outside the Church, and in
marked opposition to it. No State had hitherto been
called upon to deal with so momentous a question :
the Church, its limits and authority, had always been
accepted as part of the normal conditions of civil life.

62 THE REFORMATION
It was a hard problem for any State to solve, especially
when it received no help from the Church beyond a
verbal condemnation of the novelty. It was a specially
hard problem for the Empire, with its many local
differences and its lack of central power. Political
conditions had intensified the crisis ; they seemed
likely to make it permanent, for the Reformation
emphasised the special weaknesses of German life.
Because of the shape into which these political condi
tions had forced the movement, and because of the
personality of Luther, the Reformation, so far as it
gave rise to separations from the Church, will always
seem to many purely German in its origin and growth.

CHAPTER IV
THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND
AND ITS CONNECTION WITH GERMANY
THE cantons of Switzerland had gained their free
dom after a long struggle with the house of
Habsburg: the cities Luzern, Bern, and Zurich had
histories like that of the Imperial cities of the
Empire, and indeed the last was itself an
old Imperial town. Inside the Confedera- H]^'t^.
tion there were rivalries between the city
and country cantons, while the Federal tie was of the
very loosest, lying in the Diets to which the cantons
sent ambassadors with no powers for settlement ex
cept after reference to their cantons. The conquests
of the Confederates, the Free Bailiwicks, and the
Thurgau, were governed by the cantons in rotation,
and this system was a later cause of religious strife.
The peculiarity of the causes tending to freedom in
the case of Switzerland has often been exaggerated :
the facts that the overlords of much of it were the
Habsburgs absorbed as they were in Imperial politics,
and that the land was well fitted for defence, gave
the Swiss leagues a permanence not shared by the
similar German leagues. This almost accidental growth
of Switzerland led to its ecclesiastical unity being
63

64 THE REFORMATION
weak : of the dioceses Constanz and Chur were under
Mainz ; Basel and Lausanne under Besancon ; Sitten
(Sion), until exempted by Leo X., under Tarantaise.
The moral state of the clergy was low by comparison
with other lands ; both they and the monastic orders
were less free from State control than was the case
elsewhere : the "Parson's Charter" (1370) had subjected
them to civil jurisdiction as well as taxation. Towards
the close of the Middle Ages successes against Burgundy
and in Italy gave the Swiss a great reputation, so that
they were eagerly sought as mercenaries. Hence there
resulted entanglements in outside politics, and a cor
ruption of the old simple and mainly agricultural life
of old. These complications, added to the division
between Romance or French Switzerland and Teu
tonic or German Switzerland, gave the country a
peculiar importance. For the Teutonic part looked
towards Southern Germany with its Imperial cities,
while the Romance part was entangled with France and
Savoy. This twofold connection gave the Reformation
in Switzerland a curious character : international in
external relations, dividing Germany by the severance
between Zwinglians and Lutherans, affecting French
thought through Calvin, it was yet on its internal side
involved in the Federal history. The career of
Zwingli, however, not only checked the needed
development of the Federal constitution, but divided
the nation into hostile camps ; the rivalry between
Luther and Zwingli, growing into the fatal division
of Lutheran and Reformed, added to the disunion 0f
Germany and altered the currents of theological
thought. Huldreich Zwingli, brought up under Humanist

THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND 65
influence (especially at Basel), had passed some years
as a parish priest at Glarus and Einsiedeln
before being called (1518) to Zurich. He had f^f^.
the national character — sturdy, common-
sense, and proud of freedom. Twice he visited Italy as
chaplain to the army in the field, and formed a strong
opinion against mercenary warfare ; but his private
life at first reached no high standard. He had by
a different road and from another starting - point
reached a doctrinal position like Luther's, but his
career was only possible in a city commonwealth.
Zurich was his field of work, and here, working on the
basis of civic politics, he won over the Chapter and
the citizens to begin with, and then developed his
ecclesiastical system. It took its shape from the
mould that contained it : the two Councils — the Small
or Senate and the Great Council of two hundred —
were the chief authorities in Church as in State; it
was they who regulated worship, reformed or re
modelled the great Chapter, and abolished the mon
asteries, gave the revenues so gained to a theological
College and a School, called the Public Disputations
which marked each stage of the Reformation at
Zurich, and although mainly led by Zwingli, also
conducted the religious policy of the city. Zurich
was in the diocese of Constanz, and the Reformation
here took therefore the form of a city's revolt against
outside episcopal control, and a seizure for itself of
the direction of religious life.
Zwingli, in later years, claimed to have been quite
independent of Luther in the growth of his ideas. In
this claim he was probably justified, although Luther's
conclusions and his personal courage had gained

66 THE REFORMATION
Zwingli's admiration. In his broad conclusions he did
not at first differ from Luther, but he started
Zwingis fvom the basis of a free and intellectual
Opinions. study of the Scriptures interpreted by
the individual powers and for the individual needs.
This was Humanism pure and simple, unfettered or
unchecked, as with Erasmus, by regard for religious
authority and the unity of the Church. In spite
of his earlier unchaste life Zwingli, even at Glarus,
had a sincerely religious spirit, which he kept, but
his humanism and his firm belief in unchecked in
dividualism, the inspiration of the individual by the
Spirit of God, made him the revolutionary theologian
of the Reformation. It was not accident that he,
unlike Erasmus, was prepared to befriend the revolu
tionary and scandal-causing Hutten : it was not
accident that the movement at Zurich had closer
affinities with Anabaptism and with Socinianism than
were possible for Lutheranism. The Church was to
Zwingli simply an aggregate of individuals, a local
society based on a voluntary and reasonable agree
ment, moulded and coloured by the political condition
under which it existed. Sacraments were merely
signs, the efficacy of which depended solely upon the
individual power of perception; all external aids
to religion — images, pictures, pilgrimages, festivals,
organs, things upon which the simpler Christian had
leaned — were hindrances to the individual life, the
true support of which was to be found only in an
enlightened study of the Scriptures and a faithful
attendance at Sermons. The intellect thus played a
part in his system far beyond that played by the
emotions ; the pulpit took the place of the altar. But

THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND 67
given this basis of doctrine, and this view of religion,
an association of Christian men, borrowing less from
the ancient Church than did the Lutheran bodies of
Germany, was, although of secondary importance,
helpful for purposes of study, prayer, and exposition.
Thus the congregation found a place, and Humanism
with its intellectual vigour and its independent criti
cism was joined to a congregational system developed
in a city state. By the end of 1524 the religious
changes at Zurich were completed; images Tne
were removed from the churches; pictures System
covered or washed over ; the use of lights, Complete,
bells, and organs was put an end to : the x"4-
Baptismal service was simplified to bareness, while
a congregational Communion in wooden cups and
trenchers and around tables replaced the stately Mass.
Apart from its religious importance, the career of
Zwingli had a political side ; he had a high conception
of the pastor's office. In a democratic Zwingli's
country, and even more in a city common- Political
wealth, every citizen had his part in politics, eaSl
and every minister — as a prophet to inspire and ex
hort, to sow ideas, and rouse men to act — had his
leading part to fulfil : the sermons preached, not only
to the citizens, but to the country people who flocked
into the city on market days ; the printed manifestoes
that were circulated in their thousands, for Zwingli
was a political pamphleteer of skill, and the booksellers
gave him a ready organisation to hand ; the Public
Disputations of January and October, 1523, to which
representatives from other Swiss towns were invited —
all these, although not peculiar to Zurich, gave Zwingli
a useful machinery for forming and organising opinion.

68 THE REFORMATION
But the political circumstances of Zurich, a city which
had aspired to be the leading state of Eastern Switzer
land and followed an independent policy of its own,
made these features of Zwingli's movement more
significant. The Emperor and the French, and now
the Pope through his recruiting agent, Cardinal
Schinner, Bishop of Sion (Sitten), were competing
for the support of Swiss mercenaries. Zwingli's
Italian experience had made him dislike foreign ser
vice, with its easily earned wealth and corrupting
influence ; even at Glarus he had opposed the French
faction, and this, joined to his renown as a preacher, had
made the anti-French party at Zurich eager to secure
him. The Pope had, as it seemed to Zwingli, who was
appointed (1518) a Papal chaplain and offered further
promotion and rewards, peculiar claims upon the help
of Zurich. It was only (1519) when he differed from
the Papal politics in the election of Emperor that he
first became definitely anti-Papal, and doctrine had
very little to do with this change. It is true that
Zwingli, somewhat as Luther with Tetzel, had opposed
Samson, a preacher of Indulgences, who came to
Zurich in 1519; but the ecclesiastical authorities
supported Zwingli and Zurich in the matter, and he
was subsequently offered promotion at Rome. As
regarded ecclesiastical organisation the Zurich move
ment was satisfied by the rejection of episcopal con
trol ; the Papal power presented itself more as a ques
tion of politics than of control or government, and it
was as such that Zwingli, and Zurich with him, finally
rejected it. But the Papacy, owing to its old relations
with Ziirich, and its desire to keep the city as an ally,
now treated Zwingli very differently from Luther.

THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND 69
Zurich had pretensions to the leadership of Switzer
land in the East, and it had also close relations with
the South German cities bound to it by 2ur;ch and
commerce and democratic sympathies. Be- Politics in
fore long (1524) the religious ideal of Switzerland
Zwingli became bound up with politics; if
his city gained greater power in the Confederation
it could extend the Reformation ; equally the Reforma
tion gave it a chance of increasing its power. In
trying to urge Protestantism upon the subject lands
it touched the Confederation where its system was
weakest — in the government of these dependencies by
the cantons in turn, each with a distinct religious policy
of its own. Its championship of the Reformation
against the Forest Cantons (Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, and
Unterwalden), along with Zug, really broke up the Con
federation into hostile camps. The problem of religious
differences in a Federal State should have been less
difficult to solve than in an Empire or Kingdom, but
Zwingli presented it so as to bring Zurich forward.
It was doubtful whether religion was a matter of
Federal or Cantonal authority; it should have been
possible to reach a solution which kept both Federal
unity and local freedom, but Zwingli was too violent
in his demands for religious supremacy. A further
complication came in when Zurich pushed or protected
the Reformation in the subject lands. This put a
strain upon the Federal constitution which it was not
equal to bear, and (1529) war broke out. Bern, where
a reformation roughly similar to that of Zurich had
been carried out (1528), was on the side of Zurich for
defence if not for attack. The First Peace of Kappel
(June 24th, 1529) only put off the struggle. Eeligious

70 THE REFORMATION
offenders in the subject lands were not to be punished
(as the Catholic Cantons had desired) ; the majority in
each community were to decide for the Catholic Mass
or the Zwinglian substitute, as they preferred. Other
causes of complaint, arising from previous violence on
each side, were settled favourably for Zurich. It
should be noted that in Switzerland, as elsewhere,
the secularisation of the monasteries had been a lead
ing object : at Zurich the funds so gained had been
put to educational uses ; at Bern to political ; the
popular desire for a share in the results had in some
places led to riots and been a link between the Re
formation and the Peasants' Revolt.
By this Peace of 1529 the Catholic Can';ons were
forced to give up their alliance with Austria, which
had indeed not led to the results expected. But the
question of external alliances had been one which,
apart from religion, went near to wrecking the Con
federation. Zwingli had, even in 1524, looked to
foreign alliances, notably to France and Savoy, as
means for strengthening Zurich in the Confederation ;
when he came into touch with Philip of Hesse his
political activity was quickened. The Christian Civic
League (das Christliche Burgerrecht) — a league of cities
united for defence and war upon the basis of religious
unity, begun (Christmas, 1527) by Zurich and Con
stanz, joined afterwards by S. Gallen, Biel, Miihl-
hausen, Basel, Schaffhausen, and, lastly, Strassburg
(1530) — partly realised the aims of Zwingli. But
Hesse, in spite of Zwingli's endeavour, was not
included; nor was the cause of Ulrich of Wurttem-
berg taken up. The Christian Union — a league of the
Catholic Cantons under Austrian protection, meant

THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND 71

to extend still further — was a reply to this earlier
league. In Switzerland, as in Germany, the Reforma
tion had thus divided the nation into two distinct camps.
The Peace of Kappel recognised this division, and the
clauses by which toleration was to obtain between
the cantons led to disagreement. The Zwinglians
thought that they might in future preach freely, not
only in the subject lands, but in the Catholic Cantons
as well ; these latter thought they were left perfectly
free to guide their own religious policy. Of such
disagreements the Second War of Kappel (1531) was
the inevitable result. Dread of the Emperor and a
little war on the Italian border hastened the end, but
the demand of Zurich that preaching should be freely
allowed everywhere showed the real aims of Zwingli.
Bern, although tardily and with half its heart, was
now on his side, but at Zurich itself lack of unity and
spirit made itself felt. The battle (October 11th,
1531) left Zwingli among the slain with many of his
keenest supporters.
Through the mediation of France and the cantons
not actually at war, peace was made (November 23rd).
The victors did not press their advantage, second
but the Christian Civic League was put an Peace of
end to : the Reformed communities in the KaPPel>
subject lands were left alone, and every- I531-
where Catholic minorities were protected. But the
failure of Zwingli's scheme to force Protestantism upon
the other cantons was significant : in Glarus, Soluthurn,
and the Aargau Catholicism gained the upper hand.
Bern, influenced by Strassburg — from its position and
inclination a mediator between Switzerland and
Germany — became more Lutheran. The danger from

72 THE REFORMATION
Zwinglianism which had led the Imperialist advisers
to consider Zurich (1531) " the head of Lutheranism"
was over. The city was still a refuge for Protestant
theologians from Germany or England : the reputation
of Zwingli made it almost a place of pilgrimage, and
the diplomatic intercourse begun by him still continued,
but its importance was immensely lower : Bern, and
shortly Geneva, under the dominating spirit of Calvin,
outstripped it. The division of the Confederation was
intensified by the progress of the Catholic reaction.
Hugo von Landenberg, Bishop of Constanz, and
Christopher von Uttenheim, Bishop of Basel, had both
been well abreast of the movement for better dis
cipline, and Luzern shared their impulses. Faber,
Vicar-General of Constanz, and the chief opponent
of Zwingli in the Public Disputations, afterwards
Cardinal and Bishop of Vienna, led the reaction
with skill for some years. Cardinal Carlo Borromeo,
Archbishop of Milan, drew closer an older link with
Switzerland: his Swiss college at Milan, his intro
duction into the country of the Jesuits (1574-81),
of the Capuchins (1581-8), and his establishment of
a permanent nunciature at Luzern, supplied the
lack of organisation from which the country had suf
fered. The Luzern statesman, Ludwig Pfyffer (1586),
formed the Borromean League, a revival as it were of
the Christian Union, including the Forest Cantons,
with Zug, Soluthurn, and Freiburg. We are apt to
be severe in judging the anomalous contrivances,
"Interims," and Religious Peaces by which Germany
patched up religious strife, but Switzerland did not
even attain to them : religious divisions, unsoftened by
such expedients, even when working on a less favour-

THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND 73
able field than incoherent Germany, had their own
disastrous result.
The Anabaptist movement appeared in Switzerland
also, and was there even more closely connected with
the Reformation than elsewhere. Andreas The
Carlstadt sought a new field of work when Anabaptists
Luther returned to Wittenberg from the at ZUrich'
Wartburg (March, 1522): first at Orlamiinde, near
Wittenberg, and then in South Germany. Before
leaving Wittenberg he had joined hands with Thomas
Miinzer, who had preached a socialistic iconoclastic
religion at Zwickau, in Thuringia, and on being
driven thence had gone to Wittenberg. These two
men gathered around them the doctrinally and
socially discontented. Bohemian influence gave the
movement a strong anti-ecclesiastical direction : the
hierarchy and Church orders were condemned, the
impulses of the individual exalted to a revelation, and
the mystical or fanatical theories which had flourished
in the Middle Ages gained new force when inspired by
restless discontent and confronted by abuses often
firmly fixed. This general movement, springing up in
many centres where local causes made its growth
easier and grouping itself mainly around a few special
leaders, is broadly named Anabaptist. But although
the varied elements combined or grew together they
had no common origin ; on a lower, less educated, and
more fanatic plane, it is analogous in origin and history
to the Reformation movement which grouped itself
around Luther. A short account of Anabaptism at
Zurich brings out the main points in its history there
and elsewhere.
Among those of Zwingli's followers who, by eating

74 THE REFORMATION
meat in Lent began the revolt against authority
. , ,. (1522), were the future leaders of local Ana-
Anabaptism. v .' .
baptism ; a little later (lo23) they outran
the magistrates' action in the destruction of crucifixes
and images. They soon appear as a distinct party,
radical in their views but not bound together by any
express doctrinal belief; their repudiation of infant
baptism sprang rather from dislike to the methods of
Christian organisation than any doctrinal tenets. An
agitation against the payment of tithes — a point on
which the Peasants' Revolt was in sympathy with them
— arose in many local centres near Zurich. Zwingli
himself was embarrassed by the movement ; its leaders
had been among his earlier and most enthusiastic
followers ; in their denial of the efficacy of baptism, in
their dislike to tithes, they would quote his teaching
in their favour although he did not reach their
practical conclusions. When they began to found a
distinct society, consisting solely of "converted " adults,
he urged them, not to weaken his hands ; they, on the
other hand, regarded him as " a lost leader " : while
they were bitter in their language he had the magis
tracy on his side, and was thus enabled to be severe in
his measures of repression. But the presence of
Miinzer at Waldshut (an Austrian town N.W. of
Zurich where religious cabals were of importance in
the relations of Habsburgs and Zurich), and of Carlstadt
at Zurich, strengthened the Swiss Anabaptists locally
and merged them in the wider movement. The well-
deserved catastrophe of that movement at Minister
(1533) discredited, and, on the whole, suppressed it,
but here and there isolated strains of Anabaptist views
survived and at times appeared on the surface.

THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND 75

The relations of Zwingli to Luther, and of their
respective followers to each other, were significant
in the history of thought, and became of Zwingli
great importance to Germany. Zwingli and the
regarded no authority, and was bound by no Mass-
traditions in his exegesis of Scripture : hence his
anger against those who, as the Anabaptists, took an
individual view other than his own. From the sacra
mental teaching of the Church there could be deduced
the necessity of Holy Orders : the Sacraments and the
Ministry were bound together. The necessity for the
latter fitted in badly with Zwingli's view of organisa
tion : the stress he laid upon the educated intellect
made him averse from any ideas of grace conveyed
otherwise than by spiritual or mental inspiration. But
the exegesis by which the " is " in " This is my body "
was explained as " signifies " was put before him by a
Dutch theologian, Cornelius van Hoen, who considered
its novelty made the suggestion worthy of being
brought before theologians by a special messenger.
Zwingli, who had not dealt with the doctrine of the
Presence in his writings before 1522, adopted this
exegesis, and made it peculiarly his own. But he felt
it was needful his views should be put forward, since
Carlstadt, who, in some respects, shared them, was
being taken as their chief exponent. For Zwingli,
unlike Carlstadt, laid great stress upon the Church as a
society (although of purely civic and natural growth),
and hence regarded the Communion as a corporate act :
at one with Carlstadt in his denial of a supernatural
presence, akin to him in the rites and form of adminis
tration he preferred, he differed widely from him in
the stress laid upon the corporate nature of the Feast.

76 THE REFORMATION
It was, indeed, Zwingli's regard for the corporate life
that made him, in opposition to the Anabaptists, lay
stress upon the rightfulness of infant baptism. From
the year 1524 Zwingli's view of the Eucharist, and
especially his negative teaching, was vigorously put
forth. Fitting in so well as it did with his theory
of organisation and his general system, it found a
ready hearing. For it was both revolutionary and
logical : it was easy to understand, and it gave a firm
resting-place to those who approached the subject in a
spirit of hostility to what the Church had taught.
Even its very novelty — for the denial of any peculiar
Presence in the Communion was novel — recommended
it to many. Because he was the first great teacher
who took this revolutionary view, and the one who
taught it most effectively, the purely rational and
symbolic view of the Sacrament of the Altar is always
known as Zwinglianism.
Zwingli's doctrinal position was thus very different
from that of Luther; he and his followers were both
. more thorough and more open to suspicion ;
position. while the Lutherans always claimed to
hold the Catholic faith, and were sensitive
to the charge that they did not, the Zwinglians held
such a charge a trifle : ordination of ministers, Church
organisation and doctrine, were all powerless before
the individual's enlightened conclusions and the de
cision of the civic magistracy. Thus, in the second
Peace of Kappel, the Zwinglians consented to give the
Catholic Cantons the title of adherents of " the Chris
tian religion " ; thus, too, Melanchthon and other
theologians suspected Zwingli and his followers of
Unitarianism. But sympathy with the Swiss and

THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND 77

dislike of the German princes led the South German
allies to adopt Zwingli's views : Ulm, Mainz, Strass
burg, among cities; Wiirttemberg, Hesse, and Friesland
among territories were all Zwinglian.
The Lutheran Princes had not yet given up all
thought of a Reformed Papal Church with which they
might be in accord. The suspicions brought Attempts at
upon Protestantism by the Zwinglians reconcilia-
came as an obstacle to such a result. Hence tion-
the Landgrave Philip, with whom it was a great object
to form a strong Protestant League, urged union, and
a preparatory discussion to prepare for it. At Michael
mas (1529) both Lutherans and Zwinglians met at
Marburg, where the central point of discussion was
the method of the Presence. Zwingli, while firm in
his own views, was ready to make a league which
would leave room for difference. Luther stood equally
firm in his literal interpretation of the words of in
stitution. It seemed as if the vital point lay here,
but the real difference lay deeper ; Luther was more
ready to admit the supernatural than was Zwingli,
who was a rationalist in his conceptions. They left
the Conference with the doctrinal split more clearly
realised than ever, and with the political split, imposed
upon it, almost as clearly realised. This division was
henceforth a leading feature in German life ; the
theological bitterness caused by it reacted on theology
generally, and the many attempts at reunion, in which
Bucer was largely concerned (from the Wittenberg
Concord, May, 1536, onwards), encouraged a loose use
of language to conceal differences of view. But the
importance which the Catholic Church attached to
tradition and authority was given outside of it to

THE REFORMATION

names of great leaders. These leaders really differed
essentially ; the demand for their agreement was due
to political needs although they might indeed have
agreed in negations of Catholic doctrines. But such
agreement was no real basis for a living and growing
body. This was soon found out, and after the death
of Luther (1546) Melanchthon was accused of whitt
ling down his doctrine and tending towards reunion
with Rome. The divisions that multiplied them
selves made a full reunion of parties impossible,
and wrought endless harm everywhere, but most of
all in Germany.
As the Emperor's power grew divisions in Germany
were becoming more marked ; to the Catholic League
Church formed at Regensburg corresponded the Pro-
Politics testant League of Torgau. The Emperor,
in Germany. now at peace with France and the Papacy,
was bound along with them to suppress heresy, which,
as a matter of faith and apart from political considera
tions, he loathed. There was now a further cause of
fear, lest through the influence of Zwingli the cities
of the Oberland, joining with the Swiss Reformed
Cantons, should together throw off the supremacy of
the Empire. This was the state of affairs when, in
February, 1529, the Diet (see p. 58) met at Speier.
Here the consent of the Pope to a Council was declared,
and it was proposed by the Emperor's representatives
to revoke the decree of 1526, substituting for it a
declaration against any innovation. The majority of
the princes were in favour of this, and wished to
forbid any toleration to sects who denied the Sacra
ment of the Altar. On the other hand, the Landgrave
of Hesse and some of the Imperial cities wished to

THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND 79
leave things as they were; they protested against
having to surrender the liberty gained in 1526.
In June, 1530, at Augsburg, the Emperor in person
opened the Diet from which so much was expected ;
he was anxious, he told them, to end the Diet and
religious dissensions, if possible, without Confession
force; but irritation that had arisen through of Augs-
the Evangelical court preachers exercising urg' I^3°"
their vocation in the city promised badly for peace.
And the issue corresponded to the omen. The Lutheran
theologians had drawn up a Confession of their Faith
on the basis of the seventeen articles agreed upon
previously at Schwabach; the document, which con
tained twenty-one articles upon doctrine and seven
upon abuses to be reformed, had been formulated by
Melanchthon, and was read before the Diet. As an
Apology (its original title) it had a peculiar character ;
it was intended to conciliate the Cathohcs, and it
tried, therefore, to defend the doctrines expressed
from possible charges — those on the Eucharist from
the charge of the Zwinglian conceptions, and others
from the charge of Anabaptist tendencies — hence, as
an expression of so-called reforming tendencies it was
too cautious to be complete. Among the most im
portant articles were — the sixth, which asserted that
true faith had good works as a fruit, and that every
man was bound to perform them, but could not depend
upon them for salvation ; the seventh, which asserted
the existence of a holy Catholic Church, made up of
all the faithful, and marked, not by a uniformity in
ritual or rules, but by the effective preaching of the
Word and pure administration of the Sacraments. By
other articles the Real Presence was asserted, auricular

80 THE REFORMATION
confession retained along with absolution, but the
need of a particular enumeration of sins was denied.
The abuses noted were : the denial of the cup, clerical
celibacy, the Mass as an offering for quick or dead, the
conception of Confession and Absolution as a sacrament,
the excessive number of- ceremonies, the institution of
monastic vows, abuses of ecclesiastical, especially of
episcopal, power, which ought to be distinguished from
the civil power it so often encroached upon..
The four Imperial cities of Strassburg, Constanz,
Lindau, and Memmingen presented a separate Con-
Confessio fession (Confessio Tetrapolitana), drawn up
Tetra- by Bucer and Capito, which differed from
politana. the former mainly upon the Eucharist,
in denying, although guardedly, anything of a bodily
Presence or bodily manducation. A Confutation of
the Confession prepared by Eck, Wimpina, Faber,
and others was read and circulated ; it was remark
able as showing signs of agreement with it upon the
doctrine of justification by faith. Compromise upon
this point was, in truth, less difficult than is often
thought. Unless faith was taken to be the all in all,
apart from means of grace or works, it was not difficult
to reconcile justification by faith with the Catholic
doctrine (often obscured by its advocates), according
to which faith is a divinely implanted germ and leads
to a righteous life exhibited as its justification before
God and men. Luther's error, which led to great
practical abuse, lay in isolating the element of faith
from life and from membership in the Church ; on the
other hand, some of his opponents departed equally
from the Catholic doctrine in losing sight of the
element of faith, or in obscuring it behind obedience

THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND 81
to the commands of the Church. But the demands
for reform as set forth in the Articles upon Abuses,
and afterwards formulated at Rome, were a very
different matter. It was upon these more than upon
doctrine that agreement was impossible, and even had
they been satisfactorily disposed of there remained
the fact that new religious bodies, distinct from the
Church, had already been organised. Doctrines may
be defined and qualified, ceremonies accommodated
and refined, but schism, easy to bring into being, is a
hard fact to get rid of, a step difficult to retrace.
The Diet at its close gave six months to the Pro
testants for reflection; during that time Confession
and the Mass were to be allowed in their territories
and no innovations were to be made. But a Council
was to be held, and even yet great hopes were enter
tained as to its work. Meanwhile the Emperor was
determined to enforce the Edict of Worms. His
brother Ferdinand, who, although personally un
popular with the clergy, was deeply pledged to the
Catholic cause, was now elected King of the Romans,
and as such became a more influential person.
The immediate result of the Emperor's action was
the formation by the Protestant princes of the defen
sive league of Smalkald (1530). But the peace 0f
pressure of the Turks, whose defeat before Numberg,
Vienna (1529) had brought merely tempo- r532-
rary and unexpected relief to the Emperor, was great
enough to prevent internal war, and the Peace .of
Numberg (1532) postponed the settlement of the
religious difficulty. By this peace all the German
princes were to help against the Turks, and in return
religious prosecutions were to cease. It was also
G

82 THE REFORMATION
privately agreed that suits before the Imperial Court
on account of the confiscation of ecclesiastical property
should cease. The effect of political considerations
was thus very apparent in Germany itself, and in
these years of indecision the Protestants were led to
turn, not only (as discontented princes had turned
before) to France, but even to England, and still more
strangely to the Papacy itself. For from a natural
desire to avoid strengthening the Empire, the Papacy
had to depend upon France : neither the Papacy nor
France cared to see a council, which would be mainly
Imperial in its authority and German in its constitu
tion. Again and again, therefore, Clement, although
pledged to a council, could plead the unwillingness
of France : in Germany itself some of the Catholic
princes — especially the Bavarian house — opposed the
Emperor : had the Emperor been wholly free he would
have dealt sternly with Lutheranism, while at the
same time he would have tried to raise Catholicism
everywhere to the spiritual level of earnestness and
righteousness already reached in Spain. But it was to
the interests neither of Pope nor Protestants that the
Emperor should be free: both were led to depend
upon his rival, France. Everything was political, and
politics determined everything. There had been again
and again men with opinions of a Lutheran type, with
the same earnestness, with the same hatred of abuses,
with the same disregard of unity, and the same readi
ness to shape a world anew. But never before — except
in the prophetic case of Bohemia, where a religious
leader had dexterously joined his religious movement
with a national uprising — had political conditions
tended to stereotype such a religious movement.

THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND 83
Princes, Kings, Emperors, Pope all now played with it
as a counter in the game of politics : this was true of
both the external and internal relations of Germany,
and it was even truer when Protestantism spread to
other lands. Clement VII. did not rise to the religious
earnestness of Adrian VI., and his conception of his
power was that of diplomacy and politics. He had
been an Imperialist ; he became a supporter of France ;
he had borne the lot of a prisoner, and the experience
lessened such strength for action as he possessed.
Reform, a deeper earnestness, rose a little higher in
the College of Cardinals, a little nearer the Papacy
itself, but it did not yet reach the greatest height of
all. It was no wonder then that his Papacy saw the
Western Church still further rent asunder.
Inside Germany, as we have seen, new religious
bodies had been organised — Electoral Saxony, Hesse,
Ansbach and Baireuth, Luneburg, Anhalt- spread of
Kothen, East Friesland, Schleswig-Holstein, Lutheran-
Silesia, Prussia, and among the cities Niirn- lsm-
berg, Magdeburg, Brunswick, Bremen, and Liibeck had
all before 1531 adopted the Lutheran model with
variations. A bold move of the Landgrave Philip of
Hesse resulted in adding Wiirttemberg to this number.
Duke Ulrich had been banished in 1519, and his terri
tory administered by the Imperial troops ; the Duke's
rule had been violent and reckless, but when (1534)
the Landgrave attempted his restoration the old local
loyalty proved itself strengthened by foreign rule. The
campaign lasted little more than two months, and was
ended June 29th, 1534, by the Treaty of Kadan ; the
Duke was restored, although under the nominal suzer
ainty of the Habsburg house, and was left free to

84 THE REFORMATION
introduce the new religion which he had adopted in his
exile ; this he accordingly did. The treaty thus practi
cally put an end to the scarcely observed convention
that the princes who had secured toleration for their
own territories should not attempt to extend their
religion beyond. Even more important was the con
cession that the Imperial Court (Kammergericht)
should no longer receive cases concerning the confisca
tion of Church property. Secularisation had long
been a common thing in Germany : it had often been
carried out by the Catholic princes ; the Protestant
princes thought it a hardship that they must give up
the privilege merely because it entailed in their case,
a diversion of the endowment, not only from the
original owners, but also from the religion it had been
meant to serve. The process of secularisation would
now be easier. The geographical result of the treaty
was to place a strong Protestant state in South
Germany among the leading Catholic powers, and near
the great sees of Wurzburg, Salzburg, and Bamberg.
About the same time the new religion was organised
in Anhalt-Dessau, Pomerania, and the cities of West
phalia. In Minister it developed from 1531 onwards
into the socialist and immoral Kingdom of John of
Leyden and his Anabaptists : excesses as distasteful to
one religious party as to the other were suppressed by
both in union. But the inevitable result was to dis
credit change of any kind.

CHAPTER V
THE REFORMATION IN SCANDINAVIA
AND FRANCE
BEYOND Germany the Reformation spread into
'the Scandinavian kingdoms. Here, again, politics
made the course of change easier, and religion and
politics became closely bound together. But while
in Germany the course of the Reformation The Scan-
weakened the Imperial power and further dinavian'
divided the nation, in Scandinavia it re- Km£doms-
suited in a strengthening of the Crown. Christian I.,
of the house of Oldenburg, King of Denmark, Norway,
and Sweden, had found it hard to rule three dis
united countries ; and Sweden (1501) became really
independent, in spite of the royal claims. When
his son Christian II. ascended the throne christian
(1513) he found his power acceptable to II. of Den-
the Danes, because his family was the mark> iS^-
nation's choice ; in Norway — where he had ruled
before his father's death — he faced a nobility proud
and discontented ; he had filled all offices with Danes :
even the Archbishopric of Nidaros or Trondhjem
(1510) had been by Papal help and against the Chap
ter's wish given to a Dane, Eric Valkendorf, while
the Bishop of Hamar had been imprisoned for years.
The Norwegians were thus left without a leader, but
85

86 THE REFORMATION
their national spirit was still warm. Christian II.,
nephew of the Elector Frederic of Saxony, and
married (1515) to Isabella, sister of Charles V., was
rash, ambitious, and cruel. In Sweden he availed
himself of a dispute between Gustav Trolle, Arch
bishop of Upsala, who had joined the Danish party,
and the Stures, the national leaders ; he estab
lished his power, but the massacre at Stockholm
(November, 1520) of some hundred leading ecclesias
tics and nobles aroused against him a national fury
which led to the final freedom of Sweden. The excuse
given that these deaths were the carrying out of
a Papal excommunication was very transparent. This
was the beginning of troubles, which, joined to Chris
tian's ambition and the effect of the Reformation, split
up the partly sundered North still further.
The Church in both Norway and Sweden, wealthy
and aristocratic, in league with the nobles, had suffered
from an isolation which, while against its vigour, had
made it more national. The great wealth of the
bishops (half of Denmark was said to belong to them),
their foreign education (the University of Copenhagen,
founded in 1478, was not yet important), and their in
effectual rule, invited attack. One outpost of Chris
tianity — Greenland — -had been all but lost ; no bishop
or priest had resided there for eighty years, and the
sole relic of Christianity was a corporal, exhibited once
a year, upon which a hundred years before the last
priest had consecrated the Body of Christ. In Norway
Archbishop Eric of Nidaros, however, was a wise ruler,
and had circumstances allowed, the Church there, at
any rate, might have kept its ground.
In Sweden, Gustavus Ericson, of the house of Vasa,

IN SCANDINAVIA AND FRANCE 87
headed a national revolt; he escaped from Denmark,
where he was a hostage (1518), and in just course of
revenge for the Stockholm massacre roused Politics
the Dalecarlians to revolt ; a two years' and Reform
siege gave him possession of Stockholm, inSweden-
and finally (June 7th, 1523) he was elected King.
But the nobles were jealous of him ; the peasants, his
chief supporters, were lawless; the commerce of the
country was in the hands of the Hanseatic towns ; he
himself was heavily in debt. The Church, on the other
hand— a preserve of the nobles — was rich, but the
King's demands for money caused discontent at home
and anger at Rome. The new Pope, Adrian VI., had
sent an old pupil of his at Louvain, John Magnusson,
a Swede by birth, and a Swedish canon, as Legate
(1522). When he was elected Archbishop of Upsala
his readiness to join Gustavus in the needed eccle
siastical reforms gave ground for hope. But Gustav
Trolle, the old Archbishop, had merely fled, and was
himself at Rome ; a demand for his restoration led to
threats on the King's part of a reformation carried out
by his own power, and when (1526) Magnusson was
finally confirmed by the Pope it was only after a
quarrel between him and the King and when he was
an exile. Both national and economic reasons now
disposed Gustavus to a reform.
Meanwhile, Lutheranism had entered the country.
Two Swedish students from Wittenberg, Olaf and Lars
Peterssen, had returned home (1519), and Spread of
their teaching, with its implied political Lutheran-
possibilities, impressed the King, harassed lsm-
by plots and difficulties as he was. Although en
dangered for a time by an Anabaptist movement, the

THE REFORMATION

new doctrines made way ; public disputations, the
marriage of Olaf Peterssen, although a priest (1525), a
projected translation of the Bible (1526), only com
pleted for the New Testament and fully accomplished
in 1540, emphasised their victory. In June, 1527,
Diet of tne Diet °f Westeras met, and here the
Westeras, King expressed his need for a larger income
XS27- to be gained from the monastic and episco
pal lands. As Gustavus threatened abdication unless
his demands were fulfilled, there was nothing to do
but yield ; it was hopeless to seek support, as the
bishops did, in the Papal authority.
The Recess, drawn up by the Council, but published in
the name of the Diet, placed all monastic, chapter, and
Westeras episcopal lands at the King's disposal for
Recess and confiscation or religious use : land not subject
Ordinances, to taxation and given to the Church since
J^* 1454 returned to its former owners ; all
taxed lands, whenever given, did the same. The Word
of God was to be the model for preachers ; and a dis
putation, somewhat on the Zwinglian model, was to
regulate all further points of importance. Subsequent
ordinances gave the King the appointment of Church
dignitaries and a general control over the Church.
Henceforth, then, the bishops were under his control.
The main object of the change had been the secularisa
tion of Church property for State purposes; the consent
of the nobles had been gained by the return (as
mentioned above) to them of their old family gifts
made to the Church. The royal control grew greater,
and the Lutheranism of the now favoured religion
was soon intensified when (1531) the Swedish Mass
Book, Lutheran in doctrine, was published: compulsory

IN SCANDINAVIA AND FRANCE 89
confession, and prayers for the dead were abolished,
episcopacy continued although under royal visitation
and with restricted powers. Gustavus' son and suc
cessor, Eric XIV. (1560-8), was a Calvinist by choice,
and under him the Church and clergy became laxer
and more careless. His brother and successor, John
III., began a reaction, and with him the Counter-
Reformation made some headway. On the whole,
with the exception of the Dalecarlian peasants, the
people followed the religious policy of Gustavus.
In Denmark, Christian aroused opposition : at length
the rich and Lutheran city of Liibeck took up arms
against him and supported his uncle and
rival, Frederick, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein.
Christian had, for political reasons, taken up the anti
clerical side of the Beformation, but doctrinal questions
he was content to leave to the trading classes mostly
influenced by German and Lutheran intercourse ; these
burghers and the peasants were thus his chief political
supporters against the nobles. The clergy were heavily
taxed, the nobles depressed in power ; Codes, secular
and religious, were issued (1521-2) by royal power. A
Wittenberg theologian, Martin Reinhard, was asked
over (1519), Luther was invited, but only Carlstadt
came. The King's regulations were of a mixed type :
monasteries were visited ; priests were forbidden to be
non-resident ; ability to instruct was insisted upon as
a qualification for minor orders ; priests might marry,
but must be chaste ; cases of property were removed
from spiritual courts, and a new royal court of appeal
was set up at Roskilde, from which no appeal lay
to the Pope. Christian's relations with the Papacy
were thus strained, but the final success of Frederick

90 THE REFORMATION
(1523) lessened his importance. He fled, and an attempt
to regain his power as a Roman Catholic (1529) and
through wars and negotiations (1531-2) only ended in
his treacherous capture and imprisonment (until 1559).
In Frederick's own Duchies Lutheranism was al
ready strong ; the Danish clergy had therefore insisted
L ., upon his taking an oath neither to intro-
ism in duce it nor to injure the Church. But his
Denmark, temporary and cautious neutrality was in
Frederick I., itself a gain to the Lutherans. Not only
did he foresee the gain to the Crown from
religious change, but he was himself a Lutheran at
heart. Diets at Odensee (1526 and 1527) discussed the
situation, but the King did much by his own power.
Clerical marriage was common and was recognised,
but questions of doctrine were to remain until the
meeting of a Council. Bishops were to get confirma
tion from the Archbishop of Lund, not from Rome :
episcopal payments to the Pope were transferred to
the Crown, as were also the fines inflicted by Church
Courts ; all these changes arose out of the vacancy of
the See of Lund and a quarrel about it between King,
Pope, and Chapter. But consecration being dis
regarded, the succession was gradually lost. The
monasteries were deserted; in Norway and in Den
mark the higher clergy were against the King;
Christian's reconciliation with the Pope was a serious
danger, and his landing (1531) secured him all except
the fortresses. Foreign help from Liibeck and the
Schmalkaldic League, however, maintained Frederick's
power, and his recognition of Sweden's independence
removed one cause of danger.
In Denmark, as elsewhere, there were some who

IN SCANDINAVIA AND FRANCE 91
like Paul Eliaesen, Reinhard's interpreter, advocated
a moderate reform — improved discipline,
, . " . . , . , Course of
vernacular services, communion m both chance
kinds, clerical marriage — with no doctrinal
change. But Hans Tausen, the "Danish Luther,"
educated at Wittenberg and returned home (1524),
a married monk and popular preacher, headed a more
extreme party, which made a large and unconsidered
use of the New Testament (translated 1524). But the
fact that the Reformation was so largely carried on by
royal power, and not by popular tumult, resulted in the
preservation to a larger extent than in Germany of
ornaments such as the old altars and of vestments.
The death of Frederick I. (April, 1533) and subsequent
disputes between his sons Christian and John, while
Liibeck fought for Christian II., changed the religious
history. Had not Liibeck suffered a revolution in
which Wullenwever, its great democratic leader, fell,
and by which the Hanseatic towns lost much of their
importance, the city might have gained on the Baltic
the kind of power Zwingli had sought for Zurich in
the South. In the end Christian III., the elder of
Frederick's sons and a Lutheran, gained power in both
Denmark and Norway, although many of the country
districts in the latter remained Catholic. The Copen
hagen Decree (1536) gave all ecclesiastical lands to
the Crown ; the secular members of the Council were
henceforth to be Lutherans; the bishops, against
whose order Christian had already as Duke of
Schleswig-Holstein shown animosity, were removed
and the episcopate abolished. Bugenhagen, the
Lutheran organiser of Pomerania, was called in (1537)
to draft a new constitution.

92 THE REFORMATION
Seven superintendents (one of whom knew no
Danish), with the place and even the name of bishops,
The Danish were set apart by the laying upon them
Organisa- of Bugenhagen's hands. Under the new
tion- bishops were rural deans; nominally elected,
both they and the bishops were largely chosen by the
royal will. Side by side with the bishops stood
financial officers representing the King, administering
in his name the confiscated lands, and keeping the
clergy under control. A liturgy was drawn up, and
the gradual disuse of old ceremonies and institutions
such as chapters and monasteries was hastened by the
increasing local power of the nobles. The royal
power, by its vigorous exercise, gave uniformity to the
system : learning and theology were largely influenced
from Germany, and the Augsburg Confession was the
basis of doctrine. But there was little national vigour
in the movement, and the policy of drifting along
which was thus begun has prevented religion having
the force in Denmark which in Sweden and even in
disunited Germany it mostly possessed. The death
of Christian III. (1559) saw Denmark Lutheran;
Iceland had opposed the change bitterly, but was
overcome : Norway had only tardily accepted it.
Into Norway Lutheranism was imported under
Danish influence : monastic buildings were seized,
and the bishops showed themselves feeble
defenders of the Church. Christian III.
(1536) placed the Kingdom under Denmark, and thus
its civil and ecclesiastical independence disappeared
altogether. The Archbishop of Nidaros and the Bishop
of Hamar fled (1537); the Bishop of Stavanger was
imprisoned; the Bishop of Oslo reappeared as &

IN SCANDINAVIA AND FRANCE 93
Lutheran superintendent for Hamar and Oslo; the
Bishop of Bergen became Superintendent of Stav
anger and his own diocese. The old parish priests
remained for the most part undisturbed, but were in
the end succeeded by Lutherans, often foreigners, and
of indifferent character and learning: for over fifty
years the Kingdom suffered from religious revolution
and ignorant pastors, but with the loss of political
freedom she suffered sullenly, and it was long before
the new teaching made itself at home.
The Scandinavian Reformation had thus some
peculiar features of its own : clerical abuses had not
been so prevalent, the Papacy did not count for as
much as elsewhere : the doctrinal movement was im
ported and never very popular. The nobility was
depressed, and the .royal power raised as a result of
the movement. Incidentally, trade, owing to its wider
outlook and the lessened rivalry with the Baltic
towns, flourished. Thus, when the spiritual con
nections with Germany had given Scandinavia a
greater interest in German affairs, the royal powers
were stronger, richer, and able to interfere with
greater effect in the Thirty Years' War.
France, with a peculiar ecclesiastical past, had also
in this period a distinct reforming movement of its
own. The Reformation in France is, how
ever, always associated with the history of mation and"
Calvin, so influential outside France, and France.
with the so-called "Wars of Religion." The The French
influence of Calvin cannot be estimated too ?hur,? b~~
highly : the Wars of Religion had little or formatjon.
no permanent effect upon the world beyond
complicating its politics, secular and ecclesiastical.

94 THE REFORMATION
The Pragmatic Sanction (1438) had defined .the
position of the Church in France : it may be taken
as the joint result of the Conciliar Theory (for France,
had eagerly championed the independence of the
Councils against the Popes) and of the strong mon
archical power. Elections henceforth were to be
made by the Chapters, but the King could recom
mend, and this meant, in practice, he would appoint.
Papal reservations were restricted, and no appeals to
Rome were permitted until the courts at home had
been exhausted. By the Concordat of Bologna (1516)
the appointment to ecclesiastical offices was given to
the King : annates, previously all but abolished,
were tacitly restored to the Pope. The Gallican
Church had hitherto vindicated its liberty, but this
meant that it was now under the control of the King,
in whose favour the Pope had waived his rights.
Henceforth the King was enabled to reward his
favourites, and the evils of pluralities and non-
residence were intensified. As regards discipline and
religious life, France was as much in need of reform
as other countries, and there, as elsewhere, earnest and
educated men perceived the need. But the Reform
movement in France began with the Renaissance :
although the Sorbonne had been at one time the lead
ing theological body of the West, it was such no
longer, and the Thomist revival of theology as seen
in Spain had not affected Paris : the Sorbonne was
strictly conservative, orthodox but not progressive
in doctrine. It was the Sorbonne that opposed
Erasmus, and the condemnation of his Colloquies by it
ensured the sale of 24,000 copies.
But the legal authorities were guided by the Sor-

IN SCANDINAVIA AND FRANCE 95
bonne, and when, on the rise of Lutheranism, it named
a Delegation on matters of Faith, the Rise 0f
Parliament of Paris followed its lead: Lutheran-
heresy was, as in the Middle Ages, held ism-
a civil crime. But when Francis I., in the pursuit of
Italian power, concluded the Concordat of Bologna
to receive Papal support, the Parliament opposed this
change. The versatile and unprincipled King, himself
no heretic, although stained by many other crimes,
was yet not prepared to follow the Parliament in its
action against heresy, and thus at times appears as
a favourer of what really threatened his throne and
the unity of his Kingdom.
But it was not from Lutheranism that French
Protestantism or Huguenotism arose. The clergy
and schools were in close touch with the s . .
Church : the clergy were cultivated and origin of
leaders of the nation; it was among these French
and among the higher classes that the f rotestant-
ism.
French movement began, and Reform was
for some years more a sentiment than a cause of
action. Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples (Faber Stapulensis),
an opponent of Erasmus in a controversy on the
Pauline Epistles, was a professor of mathematics
who turned to theology, and like Erasmus himself com
mented upon St. Paul's Epistles (1512), on the Gospels
(1522), and translated, after an older version, the
Bible into French (1523-8). He had been a teacher
of Briconnet, Abbot of St. Germain-des-Pres, and
when his friend went as Bishop to Meaux, he followed
him thither by invitation (1516), as did Guillaume
Farel also. At Meaux, Lefevre and his pupils re
placed the Cordeliers, and their preaching of Faith

96 THE REFORMATION
as distinct from obedience to authority, their denuncia
tion of celibacy and prayers in Latin, drew upon them
the anger of the Sorbonne. But the protection of
the King's sister, Margaret of Angoul&me, Queen of
Navarre, and of the King himself, saved them.
Finally, however, stress of poverty and a grant from
the clerical notables, on condition of his suppressing
Lutheranism, led the latter to sanction persecution
(1526). But Farel, among the Reformers, had gone
too far for Briqonnet in his doctrine, especially in
denouncing prayers for the dead, and thus the party
of Reform went different ways. Provincial synods,
especially at Sens, now (1527-8) took up, as did
Briconnet himself, the twofold policy of suppressing
Lutheranism and furthering moderate reforms.
But the movement now began to change slightly its
character. There were still the Court preachers, most
of them men of good family, protected by
Change Margaret. But Germany now began to
Movement, influence France, and the German Protest
ants, to whom Francis was politically fa
vourable, negotiated as was their wont. The brothers
Du Bellay, one of whom was Bishop of Paris, held a
mediate position, and Guillaume du Bellay conducted
negotiations with Melanchthon. Thus favour and fire
alternated fitfully as Francis changed his mood (1534).
In 1535 the Huguenot schism began when at Paris
they founded a separate place of worship, and thus
the stamp of opposition to Church and Crown alike
was placed upon the movement. It was no longer an
attempt to reform the Church (indeed, the vigour of
the persecution at times made the hope of such a
thing seem vain) : it was a movement of separation

IN SCANDINAVIA AND FRANCE 97

which at Paris and elsewhere in the cities (for the
country places remained Catholic) demanded toleration
and safety. Thus the course of the religious move
ment in France was very different from elsewhere :
it originated in the Renaissance and biblical study;
its Lutheran associations were secondary and purely
sympathetic; its treatment depended upon kingly
and party politics ; it was very largely an affair of
literature, sermons, and psalm-singing until the popular
enthusiasm and iconoclasticism of some of its followers
alienated men like Rabelais. A curious feature in
the literary war was the publication (1544) by the
Sorbonne of an Index Expurgatorius, which was con
tinued annually. But when violence on the part of
its promoters and persecution on the part of the
authorities were becoming more marked, the sinister
genius of Calvin appeared, and henceforth, whatever
might be the play of politics and parties, French
Protestantism and Calvinism meant the same thing.
John Calvin was born, as were Lefevre and Berquin
(a leading martyr of the movement), in Picardy. His
father, a lawyer himself, in the end meant
his son to be the same, and his earlier x^._^.
studies at Paris were followed by legal
courses at Orleans and Bourges. In 1533 he was,
however, again at Paris ; and now his humanist and
legal phase developed, under reforming influence, into
a theological one : he had to flee from Paris, and
(1534) appears at Basel, the old home of Erasmus
until reform grew violent, and the field of work of the
gentle radical QScolampadius (fl531). In the interval
between this date and his arrival at Geneva (1536)
Calvin wrote his Institutio Christians Beligionis, a

98 THE REFORMATION
work which grew through successive editions from six
chapters to eighty, and embodied the relentless growth
of his logical mind and rigid system. Legal order and
logical completeness it had from the first, although his
peculiar tenets of " Calvinism " might be
The "Insti- stated more fully in later editions: thought,
Christians clear an(i revolutionary, it expressed most
Religionis." impressively. In later days it was a text
book wherever the Reformed religion spread.
It lacked the vivid personal experiences which had
given Luther's words their power, but when illus
trated by the polity he created at Geneva it had more
lasting influence upon the world than any writing of
any other Reformer. In its French form it played a
great part in French literature : its preface was, as
Zwingli's Professio Fidei, significantly addressed to
Francis I. From Geneva, French in its sympathy but
independent in its position, he was able to dominate
France, and to influence Europe both through France
and independently.
Geneva, where the energetic Farel had laboured
since 1532, stood between Savoy and Bern. Against
the rule of its bishop leaning upon the Duke
of Savoy, his advocate, its democracy looked
for help to Bern — reformed in a Zwinglian sense (1528),
but at a later date more Lutheran — and (1526-30)
had at last set up a republic. Internal strife and ex
ternal troubles lasted, however, until (1536) Catholi
cism was abolished. The Bishop was driven out;
sermons replaced the daily Mass ; ordinary bread was
used in the Eucharist, and a strict moral discipline —
something on the Zwinglian lines— was introduced.
This was the field to which Calvin was called, and

IN SCANDINAVIA AND FRANCE 99
where, after a short absence due to civic strife (1538-40),
he lived until his death (1564). Here, too, he intro
duced the ecclesiastical organisation, largely original,
although much indebted to Zwingli, which was, per
haps, next to the Catholic model, most calculated to
maintain itself and to impress righteousness upon a
wayward people. The transformation of Geneva from
a city noted for immorality to one noted for its austere
piety is proof that his system possessed this quality.
Luther might start from a vivid personal experi
ence; Zwingli from a humanism modified by local
politics ; Calvin — as became a lawyer and a
logician — followed another method. Like Doctrm al.
them, he disregarded all previous theology svstem.
(the sixteenth century was not, indeed, a
theological age), but unlike them he went on to build
up a theory of religion and life upon the sovereignty
of God, for his theology was the basis of his polity to
a greater .degree than was the case with any Reformer,
Catholic or Protestant. It was emphatically a legal
conception, and man as the subject of God's law fell
into his destined place. As did the Catholic Re
formers, so he too went back to S. Augustine; but
they, as became Thomists, seized on those conceptions
of S. Augustine which fitted in with the Catholic
faith and existing worship : he went back to the pre
destination side of S. Augustine's views, and upon
this conception of law — the law of God, guiding and
inspiring man as God's instrument for a destined
Work — Calvin based his teaching and his polity. It is
a magnificent testimony to the breadth and force of
S. Augustine's teaching that both the Catholic Re
formers of Spain, who later on were the leading theo-

THE REFORMATION

logians of Trent, and Calvin himself, were indebted to
him for the most vital parts -of these divergent
schemes. In regard to the Eucharist, Calvin agreed with
Zwingli in denying any bodily presence or any change
of substance ; unlike Zwingli, he held there
E . . . was a real spiritual grace given, a real
union with Christ made ; but these benefits
were purely spiritual and connected with the Sacra
ment itself, rather than with the consecrated elements.
It was on this view that the Second Helvetic Confession
(1566), following upon Calvin and Bullinger's work, the
generally accepted "Consensus Tigurinus" (1549) was
based, and so finally and expressly united Switzerland.
While Zwingli gave the power of excommunication
to" the State, Calvin kept it for the religious body
Organi- itself in the Consistory. The pastors had
sationand an almost unrestricted power ("new pres-
Discipline. byter was but old priest writ large"), it
was for them to preach, teach, and administer the Holy
Eucharist (with a ritual which was Zwinglian in its
plainness). The pastors along with elected laymen
formed the Consistory which exercised the moral dis
cipline. It was in this association of the pastors, and
in the strict supervision thus carried out, that the
organic strength of the new system lay. It was a
theocracy under God in which the ministers, His mes
sengers, had the upper hand, and controlled even the
State itself. It fitted in well with a democracy in
politics, and hence it spread so as ultimately to absorb
Zwinglianism in Switzerland and elsewhere; in
France, the Netherlands, Scotland, and very largely in
England, in districts of Germany, such as the Palatin-

IN SCANDINAVIA AND FRANCE

ate, it was "the Reformed" not the "Lutheran" type
of Protestantism that had power.
In his later years the influence of Calvin reached far
and wide; as a sort of Protestant Pope he received
questions for decision, and wrote to sover- Calvin's in-
eigns upon equal terms ; his views gov- fluence in
erned a large territory of Protestant thought; later years-
and, until early in the seventeenth century an
Arminian revival began, Protestant orthodoxy was
judged by agreement with him. Such a large body of
opinion affected thought beyond Protestant circles,
and the tendency of speculation as Calvinism rose,
and as it declined, was naturally towards the larger
questions of God's government of the universe and the
free-will or the limited power of man.
The religious history of France, when, after 1550,
French Protestants were Calvinists, can be best
treated here. For many reasons the Hu
guenots were opposed to the Crown ; pe lglon in
whether as led by great nobles of royal
blood, or as demanding toleration and almost sove
reignty in special districts and cities, or as a schism
against a church dominated by the King, or as theoreti
cal republicans, they took to opposition easily. But
how far the Crown by its persecution or its energetic
measures made their opposition active depended upon
its mood, its policy, and its advisers. There was
always Spain, the national enemy, to be reckoned with,
and after the revolt of the Netherlands (1572) oppo
sition to Spain was inevitable : there were Popes of
Spanish and French leanings to deal with ; there were
German Protestants to conciliate or delude ; after a
time there were armed camps, the League led by the

THE REFORMATION

Guise family, and the Huguenots, the triumph of either
meaning ruin to the nation; that of the former, mean
ing Spanish influence, that of the latter, the reversal of
all the nation's past. But the main interest of these
wars is political, not in any sense religious. At the
outset of the wars the moderate part of the nation was
against the Huguenots ; after the massacre of S.
Bartholomew, 1572, it was rather against the Catholics ;
about 1585 a Catholic reaction began.
These wars filled the history of France from 1559 to
1598. At an early date there was an attempt at a com
promise in the Colloquy of Poissy (Sep-
the'wars Member, 1561). It was estimated, probably
with exaggeration, that the Huguenots and
their sympathisers numbered more than one quarter of
the population, and many prelates would have welcomed
some effective compromise. But political parties made
for war, and used religion as a pretext. The Huguenots
were the better organised. Their first synod had been
held (May, 1559); the Calvinist organisation had been
adopted already in the separate congregations giving
them incidentally an organisation for war or revolt ;
it only remained to bind them into groups (called
Colloquies : the classes of the English Presbyterians),
and so constitute a synod for the united body. A
Confession of Faith, which was mainly composed by
Calvin, was also adopted. Thus the alternatives were
clear before the King and all those present at Poissy.
Theodore Beza, the most aristocratic of Reformers, and
Peter Martyr were among the Protestants ; six car
dinals, forty prelates, and Lainez, now General of the
Jesuits, represented the Church. As was mostly the
case politics, represented by Catharine de Medici, were

IN SCANDINAVIA AND FRANCE 103
inclined to a compromise; but theology, adequately
represented by Lainez, opposed it. The views of the
Protestants on the Eucharist when formulated for
decision were naturally and decisively rejected by the
bishops. It is impossible to follow in detail the vary
ing decrees by which the Protestants received legal
recognition and a toleration varying, both under
Francis I. (fl547) and Henry II. (1547-59), with the
political situation. But the massacre of S. Bartholo
mew (1572) will always remain one of the best-known
crimes of a religious name. Henry of Navarre was to
marry the King's sister, Margaret, and all the notables
were therefore gathered together in Paris ; Coligny,
the Admiral, had gained over the young King Charles the
Ninth an influence of which his mother, Catharine de
Medici, was jealous : a plot to assassinate him in her
interests failed; because of the King's anger, and, as a
secondary move, a general massacre of Huguenots was
hastily resolved upon ; Catharine, in league with her
usual opponents, the Guises, planned it, and the King
was induced to consent. Terrible as the crime was, no
outside power — neither the Papacy nor Spain — was
concerned; it not only shocked the world, with the
exception of many bigots, but it brought after it a
strengthening of the Huguenot movement by which,
when the great leaders had disappeared and the faint
hearted had changed sides, the democratic Calvinistic
rank and file became the heart of the movement and
directed its policy. The war henceforth became one for
the existence of the Huguenots, a war more of parties
than of creeds. Spain — gradually under Philip II.
looming forth as the great Catholic power — sees its
opportunity, and by the encouragement of the League

104 THE REFORMATION
tries not only to restore Catholicism in full, but to
reduce France to a province of Spain. The Papacy,
even under so able a Pope as Sixtus V., finds itself
forced by politics now to side with the Crown, and now
against it. The Guises — one of the ablest of families
in war, diplomacy, and intrigue, as cardinals or generals,
and sometimes as both together — were reduced to seek
ing Spanish help for objects which were at first
religious and then afterwards ambitious. „
As the war itself becomes more confused and more
political than religious, parties group themselves more
Later plainly. The League, begun with a union
stages of of the nobles of Picardy (1576), was a com-
the War, plete organisation for the restoration of
15 4~9 ' Catholicism, placed at the service of its
elected leader ; a later and like association was formed
in Paris (1584), and the Duke of Guise, with Spanish
help behind him, controlled the party machine. The
crown was completely overshadowed, and not even the
treacherous murders by Henry III. of the Duke of
Guise and his brother, the Cardinal (1588), could
restore the royal power. Meanwhile, Henry of Navarre
— the Huguenot heir to the throne — was growing into
a greater man; there was in the eyes of patriotic
Frenchmen little against him except his religion, and
that sat somewhat easily upon a Huguenot as romantic
and as licentious as Francis I. himself. When (1593),
after long hesitation, he took the Mass to gain a king
dom, the end of the war was in sight, and it only
needed his appearance as the national champion against
Spain (1595-98) to make him in reality the national
King. The great conservative body of the nation —
which was now Catholic, and weary of war — grouped

IN SCANDINAVIA AND FRANCE 105
itself around him ; and it was they — not the League
representing the Counter-Reformation and aggressive
Catholicism, and still less the Huguenots, — that gained
the victory; and the King was well adapted to them
and their religious sympathies. This is the reason
why France, in later years, seems less affected by the
Counter-Reformation, the influence of which is de
scribed elsewhere (Chapter VIIL), than other countries
were. It was an evil thing for a nation to have been
rent by wars covered by the name of religion ; the
French wars did more than any others to accustom
the world to the idea of religious wars, and thus to
secularise religion itself. Henceforth, with Germany
divided in itself, with the Netherlands in revolt, with
France at civil war, with England divided by Puritan
and Anglican parties called after Parliament and King,
religion and war seemed naturally allied; there was
thus a general loss of spirituality. It was not the
Thirty Years' War (1618-48) that alone was the issue
at arms of religious difference, for these earlier wars
had taught the world the same lesson before.
In a politic sense, Henry IV., who had forced the
Papacy to recognise him as King (it was not until 1595
that Clement VIIL gave him absolution), Tne
might be the type of Gallican independence; Gallican
he, and still more Lewis XIV., could afford Church.
to treat the Pope without much deference, and mainly
as a political power. There was even talk of a French
Patriarchate and a modified religion. But the monarchy
was stronger than either the national Church or the
Papacy, and could play off one against the other. The
Jesuits, too, as a foreign body, depended upon the
King's favour, and were often of great use to him.

106 THE REFORMATION
The religious settlement made by the Edict of
Nantes (April, 1598), recognised, as was inevitable
1598. after the wars, with their many treaties,
Edict of the existence of the Huguenots as a separ-
Nantes. ate body; their service was allowed (with
the exception of Paris, Rheims, Dijon, Toulouse, and
five miles around them) wherever it had been held
before 1597 ; they could hold their fortresses for eight
years as security for their rights ; offices of State were
open to all subjects, and the Parliaments of Paris and
elsewhere had special and evenly composed sides for
dealing with the cases of the Reformed. The Catholics
had the free use of their religion everywhere, and
hence in many districts, whence they had been dis
possessed with violence, a restoration of Catholicism
followed, and everywhere it kept or regained the
tithes. Thus the edict, in itself more of a treaty than
a general toleration, contained the seed of future
strife : the restricted recognition of Huguenotism
meant that it only existed at the royal will ; the
moderate Catholic party had been consolidated; the
few really spiritual persons, left by the exhausting
wars, were on their side ; all the political power lay
with the King ; Protestantism had weakened and
divided the State, not conquered it as in Scandinavia.
But schemes of disendowment, which had been mooted,
had left a disquieting effect behind, and the national
division was not to be permanent. France and the
French Crown took their own way of dealing with the
problem of religious toleration as affecting political
unity ; and being in France that way was violent and
despotic.

CHAPTER VI
GERMANY AFTER 1529
ON September 25th, 1534, Clement VII. died, and
was succeeded, after a Conclave of one day only,
by Alexander Farnese — Paul III. The new Pope,
although only sixty - seven years old, had been a
cardinal for forty years, and had narrowly
escaped the Papal throne before. He was Paul IIL'
I534~49-
a patron of art and literature, easy and
liberal in his views, and generous in his treatment of
men : pledged to no party in politics, and by both
person and tastes alike fitted for a dignified position.
But he could not be reckoned an ecclesiastic or a
theologian above everything else. Yet he came to the
throne when the greatness of the " German tragedy "
was thoroughly felt : he was soon surrounded through
his own choice by cardinals of a more deeply religious
tone, and for some years it seemed as if the Papal
administration was to be conducted in a very different
way. In Italy there had at length been a reaction from
the Paganism, secret or avowed, of the Renaissance ;
" the Oratory of Divine Love " had been
formed at Rome (1523) with the objects in ItajL
of prayer, biblical study, and edification.
Giberti, Caraffa (afterwards Paul IV.), and some fifty
others, many of them equally eminent, were its
107

108 THE REFORMATION
members. The movement aimed at the reform, not
as older movements had done of monastic life, but of
clerical. Its significance was, however, greater than
its effect, for the sack of Rome (1527) scattered its
members. It was characteristic that it embraced men
of opposite extremes ; but, broadly speaking, they were
all united in a strong assertion of justification by faith
• — a doctrine which, however technically expressed and
often erroneously emphasised to the exclusion of other
truths, embodies the great principle that man is judged
by God as what he essentially is.
Venice, to which in the political storm all people — •
Italians or refugees, such as Reginald Pole — flocked,
became a centre of this newer school of thought.
Here the whole Bible was translated into Italian;
here, too, Contarini, eminent in intellect as well as in
piety, was laying in a small field that foundation of
thought and observation which is the best preparation
for a lofty office. In Modena, again, the Bishop
Giovanni de Morone taught the same doctrines, and
brought into strong light the doctrine and the person
of Christ. At the same time all these men held
along with Erasmus to the unity of the Church and
obedience to the Papacy. The latter presented itself
as the most stable among the unstable political powers
of Italy, and had, of course, gathered around itself
the ecclesiastical sentiments of the West. " No corrup
tion," said one of these biblical students, " can be
great enough to justify a defection from the Church.
Were it not better for each to try and reform what
exists than to experiment in creating something new ?
It were well to bend all our thoughts to improving the
old institution and curing its defects."

GERMANY AFTER 1529 109
It was noteworthy that on his accession Paul III.
called to the College of Cardinals, Caraffa, Sadoleti,
Pole, Giberti, and Contarini— all men of
the type described and eager for reform, cardinals.
Commissions for reform in the several
departments of the administration — the Camera, the
Rota, the Chancery, and the Penitentiaries — were
formed and preparations begun for the Council which
might, as it seemed, yet restore unity, and the outlook
in Germany for the moment justified such a hope.
Even the Protestants had drawn together among
themselves : under the influence of Melanchthon the
adherents of the Augsburg Confession and Dietand
the party of the Oberland under Bucer — Colloquy
who, eager for compromise, hurried from at Regens-
one leader to another to minimise their bnis' lS41-
differences — had agreed upon a common profession
(the Wittenberg Concord, 1536); even the Zwinglians
approached them, although not closely enough to
agree absolutely or heartily. The cessation of war
with France (June, 1538) and the pressure of the
unceasing Turks made the Emperor better disposed
towards the Protestants, and thus the Diet of Regens-
burg (Ratisbon) in April, 1541, gave hopes of national
union. Friendly discussions at Worms (January, 1541)
between theologians, Melanchthon, Bucer, and Calvin
on one side, Eck, Cochlaeus, and Gropper on the other,
preceded the Diet ; four days' argument upon Original
Sin had resulted in a compromise, when the proceed
ings were postponed to the Diet : von Pflng, a moderate
and learned theologian, now strengthened the Catholics,
and Cardinal Contarini (whose presence was a pledge
of reform) appeared as Legate: a series of articles

THE REFORMATION

(the Liber Ratisbonensis) laid down by Gropper after
long consultation became the basis of negotiation in
place of the Augsburg Confession : after much dis
agreement, Eck and Melanchthon rejected the 5th
Article upon Justification, while Luther also had
previously declared the whole unsatisfactory ; but
even upon this point an agreement was finally reached.
Justification by faith was asserted, but this faith was
viewed as in itself a starting-point for a life of holi
ness, and the two elements were not to be separated.
To use the technical term, Justification by faith was
the germ of the justicia inhaerens (inherent righteous
ness), and this issued in the fidem efficacem per caritatem
(faith working through love). This view, which be
came a standard for the moderate and mediating
Catholics, made the imputed righteousness which
produced the inherent righteousness the important
element : hence Divine Grace had a larger share in
man's securing salvation than had his own good works.
The Jesuit fathers at Trent, on the other hand, while
giving to the imputed righteousness the priority in
time made the inherent righteousness of man himself,
produced by the other, the more important element:
in their scheme the larger share belonged to man's
free will and works of merit. This was a vital
difference, not in philosophy only, but in actual
life as well. The Consistory at Rome, however
(May 27th, 1541), rejected the article on account of
its exclusion of human merit; Luther, equally firm
in his personal views, considered it a "patched up"
thing, needing for completeness an acknowledgment
of previous error on the Catholic side, and an asser
tion of his own views as to justification by faith alone.

GERMANY AFTER 1.529

But at the Colloquy it proved easy to agree upon the
Sacraments generally, upon Ordination, Baptism, and
Confirmation : while upon the Holy Eucharist, Absolu
tion, and the Marriage of Priests, agreement naturally
proved impossible. The Emperor would have liked
to make the accepted Articles a kind of creed for the
Empire — a step similar in substance to that taken
further on by the Interim — but Contarini protested,
and Luther, never lacking in the common-sense that
so often accompanies self-will, rejected the proposal.
But even had a satisfactory agreement been reached
upon the points discussed there would still have
remained the question of the Papal Power, and here
any agreement must have been impossible. The
Colloquy, although dictated largely by political needs,
had, however, been a Christian effort, and even if
little came of it, each party had seen something of
the mind of the others. The discussion moreover and
the clearer expression of Catholic doctrine greatly
influenced theology of all types.
Before the Diet broke up a Recess was agreed upon
by which a truce was established through an Imperial
Declaration. The Catholic bishops were to Recess of
press forward the reformation of discipline: Regens-
the Peace of Niirnberg was renewed and Dur£> ISAI-
also the Augsburg Recess: pending the assembly of
a Council and of another Diet in eighteen months,
Lutherans received protection for all ecclesiastical
property they held: assessors from among them
were admitted to the Kammergericht (the Imperial
Court) : their " reformation " of monasteries and their
secularisation of monastic and capitular funds was
legalised for the time. Charles' scheme of national

THE REFORMATION

union was thus seen to be hopeless ; he was driven to
Charles work by political agencies to secure the two
and a objects nearest to his heart — the consolida-
Council. tion of a reformed Church and the unity
of the Empire. But he slowly came to the conclusion
that against the Lutherans force was his only remedy.
With many people before and since he regarded belief
and opinion as secondary to practice and conduct : he
was equally ready to leave shades of difference to be
fought over by theologians subject to his royal decision:
he could see that reform was not only inevitable but
desirable : he saw, moreover, that the only way to gain
it and make it acceptable was by a Council: if a
General Council could not meet, a German Council, at
any rate, could, and for his purpose the latter at least
was essential. But the Pope looked at the matter
from a different point of view : he was not so much
bent upon reform as was Charles, and he probably had
a truer estimate of the obstacles formed by theological
differences. Nor was the condition of Germany — for
any improvement in which religious accord was needed
— of vital moment to him. Hence for some years
after 1541 the summoning of a General Council is the
pivot upon which ecclesiastical affairs chiefly turned.
In 1542 war broke out between France and the
Emperor, ended only by the Peace of Crepy in 1544.
Politics in In Germany leagues had been forming; the
Germany, Imperial Chancellor von Held had formed
1542-55- a league of Catholic princes (the Niirnberg
Bond, June 10th, 1538) : the Emperor had granted the
Lutherans toleration, at any rate, for the time. Mean
while, Protestantism made such strides forward that
in all Lower Germany only Duke Henry of Brunswick-

GERMANY AFTER 1529 113
Wolfenbiittel remained Catholic. But events worked
together to give the Emperor increasing power. The
bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse (March, 1540),
for which Luther and Melanchthon with other re
formers were responsible, both shocked public opinion
and put this capable politician in danger of the Imperial
ban. Not only was Protestantism discredited, but
Philip had to give up his diplomatic schemes against
Charles and to make his peace at any price.
Furthermore, a disputed succession in the Duchy
of Cleve divided the princes, and thus became of
importance. Charles, Duke of Gelders — Succession
Charles' most determined enemy — had never to Cleve
gained recognition from him, and (1534) had and
formally yielded his territory to France, spread 'of
His subjects, however, wished John of Cleve Protestant-
to be his successor, and (1538) the latter's ism
son, William, was recognised as heir. On generally-
the death of the Duke of Gelders William easily
gained possession of the lands, and on his father's
death (1539) held Cleve and Gelders together. The
Emperor claimed Gelders as a reverted fief, but as
William's sister, Sibylla, was married to the Elector,
John Frederick of Saxony, some members of the
Smalkaldic League were likely to rally to his support,
and a new cause of discord was thus found. Further
to the west, Duke Henry of Brunswick- Wolfenbiittel,
the Catholic leader of the North, had gained an Im
perial Decree against the ancient town of Goslar for
having destroyed some monasteries. When he refused
to put off the execution of the Decree the Smalkaldic
League began war against him, drove him from his terri
tories, and introduced Lutheranism there (1542). The

ii4 THE REFORMATION
Palatinate (1545) and the city of Regensburg also be
came Protestant now. Archbishop Hermann (von Wied),
of Koln, not only showed leanings towards Protestant
ism, but tried, with the help of Bucer and Melanchthon,
to introduce it into his dominions (1536-42). His de
fection would have given the Protestants a majority in
the College of Electors and would have stiffened the
ecclesiastical opposition along the Rhine and north
wards. Here the successful claimant, William of Cleve
and Gelders, had introduced in his territories an
eclectic reformation : Catholic in doctrine and organi
sation, but allowing communion in both kinds — a
concession the Venetian envoy, Guistiniani (1540-41),
considered necessary if Germany was to be preserved
Catholic. William, however, soon became decisively •
Lutheran (1542), just before the Emperor's attack upon
him changed the fate of Northern Germany (1543).
Philip of Hesse, to keep Charles' favour, had opposed
the admission of William into the Smalkaldic League,
which other members favoured. The League being
thus divided, Charles was able to defeat William,
wrest Gelders from him — thus joining to the Bur-
gundian Netherlands what would otherwise have
remained a purely German Duchy — and reintroduce
Catholicism in William's lands. As a consequence,
Protestantism in Koln fell also. But in the North,
where Saxony and Brandenburg had power, most of
the Sees were in secular hands ; it was as yet only
towards the Rhine that Protestantism was weakened.
"We are daily becoming fewer," said the Catholic
Cochlaeus. But with a stronger position and now at peace with
France (September, 1544) Charles turned again to

GERMANY AFTER 1529 115
attempt a religious and political peace in Growing
Germany. Some Protestant theologians power of
were ready to help him, but Luther, in a Charles V.
coarse but effectual way, gave his view of the obstacles
to it in his treatise Against the Papacy founded by the
Devil at Borne, issued the very month (March, 1545)
when the Council was to meet. A second religious
Colloquy at Regensburg (1546) had no result; the
Protestant princes refused to accept the decisions
of the Council. But Protestantism was now divided
by the very policies that had smoothed its earlier path.
Duke Maurice of Albertine or Ducal Saxony (1541-53),
son-in-law of Philip of Hesse, had been since 1542 —
both on his father-in-law's account and because of his
jealousy of Electoral Saxony — an ally of the Emperor's:
Joachim II., in Brandenburg, had carried out changes
(1538-43) which gradually became more extreme,
but he, too, in opposition to Saxony, stood £>iv£sions
apart from the Smalkaldic League and fol- in the
lowed the Emperor's policy. Thus when Smalkaldic
(December, 1545) the long-expected Council Leaffue-
met the spread of Protestantism had gone beyond its
political power; the Emperor had never been stronger;
he judged this the time to use again the weapon
of arms that had answered so well against Cleve.
The Pope regarded the coming war as partly religious
— an aspect Charles was not wishful to give it publicly :
he sent Charles money and troops and allowed him to
seize for its expenses Church revenues in Spain. The
Smalkaldic League was taken at a disadvantage, and
the South German cities were isolated. The Elector,
John Frederick of Saxony, was defeated at Miihlberg
(April 24th, 1547): the Landgrave of Hesse surrendered

116 THE REFORMATION
at Halle (June, 1547), and thus the two leading
Protestant princes were prisoners. Maurice received
much of his uncle's lands and became Elector of Saxony
in his place : the Archbishop of Koln, Hermann, had
resigned his See (February 25th, 1 547) ; Catholic bishops
were restored elsewhere. The power of the Emperor
— resting mainly upon the support of Maurice— was
supreme. All the great Protestant cities surrendered,
some on promise of toleration, and the Duke of Wiirt
temberg followed suit. And further Duke Henry was
restored in Brunswick. Except in the further north,
Charles was supreme : his triumph meant the success
of Catholicism.
In the Diet at Augsburg (September, 1547, to 1548)
the Emperor attempted a religious settlement : he
was now out of friendship with the Pope,
The Augs- whose nephew Pierluigi Farnese had been
Int^'m (September, 1547) murdered with the sup-
May, 1548. posed connivance of Charles' governor at
Milan. The Council had been moved, against
his wish, from Trent to Bologna, and Charles was
therefore more inclined to act by himself. His plan
of settlement, the Augsburg Interim (May, 1548) was
drawn up by Pflug and Helding on the Catholic side,
and John Agricola on the Protestant side: it was to
serve provisionally until a Council could carry out
reforms : in doctrine it was mainly Catholic, but it
conceded clerical marriage, and communion in both
kinds where it had been customary; on the other
hand, episcopacy, the power of Councils, the primacy
of Rome limited so as not to trench upon the rights of
bishops, the Invocation of Saints, the seven Sacraments,
the Mass as a true sacrifice — all these were asserted

GERMANY AFTER 1529 117
against innovators : justification was defined as the
process by which a man is made just, and on such
points as the encouraging of communicants at daily
Mass there was an endeavour to meet a changing
opinion. A Formula of Reform for the Catholic
States prepared by Pflug (now Bishop of Naumburg)
was also published and adopted by many diocesan
synods. The Protestant States received the document
in varying ways : some approved ; others, like Maurice
of Saxony, hesitated; Maurice himself consulted the
theologians, and a modified form — the Leipzig Interim
(December 24th, 1548) — was the result. By
this document the lesser importance of The
ritual and ceremonies was asserted; but the LeiP^'g
... . . Interim :
controversy which arose as to the definition tlie Adia-
of these adiaphora (things indifferent) had phora.
a long history in Protestant theology. In
its doctrine the Leipzig form was conciliatory : man's
justification was declared to be solely due to the
merits of Christ, but his conduct was not to be sup
posed mechanically controlled by God : the Mass was
continued, but, as was favoured by reformers, canticles
in the vernacular were to be sung during its celebra
tion (in England the Puritans in the same way sang
Psalms) ; the assertion of episcopal control was not in
accordance with Lutheran practice. It was in the dis
cussion of this form that Melanchthon somewhat threw
over the authority of Luther (fFebruary 18th, 1546).
The Protestants affected to believe that the Interim
was to bind the Catholics also : Charles, who was on
this occasion less straightforward than usually, meant
it as a limit to change. While the States varied in
their views, the cities emphatically repudiated the

118 THE REFORMATION
Interim. In South Germany it was forced upon them,
and their pastors became exiles : in the North, Mag
deburg was a centre for fugitive theologians, by many
of whom Melanchthon was fiercely attacked : Philip-
pists, Gnesio-Lutherans, and Lutherans fought a many-
sided duel. The Pope condemned the Interim ; and it
was indeed an exercise of regal power commoner in
Catholic Spain, Protestant Scandinavia, or in England
than in Germany. But in spite of the general unrest,
diplomacy helped the Interim to survive. Even Pope
Paul III., in view of a possible reunion, hinted at con
cessions as to clerical marriage and communion in
both kinds. His successor, Julius III., worked more
harmoniously with Charles, and when (May, 1551) the
Council of Trent met again, several Protestants
humoured the Emperor by attendance : Brandenburg,
with an eye upon secularised sees, Wiirttemberg, and
Saxony sent representatives, while the Protestant
theologians prepared statements of faith. But the
demands that these theologians should be admitted to
vote, that the Council should begin de novo, and that
the bishops should be for the time free from Papal
control were very sweeping. It did seem, however, as
if concord were possible : it was a possibility which a
subsequent crystallisation of doctrine and the fixed
bareness for the most part of later Protestant worship
leads us to underestimate. As we pass, however, in a
city like Nurnberg from Catholic to Lutheran churches,
the possibility mounts higher in our view, for the pre
sent buildings show us that the conditions of worship
must at that time have been more fluid. But what
ever the possibility was, the conduct of Maurice made
it vanish.

GERMANY AFTER 1529 ti9
The Elector Maurice was well-nigh the ablest, and
certainly the selfishest, of princes when ability was
rare and selfishness common. Charles'
mingling of coercion in Germany and toler- Maurice .of
ation at Trent might lay him open to sus
picion; but the treachery of Maurice needs a better
excuse than this. A sudden treaty with France, a
hasty march southwards, laid his benefactor Treat of
Charles at his mercy, and made him a fugi- Passau,
tive (1552). The Council at Trent broke Aug. 2,
up, and the Treaty of Passau marked the ISS2-
failure of the Interim.
By this Treaty Philip of Hesse was set at liberty :
until the next Diet an amnesty in religious matters
was to obtain : this Diet was to settle how, whether
by Council, by Recess, or a Colloquy, reform was to be
secured. Maurice was bent upon gaining for Luther
anism a legal recognition irrespective of Trent or any
other Council : Charles had to own his own weakness,
but would neither give up the unity of the Empire nor
the hope of ultimate unity. Had he acted otherwise,
the Catholic cause in Germany would have been nearly
lost. His war against France, however, went badly,
and in 1553 he left Germany for good : the same year
Maurice lost his life in a fight against his former ally,
the lawless Margrave Albert of Brandenburg (July 9th,
1553). Ferdinand was left to make a lasting peace,
for Charles could not bring himself, faithful Catholic
as he was, to legalise the work of Luther.
In February, 1555, the Diet which was to settle the
religious future of Germany met at Augsburg : the
bulk of the Protestant princes had previously agreed
to maintain the Augsburg Confession, irrespective

t26 The reformation

of discussion or compromise : Ferdinand would have
„ ,. . preferred a compromise that would retain
Religious r L , , „ ,. ¦ ¦,
Peace of the appearance, at least, of religious unity :
Augsburg, the Lutherans demanded for the future
Sept. 25, fuli liberty to secularise Church property,
ISS5' and a protection for their adherents in
Catholic States which was not to be given to Catho
lics under Protestant princes. It was obvious how
closely the cause of Protestantism was bound up with
the cause of princes against control from Emperor or
Church. In the end all Lutheran princes received
security : the principle cujus regio, ejus religio was thus
set up inside the Empire: dissenting subjects were
free to emigrate : in Lutheran lands episcopal authority
was surrendered : the reservatum ecclesiasticum pro
vided that in future bishops becoming Lutherans
should forfeit their territory. This provision, although
in the Recess, was really disregarded by the Lutherans,
and its feeble enforcement was one cause of the Thirty
Years' War. A royal declaration apart from the
Recess promised liberty of faith to Lutherans in the
states ruled by bishops : in the free Imperial cities
(where Protestants mainly prevailed) minorities were
to be respected.
This was a peace due to weariness of strife, and not
to any recognition of principles. If the adherents of
the Augsburg Confession (it was not speci-
the Peace ^ec^ wnlcu °f the many recensions was the
model) gained recognition, it was due to the
personal influence of Luther and the policy of princes:
but their creed gained no sanction more than that of
the Reformed which gained no recognition. Thus the
Peace recognised the differences of Protestants as well

GERMANY AFTER 1529

as their power. On the other hand, it conceded to the
princes the rightfulness of secularisation in the past
while denying it in the future. It did not thus set up
as a principle the inviolability of Church lands. It
gave up the chance of regaining the secularised sees,
which Pope Paul IV., for instance, would have gladly
regained: on the other hand, it preserved the sees
that still remained. It was a peace which neither
side welcomed but both accepted until their weari
ness was past and their wish to infringe it freshly
roused. It recognised the breakdown of unity, Im
perial and Ecclesiastical, and so far it recognised facts
sad but undeniable. If it was a Peace that contained
the seeds of war (as every peace really does), it had at
least been made by Germany alone. Neither Pope
(the Papal legate Morone had refused to be a party to
it) nor Council nor intrusive State such as France had
aught to say in it. Moreover, it was the work of
princes and politicians who saw the need for peace :
the theologians were left outside, and continued to
wrangle with increasing violence.
The year of the Peace (1555) marks the height of
• the success of Protestantism. Other causes were now
working against it, and its own divisions
were telling in the same direction. Elec- f r°?ress °f
toral and Ducal Saxony, Holstein, Mecklen- jsra_
burg, Pomerania, Brandenburg (both elec
toral and Ansbach), Wiirttemberg, the Palatinate,
nearly all Brunswick, Hesse, Anhalt, and nearly all
the cities were either Lutheran or Reformed. Else
where in Catholic states, as Austria or Bavaria, many
of the nobles and lower classes were also Protestant.
But a reaction, not altogether due to force or persecu-

THE REFORMATION

tion, was soon to begin, and to win back for Catholi
cism some whole states and many individual Protest
ants elsewhere. The main cause of this reaction was
that the Church had risen to a truer sense of its
mission and of the imperfections that had hindered its
accomplishmen t.

CHAPTER VII
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
THERE had long been a demand for a General
Council; the Lateran Council (1512-17) had just
done enough to show that another Council might do
more ; not only the ever scantier supporters of the
conciliar theories, but the more earnest Demand
theologians looked for it. Luther's appeal for a
to a General Council and the hope that it Counci1'
might possibly conciliate some Protestants were to
some people further reasons for calling it. As early
as November, 1526, the summoning of such an
assembly had been discussed, and Charles — both as
Emperor and as a private Catholic — was warmly
in favour of the step. When urged to call it with
out the Pope he refused (1532), and he hesitated
long before he would adopt the proposed alterna
tive of a German Council. Finally, however, the
disordered state of Germany and the reluctance of
the Pope to call a Council only too likely to lessen
his power converted the Emperor to this plan, and at
Worms (1545) Charles definitely promised a German
Council if a General Council should not complete the
work of reform. But there were nice calculations
whether the state of politics would help or hinder the
task of the Council, or whether it might not alter
123

i24 THE REFORMATION
the Church too violently : whether the Lutherans
could attend or be listened to, or whether their
presence might not affect the Council too greatly.
Many men held that the practical evils which existed
called for reforms only to be gained from a Council.
Others wished for a clear and general statement of
doctrine. Neither of these demands, however, was
due solely to the Reformation. The earlier existence
of the former we have shown already : the Thomist
theologians especially of Spain expressed the latter.
The Middle Ages, in which popular theology had
taken strange forms, in which speculation had been
unrestrained and general, load left issues enough to be
settled, even if the Reformation had not presented
other issues more fundamental and important. The
truth of theology, the existence of a Church implies
that a close connection exists between theological
truth and uprightness of life : only those who denied
this connection could urge omission of either from
the programme of the Council. ' Whether doctrine
or discipline should take precedence was, however,
a different question : truth affects the life : the sur
roundings of a man affect his soul ; men equally honest
could take different views of the relative urgency
of the two tasks. Reform practical evils, and your
very earnestness will make others listen to your
beliefs and doctrines, said some : state your doctrines,
and then the delicate lines between pious opinions and
heresies can be drawn more firmly, said others. There
will always be two classes of men— one thinking that
a modification of opinions or a mild expression of truth
will attract support, another thinking that the slight
est possible sacrifice of truth in expression is a loss

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 125
outweighing the gain of many adherents. It is often
difficult to reconcile the claims of conscience and
charity. It was certain, too, that some doctrines
of great importance would need restatement or large
modification to attract their critics or opponents. The
widening of the creeds or their reinterpretation, the
surrender of ancient and accustomed rites were very
different things from a strengthening of discipline or
the dealing with altered conditions of life. It was easy
to expect too much from a Council : it was easy to fear
it would do too much. It was hard to see how a
Council could do all that all men hoped for from it : it
was hard to see how anything could be done without
it. Larger and more varied issues had never been
placed before the Church : the minority of dissentients
from the outset had never been so large. The civil
powers were likely to control the Church more than
ever, and had stronger reasons for doing so : the
politics of the Curia would certainly influence the
Council, as they had long retarded its summoning.
Controversy, schism, religious change, had all existed
too long and been too violent to leave the minds and
the reason of men sufficiently calm and spiritual for
the issues that lay before the Council.
The Conclave that elected (1534) Paul III. (Farnese)
had made him promise to call a Council. It was
actually called to meet at Mantua (June, paui m.
1536). His liberal education inclined this and the
Pope to reform, although he feared to give Council.
too much power to the Emperor, too many conces
sions to the Germans. But the Consilium delectorum
cardinalium et aliornm prwhttorum de emrndanda
ecclesia (1537) seemed to pledge the Pope to reforms.

126 THE REFORMATION
A Commission of nine cardinals, including Contarini,
Sadoleti, Caraffa, Pole, and other earnest reformers,
had been appointed to report upon the needed changes.
Their conclusions proceeded upon the principles that
dispensations were given too freely, in wrongful cases,
and for money ; reservations, carelessness in appoint
ments, pensions upon benefices, non - residence, bad
monastic discipline, indulgences, simoniacal practices,
pluralities, irreverence in worship, evil life on the part
of cardinals, the too great freedom of academic dis
cussion are all noted and condemned in this outspoken
document. War between Charles V. and Francis post
poned the Council, and another summons to Vicenza
(May, 1538) had the same ending. But Contarini and
Morone — both legates with experience of Germany,
and members of the Commission — Sadoleti, and many
Germans pressed for a Council. The Colloquy of
Regensbu g (April 5th, 1541) had shown both how far
the Catholics and Protestants would go towards meet
ing each other, and how little could come of such a
meeting. The Recess of the Diet looked forward to
a General Council or a national assembly, and the
Emperor was pledged to one of them. He persuaded
the Pope to call it for November, 1542, and at Trent —
an imperial city with an Italian population, and, as
subject to its bishop, neither Papal nor German. The
Papal legates, Morone and Pole, the Emperor's am
bassadors, Granvelle and Mendoza, all appeared, but
few bishops could come, as another French war was
on foot, and the assembly was adjourned (June, 1543).
The Peace of Crepy (September, 1544) made its re
assembling possible ; Charles had again promised at
Speier a free Council (1544). Cardinal Farnese had

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 127
been sent as legate to draw the Emperor closer to the
Pope, and when this had been done, Pope Paul felt he
could safely call the Council.
In May, 1545, the members began to arrive ; on
December 13th, the legates held the formal opening.
These were Cardinal Del Monte (to be Th
later on Julius III.), a Curialist by policy ; Council.
Cardinal Cervini(Santa Croce,Marcellus II.), Session I.,
a reformer and a theologian anxious to com- eCl I3t '
bat heresy, a diplomatist who often smoothed
storms raised by Del Monte's hasty anger; Cardinal
Pole, a cultivated scholar of supposed liberal sympathies,
forced by his almost royal birth and martyr-like exile
into a position beyond his powers. The bishops present
were mainly Italian, five Spanish and two French :
Charles and his brother Ferdinand alone sent am
bassadors. Proxies from absent bishops were refused :
only the generals of Orders were given individual votes:
three Benedictine abbots had a joint vote, theologians
none at all: ambassadors could speak, but had no
vote : the voting was to be in one body, and not as
at Constanz by nations — a plan not now so much as
suggested : the Italian majority which the Pope could
always increase by despatching Italian bishops from
Rome was thus decisive: there were three congrega
tions or committees who held preliminary discussions
upon questions prepared for them by the theologians
and canonists : the general congregation or whole body
then discussed the matter on report, and their decision
embodied in a decree was afterwards announced at a
public congregation. Some discussion took place on
the proposal to add the words, " representing the uni
versal Church," to the Council's title, " the Holy Synod

128 THE REFORMATION
of Trent duly gathered together in the Holy Spirit
under the presidency of the three apostolic legates."
These words, which would have recalled the claims
of Councils to supremacy, were, however, rejected.
It was thus clear from the outset that the Papal
direction would be no mere form, and equally clear
that it would have to reckon with the episcopal Order.
The bishops were able to prevail in some small matters
against the monks. " We are here," said one bishop,
"to destroy or to change rather than augment their
privileges " : and the legates yielded gracefully.
The task of the Council had been defined as the
propagation of the faith, the elevation of the Christian
c „„•„ it religion, the removal of heresies, the restora-
bession 11., " ' '
Jan. 7 ; tion of peace, the reformation of the clergy
III., Feb. and Christian people, the overthrow of the
4. IS4°- enemies of the Christian name. The legates
had been instructed by the Pope that doctrine should
be first discussed; this would be convenient as defining
the Council's position, but not convenient if the Pro
testants were to be conciliated. The difficulty arose
from the politicians, who in their wish for unity
handed over to theologians the task of compassing by
definition and compromise. The Emperor, on the other
hand, had instructed his party, led by Cardinal
Madruzzo, Bishop of Trent, who was in his interest,
to insist upon reform being first considered. By a
convenient compromise it was resolved to satisfy both
Pope and Emperor and discuss doctrine and reform
at the same time in different congregations. But the
preparation and manipulation of business, with their
possession of the initiative, gave the legates a great
advantage : they were always in close communication

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 129
with the Curia, and able to postpone difficulties until
the Papal wish was known. The Spanish bishops
urged to attend by Charles, and led by Cardinal
Pacheco, Bishop of Jaen, were equally keen for reform
and for doctrinal orthodoxy. " It was necessary," said
Fonseca, Archbishop of Toledo, " to strike at the same
time against the erroneous doctrines of our adversaries
and the bad morals of our friends." These preliminaries
and their settlement filled three sessions.
In the next four sessions (April 8th, 1546-March
3rd, 1547), the Rule of Faith, with its sources — Scrip
ture, its canon, interpretation and relation Session IV.,
to tradition, original sin, justification, sacra- April 8 ;
ments in general, confirmation, and holy ' June I7-
baptism — were discussed. The Nicene Creed, as used
in the Holy Roman Church, was stated to have its
sources in Scripture, and in tradition (a) of Christ,
and (6) of His apostles : the interpretations of Scrip
ture held by Mother Church were to be maintained
against private interpretations : it was significant of
the variety of opinions that a few bishops urged
Scripture alone as the rule of faith : it was a triumph
for the opponents of the " poets " of an earlier decade
when the Vulgate was affirmed as the authoritative
version. Vernacular versions were, indeed, as the
Spanish members urged, liable to abuse, not only in
the appended notes, but in translation of terms:
"Church" and "Congregation"; "priest" and "elder"
are, indeed, not synonyms, and the sixteenth century
felt the difficulty which our own age knows too well.
But the Church should itself have undertaken the
work instead of putting it off and leaving it to chance :
a recommendation that the Vulgate should be printed

i3o THE REFORMATION
with correctness remained ineffective until 1590, and was
even then not efficiently carried out (see Chap. IX.).
A thornier subject was reached with " Original Sin,"
closely related as it was to the doctrine of "Justifi-
Original cation." Men of different types of mind
Sin. will always differ in the stress they lay
(SessionV.) Up0n spiritual processes and outward forms
respectively, and in the relation of cause and effect
they assume between them. Luther had been by no
means the first to discover either the importance of
faith or its connection with justification. Both were
to be found in Catholic and medieval teaching, but
were there united with the facts of life and with the
consistent practice of the Church's rule. Mystics
and men of contemplative life laid comparative stress
upon faith and the spiritual process, and it was this
stream of doctrine that revived the Augustinian
Friars under Staupitz : under such influence Luther
grew up, and the medieval view, which he at one
time taught, had not the defects which he afterwards
charged it with. But he himself fell into
Errors error: in the first place, he underrated in
in his comparison with faith the virtue of obedience
Doctrine an(J the obligation of a righteous life: his
cation1' ' Pnrase was "justification by faith alone":
from this cause came the admitted laxity
of German morals in the period of his greatest in
fluence : and for this reason he was warmly attacked
not only by Catholics, but by Protestants, such as
Schwenkfeld. That a man's justification depended
upon his own feeling of its truth was a dangerous
and unscriptural doctrine and deserved condemna
tion. On the other hand, the Nominalists towards

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 131
the close of the Middle Ages laid increasing stress
upon the merit in itself of obedience to the Church
and of righteous conduct; they and their followers
somewhat lost sight of the spiritual side of religion.
The multiplied cults of saints, the prevalence of special
devotions and of indulgences made this view of religion
commoner. It was hard to keep the balance between
these differing schools, for their difference arose from
differing types of mind, and resulted in opposite
errors. Aquinas pointed out the risk of analysis
where elements were bound up together, and his
followers attempted with success a balanced view ; it
does not follow therefore that everyone who laid stress
upon the spiritual side should be called a Lutheran
or even a semi-Lutheran. And in the second place,
Luther departed from the view of justification as the
beginning of a process (sanctification) actually wrought
out in man's heart and life by the grace of God, and
resulting in a righteous life ; it became with him a
purely forensic act by which Christ's righteousness is
imputed to man, and man by his faith (which tended
more and more to be regarded as an intellectual assent
and not a complete surrender of the whole life and
being), and by it alone was saved. There was thus
involved in Luther's doctrine the consideration of
man's free will and of God's sovereign power. The
Protestant bodies could not afford as could the
Catholics to leave these doctrines to the decision of
practical life, and it was thus that the Calvinistic
controversies were of supreme importance to the
Protestant bodies while their issues were more calmly
weighed by the Catholic Church. But it was inevit
able that the Council as soon as it entered upon the

132 THE REFORMATION
doctrine of Original Sin should place itself in sharp
opposition to the novel and onesided teaching of Luther.
For this reason the Emperor strongly urged that its
consideration should be put off. In the end, however,
this difficult point was discussed simultaneously with
Session VI. the equally difficult point of episcopal resi-
Jan. 13, dence. The decree on Justification itself
JS47- . — which is an admirably balanced statement
of the doctrine, and if issued much earlier might have
altered the course of religious history — belongs to
Session VI.
Pelagianism forced fresh issues upon the Church,
S. Augustine, never disregarding righteous life, held
faith a gift of grace, which infused into man, enabled
him to produce works acceptable to God.
of the S. Thomas Aquinas, developing this theory,
Doctrine of regarded justification as an infusion of
Justifica- grace by which a man is made worthy of
eternal life, and able to do works which
have a merit in themselves. Justification is God's
gracious view of sinful men, but a view taken by God
must work itself out in deed and life. Luther, in
whose favour was the technical use of the word to
justify (to reckon, and not to make just), laid too
much stress upon the imputation of righteousness:
and the faith which, in his view, saved (for he con
fused justification and salvation) was the scholastic
fides informis, not the fides formata per caritatem.
His attacks upon the artificial theories of varying
merits were just, but his misconception of the mean
ing of Justification and his disregard of its bearing
upon life confused the issues. Calvin was, as usual,
more consistent and logical: he emphasised the fact

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

J33

that without faith no one can possibly do works
sufficient for or worthy of salvation. The Tridentine
decree rightly pointed out the defects of Luther's
teaching, and asserted in a moderate but somewhat
modified form that of S. Thomas Aquinas.
The decree upon Original Sin asserted that Adam's
fall had degraded him, and through him all his de
scendants, in body and soul: that through
the Saviour and His grace given in Holy T, .
Baptism the effects of this fall are taken view.
away : that the concupiscence left in man
is not of itself sinful : these conclusions as to sin were
not to be applied to the case of the Holy Virgin.
Justification was defined as the translation from the
state in which man is born as a son of the first Adam
to the state of grace and adoption as the son of God
through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Saviour :
as not only the remission of sins, but sanctification
and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary recep
tion of grace and the gifts of God. Faith was said to
be the beginning of man's salvation, the basis and root
of all justification, without which it is impossible to
please God. Luther, on the other hand," regarded faith
as the essence of all justification and as salvation in
itself. The theory of imputed righteousness, begun by
Luther and completed by Calvin, was condemned, as
were also the classification of all works done before
justification as sinful, and the assertion of the utter
loss of man's free will.
In these definitions it was not only the exclusively
Protestant view that had to be reckoned with : there
were also the views of the German Augustinians, who
really reasserted under new conditions of thought the

134 THE REFORMATION
views of S. Augustine. Seripando, their general,
The accepted the distinction between "imputed "
Augustini- and "inherent" righteousness, the former
ans. 0f wnich could alone justify, and was needed
to make the latter satisfactory in the eyes of God.
This mediating view was rejected : although it had
been accepted at Begensburg (1541), and might have
some of the advantages of a compromise, it had too
much of the weakness of scholasticism. Pole, who
favoured it, withdrew from the Council on the plea
of ill-health, but the importance of his presence or
absence and the value of his opinions are often over
estimated. Opposed to the Augustinians stood the Jesuit theo
logians, Lainez and Salmeron. Their learning, diligence,
The Jesuit an(l facility of speech made them prominent
Theolo- and influential, and it was their view of
gians. justification which in the end prevailed.
They were not pure Thomists as were the Spaniards.
The doctrines of S. Augustine as elaborated by S.
Thomas left, as they thought, too little room for human
freedom and Church life. When the Tridentine Decree
placed the beginning of justification in the prevenient
grace freely given by God, it was on the Thomist side:
when it went on to speak of the recipient of that
grace disposing himself for justification by co-operating
with grace, it was on the anti-Thomist and Jesuit side.
It must not be forgotten that the Dominican theolo
gians followed Aquinas, and that the Decree, while
excluding the definitely Protestant view, sought to
combine the Jesuit and Dominican views. It was
impossible to throw over S. Augustine and S. Thomas,
but the freedom of man and his power to possess merit

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 135
apart from grace could not be asserted without some
departure from these views. But the com- Later
promise resulted in a later controversy Contro-
between the Jesuits and the Dominicans, versies-
which called for Papal interference.
In Louvain the tendency of theology became more
and more Augustinian — that is to say, it laid more
stress upon God's foreknowledge and man's lack of
freedom, less stress upon the means of grace and the
Church's economy. Michael Bajus, Professor Michael
of Greek there, published both before and Bajus,
after the last session of the Council of x563 and
Trent works which assailed Scholasticism,
and were strongly Augustinian. His application of
Original Sin to the case of the Blessed Virgin brought
upon him an attack by her special advocates, the Francis
cans. In spite of the endeavours of Cardinal Granvelle
to suppress the controversy, it went on. Hessels and
Cornelius Jansen (a theologian of repute, afterwards
Bishop of Ypres and founder of the Jansenists) had
accompanied Bajus to Trent as representatives of the
University, and were drawn into the controversy.
Pius V. (1567), and afterwards Gregory XIII. (1579),
condemned certain of the tenets of Bajus — all of them
grouped around Augustinianism, the chief one being
the incapability of human nature by itself for well
doing. The Jesuits of Louvain, in their eagerness to
oppose Bajus, rushed into Pelagianism; as a result
they were reproved by the University of Louvain
(1587) and enjoined by Sixtus V. (1588) ^.^
to keep silence. But the Spanish Jesuit, is88 '
Molina, published (1588) a work on the
points under discussion, condemning S. Augustine's

136 THE REFORMATION
doctrine, which, it was said, led logically to Protestant
ism. Molina, on the contrary, asserted that man may
of himself co-operate in his own conversion and in the
merit of good works. The Dominicans, especially
Alvarez, attacked this position, maintaining that grace
actuates the human will, and is irresistible. The con
troversy grew so warm that Clement VIIL appointed
(1599) the Congregation "De Auxiliis" to decide it.
This Congregation lingered on under the next Pope,
Paul V., until its suspension (1607), awaiting a decision,
never arrived at, by the Pope himself. But although
a quieter tone was enjoined upon the disputants, the
dispute went on, its ground being slightly altered by
the well-known Jesuit, Suarez (+1617), on
TcLnscn
1 1638.' oue s^e' an(^ Jansen (+1638) in his Aagus-
tinus, published two years after his death,
on the other. The former distinguished between
" congruous grace," which is always efficacious, and
"incongruous grace," which is not efficacious, because
man does not answer to its guidance. Jansen, on the
other side, combined the Augustinian doctrines (as
approved by the Sorbonne) of irresistible grace and
predestination with a Catholic conception of the
Church and its work. His works were forbidden by
Urban VIIL in the Bull "In eminenti" (1642) and
condemned by Innocent X. (1653). But the contro
versy which Spanish influence could control in the
Netherlands became in France of political as well as
doctrinal moment, and lies beyond the limits of our
period. The side issue between the Dominicans and
Franciscans, however, upon the Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin remained open even until the
days of Benedict XIV. (1740-58), who declared the

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 137
Franciscan doctrine favoured by the Church, although
not yet affirmed an article of faith. The Dominican
supporters of Aquinas had even upon this as yet
minor point less weight than the Jesuit theologians
whose influence increased immensely at Trent.
These controversies, which are not to be regarded
as arising out of Protestantism, and which ran a
mainly independent course, sprang directly R , ,.
out of the earlier and chiefly Spanish theo- 0f these
logical revival. They have been mentioned contro-
here as illustrating the formation of parties ve"ies to
in the Council itself, and as being to a large teaming
extent a continuation of the theological and the
issues that arose in it. Their continuance Tridentine
was made possible by the guarded and ecrees-
comprehensive nature of the Tridentine Decrees,
which were meant to accommodate as far as possible
opinions widely opposed, so long as these opinions were
not Protestant. The smaller and endless discussions
upon human merit were similarly the results of
medieval teaching, and could be carried on within the
limits of the Tridentine Decrees.
Discussions upon doctrine were less likely to go
against Papal wishes than those upon reform. No
scheme of reform affecting the Roman Court R f
was to be discussed without Papal leave : and
in all matters of discipline Papal authority discipline :
was reserved. The legates had soon come episcopal
• residence
under the Pope's disapproval for allowing
discussions to go too far, and he had thoughts of
removing discipline from the Council's consideration.
But the legates persuaded him to let the discussions
proceed.

138 THE REFORMATION
In these earlier sessions many questions, of clerical
manners and discipline had naturally been raised.
In Session V., Don Francesco de Toledo, the imperial
Discipline ambassador, had urged the priority of reform
and over doctrine, and at a later date (June
reform. 27th, 1562) the Bavarian ambassador said
the correction of doctrine was useless without a pre
vious correction of clerical life, of which he drew a
shameful picture. But quite apart from morals, the
Church had not made full use of its powers for raising
mankind. The provision made, for instance, by the
Middle Ages for teaching both parochially and in a
graduated series from school to university was ample,
and far beyond what is often thought ; but, partly by
the apathy of parish priests and bishops, partly by the
interference of monasteries with the ordinary ecclesi
astical machinery, this provision was badly used, and
this too at a time when the need for both spiritual
and secular teaching was deeply felt. In the fifth
session it was decreed that provision, either by funds
freshly raised (and an appeal was made here to the
generosity of princes) or by prebends devoted to the
purpose, should be made in all considerable churches
for catechisings or lectures upon theology and scrip
tures. In some cases this meant a new effort, in
others merely an enforcement of a duty already en
joined. Cathedrals, churches, and monasteries were
all covered by this decree, and the Ordinaries were to
enforce it. Here, indeed, as in later decrees, the free
dom of chapters and monasteries exempt from epis
copal control was lessened. Some powers of this kind,
it is true, were given to bishops rather as " delegates
of the Apostolic See" than in their own rights, so that

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 139
the same process which increased episcopal power
increased the papal power still more. But even an
exempt monastery could not object to a visitation by
a papal delegate where it certainly would have ob
jected to one by a bishop.
The obligation laid upon bishops to preach was
asserted so strongly as to recall the old condemnation
of Bishop Pecock. All higher clerks and
parish priests and all monks engaged in ug*
parish work were also to attend carefully and under
episcopal supervision to this needed work. But regu
lars were only to preach when licensed by their supe
riors and their bishops. The " questers," the begging
deputations of the day, sometimes armed with Indul
gences, were strictly forbidden to preach, but it was
left doubtful whether this regulation applied to the
begging friars or not. Heretical preachers the bishop
was to proceed against, but this, it was significantly
added, he was to do " by apostolic authority and as
representing the Apostolic See." The discussion upon
some of these points was more delicate than the bare
decrees imply. Some bishops pointed in the style of
Grosseteste at monastic exemptions as the cause of
many evils. The monks and friars retorted that for
many generations they had discharged the duty of
preaching when it was neglected by the seculars. The
legates feared that a speedy decision against the regu
lars might lead to a schism, and so referred the matter
to the Pope. But the Congregation was not inclined
to exalt unduly the power of bishops, and in the end
the interests of Pope and regulars combined to keep
up the exemptions with little change. It added inci
dentally to the discord between bishops and regulars

1 40 THE REFORMATION
that the former were mainly canonists and the latter
mainly theologians. The preparation of the decrees
on dogma lay mostly with the theologians, who formed
the majority of the congregation on Faith; the pre
paration of decrees on reformation similarly lay mostly
with the bishops.
In the long interval (June-January) between Ses
sions V. and VI. the Smalkaldic war broke out in
Germany. The Pope, who was bound to
Imperial ^ye £ne j;mperor help, openly praised the
war as a religious crusade. The Emperor,
however, gave as reasons for it motives of State. But
obviously it was now more than ever needful for
Charles that a sincere reformation in manners and
discipline (an object always near his heart) should
be at least begun. It was as obviously undesirable
that a consideration of those very points — justifica
tion by faith, and so forth — upon which Protestants
differed from Catholics, should be undertaken. Some
of the German Protestants were disposed to be neu
tral in the war : others it was possible Charles might
win over. But either avoidance of reform or a strong
insistence upon dogmatic differences made both of
these results difficult to reach. Hence the turn of
affairs greatly displeased the Emperor, and his rela
tions with the Pope became strained. The interval
of six months showed the difficulty of gaining what
Charles needed as a step towards unity in Germany,
and also the wide cleavage of opinion between Protes
tants and Catholicism in Germany and elsewhere. It
was not surprising, then, that Charles urged the
consideration of reformation before doctrine : it was
natural the Papalists should feel or affect to feel

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 141
fear lest a war which caused marchings to the south
of them and battles to the north should make a
sojourn at Trent unsafe. Charles's promise to protect
the Council needed not only intention, but also power
to make it effective or reassuring.
While the Emperor was dreading a dissolution of
the Council and the Pope wishing for delay, which,
indeed, he recommended to the legates (now
, r -r, ; » • , Difficulties
two m number, tor Pole, on excuse of sick- of ,jeDate
ness, had been relieved from attendance in
October, 1546), the thorny subject of residence came
up. From the Spanish bishops especially came com
plaints of the avarice and ambition of the Church.
Some others, however, saw and felt that if bishops
were forced jure divino to reside in their sees, many at
the Curia would find themselves in hardships ; the cen
tralisation of power at Rome would be checked, partly
by the difficulty of rewarding supporters, partly by
the lessened number of bishops there. In their reports
to Rome the legates observed that the Fathers were
now treating de summa rerum, and that there were
some present who wished to humiliate the Apostolic
See (October, 1546). Meanwhile the Italian bishops
were quickly leaving Trent, and the legates urged that
attendance of bishops who combined learning with
respect for the Apostolic See should be commanded.
The task of the presiding legates was in truth a hard
one. It was equally hard to keep their turbulent
flock together and to keep order when they were
assembled: a scene of actual violence between the
bishops of La Cava and Chiron (July 17th, 1546);
angry altercations, in which Del Monte, Cardinal
Madruzzo (Bishop of Trent), and Pacheco (Cardinal-

i42 THE REFORMATION
Bishop of Jaen) were the leaders — these things inten
sified the hardness of the task. Martelli (Bishop of
Fiesole) and Nacchiante (Bishop of Chioggia) were
specially outspoken, and therefore came specially under
the anger of the legates. But there were difficulties
which lay in the subjects themselves. On some of
the questions discussed, as was pointed out, the
Fathers, tradition, and even later doctors gave no
guidance. The Cardinal of Jaen proposed to ask the
opinions of the Universities of Louvain and Paris
upon justification; and this suggestion caused fresh
division. It was found difficult to combine the search
for truth with the enumeration of errors. The Bishop
of Sinigaglia therefore proposed to separate the doc
trines approved and those anathematised into two
lists ; and this plan was adopted. After Session VI.
the former appeared as decrees and the latter as
canons ; and this rough separation between opinions
plainly orthodox and those plainly heterodox made
discussion a little easier. The Cardinal of Jaen, sup
ported by some twenty Spanish bishops, handed in
their views in writing, owing, it was said, to the skilful
manipulation of opinions (or even, it was alleged, of
votes) by the legates. Just before Session V the
Bishop of Astorga, supported by the same cardinal,
had tried to regain for the members of the Council
the power of bringing forward subjects for discus
sion—a privilege which, after much heart-burning, was
given them jointly with the presidents in 1563. It is
no wonder that the legates used piteous language to
describe their plight. The ordinary machinery of
debate and order — not very much elaborated by the
Middle Ages — was greatly strained. Undercurrents of

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 143
hostility, normally invisible (such as that between
the Spanish Dominicans — strictly orthodox and keen
against heresy — and the Cordeliers, accused by them
of leanings towards Lutheranism) rose to the surface
when the minds of men were much excited. But
even now the skill of Santa Croce (Cervini) was
able to do wonders. Both by his control of the
Council and his diplomacy in private dealings with its
members he saved the situation for the Papacy, and his
calmness of temper and knowledge of men stood him
in good stead. But their correspondence with Rome
was a great anxiety to the legates. Even in the third
session the separation between and simultaneous dis
cussion of doctrine and reformation had aroused the
Pope's anger. His demands for a reopening of the
whole discussion were evaded with difficulty, and
henceforth subjects affecting the Boman Curia were
only to be discussed by papal leave. The legates —
not for the last time — promised a protracted discus
sion of doctrine. The diplomacy of the old Conciliar
days was repeating itself under other circumstances.
But there were not wanting bishops who of their own
will exalted the papal power much as Cajetan had done
at the Lateran Council. Now, as later, it was asserted
that while the episcopal order was of divine institu
tion, the obligation to reside, the jurisdiction, and
therefore the real power of episcopacy, lay jure divino
with the Pope alone.
The decree on reformation issued at the sixth ses
sion left many details of residence to be dealt with
later on. It was in five chapters. The first Residence.
renewed all former canons against non-resi- Session
dence, and laid a penalty of one quarter's VI-

144 THE REFORMATION
income upon any metropolitan or bishop absent for
more than six months at a time. The second imposed
residence upon all clerks below the rank of a bishop ;
dispensations and indulgences as to residence were
only to be given for fit cause (a bull of Pius IV. after
wards dealt with these matters more largely, and
required the consent of the ordinary in all cases of
non-residence). The third chapter ordered the punish
ment by the ordinaries of all excesses by seculars and
also by regulars out of closure. The fourth entrusted
the visitation of cathedral chapters and all churches to
the bishops. The Council thus, and in other ways
already noted, did away with many long-existing
immunities and privileges of the chapters. The his
toric interest lost was more than counterbalanced by
the greater efficiency gained and the control exercised
over what had been the veriest homes of all abuses,
The fifth chapter prohibited any pontifical rites or
ordinations being performed by one bishop in the
diocese of another — a regulation which checked the
activity of titular bishops, and so far restrained
the Curia in the too free use of them. On the whole,
although the decrees thus issued were a promise of
better things, the defenders of abuse might well hold
their worst fears to have been unfounded. The sub
ject of episcopal residence was, of course, left still
unsettled; but as some compensation for the delay,
the Pope, by a bull, ordered all cardinals -holding
more than one see to choose the one they preferred,
and to keep that alone. This was only partly effec
tive, and by means of pensions charged upon the sees
given up the loss was tempered to the offended
Curialists.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 145
The subject of divine grace led naturally to that of
the sacraments, another subject upon which it was not
easy to conciliate the Protestants of any session
school. But a wide divergency of views VII.,
soon appeared in the Council. It was not March3rd,
likely that the extreme Zwinglian views g547'
would find any support; but without that mentsand
and within the limits of orthodox defini- resi-
tion there was still room for difference. dfnce of
The old (and still ever new) discussion of 1S op '
the opus operatum and the opus operantis came up,
embodying the objective and subjective views of sacra
ments, looking to the human and the divine sides
respectively. The intention of the minister was also
brought up for decision, and on some of these points
debate was warm. In the end, the Council, following
wise advice, proceeded by way of exclusion rather than
definition, anathematising error rather than affirming
truth. The thirteen canons condemned variations
from the ordinary belief; asserted the number of
sacraments to be seven, all instituted by Christ Him
self, varying in dignity, necessary to salvation and not
superfluous, not ordained merely to nourish faith, but
capable of giving grace to all, ex opere operato, and
not through faith alone. Baptism, Holy Orders, and
Confirmation were said to confer an indelible char
acter. They were not all to be administered by all
Christians. In ministers celebrating sacraments an
intention of doing what the Church does was required.
Mortal sin in the minister did not invalidate the sacra
ments. The rites of the Church could not be omitted
or changed. The fourteen canons on baptism affirmed
the necessity for the use of real water and of our

146 THE REFORMATION
Saviour's words. Heretical baptism, if in the name of
the Three Persons, was held valid. Baptism was ne
cessary to salvation. Some of the opinions condemned
were those of the extreme Lutherans or of the Ana
baptists, and the third canon is notable as affirming
the Roman Church to be the mother and mistress
of all churches. Canon XIV. anathematised anyone
asserting that adults refusing to ratify their sponsor's
promise for them in childhood, should not be compelled
into a Christian life by any other punishment than
exclusion from the sacraments. This canon touched
upon the medieval dispute between the Church and
the State, which was expected to carry out the Church's
sentence of excommunication, and therefore demanded
in some cases a veto upon it. Some religious bodies
have, in these later days, drifted into purely voluntary
associations, with the very slightest powers of coercion,
while the ecclesiastical courts, where existing, have been
greatly restricted in power. But in the Middle Ages
the Church exercised without hesitation its right of
restraint and control. This canon ought not, therefore,
to be held, as it has been by some, an apologia for per
secution, even in an age when toleration was unknown.
But it may be taken as a statement under changing
conditions of the view held by the medieval Church.
The limits of coercion were, however, really varying
with varying conditions of life as widely as varies the
theocratic tyranny of Geneva from a modern "Free
Church" congregation. The three canons on confir
mation affirmed that it was not an otiose ceremony — a
species of catechism imposed at adolescence ; that the
attribution of virtue to the chrism was not derogatory
to the Holy Ghost; that confirmation could be ad-

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 147
ministered by the bishop only. The outcome of these
debates, which had been wisely restricted, was thus
not so complete as might have been, and the most
difficult subject, the Holy Eucharist, was left over.
The decree on reformation, with its fifteen chapters,
had in its preamble the words, " always saving in all
things the authority of the Apostolic See " — Reforma-
a condition essential for the Pope, who re- tion.
sented both the matter and the manner of Residence.
the debates, and had already determined upon a re
moval of the Council to Bologna. Nevertheless, the
restriction was irritating to some of the members, who
openly expressed their view. It had been decided to
begin the reform by removing impediments to resi
dence, but in many ways existing canons were either
re-enacted or slightly strengthened. It was thus evi
dent that the evils arose, less from defects inherent in
the Church itself, than from the slackness of those
who should have enforced existing rules.
Bishops were to be of legitimate birth, grave in
manners, and skilled in letters. No one was to hold
more than one see, and those who then did so were
to resign all but one within six months or a year.
Inferior benefices were to be held without pluralities
by worthy and fit persons, not only resident, but actu
ally doing their proper work. Neglect of residence by
a newly made curate was to entail deprivation upon
himself and loss of patronage to the patron. Where
pluralities were allowed by dispensation, vicars were
to be appointed. The ordinaries were to scrutinise
rigorously unions of benefices and to visit those united.
Those appointed to greater churches were not to post
pone ordination beyond six months (the strict enforce-

THE REFORMATION

ment of this would have removed one of the greatest
evils in the Church). Sundry safeguards as to choice
of fit persons and against abuses in appointments were
laid down. Civil cases involving seculars or religious
living out of closure, even those of exempt monasteries,
were put under the cognisance of bishops. The ordinaries
were to see that hospitals were faithfully administered.
Notes upon the Eucharist had already been circu
lated among the members, and heretical opinions con-
Transla- cerning it were already under consideration
tion of the when the translation to Bologna was actu-
Council. aiiy made. The bull giving the legates
VjU faculties for the transference was dated
March February 27th, but the real decision had
nth, 1547. been reached much earlier. The Bishop of
Capaccio died (March 6th) of a fever, and there was
much general indisposition about. This illness was
seized upon as an excuse — a mere excuse said the
imperialists. But panics were easy to create. The
removal fitted in almost too well with the papal
policy, but the lessening number of those present was
as marked as the difficulty of managing those pre
sent, and the removal was so far not unreasonable.
Forty-two members voted for removal and fourteen
against; but Bologna was to be only a temporary
choice until another healthier place could be found.
To the Emperor, however, now on the eve of his
victory at Miihlberg (April, 1547), and profiting by
the divisions of the Protestants, this translation to
Bologna, lessening his influence and making the con
ciliation of even moderate Protestants hopeless, was a
severe blow. He urged the Pope, even with threats of
a national schism, to reunite the Council at Trent,

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT i49
where the Spanish bishops, carefully inactive from
fear of any doubtful action, still remained. At Bo
logna only Italian bishops were present, and these, by
the Pope's desire, postponed all business until Sep
tember. For a time the death of Francis I. of France
(March 31st, 1547) made that kingdom less inclined to
help the Pope against the Emperor, but the new king,
Henry II., soon became more papal, and a few French
bishops appeared at Bologna. The Protestants of
Germany consented at Augsburg (September, 1547) to
appear at a Council if it were free and not presided
over by legates, if they themselves were admitted
under safe conduct and with a right to speak, and if
the decrees already made were open for reconsidera
tion. Charles was ready to guarantee their safety and
freedom of speech, but the Pope proved difficult, and
the murder of his son, as it was thought through the
Governor of Milan (September), made him more hostile
to Charles. In January, 1548, the Emperor's represen
tatives, Vargas, Fiscal General of Castile (whose letters
throw much light upon the Council), and Martin
Velasquez, with the support of the Diet at Augsburg
behind them, protested against the Council at Bologna
as void. Now that the Council had disappointed his
hopes, Charles thought himself free to settle religious
differences without the Pope, and the Interim (see
p. 116) was his substitute for a Conciliar settlement
when the Pope was loath to sanction the seeming
minimum of concession, communion in both kinds and
the marriage of priests. But the lack of Suspen-
adequate French support and the growing sionofthe
power of the Emperor combined to force s°p"Ci7'th)
the Pope's hand ; he consented to recognise 1549.

150 THE REFORMATION
through his legates in Germany the provisions of
the Interim, and after trying various expedients
to bridge over the divisions of the Council, he
formally suspended the sessions at Bologna. Once
more the Pope had sacrificed the interests of the
Church to his political needs. There was talk of a
Commission of Reform at Bome, of decrees to be
published there ; but nothing came of it all. The
death of Paul III., worn out by trouble and distress
(November 10th, 1549), was followed by the election
Julius III., °f Cardinal del Monte, who took the name
Feb. 7th, of Julius III. The late Pope by his nepot-
1SS°- ism and inactivity had disappointed the
wish for a true reformation. The cardinals who had
that wish would have liked to see as pontiff the liber
ally disposed Cardinal Pole. He was also acceptable to
the Emperor, and even with the influence of France
against him only fell short of election by two votes.
The Curialists would have chosen Cardinal Cervini,
but to him the Emperor objected. To Del Monte he
had less objection, and thus the election was assured.
The Conclave had agreed before the election that the
new Pope was to reassemble the Council.
Pope Julius was more selfish and far less able than
Cervini ; his reputation for a love of pleasure and a
strain of weakness made him little likely to endanger
his power and comfort by opposition to Charles. He
knew, moreover, from his experience at Trent that
reform was not only desirable, but inevitable. Accord-
The ingly a bull soon summoned the Council to
Council meet once more at Trent. The Emperor
recalled Nov. 14th, Promised that the papal power should not be
1550. interfered with. The Pope, in return, con-

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT i5i

sented to let the Lutherans attend, and was even
willing not to insist upon the previous decrees. There
was some ground for the criticism that Julius was
sacrificing everything to the preservation of his own
power. Sessions IX. (April 21st, 1 547) and X. (June 2nd,
1547) had been merely for prorogations ; the first
session now was therefore XL (May 1st, Sessions
1551). The presiding legate was Cardinal IX., X., &
Crescenzio (of S. Marcello). Pighino, Arch- XI.
bishop of Siponto or Manfredonia, who had been one
of the papal theologians at the first assembling of the
Council, and Lippomani, Bishop of Verona, acted
under him as nuncios. This expedient was meant
to avoid disputes among the legates themselves, while
the choice of prelates who were not cardinals was
likely to lessen friction between the presidents and the
episcopal order. Cardinal Crescenzio had previously,
in a congregation of cardinals, advocated the reassem
bling of the Council, with the provision of such sub
jects and discussions as would leave no time for any
attack on the papal power or the Curia. It would be
easy to secure the attendance of Italians, and to play
off the Great Powers against each other. This was
the policy of the presiding cardinal, and it was, on the
whole, carried out. The Bull of Resumption (this was
the term used) claimed for the Pope the right of sum
moning and directing Councils, and after those present
(only thirteen in number, excluding the presidents) had
approved the resumption, the next session (XII.) was
fixed for September 1st, 1551.
Although the growing friendship between Pope and
Emperor had alone made possible this second meeting

152 The reformation
of the Council, this was but a shifty foundation.
Charles still wished for some changes in worship which
might attract the Lutherans at least, and there seemed
some chance of such a result. Melanchthon in par
ticular showed a wish for a reunion and a readiness to
explain points of difference which brought him much
disrepute among his comrades. But the Curia still
wished the Council to mark definitely the errors of
Protestantism. The outlooks of Germany and Rome
were thus very different ; and the latter was the more
reasonable, for divisions of doctrine emphasised by
differing political interests had really gone too far for
reunion. The Emperor had prepared along with the
Interim a scheme of reform in discipline which was of
great interest, and served beyond Germany as a model
in the Netherlands. Among other things, its pro
vision for synods being held frequently would have
quickened local life. But this scheme was wrecked by
papal opposition based not only upon difference of
opinions, but upon the general principle that the State
should not take the leadership in Church questions.
The Pope, on the other hand, although he appointed
(1550) two commissions, one to consider appointments
to benefices, and another the reform of the conclaves
for electing Popes, was bent more upon doctrinal
than practical matters. It was inevitable that, as the
course of the Council showed the impossibility of con
ciliating the Protestants and the real cleavage of beliefs
between them and the Catholics, Charles and the Pope
should draw apart. But as usual, political interests
forced the decision. France, under Henry II., had
refused to recognise the Council, and was even threat
ening to withdraw the annates from the Pope. At

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 153

Session XII. the French ambassador Amyot, Abbot of
Bellosane, read a protest from Henry, ad
dressing the Council as "an assembly" xil310"
(conventus), asserting it to be no true Council, Sept. 1st,
but one called for merely private reasons, ISSI-
withholding for the present his obedience ren<r
from it in the interests of Gallican liberties,
and hinting at strong measures of defence. And at
the outset the choice of legates- — all either supposed
Imperialists or known to the Emperor — showed a
desire to conciliate the Empire rather than France.
But in the war, Charles was not so successful against
the French as against the Protestants, and his power
in Italy, while more threatening to the Pope than that
of Henry, proved not so efficient for protection. The
little war (ostensibly for the control of Parma), in which
Pope and Emperor were allies (1551), went against
them. The Farnesi, striving to become a dynasty
there, maintained themselves against them by the help
of France. The Pope was therefore led to incline away
from the Emperor to the most Christian king, and at
length (April, 1552) made a truce with Henry. After
this his need of Charles's help was less. When, in
1562, the Council met for the third time after ten
years' suspension, French influence was stronger in it
than ever before.
In preparation for the decree upon the Eucharist,
some heretical propositions which it was easy to con
demn, and which had been examined at .
. session
Bologna, were considered. The theologians xill.,
were charged to go by the testimony of Oct. nth,
Scripture, tradition, the canons, and pa- ^S1- ™e
tristic authority. But some Italians, less

154 THE REFORMATION
affected by the humanist movement than the Germans
(for in Italy humanism and religion had drifted apart)
objected to this. Theology — which to them meant
scholasticism — was, they said, a matter of thought and
discussion more than one of weighing authority, and
they saw in the limitations as proposed restraints upon
ingenuity and development of system. It seems strange
that objections against authority in the professed in
terest of the intellect should come from advocates of
a system often held destructive of originality. But
we are apt to forget how much dialectic preserved
valuable thoughts and helped reason as opposed to
caprice. There was one pressing matter, however, which
threatened to become a cause of division — the admin
istration of the chalice to the laity. The withholding
of this was a medieval custom, arising from the fear of
irreverence, and supported by the doctrine that Christ
was fully present in either species (as declared by the
Fourth Lateran Council in 1215). But the Emperor,
who was asking a safe-conduct for the Protestants and
trying to secure their attendance, wished this special
question to be deferred until they were present. The
difficulties in the general subject of the Eucharist caused
differences between the Dominican and Franciscan
doctors ; the Jesuits, along with the Spanish bishops,
strongly opposed anything like concession to heretics;
and this special question itself was a difficult one. It
was possible to assert that the Church should not de
part from the assumed actual methods of our Saviour's
institution (although this was not urged at the Council).
It was equally possible to assert that this was a
matter within the direction of the Church. The

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 155
weight of primitive example was on one side : the
possible results of a change in present practice on the
other; for it seemed to many a dangerous thing to
allow that the Church should admit change on any
such important matter, even if the Council of Basel
had allowed it for a reasonable cause. It was no longer
a question of a dispensation for one solitary prince or
one body like the Hussites. The demand for change
was widely spread, and to yield to it seemed to weaken
ecclesiastical authority. The proposal of the Emperor
to adjourn the question was therefore readily adopted.
The errors condemned in the eleven canons were :
the Zwinglian view, that Christ is only present in the
Eucharist as in a sign or figure; the denial of Canons
the true, real, and substantial presence of upon the
the body and blood, the soul and divinity Holy
of Christ; the remaining of the substance Euchanst
of bread and wine after consecration, or the denial of
Transubstantiation ; the denial of the presence of the
whole Christ under each species; the limitation of
the presence to the actual use of the Eucharist, exclu
sive of its continuance afterwards as in reservation;
the limitation of the fruit of the Eucharist to the
remission of sins ; the denial of worship (latria) to the
sacrament, or of processions with the Host, or of its ex
hibition for adoration; the negation of reservation; the
assertion of a merely spiritual eating; the neglect of
yearly communion, at least at Easter ; that the priest
celebrating should not communicate himself; that
faith is a sufficient preparation for reception; that
sacramental confession where possible is not necessary
in case of mortal sin.
The doctrine positively laid down (although more

156 THE REFORMATION
as an afterthought to the condemnation of errors,
Decrees since the central doctrines were for the
upon Eu- present left aside) in the eight decrees
charistic was : the true, real, and substantial pre-
doctnne. sence 0f the Saviour in the Holy Eucharist,
His sacramental presence not being inconsistent with
His heavenly session ; the institution of the Eucharist
for a veneration of His memory and to show forth His
death; for the spiritual food of souls; for an antidote to
free us from daily faults and preserve us from mortal
sins ; that, like other sacraments, the Eucharist was a
symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of an
invisible grace, but unlike them it had a sanctity inde
pendent of use as resulting from Christ's Presence;
that the Body was present under the species of bread
and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of
Christ's words, but that by concomitancy of the parts of
Christ the Blood was also under the species of bread
and the Body under the species of wine, and the Soul
under both, and the Divinity was also there by its
hypostatical union with the Body and Soul : hence the
whole Christ is present under either species and in
any part of it. Along with Tran substantiation, it was
affirmed that the worship of latria due to God may be
rendered to the Sacrament, and that the bearing of
the Sacrament in procession is a pious and religious
custom ; that it may be reserved in the sacrarium, as
by ancient usage, and also carried to the sick ; that no
one conscious of mortal sin should receive without
previous sacramental confession ; that there are three
ways of reception — sacramentally only in the case of
sinners, spiritually only in the case of those who eat
by faith, both sacramentally and spiritually in the

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 157

case of those who approach with proper preparation.
The preamble to these eight chapters of the Decree
assigned the plucking up of the tares of heresy con
cerning the Eucharist as one chief reason for holding
the Council. By a strange coincidence, the ambas
sador from Protestant Brandenburg arrived about the
time this Decree was issued. At the end of the Decree
it was stated that not only the consideration of com
munion in one or in both kinds and the communion of
infants, but also that of the sacrifice of the Mass was
postponed in order to hear the Protestant view. There
was some difference of opinion on minor points. Some
thought that to deny the need of Easter communion,
an ecclesiastical but not a divine obligation, was schis-
matical rather than heretical ; but it was agreed that
as the Church had authority to impose the obligation,
its denial was heresy. Some did not think the denial
of confession as necessary before communion was
absolutely heretical, although very erroneous. And
there was some discussion as to what exactly consti
tuted consecration — whether our Saviour had used
some form of consecration other than the words of
institution — a point which touched upon minor differ
ences between East and West. But detailed as the
discussions were, the central conceptions of the Mass
still remained for statement.
It had been decided to begin by removing causes
that hindered the residence of bishops and weakened
their power ; frequent evocations of causes Refornii
to superior courts, and specially to Rome, Episcopal
unduly limited the power of bishops, while jurisdic-
the large number of exemptions narrowed
their field of activity. It was laid down as a general

158 THE REFORMATION
principle that on the part of superiors charity was often
forgotten in the wish for dominancy, while on the part
of inferiors voluntary obedience was overlaid by mur
muring. But to apply these excellent statements
was hard. Appeals against interlocutory sentences
or in earlier stages of trial, whether criminal or
visitorial, were no longer to impede episcopal courts.
Appeals in criminal cases were to be made from the
bishops to the Metropolitan, or in his absence to the
nearest bishop or their vicars, never to inferior judges
named by the Pope. The course of appeals was
regulated; the process of degradation was simplified
as a bishop need not have other bishops present as
required by the canons, the substitution of mitred
abbots or suitable persons skilled in law being allowed.
Bishops were allowed to take cognisance, as delegates
of the Apostolic See, of the obtaining by false pre
tences graces to delay legal proceedings. Bishops were
not allowed to be cited in person unless for a cause
involving their deposition : a bishop punishable by
deposition was to be tried in person before the Pope.
Although these reforms were mainly made to safe
guard the due power of bishops, and so indirectly to
limit that of the Pope, their effect was likely to be
considerable. For the pleadings of exemptions and
delays interposed in ecclesiastical suits were great evils,
and the papal interference with lower and local courts
was so excessive as to paralyse ecclesiastical justice.
For this the Pope himself was not, of course, to be
blamed ; it was rather his officials largely dependent
upon fees who kept up the system. And the difficulty
of enforcing degradation was so great as to encourage
the worst class of offenders, an abuse against which

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 159

the German bishops pleaded specially. Each of these
chapters, therefore, was aimed at the removal of real
evils. Gropper, a leading canonist and theologian, who
had been employed at the Colloquy of Regensburg
(1541) and been a leader against Protestantism at
Koln, put in an earnest plea not only for the re
moval of abuses, but also for the revival of synodal
jurisdiction as opposed to jurisdiction exercised by
officials. Such a revival would have not only decen
tralised Church administration, but made it democratic.
He was replied to by Castel from Bologna, who con
tended that the Church as it grew from infancy onwards
had outgrown its system of government, and that
therefore too much stress was not to be laid upon an
appeal to primitive times when synodal government
and other things now in comparative disuse had been
common. But the bishops would not hear of any
revival of synods in this enlarged sense. As it was,
however, the new decrees were all serviceable if effi
ciently enforced. The difficulty with them lay, as with
previous regulations, precisely in the enforcement,
hindered as that often was by officials, sharp men of
business, whose sphere was ecclesiastical, but who
entirely lacked spirituality.
Without any delay the heretical opinions upon
Penance and Extreme Unction were delivered to the
Fathers, in twelve heads upon the former session
and four upon the latter. Many minor XIV.,
differences were found here, as upon the Nov- z5th,
Eucharist, but they resulted more from I5S1,
varieties of expression than mental distinctions. The
order of speaking by classes and in groups, emphas
ised these differences by placing together those who

160 THE REFORMATION
usually thought alike. But in drafting the positive
doctrines care had to be taken to avoid expressions
likely to irritate or even condemn any of these various
schools. Thus in discussing Penance it was necessary
to avoid condemning the opinion of Duns Seotus, that
the essence of the sacrament lay in the absolution
alone, contrition and confession being merely conditions
needed for its efficacy. But the lengthy debates upon
doctrine due to these differences made any full scheme
of reform impossible, especially since Cardinal Cres
cenzio had named July, 1552, as the date by which the
Council must end, and a full scheme of doctrine be
prepared. While these matters were under discussion, the
ambassadors from Wiirttemberg had arrived; their
conduct was cautious, and, against the advice
Safe-conduct for °f *ne Imperial ambassador, they refrained
the Protest- from the usual call of courtesy upon the
ants, presidents. A safe-conduct had already been
o 1 ics an decreed f or them at the thirteenth session in
Protestants. terms which seemed ample. But they asked
for terms identical with those granted at Basel, as those
in their view gave them a share in deliberations, and
limited discussion by placing the Scriptures as decisive
authorities. At the close of Session XV. an enlargement
of the former safe-conduct was therefore decreed, which
gave more satisfaction. By that time Saxony and
some imperial cities were represented; in particular,
Strassburg was represented by the historian Sleidan,
who from the outset had no hopes of any good re
sult from the negotiations. The day (January 24th,
1552) before Session XV. these ambassadors were
received at a general Congregation ; but although they

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 161
were listened to with courtesy, their position was
untenable and their demands extreme. They came
almost to treat with the Council on equal terms, while
in reality they differed among themselves (Wiirttem
berg and Saxony presented slightly different pro
fessions of faith, both of which Strassburg, a mediator
as usual, signed), and had no historic position to
warrant their claims. When, for instance, they de
manded that the Pope should exercise no authority
over the Council, and that the bishops for their better
freedom should be released from their oath to him —
they asked what was obviously impossible to grant.
The same held good of their proposed reconsideration
of former decrees. Moreover, the Emperor, although
he had come to Innsbruck (November, 1551), could
exert little influence upon the Pope. Hence his
request that all doctrinal discussions should be post
poned until the arrival of the Protestant theologians,
although favoured by the Council, was rejected by the
Pope. But there was more delay; Crescenzio (Nov.)
tried to hurry, and yet hinder, discussions by suggesting
that the bishops should simply accept or reject what the
theologians had formulated. But the Fathers rejected
this suggestion, which would have given the papal
theologians, the Jesuits Lainez and Salmeron, the real
control of the assembly. All these causes of difference,
quickened by the pressure of politics, made the autumn
and winter (1551-2) more barren of results than they
otherwise would have been. In November, too, the
Pope named six cardinals, none of whom were favoured
by the Emperor. This disappointed the ecclesiastical
electors, who, because of the outbreak of the war with
France '(March, 1552), left the Council, fearing an
M

j62 THE REFORMATION
attack on their territory. The Protestant princes had
now leagued themselves with France, and the loss of
the three bishoprics (Metz, Toul, and Verdun) by Ger
many was due to this treacherous act. When Maurice
of Saxony marched against the Emperor and caused
his flight from Innsbruck, the continuance of the
Council was plainly impossible, and it adjourned for
two years. Politics and the play of interests had once
more stopped reform.
Meanwhile important doctrines had been discussed.
The sacrament of Penance, it was decreed, was insti-
Session tuted to apply, by the ministry of the
XIV. Apostles and their successors, the benefits
Penance 0f Christ's death to those who have fallen
Extreme after baptism. It differs from baptism in
Unction. that the minister is a judge and in involv-
Nov. 25th, ing labour on our part to attain a newness
1^1, of life. For those who have sinned after
baptism it is necessary to salvation. Its form con
sists in the words " / absolve thee," to which the
Church adds certain prayers. The acts of the peni
tent, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, are its
matter. The thing signified and the effect is reconcilia
tion with God. Contrition involves a sorrow for and
a hatred of the sin, with amendment; and although
sometimes it is so perfected by charity as to obtain
reconciliation, this reconciliation is due not to contri
tion, but to the desire for the sacrament included in
it. Attrition (imperfect contrition) is a gift of God
which disposes the sinner to seek reconciliation through
penance. Hence penance does not confer grace with
out any good motion on the penitent's part. Detailed
confession of mortal sins is necessary by divine law, so

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 163

that the priests may discriminate and observe equity
in punishment ; but confession of venial sins may be
omitted. While secret or auricular confession has always
been in use, public confession is not divinely com
manded. Confession should be observed at least once
a year, according to salutary custom at Lent. The
absolution can only be given by priests, and even mortal
sin does not deprive them of this power. But this
absolution is of no weight if pronounced over one upon
whom the priest has no jurisdiction, natural or dele
gated. Bishops and the Sovereign Pontiff can reserve
certain cases for themselves. The guilt is never for
given without the whole satisfaction being performed,
and priests should enjoin suitable penance. We can
make satisfaction to God not only by penance voluntary
or enjoined, but also by patiently bearing affliction.
Extreme Unction belongs to the close of life ; insti
tuted by Christ (insinuated in S. Mark, but promul
gated by S. James). In it the Holy Ghost forgives
sins, and the sick sometimes obtains bodily health if it
be desirable for his soul. It is to be ministered by
priests. These nine chapters on Penance and three on
Extreme Unction were guarded respectively by fifteen
and four canons with anathemas, defining deviations
from the positive doctrines. On Extreme Unction the
identification of the sacrament with the expired gift of
miracles of healing was condemned, and the identity of
the Roman rite with that of S. James asserted. Other
wise there was nothing adding much to the decrees.
The fourteen chapters on reformation guarded holy
orders against abuse by the ordination of any one
interdicted by his own bishop from such Reforma.
ordination, or against hasty ordinations by tion.

1 64 THE REFORMATION
titular bishops. By delegation from the Apostolic
See episcopal authority over secular clerks was greatly
strengthened, even against exemptions. The abuse
of obtaining from Rome special judges, called con
servators, who were often used to impede justice,
was restrained. Clerks in holy orders or beneficed,
not wearing becoming dress, were made liable to
suspension, or on repeated offences, deprivation. Wil
ful murderers were never to be ordained, and acci
dental murderers only after episcopal investigation.
No ordinary was to exercise jurisdiction over clerks
subject to another, and benefices in two dioceses were
henceforth not to be united. For the future no right
of patronage could be gained save by foundation or
endowment. Presentation was to be made to, and
institution by, the bishop of the place. Most of these
regulations were in explanation or reinforcement of
preceding decrees. They dealt with evils arising either
from the excessive centralisation of or the disorders
of jurisdiction : appeals on one hand and exemptions
on the other had put the ordinary ecclesiastical legal
system out of gear. In the sphere of Church law and
judicature the same causes worked as in secular spheres
— hasty applications of general principles, sometimes
new and sometimes old; the difficulty of combining
into a coherent body a number of decrees and decisions.
Moreover; the Church was not now feeling its own
unity so deeply as were the nations separately, and
hence ecclesiastical affairs were in greater confusion
than were secular. Mercenary men and bad men used
various artifices for their own evil ends, and so intensi
fied the evils.
For the next, the fifteenth, session the Sacrifice of

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 165
the Mass and Holy Orders were to be deliberated upon
along with Reformation. But from what has Session
been said already it will be seen that the end xv.,
was drawing near, and discussion difficult. Jan. 25th,
The Pope and legate differed absolutely I552,
from the Spanish bishops on the subjects of papal and
episcopal power. Germans and Italians were leaving
the Council. The imperial ambassadors criticised the
slowness and pettiness of the reformation undertaken.
The presence of Protestant envoys and theologians
could do little towards the almost impossible task of
reunion. Session XV. only met for a prorogation
until S. Joseph's Day (March 19) and for enlargement
of the safe-conduct for Protestants. The reason as
signed for prorogation was the tardy coming of the
Protestants, but there were real reasons in favour of
the closing of a Council for which no one but Charles
really cared, which no nation would altogether obey,
and from which even Charles could no longer hope for
satisfaction of his desires — restored unity in Germany
and a thoroughgoing reform.
The Saxons withdrew (March 13th), then the ambas
sadors from Wiirttemberg and Strassburg, after many
complaints (April): and the southward march of
Maurice of Saxony hardly made up for their depar
ture. Pope Julius bade the legates to suspend the
Council and send some bishops to Rome to help him
there in the work of reform. But the presidents, Cres
cenzio being now fatally sick, preferred to leave the
Fathers free, and the Council accordingly resolved " to
be silent until better times," since "all places, and
Germany above all, were ablaze with arms," and to
suspend sessions for two years, after which, if the

1 66 THE REFORMATION
causes for suspension were removed, the Council should
meet again without fresh Convocation. This
ession seemed to them better than " wasting their
April28th, time in idleness." And, indeed, with the
i5S2- Elector Maurice at Innsbruck and the
Suspen- Emperor in flight, a continuance in Trent
two years was unsafe > even the citizens themselves
were fleeing. The Council had been mainly
German in composition. It was for the needs of Ger
many even more than for general reformation that it
had met. With the downfall of the Emperor's power
and the success of the German Protestants, it became
impossible to reach its ends. The political aims of the
Pope had changed, and thus once again politics, and
above all the politics of the Curia and of Germany,
had spoilt the promise of a year before. Something
the Council had done; but like its predecessor of the
Lateran, it had done only enough to show how much
remained undone.

CHAPTER VIII
THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT
WHEN the assigned interval of two years was over,
everything was against a reassembling of the
Council. In 1552, the war into which Spain Treaty of
and France had drifted in the backwaters of Cateau
Europe reached to the main stream, and it Cambresis,
was not until April, 1559, that the Treaty APri1' XSS9-
of Cateau Cambresis brought back peace. The posi
tion of Charles V. had been gradually changing; as
he saw more and more the difficulty of reuniting
Germany, and realised more and more the strength of
the Spanish monarchy, his policy became increasingly
Spanish, and he put the interests of his non-Spanish
territories second to those of Spain. Meanwhile in
the Empire Ferdinand, both by his own merits and
the withdrawal of Charles, became a more important
figure. He had been elected King of the Romans
(January, 1531), but at a later date Charles wished
his son Philip chosen King of the Romans when
Ferdinand became Emperor, or even to have become
Emperor. In the end it was agreed (1551) by the
family that Philip should succeed Ferdinand and the
latter's son Maximilian should come next. But the
electors would not agree to this, for they had more to
fear from the Spanish prince than from his uncle.
167

1 68 THE REFORMATIO^
Ferdinand's policy in the Empire was very different
from his strongly Catholic policy in his own dominions.;
in the Empire he was tolerant, and accepted the inevit
able with a better grace than Charles had ever been
able to put on ; he was, moreover, strongly influenced by
his son Maximilian, whose sympathies were distinctly
Lutheran. Charles resigned the Netherlands to Philip
Abdication (October, 1555) ; he also gave him Spain
of Charles, (February, 1556), and (August 27th, 1556)
J555- • be formally renounced the Empire to Fer
dinand. The new Emperor's claims were at once
admitted by the electors, and in spite of his non-
recognition by the Pope he became at length fully
Emperor (February 24th, 1558).
Pope Julius III. died March 24th, 1555, after a six-
year pontificate of disappointed politics (for Ottavio
Marcellus ^arnese kept Parma) and of family enrich-
II. ment (his nephew Ascanio della Cornia
(Cervini), founded a rich papal family in Umbria). His
April 9th, SUCcessor was Cardinal Cervini (Marcellus
II.), the former President at Trent, whose
ability and moderation, together with his genuine
goodness, led to great expectations, disappointed by
his early death (April 30th). A month later (May
Paul IV 23rd, 1555) Cardinal Caraffa, at the age of
(Caraffa), seventy-nine, and with a past of stormy
May 23rd, energy, was elected as his successor. Of
IS5S- his piety and strictness (towards himself
and others) there could be no doubt, but years had
hardened his character, deepened his impulses, and
strengthened his self-will. His early wishes for
reformation had now become a hatred of anything
suspicious in doctrine or novel in practice; his

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 169
activity had thrown itself into the organisation of
the Holy Office (or Inquisition) for Italy. In Italy
the bishops resided at their sees less than was the case
elsewhere, and the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction for
correction of heresy or depravity was weak and fitful
in itself, apart from the number of exemptions con
fronting it ; the Dominicans also had lost much of
their former zeal in this direction. Caraffa had ac
quired during his nunciature in Spain a double portion
of the Spanish spirit, and he had both seen the Inquisi
tion at work there and acted himself as Inquisitor in
Venice. When Paul III. recalled him to Rome (1536),
he urged the formation of an Inquisition under papal
control for all Italy, and (1542) his wish was gratified :
six cardinals under his own presidency were appointed
for the task. Episcopal jurisdiction in Italy was soon
overshadowed, and they acted as a Court of Appeal
not only for Italy, but for other countries also. They
succeeded in suppressing the movement of thought,
partly evangelical and partly revolutionary, which had
appeared in Italy — the left wing as it were of that
other liberal movement in which Cardinal Pole and
others had shared — standing in marked contrast to the
paganism of the Italian Renaissance but having affini
ties with Socinianism. Caraffa had as little tenderness
for followers of this school of thought as for unworthy
priests, and his stern measures of repression were
successful in crushing out not only this form of
thought, but other tendencies from which the Church
might have gained. It was plain from the past that
the papacy of Paul IV. would be marked by earnestness
of purpose and by a lack of desire to conciliate those
opposed to him. " We promise and swear to try and

170 THE REFORMATION
bring about a reform of the Universal Church and
the Papacy," were the words of his first bull. A con
gregation of three divisions was appointed for reform,
and their programme submitted to the Universities.
A Council for Reform would certainly have his sym
pathy, but never one intended to conciliate Protestants
or negotiate with error.
The Pope's political tendencies pushed him in the
same direction. He was a Neapolitan, of a family
hostile to the Habsburgs. He had suffered
o i icso official injuries from Charles V, and chafed
Paul IV. . . J '
at his indulgence of Protestants. It was
he who refused later to recognise Ferdinand as Em
peror ; and now when the papal power was given him,
he felt bound to use all his influence against its
enemies, who in injuring it would injure the Church
itself. Hence it came about that a Pope intensely
earnest in religion plunged himself into schemes which,
except to his own judgment, had nothing to do with
religion at all, and were founded on personal caprice.
Under him Protestantism gained ground even in coun
tries still in touch with the Papacy. In Germany
Ferdinand drew closer to the Protestants, and division
of religion became an accepted political fact. In the
Netherlands the plans of Philip II. for strengthening
the Inquisition and increasing the number of bishop
rics (1557), following a policy begun by Charles,
were approved by the Pope and led to revolt. In
Poland the Pope's unsympathetic treatment of the
Crown's request for some religious concessions and a
needed revivification of the National Church missed
a great opportunity. In England, under Mary, he
insisted upon the full restoration of all ecclesiastical

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 171
lands (a condition the landed gentry refused to
grant), and tried to re-establish Peter's Pence, while
his hostility to Spain or his dislike of Pole coloured
all his relations with the Queen. When Elizabeth
came to the throne, a gentler touch might have kept
hold of the somewhat slender cords of connection.
Precisely when the nations were realising their indi
viduality and intensifying their differences, the most
religious Pope since Adrian VI. pressed his power
beyond everything else, and in his intentness upon
his own spiritual and personal ends would neither see
nor hear the wishes of others. It was not likely that
his plan of a Council to meet at Rome would win the
approval of princes he disregarded or opposed. Only
when Rome was threatened by a Spanish army under
Alva, and his wars had turned out disastrously, would
he make peace with Spain (September, 1557). Then,
too, when he no longer needed the help of his nephews
in war or diplomacy, he forswore the nepotism that
had blemished his reputation, and he threw himself into
the work of reformation with the impatient zeal of one
soon to die. The year before his death left its mark
on Rome in the removal of abuses and the change of
tone, and it was as important for the paths of reform
he indicated as for the things he actually wrought.
Towards the end of his papacy (he died August 18th,
1559) Spain, France, Venice, and German Catholics
expressed their conviction that a Council was needed,
not to reconcile the Protestants (for that seemed hope
less), but to save the Church itself. The religious
politics of France even alone made one desirable.
The growth of Calvinism had been rapid, and the
Crown alternated between a wish to overthrow and

172 THE REFORMATION
attempts to conciliate the Huguenots. There was talk
of a national council which might grant concessions,
favoured by the French bishops, but disliked by the
Papacy. Such a step would have fixed for ever the
semi-independence of the Gallican Church, and the
Papacy therefore had a special reason for watching
with anxiety the internal affairs of France. In the
conclave that followed the death of Paul IV. each
cardinal promised, if elected, to call a Council and to
undertake reforms. Even these reforms which the
Council had decreed in its earlier sessions had proved
a dead letter, and the theologians of Louvain had
pointed out in an address to Philip II. the neglect
shown for the Conciliar Decrees. A new assembly was
needed to preserve the results of the old, not to speak
of evils that must be overcome.
The Conclave, which lasted four months, was re
markable as the first in which Spain claimed the right
Pius IV. °f excluding or vetoing a candidate — a pri-
Dec. 26th, vilege already gained by the Empire and
15S9- France. Philip II. gave the cardinals to
understand that no Caraffa or partisan of the late
Pope would be acceptable to him. His ally, Duke
Cosimo of Florence, contrived to secure the election of
the Milanese Gianangelo de Medici, unconnected with
the noble house of that name, but brother of a cruel
mercenary leader once in the Imperial service. The
new Pope himself was a jurist of popular manners,
skilful and experienced in administration — a cardinal
created by Paul III., but disliked by Paul IV. Yet
marked contrast as he was to his predecessor in
manners and tone, terrible as was the punishment he
meted out to the Caraffa family (two of whom, the

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 173

cardinal and another, were put to death), there was no
change of policy, and Rome itself remained "more like
a well-ordered monastery," as had been said, than it
had been before Pope Paul's reforms. Nepotism as a
system of papal government, able to plead for itself
the risk of depending upon strangers or possible rivals,
had been ended by the swift revolution after Paul IV.
had learnt the treachery of his nephews and dismissed
them the Court. If Pius IV. leaned much upon Carlo
Borromeo, the saintliness of the nephew, inclined to
refuse all honours but those of toil, and the prudence
of the uncle, averse from scandal, and too careful to
cause it, stayed all complaints. Bishops were ad
monished to return from Rome to their sees ; a higher
ideal lessened the scandals of ecclesiastical life. The
prudence and worldly wisdom which even more than
any spiritual conviction led to this result also caused
the Curia to adopt a more conciliatory policy towards
the sovereigns of Europe. The Pope was personally
inclined to call the Council demanded by the general
voice. "We might," he said frankly, "amuse the
world for years with difficulties " ; but he had already
spoken of concessions that must be made to secure
unity. There was, moreover, no longer any fear of
imperial power overshadowing the Papacy in Italy.
Inclination and politics therefore worked together. It
was decided (March, 1560) to call a Council. Those
were invited who (as the Eastern Christians) Invitation
had an independent history of their own, tothe
those who (as the English) had separated Council.
from the Papacy, and those who (as the Nov.,
Lutherans) had separated from the Church.
Elizabeth advised the envoy who bore the invitation

174 THE REFORMATION
not to cross the Channel. From Switzerland only
the Catholic cantons cared to come. The invitation
was for the most part either evaded or refused.
But difficulties in getting the Powers to agree upon
practical points somewhat lessened the Pope's zeal for
a Council. France and the Emperor not only objected
to Trent as the seat of it, owing to its nearness to
Italy, but also demanded a freedom of discussion larger
than the Curia cared to allow. It was now the States
that lagged behind the Church, and had not the near
prospect of a French national council given the Papacy
a new reason for hastening the summons, delay might
once more have put off the meeting. An even more
important question was raised, but left unsettled:
should the Council start (as France and the Empire
wished) as a new assembly, or should it be (as
Philip II. demanded) a continuation of the former
sessions? Papal diplomacy had its utmost to do in
getting the Great Powers to agree to a Council with
Trent as its seat, and could not deal at first with these
difficulties. The meeting was fixed for April 6th,
1561. The legates appointed (February 14th, 1561)
were Cardinal Gonzaga, Bishop of Mantua, and Car
dinal du Puy, Archbishop of Bari; but the latter, in
ill-health when chosen, died before reaching Trent.
At a later date (March 10th) there were added Hosius,
well known for his learning and activity ; Seripando,
once General of the Augustinians, a well-known and
moderate theologian; and Simonetta, a canonist of
repute. The choice was suitable, and likely to be
successful. Gonzaga was an Imperialist, able and
upright in character; Hosius in particular, from his
wide experience in Germany and Poland, deserved his

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 175
post ; and the whole combination, although differences
arose among the colleagues, was peculiarly strong. It
was not materially strengthened by the later addition
of the Pope's nephew, the young Cardinal d'Altemps,
whose alleged qualifications were his German birth
and his possession of the See of Constanz.
On the appointed day (April 6th) few, either bishops
or ambassadors, were present. A proposal to consider
an index of prohibited books was discussed, session
and when it proved hard to get any subject XVII.,
agreeable to all it was suggested the Fathers Jan. 18th,
should choose their own topic. Nothing lS •
came, however, of either discussion, and the Council
was postponed until January 18th, 1562. At that date
one hundred and six bishops, four abbots, and four
generals were present ; this new period of the Council,
it may be noted, was marked throughout by both a
larger attendance and a higher level of discussion.
The Jesuit theologians, among whom Lainez, now
General of the Society, stood first, exercised great in
fluence over the assembly, and once Lainez took up the
whole of the sitting by his speech. Salmeron, another
distinguished Jesuit, was among the papal The
theologians, but four of his five colleagues Jesuits
were Dominicans. The state of flux through at the
which theological thoughts had passed was Councl1-
now over. The prevalent uncertainty had been illus
trated by the changing careers of many humanists and
doctors, such as Beatus Rhenanus, Pole, and Staphylus
(who forsaking Protestantism, became an adviser of the
Emperor Ferdinand's and his helper in the " Libel of
Reformation "). A large body of popular opinions (such
as those about indulgence) had for many years floated

176 THE REFORMATION
around the kernel of authorised doctrine; from the
ferment of reforming tendencies and new forms of
critical studies, opinions of various kinds, some merely
well-intentioned, some revolutionary, had emerged.
But these opinions were of all shades of intensity, and
were variously held in differing combinations, so that
it was often hard to classify their holders as distinctly
Catholic or distinctly Protestant. Gradually, how
ever, views and opinions crystallised, and it became
easier to classify a man as distinctly on one side or the
other. But at the same time religious earnestness,
a hatred of moral corruption and real liberality of
thought were found as widely on one side as on the
other (if indeed in the case of liberality it should not
rather be said as rarely). Of this crystallisation of
views and doctrinal sympathies the Jesuits were the
best examples.
The Nominalism which was prevalent at the close
of the Middle Ages had been essentially Medieval
sceptical, and in its love of the intellectual thought.
had often lost sight of the spiritual ; it had questioned
dogmas and drawn distinctions ; controversy, indulged
in merely for the love of disputation, and the exercise
it afforded, brought with it a worse revenge than did
even controversy just redeemed from sin by the touch
of earnestness. These speculations had ended by
taking probability and existing facts as guides. As
their philosophy became more refined the Nominalists
came to accept the existing conditions of ecclesiastical
life as better, owing to the mere fact of their existence,
than anything likely to replace them. The Thomistic
(Aquinist) philosophy, on the other hand, had started
from the unique pre-eminence of divine grace and the

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 177

spiritual importance of a living faith. In its insistence
upon the importance of Church life it realised much
of the abiding power of Christ, and found a stronger
motive for energy than was afforded by mere negations.
Here lay the strength of the Spanish Catholic Re
formers, and it was by this valuable element rather
than by the royal support or by the machinery of the
Inquisition that they brought about their reformation.
But the Thomistic philosophy had a weakness of its
own; it had been unable to complete its task of
systematising the many discordant elements of medi
eval thought: still less was it able to assimilate the
newer thoughts and vigorous tendencies of the
Renaissance. It combined with its essential Christian
thought an extreme conservatism, and a too rigorous
adherence to its original methods ; hence it grew
(especially in Spain) into a hatred of new and there
fore possibly risky forms of thought. If it was pious,
it also became narrow: if it was devout, it also lost
touch of the life around it ; it turned (as did the
Spanish Church and Caraffa) to repression instead of
persuasion ; it would take men by force and make
them Christians.
But if this school of thought was narrow and had to
answer for much that was harsh and cruel in its
methods, it was effective within its limited sphere,
while its moral earnestness raised it far above the
accommodating Nominalism or the easy humanism of
the day. One of its characteristics has been noted
already — its followers, with few exceptions, Nominal-
such as Cajetan, were not Curialists of the ists and
type so common in Italy. To these Italian Curialists.
Curialists the whole of the organisation and machinery

178 THE REFORMATION
centred in the Papacy was to be supported because
it existed. They had not the deeply religious view of
papal responsibility and papal power that sanctified
the Hildebrandine movement : the divine origin of the
Papacy might be spoken of to the multitude, but for
themselves it remained merely a convenient system.
Hence it could be supported by means and methods
that were worldly, at any rate, if not worse. The
contradictions of the Middle Ages — that immense
variety of thought which we, from our distance, so often
fail to see — had thus resulted in two leading types :
the enthusiastic Aquinist, devout, and often learned,
but narrow and bigoted; the Curialist, an ecclesiastic
more than a theologian — diplomatic, a man of the
world, skilful, but not always scrupulous. Nor should
we forget how greatly the system of Canon Law and
its study had tended to produce men of this stamp ; so
that the opposition in the Council between theologians
and canonists was something more than a mere pro
fessional variance. And, on the other hand, in regard
to the Papacy, the Spanish theologians fell back on
the theory of episcopacy, so that at this time the
divine right of the episcopal order rather than the
divine right of councils was the theory that mostly
opposed the papal sovereignty.
But the progress of the Jesuits had resulted in a
third type — freer in their treatment of doctrine, not
Position keeping too closely to traditional methods,
of the but conservative in their results. No
Jesuits. shadow of unorthodoxy rested upon them,
while their learning and ability was equal to that of
the strongest among their rivals. But they were as
little ready to conciliate Protestants as were the

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 179
Spaniards themselves. Dislike of the new teachers,
who brought disunion and heresy behind them, forced
the Jesuits back into still deeper devotion to Catholic
doctrine and papal headship. This devotion was both
religious and intelligent, while it seemed to give an
apparent remedy for two distressing characteristics of
the time, variety of doctrinal deviations and disregard
of Church organisation. The Society had placed itself
at the disposal of the Papacy, because this was their
spirit to begin with, and the policy thus chosen was
one that in the existing political circumstances could
not fail to be successful. Their success intensified
their devotion, and thus the interests of the Papacy
became as dear to them as to the Italian Curialists.
To them the Papacy was the only possible centre of
unity, and not a mere convenience of practical politics.
Their support of its claims was due to a passionate
conviction of their truth, and not to a calculation of
existing facts. Gradually, moreover, the Society came
to see that learning, intelligent and free, was their
best ally for their purpose. This had hardly been
part of their original programme, but soon it became
one of their characteristics.
A Council was needed, in the view of many (espe
cially of the princes), to conciliate or overawe the
Protestants. Hence had arisen the dislike The theo_
expressed to the early treatment of Justifi- logical
cation, and hence the repeated demands necessity
from France and Germany for Communion °fthe..
, , Council.
in both kinds. But a Council was needed,
in the eyes of Catholic theologians, to define and, as it
were, codify Catholic doctrine. This had to be done
partly because of the mass of scholastic material and

180 THE REFORMATION
of questions already discussed, partly because of the
existence of Protestantism, with its outspoken criti
cism and negations ; for Protestantism, whether of the
Lutheran or Calvinistic model, was, in its negation of
Catholic doctrines, and its assertion of individualism
against the corporate authority of the Church, a clear
and consistent system. The same could not be said of
medieval Christianity until it had digested, selected,
and rejected scholastic materials and speculations.
Hence new definitions of doctrine were needed, but
not, as it seemed, definitions which would compromise
with Protestantism. It was natural, however, that the
order followed in the discussions should be that of the
Augsburg Confession, for it was on the points where
discussion had most arisen that definition was most
needed. In the previous discussions upon justification
different views had existed in the Council, and the
result had been a compromise between the views of
Jesuit and Dominican theologians. In this third
meeting of the Council the influence of the former
was greater than it had been before, although the per
sistence of the Spaniards, led by Guarrero, Archbishop
of Granada, and the course of events, prevented their
triumph from being complete.
The conduct of business was, on the whole, better
than before ; and, in particular, all matters of pre-
cedence were carefully arranged. The order
business. °^ debate was that of the Seven Sacraments.
The decrees on faith and doctrine were pre
pared by the deputation of theologians, and then
polished by a few of the Fathers. Those on Manners
and Morals were discussed primarily by the legates,
and this, of course, meant their constant communica-

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 181

tion with the Pope. The assembly gradually grew
into a knowledge of its machinery, and things went
more easily. But a wish for reform was in the air.
It was necessary, said the Cardinal of Mantua, to
improve doctrine by the eradication of heresy, and to
correct the depraved manners of the faithful. In the
discussion preceding Session XVII. the Archbishop of
Granada, supported by Vargas, the imperial ambas
sador, strongly objected to the words " on the proposal
of the legates and Presidents '' (proponentibus legatis ac
Presidentibus), which seemed to deprive the Council of
any initiative. He also urged that the Council should
be declared a continuation of the former one — a matter
which the papal bull seemed to leave in doubt. For
the present, the latter difficulty was got over by the
legates explaining this to be the real meaning of the
bull, although an explicit statement of the case was
impossible if the presence of Protestants was to be
hoped for.
Session XVIII. was fixed for February 26th, 1562.
The three subjects of the Index of prohibited books,
the invitation to the Council of those who session
had written suspected books, and a safe- XVIII.,
guard for the Protestants had been pre- Feb. 26th,
pared for the session. The third might *$ 2'
have been settled without much trouble ; but when
the Archbishop of Granada pointed out that the
original form of the safe-conduct would interfere with
the jurisdiction of the Inquisition in Spain, the enact
ment was deferred, and entrusted to a General Congre
gation with powers equal to those of a Session. In
the end the form used under Julius III. was used
again, but its provisions were enlarged so as to cover

THE REFORMATION

the case of countries which were not in communion
with the Roman Church. The Emperor significantly
urged that the Augsburg Confession should not at
first be placed on the Index or condemned, lest it
should hinder the Protestants from attending. The
Archbishop of Granada also requested that the words
" representing the Universal Church " should be added
as in previous Councils to the title of the Council, but
the request, supported by the Spanish bishops, was
disregarded. On the question of the Index different opinions
were expressed. The Archbishop of Granada thought
„,, . , the task difficult, and likely to lead to the
The Index. . ,{-,¦,,,
neglect of more important subjects ; the
Archbishop of Braga would have preferred to leave
it to the Universities to settle. But the general
opinion went with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who
held the work to be needful and likely to be best
performed by a deputation of those present. The
way had indeed been shown by other bodies. At
Paris the Parliament (1542) drew up regulations for
the press. In February, 1544, some books, among
which Calvin's Christiana} Beligionis Institutio was
chief, were publicly burnt, and the Sorbonne issued an
Index which was afterwards registered as a decree by
the Parliament of Paris. This was not the only list
of local force. Cardinal Caraffa (Paul IV) when
Grand Inquisitor of Italy had put forth (1543) a
severe edict against printers and publishers of heretical
books. Lists of forbidden books had been issued at
various times since 1524 by other inquisitors or
governments. The University of Louvain prepared
(1546-50) for Charles V a list of its own which

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 183
was truly " expurgatorial," since it essayed the diffi
cult task of correcting isolated passages instead of
merely indicating unsound books. So long before
as 1479, Sixtus IV. had empowered the University
of Koln (which in 1549 published an Index of its
own) to punish all printers, publishers, and readers
of heretical works; Alexander VI. (1501) enlarged
this jurisdiction for them; Leo X. (1515) gave the
same power for the Papal States to the Master of
the Palace. The bull In Ccena Domini (1527) included
in its excommunication all readers of heretical books,
and (1559) Paul IV., using his past experience as
Inquisitor, issued a comprehensive Index of Prohibited
books for the whole of the Church. It named authors
all of whose works were prohibited, and also single
books condemned as heretical, impious, immoral, or
merely unwholesome; publications from seventy-two
presses were forbidden, and presses which had pub
lished any heretical book were interdicted. Among
others, Erasmus, censured often before, had a fortune
which varied curiously in succeeding lists, the treatment
of him and his works illustrating the spirit in which
the task of selection was approached. Paul IV. with
special emphasis included all his works ; the Council
of Trent saw that a list so sweeping needed revision ;
under Pius IV. (1564) only a few of his works were
mentioned; Sixtus V. (1590) once more condemned all
his writings, but Clement VIIL (1596) returned to the
milder judgment of Pius IV.
It should be noticed that there was at the time
little objection expressed to the principle of such a
list; its formation might even be held the duty of
spiritual authorities, who were to guide those under

184 THE REFORMATION
their care; of Universities which had the needed
learning and habit of discrimination, or (better still)
of both powers together. This was the principle on
which the work proceeded. A restraint of the press
was recognised as needful ; the exercise of this restraint
was naturally considered an episcopal function, a fact
which the history of the censorship in England illus
trates. The Universities, moreover, were naturally
regarded as literary and theological advisers. When
the Inquisition gained power it approached the work,
however, more from the side of repressing heresy than
of guiding thought ; less leniency was shown, and in
cases of doubt the tendency was to condemn a sus
pected book. But it should be noticed that objections
brought against the Index apply in reality more to the
spirit in which it was built up than to the principle
itself. It is convenient to deal here with the later history
of the Index. In Session XXV. the matter was
Later brought up on the report of the Congrega-
history of tion. The Council was then hurried, and a
the Index. diSOussion likely to go into details would
have been wearisome ; the list prepared by the com
mittee was therefore submitted to the Pope for pub
lication after he had passed his judgment upon it.
Ten rules, afterwards enlarged (1593) by Sixtus V. to
twenty-two, were laid down for its use; these were
moderate, although they left a heavy task in the in
tended expurgation of works only partly allowed.
Versions of the Bible in vulgar tongues, " since more
harm than good arose from their indiscriminate use as
experience showed," were only allowed to those whom
the ordinary held likely to benefit from their reading.

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 185
This Index was accepted in Portugal, the Spanish
Netherlands, Bavaria, and much of Italy. Pius V.
organised a special Congregation for the Index, which
up to that time had been controlled by the Inquisition,
and it was this body that prepared the Index of Sixtus
V. (1590). Clement VIIL in publishing a new Index
(1596) returned to the original ten Tridentine rules,
and his Index — which was largely based upon the
Spanish Index, and was in itself a triumph of the more
zealous cardinals over the Pope — was double the size
of the Tridentine list. It was not those who did most
for the extension of the Church who approved of such
drastic and yet ineffectual methods. Canisius, the
learned and energetic Jesuit, pointed out that the
true remedy against error lay in widely diffused learn
ing, while force alone was useless. Where the Index
was most effective intellectual life sank lowest ; author
ity gained a victory at the expense of energy. Instead
of guiding its world to higher planes, the authority of
the Church forced it down to a level where it was well
regulated, it is true, but lower and less rich than might
have been. If the Catholic were to remain a schoolboy
instead of a man, he could never do the work of a man,
although he might escape some of a man's responsi
bilities and dangers.
The interval allowed between the sessions seemed
to many Fathers too long, but Seripando was anxious
for reform, and the imperial ambassadors session
were pressing for it. The delay was there- XIX.,
fore utilised to draw up a scheme of reform. Mav I4thi
While Seripando had the chief part in doing IS 2'
this, the actual drafting was left to Simonetta, who
was more skilled in canon law and procedure. Among

186 THE REFORMATION
his chief helpers was Paleotto, afterwards a cardinal
and a leading authority for this part of the Council.
Seripando wished to begin by attacking abuses at
Rome, but the majority wished to deal first with ques
tions of apparently wider scope. Accordingly Simon-
etta drew up twelve heads for discussion. The first
raised the old question of episcopal residence. Others
dealt with fees for Holy Orders, divisions and unions
of benefices, and their visitation, and the questers.
Under all these heads grave abuses existed, and there
was a general desire to reform them. Those connected
with benefices were evidences of a long lack of super
vision and of a Church failing to meet the needs of a
changing time. They may be compared with those
found in England after the long inaction of the
eighteenth century, and the technical nature of the
reforms should not blind us to their real importance.
The fundamental question of episcopal residence, how
ever, was an essential one for the Curia, and it had
aroused many storms before. Simonetta wished, there
fore, to postpone it; but the imperial ambassadors
represented that to do so would be trifling with their
master. The discussion therefore went on. A divi
sion which might have been foreseen appeared among
the legates : Seripando and Gonzaga would have left
the decision to the Council; Simonetta, whose letters
to Rome were hardly loyal to his colleagues, and
whose advice was largely followed by the Curia, wished
to leave it to the Pope. A mere declaration of the
obligation of residence would have been of little use
unless the exercise of papal privileges, which so much
interfered with it, were also restrained. In the con
gregation on April 7th, which was carried on until the

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 187
18th, the discussion began ; and it seemed as if (in the
words of Paleotto) an evil demon had infected the
Council: calumnies and accusations of all sorts flew
about. At length, when the debates had filled many
days, the legates resolved to take the votes as to what
should be done. To simplify the issue, a simple placet
or non-placet was to answer the question, Should the
debate go on ? Sixty-seven voted placet, thirty- eight
non-placet; thirty-four wished the Pope to be con
sulted before going further (April 20th).
The main lines of the discussion, notable more for
its length and importance (alike in itself and in the
side-issues involved) than for other features, were
fairly obvious. The Council had grown rapidly in its
knowledge of its own procedure and in the habits of
legislative bodies. Procedure was better known, and
a tradition of business had been formed, and was
followed. But at the same time parties were becom
ing more defined, and not only the leaders of these
parties, but also their rank and file, felt bound to
deliver their opinions. Hence, in spite of the fact that
the Council, as a rule, both knew its own mind and its
own methods better than in earlier sittings, the de
bates became longer and more involved. It was cer
tainly so in the present case. The heads of discussion
were : the evils arising from non-residence, the need of
residence, the obstacles to residence and the means for
their removal, penalties for the breach and reward for
the observance of residence, the machinery for enforc
ing the decree to be passed. Some urged that, in
view of the evils arising from its breach, the law of
residence should be declared of divine obligation, so as
to bind the consciences of bishops more firmly. Such

THE REFORMATION

a declaration would still leave the Papacy free to
impose moderate restraints or allow moderate excep
tions to the general law — in other words, to regulate
its application. But it was objected to this that, as a
matter of fact, the laws of God were broken as widely
and as often as the laws of the Church, and that to
declare episcopal residence of divine obligation merely
in order to ensure its enforcement might lead to the
inference that laws purely ecclesiastical as opposed to
divine could be broken with impunity. Such an infer
ence was nearly inevitable, and yet savoured of Pro
testantism. It was better in the eyes of some to
throw the whole weight of the Church upon the
removal of obstacles to residence and its encourage
ment by rewards. In Italy, where non-residence was
common, evils were, it was said, less abundant than
elsewhere ; but it was evils of heresy rather than of
immoral life that this argument pointed to. It was
also truly said that often the demands of princes and
the ambition of bishops caused non-residence, by em
ploying bishops in secular business at courts. The
existence of the abuses was generally admitted, but
opinions — swayed, some by doctrine, some by self-
interest — differed as to the way to deal with them.
Meanwhile, the arrival of ambassadors from Spain,
Bavaria, the kingdom of Hungary, from Venice and
Switzerland, and the expected arrival of De Lansac
from France, enlivened and interrupted these discus
sions. France, under Charles IX. (or really Catharine
de Medici), was, for the moment only, complaisant and
willing to let the Council rank as a continuation of
the former session. Owing to its religious wars, France
was now replacing Germany as the centre of ecclesi-

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 189
astical politics, and it was also becoming more important
for the King either to make terms with his rebellious
subjects or else to get all possible help against them.
He was anxious (as Charles V. had been in earlier days)
that the general trend of papal policy should not place
outside difficulties in the way of his power at home.
De Lansac was unable to arrive before the date fixed
for Session XIX. (May 14th), and therefore asked for
its adjournment. Instead of this, however, the only
Decree passed at the session was one indicating June
4th for the next session.
The relations between the legates and the Curia had
by now become important. The Pope had already
begun his reforms in the Curia — an indica- Conciliar
tion not only of his own wishes, but of the diplomacy.
conviction that reform was needed there. The first
department attacked was the Penitentiary, then the
Apostolic Chamber, and the Chancery ; the reforms,
however, were only slight compared with the evils
that existed (May 4th, 1562). The Curia was greatly
disturbed at the turn affairs were taking at Trent.
The Pope, facile, soon influenced, and now led by the
permanent officials, was displeased, and at first wished
the debate cut short. He spoke of sending three
new legates, one of whom, the Cardinal of San
'Clemente, was senior in rank, and would therefore
supersede the old. The Bishop of Ventimiglia was
also sent as Nuncio to Trent, in order to keep the Pope
more fully posted in the course of affairs. On the
question of continuation the Pope wished the legates
to secure a declaration in its favour. But more at
leisure and in calmer moments, wisely advised, too,
moreover, by Venice, he soon reconsidered these de-

190 THE REFORMATION
cisions. He consulted the cardinals (May 9 th), and
finally left liberty to the Council at the discretion of
the legates ; he put off sending a new commission to
supersede them, and declared he was willing to approve
a decree on residence, provided it were not termed
expressly of divine obligation. At the same time,
difficulties caused by the ambassadors also pressed on
the legates. The French ambassadors de Lansac, du
Ferrier (the President of the Parliament of Paris),
and de Pibrac arrived (May 18th) ; the orations they
delivered (May 26th) were very free in their tone, and
also urged that the present Council should be consid
ered a new one. France had never recognised the
second meeting of the Council, and did not wish to have
its decision forced; in this the imperial ambassadors
supported them, but the Spanish, with equal firmness,
opposed such an admission. The Pope was, as a
matter of fact, pledged to Philip on the point, as
were the legates both verbally and in writing to
Pescara, the Governor of Milan ; but it was clear that
to settle it one way or another would at that moment
mean the dissolution of the Council. It was supposed
that the cardinals at Rome, who pressed the Pope to
act as Philip wished, did so with a real wish to force a
dissolution. The legates were, however, equal to the
crisis ; they persuaded the Emperor to withdraw for '
the present a scheme of reform (the Libel of Reforma
tion) he had presented, and they contrived to put off
an express decision on the question of continuation.
It was easy to convince the Spaniards that facts were
on their side, and that the proceedings of the Council
both should and did assume identity with the older
meetings ; the French and imperial ambassadors (the

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 191
former of whom were strongly suspected of heresy)
had to rest content with not having their view ex
pressly negatived. It was a real triumph of diplomacy,
and the credit of it belongs partly to Delfino, the
Nuncio in Germany. From this time onwards unusual
importance attaches to the influence it was possible
to exert upon the Emperor by representatives at his
Court. In the next session little was done beyond returning
a reply, friendly and not contentious, to the French
orations, and proroguing to the 16th June. s
The legates had decided, in keeping with xx.,
their pledge to Spain that doctrine should June 4th,
be taken up at the point where it had been 'S02,
left, to begin with the Holy Eucharist. The attention,
the disorder, of the Fathers was thus concentrated
upon a fresh point, and bitter divisions arose. The
Spanish were against any concessions in administration
or doctrine ; the French and Germans pressed for them.
The legates proposed for consideration the following
questions : Was administration in both kinds neces
sary ? Should any exception be made to administration
in one kind only ? Should the administration of the
chalice be conceded to any kingdom, and if so upon
what terms ? Is less grace received through one kind
only than through two ? Should those under ag*e be
allowed to receive ? The Archbishop of Granada held
that the Council of Constanz had settled the whole
matter, and that no compromise was possible. The
prevalent opinion among the theologians in their pre
liminary debates was that Communion in two kinds
was not a divine institution, and that the Church had
full power to order or authorise as it held best. The

1 92 THE REFORMATION
legates, seeing the difficulty of a settlement, would
have put off this special division of Eucharistic doc
trine as a matter of economy rather than of faith, and
therefore to be treated along with reform. The Huss-
Reception ites and members of the Greek Church had
in two been allowed to receive in both kinds ; Paul
kinds. III. had authorised the concession in isolated
cases in Germany much as Clement VII. had been
ready to yield it in 1532; Pius IV. himself was not
disinclined to grant it, and his nephew Cardinal
Borromeo had advised his yielding. From Spain,
where the grant was not demanded, and where ortho
doxy was firm, came the strongest opposition. Canons
were drafted in answer to the questions proposed, but
on this one point it proved impossible to agree. Primi
tive custom was admittedly in favour of administration
in both kinds, but the Church had, it was held, a right
to change the methods of administration as it had done
in the case of baptism ; we may remind ourselves that
the preference of affusion to immersion was a practice
irrespective of climate, and essentially a mark of
original Roman obedience. It was also argued that
priests as successors of the Apostles were alone in
cluded in the original administration of both kinds.
Now it was important that when such questions arose
there* should be confidence between the Pope and his
legate. Gonzaga had thoughts of resigning, and with
drew himself from the debates under plea of sickness,
but the Archbishop of Lanciano, sent from the Council
to Rome, and the Bishop of Ventimiglia at Trent, sent
from Rome to the Council, smoothed matters over.
When the legates were given a free hand, when the
Curia was itself divided, the Pope almost alone being for

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 193
concession, it was possible to evade a settlement. Papal
diplomacy at Vienna contented the Emperor (who had
just consented not to present his Libel of Reformation
to the Council, but — to forward it privately to the Pope
and to confine his demands at Trent to general terms)
with a written promise of a future settlement. Ferdi
nand was hardly decided enough in action to suit his
policy ; earlier training and theological preferences
struggled in his mind against political necessities. The
French were equally undecided, but for a different
reason ; they had hardly determined as yet what policy
to adopt finally with the Huguenots, and so delay was
not distasteful to them. The religious war had now
broken out (March, 1562), and until its close (February,
1563) war, and not diplomacy, was to be attended to.
The Decree De Communione laid down four chapters
of doctrine : (1) Laymen and clerks not celebrating
were not bound under divine law to receive s .
in both kinds. Although Christ had in- xxi.,
stituted this sacrament in bread and wine, June 16th,
He had not by so doing made reception in IS°2-
both kinds compulsory ; nor is reception in both kinds
to be inferred from His discourse in S. John vi. (the
existence of varying patristic interpretations of which
was noted to please the Archbishop of Granada); in
other passages, too, He spoke more particularly of
eating; (2) the Church has power to alter what does
not affect the substance of the sacrament, and to dis
pense with it for the purpose of utility, and of this
nature is the already decreed reception in one kind
only. 1 Corinthians iv. 1 was quoted to prove this
authority, but a criticism by Salmeron, the learned
Jesuit, and Turrianus, who afterwards became a Jesuit,

194 THE REFORMATION
led to a limitation of it as not obscurely seeming to
mean this. Considerable difference indeed appeared in
the interpretation of scripture, and this is only one
instance out of many where the Jesuits departed from
the traditional interpretation. The same theologians
wished to state that the command, " Do this in remem
brance of Me," applied only to the celebrants as
successors of the Apostles, and not to Christians
generally, but this, although approved by Hosius and
Gonzaga, was struck out on the day of session ; (3) the
whole Christ and the true sacrament is received under
one kind, and those so receiving are not defrauded of
any grace (a large number of Fathers, however, thought
that more grace was received under both kinds than
under one); (4) children are not bound to receive,
although antiquity is not to be blamed for sometimes
observing this custom. There followed four Canons
against holders of contrary view. A note was added to
the Canons that the Council deferred the examination
and definition of the two articles — whether the
Church's reasons for communicating in one kind were
so weighty as to permit of no exception, and further,
if for reasons of honest and Christian charity the use of
both kinds were permitted to any person or nation or
realm, upon what conditions it should be done. This
Decree and the Canons were the result of careful con
sideration and redrafting. The Decree on doctrine had
been entrusted to Seripando, Hosius, Patavinus,
General of the Augustinians, and three bishops ; as the
cases of Cyprus and Candia, where reception in both
kinds was usual, and as the example of the French
kings, who received so at their coronation, were brought
up, great care had to be taken in the wording. These

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 195
cases could not be condemned, and yet the closing words
of the second chapter really seemed to assert the sole
rightfulness of the prevalent use against an innovation
which could plead in its favour primitive usage. The
Canons on heresies and the Decree on Reformation
were entrusted to Simonetta, Fatavinus, and two others.
It might be noted that the Bishop of Brescia proposed
to forbid altogether the communion of children.
The nine chapters on Reformation dealt with various
abuses : (1) Bishops were to confer Holy Orders and
the tonsure, and give letters testimonial and Reforma-
dimissory without fee (a stronger assertion, tion-
that to receive voluntary gifts for ordination was
simony, had been struck out), and official fees which
were to be paid only to unsalaried officials were regu
lated (a homely abuse was here struck at which has in
some places passed unscathed through storms of re
formation). (2) No one, however suitable, should be
ordained as a secular in Major Orders unless with a
sufficient benefice or with private means sufficient to
satisfy the bishop (this decision, although widely dis
approved, was held needful to prevent the scandal of a
penniless priesthood dependent upon alms). (3) In
those churches where there was a body of clergy shar
ing the dividends, a third part of the income was set
apart for daily distribution ; thus penalising priests
neglecting the daily services. (4) -(8) Bishops were
to make new parishes or unite old, as needed ; incom
petent rectors were to have vicars, and scandalous
rectors be deprived ; bishops were to visit strictly, and
see to the restoration of churches requiring it. (9) The
name and the use of "questers" were abolished; the
bishops were to publish indulgences, and two of the

1 96 THE REFORMATION
Chapter were to receive the alms concerned without
reward; all were to understand that these proceeds
of an indulgence were to be applied to pious uses.
In spite of admitted abuses, some of the Fathers did
not wish to abolish "questers," but gave way when
they heard that in any case the Pope would use his
power to do so.
Gradually matters settled and the heat cooled down.
Public opinion at Rome grew easier, and political causes
Session tended to make the ambassadors less press-
XXII., ing. Simonetta and Gonzaga were recon-
Sept. 17th, ciied) and the inherent difficulties of the
position made many think that the settle
ment of peculiarly vexed questions (such as residence)
were better left to the Pope. But the demand for
administration in both kinds — even from such strongly
Catholic States as Bavaria — -was continued; and as
this point, along with the Sacrifice of the Mass, was to
come up in the next session, a long interval until
September 17th was allotted. The deputation that
prepared the doctrinal decrees was also to report upon
abuses that had crept into the celebration of the Mass.
Once more the French ambassador wrote home urging
the need for the French theologians to appear. On
hearing that forty were to arrive in September, he
begged the legates (but without result) to postpone
the session.
As so much variance had arisen and the faithful
needed clear guidance, it was held better to define
The Mass the doctrine °f tne Mass at length. It was
elaborated in eight chapters, to which were
added nine Canons and a Decree concerning the things
to be observed and avoided in the celebration of Mass.

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 197
(1) Christ at the Last Supper gave power and com
mand to the Apostles (whom He then made priests)
and to their successors in the priesthood to offer His
Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine,
thus leaving to the Church a visible sacrifice, by means
of which the power (virtus) of the sacrifice completed
upon the Cross (which is here represented) is applied
to the remission of those sins which are committed
daily. (2) Since in the Sacrifice of the Mass the self
same Christ is contained, and bloodlessly offered, as on
the altar of the Cross, the sacrifice is truly propitia
tory, and is therefore fitly offered, according to the
tradition of the Apostles, for the sins, punishments,
satisfactions, and other needs of the living (these words
were objected to by twenty-six bishops as likely to
encourage superstition), and also of the dead in Christ
not yet fully purged. (3) Although the Church is
wont to celebrate Masses for the memory of saints, the
sacrifice is made not to them, but to God alone. Their
protection, however, and intercession may be sought.
(4) The Canon of the Mass, instituted many years ago
by the Church, is in agreement with the words of the
Lord, the traditions of the Apostles, and the pious
ordinances of the Holy Pontiffs. (5) The alternations
of tone, the benedictions, lights, incense, vestments,
and other adjuncts of the Mass commend the majesty
of the Mass itself, and in adaptation to the nature of
man (which is only raised to thoughts of heavenly
things by external means) lift up the minds of the
faithful to celestial things. (6) Although it is to be
wished that the faithful should be present at every
Mass and communicate sacramentally, even those
Masses in which the priest alone communicates are

198 THE REFORMATION
not to be condemned as private, but approved as truly
public, not only because in them the congregation
communicate spiritually, but because they are cele
brated by a public minister of the Church, not only
for himself, but for all the faithful. It may be noted
that great disapproval was expressed of " Missce Skew"
in which there was no consecration, but on account of
ancient use they were left untouched. (7) Water is to
be mixed with wine in the chalice because our Lord
presumably did so : water and blood flowed from His
side : and (Rev. xvii. 15) " the waters are peoples," the
mingling (after S. Cyprian, de Sacramento Galicis, Ep. 63)
thus signifying the union of Christ with His Church.
(8) Mass was not to be said in the vulgar tongue, but
priests were to expound frequently, and specially on
Sundays and saints' days, what was read. The nine
canons were ushered in by a prolegomenon (9) noting
the abundance of errors and the unanimous voice of
the Fathers in condemning them. These ran as follows :
those were anathematised who denied the doctrines
asserted in the decrees above ; also those who said
that the Roman rite, in which part of the Canon
and the words of consecration are said in a lowered
voice, is to be condemned, or that only the vulgar
tongue should be used, or that the mixed chalice
should not be used. An additional Decree dealt with
evils arising from avarice, irreverence, or superstition.
Fees for celebrating Masses were prohibited. Wander
ing or criminal priests were not to be engaged to say
Masses. Music of unsuitable nature was forbidden
(there were some who would have abolished music
altogether). Priests were not to celebrate at irregular
hours or with forbidden ceremonies. A fixed number

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 199
of certain Masses and of candles was to be done away
with as tending to superstition (this somewhat vague
clause" seems to condemn the popular abuse of " the
sacrifices of Masses "). Exhortation and teaching were
to give the Mass its proper position.
These Decrees had been formed after much delibera
tion from July 20th onwards. In August the Pope
asked the legates to yield to the Emperor's demand
for the concession of the chalice. All the imperial
ecclesiastics urged it. There were proposals of using
the concession so as to strengthen the Catholic faith
numerically, for the Archbishop of Prague, Anton
Bruns, saw in it a chance of regaining the Utraquists.
Gonzaga and Hosius favoured it, and gradually the idea
gained ground that it might be made by a Decree
generally, and each particular case left to the Pope for
decision, This was the goal towards which the legates
worked. On July 1st the Fathers had begun giving opinions
upon the doctrine of the Mass before a large audience,
estimated at 2,000 people. The old difference between
Jesuits and Dominicans appeared in Salmeron's asser
tion and Soto's denial that our Saviour gave Himself
for us at the Last Supper. This point, and the expedi
ency of preparing a full statement of Catholic doctrine,
were the only causes of long discussion. Salmeron's
great supporter was Lainez, about whose theology
there was a modern ring, although much of it could
have been found in medieval writers. His erudition
was used with effect. He based his contention on the
ground that we were saved, not by Christ's death
alone, but by His life and death together — a series of
acts to which His death formed the climax. This

THE REFORMATION

view, he held, did not derogate from the Sacrifice of
the Cross. The Spaniards objected that the deroga
tion was real — that the Last Supper was only a sacri
fice of praise and thanksgiving, not propitiatory. As
in the Decree upon Justification, the final decision was
a compromise, embodied in the Decrees and Canons
summarised above, which said that in the Last Supper
Christ offered Himself to God under the species of
bread and wine, but did not affirm anything further as
to the nature of the offering or its relation to the
Sacrifice of the Cross. But the compromise inclined
to the Jesuit view, and allowed variations in theology.
The Archbishop of Granada, followed by some thirty
other bishops, strongly and repeatedly opposed the
Jesuit view that the priesthood was instituted by
our Lord's command, "Do this," advocating the view
that it was rather instituted at Pentecost. Upon no
other points did much discussion arise, so that although
the suggestion to give the Decrees the force of Canons
was not acted upon, the unanimity of the Fathers gave
them a very real force of their own.
The first of the eleven Decrees for Reformation was
general. It ordered all clerks to bear themselves
soberly and discreetly in manner and dress,
tion avoiding all worldly business, keeping them-
Eleven selves far from dice and games. The second
Decrees. ordered bishops to be of legitimate birth,
. e of character approved by superiors, and
ClCftry. l j. ii x. >
certified by testimonials or university stand
ing as fit to teach. The third (much like Chapter III.
of Session XXI.) dealt with the daily distribution in
chapters, and ordered the share of members not ful
filling their daily duty to go to the fabric of the church or

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 201
to some other pious use. Other Chapters provided that
only those should have a voice in chapters, cathedrals,
or collegiate churches who were at least subdeacons.
Anyone nominated to a post must within a year qualify
himself by ordination as needed. In future only those
of suitable age and honest life should be appointed.
Dispensations for use outside the Curia must be shown
to the ordinaries in order to be effective. Legates,
nuncios, and metropolitans, in cases of appeal, were to
follow the procedure as laid down by Innocent IV. and
other Popes. Bishops, as delegates of the Apostolic See,
were to take charge as executors of all pious gifts or
legacies to colleges, schools, hospitals, etc., and should
be visitors, except in those foundations under royal
protection. Administrators, ecclesiastical or lay, of all
churches, hospitals, guilds, etc., were to render yearly
accounts to the ordinaries. Any offender who from
cupidity should wrong pious foundations, should be
excommunicated until he had made restitution and
been absolved by the Pope. These reforms have been
condemned as slight, but they deal with evils most
apparent in the Church at large, and the number of
questions upon them raised by commentators is pos
sibly the best measure of their importance. They laid
upon the bishops heavy but rightful burdens which
their predecessors had often shirked, and it really
mattered little in practice if their authority was noted
as a delegation from the Papacy. Some of the provisions
as to wills and visitations of foundations seemed likely
to lead to conflict with secular powers, but this would
arise not so much on the general principles, for such
powers would be recognised as belonging to the Church,
but in the details of administration and in special cases.

THE REFORMATION

The important question of the concession of the
chalice had now to be faced. A paper giving reasons
The in its favour had been drawn up by the
chalice Bishop of Fiinfkirchen in Hungary, and
presented to the legates for the benefit of the Council.
To satisfy the Emperor and the French, the legates
thought first of introducing two decrees, one declaring
that for sufficient causes the chalice might, in the
opinion of the Council and the Pope, be conceded, and
the other that the authority to concede it should rest
with the local bishops under certain conditions. The
Pope, but not the Fathers as a body, approved this
course. It would have been easy, as proposed, to limit
the concession to the Emperor's dominions (his Italian
fiefs were, however, expressly excluded by his ambassa
dors) ; those receiving it were to accept Catholic doc
trine and worship, and to promise obedience to the
Decrees of the Council ; the clergy were to teach with
the utmost care that communion in one kind was right ;
confession as usual was to precede communion ; it was
also suggested that the administration in two kinds
might only take place on certain days ; special care was
to be taken against possible irreverence in the use of
the chalice, and reservation of the wine was to be for
bidden. The matter came before a general congrega
tion (August 28th), and it was easily seen that the
Fathers would never make the concession. Lainez, in
particular, distinguished himself by a speech in which
he urged the Fathers to disregard the Emperor, and to
cast away the fear of princes. When the voting came
on (September 6th), opinions were divided; fourteen
voted to defer the matter (as the Archbishop of
Granada had recommended), thirty-eight for refusing

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 203
the concession, twenty-nine for granting it, twenty-
four for referring it to the Pope, nineteen would limit
it to Bohemia and Hungary alone (thus excluding
Germany), thirty-one would concede it if the Pope
alone were to execute the Decree and determine its
application, ten voted against it while leaving the
decision to the Pope. The Bishop of Fiinfkirchen
now became anxious that the legates should get the
matter left to the Pope. The legates drafted a request
to the Pope to concede the chalice, " such a concession,
upon condition of pleasing him, being wished for by
the Council"; but (September loth) this was opposed
as seeming to limit the Pope's power of action without
the Council, and was lost by seventy-nine to sixty-nine;
therefore a milder form was adopted. After referring
to the two questions proposed and deferred in Session
XXI., "the whole matter was referred to our most Holy
Lord, who, by his peculiar prudence, should do that
which he should judge useful to the Christian Common
wealth and salutary to those seeking the chalice."
This Decree was carried by ninety-eight to thirty-
eight (September 16th), but only with difficulty, and
by the intervention of Simonetta. This Decree was
added after those on Reformation.
To the Emperor this proposed settlement was dis
tasteful, for a papal concession would have less weight
in Germany than one from a General Council. His
ambassadors, along with those of France (still pleading
for delay), urged the immediate consideration of
reforms in discipline. The Imperialists presented the
" Libel of Reformation " ; the French, a somewhat
similar scheme of reform ; both of them documents
meriting some description.

204 THE REFORMATION
When Ferdinand, for the sake both of his hereditary
lands and the Empire, began a policy of conciliation
_. and tolerance, he instituted a commission
The '
Libel of of bishops and others to prepare for him
Reforma- (September, 1561) a scheme of Reforma-
tlon- tion. This commission proposed to lessen
the power of the cardinals and their number, to divide
them equally among the nations, and take away from
them the election of the Pope. The authority of the
Council — the reassembling of which was just then
looked for — was to be supreme, and to limit greatly
that of the Papacy. The ecclesiastical centre of
gravity was to be moved from Italy, and the Princes
were to undertake the task of reform, redistributing
funds which seemed to the lay eye superfluous. The
significance of the scheme lay not so much in the
reforms proposed as in the assertion of national
independence and a national share in the government
of the Church ; even more significant still was the
right of the Prince to direct a reform — a principle
which filtered from Wiclif into many streams of
thought, and had caused antagonism between Charles
V. and the Papacy.
This report, drawn up by the commission, was obvi
ously too extreme for submission to the Council, and
so the Emperor asked a few advisers (including Staph-
ylus) to prepare another document for the Council.
This followed the lines of the other, but went into
detail. Beginning with the reform of the Curia, it
would have had only twenty-six cardinals. Residence
was to be enforced upon bishops ; simony, exemptions,
and dispensations were to be abolished ; excommunica
tions were to be limited ; the Mass was to be put into

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 205
the vulgar tongue; the chalice to be administered to
the laity; the Service-books were to be revised; the
use of flesh during Lent and clerical marriage were to
be allowed. It was this document that the Emperor
sent (May 22nd, 1562) to his ambassadors at Trent.
At first it was quietly dealt with, forwarded to the
Pope, and a few points in it selected for consideration.
It now reappeared as a definite programme (Sept.).
The French "Libel of Reformation," presented at a
later date (January 2nd, 1563), when the Huguenots
had been for the time defeated, was in thirty-four
articles. It asked that the characters and attainments
of those to be ordered priests and bishops should be
tested carefully; that the teaching work of the Church
should be enlarged by a reform of monasteries and
convents, the institution of frequent sermons, and the
publication of a good catechism ; that pluralities, pen
sions on benefices, and sinecures should be abolished ;
that dispensations for matrimony should be sup
pressed; the vulgar tongue introduced into the services
of the Church ; the chalice administered to the laity ;
excommunications limited; abuses of images, indul
gences, pilgrimages, and relics restrained; diocesan
councils should be held yearly, provincial every two,
and general every ten years. This scheme dates back
substantially to instructions given to the Cardinal of
Lorraine (November, 1562), which are in outline the
same. It will be noticed that the French and German
schemes differ : the Germans dealt more with constitu
tional and national grievances ; the French aimed at a
higher standard of knowledge and thought. For prac
tical purposes, however, they agreed ; and as the Ger
man scheme acquired a renown little inferior to that

206 THE REFORMATION
of the oft-reappearing Centum Gravamina of earlier
years, and the French scheme was printed and widely
circulated, their effect was great. Other States were
known to sympathise with many of the demands, and
a scheme of reform under some ninety heads had been
presented previously for papal consideration by Italian
bishops. Immediately after Session XXII., when the question
was brought urgently before them by the Imperialists
and the French (the latter still awaiting their Cardinal
of Lorraine and theologians, who would, it was
rumoured, make a strong stand for the independence
of the Council), the legates handed over the Libel to
Simonetta and four others to extract definite pro
posals. But the Libel in all its nakedness they
declared hostile to Christian piety and impossible to
submit to the Council. A careful selection of points
was made by leave of the Pope and Cardinal Carlo
Borromeo. Meanwhile the theologians were divided into six
classes, three being set to prepare Decrees on Holy
Orders. Orders and three on Matrimony. The
Seven heretical propositions it was proposed to
Canons. condemn were that (1) Holy Orders are not
a sacrament, but (2) a human figment; (3) not one
sacrament with lower orders as steps to the priest
hood ; (4) there is no hierarchy, but all Christians are
priests, and a call from the people is necessary; a
priest can again become a layman ; (5) there is no
priesthood in the New Testament, and the only minis
terial office is that of preaching : v6) unction and the
other ceremonies in Ordination are vain, and the
Holy Ghost is not given in Ordination; (7) bishops

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 207
are not superior to priests, and can confirm and ordain
no more than priests; those who have not had canonical
ordination can be true ministers of the Word and
Sacraments. In discussing these various heretical pro
positions the speeches of the theologians were limited
(not for the first time) to half an hour, as prolixity
had been growing of late.
Many vital questions arose out of these proposi
tions. Holy Orders could not be discussed without
episcopacy, and thus by a side wind the old point of
residence came up again, as well as the relation of
bishops to the Pope. The Spanish bishops wished to
assert the divine origin of episcopacy, and asked the
legates to introduc3 a Decree drafted by Cardinal
Crescenzio at an earlier date asserting the episcopate
to have been instituted by Christ, and to be, by divine
law, superior to the priesthood. The legates were
able to reply that they were merely discussing points
raised by heretics, and not other speculations. The
Confession of Augsburg, they argued, recognised the
divine origin of episcopacy, but erred on the acces
sories. Passages brought from heretical works were,
as Seripando (now acting as chief legate) thought, not
aimed at episcopacy in itself, but against the rightful
ness of existing bishops. In reply it was pointed out
that Calvinism certainly denied the divine origin of
episcopacy, and that the Council had to deal with all
heretical views, not merely those of the Lutherans.
In discussing episcopacy, Salmeron denied that elec
tion had ever belonged to the people, wherein his old
opponent Soto contradicted him, while yet admitting,
however, that this merely administrative point could
be altered by the Pontiff; as to the part the voice of

2o8 THE REFORMATION
the people played opinions differed in debate. But
many agreed that the episcopate was a distinct order
and should be recognised as such. Some admitted this
distinction in order, but found no independent juris
diction, as all jurisdiction was derived from the
Papacy. Others contended that bishops derived both
office and jurisdiction from God, but that the Pope
regulated the scope and use of both. Much discussion
followed. Lainez spoke for one whole day, placing all
jurisdiction in the Pope, from whose grant bishops
derived their jurisdiction. One hundred and eighty-
one other Fathers spoke also on this fundamental
doctrine. Here was raised the question of papal and
episcopal power, upon which had hinged so much of
the history and the development of the Middle Ages.
The original draft of the Canons underwent much
change, and it was seen how many points had been
undecided by the scholastic teaching.
The legates were now begged to fulfil their promise of
allowing the subject of residence to come up with that
of Holy Orders. Philip of Spain was also influencing
the Kings of France and Portugal to join with him in
demanding the removal of the words " on the proposal
of the legates" (jproponentibus legatis) from the Acts.
It was found that the initiative in the hands of the
legates was too strict a limit upon discussion. The
legates pressed the Pope to end the question of resi
dence once for all, and Pius decided that heavy punish
ment should be assigned to non-resident bishops and
curates, but that nothing should be said as to the
divine obligation. A Decree to that effect was sub
mitted in Congregation (November 6th). The former
Decree against non-residence was extended; good

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 209
causes for non-residence were named ; loss of revenue
and incapacity for office were to follow persistent non-
residence. An attempt was also made to draft a new Canon on
episcopacy in which all would agree; but the Spaniards,
to whom it was shown privately, refused it. Bishops
were declared to have been instituted by Christ, but
the omission of any further statement was distasteful
to them. They were willing to declare bishops sub
ject to the Papacy by the law of God, and bound to
obedience ; but they insisted that the divine origin of
episcopacy, derived from Christ Himself, should be
fully stated. The Canon was therefore modified twice.
One form said episcopal jurisdiction was conferred by
Christ in His Vicar, the Roman Pontiff, which jurisdic
tion is derived by bishops from him when they are
assumed into a part of his oversight. But again the
Spaniards objected, and Seripando himself thought the
wording ambiguous — a fault which the Pope specially
wished to avoid. Further alterations again failed to
commend the draft. As a matter of fact, it was
difficult to find a form of words to gloss over a funda
mental difference of view — a truth which Lutherans
and Zwinglians had before this discovered for them
selves. But the arrival of Charles of Guise, Arch
bishop of Rheims and Cardinal of Lorraine Arrival
(as he was called), altered the conditions of 0f the
the Council. The Congregation (November Cardinal
9th) put off the session fixed for November °
12th until his arrival. He reached Trent
on November 13th, along with eighteen French bishops
and theologians. He was a perfect type of the ecclesi
astical statesman of the day ; interested in everything,
P

THE REFORMATION

with a Frenchman's charm of manner and adaptability,
something of real diplomatic ability, and something
also of an ambition to make a great figure. He was
soundly educated, and had the advantage of competent
advisers. A combination of the knowledge of the Sor
bonne and the legal traditions of the Parliament was
just what was needed in the Council. The Cardinal
had been expected with fear and with hope, both
¦tinged with uncertainty. He had no past eonciliar
associations of party or cabals to hamper him, and he
was absolutely without scruples, moral or religious.
He was an accomplished player, and, backed by skill
and ambition, he had now come to encounter the best
players of his day in what was to him a game, not
always to be had, with high stakes and much excite
ment. On his first appearance he described the state
of France, torn by wars and bleeding from religious
discord. A reformation such as the Council might
make could alone restore to her unity and peace. He
had some personal right to speak for the national
Church, for his oration at Poissy had perhaps saved the
situation. Since then his advocacy of the concession
of the chalice and his broad sympathy had given him a
unique position, well suited to an advocate of Gallican
independence. A stormy debate, in which the Bishop of Guadix
(near Granada) argued the papal institution of
bishops not to be essential, giving as an example the
suffragans of Salzburg (confirmed by their Metropoli
tan and not by the Pope), was chiefly remarkable for
the Cardinal's speech in defence of episcopacy. His
general attitude, cautious and diplomatic, was that the
matter of order was in itself difficult : he wished

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 211
therefore to introduce some mention of the imposition
of hands which, strangely enough, had been purposely
left out. He was not anxious expressly to define
episcopacy as of divine origin, for to do so might now
seem an attack on the Papacy just when it needed
support. The new arrival seemed to increase the
difficulties of the legates ; it was impossible to carry
out the command of the Pope, that his power must be
assumed in any definition as fundamental and supreme.
They talked of closing the Council, and he wished it
done, but these questions had to be settled. It seemed
no gain when the legates turned the Council away
from the subject of Episcopal Order to the equally
difficult one of Residence. The debates were so long
that the session fixed for November 26th was further
put off until December 17th, and again and again ;
once more in the course of the delay Congregations
met twice a day instead of twice a week as at first.
The legates sought advice at Rome ; Cardinal
Borromeo sent three forms of Canon VII. (see p. 206)
placed in the order preferred by the Pope. They
might pass a Decree on Residence, which the Cardinals
of Trent and Lorraine had been set to consider, but
it must on no account be defined as of divine obligation.
In the course of the debates an eighth Canon on. the
Primacy of Rome was also proposed, which enlarged the
discussion. In this proposed new Canon the Pope was
described as ruler of the Universal Church (rector
universalis ecclesiae), and to the French bishops this
seemed to imply an inferiority of the Council to the
Pope ; moreover, they denied their dependence for
Order upon the Pope, and were doubtful if they de
pended upon him for jurisdiction. The Cardinal of

THE REFORMATION

Lorraine in all these matters showed a dexterity as
a draftsman which partly explains his power over
assemblies ; a version of Canon VII. proposed by him,
for instance, met with the approval of the theologians
except Lainez, although the Canonists and Simonetta
disliked it. Further postponements of the session
were necessary (Feb. 4th to April 22nd, 1563). The
final form of Canon VIIL stated the legitimacy of
" bishops assumed by " Papal authority.
In March both the Cardinals Gonzaga and Seripando
died (the latter of fever), both of them respected and
Deaths of la-inexitecl. There were intrigues set afoot
the for the appointment of the Cardinal of
Cardinals Lorraine as president, but Seripando's last
of Mantua re^uest had been for a man of ripe years
Seripando an(^ experience. Simonetta was distrusted
March 2nd by the Spanish, and had played too decided
and 17th, a part for him to exercise any great control ;
15 3' Hosius could do little for the opposite reason
that he had been too colourless ; the Cardinal d'Altemps
had previously left the Council for Rome : Cardinals
Morone and Navagero were therefore appointed
(March 7th, 1563). But the change was of less im
portance, as the legates and Lorraine had by this time
spoken frankly to each other, and the influence of the
latter was now thrown not against, but along with their
authority. Canons VI., VII., and VIIL on the Hier
archy in the form afterwards passed were the results
of these negotiations and debates.
Of the new legates, Morone took precedence; his
The new father had been Chancellor of the Duchy
M&ateS- °^ Milan, an(l na(l Deen a°le t° De °f service
Navagero. ^n freeing Clement VII. from captivity;

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 213
the son, educated at Padua, when in Holy Orders
was soon made Bishop of Modena under twenty-one,
and cardinal at thirty - three ; he had mixed in
German politics as nuncio more than once, especially
about the time of the Colloquy of Regensburg, and
none had more nearly approached a reconciliation.
This success was, however, due as much to his lax
opinions as to his skilful diplomacy. He had been a
friend of Contarini's, and sympathised with his views
on Justification ; under Paul IV. he was not only
accused of heresy, but thrown into prison, which he
only left on that Pope's death (1559). Like other
members of this Italian school of thought, he had be
come a zealous Papalist, scarcely trusted by all his
fellow-cardinals ; but his German experience was likely
to help him at the imperial Court. Cardinal Navagero
was a Venetian of good birth, who, as a layman, had
been ambassador at various Courts, and only as an
elderly widower had sought ordination ; he had (1561)
been created cardinal, a dignity he deserved by ability,
literary and general, and had earned by his devotion to
papal interests.
Morone had hardly done more than arrive (April
13th) and deliver his address, when he left Trent
for Innsbruck (April 20th), where the Emperor had
been for some time, and where the Cardinal of Trent,
the Bishop of Fiinfkirchen, and the Archbishop of
Salzburg, as well as the Cardinal of Lorraine (Feb
ruary 12th, 1563X visited him. Ferdinand had been
much influenced by Canisius, and as he gradually dis
covered the incapacity and unwillingness of the Council
to satisfy him, he turned to the Pope. Morone's
journey was to ratify the compact, and thus once

2i4 THE REFORMATION
more papal diplomacy shot ahead of the Council.
But there were difficulties in the position. It was
needful, as the Cardinal of Lorraine advised the Em
peror, to strengthen the n on -Italian element in the
Council, and to ask that the ambassadors should make
their proposals directly to the Council — the latter being
a point which had been urged upon the legates by the
ambassadors at Trent. Philip II. had (March) sent to
Rome Don Luis de Zuiiiga to reinforce Vargas, and
the main point of his instructions (December, 1562)
was to insist upon the sessions continuing until all
matters of faith and heresy were defined : novel
opinions should be sternly condemned, and no conces
sions — such as that of the chalice — should be made.
The Spanish ambassadors at Rome also took up the
complaint of the Spanish bishops at Trent, pressing
for the abolition of the clause which gave the legates
the initiative, so that the Council might really become
free. But the issue of the Council depended upon the
unity of Europe, and that was now once more broken
up. Spain rather preferred to see France divided
into parties, and at war in itself. The peace between
the French king and the Huguenots (March) made the
former desire peace ; he wished the Council to be
transferred to some city in Germany. The position of
Lorraine, after the death of his brother the Duke de
Guise (February 18th, 1563), was altered, and he was
now anxious to bring the Council to a successful end.
He returned to Trent (April 20th) from Innsbruck.
The Pope found a grievance in the peace with the
Huguenots, and the French ambassadors at Rome were
very busy (under a Bull of April 7th some French
bishops were cited to Rome for sympathy with

THE THIRD ASSEMBLY AT TRENT 215
Lutherans). The Lorraine family were striving to
marry their niece, Mary of Scots, at one Differences
time with an imperial, at another with and
a Spanish prince; and so family interests, diPIomacy-
tinged by an infusion of religious politics, brought
England (where a manly queen must either be married
or excommunicated) and Scotland (where a self-seeking
nobility and a Calvinistic democracy might be checked)
within the diplomacy of Trent. For a time, how
ever, Rome held its hand. But when Morone returned
to Trent from Innsbruck (May 27th), he had really won
over the Emperor ; the Pope was to be supported, and
as soon as the Council had ended the chalice should
be conceded; Morone had promised large reforms; the
Pope had issued some more reforming bulls dealing
first with the Rota (September 27th, 1562), and then
(January 1st, 1563) with other departments, notably
reducing official fees. The Emperor was now seeking
for the acknowledgment of his son Maximilian (a
strong sympathiser with the Protestants, and most
desirous of communion in both kinds) as King of the
Romans. He had been elected November 24th, 1562;
had been just previously recognised as King of Bohemia,
and (September, 1563) was soon to be crowned King
of Hungary.

CHAPTER IX
CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL
DURING Morone's absence, when diplomacy was
busy and the theologians inclined for rest (they
had finished the considerations of Matrimony in March,
and by the end of April the Decrees on the abuses in
Holy Orders were ready), things moved slowly. In the
middle of May Congregations began again; the theo
logians presented their drafts. Titular bishops (who
one prelate roundly declared were an introduction of
the devil), the cessation of the Minor Orders, the election
of cardinals were commented upon among other things.
The Cardinal of Lorraine took the part of a moderator,
and mostly set an example of brevity. The Arch
bishop of Granada spoke much as before. On Morone's
arrival many minor quarrels were composed, but the
postponed session was once put off to June 15th, once
again to July 15 th, and finally reached the distinction
of being postponed eight times. Two proposals were
made to facilitate business : Morone suggested that
what was agreed upon should be passed, and the rest
left over : the French ambassador, Du Ferrier, pro
posed to close the Council and leave the task of reform
to national synods, whose decisions should come before
the Pope for approval. Lorraine and some of the
legates approved of this. The Pope was supposed to
216

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 217
be inclined for it; but the course of affairs in France
and the danger from Germany made him anxious to
close the Council speedily. He therefore left the
legates a free hand even in matters touching the
Cardinalate and bishops titular and coadjutors. The
Decrees on Reform were recommitted, the election of
bishops being left over and the condemnation of
titular bishops left out. Before the Canons could
be passed, a conference of leading Fathers had to be
held, at which it was decided to go back to the late
Cardinal Gonzaga's form of VII. (taken with VI. and
VIIL) on the place of bishops. On June 9th these long-
debated Canons were accepted, although even then the
Archbishop of Granada, supported by others, stood out
to the end for an assertion of the institution of the
hierarchy by Christ, instead of its divine ordination
(which might mean, it was said, through session
the Pope). When the session was finally XXIII.,
held the Canons and Decrees passed with JuIy ISth,
little dissent and slight alteration. i;> 3-
The enunciation of Faith, in four chapters, asserted:
(1) The union of Sacrifice and priesthood. Christ,
therefore, gave to His Apostles and to D
their successors in the priesthood the power on Hol
of consecration, of offering and administer- Orders.
ing His Body and Blood, and also of remit- Minor
ting and retaining sins. (2) To show the r ers-
veneration of so great a Sacrifice seven orders have
been in use from the first: among them subdeacon,
acolyte, exorcist, lector, ostiarius. (3) Holy Orders is
one of the Seven Sacraments, since grace is conferred
in it and this is accomplished with words and signs.
(4) Orders confer an indelible character. Not all

218 THE REFORMATION
Christians are priests. Bishops, the successors of the
Apostles, specially pertain to the hierarchy. They are
superior to priests, confer Confirmation, and ordain.
For the promotion of bishops, priests, and other orders,
no consent or calling by people or secular power is
needed. An incident in the preparation of the Decrees on
Holy Orders illustrates the Council's difficulty of being
sufficiently detailed for precision, and yet not being
too minute. The legates had prepared a long Chapter
on the seven orders, and when this left the hands of
the theologians it included long definitions of the
duties of each order. This involved much detail, and
the minuteness was reasonably objected to. The Car
dinal of Lorraine suggested that the care of the details
might well be left to the bishops, who should now be
charged to exercise a stricter control. The lengthy
provisions were therefore left out. But where, as in
many matters touching benefices, new regulations were
desired, a like course could not be taken. A large
assembly, in which nearly every member understands
even the details of the matters treated of, finds great
difficulty in coming to a conclusion.
In explanation of the Conciliar Decree under Paul
III., it was explained that all, even cardinals (this
extension to them was due to the Cardinal
tion °f Lorraine), should reside, unless for causes
approved by the Pope, the Metropolitan, or
his deputy. Absentees were to receive no income.
All those appointed to cathedral churches, even
cardinals, are to receive consecration within three
months of their appointment, under pain of losing
the income. Six months' delay shall entail depriva-

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 219
tion. Major and Minor Orders were guarded by rules
as to the need of testimonials, character, knowledge,
and vocation. Fraudulent withdrawal from secular
jurisdiction by receiving the tonsure is to be guarded
against. None under fourteen years of age, even if
in Minor Orders, is to receive a benefice, or to have
benefit of clergy (i.e. exemption from secular jurisdic
tion) unless holding a benefice and wearing the ecclesi
astical dress and tonsure. A knowledge of Latin was
demanded, except in special cases, for Minor Orders.
The lives of those admitted shall be watched over, and
none shall be admitted who is not likely to proceed to
Major Orders. For promotions in Orders proper inter
stices of time are to be carefully observed. Ages for the
Major Orders were fixed — twenty-two for subdeacon,
twenty-three for deacon, twenty-five for priest. Strict
regulations as to testimonials were made, and the
lives of those ordained were to be marked by piety,
continence, and frequent communions, special em
phasis being laid on the sacredness of the priesthood.
No one shall be ordained in future unless attached
to a particular church, and no wandering priest
without letters from his bishop shall be allowed
to celebrate. To further the restoration of the Minor
Orders, which in many places had fallen into disuse, no
unordained person was to perform their special offices.
Bishops were to try and restore the Minor Orders in
parishes of sufficient population and revenue, assign
ing stipends to those ordained. Failing unmarried
clerks, competent married men, if not twice married,
and if wearing the tonsure and clerical dress, might be
employed. All cathedral churches are to be bound to
keep and educate a number of youths of the diocese

THE REFORMATION

proportional to their means and the size of the diocese,
The new *n a neighbouring college chosen by the
diocesan bishop. These youths are to be twelve
semi- years old and likely for the ministry. A
preference is to be given to the poor.
Wealthy children desirous for the training are to pay
for themselves. The boys are to wear the tonsure and
clerical dress, attend Mass daily, act as servers, confess
once a month, and receive the Communion at their
confessor's direction. Their education is to be liberal
as well as ecclesiastical. These seminaries are to be
under the bishop's care. Besides funds set apart for
education, a certain part of capitular, parochial, and
all ecclesiastical revenues is to be taken for their
maintenance. These rules were to be enforced. To
lessen the cost of teaching, ordinaries may compel
scholastics to teach as they direct. In cases of poverty,
one seminary may be provided from two churches.
In case of a wealthy diocese, two seminaries may be
founded. Provisions for ecclesiastical order and for education
had once been ample, but had been corrupted or laxly
Effect of enforced. These difficulties were now in-
these tensified by the number of monks who were
Decrees. leaving the monasteries and by the contro
versies of the Reformation. These Decrees were a
fair endeavour to reform abuses. The existence of
unfit priests, scandalous ordination, clerical exemption
from jurisdiction, negligence of bishops— all of which
had wrought untold mischief — were now to be re
strained. The place of the old monastic schools was
now to be supplied by these episcopal seminaries. It
was a return to primitive and early medieval models,

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 221
although the boldness of the financial provisions sa
voured of an age of secularisation of benefices. Hence
forth, if bishops did their duty, there could be no lack
of fit ordinands. On the one hand, some have traced
the greater coherence of dioceses, the heightened re
spect for the priesthood, the higher standard of clerical
life, to this particular Decree for the founding of semi
naries. On the other hand, some have seen in it a
cause of the too common separation between clergy
and laity — an aloofness, sometimes exaggerated, of one
from the other. Probably there is truth in both con
tentions. But of the importance of holding up clerical
vocation before the young there should be no question,
even if individual cases prove failures. For a special
work, needing not only gifts of disposition and learn
ing, but also of spirit and self-sacrifice, a special
education is needed. The fault, if fault there were,
did not lie here. It was easy for small institutions to
drift into a low idea of education. The seminaries
could not rise higher than the aims of the bishop him
self, and were liable to abuses not so likely to arise in
larger colleges. Seminaries have done an immense work
in providing for the needs of the Church ; but they
have too often suffered from an unreality of tone and
a too great conservatism in methods. The conception
of their foundation was happy: the method of their
administration has sometimes fallen short of it. No
provision did more for the efficiency and the adequate
machinery of the Church, but there was need of a con
stant adaptation to the needs of the time and of a
high ideal of education, spiritual and intellectual.
Some German dioceses, and notably Wiirzburg, were
soon to become illustrations of the working of this

222 THE REFORMATION
Decree, and it fitted in well with the work of the
Jesuits. When so much had been done, the legates began to
think of closing the Council speedily, but De Luna
(the Spanish Ambassador) opposed this, and
arising- " a^so Morone's scheme (afterwards adopted)
of preparing business by two small com
mittees of theologians and Fathers respectively. Since
the beginning of the year directions from Rome had
enjoined upon the legates conciliation of Lorraine, and
their policy had accordingly changed towards him.
His visit to Rome (September 18th) set a seal to the
attempt to come to terms with him. But there was
now arising between the Spanish and the French a
jealousy which was illustrated by an incident of S.
Peter's Day. At Mass a special chair was placed for
De Luna, in obedience to the Pope's command, to
give him an equality with the French representative.
Lorraine and the French threatened withdrawal, and
even a renunciation of obedience to Pope Pius. After
much consultation, the incident was closed, but it
had, however, caused much heartburning, and left
some behind it. It was partly a sequel to this that
the Spanish Court once more raised the question of the
initiative as to subjects, proposing to throw it open to
the Council at large, and even (which would have been
an innovation) to the ambassadors (September, 1563).
But all desired the end, and preparations for the next
session went on, although the Count de Luna pressed
for schedules of reform being prepared by the bishops of
each nation and then discussed. In the end, a French,
a Spanish and an Italian committee were appointed to
digest the business, with a view to an early ending.

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 223
The details of marriage, rather than the general
principles, led to debate. Broadly speaking, the
original view of the Church was to regard
the union of man and woman as a natural
sacrament, sanctified by, and corresponding to, the
union of Christ and His Church. Therefore the
Church blessed it, and grouped around it ceremonies
which not only recognised its holiness, but emphasised
it to the world. From its original sacredness, and
from Christ's words, there resulted its inviolability,
except for some previous obstacle to marriage between
the parties. And, in spite of an increasing Re_
tendency to base the sacredness of marriage marriage
upon the Church's blessing on it rather than after
upon its. sacramental force, the sacredness lvorce-
of marriage had been well taught, and firmly main
tained, by the medieval Church. The Lutherans and
other Protestants had, however, lowered the concep
tion of marriage, and proposals to allow remarriage
after a divorce following adultery, and to allow de
sertion or crime to annul marriage, had found favour
with them. But with one exception, the Council
had no wish even to discuss anything of this kind.
That exception was when some of the Venetian
bishops would have liked to allow remarriage to a
man divorcing an adulterous wife. In the Eastern
lands subject to Venice this was done by dispensation
from the Eastern Church, and they therefore wished
not to condemn the practice. To meet their views,
merely those who condemned the Church for her
stricter view were anathematised, not those who only
differed from her; at the same time the permanency
of marriage even in this case was reasserted as the

224 THE REFORMATION
Church's view when the assertion was of peculiar value.
The Council did much for the world in this one respect
alone. The rarity of divorce in Canada — due mainly
to the influence of the French Catholics in the Province
of Quebec — compared with the frequency of it in the
United States may illustrate the social importance of
its action.
But while the general principles were clear, the
machinery of the details of matrimony was compli
cated, and much in need of reform. The gradual
extension of the doctrine of affinities, natural,
spiritual (by the relation of sponsorship), and irregular
or sinful connections, had complicated Church law ;
the jurisdiction of Church Courts, and the issue of
dispensations, were both at their worst in matrimonial
causes. There were further national differences in use,
such as the English steady denial of the legitimatisa-
tion of children by their parents' subsequent marriage,
and the French denial of validity to clandestine mar
riages. The discussions were therefore of necessity
long, while the matter was of the utmost importance,
social and religious, and especially so in an age of
growing licence and lessened restraint. So keen was
the discussion, and so desirable was it to get a perfectly
free opinion, that all non-voters were excluded from
the final congregation (November 10th).
The much-prolonged debate from July to September
caused an adjournment of the session from September
16th to November 11th, the first General Congregation
on Marriage being held on September 7th. The major
ity thought that marriage, even when not blessed by a
priest, was a sacrament, and that possibly in annulling
a marriage, clandestine or irregular from lack of con-

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 225
sent, the essence of the sacrament might be interfered
with. It thus became with some of the Fathers a
matter of faith ; and Hosius, who held strong opinions
of this kind, would not attend the session itself.
Marriage was declared a sacrament, instituted by
Christ Himself and not by men, and therefore confer
ring grace ; polygamy, dissolution of mar
riage by heresy, incompatibility, or desertion xxiv.
were condemned. Not only the Levitical Nov. nth,
degrees of consanguinity and affinity, but 'Sm
others set up by the Church are valid, and °^.
from some of the Levitical prohibitions the Twelve
Church can dispense. The Church can Canons.
establish impediments to marriage; matri- ChaDters
mony contracted, but not consummated, can
be dissolved by one party making a profession of
religion (i.e. taking vows). The Church had not erred
in declaring that the bond of matrimony cannot be
dissolved by adultery ; the innocent party cannot
remarry, to do which is adultery. The Church can, for
many causes, decree separation a mensa et thoro (some
times loosely called divortium). Clerks who have
vowed chastity cannot marry, and a feeling of a lack
of the gift of chastity (which God is able to give)
does not justify the breach of vows. The state of
virginity, or celibacy, is to be preferred before that
of marriage ; prohibition of marriage at certain seasons,
and the benediction and other ceremonies used by the
Church in marriage, are not superstitions. Matri
monial causes belong to ecclesiastical judges. These
affirmations were made by Canons anathematising
those who maintained opposite opinions.
The Decree of Reformation of Marriage declared

226. THE REFORMATION
the Church's dislike of clandestine marriages, and of
those made without the leave of parents, although
such marriages are valid until declared otherwise by
the Church; validity does not depend upon parental
consent ; as a safeguard triple publication of banns
and marriage by the parish priest before witnesses
in the face of the Church are decreed. Marriage
otherwise was void, and the priest punishable : it
must be celebrated by the parish priest or his deputy ;
any other priest celebrating a marriage is ipso facto
suspended ; a register of marriages is to be kept ; con
fession and reception of the Holy Eucharist are to
precede marriage. Pious provincial customs other
than these are to be kept also. This decree was to be
explained carefully, and published in every parish, and
to come into force thirty days after publication.
Spiritual affinity was restricted by the regulation that
one, or at the most two, of each sex should receive
the infant from the baptism (i.e. as sponsor) ; spiritual
affinity was to exist between them, and the priest baptis
ing, and the baptised, and the parents of the baptised ;
the names of these godparents were to be registered ; so
in confirmation, substituting the sponsor there for the
sponsor in baptism. The impediment of public honesty
was restrained. Affinity arising from fornication was
confined to the first and second degree. Marriage
within the prohibited degree, unless through ignorance,
was to lead to separation, without any hope of dispensa
tion. Dispensations for marriages were to be given
rarely, for good cause and gratuitously ; they should be
granted within the second degree in the case of great
princes only, and for a public cause. Marriage was

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 227
prohibited from Advent to Epiphany, and from Ash
Wednesday to Low Sunday.
In addition to previous Decrees, the creation of
bishops was further regulated. Vacancies were to be
the subject of prayer. Those who appointed
were to remember their responsibilities and t;on
choose suitable men satisfying the Canons. Twenty-
Each province in its synod was to prescribe one
suitable forms of scrutiny, to be approved ap er"
by the Pope. When the scrutiny was satisfied, the
result in a document should be sent to the Pope, who
should then confirm. All the documents should be
examined by a cardinal, with three other cardinals
as assessors. They should report to the Consistory,
declaring their conscientious belief. In the next Con
sistory (unless the Pope should regulate Election of
otherwise) the sentence of appointment bishops
should issue. Like regulations were made and con-
for the College of Cardinals, which was to firraation-
be chosen out of all the nations of Christendom.
Finally, his solemn responsibility in these appoint
ments was urged upon the Pope. It should be noted
that these Decrees as to the confirmation of bishops
were made more precise by Gregory XIII. (1591) and
Urban VII I. (1627). Before 1563 the whole process
had taken place in Rome. The Pope usually set in
charge of it one of the cardinals — for choice the Pro
tector in the Sacred College of the nation concerned.
He or his secretary received the evidence — informa
tion from persons then in Rome for the purpose or by
coincidence — and presented the result (often embody
ing details as to situation and condition of the Church)
to the Consistory, which, as a rule, immediately passed

228 THE REFORMATION
the confirmation. But after 1563 the investigation
was made on the spot by a papal commissary, in most
cases the nuncio to the nation. A protocol drawn up
by him and forwarded to Rome was then considered by
a committee of cardinals, who brought it and their
recommendation before the Consistory. The new pro
cess was less of a formality, and while more satisfac
tory on the local side, greatly strengthened the control
of the Papacy. The improvement in bishops of this
new type is illustrated well by the case of German
dioceses. Provincial synods were to meet every three years,
diocesan every year. Bishops not subject to a Metro-
n f. f politan were to attend some neighbouring
bishops. synod. All bishops were to make yearly
visitations (even exempt churches were to
be visited). In the larger dioceses two years were
allowed for the circuit. All inferior visitors were to
be regular, and report to the bishop. Too great
luxury and pomp in visitations were forbidden, and
their true purpose was emphasised. Fees for visita
tions were limited to food that was needed, or its
equivalent. No appeal or delay was to suspend De
crees for correction made by visitors. No honorary
titles or offices, papal or royal, were to withdraw their
holders from episcopal control. Bishops were to
preach in their own churches themselves or by depu
ties ; in parish churches, the parish priests or persons
chosen. Sermons were to be given on all Sundays and
festivals, and in Advent and Lent daily, or every other
day at least. Children were to be instructed at least
on all Lord's Days and festivals. Grave causes against
bishops were to go before the Pope, others before

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 229
provincial councils. Cases reserved for absolution by
a bishop were defined. Bishops and priests were to
explain the sacraments in the vernacular, if need be,
and in a form to be prescribed in a catechism. A
public penance was to be laid on public sinners, and a
suitable penitentiary, with a prebend annexed to his
office, should be appointed in all cathedrals. Suitable
men were to be chosen for canons and archdeacons.
Any appointed to a benefice were within two months
to make a profession of faith in the presence of the
bishop or of his official, and swear obedience to the
Roman Church. Holders of cathedral offices were also
to do the same in chapter. Regulations were made to
shut out unordained, too young, or absentee holders of
cathedral offices, and the beliaviour of chapters was
regulated. If convenient, half of cathedral offices were
to be held by doctors, masters, or licentiates in theo
logy or law. Provision was made for the union of
parishes where it was desirable. No pensions or
reservations were to be fixed on churches with less
than a certain limit of endowment, and no charges on
stipends except for pious uses. The previous regula
tions against pluralities were repeated. The nomina
tion and institution of parish priests were regulated,
and those appointed had to satisfy selected examiners.
Mandates de providendo (provisions) were forbidden
even where cardinals were to benefit. Expectatives
(grants in expectation) were forbidden, and also mental
reservations (those which specified no name). All
ecclesiastical cases, except those which by Canon or
evocation went before the Pope, were to go first
before the ordinary, and to be decided within two
years. Matrimonial and criminal cases were not left

230 THE REFORMATION
to archdeacons and lower judges, but reserved for
bishops. Legates were not to interfere with episcopal
justice, or even proceed in cases without episcopal
cognisance. Other regulations improved procedure.
Certain words (viz. " on the proposition of the legates
and presidents ") were not to be understood as chang
ing the routine of business in General Councils. (This
was the settlement of the much-debated clause.)
Much discussion had arisen upon the reformation of
princes. The Middle Ages had such a vivid con-
The Re- ception of the Church as an entity — the
formation division between spiritual and temporal was
of princes. so mucn m0re a division between functions
than between the men who exercised them — that the
medieval theory of Church and State was very differ
ent from the modern. The State had to attend to
religion; the King had to act for the Church; although
neither the State nor the King could perform spiritual
functions. The Church had allowed the State to do much
in matters we should call purely ecclesias-
theory-Va tical. It had expected the State to give it
a large and indefinite amount of help in cases
of heresy or those where force was needed. The Middle
Ages could quite well see a bishop acting spiritually
in one of his capacities and acting temporally in an
other ; he had, as it were, a double personality. The
monarch in a State could similarly act in his civil and
in his religious capacities. There was here what some
modern critics would call a confusion, and it seems
easier to us to divide society into sharply defined
classes of spiritual men and temporal men. Church
and State become at the same time opposed corpora
tions instead of different aspects of the same thing.

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 231
Exemptions of clerks from secular jurisdiction, inter
ference of princes in religious and ecclesiastical mat
ters, were natural but opposed results of the medieval
theory. To deal properly with the whole matter of
Church and State there would have been needed a
theory clearly thought out and an adequate review of
existing facts, for medieval institutions and growths
needed some enlargement and some adaptation. But,
on the one hand, the bishops were urgent for a reform
of secular princes — and this meant to them much
interference with the jurisdiction princes exercised
and rights that they had long enjoyed ; on the other
hand, political interests made it a very difficult matter
to curtail the privileges of princes. The Conciliar
theories of the fifteenth century had expressed in the
ecclesiastical sphere the sovereignty of the people.
The growth of the papal monarchy had, on the other
hand, negatived that sovereignty in the same sphere.
There had seemed nothing strange a century and a
half before in a Council all but solely composed of
ecclesiastics legislating for Christendom. Now, as soon
as the Council undertook the reform of princes, they
were told it was wrong they should legislate for the
laity. The growth of national sovereignty was one
characteristic of the day, and it answered with some
thing of defiance to the other theories of the papal
monarchy and Conciliar power.
In July the whole question of reform had been dis
cussed with the representatives of the three nations,
and especially the French and the imperial- Course of
ists. All three were very strong upon the the nego-
reform of the College of Cardinals. Forty- tiations-
two Chapters on Reformation were proposed, but, by

23 2 THE REFORMATION
omitting six, were reduced to thirty-six. Those omitted
concerned tithes, lessening the number of Masses, ex
communication, the prohibition to the clergy of ming
ling in secular matters, the control of the revenue of
vacant benefices, and impediments to reform caused by
secular persons. The last of these was the celebrated
Reformation of Princes. These thirty-six Decrees were
considered (August 21st), and reduced to twenty, to
which a twenty-first, explaining the "proposal" clause,
was added (p. 230). The Emperor and Philip of Spain
protested against the Decrees about the temporal
power. The King of France (with many causes of
complaint, and not now well served by the cardinal and
his bishops, as instanced by their not supporting in the
debates the French demand to allow marriage of priests)
. ordered his Ambassadors to protest, and if their protest
were useless, to withdraw : so they withdrew (Septem
ber). De Luna had added to the embarrassment by
bringing up the question of the " proposal " clause. On
the other hand, one hundred bishops signed an engage
ment to stand aloof from the Council if this reform of
princes were left aside. But when the Cardinal of
Lorraine came back from Rome (November 5th), the
Pope bade the legates close the Council speedily, pass
the Decree on clandestine marriage as best they could,
and deal firmly with difficulties. As to the reforma
tion of princes and jurisdiction over ecclesiastics-, they
were to renew the ancient Canons and add no ana
thema. If difficulties arose upon other articles, they
were to refer to him, and for the rest they were to
work with the cardinal, who knew his mind. .The
previous Decrees were to be confirmed ; the continuity
of the "Council throughout declared; the- papal power

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 233
was not to be touched: the Council was to ask for
papal confirmation of its Decrees ; the Fathers were to
sign the Decrees, and the ambassadors to do the same
for their masters. When the twenty-one clauses had
been disposed of in September, the remainder came up
for discussion, so that questions arising out of the
Decrees afterwards passed in Session XXV. were now
causing irritation before Session XXIV.
This Chapter proposed for the reform of princes
asserted that clerks were not to be judged save by
ecclesiastics ; all cases touching the Church chapter on
were to go before ecclesiastical judges; tern- Reforma-
poral judges were not to sit upon ecclesi- tion of
astical cases, and clerks admitting their rinces-
jurisdiction were subject to suspension ; temporal au
thorities were not to command an ecclesiastical judge
either to withdraw excommunication or to suspend
judgment; emperors and princes were not, to make
decrees for ecclesiastical persons or cases, but were to
lend their help to ecclesiastical courts ; the jurisdic
tion of ecclesiastical judges was not to be disturbed ;
subjects of ecclesiastics were not to be called before
secular judges in temporal cases. Princes were not to
promise benefices by brief or importune bishops and
chapters for their bestowal. They were not to seize
. the fruits of vacant benefices or appoint to them vicars
or stewards. They were not to force payment of taxes
upon Church property or the private property of
ecclesiastics, except where ancient custom in the case
of war against infidels justified their doing so. They
were not to touch the goods of communities or of the
Church. Proclamations and edicts of Church courts —
especially those from Rome — were to be published at

234 THE REFORMATION
once, and without waiting for a Placet from the State.
The right of claiming hospitality from monasteries
was taken away from princes and magistrates. Any
realm or province claiming exemption from these rules
was to enter the claim within a year, so that it might
receive papal confirmation ; otherwise the claim was
bad. By an addition to the clauses, all previous
Decrees upon clerical exemptions were renewed.
This lengthy and exhaustive Chapter — represented
in the result by Chapter XX. in Session XXV., which
merely recommended clerical communities and the
rights of the Church to the care of princes and re
newed all previous Canons — -would have made per
manent some of the worst medieval defects, and
would have been as ruinous to the Church as to
the State. It was small wonder it caused opposition,
and it was happy for the Church that it all but dis
appeared. But there were minor difficulties to be dealt with.
The Spanish bishops, already in opposition to the
legates on many points, objected strongly
sition *° ^ne manipulation of the Chapter on Re
form by the deputation, composed mainly
of Italians. They further wished to see less indepen
dence given to cathedral chapters (Chapter VI., Ses
sion XXV, was also under consideration now), and
the provision by which criminal charges against bishops
were to be dealt with at Rome seemed to strike a blow
at the Spanish Inquisition. The Portuguese bishops
raised a like objection, and it was felt even more
strongly by the monarchs of the countries. About
this time it may be noted that the rumours of the
intended introduction of the Inquisition into Milan

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 235
caused great anger among the Italian bishops, who
feared for their own jurisdiction. Hence the bitter
ness between Spanish and Italian, due to many causes,
intensified the Italian opposition, fostered by letters
from officials at Rome, on the question of reform. But
the legates showed a great desire to come to terms,
and Visconti, Bishop of Ventimiglia, left Rome as
Papal Ambassador to Spain (end of October). After
many attempts at drafting, a satisfactory wording of
the Chapter on the initiative was happily reached
(p. 230). The legates could not risk having Spain also
against them, as now Du Ferrier, along with some
bishops, had withdrawn to Venice soon after his pro
test (September 22nd). The Pope's action, indeed, was
now very hostile to France. The condemnation of the
Queen Jeanne of Navarre (October 22nd) for heresy
and the deprivation by the Pope of the six French
bishops previously (April 7th) cited to Rome had in
creased the tension between the Curia and France. All
the diplomacy of Lorraine was needed, and he found it
well to come back by way of Venice to procure Du
Ferrier's return to Trent. In this, however, he failed.
(It may be noted that another Ambassador, De Luna,
was never able to leave Trent, for he died there
(December 18th) of an illness ascribed to the evil
effects of fruit and bad water.) Some of these differ
ences were seen on the day of session itself. The
Bishops of Naples and Lombardy expressed their fears
about the Inquisition, and the Cardinal of Lorraine,
by a formal protest at variance with his secret pro
fessions, saved the ancient rights of the French Crown
and Monarchy. But, as a matter of fact, the Gallican
liberties had always been a euphemism for royal con-

236 THE REFORMATION
trol. It was more significant that he also added that
he received these reforms as part of a more general
scheme. In many respects such an expectation was
vain. It seemed, for instance, that, under Session
XXIV., Chapter XIV, annates would disappear, but
they were still levied by right of the papal privilege
under Session XXV., Chapter XXI.
Other incidents about now made it only natural that
bishops should feel their position uneasy. Bartolome
Trials of de Carranza (born 1503) had been a zealous
bishops. and prominent Dominican at Valladolid
Carranza. (where he was professor), in England under
Mary, and in Flanders. He had been Imperial Theo
logian (1546-7 and 1551-2) at Trent, and, after twice
refusing sees, became in 1557 Archbishop of Toledo, in
which dignity Paul IV. readily confirmed him. In
this office he was zealous and able, and gave the last
rites to Charles V. The publication of a catechism at
Antwerp in 1558 brought him under notice (August,
1559) by the Inquisition, the rival Dominican, Melchior
Cano, and Ferdinand de Valdez, Archbishop of Seville
and Grand Inquisitor, having already enmities against
him. His trial lasted two years, and after the priso
ner's condemnation a difference arose between the
Conciliar committee for the Index and the Spanish
Inquisition. His theology was certainly Erasmian,
and was held Lutheran. Tried by the Spanish stan
dard, it was heterodox in 141 propositions ; to the
Fathers at Trent it seemed vague but harmless. A
papal bull had authorised his seizure ; but the Arch
bishop appealed to the Pope. The Fathers at Trent
decided against the Inquisition's judgment, and asked
Pius IV. to interpose. Philip II. resisted this inter-

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 237
ference, and the case went on until Pius V., under
threat of an interdict (December, 1566), forced the
King to send the Archbishop to Rome. Under Gregory
XIII. judgment was at last given : Carranza was to
abjure sixteen articles, perform certain penances, and
remain in an honourable captivity, while his catechism
was forbidden (April 14, 1576). Three weeks later he
died, recanting his errors and receiving papal absolu
tion. That he had not always conducted himself cau
tiously might be true, but he suffered mainly because
he carried opinions on justification, at one time com
mon, into a day when they became both uncommon
and suspected.
The Patriarch of Venice had also brought himself
under suspicion, but his trial by a commission of
twenty-five bishops led to his acquittal (1563). He
too was accused of Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy,
and he too, like Carranza, had brought upon himself
much ill-will by his strict enforcement of clerical
discipline. There were thus difficulties enough without debat
ing the detailed Reformation of Princes. It had been
feared already that some Decrees of Session XXII. on
last wills and appointments might lead to trouble
with the princes, and these fresh topics did more.
There was great activity in private congregations, and
much diplomacy centring in and around the Cardinal
of Lorraine. In the end, two-thirds of the Fathers
approved of the Decrees for Session XXIV., but some
wished to leave the disputed matters to the Pope.
Nor was this done merely in the interest of any theory
or doctrine of his primacy, but rather as a detail of
organisation and as a means of escaping the give-and-

238 THE REFORMATION
take and compromise of a popular assembly. There
were also those who strove, not from any conscious
prejudice, but from a belief in their position, to pre
serve their privileges. Some bishops, for instance,
sought to restrain their metropolitans, and they were,
indeed, now freed from the onerous duty of visiting
their superior metropolitans once a year. There were
also regulars who objected to the power over them given
to bishops — which was an innovation, and one greatly
needed. But everything was now hurrying to an end.
The theologians had already been considering indul
gences and vows, although an attempt to encourage
brevity by demanding their views in writing had
merely resulted in the production of lengthy docu
ments. The next session was fixed for December 9th,
or earlier if possible.
The Pope was greatly pleased at what had been
done, and urged equal speed again. The leading cardi-
p nals and prelates — twenty-five in number —
tions for met and digested the business that remained.
the close The subjects of purgatory, invocation of
°f the saints, and the use of images needed little
fresh Conciliar explanation ; but an utter
ance of the Sorbonne upon images presented by the
Cardinal of Lorraine was highly praised. On Novem
ber 15th the General Congregation began, and the
unanimity now seen contrasted greatly with the differ
ences before the last session. On an urgent repre
sentation by Lorraine that coadjutor bishops were
of great service in France, especially in monasteries
(their existence made easy the abuse of appointing
merely nominal abbots), their office was not abolished;
but their appointment was to be only for grave cause.

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 239
Among the additions made to the original draft were
those on the manner of episcopal life, the possession of
tithes by laymen, the use of excommunication, and the
provision of a record office in each diocese. On refor
mation of regulars twenty-two Chapters were prepared,
and their discussion only lasted four days. By Decem
ber 2nd everything excepting a Decree upon Indul
gence was ready, and it was suggested that this difficult
and contested subject had better be left out. The
news of the Pope's illness that came from Rome made
everyone wish to close, and De Luna's intrigues for
postponement became useless. Some thought the
Chapter on secular princes insufficient, but Session
the insufficiency was intentional. Most of XXV,
the business was agreed to at the session December
upon December 3rd, but an adjournment 3r . 4 •
was made to the next day for everything to be in
cluded. The legates, anxious to please, and conscious
that the subject merited a decision, drafted in the
interval a Decree upon Indulgence; and this again
passed with slight change. It had contained a clause
forbidding the payment of any money for the procur
ing of an indulgence ; but the Spaniards pointed out
that this would apply to the Spanish Cruzada — a form
of "indulgence for Spain the proceeds of which, gained
by the compulsory purchase of copies of the bull, went
to the King. Although some twenty bishops wished
to keep the words, they were therefore struck out.
The zeal of princes for reform did not go very deep,
and both France and Spain had been lately seeking
from the Curia leave to alienate or tax ecclesiastical
revenues at the moment of their sharpest differences
with it.

240 THE REFORMATION
The Decree on Purgatory referred to the previous
Decrees of Sessions VI. and XXII. affirming the exist-
ence of Purgatory, wherein souls are helped
by prayer of the faithful, especially by the
Mass. This doctrine was' to be explained to congrega
tions, but more subtle questions or uncertain points
were to be left aside. Anything savouring of filthy
lucre was to be prohibited. All works of piety for the
faithful dead were to be duly and devoutly rendered.
Invocation The intercession and invocation of saints,
of saints. the honour paid to relics, and the use of
images were also to be expounded. Saints were to be
invoked and their aid asked in gaining benefits from
God through Christ, the only Redeemer. The relics, a
source of benefit to men, were to be honoured. Images
are to be retained (specially in churches) and honoured,
not as having any virtue or divinity in themselves, or
to be invoked, but because honour paid to them is
referred to their prototypes. Paintings and other re
presentations instruct people, and miracles also attest
their value. All abuses as to images, by which false
doctrine could be taught, the Council wished abolished.
Unlettered people were to be taught that images could
not represent the Divinity. All superstitions, all filthy
lucre, in the invocation of saints, relics, and images,
were to be abolished. A too sensual beauty in works
of art and revelling or drunkenness in celebrating
•saints' days were to be avoided. To gain these ends
bishops were to use diligence. No unusual image is to
be placed, no miracle acknowledged or relic recognised
without episcopal leave, and assessors may be called in
by the bishop in deciding such matters. If questions
arise or an abuse has to be ended, the bishop shall

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 241
await a provincial council. Nothing new or unusual
in the church shall even then be done without consult
ing the Pope. It may be noted that in these two
Decrees signs of hasty drafting are to be found, not
only in their inconclusiveness (strangely at contrast
with some earlier Decrees), but also in the mingling of
condemnations of erroneous views with enunciation
of those affirmed as true. This method was not so
clear as that of separating the views condemned in
Canons. Opinions will always differ as to the state of monas
teries before the Reformation. The diversities of coun
tries, orders, and local influences should be
allowed for, and when that is done general- tion of
isations are obviously dangerous. Monastic regulars.
Orders, like everything else, need both re- Twenty-
organisation from time to time and a constant JT°
renewal of their early enthusiasm. In many
cases the needs they had once satisfied had either dis
appeared or changed their shape, and so the Orders
lacked their former stimulus. But it was admitted —
and no one had put the case more strongly than had
monastic reformers, and nowhere was it stated more
vigorously than at Trent — that reform was needed:
not the reform the German princes spoke of, which
was merely secularisation or diversion of funds, but
a reform based upon spiritual objects and discipline of
life. It was now decreed that all regulars were to
obey their Rule strictly. Superiors, in chapters and
by visitations, were to see to this. Individual monks
were restrained in their possession of property. The
number of inmates of a monastic house was to depend
on its income, and no new bouses were to be formed

242 THE REFORMATION
without the leave of the diocesan bishop. Closure was
to be strictly enforced, and elections of superiors were
to be by secret voting. All monasteries directly under
the Pope, must within a year form themselves into
congregations with suitable statutes. If they did not
carry out this Decree, the Metropolitan was to see to
it. The control of bishops over exempt nunneries,
monastic parishes, and other details, was made stringent.
Episcopal censures, interdicts, and feasts were to be
published and observed in their churches by regulars.
All those disputes about precedence which so often
cause scandal were to be settled by the bishop. No
man or woman was to make profession under sixteen
and before a year's probation, and renunciations of pro
perty were carefully guarded against abuse. Girls above
twelve wishing to take the habit were to be questioned
by the ordinary then and before making their pro
fession, and left free from coercion. Since abuses sprang
from maladministration in monasteries (most of the
evils, we may note, could really be traced to this), the
Council trusted that the Pope would make it his care
to see that over those monasteries held in commendam
there should be appointed regulars of the same order
and suitable for their task. All these Decrees were
to be carried into effect at once.
Considering the disorder into which monastic life
had fallen through the numbers breaking their vows,
the above scheme was a capable and conscientious
effort at reform. It greatly enlarged the powers of
bishops and lessened the evils of exemption. So far
as legislation could, it restored discipline and the
observance of rules. One of the regulations, such as
that which made the numbers of inmates in the poorer

» CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 243
houses depend upon their revenue, struck at real evils,
for it was in the smaller houses that evils mainly
flourished. Others, such as those for visitation and
administration, were meant to prevent the financial
disorder and the embezzlement which had ruined so
many houses. But these Decrees, however admirable
and far-reaching, needed a high ideal on the part of
those administering them and of those governed. It
was of the utmost importance, therefore, that they
were issued just when the ideals of episcopal care and
spiritual life (as seen in the widespread monastic
revivals) were being greatly raised. The Decrees for
reformation strengthened the hands of those who
were raising these ideals. They, in their turn, pre
vented these Decrees becoming what other Decrees,
as well meant if not so thoroughgoing, had often
become — a dead letter. These Decrees were not in
themselves a monastic revival, but they reflected the
spirit of a revival which had already begun.
There' were many things in the life of the secular
clergy, too, that had not yet been reformed ; and these
were next dealt with. Cardinals, bishops,
and all holding benefices were to shun reforma.
nepotism and live simply, remembering that tion of
their lives are a sermon. In the next pro- seculars
vincial synod all the Conciliar Decrees were a" ,
, .jm chapters.
to be received, obedience to the Pontiff to
be professed, and all heresies named in the Canons
anathematised. In future all bishops were to do the
same in their first provincial synod. All beneficed
clerks and those with University charges were to take
oaths to these Decrees. Universities were to be cor
rected and reformed by the visitors, and the Pope

244 THE REFORMATION *
would take care this was done for Universities under
him. Excommunications were to be sparingly used,
and when meant as enforcements of admonitions by
bishops only ; in criminal cases only after two moni
tions and public notice; interdicts also were only to
be a last resort. In the case of churches where the
number of Masses to be said is excessive, the Bishop or
General should regulate as he thought fit, provided all
the departed founders be commemorated. All condi
tions or obligations attached to all benefices or prebends
should be observed. The procedure of episcopal visita
tions in exempted chapters was regulated. No access or
regress (rights of accession after a vacancy and resump
tion after a term of years) should apply to benefices.
Coadjutor bishops or abbots should only be appointed
by leave of the Pope. Hospitality was enjoined upon
all holders of benefices, and the administration of
hospitals was further regulated. Titles to patronage
must be proved ; privileges not proved were abrogated
except when assigned to cathedrals, kings, and Univer
sities. Unfit persons presented by the patron might
be rejected by the bishop; endowments were guarded
against patrons. Synods were to appoint persons from
whom the Pope should select judges to try local cases.
All judges were exhorted to decide cases speedily. All
leases and farmings out of ecclesiastical offices were
prohibited. Tithes should be properly paid under pain
of excommunication. The procedure against clerks who
kept concubines was regulated: a fine of a third part of
their revenue, and after two admonitions deprivation,
was to be imposed by the bishop. Bishops offending
in this way and not heeding the admonitions of the
provincial were ipso facto suspended, and left to be

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 245
punished by the Pope. Illegitimate sons of clerks
were excluded from benefices or churches connected
with their fathers. Bishops were not to be servile
before kings and nobles, but- to maintain their office.
Canons were to be strictly kept, and dispensation
from them given only for fit cause. Duelling was
prohibited; those involved in it should be excommuni
cated. The immunities and all rights of the Church were
recommended to all secular princes, to be observed by
them, their subjects, and officials. All ancient Canons
in favour of ecclesiastics and the liberty of the Church
and against its violators were renewed. And, lastly,
all things decreed in the Council for reformation under
Paul III., Julius III., and Pius IV., were to be so under
stood as not to touch the authority of the Apostolic
See. (This last was a reservation which covered much
ground and had a wide effect.)
It should be noted that some of these Decrees formed
part of the original forty-two (p. 231) ; some of them
partly repeated, partly enlarged previous Decrees. A
tightening of ecclesiastical authority in the Pope and
in the bishop marks many of them. Some, as that
against duelling and that for clerical immunities,
could not well be enforced without the help of the
temporal power ; but here the Council, like earlier
assemblies, claimed to be legislating for Christendom.
Not only, however, were there lands where its au
thority was not regarded, but the temporal power
everywhere was taking up a new position with regard
to the Church's commands. It was otherwise, how
ever, with the Decrees dealing with persons or matters
solely within the ecclesiastical sphere. Here, even if
the Decrees (as those against concubinary priests and

246 THE REFORMATION
those enforcing the Canons) only repeated medieval
Decrees, it was certain that they would be now more
strictly kept. The Council, in spite of difficulties, had
tried to give coherence to the Church organisation. It
had benefited by the spectacle of religious organisa
tions, especially the Calvinistic, which had a logical
order and a certain effect. Henceforth the spirit of
the Spanish Church and its ideal of strictness were
to be those of the whole Roman obedience. But many
allowances had to be made for local variations and
customs. The exception by which the papal authority,
capable of great uses, and equally of great abuses, was
left untouched was so large that the working of the
Tridentine scheme could not be expected to equal its
ideal. But there was hardly a blemish of ecclesiastical
life that was not dealt with. It remained a fair
attempt at a large legislation.
Strangely enough, the subject of indulgences, upon
which much had been said and written inside and out-
Decree on side the Council, remained to be somewhat
Indul- hastily dealt with. Morone would have
gence. left it out altogether as too difficult. Their
use was defined as ancient, and granted by Christ ; as
most salutary for Christians, and approved by Coun
cils; but moderation was to be observed in granting
them. Desiring to correct the abuses which had led
heretics to blaspheme, the Council abolished all evil
gains for obtaining them — a prolific cause of abuse.
As to all other abuses, proceeding from superstition,
ignorance, irreverence, or other cause, all bishops were
to collect them and report them in the first provincial
synod. After review there they were to be reported
to the Pope, so that he might ordain suitably. The

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 247
gift of indulgence would thus be piously and incor-
ruptly dispensed to all the faithful.
Chapter IX. of Session XXI. had dealt with the
questers and regulated the publication of indulgences :
the present Decree added somewhat. The doctrine
was left as it had been before, and so was still inde
terminate upon some issues. With the disappearance
of the questers the worst abuses went, but the ma
chinery of the last Decree was cumbrous, however
excellent its intentions were. It laid a heavy burden
upon the Pope, which it might have been better to
leave upon the diocesan bishop, but to do this was in
accord with the tendency of papal centralisation. The
working of the Decree had to be left for future history
to test; and even then there were many causes at
work other than the Decree likely to alter, not the
doctrine, but the practice. The doctrine remained as
before. It was to be taken along with the Decree on
Purgatory in the same session, Canon VI., Session VI.,
and Chapter II., Session XXII. (on the Sacrifice of the
Mass as a propitiation). The existence of a purgatory,
penal in its nature, during their sojourn in which souls
are helped by means of prayer (per modum suffragii),
and mostly by the Mass, was asserted : the Catechism
stated it more definitely. But the continued issue of
indulgences, even when freed from the worst abuses,
left the demands of reformers still unsatisfied. The
more primitive view, restricting the indulgence to the
temporal penalty imposed by the Church, was supple
mented by the later medieval view (due rather to
speculation supporting practice) extending it to the
guilt carried into the other world. Nothing but a
distinction clearly made between the temporal penalty

248 THE REFORMATION
(poena) and the eternal guilt (culpa) would have suf
ficed, and this distinction was not drawn. A practice
of purely Western growth (for such indulgences were)
was therefore left existing, but under careful super
vision, and the doctrine upon which it was based was
left broad enough to protect the practice. Further
niceties were put aside and discouraged. The Council
avoided condemning some of its supporters who had
been unwise, but the views of its critics did not here
meet with the anathemas they encountered in other
fields of theology. Those who thought the Decree on
Purgatory insufficient had right on their side. Another
point — the choice of meats — upon which the Reforma
tion at Zurich had begun, and which had been raised
in requests to the Council itself, was also now dealt
with. All Church observances were recommended to
the faithful, especially those tending to mortification
(as the choice of meats and fasts) and those tending to
piety (as festivals). As the Index was all but ready,
and could not now be judged, the work of the Com
mission was (as already noted) to be laid before the
Pope, and by him looked over and published. The
same was to be done with the Catechism and the
Missal and Breviary. No act of the Council and no
assignment of places in it was to create prejudice
among ambassadors or ecclesiastics for the future. And
lastly, it was decreed that as through the malice of
heretics all parts of the faith had been defiled, the
Council had therefore made it its chief care to condemn
the heresies of the day and deliver the Catholic doc
trine. So many bishops could not have been absent
from their flocks so long without hurt, and there was
no chance that the heretics so oft invited would come

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 249

later. Therefore the Council urged all princes to guard
its decrees against the heretics and procure their obser
vance; but as difficulties of reception or explanation
might arise from its decrees, the Council trusted the
Pope would meet these needs by calling to his help
assessors, specially from provinces where difficulties
have arisen, or by a Council, or some other way.
At the close of the Council all the Decrees from the
first were read, and thus the question of its continued
existence was settled. The Fathers were . .
then asked if they wished to end the " Sacred of au the
Oecumenical Synod" and to ask confirma- Decrees
tion from the Pope for all and singular the for
things decreed. The " Placet "—which the f^xx^
Archbishop of Granada alone refused — was
possibly as significant as anything done by the Council,
and closed for effective purposes a controversy of 200
years upon the relations of Council and Pope. Accla
mations after the Oriental model followed, composed
and led by the Cardinal of Lorraine — to the memory of
the departed and the welfare of the living among the
popes, emperors, kings, legates, and prelates concerned
in the Council; to the Council, its Faith and its
Decrees ; to the anathematising of all heretics. All
those present, including proctors of absent prelates, then
subscribed the proceedings, as they had been enjoined
to do under pain of excommunication — four legates,
two cardinals, three patriarchs, twenty-five archbishops,
168 bishops, seven abbots, thirty -nine proctors of absent
bishops, and seven generals. But the ambassadors did
not sign as wished, for De Luna refused without the
leave of his King, and Lorraine's acceptance for France
had no force. Roughly speaking, among those present

250 THE REFORMATION
the Italians were in the later sessions six times as
numerous as any other nation. Some bishops, espe
cially German and French, had left, and when the end
came there was a sense of relief and gladness. The
Pope ordered a thanksgiving, which was celebrated on
December 15 th. It is no strange thing in a large
assembly for contentions to increase and appear in
superable. Then suddenly the mood changes, and in a
short space, sometimes with a loss of what is important,
all the business is settled amid general agreement and
with a sense of relief. It had been so here.
There were some at the Curia who would have been
glad to deny or defer the confirmation given. Pope
Pius IV (whose illness had hastened the close, and
whose recovery speedily followed it) expressed his
genuine approval, and named Cardinals Morone and
Simonetti, along with Cardinals Carlo Borromeo, Cicala,
and Vitelli, to discuss the means of carrying out the
Decrees. Then (by the Bull Benedictus Deus, January
26th, 1564) he confirmed the proceedings in Consistory
at the request of the legates and cardinals. The print
ing and circulating of the Decrees was ordered, and all
difficulties or questions arising out of them were to be
brought to his decision. Bishops were ordered to return
to their hungering dioceses. A little later (August
2nd, 1564) a Congregation of the Council of Trent was
appointed, composed of eight cardinals, and the work of
this congregation has been long and effective. It was
reorganised and made permanent under Sixtus V.
(1588), but its work was, of course, confined to disci
pline. In the sixteenth century it was not as it had been
earlier : for a Council to decree was one thing ; for the

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 251
Decrees to be enforced was another. It was Acceptance
hardly to be expected that all the States of the
would fall into line. Venice, though not Decrees.
always friendly to Rome, strangely enough led the
way, and (although with a reservation in favour of its
customs) volunteered obedience. Portugal, with no
restriction, and Spain, with a detailed reservation of
royal and ecclesiastical privilege, followed (July 2nd,
1564) ; then Sicily, Flanders, Naples (with reservations
of the royal power) ; Poland (August 7th, 1574) ac
cepted them by the King, although the Diet refused
them because the country had not been represented at
the Council. The Swiss Catholic Cantons accepted
them, and the Emperor did so for his hereditary lands,
but not for the Empire. Germany was too much
divided. The spiritual Electors did not, as the Em
peror, favour the concession of the chalice. This con
cession, made by the Pope (April 16th, 1564) at the
discretion of German bishops, is dealt with elsewhere
(Chapter XL). But (1566) the Elector of Mainz de
clared, in spite of the Emperor and the Nuncio Commen-
done, that the Empire could not receive all the Decrees
on discipline, although they accepted those on faith
and worship. France too did not go so far as the
Cardinal (whose influence was now small) had promised.
The Decrees were never published there, and some of
those on discipline were objected to. The Parliament
of Paris gave its reasons in detail : some Decrees were
against the rights of the Crown, others against the
liberty of the Gallican Church. In 1565, when both
Pope and Spain urged consent, it was again refused.
The bishops, however, were allowed to carry out in
their dioceses all Decrees not against the national laws

252 THE REFORMATION
or customs, and the Profession of Faith was generally
made. Provincial synods at Rheims, Cambrai, Rouen,
Tours, Bordeaux, Aix, Bourges, and Toulouse adopted
the Decrees in substance. They were thus ecclesiasti
cally binding upon the clergy. Clerical assemblies or
their representatives sought to gain the enforcement
of the Decrees by the State no less than seven times
before 1596, but they were unsuccessful. This differ
ence continued to be a grievance between the King,
the Papacy, and the Gallican Church.
The reform of the Breviary, which the Pope had
now to carry out, had long been needed. The older
Roman office for seculars, dignified and well
e . proportioned, had long been superseded by
a more modern office, appearing in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, marked by shorter
lessons, often from inferior writers ; by such a number
of saints' days as to obscure the seasons, and by a freer
use of hymns. Under the Avignon Popes, and largely
through Franciscan influence, this later Breviary was
authorised. It needed simplification : it was over
burdened with special offices for festivals, overshadowed
by additional offices (the Little Office of Our Lady and
the Office of the Dead) ; its rubrics were incomplete
and unsystematic. It was this office that the cathedral
chapters so neglected attending, and so often scamped
when they did attend. The Council saw the need of
reform, but others had seen it before. A higher stan
dard of devotion among the secular clergy ought to be
accompanied by a better book of devotion for them
to use.
The Humanists had wished for reform of the Brevi
ary, but mainly in the direction of more Ciceronian

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 253
Latin and greater elegance. Leo X. gave the task to
Ferreri, Bishop of Guardia, who as a begin- Fcrrcn
ning of it, published (1525), with the ap- Quignon.
proval of Clement VII., a hymnal, pretty
in its conceits, classic in its language and mythology.
After Ferreri's death Clement VII. asked Cardinal
Quignon (a Spanish Franciscan, General of his Order)
to reform the Breviary after ancient models, purging it
of prolixities, and making it better for use. The new
Breviary appeared (1535), first in a tentative form,
criticism of which was welcomed and freely given, and
it passed through six editions within two years. The
object aimed at now was edification and instruction
rather than devotion — objects which are not, of course,
inconsistent, but which are best reached by different
means. The German Reformers were admittedly
stronger than the Catholics in teaching and preaching.
This was admitted by Contarini at Regensburg in
1541, although thirty years later the balance shifted.
Quignon's Breviary was, on the whole, more Protestant
than Catholic in its tendencies of this kind. The
strength of the Church lay more in its system than its
men, and its system of prayer was what Quignon dis
regarded. With many devout composers since, he dis
regarded liturgic tradition. The versicles and responses
were left out ; and even antiphons (perhaps better
spared) did not appear in the first edition. The Psalms
were more uniformly distributed, on a plan which was
edifying, but not ancient. The Lessons, three in num
ber, were biblical, with the exception of one on saints'
days and days with a proper Mass. The changes on
saints' days were less marked. Edification was thus
the object mainly sought rather than a formal habit of

254 THE REFORMATION
devotion. It has been called "a Breviary for busy
people," and, in spite of its defects, " a Shortened Ser
vice " ensured popularity at the cost of devotion. Paul
III. gave leave to many of the secular clergy to use it
individually, and the Jesuits found it an easy form to
recommend for daily prayer. Canisius, to induce negli
gent clerks to perform their private duty, gained leave
for many to use it. It crept into public use even in
some Spanish cathedrals; but the Sorbonne, traditional
even where tradition was less excellent than it was
here, condemned it. A dislike of it was expressed at
Trent. John de Arze, a Spanish theologian, sent in a
memoir (August, 1551) in which its faults were shown
and a plea made for liturgic tradition. Paul IV. was
like-minded, and (August 8th, 1558) stopped further
issue of the new Breviary. Thirty years before he had
taught his Theatines to seek a reform of the Office
(1529), and his ideal, although different from that of
Quignon, was earlier than it in date. A revision
dealing with the lessons and hymns was made, but not
published, and afterwards the Spaniards (November,
1562) asked Pius IV. 'to take it as a basis of reform.
Councils both in France and Germany had also sought
for change. Pius therefore asked the Council to ap
point a Congregation to consider it. When the Council
closed and handed the unfinished task to him, he called
Marini, Archbishop of Lanciano, Calinio, Archbishop of
Zara, and Foscarari, Bishop of Modena — three of this
Congregation — to Rome to complete with the help of
others this great work. From the Bull (Pius V.) Quod
a nobis, which approved the final result, it seems that
the Congregation studied MSS. of early Breviaries,
struck out what was of foreign origin or of, uncertain

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 255
authority, but left the essence untouched. In the end
the Ferial office was less eclipsed by that for special
days, the additional offices were made more occasional,
and the Pope went even beyond the rubric in making
the use of some of them optional. The regular Psalms
were less interfered with, and more of the Bible brought
in. When this Breviary came out (July, 1568), that of
Quignon was prohibited. Local forms in use for over
two hundred years were allowed; and thus Aquileia con
trived and Paris struggled to keep their own local use.
Gregory XIIL, Sixtus V, who thought of an ampler
revision (to cover the Missal), and Clement VIIL added
some festivals. The last, after seeking the advice of
the leading Catholic theologians, asked Baronius to
prepare a memoir on the subject. Learning of all
kinds was now commoner, but a greater timidity of
changes now prevailed, and a Commission suggested
by Baronius (1592) made but few and slight changes.
Urban VIIL appointed a congregation to purify the
text, and a Commission of four Jesuits, with whom he
worked himself, to amend the Hymnal (1629); but the
result of the latter was not adopted everywhere. The
form as left by this Pope has maintained itself since,
although, notably in France, wishes have been ex
pressed for further change. The importance of the
work thus ended cannot be overstated. Some of
the Reformation bodies which had thrown over tra
dition in forming new models of their own have
since felt a need, even a longing, for more liturgic
forms. It has been increasingly found that devotion is
a matter of habit, and habit a thing that must be
formed. The Roman Breviary, once in danger of
excessive change, has handed down to less devout

256 THE REFORMATION
ages the discipline of more prayerful days, and its
piety has appealed to pious souls beyond the limits
of its own communion.
The revision of the Missal .appeared later (1570).
There had been much variety in local use,
Missal as we^ as vari°us texts; but there was less
change made here than in the Breviary. It
too underwent revision under Clement VIIL (1604)
and Urban VIIL (1634).
In nothing more than in Church music had the
weakness of the fourteenth century and the frivolity
Church of the Renaissance shown themselves. The
Music. most religious minds, and not even only
Palestnna. the most severe among them, thought that
the music of the day could not be harmonised with
religion, and the sternest Catholic reformers (here as
elsewhere curiously akin to Puritans) talked of its total
disuse. The Emperor Ferdinand, speaking for the
Empire, had complained of the singing of the day.
And at the same time Lutheranism, more open than
Calvinism to the influence of outside helps to religion,
was forming its simple congregational music. The
Council spoke strongly upon the defects of Church
music, and Pius IV. appointed a Commission to con
sider the question. The musicians then, as often since,
regarding the voice as secondary, declared that its dis
tinctness and appropriate accompaniment could not be
furnished artistically. But the Commission did not
despair : Palestrina, at S. Maria Maggiore, formerly of
the Julian Chapel at S. Peter's, but ejected by Paul IV.
as a married man, was asked to prepare a Mass at once
religious and artistic. His well-known Missa Papae Mar-
celli prevented a divorce between the Church and music

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL

257

(1564). His Improperia — Passion music — has perhaps
gained an even higher praise ; and other composers,
Italian and Spanish and Belgian, carried on worthily
his traditions, and rivalled the Flemish musicians of
the fourteenth century. About 1600 Opera began to
make Italy its home, and had not Church music been
reinforced by the compositions of Palestrina's school,
along with the biblical oratorios founded by S. Philip
Neri, even worse things might have been in store for it.
Happily, the severer type of earlier days, into which
life was breathed by the counter-reformation, lived on
to show that ecclesiastical tradition and congregational
singing could go together. National schools of music
have since then given some rich gifts to religion and
art alike, but they have been slow to learn the infinite
possibilities of art inspired by devotion. It was his
vision of these, as shown in his motto, Domine, illumina
ocidos meos, that made Palestrina able to preserve for
us the tradition of sacred music.
The extent to which plain instruction had been
given parochially in the Middle Ages is often under
stated. But the frequent inefficiency of the
clergy and their neglect of rules had made Catecj,jgm
the provision ineffective. On the other
hand, the Catechisms — on a somewhat larger scale,
although formed after medieval models — of the Pro
testant teachers had great effect, and were most efficient
means of teaching a plain morality. The Catechism of
Canisius is mentioned elsewhere, but the issue of the
Roman Catechism, smaller in circulation, although more
official, had been handed over by the Council to the Pope.
Pius IV. entrusted its preparation to the three prelates
already at work upon the Breviary along with Fureiro,

258 THE REFORMATION
a Portuguese theologian. All these, except Calinio,
were fellow-Dominicans of the Pope's, and the Cate
chism — whether a draft laid before the Council was
used or not — favoured the Dominican views on Grace
where they were opposed to the Jesuits, and thus met
with prejudice. Carlo Borromeo and Poggianio revised
the Latin original, which was published under Pius V.
in September, 1566, and afterwards largely translated.
It was intended for the purpose of instruction in
accordance with the Decrees, was lucidly and well
drawn up, and (1572) was divided into four parts,
treating of the Creed, the Sacraments, the Decalogue,
and the Lord's Prayer. Its definition of the papal
power went perhaps a little beyond the documents of
the Council in terming the Pope Universal Pastor and
in some of its expressions. The scheme and scope of
the work was hardly what the Decree (Session XXIV,
Chapter VIIL) seemed to imply, being more for the
teacher than the taught ; but the translation into ver
nacular had been expressly ordered. Cardinal Bellar-
mine also published (1603) another Catechism, used
largely by missionaries. The Roman Church was thus
meeting its opponents on their own ground of popular
instruction with excellent weapons and great results.
Another work the Council had enjoined (Session IV.)
was the purification of the Vulgate: the authority
given to this version, due partly to the ex-
Vulgate, isting stage of scholarship and partly to the
traditional love of its rhythm, was unfor
tunate, and played into the hands of the school that
opposed Erasmus. After the invention of printing,
many individuals had edited the Vulgate; between
1471 and 1599 no less than 179 Latin editions, including

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 259
the Complutensian, appeared, some of them translations
independent of the Vulgate. There were thus many
texts and much uncertainty. Pius IV. created a Con
gregation of Cardinals and Theologians pro emendatione
Bibliorum, but its scope was limited to the recovery
of the original text of the Vulgate, and its work went
on intermittently until 1588. Various editions had
appeared (1455-1541). Meanwhile the theologians
of Louvain (where an edition had been published
in 1547) had been working at a critical edition of
wider scope which appeared (1573) at Antwerp, and
was reprinted more than once. An edition of the
Septuagint, under the patronage of Sixtus V, was
printed at Rome (1587), and the Commission which
produced it was afterwards set to the Vulgate (1588
onwards) : the original Vulgate, the Louvain text, and
also deviations from the correct Hebrew and Greek,
were considered, and the result has been held better
than the Louvain edition itself, which was the best up to
that date. But Sixtus V. was dissatisfied with it on
the score of its deviation from that edition, the critical
defects of which he could not appreciate ; he therefore
made a new edition (published 1590) himself, with the
help of Toletus, a Jesuit, and Rocca, an Augustinian.
The introductory Bull (Aeternus ille) prescribed this
edition as the true, legitimate, authentic, and undoubted
exemplar, to be used solely in public and private, and not
to be superseded. The work and the correcting of the
proofs was a great enjoyment to him, but his scholarship
was not equal to the task, and great controversy upon
papal power and infallibility has since then raged around
it. The Congregation de emendatione complained (1591)
to Gregory XIV. of the disregard shown to their work

260 THE REFORMATION
and of the defects in the Sixtine edition, a prohibition
of which was recommended by some of them. Bellar-
mine tells us that he on the other hand recommended
a buying up of the copies and the issue of a new
edition, under the name of Sixtus, with the correction
of the numerous mistakes as if mere printer's errors, and
not due to Sixtus himself ; the course he commended,
with his reasons for it, was more creditable to his
regard for the Papacy than to his candour or accuracy.
A new Commission (February, 1591) was appointed,
and the result of their work after a supervision ap
peared under Clement VIIL (1592), but it too contains
many misprints. The intention of the Council in
this matter has been sometimes misrepresented: an
authorised version was to be prepared, which was
to be both accurate and official, but the discourage
ment afterwards shown to critical labour lay not
with the decree itself, but with a feeling and policy
independent of it, and gradually gathering strength.
But this feeling, akin to that which had opposed
Erasmus, was not shared by the Jesuits of the sixteenth
century. It should be noted that while the list of
Canonical Books (Session IV.) is made a matter of
faith and confirmed by anathema, the chapter on the
use and interpretation of the books has no anathema
attached, although a breach of the restraints upon
printers might make offenders liable to anathema or
fine. Decrees had ordered (XXIV, 12, and XXV, 2) that
all bishops and holders of benefice should make a public
profession of faith according to the doctrine of the
Council. Such a profession was now (1564) drawn
up for the Pope, to whom its preparation had been

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 261
left, by a commission of cardinals. It consisted of
twelve Articles, the Nicene Creed being the _ , .
, , , , • c. n Profession
first, and the eleventh a reception of all 0fthe
things decreed by General Councils, includ- Tridentine
ing Trent. The intervening articles assert Faith.
apostolic and ecclesiastic traditions and all p pius „
the observances and constitutions of the
Roman Church ; that the Scriptures are to be taken in
the Church's sense and interpreted by the unanimous
consent of the Fathers; the seven sacraments, with the
ceremonies attached ; the Decrees on Original Sin and
Justification ; the Mass as a sacrifice ; transubstantia-
tion; invocation of saints; images and indulgences; the
Roman Church, as the mother and mistress of all
churches, with an oath of obedience to the Pope. The
twelfth article affirms the impossibility of salvation
without this Catholic faith, and ends with a personal
promise to retain it and to do the utmost that it shall
be held and taught by all under the person making
the profession. The Bulls Injunctum nobis (November
13th, 1564) and In sacrosancti beati Petri (December
2nd, 1564) made this form binding upon all priests and
teachers in seminaries and colleges. It also came to be
widely used for converts, although other differing forms
have been used for that purpose. This profession
brought home to individuals that definiteness and clos
ing up around Rome and the Papacy which had marked
the Council. There was no longer any vagueness as to
faith or any looseness of organisation. The doubtful
questions of Scholasticism were thus closed, at any
rate superficially, and the power of the Papacy, which
was essentially a medieval growth, was asserted in a
form both popular and clear. The attitude of the

262 THE REFORMATION
Council towards the Middle Ages was marked: it
summed up and emphasised their results.
So much has been said already of the gain in organ
isation and discipline due to the Council that no more
Summary nee(l De added. But it was significant that
of effects important details affecting both worship and
of the ^ life had been left to the Pope for settlement.
ounci . rphis was the upshot of the continued, but
practically settled strife between Pope and Council.
Nothing had been done to make easier the return of
the Protestant dissentients to the Church. Nothing
could well have been done. A generation bred in
Lutheranism had by this time arisen, and the Calvinists
cared little to seek a unity which went against their
theory of an invisible Church. But when the Council
condemned much that was unreal and evil in the life
of the Church and it gradually disappeared, some of
their ground for dissatisfaction had been cut away
from the Protestants. High ideals of life and sound
morality were henceforth characteristics, as they ought
always to have been, of the clerical life in the Church.
One concession, showy but not really important, had
been made — the concession of the chalice. But even
this had been made by the Pope more than by the
Council, and in regard to worship the Papacy had
shown itself, notably in the case of the Breviary, more
open to change than the majority of the higher clerics.
It was more significant that the Curia and the College
of Cardinals remained, in spite of a continued outcry.
almost unreformed. The exhortations of the Council
to the Pope in this matter had been vague. They were
either disregarded or scarcely carried out. Even here,
however, higher ideals of duty had their effect, and the

CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL 263
improvement, carried out by various popes, was gradual
but firm. The Curia and the College of Cardinals
had gained a power not strictly based upon anything
written, but yet a power without which or against
which any pope would find it hard to hold his own.
The power of the Pope had been greatly strengthened;
the view that Bishops were his delegates had been
partly assumed, partly expressed : with the organisa
tion now set up it was easy to develop this view still
further. The Bishops thus lost much of their old
independence. It was now easy to control the Roman
Church, but it was harder to keep its hold upon the
vigorous life of nations. But another power, equally
undefined, but based upon real importance and great
achievement, had now appeared — that of the Jesuits.
And this Society had left the Council with a reputa
tion enhanced and with new paths of activity plainly
marked. It had seemed that Rome had lost its
power upon the Western World. The Council made
it clear how far or how little that was the case.
Politically and religiously — even more so where the
two spheres met — Rome was now far more powerful
than before. The Council of the Lateran and that of
Trent stood far apart in their importance and their
results. The one compared with the other left the
Papacy in a different state and with a very different
forecast for the future.

CHAPTER X
MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS
THE beginning of the sixteenth century saw not
only a widespread wish for reform, but an
attempt to bring it about. This attempt, based upon
the revival of both classical and patristic learning, and
upon the study of doctrinal theology, was
Reform3, most successful in Spain, where it gained
control of the whole Church. Here the
strictest orthodoxy was found joined to a renewed
study of Aquinas and a high ideal of clerical life.
Like conditions existed elsewhere, and, although
apparently less successful in controlling national life
or clerical discipline, were as significant for the future
of the Church.
In Italy the Monastic Orders and the Friars felt the
new impulses; the Benedictines (as already mentioned)
were reorganised (1504). Among the Camol-
Revival dolites — the hermit Order to which Peter
Damiani had belonged — a separate and
stricter congregation arose (1523), under the leader
ship of Paul Giustiniani, a zealous Venetian. Among
the Franciscans Matteo de Bassi tried to restore the
life and spirit of their founder, thus repeating the
attempts of the strict observants which divided the
Order and disturbed the Church politics of the Middle
264

MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS 265
Ages. This old strife between Conventuals (who dwelt
together) and Observants had been ended by Leo. X.
(1517); his allowance to each party of its own General
led to peace. Even among the Observants, however,
there were varying degrees of strictness; a quarrel
with them drove Bassi to attach his followers to the
Conventuals, but as a separate congregation. By
leave of Clement VII., he organised them
with the special view of preaching to, and chins ji^.
working among, the poor, whom they largely
drew to themselves, and whose lives they influenced
widely. These Capuchins, so called from their pointed
hoods, were deservedly popular long before they were
made (1619) an independent Order; the cheek they
suffered when their Vicar-General, Bernardino Ochino,
fell into heresy (1542) was only temporary, and they
have done much for religion in poor and common life.
Akin to the poor in their sympathies, they were also
often like them in their prejudices and superstitions.
In Milan, the Barnabites were organised for mission
and parochial work by Antony Maria Zaccaria (1530).
Placed to begin with under the Archbishop of Milan,
they were afterwards placed directly under the Pope.
It was among this Order S. Carlo Borromeo —
Archbishop of Milan — not only chose his confessor,
but made his retreats. Thus, in Italy, at its worst,
the religious life was upheld, and the licence of the
upper classes was balanced by the increased devotion
of the lower. Of like movements in Germany enough
has been said already (pages 8-9).
But among the higher and more cultured classes
also the same religious impulse was felt. Some fifty
priests of high position at Rome, cherishing a high

266 THE REFORMATION
ideal of life, founded an informal society — the Oratory
_. of Divine Love. Sadoleti, Giberti, Caraffa,
Oratory of with others, whose later paths diverged most
Divine widely, were members of it; many others,
Love; the \[\ie Contarini, were in such close sympathy
with them as to be reputed members; nor
was Rome their only centre, for their influence reached
to Vicenza, Verona, and Venice. But this purely
personal and semi -academic movement took a more
practical turn when (1524) Count Gaetano di Tiene,
aided by his abler friend Caraffa (afterwards Paul IV.),
Bishop of Chieti (Theate), founded the Order of Thea-
tines. The special object of this strict society was to
train parish priests, but a secondary aim was the sup
pression of heresy. Many of its members were noble,
marked both by birth and talents for the high office
they reached, and the Order thus gained an influence
in Italy beyond what its mere numbers warranted.
Among female Orders, the Ursulines, founded (1535)
at Brescia, by Angela di Merici, for the reclaiming of
The Ursu- tne fallen, soon turned to the education of
lines. girls, and after their formation (1544) into
S.Teresa, an Order, spread widely and did well in
their special work. But Spain, as was
natural, gave to the world the most noted type of
monastic female. S. Teresa was both an example of
mysticism, more medieval than modern, and a leader
of monastic reform. She was herself a Carmelite, and
founded (1562) a new Order of bare-footed Carmelites,
which, owing to her mysticism, met with opposition.
Medieval mysticism had, on the one hand, touched
theological study and the devotional spirit; on the
other hand, it touched not only heresy and contempt

MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS 267
for means of grace, but even licence of life. S. Teresa's
visionary mysticism was of the most spiritual and
devoted type ; but, nevertheless, it brought her under
the suspicion of the Inquisition, always on the watch
for peculiar forms of energy overflowing established
limits, and in this case incited to action by her own
older Order. But both by her life and her teaching
she showed how the union with God — the basis of
her mysticism— could be realised, so as to be a light to
the world.
Of great importance and of interest was the life of
S. Philip de Neri. This young Florentine on leaving
college devoted himself to the service of
the sick in Roman hospitals; in 1548 he ^ Neri
founded the confraternity of the Most Holy 1513-95.
Trinity, and soon built a large hospital for Cardinal
pilgrims. But the Oratory in which lectures eru e'
in divinity were given to these pilgrims
became so crowded that a church was given for their
use (1558). In 1574 the congregation of the Oratory,
as it was called — composed of both priests and lay
men, bound by common aims but by no vows — was
authorised. The later history of the society — some
of its members like Baronius, its second general, and
author of the Annales Fcclesiastici (11607), famed for
learning, and some like the founder, for pre-eminent
piety — was worthy of its conception. A French
society, the Oratory of Jesus, founded by Cardinal
Berulle (1611), quickly spreading and including many
learned members, gave rise in its turn to similar move
ments. Nor did Cardinal Berulle stand alone, for the
French Benedictines, fallen from their old estate, now

268 THE REFORMATION
underwent a great revival. Didier de la Cour, placed
Benedic- when young (1596) as Prior over the
tines of Abbey of S. Vannes, at Verdun, prepared
S. Maur, himself by a long course of study for his
work, and then roused his brethren to sacred
study, joined to a strict observance of their rule. The
movement spread, and (1618) all the reformed monas
teries joined to form the congregation of S. Maur,
which grew to the number of 180 houses. No revival
ever bore better fruit in learned men, especially in
patristics and ecclesiastical history. To it we owe
Mabillon, Martene, Durand, D'Achery, and many
others. In spiritual matters and in ecclesiastical politics,
no one was a greater figure than Carlo Borromeo ; this
S. Carlo saintly prelate and cardinal, a nephew of
Borromeo, Pius IV. and a director of the papal counsels,
1538-84. was iec[ j^ the laxity of clerical life to
strive for a higher ideal. Not even his rapid pro
motion — he became Cardinal and Archbishop of Milan
when twenty-two — could spoil his character or bring
him enemies. Nor did he lose the statesman in the
saint, for his government of the states of the Church
committed to his charge was model. His influence
spread far beyond the limits of his diocese, where the
revival of Church life was complete, although the
Oblates, founded (1528) by him at Milan, did not
extend as far as many other orders. Whether owing
to his experience of politics, or to his natural dis
position, he was noted then, and has been rightly
condemned in later days, for his undue severity and
intolerance against Protestants. Even so far north as
Switzerland, he furthered the Counter -Reformation;

MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS 269
his Swiss college at Milan, his introduction into Swit
zerland of the Jesuits (1574-81), and of the Capuchins
(1581-8), and his foundation of a permanent nunciature
at Luzern, had consolidated the Catholics of the country,
and the Borromean League (1586) of Luzern, Uri,
Schwyz, Unterwalden, Soluthurn, Freiburg, and Zug,
for the defence of the Catholic Church, kept his name
alive. His saintly life and unwearied diligence gave
an example, fruitful both at Rome and Milan.
Many of these orders or congregations (for the
looser form was often preferred) differed from medieval
types in being practical rather than con- Features
templative ; the individual search after per- of these
fection, the brotherhood of the common Move-
life, did not inspire them so much as did
a wish to check the evils of clerical life and raise the
priesthood. Nor were the motives of working among
the poor or suffering and among unbelievers wanting;
and thus the spirit of S. Francis was reproduced.
Gradually, too, as the century went on, France, whose
disturbed religious politics caused and upset so many
nice calculations, took the place of Spain and Italy at
the birthplace of these movements. The impulses
which caused them were widely spread, and spiritual
links between them were common. Thus S. Vincent
de Paul had joined the Oratory of Cardinal Berulle
before he founded his own society; S. Francis de Sales
was influenced by his Jesuit director, Possevin. In an
atmosphere favourable to their growth these orders
arose and gave rise to others. No age, indeed, is richer
in special types of saintliness than the one we are
dealing with. The variety of practical objects aimed
at is also worthy of note. Education stood foremost

270 THE REFORMATION
With the Piarists or Brethren of the Pious Schools,
founded (1600) by Joseph Calasanze, a Spanish priest
in Italy. They were recognised as an order (1621),
and became only second to the Jesuits in their in
fluence upon schools. Other minor orders had the
same end in view. The care of the sick was the aim
of the Brothers of Charity (Brethren of S. John of
God), founded at Seville (1540) by a Portuguese monk,
John of God. It should also be noted how the spirit
of association was spreading from the regular to the
secular clergy, who composed wholly or partly many
of these bodies.
Many of these activities were combined in the rich
and saintly career of S. Vincent de Paul. A Gascon,
S. Vincent Dorn a^ Fouy, near Dax, by the Pyrenees,
de Paul, the son of poor parents and himself a
1576-1660. shepherd, he studied under the Franciscans
near Rome, and then at the University of Toulouse.
After his ordination as priest (1600), he spent some
years in teaching and in study, until his capture by
Barbary pirates placed him as a slave at Tunis. His
last master, a renegade Christian, was led by pity and
remorse to give him freedom, and together they
returned to Christendom. After a visit to Rome,
S. Vincent went on a mission to France, where he
joined the Oratory of Cardinal BeruUe. In obedience
to commands laid upon him, he first took parish work,
and then a tutorship in the family of the Count
de Joigny. His experience of country places and their
needs led him to the idea of Missions for their good
(1617), which took shape in the College des Bons
Enfants for that purpose. He also became Chaplain-
General to the galley-slaves, over whom the Count de

MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS 271
Joigny was General, and in this sad field his work was
intense. But the needs of the clergy and of parochial
life were still before him, and (1632) he founded the
Priory of S. Lazare for the Society of the Mission.
These Missioners, besides their natural work, largely
took charge of the seminaries so widely set up after
the Council of Trent. Before long, Missions in Italy,
Switzerland, Poland, Ireland, and even Madagascar
witnessed to the need S. Vincent had seen. When
a bishop complained to him of the number of drunken
or immoral priests in his diocese, S. Vincent resolved
to deepen the sense of Vocation in candidates for the
priesthood; Ordination Retreats (Lent, 1631) were
the result. Then from the conferences held to carry
on the work so begun sprang a confraternity with the
same objects, of which Bossuet was an early member.
While in parish work (1617), he had felt the urgency
of cases needing help, and seen the great waste in re
lieving them: this led him to organise the Confraternity
of Charity composed at first of wealthy ladies. But
he with many later reformers soon saw that charity
must be organised permanently, and not left to amateur
administrators ; thus he was led to found the Sisters
of Charity. This led on naturally to the training of
nurses ; that, again, to help in hospitals and the care
of homeless infants. The foundation of the hospital of
the Name of Jesus (as an almshouse), and then of the
Saltpetriere (for the same end, but on a larger scale)
were merely incidents in a life crowded with good
works. From his death-bed (1660), he could look
back upon a number of varied works, any one of
which could save an ordinary name from oblivion.
The special note of his life beyond his saintliness is

272 THE REFORMATION
the ready provision of means for coping with evils
met in his daily life ; so little by little he was led on
from one great deed to another. His master's motto,
Coepit facer e et docere (" He began to do and to teach "),
was true of himself; he was always beginning some
new form of doing, some new form of teaching ; and
his life completed is the best of lessons.
Yet another type of saint was shown in S. Francis
de Sales, The eldest son of a noble family of Annecy
S. Francis ln Savoy, he felt his vocation from child-
de Sales, hood ; when only eleven he took the ton-
1567-1622. sure; ¦DUt his father meant him for the
career of law, and with that in view he was educated
at Paris. In 1593, much against his father's will, he
was made Provost or Dean of Geneva, and ordained
priest. His great wish was to carry always with him
the atmosphere of the altar ; thus his care for souls as
Confessor, and his heart-felt sermons with practical
lessons, had a force beyond themselves, and he showed
that better side of mysticism which had been so
strong in Spain not long before. He was sent (1594)
to carry on a mission in Chablais, a district just gained
by Catholic Savoy from Protestant Bern, and here his
devotion succeeded beyond all hope ; he soon became
Coadjutor-Bishop of Geneva, to which see he finally
succeeded. His claim to remembrance lies not only
in his foundation of a female order — the Visitation of
the Blessed Virgin — or in his spiritual writings — as
the Introduction to the Devout Life — but also in his
model episcopate, a pattern and a wonder far and
wide; his private piety and his public work were
blended into one almost perfect flower.
It is a tribute to the importance of the Jesuits that

MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS 273
their rise should have obscured that of these other
societies, energetic and useful as they were.
The personality of the founder, with his eJesm s-
background of Spanish chivalry and crusading zeal;
the skill of his organisation perfected by succeeding
generals ; their success in the work undertaken, partly
through their definiteness of aim, partly through the
opportune moment of their appearing — all these
factors gave them importance. But the personality
of Ignatius Loyola should not make us forget the
history of Spain that made his career possible; the
success of the Jesuits should not lead us to forget
that other societies with similar aims and success only
inferior to theirs had also arisen. It is an error to
regard the appearance of either these other orders or
of the Jesuits as due to a mere reaction against
Protestantism; their appearance takes its proper
place as one event in a long series beginning with
the earliest movements for reform and a more
vigorous life, strengthened by the religious side of
the Renaissance, and finally issuing in the reforms
of Trent. It sounds paradoxical to say that Protes
tantism and Jesuitism should have arisen partly from
the same causes, but so far as each was due to a posi
tive wish for reform and an impatience of evils such
was the case. The causes that made the one a support
to the Church and the other an attack upon it are not
far to seek ; they lie partly in the leaders of the move
ments, partly in the way in which they were met, and
partly in the political atmosphere that surrounded
them. Ignacio Lopez de Recalde was born at the chateau of
Loyola in Guipuzcoa (1491) ; as a younger son he was
T

274 THE REFORMATION
brought up to arms, and began his career as a royal
Ignatius Page- When in command of Pampeluna
Loyola, (1521) he was forced to surrender to the
1491-1556. ]Trench, and being wounded was sent home
to recover. During his long illness he turned from the
tales of chivalry he knew to books of devotion, the
Flowers of the Saints and others ; Spain was the land
of chivalry and mystic devotion alike, and he shared the
national sympathies. When he left home, healed but
lame for life, the energy of his knighthood was turned
into new channels; he went (1522) to Montserrat,
which the late Abbot Dom Garcia de Cisneros, a
nephew of Cardinal Ximenes and the author of the
devotional Exercitatorium Spirituale, had made a centre
of influence ; thence he passed to Manresa, a resting-
place for pilgrims to Montserrat, and the traditional
scene of the conception of the Society. His sojourn
there, where visions and meditations gave a tinge of
mysticism to his zeal, was a crisis in his life. After
a vigil much like that of a knight he meant to journey
to Jerusalem to convert the heathen ; he accomplished
the voyage, but on arrival found he could do but little :
his lack of knowledge and his powerlessness when
alone was borne in upon him; he returned to equip
himself for his venture and to seek for companion
ship. Years not only of study but of teaching and
preaching also at Barcelona, Alcala, and Salamanca
taught him his powers and his methods of work; in
each place he gathered followers around him ; both at
Salamanca and at Alcala he fell under the suspicion
of the Holy Office as a mystic — a charge based on
truth — and spent some weeks in prison. He was
bidden to study theology for four years before he could

MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS 275
preach and teach, and he betook himself (February,
1528) to Paris with the idea of his brotherhood
already in his mind ; he had a singular power, not only
of arousing enthusiasm in others (which is easy), but
of dominating their whole thought and life, and here
he gathered his first real band of disciples, Pierre le
Fevre, a Savoyard, Francis Xavier and Iago Lainez,
both Spaniards, and others. On August 15th, 1534,
the little company, seven in number, together took
oaths of celibacy, poverty, and a spiritual crusade in
Syria. If this last could not be carried out they were
to place themselves at the disposal of the Pope for
employment where and how he pleased. It was this
last condition that in the end marked out for the
Jesuits their great task and their stupendous future.
Venice was to be their starting-point for the East ;
here the comrades met (1537), and here Ignatius came
into touch with Caraffa and the Theatines,
whose objects and methods must have im- e °r er>
1534-40.
pressed him ; here, too, after an interview
held by some of them with Pope Paul III. at Rome,
those not already priests received ordination. At length
giving up their Eastern voyage, they betook themselves
singly to Rome, each on the way thinking over the
organisation they should adopt. Ignatius himself gave
them besides the main idea their name, " the Company
of Jesus," " like a cohort or century gathered to fight
spiritual enemies, as men devoted body and soul to our
Lord Jesus Christ and his Vicar on Earth." On reach
ing Rome they set to work ; as at Venice, so here they
preached, and did it with success. Paul III. employed
them for teaching and preaching in his schools and
colleges. Papal and popular favour drew jealousy upon

276 THE REFORMATION
them, and to place themselves in safety Ignatius gained
recognition (1538) from the Pope. Gradually their
organisation took shape; their General was to have
unlimited power, and to hold office for life ; he was to
be venerated as if Christ were present in him. The
whole life and strength of every member was to be
given in warfare for Christ and the Pope, carrying out
at once and without reserve all the Pope should order
in any place or land, among heretics or heathen. This
was the constitution approved by the Pope and was
the very thing that was needed; Protestantism had
attacked the Papacy which to the closing Middle Ages
stood for Western unity ; hence the Jesuits had come
to its support. Ignatius had only slowly realised
what his order could do, but gradually the problem of
the reconquest of the Protestant West instead of the
heathen East had shaped itself before him ; the diffi
culty of a new problem gave to his order, as it had
formerly done to the Franciscans, an impulse to over
come it. " The finger of God is here," said Pope Paul.
When the three Cardinals appointed to examine the
new order and its constitution were ready to report
unfavourably the Pope himself (like Contarini favour
able to them) gained their approval for it. The new
society was sanctioned (September 27th, 1540) on
condition its members should never exceed sixty in
number, a condition afterwards removed (1543). As
preachers, directors of consciences and teachers of
the young, the company was to serve the Church ;
and to further their work many privileges were after
wards given them.
If obedience to the Papacy was the most striking
feature of the society to begin with, the absolute

MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS 277
power given to the General was to be of the great
est moment later on. In the original con- pecui£ari_
stitution as approved by Paul III., the ties
advice of the Council was a slight check of the
upon the General, but before many years Society-
this was done away with (1550); the General, sole
disposer of the destinies of the members, stood
alone. Ignatius himself was naturally the first
General (April 5th, 1541). Before his death (July 31st,
1556) his order was firmly rooted and full-grown ; he
himself had at any rate in the main devised the lines
of its constitution, although it was only under Lainez
— the next General — that it was definitely settled in
details : the differences from older foundations were
probably not favourably regarded by the Curia, and
only gradually gained approval. Julius III. (1550-5)
was most friendly to them; under him and by his
liberal help the Roman College, a teaching body of
great ability and much influence, afterwards moved to
the Gesu, and the German College (1552), for the
special training of German youths, were begun.
Marcellus II. was even more friendly still, and had he
lived longer the order would probably have gained
that supreme power its critics seemed to fear. His
early death brought to the papal throne (1555), Car
dinal Caraffa (Paul IV.), who distrusted the order both
as too Spanish and as sufficiently akin to his Theatines
in object to make their separate existence unreason
able. There followed the first of the many struggles
between Pope and Jesuits, complicated by internal
strife between Lainez, the acting Vicar, and some of
the members. The Pope wished to make the regular
recitation of offices in choir compulsory for the society,

278 THE REFORMATION
which would have forced it into resemblance to other
orders and made their peculiar work more difficult;
he also wished to limit the General's term of office to
three years, which would have seriously weakened his
position. The next Pope, Pius IV. (1559), removed
these restrictions, which the society had never heartily
adopted. The constitutions of the society had not been
formed hastily; its ideas were the mingled result of
Its the meditations and long experiences of
Constitu- S. Ignatius himself. The years of waiting
tion. an(i the changes of scene had borne their
Its
Growth fruit, and as the exact nature of his task
The opened itself out before him he adapted
Exercises. most skilfully the means to the end ; in the
last stage at Rome itself something must have been due
to Lainez, the second General, from whom S. Ignatius
differed greatly in character. The latter was above all
things an enthusiast with a spiritual power (enhanced
by patience) of drawing men and keeping them close
to himself. The former was a cool scholar and states
man, a theologian of power and a politician of skill.
To him the political, as distinct from the religious,
importance of the society is due. Both under Loyola
and Lainez there had been opposition, from inside as
well as from outside, to the hardening absolutism of
the system. The latter while acting General (August,
1556 — 'July, 1558) had to face the charge of delaying in
his own interests the publication of the constitution.
Thus the outside policy and outside success of the
society must be ascribed to Lainez, while to S.
Ignatius himself was due the internal preparation
that made that success possible. The Spiritual Exer-

MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS 279
eises of Manresa, next to the Imitatio Christi, the most
powerful work of its class, unlike the Imitatio, not the
outpouring of a soul but a spiritual guide for others, is
the basis of the internal preparation. It is mystic
and spiritual, but it never loses sight of the active
work with the need of strength for its accomplishment ;
it is thoroughly practical and common-sense in its
wise and full treatment of detail. The passages upon
bodily discipline and postures in devotions, for in
stance, give apt illustration of these features. In the
book, as in the society itself (to begin with, at any
rate) it is hard to divide fairly our admiration between
the exalted spirit raised above the world and the
perfect knowledge of the world with the adaptation of
everything to it. Self-sacrifice and wisdom, ardour
and calculation are not easy to combine; but in this
book as in the society they are blended with the ut
most skill. The man who passes through the four weeks
or divisions into which the exercises are divided has
(1) got rid of his evil self and also of his personality
so far as it is a hindrance to his great aim ; (2) he
has taken Christ's life as the model of his own ; (3) he
has realised Christ's sufferings for him as his own;
and (4) he has entered into the triumph and the joy of
Christ ; while self-surrender, docility, and obedience of
all the faculties in subordination to one great end have
been learnt in the process. The spirit and method of
the Exercises are the spirit and method of the society.
According to the Constitution, novices were to spend
two years in study and the Exercises, under the con
stant watch of their superiors, who thus came to
know their natures and capabilities. At the end of
the novitiate they took the vows of poverty, chastity,

280 THE REFORMATION
and obedience, along with a promise to remain in
The the society and do the work appointed by
Novices. the General. The next stage was that of
T. . scholastic, spent in the study of arts for five
tors. years, followed by a term of some years'
The teaching. An approved scholastic might, after
Professed. a four years' course of theology (in which
he also studied the Exercises for himself) and a
second novitiate of a year, receive priesthood and
become a Spiritual Coadjutor. In its ample provision
of education, training in obedience, and humble work,
as well as in the higher business of life and knowledge
of men, the scheme was very complete. In practice it
is elastic enough to develop the talents of the in
dividual, while the oversight of superiors and the
personal sense of vocation are never relaxed. If not
ordained the scholastic might become a Temporal
Coadjutor, engaged in the secular business of the
society much as lay-brethren in other orders. Beyond
the Spiritual Coadjutors were the Professed with their
three ordinary vows, and also a fourth of special
obedience to the Pope to go wherever he might send.
These Professed made up but a small part of the
society ; at the time of the death of S. Ignatius they
numbered only thirty-five out of a total of a thousand.
From among the Spiritual Coadjutors and the Professed
were chosen, by the General, the officers of the
colleges and the Provincials. All these held office for
three years only, while the General, elected by the
congregation, held his for life. All these officers sent to
the General yearly reports, and thus the centralisation
of knowledge as of power was complete. By the side
of the General stood a Council of six assistants

MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS 281
elected by the congregation from the assistancies of
Germany, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Poland.
It might seem as if there was here an absolute
tyranny, the guidance of a single mind. But even
over the General there was a watchful guard, and he,
as other members, had become part of the great
tradition and the system it involved. There was no
risk of a General working too much upon an individual
line, while yet all the advantages of his individual
energy and wisdom were made use of. In the same
way the advantages of other orders were combined
with the utmost liberty in such points as dress, and
the relaxation of rules when desirable for important
ends. The regulation by which no Jesuit could with
out leave accept any bishopric or high office in the
Church ensured to the society the constant help of its
most gifted members and put a check upon merely
personal ambitions.
In Italy, as was natural, the society spread rapidly ;
it appealed specially to the cultured classes, and its
influence among the small princely families s .
soon made itself felt. Venice, where they 0f the
founded a college (1542), became a Jesuit Society
centre, and even in its time of political in Italv-
decay, its importance as a literary and intellectual
centre was great. Faenza and Bologna were also
Jesuit strongholds. The school at Messina, where the
studies followed Parisian models, became the type of
the excellent schools set up by the society. In other
countries also the society gained power.
Spain, where the Emperor Charles V. had a pam-
reasonable distrust of papal policy, and where the
Dominicans disliked Jesuit intrusion, was slow to

THE REFORMATION

receive them, until Francis Borgia, great-grandson of
Alexander VI., Duke of Gandia and Viceroy of Cata
lonia, became their patron, and after at length
(1548) joining them, rose to be General (1565-72).
Although the Archbishop of Toledo refused to allow
his clergy to have any intercourse with them, and they
were excommunicated at Saragossa, Borgia's influence
turned the scale in their favour. To begin with, they
gained influence among the lower classes, while later
on they pushed their way into the Universities, first
at Gandia (under Borgia) and then at Alcala and
Salamanca, at which last place they had a college of
In the their own. In the Netherlands they gained
Nether- a footing (1556 onwards) under Philip II.
lands. an(j the Viceroy Margaret of Parma, and in
1584 the restrictions there which had so long vexed
them were removed. Their college at Louvain in-
In tensified and carried on the Catholic tradi-
Portugal. tions of the University. Portugal welcomed
them more warmly than Spain had done. Thence
S. Francis Xavier sailed for the Indies, but not before
he had begun a work destined to give them the com
plete control of Royal Family and kingdom.
In France the Chancellor du Prat, and Charles,
Cardinal of Lorraine, introduced them ; but the
Sorbonne, the theological faculty of the
University of Paris, and the Parliament of
Paris, that legal body which had grown into a national
power, opposed them. The latter, indeed, declared
them enemies of Church and State, and the former
condemned them as disturbers of the Church's peace
and overthrowers of monastic orders. Many bishops
led by Eustace du Bellay, of Paris, shut them out of

MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS 283
their dioceses, and the parish clergy followed their
official leaders. Only when the Civil Wars of Religion
were ready to break out did the bishops consent to
receive them (1561), and even then they stipulated
for their subordination to themselves. It was Lainez
who, while in France for the Conference at Poissy
(September, 1561), procured their admission. The
College of Clermont, then founded, soon gained dis
tinction, but the society has nowhere undergone more
vicissitudes than in France. Germany,
owing to the spread of Lutheranism, had "
been marked out by Loyola as a field for
the society. Le Fevre, Le Jay, and Bobadilla were
the first workers there ; the first soon passed into
Spain. Bobadilla, who incurred the Emperor's anger
by his opposition to the Interim, took Bavaria for
his sphere : Albert V, brother-in-law of Ferdinand,
founded a college for them at Ingolstadt (1549), and
another at Munich (1559). Le Jay, in Austria,
gained the ear of Ferdinand, and after he had been
joined (1551) by others Vienna became one
of their strongest settlements. Peter Ca- Camsius'
0 1520-90.
nisius, who succeeded Le Jay as Rector
there, was a leading theologian of the day. As a
young man he had shared in opposing the attempt of
Hermann von Wied, the reforming Bishop of Koln, to
Protestantise his see (1542-7) ; as Rector at Ingol
stadt he had carried on the learned and reforming
traditions of John Maier, of Eck. When only thirty-
two years old he was called to Vienna, there to become
Rector of the Jesuit foundation, and to found a
seminary for priests. Two professorships in the Uni
versity were allotted to the society; and here, as at

284 THE REFORMATION
Prague, Freiburg in Breisgau, Trier, Mainz, Salzburg,
Bamberg, and Constanz, their system of education
produced great results. It would be difficult to
localise the activity of Canisius, who travelled widely
from Switzerland to Poland, working both upon the
Universities and the general public. His Summa
Doctrinse Christianas (or larger Catechism) was the
theological text-book of the Catholic revival; his
small (1556) and smaller (1559) Catechisms provided
for Catholics means of teaching, in which for some
thirty years they had been excelled by Protestants;
five hundred editions and many translations are
sufficient proofs of its success. His activity was
rewarded by his becoming Provincial (1556) of the
newly erected Province of Upper or Southern Germany,
including the Habsburg territories, Bavaria, Suabia,
and Switzerland. But the Province of Lower Germany
remained comparatively unworked.
The activity of the society in England during our
period falls into two divisions, in the earlier of which,
ln under Elizabeth and James I., its members
England, devoted themselves rather to private ad-
1580. ministrations not different in kind from
those of other priests, and in the latter of which they
were more concerned with diplomacy and attempts at
influencing people of importance. In the former
period arose between the Jesuits and the secular
priests, both of them in captivity at Wisbech, the
struggle known as the Arch-priest Controversy. This
sprang from the attempt of the Jesuits to rule by an
"Arch-priest" over both the regulars and seculars;
the strife led to great bitterness, and tended to place
the Catholics who kept to the Papal obedience still

MONASTIC REFORM AND THE JESUITS 285
further outside the main currents of national life.
But however unfortunate the political results of their
activity, in England as elsewhere the Jesuits gave
proof of the greatest persistency and devotion, and in
spite of their connection with politics some of their
members truly earned the rank of martyr. In the
second period of their activity, although their influence
was, like their diplomacy, rated too highly at the time,
their field of work was more the Court than the
country at large, and even here they were over
shadowed by members of other orders, esteemed more
suited to the special task. In some other countries,
such as Poland, the whole progress of the Counter
Reformation was due to the work of Jesuits.

CHAPTER XI
GERMANY: 1555-1648
FOR nearly seventy years (1555-1618) the history
of Germany was dominated by the religious ques
tion. The peace had merely been a truce, and it had,
D f . as stated before, weaknesses of its own. The
of the Catholics and the Lutherans accepted it so far
Religious as it suited their own ends, and so far only :
Peace. eacn party protested against the benefits
enjoyed by the other, and the Calvinists standing out
side the peace could only enter it by the door of the
Augsburg Confession. Of the two most essential parts
the Ecclesiastical Reservation and the Declaration of
Toleration, the one had not full effect, and the latter
depended merely upon the Emperor's word. Meanwhile
the Imperial power grew weaker, the Habsburg house
became more purely Austrian in its aims, and the
central power was ineffective: local princes over
shadowed it alike in their religious policies and their
foreign alliances. The Empire, as a whole, had no
policy of its own. Thus in the absence of political pro
gress the interest of German history lies mainly in
religious matters : the influence of Papal Nuncios, the
progress of the Counter Reformation, the early revival
of the Augustinian Friars and the later growth of
Jesuit influence, the reform and organisation begun at
286

GERMANY: 1555-1648 287
Trent: these were the chief features on the Catholic
side. On the Protestant side there were : the attacks
upon the Beservatum Ecclesiasticum, the attempts at
union and the growth of discord between Lutherans
and Calvinists, and the constant secularising of Church
estates. Meanwhile political danger from France co
quetting with the Protestant princes, dynastic dangers
from Spain, and the existence of religious wars on the
frontiers in France and the Netherlands, with the con
stant pressure of the Turks on the east, threw the
Emperor upon the princes for help, and made him
realise increasingly the disastrous effects of religious
discontent. Hence the Emperor Ferdinand
had a distinct policy of his own for internal ^^7°
affairs, not quite consistent with either his an(i j.
strong Catholicism or his religious policy in
his hereditary lands. His German instincts and his
Catholic principles combined, and the resultant ex
pressed the political needs of the nation. When
(March 14th, 1588) he was crowned Emperor, the
maintenance of the Religious Peace was included in
his Election Covenant ; the defiant policy of Paul IV.
towards him endangered his relations with the Church,
but politically the mediating (or to the Protestant
view, the timid) policy of Electoral Saxony under
Augustus (1553-86), working with the Catholic Electors
of Mainz and Trier, secured his position.
Not only in politics, but in religion there might have
grown up a mediating or combined party, satisfying
the Protestant demand for reform (so far Tne
as that demand was genuine) by small mediating
changes and concessions as well as by Partv-
liberality and piety of spirit, yet not departing from

THE REFORMATION

Catholic lines. On the Catholic side, Julius von Pflug
(who had been elected Bishop of Naumburg in 1541,
but opposed by Amsdorf, the candidate supported by
the Elector and consecrated by Luther) is a fair
example ; he was ready, as was also Gropper, to adopt
large and inclusive definitions on the Mass and
Justification, and to concede clerical marriage and
the chalice; there were not wanting like-minded
men on the Protestant side. Even the Lutheran ser
vices in some places resembled those of the Catholics :
a Breviary used by them at Halberstadt up to 1801
might well have belonged to the Catholics. But
such cases were exceptional. Such a party would
not have satisfied the Papacy (for they were scarcely
Papalists), the orthodox Spaniards, or the majority of
Protestants, and before the third assembly at Trent, at
any rate, the end they hoped for had become im
possible. But before that the dividing lines between
Catholics and Protestants, either in thought or in
practice, were not drawn so rigidly or clearly as since
and elsewhere: had the policy of the Papacy and of
the princes been different, had politics not given
Protestantism a vitality it did not possess of itself, had
not the Counter Reformation closed up the ranks of
Catholicism and given it a more rigid test for dis
crimination, above all, had not controversy hardened
into hatred, Germany might have been united instead
of divided. As it was, ecclesiastical politics tended
more and more to war. The wonder was not that the
Thirty Years' War came when it did (1618-48), but
that its coming was so long delayed.
The division between Calvinists or Reformed (as

GERMANY: 1555-1648 289
they came to be called after the Formula of Concord,
1577), and Lutherans grew. The Land
grave Philip of Hesse, more Zwinglian than Dlv)lslons
Lutheran, but more a politician than either, testants.
would have gladly united the two parties ;
the Swiss Protestants were united nearly by the Con
sensus Tigurinus (1549), and fully by the Second
Helvetic Confession (1566). But in Germany division
grew, the strength of Melanchthon (which some
thought weakness) was thrown on the side of peace,
and an extremist party headed by Flacius Illyricus
was formed against him. Some of the Protestants
wished to combine against the Beservatum Ecclesiasti-
eum, but theological differences outweighed even the
love of gain : a colloquy (one among many) at Worms
(1557) failed to bring about peace. Duke John
Frederick of (Ernestine) Saxony had taken a strong
line, and made the University of Jena a stronghold
against the Crypto-Calvinists (as Melanchthon and his
followers were often called). Flacius was called thither
that same year, and ruled the religion of Ducal Saxony.
The Electoral (Albertine) line under Augustus (always
afraid of a restoration of the other line to its rights)
took the opposite side. Melanchthon had already
by his treatment of the Interim given rise to the
Adiaphoristic controversy (on the limits of toleration
in worship): much in ritual, much in organisation
even to a limited papal supremacy he was ready to
accept. To this controversy were added others. On the
positive doctrine of the Holy Eucharist he was Calvinist
rather than Lutheran, but in the express negation of the
Catholic view he was less decided than Luther; on the
question of Predestination — now rapidly coming to

290 THE REFORMATION
the front — he was somewhat opposed to Calvin, as he
allowed more effect to the will of man and some efficacy
to good works ; with him as with the Jesuits reason
made itself heard; here altogether were themes for
ample difference. Melanchthon left the colloquy at
Worms knowing himself an object of attack. At
Regensburg (1556-7) and afterwards the Protestant
party found itself divided. "Better Catholic than
Calvinist," said Lutherans. " Can Calvinists be saved?"
asked a Lutheran consistory from a pastor. Calvinism
was blasphemy ; to defend Calvinists were to serve the
devil; Calvinists are not our brethren, but the enemies
of God, said one Lutheran Court preacher. A three
weeks' colloquy at Naumburg (January, 1561) broke
down because the theologians of Jena would have
nothing of the union sought by the Palatinate and
Wiirttemberg. Under Frederick III. (1559-76) the
Palatinate became Calvinist. A board — on the Cal
vinist model — was set up to manage religious affairs,
and the Heidelberg Catechism, to have a great future
of its own, was composed (1563). Melanchthon had
originally directed the Lutheran organisation in the
Palatinate, his early home, and he had counselled
Frederick III. to quell the bitter disputes raised by
the rigid Lutherans. After Melanchthon's death (1560)
the stronger tendencies gained ground, and Heidelberg
became the centre of German Calvinism. At Augsburg
(1566) the Elector made a manly defence of his creed,
attacked as it was by both Catholics and Lutherans, and
his stand did something to gain him respect. But its
religious isolation, no less than its local position, turned
the Palatinate towards foreign friends and foreign
schemes; from the day (1567) when Frederick III.

GERMANY: 1555-1648 291
sent his son John Casimir to help the Huguenots until
the Thirty Years' War its outlook was abroad, and its
policy brought disaster upon the country.
It is well to review rapidly the outlines of religious
changes under the principle " cujus regio ejus religio!'
The North German States were all but
solidly Protestant ; the exception being the territorial
Duchy of Jiilich-Cleve (see pp. 113-14) religion!
under the Emperor Ferdinand's son-in-law,
Duke William, who became Catholic (1570); here
Catholicism gained ground once lost. Among the cities,
Aachen and Koln alone were Catholic. In Saxony the
Grumbach feud (1558-67) brought the Ducal (Ernes
tine) territory under the care of the (Albertine) Elector
Augustus, and he then drove out the extreme Lutherans,
thus making all Saxony of a uniform religious type.
Afterwards, however, Augustus himself became (1574)
jealously Lutheran, saw Crypto-Calvinism everywhere,
but specially in the Philippists (or followers of
Melanchthon), and after this Wittenberg too became
a centre of the Flacianists ; with some later variations
Saxony remained consistently Lutheran. Branden
burg, with which (1571) the Ansbach territory and
(1618) the Prussian Duchy were joined, was also
Lutheran, and (1566) a Court preacher Funck was
executed for Calvinism. But the Elector Joachim
Sigismund (1608-19) himself became Calvinist, and his
creed was of course tolerated. Although he claimed to
have the power of introducing religion as the highest
royal prerogative, he did not exercise it. But differing
types of faith intensified political jealousy between
Brandenburg and Saxony.
The obvious need of unity led to further attempts to

292 THE REFORMATION
sain it, and these resulted in the Formula of Concord
Th (1577, published 1580), drawn up by six
Formula theologians, and signed by fifty-one princes
of Concord, and lords (the Electors Palatine of Branden-
JS77- burg and of Saxony being among them),
thirty-five cities, and over eight thousand theologians.
Among the assenting states were the two lines of Bruns
wick, Mecklenburg, Ducal Saxony, Ansbach, Baden,
Wiirttemberg, and the Neuburg Palatinate. But the
states of Pomerania, Anhalt, the Zweibriicken Palatin
ate, Holstein, Hesse and Nassau, with most of the
Imperial towns, refused to sign. Among the last were
Niirnberg, Frankfurt -on -the -Main, Speier, Worms,
Magdeburg, and Strassburg (which, however, became
Lutheran in 1597). Under John Casimir the Rhine
Palatinate became exclusively Calvinist, and the Neu
burg Palatinate mainly so. By 1605 all Hesse was also
Calvinist. Thus German Protestantism was divided into
two great camps, and among the Lutherans of the
Concord again dogmatic quarrels arose. Outside Ger
many, Sweden and the Hungarian Lutherans adopted
the. Formula, while Denmark rejected it. All these
associations affected the future, and gave rise to
further complications. The broad result was that the
German Lutherans were parted off from most Protes
tants outside Germany.
The secularisation of bishoprics, an old evil, and
the growth of Calvinism, leading to defections from
the Formula, summarise much of German
of Protes- history. The princely families had set up a
tantism. lien upon the sees near them; the Elector
Abuses of 0f Brandenburg had long nominated to Bran-
is opncs. denburg, Havelberg, and Lebus; he also

GERMANY: 1555-1648 293
succeeded in gaining Magdeburg and Halberstadt, both
of which were Protestantised (1561-3). The sees of
Merseburg (1561) and Naumburg (1564) came to
Alexander, the boyish son of Augustus of Saxony ; the
Elector soon administered not only these sees, but also
Meissen. Bremen, Verden, Liibeck, Minden, Schwerin,
Ratzeburg, and Cammin were also held by Protestants.
Joachim Frederick of Brandenburg was elected Bishop
of Havelberg when seven, and Archbishop of Magde
burg when twenty ; in 1570 he set about the extinction
of Catholicism in his dioceses, and when Pius V. asked
for his deposition, the Emperor Maximilian felt unable
to enforce it. On his succeeding to the Electorate
(1598) his son Christian William followed him at
Magdeburg, just as he himself had followed his uncle
Sigismund. Henry of Saxe-Lauenburg was Archbishop
of Bremen at seventeen (1567), and afterwards gained
Osnabriick (1574) and Paderborn (1577). These were
great evils, but it should be borne in mind that they
arose partly from the degeneracy of Chapters, that the
spiritual responsibility of bishops had been too often
lost sight of, and their offices looked upon as mere
possessions; Catholic dynasties indeed did not differ
greatly from Protestants in their treatment of sees.
But it was a strange result of all this when (1557-73)
Hildesheim, with its medieval monuments and mem
ories, was the only Catholic see in Northern Germany.
This abuse was made possible in the following way :
when the Chapter had made the election, often forced
or corrupt, the elected bishop sought an indult from
the Emperor, which freed him from the immediate
necessity of going to Rome for Confirmation; the delay
was prolonged, but as meanwhile the Emperor gave

294 THE REFORMATION
him the regalia and he could enjoy the revenue, he did
not feel deeply his ecclesiastical incapacity.
The great sees of the West seemed likely to follow.
Koln had a varied history : three bishops (1556-67)
were either Lutheran or laxly Catholic ; the
iq8, ' next, Salentin von Isenburg, resigned in order
to marry (1577), and Gebhard Truchsess von
Waldburg, a man of evil life, was elected by the mainly
Protestant Chapter; he was forced by her brothers
(1582) to marry his mistress, Agnes von Mansfeld, a
canoness of Gerresheim, but meant still to hold his See.
The Chapter and the city were divided for and against
him, so were the Electors. The Pope deprived him of
his see, and Ernest of Bavaria, Bishop of Freising and
Administrator of Hildesheim, who had been defeated in
the election by two votes, succeeded him. But the dis
pute grew into a war. The question of the Ecclesiastical
Reservation was here raised in an emphatic way, but
much as they disliked that clause, the Lutherans dis
liked union with the Calvinists more, and John Casimir
of .the Palatinate was Gebhard's only effective supporter.
The dispute was made more important by the constant
influx, owing to the war in the Netherlands, of Dutch
Protestant immigrants, who founded Protestant con
gregations. The failure of Gebhard's attempt, which
had much in its favour, was due more to the divisions
of Protestants than anything else. He retired to his
deanery of Strassburg, where he died, while his wife
went to England, where she incurred Elizabeth's dis
pleasure through her relations with Essex. But the
failure came at a critical time, and the restoration of
Catholicism in the bishopric, which naturally followed,
encouraged other attempts to regain sees for their

GERMANY: 1555-1648 295
rightful use. Two other incidents helped to the same
end. Joachim Frederick of Brandenburg, elected Arch
bishop of Magdeburg (1566), had never received an
indult, but at the Diet of Augsburg (1582)
he claimed, in spite of this, to vote as Ad- buJr li;g2
ministrator, although not Archbishop. The
claim was reasonably disallowed, and thus a blow was
struck at a discreditable system.
The third incident was at Aachen, which had pledged
itself to remain Catholic. Flemish immigrants, how
ever, won over a majority of the citizens to
Protestantism, and these now demanded jcSj-os!
(1581) the free exercise of their religion,
which was refused by the Catholic Town Council. An
appeal to an Imperial Commission was decided in
favour of the Council, and riots, in which the bishop's
authority was defied, followed. Technically the Religious
Peace only protected minorities in towns where they
had existed before 1555, and it had not provided for
future changes of creed. The Emperor was threatening
force, and the Duke of Parma had marched troops across
the frontier : the citizens brought their case before the
Diet (1582). A new Commission was appointed (1595),
and decided against the Protestants, whose worship was
prohibited (1598). Thus on all sides the Religious Peace
was causing difficulty, and the Catholic Reaction was
able to use its legal interpretation in its own favour.
In Trier the Archbishop was driven from the city
(1559), and it was not until his successor's time
(1567-81) that Catholicism was restored.
The Archbishop of Mainz just contrived to cal ]ands
hold his own, and in the end even drove the Trier.
Protestants from his lands of the Eichsfeld Mainz.

296 THE REFORMATION
(north of Miihlhausen). Both these prelates made great
use of the Jesuits, and the ubiquitous Canisius left his
mark in Trier as elsewhere.
The territory of Fulda, the senior abbey of Germany,
was largely Protestant, but the Abbot Balthasar Gravel
(1571) brought in the Jesuits to found a
school, and then expelled all the Protestant
ministers. He met with opposition from the nobility
who had wished to found a Protestant school, and the
Chapter, whose evil lives he had tried to reform, forced
his resignation. An appeal to the Emperor brought
about his tardy restoration (1602). Bishop
Julius of Wiirzburg too took up the Catholic
restoration in his bishopric. He enforced Catholicism
(1584) with the alternative of emigration. A hundred
and twenty preachers were driven out, and the Jesuits
who took their place are said to have reconciled over
sixty thousand to the Church. The Franconian knights
asked (1582) for the expulsion of the Jesuits, who had
been introduced in 1564, for the bestowal of a church
upon the Lutherans, and leave for the local priests to
marry, but they did not stay the reaction, which was
greatly furthered by the bishop's model life. In visita
tion, confirming, and all his duties, he set a model
which surprised the Protestants; his zeal was not
purely negative and repressive. For education he also
cared, and the University was reformed (1582), while
preparatory colleges were erected. Everywhere popular
schools were restored or begun ; processions and pil
grimages revived ; new parishes were formed ; three
hundred churches were built or restored; hospitals and
almshouses sprang up freely; other bishoprics changed
like Wiirzburg: Paderborn (1585), Munster (1588),

GERMANY: 1555-1648 297
Salzburg (1588), Bamberg (1595). Not all these bishops
were holy men or deeply spiritual. Sixty years before
men of a worldly or indifferent type would have drifted
into Lutheranism, now they drifted by the force of
their surroundings into Tridentine zeal. The ideal of
the Episcopate was restored, and a new life was
breathed into the Church. Popular tendencies were
now towards Catholicism, and the views and the
organisation it presupposed. It was the same in educa
tion. The best systems and the best teachers were no
longer found among the Lutherans. Among them re
ligious controversy had done its evil work and sapped
their power. A new Scholastic had sprung up among
them, and its technical science had more to do with
speculation than with life. In some places their
preachers condemned or did not encourage the study
of the dead languages, and there was then as in all
days of growing trade a set against studies of no
immediate profit.
In the south the cities and lower nobility were
mostly Protestant, although the latter did not like to
see their superiors, the princes, strengthened
by secularisation. But the bishoprics, as South
seen above, were mostly kept for Catholi- Aue-sburg
cism, and Augsburg, under Bishop Otto van
Truchsess, Cardinal and (1556) Legate a latere, was
a good example. He was an ally of Bavaria, and
followed its policy. The High School of Dillingen was
connected with the College of S. Jerome, which he
founded (1549) and generously endowed, partly for
general education, partly to train priests for his diocese.
Dillingen was (1551) made a University by Julius III.,
and handed over (1564) to the Jesuits. The college

298 THE REFORMATION
(1565) passed also into their charge as a clerical
seminary of the Tridentine type ; afterwards the
Fuggers (who owed much wealth to Rome and had
profited by the shameful traffic in benefices) founded
at Augsburg a large college and a gymnasium.
Gregory XIII. (1585) placed a seminary at Dillingen,
and the diocese became an important centre of activity
which worked against the evil living amongst the clergy
as well as against the Protestant propaganda. In fifty
years (1559-1610) the number of Easter communicants
in the city (to take a familiar test) rose from eight
hundred to six thousand seven hundred.
In Salzburg George von Khuenberg (1580-7) had
done his duty well as a coadjutor and then Archbishop,
His successor, Dietrich von Raittenau (1587-
1612), was less conscientious. He bade all
non-Catholics to leave his land, but when the Jesuits
rebuked his concubinage threatened them likewise;
religion of no kind flourished. The next ruler, Marx
Sittich von Hohenembs, was earnest in work, and coped
with the increase of Protestants by the easy way of
expulsion. Many changed outwardly, but the Arch
bishop's own life of ease and gaiety did not set a good
example. In Passau, which took in much
of the Austrian lands, the preachers were
driven out and heretical books forbidden, but this
stringency was accompanied by the provision of
Catholic schools and teaching. Everywhere the Counter
Reformation did most where its bishops were truly
pious and enlightened. On the other hand, it was
where episcopal rule or Church organisation was
weakest (as in Switzerland, North Germany, and the
Netherlands) that the anti-Catholic movements spread.

GERMANY: 1555-1648 299
Stringent measures (common on all sides, and therefore
needing no apology then, while gaining ready support
from the law " cujus regio ejus religio") often failed,
where not backed up by positive teaching. The German
method of persecution was expulsion as opposed to the
Spanish auto de fi. It was the milder of the two,
and it was not as a rule until some years after the
Council of Trent that more cruel persecution arose.
The Emperor, Ferdinand II., for instance, during the
Thirty Years' War, strictly forbade bloodshed, although
his measures were stringent.
In the Austrian lands a mixed state of religion
prevailed. The Crown and nobles held the patronage of
benefices, and had seized most of the revenues.
The Estates had allowed (1555-6) the ad- ^trian
ministration of the chalice and also clerical ian(is.
marriage. In Hungary the Lutheran organ
isation had been introduced (1550); in Transylvania
(1545) ; the large powers of the Estates here made any
division dangerous, and religion intensified the tumult
due to Turkish attacks. In Bohemia Lutheranism
had grafted itself upon the Bohemian Brotherhood;
monastic houses had been widely secularised. The
University of Prague, following its old traditions, had
become Lutheran, but the influence of the Jesuits, who
came to the city in 1555, spread greatly. The person
ality of Ferdinand I. (1564) only served to increase the
disorder. He himself was genuinely tolerant in ad
ministration, but a condition founded upon accident
and not on principle could not bring about The
toleration. His son and successor, Maxi- Emperor
milian II., had been greatly influenced by a mi^n
secretly Lutheran Court preacher Phauser, 1564-76.

3oo THE REFORMATION
and was suspected of Lutheranism. Up to 1570 he
was strongly anti- Spanish, but in that year he and
Philip II. became friends. The latter took Maxi
milian's fourth daughter Anna as wife, and the death
of Don Carlos had left Philip sonless (1568), so that
visions of Spain came to Maximilian. But his reign,
like others, was darkened by the Turkish danger, while
on the west the war in the Netherlands brought risks
and temptations. Inside the empire he held the
balance fairly between the two parties, refusing alike
the suggestion of Pius V. to attack the Protestants,
and of the Protestants to expel the Jesuits. Tolerant
in himself, he yet set toleration before himself less as
a principle than as the line of least resistance, and
he just failed to hold religion as the thing above all
else. There was in him much of greatness, yet with a
weakness which his circumstances would excuse. He
enforced neither the Ecclesiastical Reservation nor the
Declaration of Toleration. He grew like his father,
and not merely under Spanish influence, into stricter
conformity to the Church. For the rest the Catholic
reaction gained strength as did Protestant disunion.
Against the designs of the Elector Palatine he gained
(1575) the election to the Eoman kingship of his son
Rudolf (elected a month earlier King of Bohemia, and
King of Hungary, 1572). All these elections meant
concessions to the Protestants. The three lay and
Protestant Electors insisted that Rudolf should confirm
the Religious Peace with its Declaration of Toleration.
The three archbishops denied the validity of the
Toleration, which was however maintained against
them. In the end the jealousies of Saxony and the

GERMANY: 1555-1648 301
Palatinate weakened the opposition, and Rudolf was
crowned unconditionally.
At Regensburg (1576) it was proposed to remove the
Reservation, and make the ecclesiastical lands thus
thrown open bear the cost of Turkish wars. This
scheme was rejected through opposition from the two
colleges of counts, who did not wish to see the princes
strengthened. In this and other ways the religious
divisions brought the constitution to a standstill, and
led to loss of power abroad, although at home the
country grew in wealth. Towards the end of Maxi
milian's reign the care of Gregory XIII. (1572-85) did
much for Germany. So constant was his thought for
it that he was said to have " a German heart," and he
never said a Mass without intercession for its welfare.
Six months after his accession he created a Congrega
tion made up of Germans or cardinals with local know
ledge. A reform of German Chapters was one object
set before it. Nunciatures at Munich for South Ger
many (1573), in Styria (1580), and at Koln (1584)
strengthened the connection between Germany and
Rome. Special diplomatic attention was paid to the
princes, and here the Jesuits were useful. Political
relations tended, to war, and religious controversy was
hardening to hatred. The practical work and the very
definite aims of the Jesuits, above all, tended in the
same direction. Where energy, unaccompanied by con
stant recurrence to breadth of thought and simplicity
of first principles, is thrown largely into organisation,
the narrowing of object and the immersion in a system
are apt to produce hardness and severity. The lines of
the coming struggle were clearly laid down. Maxi-

3o2 THE REFORMATION
milian could not avert it, but he did at any rate gain
peace in his time (1564-76).
He had conceded a free exercise of the Augsburg
Confession to the nobles of Lower Austria (1568), and
with intent possibly to please the Protestants and still
suit the Catholics, a book of worship was drawn up
(mainly by Chytraeus of Rostock) as a compromise,
and revised by the Emperor. Ferdinand I. had already
consulted George Cassander, a theologian, who had
previously formulated a vid media, and drew up for the
Emperor a Consultatio with that aim (1564). Styria
was much as Lower Austria. In Upper Austria Maxi
milian reaped a harvest of difficulties due to the double
dealing which had gained him the Empire, pledged as
he was both to the Pope and the Lutherans, able
however to put off the latter more easily. A papal
brief (April 16th, 1564) allowed all the German
bishops to grant the administration of the chalice to
laymen desiring it, provided they professed belief in
the sufficiency of communion in one kind, and re
nounced all the doctrines that had separated Utraquists
from the Roman See. In the Austrian lands this was
gratefully received, for the upper classes were mainly
Protestant, although the lower classes were Catholic.
In some of their towns in these duchies Catholics were
even excluded from the councils, and in others (as in
Gratz) had but one or two representatives. So late as
1578 Protestantism was the prevalent religion in all
these territories except the Tyrol, which remained
thoroughly Catholic.
But in 1598 when the Catholic revival affected
Passau, a diocese including much of Austria, the
bishop was able to refuse the chalice to the laity

GERMANY: 1555-1648 303

and in Salzburg the archbishop had refused the conces
sion. In Styria, with Carinthia and Carniola, catholic
Charles, son of Ferdinand I., was ruler, and reaction.
the great advance of Protestantism had led Austrian
him to invite the Jesuits (1573). To Gratz lands-
and three other cities he allowed (1578) freedom of wor
ship, which in the case of Gratz was abused by almost
depriving the Catholics of citizenship. Under Charles
the reaction was slow in spite of ready help from the
Papacy and the Jesuits, but his son Ferdinand (1590),
strictly educated and with a conscientious devotion to
religion and duty, was a man of sterner stamp than
his father, and became the leader of the Catholic
movement. His sense of religion and duty was his
own, but the mould into which these qualities were
cast was that of the Jesuits. He shrank from no
bloodless severity ; he expelled all Protestant teachers
and preachers (1598), and rescinded the allowance of
freedom of worship. Thus the measures of Protestant
princes were met by retaliation. The examples of these
relatives of theirs affected the emperors, and the course
of affairs in Bavaria had the same effect.
The peculiar Church conditions of Bavaria have been
noted before (p. 45). William IV. (1508-50) had
ruled not only strongly, but well, caring for
the welfare of the peasants and keeping up
the standard of Ingolstadt as a centre of learning,
second among Catholic Universities to Louvain only.
Albert V. (1550-79) laid the foundation of the cele
brated library and the other collections still adorning
Munich. The Jesuits by ducal invitation came to the
city and founded a college there (1542-56). The
Estates complained of the bad discipline of the clergy

3o4 THE REFORMATION
(1553), and asked (1556) for communion in both kinds
and relief from the obligation of fasting ; afterwards
also for clerical marriage. Thus the Duke was in
opposition to his nobles, and only when he had over
thrown them was he able to carry out his policy. But
to conciliate the Estates he had to support their
demands at Trent ; for a moral reformation he was as
anxious as they were. But early in 1564 the Duke by
violence suppressed for a time Protestantism in the
Ortenburg territory, and although his action was not
supported by the Reichskammergericht, the fear of his
doing the same elsewhere made the nobles submissive.
In a few years the government, exercising powers
strictly belonging to the bishops, had, by strict visita
tion and care for education, changed the country
greatly. The Emperor Rudolf — deeply interested in art, litera
ture, and science, but from the first moody and reserved
The — grew more solitary in his later years. He
Emperor had been brought up in Spain, and his in-
Rudolf, clinations were for repressing Protestantism,
157 1 r2- Ytut his first attempts — he expelled the
preacher Opitz from Vienna (1578), and tried the same
course elsewhere — met with opposition, and he drew
back. It was the persistence and success of his cousin
Ferdinand (1597) in Styria that led him to revive this
earlier policy, and it was this revival that led to the
Thirty Years' War. Melchior Klesl — Cardinal and
Bishop of Vienna — was the director of his policy. As
a poor child Klesl had been trained by the Jesuits, and
his ability did credit to their teaching. His wisdom
is not to be blamed for the disasters due to Rudolfs
growing insanity. The Catholic organisation was re-

GERMANY: 1555-1648

3°S

stored in Austria (1597), in Styria and Carinthia under
Ferdinand (1600-2), and the prohibition of Protestant
worship and teaching was strictly carried out. In
Bohemia Rudolf (1602) re-enacted a former (1581)
edict banishing the Bohemian brethren, and made it
cover Calvinists as well. When a synod (1605) adopted
the Decrees of Trent, the Bohemians began active
opposition. In Hungary also an attempt to reverse
the change of churches to Protestantism intensified the
national dislike to the Emperor, and to save the realm
both Lutheranism and Calvinism had to be allowed.
The death of Duke John William of Julich-Cleve
(1509) once more brought up the disputed succession
there, and it was only settled after long disputes by
the Treaty of Xanten (1614) between the Neuburg and
Brandenburg claimants. In the course of the negotia
tions and fightings the Empire showed its weakness,
and religious division its bitterness.
The rightfulness of the secularisation of Church
property after 1552 had been questioned in many
cases, and notably in those of four con-
vents : Frauenalb, Christgarten, one at Strass- decision
burg, and Hirschhorn. The Kammergericht about the
had ordered their restitution, but an appeal four
for revision was now to be decided. There ^"^
could be no doubt as to the result, but the
Calvinists (now inspired by Christian of Anhalt, a
wandering and restless soldier politician, an official of
the Palatinate, filled with hatred of the Habsburgs)
decided to dispute its enforcement, and to admit in
religious disputes no authority but the Diet, the last
body to settle anything. The law was clear on the one
side, and the facts were clear on the other. Maxi-
x

306 THE REFORMATION
milian of Bavaria, bold and energetic, was ready for
his own policy to oppose the Habsburgs, but here his
inclination agreed with the Emperor's power. He
meant going with the flowing tide of Catholic reaction
to enforce the law. The opposed policy of the Cal
vinists really meant the breakdown of the Empire,
and the matter led to their withdrawal from the Diet
(1603). By this time Rudolf's insanity had become plain,
and the succession — in which both Spain and the
Papacy took an interest — was merged in the question
of his removal. His brother Matthias, who had
arranged a peace in Hungary by granting religious
freedom to Lutherans and Calvinists, was adopted by
the family as their head (April, 1606), and their candi
date for the Empire. The relations between him and
Rudolf put both at the mercy of the Estates.
In 1604 a disputed election to the See of Strass
burg, which had gone on since 1592 between a younger
Cardinal of Lorraine and John George of Brandenburg,
came to an end after lengthy wars and disputes only
by the arbitration of Henry IV. of France. No sooner
was this settled than another dispute broke out. The
people of the imperial city of Donauworth
worth.' were mainly Protestant since 1555 : proces
sions held for many years by the Benedic
tines there were suddenly forbidden by the Council
when they became more ornate : the monks persevered,
and riots arose : the case came before the Supreme
Courts, and a commission was issued to the Duke of
Bavaria to inquire into it. Finally the city was put
under the ban which Maximilian was to execute. He
took the town and restored Catholicism. This set the

GERMANY: 1555-1648 307
Protestants on the alert: the Diet (1608) came to an
open rupture. The Protestant States formed at An-
hausen (May 16th, 1608) a union, renewed and after
wards enlarged, from which Saxony kept apart. Mean
while Matthias forced Rudolf to cede to him Hungary,
Austria, and Moravia along with the succession in
Bohemia. He granted freedom of religion to Austria,
and finally Rudolf in Bohemia legalised by the Letter
of Majesty the Augsburg Confession. The nobles,
knights, and royal towns were allowed to build Pro
testant churches where needed : on royal domains the
people might do the same. Trouble afterwards arose
because the Church lands, being managed by the royal
treasury, were treated by the Protestants as if they
came under the same provision, a mistake at once
technical and far reaching. Silesia received like privi
leges, and only Ferdinand in Styria held his own. In
July, 1609, the formation of a Catholic League was the
reply to the Evangelical Union. Rudolf was forced to
resign Bohemia (1611), and died (January 20th, 1612)
in the midst of wild schemes for regaining power,
which had thrown all his subjects, and Emperor
specially the Bohemians, upon the side of Matthias,
Matthias. The latter was elected Emperor 1612-1619.
(June 18th, 1612), but the Electors made favourable
terms for themselves in the transaction. He had made
a mistake in bidding for the support of Protestants
with whose principles he did not agree, and he favoured
the Catholics more than once. The Protestants had
built churches at Brunau on land belonging to the
Abbey, and at Klostergrab on the lands of the See of
Prague, and to this their superiors objected. It was
replied that ecclesiastical lands, as controlled by the

308 THE REFORMATION
Crown, ranked as royal, and therefore admitted the
building of churches. But Matthias took the other
and more legal view. He contrived to get his deter
mined relative Ferdinand elected King of Bohemia
(June, 1617), of Hungary (1618); in yielding to this
Bohemia had owned the hereditary right of the Habs-
burgs and ran a risk of losing their freedom, for they
had hoped to elect a Protestant. The expected death
E of Matthias (which took place March 20th,
Ferdinand 1619) could no longer bring relief to his
II., lands. Ferdinand was stricter and more
1619-1637. sincere ; his subjects would not gain a milder
rule by waiting. The church at Brunau was soon
closed and that at Klostergrab pulled down, and feel
ing grew more intense. Under the leadership of Count
Thurn (May 23rd, 1618) a national revolt, hastened by
The Thirty outside diplomacy, broke out. The Religious
Years' War had at length begun. Christian of
War- Anhalt had been intriguing and reckoning
upon it. The war might, with France and Spain at rivalry
and keenly interested, become European ; at any rate, the
German Catholics were only too likely to be thrown upon
the side of Spain as the Protestants upon that of France.
In Maximilian of Bavaria and Ferdinand the Catholics
had leaders of higher type and stronger fibre than any
found on the Protestant side. Unhappily these leaders
had now resolved to meet innovation by force. It is
not our purpose to follow out the war in detail ; many
features already noted reappear in its course. The
dark shadows of France and Spain hide German in
terests ; the Protestant divisions, the weakness of the
imperial constitution, the pertinacity of the Counter
Reformation are seen again and again. In its later years

GERMANY: 1555-1648 309
religion is quite lost sight of; it is a war of mere
politics and barbarity, which worked untold harm and
made misery a thing of daily life.
The war falls into strongly marked periods. (1)
The Bohemian War (1618-20), in which the Elector
Palatine, Frederick V, son-in-law of James
I. of England, was elected King of Bohemia i,eno s °
• • -r-, ,¦ 1,1 , 1 , • the war.
in opposition to Ferdinand, but lost both his
new kingdom and his old territory. The Union failed
to support him ; indeed by the Treaty of Ulm (June,
1620) it pledged itself to neutrality against j The
the League ; the North German Protestants Bohemian
stood far aloof. The rebellion had spread War and
to Austria and Moravia, but Maximilian '*? geqJ?e1'
and Tilly, fighting for the League, carried
all before them. The Upper Palatinate was lost and
also the Lower (or Rhenish) in 1622; the Electorate
was given to Maximilian (1623), who also received the
Upper and the Lower Palatinate (1628), the former of
which he kept permanently. Here, as in the Emperor's
own lands, Catholicism was restored through great
severity and with the alternative of emigration. In
these campaigns (1620-24) the Emperor (elected
August 28th, 1619) gained ground greatly.
(2) Christian IV. of Denmark, chosen as Director
of the Lower Saxon Circle (where lay most of the
secularised sees), intervened. He was a u The
political Protestant without much religious Danish
feelinc, but he interfered for his interests in interven-
North Germany, where he was Duke of Hoi- ti°n>
stein, and where he had laid hands upon the x 2S_I 29'
Sees of Bremen and Verden. So far the burden of war
had fallen upon the League and its army under Tilly, a

3io THE REFORMATION
rough and fierce but devoted and sincerely religious
soldier. Now, however, Wallenstein, sprung from a
noble German family settled in Bohemia, a convert
from Protestantism and with Habsburg associations,
offered to raise an army for the Emperor. He hoped
at once to strengthen the imperial power and carve
out a principality for himself. But he stood outside
religious associations, and was served equally by
Catholic and Protestant soldiers. From the first he
roused against himself the princes, whose dislike of the
Habsburg power was their leading principle and out
weighed their Catholicism. In the course of the war
he also brought upon himself the anger of those who
wished to build up political associations upon a purely
religious basis. Of his greatness, his real genius, there
could be no doubt ; whether he could be easily fitted
into a scheme of politics remained to be seen. His
great success led to his being made Duke of Mecklen
burg (February, 1628), and he seemed likely to found a
strong Northern power. Christian IV. made peace
with the Emperor (1629), and another period of the
war was ended. The Emperor, the army led by
Wallenstein, the League represented by Maximilian,
and the clergy inspired now above all by the Papal
Nuncios (such as Caraffa), were the leading forces on
the Catholic side, and the interests of their parties
were rapidly growing apart. By this time Ferdinand
had put down Protestantism in his own territories —
Austria, Moravia, Silesia, and Bohemia ; even some
ordinary civil rights were denied to Protestants.
Easter, 1626, was fixed as the date by which all non-
Catholics were to have left Bohemia, and thirty thou
sand families were said to have been moved. In Hun-

GERMANY: 1555-1648

3H

gary at a later date (1645) Ferdinand III. was forced,
however, to restore some churches to Protestants.
Behind the soldiers who saw to the expulsion of minis
ters and teachers came the Jesuits and the Monastic
Orders; emigration of dissenters and instruction of
those who remained completed the process. The first
stage of the Emperor's policy was now finished; his
own lands were secured for his own religion. It seemed
as if he might even go further, win more of Germany
for the Counter Reformation, and along with that
restore the imperial power to its former greatness.
This policy was expressed in the Edict of Resti
tution. This Edict enjoined that all bishoprics, monasteries,
and other Church lands not held directly from the
Emperor which had been secularised since
1552 were to be restored to the Catholics; all Rest;tu-
those held directly which had passed to tion, 6th
Protestants since 1555 (and therefore con- March,
trary to the Reservation) were also to return x 29'
to Catholics. All Catholic princes could compel their
subjects to adopt Catholicism, or to leave the country
on receiving money to do so. The Religious Peace was
only to apply to Lutherans ; Calvinists and Zwinglians
were not to be tolerated. This Edict applied to some
fourteen sees and one hundred and twenty other
foundations at least. If it had been carried out it would
have done for North Germany what had already been
done for the South; but it was carried out only in
Elsass, Franconia, and the Lower Saxon Circle. Inci
dentally the Emperor could thus provide for younger
members of his family, such as his son, the Archduke
Leopold, who was now elected Bishop of Halberstadt.

312 THE REFORMATION
But the Elector John George of Saxony, hitherto loyal,
and the League, strongly Catholic but also anti-Habs-
burg, were turned against the Emperor by the Edict.
Maximilian of Bavaria suggested its postponement for
forty years, and the Elector asked its repeal. All
parties united against Wallenstein, who was likely to
make the Emperor too great and destroy the freedom
of Germany. While the Edict only interpreted the
existing law correctly, it did not allow for existing
facts and for processes hard to undo; it put hardship
upon some who were not to blame for the original
fault. It was well that greedy princes should be
reminded of their limitations, but there were some of
humbler rank who suffered more. And the manner in
which the Edict was enforced — along with the pro
scription of Protestantism elsewhere — really retarded
the cause it was meant to serve. Here and there, as
in Prague and the Upper Palatinate, the new clerics
were surprised at the ease with which the masses
returned to Catholicism, but the true cause of this was
that their previous Protestantism had been founded
upon persuasion rather than conviction, and was the
result of princely or baronial influence rather than of
spiritual change. Elsewhere a real and lasting harm
was done to religion by the use of force to coerce the
conscience, instead of merely removing a hindrance to
its freedom of play. It was strange that Urban VIIL
— a Pope led mainly by political considerations, unlike
Gregory XV, who had subsidised the Emperor and
urged him to persevere— did not welcome Ferdinand's
increase of power. For a time he refused subsidies,
and would not allow the war to be called religious ; he
would not even allow Ferdinand to name the first

GERMANY: 1555-1648 313
holders of the benefices regained, and he did not
approve the handing over to the Jesuits of recovered
foundations, since this removed them from episcopal
control. It was more politically important that the
imperial success roused France to new efforts and inter
ference, first by diplomacy and then by war.
(3) Even more striking was the interference of
Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus. The traditions of
his family were Protestant. By his tact he
had gained peace at home, and he had ex- Gustavus
perience in war. He had even thought of Adolphus.
entering the war before he did. He came June, 1630,
nearer the heroic mould than anyone else in *° ovem"
J . . ber, 1632.
the war, combining as he did the simplicity
of the northern people with a deep devotion to his
religious ideals. It may be true that he had his own
objects to gain. He undertook something of an ad
venture, but its results would be more for his religion
than for himself. He intervened just when the second
stage of the war — the stern use of force in the Edict
of Restitution — had been reached, and when if Protes
tantism, held by him essential to the world, was to be
saved, help must go to Germany from outside. But if
he stood for Protestantism he also stood for the
freedom of religious choice, just as Luther had done
for the individual conscience, and that is why his
character has always commanded sympathy. He was
something of a great general and something of a great
leader. He defeated Tilly and Wallenstein. The
Electors of Brandenburg and Saxony were moved by
him from their neutrality. He founded a school of
generals and a system of tactics. His victory at
Breitenfeld (September 7th, 1631) secured the safety

314 THE REFORMATION
of the North and opened the South. His plans — foiled
by his death at Liitzen (November 6th, 1632)— included
the formation of a great Corpus Evangelicorum with
himself at its head. Historic traditions would have
been violated, Napoleon's map of Germany anticipated,
the breakdown of the empire hastened. This new
division of the empire would have been permanently
bound up with religion, but it seems also likely that
in his new territory religious liberty would have been
left to Catholics. His great aim was to defend Protes
tantism, and with it liberty, and in doing it he gained
territory for himself and his cause.
(4) Under the diplomatic guidance of the Swedish
minister Oxenstiern and the military command of
Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar the war went
IV. The on- xhe league of Heilbronn (April 23rd,
war after 163gs united under gweden the circies
Gustavus. J
of Swabia, the Upper and Lower Rhine
and Franconia (where Bernhard hoped to form a
duchy out of Bamberg and Wiirzburg). But Saxony
stood apart, and at length by the Peace of Prague
(May 30th, 1635) made a preliminary peace with the
Emperor. But before this Wallenstein's too great
success and power had led to his second dismissal (for
he had been re-employed), his lapse into treason, and
his assassination (February 25th, 1634). This living
cause of jealousy removed, Bavaria and the Habsburgs
drew closer together. Spain was more than ever in
terested in the Catholic cause, and France
tervention stronger at home under Richelieu, and long
1635-1648. the secret supporter of the Protestants, now
plunged openly into the war. Thus a
disastrous and blighting struggle, which might have

GERMANY: 1555-1648 315
ended in 1634, was prolonged for fourteen years
But the Peace of Prague foreshadowed its end, and this
peace came after the disastrous Protestant defeat at
Nordlingen (September 6th, 1634).
By it the Elector of Saxony made peace for the
Lutherans, and for them alone. So far as they were
concerned the Emperor gave up the Edict peace 0f
of Restitution. They — at least those of the Prague,
Augsburg Confession — were allowed liberty May 30th,
of worship in the Empire except in Bohemia 3^'
and the Austrian hereditary lands. All mediate Church
lands (i.e. those not held of the Emperor) were to
remain as in 1552. If secularised then they remained
so. All secularised immediate Church lands, recon
quered since November 11th, 1627, were left to their
secular holders (thus most of the northern sees were
left to the Protestants). All mediate lands remained
as in 1552; all immediate as in 1627, but the whole
arrangement might be reconsidered in forty years'
time ; an amnesty with few exceptions was allowed.
Thus the Emperor really compromised with the
Lutherans and surrendered much, while they were
practically bought. He also gained support for his
son as successor in the Empire, and secured the see
of Halberstadt for his younger son Leopold. The Pope
(Urban VIIL) disapproved of the peace; the Capu
chins, now coining to the front and marked by a
national feeling lost among the Jesuits, approved.
Among some Jesuits the opinion was that the peace
was really a snare for Saxony, that the concessions
made were more apparent than real, and would only
divide the Protestants.
The religious element in the war was now overlaid

316 THE REFORMATION
by the political. The Treaty of Paris (November, 1634)
had secured for the Protestants the help of France
(now and since August, 1624, guided by Richelieu), but
to gain this help Elsass was to be given up. Thus
religious divisions played into the hands of
Ferdm- France. On Ferdinand's death he was suc-
1637. ' ceeded by his son Ferdinand III., King of
Hungary and (since December 22nd, 1636)
King of the Romans. The new Emperor was strict
and regular in habits, careful and discreet, and although
pious lacked the enthusiasm of his father. The war
under him was utterly merged in the duel between
Spain and France, while Germany was weary of war.
Negotiations for peace had begun in 1645, and in 1648
the Treaty of Westphalia, made up of the Treaty of
Munster between the Empire and France, and that of
Osnabriick between the Empire and Sweden, was com
pleted. With the political terms, forming a basis for
European politics during one hundred and fifty years,
we have little to do ; the cession of land to France and
Sweden, and the influence given to these powers in
the empire, was disastrous to the national life of
Germany. The secularisation of sees was confirmed. Sweden
gained Bremen and Verden ; Brandenburg took Halber-
stadt (the Archduke Leopold became Bishop
Treaty of of strassburg), Minden, Cammin, and in the
Westphalia, 0/ .
1648. en(l Magdeburg also ; Mecklenburg received
Schwerin and Eatzeburg ; Brunswick-Liine-
burg the alternate nomination to Osnabriick. Many
secularised abbeys were similarly used as "compensa
tions." The acknowledged independence of Switzerland
and the United Provinces recognised facts less open to

GERMANY: 1555-1648 317
criticism than these secularisations. The old reservatum
ecclesiasticum, the cause of so much trouble, was done
away with, and for most of the Empire the term
(January, 1624) was taken as the norm. All benefices
were to remain in the hands of the religion then in
possession. For the Palatinate, Baden, and Wiirttem
berg the date 1618 was taken, but had this earlier year
been taken throughout the Empire, the changes in the
Habsburg hereditary lands would have been dis
allowed as later in date. If in future a holder of a
benefice changed his religion he was to lose his office.
A state was to remain as it was at the normal date.
The right of reformation was given to the princes only
to be exercised with the approval of the people, and
where direct sovereignty was possessed, so that this
right was denied to the imperial cities; in them the
dominant religion was to remain as such. This right
of reformation gave to the princes great powers of
interference, and by implication adopted a theory of
State relations as often assumed in practice as decried
in theory, but it was hardly brought into play. Thus
all the tendencies of religious strife and political greed
so long at work were crystallised and made a per
manent part of the constitution. Religious toleration
was gained, and Calvinists were now treated the same
as Lutherans of the Augsburg Confession and Catholics.
Many regulations guarded the rights of Protestants in
Imperial relations and judicial suits. Then the Empire
settled down to the tremendous task of repairing the
desolation and healing its misery, but religion remained
for long a thing of territory and politics rather than
of the inner life. The Empire had been sacrificed by
Austria to its religious and dynastic aims, by others to

318 THE REFORMATION
their less lofty greed. Inside the Austrian lands Catholi
cism held undisputed sway; in the Empire religion
was free. In comparison with the policy of others, that
of the Habsburgs is just redeemed from vulgarity and
selfishness by its vision of the ancient Empire and its
religious earnestness. For the rest the princes seemed
now to have become everywhere the keepers of religion,
and real spirituality was likely to perish under their
care as had the national life.
In the negotiations for peace papal legates — four,
one after the other — were present, but the conditions
The upon which they insisted were disregarded.
treaty Church property should not be dealt
and the with; Sweden and the Elector-Palatine
¦ aPacy- should not be allowed to gain ; but their
protests to these ends were of no use. Europe had
now passed out of political tutelage to the Pope ; the
legate Chigi protested against the Peace, and Inno
cent X. (Zelo Domus Dei, November 20th, 1648)
annulled it so far as it was against the See of Rome,
the Catholic Church, or clerical discipline. But the
treaty itself had provided that the opposition of any
power, temporal or spiritual, should be disregarded,
and the condemnation had thus no result except as the
beginning of a policy which has often since then placed
the Papacy in opposition to national wishes and in
terests in Germany and elsewhere. The Papacy had
chosen to make political results its great end. The
Council of Trent had, on the other hand, strengthened
its spiritual powers, and these remained unaffected by
the treaty or its rejection; its political claims were,
however, openly disregarded. Spain, too, which earlier
in the year (January, 1648) had made peace with the

GERMANY: 1555-1648 319
Netherlands and acknowledged their independence,
protested against the treaty. This was no wonder,
for in Spain more than anywhere else the hope of
undoing the work of the Reformation had been
cherished, and henceforward that hope in its largest
shape was impossible, in spite of the almost wonderful
progress of the Counter Reformation. But just as a
century earlier Catholicism had gained by the hatred
between Lutheran and Calvinist, so now Protestantism
had gained by the rivalry between France and Spain.
Political problems and not religious were to be hence
forth the primary difficulties and duties of States ; this
was an axiom princes had been forced to learn, but
which the Papacy had chosen to disregard. The Treaty
of Westphalia laid a purely political basis for the
future, and it was not without significance that the
Holy Roman Empire — the distinctive dream of the
Middle Ages as an embodiment of spiritual unity
expressed in politics — had now by this treaty changed
its character and lost its power.

CHAPTER XII
ENGLAND
WHEN Henry VIIL came to the throne (1509) he
typified in wealth, popularity, and power the
new monarchy that had arisen. If the country was
thus strong at its summit, it was even stronger at its
Henry Dase- ^° State could compare with it in
VIII., the coherence and liberty of its local life.
iS°9-47- There were many problems left for solu
tion, many difficulties to be dealt with. But the
Middle Ages had been greater in building up institu
tions than in defining ideas, and this was no dis
advantage ; more problems are solved by the man of
action than by the man of thought, although they may
press more acutely upon the latter. The Middle Ages,
however, had been slow to perceive contradictions in
its system unless practical difficulties presented them
selves. There had been of old conflicts between the
Papal and the kingly power just as there had been
inevitably between the political and religious societies.
Statutes, such as that of Provisors, limiting the Pope's
right to fill up English benefices by providing them
for chosen occupants, and that of Preemunire for
bidding the bringing into England of Papal Bulls, had
expressed and hardly composed these conflicts. Im
patience had been often felt at the Papal jurisdiction,
320

ENGLAND 32I

and the way in which it was exercised; tested by, its
utility in action or on behalf of morals it could not be
rated highly. At Rome, says the English chronicler,
Adam of Usk (1402), "everything was bought and
sold, so that benefices were given not for worth, but
to the highest bidder . . . and therefore as when under
the Old Testament the priesthood was corrupted with
venality, the three miracles ceased, namely, the un
quenchable fire of the priesthood, the sweet smell of
sacrifice which offended not, the smoke which ever
riseth up ; so I fear it will come to pass under the
New Testament, and methinks the danger standeth
daily knocking at the very doors of the Church." It
was the Roman jurisdiction thus exercised which had
aroused so much feeling in England ; the non-resident
holders of benefices to which they had been "pro
vided" kept alive the irritation of an old grievance;
the ever-growing number of ecclesiastical lawyers, then
as always the bane and degradation of the Church,
found in the Roman Canon Law a complete system,
which, however, presupposed authoritative Papal legis
lation. Technically the Canon Law (which was not,
of course, de fide) had no force in England unless
accepted by the national synods and allowed by royal
permission; but practically, as might have been ex
pected, the lawyers trained in its principles always
sought to apply it. And the ecclesiastical courts, with
their inquisitions into private lives and petty details,
were increasingly unpopular. Alike to the eccle
siastical lawyer who approved and to the ignorant
laity who disapproved of them, the ecclesiastical courts
formed a pyramid, converging in the Curia. But the
feeling of England towards the Papacy at the begin-

322 THE REFORMATION
ning of the sixteenth century was rather one of in
difference than of active dislike.
Beyond the anti-papal legislation there had been
other signs of coming difficulties and contests between
Royal papal and royal power; the question of
and Papal the King's supreme power had been raised
Relations. as eariy as 1515 in the argument between
Convocation and the popular Minorite, Dr. Standish
(later on an opponent of Erasmus). "We are," said
Henry VIIL, "by the sufferance of God, king of
England, and the king of England in times past never
had any superior but God." Again, when the King
wrote his book against Luther, he showed it to Sir
Thomas More (1522), who made a curious criticism:
" I must put your Grace in mind of one thing, and
that is this, the Pope, as your Grace knoweth, is as
great a prince as you are. It may hereafter fall out
that your Grace and he may vary upon some point:
whereupon may grow breach of amity and war between
you.'' But to Henry's mind at that time his relations
with the Papacy could not be too close, although with
varying politics he varied in the warmth of his affec
tions. Sir Thomas More had seen indeed that Papal
Supremacy was to be the crucial question of the day,
and had therefore studied it carefully; in the end he
came to the conclusion, different from that of many
others, that the Papal Supremacy was grounded in
Scripture and essential to the Church. But it was
significant that so acute an observer had singled out
the point as important. For the present Henry was
firm in his attachment to the Papacy, but how long
he would keep so was yet to be seen. "I am," he
said to Giustinian, the Venetian ambassador, "the

ENGLAND

323

Pope's good son, and shall ever be with his Holiness
and with the Church, from which I mean never to
depart ; and I think I have sufficient power with his
Holiness to warrant hopes of my making him adhere
to whichever side I choose." This was of Leo X. in
1515, and again in 1517 he could say, " Pontifex est
mens." Clement VII. also had a personal affection for
Henry, due not only to favours received, but to hopes
for the future. And yet in 1525 Wolsey could hold
out a threat that the whole realm of England would
become Lutheran. So far had ecclesiastical relations,
the growth of ages, and taken for the most part on
trust, become matters of political convenience ; so fast
had a crisis in these relations developed.
As to the general condition and efficiency of the
Church in England strongly opposed statements are
often made. It should not be forgotten condition
that too great reliance upon the Monastic of the
Orders and the friars tended to put the Church.
ordinary machinery of the Church out of gear ; sore
ness arose between the diocesans and the secular or
parochial clergy ; while the laity were often inclined
to take part in the struggles. The popularity of the
friars, as shown by legacies left to them, was far
greater than that of either secular priests or monks ;
the friars coming with their popular sermons (or
sermon, if their stock-in-trade was limited) and their
easy manners were a welcome change from the parish
priests. The bishop and the archdeacons, always remote
and often involved in quarrels over local jurisdiction,
were never very popular and often very unpopular.
Thus there resulted a dislocation of the ecclesiastical
machinery which needed more regular visitations and

324 THE REFORMATION
a more favourable atmosphere to work efficiently in
the absence of a great enthusiasm. The comparative
rarity of synods and the tendency for visitations to
become matters of form (if not worse matters of fees)
were indeed signs of a lack of enthusiasm and of
something closely bound up with it, the preoccupation
of the higher clergy in affairs of State or secular
business. This evil was undoubted, and nothing did
more to lower the respect felt for the clergy. The
higher clergy, as individuals, were not popular or even
influential. But the Church as a body was still
respected and obeyed ; the form of its working
machinery, synods, and visitations continued suffi
ciently for a revival in the hands of reformers. In
ecclesiastical as in constitutional history it is of the
utmost importance that forms capable of being revived
should remain even if for a time ineffective.
The Monastic Orders may have lost their former
zeal, but they had not sunk to the low level of life
The that satirists and unfounded traditions
Monastic ascribed to them. Although Warham's
Orders. Visitation (1511) showed in many cases
financial mismanagement, defects, and sometimes small
dishonesties in house-keeping or care of property,
there were few moral evils and certainly no wide
spread corruption. Some monasteries needed (as
S. Albans had in 1499) reproof and received it ;
numbers were diminishing, and for many years new
foundations and additional endowments of the old had
nigh ceased : pious founders preferred to endow
hospitals or chantries. Thus from Henry IV. to
Henry VIIL only eight monasteries were founded, but
about sixty colleges or hospitals. The variation in the

ENGLAND 325

endowments of chantries (where a single priest said
masses for the founder) is instructive : for Yorkshire,
1350-1400 A.D., the number was forty-eight; 140.0-50
it was twenty-eight; 1450-1500 it was sixty-one; from
1500-50 it was forty-seven ; the drop in the fifteenth
century, if due to Lollard influence, had been only
temporary, and eventually the old doctrines had lost
no favour. If the feeling of piety then remained the
same, the lessening zeal for monasteries is still, more
significant ; clearly they no longer met a need of the
age, and indeed the visitations and all our evidence
show no very high standard of usefulness or devout-
ness of life. Broadly speaking, society felt the need
of a life of retirement less than it had done in bygone
ages; many men and women took up the life of rule
without a distinct vocation for it ; there were many
houses that were places of pleasant retirement for the
rich, and others that were places of easy life for the
poor. While there were, as Erasmus said, types of
the highest life to be found in monasteries, they no
longer preserved, as of old, a higher general standard
of life than the outside world. They still served their
old purpose of schools ; they were still, though with
less economic and agricultural success, landlords of
fairly generous views; but their religious functions
were not so well performed. The need of reform had
been widely felt; Archbishop Morton (1487) under
Henry VII. had planned, and Archbishop Warham
(1511) had partly carried out an important visitation:
the results of which agree with the above statements.
If we turn to the secular clergy we find the leading
churchmen belonging to them, and not as before to
the Monastic Orders; their general level of life was,

326 THE REFORMATION
as always, dependent upon that of the outside world
The and a little above it. But their great
Secular immersion in business and politics, where
Clergy. foey were successful rivals of laymen, went
against them and lessened their efficiency as a class.
There is no reason to accuse them of any widespread
immorality, but there was a wide difference between
the Church's standard of clerical celibacy and the
frequent concubinage punished lightly, if at all. The
teaching power of the Church was, of course, not
limited either to sermons or to catechisings. The
frequency of preaching is often underestimated, and
the collections of medieval sermons show a readiness
to preach ; the popular mission sermon was a creation
of the friars, and not of the Reformers. But the
teaching assigned to the parish priest, apart from the
more secular instruction often given by the chantry
priests, was often most important. Every parish priest
was bound to expound to his parishioners the chief
points of Christian doctrine and practice ; for a public
mostly uneducated, these expositions were of necessity
simple, and they were so far the ordinary rule as to
escape frequent mention. But the number of manuals
for use in such instruction shows the importance given
to it, as do the large proportion of religious works
issued by the early presses. The religious controversies
of the Reformation could not have arisen or have been
popular among people untaught or ignorant of Chris-
tain creed or duty. The point then disputed was not
whether a priest should preach or teach, but what,
and in what manner, he was to preach and teach.
The simple piety of the English people, their regular
attendance at church, where on week-days they said

ENGLAND 327

their offices as monks did elsewhere, and their frequency
at mass, struck a Venetian ambassador (1500) as re
markable. Not improbably this widespread love of
the Hour Offices led in later days to the popularity of
the Morning and the Evening Prayers modelled upon
them. The Sarum Offices had a beauty of their own,
even if they were more complicated than the Roman
Use. The New Learning had perhaps penetrated more
deeply into the life of England than of any other
country, Italy excepted. But whereas in
Italy it was the pagan side of the movement Learn;na-
that went the deepest, in England it was
the theological and religious. This was partly because
England had only two Universities, in both of which
the revival of learning gained firm footing at an early
date. Colet, at Oxford, came rather in the second genera
tion of teachers of this class, and his lectures upon
the Greek New Testament were in the spirit of what
Erasmus called "sound learning," reverent, practical,
learned, and not widely speculative. English Universi
ties and English scholars seemed to have changed their
character since the time when brilliance and paradox
had been held the characteristic of English thought,
as solidity and accuracy were of French. Sir Thomas
More, whose Utopia has carried his name where neither
his learning nor martyrdom could have done, was the
central figure of the English movement: the host of
Erasmus, the friend of Colet, the pupil of "sound
learning" in high judicial and political place. But
two features of his life are to be noted. First, his
theology was essentially medieval; he had no sympathy
whatever with the doctrines of Lutheranism ; he had

328 THE REFORMATION
hardly any tenderness for either heretic or heresy.
And, secondly, he must be judged by the simple pathos
and Christian peace of his Chelsea home. It is a
perfect picture of a Christian household, and it shows
us on the very eve of the religious revolution what
medieval Christianity invigorated by the New Learning
could not only idealise but actually produce. More's
theology was the theology of the movement in England.
This theology cannot be gathered from the Utopia
alone ; his household was the type of practical life the
movement aimed at producing. And for many years
under Henry VIIL and Warham it seemed as if this
movement, which Wolsey's administration and scho
lastic foundations went to help, would control or shape
the Church in England. That it did not so in the
end was due to two causes — the matter of the King's
divorce and the adverse influence of the Lutheran
movement abroad.
Recent studies of the " Divorce " (or as it should be
called, a suit for the nullity of marriage) have shown
"The that *ne rea^ cause Is t° De found, not in
King's any doubts or scruples felt by others or
Matter." himself, but in Henry's passion for Anne
Boleyn and his desire to have a legitimate male heir
to the throne. Wolsey, seeking to strengthen the
newly-formed French alliance, was for some time
ignorant of this, and hoped, after pleasing his master
by gaining the divorce, to strengthen his position by
a new marriage with a French princess. The negotia
tions and despatches between England and Rome give
us a low idea of Henry's character (he even sought
permission to have two wives at once upon Old Testa
ment models) and of Wolsey's diplomatic methods ;

ENGLAND 329

they further prove the scanty respect felt for the
Papacy of the time. Nor was the policy of the
Papacy straightforward in all ways. The question
was first raised in the spring of 1527. In May
Clement was taken prisoner ; as Charles's captive he
dared not offend him by an insult to his aunt, Queen
Katherine ; at the same time his wish to please Henry
led him to temporise. Questions of right and wrong
seemed to fall into the background; it was even
suggested to Henry that he should act upon the
assumption he was right, and leave the problem of
two wives to settle itself. Finally, although tardily
and against his judgment, the Pope signed a decretal
commission giving Wolsey and Campeggio power to
declare the law when the requisite facts had been
obtained. Had this been acted upon (and the Pope
expressly promised not to reverse the decision) Wolsey,
whose good faith there was every reason to doubt,
could have annulled the marriage without appeal. Of
the real injustice of Henry's contention the Pope
seems rightly to have had no doubt, yet every pressure
was put upon the unhappy Queen to retire into a
nunnery and let judgment go by default. With the
admission of her appeal to Rome (June 13th, 1529)
all doubt as to the result was at an end, especially as
the Pope and Emperor were now in league. Henry
had been balked, and his anger was roused. Wolsey,
the greatest of English ministers, fell a sacrifice
to the King, who was now learning his strength.
Events hurried rapidly on. It was necessary to put
a decent gloss upon the King's cause, and hence the
appeals to the universities of Europe, not on the
legality of the original dispensation but on the power

330 THE REFORMATION
of the Pope to pronounce upon such a case at all. And
finally an obedient Parliament, little unwilling to take
such action, supported by a Convocation much the
same in temper, put an end to all ecclesiastical re
lations with Rome. There had been many matrimonial
causes as dishonourable to the kings concerned, some
of them honourable to Popes who had stood for
righteousness ; there had been few so dishonourable to
all concerned save to the suffering Queen. There had
been none destined in a world of inflammable politics
and political relations to bring about such a vast
result. For henceforth if Catholicity depends upon
the admission of papal jurisdiction and connection
with Rome, the Church in England was to lose her
Catholicity. That is, in one sense, a theological
question upon which at the very outset Eastern and
Western Christians might hold differing views; it is,
in another sense, a historical question, the answer to
which is to be sought from the early rather than from
the medieval Church itself. To most Englishmen of
that day it presented itself as a change in external
relations and in those alone.
Wolsey was indicted for breach of Praemunire
(October 9th, 1529) and replaced as Chancellor by
Sir Thomas More : of all his offices he was
Fa°jSeys only allowed to keep his Archbishopric
of York, to which see he journeyed for the
first time now in his disgrace. While awaiting his
installation he received a summons to London on a
charge of high treason, and it was on his journey to
the Tower he died (S. Andrew's Eve, 1530), at Leicester
Abbey. His had been a striking figure : the able states
man of low birth ranking among princes, but statelier

ENGLAND 331

and grander than they, entering into their politics
with a skill and a wisdom England was to miss most
sorely. He played in England the part that some
Popes of the day — respectable, but not spiritual, patrons
of learning but not models of religious life — played in
Rome itself. But his career shows how politics was
all the world, how even to men not paltry in their
minds or ignoble in their aims everything turned
upon the relations of dynasties and kings. The tide
of religious earnestness was rising even if the air was
full of strife and bitterness. The Lutheran movement
had thrown much of that earnestness upon the side of
disruption; earnestness on the Catholic side had yet
to find its centre. In England the death of Wolsey
removed the one ecclesiastical statesman who might
have directed the currents of the time instead of being
swept away by their force.
Henry VIIL now entered upon a career of absolute
power, and was guided by himself alone. He still kept
his love of learning, but learning, like com- „Henry
merce, flourishes best in quiet atmosphere, vm#
disturbed by little change. He never altered
his doctrinal faith, although Lutherans from the
Continent looked to him for help, and were sometimes
encouraged for political reasons. If, on the one side,
he left untouched the internal organisation of the
Church, developed its growing national tendencies,
and carried out the policy of independence indicated
by kings before him, on the other side his hand was
heavy and his greed great. The power he claimed
and exercised in ecclesiastical matters was in truth
little more than could be seen at work in Spain or
Bavaria or in France with its Gallican liberties ; but

332 THE REFORMATION
his assertion of the royal power against that of the
Papacy, was bolder and stronger than other kings had
cared to make. Other kings, Catholic and Protestant,
had freely applied confiscation to ecclesiastical pro
perty, and it had been the main motive of the Swedish
Reformation. Other kings had played with ecclesias
tical problems as pawns in the game of politics. But
the peculiarity of Henry's policy was to combine all
these characteristics into one effective whole. He did
it too with a reckless force that did not stop to con
sider consequences ; at times he risked everything, and
his bold front was often the strongest support of his
throne ; he was often unpopular, and rebellion often
came nearer to success than it thought. So that his
personality counts for even more in the changes of
his reign than is sometimes supposed; his persistent
courage no less than his capricious selfishness needs to
be emphasised. The past history of the English Church
may account for much that happened, but only when
other countries are taken into account can the changes
of his reign be understood. He could do what he did,
not only because he was king in the England of
Henry II., of Edward I., and of Wolsey, but because he
was living in the Europe of Charles V., of Christian II.,
and Gustavus Vasa — the Europe where Julius II. and
Leo X. had just been buried, and where Clement VII.
was a political influence.
In November, 1529, the Parliament met, and its
spirit was seen to be hostile to the clergy, or, at any
The Re- ra^e' *° ^e ecclesiastical courts. Fees for
formation probate cases, mortuaries (fees paid at
Parlia- burials), pluralities of benefices (even if held
by papal licence), and non-residence were

ENGLAND 333

specially attacked. Some of these abuses both Warham
and Wolsey had tried to reform, and the Convocation,
which met at the same time, made many provisions for
reform in life and clerical discipline. But a heavy and
unexpected calamity now fell upon the Church. In
1531 the whole Church and clergy were accused of
Praemunire for having recognised Wolsey's Legatine
Court. It was worth noting that Wolsey's appoint
ment as legate (1518) had been made at the King's
special request, and that a judge like Bishop Fox of
Winchester had looked for great reforms through the
power thus conferred. For this offence the clergy
paid a fine equal to two million of modern money
levied as a subsidy. Still more, they admitted that
the King was Supreme Head of the English Church
and clergy so far as the law of Christ allowed. The
title (yielded after a struggle) might mean some new
or only the old powers claimed by former kings and
by Henry himself in a proclamation (September, 1530)
on the rigid enforcement of the Provisors. An ex
planation furnished by the King favoured the latter
sense. In 1532 the Commons, secretly moved by
royal influence, complained of the clergy's legisla
tion for themselves, and also of the ecclesiastical
courts. A controversy between the King and Convoca
tion followed, which ended in the Submission of the
clergy, May 15th, 1532. By it no new Canons were to
be made without the King's consent, and the existing
Canon Law was to be examined by a commission of
thirty-two. (This commission was appointed later on,
but the result of their labours is unknown. Cranmer's
Beformatio Legum was a similar task undertaken by
himself.) Protests were not wanting, as, for instance,

334 THE REFORMATION
that made by Tunstall, the learned Bishop of Durham,
and the course of the discussion was tedious. But the
final result was that whether the King's new title
meant little or much, the Church was powerless, at any
rate for a while, in his grasp. Against this condition
there was not only protest but struggle.
But it should be strongly insisted upon that Con
vocation, the assembly of clergy, not kings or princes
Convoca- or parliaments, had already marked out
tion. the path of reform. Bishops were to be
IS32- stricter in their visitations, both of parish
priests and monasteries ; greater stress was to be laid
upon clerical residence and a higher standard for Holy
Orders was to be kept up ; episcopal officials were to
be restrained in their exactions of fees ; teaching and
preaching were to be better provided for; clerical
offenders strictly punished; heresies put down and
heretical books suppressed; the parochial poor better
relieved. These were prevalent evils ; but this clerical
Reformation, anticipating the best results of Trent,
was thwarted by the Submission of the clergy and the
attacks of the King and Commons upon their liberties.
The presentation of the Submission to Henry was one
of Warham's last public acts. He died August 23rd,
1532, and that very day Sir Thomas More resigned his
chancellorship. The Church of England was passing
into drifts and currents which he had no wish to enter.
Meanwhile Henry's suit was not pronounced upon
at Rome, and the relations of King and Papacy were
Anti-Papal fluctuating and undeveloped. The Statute
Legisla- of Provisors was diligently enforced, and a
tion. proclamation for that purpose was issued
(September 19th, 1530). In 1532 the payment of

ENGLAND 335

annates (a first year's income, levied first in the twelfth
century by some bishops, which, after becoming com
moner in the thirteenth century, was levied by the
Pope for himself in 1306) was left to the King's pleasure,
and was converted to his use by Royal Warrant in 1533,
confirmed by statutes in 1534. This was the beginning
of the Anti-Papal legislation, and in the latter year
the statute for Restraint of Appeals removed all papal
jurisdiction in England. Previous statutes had limited
it, this abolished it, while still treating it as a matter
of legal economy, and not entering upon the question
of the Roman Primacy in itself. The final act for the
Restraint of Annates put the appointment of bishops
on its present footing, the royal nomination, election
under the conge" d'ilire, and consecration being left
without papal confirmation. At the same time Peter's
Pence and all other payments to the Pope for dispen
sation or other purposes were abolished ; all such future
dispensations were to be issued by the Archbishop of
Canterbury. In November, 1534, the Act of Supre
macy, giving to the King the title of Supreme Head
with a right of visitation (hinted at as regards the
exempt monasteries by the statute for the Restraint
of Appeals), was passed. Earlier in the year a Suc
cession Act — which events had made necessary — was
passed condemning the King's first marriage, and
sanctioning that with Anne Boleyn, which had already
taken place. To this Act — to its justice as well as its
force — all persons might be called upon to swear, and
it was for refusing this oath, from conscientious reasons,
that More and Fisher were committed to prison. Their
subsequent deaths, for which no excuse of expediency

336 THE REFORMATION
could be offered, is perhaps the greatest stain upon a
reign that is clouded by many others.
Early in 1533 Henry had privately married Anne
Boleyn, and on May 28th Cranmer, who had succeeded
Warham (March 30th, 1533), his appointment being
accompanied by the usual Bulls, declared the King's
first marriage void, ab initio. Against the expected
papal judgment, which came March 23rd, 1533, and
came in accord with justice — although signs of waver
ing had been many — Henry had appealed to a general
Council. But the session which abolished Papal Appeals
from England had already begun before this sentence
was given.
There was little reason why bishops or clergy should,
at that time, defend the Papacy. Gardiner — himself
a former emissary to Rome in the King's matter — was
no less strongly a supporter of what had been done
than was Cranmer himself. For the present there was,
on the other hand, no sympathy with the Lutherans,
although efforts at an alliance with them were made.
The inducements to such an alliance were political, the
obstacles were doctrinal. Henry's attitude towards
the Papacy was, however, not without weight in decid
ing the Lutherans against the Council at Mantua, to
which Paul III. had invited them. But, as regards
England, the separation of the realm from the Papacy
was, as yet, something that it seemed possible for later
events to reverse. It depended mainly upon the King's
disposition, and was parallel to separations, less perma
nent because of surrounding conditions, that had taken
place between the Papacy and other powers, such as
France. Although Henry for his own purposes might en-

ENGLAND

337

courage heresy and was often glad to let agitation
weaken the Church's influence, the changes of his reign
were mainly in ecclesiastical relations and very little
in doctrine. Under the Act of Supremacy Thomas
Thomas Cromwell, an able adventurer, a Cromwell.
former soldier of fortune in Italy and money-lender in
London, a useful servant to Wolsey, and a statesman
of sordid ambitions, was made Vicar-General (1535),
and as such wielded a large, tyrannous, and unscrupu
lous power over the Church. It was through him, if
not due to him, that the Dissolution of D-
Monasteries was carried through. The lution of
smaller houses were dissolved (1536) by a Monas-
process of visitation and surrender which teneSi
anticipated the Act. Their alleged evil condition was
to be made an excuse for transferring their inmates to
larger houses where religion was said to be well kept,
but (1539) these larger houses soon followed their
brethren. Much has been written lately as to the
Dissolution, and it must be said that the evidence
upon which the monasteries were condemned invites,
and the agents who destroyed them compel, suspicions
of the good faith of the Government. Altogether
some 350 smaller and 200 larger houses were dis
solved, some 5,000 and 3,000 persons respectively
affected. There should have come to the King an
income of some £200,000 a year, or a capital of some
£4,800,000 in the currency of the day, and in modern
value of ten times that amount at least. But so much
was wasted to enrich courtiers and officials, the new
nobility subservient to the Crown, that the results,
little of which went to good purposes, were far below
this sum. Six new bishoprics were created at West-
z

338 THE REFORMATION
minster, Bristol, Chester, Gloucester, Peterborough, and
Oxford, the first of which had only a short existence.
The endowments of a few Professorships and much
rearrangement of foundations earned the King a
reputation greater than he deserved. He has been
called " the founder of all that he left standing." A
great revolution was wrought, and by the Suppression
a richly illuminated page of medieval history was
turned over almost for ever. The completeness of the
process, which even the reaction under Mary could
not reverse, left England with its monastic buildings
destroyed and desecrated, while its parish churches
stood often damaged but preserved. The suffering and
discontent thus brought about were one cause of later
rebellions such as the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536),
which were cruelly put down. The injury done by the
Suppression to the higher interests of national life is
hard to estimate. The monasteries had been the homes
of much labour and skill that could not maintain
themselves alone, and nowhere was the change more
felt than at the Universities, where the number of
students became sadly lessened. Education, society,
agriculture, were dislocated, and the economic change
(a third of the land in England may have changed
ownership) led to uncertainty and a race, often un
scrupulous, for wealth and power. The poor lost friends
always kind if not always wise. The keen business
methods of the new landlords, and a needed poor-law
legislation, emphasised the change.
Henry's legislation in some respects remained un
changed in later times. The election of bishops by
congi d'dire was no great change from medieval
practice, and recognised a royal privilege of ancient

ENGLAND 339

standing and claimed elsewhere. The removal of
Papal Confirmation destroyed what had Reiat;0ns
been sometimes a safety to the Church to the
and sometimes an excuse for tyranny. Papacy.
The King's legislation and his correspondence show
that he had not at first meant his breach with the
Pope to be final, and indeed the legal renunciation was
only completed in 1536. His chief object was the en
forcement of his own will, and both the papal power
and the independence of the English Church stood in
the way of this. Gradually his breach with Rome
became permanent ; the weakness of the Papacy and
the politics of the day made it easy for him to hold
a position which was theoretically anoma- Royal
lous. The new power, different in degree Supre-
rather than in kind from that exercised maC7'
in other lands, was as dangerous to civil as to re
ligious liberty, and met with much dislike and some
opposition, for the most part ruthlessly put down. It
also changed the position of the Archbishop Powers
of Canterbury. Church and State had 0f the
hitherto worked so closely together that it Arch-
had become difficult to discriminate between DlshoP-
the secular and ecclesiastical position of the Archbishop,
between his functions as leader of the Church and as
chief adviser of the King. Moreover, there had arisen
the same difficulty in separating his powers as legatus
natus and as Archbishop. The suppression of the
former office partly gave him a clearer field of insular
authority, partly left him weaker as against the King.
Both these features are easily seen in Cranmer's
archiepiscopate (1533-1536).
It is difficult to judge fairly the character of Cranmer;

340 THE REFORMATION
for there was in him so much of weakness and caution,
Thomas so much of a mind open to temporary in-
Cranmer. fluences, along with so much of constructive
power; of historic appreciation of the past with its
organisation and liturgic riches, along with so much
of literary sympathies with the newer national and
popular spirit of the day, that the results of the com
bination are often contradictory. His disgraceful sub
serviency to the King in the matters of his divorce
and later marriages may be set against the spiritual
influence of his literary workmanship in the English
Prayer-book and his caution in directing the Reforma
tion. His views especially upon the Holy Eucharist
may have changed from time to time under outside
influences, but to him is due the conservatism, of the
English Reformation in its constitutional changes : and
it should be remembered that his ideal of a reformed
Church included both frequent synods and a working
code of canon law (see Beformatio Legum and especially
De Concionatoribus, cap. 5). Had his idea been carried
out in these respects, the English Church might have
regained more quickly its old self-government, and so
recovered from the temporary paralysis of Henry's
Supremacy much as the Parliament did from his civil
tyranny. Elizabeth's changed style of Governor for
Head, even if with a chance of retreat in an added etc.,
her repudiation of any spiritual functions, and her care
for the independence of the Church as against Parlia
ment, were significant and influential, but even they did
not make up for these grave defects which Cranmer had
wished to supply. It is impossible here to separate the
varied influences that moulded Cranmer. The earlier
revival of learning was, as his own library shows, one

ENGLAND 341

of the strongest. " Little Germany " and the White
Horse at Cambridge (1523-1527) counted for some
thing. At a later date German influences were strong.
A mind so receptive as his along with a disposition so
pliant, was naturally swayed by the tendencies both of
current theology, in Germany as elsewhere, and of
national thought.
In the later years of Henry's reign it is needful to
bear in mind the course of affairs abroad, where clamour
for a Council, the growing importance of Henry
political and religious Lutheranism and VIIL,
Calvinism, of a demand for reform by even IS3°-IS47-
cardinals themselves, and papal avoidance of a Council
were the leading features.
Much controversy arose upon the King's position.
Gardiner's celebrated de Vera Obedientia asserted
strongly the complete authority of the King over " his
English Church and Congregation " (to use the terms
of the Articles). He there rated the authority of Rome
highly, but he used the word " in the sense of Cicero,"
implying popular estimation rather than legal right.
He even admits a Roman Primacy, but he goes to the
Scriptures to define its nature, which is one of service
and use, not of dominion or disrespect to others. A
treatise on the same subject, more official although
inferior in force, was Sampson's de Vera Obedientia
prazstanda, which drew forth Pole's well-known de
Unitate Ecclesice. Pole's almost royal birth, his liberal
and discursive education, his destination for high office
(he is said to have refused the Archbishopric of York
after Wolsey and before Lee), and his correspondence
with the Spanish Court, made his views important.
But his affirmative answer to the question whether

342 THE REFORMATION
" the superiority which the Pope claimed for himself in
many ages was of divine origin" checked his English
career. He charged Henry with breaking the unity
of the Church and with usurping spiritual functions.
His support of these charges — condemned by Bishop
Tunstal and others — made a breach between him and
Henry. His creation as a cardinal (Dec. 22nd, 1536)
launched him on a new, and now a definitely clerical
career. Three doctrinal documents of Henry's reign have
great importance. The Ten Articles were the first of
Ten many attempts to maintain, on a wide basis,
Articles the unity of the Church of England. Their
0 I53°- composition was preceded by a command
from the King to compose the disturbance of the realm
and by much discussion between Cranmer andStokesley,
Bishop of London, mainly on the definition of Sacra
ments. The first five of the Articles included things
necessary to salvation. The Creeds and Bible ex
pounded according to the Doctors of the Church were
the basis of faith. Opinions condemned by the Four
Ecumenical Councils were to be rejected. The Sacra
ments of Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist were
left undefined. Baptism was declared to be necessary
for everlasting life, and to be the remission of Original
Sin. In adults, penitence and faith were conditions of
baptism. Penance, with its three parts, contrition,
confession (auricular confession being retained), and
amendment, was declared necessary for the salvation of
the baptised after deadly sin. The real and corporal
presence of Christ under the form of the elements was
asserted, although transubstantiation was not. Justi
fication was defined as remission of sins and our re-

ENGLAND 343

conciliation with God, that is, our perfect renewal in
Christ, to be reached by contrition and faith working
through charity. The other five Articles concerned
laudable ceremonies of the Church. Images were to
be retained, as were veneration of saints and prayers
for their intercession, but superstitious abuses of these
were to be avoided. Many popular ceremonies as
sociated with special days were explained simply.
Prayers for the dead were required, but the abuses con
nected with Purgatory (Masses, pardons, and so forth)
were to be put away. The same year Cromwell issued
for the King injunctions to the clergy, which differed
slightly in their tone towards some of these ceremonies.
Demands made in them upon the clergy for instruction
and pecuniary help for scholars were meant to repair
the ravages of the Dissolution. There is a ring about
this document that suggests Spain or Bavaria rather
than the England of the past — royal control is so much
taken for granted and the path of clerical duty so
emphatically shown. By these injunctions a The Bible
copy of the Bible in Latin and English was to »n English
be placed in the choir of the churches. The Churches-
order may have been ineffective, but it marks (as did
the Ten Articles) a transitional stage. As yet there was
a desire not to discard Latin, the language of medieval
unity, but there was also an impulse towards a national
Bible. The English Bible was, perhaps, even more
closely bound up with the English Reformation than
the German Bible with the German Reformation.
The two other documents also deserve mention. The
Institution of a Christian man (1537) — a paraphrase
and explanation at length of the Creed, the Lord's
Prayer and Ten Commandments, the Sacraments and

344 THE REFORMATION
the Hail Mary. With great literary power and with
The Insti- logical accuracy the Institution defines the
tution of a position of the English Church much as it
Christian might be done to-day. It embodies the doc-
man, 1537. trinal partg of the Ten Articles, -but the four
lesser Sacraments are defined as being of less dignity
and necessity than the others. Much of the exposition
of them was indeed used in the later Book of Common
Prayer and the Articles. The second work —
The Necessarv ^e Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a
Doctrine Christian man (1543) — was largely a re-
and vision of its predecessor, and although it
Erudition, wag eyen more ^g WOrk of the bishops than
I KA.'Z the former book was, it has become known
as the King's Book, in contrast to the older book's title
of Bishops' Book. An article on faith was added. In
the part on the Sacraments transubstantiation was
affirmed. On the whole subject of Orders, with its
divisions and ceremonies, the later book kept closer to
tradition. Generally there was here sign of doctrinal
reaction. The same reaction was seen in the so-called Six
Articles (1539) : a reassertion, by parliamentary
Statute of authority under royal impulse and after
Six discussion in Convocation, of the older
Articles, theology. Here again the advantages of
IS39- unity were insisted upon. Transubstantia
tion, the non-necessity of Communion in both kinds,
the celibacy of the priests, the obligation of monastic
vows, the use of private Masses in the King's English
Church and Congregation, auricular confession, were all
asserted. Rigorous machinery for inquiry into heresies
was made by the Statute, but harsh as its provisions

ENGLAND 345

were, the use made of them was slight. The Statute
really came from the King, and marked his repudiation
of heresies and agitations he had sometimes encouraged
but now found inconvenient. Controversies had arisen
as to England's isolation, and her orthodoxy needed
assertion. About the same time the old Service Books
were being considered with a view to greater unity of
use. A vernacular Prayer Book, following after the
many English Primers or Manuals of Devotion (a
notable instance of which was put forth in 1545, the
close of a long medieval series), was both popular and
desirable. A reissue of the Sarum Breviary (1541),
which was ordered for sole use in the Southern
Provinces, was a step towards unity. The public reading
of a chapter in English upon Sundays and Holy-days,
and the issue (1544) of the Litany in English (much as
now) marked the extent of change. Various drafts of
services were being considered when the King's death
brought Edward VI. to the throne (Jan. 28th, 1547).
The reign of Henry had greatly changed the outside
relations of the country, especially in Church matters,
although probably the vigorous Bull of ex- Results of
communication (1535) composed by Paul III. Henry's
was never published, and the tyranny of rei£n-
his later years had not commended the change. Even
more was the country changed in itself and its ap
pearance. The heavy hand of the King exercised a
tyranny as complete in the Church as in the State,
but in both cases the constitutional machinery re
mained. Some theologians, and especially Cranmer,
had come under German influence, as yet of the
Lutheran, not Zwinglian type. The King had some
times talked of a political league with the German

346 THE REFORMATION
Protestants, but in its formularies and organisation
alike the Church remained unaffected, save in a few
lesser points upon which differences of opinion and
practice were not peculiar to England. An extreme
case among these was the destruction of shrines,
beginning with that of St. Thomas of Canterbury
(1538). The relics and the jewels were conveyed to
the King's treasury, and images used superstitiously
(a term admitting differences of definition) were re
moved. This, like the use of the familiar Latin, now
beginning to be less understood and also rivalled by
the vulgar tongue, was something that affected the
multitude. While the more learned part of the country
sympathised, some with the moderate reforms of Trent,
others with the differing reforms of Germany, the bulk
of the nation remained little affected by the doctrinal
discussions of the outside world. But changes in de
votion, uprooting venerable habits and local traditions,
aroused an opposition not provoked hitherto by anti-
papal legislation, and the new reign had to reckon not
only with a growing national spirit, dissociated through
Henry's selfish tyranny from loyalty to the Crown, but
with tendencies even stronger and more dangerous.
Doctrinal strife had gained intensity and was now
reaching England. Martyrdoms on both sides had
disgraced Henry's rule. Ecclesiastical changes had
become bound up with private selfishness, and gentle
families in England, as princely families in Germany,
could make their market of religious differences.
Statesmen wishing to copy Thomas Cromwell had a
new career opened to them under an infant King, and
the lower classes were to learn from experience that
their religious habits and spiritual interests were to be

ENGLAND 347

the sport of politicians. A time of social change and
commercial growth is not the best for religious changes
that are dangerous even if necessary.
The politics and alliances of Henry's reign had made
it clear that England and Scotland were to form hence
forth, as once before in the earlier Middle Scotland
Ages, one almost independent system. Scot
land had, it was true, passed, by the formation of an
independent province of St. Andrews (1472), under
more direct papal control. But the Tudor policy aimed
at bringing Scotland into closer touch with England,
an aim which, at a later date, first French and then
Spanish rivalry made even more to be desired. On
the other hand, a feeling of Scots independence was
aroused in opposition to England, and thus there was a
battle of diplomacy. But the course of the Reformation
movements in Scotland and in England became inter
twined, and the smaller country, once under Elizabeth
and again under Charles I., decisively influenced the
larger. In no country was the Church in a worse condition
than in Scotland. The greater Church offices were the
booty of kingly and noble families. Clerical efficiency
and even morality were at the lowest ebb. The feudal
treatment of the Church and its offices had lingered
longer in Scotland than elsewhere, and the political
constitution was more rudimentary than that of
England. The parishes were pillaged for the abbeys,
and the abbeys were pillaged for the nobles. Lollardy
may have slightly affected the country from its English
starting-place, but the Scots Church suffered not so much
from energy misplaced as from a lack of energy at all.
When Lutheranism rose its books reached Scotland,

348 THE REFORMATION
and Patrick Hamilton (1528) was a martyr to his
Lutheran creed. David Beaton, Cardinal and Arch
bishop of St. Andrews (1539), was a leader of the anti-
English party, and the great upholder of the Church ;
but, like Wolsey, he belonged to politicians and states
men rather than theologians or religious leaders. His
execution (1546) of George Wishart, a Zwinglian
layman who had travelled much and gathered congre
gations in Haddington and Forfar, who had attracted
John Knox to himself, and seems to have been mixed
in English intrigues, is an epoch in the Scots move
ment. Three months later Beaton himself was sur
prised and slain in his castle of St. Andrews. John
Knox, who more than any other directed the movement,
was a scholar of Wishart's, and acted as preacher to
Cardinal Beaton's murderers at St. Andrews. The
politics of religion and support of or opposition to
English interference were henceforth closely inter
twined. It was unfortunate that the tender age of the
new King marked him out as a plaything for poli-
Edward ticians, and that he came to the throne
VI. when religious factions, within and without
the land, were keenest. The personal piety of a boy
was of small avail. His precocity and openness to
outside influence made him easily led. His early
training amid theological discussion and vagaries
of tyranny increased the danger from his pliability.
The Augsburg Interim (May, 1548), which drove many
German ministers, Lutherans, and Calvinists from
their homes, brought some of them to England. The
reign of Edward, therefore, with its background of a
Court and King ruled by ambitious and self-seeking

ENGLAND 349

statesmen, was that in which foreign influence reached
its height. Change was rapid and not controlled by
regard for religious interests or national welfare. The
reaction against ecclesiastical statesmen had lessened
the possible power of the leading bishops. The robbery
of the Church continued, especially under the Protector
Somerset. The destruction of the chantries (with
their provision for prayers for the dead, and often, in
cidentally, for village education) and the confiscation of
the property of all guilds and religious societies brought
the evils of rapacity and misrule more closely home to
individuals. Education suffered, over two hundred
grammar schools being swept away and but a few re-
founded. The pillage of the enclosures and the debase
ment of the coinage ; the selfishness of rulers, who de
pended upon mercenaries for their support — all these
made a bad atmosphere for a constructive religious policy.
As yet there was no outcry for the restoration of papal
power, but a rule such as that of the Council was likely
to create a demand for any possible alternative that
seemed to promise stability. Force, that could not
plead legality, and overshot the general conscience of
the nation, was certain to cause a reaction.
In the Council marked differences appeared. There
was a conservative party, the theological leader of
which was Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester Parties
(1531 to Nov. 12th, 1555). But he and in the
Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton and Lord Council
Chancellor, were soon excluded from power and super
seded. Gardiner, a learned man, who had risen by his
diplomatic and political ability, had been a thorough
going supporter of Henry. He now deprecated changes
in worship and dealings with doctrine until the King

350 THE REFORMATION
should come of age. In regard to the Holy Eucharist
he upheld transubstantiation, and he had not been pre
pared to accept changes in view insinuated in the
Bibles published (by private enterprise, although with
later royal approval) under Henry. He now took his
stand upon "the Pacification" intended by Henry.
He opposed changes, symbolised by the removal of
" unabused " images in favour of the royal arms, or ac
companied by mutilation of images here and there, by
violent sermons and changes that ran ahead of law.
Cranmer's sermon at the Convocation, which greatly
magnified the office of the King ; far-reaching words of
Henry's executors now in charge of the realm; the
publication of the First Book of Homilies, prepared by
Cranmer as early as 1543, but only now issued by the
Council ; the Injunctions (July, 1547), which, when
enlarged by decree (Sept.), did away with all images
and shrines and Litany in processions — all these things
heralded greater change, opposition to which landed
Bishops Bonner and Gardiner in the Fleet. Parlia
ment, which met in November, passed an Act against
ridicule of and disputation in the Sacrament, to which
was added an order for Communion in both kinds.
Other Acts did away with the conge" d'dire in the
election of bishops, made the bishops' courts directly
depend upon the Crown, and gave to the King all
chantries not yet dissolved.
The history of Convocation is a troubled one. The
Bill of Communion in both kinds had been added to a
Convoca- Bill against ridicule of the Sacrament, and
tion- after passing the Commons,gained the unani
mous consent (verbal, not as usual, written) of Con
vocation. The Southern Lower House petitioned that

ENGLAND

351

Convocation should have its proper share in the legis
lation about religion and the Church, and also began
to move for a revision of services and the fulfilment of
the Commission of 1532 for a code of canon law. And
lastly, they decided for clerical marriage, a Bill for
which was passed in 1549. Thus Convocation, while
chafing at its loss of power, which was only regarded
as temporary, showed itself inclined to changes of the
kind favoured not only by Lutherans, but also by
Catholics in Germany and France.
But the ritual change which was to end in making
the Anglican Use the type of a new family went on.
The adoption of Communion in both kinds necessitated
a change in the Holy Eucharist. The old form was
left in Latin, but a Communion for the people in
English was added for Eastertide, 1548, and further
changes were under consideration. Some ceremonies —
such as the blessing of palms, creeping to the cross,
carrying of candles at Candlemas, and ashes on Ash
Wednesday — were forbidden. Cranmer's own draft of
a service book — influenced largely by the Breviary of
Cardinal Quignon — was again brought up for dis
cussion ; so too was the Rationale — the explanation of
Anglican ceremonies prepared by the Commission of
1540, and since then laid aside. The publication of a
Communion was necessary, and the choice of English
was a concession to the growing love of the vernacular.
The enlarged use of epistles and gospels and daily
chapters in English had been a move in the same
direction, and was intended for the positive instruc
tion on which the Reformation, like the Middle Ages,
laid much stress. But the issue of the first Prayer
Book (1549) went further. In its conception it was

352 THE REFORMATION
reverent and conservative. It bore traces of the Con
sultation of Hermann of Wied (Bishop of Koln), and
of the Breviary of Quignon, but, in the main, was a
revision of the old English Service Books. The use of
the Breviary of Quignon has been described as almost
"irenical" in its intention, for that Breviary was
favoured by the Pope and largely used among Conti
nental Catholics. The existence of parallel revisions
abroad, papal and Lutheran alike, is significant of the
need of such a work. The attempt to secure unity in
the realm was meant for "pacification," and the measure
of its success affects our estimate of the wisdom of the
attempt. Whether Convocation was consulted upon
the Prayer Book or not has been greatly discussed;
the loss of its records and the balance of opposite
inferences from existing evidence perplex the verdict.
It is certain the bishops had been consulted upon the
doctrinal questions. Something that might be taken
for approval had been gained from them, although
Thirlby, Bishop of Westminster, denied before the
House of Lords that they had done more than consider
it in disputation. But even had Convocation been free
to use all its theoretical powers of self-government, the
jus liturgicum lay not with it, but with the bishops.
The questions presented to them for decision show that
as large a basis of unity was desired as possible in
making a new departure.
The first Act of Uniformity (Jan. 21st, 1549), which
enforced the use of the Prayer Book, was an emphatic
Act of Uni- enlargement of Henry's policy of uniformity.
formity, However desirable in the interests of peace
IS4°- such uniformity might be, the change of
usages and language — especially when accompanied by

ENGLAND 3S3 ,
the removal of images and the active interference of
the Council — was unpopular. Rebellion — partly due
to these religious changes and partly due to social and
economic causes — increased the difficulties of the un
scrupulous leaders. Their manipulation of doctrinal
disputes, like their indulgence in greed and plunder,
recalled the worst days of Henry VIIL The fall of
Somerset (Oct., 1549) only increased the uncertainty
and intensified the evils of the nation, for his successors
were worse copies of the same bad type.
The bishops found their authority interfered with by
the State and despised by the multitude. Foreign
theologians gained more influence, and the wish to
reform the English Church after "the model of the
best reformed Churches abroad " began to appear.
Bishop Ridley's visitation of London, where he had
irregularly replaced Bonner (May, 1550), marked a new
tendency. He ordered the removal of altars and the
erection of tables, and otherwise outstepped the limit
of legal change. The objection of Hooper — chosen as
Bishop of Gloucester (April, 1550) — to the episcopal
vestments, retained in the ordinal when various cere
monies were left out, was an indication of future and
growing troubles as to vestments. The Prayer Book
had to reckon with those who preserved within its
limits as much .of the old customs as possible, and with
those who moved as far towards Calvinistic worship as
possible. It was impossible then, as now, for a book to
be a complete directory of worship, and much was left,
even within the limits of uniformity, to personal taste.
In these circumstances, foreign and unsympathetic
criticisms prepared the way for the second Prayer
Book. This book, authorised by Parliament (April
2 A

354 THE REFORMATION
14th, 1552), was to be used on November 1st, 1552.
Change here reached its limit. It is unnecessary to
dwell upon the differences of the two books, but the
part played by John Knox — now a licensed preacher
in England — in gaining the addition of the so-called
Black Rubric deserves notice. Knox objected to
kneeling for the reception of the elements, and gained
the Council to his view. Cranmer, whose pliancy has
been often overstated, protested, but the Council added
the Rubric on kneeling, which was afterwards omitted
under Elizabeth (1559), and restored with a verbal but
vital alteration in 1662. The death of Edward (July
6th, 1553) found this Prayer Book hardly in use, while
uniformity had been nowise reached. The fact that the
new book had declared the old " agreeable to the Word
of God and the primitive Church " gave a safe footing
to those who preferred the old, and the reaction under
Mary restored the conservative party who had, up to
now, been overborne where not imprisoned.
The political schemes of Edward's Council came to
naught, and Mary's succession at once removed the
Mary, Council's claimant from the throne. Wyatt's
1553-iSSS. rebellion (1554) led to severity against
some of the leaders and the flight of others. Political
discredit discounted their religious views. The Queen's
religious preferences were well known, and made her
accession more popular. The laws passed in Edward's
reign concerning religion were repealed in the first
Parliament (1553), and thus at once a large step back
wards was taken. But it is evident that the new
Queen at first meant to be tolerant, and in justice
to her it should be remembered that the attacks
upon her by the Protestants in exile passed all bounds.

ENGLAND

355

Wyatt's rebellion was a political turning-point in her
treatment of the opposition.
The Emperor, whom Mary consulted from the first,
advised caution and mildness to begin with, but after
this rebellion he thought her timid in punishment, and
he even suspected Gardiner, now in power as Chancel
lor, of treacherous advice. Julius III. had made a
natural choice in appointing Cardinal Pole legate for
the reconciliation of England (Aug., 1553), but neither
Pope nor legate quite understood the temper of tfie
realm. There was, as Mary confessed, much opposition
to " the re-entry of papistry." Parliament clearly dis
tinguished between the religious changes it approved
and the papal restoration it disliked ; and the regaining
of the monastic lands proved an impossible step to take.
Pole's reception was long delayed, and when at last he
came (Nov., 1554), it was as ambassador, not as legate.
All statutes against papal authority passed since 1528
were repealed, and the country was formally reconciled.
But the process had been irregular, and the counter
revolution, like the revolution itself, had disregarded
proper forms. The Council and Parliament had antici
pated the papal authority and acted of themselves.
Before this had been done Mary's marriage with
Philip of Spain had marked a new English policy, and
brought much odium upon the English Court. It was,
however, so necessary for Spain to gain the help of
England that nothing of the Spanish rigour against
heresy was carried out or even recommended in
England by Philip or his attendants. But things
moved towards the persecution that stamped the reign.
Cranmer and other bishops had been thrown into prison
(Sept. to Oct., 1553), and the bishops formerly displaced

356 THE REFORMATION
by them restored. Apart from these cases the rate
of episcopal change from natural causes was heavy
throughout the reign. The married clergy were also
deprived or allowed to part from their wives. Shortly
before the repeal of the anti-papal laws, the statutes
against Lollardy were revived, although not without
some opposition. But the mild treatment of the prison
ers for religion did not continue. Gardiner, in a sermon
at S. Paul's, had declared he himself was sorry for
what he had done under Henry, and that through the
heresies that had arisen he was driven to alter his
stand, and support the papal power. But he was not
a persecutor by disposition, and the worst of the
persecution only began after his death (Nov., 1555).
The martyrs were mainly either bishops or men of
lowly rank. Some of them faced death for the private
interpretation of Scripture ; others for the Common
Prayer Book or the principles it embodied. The
tragedy of Cranmer, however, raised a different prin
ciple — the papal authority. It is true that a belief in
transubstantiation might possibly have saved his life.
So far he was revolutionary, but his doctrinal attitude,
on the other hand, was, perhaps, most strongly given
by his practice and almost dying words recommending
confession as good. Isolated points did not count
for much. In the course of his trial, his weakness, no
less than his inner fibre of consistency, was shown
with dramatic force, and in the end he died rather for
a system he had helped to form than for any single
point (1556). Cardinal Pole succeeded him as arch
bishop. Upon him and the poor Queen, saddened by
her life as an oppressed maiden and a neglected
wife, the guilt of persecution must rest. The Marian

ENGLAND 357

persecution was neither unique nor without palliation.
Seditious language and heresy — regarded by all sides
as a crime — could not be redeemed by morality or
sincerity. But the persecution wrought a change in
English opinion which nothing else could have done.
The death of the Queen and of Pole on the same day
(Nov. 17th, 1558) gave a chance for a natural change.
The policy by which Paul IV. opposed Philip and had
revoked Pole's commission was a curious comment upon
the reconciliation of the realm. The first meetings at
Trent had fallen in the reign of Edward, and England
had then naturally stood aloof. Paul IV., however,
made a close union between England, even under
Mary, and Rome unlikely. But Pole had, even so,
already had a great opportunity of shaping a Church
in accordance with his best ideas. A Synod met
(Dec, 1555), and a large programme was laid before it :
a newly translated New Testament, new Homilies, a
completed code of canon law, a wide reform of abuses.
The twelve constitutions presented to it were meant to
rival those of Ottoboni, and dealt with many abuses
afterwards reformed at Trent — the duties of bishops
as to preaching; non-residence; reform of chapters;
avoidance of luxury ; due care in ordinations ; diocesan
seminaries, and so forth. The reforming movement
begun by Convocation in 1532 was thus to be revived.
Unhappily, however, Pole's labours were mainly
literary. He extended a glorified copy of the proposed
constitutions for the eye of the Pope in his Reformatio
Angliw, but the Synod itself was put off again and
again until in the end nothing came of it. Hence once
more Pole thus showed an excellence of intention
joined to weakness of execution.

358 THE REFORMATION
Elizabeth, on her accession, found an England differ
ently disposed in Church matters from what Mary had
Elizabeth, found. Of the new Queen's popularity there
1558-1603. was n0 doubt, and it was generally expected
that her ecclesiastical policy would be like that of her
father. The dread of Spain was upon the land, and
the dislike felt for that dominant power was both
religious and national. The name of Spain was bound
up with opposition to change even in milder forms than
heresy, and with the repressive policy of the Inqui
sition. Spain was blamed, though unjustly, for the
persecution under Mary, and Spain was the rival of
England in the naval and commercial age that was
beginning. Elizabeth and her statesmen (especially
Cecil) felt that the one thing needed was to carry a
united nation along with her in what was to be done.
It was to be clear that she stood for England, through
peace if possible, but if necessary, against the Papacy
and Spain. It was to be clear that she wished to con
ciliate all Church parties, but that she would not risk
peace to conciliate the most extreme. Caution and
diplomacy, carried even to dissimulation and cunning,
were to mark her policy, and its aim was to be
comprehensive. Too much is sometimes made of the
phrase " the Elizabethan settlement." In details much
was changed at a later date, and the true permanent
settlement belongs to 1662 ; but the spirit which has
on the whole since then marked the English Church
inspired the policy of the Elizabethan leaders, slowly
as their policy shaped itself. And as regards the out
side powers the significance of the date of her accession
must be noted. The Tridentine settlement was not
yet completed; it was therefore possible to cherish

ENGLAND 359

hopes of a full reunion. Meanwhile France and Spain
might be played off against each other, and England
was of so much importance that nothing rash was
likely to be done against her ; indeed, so late as June,
1563, the Fathers at Trent hesitated from policy to
condemn Elizabeth, although urged to do so by the
theologians of Louvain.
Thus circumstances favoured a somewhat tentative
policy, the broad lines of which were laid down, al
though the details were open to variation. Elizabeth's
But the papal policy did not drive Eliza- policy.
beth and her advisers into opposition to Rome. That
they intended from the first. As external success met
that policy, it grew bolder ; but it became more evi
dent from the action of the Pope upon his English
followers, on the one hand, and from the deeds of the
reformers upon the other, that complete success in the
full union of a compacted realm could not be reached.
It is clear, from the tight hand kept upon the preachers
and innovations, and from the records of discussions
upon important points, that the Crown meant to lay
down the religious policy of the country as a whole.
Alterations adverse to " the Pope's religion " were to
be made, but on the other hand, small regard was paid
to the extreme reformers. Moderation, uniformity,
and a dexterous use of politics were first to found and
then to defend a religious edifice. The composition of
a "book" was to be the chief of the means chosen.
The plunder of the Church for the State was, although
with less intensity than under Henry or Edward, to
continue, and did so until James I., to his credit,
stopped it. The Queen's supreme power was to be
rigorously used, but within these limits the right of

360 THE REFORMATION
the Church to its self-government in its own as
semblies was carefully guarded. It was significant
that the title of Supreme Governor took the place of
Supreme Head. It was unfortunate that episcopal
authority — upon which large calls were to be made —
was not popular, and that its efficiency had been inter
fered with, both by the Crown under Henry and
Edward, and by the Papacy and legatine influence
under Mary. Nothing is more notable than the way
in which this authority recovered itself, although its
assertion of its rights was to cause strife, and even
warfare. Strangely enough, no less than ten sees
were vacant by death in Elizabeth's first year. Her
Parker, choice of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of
"1559-1583- Canterbury was wise. He had the needed
learning" he was likely to command the sympathy of
reformers, and his moderation was undoubted. In his
case, however, moderation did not spring from timidity
or uncertain views, but from personal conviction.
Great care was taken to secure the episcopal succes
sion. In the appointment of bishops the usage of
Henry's reign was restored; viz. election under conge"
d'dire, confirmation by the archbishop and consecration.
But revolutions had left legal uncertainties, and so
in Parker's case the Queen, by a special clause in the
Letters Patent for his confirmation, " supplied all
defects " ; so the needs of the civil law were satisfied,
and every care was taken to comply with ecclesiastical
law upon the other hand.
When the exiles returned from Germany and
Switzerland, they brought with them views other
The exiles' than those they had held on leaving Eng-
return. land. The importance of " the troubles at

ENGLAND 361

Frankfort" (1554-7), a double dispute, firstly on the
question of using during exile the English Prayer
Book, and secondly on the question of discipline, can
not be overlooked. For these incidents marked a
division between those who wished to reform the
Church of England on a Calvinist model and those
who (like Parker) preferred a Catholic and yet national
line of their own. It was the former group that
caused the earliest difficulties of Elizabeth and Parker.
They only accepted — if their partial use were an ac
ceptance — the settlement in the hope of further
change in their direction. The views of the rulers
were different. The Prayer Book of 1559 was based
upon the Second Book of Edward. In combining the
words of administration at the Communion from the
two books of Edward it attempted an inclusive form
which definitely excluded for their sacramental views
only those to whom the Sacrament was a mere sym
bol. By its Ornaments Rubric ordering the vestments
which were in use in the second year of Edward it in
dicated the type of service chosen. The preservation of
episcopacy (upon which only the exigencies of contro
versy have thrown an utterly unfounded doubt) and
the provision of Canons (1571) kept continuity with
the older days. Thus the dangers to which the Church
had been exposed under Edward seemed now passed.
But it proved hard to secure uniformity from the
exiles. So difficult was it to enforce the vestments
that the Advertisements of 1566 allowed the use of
the surplice as a minimum. The Queen did not care
for the advertisements ; the bishops regarded them as
temporary, and a step towards general obedience to
the Rubric. The opinion of the foreign divines was

362 THE REFORMATION
quoted against the Prayer Book, and the deliberate
policy of the bishops was for the time to keep one
standard of ritual in theory and to enforce a lower in
practice. But Parker's attempts at enforcing obedi-
The ence and discipline — in which he was but
Vestiarian badly supported by some of his colleagues,
controversy and ft thwarte(i by the puritanically
replaced by ,. , J ,,,,,,
that of disposed statesmen — were suddenly checked
Episco- by a more important controversy, one that
pacy. questioned the whole ecclesiastical constitu
tion. But before this arose, the Thirty-Nine Articles,
reduced, with some changes, from the Forty-Two of
Edward, had been adopted by Convocation and pub
lished by the Queen's Council. Save for a slight
revision in 1571, they were much as they now stand.
No like document has remained so long practically
unaltered. Their genuinely comprehensive character,
with their boldness of assertion against the decrees of
Trent and the doctrines of the Puritans on opposite
sides, deserved this fate.
The apparent success of the Advertisements only led
to a keener strife. The extreme faction fell back
upon the position that everything done in the Church
V must have Biblical support. This principle, easily
disproved later on by Hooker, was used to express
their real dislike of ceremonies, and to justify their
non-conformity. That no "rags of Popery" were to
be kept was a feeling equally intense and fruitful in
results. A definite doctrinal position was thus reached,
and while on the one hand separated religious bodies
appeared (1567), on the other hand academic Presby-
terianism, especially at Cambridge, where Cartwright,
a leader of some learning and far-reaching influence,

ENGLAND 363

taught, took a peculiarly English form. It was not
so complete an organisation as Scotland showed, for
there Genevan principles, hitherto worked out in a
large city, took a larger form, suited to a land which
lay at their disposal. Scots Presbyterianism is thus
the most developed type of its class. The varieties
same principles on French soil had developed of Presby-
and emphasised the synod, but Scotland terianism.
added to the French model a complete system of
tribunals. In England, however, possibly owing to
the strain of episcopal authority, Presbyterianism
turned itself into an attack upon Episcopacy as an
evil and anti-Biblical system, while the need of a
popular call to the ministry was insisted upon. Its
doctrinal side was thus strongly developed. But the
sacerdotal spirit of the Presbyters was as strongly
marked in England as it was in Scotland. Side by
side with the existing Anglican organisation a Presby
terian system was thus formed ; the prophesyings or
preachings were something that came to the surface,
but the organisation of " classes " was more important,
although deeper down. It was this attempt to
Presbyterianise England which Archbishop Whitgift
(1583-1604) suppressed with full success; for the
Presbyterianism appearing under Charles I. was a new
introduction, a Scottish and not an English growth.
But it is important to notice tendencies of thought as
well as schemes of organisation, and there remained in
England a widespread tendency to refer to the Bible,
and to it alone, for authority. This tendency existed
inside the Church among many of its members, while
outside it Congregational bodies and Baptist bodies
were formed with the same conviction. A uniformity

364 THE REFORMATION
which concealed underlying diversity was thus to a large
extent reached inside the Church, but with the result
of leaving separated bodies outside it. The problem of
religious liberty was thus forced into a new stage ; not
looseness of thought or organisation within the Church,
but toleration for differing sects was to be the out
come. But it was long before the sects, who would
have preferred their own supremacy, saw the necessity
of this solution.
Religious change in Scotland had also quickened its
pace. Protestant opinions had been spreading, and on
the other hand some attempts at improved discipline
and instruction had been made; but the conditions
were unwholesome and the reforms were slight. John
Knox returned (1555) to find a Scotland in which
Catholicism was bound up with subserviency to France.
Two years later the First Covenant was signed, and the
leading nobles began to look to England for help. The
Parliament (1562) adopted a Calvinist Confession,
prohibited the Mass, made a call from the congregation
an essential for the ministry, and did away with both
papal and episcopal jurisdiction. Under a book of
discipline a system was afterwards organised for the
whole country, and when this was completed (1592),
Presby- Scotland was devoted to the doctrine of
terianism the divine right of Presbytery, to a govern-
in Scotland. ment by minjsters and eiaers. But before
this came about, Mary of Scots had ended her stormy
and sad career. The result, a closer union between the
two countries, was now certain. It simplified their
politics and embarrassed their religion. The English
speculations of Cartwright and his followers produced
in Scotland an organisation, while in its own home it

ENGLAND 365

remained a mere tendency of thought. During the
Civil War this Scots Presbyterianism was imported
into England, but the original English Presbyterianism
died out, and indeed it was, perhaps, of too academic a
nature to flourish everywhere. But when the English
Parliament during the Civil War needed help from
Scotland, they pledged themselves to the introduction
of Presbyterianism, with the result that the nation,
impatient of the old ecclesiastical courts, was soon
equally impatient of the new clerical jurisdiction. But
much turned upon the Scots' dislike of Episcopacy.
James I. had tried to maintain titular bishops, who had
slight authority and were little more than representa
tives of the Church in Parliament. He had an arch
bishop and two bishops consecrated (1610), for Scotland
in England. But James's real struggle in
Scotland had been to resist the claim of
National Assembly and Presbyters to control the
State, and in this resistance he had, at first, the
majority of the nobles and gentry upon his side. When
he went further, however, and tried to interfere with
the existing worship, trouble began. It was possible,
by violence or by skill, to manage the General As
sembly, and its approval was gained for the preparation
of a new Liturgy (1616), which proved abortive.
But the Five Articles (1616) were another thing.
By these James proposed to introduce the great festi
vals, Confirmation, kneeling at the Holy Communion,
Communion for the sick, and private Baptism. These
were accepted by a majority of the Assembly, and con
firmed by Parliament (1621), but the opposition was
stubborn and continued. The attempt intensified the
existing dislike of royal interference. The national

366 THE REFORMATION
sympathy, which had been veering round to Episcopacy
as against Presbyterianism, was alienated by the royal
policy. The plan of a new Prayer Book was revived
under Charles I. (1629), but the suggested
1020— 10^^ introduction of the English book was un
popular, and (1633) the matter was postponed. Mean
while, bishops of a higher ecclesiastical tone were
chosen, and (1635) a new Prayer Book, modelled upon
the English book of 1549, and Canons were drafted.
The former was, without reason, objected to as popish.
The latter were disliked as exalting bishops and insti
tuting diocesan synods, and directing ritual changes
already enforced in England (1637). But the main
point was that through the old unwise policy the Book
and the Canons were forced upon the Scots by royal
authority. In the tumult that arose power passed
from the King to the nation, and Scots Presbyterianism
was bound up with the cause of national liberty. The
political organisation of Scotland was weak, and the
ecclesiastical organisation made up for this lack by the
strength it possessed. Whatever might be the merits
or defects of Scots Presbyterianism, it was national
throughout, a position forced upon it by the Crown.
The Episcopacy, which was defended by the Stewarts,
represented the earlier reforming tendencies. It was,
however, discredited by its association with absolute
monarchy, and it also ran counter to the growing
Calvinism of the Scots. The Catholics who kept to
the papal obedience formed a large minority, and
tradition, which, to some slight degree, was in their
favour, made up to them for the loss of national
sympathy, which turned more and more to Presby
terianism. The course of politics — which lie outside

ENGLAND 367

our period — added strength to this clerical and yet
democratic Calvinism.
Meanwhile the guidance of the English Catholics
from Rome, and the growing boldness of the English
Government, raised difficulties on the side The
remote from Puritanism. Elizabeth's first Papacy and
attempt at ecclesiastical rule had been an Elizabeth.
" Interim," and like all such attempts, was to depend
upon the conciliatory dispositions of parties and the
power of the Crown. Bound as they were under fine
to attend their parish churches, the English Catholics
who clung to the Papacy would have liked to keep
their peace with the authorities at home, and yet main
tain their separation. But the dread of Spanish in
fluence, the certain existence of internal plots connected
with religion, and the effect of the Tridentine refor
mation made their position harder. Acts of growing
stringency were passed against them, and the agitation
which centred around Mary of Scots intensified the
bitterness of religious feeling. The question was asked
at Rome of the authorities whether consent could
not be gained to the attendance of English people at
Matins and Evensong, although not at Communion.-
Obviously those who asked hoped to gain permission,
but (Oct., 1562) the answer was not what they
expected. The strange process against Elizabeth at
Rome, and her excommunication and deposition by the
Bull Begnans in excelsis (Feb. 25th, 1570), seemed to
put before English Roman Catholics a choice of loyalty
to Queen or obedience to Pope. The severe perse
cutions carried on by the Government — even the
imprisonment of the Marian bishops was said by
some to have been harsh — took advantage of their

368 THE REFORMATION
dilemma. The foundation of the English College at
Douai (1568), and the similar College at Rome (1576),
increased the differences of view between the English
Catholics of the Roman obedience and their spiritual
leaders abroad. In 1574 the first batch of priests left
Douai for England, and from that time onwards the
unhappy stories of worship forbidden but carried on
with devotion, of priests bearing their lives in their
hands because accused, and often with reason, of con
spiracies, became more common. The troubles at
Wisbech (already mentioned, page 284) showed di
visions of opinion among the priests of the Recusants,
between the Seculars and Jesuits. The more English
party did not like the energy and the political restless
ness of the new school. But now and again, as at the
time of the Armada, and when Charles I. raised his
standard, the Roman Catholic gentry showed that
loyalty which English law made difficult, and the
papal bull made irreligious for them.
The primacy of Grindal (1576-1583), with the rise
of the " prophesyings " disliked by the Queen, but ap-
Grindal, proved by him, furthered the spread of
1576-1583- Genevan doctrines, and encouraged the un
derground Presbyterian organisations. The Council
drew his attention (1579) to the distinction drawn
between " preaching " and " ministering '' clergymen,
and to the designation of some as "no-sacrament"
ministers, neglecting the sacraments. In consequence
of all this, his successor found a hard task awaiting
him. After Whitgift's stern repression of these organi-
Whitgift, sations and his enforcement of discipline
1583-1604. ¦ this doctrinal influence grew even stronger.
Calvin's Institutes was the text-book at Oxford, and

ENGLAND 369

Cambridge was even more Calvinistic in tone. So
decided was this tendency, that the Lambeth Articles
(1595), meant by Whitgift as a compromise between
the views of the Articles and the prevalent opinions,
seem in these days to be extreme. A dispute as to
final perseverance had arisen at Cambridge, and these
Articles, happily never sanctioned, are Whitgift's
modification in the interests of peace of a suggested
strongly Calvinistic statement. But a school was
arising which was both to depart from Calvinism
and to claim for the episcopate its proper historic
place. It was the work of Hooker to Reaction
lay in majestic English a new foundation against
of Anglican theology, giving to reason its Calvinism.
full authority, and yet attaching due weight to scrip
ture, tradition, and patristic teaching. This was one
element in the Anglican system. Bancroft, first at
London, and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury
(1604-1611), partly by a return to older doctrine,
partly as a reaction against the depreciation of Epis
copacy, insisted upon the importance of the historic
episcopate, and this made another element. This
view agreed well with that held by James I., whose
treatment of the so-called "Millenary" Petition
showed his personal convictions. An Arminian re
action set in, especially at Oxford, where Laud, before
he began his career as a restorer of ancient Laud\
discipline, and the realiser in practice of Arch-
the Prayer Book ideal, had attacked the bishop,
prevalent Calvinism. Both departments of * 33~l 4S'
his activity — his enforcement of discipline and order,
his repudiation of Calvinism — brought him up against
strongly fixed opinions. Those who had neglected
2 B

370 THE REFORMATION
order, and those who taught Calvinism, hated his con
ception of the Church, shadowed in the Prayer Book
as it was, partly because it contradicted their views,
partly because its realisation made for ever impossible
that Calvinist system to which they had long hoped
to bring the English Church. When four English
Churchmen were sent by James I. to the Dutch Synod
of Dort (Dordrecht) in 1619, they found their outlook
very different from that of their hosts. The small
result from their visit marked the decay of Calvinism
in England, and the disappearance of any ground for
hopes of joining the English Church "with the best
reformed bodies " abroad. But Laud, innovator though
he seemed to many in his own age, was really recurring
to a type of Churchman common in the days before
Edward VI. He represented, in his controversies with
Papists and Puritans alike, the course the English
Reformation might have run steadily and throughout,
but for foreign and temporary influences. He has
often been blamed for his want of sympathy and for
some narrowness in his aims, but this lack and this
limitation sprang from his central idea of discipline.
Training himself by a system, he also enforced, often
with a rigour that was fatal to his ends, this discipline
upon others. But he did not only represent these
earlier tendencies of thought. He further represented,
among the Anglican Catholics of England, the move
ment of reform which the Roman Church had wrought
out for itself at Trent. It was, however, the misfor
tune of the English Church that the course of English
politics, the pressure of the Royal Supremacy, and the
force of Puritanism prevented its realising for itself,
and in a connected whole, a reform of its system com-

ENGLAND 37 1

parable to that of Trent. It was wonderful, under the
circumstances, how abuses such as the holding of
ecclesiastical offices by laymen, or by those not yet in
Holy Orders, simony, and so forth, gradually disap
peared. But the Church suffered much and long from
the fact that this process was piecemeal and desultory,
instead of considered and complete. The Canons
passed by Convocation in 1640 were Laud's beginning
of an attempt at such a legislative reform ; they
showed his ideal and put the keystone upon his sys
tem. But they overshot the national inclination, and
their formation was one of the charges that led to his
martyrdom. Ireland was a complicated problem, with its small
English pale, its fringe of denationalised English, and
its larger Celtic population. Government
had been weak, civilisation backward, and
religion, as was natural, at a low ebb, even before the
shock of the Reformation made things worse. The
Tudor policy was to make the country follow England,
but it was easy for disloyalty or racial enthusiasm (as
the same thing might be variously called) to seize
upon the Pope's cause as an excuse for what it did.
Hitherto Crown and Pope had worked together against
the Irish ; now they were opposed. In defence,
Henry VIIL hit upon the plan of bribing by grants of
land Irish chieftains to support his policy, religious
and secular. In succeeding reigns changes of policy
intensified discontent. Under Elizabeth the Irish
Parliament passed Acts changing things as had been
done in England. Most of the Marian bishops lived
on in their offices as before : only two out of twenty-
six were deprived for refusing the Oath of Supremacy.

372 THE REFORMATION
But the Act ordering the use of the English Prayer
Book (1560) began the severance of the Church from
the people, and the appointment of bishops directly
by the Crown (as in some Continental countries),
though of course those appointed received valid con
secration, increased royal influence overmuch. Succes
sive settlements of Scots and English brought in fresh
elements, and when the Restoration came, it found
a country in which the Roman Catholic cause had
grown, by its own wisdom and the mistakes of others,
into a close union with Irish feeling. The rise of
Puritanism had added bitterness to theological strife,
and both the Civil War and the Irish rebellion (1641)
left incurable wounds upon the land. Neither the
country itself, nor the Church system which England
proposed to support, had been given a fair chance
of vigorous life. With a rule from England, fitful
and intolerant, and mainly exercised in the interests
of a minority, it was easy for the Counter Reformation,
working with the elements at its hand, to build up,
in spite of the great names of some Anglican bishops
in Ireland, a hierarchy under Roman obedience that
not only led but raised the people. The work of
the body so built up has often added to the political
evils of distressed Ireland, but it has also given to
her a real religious enthusiasm and strong, effective,
moral guidance.
The causes and the progress of the Civil War do not
call for discussion here, but what has been said upon
The Civil Laud's ideal, cherished by Charles I., as
War. wen as by himself, explains some antago
nism between the King and the nation. It had been
an evil result of her position, for which, perhaps, the

ENGLAND 373

recent history of the Church was more responsible
than Laud himself, that Laud, intent upon realising
his ideal, should have leaned so greatly upon the royal
power. In the end he who had taken the sword of
the State perished by it. Dark days came upon the
Church. The triumph of the Independents showed
that religious toleration had been further from their
thoughts than religious supremacy. The Parliament,
which had always longed to settle not only Church
organisation, but doctrine, also gained its wish, and
completely revolutionised the religious and ecclesiasti
cal life of England. For a time the needs of the war
made it buy the help of Scotland at the cost of setting
up a Presbyterianism it did not like or even believe
in. But the enforcement of it was never thorough, and
was in no way permanent. At length an Independent
Congregationalism, slightly modified through a uniting
pressure by the State, was set up (1653-1654), and not
only the learning, but the devotion of England, seemed
lost in the days when its Church was dismantled and
its worship made penal. A religious tyranny, that con
sidered itself tolerant because it was merely indefinite
in its thought, shut out Anglican and papist from the
protection of the law. But in the end the disturbed
state of religion was one of the causes that led to the
Royal Restoration, and with the King the Church re
turned. The time of her suppression had left a mark behind
it upon the Church, although her orders and her suc
cession remained. A generation that had not known
baptism had grown up, and a form of adult baptism
had to be added to the Prayer Book. The discon
tinuity of religious life had left gaps even more im-

374 THE REFORMATION
portant than the loss of traditions which had long
supplied the place of Rubrics. But there was now no
real question as to what model of a church should be
restored. It was brought back as Laud's vision had
seen her, one with the past not only in her unbroken
descent, but in the devotion that was inspired by her
altars and breathed in her prayers. Before her perse-
Isaac cution she had attracted not a few foreigners
Casaubon like Adrian Saravia, and Isaac Casaubon,
in England, who felt the force of her appeal to antiquity
1610-1614. ag against bc^h G-eneva and Rome. Sacred
learning was a necessity of her life which she could
not forget, and in the men of her restoration, An-
drewes, Ken, Jeremy Taylor, and their not unworthy
fellows, she realised a type of Churchman not possible
for her at the Reformation. Their manuals of devo
tion were the richest fruits of the age ; some, like
Laud's own prayers, were not meant to see the light.
The existence of the souls and the minds which pro
duced them was not possible among those who looked
on the past with horror and dislike. She still bore
the scars of her struggle. There were still some who
leant overmuch upon the State, and the State had
somewhat forgotten the limits of its power. There
was still a strong current of Puritanism flowing be
neath the surface, but suffering and exile had deepened
the reformation which Laud's stringent discipline had
begun. There was still much of intolerance left, but
it showed itself more in the State than in the Church,
and in the end England, which had been taught much
by its constitutional life, solved the problem of religious
toleration earlier and better than did other lands.
That this was possible was due partly to the peculiar

ENGLAND 375

course of the religious wars in England, and partly to
the close connection of the Church with the national
life. If the Church suffered often and Tjn-aue
heavily from the limitations placed upon position
her, she learnt something at least from of the
them too. In later days she was to find p?glith
out the value of having kept — what might
have been so easily lost — a wide sympathy with varied
currents of thought, and above all, a national coherence
and independence for her episcopate : the union of
these advantages with the carefully guarded validity
of her orders, which so many other countries sacrificed,
gave her a unique position and a many-sided future.
The breach which she had to face was, as her formu
laries proved, and her later history was to show, a
breach with the papal Catholicism of Trent, but not a
breach with the Catholicism of earlier medieval days,
still less with the Church of the Fathers.

CHAPTER XIII
THE NETHERLANDS: FRANCE
THE JESUITS
THE religious, like the political, history of the
Netherlands was peculiar. Their political unity
was dynastic, not national or local. Their ecclesiastical
The organisation was weak. The bulk of their
Nether- territory lay in the three dioceses of Tournai
lands. (captured in 1521), Arras, and Utrecht (the
temporal lordship of which was surrendered to
Charles V in 1527), but part also in Terouenne,
Cambrai (captured in 1543), and Liege. As the con
trolling archbishops also belonged to foreign countries
no organisation could well be more confused, and it
was impossible for religious coherence to exist.
Charles V. had again and again urged upon the
Papacy the formation of new sees, for the existing
organisation worked against the unity which he
desired. But when Philip II. (1557) proposed to
found, and also endow out of monastic funds, four
teen new sees with three archbishoprics, the scheme
aroused great opposition because it was supposed to
be in the interests of Spain. But the Netherlands
had also had a peculiar history in regard to tendencies
of thought. Nowhere had the revival of learning
had more effect than in the region of the Brethren
376

THE NETHERLANDS 377
of the Common Life, but their sound religious influ
ence had been counter - balanced by that of more
fantastic and mystic theologians or heretics, among
whom the medieval Kathari (c. 1162), the Beguines
and Beghards and the Lollards (c. 1300) were num
bered. Some of these bodies combined excellent
practical impulses with teaching opposed to that of
the Church. In districts where the dioceses were too
large for oversight and lines of trade brought wander
ing teachers, these vague popular movements soon
degenerated, a process which was greatly hastened by
the influence of the spiritual Franciscans. It was not
surprising then that in the Netherlands Anabaptist
teaching found a ready soil; Luther's writings soon
became popular in the cities, and there as elsewhere
strengthened underground currents of revolutionary
thought; the Augustinians, who were locally strong,
naturally favoured his views. But before long Zwing
lian and Calvinistic tendencies gained the upper
hand. It was from a Dutch theologian, van Hoen,
that Zwingli first took his sacramental views, and the
nearness of France made Calvinist influence stronger
than Lutheran ; incidentally, too, this school of
thought was more suited to rich and democratic
towns. When the Anabaptist movement was ended
two classes of religious communities were found in
existence. Firstly, a number of " quieter " Anabaptist
bodies somewhat akin to the English Friends and
organised (especially in Friesland) by Menno Simonis
(c. 1542) as a select people and separated from the
world. Secondly, a number of Calvinist bodies spread
ing from the Walloon provinces (the lands of Hain-
ault, Artois, and Namur) northwards to the German

378 THE REFORMATION
districts. It was with these that the future of the
country lay.
Charles V. was not hampered in the Netherlands
by the political conditions which thwarted his will in
Charles V. Germany, and determined to put down
and his Protestantism with a heavy hand. The
rule> Inquisition was organised as a depart
ment of the State (April, 1522), and a layman,
Francis van der Hulst, was placed at its head. The
Edict of Worms was published and Placard (or Edict)
after Placard against heresy followed up to the crown
ing one of 1550, by which death was made the
punishment for reading heretical books, holding con
venticles, or preaching heresy. A Papal Inquisition
was set up in 1524, and the process of repression — a
deduction from the theory of territorial sovereignty
rather than a consequence of personal bigotry on the
part of Charles — continued for many years. When
Philip II. came to the throne (October 26th, 1555)
there was no marked change in policy, but the Spanish
leanings of the new King made his deeds more un
popular than those of his father, and the Nether
lands, for the most part religiously at variance with
their ruler, and exhausted by heavy taxation to carry
out foreign schemes, were too tightly strung to bear
much more. Philip's scheme for the new bishoprics,
although intended as a national development, seemed
to be a tightening of Spanish bonds and a multiplica
tion of inquisitors ; the minister Granvelle, once
Bishop of Arras and now to be Archbishop of Mecheln,
was also personally unpopular with the nobility.
However much the persecution in this earlier stage
has been exaggerated, the number of deaths had been

THE NETHERLANDS 379
large and the repression stern. Philip's new action
was the beginning of a war insignificant in its military
details and wearisome in its course, but memorable
for other reasons. It was an instance of national
resistance to foreign rule, and this resistance became
joined to a struggle for religious freedom. Because
they were opposed to Spain the Netherlands got help
from some of those who did not share their religious
views ; but because they posed as rebels they lost
some sympathy which would otherwise have been
theirs. The great independence of the towns, more
over, strengthened the resistance to Spain, but after
wards proved a difficulty to those who tried to form
a national government.
The removal of Granvelle, a most capable minister,
but a minister only, hated by the great nobles and
wrongfully blamed for all that was done,
hardly lessened the discontent with Spanish -g '
rule, and Philip's Edict (August 18th, 1564)
enforcing the Decrees of Trent, brought things to a
climax. A league of nobles (1566) against the Inqui
sition, called "the Compromise," was soon joined by
large numbers. The government was at a standstill,
and iconoclastic riots (August, 1566) were scarcely
checked. These excesses caused many Catholics to
withdraw from the national movement, and were the
beginning of a division which, when intensified later
on (1578), led in the end (1579) to the separation of
Catholic Belgium from Protestant Holland. The mili
tary rule of Alva (1567-73) — supported by the finest
army of Europe — was one of religious terror and civic
tyranny, staying before neither small nor great. Like
everything evil, it brought its own punishment with

380 THE REFORMATION
it, and hatred of Spain became confused with hatred
of Catholicism. But the Calvinists, if not so powerful,
were equally intolerant, and it was their tyranny at
Ghent (1578) which led the Southern Provinces to
unite in defence of Catholicism and finally to accept
the Spanish supremacy once more. But the Northern
States, under the skilful guidance of William the
Silent, formed a confederacy on the basis of national
independence and religious freedom. If the toleration
was not so complete as William would have wished,
and if the Catholics of the South were excluded, his
other aim of independence was fully secured. Spain
bowed to the inevitable, and a truce (1609) was fol
lowed by the recognition of Dutch independence in
the Peace of Westphalia (1648).
Apart from its political importance, the revolt of
the Netherlands had vast influence on European
Thou s-ht thought. The country stood as an example
in the to resistance to tyranny in religion, and it
Nether- had to face difficult problems of its own.
lands. The gwigs federation — the loosest of
organisations — had almost broken up on the question
of governing dependencies. Was religion a federal
matter or one for the cantons to settle for them
selves ? Was the Federation to regulate the religion
of the dependent or subject lands, or was each canton
to follow its own policy when according to the Con
stitution its turn came to administer the dependen
cies ? These had proved hard problems to settle, and
something the same difficulty arose in the Nether
lands. In the Federation between Holland and Zee-
land (1576) William the Silent undertook, as ruler,
to defend the Protestant Reformed Faith and to put

THE NETHERLANDS 381
down all beliefs which were contrary to the gospel;
but he meant to tolerate Catholicism. The Union of
Utrecht (1579), which united the Northern Provinces,
bound them together against foreign oppression, but
left each province free to settle its own religion,
although nobody was to be persecuted for his belief.
Catholic worship, however, remained forbidden until
the eighteenth century, although Catholics were
certainly not in a minority, and Lutherans and Ana
baptists, while allowed liberty of conscience, had not
freedom to proselytise. Under these fluctuating con
ditions an acute controversy arose over the power of
the State to control religion.
The earlier tendencies to learning had been even
quickened by the impulses of national vigour. Leyden,
in return for its brilliant defence against
the Spaniards (1575), had been allowed to
choose a favour for itself, and had thus gained the
right to found a university, which soon became the
leading one among Protestants. When Lipsius (the
celebrated professor of Roman history there) joined
the Roman Catholics the more famous scholar Scaliger
was asked to take his place (1593). Feeling, as he
said, that civil strife had banished letters from France,
he accepted the offer and found himself the centre of
a learned company, among whom he discerned the
brilliant promise of Hugo Grotius. It was only
natural that in a country where Calvinism was
supreme and intellectual life vigorous grave questions
should arise by way of reaction. We pass, for the
moment, outside the Catholic Church in our survey.
In the Netherlands Calvinist organisation presented
itself in a special form. The rich towns with their

382 THE REFORMATION
close corporations were the very soil for a Presby
terian growth, and here it took on a strictness not
gained in France. France had developed the synods,
but the Netherlands, where the Church organised
itself in the face of persecution and primarily as a
religious body apart from the State, followed a more
purely theocratic model. When the end of the war
came it found a Presbyterian system completely
organised, claiming to be independent of the State,
whereas the cities and those who were building up a
State sought to exercise some control over religious
matters. Zwingli, in Zurich, had been willing to
leave the power of excommunication to the city-state.
Calvin moved slowly to the latest model, but his
organisation of elders and the greater rigidity given
to Church discipline marked a step in advance. The
French Protestants emphasised the idea of synods
already brought forward by Zwingli for Switzerland.
The Netherlanders had now a unique chance of or
ganising a system which was to have no relations with
the State and to share no powers with it.
The foundation of these claims to ecclesiastical
independence was laid in the Calvinism of the Belgic
TheBelgic Confession, prepared (1561) by the Dutch
Confes- refugee and martyr de Bres, along with
sion, 1561. Saravia and others, and presented to
Philip II. In this Confession the discipline of the
Church for the punishing of sin, with its power of
excommunication and the duty of magistrates to
protect it, was firmly laid down (Articles XXVIL-
XXXVL). But the controversy which arose between
Arminius (professor at Leyden, 1603-9) and his
fellow - professor Gomar upon predestination soon

THE NETHERLANDS 383
became joined to the other question of the right of
the State to control the Church. And here they
went back to the controversies at Heidelberg con
nected with the name of Erastus. Erastianism is
commonly defined as the ascription to the State of
the right to control religion, a theory rarely affirmed
in its extremest forms, but often approached in prac
tice. But Erastus himself merely went so far as to
deny to the Church the power of excommunication,
and to give coercive powers to the State alone; this,
moreover, in a country where only one type of religion
existed. He thus made a protest against the new
clerical interference which at some times and in some
places recalled and rivalled the Inquisition. But his
writings and those of others were applied to the con
troversy which now arose under very different cir
cumstances. Upon no subject were theories more
confused than upon the relations of Church and
State. Upon the Catholic side " Interims " and the
Spanish method, upon the Protestant side the Lutheran
rule of princes, might be contrasted with the high
papal view of spiritual supremacy and the Dutch or
Scots view of a Church wielding a rigid discipline;
but no side seemed to have thought its system com
pletely out. Catholics and Protestants alike agreed,
as the Westminster Confession worded it, that errone
ous opinions and practices, " whether concerning faith,
worship, or conversation," or "destructive to the ex
ternal peace and order which Christ hath established
in the Church," might be proceeded against by the
censures of the Church and by the power of the civil
magistrate. But as to the methods by which the
civil power should be kept in the right path opinions

384 THE REFORMATION
and practice differed widely. The true path of tolera
tion was as yet undiscovered ; most men, like Baxter,
were disposed to '' abhor unlimited liberty and tolera
tion of all," even if not able, as he was, " to prove the
wickedness of it."
Arminianism in Holland in its reaction against
the prevalent views of Calvinism became not only
. . more tolerant even against Rome, but also
ism readier to admit the interference of the
State in matters of religion. The Calvinists
wished to have a united Church left free to control
religion throughout the land. But Uyttenbogaert,
chaplain to Prince Maurice of Nassau and successor
to Arminius in the leadership of the party, after
having presented five Arminian Articles (1610) on
doctrine known as the Remonstrance, asked that a
national synod (not purely ecclesiastical) under civil
authority should meet and settle these points. They
declared the existence of the Church as an equal body
beside the State to have been a failure and inferred
the need of State regulation. But the Counter-
Remonstrants asserted for their part the strongest
Calvinist tenets and the independence of the Church.
They advocated the existing rights of the provinces,
while their opponents wished to develop the rights
of the central federal power. The struggle became
political. The great statesman Oldenbarnveld sup
ported the Remonstrants : Prince Maurice, led by
motives of policy rather than conviction, their
opponents. Oldenbarnveld was executed (1619), his
party was scattered, its most prominent member
Grotius escaping ; and the Synod of ' Dort, at which
English, Scotch, Swiss, and some Germans were pre-

THE NETHERLANDS 385
sent (although not all as delegates), met (November,
1618-May, 1619). The theological canons TheSynod
formulated were rigid in their Calvin- of Dort,
ism, but the very triumph of their asser- 1618-19.
tion marked the beginning of a stronger reaction not
only on the Continent, but in England. It was not
pure coincidence that Laud, tolerant in his views and
accused of leanings towards Rome, should have relied
upon the arm of the State, for the same was the
case with those Dutch scholars, defeated at Dort, but
having the future upon their side, with whom in
theology and temper, although not in views of discip
line,, he had so much in common. A few years later
the expelled Arminians were readmitted and tolerated
even in Holland; their learning exercised great in
fluence, but their theology was afterwards suspected,
not without justice, of Socinianism. Meanwhile the
victors were content to develop at their leisure a
Calvinist Scholasticism of more than local power,
which became more formal as it slowly lost touch of
life. But the Netherlands had become for a time the
centre of this controversy, which was a vital one for
Europe. When political circumstances vary but little
men may be content to act without clearly thought-
out principles or policies ; but when change and even
revolution comes, then it is essential these problems
should be discerned and solved. To drift and nothing
more is a sign of weakness and not of strength or
intelligence. We are beginning to see that the age
of the Reformation was one in which these problems
arose from the course of events, but not one in which
statesmen or thinkers or theologians did much for
their own part to solve them. We have inherited
2 c

386 THE REFORMATION
something of their conditions of life, something also of
their confusions of thought and vagueness of theory.
Spain, at the beginning of our period, stood before
other countries in the revival of theology and the
. ideal of clerical life. Charles V., and after
Spain nim Philip II-; had stood forth with their
nation's support as champions of Catholi
cism, although, as the Spanish bishops at Trent had
plainly shown, of a Catholicism differing from that of
Italy. From Spain had come out not only Ignatius
Loyola, but also S. Teresa (1562), Melchior Cano
(1560), types of pious mysticism and learning re
spectively, and also great missionaries like Las Casas
(1474-1566). These form a varied record, and the
policy of the kings was always, although in varying
proportions, dictated by religion; even if at times,
and especially under Philip III. (1598-1621), by selfish
ness also. We should then expect the religious in
fluence of Spain to have been much greater than it
was. Its religious promise at the outset of our period
is undoubted ; its political supremacy half-way through
is equally undoubted; at the close of the period the
lingering decay which to many minds sums up the
history of Spain has undoubtedly begun. The in
fluence of the Inquisition, so often assigned as a cause
of this strange outcome, is by itself insufficient to
account for it. The Inquisition itself, indeed, was but
one instance in the special field of religious administra
tion of the general Spanish method of government,
absolute and bureaucratic, unsympathetic and rigid,
founded on force, not leadership. Protestantism in
Spain was a feeble and exotic growth which it did not
take a great institution to suppress.

SPAIN 387
There were other causes at work, affecting both the
political and the religious history of Spain. The coun
try was all but ruined by heavy taxation, begun by
Charles V. and continued after him. It had been
drained of both money and men for lengthy and use
less wars. The privileged classes, noble and ecclesi
astical, escaped the burdens that fell on others and
were often idle. The wealth that flowed in from the
colonies seemed to make great enterprises possible, but
it was badly used and dearly bought, and the govern
ment, through its incapacity to see great issues, failed
to use its opportunities in the New World. No
country can live upon mere traditions and correctness
applied by force. Widespread idleness and national
extravagance form but a bad atmosphere for religion to
breathe. The Church in Spain, moreover, relied upon
force and observances instead of persuasiveness and
ideals, and therefore failed more there than elsewhere
to control and to utilise the new forces of life around it.
But the intellectual influence of Spain upon Europe
was great upon one side, that of literature, especially
in the two separated departments of devotion and
fiction, and what was achieved in them should, under
other conditions, have been achieved in others also.
The ecclesiastical history of France ran on lines very
different from those of its great rival. The religious
wars had caused great desolation. The harm France
wrought by them to learning is illustrated after the
by many details in the life of Scaliger, and religious
by nothing more than by the common wars-
scarcity of books. The clergy reported to the King
(1595) that from six to seven out of fourteen arch
bishoprics, thirty to forty out of one hundred bishoprics,

388 THE REFORMATION
were vacant ; that 120 abbeys had no heads, but were
managed by laymen ; that three-fourths of the pa
rochial churches had not proper priests. The inter
ference of the Royal Council in preferments and grants
of dispensations for marriage and pluralities was greatly
complained of. When Henry IV. restored peace, 150
great and hundreds of smaller churches had to be re
built, and yet the consolidation of the Huguenots as a
corporation apart from others and their concentration
in certain towns had left the Catholics elsewhere room
to work freely. So sharp was this separation that
some of the Protestants cherished the idea of a separate
republic, possibly under English protection, but the
idea was discouraged by the best of their leaders.
When Lewis XIII. supported the counter-Reformation
by force, war broke out again, and the Edict of Grace
of Nimes (1625), while confirming the ecclesiastical
and civil rights, withdrew the political rights given by
the Edict of Nantes. Protestantism in France, like
Catholicism, seemed to decay when in opposition to
the Crown and to lose its independence when attracted
to its side.
It was a striking tribute to the vigour of French
thought that, even when hampered by the civil wars,
Thought it was both so rich and widely influential.
in France. Of the leaders in clerical education we have
Du Perron. airea(jy spoken (Chapter X.). But there
were other great thinkers and men of activity who
kept alive the old traditions of Paris and reached
something of the later intellectual supremacy of
Pascal. Among these, Jacques Davy Du Perron,
Cardinal and Archbishop of Sens, was a striking figure.
Sprung from a family of Normandy Calvinists who had

FRANCE 389

emigrated to Switzerland, he naturally turned to the
controversy which divided France, and as a result of
his study became a Catholic. He was ordained in
1557, and in 1591 joined the Court of Henry IV.
Consecrated as Bishop of Evreux, and sent as envoy to
Rome, he soon became distinguished as a disputant,
and his great argument with Du Plessis-Mornay, who
got hopelessly lost amid Calvinist quotations and mis
quotations from the Fathers and Scholastics, achieved
a great renown. In this dispute Casaubon was one
of the moderators, and Du Perron's influence was
probably a factor in preserving him from Huguenotism.
To the end Casaubon's attitude in religion was cool and
deliberate. " I do not condemn you ; do you not con
demn me," he said to his son, who became a Capuchin.
And in the like spirit Scaliger could say, "All con
troversies in religion arise from ignorance of criticism."
This was the tone of French thought — predominantly
intellectual — which the wars overpowered. Many
leaders were scattered. Robert Etienne (1526-59) —
whose son Henry was author of the Thesaurus — head
of the great printing-house at Paris, who made the
division of the Bible into verses, found it needful to
remove to Geneva, although his sons kept on his
Parisian press. Religious controversy, added to war,
made the quiet pursuit of letters impossible. In France
this was a special loss. Nowhere were learning and
intellect more abundant, and she was about to become
the leader of European politics.
Many of these controversies concerned the Jesuits.
We have already noted (end of Chapter X.) the op
position to their entry into France, as into Spain.
The contest upon Augustinianism (see Chapter VII.),

390 THE REFORMATION
begun by the Jesuit Molina and carried on by Suarez
Th against the orthodox Dominicans, intensi-
Jesuitsin fied this feeling. Molina (1588) contended
France that assuming pure Augustinianism the
and Spain. doctrines of the Protestant reformers fol
lowed logically, and hence he was led to assert that
man may in some measure help both in his own con
version and good works. Suarez (1617) modified this
view, asserting that grace congruous to man's nature
is efficacious ; incongruous grace, on the other hand,
remaining ineffective although sufficient. Aquaviva,
General of the Jesuits (1581-1615), who had previously
(1586) issued a revised Rule of Studies (Ratio
Studiorum) for the Society, now (1613) ordered this
view of grace to be taught in their colleges. To
this discussion, which the popes tried in vain to still,
a whole series of other conflicts was added.
Most of the earlier Jesuits, like S. Ignatius, Lainez,
and Borgia, the first three generals, were Spaniards.
Jesuit Upon Borgia's death (1573) Gregory XIII.
difficulties, suggested to the Society that a General from
Aquaviva, another nation should be taken, but his
15 I_I l*' nominee, Mercurianus, proved incapable
and the Society somewhat fell to pieces. Aquaviva,
the fifth General, an energetic and youthful Neapolitan
of French sympathies, found himself opposed by a dis
appointed Spanish faction, although, through the con
stitution of the Society and his power of appointments,
he was able to hold his own. But this opposition first
made clever use of the feeling caused by the Batio
Studiorum, which was circulated (1586) after some
years' preparation and placed before the provinces for
discussion, and then turned to the Inquisition for help.

THE JESUITS 391

The provincial along with others was arrested for
venturing to deal himself with a crime reserved to the
Inquisition, and the statutes of the Society were brought
under review. None knew exactly what was at stake
or what would result, and a royal visitation exercised
through the Bishop of Carthagena was begun. But
the influence of Aquaviva was strong enough at Rome
to gain both the evocation thither of the cause and the
prohibition of the visitation. Yet a little later (1592)
Clement VIIL ordered the summoning of a General
Congregation; Aquaviva at once made a satisfactory
defence before the Society, but some suggestions of
Philip II., by which they had to give up the rights of
absolving from heresy and of reading prohibited books
(here they conflicted with the Inquisition), and by
which novices were in future to surrender their
property or benefices, had to be complied with. The
Pope also insisted upon the King's further demands
that the superior officers should be changed every three
years and general congregations should meet once
every six years. Some of the faction opposed to
Aquaviva, and specially Mariana, had also warmly op
posed the general deviation from the teaching of
Aquinas. The stress laid in the Batio Studiorum upon
adherence to the Thomistic doctrines in most points
was qualified by exceptions ; in practice the exceptions
were emphasised, and this was certainly a new de
parture. The Dominicans, always jealous of the
Jesuits, keenly opposed the novel views on grace
and free will, and a public discussion at Valladolid
(1594) attracted much attention to the dispute. Thus
an air of uncertainty prevailed, and in Spain the
Society was supposed to be under a cloud.

392 THE REFORMATION
Many ecclesiastical and political difficulties of later
times arose from the fact that medieval thinkers had
Political rather made assumptions than laid down
oontro- theories upon the relations of Church and
versies. State. Gradually and insensibly these as
sumptions became unworkable through the growth of
great nations and the divisions of religion. Hence had
arisen the disputes at Trent upon the " Reformation of
Princes " ; hence also arose the difference between
Philip II. and the Papacy. Philip II. continued to act
as the kings of the Middle Ages had always acted.
The Papacy, met by denials of the powers it claimed,
acted upon its former assumptions. But unfortunately
for both parties, altered circumstances had made im
possible the tacit compact by which Pope and King
had worked together in the Middle Ages. At the
same time there were not wanting theologians who, as
we have seen, formulated in the plainest way the theory
of papal power in itself. The Jesuits went a step further,
and when theories of the State and Monarchy were
put out as replies to the papal theory, discussed the
origin and limits of the State itself. No controversy
was more far-reaching in effect than this, for the theory
of the State underlay all discussions of ecclesiastical
matters and any progress towards religious liberty.
The Spanish Jesuit Mariana in his De Bege et Begis
Institutione had maintained (1599) the lawfulness of
tyrannicide and praised Jacques Clement for his con
scientiousness in assassinating Henry III. of France.
Lainez at Trent had asserted that while the spiritual
power was derived immediately from God, the tem
poral power was only derived mediately from Him
through the people. From the superiority of its origin

THE JESUITS 393

the Church thus gained the power of not only advis
ing, but controlling the State. This was the view
which Mariana developed. The Sorbonne issued (1610),
against this justification of tyrannicide, a decree which
the Jesuit Father Coton, confessor of Henry IV.,
stated his Society accepted frankly. But the discus
sion on the relations of civil and ecclesiastical power
was a many-sided one. English Roman Catholics were
required (1606) to take an oath that the alleged right
to depose excommunicated princes was a damnable
opinion. The English seculars, under Blackwell,
were ready to take the oath. The Jesuits opposed it.
Paul V. forbade the taking of the oath ; a letter by
Bellarmine, explaining his views, led to an expansive
controversy between him and James I., seconded by
abler but lesser writers. Bellarmine by his denial in
his earlier controversies of the extreme position that
the Pope was direct lord of the whole world had
angered Sixtus V., and led him to include the volume
containing it (until it should be corrected) in the Index
(1590). But his later services to the papal cause out
weighed the reputation of this earlier hesitation.
These theories as to tyrannicide and control of the
State were of more practical importance in France
than in Spain; hence when (1594) Jean Chastel, a
Jesuit pupil, tried to assassinate Henry IV., fresh
strength was given to the movement that already
existed against the Jesuits. The Parliament of Paris,
followed by those of Rouen and Dijon, resolved to
banish them from their districts. But at the King's
wish (1603) they were afterwards readmitted, although
even then the Parliament of Paris hesitated to register
the Decree. Restraints were, however, placed upon

394 THE REFORMATION
their action both as to localities and methods; one
such restriction, the compulsion to have one of their
members at Court, was skilfully turned to their ad
vantage and Father Coton became a power. Henry IV.
was anxious for France to be Catholic, but its Catho
licism was to be superintended by himself, and the
Jesuits were able instruments of his policy.
The University of Paris had been (1600) reformed
by the State. Richer, once a prominent Leaguer, but
The Uni- now a Gallican and afterwards (1608) Syndic
versity of of the Sorbonne, was one of the reforming
Paris. Commissioners. At a Chapter of the
Dominicans (1611), the year after the murder of
Henry IV., there were laid down for discussion three
theses, asserting that : (1) the Pope is infallible in
faith and moral doctrine ; (2) a Council is not above
the Pope ; (3) the Pope confirms or disallows the
decisions of Councils. Richer, who was an opponent
of the Jesuits and also of papal claims, attended and
forbade the discussion on the ground that these theses
were opposed to the Decrees of Constanz, which the
University from its old traditions supported. But as
an outcome of the discussion Richer now published
his De Ecclesiastica et Politico, Potestate, which ascribed
all ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Church as a body
and to the Pope and bishops only as its instruments.
Infallibility was said to belong to the Church only as
a whole. And the papal power was limited by the
Canons and not able to contravene them. The temporal
jurisdiction belonged to the State, and in no wise to
the Church. A lively controversy now arose in which
Du Perron took a part. At first the Jesuits seemed
likely to suffer, but in the end and after many com-

THE JESUITS 395

plications Richer resigned. The lengthy proceedings
were a curious mixture of literature and litigation,
but they illustrate the importance attached to the
question, which showed great vitality. At the first
States-General under Lewis XIII. (1614) the Ecclesi
astical Estate sought the reception of the Decrees of
Trent, to which the Nobles, but not the Third Estate,
agreed. On the other hand, the Third Estate drafted
a cahier which included a repudiation of the right of
any power to depose sovereigns or to absolve their
subjects from allegiance. To this it was suggested
that all professors, teachers, and preachers should sub
scribe ; while the opposite opinion was to be declared
contrary to the Constitution of France and all persons
supporting it were to be pronounced enemies of the
State. But the attitude of the Third Estate and their
firmness, even when confronted with learning and
ability such as Du Perron's, showed the national feel
ing. A diplomatic arrangement evaded further con
flict, but it was sufficiently evident that the plainer
statement of papal claims had called forth a clearer
expression of national sovereignty. For two centuries
at least Frenchmen had been foremost in political
theory, and hence the assertion of principles if not
the adoption of policies was peculiarly forcible among
them. When Richelieu desired friendship with the
Papacy he had to curb the expression of these views,
and a few years later (1626) he had to meet a request
to forbid Jesuits to enter the pulpits of France. But
that great statesman was no rigid partisan, and if at
times he protected the Jesuits, at others he earned
their disapproval. The ecclesiastical atmosphere of
France remained after him, as before, a peculiar one,

396 THE REFORMATION
and tended to become even more so. At times. Galli
can liberties remained in the background, but their
reassertion was often a convenient weapon in politics.
Towards the end of our period controversies upon
Probabilism and on Casuistry became keen. The
Change in former did not concern the Jesuits alone,
Jesuit for it was a Dominican (de Medina, 1577)
teac ing. wj1Q grg^. pr0pOun0^eol the view that if an
opinion was probable it was allowable to act upon it,
while the probability was made to lie in its being
supported by some teacher of repute. The Spanish
Jesuits for the most part supported this view ; some
leading Jesuits like Bellarmine opposed it, but before
our period closed it was generally held by members of
the Society. In itself it was the systemised outcome
of the later medieval Nominalism, and was allied with
that confessional casuistry which Pascal afterwards
attacked. Interest in casuistry had been revived and was
shown elsewhere, as for instance in England by Bishop
Sanderson (1587-1663) as Professor at Oxford in his
Lectures upon Conscience and Human Law, and Bishop
Hall ; in Germany, F. Baldwin and Buddteus treated
of it also. That the Jesuits were driven to this special
method of casuistry resulted from the combination of
their philosophy and their position as confessors, often
of influential people. It was an accommodation to
the spirit of the world quite foreign to the mind of
S. Ignatius himself. Much, probably too much, has been
written of it, and the process has found able apologists,
although it must be regarded as a sign of decay. But
a complete discussion of it belongs to a later period,
although the beginnings of it have to be noted here.
The Batio Studiorum systematised the Jesuit methods

THE JESUITS 397

of education, but did not make any sudden change.
Intelligence, adaptability, and directness of changes
aim had marked their methods and con- among the
tinued to do so ; but the system aimed too Jesui s'
much at results and tended soon to become traditional
and deadened. As the Society grew and its work
became more complex, centralisation became more
difficult for it. Aquaviva had refused to travel as his
predecessors had done, and instead merely received
reports at headquarters. Under this method the pro
vincials naturally became more independent. At the
same time the Society changed in other ways. Mem
bers without the keen sense of vocation which had
been possessed by the original members lowered the
spiritual tone of the whole body. Its practical work
and the number of tasks to be accomplished intensified
this effect. The professed members too now began to
hold offices before held by coadjutors— as rectors and
provincials. They had before this stood apart and
exerted a peculiar influence upon the Society; now
they became absorbed in affairs just as the other mem
bers and lost their distinction. Vitellesehi (1615-45),
successor to Aquaviva, was gentle, but weak. Under
him the older members formed an inner body with
ambitions, but with an easier life of their own, while
the younger members did the work. Thus it is to be
noted that towards the close of the period, when the
Society sank somewhat in reputation, the tie of sub
mission to the General and the internal coherence of
the Society were weaker than had been the case earlier.
The activity of the Society, the controversies in which
it was engaged, and the antagonism it aroused, sum up
much history after the Council was over.

CHAPTER XIV
SCANDINAVIA: RUSSIA
THE GREEK CHURCH: MISSIONS
THE east of Europe seemed to lie apart from
general history. The fear of the Turks, the
growth of Russia, and the fluctuating state of the
south-east marked it off from the rest of Europe,
Furthermore, in religious matters, the existence of
the Eastern Church kept Eastern Europe apart and
gave it interest of its own. The proposals for union
and the discussions upon it at the Councils of Ferrara
and Florence had turned men's minds to the " Holy
Oriental Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church " : by
its conservatism, its trials, and its historic interest it
drew further notice to itself. It suggested the past
to which theological controversialists made appeal;
the Papacy had made tentative advances to it, and
Lutherans sought its alliance. Political conditions
in the east of Europe were changing rapidly: fishers
in troubled waters of controversy and diplomacy
thought something could be gained; men of devotion
and zeal thought something could be done. Hence
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries have an im
portance for the east of Europe and the Eastern
Church that lies even more in the fluctuations of
relations than in permanent results. Sweden, Poland,

SCANDINAVIA 399

Russia, and the Greek Church illustrate some aspects
of the age which it is not so easy to see so plainly in
other lands.
With the imprisonment of Eric XIV., who had
raised the nobles to greater power, Calvinism lost a
great chance of success in Sweden. The Sweden.
Lutheran settlement already made was John III.,
open to the objection on one side that it 1568-92.
had been too conservative in ceremonies and details,
on the other side that it had given up essential doc
trines. But it had not worked well: the priests
were too often unlearned and unworthy ; the Holy
Communion was celebrated with slovenliness ; the
churches were in bad condition. Calvinists had hoped
for much under Eric. It seemed that the placid
Lutheranism of the realm would be invigorated by
an infusion of their views and practice. But the
poisoning of King Eric, for which the Diet gave orders,
repeated in 1575 and in 1577, placed John III. safely
upon the throne. He was married to a Jagellon
princess who had shared with him a long imprison
ment, and he had hopes of becoming King of Poland
— a Catholic country. He was something of a theo
logian as well as a linguist ; and he had specially
studied the writing of George Cassander (-f-1566), a
theologian whom Ferdinand I. had consulted, and whose
significance exceeded his influence. Cassander had
tried to lay down a basis upon which Catholics and
Lutherans could agree : the Apostles' Creed, the con
sent of the Fathers, a thorough reformation of abuses,
the permission for clerical marriage, and Communion
in both kinds. A work of his, the Consultatio (upon
points of difference) was reprinted at Stockholm

400 THE REFORMATION
(1577), and it was in his spirit of reconciliation that
King John forwarded the Counter-Reformation. The
new Archbishop, Gothius, worked with him ; Cardinal
Hosius directed the movement by correspondence, and
two Jesuits were sent from Louvain (1576) with strict
orders to present their views in a conciliatory and
evangelical manner ; they were to give the clergy in
struction ; the teaching of Prayers for the Dead and
Invocation of Saints was reintroduced by order. It
was fairly easy to raise the ritual, for the Lutheran
Reformation in Sweden had been conservative in this
respect, although the adoption of the "Augsburg In
terim " (a compromise akin to that hoped for by
John) had been refused (1549). The Red Book — a
Liturgy in Swedish and Latin, based on the Roman
Missal — was issued and enjoined. But it met with
opposition; and on the other side the Pope (Gre
gory XIII.) urged the King to become a Catholic
openly: he would not hear of any compromise and
sent the Jesuit Possevin to influence the King. The
attempt on Sweden was part of a crusade inspired
by Spain, and Philip II. took a warm interest in it.
There was a difference of opinion between the Jesuits,
who had hitherto guided the movement, and the Pope
as to the amount of accommodation possible. After
much pressure John himself was received (1578),
but the policy of gradual change was not given up.
Swedish youths were sent for training to foreign
seminaries, the Catechism of Canisius replaced that
of Luther, and the tone of thought was gradually
affected. But the King's political schemes did not
meet with the support that he expected from Rome.
His Polish wife died and his second wife had Pro-

SCANDINAVIA 40i

testant sympathies. A change came. The Jesuits
were expelled, but the use of the Red Book was still
enforced with much severity. John died (1592), and
his brother Charles, who had kept his land of South
Ermanland Lutheran, became Regent.
John's son, Sigismund, who had been elected King
of Poland (1587), was a devoted Catholic, and
wished to give up his claim to Protestant Sweden.
Clement VIIL, however, urged him to take the crown
and with it the chance of a Catholic restoration. But
under. Charles's leadership the "-Moot" at Upsala, an
assembly of laymen and ecclesiastics, had made a new
and stringent settlement (1593). The Augsburg Con
fession was adopted, the Red Book and the current
compromise were forbidden ; " no heresy, Papist or
Calvinist," was to be allowed. A new Archbishop
(Angermannus), a strong Lutheran, was elected, and a
sudden revolution carried through. Sigismund was
compelled to accept these changes and guarantee
support to the Augsburg Confession. He came to his
coronation (1593), supported by a papal nuncio,
Malaspina, and by a papal subsidy. The new King
meant to favour Catholicism, and in secret protested
against the promise he had made. The nuncio had
opposed his making the promise, and it was only with
the written leave of the Jesuits he had done so.
Once more there was a disagreement between the
Jesuits and other Catholic advisers as to the accommo
dation it was lawful to practise. The result was an
open difference between the King's promise and his
performance : he favoured Catholics and allowed
their worship in some places. Finally the nation
threw off their submission to him and Charles was
2 D

402 THE REFORMATION
elected King (1604). The new ruler would for himself
Charles IX., have preferred Calvinism, but the nation
1604. was so strongly Lutheran that he fell in
with its wishes, and the path thus taken was kept to.
The Reformation in Sweden had begun from the
Crown, and nowhere had the changes of the rulers a
deeper effect upon religion. In the end, Lutheranism
was so strongly fixed that Christina, daughter of
Gustavus Adolphus, abdicated (1654) in order to
become a Catholic. But that was after Lutheranism
had been firmly re-established under Charles IX.
The influence of mediating theologians upon John III.
is worthy of note, and the failure of his attempt at a
compromise is equally so. The policy of the Jesuits,
even their differences with the Papacy in the midst of
their success, is a significant feature of the history.
The final failure of the Counter-Reformation — for the
conversion of Christina is a poor set-off to the loss of
the land — was a heavy blow to a widespread move
ment. It affected more lands than Sweden, for the
north-eastern states formed a system of their own,
and the attempt to regain Sweden was, as we have
said, part of a wider movement. Sweden also shows
the practical failure of a movement that was great in
intellectual promise, but overlooked religious con
siderations. It came very near to the adoption of
what was really an " Interim " of its own, and nearly
carried out a " Counter-Reformation." Royal incli
nations counted for much, but not for everything, and
so the attempt failed.
In Poland, too, we see peculiar sides of the move
ment. Up to the Reformation it was the leading
kingdom of the north-east, and was closely connected

POLAND 403

with Sweden. Her growing territory and her military
force were a bulwark against the Turks. „ , ,
xr iii -1 ¦ t ¦ , Poland.
.tier altitude in religious matters was thus
also important, and her religious history significant.
A large part of the country towards the east
belonged to the Greek Church, Lithuania and Galicia
being mainly of that profession. On the other hand,
she had ecclesiastical connections with Germany, while
Russian Christianity again was thoroughly Eastern in
origin and type. A separation was made (1415) be
tween the two provinces of Lithuania and Eastern
Russia, with Moscow as its head, by the creation at the
old seat of Kiev of a new Metropolitan, depending
upon Constantinople. Kiev had indeed been the
original seat of the archbishopric until, upon the
inroad of the Tartars, the see was transferred, first to
Vladimir and then to Moscow. It was now restored
to its old place, and thus the Greek Church in Poland
gained more independence. About half the inhabitants
of the kingdom thus looked towards the East, while the
other half looked towards Rome. Hussite influence
in Poland had once been active, but lacking national
support, soon died away, although it left traces behind.
The establishment of the University of Cracow (1400)
gave Polish learning a home of its own, independent of
Italy and Prague, and the culture of the nobles soon
justified its boasts. The Renaissance in truth had a
strong hold upon the country, and these new currents
of life, in strange contrast to the sluggish paganism
and political backwardness of the country, made the
course of its history peculiar. Lutheranism entered
Poland from Germany, and by way of the cities.
Danzig (1524) distinguished itself by its adoption of

404 THE REFORMATION
the new teaching and its violence in enforcing it, but
Sigismund I. (1506-48) suppressed the movement
(1526). Another influence to be noticed was that of
the Bohemian Brethren, who were exiled from their
own country (1548) and partly settled in Poland.
Here they formed about eighty congregations, and
many of the nobles sympathised with them. The
liberty of the nobles, which verged upon licence, was
afterwards a cause of political anarchy, but it was
already a cause of religious disunion. Each noble
thought he had a right to choose his own faith and
force it upon his inferiors. Owing to the various
religious tendencies in the surrounding lands — notably
the Lutheranism set up by Albert of Brandenburg in
ducal Prussia — Sigismund took up a firm attitude
against religious change. He was not a bigot ; he was
lord, he said, of the goats as well as of the sheep, but
repeated edicts in his reign repressed heresy until his
successor's days. But the moral state of the Church
was bad. The bishoprics and higher offices were (by a
decree not rigidly kept) reserved to men of noble birth,
and thus made less useful. Under the influence of
the Queen Bona Sforza, the Renaissance took an
Italian colour, both in its morality and scepticism.
Her confessor, a Franciscan, Lismanini, was first a
Calvinist and then a Unitarian. Some of the bishops
who had bought their offices from her were noted for
their evil lives.
Calvinism, more closely connected with the Renais
sance than was Lutheranism, and also less German in
John origin, was better received in Poland.
Laski, Among Polish Calvinists John Laski (a
I499-156o. Lasco), nephew of the Archbishop of

POLAND 405

Gnesen, a student at Wittenberg, a friend of Erasmus,
a canon of Gnesen, superintendent of the Protestants
of East Friesland (1543), pastor of the Foreign
Refugees in London (1553), and a leader of change in
Poland (1556), had a varied life and suffered much
from sectarian hatreds. He joined in himself many
and diverse influences and he strove energetically to
unite the Protestants of his own land. But besides
Laski many of the great nobles had adopted Calvin
ism, and under shelter of Calvinism Socinians "found
a refuge; their school of thought naturally found a
ready welcome where Jews had been greatly favoured
aiid were very powerful. In spite of the firm rule
of Sigismund I. the Church fell into disrepute, and
the nobles showed a great and growing jealousy of
her privileges and powers ; ecclesiastical courts were
complained of; annates were abolished (1543); Church
lands were taxed (1544), and the clergy subjected
(1565) to the ordinary courts : the reception of digni
ties from the Pope had been prohibited (1538), and
it was proposed to remove bishops from the Diet on
account of their oath to the Pope (1559); on the other
hand, ecclesiastics began to feel their responsibilities
and seek for new means of efficiency : as means
of Church defence a Synod (1527) recommended the
Inquisition and an increase of teaching. The acces
sion of Sigismund II. brought on a crisis, sigis-
He wished to marry Barbara Radziwill, a mund II.,
Calvinist. The bishops consented to his I548-72-
doing so (1550); the King in return issued an edict
supporting the privileges of the clergy and the unity
of the Church along with suppression of heresy. But
the renewed vigour of the Church courts led to their

406 THE REFORMATION
suspension for a year (afterwards extended to ten) in
the interests of the gentry (Diet of Piotrikow, 1552).
Cardinal In tlais revival of the Church Hosius, a
Hosius, remarkable figure, was the leader. He was
1504-79. descended from one of the many German
families who had settled and formed trading colonies
in the Polish towns. He studied at Padua and
Bologna, he became Bishop of Culm and then of
Ermland, was ambassador to Germany, and a dis
tinguished writer and controversialist. He was made
cardinal and a president at Trent (1561), and after a
life of great devotion and unwearied labour he died
at Rome (1579). It was on his invitation that the
Jesuits came to Poland. Canisius visited the country
(1558), and Lainez sent a permanent mission thither
(1564). These allies of his helped Hosius to raise the
standard of ecclesiastical efficiency, but, unlike him,
they also made use of the changing and disturbed
politics of the country. He was the leading figure in
the Synod of 1551, which not only decided upon a
strict enforcement of the heresy laws, but adopted
his well-known Professio Fidei Catholicce for subscrip
tion by the clergy and tried to force it upon the. laity
also. Upon the opposite side, and especially as an advo
cate of clerical marriage, an equally striking figure
was that of Stanislaus Orzechowski, for-
.rze" , . merly a student at Wittenberg, but now
a canon and married. To gain his support
at this crisis the bishops suspended his excommunica
tion for marriage and promised to submit his case
at Rome. Upon the death of his wife, however, he
changed his views, and from an ardent supporter of

POLAND 407

the national independence against the Papacy became
an equally violent advocate of extreme papal control.
His violence and his fickleness are characteristic of
Polish thought and ecclesiastical politics. He played
a great part at the Synod of 1552, many members of
which had received a mandate against ecclesiastical
courts. The suspension of these courts meant religious
liberty, for while the determination of heresy was left
to the clergy, no civil results were to follow unless
secular courts mainly Protestant took the matter up.
It was afterwards decided (1565) that excommunica
tion itself should not cause any loss of civil rights.
Wrongfully believing the King, who was in reality a
moderate but firm Catholic, to be on their side, the
Protestants took great advantage of the suspension
of the courts. The Diet had further allowed every
noble the right of worship at his pleasure, within
scriptural limits, so that religious anarchy prevailed.
The Calvinists and Bohemian Brethren had united
themselves (1555), and by the Consensus of Consensus
Sandomir (1570) the Lutherans joined with of
them in a Federal Union. On the doctrines Sandomir-
of the Trinity, Christ's Person, and Justification, they
reached an agreement. As a summary of their some
what different views on the Holy Eucharist they
adopted the Saxon Confession of 1551, which had
been drawn up by Melanchthon for the Council of
Trent. In organisation and in the Communion they
recognised their independence and kept their own
rites. A Federal Council was arranged, pulpits were
to be interchanged, but the existing organisations
were preserved. It was an interesting experiment,
for which Laski had prepared the way, and it was

408 THE REFORMATION
fitting that it should adopt a Profession drawn up by
the gentle and peace-loving Melanchthon. At later
Synods, especially at Thorn (1595), this Consensus
was confirmed, but the Lutherans gradually grouped
themselves around the Formula of Concord, came to
quarrel with their brethren, and finally dissented. An
experiment, which in later ages has been sometimes
suggested as a novelty, was thus tried and failed. A
further dissension was due to the rise of the Anti-
. . Trinitarians. Lselius Socinus had spread
these views in Poland (1551). Stancari, an
Italian and professor of Greek at Cracow (1554), and
Peter Goniondzki (1556) had followed him. In 1562-3
the holders of these views were expelled from the
Polish Church, and (1565) they organised themselves
into the Minor Reformed Church of Poland. Faustus
Socinus, the nephew of Lselius, visited Poland (1579)
and remained there, doing a great work of organisa
tion until his death (1607). His predecessors had
varied in their positive views, although agreeing in
their negations, but he systematised their doctrines.
Italian scepticism, working upon a Calvinistic basis
amid the anarchy or freedom of Poland, thus became
powerful ; the Racovian Catechism, published at Bacov
in Southern Poland, became the recognised text book
of the sect, which in Poland suffered much persecution
from Lutherans and Jesuits alike. The Senate de
creed (1638) the destruction of their leading school
and the exile of their ministers; later (1658) they
were expelled as a body.
There had been in Poland a strong national move
ment, demanding (1547 onwards) a national council;
Sigismund II., with the general approval of his nation,

POLAND 409

had sought from the Papacy the Mass in the verna
cular, communion in two kinds, and the
convocation of a national council for the Natlonal-
remedy of abuses and the union of the p0iand#
many sects (1556). But this national feel
ing now died away, partly through the dissensions and
anarchy of the Protestants and partly through the
success of the Counter-Reformation led by the papal
nuncios and Jesuits. The Jesuits did the work, but
even here we must not overlook the native leadership
of Hosius. The nuncios Lippomani (1555), Berard
(1560), Bishop of Camerino, Commendone (1563-5, and
again in 1571), Bishop of Zante, in their respective
ways did much in inspiring the King to greater firm
ness, in gathering around them a Catholic party, and
in reforming the abuses in the Church. Before Sigis-
mund's sudden death (1572) he had refused in the
Diet to put Protestants on a legal equality with
Catholics, but when Henry of Anjou was Henry of
elected after an expensive contest of diplo- Anjou,
macy and intrigue, the Compact of Warsaw '573-
granted religious liberty to all Dissidents or Dissenters
(January 23rd, 1573). Unhappily the nobles had the
right to punish any disobedience among their depen
dents, and thus the principle of territorial religion
was extended in Poland to every landed estate. This
compact Henry had to accept before his coronation
(May, 1573). His flight to France was followed by
great confusion,, which was ended by the election of
Stephen Bathory, Prince of Transylvania Stephen
(1576), although the nuncio Laureo had Bathory,
done his utmost to secure the election of J573-
Emperor Maximilian II. The new King turned out

410 THE REFORMATION
a liberal sovereign, a strong Catholic, and a great
warrior. His political schemes turning mainly on the
acquisition of Russia were supported by the Jesuits,
especially by Possevin. Inside the kingdom the King
used the Jesuits widely for his great schemes of educa
tion in schools and for his new university of Wilna.
Stephen was followed by Sigismund III., son of
John III. of Sweden and Catharina Jagellon. He was,
Sigismund as already said, a devoted Catholic, and he
III., gradually changed the tone of the Senate
1587-1632. ^y njg app0intments. Under the influence
of the nuncios a kind of Edict of Restitution was en
forced by the courts, restoring to Catholic worship
churches that had been perverted by Protestant land
owners. This and the education of the young nobles
in the Jesuit schools soon changed the thought of the
country. Furthermore, Catholics and Protestants were
eagerly striving to absorb the Greek Church. Sigis-
Synods of niund, partly by threats of excluding from
Bresc, the Diet those bishops who did not submit
1594-96. to Romej persuaded a Synod of the Greek
Catholics in Poland to discuss union. The terms pro
posed by some of the bishops, whose reputations did not
commend their opinions, and afterwards approved of
by Clement VIIL, were the preservation of Eastern
ritual and discipline, the use of the Sclavonic tongue,
and the recognition of the Council of Florence. But
these terms left much discontent behind, and the
Polish hierarchy was consequently divided into Ortho
dox and Uniat factions. The union was forced with much
severity, soon alienated the Cossacks of the Ukraine
and drove them towards Russia. In the same way
Protestant parts of the land were driven towards

RUSSIA 411

Sweden. As a result religious affairs and political
schemes were hopelessly entangled. Poland was thus
the protagonist of Rome in the East. So great had
been the change wrought in the country that a legate
could say (1598) that "heresy was being driven to the
grave." The joint action of the Papacy, the Jesuits,
and the Crown had been successful. Nowhere does
the religious history give more instructive lessons than
in Poland. The internal anarchy of the country, and
the interest taken by its neighbours in its affairs,
proved its political ruin. The same causes worked in
the religious history and tended to their natural result.
In ecclesiastical and civil politics the rise of Russia
disturbed the balance of the north. Poland soon lost
its leadership through the rise of this new
rival and by its own anarchy. Sweden, .. - .
champion of Protestantism, Poland, of
Roman Catholicism, and Russia, of Eastern Catholi
cism, fought for mastership and also for territory, such
as the secularised state of the Knights of the Sword
in Livonia. Here the Grand Master, Gotthard Kettler,
turned Lutheran (1561), giving up most of his territory
to Poland, but keeping Courland as a secularised
duchy for himself, after the precedent of secularised
Prussia. But the natural antagonisms of these states
were intensified by events in Europe : the rise of
Protestantism, the revival of the Papacy, the energy
of the Jesuits, the schemes of Spain. Politically, there
was the unsuccessful attempt to secure Sweden for the
Counter-Reformation and the successful attempt to
secure Poland. Religiously, the success in uniting
Lithuania with the Latins — a movement which was
supported by persecution and caused much bitterness —

412 THE REFORMATION
was balanced by unsuccessful attempts at the union
of the whole Eastern Church. Besides all these dis
turbing factors, the influence of the Turks must not be
forgotten ; but in the latter part of our period the
Sultans became mere figure-heads. The Christians
under them enjoyed fair liberty, given for political
reasons. The Patriarchs of Constantinople were recog
nised by the Sultan and paid him large sums on elec
tion, but they were liable to deposition for alleged dis
loyalty, and one Patriarch, the well-known Cyril Lucar,
was deposed and restored five times. These changes
and this subserviency naturally weakened the power of
the patriarchs and degraded Christianity.
The rise of Russia begins with Ivan the Terrible,
whose energy, cruelty, and deeds of massacre, followed
Russia kv fits of penitence and devotion, recall the
Ivan IV. Frankish kings of old. He was great in
(the war. He was victorious over the Tartars,
Terrible), but Ml&d to gain & hold upon the Baltic
Ivan III. had already declared himself the
Protector of all Greek Christians, and his grandson,
Ivan IV. (the first to take the title of Czar), tried to
realise this claim. The Jesuit diplomatist, Possevin —
sent, although fruitlessly, to gain him for Rome — was
not very successful, and Ivan made political use of his
country's growing wish for religious independence.
The Metropolitans of Moscow had been originally
either consecrated or approved by the Patriarchs of
Constantinople. The Metropolitan of Moscow, Isodore,
had supported at Florence the union with Rome, and
returned (1439) as a cardinal and a legate, but he fell
into disgrace through his action, and finally died at
Rome. After the fall of Constantinople the Metro-

RUSSIA 413

politan was consecrated at home. Russia thus became
more independent, and the later union of Lithuania
with the Latins met with no support in Russia. But
Ivan's treatment of the Church was fitful and barbaric.
Hearing of the piety shown by S. Philip, Igumen (or
Abbot) of the Monastery of Solovetsky, he forced the
Metropolitanship upon him ; then when the prelate
remonstrated against his cruelty, he had false charges
brought against him, cast him into prison and strangled
him. Ivan burnt some churches and plundered monas
teries, but he built others and endowed them. After
a life of bloodshed and lust, redeemed by days of
penitence and alms, he took the tonsure just before
death and so died a monk. Russia, in its kings and its
type of Christianity, its missionary successes, enthu
siasm, and barbarism, carries us back to the Europe of
the eighth century. But Ivan's reign had done some
thing to strengthen Christianity. A Synod at Moscow
(1551) passed the Stoglav, or Hundred Chapters.
Monastic life was reformed, clerical property regu
lated, and the revision of the Liturgic books ordered.
Some needed good was done, but the State held too
much control over the Church.
Ivan was succeeded by his son Feodor (1584-98), but
the real power lay with his brother-in-law, Boris
Godonof, who poisoned Feodor's brother, rhe patri
Prince Demetrius, and was afterwards elect- archate of
ed king (1598). Under Feodor, Moscow be- Moscow,
came the seat of a Patriarchate. The old I589-
number of five Patriarchates was held essential —
Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople ;
Rome, it was contended, had forsaken the faith, and
Moscow should take its place. The Patriarch of Con-

4i4 THE REFORMATION
stantinople — Jeremiah — plundered of all the Church
property by the Sultan, was on travel to collect funds,
and happened to visit Moscow. His poverty and the
prospect of help doubtless soon influenced him in con
senting to the suggested new arrangement, which
answered not only to the growing power of Russia, but
to the needs of the Church. For Russia was, and has
proved herself to be, a capable protector of the
followers of her faith. The political advantages to
herself of this protection were obvious, but she was not
the only one to gain. The Metropolitan Job was con
secrated as the first Patriarch (January 23rd, 1589).
At the same time four bishops were made Metro
politans, and new sees were founded. Next year the
Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem,
with about eighty other bishops, confirmed this change.
An important step was thus taken, and as a result the
Eastern Church was better able to keep its inde
pendence against Papacy and Protestantism. The
Th Lutherans had shown a wish to approach
Lutherans the Eastern Church, as it seemed to them
and the that the opposition to the Papacy, common to
East- them both, was a bond of union. Melanchthon
had sent to Joseph II., the Patriarch of Constantinople
(1555-1565), a Greek translation of the Augsburg Con
fession. But nothing came of it under this Patriarch,
whose troubled lot illustrates the difficulties of the
day. He excommunicated the Metropolitan of Caesarea
for visiting Rome to bring about union, but he himself
was deposed by a Council for simony — a charge that
flourished in the evil air of the Turk. Some years
later, Jacob Andrese and Crusius, professors at Tubingen,
sent printed copies of the same Confession in Greek,

RUSSIA 415

with letters and sermons upon it. Jeremiah II.
(1572-94), then Patriarch, replied with the criticism
they invited ; one of his letters, his Censura Orientalis
Ecclesice, being very lengthy. In the Lutheran docu
ment he found statements to commend only upon
the regard for the Oecumenical Councils and the
marriage of priests. All distinctive Lutheran views
he condemned, and the Synod of Jerusalem (1672)
long afterwards officially sanctioned this letter. A
Lutheran reply could not draw the Patriarch into
further controversy. The Eastern Church rejected
Lutheranism and Calvinism as decisively as it did
papal supremacy.
But although more than one Pope had failed to
bring over Russia, and Boris Godonof claimed for
Moscow both the Patriarchate and the name m , ,
TllG 1 3,1s 6
of "the true and orthodox Rome," events Demetrius.
seemed to favour the cause of Rome. A pre
tender appeared in Poland, claiming to be Demetrius,
son of Ivan. He joined the Roman Church and re
ceived the help of Sigismund III. and the papal nuncio
for political and religious reasons respectively. He
promised to do his utmost for the Papacy if he gained
the Russian throne. Boris was defeated, and died soon
after. Demetrius became King (1605) ; but the arrival
of his wife, a Polish princess, and a large company of
monks, lost him his popularity. The Swedish faction
dethroned him, and after a struggle in which another
Demetrius appeared, Ladislas, son of Sigismund III.,
became Czar. But the fight between Sweden and
Poland called forth a combined national and religious
movement. Bishops and clergy headed the people and
bore the holy icons before them. They marched

4i 6 THE REFORMATION
upon Moscow and drove out the Poles (August, 1612).
The Once more we seem to be in the Middle Ages.
Romanof The House of Romanof was raised to the
Dynasty, throne. Its head, Philaret, Metropolitan of
1 I3" Rostov, was too old for the work, and so his
son Michael became Czar, while he was brought from
prison and made Patriarch of Moscow. The union of
Church and State, peculiarly close in the Byzantine
world, was thus specially close with the new dynasty.
The organisation of the Church was strengthened and
its tone raised. The power of the Patriarch was in
creased, and the clergy, who were allowed many privi
leges, were placed more strictly under his control.
The Orthodox Church in Russia had not only saved the
nation, but in doing so had identified itself with a
power which was to grow beyond all hope.
During the earlier years of the Turkish Conquest
the ancient Church of Constantinople enjoyed a
modified toleration from the conquerors. (See Vol. V.
Cyril °^ tn*s series> ll'ie Age of Schism.) The
Lucar, most prominent figure of the seventeenth
c. 1572- century in the East was Cyril Lucar. This
1038. remarkable man, somewhat like Cranmer in
his receptive mind and in his national zeal, like him
too in a varied life and an unhappy end, was a native
of Candia and educated in Italy. In the course of his
travels he came to Geneva and grew into sympathy
with Calvinism. He became successively Patriarch of
Alexandria (1602) and of Constantinople (1621). His
foreign experiences made him anxious to raise the
level of education at home, and he helped in this by
translating the New Testament into modern Greek;
but he was also desirous of modifying the Eastern

RUSSIA

4i7

doctrines in a Calvinist sense. He had sent young
men to European universities, and he carried on a wide
correspondence with theologians (it was he who pre
sented the celebrated Codex Alexandrinus to Charles I.);
and he imported (1629) a printing-press from England,
a country which helped him with friendship and
money. The politics around him were involved, and
his own course was not only far from straight, but also
troubled, for he was five times deposed and restored.
His Confession, written in Latin (1629), and then in
Greek, restated the doctrines of his Church, with
Protestant additions. On Justification by Faith he
compromised ; Transubstantiation he rejected. He
affirmed the inerrancy (or infallibility) of the Scrip
tures, the existence of only two Sacraments. He re
jected Purgatory, and upon the Holy Eucharist he was
Calvinist. The authenticity of the Confession has
been doubted, but without much reason, and it fairly
represents Cyril's position. He had many enemies, and
much diplomacy, Jesuit and English, centred in his
removal or support; and (1638) he was charged with
disloyalty to the Sultan and strangled on board a ship.
A Synod at Constantinople, under his successor and
enemy, Cyril of Beroea, afterwards condemned him, as
did other synods at Jassy and Jerusalem. Metrophanes
Critopoulos, whom he had sent to study in England
and Germany, where he had been supported by Arch
bishop Abbot at Balliol College and had published at
Helmstadt a strongly Calvinist creed of his own, joined
in his condemnation, changed his own views, and after
wards became Patriarch of Alexandria. Cyril of Beroea,
who was strongly inclined to the Roman Church, if
indeed he did not belong to it, perished a year later,
2 E

418 THE REFORMATION
just as Cyril Lucar had done. His successor, Par-
thenius, was strongly anti-Latin. Thus the changes
and struggles of the Reformation influenced the East.
The same wish to put forth confessions and cate
chisms prevailed in the East and West. With labours
of this kind is connected the name of
+16J7 ^ Mogilas, a soldier of noble birth, educated
at Paris, who became a monk and is called
the father of Russian theology. He was chosen (1632)
Metropolitan of Kiev. To strengthen his Church
against all attacks he composed (1640), in the form of
a catechism, the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic
Apostolic Church. It was revised by a Russian Synod
at Kiev and a more general Synod at Jassy (1643), at
the latter of which Meletius Striga, Metropolitan of
Niccea, corrected and reshaped it ; it was afterwards
signed by the Eastern Patriarchs. From Russia there
thus came forth the general creed of the Eastern
Church. Mogilas also wrote (1645) a Short Catechism
and corrected the office books, adding explanatory notes
upon them. His interest in general learning and
his labours rank him along with the great Western
leaders of the day. The East was unhappy and dis
turbed, backward and conservative, but these epithets
are far from summing up its history. It had to face
keener foes than had the West, and yet the West has
often dealt hardly with it, forgetting its troubles,
which gave it scanty time for such constructive work.
This document is in three parts with an Introduc-
The tion : arranged in question and answer.
Orthodox Starting from what an Orthodox and
Confession. catholic man should hold and observe in
order to gain eternal life, in the First Part it explains

RUSSIA 419

Doctrine at some length, in Part II. it expounds the
Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes under the head of
Hope, and in Part III. under that of Love the Ten
Commandments. It was thus both practical and
theoretical, and also lengthy enough to give a con
nected view of theology. It is said to have been
meant as a counterblast against the Protestants and
the Latins, but it had a positive aim of its own.
Through the ignorance of copyists and the intro
duction of printing, the text of both Bibles and
Liturgies had become corrupt and dis- The
cordant. As early as 1520 a learned Liturgic
corrector had been brought from Mount Bo°ks.
Athos and set to work in Moscow at correcting the
Sclavonic Bibles. The Synod of 1551 had affirmed
the correction of service books to be needed, and thus
the East felt the same wants as the West. But in
the West greater movements cause us to forget that
many a process which we ascribe to them, such as
the revision of books of prayer, was natural and in
evitable. The fulfilment of the task was left, however,
for Nikon, a great ecclesiastic and patriarch
under the Czar Alexius (1645-76). Nikon l6 8'x
was upright, devout, and scrupulous in life
and worship, with much of the strength and grandeui
of the great medieval Popes. It was not unfitting that
after he had fallen into disgrace one of his monkish ad
mirers should dream of an enlarged and strengthened
Russian hierarchy with Nikon as its Pope. This
celebrated man, sprung from a peasant stock, had
entered a monastery at the age of twelve; but he
returned home to close the eyes of his grandmother,
married, and became a parish priest. Some years

420 THE REFORMATION
later his children died, his wife took the veil, and he
himself began a new and more rigorous monastic life
(1625). His strength of character and his rigour made
his career a troubled one, but at length he became
Igumen of a monastery at the mouth of the Onega.
In 1646 he met the Czar Alexius, who was youthful
and needed an adviser ; devout and careful in worship,
and therefore able to appreciate a conservative re
former like Nikon. The Czar made him his friend
and promoted him rapidly. He became archiman
drite of the monastery where the Czars were buried,
Receiver of Petitions (an office which gave him political
importance) and (1649) Archbishop of Novgorod. After
three years' active friendship and service in Church
and State he became Patriarch (1652). He had so far
worked along with a Czar like-minded with himself.
He now began a new career, doing for Russia what
Laud did for England, attempting reforms akin to
those of Trent, and at last falling in a struggle
against the State. But his story must be told in a
succeeding volume.
The Reformation period was thus for the Church in
Russia, as in the West, a time of stress and change ;
a growing national and social life made new de
mands upon her ; she started from a level lower than
did the Church in the West; she had to struggle
against ignorance and inertness rather than against
perverted energy and speculation, but she had more
than kept her place and her hold upon the nation's
life. She had been affected by the troubles of the
West, but she was able yet to mould the destinies of
the East.
The new life that stirred in the Church soon carried

MISSIONS

421

its zeal into wider fields. The discovery of the New
World both opened up new lands and re- „„. .
Missions
vived the spirit of Christian enterprise.
The Society of the Jesuits was peculiarly active and
self-sacrificing, but the older orders ran them close.
No period saw more beginnings of great missions
made, but Europe, as in the old Crusading days,
carried its quarrels into its new battlefields. It was
not only that religious controversies often thwarted
missionary efforts, that the religious divisions of the
Old World were reproduced in the New, but also that
political feuds also reappeared there. Nothing is
sadder than the quarrels of Spanish and French
in South America ; nothing is sadder than to see
the intolerance of the Inquisition leading to cruel
ties like those of Menendez in Florida. France,
like England, had conceived the idea of giving re
ligious discontent an outlet in America, and the
result was that Huguenot colony in Florida which the
Spaniard Menendez destroyed. Philip II. endorsed
his official's report of the slaughter: "as to those he
has killed, he has done well." In the English colonies
the religious divisions of home were reproduced, and
those who had claimed tolerance for themselves failed
to show it to others ; too much, moreover, was left to
chance and private enterprise, and the neglect of the
episcopate, due to the State, but not remedied by the
Church, was a grievous error. These are the evils
which it is easy to see; on the other hand are the
heroisms and martyrdoms, as well as the quiet per
sistence of unrecorded effort so easy to overlook.
The Papacy made many attempts to bring about
union with the lesser religious bodies. For the

422 THE REFORMATION
Maronites a college was founded at Rome to educate
. their clergy. In 1552 a division took place
Eastern among the Nestorians of Persia — an off-
bodies, shoot from the Patriarchate of Antioch —
**ef~ now commonly called Syrians or Assyrians.
Rival bishops, Simeon Barmama and John
Sulakas, were elected, and the latter to gain support
made allegiance to Rome, which his successors who
moved to Ormia and, under the title of Mar Shimun,
kept their jurisdiction preserved until the eighteenth
century. This body is well known in England as the
Assyrian Christians. The other body, which also offered
allegiance to Rome (1607) and whose " Catholicos " or
Patriarch lives at Mosul, is now the Uniat Church of
Chaldsea. The Copts of Abyssinia had fallen on evil days of
Mohammedan persecution, and Queen Helena as Regent
The sent to Portugal for help. The next king,
Abyssinians, David, procured the consecration of a Portu-
i525-l632- guese, John Bermudez, as Metropolitan,
whom Paul III. afterwards not only confirmed, but also
made by his own authority Patriarch of Alexandria.
The Emperor Claudius, however, in more settled days,
quarrelled with Bermudez and sought a Metropolitan
from Alexandria. The Roman obedience was all but
lost when (1557) a Jesuit Mission was sent, one mem
ber of which, Oviedo, became Patriarch. Civil wars
followed, in which finally the party of the Emperor
and Jesuits were victorious. The Emperor Seltan-
Segued (1626) joined the Roman communion, after
Gregory XV. sent a Portuguese Jesuit, Mendez, to be
Patriarch, and communion with Alexandria was broken
off. But the extreme rigour of the Mission, and the

MISSIONS 423

proscription of Monophysitism under pain of death,
led to rebellions. The Emperor proclaimed liberty of
conscience, and his son Basilides expelled the Latin
Patriarch and the Jesuits. So as the Abyssinians sang,
" the sheep of Ethiopia were delivered from the hyaenas
of the West," and the Copts of Abyssinia and Alex
andria were reunited. Negotiations through the
Jesuits under Paul V. with the Coptic Patriarch of
Alexandria led to nothing.
The congregation De Propaganda Fide, founded by
Gregory XV (1622), brought unity into the control of
missions and placed them under the Curia's T.
direct care. This was a natural result of pr0pa-
the new position given to the Papacy at ganda,
Trent, and the system proved successful in l6zz-
practice, both in control and the administration of
funds. Isolated and badly directed efforts are apt to
die away and leave no results. But here there was
something very different; the organisation was made
continuous, and its growth carefully guarded. Much
of the success of the Roman missions is due to this
admirable organisation. Under Urban VIIL (1627)
the Collegium Urbanum was founded for the education
of missionaries of all nations, and thus the plan of semi
naries already used in European dioceses was utilised for
the mission field. Once more the monastic orders proved
their vast usefulness. Its first foundation was due to the
generosity of a Spaniard, Vires, a papal official, but
other donors enriched it with special gifts for different
lands. Urban VIIL (1641) placed the institution
under the control of the Propaganda. It is worth
noting that the Greek College, founded at Rome by
Gregory XII I., had given the chance of those efforts in

424 THE REFORMATION
the East which have been noted, and the definiteness
of aim thus illustrated was not long in making its
mark. The New World had been divided by the Pope be
tween the Catholics of Spain and Portugal. Religious
impulses were mingled with commercial. Dominicans
and Franciscans followed the traders; in some cases,
as in North America, they went before them. In
the East Indies the Portuguese founded the first
bishopric at Goa (1534), made an archbishopric (1557).
For some time the work was mainly among
Xavier. ^he immigrants and the Nestorian Chris
tians, until S. Francis Xavier, a splendid
example of missionary zeal (1542), led other Jesuits
thither : he afterwards visited Travancore : thence he
passed to Japan (1549), and started towards China, on
the threshold of which he died (December, 1552). His
labours had been apostolic and unwearied, and his last
words were from the Te Deum : "In Thee, 0 Lord, have
I trusted : let me never be confounded." His converts
were numbered by thousands, but their edification had
to be left to others. Not so much his permanent suc
cess as his disregard of self and his burning zeal made
him a pattern missionary. In Japan 600,000 natives
became Christians, but a change of policy by the
Government (1612) led to fierce persecutions and many
martyrdoms. Even thus early the problem of how to
treat native customs and religions presented itself, and
some Jesuits erred on the side of accommodation to
such habits, as did Nobili in Malabar and Bicci in
China. A keen dispute between Dominicans and
Jesuits on the rightfulness of accommodation to native
customs arose, which was submitted for settlement to

MISSIONS 425

Gregory XV. (1623). The learning of the missionaries,
especially in mathematics and astronomy, it may be
noted, was greatly in their favour and impressed the
peoples. In America the evils of the slave trade (1506)
greatly retarded the growth of Christianity, and the
worst features of the Spaniards showed ,
i, . „ America.
themselves in their treatment of the
natives. These were assigned to different owners as
servants (repartimientos) under condition of Christian
instruction, but this condition was soon disregarded :
the natives were said to be of different natures and
useless to be taught. Paul III. had to state (1537)
that he held them fit both for the Catholic faith and
for the Sacraments. The Spanish rulers, it is true,
had set before themselves the Christianising of their
new subjects. The laws for their protection, civil and
religious, were admirable, but the King was far away,
and there was every temptation and opportunity for
unjust officials. Peculiar powers in ecclesiastical
matters had been granted to the Spanish Crown by
Pope Alexander VI. (1501). The King became legate
in America, the Church in Mexico was self-govern
ing under the Crown, and there was no appeal to
Rome. The Christian missions in these countries
had thus local. coherency and independence, but their
connection with the Crown and the administration
wrought harm as the monarchy decayed. Six Jesuits
under Nobrega set out to the Portuguese colony of
Brazil (1549) ; a bishopric was founded at San Sal
vador (1551), and many of the natives who had been
cannibals became Christians. The most peculiar of
the missions, however, was that in the Spanish colony

426 THE REFORMATION
Paraguay. Here the earliest missionaries, Francis
cans (1580-2), were not very successful, but the
Jesuits (1586) quickly identified themselves with
the country. Philip III. (1602) allowed them to
form a native state which they administered for him ;
he allowed them to exclude all other Spaniards from
their " reductions." The Jesuit rule was patriarchal,
but worked for happiness and prosperity, although not
fully developing the native character. Disputes, how
ever, arose between them and neighbouring bishops;
the Jesuits were charged with being too intent upon
amassing wealth, just as later they were charged with
too great intentness upon trade : the sequel of this
curious ecclesiastical state lies, however, beyond our
Bartolome period. In Mexico and the West Indies
LasCasas, the work of Las Casas was untiring, and
I474-i5°6- remarkable not only because of his interest
in the natives (for that he shared with others), but
because of the principles upon which it was based.
He had gone out (1502) to Hispaniola (San Domingo),
and like other settlers he owned slaves. Touched by
the preaching of some Dominicans he received holy
orders. One day a Dominican refused him absolution
so long as he held slaves ; he thought the matter out
and threw his whole restless energy into the fight
against slavery. He found opponents in some of the
government officials (although Cardinal Ximenes and
Loaysa, confessor to Charles V. and afterwards Arch
bishop of Seville, were exceptions), in some local
bishops, and generally in the colonists. Charles V.
himself inclined to Las Casas' view; in 1517 and
again in 1542 he legislated in its direction and gave
Las Casas an official right to protect the Indians.

MISSIONS 427

The position which Las Casas took up was that per
sonal liberty was inalienable and that slavery was
against the gospel. It was a noble protest to be
raised in an age when cruelty was common, and it
had a great effect. But missionaries even then had
to face the same problems as now ; relations with
colonists of their own race and with natives of others
were difficult and delicate. Missions supported by a
State are greatly handicapped, and it was often difficult
for others to exist.
In New France the mission work was very different,
but its full history lies outside our period. Priests
accompanied the early settlers, and even canada_
when the Huguenot de Monts went to The
Port Royal (Annapolis, N.S.), he had with Jesuits ;
him, besides his own ministers, Catholic _e ...
Recollets.
priests for the savages (1604-5). Little,
however, was done in Acadia until the Jesuits came
(1611), and even their success was limited by the ill-
fortune of the colony. Champlain brought into the
St. Lawrence district four Recollets, as the French
Franciscans of the strict observance were called.
They ministered in lives often lonely along that great
river and far west to the Ottawa. Jesuits came to
their help (1625), and after the temporary loss of
Quebec to the English (1629) the Society went on
working after its restoration (1632). From their
station at Sillery (1637) they founded missions on the
Kennebec southwards towards New England (1646),
and the mission at Tadoussac, the centre for the fur
trade, stretched its influence up the Saguenay and
down to Labrador. Other stations were Three Rivers
(1633) and Montreal (1641). Recollet brethren

428 THE REFORMATION
(1620-3) undertook missions to the Hurons, and
afterwards (1634) the Jesuits joined them in what was
to be the greatest mission of New France. But, like
the colonists, the missionaries suffered from the all-
devouring Iroquois, and cruel, lingering deaths often
ended lives of privation. Finally the missionaries
were driven back, first to the Isle of Orleans, and
then to Lorette, near Quebec. Out of twenty-nine
missionaries seven had been martyred. The Iroquois
destruction seemed to have ended their work and to
have utterly blocked the way for the colonies. But a
new day dawned when these very Iroquois (1653-5)
opened negotiations and invited the missionaries to
their territories. No missions have a story of more
self-sacrifice ; none have a more romantic background,
in the land itself and in the Indian races who dwelt
there, than have those of New France. The French
Canadian Church of to-day by its high standard and
its influence upon daily life has shown itself worthy
of such a past.
By their extent then and by their spirit the missions
of the period had wrought much and promised more.
Results ^e evils of European life, its intolerance
and its divisions, appeared in them, it is
true, but so did a devotion and a love of Christ, which,
although often hidden, ever beat strongly in Europe
too. The Catholic Church must be judged, sometimes
to its loss, but here to its gain, by its missions as well
as by its life at home, by its extensions as well as its
intensity.

CHAPTER XV
THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT
AFTER the Council a marked change came over
Jl\- the Papacy itself. There were Popes of varying
character, some spiritually minded, others of a political
stamp. But even these last did their duty
conscientiously, for they, like the bishops p *j
in Germany, were affected by the spirit of
reform. Nepotism of the old style was impossible.
No Pope was able to form a principality for his family.
Paul V. and Urban VIIL enriched their families, the
Borghesi and Barberini respectively, and papal
nephews were used for the management of affairs,
but that was all. The Popes attended to their office
with a sense of responsibility, and were careful in
choosing bishops and in guarding ecclesiastical in
terests in different lands. The great objects of papal
policy were no longer purely territorial, although
even in this way the reigns of Clement VIIL and
Urban VIIL were fortunate in the gain of Ferrara
(1598) and Urbino (1631). The Popes had high
ecclesiastical, although not necessarily spiritual aims,
such as the recovery of lands lost to their religious
leadership. Subsidies intended to benefit Catholicism
were lavishly given ; to provide these, and thus make
this policy possible, heavy taxation was put upon the
429

430 THE REFORMATION
Papal States. Nearly all the offices of State were
sold and fresh offices were created mainly for their
sale. Loans secured upon certain taxes were raised.
Sixtus V., who systematised the finances in this
way, had by these means saved a large sum, but
Gregory XIV. quickly spent much of it. In the
Middle Ages 'the financial system of the Papacy had
been the mainstay of commercial Europe, filling the
same place in it that the great financial houses do
to-day. Hence many interests had centred in the
Papacy, and those who were discontented with the
organisation of society had drifted into opposition to
it. For this reason, among others, opposition to the
Papacy was so often found in cities, where com
mercial conditions were changing rapidly. In France,
for instance, even more than elsewhere, anti-papal
movements and Huguenotism had been city movements,
and were bound up with the rise to wealth of new
classes and with changes in financial conditions. The
Popes almost alone among medieval rulers had always
command of ready money, and this had secured their
power. Thus too at the beginning of modern Europe
the wealth of the Popes, and the subsidies they could
afford, made them important and able to reach their
aims. Pius V. in his organisation of the league
against the Turks, which resulted in the victory of
Lepanto (1571), recalled the days of his namesake
Pius II., and Gregory XIII. continued the policy. We
should not forget that Moslemism was a living dread,
as is testified by one of the most touching of devo
tional books, The Sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by Father Thomas of Jesus, an Augustinian friar. He
had been taken prisoner by the Moors in Africa

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 431
(1578), at first suffered long imprisonment himself
and then ministered to other prisoners, whom his
devotions were meant to help. Stories of imprison
ment like his and that of S. Vincent de Paul were
common, and the Papacy therefore did well to try
and rouse Europe to this war of defence. For this
political leadership the Papal States, now consoli
dated, with brigandage suppressed if at times re
current, and with the turbulent nobles reduced, gave
the Papacy the means. Accordingly it became in the
period after the Council of Trent distinctly a political
force. The Popes, with the exception of Innocent X.
(who was disgraced by his subserviency to a greedy
sister-in-law), were diligent and conscientious rulers;
Pius V. actually reached the official standard of saint-
ship, being canonised by Clement XL, and Gregory XIV.
deserved it.
The organisation of the Curia was of great import
ance, but its history, upon which much light is now
being thrown, is difficult to trace. A memoir Organisa-
of the year 1574 by Giovanni Carga, one of tion of the
the officials, illustrates the organisation and Curilu
also its confusion. In the earlier Middle Ages the
business habits of ecclesiastics were better than those
of laymen. After a time secular business became
better organised and secular men showed more business
capacity. Hence there often resulted disorder in ec
clesiastical matters as compared with those of civil
life; hence too came the tendency to employ eccle
siastics less in business of State. The history of re
ligious as compared with civil jurisdiction, and the
government of ecclesiastical (and notably of the Papal)
States, are proof of this. There was accordingly much

432 THE REFORMATION
that was haphazard in the organisation, and there was
much confusion, especially, perhaps, in the preservation
of documents. The arrangements of the Curia in the
earlier Middle Ages excelled those of temporal courts ;
in our period they fell behind. Martin V. first as
signed to the secretaries a fixed stipend. Calixtus III.
and Paul II. reserved the title of Secretaries for six
officials. Innocent VIIL added to the existing six no
less than twenty-four colleagues, these offices being
saleable and forming a college. We also find a domestic
secretary whose office grew in importance and was
very confidential. Leo X. founded a Secretaryship of
Briefs, and at a later date we find three secretaries of
briefs, along with six for Italian letters. These officials
formed a kind of college, apart from the domestic
secretary. Then above all and in a unique position we
have the Cardinal Superintendent, who is not only a
confidential minister, but has a real effect upon the
papal policy. There had thus been a process of differ
entiation between what we may call affairs of State —
with which the Secretary and the Cardinal Superin
tendent supported by many lesser officials had to do —
and the affairs of business and routine belonging to the
colleges, such as that of the secretaries of briefs.
Business had vastly increased, and the Curia, although
its intelligence is often praised, had not met the
increase with the wisdom shown by temporal courts.
There was much confusion, and the use of offices as
means of raising money by their sale led to a useless
multiplication of them, and made reform or simpli
fication impossible. On the one hand, interruption of
policies, changes due to the varying personal habits
and wishes of Popes, worked along with the conserva-

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 433
tism and tradition natural to departmental work on
the other hand, to prevent reform and cause confusion.
When Pius IV. had closed the Council of Trent his
labours seemed to be ended. In his later years he some
what disappointed the more earnest spirits
who wished to carry out the reforms at once. tan 7th'
The chance of his death (December 9th, 1565) 1566.
was used to elect in Pius V. a Pope of a dif- May Ist>
ferent stamp, sternly and severely religious, I57 '
Micheli Ghislieri, a Dominican and a former Inquisitor
in Italy, whose life after his appointment as cardinal,
and even as Pope, had been simple and ascetic. He
brought to the Papacy something of the spirit of the
Inquisition itself. Muretus could praise him as
" thinking life unworthy unless spent in purging
heretics of their errors or the world of their presence."
At the same time he carried out reforms both in the
Curia and in the granting of dispensations. It was his
task to translate the ideas of Trent into facts of life.
The Breviary and the Missal belong to his rule, and
sentiment was thus consolidated before passing away.
But in his dealings with sovereigns he was contrasted
with Pius IV., who had skilfully drawn rulers to his
side. He ordered the bull In Ccena Domini to be read
every Maundy Thursday (whence and not from its
opening words Pastor alis Bomani Pontificis vigilantia
it gains its name) in all Christian lands. But as this
bull, besides excommunicating all heretics and Protes
tants, claimed for the Church all its medieval privileges,
many states refused to obey the command, and thus
international relations were disturbed. His spirit
which infused rigour into the politics of France, the
Netherlands and England, was not wholly admirable ;
2 F

434 THE REFORMATION
but his piety was undoubted, and he gave unity and
coherence to the papal policy (May 1st, 1572).
His successor, Cardinal Buoncompagni, was by nature
an easy-going ecclesiastic, who yet, under the influence
of the new spirit, was fairly rigorous. By
XIII. a s°nnd instinct he systematised the govern-
May 13th, ment of the Papal States, checking the
x572. banditti and forcing the nobles to justify
P" I0 ' their titles to their lands; thus a surer
basis was gained for the support of external
undertakings. The old system of government by
the advice of the College of Cardinals assembled
in consistory was proving ineffective; either its
members were divided in views or else one or
two able men gained undue influence; furthermore,
in a world of changing states and policies, press
ing matters came up oftener than of old. Hence
the method of Congregations was systematised, and
under Sixtus V. was further developed. There now
existed seven : for questions arising out of the Council ;
for the Turkish War ; for affairs of Germany (this
Gregory himself added); the Inquisition; the Index;
the Segnatura or final tribunal, regulating all lower
courts and granting graces ; the Consulta, which was
administrative. As special objects became important
or lost their importance, new Congregations were
formed or old ones ceased ; and Sixtus V. added to the
number, making fifteen in all, among them being those
for the University of Rome (the Sapienza), for liturgies
and new bishoprics. Gregory's new permanent Nunci
atures, already mentioned (see p. 301), were a natural
development of the old organisation, used not only for
ecclesiastical business, but for diplomacy. All these

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 435
institutions made for watchfulness, and built up an
effective centralisation which had been lacking pre
viously, but was essential if the conciliar reforms were
to be carried out. His intense interest in colleges, to
which he was an unwearied benefactor, in Germany has
already been noted. But his reform of the Calendar
(1582), which by the older system had become so dis
arranged that Saints' Days were falling out of their old
seasons of the year, is for ever bound up with his
name. Religious dislike hindered its adoption. It
was taken up by the Protestants in Germany in 1699 ;
and then in Switzerland, 1701 ; England, 1752 ;
Sweden, 1753 ; France, Holland, Catholic Germany and
Switzerland (1583-4), Spain and Portugal adopted it
to begin with (1582). By this needed change Gregory
meant to claim the Pope's ancient leadership of Europe.
But division had gone too far for agreement to exist
even in science.
The exhaustive means adopted by Gregory XIII.
to raise funds had brought discontent and trouble
upon the Papal States, and the Pope himself
became feeble and unhappy. His successor Apr jj 24tn'
Felice Peretti, Sixtus V., was above all 1585.
things strong and full of belief in himself. AuS- 27th,
• 1^00
Sprung from a peasant family, he had joined
the Franciscans as a boy, and had risen rapidly by
his talents. He had formed friendships with the men
of most saintliness, Cardinal Caraffa, SS. Philip Neri
and Ignatius Loyola, and also with men of learning.
As Cardinal he had begun at Milan an edition of
S. Ambrose, which was afterwards printed at Rome.
As a preacher, a theologian, an adviser of the Curia
in theology, and, when, under Pius V., Vicar-General

436 THE REFORMATION
of the Franciscans, as a stern reformer, he became
famous. At Venice, where he was Councillor to the
Inquisition, and in Spain, whither he accompanied
Cardinal Buoncompagni for the investigation of Car-
ranza's case (p. 236), he gained experience of affairs
and made some enemies. Pius V. (1570) made him a
Cardinal (di Montalto). He utilised a period of dis
grace under Gregory XIIL, who disliked him, for
building and for study. He was interested in canon
law along with Patristics and the Bible, as he testi
fied by a work upon Gratian and encouragement of
Cherubini's Bullarium Bomanum. He owed his elec
tion as Pope to his own strictness and the self-control
shown in his retirement. The story of his age (he was
sixty -four) and infirmities being his recommendation,
and then being suddenly cast aside, is mythical. His rise
had been rapid and great, and he had scarcely learnt
the limitations of events. He was something of a
fatalist and more of a believer in himself. There
seemed to be no limit to what he, or rather the
Papacy with Rome, could do. Hence he formed vast
plans, and miscarried in his political schemes alone.
His vast schemes of buildings, the additions to the
Vatican, the library, were all part of a great scheme.
Pagan Rome was to be overshadowed by Christian
Rome, once more the capital of the world, rising out
of the past and making use of all possible knowledge
and learning. A printing-press was added to the
library, and here the Septuagint and Vulgate were to
be printed. Sixtus was not very friendly to the
Jesuits, whose rules and very name he had changed,
although his successors revised his Decrees, but he
understood, as they did, the need of enthusiasm

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 437

and the work that had to be done. He was not
inclined to stand upon prerogative ; he closed up some
differences of a smaller kind, and abolished the Con
gregation upon ecclesiastical jurisdiction, from which
many disputes had arisen. He reaped the reward of
peace with his neighbours and could devote himself to
greater aims.
His European policy was not successful. It was
marked by largeness and firmness, but he hardly knew
what he could effect and what was beyond His
him. He was driven into the arms of foreign
Spain, the power which had the same reli- Policy-
gious aims as himself, and yet a power which, from
its tendency to dictation and its influence in Italy,
was most distasteful to him. France was distracted,
and he was averse from treating with the future
Henry IV. ; he therefore supported the League and
Spain. Against England he joined with Spain, and
the defeat of the Armada was a bitter although not
an unexpected grief to him. But there was a slight
difference of view between the Pope and Spain : the
Pope did not wish to destroy France as an indepen
dent state ; Spain wished to make France subordinate
to itself ; and hence in regard to France the two allies
were not always closely at one. But when Venice,
seeing in him a possible help against Spain, ventured
to congratulate Henry IV. of France upon his acces
sion, Sixtus was furious against the Republic, and
would at first hardly listen to the explanation given
by the special ambassador from Venice, Leonardo
Donato ; but as he gradually cooled down he veered
round towards Henry IV., who might after all become
a Catholic. High as was Sixtus' idea of the papal

438 THE REFORMATION
power, he had a lack of perseverance in his firmness.
His very face is that of a dreamer rather than that
of a man of action. He was always consistent in his
ends, but not always so in his way of reaching them.
Thus he now received the French envoy with friend
liness. But when Olivarez, the Spanish envoy, pro
tested against this action (March, 1590), urging the
excommunication of all the followers of Henry IV.
and his utter exclusion from the throne of France
(which the Pope had previously declared in 1585),
further backing this request by a threat of renuncia
tion of allegiance to the Pope, Sixtus yielded and
for a time inclined to Spain. His ultimate policy was
yet uncertain, and he was vacillating from one side
to the other when he died (August 27th, 1590). So
much had Spain become identified with orthodoxy
that the suspicion of unorthodoxy which had floated
around Sixtus in earlier years had grown stronger in
his later years, when he worked less well with Spain.
He had been a great, if not a wise, Pope, guided in
policy by ecclesiastical interests, but his feelings and
views were perhaps in the first place ecclesiastical
rather than religious. Europe was passing into a
period when it was easy to treat religion as a prin
ciple which dictated leagues and excited wars rather
than moulded life and hallowed souls.
The relations between France and Spain made the
conclave of election momentous. And yet unlike the
old days in which France and Spain had formed parties
in the College of Cardinals, the divisions now found
there were made on a new principle. The family
and the "creatures" of the late Pope — that is those
cardinals whom he had " created " — formed one party ;

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 439
his opponents, those who had suffered from him or
been passed over by him, formed another. The
cardinals had now more freedom and their divisions
were taken diplomatic advantage of. As a rule the
party opposed to the late Pope carried the election ;
thus changes of policy, temporal and ecclesiastical,
became almost a rule. In the present case the crea
tures of Gregory XIII. carried the election of the
Genoese Cardinal Castagna (Urban VII.), Urban
a strong supporter of Spain. The new VII.,
Pope lived only twelve days, and on his Sept. 15th,
death Philip II. named seven cardinals I59°-
whom he would accept : no others would be agree
able to him. Some of these names were rejected by
Cardinal di Montalto, grand-nephew of Sixtus. In
the end both parties agreed upon Cardinal Sfondrati,
Gregory XIV. (December 5th). Cremonese Gregory
by descent and attached to Spain, a mystic XIV.,
of deep devotion, he threw himself heartily Dec- 5*.
into the cause of the League and Spain, commanding
all Catholics to stand aloof from Henry IV. and send
ing subsidies to his enemies. The fate of France
seemed settled, for a determined Pope able to use the
treasure saved by Sixtus V. could have done much ;
but after a rule of only ten months Gregory XIV.
died (October 15th, 1591).
The new Pope (Fachinetto), Innocent IX., again one
of seven nominated by Spain, was Spanish in sym
pathies, but old and sickly. After two
months he too died (Oct. 29-Dec. 29, 1591). j™ocent
All these repeated conclaves had resulted
in an understanding between Cardinal di Montalto and
the Spanish faction, but it was clear that a strong and

440 THE REFORMATION
energetic Pope was now a necessity. It was supposed
that Cardinal San Severina (Santorio) would be
elected. He was suitable in years and strength, an
extremist of the Spanish faction, but a man feared for
his severity. On the very point of the election some
of his supporters hesitated, and the conclave fell back
upon Cardinal Aldobrandini, a " creature " of Sixtus V.,
but one to whom the Spaniards had no objection. He
belonged to a learned Florentine family, had been a
Roman official and a nuncio in Poland. He was
diligent and regular in his devotion and his business.
Under him for thirteen years the Papacy at length
Clement enjoyed a steady rule of unbroken traditions.
VIII., He let himself be formed by his office in-
1*02 20 ' stead of moulding it to himself. His treat-
March 5th, ment of the French question was cautious
l6o5- and wise. The reception and recognition of
Henry IV came about gradually, and thus the danger of
separation on the part of France was avoided. This alone
would have marked his Papacy, but it had other claims
to importance. The publication of the Vulgate has
been mentioned, alterations in the Breviary (in which
Baronius wished great changes), and the controversies
on grace, for which the Pope appointed the Congre
gation de Auxiliis, also marked this reign. Clement
was unwearied in all his duties, so much so that the
congregations sank in importance and the advice of the
cardinals was often collected privately instead of in a
body. He was also a priest of deeply spiritual life and
regularly heard confessions. His rule was thus open
to few objections, personal or political, and these
years of peace did a work of the utmost importance.
He left the Papacy secured from Spanish control, not

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 441
only through the growth of France, but by Its own
stability and power.
The growth of a French party in the Curia, a natural
result of the conversion of Henry IV., was shown by
the election of Cardinal de Medici, Leo XL, a
connection of the French royal family, but he A ril '*
only lived twenty-five days. Upon his death ist-26th,
Baronius, who had been made a cardinal I005-
by Clement VIIL, was nearly chosen, but fia" ''
Cardinal Borghese (Paul V.) was elected (May
16th). The new Pope was of a legal mind, as so many
Popes from Gregory XIII. onwards had been. He had
few enemies and had seen little of active life, although
versed in the quieter business of the Inquisition and
papal offices. He enforced rules upon others, even upon
the cardinals — as he did upon himself. Any rights or
powers which he conceived to belong to the Church he,
unlike Sixtus V., was determined to enforce. His
Papacy was therefore marked by struggles with states,
and the famous contest with Venice — the old rival of
Rome in ecclesiastical and political matters — was of
more than local or temporal importance. For Venice,
like France, had contributed much to the history of
thought, and had filled a great place of old.
The endeavour to carry out the Decrees of Trent, no
less than the new spirit of ecclesiastical zeal, drew the
Papacy into dangerous currents. Very often Venice
diplomacy had smoothed over the difficulties and the
that met it, but Paul V. was firm rather PaPacy-
than diplomatic. Naples, Savoy, and Genoa, with all
of which he was embroiled in disputes as to ecclesi
astical rights or jurisdiction, yielded to his insistence.
But Venice was a different state. Here some church-

442 THE REFORMATION
men had been tried for disgraceful crimes before the
ordinary courts. By a new law a veto was claimed
upon the erection of new churches in its territory;
the acquisition of property by the Church was also
restrained. To all these irritations were added boundary
disputes with Ferrara (now a papal dependency), and
complaints against exemptions granted by the Pope
from payment of tithes. There had always been an
anti-papal party in Venice, and these discussions made
it more active. Its leader, Leonardo Donato (who had
been ambassador to Rome under Sixtus V.), was elected
Doge in 1606. To Pope Paul's demand for the cession
of the ecclesiastical offenders mentioned above and the
repeal of the new law, the Venetians replied by de
mands that all bulls published in their territory should
be first approved by the State, that only Venetians
should be appointed to their benefices, and that no
taxes should be levied in their state for the Curia.
Venice had lost something of its old importance as a
state, and quarrels with it might therefore seem of
little significance ; but the ability of her statesmen and
the literary power of her writers still remained, and
these added to her old traditions made this incident
seem large. Fra Paolo Sarpi (1552-1623), Provincial
of the Servites, proved an advocate of peculiar skill.
His History of the Council of Trent, in spite of some
defects, partialities, and errors, is perhaps the most
considerable work of our period. This contest with
the Papacy was only an incident in his life; an
occasion for stating his views rather than an in
fluence that formed them. The religious types of
mind favoured by Spain and the Jesuits were dis
tasteful to him ; the political power of Spain, the

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 443
theoretical claims of the Papacy, were so also. He had
much sympathy with thought in France. He was
somewhat English in his ideas, and it was strange that
his History of the Council of Trent, brought to England
in manuscript by de Dominis, Bishop of Spalatro
should have been published there. He had composed
other works and had borne a part in other contro
versies; but this, his chief work, written, of course, with
a bias, is the key to his position. His thought was a
criticism of all that the Council had resulted in. He
was in ecclesiastical politics much what Machiavelli
had been in civil, a critic and an assertor of far-
reaching theories by his negations rather than by his
assertions. At the age of fifteen Sarpi had joined the Servites
and had soon become known for knowledge of all
kinds, theological, historical, and scientific. „ 
.. • , , t i -i i 4t i iT_ Sarpi'shfe,
At sixteen he disputed at Mantua on the lS52_i623.
authority of Councils and the Papacy; at
twenty-four he lived in Milan under Cardinal
Borromeo ; when twenty-seven he became Provincial
of his Order and was ordained priest. As Procurator-
General of his Order he lived for three years at Rome
and had redrafted in a strict sense the rules of his
Order. Thus he had been brought into touch with the
best and most influential Church movements of the
day. At Venice, moreover, political thought and ex
perience were almost a tradition. The little society of
"the Ridotto Morosini," where he knew the leading
Venetians of his day, combined the best traditions of
the Renaissance and of Venetian statecraft. In know
ledge, insight, and character Sarpi was a typical
Venetian product. It is especially worth note how

444 THE REFORMATION
he turned to study fully the great peculiarities of the
Gallican Church with respect to beneficiary matters
and particulars of royal jurisdiction ; its history and
its theories had a great fascination for him, as the
alliance of France had for his State in politics. English
thought was also of great interest to him. Sir Henry
Wotton (envoy to Venice) and Dr. William Bedell
(afterwards Bishop of Kilmore) were close friends of
his; from the latter indeed Sarpi (himself according
to Wotton " one of the humblest things that could be
seen within the bounds of humanity ") said he had
learnt more of theology and practical religion than
from anyone else. These things define the positive
views taken by Sarpi ; negatively his strong dislike to
the Jesuits and his abhorrence of the Pope's temporal
sovereignty and claims to control over states were
equally strong. When the Papacy demanded that
Venice should withdraw the law she had passed and
asserted that the election of a Doge by excommunicated
citizens was invalid, the pride of Venice and her
leading adviser (for Sarpi was now theologian adviser
to the State) was touched upon the tenderest point.
The Pope (April 17th, 1606) solemnly excommunicated
all the authorities of Venice if they did not speedily
recant; and the territory of the Republic was to be
put under a strict interdict. The Doge replied by a
proclamation that the Republic owned no superior in
temporal powers but God, and that the clergy, regard
ing the sentence as void, would carry on their cure of
souls and worship of God. The papal commands were
"disregarded except by the Jesuits, Theatines, and
Capuchins, and these, unable to obey the State, left the
territory for Rome. It was even proposed at Rome

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 445
to carry on war against Venice. Had France and
Spain been ready, as some of their subjects wished to
take sides in it, the war might have happened, and the
last interdict of a medieval pattern might have led to
a papal war of a similar type. The two great powers,
however, mediated. Venice delivered up the eccle
siastics it had tried, and adopted a form of words
which the Curia could take as a withdrawal of offensive
laws, but she firmly refused to readmit the Jesuits ;
Spain would not defend the Society, and therefore the
Pope yielded the point. A further dispute arose as to
the need for absolution, which Venice, not recognising
any offence as having been committed, regarded as
superfluous. In the end it was privately pronounced.
Thus the Papacy was on the whole victorious. But
the method of the quarrel, conducted by the Papacy in
medieval forms, showed how far and how greatly the
world had changed; the dispute, while showing the
strength of the Papacy in practice, had called forth a
clear assertion of the anti-papal views. The diplomatic
triumph was a defeat in the history of continuous
thought. The well-known attempt on Sarpi's life — significant,
like the assassinations of the time, of a bad state of
morals — involved persons near the Pope, although
there are no grounds for accusing him. But Sarpi (him
self an advocate of assassination) might feel justified
in considering the wound inflicted stilo Romance Curiae.
The other charge, however, against the Pope—
which Sarpi himself pressed home and which was
generally credited — of unduly enriching his own
family, the Borghesi, must be held true.
Paul V. died January 28th, 1621, and Gregory XV

446 THE REFORMATION
(Ludovisi), elected (February 9th) as his successor, was
too old and infirm for his work and had to leave
„ most of it to his cardinal nephew Ludovico.
XV., " But he was able to do something for peace
1621-3. in Italy, and .uniting France and Spain
Urban (f July 8th, 1623). His successor, Cardinal
Au "6th Barberini (Urban VIIL), was ardently
1623. French in sympathies, partly because he had
July 29th, been a nuncio in France. He was strong
1 44' and indefatigable, and the objects of his
interests were the Church and his family. He
more than provided for his own in regard to wealth,
and his foundation of the Congregation of Immu
nities showed his wish to guard the privileges
or rights of the Church. But on the whole he
owed more to chance than to wisdom. He was
swimming in a current of French influence under
Richelieu that was stronger than his stroke. War
between the Habsburgs and France was inevitable, and
Richelieu meant it to be so. The unity within one
political league of the Catholics in her communion
was no longer possible for Rome, since Richelieu
carried to extreme the old French policy of leagues
with Protestants against his Catholic rivals. And
finally all political rivalries were swallowed up in the
Thirty Years' War. The political inclinations of the
Pope were now of more importance than the religious.
His sympathy with the Emperor, who was doing so
much for the restoration of Catholicism, was slight
in comparison with what he felt for France in its
purely political schemes. Urban would not regard
the German War as one for religion, and was unwill
ing to spend money upon it. Spain protested against

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 447
the Pope's indifference and great indignation was
professed. The interests of Catholicism were not now
sacrificed, it is true, to consideration of the mere
Papal States, but to those of wider politics. And
the final result of such a policy was that the
Papacy was shut out from the Peace of 1648, and
its protest against it was useless. No theoretical
claims were yielded or withdrawn, but the lessening
of its political importance affected the general influ
ence of the Papacy. It was driven back upon purely
spiritual weapons, and the restricted area of the Catholic
restoration was largely due to the papal policy. The
Popes of the earlier Counter-Reformation might have
had visions of a world restored to their leadership.
To the Popes of the seventeenth century this was
impossible, largely because of the mixture of temporal
with spiritual aims in the papal policy. Urban VIIL,
busied not with theological science or ecclesiastical
law, but with plans of fortifications and temporal
cares ; no ascetic, but frankly a man of the world ; a
temporal ruler above all, in himself typified the
change. The spiritual influence of the Counter-Re
formation had reached the Papacy, and then seemed
to lose its power.
The next Pontificate, that of Innocent X. (Pamfili),
illustrates the temporary lessening of papal power.
He was elected after a stormy conclave, in innocent X.
which the Barberini family made a hard Sept. 16th,
fight for power, and finally, by an agree- l644-55-
ment with Spain, agreed upon a choice adverse to
France. Feminine quarrels in his family, and the
corrupt influence of his sister-in-law, degraded his
court. An inquiry into the administration of the

448 THE REFORMATION
Barberini resulting in heavy fines; small Roman
politics upon a background of Italian difficulties and
alliances ; filled his reign. The Pope was becoming
more and more a small Italian sovereign to whose
office spiritual duties were annexed.
The attitude of the" Church towards learning had in
many ways changed. She no longer dreaded the
The study of classics, and the Jesuits fostered
Church them in schools. The Bible, patristics, and
and theology were also closely studied. Early
Learning. (l507_22) in our period, de Vio (Cardinal
Cajetan) had revived instruction on the somewhat
neglected Aquinas, and combined with it biblical
study, carried out in his commentaries with great
freedom of criticism. Afterwards in the middle of the
century theological study lapsed. In Ingolstadt after
Eck's death (1543) there was only one theological
professor, and in Koln theological lectures were dis
continued. But the influence of the Jesuits, who as
a rule preferred Aquinas to Peter Lombard, revived
the study ; Petavius, Maldonatus, and Estius were
distinguished names amongst them. The great Do
minican Melchior Cano (fl560) had systematised the
study, and the equally great Jesuit Bellarmine
(1542-1621) developed it in a specially controversial
sense. Another Jesuit, Cornelius a Lapide, collected
patristic interpretations in his commentaries and so
popularised them. In a like way ecclesiastical history
was studied. Love of the past, as well as the needs
of attack and defence, had forced the writers of the
Magdeburg Centuries to collect material, and their rival
Baronius followed suit. The critical insight of all
these writers often fell below their good intentions,

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 449

and Bellarmine, for instance, had to criticise sharply
Baronius in his treatment of records and events.
But these writers laid an admirable foundation, and
criticism eventually followed collection. The same
love of the past was seen in England, notably in
the case of Archbishop Parker : a mere enumeration
of names, large as it might be made, is of little use,
but it is easy to underrate these writers and the work
they did.
The study of science lagged far behind that of
theology and history. Copernicus (1473-1543) dedi
cated his work De Revolutionibus Orbium
Cmlestium to Paul III., but his view that
the sun was the centre of the universe seemed strange
and even absurd. Luther thought him a fool. The
Congregation of the Index suspended his book until
corrected and pronounced his view a contradiction
of the Scriptures. Kepler (1571-1630), whose belief
in astrology stands in strange contrast to the insight
of his celebrated laws, took a step in advance and
began a new era. He assumed the theory of Coper
nicus, but his relations with many theologians, and
especially with the Jesuits, were friendly ; both when
professor at Gratz and when elsewhere he had a great
reputation. The Copernican theory itself, however,
was still assailed. Galileo Galilei, professor at Padua
(1564-1642), attracted much notice by actual observa
tions, and in his published works (1612) he too argued
upon the Copernican system, professedly as a hypo
thesis, but with a real belief in it. The Inquisition
condemned the teaching of the system and forbade
him to support it. He submitted for a time, but
when Urban VIIL, a friendlyj ecclesiastic, became
2 G

450 THE REFORMATION
Pope he once more advocated this hypothesis (1623).
A little later he gained the Pope's approval for a
scientific dialogue, but the Jesuits now took up the
case against him, as the Dominicans had done before.
During the process, every detail of which has been
discussed in an extensive literature, he abjured the
system, but was punished by a loose imprisonment
for some years. The dealings of the Church with
science have often been unsatisfactory, and in the
case of Galileo there were special and general elements
that combined to cause difficulty. The general ele
ment was the dislike which the Church in its imper
fect wisdom has so often shown to novel scientific
theories or truths. This spirit has shown itself often
and in other cases, and has not been peculiar to the
Inquisition. Then to this element were added special
elements peculiar to the time and the surroundings.
There was a claim made to control investigation and
restrain its freedom; this claim was partly founded
upon the medieval supremacy of theology, and partly
upon the increased rigidity of control caused by the
Tridentine reforms. A reconsideration of the rela
tions between theology and other sciences, a wiser
limitation of the Church's sphere, might have lessened
this special difficulty ; but the very hardening and
purification of the late reforms made the Church
claim with greater insistence, and in fear of results,
this wide control of thought. Then too there was
the special machinery through which these principles
of thought had worked. It was hardly to be looked
for that the Roman Church, working through the
Index and the Inquisition, should admit a freedom
on the part of science which it would not grant

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 451

generally. The Index and the Inquisition might
plead definite reasons for their existence and might
serve some useful ends, but even so much depended
upon the spirit that inspired them. Large institu
tions are called into existence for some definite end;
they soon come to consider their working more im
portant than their end and forget their limitations;
their action then becomes hurtful. It was so here.
The treatment of Galileo forced men of science either
to conceal their views or to treat as a tentative hypo
thesis what they knew to be a truth. Either course
led to unreality and to an assumed antagonism
between religion and science. After two centuries
this position was quietly given up by the Roman
authorities. The details of the case, although much
discussed, are less important than the principles
involved ; the latter may have some additional in
terest as part of the great debate upon papal infalli
bility, but the advocates of this condemn the judges
of Galileo for having treated as definitely closed a
theological decision which admitted of reconsideration.
But the claim for freedom of thought and investiga
tion raised a wider question than that of infallibility.
Theologians erred, as they have often erred, and this
weakened their advocacy of the truths they had to
guard. The great problem of the Church was how
to train, control, and utilise new currents of thought.
In many ways she failed to solve the problem. The
Council of Trent had wrought many reforms, but it
had taken up an attitude which made the correct
handling of scientific questions more unlikely than
before and less free than in the Middle Ages. The
temper of the Roman Church further made it difficult

452 THE REFORMATION
to abandon this attitude when once it had been taken
up, and there was at hand machinery for rapidly and
firmly carrying out a decision once taken. The decision
thus became of an importance almost critical.
A comprehensive view of the whole period (1509-
1648) shows how much depended upon the Popes
and their action. Men in high position,
most of all those in high spiritual position,
cannot escape moral judgment for the use of their
responsibilities. The Popes have often enough fared
strangely in this respect. If we regard the Reform
ation as a movement either hostile to the Papacy or
springing up wholly apart from it, it is hard to see how
the Popes, differing as they did among themselves, can
be blamed for agreement in opposing it. If the great
aim of the Reformation as a whole was to overthrow
the catholic conception of the Church it was the duty
of all who valued that conception to oppose it. But
that is surely a narrow and unhistorical view of the
Reformation itself. A wide and deep movement in
favour of change, seeking to carry out higher ideals and
to cast out evils, to read a fuller meaning into old
forms of life and to enter into the many-sided heritage
of a world that was growing new, this is the move
ment with which our period began. It was a move
ment that was general and most of all was found
within the Church itself. That in some ways it be
came hostile to the Church, departed from its unity
and created bodies opposed to it, was partly due to
errors on the side of those who became leaders of the
movement, partly to political causes that intensified
division and used it for ignoble ends, but partly at any
rate to the leaders of the Church, and to the Popes or

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 453

their advisers above all. They failed (as it is so easy
for leaders of the Church to fail) to place themselves
at the head of a great movement, to direct forces that
under wise guidance might have saved the world, but
which, wrongly directed, only intensified its evils. The
Popes of the Renaissance hardly took life, or even re
ligion, seriously, and it was long before the currents of
reform rose to the papal throne. The delayed reform
at Trent was the too tardy answer to the call for wise
leadership in a Church revived and eager for its work.
Historical criticism in these days has risen above the
vulgar view which condemns a Pope as such, or for
fulfilling the ordinary duties of his position. But it
leads us in most cases to a condemnation of a different
order. With some exceptions the Popes of the period
are condemned not as bad men or faithless priests (for
such they were not), but as those who did not rise to
the height of their responsibilities, or who fastened their
eyes upon an unessential or minor attribute of their
office when they should have pursued the great aim
placed before them — the deepest, widest spiritual
welfare and working efficiency of the Church of Christ.
From many charges and imputations impartial criti
cism may free the Papacy as an institution and the
Popes as men. But a higher test remains unsatisfied.
It is something to avoid the negation of evil, but that
alone is not enough : there must be the highest fulfil
ment of all possible activities for good.
And the same has to be said of the Church at large.
Here again historio criticism casts aside the mere
enumeration of abuses as if they were all that existed.
We have to recognise the existence of great improve
ments, to trace out movements for education, reform,

454 THE REFORMATION
and the cultivation of piety ; we meet great social
movements and individual types of excellence. The
existence in these movements and along with them of
serious defects must not blind us to the good they con
tain. However sad the union may be, we see even in
our own days the combination of fanaticism with
piety, of intolerance with a high morality; we too
mourn separations from the Church and divisions
within it. The Church has often had much to learn
from those outside her pale, or from those she has been
unable to keep to herself, and she can never escape
responsibility for those who have left her fold. Com
bining these considerations, we shall probably form an
estimate of the Church during the Reformation very
different from that which is popular and current.
But even with this estimate we have to admit with
sorrow that the Church failed to meet as it should
have done all the needs of the age; that it failed to
control and guide forces that were capable of mighty
good, and which because of their force stood specially
in need of guidance. The history of many of those
movements which drifted away from the Church, their
excellencies and their defects, their possibilities even
with their fundamental errors, is the best commentary
upon what they missed in not receiving such guidance
and upon the failure of the Church in not giving it.
The Church must always be judged not only by what
it did, but also by what it left undone. It must be
measured by its ideal as well as by its deeds. It is a
hard judgment, but it is the only possible one to pass
upon the Church. The nations should walk in the
light of it, and therefore its light should not be" dim.
The kings of the earth should bring their glory into it,

THE PAPACY AFTER TRENT 455

and therefore its spirit should be purer than theirs.
But that was not always the case. It is a heavy respon
sibility for an age to bear when it has to face the
charge of creating separations wider and more funda
mental than that between the Eastern and Western
Churches — wider because not purely local, more funda
mental because of the questions they raised. And yet
there seemed something almost accidental in the way
in which they were raised; political influences made
use of their existence and prolonged it into perma
nency. Situations badly handled led to estrangements
of temper; tempers wrongly indulged were regarded
as principles. It is sad to see how politics and policies
could eat away the Church's life and sap her strength.
To those who see in her mission the salvation of the
world it is painful to see errors and evils within her,
piety and excellence severed from her or even fighting
against her ; to see a new division within the Catholic
Church, and bodies of men sincerely religious estranged
from her. But although the age of the Reformation
has its own great sins and shortcomings to answer for,
it has its own special difficulties to plead, its own
ideals to hold forth. There are currents within the
great stream of the Church's life that tend in varied
ways. There are tendencies in the lives of men that
make for ends that are not their own. Within the
Church, and without the Church, the paradox is true,
both of her life and the lives of men, testing them in
their parts as well as in their whole— " Qui non est
mecum, contra me est." " Qui enim non est adversum vos,
pro vobis est."

BIBLIOGBAPHY

Note. — This Bibliography is only intended for the ordinary reader
who wishes for guidance upon any part of the period, or for an intro
ductory study of the whole of it. Foreign works are therefore rarely
referred to, and, where possible, translations are given. Original
records for use by scholars are omitted for the same reason. Com
plete Bibliographies will be found in the Cambridge Modem History,
and references upon special points in Mbller's Church Sistory, as
below. Smaller Bibliographies will be found in the books marked f.
A. GENERAL.
Cambridge Modem History (Cambridge, 1902-4). Vol. I.
The Renaissance, especially chapters vii., ix., xi., xiii., xiv.,
xvi.-xix. II. The Reformation. III. The Wars of Reli
gion, especially chapters i., ii., v.-viii., x., xiii., xv.-xvii.,
xix.-xxii. (especially the Council of Trent in II. and of the
Counter-Reformation in III. Vol. IV. appeared too late
for use).
Stubbs, Lectures on European History. 1904. (Admirable
for political history.)
t Dr. W. Moller, History of the Christian Church,
Vol. III., Reformation to 1648, edited by Kawerau,
translated by Freese. 1900. (Superior to other Church
histories.) t Kurtz's Church History, Vols. II. and III. (early part),
translated by Macpherson. 1890.
t Alzog's Universal Cliurch History, translated by Pabisch
and Byrne, Vol. III. Dublin, 1890. (Papal but also fair.)
Lord Acton, Lectures upon Modern History. 1906.
Ranke's History of the Popes, translated by Austin.
(Invaluable.) 457

458 THE REFORMATION
Ranke's History of the Reformation in Germany. Trans
lated and reprinted. London, 1905. (Best work up to 1535.)
M. Philippson, Age of the Reformation, Vol. XL in the
History of All Nations. 1902. Also The Religious Wars,
Vol. XII. in the History of All Nations. 1902.
Haiisser's Period of the Reformation. Translated. 1885.
(A useful summary for Europe.)
f Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Generate, Vols. IV. and V.
Vol. IV. Renaissance et Reforme. Vol. V. Les Guerres de
Religion. Creighton's History of the Popes during the Reformation.
(Up to 1527 : invaluable : see V. 58-64 for Indulgences.)
Ullmaun's Reformers before the Reformation. Translated
1855. (For earlier German movements, especially Brethren
of the Common Life.)
Hngenhnch'sHistory of the Reformation, chiefly in Germany
and Switzerland. Translated. (Old-fashioned but good.)
t Hergenrother's Histoire de VEglise, especially Vol. V.
Paris, 1891.
P. Schaff, I. History of the Creeds of Christendom.
II. The Greek and Latin Churches. III. The Evangelical
and Protestant Churches. 1877. (Useful for documents.)
Kidd, The Continental Reformation. (Short but excellent :
summarises the doctrinal positions of Reformers clearly.)
Dr. A. W. Ward, The Counter-Reformation. 1889. (For
the earlier revival, and specially for Germany.)
B. SPECIAL.
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Translated
by Waterwortli. London, 1848. (With a slight but good
history.) Littledale, A Short History of the Council of Trent. (A
fairly good account of the Council itself.)
Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent is best used in
Courayer's translation (more than one edition).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 459

Pallavicini's History of the Council I have used in the
Latin Edition of Antwerp, 1673.
Mendham's Memoirs of the Council of Trent (London,
1834) contains much good matter along with a bad com
mentary. 
Jervis, History of the Church of France, Vol. I. London,
1872. Ranke's Franzosische Geschichte. Partly translated as
Civil Wars and Monarchy in France. 2 vols., London, 1852.
Armstrong, The French Wars of Religion.

S. R. Gardiner, The Thirty Years War.
Gindely, The Thirty Years War. Translated. 2 vols.,
London, 1885. 
T. B. Willson, History of Church and State in Norway from
the Tenth to Sixteenth Century. 1903.

For the History of Missions, Henrion, Histoire generate
des Missions Catholiques. Paris, 1846-7,
Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World and The
Jesuits in North America.
The History of the American Church, by Bishop Coleman.
1903. 
Hore's Eighteen Centuries of the Orthodox Greek Church
(Parker, 1899).
Also Blackmore's translation of Mouravieff's History of
the Church of Russia (Oxford, 1842).
Blackmore's Doctrine of the Russian Church (Rivingtons,
1845). Neale's History of the Holy Eastern Church: Patriarchate
of Alexandria, Vol. II. (Parker, 1847).
Much that is useful may still be found in Krasinski,
Lectures on the Religious History of the Sclavonic Nations
(London, 1869), and the same writer's Historical Sketch of
the Reformation in Poland (2 vols., London, 1838-40).

460 THE REFORMATION
Scandinavia is treated of in chapter xvii. of the Cambridge
Modern History, Vol. II.
For Sweden, Geiger's Geschichte Schwedens is good.
(Translated 1847.) C. BIOGRAPHIES.
j Erasmus, Lives by Emerton (Putnam, 1899) and
Drummond (2 vols., Smith, Elder, and Co., 1873).
Martin Luther. By Kb'stlin, 1900; by Jacobs, 1898;
t by Lindsay, 1900.
f Zwingli. By Jackson, 1901. For Zwingli I may refer
to my article in the Cambridge Modern History, Vol. II.,
with its Bibliography.
Sir Thomas More, by W. H. Hutton. 1900.
Cranmer, by A. J. Mason. 1898.
John Knox and the Reformation, by Andrew Lang. 1905.
(A reaction against the indiscriminate praise of Knox.)
Laud, by W. H. Hutton.
Henry VIIL, by Pollard.
t The Emperor Charles V., by E. Armstrong. (More than
a biography and very useful for the history.)
S. Francis de Sales and TJie Revival of Priestly Life in
the Seventeenth Century in France, by Sidney Lear.
Life of Cardinal Ximenes, by Hefele. Translated 1860.
Full information as to Biographies is to be found in
Moller, under the different headings.
D. HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
f History of the English Church, Vols. IV., V., and VI.,
by James Gairdner, W. H. Frere, and W. H. Hutton.
Dixon's History of the English Church, Vols. I.-VI.
(Admirable and full from 1529 to 1603.)
Gardiner's History of England, 1603-42, and History of
the Great Civil War, 1642-9. (The most important works
on the period.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY 461

Blunt's Reformation of the Church of England. (Very
good.) Gasquet's Eve of the Reformation ; Old English Bible
and other Essays. His Dissolution of the Monasteries,
although excellent, does not add much to Dixon's account.
Frere, The Marian Reaction. 1896.
For the reign of Elizabeth, Gee, The Elizabethan Clergy
and the Settlement of Religion, 1558-64. (Most important.)
W. A. Shaw's History of the English Church, 1640-60.
(For the documentary history.)
Wakeman's Introduction to the History of the Church of
England. (Needs no commendation now.)
For Scotland, Lang's History of Scotland, Vols. I.-III.
1900-4. The History of Doctrine in England is best taken with
the Thirty-nine Articles. The Thirty-nine Articles, by Gibson,
and more concisely by Kidd (Rivingtons' Oxford Church
Text Books).
The Prayer Book is best treated by Procter and Frere ;
but reference should also be made to Bishop and Gasquet,
Edward VI. and the Book of Common Prayer (1890).
Upon Anglican Orders, Denny and Lacey, De Hierarchia
Anglicana ; and Denny, Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction.
E. DOCTRINE.
Upon the History of Doctrine generally, Harnack's
History of Dogma (Vol. VII.), although it is sweeping
and emphatic, and lays too much stress upon Luther, is the
most illuminating.
Ritschl's History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification
and Reconciliation. (The original first volume translated
1872 : the best history for the medieval and Protestant
doctrines, but does not treat of later Roman doctrine.)
Denifle's Luther und Luthertum, Vol. I., especially
Part 11. (Invaluable : establishes Luther's lack of doctrinal

462 THE REFORMATION
originality and his inaccuracy in sketching his own develop
ment.) In the Rev. C. Bodington's Books of Devotion, chapters
x.-xiii. 1903.
The Spiritual Exercises of S. Ignatius Loyola are re
produced in English as Manresa (Burns, 1860).
Melanchthon's Loci Communes Theologici (in many
editions) is the best handbook of Lutheran theology.
Among articles in magazines to which (along with others)
I have been indebted I wish to mention: Miss A. M. Tucker,
in the English Historical Review, XVIII. , 24, 266, 439,
upon Giberti ; Prof. Maitland, Elizabethan Gleanings, in the
same, XV., 20, 324, 530, 757, XVIIL, 517 ; the Rev. W. H.
Hutton in the same upon The Religious Writings of Sir
Thomas More, IV., 667; and also in the Quarterly for
October, 1905, upon Erasmus, and the Rev. J. N. Figgis,
in the Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. II., pp. 66 seq.,
upon Erastus and Erastianism ; Mr. James Gairdner, in
the English Historical Review, New Lights on the Divorce
of Henry VIIL (XL, 673 on; XII., 1 on and 237); Rene
An eel, in the Revue des Questions Historiques, April, 1906,
on La Secretairerie Pontificate sous Paul IV. ; R. Maere,
Les Origines de la Nonciature de Flandre, in the Revue
d' Histoire ecclesiastique, Jvlj, 1906; P. Richard, Origines des
Nonciatures permanentes, in Revue d' Histoire ecclesiastique,
January and April, 1906.
Among books to which I am indebted are : — ¦
Philippson's La Contre-Revolution. 1884.
Janssen's Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit den Ausgang
des Mittelalters, as revised by Pastor. 1897-1903. (The
earlier volumes only translated. Invaluable for the whole
period.) Pastor's History of the Popes since the Reformation. In
English, by Antrobus, 1898, etc.
Maurenbrecher's Karl V. und die deutschen Protestanten

BIBLIOGRAPHY 463
(1545-55); his Geschichte der katholischen Reformation
(1880), unhappily never finished; and his Studien und
Skizzen. Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin, by
Dbllinger and Reusch (Bonn, 1887) ; the same authors'
Geschichte den Moralstreitigkeiten in den romisch-katholischen
Kirche (Nordlingen, 1889 on).
Moritz Brosch, Geschichte des Kirchenstaates, Vol. I.
(Gotha, 1880).
Gothein, Ignatius von Loyola und die Gegenreformation
(Halle, 1895).
Religion und Kirche un England un fiinfzehnten Jahrhun-
dert, by Dr. E. Fueter (Mohr, 1904).
Dbllinger's Ungedruckte Berichte und Tagebiicher zur
Geschichte des Concils von Trient (2 vols., Nordlingen, 1876)
I have also used largely, along with many other German
works and collections on the same subject.
Also many articles and references in the Zeitschrift fur
Kirchengeschichte and the Revue d' Histoire ecclesiastique.

NOTE

Justification by Faith. — As the medieval doctrine is often
misunderstood, and as the different views then taken make it
misleading to speak (as is often done) of one consistent medieval
view, it seemed well to add a short note with the Bibliography.
Whatever interpretation be given to S. Augustine's teaching, and
perhaps it is not always consistent, he laid unique stress upon
(a) God's sovereignty and free grace ; (b) a change of life in man.
Justification deals with the relation between God and man ;
hence it is fundamentally connected with the Incarnation of
Christ, with its effects (if one can so speak reverently) upon
God Himself, and its effects upon the sinner. Here is room for
two opposite kinds of treatment. The same relation is also
closely connected with Regeneration, which places man in a new
corporate relation to God, and with Sanctification, by which he
grows nearer to God in thought and deed. A difference of view
would also arise according as each of these terms is held to imply
one definite act or (more rightly) a process. Salvation, again,
may be regarded as a definite end or as a process. Here again
there is much room for divergency. It may be said at once that
the medieval theologians connected Justification with Regenera
tion — the entrance into the divine society with all its attendant
duties and privileges. Luther, on the other hand, rather re
garded Sanctification as a state of holiness than as a continued
process. The medieval Catholic view thus laid stress upon life
in the Church with its sacramental life and its growth in grace
— salvation, or "the being saved" ("a state of salvation"), as a
process. Luther, on the other hand, regarded salvation as a gift
given once for all, conferred with Justification.
The history of the doctrine may be given shortly as follows :
S. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo ? brought in a new conception of the
sinner's reconciliation with God by Christ's death regarded as a
464

NOTE ON JUSTIFICATION 465

legal transaction. From this work one leading line of opinion
was derived. Abelard was the founder of another school; he
made the reconciliation of the sinner with God depend upon the
moral disposition towards each other of the two parties in the
reconciliation. His conception was mainly ethical, while that of
S. Anselm was mainly legal; but Abelard's conception easily lent
itself to abuse through its possibly lower view of God's grace.
According to Abelard, God's condescension to man by the
sending of Christ, and Christ's surrender of Himself to death,
awaken in man a bond of love towards God, and this is the
ground for the forgiveness of man's sin. S. Anselm's theory,
which was far from being so dominant in the Middle Ages as is
often supposed, applied to all mankind, while Abelard's applied
only to the elect.
In these views two conceptions are to be distinguished :
Christ's merit which passes on to man, and His satisfaction
rendered to God. Peter Lombard (followed by later medieval
writers) developed the idea of Christ's merit and rather sup
pressed that of His satisfaction. He further developed the legal
conception, but he also enlarges the idea of redemption from the
power of the devil, which comes about by Christ's death
awakening in us a love of Him which extinguishes sin. Upon
this side he follows Abelard. The view of S. Thomas Aquinas
is more important, and if perhaps incomplete in itself, yet
recognises all these factors, and also that of satisfaction. But
he too lays most stress upon the idea of Christ's merit, although
he also speaks of the love of Christ awakening love in us. Thus
in his teaching the two ideas of (a) Christ's satisfaction rendered
to God and (b) the merit of Christ's sacrifice are insisted upon.
But his whole conception starts with the grace of God working
in us. And the grace works in the sphere of Christ's Church.
It is not going too far to say that the reformers, on the other
hand, started with the idea of a moral external law which has
to be satisfied, and was satisfied by Christ.
The conception of Duns Scotus, differing in some elements,
yet came to much the same result as that of Aquinas. But
Duns made the Incarnation of Christ only of use to the elect,
and also independent of the fall of man and not intended (as
in the debased Puritan conception popularised by Milton) merely
2 H

466 THE REFORMATION
as an after-thought to the fall. So he did not consider the
sufficiency of Christ's death (which extended to all the world)
to exceed its efficiency (which only covered the elect) ; he made
the two equivalent, both affecting the elect only. Aquinas made
Christ's sufferings be borne by Him as the Head of the Church ;
Duns rather regarded them as being borne by Him as an in
dividual. The many and varied elements in the medieval
doctrine can thus be seen, and a varying stress might be laid
upon any one element. But it cannot be too strongly insisted
upon that its statement always involved the idea of God's grace,
and that it recognised the facts of life, and above all the exist
ence of Christ's body upon the earth. The doctrine is apt to
become colourless and to lose its vast significance in. relation to
the corporate life, if the living union of the believer with Christ
is made a purely individual concern apart from life in the Church.
Justification in the medieval view means that God by His grace
makes righteous the unrighteous man. God's grace and man's
activity are united. According to Aquinas, the habitual grace
implanted in man by God's gracious act is Justification. To a
sinner this is wrought through forgiveness of sin, and involves
it. With Duns, on the other hand, the forgiveness of sins is
treated as being less important ; he lays more stress upon the
idea of man's activity.
A further complication was brought in by the Nominalists,
who made merit de congruo have a value in itself towards gaining
gratiarn primam, or the first gift of grace. With their mere
purely human view of everything the Nominalists asserted the
efficacy of human merit. Hence came endless discussions
which had this in common, that they exalted man's power at the
expense of God's grace. Thus they obscured the idea of God's
grace, they lessened the significance of sin, and in both ways
departed from the medieval Catholic position.
It has been shown most clearly by Denifle that Luther's inter
pretation of the "righteousness" or "justice of God" (Rom.
i. 17) was not novel. Luther depicts himself as depressed by
understanding " the justice " here to mean " the formal or active
justice" by which God punishes sinners, this being, as he says, the
current interpretation. Then it came into his mind that it meant
rather the "passive" justice by which God communicates His own

NOTE ON JUSTIFICATION 467
righteousness to man, and he became happy (" the just shall live
by faith "). A series of citations given by Denifle show, however,
(1) that Luther's predecessors had taken this view, which he
describes as novel, and (2) that he himself in his commentary
upon Romans had made the fullest use of their works and
shared their view before this supposed change in his opinions.
Intentional untruth on Luther's part might be supposed, but a
preferable explanation is defective memory and the difficulty of
correctly describing one's past and one's development over a
distance of changing years.
Ritschl, in the work mentioned on p. 461 (which is largely
used in this note), protests vigorously against describing any
theologian, who lays stress upon the grace of God or the need
of faith upon the part of man, as a " Reformer before the
Reformation." He is, I think, hardly fair to the German
mystics, with whom the school of Ritschl and Harnack have
little sympathy, but this protest is undoubtedly right (see
Ritschl,- pp. 99-120).
The doctrine of Justification before the Reformation was not
so simple, certainly not so corrupt and foolish, as it is some
times stated or assumed to be. Scholastics and Reformers had
a different basis : medieval theologians assumed the Church, the
corporate life ; the Reformers, on the other hand, were much
more individualistic, if not purely so. What was excellent in
the teaching of the Reformers was the stress laid upon God's
grace and man's sinfulness ; here they reaffirmed the best
elements of the medieval teaching — elements which the
Nominalist teaching and the abuses of indulgences had overlaid.
What was defective in the Reformers' teaching was the neglect
of the corporate life and the separation of faith from life itself.
The Tridentine Decree endeavours to recognise, if not adequately,
yet in some degree, all these elements. The Reformation shifted
the point of view, as may be seen not only in Lutheranism and
Calvinism, but in the Anglican Article .XL ; in discussing any
view— S. Paul's, the medieval, the Tridentine, the Anglican, or
the Reformers'— both the point of view and the balance of the
details, should be considered. Nothing but harm is done by the
isolation of parts of a statement from the whole. In doctrine
so much depends upon the point of view and the context of an

468 THE REFORMATION
assertion. Luther, for instance, enlarged S. Paul's "justification
by faith" into "justification by faith alone" : taken along with
the dangerous assertion that man's salvation depended upon his
own conviction of its truth this expression became mischievous.
But taken by itself as a reaction against the importance assigned
to works it might be merely a strong assertion of the supremacy
of God's grace as against works, and further, it rightly lifted the
whole process from the sphere of man's activity into that of
spirituality. But, like the assertion of salvation by works, it
was too likely to limit its view to man and man's own view of
his position, for it made man's feelings the central point, hence
in the end it shut out the conception of God and His grace
which it was originally meant to emphasise ; this result was
hastened by the disregard of life within the Church ; united to
individualism the phrase became licentious, and, as a party
badge under other conditions when it was not necessary to
insist upon the subordination of works, the phrase lost all value.
The Anglican Article XL adopts the Lutheran phrase, but uses
it in the proper sense stated above, viz. that of an emphatic
contradiction of salvation by works, upon which Article XII.
enlarges. The Anglican Articles start from the Reformation
point of view, and assert the primitive doctrine in the light of
Reformation controversies. Their caution is seen in their brevity
and in their omission of all but essential points ; they leave aside
medieval speculation and Protestant theories. The Tridentine
Decree, on the other hand, is cautious in its fulness of balanced
statement and in its attempt to express all that was true in
medieval theology while condemning Protestant novelties. But
to reach this end and yet to satisfy all parties in the Council
was very hard. In the text I have used the term "the mediating
theologians " to describe the school of Pflug and Gropper. Their
view, however, was not really formed by a combination of that
of the Reformers and of the medieval Catholic Church, but by a
reassertion of elements found in the medieval view itself ; these
elements — broadly the assertion of God's grace and the sinfulness
of man — they asserted with limitations and conditions dis
regarded by the German Reformers. The Jesuit view, which
emphasised a side of the doctrine forgotten by the Reformers—
the need of righteousness on man's part and the existence of

NOTE ON JUSTIFICATION 469
his free will — might be derived either from the Catholic medieval
view or from the Nominalist statements. But here again the
truth it embodied was liable to exaggeration, and could easily
suffer from the non-presentation of other elements along with it.
[This note is meant to be taken along with the statements in
the text, and I should like to refer to an admirable note in
Sanday and Headlam's Commentary upon Romans, p. 147 seq.
Field, Of the Church, Book III, Appendix : Chapter XI. is also
useful.]

INDEX

Aachen, 291
,, religious troubles at
(1581), 295
Abbot, Archbishop (and Eastern
Church), 417
Abelard on Justification, 465
Abuses, ecclesiastical (fifteenth
century), 6, 15
,, demand for reform of
(see Trent), 81
Abyssinia, 422-3
Acadia, 427
Adam of Usk on Rome, 321
Adiaphoristic controversy, 289
Advertisements (1566), 361, 362
Affinity, spiritual, 226
Agnes von Mansfeld, 294
Agricola, John, and Interim, 116
Albert of Brandenburg, Arch
bishop of Mainz and Branden-
, burg, 31, 56
Albert V. of Bavaria, 303
„ and the Jesuits, 283
Alcala (University), 274, 282
Aleander, 37
Alexander VI. See Popes
, , of Saxony, a plural
ist bishop, 293
Alexandria, Patriarchs of, 413,
416-17, 422-3
Alexius, Czar, 419-20
Altemps, Cardinal d', 175, 212
Alva in the Netherlands, 379-80
Ambassadors at Trent, 165, 188,
190, 232
Ambassadors at Trent (not sign
ing Decrees), 249
Ambrose, S. (edited by Sixtus V. ),
435

America, Spanish rule in, 387,
424-7
Amsdorf consecrated Bishop of
Naumburg by Luther, 288
Amyot, 153
Anabaptists, 50-1, 52
(Switzerland), 73-4
,, (Munster), 74
,, (Netherlands), 377
Andrese, Jacob, 414
Andrewes, Bishop, 374
Andrews, S. (a Province, 1472),
347, 348
Angermannus, Archbishop, 401
Anglican doctrine of Justification,
467-8
Anhalt, 54, 56, 83-4, 121, 292
, , Wolfgang of, 60
,, Christian of, 305, 308
Anhausen, Protestant Union at,
307
Annates, 20, 236, 334-5
(Poland), 405
Anne, S., cult of, 7
Annecy, 272
Ansbach (see also Brandenburg),
58, 83, 291-2
Antioch (Patriarchate), 422
Appeals in Church cases, 158
Aquaviva, 390-1, 397
Aquinas, S. Thomas, 4
,, doctrines of (Thomism),
391
,, study of (see Ratio
Studiorum), 448
,, on Justification, 131-3,
465-6
Archpriest controversy, 284
Armada (and Sixtus V.), 437

471

47*

THE REFORMATION

Arminius, 382-4
Arminianism, 384-5
Arras (diocese), 376, 378
Articles (Six), 344-5
„ (Ten), 342-3
„ (Thirty-nine), 362
„ (Lambeth), 369
,, (or Remonstrance — Neth
erlands), 384
Arze, John de (and Breviary of
Quignon), 254
Assyrian Christians, 422
Augsburg, Diet of (1530), 79-81
„ (1547-8), 116
» .. (1555), 119
„ (1582), 295
,, Confession of, 79-80,
182, 207
, , Confession of, Jeremiah
II. upon, 415
,, Religious Peace of, 120,
286
,, Religious Peace of (its
difficulties), 295, 300
„ Religious Peace of (and
* Edict of Restitution),
311
,, Interim, 149, 400
,, (and emigration to
England), 348
,, See of, 297-8
,, (Lutherans and Cal
vinists at), 290
Augustine, S. (influence upon
Calvin), 99
,, (and Justification),
132, 133, 464
Augustinianism, 132 seq., 389
Augustinian Friars {see von Stau
pitz), 8
,, ,, (in Germany), 43
Augustinus (Suarez), 136
Austria, Protestants in, 121
Austrian lands, Reformation in,
299
Austrian lands, Counter-Refor
mation in, 302-3, 305, 310
Authority and thought, 154
Auxiliis, de (Congregation), 136
440

Baden, 292, 317
Bajus, 135
Baldwin, F., 396
Balthasar Gravel, Abbot of Fulda,
296
Bamberg, 297, 314
Bancroft, Archbishop, 369
Baptism, Holy. See Trent
Baptists in England, 363
Barberini, 429, 446, 448
Barcelona, 274Treaty of, 55, 58
Barmama, Simeon, 422
Barnabites, the, 9
Baronius, 255, 267, 441, 449
,, (Annates), 267
Bartholomew, Massacre of S., 103
Basel, 27, 72, 97
Basilides, 423
Bassi, Matteo de (and Capuchins),
264-5
Bathory, Stephan (Poland), 409-
10
Bavaria, religion in, 45, 303
,, policy of house of, 82
„ Protestantism in, 121
,, demands of estates, 304
,, in Thirty Years War,
• 305-6, 317
Baxter, 383
Beaton, Cardinal, 348
Beatus, Rhenanus, 175
Bedell, Bishop of Kilmore, and
Sarpi, 444
Belgium, 379-80
Belgic Confession, 382
Bellarmine, 258, 393, 396, 448-9
Bellay, Eustace du, Bishop of
Paris, 282
Benedictines, the, 8
„ „ in Italy, 9
„ „ French, 267-8
Benefices (see Trent), 19, 38, 41,
163
Berard, Bishop of Camerino, 409
Bermudez, John, 422
Bern, Reformation at, 69-70, 98
Bernhard of Saxe- Weimar, 314
Berulle, Cardinal, 267, 269-70
Beza, Theodore, at Poissy, 102

INDEX

473

Bible, study of, 11, 448
,, in Eastern Church, 419-20
„ in English, 343, 345, 351
„ translation in Germany
before Luther, 8
Bishops under Henry VIIL (ap
pointment of), 335,
339
,, under Edward VI. (ap
pointment of), 350
„ under Mary, 356, 367
,, under Elizabeth (and
appointment of), 360
,, under Mary (in Ireland),
371-2
, , in Scotland, 364
„ 186-8
„ and the Curia, 20, 21
,, authority of, 164
,, confirmation of, 227
,, in Denmark, 92-3
, , residence of. See Trent
„ titular, 144, 216-17
„ types of, 4
Bishops' Book (Institution, etc.),
343
Blackwell, 393
Bobadilla, 283
Bohemia, 56
,, Lutheranism in, 299
,, Emperor Rudolf and,
305, 307
,, Ferdinand of Styria in,
308, 310
, , expulsion of Protestants
from, 310-11
Bohemian Brethren, 299, 305
,, in Poland,
404,407-8
Boleyn, Anne, 328, 335-6
Bologna, 281
,, Concordat of, 94
Bona Sforza (Poland), 404
Bonner, Bishop of London, 350
,, removed, 353
Borghese (and Borghesi), 429, 441,
445
Boris Godonof, Russia, 413
. See Alexander VI.
Cesare, 3

Borgia, Francis (D. of Gandia,
Jesuit General), 282, 390
Borromeo, Cardinal Carlo, 72, 173,
206, 211, 250, 258, 265, 268-9
Borromeo, Cardinal Carlo, and
Sarpi, 443
Borromeo, Cardinal Carlo, Oblates
of, 268
Bossuet, 271
Both kinds, reception of (see
Chalice), 193
Brandenburg (see also Ansbach),
121, 291-2
,, religious changes in,
115
„ Albert of, 119
,, Elector of, 54
,, Joachin II., 115
,, Margrave of, 60
, , and secularised sees,
292-3, 316
,, bishopric of, 292
Brietenfeld, battle of (1631), 313
Bremen, bishopric of, 83, 293,
309, 316
Bresc, Synods of, 410
Bres, de, 382
Breviary, 440
,, history of Roman, 252-5
,, of Quignon, 253
,, and Pius V., 433
,, local forms of, 254
,, Sarum, 327, 345
Briconnet, Bishop of Meaux, 95
Briefs, Secretaryship of, 432
Bristol, see of, 338
Brunau (before the Thirty Years
War), 307-8
Bruns, Anton, Archbishop of
Prague, 199
Brunswick (see also Liineburg), 54,
83, 121, 292
,, and secularised sees,
316
Duke Henry of, 113
Bucer, 77, 80, 109, 114
Buddseus, 396
Bugenhagen, 91
Bull, Aeternus ille, 259
„ Benedictus Deus (1564), 250

474

THE REFORMATION

Bull, In Ccena Domini (1527),
183, 433
„ In eminenti (1642), 136
,, Injunctum nobis, 261
,, In sacrosancti beads Petri,
261
,, Quod a nobis, 254
„ Reguans in excelsis, 367
„ ZeloDomus Dei (1648), 318
Buoncompagni (see Gregory XIII. ),
434, 436
Bursfeld, 8
Basch, 8
Cajetan, Cardinal (de Vio), 21,
33, 448
Calasanze, Joseph, 270
Calendar, reform of, by Gregory
XIII., 435
,, adopted by States, 435
Oalinio, Archbishop of Zara, 254,
257
Calvin, 93, 97-101, 109, 382
,, early life and travels, 97
,, at Geneva, 98-9
,, his Institutes, 97-8
,, at Oxford, 368
,, doctrines of, 99
,, organisation of, 100-1,
'363, 382-3
,, his influence, 101
Calvinism, Crypto, 289
,, in England, 368-70
,, in Scotland, 363, 366
,, in Germany not tol
erated by Religious
Peace, 120
,, in Germany, nor by
Edict of Restitu
tion, 311
,, in Germany, nor by
Peace of Prague, 315
,, in Germany tolerated
by Treaty of West
phalia, 317
,, policy leads to Thirty
Years War, 305-6
and Lutheranism, di
visions between, 77,
288-9, 290, 291

Calvinism in Netherlands, 377,
381-3
,, in Netherlands (their
Scholasticism), 385
,, in Poland, 404-5
Cambrai, League of (1508), 16
,, Treaty of (1529), 58
,, diocese, 376
Oammin, bishopric of, 293, 316
Camoldolites, the, 9, 264
,, „ (Peter Damiani)
264
Campeggio, 329
Canada, rarity of divorce in, 224
, , French-Canadian Church,
428
,, missions in, 427-8
Canisius, 185, 213, 295
,, at Ingolstadt and Vi
enna, 283
,, Catechism or Summa
Doctrines Cliristianw,
284
„ Catechism, 257
,, Catechism in Sweden,
400
,, favours Quignon's Bre
viary, 300
Cano, Melchior, 386, 448
Canons (1571) (England), 361
(1640) (England), 371
Canon Law in England, 321, 333,
339
Canonists and Theologians, oppo
sition between, 178
Canterbury, now position of Arch
bishop after Reformation, 339
Canterbury, Archbishops of. See
Warham, Cranmer, Pole, Par
ker, Grindal, Whitgift, Abbot,
Bancroft, Laud
Capito, 80
Capuchins, the, 9, 72, 265
,, ,, on Peace of Prague,
315
,, ,, inSwitzerland,269
Caraffa, 126, 266, 435
,, (Nuncio in Germany), 310
„ and Jesuits, 275
„ See Paul IV.

INDEX

475

Cardinal Superintendent, 432
Cardinal Superintendent, College
of (see also Conclaves), 227, 231,
434, 438
Cardinal Superintendent, College
of, its reform, 231
Cardinal Superintendent and
Congregations, 434
Carinthia, 303, 305
Carlstadt, 34, 42, 50, 74-6
Carga, Giovanni, memoir on the
Curia, 431-2
Carranza, Bartolome de, Arch
bishop of Toledo (his trial),
236-7, 436
Carlos, Don, 300
Carniola, 303, 305
Cartwright, Thomas, 363
Carvajal, Cardinal, i7
Casas, Las (and slavery), 426-7
Casaubon (in England), 374, 389
Cassander, George, 302, 399
,, Consultatio of, 302,
399
Castagna (Urban VII.), 439
Castel (on Synods), 159
Casuistry, study of, general, 396
Cateau Cambresis (1559), Treaty
of, 167
Catechism of Trent, 229, 257-8
, , of Trent (see also Cani-
sius), 283, 284
,, of Bellarmine, 258
,, Racovian (Poland),
408
, , Dominicans and
Jesuits differ on,
258
,, of Heidelberg, 290
„ of Mogilas, 418
Catholic reaction, 121-2
Catholicism, restoration of, along
Rhine, 116
,, restoration of, in
Germany, 294-9
,, restoration of, in
Austrian lands,
310-11
Centum Gravamina(Gevma,ny), 18
Centuries, the Magdeburg, 448

Cervini (see Marcellus II.), 127
Chablais, 272
Chalice, mixed, 154-5, 191-4,
196, 198, 199, 202,
214, 215
,, administration of (Aus
trian lands), 299, 303
,, administration of (Ba
varia), 303
,, administration of (Eng
land), 351
,, See also Communion in
both kinds
Chaldsea, Uniat Church of, 422
Champlain, 427
Chantries, 349, 350
Chapters, Cathedral. See Trent
,, Cathedral reform of,
200-1, 229, 234
,, Cathedral, visitationof,
244
,, Cathedral, degeneracy
of, 293
Charity, Brothers of, 270
,, ,, Confraternity of, 271
, , Sisters of, founded, 271
Charles V., Emperor (I. of Spain) :
at Worms, 37
and a Council, 54, 112, 148-9
sack of Rome, 55
and Lutheranism, 58, 115
and Pope, 140, 148-9, 151, 161
crowned, 58
his Interimof Augsburg, 116,14 8
a fugitive before Maurice, 1 19
war with France, 126
abdication of, 168
position in Spain and Empire,
167
and Mary of England, 355
and slavery, 426
in Netherlands, 376, 378, 386
and Jesuits, 338
Charles I. (England), 366
,, Duke of Styria, 303
,, IX. (of Sweden), 401-2
Chastel, Jean, 393
Cherubini (Bellarmin), 436
Chester, See of, 338

476

THE REFORMATION

Christgarten, 305
Christian of Anhalt, 305
,, I. of Denmark, 85
„ II.ofDenmark,85,86,89
,, IV. of Denmark (Duke
of Holstein), 309, 310
, , William of Brandenburg
as bishop, 293
,, Civic League (Burger-
recht), 70, 71
,, Union, 70
Christina (Sweden), 402
Church, of England (see England,
Church of) :
definition of Augsburg Con
fession, 79
and science, 450
and Reformation movement,
453
and its failures and successes,
454-5
and learning, 448
and State (see also Reformation
of Princes), 245
Church lands in Bohemia, dis
putes as to, 307
Church, Minor Reformed (Poland),
408
Chytraeus, 302
Cisneros, Dom Garcia de, 274
Cities and Reformation, 430
Civil War in England, 371
Claudius (Abyssinia), 422
Clement VII., 265, 329, 336
,, VIIL and Congregation
de Auxiliis, 136
VIIL and Index, 183
Clerical marriage. See Libels of
Reformation, England, Zurich,
Luther
Clerical marriage, 399, 415
,, ,, in Bavaria, 304
Clergy in Poland, 405
„ privileges of, in Poland,405
,, submission of, 333
Cleve, Duchy o f, succession to, 11 3,
291, 305
„ ,, Reformation in, 114
„ ,, Duke William of,
114

Coadjutor bishops, 240
Codex Alexandrinus, 417
Cochlaeus, 52, 109
Coelde, Dietreeh, 8
Cognac, League of (1526), 53
Colet (Dean of S. Paul's), 25, 327
Coligny, Admiral, 103
Colleges of Jesuits (see Seminaries,
Trent), 281-4
Collegium Urbanum, 423
Colonies :
English, 421
Spanish, 421, 424-7
French, 421, 427-8
Commendone (Bishop of Zante),
409
Common Life, Brethren of the,
10-11, 25, 377
Communion in both kinds, 114
England, 350
Sweden, 409
(See Trent and Chalice)
Communion, Holy, changes in
England, 350-1
Complutensian Polyglot, 14
"Compromise, the," in Nether
lands, 379
Conclaves for Papal elections,
438-9, 440-1, 447
,, andReform, 125-6, 172
Concord of Wittenberg, 77
,, Formula of, 289, 292
,, ,, (in Poland), 408
Concordat with Spain, (1482), 13
,, with France, 20
Confessio Tetrapolitana, 80
Confession of Augsburg, 79-80,
182, 207
Confession of Augsburg, Eastern
Church on, 414-15
Confession of Augsburg, Confuta
tion, 80
Confession of Augsburg adopted
by Sweden, 401
Confession, Belgic, 382
,, of Cyril Lucar, 417
, , Second Helvetic, 100,
289
„ Orthodox, 1640 (see
also Consensus), 418

INDEX

477

Confession, Sacramental. See
Trent
„ Saxon (1551), adopted
byUnioninPoland, 407
,, Westminster, 383
Confessions in the East, 418
Confirmation. See Trent «
„ of Bishops. See
Trent
Congregation de Auxiliis, 136
,, of Council of Trent,
250
,, De Propaganda Fide,
423
„ for Germany (under
Gregory XIII.), 301
,, of the Index, 185
Congregationalists in England,
363
Congregations, 434, 437, 446
Congruity, doctrine of, 136, 390
Consensus of Sandomir, 407, 408
„ Tigurinus (1549), 100,
289
Consilium delectorum, etc., de
emendanda ecclesia, 125
Constantinople (Patriarch of),
412, 414, 416
,, Jesuits in, 417
,, English diplo
macy, 417
„ Synod of, 417
Constanz, 60, 64-5, 72, 80, 175,
394
Consultatio of Cassander, 399
Consultation of Hermann of
Koln, 352
Contarini, 108, 109, 126, 253, 286
Conventuals, the (see Francis
cans),' 8
„ and Observants,
265
Convocation (England), 333-4,
350-1
,, and Prayer Book,
352
Copenhagen, Decree of, 91
Copernicus, his De Revolutionibus
Orbium Ccelestium, 449

Copts of Abyssinia, 422-3
Cornia, Ascanio delta, 168
Corpus Evangelicorum (projected),
314
Cortes (under Charles V.), 13
Coton, Friar, 393, 394
Council under Edward VI., 349
,, See Lateran, Pisa, Trent
Councils, the great Western, 4-5,
7, 12
Counter-Reformation :
True view of, 11
In Germany, 121-2
In Sweden, 402
In Poland, 409, 410
(See also Catholicism, restora
tion of)
Cour, Didier de la, 267
Courts, ecclesiastical, in Poland,
405-7. See also Ec
clesiastical Procedure,
Trent
,, ecclesiastical, in Eng
land, 321
Covenant in Scotland, 364
Cranmer (Reformatio Legum),
333, 336, 339-41, 345,
350-1
,, and Black Rubric, 354,
355
,, his martyrdom, 356
, , compared to Cyril Lucar,
416
" Creatures," Papal, 438
Creed of Pope Pius IV. , 261
,, Nicene, at Trent, 129
Crepy (1544), Peace of, 112, 126
Crescenzio, Cardinal of S. Mar-
cello, Legate at Trent, 151, 165,
207
Criminous Clerks, 195, 244
Critopoulos, Metrophanes, 417
Cromwell, Thomas, 337
Crusades, tax for, 20
Crusius, 414
Cruzada (Spanish), 239
Cujus regio, ejus religio, 55, 120
„ in Poland,
409
Culm, Bishop of. See Hosius

478

THE REFORMATION

Curia, 40
,, organisation of, 430, 431-2
,, parties in (see Conclaves), 441
, , reform of, under Adrian VI. ,
40
,, reform of, under Paul III.,
109
,, reform of, under Pius IV.,
189
Curialists, 21, 177
,, See Papacy, Trent
Cusa, Nicholas of (Krebs), 10
Cyril of Bercea, 417-18
,, Lucar, 416-17
Czar, title of, taken by Ivan IV.,
412
D'Achery, 268
Danzig, 403
David, King (Abyssinia), 422
Decrees of Trent, public accept
ance of, 243
,, ,, commended to
princes, 248-9
,, ,, acceptance by
nations, 251
,, (Tridentine) on Reform,
effect of, 220
Delfino, 191
Demetrius (Russia), 413
the false, 414-15
Denmark and Formula of Concord,
292
Denmark, Kings of :
Christian I., 85
II., 85, 86, 89
Frederick I. , 90-1
Christian III., 91
Denmark, 85, 86, 89
,, Reformation in, 90
,, Lutheran organisation
in, 92
Denifle on Luther, 466-7
Dessau, League at, 54
Deventer, 25
Deutsche Theologie, 28
Devout Life, Introduction to
(S. Francis de Sales), 272
Diet. See Augsburg, Nlirnberg,
Regensburg, Speier, and Worms

Dietrich von Raittenau, Arch
bishop of Salzburg, 298
Dillingen High School, 297
,, Seminary, 298
Dioceses in England (new), 337-8
,, in Netherlands (defective
organisation of), 376
,, in Switzerland, 63-4
,, in Russia, 413-14
Dispensations (see also Marriage),
41, 201, 226
Disputations, public, at Zurich, 67
Dissidents (Poland), 409
"Divorce" of Henry VIIL, 328-
30, 336
Divorce, remarriage after, 223-6
Dbering at Erfurt, 8
Dominicans and Galileo, 450
„ and Jesuits, 199, 391
,, in Paris, 394
,, and Inquisition, 169
,, Missions, 424, 426
,, and theologians and
Justification, 134
Dominis, de (Bishop of Spalatro),
443
Donato, Leonardo, 437, 442
Donauworth, 306-7
Dort, Synod of (Dordrecht), 370,
385
Douai, College at, 368
Du Bellay, Guillaume, 96
Duns Scotus on Justification, 465-6
Durand, 268
Dutch, immigration of, into Ger
many, 294
Easter Communion, 157
Eastern Church, 398
,, ,, and Calvinism,
416-17
,, ,, and Papacy,
411-12, 413,
414, 417
,, ,, and Lutherans,
398, 414-15,
416-17
,, ,, in Poland (and
Roman Church), 403, 410
Ecclesiastical Courts, 201, 244

INDEX

479

Ecclesiastical Courts in England,
321
Ecclesioe de Unitate (Pole), 341-2
Eck, John Maier, 34, 45, 80, 109,
283, 448
,, Leonard von (Bavaria), 45
Education, religious, in England,
326, 338, 349
Edward VI., 348-9
,, rebellion under,349,353
,, death of, 354
„ some of his laws re
pealed, 354
Egidius of Viterbo, 18
Eichsfeld, expulsion of Protestants
from, 295-6
Election of bishops. See Trent
Eliassen, Paul, 91
Elizabeth (England), 294, 358
,, and Spain, 358
,, her religious policy,
358-60
,, and Council of Trent,
173, 215, 358
,, Prayer Book of, 361
,, Advertisements of, 361
,, and Papacy, 367
,, and Ireland, 371
Elsass affected by Edict of Resti
tution, 311, 316
Ely Registers, 1388-1426, 29
Empire, Holy Roman, 2, 3
England, Church of, 320
Canon Law in, 321
Ecclesiastical Courts, 321
Its condition before the Reform
ation, 323
And Parliament, 333-4
Secular clergy, 325-6
Monastic Orders, 324-5
New Learning in, 327-8
Its catholicity, 330
Papal powers in, 320-3, 333-5,
339
Synods in, 324, 334
Fees, 324, 334
Primate of, 339
Reform in, 334
Convocation, 333-4
Visitations in, 324, 334

England, Church of :
Appeal to Pope, 335
New sees (see Bishops), 338
Doctrine of, 342-5
Under Edward VI., 350-2, 354
Under Mary, 357
Projected reforms (1535), 357
Plunder of, under Elizabeth and
continued by James I., 359
And Presbyterianism, 363
Under Laud, 369-70
Under Elizabeth and James I.,
368-70
Reform of, compared with that
of Trent, 370
In Civil War, 373
After Restoration, 374
General position, 374-5
England, Roman Catholics in, 393
,, beforethe Reformation, 5
, , and Reformation, 320-75
Episcopal organisations :
In England, 361, 369
In Scotland, 366
In Netherlands, 376
New scheme suggested for, 376
In Switzerland, 63-4
EpiscopateandLutheranism, 48,57
,, improvement of, in
Germany, 297, 298
, , weakness of, a cause of
Protestantism, 298
Epistolce Obscurorum Virorum, 25
Erasmus, 6, 12, 25 seq. , 51-3
,, and Adrian VI., 39
,, in Index, 183
,, and Laski, 405
,, ,, Luther, 53
,, ,, Sorbonne, 94, 95
„ ,, Zwingli, 52, 66
Erastus, 383
Erastianism, 383-5
Eric XIV. (Sweden), 399
Eric Valkendorf, 85
Ermanland, South,Protestant,401
Ermland, Bishop of. See Hosius
Ernest of Bavaria (Bishop of
Freising), 294
Estates (in France) and Jesuit
theories, 395

480

THE REFORMATION

Estius, 448
Staples, d'. See Stapulensis
Etienne, Robert, 389
,, Henry, 389
Eucharist. See Trent and Mass
Eucharist, the Holy (England), 351
Excommunication, restriction of,
244
,, in Poland, 407
,, power of, 244,
382-3
,, of Venice, 444
Exemptions, 19, 242
Exercitalorium Spirituale (of Cis-
neros), 274
Expectatives. See Trent
Faber, Johann, Vicar-General of
Constanz, Bishop of Vienna,
52, 72, 80
Fachinetto (Innocent IX.), 439
Faenza, 281
Faith, Rule of. See Trent
Farel, Guillaume, 95, 96
Farnese, Alexander. See Paul III.
,, ,, Cardinal, Legate
in Germany, 127
,, ,, Pier Luigi, 116
„ ,, (theFarnesi), 153
Fasting, maintenance of, 248
,, at Ziirich, 74
Federalism in Switzerland, 380
Fees, ecclesiastical (England),
324, 334
Feodor (Russia), 413
Ferdinand I. (Emperor), 54, 56,
81, 167, 203-4, 213, 256, 299
King of Bohemia and Hungary,
56
And Peace of Augsburg, 119
His policy (and Paul IV.), 287
And the Council of Trent, 193,
199
And Reformation of Princes,
232
And Libel of Reformation, 204
seq".
Consults theologians for media
tion, 302
Ferdinand and Isabella, 13

Ferdinand of Styria, 304, 307
In Bohemia and Hungary, 308
As Emperor Ferdinand II., 308,
312
Forbids bloodshed, 299
Ferdinand III. , Emperor, 311, 316
Ferrara gained by Pope, 429
,, and Venice, 442
Ferreri, 253
Ferrier, du, Ambassador at Trent,
190, 216, 235
Fevre, Pierre le, 275, 283
Fisher, Bishopof Rochester(1504-
35), 335-6
Flacius Illyrious, 289
Florence, Council of, 410
„ ,, and Russia, 412
Florida, Missions in, 421
Foreign Chm-ches in England, 353
„ theologians on Prayer
Book, 361
Foscarari, Bishop of Modena, 254,
257
Fox, Bishop of Winchester, 333
France, 4
„ religion in, 101, 102, 387-8
,, policy towards Reforma
tion, 101
,, religious wars, 101-6
,, ,, ,, state after,
387-8
,, ,, ,, learningin, 387-9
,, and the Council (1559),
152, 171, 174, 190, 193,
208
,, and Spain, rivalry of, at
Council, 101, 103, 105,
222,437,446-7. See also
Conclaves •
,, Libel of Reformation, 205
„ influence on Council of
Trent, 153
,, and Reformation of Prin
ces, 232
,, andDecreesof Trent,251-2
and Germany, 82, 161
,, ThirtyYearsWar.314,316
France, Kings of :
Francis I., 20, 32, 53, 103

INDEX

481

France, Kings of :
Henry II., 103, 152
Charles IX., 103, 188
Henry III., 104, 409
France. See Jesuits in France
,, and Missions, 421, 427-8
„ New, 427
French Ambassadors withdrawn
from Council, 232
„ Bishops cited to Rome,
214, 235
Francis de Sales, S., 269, 272
Franciscans, 8, 9, 264-5
,, and Missions, 424, 426
(See also Capuchins and
Recollets. )
Franconia affected by Edict of
Restitution, 311
Frankfurt-on-the-Main, 292
„ „ ,, troublesat, 360-1
Frauenalb, 305
Frederick the Wise, Elector of
Saxony, 28, 32
,, III. of the Palatinate,
290
,, V. (Elector Palatine),
KingofBohemia,309
Freising, 294
Friesland, 56, 83
Formula of Concord, 289, 292
Freewill (see Augustinianism), 53
Friars, the, 7
,, Augustinian, 8
Fuggers, the, 298
,, (also involved with Leo
X. and See of Mainz),
31
Funck, 291
Fiinfkirchen, Bishop of, 213
Fureiro, 257-8
Galicia, 403
Galileo, his treatment, 449-52
Gallen, S., 60
Gallican Church, 94, 105, 172,
251
,, andLiberties, 20,
235, 395-6
,, and Sarpi, 444
2 I

Gardiner, Stephen, Bishopof Win
chester, 336, 349-50, 356
His de Vera Obedientia, 341-2
Gaudix, Bishop of, 210
Gebhard Truchsess (Archbishop
of Koln), 294
Geneva, 98
,, Reformation at, 98-9, 363
, , S. Francis de Sales at, 272
Genoa, 441
George von Khuenberg, Arch
bishop of Salzburg, 298
George of Saxony, 54, 58
George, Duke of Saxony, 19
Germany before Reformation, 3,23
after Reformation
(1521), 42-3
,, Renaissance in, 10, 51,
245
,, and Decrees of Trent,
251
,, interests mainly re
ligious, 286
,, and France (see Thirty
Years War), 82, 161
,, mediating party in,
287-8
,, politics tend to war,
287-8
,, religious geography of,
56, 113, 116, 121,
291, 292
,, Bishops in South, 45
,, Counter-Reformationin, 294-306
(See chapters iii., iv., vi., xi.)
Gerson, 8
Ghent, 380
Ghislieri (see Pius V.), 433
Giberti, 107, 109, 266
Giustiniani, Paul, 264
Glareanus (Loriti), 53
Gloucester, See of, 338
Gnesio-Lutherans, 118
Goa, Bishopric of, 424
Gomar, 382-3
Goniondzki, 408
Gonzaga, Cardinal (Bishop of
Mantua), Legate at Trent, 174,
181, 199, 212, 217

482

THE REFORMATION

Goslar, 113
Gotha, League of, 54
Gothius, Archbishop, 400
Granada, Guarrero, Archbishop,
181, 182, 191, 193, 200, 217
Granvelle, Cardinal, Bishop of
Arras, 126, 378-9
Griitz, 302, 303
Greek College at Rome, 423
Greenland, 86
Gregory XIII. (see Popes), 298,
301, 312
Grocyn, 12
Grbningen, 50
Groot, Gerhard (see Brethren of
Common Life), 11
Gropper, 109, 110, 288, 468
,, on synods, 159
Grotius, Hugo, 381, 384
Grumbach feud, 291
Guise, Duke of, 103-4, 214
,, Cardinal of (see Lorraine,
Cardinal of), 104
,, Charles of. See Lorraine,
Cardinal of
Guistiniani on Germany, 114
Gustavus Adolphus, 313-14
Gustavus Ericson (elected King
of Sweden), 86-7
Habsburgs, 286, 310, 317-18, 446
,, marriages of, 56
,, and Switzerland, 63,
70, 78
„ (See Charles V., Fer
dinand I., II. , III. j Matthias,
Maximilian, Rudolf, Philip II.
and III.)
Halberstadt, See of, 293, 315, 316
Hall, Bishop, 396
Hamar, Bishop of, 85, 92
Hamilton, Patrick, 348
Havelberg, Bishopric of, 292-3
Heidelberg, 383
„ Catechism of, 290
Heilbronn, 60
,, League of, 314
Held, von (Imperial Chancellor),
112
Helding and Interim, 116

Helena, Queen of Abyssinia, 422
Henry of Anjou in Poland, 409
,, III. (France), 392
,, IV. (France) of Navarre,
104-5,306,388,389, 393, 394
,, ,, (France) of Navarre
and Sixtus V. , 437-8
,, ,, (France) of Navarre
and Clement VIIL,
440-1
Henry VIIL of England, 320
New Learning under, 327-8
His divorce, 328-30, 336
Religious policy of, 331, 336,
345
And the Church, 333-7
His legislation, 338
Position of, 341-7
And Scotland, 347
And Ireland, 37i
Review of reign, 345-7
Destruction of shrines, 346
Henry of Saxe-Lauenburg (Arch
bishop of Bremen), 293 .
Hermann von Wied (Bishop of
Koln), 114, 116
His Consultation, 352
Herzogenbusch, 25
Hesse, 56, 83, 121, 292
,, Landgrave, Philip of, 54,
60, 70, 78, 113, 115-16, 119,
289
Hildesheim only Catholic See in
North Germany, 1557-73, 293,
294
Hierarchy, Roman, in Ireland (see
Bishops, Trent), 372
Hirschorn, 305
Hispaniola (San Domingo), 426
Hochstraten, 24, 32
Hoen, Cornelius van, 75, 377
Holstein (see Schleswig), 121, 292
Holy Orders. See Trent
Homilies, First Book of, 350
Hooker, 362, 369
Hooper and his objection to vest
ments, 353
Hosius, Cardinal, Legate at Trent,
174, 194, 196, 199, 212

INDEX

483

Hosius, Cardinal, in Poland, 406,
409
Hugo von Landenburg (Bishop of
Constanz), 72
Huguenotism, origin of, 95, 96-7
,, history of, 2J4
„ organisation of, 102
,, toleration of, 103
,, incolonies,421,427
,, separation of, 388
(See Religious Wars, France, and
Edict of Nantes. )
Hulst, Francis van der, 378
Humanism, 24, 51-2
,, Roman, 9
,, German, 24 on
,, Polish, 403
,, and Zwingli, 67
later, 52, 268, 448
,, and the Breviary,
252-3
Hungary, 56
,, Reformation in, 299,
306, 310-14
„ Counter-Reformationin, 305
, , Ferdinand of Styria in,
308-9
,, Lutherans in, and For
mula of Concord, 292
Hussite influence, 73
,, ,, in Poland, 403
„. views, 34, 36, 49
Hurons, the, 428
Hutten, Ulrich von, 24-5, 36, 52
Ignatius, S. See Loyola
Images, 240, 346
Immaculate Conception :
Disputed between Franciscans
and Dominicans, 136
Referred to at Trent, 133
Immunities of Church (see also
Reformation of Princes), 245
Immunities, Clerical, 232-4
,, ,, atVenice,442
,, ,, Congregation on, 439, 446
Imperial Cities in Germany, 54,
'60,78,80 ...-.

Imperial Chamber. See Reichs-
kammergericht
Independents (see Congregational-
ists), 373
Index, 182-5
„ and Copernicus, 449
,, and Galileo, 449-52
„ left to Pope after Trent, 248
,, by the Sorbonne, 97
, discussion atTrent, 175,181
Individualism, growth of, 6
Indulgences, Luther, 29 seq. , 33 seq.
,, LeoX. on, 29-33
Adrian VI. on, 41
',', Zwingli, 68.
,, restricted, 195-6
,, Decree upon, .239,
246-8
Indults, Germany, 293-4
Infallibility, 32
,, and Galileo's case, 451
(See Papacy generally. )
Ingolstadt, 34, 283
Injunctions, the (1547), 350
Institution of a Christian man
(1537), 343
Innsbruck, 161
Inquisition, 13, 234
,, and Caraffa, 169
,, in Netherlands, 378-9
,, in Spain, 386
,, Spanish, at Trent,
234-5
,, Congregations of, 434
,, and Galileo, 449
,, and Carranza, 236-7
„ suggested in Italy,
234-5
,, suggested in Poland,
405
Institutes (or Institutio) of Calvin,
97-8
At Oxford, 368-9
Interim of Augsburg (1548),. 116
Refused in Sweden, 400
Causes immigration into Eng
land, 348
Interim of Leipzig, 116
Ireland, Reformation in, 371-2
Iroquois, the, 428

484

THE REFORMATION

Isabella and Ferdinand, 13
,, sister to Charles V., 86
Isny, 60
Isodore of Moscow, at Florence,
412
Italy, 3
,, religious thought in, 107
„ Socinians from, 408
,, Italian Bishops at Trent,
141, 149, 250
Ivan III., Russia, 412
„ IV. (the Terrible), 412-13
Jagellon, Catharine, 399-400, 410
James I., England, 309, 369-70,
393
,, ,, andScotland,364
Jansen, 135-6
Jay, Le (Jesuit), 283
Jeanne of Navarre, heresy of, 235
Jeremiah of Constantinople, 414
,, II. of Constantinople,
415
Jerome, S. , College of, at Dillin
gen, 297-8
Jerusalem, Synod of (1672), 415
Jesuits : —
Beginnings and history, 27, 272
seq., 389-97
At Venice, 275
Objects of, 276, 390, 397
Peculiarities and organisation
of, 277, 278, 280, 281, 397
Generals of, 277, 280-1, 390-1,
397
Training of, 279
Grades of, 280
Changes among, 396-7
And Popes, 277-8
„ „ Paul III., 275
„ „ Julius III., 277
,, ,, Marcellus II., 277
„ Paul IV., 275, 277
„ „ Pius IV, 278
„ ,, Sixtus V., 436
Later history of, 389-96
In Austrian lands (Styria, etc.),
303, 305, 311
In Bavaria, 283, 303
In England, 284-5

Jesuits : —
In France, 105, 282, 393-6
,, opposition to, from
Sorbonne, 282, 394
,, and Parliament of
Paris, 282, 393-5
In Italy, 281
In Germany, 283-4, 296-9, 301
seq.
In Poland, 406-10
In Sweden, 401-2
In Scandinavia, 400-2, 406, 409
In Spain, 281-2, 390-1
In Switzerland, 72, 269
In the East, 417
And Dominicans, 281, 391
Charles V., 281
Colleges of, 281-4
Their great scholars, 448
Classics, 448
Controversies, 134-7, 381-6
Augustinianism, 134-7, 390-1
Justification, 133-4, 468
Political theories, 392-5
Casuistry of, 396
Ratio Studiorum 390-1, 397
Freedom of exegesis, 194
Peace of Prague, 315
And Protestantism, 273
Sarpi and Venice, 444-5
Science (Kepler and Galileo),
449
Council of Trent, 175 seq.
Missions, 422, 424-8
Jesus, Name of, 271
Joachim, Frederick (Branden
burg), as Bishop, 293,
295
„ Sigismund (Branden
burg), 291
John (Saxony), 54, 60
,, of God (Seville), 270
,, Sulakas, 422
„ III. (Sweden), 399-401, 402
,, William of Cleve, succes
sion to, 305
,, Casimir(of Palatinate), 291,
294
„ Frederick, Duke of Saxony,
115, 289

INDEX

485

John (Saxony), 312
,, George (Brandenburg),
Bishop of Strassburg, 306
Joigny, Count de, 271
Joseph II. of Constantinople, 414
Julius, Bishop of Wiirzburg, 296
"Justice " of God, Luther's view
of, 466-7
Justification by Faith, 48, 79, 80,
108, 110
History of doctrine, 132
Luther, 80, 130, 132, 465-9
Jesuits, 110, 134, 468
Medieval views, 464-8
Moderate Catholic views, 110
Note on, 464-8
Reformers' views, 464-8
Tridentine doctrine of, 133,
467-8
German Augustinians, 133
Anglican doctrine, 342-4, 467-8
Later controversies upon (Mo
lina, Jansen, Bajus), 135,
390-1
Kadan Treaty, 83
Kammergericht (Reichs) or Im
perial Court, 84, 110, 304, 305
Kappel, Peace of (first), 69-71
,, ,, (second), 71-2
Katherine of Aragon, 329-30, 336
Kempten, 60
Ken, Bishop, 374
Kennebec, 427
Kepler 449
Kettler, Gotthard, 411
Kiev, See of, 403
King's Book (Necessary Doctrine,
etc.), 344
Klesl, Cardinal, and Bishop of
Vienna, 304
Klostergrab incident beforeThirty
Years War, 307-8
Knights of the Sword (Livonia),
411
Knox, 348, 354
Koln, 291, 294
,, Hermann of Wied (see
Hermann), 114
,, Nunciature at, 301

Koln, Reuchlin's case, 24
,, University of, makes an
Index, 183
Labrador, 427
Ladislas (Czar), 415
Lainez at Trent, 134, 161, 175,
199, 202, 208, 212, 275,
277, 278, 283, 392
,, at Poissy, 102-3
Lanciano, Archbishop of, 192, 254
Lansac, de, at Trent, 188-9, 190
Lapide, Cornelius a, 448
Lasco. See Laski.
Laski, John (a Lasco), 404-5, 407
Last Supper, our Saviour's sacri
fice at, 199-200
Lateran Council, 17 on
Laud, Archbishop, 369
,, his character and aims, 370
,, reforms by, 371
„ and Civil War, 372-3
,, and Arminianism, 385
,, compared with Nikon, 420
Laureo (Nuncio in Poland), 409
Lazare, Priory of S. , 271
League, the Holy, 16
In France, 103-5
Catholic (1609), Germany, 307,
309-13
(See Oambrai, Religious wars in
France. )
Learning and the Church, 448
Lebus, See of, 292
Legate (Legatus Natus), 339
Legislation, anti-papal : —
In England, 321, 334-6
In Venice, 442
Leipzig disputation (1519), 34
,, Interim, 116
Leo X. See Popes
Leopold, Archduke, Bishop of
Halberstadt, 311, 315
Lepanto, battle of (1571), 430
Letter of Majesty in Bohemia, 307
Lewis XII. (France), 17
' XIII. „ 388, 395
„ XIV. „ 105
Libel of Reformation, 175, 190, 193
„ German, 204-5

486

THE REFORMATION

Libel of Reformation, French,
205-6
Liberty of Worship :
For Lutherans, Germany, 315
For Calvinists (see Calvinists),
317
In Poland, 407
(See Toleration.)
Liege (diocese), 376
Lindau, 60-80
Lippomani, Bishop of Verona,
151, 409
Lipsius, 381
Lismanini, 404
Litany in English, 345, 350
Lithuania, 403, 411
,, under See of Kiev, 403
Liturgy, revision of Russian, 413,
419
,, Books of, in East, 419
(See Missal, Breviary, Prayer
Book.)
Livonia (secularised), 411
Loaysa and slavery, 426
Loci Communes of Melanchthon,
48
Lollards, etc., in Netherlands, 377
,, ill England, 325
Lombard, Peter, 448
,, „ on Justification,
465
Loretti, 428
Loriti (Glareanus), 53
Lorraine, Cardinal of, Charles of
Guise (1574), 205, 206, 209-14,
216, 218, 222, 235, 237, 238,
249, 282
Lorraine, Cardinal of (Bishop of
Metz and Elect Bishop of
Strassburg), 306
Louvain theology, 27, 135
,, Jesuit College at, 282
,, theologians and Eliza
beth of England, 359
,, University and Index,
182
,, University and Vulgate,
259
Loyola (S. Ignatius de Recalde),
6, 386, 435

Loyola, his trainingand life, 273-5
,, compared with Lainez, 278
Lucar, Cyril, 412, 416-17
,, ,, compared to Cran
mer, 416
,, ,, his Confession, 417
Liibeck, 83
,, See of, 293
Ludovisi (see Gregory XV.), 446
, , Cardinal Ludovico, 446
Luna, def Spanish ambassador at
Trent), 222, 232, 249
Liineburg (Brunswick), 56, 60, 82
Luther, 6, 27-38
Called to Rome, 32
Three great writings (1520), 36
Papal Bull against, 36
Edict of Worms, 37-8
And Adrian VI., 40
At the Wartburg, 42
Doctrines of, 46-7
Translation of Bible, 46
And Wiclif, 47
And the Peasants, 50-2
And the Anabaptists, 52-3
And Erasmus, 53
And Zwingli, 59, 64, 65, 77
And Justification, 80, 130-4,
465-9
Great popular writings of, 36
Against the Papacy founded by
the Devil at Rome, 115
Errors upon Justification, 130,
466-8
Errors upon Justification, De
nifle on, 466-7
Death of, 117
On Copernicus, 449
Lutheranism, 46-7, 79
And Zwinglianism, 59, 77-80,
109
Divisions among, 117-18
Spread of, 56, 83, 84, 112-14
At its height, 1555, 121 '
Organisation in Germany, 56-7
And Catholics (dividing line
between), 288
In England and Scotland, 336,
345, 348
In Poland, 404, 407

INDEX

487

Lutheranism :
In Sweden, 399-401
And Eastern Church, 398, 414,
416-17
Effect of controversy on, 297
And classics, 297
Later history and conflict with
Calvinists, 110 seq., 289-92,
317
And Council, 140,. 160-1, 165,
171, 181-2, 262
Liitzen, battle of, 314
Luzern, 72
Mabillon, 268
Madruzzo, Cardinal, Bishop of
Trent, 141, 211
Magdeburg, 54, 83, 292
„ See of, 293, 316
„ and Interim, 118
Magnusson, John, Archbishop of
Upsale, 87
Mainz, See of, 295
Major Orders, 219
Malaspina, 401
Maldonatus, 448
Manresa, 274
Mantua, Council at, postponed,
126, 336
Mar Shimun, 422
Marcellus II. (Cervini), 168
Margaret of Angouleme, 96, 103
Marian persecution, responsi
bility for, 357
,, exiles, return of, 360-1
,, bishops, 367
„ bishops in Ireland,
371-2
Mariana, 391-3
Marini, 254, 257
Maronites, College for, Rome, 422
Marriage dispensations, 41, 226
,, low standard at Refor
mation, 223
,, clandestine, 224
,, clerical, 351
„ ,, in England, 356
" „ in Poland, 406-7
(See' Trent (Topics) and Libel of
Reformation. )

Martene, 268
Martyr, Peter, at Poissy, 102
Mary, England (accession), 354
,, and Charles V., 355
,', her marriage, 355
„ change in religious policy,
356
,, Persecution under, 357
,, her death, 357
,, sister to Charles V., 56
„ of Scots, 364-5, 367
Marx (Sittich), Archbishop of
Salzburg, 298
Mass, 155-7, 196-9, 344, 351
,, and Lutherans, 57
„ and Calvin, 100
,, and Zwinglians, 57, 61, 67,
70,. 75, 79
,, in vernacular, 57, 204-5,
351, 409
Masses, regulation of, numbers re
stricted, etc., 193-200
,, singing during, 117
(See Palestrina, Trent, Holy
Communion. )
Matthias, 306-8
Maur, Congregation of S., 268
Maurice of Saxony (Albertine),
115-17, 119, 165
„ of Nassau, 384
Maximilian I., Emperor, 18
Maximilian II., Emperor, 167,
215, 293, 299, 409
And Philip IL, 300
Religious policy of, 300, 302
Attempts a religious com
promise, 302
Maximilian of Bavaria (1597-
1651), 305-6
Elector (1523), 306-12
Mazzolini Silvester. See Prieras
Mecheln (Mechlin), 378
Mecklenburg, 121, 292, 316
"Mediating" theologians - (see
Cassander, Contarini, Erasmus,
Gropper, Pflug, Pole, Regens-
burg colloquy, Seripando), 110-
11, 467-8 "
Medici, Giovanni de. See Leo A.

488

THE REFORMATION

Medici, Giulio de. See Clement
VII.
„ Gianangelo de. See Pius
IV.
Medieval thought, 1, 5-6, 176-80,
230
Church and State, 230 seq., 392
Medina, de, 396
Meissen, Bishopric of, 293
Melanchthon, 42, 48, 78, 79, 96,
109, 114, 152, 290,
407-8
,, and Intermin, 117
,, controversies,119,289
,, and Eastern Church,
414
„ his death, 290
Melchior, Cano, 236, 385
Meletius Striga, 418
Memmengen, 60, 80-
Mendez, 422
Mendoza, 126
Menendez, 421
Mercurianus, 390
Merici, Angela di, 266
Merit, doctrine of human, 390,
466
Merseburg, Bishopric of, 293
Messina, 281
Michael Romanof, 416
Middle Ages, institutions and
ideals of, 1
Milan, capture of, 38
"Millenary" Petition, 369
Miltitz, 33
Milton, debased view of Incarna
tion, 465
Minden, See of, 293, 316
Miracles, 240
Mirror of the Christian, 8
Missce Siccce, 198
Missal, revision of, 256
,, and Pius V., 433
Missions, 421-8
,, parochial, 270
„ problems of, 424-7
,, Society of, 271
,, in East Indies, Tra van-
core, Japan, China,
and Malabar, 424-5

Missions in Mexico, Brazil, 425-6
„ in Paraguay, West
Indies, 426
,, in Canada. See Jesuits
Modena, 108
Mogilas, 418
„ Confession of, 418
,, Catechism of, 418-19
Mohacs, battle of (1526), 56
Molina, 135, 390
Monasteries, condition of, gener
ally, 241
Condition of, England, 324-5
Reform of, 241
Dissolution of, England, 337-8
Monastic revivals, 8-9, 264, 269
Benedictines, Oamoldolites,
Barnabites, 8-9, 264-5, 269
Among Friars, Franciscans,
Capuchins, 8-9, 265
Monophysitism, 423
Montalto, Cardinal of (younger),
439. See also Sixtus V.
Monte, Del, Cardinal (Legate at
Trent) (see also Julius III.), 127
Montreal, 427
Monts, de, 427
Montserrat, 274
Moravia (see also Austrian lands),
310
More, Sir Thomas, 3, 12, 25
On Papal and Royal Supremacy,
322, 344-5, 327-8, 330
Morone, 108, 109, 126, 246, 250
„ in Germany as Nuncio
(1540-1), 109
„ and Peace of Augsburg,
12]
„ Legate at Trent, 212-14,
216
Morosini, the Ridolto, 443
Morton, Archbishop, 325
Mortuaries (England), 332
Moscow, Metropolitan and See of,
403, 412-14, 416, 420
,, made a Patriarchate, 413
,, Job (first Patriarch), 414
Synod of (1551), 413
Moslemism, 430-1
Mosul, 422

INDEX

489

Miihlberg, battle of, 115
Miihlhausen, 50
Munster, Anabaptists at, 74, 84
„ See of, 296
Munich, 383
,, Nunciature at, 301
Miinzer, 49, 72
Muretus on Pius V. , 433
Music in churches, 19S
Commission on (Palestrina),
256-7
Mysticism in Germany, 10
Nacchiante (Bishop of Chioggia),
142
Nantes, Edict of, 106, 388
Naples, 441
Nassau, 292
Natives and missionaries, 424-7
Naumburg, See of, 293
,, colloquy at, 290
Navagero, Cardinal, Legate at
Trent, 212-13
Navarre. See Henry of, Jeanne of
Necessary Doctrine and Erudition
(1543), 344
Nepotism, papal, 3-4, 168, 173
Neri, S. Philip, 267, 435
Nestorians (Persia), 422, 424
Netherlands, 376-85
,, episcopal organisa
tion in, 376
„ Charles V. in, 376,
S78
Philip II. in, 376-80
, , medieval heresies in ,
377
„ Anabaptists in, 377
, , Augustinians in , 377
,, Inquisition in, 378,
379
Revolt of, 378-81
„ Decrees of Trent in,
379
,, "the Compromise,"
379
,, division of, 380-1
,, learning in, 381
theological struggles
in, 383-5

Netherlands, effect upon Europe
of revolt in, 385
New World, missions in, 421,
424-8
Nicaea (Meletius Striga), 418
Nicholas of Cusa. See Cusa
Nidaros. See Trondhjem
Nikon, Patriarch, 419-20
Nimes, Edict of, 388
Nouili, 424
Nominalism, 176, 396
,, and human merit,
465, 468
Nordlingen, 60
,, battle of, 315
Norway, 85, 86
,, Lutheranism in, 92
Nova Scotia (Acadia), 427
Novgorod, 420
Number signing Decrees at Trent,
249-50
Nunciatures, permanent, 434
,, in Germany, 301
,, at Luzern, 269
,, in Switzerland, 72
,, effect of, 191
,, in Poland, 409
Nlirnberg, 60, 292
,, Diet of 1522, 42
„ 1524, 44
,, Bond (1538), 112
,, Religious peace of, 81
,, illustrates condition of
worship, 118
Obedientia, de Vera (Gardiner), 341-2

(Sampson), 341
Oblates, the, 268
Observants and Conventuals (see
Franciscans), 8, 265
CEcolompadius, 97
Oehini, Bernardino, 265
Offices (Hours) popular in Eng
land, 327
Oldenbarnveld, 384
Olivarez, 438
Opitz, 304
Oratory (S. Philip de Neri), 267

490

THE REFORMATION

Oratory of Divine Love, 9, 107, 266
, , of Jesus (Cardinal BeruUe),
267
Orders. See Ordination under
Trent
,, Holy, 195
„ Minor, 217-20
,, Monastic (see Benedic
tines, Monasteries,
and Excommunica
tion of Venice), 444
Original Sin. See Trent -
Orleans, Isle of, 428
Ormia, 422
Ortenburg, 304
Orzechowski, 406-7
Osnabriick, See of, 293, 316
„ Treaty of (part of Treaty of
Westphalia), 316
Ottawa, River, 427
Otto von Truchsess, Bishop of
Augsburg, 297
Oviedo (Abyssinia), 422
Oxenstiern, 314
Oxford, See of, 338
Paderborn, See of, 293, 298
Pacheco, Cardinal, Bishop of
Jaen, 142
Pack, Otto von, 58.
Palatinate, 121, 292, 317
,, the, becomes Lutheran,
114
,, and Calvinism, 290
,, Upper, Counter-Refor
mation in, 312
,, in Thirty Years War,
309 ...
Paleotto, 186
Palestrina, 256-7
Pamfili (Innocent X.), 447
Pampeluna, 274
Papacy :
And Abyssinia, 421-3
Elizabeth (England), 367
England, 320-3, 333-5, 339, 355
Germany, 35, 40, 54, 82
Philip II. (Spain), 392
Poland, 405
Thirty Years War, 446-7

Papacy :
Treaty of Westphalia, 318
And kings generally, 392
Before Reformation, 2-5, 12, 21
Council, 137, 174, 189
And Council of Trent (VII.,
VIIL, IX.), 262
And Council of Trent, confirms
Decrees, 250
Its authority and bishops,
207-12
Authority of, reserved, 245
Questions left to, 237
After Trent, 430 seq., 452-3
Centralised power, 237, 247
Officials, 430-2
Finances of, 430
Taxation of Papal States, 429
Secretaries, Papal, 432
States under Gregory XIII.,
434
Popes on Justification, 135
And missions (see Popes, Trent,
Council of), 421-5
Paris, Parliament of, and Lu
theranism, 95
,, Treaty of (1634), 316
,, Parliament of, 393-4
(See University. )
Parker, Matthew (Archbishop),
360-2, 449
Parliament, English :
The Reformation (1529), 332-4
Edward VI., 350
Mary, 355
Elizabeth, 359-60
In Civil War, 373
Parliament of Paris. See Paris,
Parliament of
Parma, 38, 168
, , Duke of, 295
,, Margaret of, 282
,, War of, 153
Parthenius, 418
Pascal, 396
Passau, See of, 298, 302
„ Treaty of (1552), 119
Patavinus, 194
Patriarchates, the Five, 413, 422
Patristics, study of, 11, 25, 448

INDEX

491

Patronage. See Trent
Paul III. See Popes
,, IV. (Caraffa) (see Popes), 9,
168
,, ,, earlier career, 168.-9
,, „ policy of, in Nether
lands, Poland, and
England, 170-1.
.',, ,, anti-Spanish, 171
,, ,, and Index, 183
Pavia, battle of (1525), 53
Peasants, revolt of, 49
Penance. See Trent
Peretti (see Sixtus V.), 435
Perron, du, 388-9, 394, 395
Persecution, German and Spanish
contrasted, 299
Petavius, 448
Peterborough, See of, 338 .
Peterssens, the (Sweden), 87-8
Pflug, Julius von (Bishop of
Naumburg), 109, 116, 117, 288,
' 468
Pfyffer, Ludwig, 72
Phauser, 299
Philaret (Patriarch of Moscow),
416
Philip II. (Spain), 167, 168, 208,
214, 282, 355
And Carranza, 236-7 .
,, colonies, 421
,, Maximilian II., 300
,, Netherlands, 376, 378,386
,, Papacy, 392
,, Sweden, 400
,, Reformation of Princes,
232
(See Papacy and Spain, and Trent,
Council of. )
Philip III. (Spain), 386, 426
,, Metropolitan of Moscow, 413
,, of Hesse. See Hesse,Philipof
Philippists (Melanchthonists),291
Piacenza, 38
Piarists, 270
Pibrac, de, at Trent, 190 .
Pighino, Archbishop of Siponto,
. 151
Pilgrimage of Grace, 338
Piotrikow, Diet of, 406

Pirkheimer, 52
Pisa, Council of (1511), 17, 18
Pius III. (Piccolomini) (see Popes),
15
Pius IV. (see Popes), 172
Placards in Netherlands, 378-9
Plessis, Mornay du, 389
Pluralities (see Trent), 229
,, in England, 332-3
Poissy, Colloquy of (1561), 102,
- 210, 283
Poggiano, 258
Poland, 402-11
,, religious divisions in, 403
,, Greek Church in, 403
,, and Lutheranism, 403, 407
,, Hussites in, 403
,, Renaissance in, 403
,, and Calvinism, 404-5
,, Reformation in, 405.
,, and Papacy, 405
,, Jesuits in, 406, 409, 410
,, liberty of worship in, 407
,, religious equality in, 409
,, religious experiment in,
407-8
,, Socinians in (expelled), 408
,, Nationalism in, 408-9
,, Uniat Church in, 410-
„ ,, ,, religious divi
sions, 411
,, and Sweden, 399
Pole, Reginald, Cardinal, Arch
bishop of Canterbury, 108,
109, 126, 134, 150, -341-2,
355, 356
'His Reformatio Anglice, 357
And Justification, 134
Legate at Trent, 127
Pomerania, 84, 91, 121, 292
Popes :
Martin V. (1417-31), 432
Calixtns III. (1455-8), 432
Pius II. (1458-64), 430
Paul II. (1464-71), 432
Sixtus IV. (Rovere) (1471-84), 3
Innocent VHI.(Cibo) (1484-92),
432
Alexander VI. (Borgia) (1492-
1503), 3, 15, 425

492

THE REFORMATION

Popes :
PiusIII.(Piccolomini)(1503),15
Julius II. (Rovere) (1503-13),
12, 15-17, 25, 30
Leo X. (Medici) (1513-21), 12,
19, 33, 37, 38, 183
,, and Breviary, 253, 265,
323, 432
Adrian VI. (van Trusen) (1552-
3), 13, 39, 40, 42, 44, 83
Clement VII. (Medici) (1523-
34), 44, 53,55,
82-3, 107
, , and Breviary,
253 323
Paul III. (Farnese) (1534-49),
107, 124-5, 118,
336
,, and Breviary, 254
,, and Henry VIIL,
345
,, and Jesuits, 275
Julius III. (del Monte) (1550-5),
118, 150, 168, 277, 355
Marcellus II. (Cervini) (1555),
168, 277
Paul IV. (Caraffa) (1555-9), 9,
107-9, 168-72, 183
,, and Breviary, 254,
277, 357
Pius IV. (Medici) (1559-65),
172-3, 208-12,
232, 238, 250, 256
,, and Breviary, 254
,, and Catechism, 257
,, and Vulgate, 259
,, and Creed, 261,433
Pius V. (Ghislieri) (1566-72),
293, 300, 430, 431, 433-6
Gregory XIII. ( Buoncompagni) (1572-85),390,430,434-6,439
and Sweden, 400,
423
,, and Congrega
tions, 434
„ and Nuncia
tures, 434
,, and Calendar,
435

Sixtus V. (Peretti) (1585-90),
250, 255
„ and Vulgate, 259, 430,
435-8
„ his early life, 436
,, his schemes, 436
,, his policy, 437
,, and France, 437-8
Urban VII. (Castagna) (1590),
439
Gregory XIV. (Sfondrati)
(1590-1), 259, 430-1, 439
Innocent IX. (Fachinetti)
(1591), 439-40
Clement VIIL (Aldobrandini)
(1592-1605), 255-6,
260, 391, 401, 410,
429, 440-1
,, and Vulgate, 440
,, and Breviary, 440
Leo XL (Medici) (1605), 441
Paul V. (Borghese) (1605-21),
393, 423, 429, 441
,, and Venice, 441-5
Gregory XV. (Ludovisi) (1621-
3), 422-3, 425, 445-6
Urban VIIL (Barberini) (1623-
44), 255-6, 423,
429, 446-7, 449
,, policy in Thirty
Years War, 446
Innocent X. (Pamfili) (1644-
55), 431, 447-8
Clement XL (1700-21), 431
Port Royal, 427
Portugaland Abyssinian Missions,
422
,, and Missions, 424
Possevin (Jesuit), 269, 400, 410,
412
Potestate, de ecclesiasiica et politica
(Richer), 394
Pouy, 270
Praemunire, 320, 333, 334
Pragmatic Sanction, 19, 20, 94
Prague, University of, 299
„ Jesuits at, 292
,, Counter-Reformation in,
312
„ Peace of (1635), 314,315

INDEX

493

Prat, du, 282
Prayer Book (English), 327, 345,
347, 351, 353
„ (1549), 351
,, (1552), 353-4
,, (1559), 361
,, and Laud, 369
,, after Restoration,
373-4
,, in Ireland, 372
,, in Scotland, 364-5
,, and John Knox
(Black Rubric),
354
Preaching. See Trent
Predestination (see Freewill, and
Augustinianism), 289
Presbyterian Organisation :
At Geneva, 100, 382
In France, 102, 363, 382
In England, 361-4, 368, 373
In Scotland, 393-6, 382
In the Netherlands, 381-4
Prierias (Mazzolini), 32
Primacy of Rome (Canon of
Trent), 211. See Papacy
Primers (English), 345
Princes, Protestant, in Germany
(see Germany" throughout),
56, 59, 300-1
In league with France, 161
Neutral in Thirty Years War,
309, 313
Princes, Reformation of (Trent),
230, 392
Printing-press, 20
Probabilism, 396
Procedure, ecclesiastical. See
Trent
Professio Fidei Catholicoe (Hosius),
. 406
Proles, Andreas, 8
Protestation of Speier, 60
Provisions (see Trent), 229, 320
Provisors, 320, 333, 334
Prussia, 56, 83, 291, 404
Purgatory, Decree upon (Trent)
(see Trent), 240, 247-8
Puy, Cardinal du, Legate at
Trent, 174

Quebec, 427
Questers (see also Indulgences),
186, 195, 239, 247
Quignon, Cardinal (Breviary),
253, 351-2
Racovian Catechism (Poland),
408
Radziwill, Barbara, 405
Ratio Studiorum (Jesuits), 390,
396-7
Rationale, Anglican (Cranmer),
351
Ratisbon. See Regensburg
Ratzeburg, See of, 293, 316
Recollets (French Franciscans),
427-8
Red Book (in Sweden), 400
Reforms, ecclesiastical, German
demand for, 15, 18
At Council of Lateran, 19
At Worms, 38
Proposed at Regensburg (1524),
45
In England begun by clergy,
334
Pflug's plan of (Catholic), 116
(See Paul III. , Consilium delec-
torum, de emendanda
ecclesia. )
And doctrine, relative import
ance of. /See Trent
Forty-two Chapters on. See
Trent
Of Trent, effect of, 241-2
Reformatio Legum (England), 333
Reformation, how far German, 62
and Papacy, 452-3
right of (Treaty of
Westphalia), 317
(See Libel of Reformation, also
Counter-Reformation. )
Reformed, the (i.e. Calvinists),
Id ,- „
" Reformers before Reformation
(the phrase), 467
Rege, de, et Regis Institutions,
392
Regensburg^bon),!!^^^

494

THE REFORMATION

Regensburg, League of, 78
,, Colloquy of, prepara
tions for (1541), 109,
110, 126
,, Second Colloquy of
(1545), 115
,, the Consistory and,
110
,, how far agreement
reached at, 110
Diet of (1541), 109
,, Recess of, 110
Diet of (1576), 301
Regulars, Reformation of. See
Trent
Reichskammergericht (Imperial
Court), 84, 110, 304, 305
Reinhard, Marten, 89
Relics, 240
Remonstrance (Netherlands), 384
Reservation, the Ecclesiastical
(Reservatum Ecclesiasticum),
286, 287, 294, 301, 317
Reservations. See Trent
Residence of bishops. See Trent
, , clergy. See Trent
Restitution, Edict of (1629), 311
Retreats founded, 271
Reuchlin, 24
Reutlingen, 60
Revival, religious, 7
,, monastic (see chap. x. ), 8
Rhenanus, Beatus, 175
Ricci, 424
Richer, 394-5
Richelieu, 314, 316, 395, 446
Ridley, Bishop of London (his
visitation), 353
Ritschl on ' ' Reformers before
Reformation," 467
Rocca, 259
Roman Catholics in England, 367
,, ,, in Ireland, 372
,, Jurisdiction in England,
320-31, 335,
336
, , ,, Bishop Gardiner
on, 341-2
Romanof, House of, 416
Rome, sack of (1527), 55 c .

Rome, English College at, 368
,, and Eastern Church, 413-15
(See also Papacy, Popes.)
Revere. See Julius II.
Rubric, the Ornaments, 361
,, the Black (on kneeling at
Communion), 355
Rudolf, Emperor, 300, 304-7 .
Russia, 411-20
,, its Patriarchate, 413
,, religious policy, 412, 413
, , organisation of Church in,
413, 414, 418-19
,, and Lutherans, 419
,, national movement in,
415-16
,, Romanof dynasty, 416
,, . ChurchandStatein, 416-20
,, Confessions of, 418
,, Liturgic revision in, 413,
419-20
,, at the time of Reformation,
420
Sacraments. See Trent
Sadoleti, 109, 126, 266
Saints, Invocation of, 240, 343
Salamanca, 274, 282
Salentin von' Isenburg (Arch
bishop of Koln), 294
Salmeron, 175, 199, 207
Saltpetriere, 271
Salvation, Augsburg Confession
on, 79
Salzburg, Confirmation of Suffra
gans of, 210
,, See of, 297, 298
,, Communion in both
kinds refused in, 303
Sampson (de Vera Obedientia
prcestanda), 341
Samson, 68
Sanderson, Bishop, 396
Sandomir, Consensus of, 407-8
Sapienza (University of Rome),
434
Sara via, 374, 382
Sarpi, Fra Paolo, 442-4
Sarum Breviary, 327, 345
Savoy, 441

INDEX

495

Saxon, Lower, Circle, affected by
Edict of Restitution, 311
Saxony, 83, 121, 292
,, Augustus of, 287, 289, 291
, , in Thirty Years War, 309,
313, 314
„ John Frederick (see
Maurice of Saxony,
Frederick, John), 115
,, Lutheran organisation in,
57
,, religious changes in (Cal
vinism), 291, 292
Sealiger, 381, 387, 389
Schwenkfeld condemns Justifica
tion, 130
Science and the Church, 450
Scripture. See Trent
Scandinavia, kingdoms of, 85 seq. ,
398 seq.
„ Reformation in, 93
Schinner, Cardinal, Bishop of
Sion, 69
Schleswig-Holsteiu, 56, 83
,, Frederick of, 89, 90
Scotists and Thomists (tsee Duns),
33
Scotland, state of Church in (and
Presbyterianism), 347,
363, 364, 366
,, Lutheranism in, 347-8
(See also Knox, Presbyterianism.)
Schwerin, See of, 293, 316
Seculars, reformation of, at Trent,
240, 243
Secularisation of Sees in Germany,
23, 84, 292-3
,, of monasteries, 305
Secularised land by Peace of
Prague, 315
,, sees and lands by
Treaty of Westphalia, 316-17
Sees, secularisation of, in Germany,
292-3
,, new, in England, 338
Seltan-Segued, 422-3
Seminaries, clerical, 220
Septuagint, 436
Seripando, Legate at Trent, 134,
174

Seripando, General of Augustin
ians, 185, 194, 207, 209, 212
Servites and Sarpi, 443
Settlement, the Elizabethan, 358,
361-2
Severina, Cardinal San, 440
Sfondrati, Gregory XIV., 439
Shimun Mar, 422
Sickingen, Franz von, 36, 42
Sigismund of Brandenburg
(Bishop), 293
,, I. (Poland), 404-5.
,, II. „ 405-6,409
„ III. ,, 410, 415
,, (Sweden), 401
Sillery, 427
Silesia, 56, 83, 307, 310
Simeon Barmama, 422
Simonetta, Legate at Trent, 174,
185, 186, 203, 206,
250
,, relations with col
leagues, 186, 196
Simonis, Menno (Friesland), .377
Sion (Sitten), Cardinal of. See
Schinner
Sitten, Cardinal of. See Schinner
Sistine Library (Vatican), 436
Sixtus IV. (see Popes), 3
,, V. See Popes
Slavery and missions, 425-7
Smalkald, League of, 81, 113,
115
War, 140
Socinians, 385, 404-5, 408
Socinus, Lselius, 408
,, Faustus, 408
Somerset, Protector, 349, 353
Sorbonne and Jesuits, 393-5
,, and Index, 182
(See France, and University
of Paris.)
Soto, 199, 207
Spain, 386
,, reform in, 4, 12-14, 264
,, religious types in, 386
,, and England, 358, 437
,, and France (see also
France), 437
,, Moors in, 12

496

THE REFORMATION

Spain and Treaty of Westphalia,
319
,, causes of its decay, 386-7
Spanish bishops, 207, 209, 214,
234, 249
, , colonies (missions), 424-7
,, Dominicans (Jacobites)
and Justification, 134
,, theologians, 14, 177, 200
Speier (Spires), 292
,, Diet of (1526), 53, 54
„ (1529), 58, 78
,, Edict of (1529), 59-60
,, Protestation of, 59-62
Spires. See Speier
Stancari, 408
S. Lawrence, missions along, 427
Stoglav, the (Hundred Chapters),
413
Staphylus, 175, 204
Stapulensis, Faber, 95
States accept Decrees of Trent,
251
,, the Papal. See Papal States,
also Temporal power
Standish, Dr. (Minorite or Fran
ciscan), 322
Staupitz, von, 8, 27, 31
Stephens, Robert (Etienne), 389
Henry ( „ ), 389
Stein, 25
Stockholm, massacre of, 86
Strassburg, 60, 71, 80, 292, 294,
305, 306, 316
Stures (in Sweden), 86
Styria, Nunciature for, 301-5, 307
Saurez, 136, 390
Succession, Act of, 335
Sufferings of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the, by Friar Thomas,
430
Sulakas, John, 422
Supremacy in Ireland, 371-2
,, Royal, 322-3, 333,
335, 337, 339, 351
Supreme Head (see also Supre
macy), 333, 360
Sweden, 86, 399-402
,, Lutheranism in, 87, 88,
399-401

Sweden, Calvinists in, 399, 401
,, and Formula of Concord,
292
,, Gustavus I., 87
,, Eric XIV, 89, 399
„ Gustavus Adolphus, 313
seq., 402
,, John III., 399 seq.
„ Sigismund, 401
„ Charles IX., 402
,, Christina, 402
Swiss College at Milan, 268
Switzerland, 63 on
,, Federal government
in, 63
,, Federal government
in (chap, xii.), 69-
71, 380
,, weakness of Episco
pacy in, 64
, , and Anabaptists,
73-4
,, Counter - Reforma
tion, 269
,, independent of em
pire, 316
Synods :
Frequent medieval, 20
Revival of, 10
Scheme of frequent, 152
Proposed sphere of, 159
Cranmer's wish for, 340
Proposed national, 172, 216
And Trent, 159
Of Bresc, 410
Synod of Constantinople, 417
Dort (Dordrecht), 370
„ Jassy, 417
,, Jerusalem, 418
,, Kiev, 418
,, Thorn, 408
,, Tours, 17
Tadoussac, 427
Tartars, inroads of, 403
Tausen, Hans, 91
Taylor, Jeremy, 374
Temporal power of Popes (see
Papacy), 4, 16, 429
Teresa, S., 266, 386

INDEX

497

Testament in modern Greek, 416
Tetzel, 81, 33
Theatines, the, 9, 266
Theology, lectures on, 138, 448
,. study of, 448
,, thought, change in,
175-6
,, among Lutherans, 289,
297
,, among Calvinists, 385
Thesaurus (Btienne), 389
Thirlby, Bishop of Westminster,
352
Thirty Years War, events leading
to, 294, 303, 305-8
Outline of, 309-16
And Papacy, 312, 446-7
Thomas of Jesus, Fr., 430-1
Thomists, the (see Aquinas), 94,
177
,, ,, and Scotists, 33,
465-6
Thorn, Synod of, 408
Three Rivers, 427
Thurn, Count (Bohemia), 308
Tiene, Gaetano di, 266
Tilly, Count, 309, 313
Toledo, Archbishop of. See
Ximenes, Carranza
Toleration, Declarationof,286,300
Augsburg, Peace of, 120, 286,
295, 300
Peace of Prague, 315
Treaty of Westphalia, 317
Toletus, 259
Torgau, League of, 78
Tournai, See of, 376
Tours, Synod of (1510), 17
Transubslantiation, 75, 156, 344
Transylvania, Reformation in, 299
Treaty. See Kadan, Ulm, West
phalia, Xanten
Trent, Council of :
Session I., 127
_ „. II., 128
,, III., 128
„ IV., 129
„ V., 129-32, 138
„ VI., 132 seq., 143-4
VII., 145-8
2 K

Trent, Council of :
Session VIIL, 149
Suspension, 149
Session IX., 151
,, X., 151
Reassembling, 151
Session XL, 151
,, XII., 152-3
„ XIII., 153-9
„ XIV., 159-64
„ XV., 165
,, XVI., 166
Interval of two years, 167-73
Session XVII., 175-81
„ XVIII. , 181-5
„ XIX., 185-90
,, XX., 191-3
,, XXI, 193-6
„ XXII., 196-206
,, XXIIL, 217-22
,, XXIV., 223-33
,, XXV., 239-48
Recitation of all Decrees, 249
Close, 249
Trent, Council of — Topics :
Baptism, Holy, 145-6
Benefices, 147, 164, 186, 195
Bishops, residence of, 137-9,
141, 147, 157, 186-9, 201,
207-8, 211, 217,218, 227 seq. ,
234, 238, 244-7
Bishops, Titular, 144, 216-17
,, election and confirma
tion, 227
Carranza, Archbishop, trial of,
236-7
Catechism, 229
Chapters, Cathedral, 229
reform of, 243
Clergy, residence of, 143, 147,
218
Communion in both kinds,
191-4,199,202-3,214,262, 288, 302
Discussion postponed, 194
Confession (penance, contrition,
and attrition), 160, 162-3
Confirmation, 146
Curia, 137, 143, 189, 262
Decrees, publication oi, MS

498

THE REFORMATION

Trent, Council of — Topics :
,, public acceptance of, by
Council, 243
„ acceptance of, by na
tions, 251
,, commended to princes,
248-9
,, confirmed by Pope, 250
,, numbers signing at
close, 250
Divorce, 223-6
Eucharist, Holy (see Mass),
153-7, 191-4, 196, 199
Expectatives, 229
Index, 181-5
,, left to Pope, 248
Indulgences, Decree upon, 239,
247
Initiative, 142, 181, 208, 214,
222, 232, 235
Inquisition (see Carranza), 234-5
Justification, 130-7
Marriage, 206, 216, 223-6
Masses, regulation of, 244
Minor and MajorOrders, 217-19
Orders, Holy, ordination, 163-4,
195, 206-7, 216-19
Original sin, 130-1
Papal authority, 128, 201,
209-12, 263
„ ,, reserved, 245
Penance, 159, 162-3, 229
Pluralities, 229
Princes, reform of, 230
Procedure, ecclesiastical, 229,
238, 244
Provisions, 229
Purgatory, Decree upon, 240,
247
Questers, 195, 247
Reformation, 124-5, 137-8,
143-4, 147, 157-9, 163-4,
181, 189, 195, 200-1, 204-6,
218-22, 225-30, 233, 241 seq.
Reform and doctrine, order of
discussion, 128
,, forty -two chapters on,
proposed, 231
Regulars, Reformation of, 239
Reservations, 229

Trent, Council of — Topics :
Rule of Faith, 129
Residence. See Bishops, and
Clergy
Sacraments generally, 145
Saints, Invocation of, 240
Scripture, 129
Seculars, reformation of, 243
Seminaries, 219-22
Style of Council, 127
Theology, lectures on, 138
Unction, Extreme, 159, 163
Venice, Patriarch of, tried, 237
Visitations, 144, 229
Vulgate, 129, 258-60
Trent, Council of (history of), 36,
chaps, vii., viii., ix.
Its constitution, 127
Demand for, 123
Mantua, called at, 125
Vicenza, at, 126
Summoned at Trent, 126
Outlook for, 125, 161, 179
Organisation of, 127, 161, 180-
222
Title of, 127, 182
Legates presiding :
DelMonte, Cervini, Pole, 127,
141
Crescenzeo, helped by Pighino
and Lippomani, 151, 161
Gonzaga, du Puy, Hosius,
Simonetta, Seripando, d'Al-
temps, 174-5, 192, 196,
211
Deaths of Gonzaga and Seri
pando, 212
Morone and Navagero, 212-13
Canons and Decrees, 142
Close proposed, 159
Parties and Debate :
Papal regulations for, 232-3
Difficulties of debate, 133-4,
141, 237
Reform of Curia, 137, 143,
189, 262
Parties and relations :
Pope, 209-12, 232-3, 245,
261-3
Charles V., 115, 149, 152-3

INDEX

499

Trent, Council of (history of)—
Parties and relations :
Ferdinand I., 167-8, 193,
202-6, 213-15, 232
France, 152-3, 188, 231-5
France and Spain, 222
England (Elizabeth), 173,
215, 358
Protestants, 118, 149, 160,
179
,, safe-conduct for,
160-1, 165, 181
Imperialist party, 128, 181,
231 seq.
Spanish bishops, 129, 142,
190, 200, 214, 234
Archbishop of Granada re
fuses "Placet," 249
Canonists and theologians,
178
Jesuits, 134, 161, 175-9, 199,
200
Curia, 137, 143, 189, 262
Initiative, 142, 181, 208, 214,
222, 232, 235
Transference and suspension,
116, 148-9
Suspension for two years (1552),
165-6
Called again (1560), 173
Continuation or a new assembly,
174, 181, 188, 190, 232-3
Preparations for close, 238
Recitation of Decrees, 249
Numbers present, 141, 175, 249
Reforms, general effect of, 245-6
Sequel :
Catechism, Vulgate.Breviary,
Mass, Music, and Decrees,
251-62
Trent, Cardinal of. See Madruzzo
,, why chosen for Council, 126
„ cause of sudden close of
Council, 250
,, summary of results of
Council, 261-2
, Decrees of, and acceptance,
" 251-2,379
History of Council (Sarpi),
" 443

Tridentine doctrine of Justifica
tion (see Trent, Council of),
467-8 "
Trier, See of (Treves), 295
Trolle, Gustav, Archbishop of
Upsala, 86
Trondhjem (Nidaros), 85, 92
, , Eric, Archbishopof, 86
Tunstall, Bishop of Durham, 334
Turks, the, 21, 299, 300-2, 411,
430
Ukraine Cossacks, 410
Ulm, 60
„ Treaty of, 309
Ulrich. See Wiirttemberg, and
Hutten
Unction, Extreme. See Trent
Uniat Church of Chaldsea, 422
,, „ in Poland, 410-11
Uniformity, Act of, 352
Union, Protestant (1608-48), 309
,, of Lutherans andBohemian
Brethren (Poland), 407-8
Unitarians (see Socinians), 404-5
United Provinces, 316, 379-80
Universities and Council of Trent
(visitation, etc. ), 243-4
Alcala, 274, 282
Cambridge, 341, 363, 369
Copenhagen, 86
Cracow, 403, 408
Dillingen, 297
English, 327, 338
Erfurt, 8, 36
German, 11, 28
Heidelberg (Erastus), 383
Ingolstadt, 34, 303, 448
Jena, 289
Leyden, 381-4
Louvain, 39, 40
Oxford, 368
Paris, 394-5
,, (Sorbonne), 40, 94, 182,
394-5
Prague (Prag), 299
Rome (Sapienza), 434
Spanish, 14
Salamanca, 274, 282
Tubingen, 414

Soo

THE REFORMATION

-Universities and Council of Trent
, (visitation, etc.) :
Wittenberg, 33, 50, 403, 406
Wiirzburg, 296
Upsala, Moot of, 401
Urban VIIL, 312, 315, 318
,, ,, and Jesuits, 313
Urbino gained by Pope, 429
Ursulines, 266
Utraquists, 56
Utrecht (diocese), 376
„ Union of, 381
Uttenheim, Christopher von,
Bishop of Basel, 45, 72
Uyttenbogaert, 384
Valdez, Ferdinand de, Archbishop
of Seville, 236
Valladolid, discussion at (1594),
391
Vannes, S., Abbey of, 268
Vargas, 181, 214
Vasa, house of, 86
Vatican, addition to, by Sixtus V.,
436
Venice, 108, 266, 436
,, Jesuits at, 281, 444
,, and Papacy, 441-5
,, Patriarch of, tried, 237
,, and remarriage after
divorce, 223
,, thought at, 442-3
Ventimiglia, Bishop of, 189, 192,
235
Verden, See of, 293, 309, 316
Vernacular in Mass. See Mass
Verona, 266
Vestments (Hooper), 353
„ controversy on, 362
,, under Elizabeth, 361
,, and Trent (Council),
197
,, Lutherans and Zwing
lians, 57, 400
Veto, right of, in Papal election,
172
Vicenza, 266
,, Council called at, 126
Vienna, 283
Vincent de Paul, S. , 269, 270-1

Vincent de Paul and missions, 271
Vio, Thomas de. See Cajatan
Vires founds College at Rome, 423
Virgin, Visitation of the Blessed,
272
,, Immaculate Conception of,
133, 136
Visitations (see Trent, Chapters
and Universities), 19
Vitelleschi, 397
Vladimir, See of, 403
Vulgate, 129, 258-60, 436, 440
Waldshut, 50, 74
Wallenstein, 310, 312-14
Walloon provinces, Netherlands,
377
Warham, Archbishop, 7, 325, 328,
334
Wars of religion in France, 93
Periods of, 102
Effects of, 387-8
Warsaw, Compact of, 409
Weissenburg, 60
Wessel 8
Westeras, Diet of (1527), 88
,, Recess and Ordinances
of, 88
Westminster, See of, 338
,, Confession, 383
Westphalia, 84
,, Treaty of, 316-19, 380
Whitgift, Archbishop, 363, 368-9
Wiclif, 6, 47, 204
Wimpheling, 18, 38
Wimpina, 80
Windsheim, 60
William IV. of Bavaria, 303
„ ' of Cleve, 291
,, the Silent, 380
Wisbech, Jesuits and Seculars at,
284
Wishart, George, 348
Wittenberg, 28, 291
,, Concord, 77, 109
,, influence of, 87, 89, 91
(See Universities. )
Wolsey, 38, 323, 329, 330
,, his character, 331
Worms, 292

INDEX

S°i

Worms, Colloquy, 289, 290
„ Diet, 37
,, Edict of, 37-8
Wotten, Sir H. , and Sarpi, 444
Wriothesley (Earl of Southamp
ton), 349
Wiirttemberg, 83, 121, 292, 317
Ulrich of, 70, 83
Wiirzburg, See of, 221, 296, 314
Wyatt's rebellion, 354-5
Xanten, Treaty of, 305
Xavier, St. Francis, 275, 282, 424
Ximenes, Cardinal, 7, 13, 14, 426
Yorkshire, monastic foundations
in, 324-5
,, chantries, 325
Zaccaria (Barnabites), 265
Zolter, 8
Zunega, Don Luis de, 214
Ziirich, 50

Zurich, Zwingli at, 65
, , Reformation at, 66-8
248
,, politics at, 67-70
,, after Zwingli, 72
,, Anabaptists at, 73
Zwickau, 49
Zwingli, Huldreich (Ulrich), 52,
64 se?., 377, 382
and Luther, 59, 64, 65
his theology, 66-7, 77,
145
doctrines, 66-7, 77
political schemes, 67
and Anabaptists, 73-4
and peasants, 50
and Indulgences, 68
death of, 71
and the Mass, 75-6
Zwinglianism compared with
Lutheranism, 57
,, and Lutheranism,
77-9
,, in Netherlands, 377