4. Effects of Predestination on the Mind.—To what purpose shall I labor in the service of God? If I am predestinated to death [that is, spiritual death] I shall never escape from it; and if I am predestined to life [that is, to salvation] even though I do wickedly, I shall, no doubt, arrive at eternal rest.—Raban, Quoted by Guizot.
5. Evil Results of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.—The serious evil involved in Luther's doctrine of justification by faith without works is perhaps best seen in a quotation from Fletcher, of Madeley, the most able disciple of John Wesley and his successor Fletcher accuses one Richard Hill, Esq.—who accepted in its widest sense the doctrine of justification by faith alone—with saying: "Even adultery and murder do not hurt the pleasant children, but rather work for their good. God sees no sin in believers, whatever sin they may commit. My sins might displease God: my person is always acceptable to him * * * It is a most pernicious error of the schoolmen to distinguish sins according to the fact, and not according to the persons. Though I blame those who say, let us sin that grace may abound, yet adultery, incest and murder shall, upon the whole, make me holier on earth and merrier in heaven."—End of Religious Controversy, p. 90.
6. The Works in which Catholics Trusted.—In the eleventh century voluntary flagellations were superadded to these practices [fastings, pilgrimages, etc.]; somewhat later they became quite a mania in Italy, which was then in a very disturbed state. Nobles and peasants, old and young, even children of five years of age, whose only covering was a cloth tied round the middle, went in pairs by hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands, through the towns and villages, visiting the churches in the depth of winter. Armed with scourges, they flogged each other without pity, and the streets resounded with cries and groans that drew tears from all who heard them.—D'Aubigne.
REVIEW.
1. What difference existed between the teachings of the Catholic church and the conduct of its agents in the matter of indulgences? (Note 1.)
2. Was the sale of indulgences the chief cause of Luther's revolt from Rome?
3. What doctrines did Luther entertain which would at last have led him to oppose the Catholic church?
4. What is the power of deliberation?
5. Explain what liberty or free agency is.
6. In what way is man's will or free agency modified?
7. What is it that convinces man of the necessity of external help to aid his will?
8. What does man's experience teach him when he seeks external help?
9. What influence is man conscious of as operating upon him in moral and spiritual affairs?
10. State the Pelagian view on the subject of grace and free will.
11. State the Roman Catholic view.
12. State the Protestant view.
13. What was Luther's fundamental doctrine?
14. In what light did Luther hold good works?
15. What mischief arose out of Luther's doctrine?
16. What did Luther himself say respecting the danger of his doctrine?
17. What were the teachings of the Roman church on justification?
18. To what extreme did the church of Rome go in the matter of good works?
19. What was the nature of the works in which Roman Catholics trusted too much? (Note 6.)
20. What influence on morals did the doctrine have that substitutes could be employed to receive punishment for sins?
SECTION III.
1. The Growth of Luther's Rebellion.—The thing most important, the one which drew with it the gravest consequences, and which led to the greatest good produced by the Reformation, was the rebellion of Luther against the authority of the pope. He did not come out in open rebellion at the first, but arrived at that state by gradual and imperceptible steps. When his opposition to the sale of indulgences met with reproof from the pontiff, he appealed from the pope ill-informed to the pope better-informed. When that pope better-informed still held him to be in error and refractory, he appealed to a general, free council of the whole church; but when no heed was taken of this appeal, and Leo, pressed by Eckius, Cajetan and others, excommunicated him, he then answered by burning the pope's bull of excommunication, and stood in open rebellion to the authority of the pontiff. When the pope appealed to Emperor Charles to make the excommunication of some force by the power of the secular authority vested in him, the emperor, contrary to the protests of the pope's legates, resolved to give the Reformer a hearing before proceeding against him. Accordingly Luther was summoned before the diet at Worms, where he not only insisted upon having a hearing before a free, general council of the church, but a council that would accept the Bible as the final authority upon the questions at issue between himself and the pontiff.
2. The Catholic Rule of Faith.—This was demanding more than the pope could grant; for the Catholics have never exalted the Bible above the church, but have always held that the scriptures must be accepted as construed by the church, and in the days of Luther the pope was the church. The Catholic rule of faith in respect to the laws by which the church is to be governed is: "The word of God, at large, whether written in the Bible or handed down from the apostles by tradition, and as it is understood and explained by the Catholic church."[33] Besides their rule of faith, which is scripture and tradition, "Catholics acknowledge an unerring judge of controversy, or sure guide in all matters relating to salvation—viz., the church."[34]
3. This rule employed to interpret the Bible and to settle controversies that might arise, Luther rejected. Writing in defense of his conduct in burning the papal bull of excommunication and the decretals of the popes, he said:
Let no man's good sense be so far seduced as to reverence the volumes I have burnt, on account of their great antiquity or their high titles. Let every one first hear and see what the pope teaches in his own books, and what abominable, poisonous doctrines are to be found among the sacred, spiritual laws; and then let him freely judge, whether I have done right or not in burning such writings.
4. Among the teachings in the decretals which Luther held up for special condemnation were the following:
(1) The pope has the power to interpret scripture, and to teach as he pleases; and no person is allowed to interpret in a different way. (2) The pope does not derive from the scripture but the scripture derives from the pope, authority, power and dignity.
He then affirms that comparing together the different parts of the canon law, its language amounts to this:
That the pope is God on earth; above all that is earthly or heavenly, temporal or spiritual; that all things belong to the pope; and that no one must venture to say, what doest thou?[35]
It was against this arbitrary authority that Luther rebelled.
5. Attempted Settlement by a General Council.—At last when through the influence of the emperor the pope consented to appoint a council, a difficulty arose as to where it should be held. The pope on his part seemed determined to have it assemble in Italy, or in some country where his influence would predominate; the Reformers were equally determined to submit their cause to no council outside of Germany. The difficulty had arisen in Germany; they insisted it should be settled by a council in Germany, or by a diet of the empire. The cause was never fairly tried by a council of the whole church; the revolt against the authority of the pope was sustained by an appeal to arms, as related in section I, Part III, of this work.
6. Revolution, not Rebellion.—Had that revolt against the Catholic church been a revolt against legitimate authority it would have been rebellion: but as it was against a usurped and hence an illegitimate authority, it was a justifiable revolution. For in ecclesiastical government, no less than in civil government, if a long train of abuses renders it odious, and those who execute it are tyrannical and usurp authority which the law of God does not sanction, by which unrighteous dominion is exercised over the minds of men, it is the right of the people to resist such authority: and refuse to sustain those who exercise that unrighteous dominion to please their vanity or gratify their ambition.
7. True Position, but a Corrupt Church.—The position that the church, officered by inspired prophets and apostles—men having by virtue of their priesthood and official position a right to the inspiration and revelations of God—the position that the church of Christ so officered, has the right to decide upon all controversies and to determine the meaning of scripture, is, beyond all questioning, a true position. But the difficulty with the Roman Catholic church was that it was no longer the church of Christ, as already proven in Part II of this work. It had no prophets or apostles, no men who had a right to the revelations of God. The popes and bishops of the church taught that revelation had ceased, and they depended on scripture and tradition alone, interpreted by themselves, for their guide. The power the church possessed was usurped power merely, the growth of ages. It had become both arrogant and insolent, and at last intolerable, and when a man was found possessing the courage to resent its presumption and defy it, he found plenty to applaud and sanction his act.
8. True Cause of the Reformation.—We cannot ascribe the Reformation to accidents and mischances, such for instance as the jealousy of Luther because the sale of indulgences was entrusted to the Dominican monks instead of to the order of Augustine monks, to which he belonged[36]—we cannot assign the cause of the Reformation to this, neither can we go to the other extreme and say that the great revolution of the sixteenth century resulted solely from a pure desire to reform the abuses that had arisen in the church or bring back Christianity to its primitive purity. Not a few of the princes that favored Luther in his revolt against the pope did so from other motives than those prompted by a desire to reform the church.
9. Many of the temporal monarchs and princes were jealous of the power exercised within their dominions by the Roman pontiffs, as it lowered the dignity of their own position. They were tired, moreover, of the assumed right of the pope to enter their dominions, and, under one pretext or another, tax their subjects and thus not only impoverish the people, but reduce the revenue of the temporal ruler. It will be found, therefore, that the jealousy, ambition and interest of these princes, and not a desire to establish pure religion, made them factors in the great revolution. (See note 1, end of section.)
10. The people also were tired of the dominion asserted over their minds by the papal authority, and were only too glad to escape from that thraldom under any pretext whatsoever. The preceding century had brought a great intellectual awakening to Europe, and men were no longer content to have questions of fact and belief decided by the authority of the church. (See note 2, end of section.) They insisted that human reason and individual judgment had a right to investigate and to be satisfied on these questions; and the securing of that freedom was not only the leading principle of the sixteenth century revolution, but its greatest achievement. (See note 3, end of section.)
11. Revolution, not Reformation.—It is absurd to say that the revolution of the sixteenth century was a reformation, if by that it is meant that it re-established the primitive doctrines of Christianity, purified the morals of the people, or gave birth to a better ecclesiastical government. It did no such thing. The Reformers declaimed against some of the abuses of the Catholic church, such as denying the sacramental cup to the laity, the celibacy of the clergy, the absurdities of the mass, fasts and ceremonies of human invention, the whole system of monkery, and the great usurpation of authority by the church; and consequently did not include any of these abuses—except perhaps the last—in the system of religion they founded. Still their doctrines led them into serious errors and great disorders.
12. Private Interpretation of the Bible and its Effects.—The evils that arose from the doctrine of justification by faith alone, we have already noticed.[37] The disorders that grew out of the doctrine of private interpretation of scripture is yet to be considered. When Luther refused to longer recognize the authority of the church in matters of doctrine, he still was aware that men would need some authority to decide controversies that would arise, consequently he held up the Bible as the final arbiter of all questions touching faith and morals. But the Bible had to be construed, its meaning made plain, and as each one was left to explain it in his own way, the utmost confusion prevailed. On the great fundamental principle of the Protestants—justification by faith alone—Osiander, a Lutheran, says:
There are twenty several opinions, all drawn from scriptures, and held by different members of the Augsburg, or Lutheran Confession.[38]
When the Reformers from the several parts of Germany consulted together, and with them the Reformers from other states met with a view to come to some understanding in respect to religion and modes of worship, it was soon apparent that they were hopelessly divided, not only upon matters unimportant, but also upon fundamental principles. Luther had rejected the authority of the church and set up the tribunal of private interpretation of scripture in its stead. A number of his disciples proceeding on the same principle, rejected some of his doctrines and undertook to prove from the scripture that he was in error and that the Reformation needed reforming.
13. Carolstadt, [says the author of the "End of Religious Controversy] Zuinglius, Okolampadius, Muncer and a hundred more of his followers, wrote and preached against him and against each other with the utmost virulence, whilst each of them still professed to ground his doctrine and conduct on the written word of God alone. In vain did Luther denounce hell fire against them; in vain did he threaten to return back to the Catholic religion; he had put the Bible into each man's hand to explain it for himself, and this his followers continued to do in open defiance of him, till their mutual contradictions and discords became so numerous and scandalous as to overwhelm the thinking part of them with grief and confusion."[39] (See note 4, end of section.)
14. The Multiplication of Sects.—The division of the Reformers into numerous sects has ever been a reproach to Protestants and likewise an evidence of the weakness of their position. Men of different capacities and dispositions examined the Bible; they found it no systematic treatise upon religion and morals, but a miscellaneous collection of inspired writings, dealing with historical events, connected, in the main, with the people of God; prophecies, dreams, revelations, doctrines, and morals; written at different times, to different peoples, and under a great variety of circumstances. In addition to all this, many plain and precious parts have been taken away from it;[40] other parts have doubtless been purposely changed by designing men;[41] which, with the imperfections arising from its translation from the original languages in which it was written, has made it an uncertain guide, taken alone, for the church or for individuals; and as Protestants insisted upon the right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Bible, it is not surprisingg that a great variety of opinions were entertained, or that numerous sects were founded upon them. It was a great evil; much confusion and disorder arose out of it; but it was an evil that could not be avoided. It was one of those periods of time when liberty was a cause of disorder, but the attainment of liberty through that disorder more than outweighed the evils that arose from it.
15. The Error of the Reformers.—The great error which the Reformers made was in not giving full application to their principle of the right of private judgment in matters of religion. They claimed the right to revolt from the Catholic church, to interpret the Bible for themselves, and to found their mode of worship upon their own conceptions of what was required by the revelations of God; but when others differed from them, and desired to exercise the same liberty, the Reformers were themselves intolerant, and attempted to compel men by force to accept their religious faith and modes of worship. It is this intolerance which is the chief reproach applied to the Reformation by its enemies, and it must be admitted that it somewhat sullies the glory of its achievements. (See note 5, end of section.)
NOTES.
1. Motives Back of the Reformation.—The Protestant historian, Mosheim, with whom Hume agrees, admits that several of the principal agents in this revolution were actuated more by the impulse of passion and views of interest than by a zeal for true religion. (Maclaine's Mosheim, vol. iv. p. 135.) He had before acknowledged that King Gustavus introduced Lutheranism into Sweden in opposition to the clergy and bishops, not only as agreeable to the genius and spirit of the gospel, but also as favorable to the temporal state and political constitution of the Swedish dominions. He adds that Christiern, who introduced the Reformation into Denmark, was animated by no other motives than those of ambition and avarice. Grotius, another Protestant, testifies that it was sedition and violence which gave birth to the Reformation in his own country—Holland. The same was the case in France, Geneva and Scotland. It is to be observed, that in all these countries the Reformers, as soon as they got the upper hand, became violent persecutors of the Catholics. Bergier defies Protestants to name so much as a town or village in which, when they became masters of it, they tolerated a single Catholic.—End of Religious Controversy, note, p. 105.
2. Desire for Freedom the Moving Cause in Reformation.—The strength of the Protestant party had been derived, both in Germany and England, far less from their superiority in argument, however decisive this might be, than from that desire which all classes, and especially the higher, had long experienced to emancipate themselves from the thraldom of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.—Hallam's Const. Hist. of Eng.
3. The Cause and Leading Principle of the Reformation.—In my opinion the Reformation neither was an accident, the result of some casual circumstance, or some personal interests, nor arose from unmingled views of religious improvement, the fruit of Utopian humanity and truth. It had a more powerful cause than all these; a general cause to which all the others are subordinate. It was a vast effort made by the human mind to achieve its freedom; it was a new-born desire which it felt to think and judge, freely and independently, of facts and opinions which, till then, Europe received or was considered bound to receive from the hands of authority. It was a great endeavor to emancipate human reason, and to call things by their right names; it was an insurrection of the human mind against the absolute power of spiritual order. Such, in my opinion, was the true character and leading principle of the Reformation. * * * Not only was this the result of the Reformation, but it was content with this result. Whenever this was obtained no other was sought for; so entirely was it the very foundation of the event, its primitive and fundamental character! * * * I repeat it; whenever the Reformation attained this object, it accommodated itself to every form of government and to every situation.—Guizot.
4. Unhappy Divisions Among Reformers.—Capito, minister of Strasburg, writing to Forel, pastor of Geneva, thus complains to him: "God has given me to understand the mischief we have done by our precipitancy in breaking with the pope. The people say I know enough of the gospel. I can read it for myself. I have no need of you." In the same tone Dudith writes to his friend Beza: "Our people are carried away with every wind of doctrine. If you know what their religion is today, you cannot tell what it will be tomorrow. In what single point are those churches which have declared war against the pope agreed amongst themselves? There is not one point which is not held by some of them as an article of faith, and by others as an impiety!" In the same sentiment, Calvin, writing to Melanchthon, says: "It is of great importance that the divisions which subsist among us should not be known to future ages: for nothing can be more ridiculous than that we who have broken off from the whole world, should have agreed so ill among ourselves from the very beginning of the Reformation."—End of Religious Controversy, Page 101.
5. The Reproach of the Reformation.—What were the reproaches constantly applied to the Reformation by its enemies? Which of its results are thrown in its face, as it were, unanswerable? The two principal reproaches are, first, the multiplicity of sects, the excessive license of thought, the destruction of all spiritual authority, and the entire dissolution of religious society; secondly, tyranny and persecution. "You provoke licentiousness," it has been said to the Reformers: "you produce it; and, after being the cause of it, you wish to restrain and repress it. And how do you repress it? By the most harsh and violent means. You take upon yourselves, too, to punish heresy, and that by virtue of an illegitimate authority."—Guizot.
REVIEW.
1. What was the matter of chief importance in the Reformation?
2. Describe the growth of Luther's conflict with the pope.
3. Describe the Catholic rule of faith.
4. What demands contrary to that rule did Luther make?
5. What difficulty arose in respect to settling the controversy by an appeal to a general council?
6. What can you say of the revolt of Luther to the Catholic church authority?
7. What can you say of the right of the true Church of Christ to settle controversies and determine the meaning of scripture?
8. Why was the Catholic church unqualified to render decisions on such matters?
9. What several causes are assigned for the Reformation by Catholics and Protestants respectively? (Note.)
10. What was the true cause?
11. What several considerations aided the Reformation?
12. Was the religious movement of the 16th century a reformation or a revolution?
13. What can you say of the evils which arose from the private interpretation of the Bible?
14. What caused the multiplication of sects among the Protestants?
15. What makes the Bible an insufficient guide in matters of faith and worship?
16. What was the great error of the Reformers?
SECTION IV.
1. The Reformation in Switzerland.—So far we have considered this sixteenth century revolution as it affected the German empire alone. It was not confined, however, to that country. As a matter of fact, the so-called Reformation began in Switzerland before it did in Germany. Ulrich Zwingle, born in Wildhausen, Canton of St. Gall, Switzerland 1484, attacked many of the errors of the Catholic Church, before Luther began his opposition.
2. In 1516, Zwingle openly declaimed against many Catholic abuses, such as monastic vows, pilgrimages, worship of relics, and indulgences. He also taught that the Bible was the only standard of religious truth. In 1518, one Samson came into Switzerland to sell indulgences. The year following Zwingle opposed him and drove him from Zurich. Four years later the Swiss Reformer was accused of heresy by adherents of the Roman pontiff, and brought before the council of Zurich. He presented sixty-seven doctrinal propositions before the council which he agreed to defend by the scriptures against all opposers. The council before which his cause was tried decided that the controversy must be settled by an appeal to the Bible, and Zwingle triumphed. At the conclusion of the hearing the council decreed that the Reformer should be allowed to teach as he had formerly done unmolested; and that no preacher in the canton should teach any doctrine he could not prove by the Bible. The year following—1524—the council reformed the public worship, that is, they adopted the principles and methods of worship proposed by Zwingle.
3. In 1531, the Catholics in the surrounding cantons attacked Zurich, and early in the battle, Zwingle, while leading the Protestant forces, was slain, his body hacked to pieces and afterwards burned. [See note 1, end of section.]
4. John Calvin.—Zwingle was succeeded in the leadership of the Swiss Reformers by John Calvin, a talented but austere man, a native of Noyon, France. [See note 2, end of section.] He more than any other man—Luther excepted—influenced the character of the Protestant churches. He held many views that were at variance with those of Zwingle. The latter taught that civil rulers possessed absolute power in religious matters, and subjected the ministers altogether to their authority. Calvin held that the church should be free and independent of the state; that it should govern itself by its own officers whom the church and not the state should appoint; he limited the power of the state over the church to giving it external protection. Zwingle recognized a gradation of officers in the Christian church; Calvin held that all were equal. Suitable persons appointed and ordained with the consent of the members of the church, constituted, in his theory of church government, a legitimate ministry to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. But for the government of the church a number of men were chosen by the people from among the most venerable and respectable of the congregation. These men were called presbyters or elders. They were all equal in authority, and even the preaching minister was in no sense superior to them in office.
5. The elders of a single church or congregation convened in council constituted the church session; councils composed of representatives from the several churches in a province, constituted synods or consistories; while a general council composed of elders from all the churches was known as the general assembly. The elders in these several councils were all regarded as equal in authority and had full power to enact laws relating to religious matters and to establish the discipline of the church. Such is the order of church government founded by Calvin, and known as Presbyterianism.
6. Difference of Opinion on the Eucharist.—As already stated in a previous section, the Catholics maintained that in the eucharist the bread and the wine, were converted by consecration into the very body and blood of Messiah. Zwingle maintained that the bread and wine were symbols merely of Christ's flesh and blood, employed to call to mind his death, and the blessings procured to man by that death. Calvin stood between these two extremes, as also did Luther, and while they disagreed with Catholics, and would not concede that the bread and wine were changed to the very body and blood of Christ, neither would they concede that the bread and wine were merely symbols, but insisted upon a sort of spiritual presence. That is, they held that the saints in the exercise of faith in partaking of the sacrament, do become united in a certain mystic way with Christ, and from this union received an increase of spiritual life.
7. Predestination.—Another thing in which Calvin differed from Zwingle was in relation to the celebrated doctrine of an absolute decree of God respecting the salvation of men. Calvin emphasized the doctrines of Luther and Melanchthon in regard to the part which the grace of God takes in the salvation of men; and perhaps carried it further than they would have done, certainly further than Zwingle did. On this point Calvin taught that God had elected some persons from all eternity to everlasting life; and had appointed others to everlasting punishments; and that for this he had no other ground except his own pleasure, or his most free and sovereign will. This is the doctrine of predestination.
8. The Spread of Calvin's Doctrines.—It was some time before the Swiss could be brought to accept these doctrines so at variance with or not found in the teachings of Zwingle. Yet by the perseverance and the high reputation for learning and piety of Calvin they were very generally accepted in Switzerland; and after him, such was the success of his pupils, that large bodies of Protestants in other nations accepted his doctrines. Especially was this the case in France, England, Scotland, and even in Germany.
9. The Reformation in France.—In France, though in the main her people adhered to the Catholic church, the Reformation found its most faithful adherents, and there they suffered the most violent persecutions. The Protestants were opprobriously called Huguenots [Hu-ge-nots] the origin of the appellation is uncertain. Among these French Protestants were men of high character, and not a few bishops of the church. The king and the magistrates, however, protected the ancient religion by the sword, by penal inflictions; and a large number of pious and good people were put to death, among them not a few of the nobility. [See notes 3 and 4, end of section.]
10. The Reformation in Sweden.—In Sweden the Reformation made rapid headway. Its doctrines were introduced into that country by Olaus Peri, whose zeal for the cause was warmly seconded by the king, Gustavus Vasa, who while an exile in Lubec, during the revolution of 1523, learned something of the "reformed" religion. For some time before 1523 Sweden had been ruled by Danish kings; but in that year, in consequence of the tyranny practiced by Christiern II of Denmark, a revolution was inaugurated by Gustavus Vasa, which ended in Christiern being driven from Sweden. Gustavus was chosen king in his stead. While prejudiced in favor of the "reformed" religion, he acted with great moderation. He invited learned Protestants from Germany whom he directed to instruct his people in the Bible and the Protestant faith. The Bible translated by Olaus Petri he caused to be published and disseminated. In 1526, a great discussion on religion was held at Upsal at the instance of the king, between Olaus Petri and Peter Gallius, a Roman Catholic. Gallius seems to have been so far defeated, even in his own estimation, that in the year following, in the assembly of the states at Westeras, he recommended the "reformed" religion of Luther to the representatives of the nation. After a long discussion, and much opposition from the bishops, it was finally harmoniously decreed that the "reformed" religion should be introduced. From that time until now the power of the pope in Sweden has been prostrated. [See note 5, end of section.]
11. Denmark.—In Denmark the reformation was not accomplished so happily. Christiern, whose authority, as we have seen, was overthrown in Sweden, sought to establish the reformed religion in Denmark, but more from a desire to deprive the bishops of their power, and confiscate their property, than from a right zeal for true religion. In 1520 he invited Martin Reynhard, a disciple of Carlstadt, to Denmark, and made him professor of theology at Copenhagen. Reynhard stayed about a year. When he left, the king sent for Carlstadt. He remained but a short time; and then the king invited Luther himself to come, but the reformer would not accept the invitation. All these failing him, the king set about the work of reformation himself, but as he was a tyrant, his people conspired against him, and banished him from the kingdom, in 1523. He was succeeded by his uncle, Frederic, Duke of Holstein and Sleswick.
12. Frederic was as anxious as Christiern had been to see the reformed religion established in Denmark, but he was more prudent than his nephew. He permitted the leaders among the Protestants to teach publicly the doctrines of Luther, and in time these raised up a strong following. In 1527 the king procured a decree from the senate, at the diet of Odensee, giving religious liberty to the people. By this decree the Danes were left free to embrace the new religion, or continue members of the Catholic Church, as they saw proper. The successor of Frederic—Christian III—went further than this, however, in the interest of the Reformation. He stripped the bishops of their odious power, confiscated the church property, much of which, however, he restored to the original owners, from whom it had been obtained, it is alleged, by base arts. He called John Bugenhagius from Wittemburg, and with his assistance regulated the religious affairs of his realm by making the reformed the established religion of his kingdom. The action of Christian III seems harsh, but a circumstance which mitigates if it does not destroy the harshness of his measures, was the insufferable arrogance, pride and power of the bishops, which was a constant menace to the power of the monarch, and did much to eclipse his glory. [See note 6, end of section.]
13. Holland.—Perhaps from being contiguous to Germany, the Netherlands—Belgium and Holland—soon partook of the spirit of the Reformation—the desire to be free. The writings of Luther were early received and widely read by the Netherlanders. This alarmed the Catholics who, in 1552, established the Inquisition there and persecuted with great vigor all who accepted the doctrines of the reformers. It is estimated that in those provinces which, taken together, constitute the Netherlands, in the reign of Charles V alone—from 1519 to 1552—not less than 50,000 persons lost their lives in consequence of their defection from the church of Rome. But notwithstanding this severe persecution, adherents to the Protestant faith increased. The tyranny of their oppressors seemed to increase the boldness of the people in clamoring for the rights of conscience; and towards the close of the sixteenth century seven of the provinces successfully revolted against the Duke of Alva, Viceroy of the Catholic monarch, Phillip II of Spain. These revolting provinces formed the Dutch Republic, and in a short time became the most formidable maritime power in the world. They suffered the most and wrought the most in behalf of the liberty of conscience, the freedom of commerce, and the liberty of the state. It is said by one historian that "In freedom of conscience they were the light of the world."[42] It is well known that for many years their land was the asylum for the oppressed, especially for those persecuted for their religion.
14. England.—The Reformation in England took on a different aspect to what it did in the other countries. When Luther began his assault upon the church of Rome, the English monarch, Henry VIII, appeared as a champion on the side of the Roman pontiffs. He wrote a book against Luther in defense of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, which met with such favor in the eyes of the pope that he conferred upon Henry the title of "Defender of the Faith." Henry's book appeared in 1522. Soon after this the king began to question the legality of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon.
15. Catherine had been the wife of the king's deceased brother, Arthur; and a marriage with a deceased brother's widow was regarded as contrary to the law of God.[43] Henry therefore applied to the pope for the annulment of his marriage, since his conscience would not permit him to cohabit longer with his deceased brother's wife. The conduct of the king, however, was such as to give strong ground to the belief that it was his love for Ann Boleyn, an English lady of high birth, and not conscientious scruples as to the lawfulness of his marriage with Catherine. The queen's beauty had faded and some disease, it is said, had rendered her person less agreeable. Still, to do Henry justice, it must not be concealed that his father had scrupled the legitimacy of the marriage; a foreign court had made it an objection to intermarriage with his children by his wife; and the people of England very generally entertained fears respecting the succession to his crown, and these political considerations doubtless had their influence.[44] Still it will not be denied that after the king had fallen in love with Ann Boleyn, his love for her and not political considerations, or religious scruples, was the incentive that prompted him to seek a divorce.
16. The Rupture with the Pope.—The pope, Clement VII, evaded a direct answer to Henry's appeal. Catherine was the aunt of Charles V, and perhaps Clement feared that he would offend that monarch—to whom he looked to suppress the Reformation in Germany—if he granted the divorce. Henry, impatient of these enforced delays, consulted the universities of Europe, and as most of them pronounced marriage with a deceased brother's wife unlawful, he divorced Catherine without the consent of the pope. A quarrel ensued between the king and the pontiff, which resulted in the former casting off the authority of the latter, and the pope excommunicated the king. In 1533 Henry was declared head of the British church and Defender of the Faith, by the English parliament. He thereupon ejected the monks from their possessions, disposed of their property at his own good pleasure, and abolished in toto the authority of the pope in England.
17. No other country in all Europe was so well prepared for the Sixteenth Century revolution as England. A century and a half before either Luther or Zwingle were heard of, John Wycliffe proclaimed against the corruption and abuses of the Catholic church, denounced the pope as anti-Christ,[45] and preached against the doctrine of transubstantiation. He also translated the Scriptures and circulated them among the common people. Two years before his death, however, he was summoned before a church council by which, notwithstanding he defended himself with great ability, many of his doctrines were condemned, and he himself was restricted in his ministry to the parish of Lutterworth, in Leicestershire, where he died. [See note 7, end of section.] His teachings, however, had made a deep impression upon his countrymen, and he left many followers, who were called by their opponents Lollards. The Lollards were a proscribed sect in England, and as they avoided persecution, but little was heard of them. Still they cherished the doctrines of their leader, and transmitted them to their children, so that when Luther and the other continental reformers began their work, there were many in England who sympathized with them; and when Henry VIII considered it to his interests to revolt against the authority of the pope, he found large numbers of his people not only ready to support him in casting off that authority, but anxious to go much farther in that revolt than the king desired. [See note 6, end of section.] They had viewed the rupture between the king and the pope with deep satisfaction; but they were soon to learn that the defection of the monarch was not to bring religious liberty to England, or establish there the doctrines of Wycliffe or Luther. It was but a change of masters that had taken place, and the king was as despotic as the pope. [See note 9, end of section.] Although Henry had thrown off the authority of the pontiff, he would tolerate but few changes in the forms and ceremonies of religion. More changes were introduced in the reign of Edward VI, the son of Henry VIII by Jane Seymore; and still more in the reign of Elizabeth, his daughter by Anne Boleyn.
18. The Puritans.—But these changes came far short of satisfying the English Protestants, who were called Puritans. They demanded almost a complete abolition of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church, which they denounced as idolatrous. The most of them favored the Presbyterian form of church government, or a still simpler method which would recognize each congregation as a complete church within itself. Those who contended for this more simple form of church government were called Independents. The puritans were frequently rude and clamorous in their demands for further reformation; and on their part the adherents of the established religion were intolerant, and persecuted to imprisonment, exile or death the Puritans. [See note 10, end of section.]
19. The Reformation in Scotland.—All things considered, the Reformation in Scotland—that is the overthrow of the authority of the pope—was accomplished with as little trouble as it was in England; and accompanied by less injustice to Catholics. In Scotland, as in England, the doctrines of Wycliffe had many silent adherents, and such was the frame of the popular mind that only the leadership of bold men was needed to make a successful revolt against the authority of the pope. That leadership was found in John Knox.[46] Knox was thirty-eight years of age when he openly declared himself a Protestant, and began his work of reform. About three years later Cardinal Beaton, a proud, arrogant man, and of course the head of the Catholic church in Scotland, was assassinated. His castle—St. Andrews—was taken possession of by the band of nobles and others who had murdered him, and it became for a time the stronghold of Protestantism. To this place Knox repaired, and there in the parish church of St. Andrews, first became famous as a preacher. In a short time, however, the fortress was surrendered, and Knox was sent to the French galleys a prisoner. After two years he was set at liberty, and allowed to depart for England, where he lived for years, on terms of intimacy with Cranmer and other English reformers. On the accession of Queen Mary,[47] Knox retired to Germany and Switzerland, residing chiefly in the latter place, where he learned and became attached to both the doctrines and form of church government taught by Calvin.
20. In 155, political necessity compelled the government in Scotland to become more lenient towards the nobles favoring the Reformation, and Knox returned to Scotland, where his impassioned denunciations of the idolatry of the mass and of image-worship aroused the pent-up enthusiasm of the people. Indeed the people went far beyond what Knox intended; riots ensued, churches and monasteries were destroyed, and the whole country, already suffering the evils of civil war, was plunged into greater disorder. At last, through the assistance of Queen Elizabeth, of England, a truce was proclaimed, and a parliament chosen to settle the troubles. The parliament met in 1560, and its deliberations resulted in the overthrow of the old religion, and the establishment of the "Reformed church," based on the doctrines and church polity of Calvin. In the midst of the harshness which attended the overthrow of the old religion there was a singular instance of moderation which will be looked for in vain in other countries where the reformation succeeded. According to Hallam, it was agreed in the settlement made by the parliament of 1560, "that the Roman Catholic prelates, including the regulars, should enjoy two-thirds of their revenues as well as their rank and seats in parliament; the remaining third being given to the crown, out of which stipends should be allotted to the protestant clergy."[48] "Whatever violence may be imputed to the authors of the Scots reformation," continues Mr. Hallam, "this arrangement seems to display a moderation which we would vainly seek in our own"[49]—the English reformation.
21. Unfortunately, as in England, after the authority and religion of the pope were overthrown in Scotland, the religious difficulties were far from settled. A controversy arose between the church and the crown on the subject of authority. It will be remembered that Calvin insisted that the church should be independent of the state,[50] and nowhere was it so strenuously insisted upon as in Scotland; not only did it demand of the secular authority freedom from interference, but assumed the right to reprove the king and his court, and that, too, in no guarded language. In 1854, Andrew Melville was summoned before the king's council, to give an account of some seditious language employed by him in the pulpit against the court. He declined the jurisdiction of the council on the ground that he was responsible only to the church for such language; and the king could not judge of the matter without violating the immunities of the church.[51]
22. The king and council, however, did not hesitate to declare the supremacy of the secular power, and thus was begun a controversy which, united with the attempts on the part of the sovereigns and parliament to restore the Episcopal form of church government, led to violent persecutions on the part of the secular authority, and to heroic resistance on the part of the people of Scotland. In that protracted struggle, persecuted by both parties with varying fortunes, the people were at last successful; though their victory was not secured for them until the Stuart line of monarchs were driven out of Scotland and England by the revolution of 1688, which dethroned James II of England and VII of Scotland, and placed William, Prince of Orange, and Mary, his wife, on the British throne.
23. The Discovery of America—Its Influence on Liberty.—It is significant that about the time of the "Revival of Learning" in Europe, America was discovered by Columbus, led hither by the inspiration of God. [Note 11, end of section.] Between this struggle for liberty in the Old World and the discovery of the New there was doubtless a providential connection. God knew there could be but a stunted growth of the tree of liberty in the Old World, hence he opened the way for it to be planted in a land more congenial to its growth. The whole continent of America is a land consecrated by the decrees of Almighty God to liberty, and the people who inhabit it are assured by that same decree of their freedom.[52] Hence when a fullness of liberty was denied the Puritans in England, they fled to America, and here found room for the planting of colonies where they could enjoy the liberty denied them in the Old World, and the founding of the New England colonies (now the New England States) was the result.
24. Catholics Seek Liberty in America.—Nor were the Puritans the only ones who sought liberty in the New World. Even the Catholics came; for they, no less than the Puritans, were persecuted in England. Sir George Calvert, whose title was Lord Baltimore, a Roman Catholic, desiring to establish a colony in America that would be a place of refuge for persecuted Catholics, obtained a charter for that territory comprised within the boundary lines of the state of Maryland. Before the charter was signed, Sir George died; but it was made out to his son Cecil, who carried out his father's designs. The charter granted to Lord Baltimore was unlike any which had hitherto passed the royal seal, in that it secured to all who should settle in the colony, religious liberty. That is, Christianity was the recognized religion, made so by the law of the land, but no preference was given to any sect or party.
25. Puritan Intolerance.—Unfortunately all the colonies were not founded in the same liberal spirit as Maryland. The Puritans themselves seemed not to have learned toleration by the persecutions they had suffered; but, on the contrary, when they found themselves possessed of power, they forgot right and persecuted all those not of their own way of thinking. This led to the founding of other colonies where greater religious liberty was granted; such as Pennsylvania, settled by the Quakers; Rhode Island, by Roger Williams, a Baptist, driven by Puritan intolerance from Massachusetts.
26. Common dangers, however, taught these colonists toleration. They were surrounded by hordes of savages, against whom they were compelled frequently to combine. The wars between the French and the English extended to their respective settlements in America, and this circumstance drove the English colonists together and taught them toleration. They were driven into a still closer union by the oppression of England, and forgot their religious differences in the presence of the great danger of losing all their freedom, civil as well as religious. When they had achieved their independence, and necessity and experience taught them that a national government—an indissoluble union of the colonies—must be formed, wisdom clearly suggested that the chief cornerstone of the new temple of liberty must be religious freedom. Hence in the constitution which they adopted, freedom to worship God according to the dictates of conscience is guaranteed. [See note 12, end of section.]
27. The Hand of God Manifested.—If in the rise of the great Roman Empire we see the hand of God preparing the way for the introduction of the gospel under the personal administration of the Son of God, that under the protection of that great government the apostles of Messiah might visit every land and deliver the glad tidings of great joy—if in this the hand of God is visible, it is equally clear that the meaning of this sixteenth century revolution which we have been considering, together with the subsequent founding of a great republic in the New World, pledged to the maintenance of religious liberty—it is clearly the meaning of all this that God was preparing the day for a restoration of the gospel—the ushering in of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. [See note 13, end of section.] That revolution of the sixteenth century was the first glimmerings of the dawn which heralded the approaching day; the light became clearer in America on the establishment of religious liberty under the Constitution of the United States; the sun rose when the Lord introduced the DISPENSATION OF THE FULLNESS OF TIMES by revealing himself and his Son Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith.
NOTES.
1. Zwingle.—Zwingle discovered the corruptions of the church of Rome, at an earlier period than Luther. Both opened their eyes gradually, and altogether without any concert; and without aid from each other. But Zwingle was always in advance of Luther in his views and opinions; and he finally carried the reformation somewhat farther than what Luther did. But he proceeded with more gentleness and caution, not to run before the prejudices of the people; and the circumstances in which he was placed did not call him so early to open combat with the powers of the hierarchy; Luther, therefore, has the honor of being the first to declare open war with the pope, and to be exposed to persecution. He also acted in a much wider sphere. All Germany, and even all Europe, was the theatre of his operations. Zwingle moved only in the narrow circle of a single canton of Switzerland. He also died young, and when but just commencing his career of usefulness. And these circumstances have raised Luther's fame so high that Zwingle has almost been overlooked.—Murdock.
2. Calvin.—John Calvin was born in the year 1509; and in his studies connected law with theology, studying the former at the command of his father, and the latter from his own choice; and from Melchoir Valmar, a German and professor of Greek at Bourges, he acquired a knowledge of the evangelican [reformed] doctrines. After the death of his father, he devoted himself wholly to theology, and publicly professed the reformed doctrine, which he spread in France with all diligence. His name soon became known in Switzerland as well as in France; and Farell and Viret [two Swiss reformers] besought him, as he was traveling through Geneva, to remain there and aid them in setting up the new church. But in the year 1538, great dissension arose in Geneva; and Calvin and his assistant, Farell, severely inveighed from the pulpit against the conduct of the council, which resolved to introduce the ceremonies agreed on at Bern, in the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, and to reject those which these ministers wished to have adopted: and the consequence was, that Calvin and Farell were banished from the republic. * * * But in the year 1541, at the pressing and repeated invitation of the Genevans, he returned to them again, and there officiated with great perseverance, zeal, prudence and disinterestedness, till his death in 1564. His great talents and virtues were shaded by the love of control, by a want of tenderness, and by a passionate vigor against the erring.—Schlegel.
3. The Reformation In France.—France was the first country where the reformation that commenced in Germany and Switzerland, very soon and under the severest oppressions, found many adherents. No country seems to have been so long and so well prepared for it as this; and yet here it met the most violent opposition; and nowhere was it later, before it obtained legal toleration. Nowhere did it occasion such streams of blood to flow; nowhere give birth to such dreadful and deadly civil wars. And nowhere have state policy, court intrigue, political parties and the ambition of greatness had so powerful an influence on the progress and fortunes of the reformation, as in France.—Schroeckh.
4. Massacre on St. Bartholomew's Eve.—During the civil wars which desolated France from the year 1560 up to the edict of Nantes—which secured religious toleration from the Protestants, 1598—occurred the massacre of St. Bartholomew's eve. A peace was concluded in 1570, by which toleration was granted the Protestants. The terms of the treaty were enforced with much apparent zeal by the French court, for the purpose, as Protestant writers claim, of lulling the Protestants into security preparatory to their assassination by order of the king. The bloody scene began at midnight of the 22nd of August, 1572. The signal for the beginning of the massacre was the tolling of the great bell of the palace. The scene of blood and murder continued for three days. During which time five hundred noblemen and about six thousand other Protestants were butchered in Paris alone. Orders were dispatched to all parts of the empire for a similar massacre everywhere. More than thirty thousand—some say seventy thousand—perished by the hands of the royal assassins; and the pope ordered a jubilee throughout Christendom.—Murdock.
5. The Decision to Introduce the "Reformed" Religion into Sweden.—This decision was the effect specially of the firmness and resolution of the king [Gustavus Vasa], who declared publicly that he would rather resign his crown and retire from the kingdom, than rule over a people subjected to the laws and authority of the Roman pontiff, and more obedient to their bishops than to their king.—Mosheim.
6. The Danish and Swedish Bishops Stripped of Power.—Violent measures were adopted, and the bishops, against their wills and their efforts to the contrary, were deprived of their honors, their prerogatives and their possessions. Yet this reformation (?) of the clergy in both those northern kingdoms, was not a religious, but a mere civil and secular transaction; and it was so necessary that it must have been undertaken if no Luther had arisen. For the bishops had by corrupt artifices got possession of so much wealth, so many cattle, such revenues and so great authority, that they were far more powerful than the kings, and were able to govern the whole realm at their pleasure; indeed they had appropriated to themselves a large portion of the patrimony of the kings and of the public revenues. Such therefore was the state both of the Danish and the Swedish commonwealths in the time of Luther, that either the bishops who shamefully abused their riches, their prerogatives and their honors must be divested of the high rank they held in the state, and be deprived of their ill-gotten wealth, or the ruin of those kingdoms, the irreparable detriment of the public safety and tranquility, and the sinking of their kings into contempt, with an utter inability to protect the people, must be anticipated.—Mosheim.
7. Wycliffe.—John Wycliffe, the greatest of all the "Reformers before the Reformation," was born in 1324, and is supposed to have been a native of the parish of Wycliffe, near the town of Richmond, Yorkshire. He studied at Oxford, but little is known of his university career. Wycliffe appears to have been a man of simple faith and of earnest and manly courage. He made a strong impression upon his age; an impression that was not effaced at the time of the Reformation. The Lollards, as his disciples were called, were to be found, not only among the poor, but in the church, the castle and even the throne. Wycliffe died in the year 1384.
8. England Prepared for the Reformation.—No revolution has been more gradually prepared than that which separated one half of Europe from the communion of the Roman see; nor were Luther and Zwingle any more than occasional instruments of that change which, had they never existed, would at no great distance of time been effected under the names of some other reformers. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the learned, doubtfully and with caution, the ignorant with zeal and eagerness, were tending to depart from the faith and rites which authority prescribed. But probably not even Germany was so far advanced on this course as England. Almost a hundred and fifty years before Luther, nearly the same doctrines as he taught had been maintained by Wycliffe, whose disciples usually called Lollards, lasted as a numerous though obscure and proscribed sect, till aided by the confluence of foreign streams, they swelled into the Protestant church of England. We hear, indeed, little of them during some parts of the fifteenth century, for they generally shunned persecution; and it is chiefly through records of persecution that we learn of the existence of heretics. But immediately before the name of Luther was known, they seem to have become more numerous, or to have attracted more attention; since several persons were burned for heresy, and others abjured their errors in the first years of Henry VIII's reign. Some of these, as usual among ignorant men, engaging in religious speculation, are charged with very absurd notions; but it is not so material to observe their peculiar tenets as the general fact that an inquisitive and sectarian spirit had begun to prevail.—Hallam's Const. Hist. England.
9. Henry VIII and his Revolt Against Rome.—Soon after Henry was declared by Parliament the only supreme head on earth of the church of England, the authority of the pope was finally abolished, and all tributes paid to him were declared illegal. But although the king thus separated from the church of Rome, he professed to maintain the Catholic doctrine in its purity, and persecuted the reformers most violently; so that while many were burned as heretics for denying the doctrines of Catholicism, others were executed for maintaining the supremacy of the pope. As therefore the earnest adherents of both religions were equally persecuted and equally encouraged, both parties were induced to court the favor of the king, who was thus enabled to assume an absolute authority over the nation, and to impose upon it his own doctrines as those of the only true church. * * * When news of these proceedings reached Rome, the most terrible fulminations were hurled by the pope against the king of England, whose soul was delivered over to the devil, and his dominions to the first invader; all leagues with Catholic princes were declared to be dissolved—his subjects were freed from their oaths of allegiance, and the nobility were commanded to take up arms against him. But these missives, which half a century before would have hurled the monarch from his throne and made him a despised outcast among his people, were now utterly harmless. The papal supremacy was forever lost in England.—Wilson, Hist. U. S., Appendix to Voyage and Discoveries, p. 153.
10. The Puritans.—The Puritan party professing to derive their doctrines directly from the scriptures, were wholly dissatisfied with the old church system, which they denounced as rotten, depraved and defiled by human inventions, and they wished it to undergo a thorough reform, to abandon everything of man's device, and adopt nothing, either in doctrine or discipline, which was not directly authorized by the word of God. Exceedingly ardent in their feelings, zealous in their principles, abhorring all formalism as destructive of the very elements of piety, and rejecting the regal as well as papal supremacy, they demanded in place of the liturgical service, an effective preaching of the gospel, more of the substance of religion, instead of what they denominated its shadows; and so convinced were they of the justness of their views and the reasonableness of their demands, that they would listen to no considerations which pleaded for compromise or delay.—Wilson, Hist. U. S. Appendix Voyage and Discoveries, p. 157.
11. Columbus Inspired of God.—And it came to pass that I looked and beheld many waters; and they divided the Gentiles from the seed of my brethren. And it came to pass that the angel said unto me, Behold the wrath of God is upon the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren who were in the promised land. And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity upon the many waters: * * * [and] I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise.—Nephi's Vision, Book of Mormon, ch. xiii:10-14.
12. Religious Liberty in the Constitution.—The parts of the United States Constitution which secure religious freedom are the clause in article vi, which says: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States;" and the first Amendment which says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof." Respecting these two clauses in the Constitution, Judge Story remarks: "We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity, (which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution), but to a dread by the people of the influence of ecclesiastical power in matters of government; a dread which their ancestors brought with them from the parent country, and which unhappily for human infirmity, their own conduct, after the emigration, had not, in any just degree, tended to diminish. It was also obvious, from the numerous and powerful sects existing in the United States, that there would be perpetual temptations to struggles for ascendency in the national councils, if any one might thereby hope to found a permanent and exclusive national establishment of its own; and religious persecutions might thus be introduced, to an extent utterly subversive of the true interests and good order of the Republic. The most effectual mode of suppressing the evil, in the view of the people, was to strike down the temptations to its introduction."
13. Hand of the Lord in the Establishment of the United States Government.—That the hand of Almighty God was in the work of founding the Government of the United States is plainly declared in one of the revelations to Joseph Smith: "It is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood." (Doc. and Cov. sec. ci: 79, 80.) Nor are thoughtful historians blind to the fact that the hand of God has had much to do with those revolutions which finally produced the great republic of the New World. Commenting on the war of the American Revolution, Marcus Wilson says: "The expense of blood and treasure which this war cost England was enormous; nor, indeed, did her European antagonists suffer much less severely. The United States was the only country that could look to any beneficial results from the war, and these were obtained by a strong union of opposing motives and principles, unequalled in the annals of history. France and Spain, the arbitrary despots of the Old World, had stood forth as the protectors of an infant republic, and had combined, contrary to all the principles of their political faith, to establish the rising liberties of America. They seemed but as blind instruments in the hands of Providence, employed to aid in the founding of a nation which should cultivate those Republican virtues that were destined yet to regenerate the world upon the principles of universal intelligence, and eventually to overthrow the time-worn system of tyrannical usurpation of the few over the many."
REVIEW.
1. Was the Reformation confined to Germany?
2. When did the Reformation first begin?
3. Who was the leader of the movement in Switzerland?
4. State what you can of the Reformation in Switzerland under Zwingle.
5. What fate befell the young Reformer?
6. State the chief difference in methods of work between Luther and Zwingle. (Note I.)
7. Who succeeded in the leadership of the Reformation in Switzerland?
8. Where and when was Calvin born?
9. State the points of difference in the views of Calvin and Zwingle.
10. Describe the Presbyterian system of church government.
11. Give a sketch of the life and character of Calvin. (note 2.)
12. State the several views of the Reformers in respect to the eucharist.
13. What difference existed between Calvin and Zwingle on the subject of predestination?
14. What can you say of the spread of Calvin's doctrine?
15. Describe the Reformation in France.
16. What can you say of the persecution of the Protestants in France? (Note 3.)
17. Give a description of the massacre of St. Bartholomew's eve.
18. State what you can of the Reformation in Sweden.
19. Tell how the Reformation in Sweden was accomplished.
20. On what ground can the king of Sweden and Denmark be justified in stripping the Catholic bishops of their power and wealth? (Note 5.)
21. Give an account of the Reformation in Holland.
22. What was the attitude of Henry VIII of England at the beginning of the Reformation in Germany?
23. What title did his defense of the Roman Catholic sacraments secure for him?
24. What circumstance was it that afterwards estranged Henry from the pope?
25. What was the conduct of Pope Clement VII in this controversy?
26. What course did Henry adopt?
27. What resulted from the king's conduct?
28. How did the friends of the Reformation in England receive the rupture of the king and pope?
29. Did the rupture between king and pope help the Reformation in England?
30. What were the Reformers in England called?
31. What were the demands of the Puritans in respect to religion? (Note 8.)
32. When denied religious liberty in England to what country did the Puritans go?
33. What influence on liberty did the discovery of America have?
34. What can you say of the inspiration of Christopher Columbus? (Note 9.)
35. What people besides Puritans sought religious liberty in the new world?
36. Give an account of the settlement of Maryland.
37. What can you say of Puritan intolerance?
38. What circumstances taught them, at least, partial toleration?
39. What power was working in all those changes which brought freedom to man? (Note 11.)
40. What was the object of enlarging the liberties of mankind?