hostile, it took its own course. Thus England would certainly have declared for Puritanism if Elizabeth had not seen political advantage in a show of Lutheranism. Few, indeed, of the sovereigns had much personal zeal for the Reformation-Edward VI. of England and Christian III. of Denmark excepted. In England and Scandinavia the Reformation was substantially a revolt of the laity, headed by the king, against the overgrown wealth of the Church and the vexatious claims of the priests; and this could not be carried through without a great reform of doctrine, for the pope's authority barred the way, and could not be overthrown without laying the whole Church system in ruins. In England, at least in London and the eastern counties, there was a party for doctrinal reform under Henry VIII., and similarly in Denmark and Sweden; but in Norway, where the scandals were fewer, there was less discontent with the Church; and in Iceland the new faith had to be established by violence. The Reformation was a popular movement in Germany and the United Provinces, and also in Scotland, where the scandals of the Church were especially flagrant. In England and Scandinavia the victory was gradual. Though Mary Tudor had made Romanism impossible, England became definitely Protestant only in the course of Elizabeth's long reign, and the issue was not beyond a doubt till the deposition of James II. In Sweden the Augsburg Confession was not formally adopted till 1593; and even now the Church is Evangelical'; but the nation had become thoroughly Lutheran when Sigismund was deposed in 1599 for bringing in a Polish army to restore the old religion. The danger was like that which faced England in 1688, and it was dealt with by similar laws. All holders of office were to be Lutherans, and only a Lutheran was to have any claim to the crown, such claim being forfeited if he married a papist. The marriage of John III. with Catherine Sagello caused nearly the same evils as that of Charles I. with Henrietta Maria a more or less Romanizing father and an avowed papist son, and a policy directly contrary to the best interests of the nation, a policy which | nothing but a lawless despotism could have carried

out.

Princes and nobles had long coveted the wealth of the Church; and under cover of the Reforma tion they were able to plunder it at leisure. The magnificence of the bishops might well have been cut down, though some of them, like Alcock and Merton in England, were princely benefactors; and men of serious religion were generally agreed that the wealth of the monasteries might be turned to better uses; but the actual plundering was shameless. Neither the suppression of religious houses, nor their suppression by the secular power, nor the use of their revenues for secular purposes, was a novelty of the Reformation. The pope himself abolished the Templars in 1312, and many houses came to an end or were amalgamated with others for want of inmates after the Black Death. In England the alien priories were granted to Henry v. in 1415, and their wealth was partly used for the French war, though some of it remained for Henry VI.'s foundations of Eton and King's College. In fact, it was the habit of founders like Alcock and Wolsey to secure the revenues of some decayed houses. The only novelty of the Reformation was the extent of the suppressions and the undisguised rapacity of princes and nobles.

In Germany the great sees were filled by nobles, and in the later Middle Ages became something like apanages of the princely houses; and such they remained till the general secularization of

1802. Thus the sees of Osnabrück and Minden were commonly held by younger sons of Brunswick and Brandenburg, and Köln itself was given to cadets of the Wittelsbachs from 1583 to 1761. But in the reformed states the sovereign rights of sees were abolished, and the titular bishops were laymen and lived as laymen. The case was similar with the monasteries. The Duke of York, son of George III., was bishop of Osnabrück from his infancy till 1802, the commentator Bengel was abbot of Alpirspach, and a sister of Frederick II. closed the long line of abbesses of Quedlinburg. In some cases, however, the bishops were abolished. In Sweden Gustavus Vasa could plead dire necessity; and the Recess of Westerås (1527) placed in his hands the whole property of the Church. He took the castles of the bishops and some of their estates. The monasteries were partly taken by the king, partly granted to the nobles, and those founded since 1454 were resumed by the heirs of the founders. But there was no violence. Monks and nuns were free to stay or leave; and one or two houses struggled on till 1595. In Denmark the estates of the bishops were given to Christian III. in 1536, but the royal power was not strengthened as in Sweden and England. The gain fell to the nobles, as in Scotland.

In England the monasteries fell first. They were granted to the Crown, the smaller houses in 1536, the larger in 1539. Some of the property was used for six new bishoprics and other foundations, or for the defence of the realm; but the larger part was granted or sold on easy terms to men in favour at court. Thus a new nobility was formed, pledged to the new order of things. But the monasteries had appropriated the tithes of many parishes on condition of providing for the services; and this right and this obligation came to the new owners. So far then the parishes lost nothing; and, if the new impropriators were laymen who frankly treated the tithes and advowsons as private property, they did no more than the monks had done before them. It was the same with the chantries, which became meaningless when it was declared by the Ten Articles of 1536 that masses cannot deliver souls from purgatory, and were suppressed in 1547. The parishes, however, lost much by the suppression of pilgrimages, relics, and other lucrative superstitions; and the churches were sadly defaced, and sometimes brought into a ruinous condition by the rough removal, especially in 1559, of images, roods, and other monuments of superstition. The bishoprics fared worst of all. Under Somerset and Northumberland, and again under Elizabeth, every vacancy was an excuse for spoliation, and the new bishop was not admitted till he had given up manors, perhaps receiving a poor compensation for them. Most of Elizabeth's bishops died in debt to the Crown, and left their families destitute; and the process was stopped only by the Act of 1604, which disabled bishops from making such exchanges with the Crown. But the spoliation was not all the work of Protestants; something must be allowed for the systematic dilapidations of the Marian bishops before they were deprived in 1559. They left Salisbury, for instance, in a beggarly state. This Capon hath devoured all,' said Jewel.

Coming now to the differences of the Reformed Churches, we note first that, though_Lutherans, English, and Calvinists were in general agreement on the three great doctrines of justification, predestination, and the supremacy of Scripture, yet each of them laid the stress differently from the others. The Lutherans made justification by faith the articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ, while the Calvinists gathered their conceptions of right

belief round predestination and election. The English Church made no such distinctive doctrine avowedly central, but the central place was practically held by the supremacy of Scripture. Now this means that Lutheranism was essentially conservative. It removed practical hindrances to true religion-and they were many-but had no special interest in further changes. Luther's was the genius of vivid insight, not of systematic thought, so that he changed only when and so far as he was obliged to change. The English Church was conservative too, but more logical and systematic; and by its emphatic disavowal of any reception in the Lord's Supper which is not only after an heavenly and spiritual manner it was enabled to deal more boldly with the Mass and the ceremonies generally. Calvinism stands apart from the others, for the individualism which to them was fundamental was to the Calvinists only an inference from their really fundamental doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God. On that doctrine their whole system was moulded, and everything that seemed to conflict with it was ruthlessly swept away. The older the error, the more dangerous it was; and the more innocent the 'rags of popery' seemed, the more they were to be suspected. Hence the Calvinists were much less conservative than the Lutherans or the English. If the old system went about to establish the righteousness of man against the sovereign grace of God, as it undoubtedly did, they were disposed to count it not only false in principle, but bad in all its details. The farther from Rome, the nearer to Christ.

These different ways of thinking were reflected in the different forms of Church government which always seem the chief things to the natural man. In the Church of the Middle Ages there were priests to offer sacrifice for the living and the dead, and these priests were ordained by bishops, who were themselves consecrated by other bishops who were supposed to trace their spiritual descent in an unbroken succession to the apostles. Thus ordination, consecration, and apostolic succession (three legal questions) were vital. The Reformed Churches all abolished sacrificing priests, but all (except the Quakers) had a regular ministry, and all but the Socinians and some outliers required for it a regular call by the lawful authority of the Church, usually with admission by prayer and laying on of hands-for edification and solemnity, not as impressing any sacramental or indelible character. But here again Calvinism stands apart. To the Lutherans and the English Church government was a matter which every Church must determine for itself. No form of government and no ceremony of worship is officially held to be ordained of God. However ancient or edifying it may be, it is still only an ordinance of men, which may by men be altered or abolished. So they used their discretion in various manners. Luther's insistence on the universal priesthood implied the sanctity of the State, so that the civil ruler was the natural representative and ruler of the Church also. Thus Lutheran churches have commonly been Erastian, seldom giving serious trouble to princes who did not try to force them into Romanism or Calvinism. The old services and ceremonies (e.g., altar, vestments, etc.) they generally retained, only translating them into the vulgar tongue, and removing or explaining superstitions and excrescences. As regards Episcopacy, they had no objection of principle to it. The Confession of Augsburg says:

It is not our object to have the bishops deprived of their authority. The one thing we ask is that they will allow the Gospel to be purely preached, and relax a few observances which cannot be kept without sin' (pt. ii. § 7).

But, when the bishops refused, the results were various. In Germany the spiritual office was abolished, and the princes took over the general government of their churches. The bishops had consistory courts where lawyers and divines sat together; and these, with extensions and modifications, became the chief subordinate authorities. In Denmark the bishops were equally intractable, and played a great part in the civil war after the death of Frederick I. So, as soon as Christian III. had captured Copenhagen in 1536, he arrested the bishops, and set them free only after their jurisdiction had been abolished by the National Assembly and the goods of the Church given up to the king. Then Christian appointed seven superintendents to work under himself as summus episcopus, and these were consecrated, not by bishops, but by Luther's friend Bugenhagen, and soon took the title of bishops. There was no consistory. Sweden was more conservative. There again the bishops were intractable, but Gustavus Vasa mastered the Church once for all at the Riksdag of Westerås in 1527; and Brask of Linköping, the champion of the old order, left the country in despair. The vast estates of the bishops, the chapters, and the monasteries were placed at the king's disposal. But the change was gentle and gradual: there were no martyrs on either side. The Mass was translated into Swedish and the ceremonies were explained. Unction, e.g., was only a symbol of the inward unction by the Spirit. The forms of Church government were very little changed. The old bishops were gradually replaced by Lutherans, chosen by the clergy and consecrated by other bishops. Even the apostolic succession seems to have been preserved (though this is disputed) by the unwilling hands of Petrus Magni of Westerås, though the Swedish Church leaves its spiritual value an open question. There was no central consistory-Gustavus Adolphus tried in vain to establish one-but parish priests are appointed by the bishops, and all dignitaries must have the king's approval.

The English Reformation took generally the same course as the Swedish, though the changes and the reactions were much more violent. The Tudors were stronger than the Vasas, and the antagonisms between Papalists and Nationalists, and between Catholics and Reformers, were much sharper than in Sweden. The English Church was Erastian because it was national, and therefore fitly represented by the civil power, and because further the dangerous political situation after the separation from Rome induced the English people to give Henry VIII. a practical dictatorship. Thus the strong monarchy of the Tudors was raised to its height by the Reformation. Henry VIII. mastered the Church once for all at the Submission of the Clergy' in 1532. The king was acknowledged as Head of the Church-Supreme Head; convocation was not to make or even to discuss any new canon without the king's permission, and, if the election of bishops remained with the chapters, they could elect none but the king's nominees. The king's supremacy was not exercised through a consistory, but in a harsher form by Cromwell as Vicar-general. Elizabeth took the less offensive title of Supreme Governor,' though she claimed the same powers as her father, and exercised them through the Court of High Commission (not fully organized till 1583), which was substantially a central consistory. She carefully preserved not only the rite of consecration but the apostolic succession. She may have cared for it as little as Gustavus Vasa, but its political value was evident, especially when it suited her to pose like a Lutheran prince prescribing the religion of his subjects according to the Peace of Augsburg.

Thus the English Church has it as a matter o fact, but has nowhere officially declared it to have any spiritual value. Indeed, it was not supposed to have any before the rise of the Carolines, which s commonly dated from Bancroft's sermon in 1589. There is no mention even of Episcopacy in the English definition (Art. 19) of the Church; and, though no one has been allowed since 1662 to minister without episcopal ordination, this is given simply as a domestic rule 'in the Church of Eng. land, and passes no censure on churches which otherwise ordain. In Church government then the English were as conservative as the Swedes; in public worship they took a bolder line. The various books and the local uses were consolidated into the single national Book of Common Prayer in English for congregational use. The services were generally simplified, and the excessive number of the ceremonies was much reduced. Morning and Evening Prayer in 1549 contained little that was not in the Hours, and the Marriage Service is even now nearly what it was in the Middle Ages, nor was the Mass itself entirely changed. It was translated and much simplified; but it was still said by a priest in a vestment at an altar, and still provided for private confession and absolution. Its doctrine was upon the whole a spiritual Presence, but it was quite consistent with consubstantiation, though Gardiner needed a good deal of special pleading to get transubstantiation into it. But in 1552 the Prayer-Book was 'godly perused' and revised. Invocation of saints and prayers for the dead were entirely removed. The Service of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion' was now to be said by a priest or minister in a surplice at the Holy Table. It provided for spiritual help and ghostly counsel, but individual confession was limited to the visitation of the sick, and even there was neither private nor compulsory. Moreover, the whole structure of the service was changed for the deliberate purpose of disavowing every sort of Presence that is not purely spiritual. Every passage quoted by Gardiner was altered. The Canon of the Mass was broken up into three parts. The prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church was limited to the living, the prayer of consecration was brought close to the administration in order to prevent eucharistic adoration,' and the oblation of the elements was turned into an oblation of ourselves, our souls and bodies' after the elements had been consumed. Thus in public worship the English made greater changes than the Swedes.

It will be noted that in N. Germany, in Sweden, and in England the new churches were or soon became national, not simply as independent of Rome, but as true expressions of national character. Luther was so intensely German that his influence continued to dominate the North, even after the inroad of Calvinism in the latter half of the 16th century. In Sweden the new religion owed its consolidation to the services of Gustavus Vasa, the reaction against John III. and Sigismund, and the work of the great kings of the 17th century. Dissenters were always very few, and even now they are less than one per cent. In England the transition was during the peace of Elizabeth. A nation which in 1558 was hardly more than disgusted with the fires of Smithfield had become firmly Protestant when it confronted Spain in 1585, and never wavered afterwards. Even the Carolines (except a few creatures of Charles I.) were heartily opposed to Rome. But from the beginnings of Christianity in England there was a cleavage of religious thought and feeling. The side which was always dominant, except in the time of the Civil War, preferred the regular and stately services of a national Church. The other,

represented in successive ages by friars, Lollards, Puritans, and Dissenters, leaned to the freer ministrations and looser order of local congregations. The Reformers endeavoured, and for a moment successfully, to bring the whole nation into a single Church. That hope was wrecked by the tyranny of Bancroft and Laud; and, if the tyranny of the Commonwealth made the Church thoroughly popular, the tyranny of the Restoration shut out men who stood for one whole side of the religious life of England. It condemned the Church to be a sect, yet a sect in which the other side is not forgotten. That it is the most national of the sects is shown at once by its powerful influence on English Dissenters and by its conspicuous failure to win the Celts of Wales and Cornwall.

Unlike the Lutheran and the English Churches were the Reformed. One marked historic differ ence is that they had the secular power against them everywhere but in the cities of the southwest-roughly, from Frankfurt and Lindau to Geneva. Where that power was friendly, they were guided and controlled by burghers instead of princes; where it was hostile, they had to form their churches as the early Christians did, according to their own conceptions of doctrine and expediency. As the Romish sacerdotalism created an aristocracy of priests who alone could dispense the necessary means of grace, so the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination created an aristocracy of the elect, for whom alone Christ died, who alone received saving grace and alone properly constituted the Church. This aristocracy was created not by some visible rite of ordination, but by God's eternal counsel secret to us, so that it could not form a visible class in the Church. The chief of sinners might be of the elect, and an apparent saint might prove a reprobate. So, while the distinction of priest and layman was denied, the acknowledged difference of elect and reprobate had to be ignored in the organization of the churches. Calvinism is indeed an inspiring creed-that God has foreknown me from all eternity, and sent me forth to do in His strength and not my own the work predestinated for me before the foundation of the world. It is the creed of the strong, as asceticism is the creed of the weak, when neither the one nor the other can rise to the higher faith, that Christ died for all men, and not in vain. It is only a halftruth, and, like other forms of the opinion of necessity, it must be treated in practice as if the limitation were false. As every Calvinist in his right mind believes himself to be elect like the boy in the English Catechism, he must presume that his neighbours also are elect, though he believes that some of them are not. It was like our own very necessary convention that our neighbours are honourable men, though we know that there are knaves among them. Önly, a knave can sometimes be found out, a reprobate never. Hence a Reformed Church was in theory a democracy, with all spiritual authority deriving from the people. This principle was extended to civil authority by the English Independents in 1647, though the Commonwealth could not carry it out. vailed in America, where it was favoured by colonial conditions, and from America it was brought back to France, and became the basic principle of the Liberal movement of the last century. This principle would seem to require a free Church independent of the State; and to this ideal the Reformed doctrine pointed almost as clearly as the Romish. But the condition of freedom is persecution. The State cannot refuse to decide questions of Church property for any sect which is tolerated, and cannot decide them without judicial interpretations of its confessions and deeds of settlement. Hence the Reformed Churches

It pre

became subject to the State the moment they had mastered it. The burghers of Zürich or Amsterdam or the Lords of the Congregation in Scotland might be the stoutest of Protestants; but they were determined to keep the ministers in their place, and allow no such clerical rule as that from which the Reformation had delivered them. They had no objection of principle-the Germans have none now, and the English had none then-to what we should consider a most vexatious interference with private life. They were used to it. Every town was full of sumptuary laws and minute regulations on all sorts of subjects, and a few more or less made little difference. But there was more than this. Calvin's high estimate of the Lord's Supper and of the primitive Church led him to demand the restoration of the primitive discipline and its enforcement by the secular power; and in this the Reformed Churches generally, including the English, were more or less inclined to agree with him. They had some reason. Public morals were in a dreadful state, and this was keenly felt, now that the new preaching had roused the public conscience, which the medieval Church had so debauched with formal righteousness and easy payments for sin that the foulest crimes passed with no more censure than in the old pagan times. The new discipline was hideously severe and did infinite mischief; but it was hardly more severe than the old would have been, if the Church had not preferred to make a traffic in sin. It was at least impartial. Magnates and even ministers had to do their public penance like other sinners. Neither the ministers of Geneva, nor the Scottish Kirk, nor the High Commission in England showed any respect of persons. None the less the system hardened the saints with formalism and spiritual pride, and drove the sinners to hypocrisy or despair. It was long before the Reformed Churches could shake off the belief taken over from the Middle Ages that it was their duty to punish sin as sin with spiritual censures enforced by temporal penalties. But laymen were jealous of this dangerous power of excommunication, and moderate churchmen like Bullinger disowned it. In German Switzerland it was not allowed at all; in French Switzerland (even in Geneva) and in Scotland it was not entrusted to purely clerical authorities. In England the frequency of excommunication and its misuses for secular offences were a standing grievance against the early Stuarts; and the endeavour of the Presbyterians to introduce the Scottish discipline was foiled by the lawyers, the Independents, and the nation generally.

On the other hand, there was a doctrine which often partly counteracted the natural dependence of a dominant sect upon the State. The holiness of the Church was nowhere more of a living truth than in the Reformed Churches, for they believed as firmly as any Romanist that it was ordained of Christ and guided by His Holy Spirit. Eternal predestination was a still mightier inspiration than the august tradition claimed by Rome, and there was no double standard of priests or monks to shelter common sinners from its fullest claims. So the ministers could stand up as boldly as any popes or bishops against wickedness in high places, and they did so with a courage which, though not wanting, was less often seen in the more courtly Lutheran and English Churches. The Reformed had much more trial of persecution than the Lutherans, for the Peace of Augsburg left them alone to fight the hardest of the battle against the treachery of the savage Catholic revival. Small wonder if their zeal was often fierce and narrow, quarrelsome and overscrupulous. But they are not fully represented by such extremists as Puritans, Covenanters, and Camisards, who were

more or less demoralized by Stuart or Bourbon tyranny. If we look to more peaceful churches like those of Zürich or Strassburg, or even Geneva, or to the early stages of the Reformation in Scotland, we shall find greater moderation. Calvin himself charged the English Liturgy of 1552 with nothing worse than tolerabiles ineptias, and the Scots used one like it (with ceremonies omitted and some freedom to the minister) till they were disgusted with all forms of prayer by the attempt of Laud and Charles to force an English form upon them. Bucer and even Laski urged Hooper in 1550 not to refuse the episcopal vestments, and in Elizabeth's time Bullinger and Gualter gave plain counsel to the Puritans. The surplice, they said, was not used at Zürich, and they did not like it; but the queen's enforcement of it was no reason for giving up their ministry. In one direction the Reformed Churches far excelled the rest. The appeal to Scripture made the study of Scripture a duty for all according to their powers; so that instruction in religion had to be both deeper and more general than heretofore. The Reformers were conspicuously learned Luther himself was the greatest of German teachers; Cranmer and Jewel were above comparison with their opponents; and Calvin was not only the best patristic scholar of his time, but the greatest commentator since Augustine. However they may have erred, it was not for want of diligent and faithful study of Scripture with all helps thereunto then attainable. And this learning they sought to spread among the people. They translated the Bible, urged all to read it, and shaped the services for instruction as well as for devotion. The English Reformers did what they could, but were hindered by the rapacity of the nobles, who were much more inclined to plunder the old schools than to found new, and, moreover, saw no need of education for the lower classes. The Lutherans were less thorough in this as in other matters, and soon lost themselves in a jungle of controversies. The Calvinists did better. Geneva under Calvin and Beza was the centre of Protestant learning, and the village schools established by Knox and Melville gave Scotland such a system of general education as England has reached only in our own time.

men.

never

4. Results of the Reformation.-We are now in a position to survey the Reformation as a whole, and form some estimates of its results. Shortly, national Churches replaced the catholic Church, Scripture became the standard instead of tradition, and the individual gradually gained first religious, then civil, liberty. This was a revolution, and the greatest since the rise of Christianity, so that it called forth the most violent opposition, and was the occasion for enormous evils-the savage persecutions and wars of religion, the desolation of the Netherlands and Germany, and a long severance of the comity of Europe, north and south. Strict Romanists and strict Protestants were heartily allied till 1686, and the embers of religious hatred are not yet quenched. Even now the pope visibly prefers infidel Germany to heretic England. To the Reformation we owe further the religious divisions of N. Europe, the multitudinous sects of England and America, involving scandals without end to the unbelievers, and also the whole school of rationalists from Deism and the Aufklärung to the latest extravagances of the Germans and their imitators. To the Reformation again we owe the Tridentine reaction which (with some reform of scandals) consolidated the medieval system into a firm barrier against all freedom in S. Europe. The age of the Jesuits and the Inquisition was brought to an end in the 18th cent. by the philosophic despots and the French Revolution, only to

be followed by something lower still. If there was much honest ignorance in the Middle Ages, there is much organized falsehood now.

Of all these evils the Reformation was the occasion, and of some the cause; and to these we may add the mischief done in the suppression of the monasteries and in the corruption of the upper classes by the plunder of the Church, the mischiefs caused by the too great subservience of the Lutheran and English Churches to the State. We now look at the other side. The abolition of a mischievous and sometimes unfriendly foreign authority gave the nations freedom to develop themselves, and made better order possible in both Church and State. What were scandals in the 18th cent. were matters of course in the 15th. National character became stronger and more earnest, and gained a new sense of duty from the new responsibility laid on every man when the new teaching abolished auricular confession, swept away a vast amount of superstition, and trading on superstition, and removed the poison from family life by its emphatic rejection of the ascetic ideal; and all this was summed up in a rational worship constantly challenging comparison with an open Bible. Yet all this was but the prelude of the mighty evolution. The depth of meaning in the principles of the Reformation was reached slowly and through many conflicts, and is not exhausted yet. The Reformers were men of their own time, and took over from the Middle Ages many beliefs inconsistent with their own principles. They took over the old imperial conception of God as a despot in heaven, the old view of the gospel as a law of commands, the old belief in a rigid visible Church which could allow no dissent, and the old reliance on a penitential discipline enforced by the State. All these are finally inconsistent with the individualism of the Reformation. A God who calls on us to judge the righteous judgment cannot be despotic, so that despotism and slavery on earth | stand condemned. A gospel of free forgivenessin technical language, justification by faithcannot allow a visible Church with no salvation outside it. If freedom from Rome did not at once bring freedom in religion, it made the coming of that freedom certain by throwing back on every man the burden of seeking for truth from which the Church had relieved him. And freedom in the highest sphere carried freedom in the lower, sometimes even for countries which rejected the Reformation as well as Rome. The supremacy of conscience proclaimed by the Reformation meant freedom first for heterodoxy. Persecution on a large scale was made impossible in Germany by the Peace of Westphalia, in England by the Revolution, in France by Voltaire and the Constituent Assembly. But it meant also political freedom, and the growth of freedom is bringing the whole conception of government into better accord with the divine ideal of goodness and unselfishness. All Protestant states except retrograde Germany are seeking justice, and the Catholic states nearly in proportion to their independence of Rome. The freedom won for criticism and science has been the occasion for many excesses; but the broad result emerging is confusion to the twin powers of agnosticism inside and outside the Christian Church. Above all, the free appeal to history has shown that the gospel is vaster and more varied, freer and more loving, than our fathers knew. The Reformation opened the way to a vision of God; and the vision of God is the inspiration of men.

LITERATURE. [Dr. Gwatkin had finished this article, but had not added the literature, before his death. The following list has been prepared by the Editors.] The writings of the Reformers and the works of leading Church historians may be consulted for the history proper of

the Reformation. Exhaustive lists of authorities will be found in the bibliographies attached to The Cambridge Modern History, i-iii., Cambridge, 1902-04. In vol. i., The Renais sance, the section by W. Barry, describing Catholic Europe,' may be referred to, and that by H. C. Lea, on 'The Eve of the Reformation,' is also valuable. Vol. ii., The Reformation, gives Vol. iii., entitled The Wars of Religion, deals with those inter the history of the movement in the different countries of Europe. national and other conflicts which owe their origin to the Reformation.

Among books in which the ethical and other principles involved in the Reformation are unfolded may be mentioned: C. Beard, The Reformation in its Relation to Modern Thought (HL), London, 1883; A. E. Berger, Die Kulturaufgaben der Reformation2, Berlin, 1908; F. von Bezold, Gesch. der deutschen Reformation, do. 1890; G. Bonet-Maury, Les Précur seurs de la Réforme et de la liberté de conscience, Paris, 1904; Lord Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, new and revised ed., London, 1904; M. Creighton, Hist. of the Papacy from the Great Schism to the Sack of Rome, new ed., 6 vols., do. 1901; A. Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, Eng. tr., from 3rd German ed., do. 1894-99, vol. vii.; P. Imbart de la Tour, Les Origines de la Reforme, 2 vols., Paris, 1905-09; J. Janssen, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters12-16, 8 vols., Freiburg im Br., 1891-94, Eng. tr., 16 vols., London, 1896-1910; J. Köstlin, Martin Luther: sein Leben und seine Schriftens, ed. G. Kawerau, 2 vols., Berlin, 1903; T. M. Lindsay, A Hist. of the Reformation, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1906; Luther, First Principles of the Reformation (the Ninety-five Theses and Three Primary Works of Luther), tr. and ed. with introds., H. Wace and C. A. Buchheim, London, 1883; A. O. Meyer, Studien zur Vorgesch. der Reformation, Munich, 1903; L. von Ranke, 1839-47, Eng. tr., 3 vols. (no more published), London, 1845-47 Deutsche Gesch. im Zeitalter der Reformation, 6 vols., Berlin, E. Troeltsch, 'Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche der Neuzeit,' in Kultur der Gegenwart, 1. iv. i., Leipzig, 1905; C. Ullmann, Reformatoren vor der Reformation2, 2 vols., Gotha, 1866, Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1874-77 H. B. Workman, The Dawn of the Reformation, London, 1901-02.

The Roman Catholic view of the Reformation, its causes and its consequences, is set forth in the following: H. S. Denifle, Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwickelung2, 2 vols., Mainz, 1904-09; F. A. Gasquet, The Eve of the Reformations, London, 1905; H. Grisar, Luther, tr. E. M. Lamond, ed. L Cappadelta, 6 vols., do. 1913-17: L. von Pastor, Gesch. der Papste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, 6 vols., Freiburg im Br., 1886-1913, Eng. tr., 12 vols., London, 1891-1912. See also artt. CALVINISM, HUGUENOTS, HUSSITES, LUTHER,

H. M. GWATKIN.

PAPACY, PROTESTANTISM, WESTERN CHURCH. REFORMATORIES. - See CRIMINOLOGY, JUVENILE Criminals.

REFORMED BAPTISTS.-See DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.

REFORMED CHURCHES.-See PROTES

TANTISM.

REFORMED CHURCH IN AMERICA.-1. The name and its meaning.—At first the churches of this body were addressed as 'the Reformed Dutch Churches in New York and New Jersey.' In 1789 the title, 'the Reformed Dutch Churches in North America,' was given. The minutes of Synod at the adoption of the Constitution use the term, the Dutch Reformed Church in North America.' But the name on the title-page of the first edition of the Constitution, printed in 1793, is the Reformed Dutch Church in the United States of America.' The same title appears on the second edition of 1815. In subsequent editions it is 'the Reformed Dutch Church of North America.' The act of incorporation of the Synod in 1819 gives the name as the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church.' In these terms the history and geographical position of the Church are outlined. It was Protestant' in contrast with Roman Catholicism. It was 'Reformed' because it belonged to the school of Calvin rather than to that of Luther. It was 'Dutch' because Holland was the country of its origin. The expressions America,' 'North America,' and 'United States' give the country of its development. In process of time the title was considered cumbersome, and the word 'Dutch' inappropriate, since the membership had become thoroughly American. the name was therefore changed to 'the Reformed Church in America.'

In 1867