CHAPTER XXI.

THE FOREIGN REFORMATION.

A.D. 1517-1839.

HE enormous power usurped by the popes, and the abuses in its exercise, at length paved the way for its own subversion, and for the Reformation. Never were its exactions and abuses so excessive as in the time of what is called the great schism, from 1378 to 1414, when Europe was divided under the domination of rival popes, one of whom resided at Avignon in France, and was acknowledged pope by France and Spain; while the other, who resided at Rome, was obeyed by the rest of Europe. The papacy was greatly lowered in public estimation by this division; and France, on more than one occasion, withdrew itself from the obedience of both popes. The contests which arose between the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, in the early part of the fifteenth century, and the popes, in which each party asserted its own infallibility, and its superiority to the other, excited a spirit of inquiry.

The council of Pisa was called together in 1409 by many of the cardinals of the two contending popes, in order to put an end to the schism. In this council both popes were deposed, and a third was elected; but this measure only increased the division; for there were now three rival popes, each of whom excommunicated and deposed his opponents and all their adherents. This division was terminated by the council of Constance in 1414, when one of the rival popes was degraded, another

resigned, and a third sunk into obscurity and insignificance, after the election of a new pope, who was acknowledged by all Europe. The council of Basil in 1437 having made reforms which were disliked by pope Eugenius IV., the latter called a rival council at Florence; on which he was deposed by the council of Basil in 1439, and a rival pope was elected; but this division did not last long. "The REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH, in its head and members," was now one of the objects avowed by every considerable council that assembled. Wickliffe had, in the preceding century, declaimed against the popes and against several abuses; and he was closely followed by Huss, and Jerome of Prague: but their opinions were mingled with much that was exceptionable; and they seem to have been unfitted rightly to conduct the mighty work of reformation. The revival of learning in the fifteenth century was the great forerunner of improvement. Men now began to study the writings of the fathers, which had only been known at second-hand, from the books of Lombard and Gratian. The introduction of the Greek and Hebrew languages (entirely unknown during the middle ages) rendered the study of Scripture in the originals possible; and the scholastic writers began to lose their credit with men of education.

At length the Reformation began; but not as it could have been desired; not promoted by the heads of the Church, not regulated by the decrees of councils. An individual monk in Saxony was made the involuntary instrument by which this great work was set on foot. Martin Luther, an Augustinian friar, when he declaimed against the scandalous sale of indulgences by the papal agent Tetzel, in 1517, had little notion of opposing the papal supremacy, or reforming the Church. He simply rejected with

indignation the notion, that by purchasing certain indulgences, the soul was to be freed from torments after death; and reminded men that indulgences were originally nothing more than the remission of canonical penance in this life. When assailed by Eckius and many others with the most furious violence, he was led to further investigation; and he shewed, in his conference with Eckius, in 1519, that the Roman Church had not originally any supremacy over the universal Church. He, however, testified to the pope his earnest desire for peace, and submitted himself entirely to him: but when Luther declined to retract, without any discussion, whatever Cardinal Cajetan might censure in his doctrine, the pope, notwithstanding his submissive tone, and his protestations that he did not intend any separation from the Church, excommunicated him and his favourers, in 1521.

Luther, and his friends Melancthon, Carlostadt, and all who were of the same sentiments, were thus separated from the communion of the pope, and of his adherents in Germany, not voluntarily, or by their own act. They were now, however, able to examine and to speak more freely; and a strong controversy immediately arose, in which the prevalent errors and superstitions were assailed unsparingly; while every effort was made by the Romish party to procure the extirpation and destruction of their opponents. The Lutheran party were protected by the electors of Saxony and Brandenburg, and many other princes and states in Germany; and they continually called for the assembling of a free and general council, to whose decision they offered to submit themselves. In the meantime, various abuses were corrected in the churches of those states, and a temporary system of Church-government was established by the Lutherans, which they intended to be re

placed by the ordinary episcopal government, when the council had arranged their disputes, and they should be united again to the Church. But Provi

dence forbade the accomplishment of their wishes: an arrangement which the contending parties had come to in the diet or parliament of Spires in 1526, and which left the Lutheran states free to regulate their own ecclesiastical affairs until the general council could be called together, was set aside by a new diet at the same place, in 1529, in which all alterations were prohibited by a majority of votes. The Lutheran princes and states entered A PROTEST against this edict, and from this they were termed PROTESTANTS. The term Protestant, therefore, does not properly signify a protest against the errors of the Church of Rome, but against the edict of Spires. It belongs properly to the Lutherans, by whom in fact it is claimed, as being peculiarly their own; while the Church of England has never applied the term to herself, nor ever used it in any of her formularies. It came gradually, however, to be applied to all who were in favour of the Reformation. In the following year (1530) a diet was convened at Augsburg, by the Emperor Charles V., with the intent of terminating these differences. The Lutheran party here presented their confession of faith, which has since been called the Confession of Augsburg, and which contains a brief summary of the Christian doctrine, together with their objections to the chief errors and superstitions then prevalent. It professes a belief in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the decree of the synod of Nice, and rejects the Manichæan, Arian, Sabellian, and other heresies; acknowledges that man is naturally sinful; that we cannot be justified by our own merits, but only through Christ; that there is need of the

sacred ministry in the Church; that good works and obedience to God are necessary; that baptism is requisite to salvation, and that children ought to be baptised; that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and received by those who partake of the Lord's supper; that private absolution should be retained, but that it is not necessary to confess every particular sin to a priest; that the Church may absolve those who truly repent; that faith is necessary to receive the sacrament rightly; that man cannot do good works without the aid of the Holy Ghost; and that the memory of the saints should be honoured, but that they ought not to be invoked or assistance sought from them, because the Scripture declares that Christ is our only mediator, propitiation, priest, and intercessor.

The Confession of Augsburg, having thus stated the belief and doctrine of the Lutheran party, next proceeds to remark on the abuses to which they objected as "novel, and contrary to the intention of the canons" or laws of the Church. They objected to the recent abuse of giving the bread only in the eucharist; to the celibacy of the clergy, which had produced such great abuses, and which was enforced by capital punishments; to the use of an unknown language in public service; to the system of paying for masses, and to those private or solitary masses where the priest alone communicated, and which were unknown to Christian antiquity. They blamed the opinion of those who imagined that partaking of particular sorts of food, or the practice of certain ceremonies invented by men, entitled them to remission of their sins, or to an increase of divine grace. They objected to the system of exacting vows from those who gave themselves to a monastic life, which had been unknown to Christian antiquity; and censured the doctrine of those who supposed