History Of The Church
Lesson 8: The Reformation - AD 1516 - 1650

Speaker: John Phillis
Date: September 1^st, 8^th, 22^nd, and October 6^th, 2004, Wednesday Evening Adult Bible Class

In our last lesson [Lesson 7], we had finished looking at the period that is known as The Middle Ages, a period from about AD 1054 to about the early 1500s—the 11^th to the 16^th Centuries. We saw there several things that were notable. Of course, what we have been seeing has primarily been the history, I suppose in many ways, of the Roman Catholic Church. We saw that, during this period of the latter part of The Middle Ages there were considerable struggles between the papacy and secular powers. We looked at several instances where the pope had struggles with those who were in secular authority.

Perhaps some of the most notable events of this period were the Crusades. We talked about four Crusades, along with, actually, a fifth Crusade, which was called “The Children’s Crusade.” We talked about what a terrible and tragic thing that was.

We also talked about the rise of something that is called “Monasticism” and “Scholasticism.” Monasticism was actually a renewal of an earlier practice from about the 3^rd Century. This thing that was called “Scholasticism” was something that came about toward the end of The Middle Ages as a period of awakening was coming, and there became more interest in scholastic things, looking at, primarily, the philosophical point of view from such philosophers as Plato, Aristotle and the like.

We also noticed the doctrine of worship that was ongoing during that particular period of time. We talked about the rise of several doctrinal issues—such things as the rise of “the Sacraments” that are known even to this day. And we pointed out, of course, that within the New Testament there are only two ordinances, one being baptism, and the other being the Lord’s Supper. However, by this period of time, there were some seven “ordinances” that became known as “Sacraments”—baptism, confirmation, penance, the Eucharist, extreme unction, the marriage issue—the priests, the clergy, not being married—and the ordination process.

By the year 1500 the foundations of the old medieval society had been shaken. Soon thereafter, these foundations began to crumble. Protestant historians laud the 16^th Century as one of the most important periods in the history of “the church” (“the church” used in the broad sense of Christendom), and rightly so. But this period is not less important for Roman Catholics, for the 16^th Century saw lasting changes effected in the organization and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

We come now to another historical period, beginning in the 16^th Century and going through about the middle part of the 17^th Century. This a period that is knows “The Reformation.”

We have seen the church that we read about in the New Testament, the apostolic church, so to speak. It has become—well, the word that comes to my mind is “morphed” [meaning, “having a striking alteration in appearance, character, or circumstances”]. It is morphed from what it was intended to be into something that is virtually unrecognizable in the Roman Catholic Church, such as the rise of the “priesthood” as opposed to the individual Christian being a priest, which is the doctrine of the New Testament; the change in the organization structure, which was grown out of the intended New Testament instruction—God’s instruction—of the local congregation being overseen by bishops (also called elders, shepherds of the flock, pastors), and this, of course, grew into the hierarchal papal system that we have talked about a number of times. These are some of the considerable changes in the doctrine and the practice that had come to pass.

Again, as I said, this is something that is hardly recognizable, as we would compare what we are seeing now in this particular period of history and what was written in the New Testament regarding the church that Jesus said He would build, that He would establish.

Well, there is something that is encouraging in this regard. In spite of the Roman Catholic Church’s pretense and insistence that they have acquired power, there never was, in the universal sense—and of course, that’s what the word “catholic” means, “universal”—a time when everyone was “bowing their kneel to Baal.” There was at this time, and had been, a number of different factions and divisions of the Roman Catholic Church. Most obvious, of course, is the Orthodox—the Eastern Orthodox, or the Greek Orthodox. We spoke about that separation occurring in the 11^th Century.

But, more than that, there were also a number of other groups, who had doctrinal differences—doctrinal problems—with the Roman Catholic Church, and yes, with the Greek Orthodox Church, as well—such ones as the Coptics, the Cyriacs, and others. And so, again, from this perspective that one would be led to believe, looking at the majority of the historical record, that the Catholic Church was indeed the “universal church,” that just is not so. The pope never controlled the whole of Christendom.

Also, I think it’s important to notice, as well, and this goes along with some discussion that we have had during this session also, and that is the fact that there were others, not just these ones who are mentioned here, but there were others, as well, during this period, who were continuing to do their very best to be the New Testament church—to be New Testament Christians. The historical record is not there for us to rely on. In most cases, we really don’t know who these ones were, but there are indications down through history that they existed. As one writer put it, “One might be a herder of swine; another might be a simple serving maid; another may be a scholar, who, either individually, or perhaps, in small clusters or small groups were trying to follow the New Testament.”

We come, though, to a period of time where the historical record points out that there is growing dissatisfaction with the Roman Catholic Church, and there are those who we do have the historical account of, who are going to speak up, who are going to speak out, who are going to do what they can do to make some changes. It may be for a variety of different reasons, but they recognize what is going on—what has become the “church”—is really not the church at all. And so, either in the small and quiet ways, or perhaps in very large and boisterous ways, change is afoot.

There are some who would be called pre-reformers. There are several different ones that we could look at, but some of them—like those who were part of the Monastic movement, who, during the actual time frame of The Middle Ages, were attempting to make changes within their movement—are counted historically as being pre-reformers, but in a sense, they were simply making adjustments and changes to what they had already adopted, which was, indeed, a form of Catholicism. There are other individuals—for example, Frances of Assisi—who worked to make some minor changes, and to bring about some minor reforms. But these, once again, were within the framework of the Catholic Church itself. As a matter of fact, these minor changes—minor reforms—were even supported and advocated by the pope. They were recognized as things that they felt needed some work.

The Reforming Sects

However, there did come about some reforming sects and individuals who, during the period of The Middle Ages, actually did part company with the Catholic Church, and began, in their own way, to make reforms—to bring about significant changes in what they saw.

One of these groups was The Cathari, or, as a group, they were called The Catharus. This movement first appeared in southern France in the early 11^th Century. The name comes from a Greek word meaning “pure.” They sought to purify the “church” by returning to the simplicity of the New Testament church. Well, say now, there’s quite a concept, isn’t it? That sounds like what we are doing—returning to the New Testament, calling things by Bible names, doing things in Bible ways.

However, they fell short in their attempt. They had some strange doctrines that they developed. It was really kind of a curious mix that they ended up with of New Testament doctrine, along with some other doctrines, which were popular in the day. For example, they had the belief that both Christ and Satan were sons of God. Christ was the good son; Satan was the bad son. Christ was responsible for creating, for making, the souls of men; Satan was responsible for making the bodies of men. And of course, this, no doubt, sounds somewhat familiar, because it tracked, in a certain sense, with the Gnostics, who believed that the body was impure. And so, some of their doctrines, it is believed, were copied from such ones as the Gnostics.

They also adopted some of the Monastic practices. They lived a very ascetic life. They refused to eat meat, eggs, milk, and that sort of thing, because they figured both that they were part of the fruits of reproduction and that they wanted to divest themselves of these kinds things that were thought to be somewhat luxurious items. This particular movement had a large following in northern Italy. It moved, also, into southern France and into northern Spain.

Now, under Pope Innocent III—you remember, we talked about him in Lesson 7—the Cathari became the victims of a bloody Crusade, which attempted to eliminate them. Although the Cathari disappeared as a reforming force in the West, some of their emphasis lived on.

The Cathari, interestingly enough, had also translated the Scriptures into their own language, making them available for people, and this practice was employed by later reformers. For example, we’re going to talk about John Wycliffe.

Well, then there were The Waldenses. This was a sect which was founded by one named Peter Waldo in AD 1176, also in France. Peter Waldo has an interesting story. He was a rich merchant in Lyons, France. But, in 1176, he was impressed with the biblical account of the rich, young ruler, whom Jesus encountered. He contemplated that account, and the instruction that Jesus had given that rich, young ruler. And so, this very wealthy merchant divested himself of his possessions. He distributed them to the poor, and he began to go about the city and countryside preaching and begging his daily bread.

Some others began to be attracted to Waldo. They were inspired by his example, and they began to preach, as well. They called themselves “the poor men of Lyons”—Lyons, France. Well, they went about the countryside and into the cities, not taking a wage, not having very much in the way of possessions—living very ascetic lives. They would be the followers, then, of this one, Peter Waldo.

Like the Cathari, they made the New Testament central in their beliefs and practices. They had access to vernacular [the common everyday language of a people] translations of the New Testament. You recall, at this time the primary translations of the Bible were Latin translations; but there were some vernacular translations. And so, one of their practices was, they would commit large sections of Scripture to memory.

They looked upon the Roman Catholic Church as being corrupt. They rejected the authority of all clergy, except those who they read about in the New Testament, namely Jesus and His apostles. They rejected masses for the dead. They rejected the use of Latin in the worship services. And, while they observed the Lord’s Supper and practiced baptism, they held that these might be administered by “laymen,” rather than by “priests” only.

So, here we have two sects, and there were others during this time, but these were, perhaps, the most well-known, The Cathari and The Waldenses. And these were known as some of the early pre-reformers.

Individual Reformers

Well, there were some individual reformers, as well. Once again, they are making a small contribution, sort of “preparing the soil” for the Reformation to come.

One such individual was a man named John Wycliffe. He was an Englishman. His exact date of birth is not known, but some scholars say it was probably around 1320. He attended Oxford University, where he would later become a very outstanding scholar and teacher.

There was in England at this time a growing resentment toward the pope. Even though Wycliffe was a member of the clergy himself, he, nevertheless, shared in this growing disdain for the authority of the pope. Until 1378, Wycliffe’s attacks on the Catholic Church were fairly mild. He sought to do things there in England, such as eliminate the immorality that existed within the clergy. He sought, also, to strip the Catholic Church of much of its property. The Catholic Church had become quite wealthy, had acquired quite a bit of property, and so on.

But, beginning in about 1378, Wycliffe began a more revolutionary attack against the Roman Catholic Church and its teaching. He repudiated the authority of the pope. He insisted that Christ, rather than the pope, was the head of the church. He insisted that the Bible was, and should be, the only source of authority in the church and for individual’s lives.

There was a problem, though. He advocated this—he stressed it quite strongly. However, in order for an individual to be able to follow the Bible, and for that to become one’s sole source of authority, one would need to possess a copy of the Scriptures. As we mentioned a moment ago, it was at this time that, first of all, very, very few copies of the Scriptures were available, and those that were available were generally in the hands of “church officials,” of the “clergy,” and so on. And they were primarily in the Latin language, a language which was unknown, certainly, here in England where Wycliffe was. And so, recognizing this problem, he really raised the ire of the Catholic Church by making a translation of the New Testament into his English of the day. And then, once he had done that, others were inspired to translate the Old Testament, and by 1384, which was the year of Wycliffe’s death, the whole Bible was available in the English language of the day.

Well, there were a number of other things that Wycliffe espoused—a number of other ways that he irritated and “got under the skin” of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church. He was quite prolific in his writings, not only in his translation of the New Testament, but he was quite outspoken, both verbally as well as in writing. And he was a constant source of irritation, during this period of his lifetime, to the Catholic Church.

He also evoked a certain following among individuals who would adopt his ideas and approve of his concepts. He would die, though, in 1384. However, his followers would soon begin to face persecution—persecution brought on them by the Catholic Church. How angry, how upset, was the pope and the Catholic Church about this outspoken individual? Well, several years after his death, a church council declared Wycliffe as being a heretic, and thus, they ordered all of his writings that they could obtain to be burned. Also, they demanded that his remains be removed from “consecrated soil.” At papal command, Wycliffe’s bones were dug up, they were burned, and the ashes cast into a stream. Well, say, he was not one of the favorite people of the Roman Catholic Church, was he?

There was another individual who came along a few years after Wycliffe. His name was John Hus. He felt the influence of Wycliffe, not in England, but in Bohemia, an area that was Czechoslovakia and is the Czech Republic and Slovenia (Czechoslovakia being divided).

There were some people from Bohemia who attended Oxford University in England, and they were exposed to Wycliffe and his doctrine. In 1402, when John Hus was about 30 years old, he was appointed “Rector of the University of Prague.” Having been exposed to the teachings of Wycliffe, he began to preach his version of this reformation message.

He was a very eloquent man. He was very moral. As a matter of fact, it is said that he was such a motivational speaker, and he would present his message to crowds in such a persuasive way—a message that individuals should leave the Catholic Church, should begin teaching and preaching and even go off into the mission field—that sometimes wives felt threatened and tried to and keep their husbands and sons from going to hear him, because he was such a motivational speaker.

Well, again, he was one who began demanding that changes be made in the Catholic Church. He was one who was critical of the immoral lives of the clergy of the church. He was one who, also, urged the church to relinquish their land holdings, to divest themselves of the very significant wealth that they had accumulated. He was critical of their doctrine and the differences that had come about through creeds and through the various councils that had been held.

He, also, would fall under the criticism of the Catholic Church. The Archbishop of Prava would eventually have him excommunicated, and he would also declare an interdict in the city of Prague. Now, to be excommunicated meant that he was summarily removed from the Catholic Church. That was not of any consequence to Hus, who was very critical of the church. However, the interdict—you remember, we had talked about this in previous lessons that an interdict was a practice that the clergy, the pope and the archbishops would exercise in certain areas, where all of the services of the church could be removed from a city or from an area, and thus, this took place in Prague. This interdict was quite troubling to those in the community who still held to the practices and the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

And thus, Mr. Hus was summoned to come to Rome to appear before a council. He was reluctant to go, because he feared for his life. But, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire assured him that he would have safe passage. However, when he appeared before the council, he would be labeled and branded a heretic, and he would be burned at the stake. The Roman Emperor was somewhat concerned about this, because he had guaranteed the safe passage. However, church officials assured the Emperor that because Hus was a heretic, that he, the Emperor, was not bound in any way to follow through with his promise.

[AN INTERESTING NOTE FROM Glimpses: "WE'LL COOK HIS GOOSE." Believe it or not, that phrase originated as a reference to a man whose last name means (in his native language, Czech) "goose" - John Hus. He was literally cooked - burned at the stake - but in being cooked he lit a fire of both nationalism and church reform…Not about to listen to a "rebel"—The council of Constance had been called to settle the scandalous situation of having two popes, one in Italy, one in France. This "Great Schism" (1378-1417) had to be dealt with. It was dealt with—thanks to the council. Naturally, a council that restored an undivided papacy wasn't about to acquit a rebel who questioned the authority of the pope. Hus's goose was indeed cooked.]

The death of John Hus did not end the movement which bore his name. His followers would continue his reforming efforts that he had begun. Some went even further than he had, requiring—demanding—very sweeping changes within the Roman church. Unfortunately, his followers would become divided themselves. As a matter of fact, they would carry on a bloody civil war among themselves. The Hussites, as they were referred to, would make a small incursion into the Roman Catholic Church, but eventually, some of the more conservative ones of that group would reconcile with the Roman Catholic Church and be received back into it.

We see, then, the outcome of the lives of two early pre-reformers, one being John Wycliffe, who was responsible for the translation of the New Testament, but who was in disfavor with the Catholic Church, such that they burned his writings, such that they would even exhume his bones and have them burned and scattered; and then this one, John Hus, who would literally be burned at the stake for the stands that he took against the Roman Catholic Church.

By the year 1500, the foundations of the old medieval society had been shaken. Soon thereafter, these foundations began to crumble. Protestant historians log the 16^th Century as one of the most important periods in the history of what is broadly referred to as, and considered to be, “Christendom.”

In addition to these individual reformers and the movements that we have mentioned, there were many other factors that were at work to help bring about changes within the Roman church. First of all, there were a series of “reforming councils.”

The Reforming Councils

A series of church councils in the first half of the 15^th Century sought to reform the church from within. It was referred to as reform “root and branch.” In other words, not an external reform, but an internal reform—reform the very essence of the Roman church—not leave the church, but be within the church to make these reforms.

The first of these councils met in Pisa in 1409. The purpose of this reforming council was to heal the great schism which had taken place. You remember, we had talked about this. It occurred back in the latter part of the 14^th Century, in 1378. The practice had been the appointment of a pope in Rome, and then that pope would go to Avignon in southern France and live there. However, in 1378, the pope that was appointed decided to stay in Rome, and not go to southern France. This brought about something of revolt among the bishops and the other church officials, who had become accustomed to living in the “lap of luxury” in southern France. They let the pope who had been selected stay in Rome; however, they chose their own pope there in southern France. This was referred to by a number of names, including “The Babylonian Captivity,” you will recall; but it was referred to primarily as “The Great Schism” in the church.

This Council of Pisa chose to declare that the two popes, the one in Rome and the one in southern France, were not popes, at all. And this Council chose their own pope. Thus, there were three popes for a period of time.

Well, this brought about, then, the Council of Constance. This Council met for a period of four hears, 1414 to 1418. They were finally successful in removing all three of these popes and appointing still another pope. This pope would gain recognition and would eventually be accepted as the “legitimate pope.”

In addition to working to heal this great schism in the Roman church, this Council of Constance would also attempt to combat heresy and carry out more thorough reforms in the organization of the Roman church and in the doctrine of the church. A serious attempt on their part was made to strengthen the power of the Council, and actually weaken the authority of the pope. And they did this by providing more frequent and regular Council meetings. By the way, this Council of Constance is known and remembered because they are the ones who condemned and oversaw the execution of John Hus.

Well, there were other so-called “reforming councils.” They included the Councils of Basle, Ferrara and Florence. But none of these councils were successful in bring about any substantive changes, either in the organization or the doctrine of the Roman church.

The Renaissance

There was another factor which contributed to the Protestant Reformation, and that is what we know as the period of the Renaissance. Beginning about 1350, southern Europe began to experience a new concern for cultural and literary activities. We often refer to and think about the Renaissance being a “rebirth.” It was thought to be such because it marks the emergence from the period that was known as the Dark Ages.

We have already noted that during the latter part of The Middle Ages, there was a relatively high level of concern about cultural things and scholastic things. But, it did not bring about a definite shift in the direction of men’s interests. The period of The Middle Ages was oriented toward religion; God was the measure—God was the centerpiece—of all things. But in the Renaissance, men began to turn from God to men, and look to men for standards. The Renaissance view of man was individualistic and secular.

We often speak about, and hear about, this as a “humanistic” view of life. And indeed, humanists remain among us today. This humanist movement began in Italy, and the movement would spread northward. In Italy, the movement was indeed strongly secular. North of the Alps, humanism took on a strong religious coloration, especially in the person of some of those who would lead the movement. An important factor in spreading humanism, by the way, was the invention of the moveable type in 1450—the invention of the printing press.

Nationalism

Here was a third factor that helped to bring about the Reformation, and that is Nationalism. As The Middle Ages waned, the feudalism associated with the period began to break down. In Italy, there began to be seen, and to develop, powerful city-states. However, in northwestern Europe, there was a different political structure which was developing. It was called the “nation-state,” the difference being that the city-state was much smaller in focus. However, the nation-state built strong central governments, and it was based upon those people of an entire region—of an entire area—that shared a common language, or shared common traditions, and so on. And as these larger central governments began to grow in power, they would be able to resist the pope and the Roman church. By 1500, England, France, Spain, Portugal, and some others, had all succeeded in building strong central governments. And once again, the more powerful these central governments became, the more resistance to Rome—quite a far cry from what we saw happening in The Middle Ages.

Next, we turn our attention to some causes for the Reformation. It’s a misunderstanding of history to assume that the Reformation sprang entirely from religious motives. No, there were other things which would add to this; there were other concerns that people had, including such things as social, economic, and political causes. All of these, in addition to religion, would play an important part in the origin and the progress of the Reformation.

The Roman Catholic View of the Reformation

Roman Catholics frequently refer to the Reformation as the “Protestant revolt.” They look upon it as a revolt against the authority of the pope and the church and thus, in their view, a revolt against God. Well, certainly it was a revolt against Rome, but rather than a revolt against God, it was the beginning of a turning TO God from some of the evils and the corruption of the Roman system.

The Secularists’ View of the Reformation

Then, there was the Secularists’ view. Secularists are likely to look upon the Reformation as a freeing of men’s minds from domination by superstitions and religious authority.

There was a political motivation. It would have been a fairly strong motivation in that day. The rising power of new nations in Western Europe and many small German states caused them to seek independence from the international power of Rome. It was quite clear that several rulers of England and various German states gave their backing to reformers as much out of political motivations as religious motives.

Then, there was an economic motive, as well. By the time of the Reformation, the Roman church had acquired a very large land holding in various places around Europe, as well as outside of Europe. The Roman Empire, of course, was wide-spread, but the Roman Catholic Church had become something of a land baron. And there was a great deal of resistance that would develop from those who were living in northern and in central Europe to seeing monies continue to go to Rome. There was also a great deal of competition for lands, and it would happen that, in fact, some of the property that belonged to the Roman Catholic Church would end up being confiscated by some of these emerging nations.

Moral and Religious Motives of the Reformation

As learning became more prevalent across Europe and as the Bible and other religious matter—other religious material, and so on—became more available, men could see more clearly that there was a glaring discrepancy between the church that was revealed in the Scriptures and the Roman Catholic Church.

The Immediate Cause of the Reformation

All of these things, of course, would blend together and would be, in their own way, an influence upon bringing about the reform. But there was one…as we would say…“straw that broke the camel’s back.” That was something which occurred in 1517 AD. It is referred to as a “spark”—a spark that finally ignited the Reformation, and it was specifically tied to the abuse of indulgences in Germany.

Pope Leo X had embarked upon an elaborate building program in Rome. And this building program included the construction of St. Peter’s. We know it as St. Peter’s Basilica today. The program was quite expensive. It took a great deal of money, money that was not immediately available. And so, the pope had authorized the sale of indulgences as a means of providing income.

The practice of granting indulgences went far back into the Middle Ages, so this was not something that was new. BUT, when a Dominican monk named Johann Tetzel came into Germany with a very clever sales campaign, in which he made exaggerated claims about indulgences, this was more than a particular individual there in Germany in that time could handle. That individual’s name was Martin Luther. Thus, on October the 31^st, 1517, Luther posted on the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany, his famous Ninety-Five Theses, challenging this Dominican monk named Tetzel.

Well, I was interested to find out what some of these indulgences were about. And, of course, I’m certain that we’re probably all familiar with, or have some understanding of, what we’re talking about here—the selling of indulgences by the Catholic Church at this time. Where the word “indulgence” is, insert the word “sin”—selling sin. If you could pay enough money, then you could sin and be forgiven of it. Well, I found some interesting information that I thought I would share with you about what was going on, and specifically, what this Dominican monk, Johann Tetzel, was selling:

[This next is about Johann Tetzel, Grace for Sale through Indulgences. Source: Martin Luther, Wider Hans Worst, 1541. (WA 51,538.)]

[ A Second Source Concerning Johann Tetzel and the Selling of Indulgences:]

A Third Source Concerning Johann Tetzel and the Selling of Indulgences:

[ A Fourth Source Concerning Johann Tetzel and the Selling of Indulgences: The Text of a Sermon on Indulgences by Johann Tetzel. Source: W. Kohler, Dokumente zum Ablassstreit, pp. 125-26.]

[NOTE: The four sources above are quoted from The Reformation, by Hans J. Hillerbrand, published by Harper & Row, publishers, Copyright 1964 by SCM Press Ltd. and Harper and Row, Inc., Library of Congress catalog card number 64-15480, pp. 41-46.]

[John Phillis continues:] Well, that was some of the “preaching” and the actions of this one, Johann Tetzel. And it would be his actions, then, not acting alone, although he was known as a braggart, but acting under the authority of the pope and the Roman church to sell these indulgences. And that would be, then, the spark, which would ignite the Reformation, specifically there in Germany with Martin Luther.

We are in the 16^th Century, and we are going to be talking about Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli and some others who are familiar names in the Protestant Reformation. We began with the Lord’s church, which was established in AD 33; it went into apostasy; the Roman Catholic church grew out of that apostasy. And, of course, as we have discussed several times, there has always been a remnant of the Lord’s church—those who were faithful. But then, growing out of the Roman Catholic church, we’re going to see the beginning of the rise of various denominations.

We are up to the period of Martin Luther. We have talked about several things that occurred in the latter stages of the 15^th Century to bring about the Reformation Movement. We said that, perhaps, the thing that really was the “straw that broke the camel’s back” was the practice of the Catholic church in selling indulgences, and we shared with you some information about that Dominican monk, who was in Germany, and who was selling these indulgences and making all kinds of claims about the things that he could do and the things that he could sell. You remember, one of the little anecdotes that we told about him was that there was a fella who wanted to know if he could buy an indulgence for the future. And Tetzel said, “Why, of course, you can buy an indulgence for the future.” And so, he sold the man an indulgence for some future sin that he might commit. And then the fella met Tetzel on the highway a little while later and beat him up and said, “Well, that’s the future sin I was going to commit. So, I already have forgiveness for that.” Well, that’s kind of funny, of course, but it was this practice, this extreme practice, the exaggerated claims, and so on, that were being made that really brought Luther to the point where, on October 31^st in the year 1517, he posted his famous “Ninety-Five Theses” on the door of the Catholic church in Wittenberg, Germany.

Martin Luther

Luther indeed is one of the best-known, most well-known, of the Reformers. He is historically seen as being one of the great leaders of the Reformation. While there were many—and we’ll talk about a few of them—Luther occupies a vaunted position in the Reformation Movement.

He was born in Eisleben, Germany, on November 10, 1483. He was born to a typical, hard-working peasant-type family. After his education, he attended university at Erfurt, Germany, and he earned a Master of Arts Degree there in 1505, and he turned, then, to a study of law. But, within a short period of time, he became discouraged and uninterested in law, and he decided to enter a monastery. Upon entering the monastery, he pledged himself to be an Augustinian monk.

Now, it was clear that Luther was searching for something. He was searching to have some assurance in his mind that he was acceptable to God. Well, his ordination as a priest two years later in 1507, along with his prayer and fasting and even the mortification of his body still did not bring him the assurance that he sought.

He was sent on a trip to Rome on business for his particular order. But while in Rome, he witnessed there even more corruption, and more things that caused him distress about the Catholic church, and about this assurance, this personal assurance, that he was looking for himself. He was eventually assigned to teach Theology at the University of Wittenberg. And as he was teaching theology, the light sort of began to come on for him. His studies and his lectures, particularly surrounding the book of Romans and Galatians led him to catch a new meaning for what Paul had to say, Romans 1, verse 17, where he says, “The just shall live by faith.” Luther began to realize that man cannot be saved by good works, but that a man must trust in God, that he must seek justification from God by faith.

Well, armed with this new information—I was going to say “this new revelation,” but it was not a “new” revelation, just perhaps “new” to Luther—he was convinced, then, that he needed to oppose the things that the Catholic church was doing, particularly in the selling of these indulgences, which suggested in and of themselves that man could, by the things that he did, earn salvation. Well, it was just as Luther was coming to this conclusion that this monk, this Dominican monk, Tetzel, who we had talked about, appeared in Germany, selling his indulgences and making his exaggerated claims. We know the result of that—the posting of the “Ninety-Five Theses.”

But actually, the Ninety-five Theses, which Luther posted to the door of the Catholic church there in Wittenberg, were actually propositions for discussion or debate, challenging this whole system of indulgence and other things that the Catholic church was doing at that time. This was a challenge that Calvin was leveling—ninety-five points of dispute that he had with the Roman Catholic church having to do with the organization of the Catholic church, the doctrine, and so on, none the least of which was this practice of indulgences. When the word of these Theses reached Rome, the pope dismissed them simply as a debate, a discussion, a little wrangling among some of the monks up in Germany. But, the Theses were printed, and they became widely distributed and soon became a matter, not just of discussion among some monks, but became public knowledge and a point of discussion among many, even among “lay” people [in Catholic or denominational terms, a person not of the clergy—the laity].

Well, by this time the pope became concerned about the situation, and he demanded that Luther come to Rome to answer charges of heresy. Fortunately for Luther, he had the support of one called Elector Frederick of Saxony. Now, an “Elector” was a German prince who was appointed by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. And so, Elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony exercised his power, and he was powerful enough to keep the pope from harming Luther in any way.

By the force of circumstances and by the nature of his opposition, Luther was gradually led to even more critical examination and more critical comment concerning the Roman church. In 1520, he issued five tracts that stated his position and brought the Roman church under thorough indictment. As a result, the pope issued a “bull.” You remember what a “bull” is—we talked about this a few weeks ago. A “bull” is an official pronouncement from the pope. This bull condemned Luther, condemned his teachings and demanded that he recant all of what he said, all of the criticism that he had made of the Roman Catholic church. The threat was that he would be excommunicated from the church.

Well, Luther would not bow to this demand. He would not bow to the pope’s bull, this official decree, this official pronouncement. As a matter of fact, he showed his contempt for the pope and for his official pronouncement by burning it publicly in December of 1520.

Luther’s Break With Rome

Well, now he is cut off from the Roman Catholic church, labeled as a heretic, and he is branded as a “wild boar.” He had also acquired a good many followers by this time.

What we see next is kind of interesting, because we see sort of the interaction which was still taking place between the Holy Roman Empire and the secular rulers and the Roman Catholic church. Because Luther had been cut off, had been excommunicated, from the church, those who were the princes, the Electors, in Germany, were curious and wondering how they should treat Luther and his following. And so, he was summoned to an Imperial Diet. (No, it wasn’t the Slim-Fast Diet.) A “Diet” was a formal, general assembly of princes in the Holy Roman Empire. And so, he was summoned to this Imperial Diet that met in Worms in 1521. He was supported by his friend, Elector Frederick of Saxony, along with some of the other princes of different regions. He was encouraged by them to stand firmly before this Imperial Tribunal. Well, the Diet demanded that he would recant his teachings. (Now, remember, these were the secular rulers of the Holy Roman Empire who were making this demand.) They demanded that he recant his teachings and that he remove himself from any further disturbance and activity of trying to reform people from their Catholic persuasions.

Luther would have none of that! He said that he would only recant the things that he had said, the things that he had written, if those things were proved false by the Word of God, and he concluded his defense with this well-known statement. His statement was, “Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me.”

Well, Luther’s actions led the Diet to condemn him as an “outlaw” and to prohibit the circulation of his work. He had left Worms, but on the way back to Worms, he was kidnapped, not by his foes, but by his friends, people who were concerned for his safety, for his well-being, because now he had not only been alienated and cut off from the Catholic church, but he had also been condemned by the Holy Roman Empire. And so, he was spirited away to the Castle of Wartburg where he remained in disguise for several months.

These months in seclusion were not wasted, though, because while he was in this secluded time, in this secluded place, he wrote several books, including making a translation of the New Testament into the German language. This was not the first translation into German, but it remains, even to this day, as perhaps the most powerful, scholarly and dignified German translation.

Even in Luther’s absence, even while he is in seclusion, the “revolution,” so to speak, continued on. In many ways, and in the view of many, Luther was a “conservative reformer.” Now, one thing that is important to understand is that we’re talking about Luther—and he has his place in history and this place of prominence in the Reformation, and so on—but his ideas and his actions were not excusive. There were others, not only here in Germany, but in other places at this same period of time, who were conducting their own revolt, attempting their own reformation of the Catholic church. And so, Luther had contemporaries. And in the view of some of his contemporaries, he was “too conservative”; he didn’t go far enough. However, there were some other contemporaries who considered him to be “too radical” in the things that he was doing.

We’re going to be talking in a little while about what was going on during this same period, or about this same period, in Switzerland that were indeed contemporaneous in terms of movements that were going on in both places. But the two could never get together. Those who were involved in the revolt against the Catholic church in Switzerland and those who were of Luther’s ilk [in Germany] couldn’t agree on a number of things, and so they were never united in their approach, and thus would never make a united front against the Roman Catholic church.

Well, by 1529, the Catholic forces in the Empire were able to use their majority in Imperial Diet to hamper the growth of Lutheranism. This Diet met in Spire, and ordered that no further changes be made in the religious status. Catholics in Lutheran territories were to be granted freedom of worship, while the same privilege, by the way, was denied to Lutherans in Catholic territories in the Empire. The Lutheran princes, those who were followers of Luther, who were princes, who were individuals of power within the Empire, found this to be unacceptable. Thus, they filed a formal protest against it.

The only reason that I bring this up… I mean, in a study of the Reformation, it’s certainly pertinent and has its place. But the reason I bring this up is because this is where the term, where the name “Protestant”—pro-tes-tant—comes from. It was this protesting that was done by these princes, who were followers of Luther, about the unfair treatment. And so, this term, this word “protestant”, will eventually be applied to all of those in the West who break free from Rome.

The following year, 1530, the Diet met at Augsburg. At this meeting, Charles V, who had only recently been crowned Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, attempted to seek a means of restoring religious liberty in the Empire. The Lutheran position at this Diet was presented by a young colleague of Luther, and there was a document which was produced from this Augsburg Diet, which was called “The Augsburg Confession.” If you’re familiar with Lutheran doctrine and their creedal information, and so on, this Augsburg Confession remains an important part of the Lutheran doctrine and religious practice even to this day.

Well, there were other Protestant groups that were present, and they set forth their positions separately—separate from the Lutherans. But the Protestant position was unacceptable to the Catholics—no surprise there, and thus, no agreement could be reached. As a result, for the next twenty-five years hostilities, even open warfare, continued between Protestants and Catholics in Germany. And before this period of war and bitterness came to a close, Luther would die. He died in 1546. And the leadership of this movement that he had founded, that he was attributed to, moved on to others.

In 1555, the Diet, again meeting at Augsburg, came to a settlement that allowed Germany to have a long, but uneasy truce, from these religious wars. The so-called “Peace of Augsburg” provided that the princes of Germany would determine the religion of their realm. No prince was to disturb the religious practice or the religious belief of another territory. If, on religious grounds, a person wanted to move from one area to another, he was allowed to sell his property and move. And this agreement pretty well settled the religious “geography,” so to speak, of Germany. And, as a matter of fact, its result, its effect, is still seen today. In the country of Germany, the northern part is predominately Lutheran, and the southern part is predominately Catholic.

Well, Lutheranism spread rapidly from northern Germany into Scandinavia. And in most cases, the rulers, it seems, accepted this new faith, and then they spread it among their people. And so, within a generation, within a period of about twenty years or so, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, along with Iceland, Finland and the Eastern Baltic regions had all become Lutheran.

Zwingli and Zurich

Well, next we move to the Reformation in Switzerland. At about the same period that Luther was beginning his attacks on the abuses of the Roman Catholic church, there was a Swiss contemporary named Ulrich (Huldreich) Zwingli (1484 – 1531). They did not know one another, and they did not work together, but they were contemporaneous in the time-frame of the early part of the 16^th Century. Zwingli was beginning a similar move in the country of Switzerland. He was educated at the University of Basel, and he became, then, a parish priest.

Apparently, he soon began to have misgivings about some of the religious practices within the Roman church of his day, but his real work as a Reformer did not begin until he had been called to be a pastor of Zurich in 1519 [the word “pastor” here is not used as it is in the New Testament of elders/shepherds/overseers, but is the position of leut-priest (preacher and pastor) in the Roman Catholic church]. Using the Bible as his guide, he began to challenge openly many of the practices of the Roman Catholic church, and the people seemed ready to follow him. He was protesting, also, the practices, the organization of the Roman Catholic church. He was quite successful. And thus, by 1525 the reforming process in Zurich was practically completed.

The reforms that had taken place in Zurich began to spread into other cities in Switzerland, and it didn’t take long before a good portion of that small country was in revolt against Rome. However, not every canton (and that word “canton” is a term used for the various geographical regions in the country of Switzerland of the day)—not every canton accepted the “new faith,” and violence broke out. And while he was serving as a “chaplain” to the army in one of these military campaigns, in one of these wars, Zwingli was killed. However, just as when Luther died, there were several ready to “take up the gauntlet.”

Calvin and Geneva

After the death of Zwingli, there was another outstanding leader of Swiss Protestantism, and his name was John Calvin. He didn’t have his roots in Switzerland; he was actually born in France in 1509, but he would end up going to Switzerland as he was becoming more and more at variance with the Roman Catholic authorities in France. He found refuge in Basel, Switzerland. Here, at the age of twenty-six, he wrote and published what was considered to be one of the most scholarly and, perhaps, influential books of the whole Reformation period, a book that is called The Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Calvin was soon invited to Geneva to lead the Reformation there. For nearly twenty-five years, Calvin was the dominant figure in that city, which became a virtual theocracy, patterned after, based after, the Old Testment theocracy [theocracy: government by a person or persons claiming to rule with divine authority]. His title was “the Master,” actually sort of a combination of mayor, governor and prime minister along with being the religious leader leading this effort of protest against the Roman Catholic church. Geneva under Calvin became a stern and straightlaced community. He enforced some very strict standards and some very strict laws. Excess in food and drink, frivolity in speech and habit, were punishable by law. Also, religious doctrines that were in variance with what Calvin believed were not tolerated.

But Calvinism was far more than a series of stern negatives. It had within it what writers and historians refer to as a “dynamic force” that soon made a challenge to all of Europe. Luther’s “hallmark” was that he stressed God’s grace and salvation by faith only. He saw that salvation was a product of faith, rather than the buying of indulgences. Calvin, who borrowed heavily from the theology of Augustine, stressed God’s sovereignty and man’s election. Going beyond Augustine, Calvin taught double predestination: the elect (those who have been “elected” by God through His Holy Spirit) have been predestined to salvation, where at the same time the nonelect have been predestined—elected—to damnation.

Does anybody know the flower that Calvin is associated with? Have you ever heard of TULIP? John Calvin’s TULIP? It’s an acrostic [a poem or statement in which certain letters in each line, such as the first letter or the last letter, spell out a word, motto, etc.]. So T – U – L – I – P is an acrostic that represents Calvinistic doctrine, even to this day. The “T” stands for “Total heredity depravity.” In other words, we are all afflicted by original sin. The “U” stands for “Unconditional election.” That is where this predestination comes about. The “L” stands for “Limited atonement.” Calvin states that Jesus is our atoning sacrifice, but that atonement is limited only to those who are “pre-elected.” The “I” is for “Irresisible grace.” If you are predestined, you can’t resist it; you can’t help yourself; you’re overwhelmed by grace. And the “P” is for “Preservation of the saints.” Simply, that is, if you are “elected,” then you not only can’t help yourself, but you can’t do anything to change your condition. (I’ve got a sermon on that; I’ll preach that sometime—“John Calvin’s TULIP.”)

But that is Calvinism; that is the doctrine which he began to establish, and the basic tenents of Calvinism are alive and well today. Where, with Luther, of course, there is the denomination of the Lutherans that wear his name…. And by the way, just for what it’s worth, Luther never desired that the movement that he began carry his name. It would only be after his death that followers would adopt this title, this name, and name their movement for him. But, of course, we have the Lutheran church here, as well as other places in the world. Calvinism, however, would actually spawn quite a number of denominational doctrines, and even some denominational organizations. For example, the Presbyterians have their roots going back to Calvin. But Calvinism would actually embody a number of doctrines that would take form and shape in different parts of the world and under different names as part of denominational doctrines with different groups. Virtually every denomination that teaches and believes in some form of “once saved, always saved” can trace their roots for that doctrine, at least, back to John Calvin.

[See the acrostic below:

T otal heredity depravity.

U nconditional election.

L imited atonement.

I rresistible grace.

P reservation of the saints.]

Students from all over Western Europe came to Geneva to sit at Calvin’s feet; then, inspired by his teaching, they returned to their native lands to spread Calvinism. Thus it was that Calvinistic churches (often referred to as Reformed churches) appeared in Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Central Europe. And it would become something of a rival movement with Lutheranism. Also, through one named John Knox and others, Calvinism spread to Scotland, where it was eventually to embody in the Presbyterian church—the Presbyterian denomination. Calvinism also appeared in England where it gave rise to Puritanism. From England and Scotland, Calvinism was transplanted to the New World, where it has played a very important part in the development of America.

Earlier, I mentioned briefly the acrostic that has been made, that comes from the tenents of Calvanism, and that the letters for the acrostic are T U L I P. I thought I would share just a little bit more information about that simply because it is so wide-spread—at least parts of this doctrine—and it is a doctrine that is believed and accepted and practiced widely among many of the Protestant denomonations, even today.

By the way, Calvin’s T U L I P is commonly referred to as “the deadly flower.”

The “T” of that T U L I P stands for “Total heredity depravity.” That is the first premise of this doctrine. “Total” means absolute. “Heredity” means “by birth.” And “depravity” means “wickedness; evil; corrupt / corruption.” And so, the doctrine is effectively this: A child is born in sin. A child is born with sin. It is total; it is hereditary—it comes by birth; and that means that that child is wicked, evil, corrupt at birth. It is the doctrine of “original sin,” as it is referred to by some even today. Well, we understand, as we examine the Scriptures, that this doctrine is unscriptural. We know from Ezekiel, chapter 18, and verse 20, that children do not inherit the sins of their fathers [“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”]. We know that there is nothing that is more clean, more pure, more precious, than a child—a child who has come virtually from the hand of God. Sin is not passed on from generation to the next. Now, there are sometimes, however, when the consequence of sin is passed on. But that is not the same as the sin. For example, a woman who is pregnant and abuses her body through the use of drugs, through narcotics, whatever it may be, her child may be born with mental or physical problems, or both, because of the abuse of the mother—because of the sin of the mother—but the child has not inherited the mother’s sin. The child has inherited the consequence of the mother’s sin. And there is a drastic difference.

The “U” of the T U L I P means “Unconditional election.” And that is the belief that God pre-ordains certain people—some to be saved and the rest to be lost. Well, is that consistent with Scripture? It is not. We are “called and chosen.” That is right. But we are “called and chosen” by means of the Gospel, 2 Thessalonians 2, and verses 13 and 14 [“But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the Truth, 14 to which He called you by our Gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”]. God has created us with a free will to accept, to believe, to obey His Will for us. It is something that is voluntary, 1 Corinthians 1, verse 21 [“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the Message preached to save those who believe.”]. And so, the suggestion, or the belief, that God has predestined—preordained—virtually by name those who will be saved and those who will be lost is not Scriptural. God has preordained the means by which one will be saved, certainly.

The “L” of the T U L I P is for “Limited atonement.” This is, I guess, essentially an extension of the previous one, the “Unconditional election.” The implication of this regarding atonement…. And, of course, we know that Jesus Christ is the propitiation; He is the atoning sacrifice for sin. But the word “Limited” associated with “atonement” simply means that Christ’s death, His atoning sacrifice, was only for a limited number—that it was only for those who were already predetermined, predestined. And others…are just out of luck, so to speak. Jesus said, “I am the door. If anyone enters by Me he will be saved…” John 10, verse 9. We could cite many other passages of Scripture which speak to the availability to all people of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Someone pointed out in a discussion about this that if there really is “Limited atonement,” the blood of Christ is not available to all who believe, who are willing to be obedient, and who obey the Gospel, then why would Christ give the Great Commission? What would be the purpose for that? “Go into the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.” Why bother if there is really “Limited atonement”?

The “I” of the T U L I P is for “Irrestible grace.” Simply stated, one cannot resist the direct operation of the Holy Spirit. There are many these days who believe in the direct operation of the Holy Spirit—those of the pentecostal denominations, those who are called evangelical, believe in this direct operation of the Holy Spirit. Calvin’s doctrine was that it was something that was irrestible, that there was no way to avoid it; there was no way to hide from it; there was no way to get out from under it; that if you were selected, if you were elected, then the Holy Spirit would operate on you, and you would have no say, no will, in the matter at all. Well, we know that all must have the Spirit of God, Romans 8, verse 9 [“But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.”], but certainly not by the “direct operation” of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2, verse 38 [“Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”]. The Spirit operates on us, yes, but not in a direct fashion. The Spirit operates on us through the Word of God. And, by the way, according to Stephen, as he was testifying before the Sanhedrin, he would state that Israel resisted (that is the word that is used there)…resisted the Holy Spirit,Acts 7, and verse 51 [“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.”]. So, according to Stephen, it IS possible to resist the Holy Spirit.

The “P” of the T U L I P stands for “Perseverance of the saints.” This is, in effect, the “once saved, always saved” doctrine, which is taught and believed by many, once again, even to this day. And effectively, this doctrine says that once you have the Holy Spirit, then there is no turning back. There is nothing that you can do to change your destiny; there is nothing that you can do to turn yourself away from the Lord and what He intends for you, because you have been predetermined; you have been preselected. But James says, James, chapter 5, there are those who would err from the Truth [“Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the Truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” James 5:19-20.]. Peter would graphically describe and portray those who have turned their backs on the Lord, who have gone into apostasy, 2 Peter, chapter 2, verses 20 through 22. He will talk there about them, and he will use the analogy of this being such a distasteful, such a heinous, practice that it is the equivalent of a dog returning to its vomit and of a sow returning to the wallow after having just been washed [“For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: ‘A dog returns to his own vomit,’ and, ‘a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.’”]. And so, indeed, it is, once again, not according to Scripture that one cannot fall from grace. As a matter of fact, the Hebrew letter uses that very termonology, Hebrews, chapter 6, verses 4 through 6—“some have fallen away” the Hebrew writer would say [“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.”].

And so, there is the deadly T U L I P of John Calvin. It is, perhaps, an appealing doctrine. And again, it has spawned quite a few doctrines that we still see among us today, but while it may have some appeal, it is a flower that is full of deadly poison, and must be avoided.

France and the Low Countries

While the teachings of Luther were circulated in France, it was Calvinism that took root there. The strategic location of Geneva, along with the fact that Calvin was French, no doubt contributed greatly to the success of Calvinism in France. During the second half of the 16^th Century, French Protestants (called Huguenots) fought a series of bloody civil wars with the Catholics. Yet, Protestantism was not wiped out.

If anything, the Reformed faith had an even more severe test in the Netherlands. Thousands were slain, but Dutch Protestantism (now in the form of Calvinism) continued to grow. The Dutch Reformed Church, Calvinistic in doctrine, became the state church in the Netherlands.

The “Radical” Reformers

We will now look at what has been classified by historians as “radical” reformers. We are most familiar, probably, with the major wings of the Reformation—Lutheran, the Reformed (Calvinism is often referred to as the “Reformed”), and the Anglican, which we will study in a future lesson as we begin to look at the Reformation in the British Isles. But there some other reformers, often collectively referred to as “radical” reformers or “left-wing” reformers. The Anabaptists were the most numerous of these radical reformers.

The Anabaptists received their name from the fact that since they insisted on the baptism of believers only, they re-baptized those whose only baptism had been by sprinkling in infancy. The Anabaptists were a varied lot, and because of the excesses of a few of them, they early got a bad name and they were persecuted by the Protestants and Catholics alike. Anabaptists practiced believers’ baptism, and often—not exclusively—but they would often practice baptism by immersion. They believed in the separation of church and state and ordinarily refused to bear arms—refused to be a part of any police or military-type organization—and also refused to serve in any kind of a public service civil government-type position, or office. The largest group of the Anabaptists that survived the persecutions that they underwent was the Mennonites. Their leader was one named Menno Simmons. He had been a Catholic priest originally, but in 1536 he renounced his priesthood and he cast his lot with the Anabaptists. Through His teaching and through his writing, this movement began to spread more widely. Anabaptists were numerous not only in the Low Countries, the southern part of Germany, the northern part of France, but also they became numerous in Switzerland where they were vigorously opposed, by the way, by Zwingli. Many later groups, such as Baptists, the English Separatists, the Quakers and the German Brethren were influenced by these people who were considered to be quite simple, but quite pious.

The Catholic Counter Reformation

During the 16^th Century we’ve considered the prominent reformers; we’ve considered some who were not so prominent, but during this period there was also a Catholic Counter Reformation. Not everyone who was in the reforming business was willing to break with the Roman Catholic church. Many believed that reform was needed, but their desire was to remain within the Catholic church and do their reforming from within. The Council of Trent was called in 1545 and held sessions for the next eighteen years. In part, this Council took measures to counter Protestantism, but it also took steps at the same time to bring about reforms within the Roman Catholic church. Unfortunately, the Council of Trent ended up really spawning and further defining many dogmas such that there came a further rift between Catholicism and Protestantism. And rather than stopping the Protestant movement, this had the effect making it permanent.

This period also gave birth to a Catholic order that soon became the most powerful in the Roman church. This Catholic order was called the Society of Jesus. They were more widely known as the Jesuits. Its founder was Ignatius Loyola, a Spaniard, whose conversion led him to obedience to the Roman church rather than to the Reformation. Interestingly, both Calvin and Loyola were students at the University of Paris at the same time. However, they apparently never knew each other. The Jesuit order was given official papal approval in 1540 and it grew very rapidly. It was a missionary order, and they would have a great deal of zeal in their efforts to reach out and to do mission work, a zeal that would rival the Franciscans, who we have talked about earlier. Francis Xavier was the most famous of those during this period. The Jesuit order, led by Francis Xavier, would do mission work in India, Japan and in other areas of the Far East.