320 REFORMATION movement assumed so much variety of character, and was decided by circumstances of time and place of so different a kind, that its essential features often become merged and almost lost in their combination with other and altogether extraneous elements. Its three Nor are the considerations arising out of diversities of phases. racej divergencies of political interests, and varied issues the only difficulties which attach to any attempt to treat the movement as a whole. We must also bear in mind the very different conceptions of the end to be attained which at successive stages of its history have modified its teaching and its organization, and eventually in a great measure determined its geographical limits. These conceptions may be distinguished as those involving (1) a reform of discipline, (2) a reform of doctrine, (3) a modifica- tion of the current dogmatic teaching. Of these three dis- tinct conceptions the first, taking its rise in the generally admitted corrupt practice of the Roman Church, aimed at little more than a restoration of discipline, a reform of morals, that is to say, among the clergy and the mon- astic orders, and the abolition of those various abuses which had grown up under the lax administration and baneful examples of successive popes and of the Curia; the second, although demanding a reform of doctrine as well as of discipline, sought simply to restore what was believed to be the teaching of the primitive as opposed to the mediaeval church ; while the third, guided in the first instance rather by an only half-conscious instinct than by any avowed standard of belief, sought eventually to establish the right of private judgment, to the almost entire repudiation of authority, whether as expressed in the decrees of councils, in the confessions of the Reformed churches, or in the creed of Trent. And it is from this last point of view that the Reformation has gradually come to be regarded as a new commencement rather than as a restoration of belief, as a point of departure towards a higher and more enlightened faith rather than as a return to an ancient, imperfectly ascertained, and possibly obsolete standard. But, by whichever of these aims the movement in favour of reformation was guided, the dominant conception has not unf requently operated quite independently of the other two. Demands for reform of discipline not unfrequently resulted in disunion where disagreement with respect to doctrine did not exist. The further definition of already accepted doctrine, again, even when made in connexion with some minor article of belief and involving but an almost imperceptible divergence of interpretation, often proved productive of a serious schism where in questions of discipline there was perfect unanimity. The right of private judgment, when urged in contravention of any of the newly formulated standards of discipline or belief, in- volved an equally decisive rupture with those who recog- nized only the traditional sources of doctrine. It is evident, therefore, that the Reformation, when regarded from a fairly comprehensive point of view, must appear as a highly complex movement carrying in itself the ele- ments of further controversy and conflict. Even the theory which would seem to afford the most satisfactory solution of its varied phenomena that which teaches us to look upon it as a Teutonic revolt, intellectual no less than re- ligious, against the traditions which the Latin Church in the course of centuries had invented and imposed on the faith and habits of thought of Western Christendom often fails us as a clue to its widely different manifesta- tions, and other disturbing causes seem to forbid the effort to refer them to any general principle. The character and policy of the reigning Roman pontiff, the jealousies and divergent interests of the several European states and the special aims of their several rulers, the spell which imperial institutions and traditions long continued to exercise over the minds of all but the most advanced and independent thinkers, are all important factors in the movement. If, however, we endeavour to assign the causes which pre- vented the Reformation from being carried even to but partial success long prior to the 16th century, we can have no difficulty in deciding that foremost among them must be placed the manner in which the mediaeval mind was fettered by a servile regard for precedent. To the men of the Middle Ages, whether educated or uneducated, no measure of reform seemed defensible which appeared in the light of an innovation. Precedent was the standard whereby every authority, lay or clerical, was held to be bound ; and to this rule the only exceptions were a general council and the supreme pontiff. Even Gregory IX. or Clement V., when he assumed to promulgate additions to the existing code of the Universal Church, was understood to do so simply in his capacity of infallible expounder of essential and unalterable doctrine ; while no reform, how- ever seemingly expedient or however recommended by its abstract merits, was held to be justifiable if it could be shown to be in conflict with ancient and authoritative tradition. The Reformers themselves always maintained that the doctrines which they enforced rested on Scriptural precedent and primitive example. Their assertion was frequently challenged by their antagonists; and it may reasonably be doubted whether even Luther or Calvin could have commanded any considerable following had not their doctrinal teaching been combined with a demand for a reformation of discipline which rested on undeniable precedent, and to which the circumstances of the time imparted new and irresistible force, a force, however, which had been long accumulating and had been derived in no small measure from the blind obstinacy of the Roman see in times long antecedent. The existence long before the 16th century of a strong Desi desire to bring about a reformation of discipline within the for r church itself is attested by evidence which it will suffice *j? to pass by with little more than an allusion. Among the p^, most notable instances are those afforded by the rise of the Dominican and Franciscan orders in the 13th century and of the Brethren of St Jerome (or the Brethren of the Common Life) in the 14th century, efforts based upon general conviction, which resulted in spontaneous combina- tions. Similar in origin, though more strictly ecclesi- astical in character, were the designs of the great councils which successively assembled at Pisa (1409), at Constance (1414), and at Basel (1431). Among those who were dis- tinguished in these assemblies by their strenuous advocacy of reform, Pierre d'Ailly and his pupil Jean Charlier de Gerson, both successively chancellor of the university of Paris, and Nicholas de Clemenges, archdeacon of Bayeux, were especially conspicuous. Each alike upheld in the plainest language the superiority of a general council to the pope, and the obligation that rested on such a body to address itself to the task of church reform whenever the necessity might arise, and the supreme pontiff himself be found either incapable of such a labour or unwilling to initiate it. Of the widespread necessity for such reform, as shown by tlio condition of the clergy and the monas- teries, the remarkable treatise by Nicholas de Clemenges, 1 De Corrupto Ecdesix Statu, affords alone sufficient evidence. By Michelet 2 this powerful tractate has been compared, for its vigour and the effect which it produced, to the De Captivitate Hcclesiss Bahylonica of Luther; and it is a striking proof of the deep-rooted corruption of the whole church that such flagrant abuses should have continued to exist for another century with little or no abatement. 1 Or by Dietrich of Niem ; the authorship is disputed. 2 Hist, de France, bk. viii. c. 3.
