An essay on the economic effects of the reformation

Front matter

LIBRARY 330.9

Obble

REMOTE STORAGE

Preface

HILE this book was going through the press,

my attention was drawn to an article, by Mr. R.

H. Tawnay, entitled “‘ Religion and Business,” which appeared in the October number of the Hibbert Journal. ‘I am very pleased to see that Mr. Tawnay agrees with me on many of the matters dealt with in my first chapter—for example, Luther’s reactionary attitude towards usury, the support given by Lutheranism to the idea of the absolute state, the effect of the abolition of the old ecclesiastical sanctions for commercial dishonesty, and the result of the replacement of institutional by individualist conceptions of life. It is a matter of satisfaction to find oneself in agreement with a scholar so profound as Mr. Tawnay, and I hope that no reader of this book will neglect to consult his valuable article.

I wish to express my gratitude to the Rev. P. J. Connolly, S.J., and the Rev. T. A. Finlay, S.J., for reading the manuscript, and to Mr. Arthur Cox for helping me in the correction of the proofs.

GEORGE O’BRIEN.

DUBLIN, January 27, 1923.

ave

Chapter I The Economic Effects Of The Reformation In General

INFLUENCE OF RELIGIOUS ON ECONOMIC THOUGHT = > INFLUENCE GREATEST IN MIDDLE AGES - = - = MEDIZVAL CONCEPTION OF ECONOMIC LIFE - - = RELIGIOUS BASIS OF MEDIZ: VAL CIVILIZATION - = - THE REFORMATION AN ATTACK ON THIS RELIGIOUS BASIS = SCOPE OF THE PRESENT ESSAY - = - = - COMPARATIVE PROGRESS OF CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES ECONOMIC UTTERANCES OF THE REFORMERS = - =

LUTHER a = - ° - > - - CALVIN = = - - - enite) | - - CALVIN AND USURY = - - “ = -

THE REFORMATION PRIMARILY A RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT - THE FAR-REACHING EFFECT OF THE REFORMER’S TEACHING - IT ATTACKED EXISTING SOCIETY AT ITS CENTRE - - IT SAPPED THE STRENGTH OF CHRISTENDOM : - “ AND HELPED THE COMMUNIST SECTS 3 : . AND PAVED THE WAY FOR NEW HERESIES - - - NATURAL TENDENCY OF HERESIES TO DISINTEGRATE- - - PROGRESSIVE DISINTEGRATION OF PROTESTANTISM - < DIFFICULTIES OF PRINCIPLE OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT - - PROTESTANTISM LED TO RATIONALISM~ - - - ! PROTESTANTISM THE MOST DANGEROUS OF ALL HERESIES - REACTIONS OF THE REFORMATION ON CATHOLICISM “ . THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE . : EXAGGERATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE 4 . “ . PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE DOCTRINE - - ° DISAPPEARANCE OF ECCLESIASTICAL MORAL AUTHORITY - - SEPARATION OF SPIRITUAL AND SECULAR LIFE - . : LACK OF SPIRITUAL SANCTIONS IN PROTESTANTISM vii

Vili CONTENTS

AURICULAR CONFESSION - = = = - = THE NECESSITY OF INSTITUTIONS - — x - - REFORMATION LED TO INDIVIDUALIST SOCIETY = - - AND TO A LOWERING OF THE MORAL STANDARD = - ACTUAL MORALITY OF THE REFORMED COMMUNITIES - = MONASTIC VOWS OF CELIBACY - - - - -

WORKS OF CHARITY = = = Ce re = THE REFORMATION AN ANARCHICAL MOVEMENT - ~ = AND LED TO POLITICAL INSUBORDINATION - 4 os AND TO SOCIAL REVOLUTION 5 = = a = PROTESTANTISM SAVED BY ITS INCONSISTENCY

CHAPTER II PROTESTANTISM AND CAPITALISM MEANING OF CAPITALISM - - - - - NOT SIMPLY A FORM OF INDUSTRY EMPLOYING CAPITAL - NOR ONE PROVIDING UNEARNED INCOMES - - - NOR ONE WHERE USURY IS TOLERATED - - - : NOR ONE WHERE AVARICE IS COMMON - - - - NOR ONE WHERE LARGE SCALE PROCESSES ARE EMPLOYED - EXPLANATION OF THE CAPITALISTIC SPIRIT - - - TRANSITION FROM PRECAPITALIST TO CAPITALIST SPIRIT : ABOLITION OF ALL RESTRAINTS ON THE PURSUIT OF GAIN -

PROFIT THE SOLE MEASURE OF SUCCESS - - = = CONNECTION BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE AND ECONOMIC

THEORY - - - - = - - INDIVIDUALISM - - - - - - - IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO PRODUCTION - = - = ASSUMPTION OF THE CONCURRENCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

INTERESTS - - - - - - - PHYSIOCRAT THEORIES = - - - - - ADAM SMITH ON THE CONCURRENCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

INTERESTS - - - - - - =

TENDENCY TOWARDS COSMOPOLITANISM AND FREE TRADE ae EXAGGERATIONS OF ADAM SMITH’S TEACHING 5 = = CLASSICAL ECONOMICS FAVOURABLE TO CAPITALIST SPIRIT = BUT DID NOT PROVIDE ITS ORIGIN = = = < WHERE DID THE CAPITALIST SPIRIT HAVE ITS ORIGIN ? - - CAPITALIST IDEAS CHARACTERISTICALLY PROTESTANT = i

80 81 82

83 84

85 87 88 89 90 90 91

CONTENTS

PRIVATE JUDGMENT ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE - - GROWTH OF MECHANICO-OPTIMISTIC IDEA OF SOCIETY - = PROTESTANT INDIVIDUALISM = - = 3 = PROTESTANTISM AND THE CONCURRENCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

INTERESTS - = ~ = = ¥ : SOCIAL OUTLOOK OF CALVINISM - : = * CONTRAST BETWEEN LUTHERANISM AND CALVINISM - = CHARACTERISTIC CALVINIST DOGMAS = = = “ CATHOLIC IDEAS ON THE FULFILMENT OF ONE’S VOCATION = LUTHER ON VOCATIONS * : ~ “ = = CALVINIST IDEAS ON VOCATION - 4 ~ " Be WORKS A SIGN OF ELECTION = = os S a

DISTINCTION FROM CATHOLIC TEACHING ON WORKS - - RESULTS OF CALVINIST TEACHING ON VOCATION - - THE PURITANS - - - - ~ - - PURITAN ETHICS - - - - - - - IMPORTANCE OF PURITANISM ON ENGLISH LIFE AND THOUGHT - CONNECTION BETWEEN PURITANISM AND INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS REASON FOR THIS CONNECTION - - - - - IMPORTANCE OF THE TEACHING ON THE CALLING - ~ AND OF THE PURITAN INSISTENCE ON FRUGALITY . - PRODUCTION ENCOURAGED AND CONSUMPTION DISCOURAGED - ““ LAISSEZ FAIRE’? IDEALS IN PURITANISM - - -

THE FULFILMENT OF ONE’S CALLING A SERVICE TO THE COM- MUNITY - - - - - - -

SIMILARITY OF PURITAN AND JEWISH IDEAS = = -

MODERN AUTHORS ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PURITANISM AND CAPITALISM - - - - - -

Chapter III Protestantism And Socialism

MEANING OF THE TERM SOCIALISM = = iF - OPPOSED TO UNREGULATED INDIVIDUALISM = fe = A THEORY OF THE STATE’S ACTION = = = ASSOCIATED WITH ATTACKS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ~ = CONNECTION BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND THE REFORMATION ~ SOCIALISM A REACTION AGAINST CAPITALISM o = = CAPITALISM AN EASY PREY TO SOCIALISTIC IDEAS ~ - SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES DERIVED FROM CLASSICAL ECONOMICS =

122 124

MODERN SOCIALISM MATERIALISTIC - 7 “

CONNECTION BETWEEN COMMUNISTIC AND HERETICAL MOVE-

MENTS a - = = 5 - BOTH ARE ATTACKS ON AUTHORITY - ~ - PROTESTANTISM ESPECIALLY APT TO AID COMMUNIST IDEAS IT AIDED THE EXISTING COMMUNISTIC SECTS - = THE DIGGER MOVEMENT - = = - ~ HERETICAL AND EARLY CHRISTIAN COMMUNISM CONTRASTED REFORMATION COMMUNISM SIMILAR TO MODERN SOCIALISM CONFISCATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY - b= ANALOGY BETWEEN REFORMATION AND FRENCH REVOLUTION DIMINUTION OF CHARITY FOLLOWING THE REFORMATION THE REFORMATION AND THE OMNIPOTENCE OF THE STATE REFORMATION AND EGALITARIAN IDEAS - - - THE PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN ce = - - THE REFORMED TEACHING ON ORIGINAL SIN - os THE DOCTRINE THAT MAN IS BORN GOOD a - INFLUENCE OF OLD TESTAMENT IDEAS - - -

SOCIALIST AND CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF THE IDEAL SOCIETY

PROFOUND OPPOSITION BETWEEN CATHOLICISM AND SOCIALISM - NO SUCH OPPOSITION BETWEEN PROTESTANTISM AND SOCIALISM

Chapter IV Conclusion

CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM HAVE THE SAME ORIGIN SUMMARY OF THESIS ~ ? - - - MEDIZVAL ETHICAL SYSTEM = - - - BREAKDOWN OF MEDIZVAL SYSTEM = = -

DISRUPTION OF CHRISTIAN UNITY “3 = = EFFECT OF THE REFORMATION ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH MODERN EUROPE PASSING THROUGH A CRITICAL PERIOD

FAILURE OF SOCIALISM TO SOLVE SOCIAL QUESTION = SOCIALISM MERELY A REACTION - = = > A PHILOSOPHY CANNOT SUPPLY THE WANT OF A RELIGION THE NEW SOCIAL CREED MUST BE COSMOPOLITAN » THE INSTITUTION NEEDED TO SAVE THE WORLD - a

INDEX - - - - - - A

PAGE

AN ESSAY ON THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE REFORMATION

CHAPTER I The Economic Effects of the Reformation in General

HE more the study of economic history is pursued,

the more clearly emerges the connection between

religious and economic ideas. So long as the economist was content to confine his speculations to the needs and activities of a scientifically abstracted economic man, he could afford to neglect all aspects of human life except the acquisitive, and all springs of emotion and action except the avaricious. Such a method of dealing with economics was perfectly legitimate, and led, in fact, to many valuable discoveries and useful results. In every science it is necessary to study the actions of particular forces apart from disturbing factors, and accurate experiment and deduction are frequently impossible, unless a real or imaginary elimination of such disturbing factors can be attained. The danger of the method arises from the failure to remember that the disturbing forces are, in fact, liable to disturb, and from applying the results of such abstract and ideal experiments to real problems without allowing for the restoration of the factors which have been temporarily left out of account. It was because 1 the classical economists committed this error that their teaching fell into such unpopularity, not to say disrepute. Having constructed for purposes of experiment an ideal economic man, wholly composed of self-interest and avarice, and recognizing no measure of value but the pecuniary one, they wrongly concluded that the perfectly correct results at which they had arrived by their experiments on this creature were applicable to real men composed of flesh and blood. They abstracted from the object of their observation all motives of honour, patriotism, and religion, and they forgot to restore these motives when stating the results of their investigations. Naturally, the actions and thoughts of such an abnormal monster would not be influenced by ethical and still less by supernatural considerations; and, equally naturally, the economic science constructed on the observation of a world peopled exclusively by such creatures would not find it necessary to pay any attention to the cultural, moral, or supernatural aspects of life.* >

It was this elimination of all but the avaricious motives from economic life which produced the sterility of classical political economy; and the restoration of the forgotten motives of love, duty, and religion into the

* Dean Inge puts this well: ‘‘ There is not much fault to find with the old economists so long as they recognized that their science was an abstract science, which for its own purposes dealt with an unreal abstraction—the economic man. Every science is obliged to isolate one aspect of reality in this way. But when political economy was treated as a philosophy of life it began to be mischievous. A book on ‘ The Science of the Stomach,’ without. knowledge of physiology or the working of other organs, would not be of much use. Man has never been a purely acquisitive being: for example, he is also a fighting and a praying being.” (Outspoken Essays, p. 22.)

study of political economy was the principal aim of the German or historical school. As soon as economics, and in particular economic history, came to be studied from this new standpoint, it became at once apparent how deeply the economic life of man was coloured and influenced by his religious beliefs and surroundings; and the connection between these two great departments of human activity would not be questioned by anybody at the present day.*

The influence of religion on economic life and thought will naturally not always be equally powerful, but will vary with the relative stages of development of religious and economic activity. In an age in which people are generally irreligious, and in which no strong dogmatic institution is universally recognized, the influence of religion in the economic sphere will be less pronounced than in an age when everybody is deeply penetrated with faith, and when all are obedient to a single religious and moral teacher. On the other hand, the economic department of human life will be more or less deeply influenced by religious considerations in proportion to the state of development which has been attained by an independent economic science. A people in possession of an extensive literature and tradition, dealing with the economic side of life from a scientific or rationalist standpoint, will be less subject to the influence of religious thought than one which is accustomed to look for

* ** Heonomic science has grown up in Christian lands, and could not escape the influence of its environment. The relations between religion and economics are well worth discussing, even though they are somewhat obscure.”” (Cunningham, Christianity and Economic Science, p. 1.) ‘* On pourrait presque dire, telle religion, tel systeme économique.” (Batault, Le Probléme Juif, p. 170, and see Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, chap. xi., passim.)

guidance in all its daily problems exclusively to ecclesiastical authority. Consequently, the influence of religion on economics will be far less felt in a community of low religious and high economic development than in a community of high religious and low economic development. Now, it may be said generally that the eighteenth century, which witnessed the birth of an independent science of economics, also witnessed the beginning of a widespread decay of European religious belief. If this be so, it follows from what we have just said that the influence of religion on economics was greater in the centuries preceding than in the centuries following the eighteenth.

But even in the earlier period the influence was not at all times of equal strength. The great development of economics as an independent science, which culminated in the work of Adam Smith, had begun in the previous century, and the breaking down of the unity and authority of Christian dogma had been progressively increasing since the first half of the sixteenth century. The further we go back, therefore, the more marked becomes the influence of the religious on the economic life of Europe, until we reach the Middle Ages, the period at which it exerted its greatest strength. What renders the Middle Ages so important in this respect is that it is the only period in history in which economics was regarded altogether from the standpoint of ethics, and in which ethics was included within the jurisdiction of the universal and infallible religious authority. In the Middle Ages anything approaching economic science in the modern sense was unknown. The great doctor of the thirteenth century, who dealt with every department of Christian life and duty, knew nothing of a science of political economy, either in the sense in which it was understood by the mercantilists, as aiming at increasing the prosperity of the state, or in the sense in which it was understood by the classical economists, as stating the principles upon which people do habitually act in their economic affairs. St. Thomas Aquinas, in so far as he deals with economic life at all, deals with it simply as a branch of general ethics. When it is remembered that the science of ethics was at that time dealt with exclusively by ecclesiastics in the light of revelation as well as in that of natural reason, and that the moral life of the individual was controlled by ecclesiastical legislation enforced by spiritual sanctions, it will be understood how intimate must have been the connection between the religious and the economic life of Europe in the Middle Ages.*

This close connection between the material and the spiritual life of man was productive of very many important consequences. The strict subordination of all commercial and industrial activities to the moral law must necessarily have had the result of maintaining a certain standard of business honour and good faith. Moreover, the insistence on the unbroken unity of man’s ’ career before and after death must have powerfully influenced the medieval conception of economic values. The knowledge that good would be rewarded and evil punished in another world, and that man’s earthly existence was but the most fleeting phase of his career, must have operated, on the one hand, to render the poor and unfortunate less discontented with their lot, and, on the other hand, to detach the rich and successful to some extent from avarice both in the acquisition and

* Cunningham, The Use and Abuse of Money, p. 158.

in the use of their wealth. The Church’s insistence on the superior importance of spiritual riches must have had the effect of subordinating material and pecuniary standards of success and of happiness, and of breeding in the individual a sense of the correct proportion of things. It was never forgotten that worldly wealth was but a means to an end, and that the economic function of society was but a single function, which could not be suffered to occupy too large a share of attention without detriment to other and more vital functions. While the medizeval conception of life strictly confined economic activity to its correct and proper place, it did not run to the extreme of universal or unreasonable asceticism. ‘The schoolmen fully realized that material wealth, like everything else in the scheme of creation, was good in itself, and might be made the means of virtuous and profitable use., From the very first ages of its existence, the Church had been constantly assailed by and had constantly combated the heresy of Manicheism, which was ever appearing under novel and unexpected forms. One of the commonest aims of these heretical parties was community of goods; and on this subject the Church declared itself again and again in favour of private property. Thomas Aquinas and the other doctors of the Church insisted that private property was justified because it acted as a spur to economic endeavour; and the medixzval Church had as little sympathy with the fanatics who wished to ignore this “world in order to fix their eyes exclusively on the next, as it had with those avaricious and worldly people who ignored the next world in order to fix their eyes exclusively on this.

- The Church was, therefore, no enemy of material progress, but, on the contrary, approved and encouraged legitimate business endeavour. The religious orders set the example of arduous and unremitting toil to the laity, and many legitimate associations for economic activity—for example, the guilds—were under direct ecclesiastical patronage. The much misrepresented and misunderstood prohibition of usury contained nothing calculated to discourage or to act as a check on business enterprise, and, indeed, a very great development of capitalist trading grew up in Italy without in any way infringing the strict teaching of the Church on this point. If any refutation were needed of the libel that the medizval Church acted as a bar to economic progress, it would be supplied by a mere examination of some of the magnificent survivals of the period.*

It would be out of place further to labour this point in an essay which, after all, does not profess to be an economic history of the Middle Ages. The point to which we do wish to direct attention is that) the whole fabric of medieval civilization rested upon a religious basis./ The regulation of every activity of secular life was regarded as a matter to be approached from the standpoint of the general Christian ethic, which, in its turn, was regarded as a matter to be pronounced upon by the Church. In this way, the universally accepted ideas of commercial men and of people generally of the time were ideas founded upon a religious basis; and the whole complexion of everyday life was coloured by these ideas, just as the whole complexion of present-day life is” coloured by certain ideas of its own. The importance

* The suggestion that the medieval Church was hostile to business enterprise is ably controverted by Sombart in The Quintessence of Capitalism, p. 248.

of such underlying—often imperfectly realized and subconscious—ideas is excellently explained by Professor Foxwell: ‘“‘ That there are such underlying ideas of right and wrong, and that the whole tenor of legislation is silently, unconsciously, moulded by these accepted views as to what is economically and constitutionally fair and just, will not be disputed. Crystallized into catching phrases, we meet with these current ideas of equity at every turn. One man one vote; a living wage; a fair’s day wage for a fair day’s work; equality of opportunity; @ chacun selon ses cuvres ; property is a trust; a man may do as he likes with his own; caveat emptor; laissez faire—these and many others will be familiar to us as effective instruments of economic and political movement. If they are modified, the legis-- lation of all free countries will reflect the change; until they are modified, no forcible revolution will leave more than a superficial and transient effect.’’*

The maxims given by Professor Foxwell in the passage quoted are excellent examples of the sort of maxims that underlie and form the groundwork of thought in the modern unregulated, competitive age. The medieval man possessed quite as many maxims of this kind as the modern man, but they were essentially different in outlook. As Professor Foxwell puts it: “‘ It would be hard to say whether the average man of to-day would be more astonished at the medizval ideas of corporate responsibility and vicarious punishment than the medizval would be at our anarchical competition and flagrant usury. But it is certain that each would find the other’s notion of fairness positively scandalous.’’+ If we were

* Introduction to English Translation of Menger’s Right to the Whole Produce of Labour, p. xiii. tf Ibid.

to attempt to discover the essential difference between the two points of view, we should find that the modern point of view rests upon an individualist and rationalist basis, while the medieval rested upon a solidarist and dogmatic basis. In other words, whereas modern society is fundamentally scientific in its ideas, medizeval society was fundamentally religious. “The medizeval man had an ?tdée five, religion, which entered as a blend into all his thoughts, political, economic, scientific or artistic.’’*

It follows that a society penetrated throughout, as medieval society was, by the ideas and teaching of a dogmatic religion will continue essentially unchanged so long as no change occurs in the religion on which it is based. In order, therefore, to effect any far-reaching social change in such a society, it is necessary to attack the religion in which it is rooted; and conversely, any attack on the religion entails, as a necessary consequence, serious social and ‘economic changes. When in the extreme case the attack on the old religion is directed against its very foundations, and when the old faith is shaken from top to bottom, the social and economic consequences are bound to be correspondingly deep and

* Schapiro, Social Reform and the Reformation, p. 98. As Dr. Cunningham puts it: *“‘ During the Middle Ages human activities were dominated by religion, while in modern times political and economic life has been secularized. . . . In the old days life had been treated as a whole; all institutions had religious as well as political aspects; but in the course of the centuries the two sides fell apart, and life could be conveniently divided into sections.” (Christianity and Economic Science, pp. 38 and 76). ‘* In the inner harmony of the system of the Middle Ages the economic order found its parallel in the political order, and was even reflected in the spiritual order, and projected in the conception of another world. The medieval conditions resulted in a long period of organic and stable society.” (Foxwell, op. cit., p. xv.)

revolutionary. The religious movement known as the Reformation was essentially an attack of this kind. It aimed at subverting the basic foundation upon which the prevailing order rested, and at dismembering the whole edifice of existing belief and tradition. Can it be a matter of surprise that such a movement should have been accompanied by social and economic consequences of the gravest kind? It is the aim of the present essay to give some account of these consequences.*

We are perfectly aware of the difficulty of the task undertaken, and of the very inadequate degree to which that task has been achieved. Our only excuse for the publication of the present essay is the paucity of the existing literature on the subject in the English language. It is not pretended for a moment that the present volume fills, even partially, that lacuna in economic history; all it aims at doing is to suggest lines of study to students interested in the subject, and to supply some bibliographical indications, which, it is hoped, will lead to the subject being dealt with more fully and more competently by some other hand.

It is important that we should make it quite clear that our inquiries will be directed exclusively to the effects of the Reformation on economic thought and theory, and that we shall not attempt to deal with its effects on actual economic life. To give any adequate account of the consequences of the Reformation on the economic and social life of the people of Europe, it would be necessary to write a general economic

* On the magnitude of the economic consequences of the Reformation see Villeneuve Bargemont, Histoire de Economie politique, vol. i., p. 289; Guizot, Christianity in Relation to Society (Eng. Trans.), vol. i., p. 229; Stern, Die Socialisten der Reformationszeit, pp. 2 and 9.

history of Europe since the middle of the sixteenth century. At the same time, of course, it is impossible to separate these two kindred topics into absolutely watertight compartments, and some reference will necessarily be made to the very important economic and social changes which followed the Reformation; but we shall be scrupulous in confining such references to cases where the actual practical changes had consequences in the realm of economic theory and thought, or where they are necessary as illustrations of the growth and direction of such theory and thought. For example, the dissolution of the monasteries in England and the confiscation of ecclesiastical land was followed by consequences of the gravest character to the condition of the poorer classes; but we shall refer to this very important historical event only in so far as it resulted in the encouragement of an individualistic and irresponsible conception of the functions of property, or in so far as it points to a revolutionary and socialistic spirit, displaying itself in a contempt for vested and prescriptive rights. This limitation of our subject saves us from the necessity of discussing the highly controversial subject of the comparative progress of Catholic and Protestant countries. While there is probably no one topic in economic history which has provoked so much acrimony and heat as this, there is probably no subject upon which more indefinite, unsatisfactory and inconclusive results have been reached. The reason for this is simply that no agreed basis of comparison exists, and that it is not possible to isolate the part played by religious belief from that played by other factors sufficiently to ensure that some non-religious influence is not being left out of account. The few remarks which we think it advisable to offer in passing on this subject are designed, not to aid either side in the controversy, but to show how impossible it is for any satisfactory conclusion to be reached on the question, and thus to discourage its further discussion by Catholic and Protestant students alike.

In the first place, it must be obvious to anybody who gives the matter a moment’s thought, that the civilization of the so-called Protestant countries to-day does not rest on an exclusively Protestant foundation. The history of the culture of the modern European and American peoples extends back further than the time of Luther; and the centuries before the Reformation, as well as those which followed it, played their part in moulding modern character and culture. It is not possible for an observer, standing at the mouth of a great river, to say what part of the water flowing past him came from the source and the higher reaches of the river, and what part came from the lower tributaries; and it is equally impossible for the student of English or German life to-day to decide which elements in that complex stream arose before and which after the sixteenth century. Even so staunch a Protestant as Macaulay was forced to admit that “it is difficult to say whether Kingland owes more to the Roman Catholic religion or to the Reformation.’’*

Moreover, Protestantism is not a homogeneous and unmixed movement. The Reformation was essentially two-sided: it rejected a large part of Catholic doctrine, but it retained a large part as well. The former was its destructive, and the latter its conservative, side. It is true that the destructive side—the denial of authority and the weakening of the dogmatic foundations of Chris-

* History of England, vol. i., p. 44. (Everyman Edition.)

tianity—proved more permanent, and the conservative side more transient, in Protestantism; but it is difficult to see how this helps the Protestant controversialists in their thesis that Protestant countries are more progressive and successful than Catholic, except in so far as it points to the conclusion that the less religion a country possesses the more fortunate and enviable it will be—a theory to which Protestant historians are quite welcome if they care to adopt it.

The difficulty of arriving at any convincing conclusion in this controversy is increased by the impossibility of isolating religious from non-religious influences. To compare England with Ireland, or Spain with the United States, merely on the basis of their respective religions, is grotesquely unfair; all sorts of other influences—geographical situation, mineral wealth, the fertility of the soil, foreign invasions, internal dissensions, and so on—must also be taken into consideration. If we look at the condition of Europe immediately before the Reformation, we shall see that the countries which have since become the standing example of the stimulating effect of Protestantism were already beginning to lead Europe in the race to industrial prosperity.* Nobody would suggest, we suppose, that the great prosperity which came to Spain as a result of the discovery of gold in South America was due to its Catholicism, and it is equally absurd to suggest that the great prosperity that came to Lancashire in an age when coal and iron deposits were essential to manufacture was due to its Protestantism.