Yet the Reformation involuntarily helped the cause of liberty.  The result was contrary to the intentions of its leaders, was indirect, and long delayed.  In the first place, the great rent in Western Christianity, substituting a number of theological authorities instead of one—­several gods, we may say, instead of one God—­produced a weakening of ecclesiastical authority in general.  The religious tradition was broken.  In the second place, in the Protestant States, the supreme ecclesiastical power was vested in the sovran; the sovran had other interests besides those of

[81] the Church to consider; and political reasons would compel him sooner or later to modify the principle of ecclesiastical intolerance.  Catholic States in the same way were forced to depart from the duty of not suffering heretics.  The religious wars in France ended in a limited toleration of Protestants.  The policy of Cardinal Richelieu, who supported the Protestant cause in Germany, illustrates how secular interests obstructed the cause of faith.

Again, the intellectual justification of the Protestant rebellion against the Church had been the right of private judgment, that is, the principle of religious liberty.  But the Reformers had asserted it only for themselves, and as soon as they had framed their own articles of faith, they had practically repudiated it.  This was the most glaring inconsistency in the Protestant position; and the claim which they had thrust aside could not be permanently suppressed.  Once more, the Protestant doctrines rested on an insecure foundation which no logic could defend, and inevitably led from one untenable position to another.  If we are to believe on authority, why should we prefer the upstart dictation of the Lutheran Confession of Augsburg or the English Thirty-nine Articles to the venerable authority of the Church of Rome?  If we decide against Rome, we must do so by means

[82] of reason; but once we exercise reason in the matter, why should we stop where Luther or Calvin or any of the other rebels stopped, unless we assume that one of them was inspired?  If we reject superstitions which they rejected, there is nothing except their authority to prevent us from rejecting all or some of the superstitions which they retained.  Moreover, their Bible-worship promoted results which they did not foresee. [1] The inspired record on which the creeds depend became an open book.  Public attention was directed to it as never before, though it cannot be said to have been universally read before the nineteenth century.  Study led to criticism, the difficulties of the dogma of inspiration were appreciated, and the Bible was ultimately to be submitted to a remorseless dissection which has altered at least the quality of its authority in the eyes of intelligent believers.  This process of Biblical criticism has been conducted mainly in a Protestant atmosphere and the new position in which the Bible was placed by the Reformation must be held partly accountable.  In these ways, Protestantism was adapted to be a stepping-stone to rationalism, and thus served the cause of freedom.