doctors, with the aid of the method which Aristotle, the greatest logician of antiquity, bequeathed to philosophy.  Neither Luther nor Calvin departed essentially from these great deductions on such vital subjects as the existence and attributes of God, the Trinity, sin and its penalty, redemption, grace, and predestination.  The creeds of modern Protestant churches are in harmony with the writings of both the Fathers and the Scholastic doctors on the fundamental principles of Christianity.  There are, indeed, some ideas in reference to worship, and the sacraments, and the government of the Church, and aids to a religious life, defended by the Scholastic doctors, which Protestants do not accept, and for which there is not much authority in the writings of the Fathers.  But the main difference between Protestants and Catholics is in reference to the institutions of the Church,—­ institutions which gradually arose with the triumph of Christianity in its contest with Paganism, and which received their full development in the Middle Ages.  It was the enormous and scandalous corruptions which crept into these institutions which led to the cry for reform.  It was the voice of Wycif, denouncing these abuses, which made him famous and placed him in the van of reformers.  These abuses were generally admitted and occasionally attacked by churchmen and laymen alike,—­even by the poets.  They were too flagrant to be denied.

Now what were the prominent evils in the institutions of the Church which called for reform, and in reference to which Wyclif raised up his voice?—­for in his day there was only one Church.  An enumeration of these is necessary before we can appreciate the labors and teachings of the Reformer.  I can only state them; I cannot enlarge upon them.  I state only what is indisputable, not in reference to theological dogmas so much as to morals and ecclesiastical abuses.

The centre and life and support of all was the Papacy,—­an institution, a great government, not a religion.

I have spoken of this great power as built up by Leo I., Gregory VII., and Innocent III., and by others whom I have not mentioned.  So much may be said of the necessity of a central spiritual power in the dark ages of European society that I shall not combat this power, or stigmatize it with offensive epithets.  The necessities of the times probably called it into existence, like other governments, and coming down to us with the weight of centuries behind it the Papacy wields perhaps a greater influence than any other single institution of our times.  But I would not defend the papal usurpations by which the Roman pontiffs got possession of the government of both Church and State.  I speak not of their quarrels with princes about investitures, in which their genius and their heroism were displayed rather than by efforts in behalf of civilization.