Bexley Heritage Lectures
CAN THE PEOPLE RULE?
“Democratic Ideas in Renaissance and Reformation"
John M. Buchanan
November 18,1984

The danger, of course, is over-simplification. A topic as sweeping as
this invites it. And that, I hope, we can avoid this evening. This idea is
so good, and the people in charge have worked so hard, and you are sa
admirable to leave the warmth of fireside and family on a cold November
evening to reflect on Democratic Ideas in the Middle Ages. However, the
danger is real. J am reminded of a story the late Rosalind Russell used to
enjoy telling on herself. She was on a trans-Atlantic cruise, sitting on 32

deck chair on a sunny afternoon, beside a man who had a_ terrible
cold...sneezing, blowing his nose, coughing. "I think if you’1l go to bed
early, drink a lot of fluids, and take two aspirin, you will feel better in
the morning," she said. The man did not respond. So she tried again: "My
name is Rosalind Russell, you know, I make movies." The man thanked her and
said, “And my name is Charles Mayo. ° I run a medical clinic." (Hoover Rupert

in Outlook, 16/23/83, p. 11)

The danger is over-simplification. Tt is an honor to share the platform
this evening with Walter Bouman and Frank Lane. Unlike Miss Russeli I, at
least, know with whom I am on this journey.

The topic might appear remote and safely abstract. But the relationship
between church and state and between religion and life, and the existence of
democratic ideas in the matrix are as immediate as the evening news. The
American Homan Catholic Bishops have issued a pastoral letter on the subject
of poverty and our economic system which, to say the least, has the attention
of the American business community and already is stimulating even more
discussion of the issue of the role of religion in the life of the body

politic. Through the long hot election year, summer into fall, it was the
issue that dominated the news. There were more clergy in the New York Times
Sunday magazine this fall than in The. Catholic Observer. Mario Cuomo,

Geraldine Ferraro, Archbishop 0’Connor, Jerry Falwell, George Bush, Ronald
Reagan, Walter Mondale, and countless others, commented on matters of church
and state, religion and life - none very clearly, none very satisfactorily.

And then at the end of our campaign two events happened elsewhere which
everyone who think about these things found chilling---indira Ghandi was shot
by her Sikh guards, and Solidarity priest Father Popieluszko was beaten and
drowned. In an essay that week Time Magazine observed, “both killings
involved clashes between the faithful and the state. In one instance, a
religion struck at a government; in the other politics struck at religion.
However different their tactics, the Polish priest and the Sikh assassins
would both be considered defenders of the faith."

Whenever religious certainty and political power combine in history, human
liberty is usually the casualty. When religious certainty has power in the
form of a weapon, human life is often the casualty.

page 2

The Shiite Moslem militiaman with an M-1 in his hands - has, as described
in a recent Times article, "The truth with a capital T, and nothing will
stand.in his way." Catholics and Protestants cheerfully bombing one another
in Belfast, the Grand Inquisitor defending the faith from falsehood - all are
convinced that there is ne room for compromise or tolerance in the truth as
they perceive it.

The late Phyllis McGinly, delightful and witty poet, wrote about two very
adamant Reformers Zwingli and Muntger, under the title "How to Start a War."
The two were strong and outspoken and one of their major differences was on
the mode of baptism ~ sprinkling or total immersion.

"Said Zwingli to Muntzer,
T]] have to be blunt, sir.
I don’t like your version of
Total Immersion.

And since God’s on my side
And I’m on the dry side,
You’d better swing ovah

To me and Jehovah.’

Cried Muntzer, *It’s schism,
Is Infant Baptism!

Since I’ve had a sign, sir,
That God’s will is mine, sire,
Let all men agree

With Jehovah and me,

Or go to Hell, singly,’

Said Muntzer to Zwingli,

As each drew his sword

On the side of the Lord."

When the government gets to define the truth and to decide what the
official religion will be - the results are not particularly good for the
human community and certainly not conducive to freedom. The outcome can be
the hell of Orwell’s 1984, or the constriction of Imperial Rome in which it
was first a crime to be a Christian and then, later, a bad idea not to be.
Democracy, I wish to argue, requires a freedom of conscience and spirit which
is precious and rare and fragile. I wish further to suggest that Democracy is
philosophically possible only where that freedom of conscience is protected,
often against the will of the majority, and officially encouraged by the
government; and that the philosophic roots of that idea did some interesting
deepening and growing in the Middle Ages, particularly within two movements
known as Renaissance and Reformation.

First, let’s look at the Middle Ages -— the thousand years from 500 A.B. to
1500 A.D., or from Constantine to Luther, or from the fall of Rome to the
emergence of the modern Nation State.

What was it like to live then? It wasn’t crowded for one thing. The 14th
century population of England was 2.2 million, France — 16 million.

The system the times developed for the ordering of life was called
Feudalism. The basic institutions were castle, village, fief. If you were a
Lord you lived ina castle; if you were a common person you were probably a

pape 4

vassal which meant you had entered into a tight, subordinate relationship with
a lerd. You swore your fidelity in a solemn ceremony — for which you received
@ piece of the lord’s land and the protection of his army, of which you were a
member, as necessary; and eccess to his justice when you needed some. What
you owed the lord was castle duty when the lord was being attacked; and court
service, which meant coming to the castle at the lord’s summons, to resolve
disputes among peers, and sometimes even to give the lord advice. And you
owed an economic obligation. On three occasions the lord could count on your
financial contribution: if he was captured in a war and required a ransom,

for the marriage of his eldest daughter, and when his eldest son became a
knight.

If you were in the Feudal system, you were fairly comfortable and secure.
Of course, many people weren’t in. The peasants, for instance, had the
protection of no tlaws, no constitution. They were simply there, at the
perimeters of the system, hoping to get by ~- by serving a vassal as worker,
servant, or as a beggar, forager, hunter.

There were knights, whose lives were devoted to the art and science of
fighting. They were trained, "dubbed™ at 21, and when not off fighting,
practiced fighting by engaging in tournaments -— the Middle Ages version of War
Games.

Knights did abide by a code of chivalry - which protected everyone, even
themselves, from the more violent possibilities of their science. Knights, as
you knew, were well protected in battle, but the incredible weight of armour
meant that you couldn’t wear it much. In fact, if you were out being a
knight, it required a few people riding behind te carry the armour. If you
should happen to encounter your enemy, chivalry required taking the time to
put on the armour before battle commenced - the object of which was not to
kill your foe but to capture him. One historian observes: "No ome, as a
rule, had any desire te kill anyone. A dead enemy was just a useless corpose
and the slain man’s son was ready toe take his place. But, a captive could be

held for ransom. In the decisive battle of Lincoln in 1217, there were 510
knights on each side, only one died and everyone felt very badly about the
unfortunate occurrence.” (Medieval Society, Sidney Painter, p. 29) The high

point of chivalric behavior was the voluntary return of King John of Trance -
to his English prison, when he found he was unable to raise his ransom.

Women in the feudal system were in the custody, or care, or protection of
the men. At least, that’s what it appeared. Actually, we know different.
Women ran the system. In addition to spinning, weaving, sewing they
supervised the complex operation of estate, or household, most of the time
without the presence of a male whe was out riding around in his armour, acting
important, but actually accomplishing very little.

With the exception of the lords people ate mostly bread, some cheese,
vegetables from a small garden, Fish and chicken were rare luxuries — meat
rarer still.

At the top of the system was a king, then dukes who owned estates and who
owed him fealty. In turn they were served by counts, barons, lords, and
knights.

page 4

It was a fairly effective system. By the 14th and 15th centuries, it was
ending. Many lords were charging rent for their arable fields, and by the
léth century the system was almost gone. Nobility faded as the merchants
cornered the money. Knights were replaced by merceneries to do the fighting.
Chivalry, which was deslt a terrible blow by the lethal crossbow, ended with
the gun. Killing replaced capturing. It was not a democratic system
obviously. There was not much about it te relate to Greek and Roman concepts
of government. But it provided a beginning, at least in the abstract, of the
suggestion that at some points in Life, the people have rights.

One scholar observes: "The feudal class was a ruling aristocracy, but
within its own ranks its political ideals were essentially democratic. The
fief was ruled more by the vassals than by the lord, and the basic conception
of government by mutual agreement, implied in feudal customs, provided the
chief justifications for later efforts to limit royal authority and has come
to be recognized as an important source for the modern conviction that human
rights and dignity sare safe only within the framework of a constitution."
(Painter, ibid., p. 100)

Every village had a church. Cities had many. There were 120 churches in
London in 1250. In addition there were thousands of religious communities -
monasteries.

After the fall of Rome and the disintegration of the Empire the Christian
Church remained as the strongest, most visible, most cohesive institution.
Historians have long noted that out of the ashes of Imperial Rome rose the
Roman Church and on the foundation of Caesar’s throne, Peter’s successors sat.
Even the language was preserved. After the emperors, the most powerful
individual in the old imperial city was the bishop of Rome. The father - papa
- pope — had enough power and money to raise an army and engage the relentless
barbarians in battle. And when on Christmas Day, in the year 800 A>D>, Pope
Leo Til crowned Charlemagne the Holy Roman Emperor, the church clearly was
superior to any government on earth. By LOV3, under the brilliant papacy of
Gregory the Great, the church was the undisputed dominant force in Western
civilization, strong eneugh to launch and carry out the crusades.

But there were deep stirrings in Western civilization which would result
in two of those grand historic movements, named only in retrospect, understood
only in retrospect, which clearly are determining points in the human
story...Renaissance and Reformation.

Professor Bronowski writes that when the Renaissance began depends on what
you think it was. The Renaissance, he says, is:

1. The birth of modern man and woman and the rediscevery of the human
individual.

2. The birth of emperical science which pays more attention to nature than to
theological dogma.

3. The emergence of the secular concept of the state.

4, New attention to fame, glory and the expression of human personality, as
in art, sculpture.

page 5

5. The exploration of the world.

It is helpful to be reminded that for a long period of Western history

those activities were not happening. It is sometimes called the Dark Ages.
What the Greeks and Romans celebrated in poetry, drama, architecture, learning
was shelved. The Renaissance is their recovery and with it a great

rediscovery of our humanity.

One of the interesting expressions of that rebirth was the development of
@ new political structure in what we now know as Italy. Milan, Venice,
Florence, Roman, Naples emerged as independent city-states. Trade flourished,
which in turn created banking, the need for bookkeeping and, say the
historians, the begiming of capitalism, i.e. the idea that the individual
might earn a profit. Politically and philosophically, however, the
interesting thing about the Italian city-states of the Renaissance was that
they were not dominated by the church, and developed ai fairly sophisticated
notion of a religiously neutral political state. In terms of the humanistic
recovery of the person, the names of the Renaissance are among the best we
have ever produced.

Leonardo de Vinci, in the midst of his amazingly accurate anatomical notes
made the discovery that liberated the human intellect and invented science,
namely that "Nature speaks to us in detail, and that only through the detailed
can we find the grand design.“ (Bronowski and Mazlish, p. 18) Leonardo was
what we know as a Renaissance man — inventor, painter, sculptor, military
planner, scholar.

Machiavelli, humanist, philosopher, and poet adopted an original and
rigorously secular attitude toward politics and understood the potential of
power and the emergence of the nation state.

In England, in conjunction with Henry VIII's problem producing an heir,
the Henaissance found one of its most interesting and, I think, most appealing
expressions — the life of Thomes More.

More lived between 1478 and 1535, was a profound Christian, concerned with
suffering and injustice, who under the influence of the Sermon on the Mount —
wrote a book, Utopia, which proposed, among other schemes, the elimination of
money and the holding of all goods in common. He was a wealthy and widely

respected man. He was summoned by Henry to succeed Cardinal Wolsey as
Chancellor, and in spite of his curious ideas, asked for and was granted
something called “freedom of conscience." But when Henry married Anne Boleyn

and made her Queen of England, Thomas More simply and quietly refused to
acknowledge that she was Queen until the Pope said she was legitimately
Henry’s wife. The Pope didn’t. More couldn’t and Henry had him executed.
Thomas More became a martyr, a symbol of the human spirit holding out against
the power of the state. He was an unlikely revolutionary. He simply wished
to be free to hold his belief and somewhere in that stand is a true liberty, a
freedom of the spirit that tyranny cannot abide.

The impetus toward that freedom, I would suggest, may be found deeply in
the religious bed rock of Western Civilization - the Judeo/Christian heritage.
i wish to argue that even though we have not expressed it institutionally with
much consistency, and even though we have ourselves - Catholics and
Protestants ~ been opposed to liberty when we were in power, nevertheless
there is within our belief system a deep and abiding affirmation of freedom.

page 6

Not all historians would agree with that assertion. Qne who does wrote:
"The seeds of disloyalty to an absolute earthly ruler are inherent in
Christianty." (Elliot and MadDonald, p. 292)

From the Hebrew prophets Amos and Jeremiah slinging their barbs at both
king and the king’s favorite house chaplain and being persecuted for it
{please keep religion out of politics!); to Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by
the Romans as a threat to the peace and tranquility of the province; to Paul
of Tarsus and Simon Peter executed for treason; to Dietrich Bonhoeffer joining
an assassanation attempt on Hitler’s life; to Martin Luther King deliberately
breaking the law in Birmingham; to Desmond Tutu, eloquently pleading that love
for God and country calls him te oppose a system of racial oppression which is
not only the law of the land but called the will and law of God by the pet
religious structures of that land...throughouwt all of that there is in the
Judeo/Christian tradition both an insistance on the rights of conscience of
the individual — which is the source of all civil Liberty ~ and also a deep
and abiding suspicion of every political structure which accumulates power.
We think we know an important secret about humanity and it is that left to our
own devices we can be counted on to mess things up. Our word for it is
original sin. It makes us suspicious and very nervous when any power is
unchecked ~ ecclesiastical as well as political. At our best we are willing
to see that dynamic even in ourselves. We have seen that the combination of
religious certainty and political power usually means someone’s freedom is
about to come to an end.

The Reformation of the 16th century, with all its excesses and tragic
abuses, I would suggest, reflected both the Renaissance rediscovery of the
human individual and affirmation of human freedon, and also the
Judeo/Christian insight into the possibilities of human freedom within a
political system.

What was the Reformation? It was Martin Luther, Augustinian monk, on the
eve of All Saints Day, nailing to the castle church door in Wittenberg, 95
theses on the subject of indulgences and the decades of political, social and
religious turmoil which followed. It was a complex, multifaceted, series of
events which divided Europe religiously. “It gave to Europe, as a result of
the religious wars that stemmed from it, the political shape which more or
less it has kept ever since...At a further remove, the Reformation carried
forward into the current which later took the Pilgrim fathers out of England
and led to the colonization of North America.” (Bronowski, Mazlish, p. 76)
There were reformers before Luther, of course. Peter Waldo, St. Francis, Jan
Hus, Joan of Arc, Wycliffe - all protested church authority and in most cases
the church adjusted and reabsorbed its unhappy children. Luther started a
major Hovement because the time was right.

There are several generally acknowledged reasons why the Lutheran revolt
succeeded while others failed or simply faded. The first is that a promising
attempt te reform the church from within not only failed but was answered by a
new and extreme papal absolutism. The promising reform attempt was called the
Conciliar Movement. Led by Marsilius of Padua, it suggested a kind of
ecclesiastical rule of the people. Disputes would be settied by councils, not
individuals. The conciliarists even proposed a kind of limited constitutional
monarchy as a way of governing society and church. The response was in the

page 7

form of two strong Papal proclamations called Bulls in 1458 and 1516,
reasserting absolute Papal authority over any council. The failure of the
Conciliar Movement distressed and disillusioned thoughtful moderate reformers
who wished change to happen in the church.

Another factor is that the church prior to the Reformation experienced a
sequence of tragedies which concerned even the most devout. A struggle
between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII resulted in Philip making Clement ¥V
pope and moving the papacy to Avignon, France between 1309 and 1377. The
absence of the popes from Rome and rival claimants to the throne had a
disillusioning effect and the cry for reform was heard throughout the church.
And then it got worse. Pope Gregory XI returned to Rome, but when he died,
the French and Italian cardinals split and for awhile there were two popes.
Later a third claimant appeared on the scene.

The third reason why the Lutheran Reformation took hold was the new,
critical spirit of the Renaissance, which was examining and reexamining all
the old authorities and generally advocating the freedom of the individual
from everything that would hem it in - artistically, literally, politically,
and ecclesiastically. ‘

Finally, particularly in Germany, there was a new political identity which
would one day take shape in the nation state. Patriotism was a factor in 4
movement which seemed to advocate the loosening of Roman control over the
fortunes - political and religious — of people in Germany.

Luther himself was a fascinating personality. Born in 1483, educated for
the Law at Erfurt, he became an Augustinian monk in 1505, was ordained and
taught philosophy at Wittenberg. It was while there that Luther nailed his 95
theses to the church door. What he wanted te do was debate the subject of
indulgences. Luther wanted only to reform the church. But, making a very
long story very short, he was not only a failure at reforming from within but
was excommunicated and, at the Diet of Worms, where he was ordered by the Holy
Roman Emperor to recant and where he responded with his famous "Here I stand,
I can do no other" speech, he was declared an outiaw with a price on his head.

The German nobles were his strong supporters and before long the churches
of the Reformation, Lutheran churches, were part of the German nation and
spirit.

The freedom of conscience issue for Luther had to do mainly with the
interpretation of scripture. He wrote "I wish to be free. I do not wish to
become the slave of any authority, whether that of a council or any other
power, of the University or of the Pope. For J shall proclaim with confidence
what I believe to be true...whether it is authorized or not by I care not what
authority.” Although it is here in the context of an in-house debate about
who has the authority to interpret seripture, it is philosophically a critical
point in the gradual appearance of the idea of the rule of the people.

Luther, himself, was an enigma. He could say something like that about
freedom, advocate his own right of conscience and then turn on the peasants
who thought they heard him correctly on freedom and equality and rose up

against the nebles. “Slaughter them" Luther roared. He was no Renaissance
man, brilliant, but not open. "God uses coarse wedges for splitting coarse
blocks," he said about himself. “I am rough, boisterous, stormy, and

altogether warlike." History has judged his self assessment to be accurate.

page &

fo his credit Luther oppossed state-coerced Chrsitianity. There was no
room in his theology for a religion forced on non-believers by the state. But
he became appaliingly anti-semitic in his old age. He taught that the

authorities were appointed by God and were to be obeyed — so he can't be
pressed into service as an advocate for political liberty. And he wanted the
state to support the church so he can’t serve as an example of the separation
of church and state.

What Luther did, in the framework of political freedom, almost in spite of
himself, was advocate the cause of liberty of conscience against any human
authority. In the best Judeo/Christian tradition, he is a reminder that in
the human story, unchecked authority and power turns out badly - particulary
for human freedon.

John Calvin was the leader of the other branch of the Protestant
Reformation. A French intellectual, exiled from his native land because of
his Reformist proclivities, Galvin became the leading pastor in Geneva and
shortly thereafter the dominant political force as well. Calvin wanted the

church to be totally independent of the state. In fact, his view was so
extreme that he came out at a position that sounded like the state exists to
serve the church. Geneva became a theocracy. And to demonstrate again the

Christian secret that ne one in power is to be trusted for very long, Calvin
presided over the execution of 58 people including the famous heretic
Servetus. Servetus came to Geneva, having escaped from Vienna, where the
Catholics had already condemned him to death by a "slow fire.”

Geneva became something of a haven for persecuted refugees. Calvin
insitituted a form of public education, a primitive system of labor laws, and
wrote theology generally regarded as some of the finest we have ever produced.
Even though his own regime was, in many ways, oppressive, "Calvinism in the
end was one of the major factors in the achievement of political liberty."
(Fosdick, p. 200} The people of Geneva voted for their pastors and members of

the town board. It wasn’t much, but in the gradual emergence of democratic
ideas it was a major turning point. Calvin wrote: "We are subject to men who
rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against

him, let us not pay the least attention to it.”

There it is again! The earliest echoes of the refrain of freedom: the
fragile suggestion that there is a limit to what a monarch or a state or a
church can demand of an individual; the right to obey one’s conscience even if
it means disobeying the laws of the civil authority. Calvin wasn’t a Democrat
either, but I believe Mr. Jefferson wrote what he did in July of 1776, at
least in part, because the French Presbyterian reformer broke the ice 240
years earlier in his Geneva study.

Presbyterian scholar Jane Dempsey Douglas wrote recently: “Calvin was an
old freedom fighter ~- even though he, and his Geneva colleagues, did not
always see as clearly as we do today the implications of that freedom..
(Princeton Seminary Bulletin, vol. IV, No. 2, Christian Freedom in Calvin’s
Theology)

pape 9

What the Christian church maintained throughout the Middle Ages was that
there is an independent, higher law, which applied to the ruler and ruled
alike. And while the church’s interpretation of what that law said may, at
times, have been offensive or wrong, the idea that there was such an
accountability is a basic part of Western constitutional thinking. This is
how a political scientist says it, “The medieval monarch had an
institutionalized moral check on his power. This contributes to the basic
doctrine and development of constitutionalism -—- government limited and
directed by a moral law. That the check was often flouted is true. But is
remained nevertheless as an ideal, and acted as a very real brake on the
absolutism of rules." (Elliot and MacDonald, p. 297}

One of Calvin’s disciples was a Scottish refugee, John Knox. Knox was a
passionate and belligerent reformer who pushed Calvinism to its logical,
political conclusion by advocating "the duty of resistance to a king who would
not permit the true religion." (ibid., p. 382) Knox hounded Mary Queen of
Scots from her throne and planted a fierce Presbyterianism into the Scottish
character and many colonists in the new world brought it with them.

Historians note "a natural incompatibility between Calvinist—Presbyterian
form of church organization and absolute monarchy" (ibid., p. 381) We
Presbyterians are perversely proud of that kind of reputation, as well as the
description of the American Revolution by a member of parliament during the
war - as a "Presbyterian Revolt."

Gne of the classic political science modern texts puts the issue
succinctly, “Can a _ state tolerate a belief and an institution in its midst
which acknowledges a higher loyalty than one to the ruler? That is the great
question for which Western man has sought an answer for nearly two thousand
years.” (Elliot and MacDonald, p. 298)

Both Fascism and Communism answer that question in the negative. Both
demand an ultimate allegiance to Fuhrer, State, or People. Neither can abide
for long the existence of civil liberty which grants radical freedom of
religion, freedom to obey one’s conscience - to its citizens. Both must go
through the charade of seeming to provide that freedom and both do it by
attempting to control the free exercise of religion very carefully.

Mr. Jefferson thought it possible. Jefferson not only wanted a government
which protected and respected the liberty of its own citizens, but a
government so realistic about human abuse of power that it would limit itself,
provide for checks and balances which are the institutional expression of that
healthy suspicion of power I mentioned earlier. In addition, he believed and
managed to persuade a majority of his colleagues to agree, that both the state
and religion would be better off if there were a radical and profound
separation, anda radical freedom from government control or support of
anybody’s religion.

Jefferson would not have understood our concern about keeping religion out
of politics. In fact, I observe that what people who want religion and
politics to he compartmentalized usually mean is that they don’t want their
politics or economics criticized by anyone’s religion. It’s amazing how fast
the far right and left, politically and religiously, can move on that issue.

page 10

Separation of church and state means, EI would submit, the radical freedom
of the. individual here to be religious or not to be religious without any
coercion or pressure from the majority’s religion ~ whatever that might be -
or the religion of the current administration. IT would argue the importance
of that radical freedom. I would argue that it is central to the democratic
idea today.

The Democratic idea is very much alive. But it is fragile. I believe it
comes under assault when the government starts writing the prayers for the
classroom, or even when the gevernment says it will be the policy here to

pray. That invades a right that is unique and precious and fragile. It is
under assault when zealous religionists try to press the government ta
institutionalize their brand of the truth. "Christian America" is a

contradiction in terms. Mr. Jefferson’s America has room for everybody.

Freedom of conscience, basic civil liberty is under assault teday - from
the left and the right. In Poland and in South Africa the government kills
people for obeying their conscience. In Chile and the Soviet Union, in Korea
~ North and South - it is not healthy to advocate freedom of the human spirit.
Free religious expression remains ‘a threat to dictatorship and tyranny on
either end of the spectrum. :

Can the people rule? The human experience - accumulated through Middle
Ages to modernity, through Renaissance and the upheavals of Reformation would
indicate “yes, the people can rule.” But that accumulated experience would

teach us several lessons which each generation needs te learn anew....

that the people rule to the degree that their individual freedom of
conscience is respected....

that freedom of the human spirit is a product of government consciously
and intentionally Limiting its own authority over individual consciences....

And that the radical Jefferson experiment of separation of church and
state - not only expresses that spiritual freedom —- but is a pretty good idea
for all of us.

page 11

Bibliography

Bainton, Rolland. Here I Stand, A Life of Martin Luther. 1950.

Brinton, Crane. Jdeas and Men, "The Story of Western Thought." 1950.

Bronwski, J., and Mazlish, Bruce. ‘The Western Intellectual Tradition
(Part I, Chapters 1-6). 1960.

Deanesly, Margaret. A History of the Medieval Church, 590-1500.. 1925.

Eco, Umberto. The Name of the Rose. 1980.

Elliot, William Y. and McDonald, Neil A. Western Political Heritage. 1950.
Chapter VI, “The Two Swords" pp. 288-318,
Chapter VII, “Government in the Middle Ages" pp. 319-375,
Chapter VIII, “The Protestant Revolt & Its Political Effects" pp. 376-416.

Fosdick, Harry Emerson. Great Voices'of the Reformation. 1952.

Horwitz, Robert H. The Moral Foundations of the American Republic. 1977.

Manns, Peter. Martin Luther. 1983.

McNeill, William H. The Rise of the West, Part II. 1963.
Chapter VIII, “Barbarian Onslaught and Civilized Response"
Chapter X F, "The Far West" pp. 538-559.

Murray, John. We Hold These Truths.

Parker, T.H.L. Portrait of Calvin. 1954.

Sabine, George H. and Thorson, Thomas L. A History of Political Theory.
1973.

Southern, R.W. The Making of the Middle Ages. 1953,

Stephenson, Carl. Medieval Feudalism. 1943.

Thompson, Karl F., ed. Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, Vol. I.J
"Classics of Western Thought," 1964.

Tierney, Brian. The Crisis of Church and State, 1050-1300. 1964.

Williams, George H. The Radical Reformation. 1962.