What do you think?
Rate this book
Reformation Theology: A Reader of Primary Sources with Introductions
Few episodes in Western history have so shaped our world as the Protestant Reformation and the counter-Reformations which accompanied it. The Reformation tore the seamless garment of Western Christendom in two, pitting king and pope, laity and clergy, Protestant and Catholic against one another. But it was also a firestorm tearing through an old, stagnant, and dying forest, sowing the seeds for a burst of new and newly diverse life. To understand why the Reformation unfolded as it did, we must understand the ideas that were so forcefully articulated, opposed, and debated by Protestants and Catholics. For Protestant or Catholic believers in our own forgetful age, the need to understand these disputed doctrines, and the logic and coherence that linked them together, is all the more imperative. This is what this volume seeks to offer for the first time: a primary source reader focused squarely on the theological questions that drove the Reformation. Beginning with the first rumblings of conflict in the late medieval period and continuing until the solidification of Protestant confessions in the early 17th century, this collection of thirty-two texts brings the modern reader face-to-face with the key men whose convictions helped shape the course of history. Concise historical introductions accompanying each text bring these writings to life by recounting the stories and conflicts that gave birth to these texts, and highlighting the enduring themes that we can glean from them. KEY TOPICS INCLUDE The doctrine of the church, and its relation to the state; the doctrine of the eucharist, and transubstantiation in particular; the doctrine of justification sola fide and the place of works; the meaning of the Protestant commitment to sola Scriptura; and others. KEY AUTHORS INCLUDE Marsilius of Padua, John Wycliffe, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Martin Luther, Thomas More, John Calvin, The Council of Trent, Thomas Cranmer, Richard Hooker, Robert Belllarmine, and many more.
754 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2017
4 people are currently reading
94 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
December 22, 2025
The single best resource on the reformation I’ve yet come across. The excerpts from primary sources are very well chosen and the introductions are excellent.
January 1, 2018
So, admittedly I'm biased and did a lot of work on this book, but blow-by-blow reviews are always fun and I thought it'd be a great way to promote this collection of Reformation-theology primary sources
Boniface's Una Sancta: Suitably absurd; I really hope the kids realize how ridiculous papal claims are.
Marsilius's Defensor Pacix: More the kind of thing I like than you probably like. Why clerical folks should not have political power. Very similar to Dante.
Wycliffe: A simple point is made here. Nobody can just say I don't interpret "This is my body." Everybody interprets that phrase, and the Catholic position is really unintuitive and requires a lot of unnecessary work to get there (motivate at the time by trying to justify praxis.) In fact, both Wycliffe and Vermigli make the point that you cannot say "This bread is my body." It in fact ceases to be bread but merely appears to be bread. Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah; John the Baptist said he was not Elijah: the big takeaway is that you cannot be a literalist on these matters and just assert transubstantiation.
Huss: The Church consists of those who have been predestined, so no, the pope is not in charge. (Huss is more eloquent than Wycliffe IMO.)
Erasmus' Julius Exclussu: The Popes were BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Luther's 95 Theses: Surprisingly undeveloped Luther who still hopes the Pope will fix things.
Luther's Letter to Christian Nobility: "if a little company of pious Christian laymen were taken prisoners and carried away to a desert, and had not among them a priest con-secrated by a bishop, and were there to agree to elect one of them, born in wedlock or not, and were to order him to baptise, to cele-brate the mass, to absolve, and to preach, this man would as truly be a priest, as if all the bishops and all the popes had consecrated him." Propositions in this statement are more revolutionary than they first appear.
Luther's Babylonian Captivity of the Church: First, give the people the Lord's Supper and stop all this philosophical jugglery! Second, the key to the sacraments is faith, trusting in God's promises. "How many priests will you find every day offering the sacrifice of the Mass, who accuse themselves of a horrible crime if they—wretched men!—commit a trifling blunder—such as putting on the wrong robe or forgetting to wash their hands or stumbling over their prayers—but that they neither regard nor believe the Mass itself, namely, the divine promise."
Luther's Freedom of Christian: "From these considerations any one may clearly see how a Christian man is free from all things, so that he needs no works in order to be justified and saved, but receives these gifts in abundance from faith alone. Nay, were he so foolish as to pretend to be justified, set free, saved, and made a Christian, by means of any good work, he would immediately lose faith with all its benefits. Such folly is prettily represented in the fable, where a dog, running along in the water, and carrying in his mouth a real piece of meat, is deceived by the reflection of the meat in the water, and, in trying with open mouth to seize it, loses the meat and its image at the same time."
It's truly the great Luther text. Faith first and foremost; works as ineffective to achieve salvation, but as loving response to the gift of justification--it's all here.
"The Christian must therefore walk in the middle path, and met these two classes of men before his eyes. He may meet with hardened and obstinate ceremonialists, who, like deaf adders, refuse to listen to the truth of liberty, and cry up, enjoin, and urge on us their ceremonies, as if they could justify us without faith. Such were the Jews of old, who would not understand, that they might act well. These men we must resist, do just the contrary to what they do, and be bold to give them offence,; lest by this impious notion of theirs they should deceive many along with themselves. In the sight of these men it is expedient to eat flesh, to break fasts, and to do in behalf of the liberty of faith things which they hold to be the greatest sins. We must say of them: “Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind” (Matt. xv. 14.). In this way Paul also would not have Titus circumcised, though these men urged it; and Christ defended the Apostles, who had plucked ears of corn on the Sabbath day; and many like instances.
Or else we may meet with simple-minded and ignorant persons, weak in the faith, as the Apostle calls them, who are as yet unable to apprehend that liberty of faith, even if willing to do so. These we must spare, lest they should be offended. We must bear with their infirmity, till they shall be more fully instructed. For since these men do not act thus from hardened malice, but only from weakness of faith, therefore, in order to avoid giving them offence, we must keep fasts and do other things which they consider necessary. This is required of us by charity, which injures no one, but serves all men. It is not the fault of these persons that they are weak, but that of their pastors, who by the snares and weapons of their own traditions have brought them into bondage, and wounded their souls, when they ought to have been set free and healed by the teaching of faith and liberty. Thus the Apostle says: “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth” (I Cor. viii. 13.). And again: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. It is evil for that man who eateth with offence” (Rom. xiv. 14, 20.)."
Thomas More Against Heresies: BUT if all this stuff is wrong, the church failed to keep the faith and so the gates of Hades prevailed against it! If you can't trust the church, who can you trust? Aren't Scriptures interpreted? How will you know? Won't this just lead to a bunch of people going crazy with their reasonings?
Melanchthon: Luther but with more distinctions.
Cajetan: Weird arguments about baptism and the Lord's Supper. Also tries to show that, since we ask angels for help all the time and saints are in heaven, so we should ask them to help us too, especially since saints are praying to God in Revelation.
Calvin: You only know how well Calvin writes when you compare him with somebody else: "How lavishly in this respect have the whole body of philosophers betrayed their stupidity and want of sense? To say nothing of the others whose absurdities are of a still grosser description, how completely does Plato, the soberest and most religious of them all, lose himself in his round globe? What must be the case with the rest, when the leaders, who ought to have set them an example, commit such blunders, and labour under such hallucinations?"
Trent: It says Protestants are going to hell: that's what anathema means.
Ignatius: Gnostic: yipes! Fantasizing about all sorts of spiritual stuff and even a bit of the pre-Luther self-torture. Oh well, at least it's got a CAUTION label.
Bullinger: Obey the magistrate: here's some OT verses in favor of the magistrate taking care of religion.
Vermigli: Roman Catholics are NOT simply going with the most obvious meaning of the words "The bread is Christ." Instead, they should be saying this is just Christ in a bread suit. This is actually really good and takes pot shots at all sorts of special exegetical pleading (I'm just saying what the text says!). He ends with this brilliant statement: "Because sense does not apprehend this transubstantiation, nor can reason understand it or experience teach it, how can it be known? I’m sure you will say: through faith. But if it is a question of acting in faith, this cannot happen without the Word of God, and of that you are quite destitute."
Chemnitz: A very learned explanation for the priesthood of believers, getting its best hits by pointing to bad Catholic historiography.
Ursinus: Protestant Ordo Salutis 101
Belarmine: How can Scripture be perspicuous if everybody disagrees about so much?
Whitaker: We're not saying that everything in Scripture is easy to understand; just the main drift. In fact, Scripture is quite hard to understand.
This section of the book was far and away my favorite, and alone worth the price of admission:
"First, God would have us to be constant in prayer, and hath scattered many obscurities up and down through the scriptures, in order that we should seek his help in interpreting them and discovering their true meaning. Secondly, he wished thereby to excite our diligence in reading, meditating upon, searching and comparing the scriptures, for if everything had been plain, we should have been entirely slothful and negligent. Thirdly, he designed to prevent our losing interest in them, for we are ready to grow weary of easy things: God, therefore, would have our interest kept up by difficulties. Fourthly, God willed to have that truth, so sublime, so heavenly, sought and found with so much labor, the more esteemed by us on that account. For we generally despise and contemn whatever is easily acquired, near at hand, and costs small or no labor, according to the Greek proverb, epi thuras ten hudrian [upon the doors the pitcher]. But those things which we find with great toil and much exertion, those, when once we have found them out, we esteem highly and consider their value proportionally greater. Fifthly, God wished by this means to subdue our pride and arrogance, and to expose to us our ignorance. We are apt to think too honorably of ourselves, and to rate our genius and acuteness more highly than is fitting, and to promise ourselves too much from our science and knowledge. Sixthly, God willed that the sacred mysteries of his word should be opened freely to pure and holy minds, not exposed to dogs and swine. Hence those things which are easy to holy persons, appear so many parables to the profane. For the mysteries of scripture are like gems, which only he that knows them values; while the rest, like the cock in Aesop, despise them, and prefer the most worthless objects to what is most beautiful and excellent. Seventhly, God designed to call off our minds from the pursuit of external things and our daily occupations, and transfer them to the study of the scriptures. Hence it is now necessary to give some time to their perusal and study; which we certainly should not bestow upon them, if we found everything plain and open. Eighthly, God desired thus to accustom us to a certain internal purity and sanctity of thought and feeling. For they who bring with them profane minds to the reading of scripture, lose their trouble and oil: those only read with advantage, who bring with them pure and holy minds. Ninthly, God willed that in his church some should be teachers, and some disciples; some more learned, to give instruction; others less skillful, to receive it; so as that the honor of the sacred scriptures and the divinely instituted ministry might, in this manner, be maintained. ... For it is certain that God punishes men for their own, and not for other people’s sins, as we are told (Ezek. 18:20). Therefore, what is said of the punishment of parents being derived upon their posterity (Exod. 20:5) must needs be understood with this condition, if their posterity continue in their wickedness, for if they avoid their parents’ sins they will not be subjected to their punishments."
Favorite quote from Dordt: "Those who do not yet experience a lively faith in Christ, an assured confidence of soul, peace of conscience, an earnest endeavor after filial obedience, and glorying in God through Christ, efficaciously wrought in them, and do nevertheless persist in the use of the means which God hath appointed for working these graces in us, ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to rank themselves among the reprobate, but diligently to persevere in the use of means, and with ardent desires devoutly and humbly to wait for a season of richer grace. Much less cause have they to be terri-fied by the doctrine of reprobation, who, though they seriously de-sire to be turned to God, to please him only, and to be delivered from the body of death, cannot yet reach that measure of holiness and faith to which they aspire, since a merciful God has promised that he will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed."
Boniface's Una Sancta: Suitably absurd; I really hope the kids realize how ridiculous papal claims are.
Marsilius's Defensor Pacix: More the kind of thing I like than you probably like. Why clerical folks should not have political power. Very similar to Dante.
Wycliffe: A simple point is made here. Nobody can just say I don't interpret "This is my body." Everybody interprets that phrase, and the Catholic position is really unintuitive and requires a lot of unnecessary work to get there (motivate at the time by trying to justify praxis.) In fact, both Wycliffe and Vermigli make the point that you cannot say "This bread is my body." It in fact ceases to be bread but merely appears to be bread. Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah; John the Baptist said he was not Elijah: the big takeaway is that you cannot be a literalist on these matters and just assert transubstantiation.
Huss: The Church consists of those who have been predestined, so no, the pope is not in charge. (Huss is more eloquent than Wycliffe IMO.)
Erasmus' Julius Exclussu: The Popes were BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Luther's 95 Theses: Surprisingly undeveloped Luther who still hopes the Pope will fix things.
Luther's Letter to Christian Nobility: "if a little company of pious Christian laymen were taken prisoners and carried away to a desert, and had not among them a priest con-secrated by a bishop, and were there to agree to elect one of them, born in wedlock or not, and were to order him to baptise, to cele-brate the mass, to absolve, and to preach, this man would as truly be a priest, as if all the bishops and all the popes had consecrated him." Propositions in this statement are more revolutionary than they first appear.
Luther's Babylonian Captivity of the Church: First, give the people the Lord's Supper and stop all this philosophical jugglery! Second, the key to the sacraments is faith, trusting in God's promises. "How many priests will you find every day offering the sacrifice of the Mass, who accuse themselves of a horrible crime if they—wretched men!—commit a trifling blunder—such as putting on the wrong robe or forgetting to wash their hands or stumbling over their prayers—but that they neither regard nor believe the Mass itself, namely, the divine promise."
Luther's Freedom of Christian: "From these considerations any one may clearly see how a Christian man is free from all things, so that he needs no works in order to be justified and saved, but receives these gifts in abundance from faith alone. Nay, were he so foolish as to pretend to be justified, set free, saved, and made a Christian, by means of any good work, he would immediately lose faith with all its benefits. Such folly is prettily represented in the fable, where a dog, running along in the water, and carrying in his mouth a real piece of meat, is deceived by the reflection of the meat in the water, and, in trying with open mouth to seize it, loses the meat and its image at the same time."
It's truly the great Luther text. Faith first and foremost; works as ineffective to achieve salvation, but as loving response to the gift of justification--it's all here.
"The Christian must therefore walk in the middle path, and met these two classes of men before his eyes. He may meet with hardened and obstinate ceremonialists, who, like deaf adders, refuse to listen to the truth of liberty, and cry up, enjoin, and urge on us their ceremonies, as if they could justify us without faith. Such were the Jews of old, who would not understand, that they might act well. These men we must resist, do just the contrary to what they do, and be bold to give them offence,; lest by this impious notion of theirs they should deceive many along with themselves. In the sight of these men it is expedient to eat flesh, to break fasts, and to do in behalf of the liberty of faith things which they hold to be the greatest sins. We must say of them: “Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind” (Matt. xv. 14.). In this way Paul also would not have Titus circumcised, though these men urged it; and Christ defended the Apostles, who had plucked ears of corn on the Sabbath day; and many like instances.
Or else we may meet with simple-minded and ignorant persons, weak in the faith, as the Apostle calls them, who are as yet unable to apprehend that liberty of faith, even if willing to do so. These we must spare, lest they should be offended. We must bear with their infirmity, till they shall be more fully instructed. For since these men do not act thus from hardened malice, but only from weakness of faith, therefore, in order to avoid giving them offence, we must keep fasts and do other things which they consider necessary. This is required of us by charity, which injures no one, but serves all men. It is not the fault of these persons that they are weak, but that of their pastors, who by the snares and weapons of their own traditions have brought them into bondage, and wounded their souls, when they ought to have been set free and healed by the teaching of faith and liberty. Thus the Apostle says: “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth” (I Cor. viii. 13.). And again: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. It is evil for that man who eateth with offence” (Rom. xiv. 14, 20.)."
Thomas More Against Heresies: BUT if all this stuff is wrong, the church failed to keep the faith and so the gates of Hades prevailed against it! If you can't trust the church, who can you trust? Aren't Scriptures interpreted? How will you know? Won't this just lead to a bunch of people going crazy with their reasonings?
Melanchthon: Luther but with more distinctions.
Cajetan: Weird arguments about baptism and the Lord's Supper. Also tries to show that, since we ask angels for help all the time and saints are in heaven, so we should ask them to help us too, especially since saints are praying to God in Revelation.
Calvin: You only know how well Calvin writes when you compare him with somebody else: "How lavishly in this respect have the whole body of philosophers betrayed their stupidity and want of sense? To say nothing of the others whose absurdities are of a still grosser description, how completely does Plato, the soberest and most religious of them all, lose himself in his round globe? What must be the case with the rest, when the leaders, who ought to have set them an example, commit such blunders, and labour under such hallucinations?"
Trent: It says Protestants are going to hell: that's what anathema means.
Ignatius: Gnostic: yipes! Fantasizing about all sorts of spiritual stuff and even a bit of the pre-Luther self-torture. Oh well, at least it's got a CAUTION label.
Bullinger: Obey the magistrate: here's some OT verses in favor of the magistrate taking care of religion.
Vermigli: Roman Catholics are NOT simply going with the most obvious meaning of the words "The bread is Christ." Instead, they should be saying this is just Christ in a bread suit. This is actually really good and takes pot shots at all sorts of special exegetical pleading (I'm just saying what the text says!). He ends with this brilliant statement: "Because sense does not apprehend this transubstantiation, nor can reason understand it or experience teach it, how can it be known? I’m sure you will say: through faith. But if it is a question of acting in faith, this cannot happen without the Word of God, and of that you are quite destitute."
Chemnitz: A very learned explanation for the priesthood of believers, getting its best hits by pointing to bad Catholic historiography.
Ursinus: Protestant Ordo Salutis 101
Belarmine: How can Scripture be perspicuous if everybody disagrees about so much?
Whitaker: We're not saying that everything in Scripture is easy to understand; just the main drift. In fact, Scripture is quite hard to understand.
This section of the book was far and away my favorite, and alone worth the price of admission:
"First, God would have us to be constant in prayer, and hath scattered many obscurities up and down through the scriptures, in order that we should seek his help in interpreting them and discovering their true meaning. Secondly, he wished thereby to excite our diligence in reading, meditating upon, searching and comparing the scriptures, for if everything had been plain, we should have been entirely slothful and negligent. Thirdly, he designed to prevent our losing interest in them, for we are ready to grow weary of easy things: God, therefore, would have our interest kept up by difficulties. Fourthly, God willed to have that truth, so sublime, so heavenly, sought and found with so much labor, the more esteemed by us on that account. For we generally despise and contemn whatever is easily acquired, near at hand, and costs small or no labor, according to the Greek proverb, epi thuras ten hudrian [upon the doors the pitcher]. But those things which we find with great toil and much exertion, those, when once we have found them out, we esteem highly and consider their value proportionally greater. Fifthly, God wished by this means to subdue our pride and arrogance, and to expose to us our ignorance. We are apt to think too honorably of ourselves, and to rate our genius and acuteness more highly than is fitting, and to promise ourselves too much from our science and knowledge. Sixthly, God willed that the sacred mysteries of his word should be opened freely to pure and holy minds, not exposed to dogs and swine. Hence those things which are easy to holy persons, appear so many parables to the profane. For the mysteries of scripture are like gems, which only he that knows them values; while the rest, like the cock in Aesop, despise them, and prefer the most worthless objects to what is most beautiful and excellent. Seventhly, God designed to call off our minds from the pursuit of external things and our daily occupations, and transfer them to the study of the scriptures. Hence it is now necessary to give some time to their perusal and study; which we certainly should not bestow upon them, if we found everything plain and open. Eighthly, God desired thus to accustom us to a certain internal purity and sanctity of thought and feeling. For they who bring with them profane minds to the reading of scripture, lose their trouble and oil: those only read with advantage, who bring with them pure and holy minds. Ninthly, God willed that in his church some should be teachers, and some disciples; some more learned, to give instruction; others less skillful, to receive it; so as that the honor of the sacred scriptures and the divinely instituted ministry might, in this manner, be maintained. ... For it is certain that God punishes men for their own, and not for other people’s sins, as we are told (Ezek. 18:20). Therefore, what is said of the punishment of parents being derived upon their posterity (Exod. 20:5) must needs be understood with this condition, if their posterity continue in their wickedness, for if they avoid their parents’ sins they will not be subjected to their punishments."
Favorite quote from Dordt: "Those who do not yet experience a lively faith in Christ, an assured confidence of soul, peace of conscience, an earnest endeavor after filial obedience, and glorying in God through Christ, efficaciously wrought in them, and do nevertheless persist in the use of the means which God hath appointed for working these graces in us, ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to rank themselves among the reprobate, but diligently to persevere in the use of means, and with ardent desires devoutly and humbly to wait for a season of richer grace. Much less cause have they to be terri-fied by the doctrine of reprobation, who, though they seriously de-sire to be turned to God, to please him only, and to be delivered from the body of death, cannot yet reach that measure of holiness and faith to which they aspire, since a merciful God has promised that he will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed."
April 10, 2025
Very helpful in deepening my understanding of the Reformation! Learning how the separation between clergy and laity was a fundamental aspect of the Reformation was particularly helpful and will be one of the key things I take from this book. Whitaker and Bellarmine's disputation on Scripture was clarifying as well!
June 28, 2018
I did not find this book very valuable simply because I have most of the texts either on my shelf or computer already. In other words, I didn't really need the book. So I was about to give it 3 stars. But the content is really good and if you are not familiar with key reformation texts this is a good introduction. So I bumped it up to 4 stars. I think most pastors will probably not benefit from it, but the average lay person or a person looking for window into reformation theology's primary sources will.
March 6, 2022
Completed for my class, History and Theology: Medieval to Modern. This collection of works is good, y’all. Like, really good. I’m unapologetically protestant now.
April 27, 2024
Read excerpts for class
March 30, 2022
This was an excellent collection of exerts from the men who were directly involved in the reformation. It was fascinating to see the arguments going back and forth. I was surprised to find ideas, especially around politics, that seemed pulled from the 21st century and not the 15th and 16th. Highly recommend this book for those who want to go to the primary sources and have a better understanding of the actual debates that occurred during the early reformation.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews