The Reformation: A History, by Diarmaid MacCulloch

 

The Reformation: A History
by 

Diarmaid MacCulloch

Clif Hostetler's review

Jul 19, 2026  ·  edit

liked it

bookshelves: history

This is a big book that covers over two hundred years of history in an area of scattered geography and filled with widely diverse theologies. For those segments of history with which I was familiar I found the book's narrative to be an overview summary that skipped significant details (e.g. no mention of the first rebaptisms in Zurich in 1525). In other areas of history with which I was less familiar (e.g. Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth) the book seemed to contained exhaustive detail. 

The narrative itself is clear and easy to read thus accessible to nonacademic readers of popular history. However the scattered geography and diverse religious ideas covered by the book make it a challenge for the average reader. The book was a challenge for me since I consider myself an average sort of reader. 

The book covers Western Christian church history over the years from 1490 to 1700 in roughly chronological order in Parts I and II of the book. Then in Part III the book leaves the chronological path and focuses on various sociological patterns to describe what life was like for people living in that era and by doing so contrasting it with life today. 

The following are some of my observations and various excerpts from the book that caught my attention.

Two most significant events initiating the Reformation were the 1516 publishing of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus and the 1517 distribution of the “95 Theses” by Martin Luther—coincidentally two unrelated events that were only a year apart from each other. 

As it turns out Erasmus' 1516 Greek New Testament with Latin translation wasn't the only one available nor was it the best, but his edition was the first one available and thus became the most widely used. The six volume Complutensian Polyglot Bible written by Spanish scholars was more complete and was based on a wider variety of Greek manuscripts but it had to wait for Papal approval before it could be published in 1520, and due to various complications wasn't widely available until 1522. 

One of the reasons Greek manuscripts became available in the early 16th century was because of threat to Christendom from the expanding Ottoman Empire: 

Paradoxically, the trauma of the Ottoman conquests that so terrorized Western Europe tipped the balance in the supply of manuscripts and brought Greek culture west. Many Greek manuscripts came in the baggage of scholars fleeing from the wreckage of Christian commonwealths in the East, or they were snapped up by western entrepreneurs profiting from the catastrophe. (p.75)

This book distinguishes between the humanists and reformationists by tying them to the differences between Origin and Augustine. I don't understand this difference, but this is a sample of how the book describes it. 

...one can never fully identify the humanist revolution with the "New Learning" represented by Protestantism, which was the outcome of the Augustinian revolution sparked by Martin Luther in northeastern Germany. It is significant that in the middle of the bitter literary clash between Erasmus and Martin Luther over free will ..., Luther took the trouble to sneer at Origen's tripartite anthropology. (p.111)

I earlier noted lack of any mention about the first Anabaptists in Zurich, but the book does make reference to the Schleitheim Confession.

... important now for the radicals was to regroup after their various sufferings at the hands of secular authorities and to draw a firm line between themselves and the magisterial reformers who, in the eyes of the Schleitheim group, had committed the fatal error of confusing the Church with the world. (p.164)

I've always found it interesting how much trouble was caused by varied interpretations of the Eucharist. Zwingli and Luther met at Marburg and were able to agree on fourteen out of fifteen articles of faith. Luther refused to budge on the Eucharist. 

He was not prepared to make any concessions as the Swiss carefully presented their logical humanist arguments, and he reduced Zwingli to near tears in angry frustration at his crudely expressed intransigence. (p.168) 

I thought it was interesting that when Calvin left Paris he intended to go to Strassburg, not Geneva. 

When he left Basel in order to settle in the evangelical Mecca of Strassburg, war forced him to divert from the normal route to make a temporary halt in this city-state on the edge of the Swiss Confederation. (p.190)

Reginald Pole, an English Cardinal, almost became Pope. He is generally thought more open to allowing accommodation with Protestants, and maybe history would have been different, but some in the Catholic Church thought he was a heretic.

On the first ballot in the Conclave of Cardinals, he came within four votes of a majority. On the second, Carafa dramatically intervened, waving a file of papers that he claimed proved that the Englishman was a heretic; nevertheless, Pole's vote rose, and this time there was only one vote short. But now the proceeding became drawn out ...(p.230)

Some Protestant leaders didn't know how to be diplomatic with the new Queen Elizabeth (she was 25 years old). 

...Elizabeth did not appreciate condescension from overseas Reformed leaders like John Calvin and Jan Laski, who thought they could mix their diplomatic congratulations on her accession with patronizing advice on a young female. (p.281) 

I found this description of differences in violence in France of interest. 

If French Protestant crowds were militant, so were Catholic crowds and they were generally more murderous: Where Protestants smashed images, Catholics butchered people. (p.299) 

I found this excerpt interesting which is reciting a Dutch proverb that expresses the diversity of theological opinions in the Netherlands. 

One Dutchman, a theologian; two Dutchmen, a Church; three Dutchmen, a schism. (p.363)

Church of England historians are quick to remember the numerous Protestants who were martyred under the reign of Queen Mary. But here were plenty of Catholic martyrs at other times. 

In fact, England judicially murdered more Roman Catholics than any other country in Europe, which put English pride in national tolerance in an interesting perspective. (p.381)

Here's and interesting example of one of the benefits of utilizing the Latin mass. 

A Spaniard from the Armada shipwrecked in northwest Ireland in 1588 was astonished to find peasants who could communicate with him in Latin. (p.385)

Church historians memorialize those who died for their faith, but how about those greater numbers who died because they were thought to be witches?

There is now general agreement among historians that between 1400 and 1800, approximately forty to fifty thousand people died in Europe and colonial North America on charges of witchcraft ... The executions took off in substantial number around 1560, intriguingly just about the time when large-scale executions of Protestant or radical heretics by monarchs and Church authorities (which had probably numbered about three thousand over forty years) were coming to an end. (p.544) 

Executing witches is something both Protestants and Catholics could agree upon; they both did it. It's interesting to note two places that had (almost) no witch executions. 

...it is worth considering the two areas of Catholic Europe that did not opt into the witch craze. In the case of Ireland one explanation for the near absence of witch trials must be the strong gulf in religious and political sympathies that opened up between the royal government and the Gaelic and Old English populations during the later sixteenth century... . This meant that the common combination of popular demand and elite preoccupations was disrupted... . ... Counter-Reformation Spain and Portugal stand out as the second region where witchcraft persecutions were positively discouraged by the Church authorities. ...
In the Iberian case, the unlikely heroes of this self-denial were the Spanish and Portuguese Inquitions. (p.555)

I thought it was interesting that Jews were allowed to return to England—after many years of banishment—during the time when Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector, a government not usually associated with being tolerant.