possible, when so many equally earnest previous attempts in the same
direction had failed, we should not lose sight of the favourable
political situation. Under cover of its religious authority, by means of
its unrivalled organisation, as well as by its temporal control of large
areas of the richest and most fertile land in Europe, the Church of Rome
annually drained into Italy a large part of the surplus wealth of every
country that recognised its spiritual authority. Such countries were
impoverished to support not only the resident but an absentee
priesthood, and to enable the Princes of the Church to maintain a more
than princely state at Rome. This was a standing grievance even in the
eyes of many sincerely devout Churchmen, and one which was prone to make
statesmen and politicians look with a favourable eye on any movement
which promised to lessen or to abolish it. Germany in this respect had
special reasons for discontent; as has been well said, "It was the milch
cow of the Papacy, which at once despised and drained it dry." And, as
everybody knows, it was in Germany that the standard of revolt against
the authority of Rome was first successfully raised. The political
constitution of that country was also peculiarly favourable to the
protection of the Reformation and of the persons of the early Reformers.
Although owing a nominal allegiance to the Emperor, or rather to the
will of the Diet which met annually under the presidency of the Emperor,
the head of each of the little States into which Germany was divided
claimed to be independent lord of the territory over which he ruled.
Hence, when the Ernestine line of Saxon princes took the Reformation and
the early Reformers under their protection, there was no power ready
and willing to compel them to relinquish their design. The democratic
independence of the Free Cities also made them fitting strongholds of
the new teachings.

Students of history would do well never to lose sight of the fact that