Historians in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in Europe had their own ideas about how to divide history into periods. Their systems of historical time are largely forgotten today except by specialists; yet they form an important corrective to any tendency we might feel to assume that our schemes of periodisation are self-evident. Some historians such as Hartmann Schedel (1493) and Sebastian Franck (1531) still divided world history into the seven ages of the world first identified from Scripture by Augustine of Hippo (d. 429). Into the sixteenth century, many Christian historians borrowed their sense of periods of time from the Babylonian Talmud, where two tractates divided the world’s time into three: the first two thousand years without the law, the second two thousand the time of the law of Moses, and the final epoch the time of the Messiah (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a–b; see www.halakhah.com/pdf/nezikin/Sanhedrin.pdf; and as cited in Carion 1550, sig. *viv –viir). Some religious visionaries remained attracted by another threefold system, the one associated with Joachim of Fiore (d. 1202) who divided world history into the three ages of the Father, the Son, and the incoming Age of the Spirit. Some of the most widely used textbooks of history, including that of Johannes Sleidan, arranged ancient history according to the system of four ‘great monarchies’, traditionally construed out of the second and seventh chapters of the biblical book of Daniel (Sleidanus 1557). Since the last of these ‘monarchies’ was mostly agreed to have been the Roman Empire, German historians since Otto of Freising in the mid-twelfth century had postulated that the Roman Empire was ‘transferred’ to the Franks and then to the Germans – as even Martin Luther agreed. Luther also supposed that the end of the world was relatively near, certainly within a century or so. One of the curious ironies of the ‘early modern’ was that many of its sharpest minds were apocalyptists, who believed themselves to be living in the last age of the world (Millenarianism and Messianism 2001). The idea that they were ‘early’ anything, let alone ‘early modern’, would have seemed absurd to people who held these views: they were living in the latter days of the created order (see Appendix 1.1).
In one significant area – perhaps only one – the historians of the Reformation era anticipated and maybe contributed to their successors’ sense of the flow of time. Protestant historians of Christianity believed that the centuries of the world could be divided up into phases, depending on how remote they had become from the pristine inspiration of the early Church. In the centuries since Pentecost the Church had progressively deviated from its apostolic roots, in consecutive phases, some thought, of 500 or maybe of 300 years, until a dramatic transformation, usually assigned to around the year 1500, had revealed the Gospel once again and confounded the power of Antichrist (Cameron 2019). The putative ‘rediscovery’ of the Scriptures and the Gospel in the Reformation amounted, in the eyes of those who lived through it, to a major transformative moment in history. Yet once again, the reformers did not suppose that their epiphany moment was destined to lead to something beyond itself, such as freedom of conscience, the secular state, or the secularisation of society as a whole. They believed that it represented the rediscovery of something very ancient, and that it prepared the way for the end of history.
Excerpt 1.1: Melanchthon’s funeral oration for Luther (1546)
Bryan, William Jennings and Halsey, Francis W., eds. (1906). The World’s Famous Orations. 10 vols. New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, vol. VII.
GOD has always preserved a proportion of His servants upon the earth, and now, through Martin Luther, a more splendid period of light and truth has appeared. Solon, Themistocles, Scipio, Augustus, and others, who either established or ruled over mighty empires, were indeed truly great men, but far, far inferior to our illustrious leaders, Isaiah, John the Baptist, Paul, Augustine, and Luther, and it becomes us to study this distinction. What, then, are those great and important things which Luther has disclosed to our view, and which render his life so remarkable; for many are exclaiming against him as a disturber of the Church and a promoter of inexplicable controversies? Luther explained the true and important doctrine of penitence, which was involved in the profoundest darkness. He showed in what it consists and where refuge and consolation could be obtained under a sense of divine displeasure. He illustrated the statements of Paul respecting justification by faith, and showed the distinction between the law and the Gospel, civil and spiritual justification. He pointed out the true principle of prayer, and exterminated that heathenish absurdity from the Church that God was not to be invoked if the mind entertained the least doubt upon an academic question. He admonished men to pray, in the exercise of faith and a good conscience, to the only Mediator and Son of God, who is seated at the right hand of the Father, making intercession for us, and not to images or deceased saints according to the shocking practise of the ignorant multitude. He also pointed out other services acceptable to God, was singularly exemplary himself in all the duties of life, and separated the puerilities of human rites and ceremonies – which prevent instead of promoting genuine worship – from those services which are essential to obedience.…
The removal of such a character from among us, of one who was endowed with the greatest intellectual capacity, well instructed and long experienced in the knowledge of Christian truth, adorned with numerous excellences and with virtues of the most heroic cast, chosen by divine Providence to reform the Church of God, and cherishing for all of us a truly paternal affection, – the removal, I say, of such a man demands and justifies our tears. We resemble orphans bereft of an excellent and faithful father; but, while it is necessary to submit to the will of Heaven, let us not permit the memory of his virtues and his good offices to perish.
He was an important instrument, in the hands of God, of public utility; let us diligently study the truth he taught, imitating in our humble situations his fear of God, his faith, the intensity of his devotions, the integrity of his ministerial character, his purity, his careful avoidance of seditious counsel, his ardent thirst of knowledge. And as we frequently meditate upon the pious examples of those illustrious guides of the Church, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Paul, whose histories are transmitted to us, so let us frequently reflect upon the doctrine and course of life which distinguished our departed friend. [vol. VII, 44–49]