Your evidence strays far and away from the Reformation itself. Remember too that some of these effects are things that were unplanned — Luther wasn’t into free inquiry, after all! However, it grew from the Reformation by accident (see LIndberg in the section on the Netherlands). Limited government is stickier. The Reformation was far less influential here than the Enlightenment –Protestants have happily supported more extensive government as well as more limited government — plus you have to define issues. However, the ultimate separation of church and state is an effect, again unintended. And again, you can use LIndberg. (I love MLK’s Letter, but it is only evidence for the modern idea, not for the Reformation origins.) You would do better to look ahead to LIndberg’s conclusion, as well as re-reading chapter One. Furthermore, I would strongly suggest that you stay with Lindberg, Duffy, and Holt as your sources. The other sources you list are not acceptable sources, and in fact, for this paper, you do not need any other sources besides Duffy, Lindberg, and Holt. Why are the sources unacceptable? The article by Ryrie is perhaps the best of them. But while Dr. Ryrie is indeed an academic, the article is a popular article reprinted in a number of places. It is like Wikipedia — it might give you a place to start, but you need to then go back to Lindberg. You can find quite a lot of the same material there — it just isn’t pre-digested for you; you have to do the work. The article by Brandslet is not acceptable — it is a popular article with no support, and as well it appears to be written by someone who is not an historian. It just is not a scholarly source. The book by Schaff and the article by the Presbyterian Church are also unacceptable. The Presbyterian Church source is a confessional document, and is not necessarily written by an historian, nor does it employ historical thinking consistently– it is a great example of an insider approach to faith, but we need an outsider approach. W Schaff is simply unusable. The text was written in 1858, and Schaff was not a professional historian. It is confessional in nature and another example of insider thinking. NONE of these are sources that you should use. STAY WITH THE ASSIGNED READINGS, please; if you must go further afield, look in a database of scholarly journal articles or look in the Mercer library catalog.