This is from chapter XIV of a book written in 1941 entitled, “Our Priceless Heritage Christian Doctrine In Contrast With Romanism” by Henry M. Woods, D.D, LL.D.

What precious truth and right does the Bible give to Christian believers, a right which all enlightened Governments now guarantee to their citizens?

The Bible proclaims religious liberty to all men, the sacred right to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience; which right no man and no Church may interfere with, or take away.

“Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof.” Levit. 25:10.

“Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty.” Gal. 5:13.

“Be not ye the servants of men.” I Cor. 7:23.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” “If the son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” John 8:32, 36.

“Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Gal. 5:1.

PERSECUTION CONTRARY TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

Does the Christian faith teach, or allow, persecution of those who do not accept it?

The Christian faith not only does not teach, but does not allow, persecution under any circumstances; for persecution is wholly contrary to the Spirit of Christ, and is of Satan. The Christian method of propagation is by persuasion, by appeal to conscience, by presenting the Gospel. It seeks to win by love, and by the power of the Truth. IT Tim. 2: 24-26, I Peter 3:16.

How was the Gospel propagated in the early days of the Church?

In the early and purer days of the Church, Christians abhorred the use of force and shedding of blood on account of religious beliefs. This was true not only of apostolic days, as we read in the book of Acts, but also in post-apostolic times.

TERTULLIAN warmly defended freedom of conscience. He declared it was unchristian to use force in spreading the truth: that real worship must come from the heart.

The same view was expressed by CYPRIAN; and

LACTANTIUS earnestly argued that Christian doctrines should not be propagated by force.

Is not persecution on account of religious belief both foolish and wicked?

Persecution is both foolish and wicked, because it tramples on the sacred rights of others, and because the use of force and violence never make an honest man change his beliefs. His convictions are really deepened by suffering for conscience sake. Only weak men yield to persecution, and are made hypocrites by it; they profess to change their faith merely to escape punishment. Moreover, evil men, by inflicting persecution, usurp the right to control men’s consciences, a right which belongs to God alone, as Creator and Judge.

THE PROTESTANT CHURCH THE CHAMPION OF LIBERTY

Has the Reformed Church uniformly championed religious liberty and opposed persecution?

The Reformed or Protestant Church has always been the champion of civil and religious liberty. Where can a nobler record be found than that of Admiral Coligny and the Huguenots of France? Of William of Orange in the Netherlands? Of Cromwell and the Puritans in England? Of John Knox and our forefathers in Scotland, and the Pilgrim Fathers, who founded the Colonies in America?

Roger Williams who planted the Colony of Rhode Island was rightly called “the apostle of religious toleration” in America! See Guizot’s History of France, Motley’s Dutch Republic, Green’s History of the English People, and Bancroft and Woodrow Wilson’s Histories of the United States.

The Encyclopedia Britannica contains this record: “Roger Williams (1604-1684) founder of the Colony of Rhode Island, and pioneer of religious liberty. … In June 1636 Williams and his companions founded their new settlement upon the basis of complete religious toleration, with a view to its becoming a shelter for persons distressed for conscience. . . . He was the first and foremost exponent in America of the theory of the absolute freedom of the individual in matters of religion”

A distinguished historian pays this tribute to Calvinism, as the basis of the Reformed faith: “Calvinism was not an opinion, but an attempt to make the will of God as revealed in the Bible an authoritative guide for social as well as personal direction.”

Has not the civil and religious liberty, bestowed by God through the Protestant church, proved to be an unspeakable blessing, bringing prosperity wherever it is found?

Civil and religious liberty has brought unspeakable blessings, and it has always gone hand in hand with the Reformed or Protestant faith. To see this truth one need only compare Protestant England with Romanist Spain; Italy prior to 1870 with Denmark and Sweden; Germany under Emperor William I with Austria; and the new world of the Pilgrim Fathers with Mexico and South America.

It is sometimes claimed that the principle of religious liberty in America was first established in the Province of Maryland under Cecil Calvert, Lord Baltimore. But this is clearly proved to be erroneous by the Maryland Statute entitled “An Act concerning Religion” enacted April 21, 1649 and approved by Lord Baltimore himself, which provided that “all persons within the province who deny Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or who deny the Holy Trinity, or speak reproachfully thereof shall be punished with death and confiscation of all lands and goods.” Archives of Maryland, vol. I, p. 244. Woodrow Wilson’s History of the American People, vol. I, pp. 130, 131. The statement of the Encyclopedia Britannica is undoubtedly correct.

THE LOW MORAL CONDITION OF EUROPE PRIOR TO THE REFORMATION WAS MAINLY DUE TO THE DEMORALIZING INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCH OF ROME AND THE LOVE OF POWER AND GREED FOR GAIN OF THE ROMAN CURIA.

The cause of the low moral condition of Europe in the time of John Huss is thus described by Signor Mussolini: “The Church of Rome had become a slave of profane commercialism, had been bound over to the God Mammon, to the money that undermines all faith.” Quoting the eminent authority F. von Bezhold, he says: “The Roman Curia had become a gigantic money-making organization. The saying that in ‘Rome everything was for sale’ was by no means an exaggeration, for with money one could buy anything, from the smallest prebend (a stipend furnished by a cathedral or collegiate church to a clergyman) to a cardinal’s cap, from permission to use butter on fast days even to absolution for murder and incest. … From the sensuality and cupidity of the monks no one was safe.” Mussolini’s John Huss, the Man of Truth.

In contrast to this deplorable condition of Europe caused by papal control, the historian Froude describes the well-being of the Scotch people as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Instead of being gloomy, as some represent, “I should say that the Scots have been an unusually happy people. Intelligent industry, the necessaries of life moderately provided for; a sensible contentment with the situation of life;—this through the week, and at the end of it the ‘Cottar’s Saturday Night’—the homely family, reverently and peacefully gathered together and irradiated with a Sacred Presence,—Happiness! such happiness as we human creatures are likely to know in this world will be found there, if anywhere!” – The Influence of the Reformation on Scottish Character, Froude.

A Cardinal confesses the barrenness of his Church

That the Protestant Church has almost without exception originated and supported the great enterprises of public charity for relieving human suffering and promoting the public welfare, is undeniable. Cardinal Manning, of London, acknowledged this, and confesses the sterility of the Church of Rome in the matter of disinterested public charity.

The Cardinal wrote: “All the great works of public charity in England had their beginning outside the Church (i.e., outside of the Roman Catholic Church). For instance, the abolition of slavery and the slave trade. Not a Catholic name, so far as I know, shared in this. Then the whole Temperance movement,—it was a Quaker that made Father Mathew a total abstainer! Catholic Ireland, and the Catholics of England until now, have done little for Temperance. The Anti-vivisection Act, also the Act of Parliament for the protection of animals from cruelty, were the work of Dissenters. So the Acts against the horrible depravity which destroys young girls, multitudes of ours,—I was literally denounced by Catholics,— not one came forward! There are endless works for the protection of shop-assistants, overworked railway and tram-men, women and children ground down by sweaters, and driven by starvation wage upon the streets. Not one of these works in their behalf was started by us (Romanists); hardly a Catholic name is to be found on their reports!” E.S. Purcell’s Life of Cardinal Manning, vol. II, page 781.

EMANCIPATION FROM THE PAPACY NECESSARY FOR NATIONAL PROSPERITY

The prosperity of Protestant nations due to their faith in Christ and the Bible, and the cramping, repressive effect of Romanism on the intellectual and moral life of peoples, are often referred to by non-Protestant writers.

Pere Hyacinthe of Paris wrote in the London Times, August 15, 1904: “France and Italy can only advance in proportion to their emancipation from this fatal servitude to a foreign power (the papacy), which was never instituted by Christ, and which was unknown during the early centuries of the Church’s history.”

Another thoughtful Roman Catholic observer asks: “What were the present Reformist (Protestant) nations while they were still Romanist, with respect to others? Who will gainsay that we were greatly superior to them in everything,—in literature, philosophy, theology, social culture, and so forth? And what has happened since then? The Romanist nations have declined more and more, so that now many of them are spoken of as dead nations, while the Reformist nations are steadily advancing, in knowledge, in morality, and in general progress.” Fradryssa, pages 248, 252, 295.

Has the Church of Rome ever favored civil and religious liberty and social reforms?

The history of the countries controlled by the Church of Rome, like Spain, Austria, Mexico, and the South American States, shows clearly that the Church has constantly opposed social and political reforms. It has always been reactionary. “There was a time in all Latin America when there was no religious liberty, no freedom of speech, no public education, no civil marriage, no burial rites for Protestants in public cemeteries, no valid baptism for Protestant children, and in some Catholic countries, no right of inheritance: These intolerable conditions have passed away. Did they pass away without opposition from the Roman Catholic Church? It fought every one of these reforms. It is fighting some of them still. Not one advance has been made toward free institutions and free education in Latin America without encountering relentless opposition from the Roman Organization.” Open Door in Brazil, by Dr. J. P. Smith.

Another missionary, who for years saw the ill-effects of Roman Catholic teachings, testifies thus: “South America is cursed with a baptized paganism, which has hung like a millstone around its neck for centuries. Romanism, with its open hostility to the circulation of the Scriptures, with Mariolatry of the most debased character, with its traffic in indulgences, its exorbitant charges for baptisms and confession, for the marriage of the living and the burial of the dead, has reached a depth of superstition and immorality, which can find no parallel in any other continent.”

Concerning the effect of Romanist teachings on the moral and religious character of the Brazilian people, a “four-square’” Roman Catholic jurist wrote: ‘“Romanism has produced an apparent unity of belief, but no true religious spirit. There is no more Catholic people than the Brazilian, nor one less really religious.”

An intelligent physician thus testifies: “When I was director of the Penitentiary in Bahia, a study of the religious psychology of the criminals showed that almost all were religious. They did not miss going to Mass; but almost all of them wore charms and prayers around twheir necks; and one day the old chaplain complained that his flock were breaking the ‘ara’ (altar stone), in order to make fetishes to render them invisible to the sentries, and thus escape from prison!” Dr. J.P. Smith’s Open Door in Brazil, 1925, page 43.

The Rev. Edward C. Pereira, a native Brazilian, testifies: “The great sore of Romanism is its failure to create moral character.” Concerning chastity, he points to “a celibate clergy filling society with illegitimacy under the complacent eyes of ecclesiastical authority.” Pointing to the confessional, he says, “There the stains of adultery and licentiousness are easily washed away.” O Problema Religiosa da America Latina, 1920, page 434.

These reliable testimonies are confirmed by the Roman Church’s own Reports. According to the statistics presented at the first Plenary Council of Latin America in 1889, “Among 18,000 priests, 3,000 were living illegally in wedlock; 4,000 were living in concubinage with their housekeepers; and 1,500 in relations more or less open with women of doubtful reputation.” History of Sacerdotal Celibacy, vol. II, page 243. South American Problems, page 159.

Is it just to hold the Church of Rome responsible for the low moral and religious state of the South American people?

Yes, the Church of Rome is justly held responsible for the moral and religious state of the people, for, for centuries, it has had exclusive control of their education, and has guided their thinking on morals and religion.

Persecution the Natural Outgrowth of Papal Dogma

Is not Persecution the inevitable result of belief in the absolute power and infallibiity of the pope?

Persecution is the natural outgrowth of the papal dogmas of absolute power and infallibility. History shows that weak human nature, once clothed with absolute power, whether civil or religious, has never failed to abuse it. It is so easy, even for a well-meaning person, to deceive himself. He reasons: “This proposed measure I consider beneficial: I am infallible, and have power to enforce it. Therefore even if severity and cruelty are used, it is right to use them.” Thus men have justified the most hideous wrongs, the most brutal cruelties. They have deliberately trampled on the sacred rights of others, and have brought untold grief and agony to thousands, all because they considered themselves infallible. They became monsters without knowing it, shielding themselves with the delusion of infallibility, and clothed with unlimited power, which they should never have been allowed to possess.

History furnishes abundant proof of these statements all down the centuries. Reference has already been made to the crusade of Innocent III against the Albigenses, “a war of extermination, lasting for about 15 years, one of the bloodiest in history.”

Note the persecution of John Wycliffe, “the morning star of the Reformation,” and the martyrdom of William Tyndale, who gave the English people the Word of God in their native tongue. So bitterly was Wycliffe pursued by his papal foes that his very bones were exhumed, burnt, and their ashes scattered on the river Swift!

See also noble John Huss, burnt at the stake by Council of Constance in 1415. In spite of the Emperor’s guarantee of safe conduct, the Council declared that “faith need not be kept with heretics!”

Huss’ death was followed the next year by the martyrdom of Jerome of Prague, also by fire.

Jerome of Prague, so-called to distinguish him from Jerome the translator of the Vulgate, was born at Prague, the capital of Bohemia about 1365. Educated at the University of Prague, he was shocked by the prevailing godlessness of the Roman Church, and co-operated with John Huss in promoting reform. Having incurred the hatred of the hierarchy, he was imprisoned, condemned by the Council of Constance, and was burnt at the stake in 1416. Faithful unto death, Jerome’s intrepid witness for Evangelical truth will never be forgotten by a grateful nation.

Savonarola was put to death at Florence in 1498, because he fearlessly denounced the wickedness of pope Alexander VI, and earnestly sought the reformation of the Church.

In England nearly 300 Protestants fell victims to the fanaticism of the Romanist queen, “Bloody Mary.”

In Paris on St. Bartholomew’s Day, 1572, 30,000 Huguenots, “the flower of France,” were massacred at the instance of pope Pius V, who so rejoiced at the news that he had a special Te Deum sung, and a medal struck, inscribed with his name and the words, “Strages Ungonotorum,” “the slaughter of the Huguenots,” to commemorate his infamous crime.

Pius V, as we have seen, not only persecuted the Huguenots in France, but sent troops to help King Charles IX destroy them. The pope gave orders to Count Santafiore the leader, “to take no Huguenot prisoners, but instantly kill everyone that fell into his hands!” Catena, Vita di Pio V, page 85.

The Duke of Alva’s “Council of Blood” cruelly destroyed thousands of faithful Christians in the Netherlands; for the success of this crusade the pope “earnestly prayed,” and sent Alva a “’consecrated’ hat and sword!”

During no less than 30 persecutions the blood of the noble Waldenses was shed in the valleys of Piedmont, and yet they heroically kept the faith!

In 1562 the Roman Inquisitors under Pius IV brutally massacred 2,000 Waldenses in Calabria. The pope then urged the Duke of Savoy to do the same to the Waldenses in Piedmont, and complained loudly when the Duke refused to commit the crime.

What was the fault of the Waldensians, that they should be so bitterly and constantly persecuted?

A thoughtful historian answers: “Their crowning offense was their love and reverence for Scripture, and their burning zeal in making converts. They had translations of the Bible in the vulgar tongue, and many of them knew the whole New Testament by heart. After a hard day’s labor, they would devote the night to instruction; they sought the lazar houses to carry salvation to the lepers. Surely if there ever was a God-fearing people, it was these unfortunates who were under the ban of the Roman Church.

The Noble Leyczon declares the sign of a Vaudois deemed worthy of death was that “he followed Christ, and sought to obey the commandments of God.” Lea’s History of the Inquisition, vol. I, page 89.

Theodore Beza, the eminent Reformer, paid a just tribute to these noble servants of Christ, saying: “Permit me to call them (the Waldenses) the true primitive Christian Church who, through God’s Providence, stood firmly against the storms that blew, opposing the usurpation and idolatry of Rome.”

Again, the Government of Lucca, having enacted a law offering a reward of 300 crowns and reversal of any sentence of outlawry to all persons who should succeed in murdering any of the Protestant refugees who had fled from that city, Pope Pius IV (1499-1565) described it as a “praiseworthy act, piously and wisely enacted, and that nothing could redound more to the glory of God, provided it were thoroughly carried into execution!” Letters of Lord Acton, in The Times, London, of November 9 and 27, 1874.

Lord Acton deplores the murderous spirit of the popes

Lord Acton, an intelligent and honest member of the Roman Catholic Church, was professor of history in the University of Cambridge. Testifying plainly about the cruelties of the Inquisition, and the responsibility of the popes for them, he wrote: “The principal obstacle on the way to Rome is the moral obstacle. The moral obstacle, to put it compendiously, is the Inquisition. The Inquisition is peculiarly the weapon and work of the popes. It stands out from all those things in which they co-operated, as the distinctive feature of papal Rome. No other institution, no doctrine, no ceremony is so distinctly the creation of the papacy, except the Dispensing power. It is the principal thing with which the papacy is identified, and by which it must be Judged. The principle of the Inquisition is the pope’s sovereign power over life and death. Whosoever disobeys him, should be tried, tortured and burnt. That is to say, the principle of the Inquisition is murderous, and a man’s opinion of the papacy is regulated and determined by his opinion about religious assassination!” Letters of Lord Acton, edited by Herbert Paul, June 19, 1884, page 185.

The testimony of Honorable William E. Gladstone and Lord Macaulay

Regarding the hostility of the Church of Rome toward civil and religious liberty, and the disastrous effect of this hostility on the welfare of nations, the Honorable William E. Gladstone, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, said concerning the papacy: “Its influence is adverse to freedom in the State, the family, and the individual. When weak, it is too often crafty; when strong, tyrannical. The pope’s policy is, that in the Church of Rome, nothing shall remain except an Asian monarchy, nothing but one giddy height of despotism, and one dead level of religious subserviency.” Again Mr. Gladstone said: “Romanism is a perpetual war against the progress of the human mind.” Bishop of St. David’s Charge to the Clergy, 1872, page 17.

The Honorable J. B. Macaulay’s testimony is to the same effect: “Among the contrivances which have been devised for deceiving and controlling mankind, it (the papacy) occupies the highest place.” Lady Trevelyan, 1868, vol. V1, page 476.

About what time did persecution begin in the Church?

It was about the 5th Century, when Leo I was bishop of Rome, that persecution began to be practiced, and heresy was punished by death.

Pope Urban II, who died in 1099, declared with a dishonesty unworthy of a Christian, “We do not consider those as murderers, who, burning with zeal for their Catholic faith against excommunicated persons have happened to slay some of them.” Epistle, xxii ed. Migne.

Note that the pope by the words “Happened to slay” deliberately misrepresents a premeditated murder as if it were a sudden, accidental act! Was the massacre of the Huguenots on St. Bartholomew’s Day, over which the pope rejoiced, and the terrible Inquisition, accidental occurrences, or were they deliberately planned crimes, with the full approval of the popes?

Innocent III’s Crusade Against the Albigenses

One of the most brutal crimes which ever blackened the pages of human history was the wholesale slaughter of the Albigenses at the instigation of Innocent III, and led by Arnold of Citeaux and Simon de Monfort, who butchered the peaceable people of Languedoc in Southern France without mercy. De Monfort’s report of the campaign was, “Neither age, sex nor rank have been spared. We have put all to the sword.” Ranke’s “History of the Popes,’ Book I, Ch. I, page 40.

Like King Ahab in Naboth’s vineyard, the pope seized the lands of the slaughtered victims. Dallmann’s How Peter Became Pope, VI, page 60.

THE ALBIGENSES WERE MEN OF NOBLE CHARACTER, WHO DIED TRUE MARTYRS TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

That the Albigenses were true Christians, and that the charges brought against them were false, is proved (1) by the reputation they enjoyed among their neighbors, (2) by the testimony of the King of France and by their local rulers, and (3) by the admissions of the Roman Church authorities themselves. The Albigenses were commonly known as “les bons hommes,” “the good people,” and also as the Cathar or “Pure Sect,” showing that their neighbors considered them upright, law-abiding citizens, similar to the Puritans of later times. They were hated because they protested against the false claims of the papacy, holding firmly that Christ was the only Head of the Church; protesting also against the corruption of the priesthood, they exalted the one atoning sacrifice of Christ as opposed to the false, sacerdotal pretensions of the hierarchy and to the dogmas of Transubstantiation and the Mass, as set forth by the 4th Lateran Council of 1215.

Their rulers also bore witness to their blameless character. When Count Raymond of Toulouse was urged to persecute them, he refused. “Why should I persecute them? They are guilty of no wrongdoing.” The King of France, Philip Augustus, was shocked by the brutal cruelty of their enemies, especially of Simon de Monfort. When told of the wanton destruction caused by Simon and his brother, the King said, “God was just, and that they would surely suffer for their nefarious deeds.”’ And so it was, for Simon was crushed by a mass of stones which fell on him at the siege of Toulouse in June, 1218.

The Roman Church authorities openly acknowledged that the Church had brought on itself the danger which threatened it, viz.: the alarming progress of heresy, caused by priestly corruption and neglect of duty. In his opening address at the Lateran Council, Innocent III had declared to the assembled fathers, “the corruption of the people has its chief source in the clergy. From them arise the evils of Christendom.” And pope Honorius III repeated the assertion.

Egged on by the pope and the Inquisition, nothing could exceed the ferocity of the persecutors. Religious fanaticism was inflamed by lust for loot, for the pope had promised the leaders of the crusade not only the lands of the victims, but also the domain of any noble who dared to protect the heretics. Wholesale massacres of innocent people continued for 15 years. When the Abbot of Citeaux was asked “How distinguish between heretics and the faithful?” He replied, “Slay them all! God will know His own!” The Inquisition worked ceaselessly, and towns and castles were given over to pillage, massacre, and the flames.

The Albigenses deserve to be remembered as a noble people who were “faithful unto death,” laying down their lives as witnesses for Christ and His Gospel.

It is most regrettable that the late pope, Pius XI, ignoring the plain facts recorded by careful historians, defames the character of the Albigensean martyrs, calling them “a terrible sect,” “guilty of craftiness and violence,’ “worse than the Saracens,” and tries to justify the cold-blooded massacres inflicted upon them. In 1937 Pius XI recommended prayer to the Virgin Mary against Communists in Spain, saying, “As the terrible sect of the Albigenses was overcome by the invocation of Mary, so we hope that those shall be overcome who as Communists of today remind us of them by their craftiness and violence.” The childish accusation of “craftiness and violence” recalls Aesop’s fable of the wolf and the lamb, suggesting the fierceness of the lamb and the gentleness of the wolf!

The pope did no honor to the memory of the Virgin Mary by imagining that the foul massacre of God’s faithful servants was due to her influence. There is no proof that Mary knew of this hideous crime, or that she prayed about it. If Mary had prayed, it would not have been for the destruction of the innocent Albigenses, but rather that their brutal murderers should repent of their sin, which was one of the foulest blots that ever stained the pages of history.

Regarding the attitude of the Vatican toward persecution in recent years, two comparatively recent demands of pope Pius XI deserve to be noticed. They show the severity with which he would treat heresy, or those censured by ecclesiastical authority, by inflicting upon them civic outlawry. In Malta the Vatican demanded that an offending priest (Father Micallef) should be deported against his will, in violation of the civil rights which he enjoyed under State laws.

In the Concordat, Article 5, of Italo-Vatican Agreements, the pope demanded, and secured, that those under censure of the Church should be cut off from all employment by the Italian Government, thus practically making the supposed offender an outlaw in the State, depriving him of his right to earn his daily bread as school teacher, or postmaster in an Italian village; so the pope demanded in his letter to Cardinal Gasparri. Such demands are unchristian and most reprehensible.

THE UNWARRANTED PAPAL CLAIMS OF SUPREMACY OVER THE CIVIL POWER HAVE INEVITABLY CAUSED CONFLICT WITH STATES.

What has been the practical result of Rome’s false theory of supremacy over civil governments; has it led popes to assume authority which does not belong to them, and frequently meddle in the political affairs of nations?

It has. The whole history of the papacy in relation to civil government, both in medieval and modern times, shows repeated instances of unwarranted and disastrous interference, directly ignoring the plain declaration of Christ, “My Kingdom is not of this world,” and disobeying the injunctions of Saint Peter and the other Apostles, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man (i.e., civil government) for the Lord’s sake.” I Peter 2:13.

For instance, in medieval times the subjection of Ireland to England, which Irishmen have bitterly denounced, was the work of a pope. Adrian IV, pope from 1154-1159, sold Ireland to Henry II, King of England, for selfish considerations. These were the acknowledgment by the King of the pope’s overlordship; and the promise that he would compel the Irish people to pay tribute to Rome (“Peter’s pence’), which was then in arrears.

In Germany the same pope began the struggle between the papacy and the House of Hohenstauffen.

He also incited the leaders of the Italian party to oppose the Emperor Frederick I, (Barbarossa). Thus by his political intrigues, this pope well deserved the name of “trouble-maker.”

The Vatican also has frequently interfered with the affairs of the British Government, threatening serious complications, as in Parnell’s time in Ireland, and recently in Malta. The attitude of the Roman Curia and the priests of Malta toward the civil government of that island was strangely contrary to the teachings of Scripture, which they professed to obey, for it tended to incite the populace to open defiance of the civil power. So strained became the relations between the Government and people that on May 23, 1937, an attempt was made to assassinate the premier, Lord Strickland, simply because he obeyed his Government’s instructions rather than submit to the dictation of ecclesiastics! Rom. 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-15.

Continued in Religious Liberty and Persecution – Part II

All chapters of Our Priceless Heritage Christian Doctrine In Contrast With Romanism