Some of my friends tell me the New World Order conspiracy is “Judaeo-Masonic.” This article will show that this is exactly what the popes of Rome want you to think! They frame others to deflect blame away from themselves.

FOOTNOTES are an essential part of Roman Catholic bibles printed in the language of the common people. They have been required since the Council of Trent. Their necessity was decreed anew by the Congregation of the Index in Rome on June 13, 1753. This decree ordered that: “Versions of the Bible in the common tongue shall not be permitted, unless they have been approved by the Apostolic See, or are accompanied by annotations from the Holy Fathers of the Church.”

The obvious purpose of these footnotes or ‘annotations’ is to explain away the contradictions between the evident meaning of the Bible text and the teachings of the Catholic church.

In 1942, Catholic publicity agents gave a countrywide build-up to a new and revised English edition of the Roman Catholic New Testament. It was hailed as the result of many years of devoted labor on the part of “eminent Catholic scholars.” It was published by the Episcopal Commission of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, after being examined and approved by the pope acting through his Roman Biblical Commission.

This new edition is an improvement over its outdated predecessor in the sense that it modernized the English and discarded a few of the many obvious mistranslations that had long been ridiculed by Protestant critics. Unnoticed, however, in this Revised Catholic New Testament was the insertion of other footnotes that in some instances are loaded with social and political propaganda and have nothing to do with religion, much less with the Bible itself. In fact, some of these uncalled for annotations flatly contradict the biblical texts to which they refer. These indoctrinating footnotes take a prejudiced stand on two of the most burning questions of the day, namely, labor unionism and anti-Semitism.

This malicious editing of the Revised New Testament was outdone in a condensed version for the Armed Forces, published at Government expense. It is entitled, “My Daily Reading from the Four Gospels and the New Testament”. It was compiled by Father Stedman, pro-Franco propagandist, whose version of the Roman Catholic Missal was sufficiently anti-Semitic to induce Father Coughlin to distribute it to his readers free of charge. One million copies of Stedman’s mutilated version of Catholic New Testament selections were distributed at Federal expense to Catholic soldiers and sailors. Plans had been made to print many more with Government money.

Among several thinly-veiled disparaging references to Labor and the Jews there is a footnote to chapter 2, verse 9, of The Apocalypse (called by Protestants “The Book of Revelation”) which is unbelievably vicious. The verse to which the footnote is attached reads as follows:

The footnote to this verse (on page 701 of the whole Bible and page 559 of Father Stedman’s “Readings”) stands in brazen contradiction to the word of Scripture. It says:

This phrase, “Synagogue of Satan,” was a favorite of the popes during the past two hundred years in their encyclicals condemning Freemasonry and other liberal underground organizations who fought for democracy and liberty against the aggressive power of popes and kings. The popes in these encyclicals condemn Freemasonry as the instigator of the great revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries — beginning with the American Revolution and followed soon after by the French Revolution — that brought democracy and freedom to the modern world. The popes called these revolutions the work of Satan, and borrowed this phrase, “Synagogue of Satan,” and applied it especially to the Lodges of the Freemasons.

(Note: It’s interesting that Freemasonry, according to Lehmann, at least in the past, may have been an agent for good in the world. Today I think they are all under Jesuit influence.)

Since the European Catholic mind has been conditioned by the Jesuits to combine Jewry and Freemasonry as the co-plotters of the destruction of the Catholic church and the tyranny of kings, the phrase, “Synagogue of Satan,” was made applicable to both Jews and Freemasons. It was Father Coughlin who first made public use of the phrase in this country applying it to Jews and Freemasons alike. In a series of three articles in his Social Justice magazine, Oct.-Nov. 1939, entitled “Freemasonry in the Scheme of Satan,” the author repeats the assertion that Freemasonry is allied with the Jews and Communists for the overthrow of Christianity, and ends the last article by calling it, in the words of Pope Pius IX, “The Synagogue of Satan.”¹

Bryce Oliver, news commentator, speaking over Radio Station WEVD in New York, April 9, 1943, in regard to the above-mentioned anti-Semitic texts, said that “at last a way has been found to make church-going people in America think about the Jews as Hitler wants them to think.”

The Associated Press, the United Press and the International News Service refused to print this well-documented story of the teaching of Fascist principles through biblical footnotes. Further evidence of the subservience of the press to the propaganda interests of the Catholic church is seen in the fact that practically all New York and Washington newspapers turned down direct releases of this story. Much credit is due to The Protestant and In Fact for the courageous and widespread publicity given it.

The Greater New York Council of the CIO representing half a million members sent a strongly worded protest to President Roosevelt on April 26, which, among other things, said: “This editorial handling of the Bible is malicious in its treatment of labor unions and of our Jewish brothers and sisters.”

This protest of the CIO took particular exception to an editorial subhead on page 333 of the Army edition above mentioned, which contains the story of the silversmith Demetrius in Acts 19:23-40. This heading is entitled, “Abuses of La bor Unions.” It is entirely gratuitous, for the text makes no reference to labor unions.

Professor Ward of Union Theological Seminary in New York said of this Stedman Army edition of “Readings” from the New Testament:

As a result of our protest against this poisoning of the Catholic Bible for anti-Semitic purposes, the Jesuit magazine America, most influential Catholic periodical in the United States, was forced to print the following humiliating admission in its issue of May 15, 1943:

In the latest authoritative work on the Jewish question, Jews in a Gentile World, by eighteen noted university professors, Professor Ellis Freeman of the University of Tampa sums up the traditional attitude of the Catholic church toward the Jews as follows:

This article by former Roman Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann was first published in 1944 by THE CONVERTED CATHOLIC MAGAZINE and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org.

I believe it can be proven historically that the popes of Rome, the Vatican and the Jesuits are the primary sources of antisemitism. True Bible-believing Christians do not hate the Jewish people! We should pray for their salvation. People who were raised Jewish do get saved by Christ! I know several of them. But neither should we support Zionism and the Nation of Israel because it is officially antichrist. We should pray for the war between Israel and Hamas to end! Any person who claims to be a Christian and who rejoices every time the Israeli Defense Force bombs and kills innocent Palestinians – some of whom are Christians – is greatly deceived!

This article by former Roman Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann was first published in 1944 by THE CONVERTED CATHOLIC MAGAZINE and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org.

AMERICANS had their first inkling of traditional Catholic anti-Semitism from the diatribes of Father Coughlin (Charles Edward Coughlin (October 25, 1891 – October 27, 1979), commonly known as Father Coughlin, was a Canadian-American Catholic priest based in the United States near Detroit) and other priest-leaders of the ‘Christian’ Front. They have yet to discover how deep-seated this anti-Jewish feeling has always been in the Catholic church. They have been loath to believe that Coughlin and his followers represent the official attitude of the Catholic church in this matter. But in his pronouncements about the Jews, as in those on other current Catholic topics — the danger of liberalism, the communist menace, the failure of democracy — Father Coughlin’s role has been that of the spearhead for the opening of the official attack.

The anti-Jewish preachments of the radio priest from the Shrine of the Little Flower were crude but faithful expressions of his Jesuit supporters. For example, in 1934, shortly after Hitler came to power, all that Coughlin has ever said against the Jews was proclaimed in a treatise read by the Jesuit Father F. X. Murphy before a gathering of Jesuits in convention at Manresa Island, Connecticut. Needless to say, this treatise could never have been read before such an assembly without official approbation of his Jesuit superiors. It was later published in the Jesuit periodical The Catholic Mind of October 22, 1934. The following excerpts from the treatise of this Jesuit historian will suffice:

And again:

A short time later another Jesuit professor, the Rev. Lawrence Patterson, refuting Herman Bernstein in a review of his book, The Truth about the Protocols of Zion, in the Jesuit magazine America of March 23, 1935, says in part:

Farther back, we have the prayer of St. Francis Xavier, second only to Ignatius Loyola himself in the Jesuit calendar of saints: “O God, put me some place where there are no Jews or Moslems!”

Catholic anti-Semitism, however, goes farther back than the Jesuits. It is part of the Catholic church’s doctrine of the outlawry of all unbelievers, and is most evident in the anti-Jewish decrees of the popes and enactments of Catholic church councils during the four centuries from 1200 to 1600 — after which it was carried forward by the Jesuits as the guardians of the universal Catholic mind. It is true that occasional popes restrained Christian outrages against the Jews, but the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council and of the Council of Basle, of Popes Innocent III, Innocent IV, Eugenius IV, Gregory IX, Pius V and Paul IV, compelled Jews to live apart in ghettos, to pay extortionate taxes, to wear an odious badge (the green hat or cape), forbade them to live in the same house or eat or trade with Christians, to practice medicine, to pursue high finance, to acquire real estate, to testify in the courts against Christians, and banished them at times, in whole or in part, from the Papal States. The exact replicas of these papal enactments can be seen in Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws, so closely copied and applied by Mussolini in Italy, by Franco in Spain, by Msgr. Tiso in Slovakia, and later rigorously enforced in all Catholic countries in Europe, including ‘Christianized’ France under its clerico-fascist Petain-Laval regime.

The similarity between these anti-Semitic papal decrees and those enforced all over Europe by Nazi-Fascism can be seen from the following translations of some of the anti-papal decrees of the popes from 1200 to 1600:

Pope Innocent III decreed as follows:¹²

Under this same Pope Innocent III, the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, which was one of the most important ecumenical councils of the Catholic church, officially decreed Canons Nos. 67-70 setting forth the Roman Catholic attitude towards the Jews:³

The first of these Canons is financial, containing protective measures for Christians against the rapacity of Jews as usurers.

The second decrees that all Jews be distinguished for all time from Christians by color of dress and distinctive badge.

The third forbids Jews to have Christians as nurses, tutors and domestic servants, and forbids Christians to cohabit with Jews and Jewesses. Legal marriage with them was impossible.

The fourth forbids the acceptance of legal testimony of Jews against Christians, and orders preference for the testimony of a Christian against a Jew. An order is also added that all in authority in church and state must watch continually lest converted and baptized Jews continue to practice the rites of their former faith.

A few years later, Pope Innocent III reiterated and confirmed these edicts of the Lateran Council as follows:⁴

“To The King Of France That He Must Crush The Insolence Of The Jews Residing In His Kingdom:

In 1244, Pope Innocent IV ordered the burning of Jewish books. He exhorted the King of France as follows:⁵

Pope Gregory IX sent the following to the archbishops of Germany: ⁶

Pope Eugenius IV, in 1442, issued the following decree:⁷

Pope Paul IV, in 1555, reiterated the above restrictions against the Jews and added some new ones. He ordered Jews to pay an annual amount for every synagogue, “even those that have been demolished,” and decreed further that,⁸

This Pope Pius IV permitted Jews to possess immovable property up to the value of 1,500 gold ducats. His successor, Pius V, however, in 1567, revoked this small concession, and ordered Jews to sell all their properties to Christians. Two years later, in modern Hitleresque manner, he ordered all Jews expelled from the States of the Church:

The penalties against Jews who should disobey this order were as follows:⁹

Liberal Catholic apologists in America endeavor to save the reputation of their church by pointing to certain popes who tried to protect the Jews from excessive persecution by Christian princes. They lay the blame for antiSemitism in the past on the undeveloped condition of society and trade rivalry. They overlook the fact, however, that the cause of all anti-Semitism springs from the denial of equal rights and citizenship to Jews in pre-Reformation Christianity. To this can he traced the condition of Jews today in Europe. But this denial was dogmatized into Christian society by the popes, and is part of the universal Catholic church dogma of the outlawry of all unbelievers. It was revived in France immediately after the collapse of democracy there in June 1940, and was put into effect by the decrees of the ‘Christian’ Petain-Laval regime on October ¹⁸.

In reply to an article of mine on Catholic anti-Semitism in The Social Frontier of November, 1938, Emmanuel Chapman, professor at Fordham University, makes a well-meaning but futile attempt to defend his church in this matter.¹⁰ He says that even the popes who issued anti-Semitic decrees exerted every effort to prevent Christians from killing Jews and forcing them to become Christians. “The enforcement (sic) of the Church’s policy with regard to the Jew”, he says, “depended upon the secular power, as the Jews were not under the Church’s government and only the state could rule over them.”¹¹ Here again is the admission that Jews were outlaws from Christian society. In other words, it was the duty of the popes to issue the decrees that Jews, for all time, must remain the slaves of Christians (“whom the death of Christ — in which the Jews evilly conspired at least by the effect of the deed — made free”), and it was the duty of the secular power to see to it that the Jews, without being actually killed, should never attain equal rights with Christians. Hitler and Mussolini carried out this relentless policy against the Jews in all countries within the orbit of the Rome-Berlin Axis. After ruthlessly demolishing the egalitarian structure of democratic countries, they immediately reimposed the hierarchical, authoritarian state, which is in keeping with the Vatican’s political ideology, in which the Jew as an unbeliever has no legal status.

Again, much is made of the late Pope Pius XI’s generic statement (in September, 1938, in an address to some Belgium pilgrims) that “spiritually, we are all Semites”. That was the time when Mussolini began to issue his anti-Semitic regulations. But about that same time, the Vatican newspaper, Osservatore Romano, published a summary of the traditional attitude of the Catholic church towards the Jews. After explaining that many popes issued “protective” ordinances to prevent the slaughter of Jews, it went on to say:¹²

This accurately expresses the fixed policy of Catholicism towards the Jews up till our time. There were many popes who were not anti-Semitic in the sense that they issued “protective” ordinances to curb hatred and violence against the Jews; they decreed that Christians should not deny to Jews what was “permitted” them by law. These protective ordinances usually incorporated the principle laid down by Pope Gregory I (590-604) as follows:¹³

The Catholic laity in America, with the exception of the lunatic fringe, go even farther than the most liberal popes in their attitude towards the Jews; in keeping with the principles of our egalitarian democracy, they believe that Jews have equal rights with Christians. For merely to oppose violence against them and to insist that they should suffer no injury in those things which have been “conceded” them, would be little improvement on the Nazi-fascist attitude.

It must be admitted that Jews, as a whole, are an obstacle to the functioning of society as Nazi-Fascism and political Catholicism would have it. Whether by race or religion, Jews resist regimentation of all kinds. They are more at home in Protestant, democratic countries — where alone they are unmolested and guaranteed equal rights with Christians. Dr. E. Boyd Barrett, who was a Jesuit priest for twenty years before he left the church, has the following to say about the Jews:¹⁴

Herein may be found the answer to the whole anti-Semitic problem. Since both Nazi-Fascism and Jesuit Catholicism are sworn enemies of religious, intellectual and political freedom, the Jew must be either subjugated or banished if their plan for society is to become a reality. Since he cannot be subjugated, he must be banished so that the slavery of clerico-fascism may continue.

1. In Migne, Patrologia, CCXV, p. 1291.↩
2. Ibid. p. 694.↩
3. Cf. Binnius, Concilia Generalia, Vol. II, Tom. 3, p. 695.↩
4. In Migne, op. cit., OCXV, p. 501.↩
5. Bull. Rom. Pont. Vol. IV, p. 509.↩
6. Idem, Vol. Ill, p. 497↩
7. Idem, Vol. V, p. 67.↩
8. Idem, Vol. VI, p. 499.↩
9. Idem, Vol. VII, p. 741,↩
10. in The Social Frontier, Jan. 1939.↩
11. The same alibi is used with regard to the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition; the Church decreed the outlawry of heretics, the civil power executed the decrees.↩
12. The above was reprinted in all Italian newspapers; cf. Il Messagero of Rome, Aug. 17, 1938; La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno of Bari, Aug. 18, 1938; Corriere della Sera and others. No mention of it was made in the press of the United States.↩
13. Quoted by Emmanuel Chapman from Monumenta Germaniae Historiae, Vol. VIII, Reg. Greg. I, No. 25.↩
14. Cf. Rome Stoops to Conquer, by E. Boyd Barret, p. 176.↩

By Kevin A. Lehmann

I got this from a PDF file somewhere on https://whtt.org/ It’s one of the most complete exposés of the origin of Christian Zionism that I’ve ever read.

Does your church teach Christian Zionism and dual covenant theology—a separate plan of redemption for Jews and Gentiles? Is it truly Scriptural?

Are we under a biblical mandate to support and stand with the modern day nation of Israel and its war with the Palestinians? Who was Cyrus Scofield, and how did the publication of his 1909 reference Bible change the tide of American Christianity?

If you value truth over tradition and facts over fiction, I employ you to read the following expose by C.E. Carlson . . .

The Zionist-Created Scofield ‘Bible’ The Source Of The Problem In The Mideast – Part 2 Why Judeo-Christians Support War By C. E. Carlson 12-11-4

The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote Democracy in America when he traveled here in the first third of the 19th Century. In ringing tones he sang the praises of America’s invulnerable strength and spirit. He attributed its greatness to its citizens’ sense of morality… even with the abundant church attendances he observed in America. De Tocqueville wrote in French and is credited with this familiar quote: AMERICA IS GREAT BECAUSE SHE IS GOOD, AND IF AMERICA EVER CEASES TO BE GOOD, SHE WILL CEASE TO BE GREAT.

De Tocqueville could see the power of America, but he could not have known in 1830 that she was soon to be under an attack aimed at its churches and the very sense of morality that he extolled.

First, there was a War Between the States, which scarred the powerful young nation in its strapping youth. A worse attack on America was to commence near the turn of the 20th century. This was the onset of an attack on American Christianity that continues unabated against the traditional, Christ-following church. This attack, which author Gordon Ginn calls “The final Apostasy,” began with a small very wealthy and determined European political movement. It had a dream, and the American churches stood in its way.

The World Zionist movement, as its Jewish founders called themselves, had plans to acquire a homeland for all Jews worldwide, even though most were far from homeless, and many did not want another home. Not any land would do. World Zionists wanted a specific property that American Christians called “the Holy Land.” But if these Zionists read “Democracy in America” or any of the journals of any of America’s churches, which no doubt they did, they could not help but know that Jerusalem was not theirs to have. As self-proclaimed Jews, they were, according to the Christian New Testament, the persecutors of Christ and most of his early followers, and the engineers of his crucifixion. America’s traditional churches in the 19th Century would never stand for a Jewish occupation of Jesus’ homeland.

World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I. Scofield. A much larger tool was a venerable, world respected European book publisher–The Oxford University Press.

The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro- Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield’s role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed such a man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it became a best-selling “bible” in America and has remained so for 90 years.

The Scofield Reference Bible was not to be just another translation, subverting minor passages a little at a time. No, Scofield produced a revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King James Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet exist, but which was already on the drawing boards of the committed, well-funded authors of World Zionism.

Scofield’s support came from a movement that took root around the turn of the century, supposedly motivated by disillusionment over what it considered the stagnation of the mainline American churches. Some of these “reformers” were later to serve on Scofield’s Editorial Committee.

Scofield imitated a chain of past heretics and rapturists, most of whose credibility fizzled over their faulty end times prophesies. His mentor was one John Nelson Darby from Scotland, who was associated with the Plymouth Brethren Group and who made no less than six evangelical trips to the US selling what is today called “Darbyism.” It is from Darby that Scofield is thought to have learned his Christian Zionist theology, which he later planted in the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible. It is possible that Scofield’s interest in Darbyism was shared by Oxford University Press, for Darby was known to Oxford University. A History of The Plymouth Brethren By William Blair Neatby, M.A.

The Oxford University Press owned “The Scofield Reference Bible” from the beginning, as indicated by its copyright, and Scofield stated he received handsome royalties from Oxford. Oxford’s advertisers and promoters succeeded in making Scofield’s bible, with its Christian Zionist footnotes, a standard for interpreting scripture in Judeo-Christian churches, seminaries, and Bible study groups. It has been published in at least four editions since its introduction in 1908 and remains one of the largest selling Bibles ever.

The Scofield Reference Bible and its several clones is all but worshiped in the ranks of celebrity Christians, beginning with the first media icon, evangelist, Billy Graham. Of particular importance to the Zionist penetration of American Christian churches has been the fast growth of national bible study organizations, such as Bible Study Fellowship and Precept Ministries. These draw millions of students from not only evangelical fundamentalist churches, but also from Catholic and mainline Protestant churches and non-church contacts. These invariably teach forms of “dispensationalism,” which draw their theory, to various degrees, from the notes in the Oxford Bible.

Among more traditional churches that encourage, and in some cases recommend, the use of the Scofield Reference Bible is the huge Southern Baptist Convention of America, whose capture is World Zionism’s crowning achievement. Our report on Southern Baptist Zionism, entitled “The Cause of the Conflict: Fixing Blame.

Scofield, whose work is largely believed to be the product of Darby and others, wisely chose not to change the text of the King James Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy-to-read footnotes at the bottom of about half of the pages, and as the Old English grammar of the KJV becomes increasingly difficult for progressive generations of readers, students become increasingly dependent on the modern language footnotes.

Scofield’s notes weave parts of the Old and New Testaments together as though all were written at the same time by the same people. This is a favorite device of modern dispensationalists who essentially weigh all scripture against the unspoken and preposterous theory that the older it is, the more authoritative. In many cases the Oxford references prove to be puzzling rabbit trails leading nowhere, simply diversions. Scofield’s borrowed ideas were later popularized under the labels and definitions that have evolved into common usage today–”pre-millennialism,” “dispensationalism,” “Judeo-Christianity,” and most recently the highly political movement openly called “Christian Zionism.”

Thanks to the work of a few dedicated researchers, much of the questionable personal history of Cyrus I. Scofield is available. It reveals he was not a Bible scholar as one might expect, but a political animal with the charm and talent for self-promotion of a Bill Clinton. Scofield’s background reveals a criminal history, a deserted wife, a wrecked family, and a penchant for self-serving lies. He was exactly the sort of man the World Zionists might hire to bend Christian thought–a controllable man and one capable of carrying the secret to his grave. (See The Incredible Scofield and His Book by Joseph M. Canfield).

Other researchers have examined Scofield’s eschatology and exposed his original work as apostate and heretic to traditional Christian views. Among these is a massive work by Stephen Sizer entitled Christian Zionism, Its History, Theology and Politics, Christ Church Vicarage, Virginia Water, GU25 4LD, England

We Hold These Truths is grateful to these dedicated researchers. Our own examination of the Oxford Bible has gone in another direction, focusing not on what Scofield wrote, but on some of the many additions and deletions The Oxford University Press has continued to make to the Scofield Reference Bible since his death in 1921. These alterations have further radicalized the Scofield Bible into a manual for the Christian worship of the State of Israel beyond what Scofield would have dreamed of. This un-Christian anti-Arab theology has permitted the theft of Palestine and 54 years of death and destruction against the Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from the Judeo-Christian mass media evangelists or most other American church leaders. We thank God for the exceptions.

It is no exaggeration to say that the 1967 Oxford 4th Edition deifies–makes a God of–the State of Israel, a state that did not even exist when Scofield wrote the original footnotes in 1908. This writer believes that, had it not been for misguided anti-Arab race hatred promoted by Christian Zionist leaders in America, neither the Gulf War nor the Israeli war against the Palestinians would have occurred, and a million or more people who have perished would be alive today.

What proof does WHTT (We Hold These Truths) have to incriminate World Zionism in a scheme to control Christianity? For proof we offer the words themselves that were planted in the 1967 Edition, 20 years after the State of Israel was created in 1947, and 46 years after Scofield’s death. The words tell us that those who control the Oxford Press recreated a bible to misguide Christians and sell flaming Zionism in the churches of America.

There is little reason to believe that Scofield knew or cared much about the Zionist movement, but at some point, he became involved in a close and secret relationship with Samuel Untermeyer, a New York lawyer whose firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and most powerful World Zionists in America. Untermeyer controlled the unbreakable thread that connected him with Scofield. They shared a password and a common watering hole–and it appears that Untermeyer may have been the one who provided the money that Scofield himself lacked. Scofield’s success as an international bible editor without portfolio and his lavish living in Europe could only have been accomplished with financial aid and international influence.

This connection might have remained hidden, were it not for the work of Joseph M. Canfield, the author and researcher who discovered clues to the thread in Scofield family papers. But even had the threads connecting Scofield to Untermeyer and Zionism never been exposed, it would still be obvious that that connection was there. It is significant that Oxford, not Scofield, owned the book, and that after Scofield’s death, Oxford accelerated changes to it. Since the death of its original author and namesake, The Scofield Reference Bible has gone through several editions. Massive pro-Zionist notes were added to the 1967 edition, and some of Scofield’s most significant notes from the original editions were removed where they apparently failed to further Zionist aims fast enough. Yet this edition retains the title, “The New Scofield Reference Bible, Holy Bible, Editor C.I. Scofield.” It’s anti-Arab, Christian subculture theology has made an enormous contribution to war, turning Christians into participants in genocide against Arabs in the latter half of the 20th century.

The most convincing evidence of the unseen Zionist hand that wrote the Scofield notes to the venerable King James Bible is the content of the notes themselves, for only Zionists could have written them. These notes are the subject of this paper.

Oxford edited the former 1945 Edition of SRB in 1967, at the time of the Six Day War when Israel occupied Palestine. The new footnotes to the King James Bible presumptuously granted the rights to the Palestinians’ land to the State of Israel and specifically denied the Arab Palestinians any such rights at all. One of the most brazen and outrageous of these NEWLY INSERTED footnotes states:

“FOR A NATION TO COMMIT THE SIN OF ANTI-SEMITISM BRINGS INEVITABLE JUDGMENT.” (page 19-20, footnote (3) to Genesis 12:3.) (our emphasis added)

This statement sounds like something from Ariel Sharon, or the Chief Rabbi in Tel Aviv, or Theodore Herzl, the founder of Modern Zionism. But these exact words are found between the covers of the 1967 Edition of the Oxford Bible that is followed by millions of American churchgoers and students and is used by their leaders as a source for their preaching and teaching.

There is no word for “anti-Semitism” in the New Testament, nor is it found among the Ten Commandments. “Sin,” this writer was taught, is a personal concept. It is something done by individuals in conflict with God’s words, not by “nations.” Even Sodom did not sin–its people did. The word “judgment” in the Bible always refers to God’s action. In the Christian New Testament, Jesus promises both judgment and salvation for believing individuals, not for “nations.”

There was also no “State of Israel” when Scofield wrote his original notes in his concocted Scofield Reference Bible in 1908. All references to Israel as a state were added AFTER 1947, when Israel was granted statehood by edict of the United Nations. The Oxford University Press simply rewrote its version of the Christian Bible in 1967 to make antipathy toward the “State of Israel” a “sin.” Israel is made a god to be worshiped, not merely a “state.” David Ben-Gurion could not have written it better. Perhaps he did write it!

The Oxford 1967 Edition continues on page 19:

“(2) GOD MADE AN UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE OF BLESSINGS THROUGH ABRAM’S SEED (a) TO THE NATION OF ISRAEL TO INHERIT A SPECIFIC TERRITORY FOREVER”

“(3) THERE IS A PROMISE OF BLESSING UPON THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND NATIONS WHO BLESS ABRAM’S DESCENDANTS, AND A CURSE LAID UPON THOSE WHO PERSECUTE THE JEWS.” (Page 19, 1967 Edition Genesis 12:1-3)

This bequeath is joined to an Oxford prophesy that never occurs in the Bible itself:

“IT HAS INVARIABLY FARED ILL WITH THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PERSECUTED THE JEW, WELL WITH THOSE WHO HAVE PROTECTED HIM.” and “THE FUTURE WILL STILL MORE REMARKABLY PROVE THIS PRINCIPLE”(footnote (3) bottom of page19-20Genesis 12:3)

None of these notes appeared in the original Scofield Reference Bible or in the 1917 or 1945 editions. The state of Israel DID NOT EXIST in 1945, and according to the best dictionaries of the time, the word “Israel” only referred to a particular man and an ancient tribe, which is consistent with the Bible text. See “Israel,” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2nd (1950) Edition.

All of this language, including the prophecy about the future being really bad for those who “persecute the Jews,” reflects and furthers the goals of the Anti-Defamation League, which has a stated goal of creating an environment where opposing the State of Israel is considered “anti-Semitism,” and “anti-Semitism” is a “hate crime” punishable by law. This dream has become a reality in the Christian Zionist churches of America. Only someone with these goals could have written this footnote.

The State of Israel’s legal claims to Arab lands are based on the United Nations Partitioning Agreement of 1947, which gave the Jews only a fraction of the land they have since occupied by force. But when this author went to Israel and asked various Israelis where they got the right to occupy Palestine, each invariably said words to the effect that “God gave it to us.” This interpretation of Hebrew scripture stems from the book of Genesis and is called the “Abrahamic Covenant”. It is repeated several times and begins with God’s promise to a man called Abraham who was eventually to become the grandfather of a man called “Israel:”

“[2] AND I WILL MAKE OF THEE A GREAT NATION, AND I WILL BLESS THEE, AND MAKE THY NAME GREAT; AND THOU SHALL BE A BLESSING:”

“[3] AND I WILL BLESS THEM THAT BLESS THEE, AND CURSE HIM THAT CURSETH THEE: AND IN THEE SHALL ALL FAMILIES OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED.” Genesis 12:3, King James Edition.

It is upon this promise to a single person that modern Israeli Zionists base their claims to what amounts to the entire Mid-East. Its logic is roughly the equivalent of someone claiming to be the heir to the John Paul Getty estate because the great man had once sent a letter to someone’s cousin seven times removed containing the salutation “wishing you my very best.” In “Sherry’s War,” We Hold These Truths provides a common sense discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant and how millions of Christians are taught to misunderstand it.

It is tempting to engage in academic arguments to show readers the lack of logic in Scofield’s theology, which has led followers of Christ so far astray. It seems all too easy to refute the various Bible references given in support of Scofield’s strange writings. But we will resist the temptation to do this, because others have already done it quite well, and more importantly because it leads us off our course.

It is also inviting to dig into Scofield’s sordid past as Canfield has done, revealing him to be a convicted felon and probable pathological liar, but we leave that to others, because our interest is not in Scofield’s life, but in saving the lives of millions of innocent people who are threatened by the continuing Zionist push for perpetual war.

Instead, we will examine the words on their face. The words in these 1967 footnotes are Zionist propaganda that has been tacked onto the text of a Christian Bible. Most of them make no sense, except to support the Zionist State of Israel in its war against the Palestinians and any other wars it may enter into. In this purpose, Zionism has completely succeeded. American Judeo-Christians, more recently labeled “Christian Zionists,” have remained mute during wars upon Israel’s enemies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere. It is past time to stop the spilling of more blood, some of it Christian blood.

Now, for evidence of the intent of the Zionist deception of Christians, let us examine some Scofield’s notes THAT HAVE BEEN ALTERED OR REMOVED by Oxford after his death. In 1908 Scofield wrote in 1908:

“THE CONTRAST, ‘I KNOW THAT YE ARE ABRAHAM’S SEED’ – ‘IF YE WERE ABRAHAM’S CHILDREN’ IS THAT BETWEEN THE NATURAL AND THE SPIRITUAL POSTERITY OF ABRAHAM. THE ISRAELITISH PEOPLE AND ISHMAELITISH PEOPLE ARE THE FORMER; ALL WHO ARE ‘OF THE PRECIOUS FAITH WITH ABRAHAM,’ WHETHER JEWS OR GENTILES, ARE THE LATTER (ROM 9, 6-8; GAL, 4-14. SEE ‘ABRAHAMIC COVENANT’ GEN 15, 18, NOTE).” ( Scofield’s 1945 page 1127, note to John 8:39)

Compare that with the Oxford note substituted in the 1967 Edition:

“8:37 ALL JEWS ARE NATURAL DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM, BUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY HIS SPIRITUAL POSTERITY, CP Rom 9-6-8, Gal 3: 6-14″ (Note (1) P1136, Oxford 1967 Edition, note to Jn 8:37.)

How, pray tell, can “all Jews” be “natural descendants of Abraham,” a Chaldean who lived some 3000 years ago? Persons of all races are Jews and new Jews are being converted every day from every race. One might as well say all Lutherans are the natural descendants of Martin Luther; or that all Baptists come from the loins of John the Baptist. This note could only have been written by an Israeli patriot, for no one else would have a vested interest in promoting this genetic nonsense. Shame on those who accept this racism; it is apostate Christianity.

The original Scofield note was far out of line with traditional Christianity in 1908 and should have been treated as heresy then. Yet Scofield had failed to go far enough for the Zionists. Scofield clearly recognized what the book of Genesis states, that the sons of Ishmael are co-heirs to Abraham’s ancient promise. Did not Scofield say “the Israelitish people and Ishmaelitish people are…the natural posterity of Abraham”? The Oxford Press simply waited for Scofield to die and changed it as they wished.

And what is it that Scofield said that did not satisfy the Zionists who rewrote the Oxford 1967 Edition?

The answer is an easy one. Most Arab and Islamic scholars consider Arabs in general and the Prophet Mohamed in particular to be direct descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s first son and older half-brother of Isaac, whose son Jacob was later to become known as “Israel.” Many Arabs believe that through Ishmael they are co-heirs to Abraham’s promise, and they correctly believe that present-day Israelis have no Biblical right to steal their land. Jewish Talmudic folklore also speaks of Ishmael, so the Zionists apparently felt they had to alter how Christians viewed the two half brothers in order to prevent Christians from siding with the Arabs over the land theft.

The Zionists solved this dilemma by inserting a senseless footnote in the 1967 (Oxford) Scofield Reference Bible which, in effect, substitutes the word “Jews” for the words “The Israelitish people and Ishmaelitish people,” as Scofield originally wrote it. The Israelitish and Ishmaelitish people lived 3000 years ago, but the Zionists want to claim the Arabs’ part of the presumed birthright right now! Read it again; “all Jews are natural descendants of Abraham, but are not necessarily his spiritual posterity.”

And there is more of such boondogglery in the Oxford bible. On the same page 1137 we find yet another brand new Zionist-friendly note referring to the New Testament book of John 8:37.

“(2) 8:44 THAT THIS SATANIC FATHERHOOD CANNOT BE LIMITED TO THE PHARISEES IS MADE CLEAR IN 1Jn3:8-10″ (note SRB 1967 Edition, P1137 to John 8:44)

Let us look at the verse Oxford is trying to soften, wherein Jesus is speaking directly to the Pharisees, who were the Jewish leaders of his day, and to no one else:

“YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND THE LUST OF YOUR FATHER YE WILL DO. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND ABODE NOT IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKEST A LIE, HE SPEAKEST OF HIS OWN; FOR HE IS A LIAR, AND THE FATHER OF IT.” John 8:44 King James Ed.)

Those are plain words. No wonder the Zionists wanted to dilute what Jesus said. Not only did Oxford add a new footnote in 1967, but they inserted no less than four reference cues into the King James sacred text, directing readers to their specious, apostate footnotes. It seems the Zionists cannot deny what Jesus said about Pharisees, but they do not want to bear the burden of being “sons of Satan” all by themselves. Now here’s the text of the verse to which Oxford refers in order to try to solve this problem:

“HE THAT COMMITETH SIN IS OF THE DEVIL; FOR THE DEVIL SINNETH FROM THE BEGINNING. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE SON OF GOD WAS MANIFESTED, THAT HE MIGHT DESTROY THE WORK OF THE DEVIL.” (1Jn 3:8.King James Edition)

Fine, but this verse, spoken by Jesus to His followers in a speech about avoiding sin, in no way supports Oxford’s argument that Jesus was not talking directly to and about the Pharisee leaders when he called them “Sons of Satan” in John 8:44. It is a different book written at a different time to a different audience. This is typical Christian Zionist diversion.

To find out to whom Jesus is speaking you must read the rest of John 8, not something from another book. Furthermore, John 8:44 is only one of some 77 verses where Jesus confronted the Pharisees by name and in many cases addressed them as “satanic” and as “vipers.” Oxford simply ignores most of these denunciations by Jesus, adding no notes at all, and the Christian Zionists go along without question.

These are a few examples of Zionist perversions of scripture that have shaped the doctrine of America’s most politically powerful religious subculture, the “Christian Zionists” as Ariel Sharon calls them, or the dispensationalists, as intellectual followers call themselves, or the Judeo-Christians as our politically-correct politicians describe themselves. Today’s Mid-East wars are not caused by the predisposition of the peoples, who are no more warlike than any human tribes. Without the pandering to Jewish and Zionist interests that is carried out by this subculture–the most vocal being the celebrity Christian evangelists–there would be no such wars, for there is not enough support for war outside of organized Zionist Christianity.

Reverend Stephen Sizer of Christ Church,Christ Church Vicarage, Virginia Water, GU25 4LD, England is perhaps the most dedicated new scholar writing about the Scofield Bible craze, popularly known as Christian Zionism. He has quipped, “Judging Christianity by looking at the American Evangelists is kind of like judging the British by watching Benny Hill.”

Reverend Sizer’s remark brings to mind another Benny; his name is Benny Hinn, not a British comic, but an American evangelist spouting inflammatory hate-filled words aimed at Muslims everywhere. Hinn was speaking to the applause of an aroused crowd of thousands in the American Airline Center in Dallas when he shocked two Ft. Worth Star Telegram religious reporters covering the July 3d event by announcing, “We are on God’s side,” speaking of Palestine. He shouted, “This is not a war between Jews and Arabs.. It is a war between God and the Devil.” Lest there be any doubt about it, Hinn was talking about a blood war in which the Israelis are “God” and the Palestinians are “the Devil.”

Benny Hinn is one of hundreds of acknowledged Christian Zionists who have no problem spouting outright race hatred and who join in unconditional support for Israel without regard for which or how many of Israel’s enemies are killed or crippled. His boldness stems from his knowledge that the vast majority of professing Christians from whom he seeks his lavish support-the Judeo-Christians, or Christian Zionists–do not shrink at his words, because they have been conditioned to accept them, just as Roman citizens learned to accept Christian persecution, even burning alive, under Nero. Several evangelists in attendance affirmed their agreement with Hinn – “the line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between good and evil.”

An amazing number of professing Christians are in agreement with the fanatical likes of Hinn, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, James Dobson and hundreds more. Yet Hinn’s profit-seeking fanaticism is not as shocking as that of men like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention who occupy the highest positions in the area of conservative religious thought. Land may have stopped short of branding all Muslims as devils, but he attacked their leader and Prophet and stated that, according to Baptist Bible interpretation, the Palestinian people have no legal rights to property in Palestine. See our discussion of Southern Baptists entitled “The Cause of the Conflict: Fixing Blame.”

The more politically conservative and libertarian the speaker expressing hatred for Islam, the more shocking the statement sounds. One example is Samuel Blumenfeld, a veteran textbook author and advocate of home education. His attack on Islam in a story entitled “Religion and Satanism” in the April 2002 conservative, Calvinist Chalcedon Report leaves little room for civil liberties and freedom of thought. He writes, “Islam is a religion ruled by Satan,” and asks, “Can anyone under the influence of Satan be trusted?” Blumenfeld shows poor judgment and a lack of morality when he allows phrases such as “willing agents of Satan,” “another manifestation of Satanism” and “the willingness of Muslims to believe blatant lies,” to spill from his pen.

How can anyone interpret these words by Land, Hinn, Blumenfeld, and yes, our own President, as anything less than race hatred? Who would make such generalized and transparently false statements against any other minority except Muslims?

About 100 million American Christians need to recover their true faith in Christ Jesus, who never denounced any individual on account of his group. Jesus even tried to save the Pharisees, and only denounced them when they showed themselves to be deceivers. There is not a word in the New Testament that urges any follower of Jesus to murder one child in Iraq or condemn Palestine to death. Race hatred is a Zionist, not a Christian, strategy.

Christian Zionism may be the most bloodthirsty apostasy in the entire history of Christianity or any other religion. Shame on its leaders: they have already brought the blood of untold numbers of innocent people down upon the spires and prayer benches of America’s churches.

Share this article with pastors and church leaders, especially lay leaders. We ask every Muslim and Jew who reads it to do the same. You might wish to suspend giving money to any organizations that preach Zionist race hatred in any form, especially under the cover Jesus Christ. And lastly, We Hold These Truths invites your informed comments and questions.

Listen to: Kulture Klash II, How Oxford University Press and CI Scofield stole the Christian Bible, WHTT “Internet Talk Radio” – also available on tape. Copyright 2002, may be reproduced in full with permission. We Hold These Truths (WHTT) P.O. Box 14491 Scottsdale, AZ 85267

By Paul A. Bishop

This is very interesting history and good for young people who may be ignorant of the Protestant Reformation and the reasons why it changed Europe! I got it from a PDF file.

Introduction

The beginning and later growth of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was seen as a new challenge to religious authority that went beyond the Roman Catholic Church. Many viewed it as a threat to the whole social structure of society, from the monarch on down. As protest and dissent against the Church began to increase, several individuals would rise to prominence in Europe. These men would lead the Reformation and at the same time create a new religious structure within Christendom.

The development of a new Christian discourse of faith would produce a new religious theology and philosophy within Christianity. The new theology (talk about God) would not only open an expanding discussion concerning spiritual understanding and authority, it would also lead to decades of strife and conflict which would ultimately split the Church asunder. This new theology would also change the course of history and permeate much of what we have come to understand as Western culture.

Definitions

Catholic Church – meaning the universal church, one church over most of Christianity.

Reformation – refers to reform, a movement to change that which is seen as incorrect. Specifically, the 16th century movement toward religious change.

Protestant – refers to protest, the rising complaint against the Church’s doctrine and practices. Meaning those that were to protest and eventually break with the Church.

Justification – acts that lead to freedom from blame or guilt derived from sin.

Remission – refers to the pardon of, or forgiveness of sins.

Penance – acts of contrition or punishments that one endures or performs to show regret of sin.

Purgatory – an existence between this life and eternal life in Heaven, where souls reside while they are cleansed of their residual sin from earthly life.

Indulgence – monetary payment made to absolve one from sin and to reduce the time spent in purgatory. Could as be purchased for the dead already in purgatory.

Ninety-Five Theses – a list of Martin Luther’s questions regarding the doctrine and authority of the Catholic Church and an instruction to the faithful.

Papal bull – official letter of instruction issued by the Pope concerning a given subject.

liturgy – the form or order of religious services and worship.

Eucharist – refers to the act of Holy Communion as in the celebration of the “Last Supper”.

Ecclesiastic – having to do with the affairs of the church and the clergy.

Absolution – the act of remission of sin as prescribed and authorized by the Church.

Cannon Law – refers to the basic beliefs and structures on the Church.

Deices and Archdiocese – refers to religious areas of jurisdictions of the Church.

Diet – refers to a religious legislature or council held to determine religious matters.

Martin Luther’s Justification

Early in his life, Martin Luther dedicated himself to the monastic life. His joining of the Augustinian friary at Erfurt, Germany in 1505 would begin a journey that would eventually create the foundation for a new religious movement within Christendom. The Protestant Movement that he would lead in Germany would be repeated and duplicated throughout Europe, as a backlash began to grow against the corruption that many believed had come to represent the “old Church”. The growing protest against the Catholic Church (universal church) would lead to the call for reform. This would become the Protestant Reformation – the protest for reform.

The path that Luther had chosen would require a commitment and devotion to fasting, hours of prayer, and frequent confessions. His attempt to dedicate himself to this cause would lead to a growing understand of his own sinfulness. His own spiritual self- examination began to lead Luther into religious despair. To save him from his anguish, the Order directed Luther to initiate instruction in academics. Luther was soon ordained into the priesthood and in 1508, began teaching. In 1512, he was awarded a doctorate and was inducted into the theological faculty at the University of Wittenberg. It would be here that he would spend his career and begin to explore the many problems he saw plaguing the Church.

It was at Wittenberg that Luther began to question several of the doctrines of the Roman Church. His ideas of penance and righteousness, as well as salvation began to change from what his instruction had led him to believe. This became the basis of his “new conversion”. From this, Luther began to develop his own ideas and formulate them into a doctrine of justification. It is this understanding of justification that opened the divide between the Roman Catholic Church and Martin Luther.

By the 16th century the Catholic Church had entrenched and linked “membership” in the Church with salvation. The threat of “excommunication” was used as a weapon to keep followers in line and to punish those that had move outside the boundaries of conduct and actions set by the Church hierarchy. The Church taught that “it alone” was God’s instrument and representative on Earth and salvation could only be found by its means. Further, the Pope as the leader of the Catholic Church was by then declared as the “Vicar of Christ”, or his personal representative. Until the 5th century, this title had been reserved to describe the Holy Spirit sent to Christ’s Apostles to complete their religious training. Once the title was transferred to the pope, it began to imply an extraordinary holiness of supreme and universal primacy existed over all of Christendom in this office, in one human being.

Challenging Indulgences

It was this “primacy of authority” that Martin Luther began to question and challenge. His doctrine of justification brought him to a completely different understanding of the origins of salvation. For Luther, salvation could not be found in membership within an institution, or in the hands of human beings. Rather, he saw it as a spiritual gift directly from God to the individual. His new understanding was that salvation was grounded in faith, and that this faith is what led to salvation through the grace of God. God’s grace was a sovereign favor that was irrespective of one’s actions or deeds. Grace was that enabling power, and essential gift given by God that would allow a person to secure their eternal salvation. According to Luther, that grace was not predicated on Church membership, or earthly works. It was a gift that had been bought on the cross by the death of Jesus of Nazareth. It was also only attainable through one’s faith in Jesus. In this scenario, the Roman Church lost its fundamental authority over salvation.

For Luther, the growing controversy over indulgences would set the stage for spiritual confrontation. The idea of sin referred to the human violation of moral rules. These moral rules were the code of conduct as decreed by God in his “holy scriptures”. When “sin” occurred, and it occurred at alarming rates, it would require some form of penance be carried out to absolve oneself, as a sign of repentance. It would be this action of penance and repentance and the subsequent corruption that would begin to evolve around it that would cause the crisis in the Catholic Church. This would fester into a growing protest and condemnation of indulgences.

By the 16th century the Catholic Church had expounded upon the scriptures as to what was acceptable for the remission of sin. The first step was through an act of contrition by which the sinner would pray for forgiveness. Beyond confession of sin and admission of guilt, the sinner would be expected to carry out some form of sacramental penance. The Church would then also offer the indulgence as a way to expand the merits of the Church. These were explained as being an extension of and a draw on the “storehouse of merit” acquired by Jesus’ sacrifice, and the virtues of the Saints. These later “virtues” were merits granted by God for the good works and prayers of the saints, according to the Church. Therefore a sinner could in effect use these instruments to gain absolution for their sins with the Catholic Church acting as their mediator before God.

But the controversy was much more involved than just the sale of indulgences. Martin Luther and others began to question the authority by which the Catholic Church based its belief in the buying and selling of indulgences. A greater question arose as to whether or not the Catholic Church had or could assume the authority to sell salvation. The Church argued that the indulgence was after the fact of confession and absolution and the indulgence was just a replacement for other penances. Regardless of the Catholic Church’s definition, many could not see the difference, and others did not feel there was one. One of these was Martin Luther, and his reaction was going to change the world of Christendom forever.

The Church also offered the indulgence as a way to remove temporal punishment that would otherwise have to be paid with time spent in purgatory. This was an existence somewhere between life on earth and eternal life in Heaven, where human souls would reside to become purified. The belief being that some good souls are not sin free and must spend time being cleansed before entering Heaven. This would then be accomplished in purgatory, what Protestants began to refer to as God’s “waiting room”. The indulgence could then also be applied to these souls after the fact to eliminate their unseemliness and reduce their time in purgatory.

The selling of indulgences became a full time job for some within the Catholic Church. The whole affair was going to escalate around the new construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In 1517, the Dominican friar Johan Tetzel was appointed as commissioner of indulgences for all of Germany. His job would be to raise monies through the sale of indulgences for the construction that was taking place on St. Peter’s Basilica. Tetzel was zealous about his job and commissioned wholesale retailing of indulgences. His commission would soon be hit with the accusation of selling indulgences for sins yet to be committed. By this time the indulgency controversy was full blown and Martin Luther was openly preaching against Tetzel and the sale of indulgences in general.

The Ninety-Five Theses

Luther would begin to write in condemnation of indulgences. His “Disputation of Martin Luther and the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” became the principle catalyst for the coming Protestant Reformation. This became known as the Ninety-Five Theses and was enclosed in a letter protesting indulgences that Luther wrote to Archbishop Albrecht in October of 1517. In the letter Luther questioned the granting of forgiveness through the sale of indulgences, which seemed to turn the matter into a commercial transaction rather than a genuine repentant of sin and change of heart. As Luther saw it, the Catholic Church had commercialized repentance. He doubted that absolution of sin could be bought, sold, and purchased as if it were goods for the benefit and disposal of the Church.

When Johann Tetzel was commissioned to sell indulgences in Germany by Pope Leo X, this did not immediately affect Martin Luther. The prince of each province had the right to allow or deny their sale in his territory. While these new indulgences for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica were not sold in Luther’s province, his parishioners began to travel to provinces where they could buy them. Luther became outraged when his own congregation began to present indulgences they had purchased in their travels as documentation that their sins had been forgiven. He saw this as an abomination and violation of the whole idea of confession and penance and an offense to justification and salvation. According to Luther’s new understanding of the scriptures, forgiveness could not be purchased, but rather was a free gift of God’s mercy.

Luther then looked to open the debate by nailing a copy of the Ninety-Five Theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle Church. As church doors of the time acted as bulletin boards, this was not uncommon. It was an open invitation to have a scholarly public debate on the issues expounded upon in the theses. What happened next was extraordinary. Luther was said to have approached Church authorities and presented them with his Theses while calling for an immediate end to the work of the indulgence sellers. When the Church did not respond to his demands, he began to distribute the Ninety-Five Theses privately. Within two weeks time the Theses had spread like wildfire throughout Germany. Within two months time they had covered Europe after being translated into Latin and pushed through printing presses in all the major nations. Martin Luther had ignited a powder keg that in turn was going to explode into an even greater event.

Among other things, Luther’s Theses would call into question the limits of the pope’s authority. Particularly, Luther questioned whether the pope could remit guilt of sin and whether it was possible to grant anyone the remission of all penalties. Luther further stated that the dying were freed from earthly penalties by their deaths. He then found those preachers that sold indulgences in error “who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved”. Luther pointed out that any power the pope held in the matter was only through intercession as a gateway to God’s grace, meaning the result of any intercession by the Church was granted by and held only in the authority and power of God alone. The Ninety-Five Theses left “condemnation” as the reward for those that believed their salvation was secure with their holding of these “letters of pardon”. Luther went on to say that every repentant Christian has the right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without the letters of pardon, this being an act of God’s mercy alone.

The second half of Luther’s Theses set out instruction for Christians. Luther wanted Christians to understand that buying pardons did not compare to doing works of mercy, or to helping the poor and the needy. He wrote, “works of love not only are beloved in God’s eyes, they help the man to grow toward spiritual purity.” Where the pardoners persuaded individuals to give when they could not afford to, Luther suggested that Christians were bound to provide what was necessary for their own families first, then toward the needy, and not to squander this on pardons. Finally, he questioned why the pope, whose riches were greater than those of the richest individuals, did not build the basilica with his own money, rather than from the sale of indulgences to the poor?

The Ninety-Five Theses had asked questions and brought up points of contention that many had wanted to ask, but few had dared to. What Luther had done was become the voice for a growing discontent within the Catholic Church. Did the Church actually hold the keys to heaven as many felt it claimed to? Was the pope infallible? Did indulgencies remove all sin? And was excommunication from the Catholic Church tantamount to eternal damnation? Luther had called the church into account, and for many the Church would be hard pressed to answer in a convincing manner.

For its part, the Catholic Church was slow in responding to Luther’s call for an open debate. Cardinal Albrecht who had first received Luther’s theses had them checked for any heresy before he forwarded them on to Rome. He would make no formal reply to the Theses, but would entrust that powers greater than he would come to his rescue. Albrecht was caught up in the use of indulgence monies himself. He had borrowed money to pay for his clerical advancement and with the pope’s blessing was allowed to use half the monies collected from the sale of indulgencies in his diocese of jurisdiction to pay these debts. When Luther threatened the sale of indulgences, he was also threatening the cardinal’s assets.

Response of the Church

When the Ninety-Five Theses arrived in Rome, their reception was cold. Pope Leo X would act methodically while taking action and would respond to Luther’s Theses by ordering the vicar-general of the Augustine Order to place a ban of silence on its monks. This move was aimed at quieting the growing discontent without drawing unwarranted attention to the growing schism in the church. Luther responded by sending a personal letter of clarification of his Theses to the pope. The result of this was that Leo X then summoned Luther to appear before him in Rome. Before this occurred, an agreement was reached whereby Luther would meet with the pope’s representative Cardinal Cajetan in Augsburg, Germany. This was an attempt by the church to reign Luther in before anymore harm could be done. Meanwhile, Rome issued a papal bull obliging all Christians to acknowledge the pope’s authority and power to grant indulgences. Neither of these efforts was successful in their attempts to intimidate Luther into recanting his writings.

After a year of unproductive negotiations, the pope issued the Exsurge Domine in 1520. This papal bull was a direct attack on Luther and ordered the withdrawal of some 41 theological errors the Church found contention with in his writings. Luther was given sixty days to comply with this new papal bull. Throughout Germany the papal bull was received with contempt. In several instances, the document was publicly burned. Luther himself set his own copy to flame along with several volumes of the Catholic Church’s ecclesiastical Canon Law. The pope viewed this as a direct attack on his authority and responded by having Martin Luther excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

In 1521, Leo X issued a Decet Romanun Pontificem banishing Luther from the Church. The matter was then turned over to secular authorities and Luther was ordered to appear before the Diet of Worms. This was a general assembly of the Holy Roman Empire conducted in May of that same year. Emperor Charles V personally directed the assembly. Luther was to address the assembly concerning whether he had authored the various writings attributed to him and if he espoused their contents. Fearing for Luther’s safety, the Elector Prince Frederick III of Saxony secured an assurance that Luther would receive free passage to and from the assembly. Luther’s arrive in Worms set the stage for the theological showdown that was to follow.

Johann Eck, a former friend of Luther’s turned enemy, represented the Empire as the assistant to the Archbishop of the archdiocese. Eck had been responsible for the delivery of several papal bulls regarding Luther. Upon questioning, Luther refused to recant or retract any of his writings on grounds that by both the Holy Scripture and his own conscience as led by God, he was determined to stand firm by his beliefs. The assembly then moved to confidential conferences to render its decisions. These conferences would last several days before sentence would be passed regarding Luther’s fate. In the end the verdict pronounced upon Martin Luther was to be most severe. He was declared to be a heretic and an outlaw. His literature was to be banned, and he was to be arrested. It also became a crime for anyone within the empire to give Luther safe haven. Further, the assembly sanctioned the death of Martin Luther with no legal consequences under the law. In the eyes of many the Church was now forgiving the used secular authorities to condone murder.

The final proclamation of the assembly became known as The Edict of Worms and all but put a bounty on Luther’s head. To protect him, Prince Frederick had Luther secretly removed to Wartburg Castle where he would live in exile for the next year. It was here that he continued his doctrinal attacks on the Catholic Church, expanding these to include required confessions and the Church’s interpretation of “good works’. It was during this time that Luther also translated the New Testament into German, allowing for the expanded reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular. His translation would soon increase individual reading of the Bible and bring many more to question what the Church taught, as opposed to what they read in the scriptures.

Growing Protest Toward Reform and the Internal Dispute

By 1522, Luther’s writings had started a wave of reform and instigated disorder and revolt within his own Augustinian Order, and in towns across Germany. As the situation deteriorated and civil unrest increased, Luther felt compelled to come out of hiding and he secretly returned to Wittenberg. He delivered several sermons on the value of patience and freedom, condemning the previous violence and calling on the townspeople to put their faith in God to deliver reform. His return had immediate results in restoring order and acted as a conservative voice within the “reform movement”. He advocated moderation within the new movement’s practices, setting the basis for what by then had become the Protestant Reformation in Germany.

Control of the Holy Roman Empire had come into contention between the Emperor and the pope by the 1520’s. With the crowning of Charlemagne, the Catholic Church had laid claim to religious authority as well as power over secular rulers of the empire. Charles V’s power within the German states was limited by that of the provincial princes, opening the door for reform with the assembly of the First Diet of Speyer. The Diet was held in the summer of 1526 to address the advancing Protestant Reformation and the implementation of the Edict of Worms. Among other things, the edict made it a crime to spread or teach the writings and beliefs espoused by Martin Luther. One by one, German Protestant princes profess their new beliefs to the Diet. While the Diet of Speyer was not convened to annul the Edict of Worms, it had a similar effect in Germany. The Diet unanimously concluded that every province held the right to live, rule and believe as it may, in hopes of being answerable only to God.

In the German provinces of the Holy Roman Empire, this gave each prince the temporary right to act as he pleased in regard to religious reform until a general meeting of the Emperors Council could be held. This would not happen for twenty years, and in the meantime the princes moved to advance Protestantism under the privilege of independent action. Luther understood the ruling as having given him temporary acquittal of the charge of heresy. The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V did not officially contest the Diet of Speyer, even though he opposed granting religious tolerance to Protestants.

By this time the Reformation had spread to other lands as well, where discontent with the Roman Catholic Church and its practices had raised the protest for reform. In Switzerland, Ulrich Zwingli became the catalyst for change when he raised issues with the custom of fasting, clerical marriage, and the use of iconic images. Zwingli began to develop a new liturgy for communion in place of the Catholic mass. Zwingli’s beliefs began to spread throughout the Swiss Confederation and divided it along religious lines. War in the Confederation would narrowly be averted. By 1522, Zwingli had publicly confronted Catholic authority by publishing his ideas concerning the corruption within the church’s ecclesiastical hierarchy.

As the Reformation charged forward, disputes within the protestant movement would demand change, leading to arbitration. In 1529, the Marburg Colloquy was called to order to close the ranks. More to the point, the conference was called to address growing political concerns of unity, but at the heart of this issue was the need for religious harmony. A unified Protestant theology was needed to reconcile the differing views within the movement, particularly between Luther and Zwingli. The two sides were to find consensus on fourteen points of dispute. However, they would leave the conference with divergent views concerning the Eucharist.

The sacrament of Holy Communion in remembrance of the Lord’s Supper was the one point the two sides could not agree upon. Luther believed the sacraments of bread and wine were united with Christ’s body and blood for all communicants, while Zwingli held them to be only symbols of the two. Lutherans would leave the conference refusing to acknowledge Zwingli and his followers as true Protestants, but an overall consensus had been reached. The meeting had produced an alliance within Protestant ranks while strengthening the emperor’s position against the threat of Roman Catholic forces.

The Reformation Spreads

England would see Henry VIII break with the Roman Catholic Church, although for much different reasons. In 1525, Henry VIII looked to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled. When the pope refused to allow the annulment, the king then looked to the theological universities and Parliament in an attempt to challenge papal supremacy over religious matters. Parliament responded by passing a series of legislations, which little by little began to strip the Catholic clergy in England of its power. Finally, Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy in 1534, declaring Henry VIII the supreme authority over the church in England. The king thus became the head of the Church in England. Henry VIII was also given control of church finances and appointments. This new Anglican Church, headed by appointments of Henry’s choosing annulled his previous marriage and then moved with Parliament to validate Henry’s marriage to his mistress Ann Boleyn. Pope Clement VII responded by having Henry VIII excommunicated. This was an act after the fact, given that Henry had already been declared the head of his own church, therefore having already removed “himself” for the Roman Church.

Protestantism in England would see a reversal in its royal acceptance after the death of Henry VIII. His son Edward VI, now the second Protestant king of England would die at age fifteen, and after a brief power struggle, Mary Tudor, Henry’s daughter by Catherine of Aragon would assume the throne. Being a staunch Roman Catholic, Mary reconciled England with Rome. She then worked through Parliament the passage of several “Marian Religious Acts” that effectively restored Catholicism in England and reinstate several “Heresy Acts”. Queen Mary then began a series of persecutions that would last nearly four years and see the execution of many leading Protestants, several hundred being burned at the stake. She would eventually be known as “Bloody Mary” among English Protestants.

With Mary Tudor’s death, another of Henry’s daughters assumed the throne. Elizabeth I would see the reinstatement of the “Supremacy Act” making her head of the Church. Elizabeth then moved to reestablish the Protestant Anglican Church as the official religious authority in England. Pope Pius V then had Elizabeth excommunicated. This act released Catholics from their allegiance to the queen, but put them in danger of being traitors if they acted upon this. An uneasy tolerance settled over England in the ensuing years and Catholics were subject to monetary fines, imprisonment, and even execution if they showed any objection to the Queen’s secular authority. In the following centuries, Catholics were to be viewed with suspicion in England, as Catholic forces in Europe would repeatedly support plots in an attempt to place a Catholic ruler back on the throne of England.

In France, John Calvin was going to become the catalyst for the Protestant reform movement. Trained as a lawyer, Calvin began to question his Catholicism and in 1536 published the Institutes of the Christian Religion. This moved to set in place a theocratic structure for the Protestant Church, and a process for Protestant Christian instruction. As leader of the Huguenot movement in France, Calvin directed the attack against Catholic beliefs in rituals, purgatory, saints, hierarchy, and the pope’s worldly kingdom. First from Geneva, Calvin would begin to support the Huguenot church before moving to Strasburg. He viewed the Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchy as a mockery of God’s grace, and a human tyranny over Christianity. The Protestant break with the Catholic Church in France would lead to decades of religious wars. Peace was finally found in the Edict of Nantes in 1598, which granted religious and political freedom to Protestants in France under Henry of Navarre. This edict of toleration would remain in place until Louis XIV came to power nearly one-hundred year later.

As a protégé of John Calvin’s in Geneva, John Knox would first rise to prominence in the Church of England as a clergyman after his exile from Scotland. With the rise of Mary Tudor and the brief restoration of Catholicism in England, Knox moved to the continent to avoid prosecution . His First Blast of the Trumpet was a protest against the “unnatural” rule of women, which under Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart he viewed to be wicked and tyrannical. With his return to Edinburgh, Scotland, Knox would become a leader of the Scottish Revolution against the Catholic regency in 1560. As one of the authors of the Scotts Confession, Knox was instrumental in the Scottish Parliament’s abolishing the jurisdiction of the pope in Scotland and banning the celebration of Mass there. The establishment of the Church of Scotland led to the formation of reformed theology in Scotland and the foundation of Presbyterianism.

Throughout the 16th century, Protestantism would come to be widely embraced in Scandinavia as well. In Sweden and Finland, the Vatican began to lose its control by the late 1500’s as a break between the king and the pope developed over ecclesiastical affairs. The crown had taken control of church property, church appointments, and placed the clergy under civil law, successfully yielding to the endorsement of Protestant ideals. Denmark, Norway, and Iceland were ruled by the same monarch, and as the throne of Denmark moved out of Catholic hands and into those of the Protestant Christian III, a reformation of the official state church took place. By the middle of the 16th century the majority of Scandinavians claimed to be Protestants.

The Thirty Year War and the Peace of Westphalia

When Charles V was replaced as Holy Roman Emperor, the alliance of Protestant princes was strengthened. In Germany, the signing of the Peace of Augsburg officially ended the religious struggles and confirmed the legal and permanent division of Christendom within the empire. The agreement in 1555, now allowed the princes too permanently choose their religious affiliation within their controlled domains. It also successfully gave Protestantism official status within the empire as well. The agreement also effectively removed the threat of heresy. While not all Protestants were covered under the agreement, the majority of German Lutherans now had security under its jurisdiction.

The Protestant Reformation which had started with Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses had now swept across Europe and entrenched itself, making a clean break from the Roman Catholic Church and the pope’s authority. The struggle would continue for another hundred years and culminate with the Thirty Years War. Beginning in 1618, Europe erupted in open warfare over the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church would sanction military action in its efforts to crush Protestantism. The German provinces would become an “open battlefield” for religious supremacy.

By 1648, almost every major European power had become involved. The impact of the war would devastate the peoples of Europe. Some areas in Germany would see two- thirds of their populations killed. The greater powers of Europe would ravage Germany. As the war waged on, in many instances, the warfare had less to do with religious affairs, and more to do with conquest and their “grab for power”. By the end of the war the dominance of the Emperor had been severely curtailed, the authority of the pope had been all but eliminated.

In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia would end the religious wars in Europe and validated religious freedom for Protestants. By that time, Europe had been torn apart, the German provinces had seen the destruction of half its population in some provinces, and the Church had permanently been divided.

Conclusion

Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses had started a religious revolution. From the time he first began to question Church authority, to when he nailed the Theses to the doors of Castle Church in Wittenberg he had only wanted answers. When none were forthcoming, he tried to drive the Church to change, and when this was rebuked he stripped the church’s authority over him. His protest for reform had soon begun to inspired other to do likewise. This in turn had sparked not only a call for reform, but a demand for religious change.

The Protestant church’s calendar is filled with “Holy Days”, but none are more central to its existence than that of October 31, known as Reformation Day. On this day, Protestantism celebrates Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses. The document is heralded as the beginning of the end to the Catholic Church’s claim to control of all religious affairs, and to what many of that time saw as its claim to control over salvation.

The Protestant Reformation would change Christianity from a religion with one omnipotent power, the Catholic Church, to now encompass a myriad of new beliefs using a separate Protestant context. That context is based on differing scriptural interpretations, not only different than that of the Roman Catholic Church, but in many instances different from one another. This pluralism has continued to this day and can be found in the great number of denominations within Protestantism, and those that stand outside of that framework as well.

The Reformation also changed the face of Europe. It served to also release the growing social and political discontent of the time. Kings and princes began to move away from the authority of the Catholic Church as well. The sweeping changes that occurred were resisted and religious wars were fought for nearly one-hundred years before there was religious toleration, recognition, and reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants.

The Protestant Reformation stands today as a testament to men’s desire to find a greater understanding of the Scriptures and of God. The Protestant Reformation also stands as a reminder that when one omnipotent authority claims supremacy over the affairs of men, whether they be religious or secular, it is in the interest of all men to question where that authority is derived from, and whether it is just, and/or mistaken.

The following is a transcription from a video talk by a young lady named Beth. She was raised in the pagan religion of witchcraft. Her life was saved by the redeeming Blood of Jesus Christ!

The video is below the text:

Beth

So today I want to talk about Halloween and Christianity.

Halloween is kind of a taboo subject for Christians as far as talking about not celebrating it. There seem to be two camps in the thought of Halloween and Christians. One is there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Halloween, it’s all in good fun, just don’t celebrate the evil side and it’s perfectly fine. And the other side says do not celebrate Halloween at all, it’s totally evil. And I guess there is kind of a middle ground where some people say, well, don’t celebrate it but reach out to the lost with fall festivals at church and handing out tracts to trick-or-treaters.

So I just want to speak a little bit about that because I know, I have more experience with the darkness of Halloween and the evil side than I think some people do. And I just want to share that because I think it’s really important and it’s something that people need to know, Christian or not Christian.

So as a witch I celebrated Halloween. Halloween is a high-holy day for Satanists and witches alike. I did not celebrate Halloween thinking it was evil. We didn’t do sacrifices. We didn’t hurt animals. And it seemed all in good fun. It was a day to celebrate the dead and to party. It seemed perfectly good and fun. It was until after I got into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ that I really started to realize how evil Halloween is.

In the Bible, God speaks very clearly about not being involved in paganism, witchcraft, mediums, sacrificing children, and things of that nature. But what many people don’t know is that Halloween is a high-holy day for Satanists, witches and other occult members who actually hurt people and animals. They do things, it’s not just on Halloween. Anton LaVey says that Halloween is the third most important holiday on their calendar. He, if you don’t know, was the founder of the Church of Satan. He is now deceased. The Church of Satan is not deceased though, it is alive and active. Satanists actually love the fact that Christians celebrate Halloween because Halloween opens you up to your dark side.

Now I know a lot of Christians say that they don’t celebrate the evil of Halloween. But the thing is that you really can’t get away from the evil of Halloween. It is a day dedicated to Satan, evil, and death. So I was saying, witches see Halloween not as evil but as the celebration of the dead and partying. But Satanists and other occultists see it as a day, yes of the dead and partying, but to them that also means human sacrifices, animal sacrifices, ritual abuse such as beatings and also sexual abuse. So it is very real that babies are being murdered, animals are being murdered, and other people, children and adults alike, are being abused. It’s the real deal. So Halloween, Easter and Christmas time are huge pagan holidays that they do these kinds of rituals, but Halloween is one of the one of the more important ones.

And there are many people out there right now who come to this time of the year, and it’s so hard for them. Everywhere you go just in in my neighborhood, my neighborhood stores, Halloween is everywhere. The evil is prevalent. The decorations I see are giant spiders, vampires, witches, ghosts, severed heads, human body parts, headstones, and things of that nature. I don’t really see how you can find innocence in those decorations.

I understand that you could dress up in costumes that you consider non-evil such as princesses and superheroes and your favorite cartoon characters, but the fact is, what I really want you to think about is, that you can’t separate yourself from the evil that Halloween is.

Two, in its very origins, Halloween is evil. If you trace Halloween all the way back to the ancient times before Catholicism even, it has deep roots and it is all based on celebrating other gods and goddesses, which by the way, are demons in disguise, and sacrificing and abusing humans and animals. Now, fast forward to the current day. You don’t see or it’s not widely talked about those horrifying things. Satan has made it very easy to ignore those things, and as a matter of fact, we are completely desensitized to evil the Devil and his demons. But the spiritual realm is very real and you are inviting evil into your life by participating in Halloween because God has clearly stated to us that we are to have no part of it. So when we have a part of it, we are signaling in the spiritual realm, which is all around us unseen, that we’re open. It’s an open portal or gateway.

I have been told that witches curse the Halloween candy, and I can only imagine what other curses are going on to Halloween costumes and whatnot. At this time of year, covens are very active trying to place curses on different churches and different individuals, especially individuals like myself who would speak out against Halloween.

It’s very serious. I take Halloween very seriously. It grieves me to the core, to my bones with immense sadness that Christians participate in Halloween. It is not something for Christians. We are called to be the light of the world. We are called to step out of darkness. Our Savior has died and shed blood so that we can be redeemed so that we don’t have to be enslaved to hell. So why are we celebrating and playing and having fun on a day that is dedicated to Satan and that is about death and decay? It just really breaks my heart. It breaks my heart.

And I just want to stop and pray right now:

Lord Jesus, I pray that anyone who watches this video is covered by the blood of Jesus. I pray that you would just penetrate every heart and soul with your Word right now and your truth, God, that you would divide anything that I have said that is untrue away from the truth, and that you would take each person that watches this video and give them great blessings in your favor, God. We love you and we praise your mighty Name, Jesus, for you are our wonderful Savior. You are the sacrifice, the last sacrifice, and the only sacrifice that ever needs be done, and by your shed blood and your work on the cross, we can live eternally, and enjoy truth light and hope. Thank you, Jesus. Praise your name, God. We love you.

So I just want you to know that I have no condemnation for what you do or what you have done because there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus, and Jesus does not condemn you if you have celebrated Halloween or do celebrate it now. He only asks with love as I ask and urge that you stop and think more about Halloween and celebrating it, even fall festivals. I really urge you to rethink that.

I’ve had people tell me it’s fine to not celebrate Halloween. We can celebrate fall instead. Fall is great, but I have to ask you this. Why are you celebrating fall? Which other season do you have parties and celebrate? I have never heard of a spring celebration or winter festival. We don’t do those. Why is it you feel so called? Why is the pull to celebrate fall so strong? And it’s really not just Halloween, it’s a whole season where we take up celebrating all of October, pumpkin patches, pumpkin carving, decorating our houses with leaves and ghosts and pumpkins and fall colors. And I have to ask you to think and ask yourself and pray and ask God, why is the urge there so strong?

This is a time of year when witchcraft increases greatly. I’m not saying you should be afraid of witchcraft. I’m not saying you should fear the devil, and I’m not saying you should fear Halloween. Quite the opposite. If you’ve been saved by Jesus Christ, there is no fear. You by His blood have defeated the Devil. You have the power and authority to trample on the serpent and crush him under your heel.

But I ask you, can you glorify God by celebrating Halloween? I do not think so. Actually, I do think so. You can glorify God by not celebrating Halloween. And I say this to you: If you don’t celebrate Halloween and you stand up for the truth of what Halloween is and spread the word, and other Christians stop celebrating Halloween, or even people who are not Christians stop celebrating Halloween just on the premise that they refuse to participate in a time where people are being murdered, (think of the recent shootings and deaths at Halloween parties in America!) think of what that would do to the Devil. That would make him so mad! And I want to make him mad because I tell you what. The devil tried to steal my joy, kill my life and trample on me for most of my life, but look what God has done for me and you too. So give him a black eye and step away from Halloween, away from fall festivities, and just pray.

We are called to be apart or separate from this world, to not conform to it, to be transformed, to be renewed, to be holy, and it is hard. It’s very hard, not because I miss out on Halloween because I don’t. I can eat candy or let my kids dress up in a costume lots of other times of the year. It doesn’t have to be October or even October 31st. I could stop one day of the year and not participate in dressing up, going to parties, or eating candy. It doesn’t even bother me. What bothers me is that sometimes it feels very lonely. But I’ve prayed and prayed and I said God are you sure that we’re supposed to separate ourselves from Halloween and all the activities? And time and time again. I continually hear, “Yes.” So I just urge you to pray.

I thank you so much for taking the time to listen to this. Have a wonderful and blessed day. Bye.

This article is from chapter 30 of “Out of the Labyrinth: The Conversion of a Roman Catholic Priest” by former Roman Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann, first published in 1947 and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org.

Webmaster’s Introduction

From my perspective as a former Roman Catholic, it seems to me that one of the greatest differences between Catholics and Protestants is how they define the word “church.” Catholics cannot separate the church from Jesus because they believe one can only have a relationship with Jesus via the ecclesiastical framework of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and the pope. To Catholics, this ecclesiastical organization is the Church. On the other hand, Bible-following Protestants call themselves the Church! It doesn’t matter if he or she is a newly saved babe in Christ. They through faith in Christ become a part of the Church of Christ just like a baby becomes part of a family by being born. True Christians base this belief on what the Bible says.

Colossians 1:18  And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;

Ephesians 5:23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

1 Corinthians 12:27  Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

When William Tyndale translated the New Testament in 1526, rather than translate the Greek word ekklesia as “church,” he used the word “congregation” instead. For this Tyndale received much criticism from Roman Catholic bishops. But Strong’s concordance agrees with Tyndale’s translation because it defines ekklesia as “an assembly, a (religious) congregation.”

SIMPLICITY is characteristic of the teachings of Evangelical Christianity — and rightly so. For it has been well said that multiplication of doctrines is perilous to the spiritual life. It tends to distract our attention and, by fixing it upon fragments, dulls the sense of the immeasurable whole.

This multiplication and fragmentation of doctrines is characteristic of Roman Catholic teaching, and clearly points up the contrast between it and the true Gospel teaching.

Following are five points, which may well be called basic postulates of Protestantism. They not only clarify all that is necessary and basic to the Christian teaching about salvation, but show up the opposing errors of Roman Catholic teaching in each particular:

1. The Primacy of Christ.

All Protestants base their hope of salvation on the Gospel teaching that Jesus Christ holds the primacy in all things — to the exclusion of all others (Col. 1:18). This primacy is manifold: ’primacy in the incarnation, since He alone took man’s nature without sin; primacy in the all-sufficiency of His sacrifice “offered once for all,” so that there is now “no more offering for sin;” primacy in love and sympathy toward us, needing no persuasion, no intervention of priest or angel or other intercessor; primacy also in the honor and glory justly due to Him and from which nothing can be deducted or accorded to any creature.

Opposed to this is Roman Catholic teaching: that this primacy is shared by men, by the Pope as claiming to possess all power in heaven and on earth; that Christ’s sacrifice is not perfect and complete and once offered forever, but must be repeated and even improved upon by priests offering the ‘sacrifice’ of the mass daily for the sins of men; that love and honor due to Christ must flow exclusively through these priests and other created beings.

2. Man’s Personal, Direct Access to God.

Protestants believe that when a soul is convinced of sin and when guilt presses upon the conscience, reconciliation is had by personal acceptance of Christ’s invitation: “Come unto ME… and I will give you rest;” that forgiveness cannot be negotiated by the ordinances of a Church or by the absolution of a priest. Roman Catholic teaching says: “There is no salvation without the priest.” Protestants say: “There is full salvation in Christ.”

3. A Conscious Sense of Pardoned Sin.

Protestants are logical in expecting from Christ, their Saviour, not a partial, but a full pardon for sin, a pardon that not merely wipes a a soul clean just for a time, but that makes the sinner a new creature. They fully believe that: “There is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1), that: “Sin shall not have dominion over you” and that Christ’s work and message bring joy and freedom.

Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, counts it a sin of presumption to be assured of salvation, and teaches that men must always seek, but will never find, a profound and blessed sense of full forgiveness and assurance of salvation. Its saints are distinguished by their misery, not by their happiness. It is as if Christ had died in vain.

4. Belief in the Right of Private Judgment.

Protestants assert the right of each one to find and judge for himself about the truth of God and salvation. They also believe in the sacredness of the personal responsibility that goes with this right. The Bible to them is an open book, wherein each seeker after truth can be fully and infallibly enlightened. They acknowledge that in Christian teaching you cannot transfer to another the responsibility for your faith, and, if you do so, you thereby weaken your moral and spiritual character.

In Roman Catholic teaching, the priest takes the responsibility for the mistakes and sins of his people, and the Roman Catholic Church becomes in reality a kind of ‘spiritual insurance society ,’ to which its members dutifully pay their dues, and onto which they shove off all responsibility for their sins and their souls’ salvation. Ultimately, all responsibility for the entire membership rests with one man — the Pope — since he alone is declared to be the infallible guide for all.

5. The Bible as the Word of God.

In the Bible all Protestants find the perfect rule of faith and practice. It is to them the Word of God made manifest in their hearts, just as Christ is God made manifest in the flesh of man.

Although the Roman Catholic Church now professes to allow its people to read the Bible, prohibition against any private interpretation of it, that is in any way contrary to the Church’s teachings and practices, still remains.

On these five basic postulates, Protestants of all denominations can establish a unity that will more than match the false and merely external unity of Roman Catholicism. But it is not sufficient for Protestants merely to profess these fundamental postulates in words. They must prove them by demonstrating their spirit and power.

This article is from chapter 17 of “Out of the Labyrinth: The Conversion of a Roman Catholic Priest” by former Roman Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann, first published in 1947 and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org. It’s good to share with Catholics. And if you were not raised a Catholic, it will give you insights about the Catholic mindset and why they pray to Mary and the saints.

I had to look up the meaning of the word “backstairs.” I don’t remember ever hearing it in conversation or reading it in print.

backstairs adjective
back·​stairs ˈbak-ˌsterz

1 : secret, furtive
Example: backstairs political deals

I FIND IT most difficult to convince Roman Catholic people that Christ has won for sinners the right of direct access to God. They always fall back on what their priests have taught them, that to obtain mercy and forgiveness they must cajole some saint, some close and favored friend of God to intercede for them. The most powerful intercessor of them all is Mary, since she, they say, is the actual mother of God.

A very sincere and devout Catholic woman once put it to me in the following way. “If you wanted an interview with President Truman,” she argued, “you would have to go first to some one else, his mother or some of his political friends, and ask them to intercede for you with the President and arrange for you to see him.” My answer was, of course, that that may be true as far as President Truman is concerned. “But it so happens,” I told her, “that President Truman is not God.”

This belief of Roman Catholics is in accord with their Church’s peculiar teaching that Jesus Christ brought only justice on earth, and that Mary and the other saints must be looked to for mercy. “Ye know very well, venerable brethren,” Pope Pius IX declares in one of his encyclicals, “that the whole of our confidence is placed in the most Holy Virgin, since God has placed in Mary the fullness of all good, that accordingly we may know that if there is any hope in us, if any grace, if any salvation, it redounds to us from her.”

From this extravagance it follows, in the eyes of Roman Catholics who are taught in this way, that Mary and the saints have even more power to save than Christ. They come to believe that the saints can get them into heaven, literally, by the backstairs, even if they die before a priest can come to forgive them their sins. Saint Joseph, for instance, has been officially proclaimed by the Catholic Church as the “Patron of a Happy Death” This special work is given to him because he was the foster-father of Jesus Christ and because he died before Jesus left home to begin His ministry. He therefore had Our Lord and the Virgin Mary at his deathbed. As the husband of Mary, Joseph is believed to be very powerful as an intercessor with Jesus Christ, and can actually get sinners into heaven at the last minute even if they die without a priest to absolve them.

Priests go to extraordinary lengths to convince their congregations that devotion to Saint Joseph is the surest guarantee sinners can have of getting to heaven. They picture him as heaven’s most powerful ‘politician’ who can obtain any favor he wants from God. I remember how a priest in Naples, Italy, once proved this in a sermon to his congregation. Here is the story he told (which is true in every detail according to what Catholics are taught about heaven, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Saint Peter, Saint Michael and others there):

There are some, even non-Catholics, who will say this is a very realistic and human way of preaching to ignorant people who cannot read and write or understand the things of God in the words of the Gospel. But is this sufficient excuse for the Roman Catholic Church which has been the sole, undisputed teacher of Christian people for more than fifteen centuries? The Roman Catholic Church insists to this day on being the sole interpreter of the Bible, its Pope the infallible mouthpiece of God. It could as easily have taught the people the truth from the New Testament which records Christ as saying (John 10:9): “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” Or again (John 14:6): “I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” Or again (Acts 4:12): “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.”

But doing so would have meant the scrapping of its many shrines, saint- devotions and novenas, which are financially so profitable.

Introduction: I am using the above illustration of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church because I believe this is what Jesus referred to in Revelation 2:6.

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

I found this definition of Nicolaitans on Who Were the Nicolaitans, And What Was Their Doctrine and Deeds? I believe it’s true because I’ve heard it over the years from other sources.

The name “Nicolaitans” is derived from the Greek word nikolaos, a compound of the words nikos and laos. The word nikos is the Greek word that means to conquer or to subdue. The word laos is the Greek word for the people. It is also where we get the word laity. When these two words are compounded into one, they form the name Nicolas, which literally means one who conquers and subdues the people. It seems to suggest that the Nicolaitans were somehow conquering and subduing the people.

The Bible doesn’t teach this at all! The Apostles could only teach and admonish. I don’t believe they had the power to push their flock around.

A “bishop” in the New Testament is the same thing as a pastor. He was over only one church! Baptist churches today are good examples of that. True Baptist churches are not under a denominational headquarters that tells them what to do. They are supposed to be independent of each other. The pastor who pioneered a new church in a new land may listen to the leadership of his home church, but he doesn’t necessarily have to agree with all their suggestions. For example, if the home church tells the pastor to start teaching some unbiblical doctrine (such as pre-tribulation rapture) that compromises his convictions of what he knows to be true from the Word of God, should he follow it as a matter of blind obedience? NO! He may lose any financial support they may be sending as a consequence, but he should obey God nevertheless. Acts 5:29  Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

This article is from chapter 5 of “Out of the Labyrinth: The Conversion of a Roman Catholic Priest” by former Roman Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann, first published in 1947 and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org.

Religion can uplift its devotees only if its worship is upward, if the image and object of its devotion are above the level of man. It is an historic fact that religions which have descended to the deification of creatures, whether of men or animals, have degraded, enslaved and impoverished their believers.

It would seem that those who controlled such religions purposely established their worship downward. They focused the attention of their people on glorified snakes, sacred symbols, bread and wine, and on pictures and statues of men and women with halos around their heads. The purpose of this was not to allow the common man a vision of anything above him that was not more exalted than the hierarchical priesthood in power over him. Above all, the worshiper was never allowed to contact directly and rise to the exalted plane of God. For if this had been allowed, then the priests of those religions would have been exposed for what they were — mere men wrapped in a nebulous cloak of sanctity.

With the exception of the religion of the Jews, all pre-Christian religions imaged their gods and focused their worship on or below the level of human nature. Even the Jews at times were led by their priests to descend to the worship of snakes and bulls. But not even the Jewish religion could make it known that the common man could actually become a partaker of the very nature of God, and thus change his slave relation, to God and man, for one of rightful sonship of God.

Of particular significance is the fact that the female form of a goddess was used — as it is today in big-business advertising — as the greatest attraction to the worshippers of all pre-Christian pagan religions. The names of such goddesses are as numerous as the religions of which they were made the top ranking attraction: Aphrodite, Astarte, Venus, Ishtar, Ashtaroth, Lakmi, Freia, Mylitta, Kypris, Isis, and a host of others. Even the highest god of such religions was dwarfed into insignificance by the female form of the goddesses. It may have been that, in the beginning, a more or less high concept of God was worshipped in these religions. But eventually they all ended up by the image of that God as a tiny, helpless babe on the breast of the Goddess.

All pagan religions have developed in this way. The end-product of this paganization of religion can always be seen by this phenomenon of God as a helpless, suckling babe at a woman’s breast. The creature is exalted and God is debased. I have scarcely any need to call attention to the sad fact that this is what has also happened in the religious teaching and worship of the Church of Rome. Mary, as the Madonna who is worshipped under countless different names in the Roman Catholic Church, has been magnified, as Astarte, Venus, Isis and the other pagan Goddesses, above Christ. In all the various forms her statues take in Roman Catholic Churches, Christ is minimized to the form of a tiny, helpless babe on her breast. Mary is made, in Roman Catholic teaching, the “Mediatrix of all graces.” No one can get to God or her son Jesus except through her. How different from the Mary of Scripture who, in her song the Magnificat, humbly declares in unison with all sinners: “My soul doth magnify the Lord; my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” (Luke 1:46, 47).

It is then but another short step to apply to Mary the offices and titles that belong exclusively to Jesus Christ. Thus she is called “The Gate of Heaven,” “Mother of Mercy.” In the most common of all Roman Catholic prayers, the “Hail, Holy Queen,” Mary is fervently beseeched as: “Our Life, Our Sweetness and Our Hope!”

Only in true Christian teaching is the sinner offered actual sonship of God and encouraged to become a partaker in the very nature of God Himself. This most exalted of religious concepts, whereby each individual is liberated from the power of priests and tyrannical overlords and made a rightful heir of God, is alone the heritage of the Christian religion. It puts an end to the need of human mediatorship — of priests and goddesses, of glorified snakes and other animals, and points the soul to Christ as the one and all-sufficient mediator and Saviour.

To me who came to the light of this glorious message only after many years of wasted effort as a priest, it appears as the greatest tragedy of all human history that this teaching was betrayed by those who actually set themselves up as the supreme and infallible hierarchs of the Christian Church. And behind this betrayal was the lust for power, a power over men and nations built upon the most sacred instinct in the hearts of all men — the yearning for a true Saviour. The popes of Rome have gone so far in assuming the power of God that they insist on being called “the Holy Father,” the name used by Jesus Christ for Almighty God alone.

I know well the excuse that is made to try and justify this assumption of power and the exclusive monopoly of the things of God by the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church. They say that exalted teaching and upward worship are beyond the reach of the common man, that the masses of ignorant and crude people they minister to are not capable of understanding anything unless it is presented to them in the “grosser vessel” of human nature. What they really mean is that the easiest and most successful way to obtain unlimited control over the people is to legislate about heaven, hell and purgatory through their weak passions.

This may have been justified to a certain extent in the pagan religions of pre-Christian times, when there was no real Saviour available, and when a few favored ‘mystics’ allocated to themselves the knowledge of the inner secrets of God. But Jesus Christ taught no “lesser vehicle” with inner secrets for a favored few. He chose his apostles from the broad masses of the poor, working-class people. He was the great democratic revolutionist in religion. He opened the flood-gates of God’s power upon all the people. The millennial effects of this religious revolution will be felt only when all the people are allowed to know the whole truth and experience the full power of God through Christ our Saviour.

Protestant Rick Warren goes out of his way to meet the Pope

This article is from chapter 4 of “Out of the Labyrinth: The Conversion of a Roman Catholic Priest” by former Roman Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann, first published in 1947 and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org.

BECAUSE TWO THINGS outwardly look alike is no proof that they are identical. For one of the oldest tricks known to man is by false appearance to make a worthless thing look genuine. Often, in fact, the greater the apparent similarity, the greater the real difference beneath the surface. Despite a perfect likeness, counterfeit money hasn’t even one cent of real value.

It should not be surprising then to find that men have counterfeited the religion of Jesus Christ to make it serve the evil ends of arbitrary power and oppression. Obviously evil would not be accepted, were it to appear as evil; it is therefore disguised as good. Falsehood would be rejected if it were not made to look like the truth. No one would deal with the devil as such; accordingly he takes on the appearance of his direct opposite — of God himself. To discover those who destroy true Christian teaching, you must look behind the banner of Christ they brazenly flourish. In this way you can expect to find the Antichrist usurping the place of Christ and appearing as the leader of all Christian people. He will naturally give the impression of being entirely for, not against Christ; for “anti,” the prefix in his name, means ‘taking the place of,’ or ‘usurping’ — that is, he appears as the ‘vicar’ of Christ.

Judged by this test the Church of Rome can be seen in its true light. It puts a pope in the place of Christ, and substitutes his dictatorial word for the Word of God. It emphasizes Mary for Jesus, and a dead image on a crucifix for a living, triumphant Saviour in the hearts of men. In the words of Cardinal Newman: “It substitutes external ritual for moral obedience, penance for penitence, confession for sorrow, profession for faith, the lips for the heart.” Its ‘Vicar of Christ’ wears a triple crown, flaunts proud titles and surrounds himself with the trappings of the Roman Caesars, dispenses Christian justice by the law code of pagan Rome, rushes to ally himself with oppressors of the people, depends on politics rather than prayer.

How best to expose this counterfeit of Christianity is the problem that I have worked on for the past ten years as director of Christ’s Mission in New York and editor of The Converted Catholic Magazine. We live in an age of extreme tolerance as far as religious beliefs are concerned, and since my conversion I have become a citizen of the United States which has risked its very existence, the lives of its young men and spent astronomical amounts of its money in two world wars in the fight for the preservation of the right of everyone to find, to teach and believe about God and salvation according to the dictates of his own conscience. All the hopes and aspirations of this great democratic nation are irrevocably tied to defense of these principles of freedom — religious, political and social.

For this reason, there are many who are opposed to anything being said or done against any Church or religious organization, no matter how corrupt it may be. Others say that in criticizing or taking any action against a corrupt religious organization such as the Roman Catholic Church we should be always ‘constructive,’ never ‘destructive’ in our methods. They speak as if nothing is ever so bad that it could not be set right again by the application of certain correctives and palliatives, by a few patches here and there, and a new coat of paint to make it look brand new again.

Yet it would be both foolish and dangerous to patch up in this way, and paint a house or other building that is decayed from its very foundations. Jesus Christ warned against the uselessness of putting a new patch on an old worn-out garment, and against the danger of putting new wine into old bottles. Both the new and the old suffer destruction in the end. Often those who want only ‘constructive’ criticism of an institution do not want any criticism at all. Totally destructive criticism is necessary if the occasion calls for it. How, for instance, can one be ‘constructively’ critical of the devil and his works?

It is well to remember God’s commission to the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 1:10): “I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, to overthrow and to destroy, to build and to plant.” Here God’s order is to do six things, the first four of which are destructive — to root out, pull down, overthrow and destroy — and then — to build and to plant.

I have come to the conclusion that this ‘destructive’ method is necessary when occasions call for it, in the case of decayed religious institutions as well as of decayed buildings. In order for the seed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to take root in the hearts of men, they must first be purged and cleansed of all the superstitious, pagan teachings with which they have been poisoned by the false teachings and practices of the Roman Church. A strong spiritual emetic is needed for this purpose.

In collaboration with others at Christ’s Mission who have also been converted from the Roman Catholic priesthood, I have in these past ten years tried to make up for “the years that the locust hath eaten,” when I blindly taught the errors I now fight against. I have done so in a fair, factual and objective manner, and in a spirit of love toward the Roman Catholic people who are of my own household. The spiritual emetic (an agent that induces vomiting ) that we offer them is strong, so strong that it makes many sick before it makes them well. That emetic is the full and unabridged Gospel message of salvation through personal acceptance of Jesus Christ.

I realize how difficult it is for Roman Catholics to accept and believe this true Christian message of salvation. It cannot be forcibly thrust upon them. It is such strong meat for them that they often will vomit it back immediately. It seems too terrifying for them to believe all at once that their powerful and grandiose Church organization that has lasted all through the centuries could be false or deceptive. Protestant teaching about salvation, they say, is too simple, too negative; it has no signs of power; it does nothing to act upon you by means of ritual or priestly ministrations. It is a sin of presumption, they say, to believe that God will save you completely in one life, and piously and humbly say they are not worthy to enter heaven immediately after they die. They are fearful of throwing away the useless burden of superstitious beliefs in the mediatorship of Mary, the saints and their devotions and images and, trusting entirely in the sacrifice of Christ once offered, follow boldly after him entirely naked of these pagan practices and beliefs foisted upon them by a power-seeking priesthood.

Many think us enemies of God, betrayers of Jesus Christ as Judas was. The character of the ex-priest has been so blackened by calumnies since Luther’s time, that the unsuspecting Catholic people, if they allow their minds at all to admit that priests do leave the Church, unconsciously look upon us as completely lost souls working in the devil’s behalf. Yet tens of thousands of Roman Catholic people leave the Roman Catholic Church each year and affiliate with the Protestant denominations. Several hundred former priests have been helped, both spiritually and economically, through Christ’s Mission since its founding in 1879 by Father James A. O’Connor.

I am convinced that there are only two courses open to the Roman Catholic Church: either a thorough reform of itself from within, or total disruption from without. In helping both, I consider my present work constructively advantageous not only in the cause of Christ, but in the spiritual interests of my former Roman Catholic people.

I’ve heard from several sources how important J.A. Wylie’s works on the history of Protestantism are. One person called Wylie the “best of the best” author on this subject.

I got the text from https://www.doctrine.org/history/HPv1b1.htm It was done long ago the old-fashioned way using Microsoft FrontPage which nobody uses anymore because it does a lousy job. It’s hard to read the article on that website not only from a phone but even from a PC screen! The main reason I am re-posting the article is to make it more accessible for others.

This is an entire book. You probably won’t read it all in one sitting. However, the individual chapters are relatively short compared to other books on this site. I designed the chapter menu to go to the chapter you want to read instantly. And text-to-voice software can read the entire book to you without having to manually select the next chapter.

There are 24 books in the series of Wylie’s History of Protestantism, and this is just the first one! I may eventually post them all.

Preface to J. A. Wylie’s “The History of Protestantism”

James A. Wylie: Earnest Contender for the Faith (1808-1890)

James Aitken Wylie was born in Scotland in 1808. “The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD” (Psalm 37:23). His collegiate preparation was at Marischal College, Aberdeen (a North Sea port city and industrial center of northeastern Scotland) and at St. Andrews (Fife, East Scotland). “It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth” (Lamentations 3:27). Though we could find no account of his conversion, he entered the Original Seccession Divinity Hall, Edinburgh (Scotland, the land of John Knox) in 1827, and was ordained to the Christian ministry in 1831; hence, the name “Rev. J. A. Wylie” is affixed to most of his written works. “And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2Timothy 3:15).

His disposition to use the pen as a mighty “Sword of the LORD” (Judges 7:18) is evidenced by his assumption of the sub-editorship of the Edinburgh “Witness” in 1846. “My tongue is the pen of a ready writer” (Psalm 45:1). In 1852, after joining the Free Church of Scotland–which was only inaugurated in 1843 (Dr. Chalmers as moderator), insisting on the Crown Rights of King Jesus as the only Head and King of the Church–Wylie edited their “Free Church Record” until 1860. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Galatians 5:1). The Protestant Institute appointed him Lecturer on Popery in 1860. He continued in this role until his death in 1890. “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2Corinthians 10:5).

Aberdeen University awarded him an honorary doctorate (LL.D.) in 1856. “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my LORD: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ” (Philippians 3:8). His travels took him to many of the far-flung places, where the events of Protestant history transpired. “So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the Gospel to you that are at Rome also” (Romans 1:15). As a prominent spokesman for Protestantism, Dr. Wylie’s writings included The Papacy: Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects–which was awarded a prize by the Evangelical Alliance in 1851–and, his best known writing, “The History of Protestantism” (1878). “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the Common Salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints” (Jude 3).

It is a solemn and sad reflection on the spiritual intelligence of our times that J. A. Wylie’s classic, The History of Protestantism went out of publication in the 1920’s. “Little children, it is the Last Time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the Last Time” (1John 2:18). But–“we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul” (Hebrews 10:39). And, we continue to “look for Him” (Hebrews 9:28) to come for us to cause us to “escape all these things” (Luke 21:36) while we intently “occupy” (19:13) for Him in the Gospel fields, which are “white already to harvest” (John 4:35). “Even so, come [quickly], LORD Jesus” (Revelation 22:20).

Amen, and Amen.

CHAPTER 1 PROTESTANTISM

Protestantism — The Seed of Arts, Letters, Free States, etc. — Its History a Grand Drama — Its Origin — Outside Humanity — A Great Creative Power — Protestantism Revived Christianity.

THE History of Protestantism, which we propose to write, is no mere history of dogmas. The teachings of Christ are the seeds; the modern Christendom, with its new life, is the goodly tree which has sprung from them. We shall speak of the seed and then of the tree, so small at its beginning, but destined one day to cover the earth.

How that seed was deposited in the soil; how the tree grew up and flourished despite the furious tempests that warred around it; how, century after century, it lifted its top higher in heaven, and spread its boughs wider around, sheltering liberty, nursing letters, fostering art, and gathering a fraternity of prosperous and powerful nations around it, it will be our business in the following pages to show. Meanwhile we wish it to be noted that this is what we understand by the Protestantism on the history of which we are now entering. Viewed thus — and any narrower view would be untrue alike to philosophy and to fact — the History of Protestantism is the record of one of the grandest dramas of all time. It is true, no doubt, that Protestantism, strictly viewed, is simply a principle. It is not a policy. It is not an empire, having its fleets and armies, its officers and tribunals, wherewith to extend its dominion and make its authority be obeyed. It is not even a Church with its hierarchies, and synods and edicts; it is simply a principle. But it is the greatest of all principles. It is a creative power. Its plastic influence is all-embracing. It penetrates into the heart and renews the individual. It goes down to the depths and, by its omnipotent but noiseless energy, vivifies and regenerates society. It thus becomes the creator of all that is true, and lovely, and great; the founder of free kingdoms, and the mother of pure churches. The globe itself it claims as a stage not too wide for the manifestation of its beneficent action; and the whole domain of terrestrial affairs it deems a sphere not too vast to fill with its spirit, and rule by its law.

Whence came this principle? The name Protestantism is very recent: the thing itself is very ancient. The term Protestantism is scarcely older than 350 years. It dates from the protest which the Lutheran princes gave in to the Diet of Spires in 1529. Restricted to its historical signification, Protestantism is purely negative. It only defines the attitude taken up, at a great historical era, by one party in Christendom with reference to another party. But had this been all, Protestantism would have had no history. Had it been purely negative, it would have begun and ended with the men who assembled at the German town in the year already specified. The new world that has come out of it is the proof that at the bottom of this protest was a great principle which it has pleased Providence to fertilize, and make the seed of those grand, beneficent, and enduring achievements which have made the past three centuries in many respects the most eventful and wonderful in history. The men who handed in this protest did not wish to create a mere void. If they disowned the creed and threw off the yoke of Rome, it was that they might plant a purer faith and restore the government of a higher Law. They replaced the authority of the Infallibility with the authority of the Word of God. The long and dismal obscuration of centuries they dispelled, that the twin stars of liberty and knowledge might shine forth, and that, conscience being unbound, the intellect might awake from its deep somnolency, and human society, renewing its youth, might, after its halt of a thousand years, resume its march towards its high goal.

We repeat the question — Whence came this principle? And we ask our readers to mark well the answer, for it is the key-note to the whole of our vast subject, and places us, at the very outset, at the springs of that long narration on which we are now entering.

Protestantism is not solely the outcome of human progress; it is no mere principle of perfectibility inherent in humanity, and ranking as one of its native powers, in virtue of which when society becomes corrupt it can purify itself, and when it is arrested in its course by some external force, or stops from exhaustion, it can recruit its energies and set forward anew on its path. It is neither the product of the individual reason, nor the result of the joint thought and energies of the species. Protestantism is a principle which has its origin outside human society: it is a Divine graft on the intellectual and moral nature of man, whereby new vitalities and forces are introduced into it, and the human stem yields henceforth a nobler fruit. It is the descent of a heaven-born influence which allies itself with all the instincts and powers of the individual, with all the laws and cravings of society, and which, quickening both the individual and the social being into a new life, and directing their efforts to nobler objects, permits the highest development of which humanity is capable, and the fullest possible accomplishment of all its grand ends. In a word, Protestantism is revived Christianity.

CHAPTER 2 DECLENSION OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Early Triumphs of the Truth — Causes — The Fourth Century — Early Simplicity lost — The Church remodeled on the Pattern of the Empire — Disputes regarding Easter-day — Descent of the Gothic Nations — Introduction of Pagan Rites into the Church — Acceleration of Corruption — Inability of the World all at once to receive the Gospel in its greatness.

ALL through, from the fifth to the fifteenth century, the Lamp of Truth burned dimly in the sanctuary of Christendom. Its flame often sank low, and appeared about to expire, yet never did it wholly go out. God remembered His covenant with the light, and set bounds to the darkness. Not only had this heaven-kindled lamp its period of waxing and waning, like those luminaries that God has placed on high, but like them, too, it had its appointed circuit to accomplish. Now it was on the cities of Northern Italy that its light was seen to fall; and now its rays illumined the plains of Southern France. Now it shone along the course of the Danube and the Moldau, or tinted the pale shores of England, or shed its glory upon the Scottish Hebrides. Now it was on the summits of the Alps that it was seen to burn, spreading a gracious morning on the mountain-tops, and giving promise of the sure approach of day. And then, anon, it would bury itself in the deep valleys of Piedmont, and seek shelter from the furious tempests of persecution behind the great rocks and the eternal snows of the everlasting hills. Let us briefly trace the growth of this truth to the days of Wicliffe.

The spread of Christianity during the first three centuries was rapid and extensive. The main causes that contributed to this were the translation of the Scriptures into the languages of the Roman world, the fidelity and zeal of the preachers of the Gospel, and the heroic deaths of the martyrs. It was the success of Christianity that first set limits to its progress. It had received a terrible blow, it is true, under Diocletian. This, which was the most terrible of all the early persecutions, had, in the belief of the Pagans, utterly exterminated the "Christian superstition" So far from this, it had but afforded the Gospel an opportunity of giving to the world a mightier proof of its divinity. It rose from the stakes and massacres of Diocletian, to begin a new career, in which it was destined to triumph over the empire which thought that it had crushed it. Dignities and wealth now flowed in upon its ministers and disciples, and according to the uniform testimony of all the early historians, the faith which had maintained its purity and rigor in the humble sanctuaries and lowly position of the first age, and amid the fires of its pagan persecutors, became corrupt and waxed feeble amid the gorgeous temples and the worldly dignities which imperial favor had lavished upon it.

From the fourth century the corruptions of the Christian Church continued to make marked and rapid progress. The Bible began to be hidden from the people. And in proportion as the light, which is the surest guarantee of liberty, was withdrawn, the clergy usurped authority over the members of the Church. The canons of councils were put in the room of the one infallible Rule of Faith; and thus the first stone was laid in the foundations of "Babylon, that great city, that made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." The ministers of Christ began to affect titles of dignity, and to extend their authority and jurisdiction to temporal matters, forgetful that an office bestowed by God, and serviceable to the highest interests of society, can never fail of respect when filled by men of exemplary character, sincerely devoted to the discharge of its duties. The beginning of this matter seemed innocent enough. To obviate pleas before the secular tribunals, ministers were frequently asked to arbitrate in disputes between members of the Church, and Constantine made a law confirming all such decisions in the consistories of the clergy, and shutting out the review of their sentences by the civil judges. Proceeding in this fatal path, the next step was to form the external polity of the Church upon the model of the civil government. Four vice-kings or prefects governed the Roman Empire under Constantine, and why, it was asked, should not a similar arrangement be introduced into the Church? Accordingly the Christian world was divided into four great dioceses; over each diocese was set a patriarch, who governed the whole clergy of his domain, and thus arose four great thrones or princedoms in the House of God. Where there had been a brotherhood, there was now a hierarchy; and from the lofty chair of the Patriarch, a gradation of rank, and a subordination of authority and office, ran down to the lowly state and contracted sphere of the Presbyter. It was splendor of rank, rather than the fame of learning and the luster of virtue, that henceforward conferred distinction on the ministers of the Church.

Such an arrangement was not fitted to nourish spirituality of mind, or humility of disposition, or peacefulness of temper. The enmity and violence of the persecutor, the clergy had no longer cause to dread; but the spirit of faction which now took possession of the dignitaries of the Church awakened vehement disputes and fierce contentions, which disparaged the authority and sullied the glory of the sacred office. The emperor himself was witness to these unseemly spectacles. "I entreat you," we find him pathetically saying to the fathers of the Council of Nice, "beloved ministers of God, and servants of our Savior Jesus Christ, take away the cause of our dissension and disagreement, establish peace among yourselves."

While the, "living oracles" were neglected, the zeal of the clergy began to spend itself upon rites and ceremonies borrowed from the pagans. These were multiplied to such a degree, that Augustine complained that they were "less tolerable than the yoke of the Jews under the law." At this period the Bishops of Rome wore costly attire, gave sumptuous banquets, and when they went abroad were carried in litters. They now began to speak with an authoritative voice, and to demand obedience from all the Churches. Of this the dispute between the Eastern and Western Churches respecting Easter is an instance in point. The Eastern Church, following the Jews, kept the feast on the 14th day of the month Nisan — the day of the Jewish Passover. The Churches of the West, and especially that of Rome, kept Easter on the Sabbath following the 14th day of Nisan. Victor, Bishop of Rome, resolved to put an end to the controversy, and accordingly, sustaining himself sole judge in this weighty point, he commanded all the Churches to observe the feast on the same day with himself. The Churches of the East, not aware that the Bishop of Rome had authority to command their obedience in this or in any other matter, kept Easter as before; and for this flagrant contempt, as Victor accounted it, of his legitimate authority, he excommunicated them. They refused to obey a human ordinance, and they were shut out from the kingdom of the Gospel. This was the first peal of those thunders which were in after times to roll so often and so terribly from the Seven Hills.

Riches, flattery, deference, continued to wait upon the Bishop of Rome. The emperor saluted him as Father; foreign Churches sustained him as judge in their disputes; heresiarchs sometimes fled to him for sanctuary; those who had favors to beg extolled his piety, or affected to follow his customs; and it is not surprising that his pride and ambition, fed by continual incense, continued to grow, till at last the presbyter of Rome, from being a vigilant pastor of a single congregation, before whom he went in and out, teaching them from house to house, preaching to them the Word of Life, serving the Lord with all humility in many tears and temptations that befell him, raised his seat above his equals, mounted the throne of the patriarch, and exercised lordship over the heritage of Christ. The gates of the sanctuary once forced, the stream of corruption continued to flow with ever-deepening volume. The declensions in doctrine and worship already introduced had changed the brightness of the Church’s morning into twilight; the descent of the Northern nations, which, beginning in the fifth, continued through several successive centuries, converted that twilight into night. The new tribes had changed their country, but not their superstitions; and, unhappily, there was neither zeal nor vigor in the Christianity of the age to effect their instruction and their genuine conversion. The Bible had been withdrawn; in the pulpit fable had usurped the place of truth; holy lives, whose silent eloquence might have won upon the barbarians, were rarely exemplified; and thus, instead of the Church dissipating the superstitions that now encompassed her like a cloud, these superstitions all but quenched her own light. She opened her gates to receive the new peoples as they were. She sprinkled them with the baptismal water; she inscribed their names in her registers; she taught them in their invocations to repeat the titles of the Trinity; but the doctrines of the Gospel, which alone can enlighten the understanding, purify the heart, and enrich the life with virtue, she was little careful to inculcate upon them. She folded them within her pale, but they were scarcely more Christian than before, while she was greatly less so. From the sixth century down-wards Christianity was a mongrel system, made up of pagan rites revived from classic times, of superstitions imported from the forests of Northern Germany, and of Christian beliefs and observances which continued to linger in the Church from primitive and purer times. The inward power of religion was lost; and it was in vain that men strove to supply its place by the outward form. They nourished their piety not at the living fountains of truth, but with the "beggarly elements" of ceremonies and relics, of consecrated lights and holy vestments. Nor was it Divine knowledge only that was contemned; men forbore to cultivate letters, or practice virtue. Baronius confesses that in the sixth century few in Italy were skilled in both Greek and Latin. Nay, even Gregory the Great acknowledged that he was ignorant of Greek. "The main qualifications of the clergy were, that they should be able to read well, sing their matins, know the Lord’s Prayer, psalter, forms of exorcism, and understand how to compute the times of the sacred festivals. Nor were they very sufficient for this, if we may believe the account some have given of them. Musculus says that many of them never saw the Scriptures in all their lives. It would seem incredible, but it is delivered by no less an authority than Amama, that an Archbishop of Mainz, lighting upon a Bible and looking into it, expressed himself thus: ‘Of a truth I do not know what book this is, but I perceive everything in it is against us.’"

Apostasy is like the descent of heavy bodies, it proceeds with ever-accelerating velocity. First, lamps were lighted at the tombs of the martyrs; next, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated at their graves; next, prayers were offered for them and to them; next, paintings and images began to disfigure the walls, and corpses to pollute the floors of the churches. Baptism, which apostles required water only to dispense, could not be celebrated without white robes and chrism, milk, honey, and salt. Then came a crowd of church officers whose names and numbers are in striking contrast to the few and simple orders of men who were employed in the first propagation of Christianity. There were sub-deacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, choristers, and porters; and as work must be found for this motley host of laborers, there came to be fasts and exorcisms; there were lamps to be lighted, altars to be arranged, and churches to be consecrated; there was the Eucharist to be carried to the dying; and there were the dead to be buried, for which a special order of men was set apart. When one looked back to the simplicity of early times, it could not but amaze one to think what a cumbrous array of curious machinery and costly furniture was now needed for the service of Christianity. Not more stinging than true was the remark that "when the Church had golden chalices she had wooden priests."

So far, and through these various stages, had the declension of the Church proceeded. The point she had now reached may be termed an epochal one. From the line on which she stood there was no going back; she must advance into the new and unknown regions before her, though every step would carry her farther from the simple form and vigorous life of her early days. She had received a new impregnation from an alien principle, the same, in fact, from which had sprung the great systems that covered the earth before Christianity arose. This principle could not be summarily extirpated; it must run its course, it must develop itself logically; and having, in the course of centuries, brought its fruits to maturity, it would then, but not till then, perish and pass away.

Looking back at this stage to the change which had come over the Church, we cannot fail to see that its deepest originating cause must be sought, in the inability of the world to receive the Gospel in all its greatness. It was a boon too mighty and too free to be easily understood or credited by man. The angels in their midnight song in the vale of Bethlehem had defined it briefly as sublimely, "goodwill to man." Its greatest preacher, the Apostle Paul, had no other definition to give of it. It was not even a rule of life but "grace," the "grace of God," and therefore sovereign, and boundless. To man fallen and undone the Gospel offered a full forgiveness, and a complete spiritual renovation, issuing at length in the inconceivable and infinite felicity of the Life Eternal. But man’s narrow heart could not enlarge itself to God’s vast beneficence. A good so immense, so complete in its nature, and so boundless in its extent, he could not believe that God would bestow without money and without price; there must be conditions or qualifications. So he reasoned. And hence it is that the moment inspired men cease to address us, and that their disciples and scholars take their place — men of apostolic spirit and doctrine, no doubt, but without the direct knowledge of their predecessors — we become sensible of a change; an eclipse has passed upon the exceeding glory of the Gospel. As we pass from Paul to Clement, and from Clement to the Fathers that succeeded him, we find the Gospel becoming less of grace and more of merit. The light wanes as we travel down the Patristic road, and remove ourselves farther from the Apostolic dawn. It continues for some time at least to be the same Gospel, but its glory is shorn, its mighty force is abated; and we are reminded of the change that seems to pass upon the sun, when after contemplating him in a tropical hemisphere, we see him in a northern sky, where his slanting beams, forcing their way through mists and vapors, are robbed of half their splendor. Seen through the fogs of the Patristic age, the Gospel scarcely looks the same which had burst upon the world without a cloud but a few centuries before.

This disposition — that of making God less free in His gift, and man less dependent in the reception of it: the desire to introduce the element of merit on the side of man, and the element of condition on the side of God — operated at last in opening the door for the pagan principle to creep back into the Church. A. change of a deadly and subtle kind passed upon the worship. Instead of being the spontaneous thanksgiving and joy of the soul, that no more evoked or repaid the blessings which awakened that joy than the odors which the flowers exhale are the cause of their growth, or the joy that kindles in the heart of man when the sun rises is the cause of his rising — worship, we say, from being the expression of the soul’s emotions, was changed into a rite, a rite akin to those of the Jewish temples, and still more akin to those of the Greek mythology, a rite in which lay couched a certain amount of human merit and inherent efficacy, that partly created, partly applied the blessings with which it stood connected. This was the moment when the pagan virus inoculated the Christian institution.

This change brought a multitude of others in its train. Worship being transformed into sacrifice — sacrifice in which was the element of expiation and purification — the "teaching ministry" was of course converted into a "sacrificing priesthood." When this had been done, there was no retreating; a boundary had been reached which could not be recrossed till centuries had rolled away, and transformations of a more portentous kind than any which had yet taken place had passed upon the Church.

CHAPTER 3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY FROM THE TIMES OF CONSTANTINE TO THOSE OF HILDEBRAND.

Imperial Edicts — Prestige of Rome — Fall of the Western Empire — The Papacy seeks and finds a New Basis of Power — Christ’s Vicar — Conversion of Gothic Nations — Pepin and Charlemagne — The Lombards and the Saracens — Forgeries and False Decretals — Election of the Roman Pontiff.

BEFORE opening our great theme it may be needful to sketch the rise and development of the Papacy as a politico-ecclesiastical power. The history on which we are entering, and which we must rapidly traverse, is one of the most wonderful in the world. It is scarcely possible to imagine humbler beginnings than those from which the Papacy arose, and certainly it is not possible to imagine a loftier height than that to which it eventually climbed. He who was seen in the first century presiding as the humble pastor over a single congregation, and claiming no rank above his brethren, is beheld in the twelfth century occupying a seat from which he looks down on all the thrones temporal and spiritual of Christendom. How, we ask with amazement, was the Papacy able to traverse the mighty space that divided the humble pastor from the mitered king?

We traced in the foregoing chapter the decay of doctrine and manners within the Church. Among the causes which contributed to the exaltation of the Papacy this declension may be ranked as fundamental, seeing it opened the door for other deteriorating influences, and mightily favored their operation. Instead of "reaching forth to what was before," the Christian Church permitted herself to be overtaken by the spirit of the ages that lay behind her. There came an after-growth of Jewish ritualism, of Greek philosophy, and of Pagan ceremonialism and idolatry; and, as the consequence of this threefold action, the clergy began to be gradually changed, as already mentioned, from a "teaching ministry" to a "sacrificing priesthood." This made them no longer ministers or servants of their fellow-Christians; they took the position of a caste, claiming to be superior to the laity, invested with mysterious powers, the channels of grace, and the mediators with God. Thus there arose a hierarchy, assuming to mediate between God and men.

The hierarchical polity was the natural concomitant of the hierarchical doctrine. That polity was so consolidated by the time that the empire became Christian, and Constantine ascended the throne (311), that the Church now stood out as a body distinct from the State; and her new organization, subsequently received, in imitation of that of the empire, as stated in the previous chapter, helped still further to define and strengthen her hierarchical government. Still, the primacy of Rome was then a thing unheard of. Manifestly the 300 Fathers who assembled (A.D. 325) at Nicaea knew nothing of it, for in their sixth and seventh canons they expressly recognize the authority of the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and others, each within its own boundaries, even as Rome had jurisdiction within its limits; and enact that the jurisdiction and privileges of these Churches shall be retained. Under Leo the Great (440 — 461) a forward step was taken. The Church of Rome assumed the form and exercised the sway of an ecclesiastical principality, while her head, in virtue of an imperial manifesto (445) of Valentinian III., which recognized the Bishop of Rome as supreme over the Western Church, affected, the authority and pomp of a spiritual sovereign.

Still further, the ascent of the Bishop of Rome to the supremacy was silently yet Powerfully aided by that mysterious and subtle influence which appeared to be indigenous to the soil on which his chair was placed. In an age when the rank of the city determined the rank of its pastor, it was natural that the Bishop of Rome should hold something of that pre-eminence among the clergy which Rome held among cities. Gradually the reverence and awe with which men had regarded the old mistress of the world, began to gather round the person and the chair of her bishop. It was an age of factions and strifes, and the eyes of the contending parties naturally turned to the pastor of the Tiber. They craved his advice, or they submitted their differences to his judgment. These applications the Roman Bishop was careful to register as acknowledgments of his superiority, and on fitting occasions he was not forgetful to make them the basis of new and higher claims. The Latin race, moreover, retained the practical habits for which it had so long been renowned; and while the Easterns, giving way to their speculative genius, were expending their energies in controversy, the Western Church was steadily pursuing her onward path, and skillfully availing herself of everything that could tend to enhance her influence and extend her jurisdiction.

The removal of the seat of empire from Rome to the splendid city on the Bosphorus, Constantinople, which the emperor had built with becoming magnificence for his residence, also tended to enhance the power of the Papal chair. It removed from the side of the Pope a functionary by whom he was eclipsed, and left him the first person in the old capital of the world. The emperor had departed, but the prestige of the old city — the fruit of countless victories, and of ages of dominion — had not departed. The contest which had been going on for some time among the five great patriarchates — Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Rome — the question at issue being the same as that which provoked the contention among the disciples of old, "which was the greatest," was now restricted to the last two. The city on the Bosphorus was the seat of government, and the abode of the emperor; this gave her patriarch Powerful claims. But the city on the banks of the Tiber wielded a mysterious and potent charm over the imagination, as the heir of her who had been the possessor of all the power, of all the glory, and of all the dominion of the past; and this vast prestige enabled her patriarch to carry the day. As Rome was the one city in the earth, so her bishop was the one bishop in the Church. A century and a half later (606), this pre-eminence was decreed to the Roman Bishop in an imperial edict of Phocas. Thus, before the Empire of the West fell, the Bishop of Rome had established substantially his spiritual supremacy. An influence of a manifold kind, of which not the least part was the prestige of the city and the empire, had lifted him to this fatal pre-eminence. But now the time has come when the empire must fall, and we expect to see that supremacy which it had so largely helped to build up fall with it. But no! The wave of barbarism which rolled in from the North, overwhelming society and sweeping away the empire, broke harmlessly at the feet of the Bishop of Rome. The shocks that overturned dynasties and blotted out nationalities, left his power untouched, his seat unshaken. Nay, it was at that very hour, when society was perishing around him, that the Bishop of Rome laid anew the foundations of his power, and placed them where they might remain immovable for all time. He now cast himself on a far stronger element than any the revolution had swept away. He now claimed to be the successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Christ. The canons of Councils, as recorded in Hardouin, show a stream of decisions from Pope Celestine, in the middle of the fifth century, to Pope Boniface II. in the middle of the sixth, claiming, directly or indirectly, this august prerogative. When the Bishop of Rome placed his chair, with all the prerogatives and dignities vested in it, upon this ground, he stood no longer upon a merely imperial foundation. Henceforward he held neither of Caesar nor of Rome; he held immediately of Heaven. What one emperor had given, another emperor might take away. It did not suit the Pope to hold his office by so uncertain a tenure. He made haste, therefore, to place his supremacy where no future decree of emperor, no lapse of years, and no coming revolution could overturn it. He claimed to rest it upon a Divine foundation; he claimed to be not merely the chief of bishops and the first of patriarchs, but the vicar Of the Most High God.

With the assertion of this dogma the system of the Papacy was completed essentially and doctrinally, but not as yet practically. It had to wait the full development of the idea of vicarship, which was not till the days of Gregory VII. But here have we the embryotic seed — the vicarship, namely — out of which the vast structure of the Papacy has sprung. This it is that plants at the center of the system a pseudo-divine jurisdiction, and places the Pope above all bishops with their flocks, above all king with their subjects. This it is that gives the Pope two swords. This it is that gives him three crowns. The day when this dogma was proclaimed was the true birthday of the Popedom. The Bishop of Rome had till now sat in the seat of Caesar; henceforward he was to sit in the seat of God. From this time the growth of the Popedom was rapid indeed. The state of society favored its development. Night had descended upon the world from the North; and in the universal barbarism, the more prodigious any pretensions were, the more likely were they to find both belief and submission. The Goths, on arriving in their new settlements, beheld a religion which was served by magnificent cathedrals, imposing rites, and wealthy and powerful prelates, presided over by a chief priest, in whose reputed sanctity and ghostly authority they found again their own chief Druid. These rude warriors, who had overturned the throne of the Caesars, bowed down before the chair of the Popes. The evangelization of these tribes was a task of easy accomplishment. The "Catholic faith," which they began to exchange for their Paganism or Arianism, consisted chiefly in their being able to recite the names of the objects of their worship, which they were left to adore with much the same rites as they had practiced in their native forests. They did not much concern themselves with the study of Christian doctrine, or the practice of Christian virtue. The age furnished but few manuals of the one, and still fewer models of the other.

The first of the Gothic princes to enter the Roman communion was Clovis, King of the Franks. In fulfillment of a vow which he had made on the field of Tolbiac, where he vanquished the Allemanni, Clovis was baptized in the Cathedral of Rheims (496), with every circumstance of solemnity which could impress a sense of the awfulness of the rife on the minds of its rude proselytes. Three thousand of his warlike subjects were baptized along with him. The Pope styled him "the eldest son of the Church," a title which was regularly adopted by all the subsequent Kings of France. When Clovis ascended from the baptismal font he was the only as well as the eldest son of the Church, for he alone, of all the new chiefs that now governed the West, had as yet submitted to the baptismal rite.

The threshold once crossed, others were not slow to follow. In the next century, the sixth, the Burgundians of Southern Gaul, the Visigoths of Spain, the Suevi of Portugal, and the Anglo-Saxons of Britain entered the pale of Rome. In the seventh century the disposition was still growing among the princes of Western Europe to submit themselves and refer their disputes to the Pontiff as their spiritual father. National assemblies were held twice a year, under the sanction of the bishops. The prelates made use of these gatherings to procure enactments favorable to the propagation of the faith as held by Rome. These assemblies were first encouraged, then enjoined by the Pope, who came in this way to be regarded as a sort of Father or protector of the states of the West. Accordingly we find Sigismund, King of Burgundy, ordering (554) that all assembly should be held for the future on the 6th of September every year, "at which time the ecclesiastics are not so much engrossed with the worldly cares of husbandry." The ecclesiastical conquest of Germany was in this century completed, and thus the spiritual dominions of the Pope were still farther extended.

In the eighth century there came a moment of supreme peril to Rome. At almost one and the same time she was menaced by two dangers, which threatened to sweep her out of existence, but which, in their issue, contributed to strengthen her dominion. On the west the victorious Saracens, having crossed the Pyrenees and overrun the south of France, were watering their steeds at the Loire, and threatening to descend upon Italy and plant the Crescent in the room of the Cross. On the north, the Lombards — who, under Alboin, had established themselves in Central Italy two centuries before — had burst the barrier of the Apennines, and were brandishing their swords at the gates of Rome. They were on the point of replacing Catholic orthodoxy with the creed of Arianism. Having taken advantage of the iconoclast disputes to throw off the imperial yoke, the Pope could expect no aid from the Emperor of Constantinople. He turned his eyes to France. The prompt and powerful interposition of the Frankish arms saved the Papal chair, now in extreme jeopardy. The intrepid Charles Martel drove back the Saracens (732), and Pepin, the Mayor of the palace, son of Charles Martel, who had just seized the throne, and needed the Papal sanction to color his usurpation, with equal promptitude hastened to the Pope’s help (Stephen II.) against the Lombards (754). Having vanquished them, he placed the keys of their towns upon the altar of St. Peter, and so laid the first foundation of the Pope’s temporal sovereignty. The yet more illustrious son of Pepin, Charlemagne, had to repeat this service in the Pope’s behalf. The Lombards becoming again troublesome, Charlemagne subdued them a second time. After his campaign he visited Rome (774). The youth of the city, bearing olive and palm branches, met him at the gates, the Pope and the clergy received him in the vestibule of St. Peter’s, and entering "into the sepulcher where the bones of the apostles lie," he finally ceded to the pontiff the territories of the conquered tribes. It was in this way that Peter obtained his "patrimony," the Church her dowry, and the Pope his triple crown.

The Pope had now attained two of the three grades of power that constitute his stupendous dignity. He had made himself a bishop of bishops, head of the Church, and he had become a crowned monarch. Did this content him? No! He said, "I will ascend the sides of the mount; I will plant my throne above the stars; I will be as God." Not content with being a bishop of bishops, and so governing the whole spiritual affairs of Christendom, he aimed at becoming a king of kings, and so of governing the whole temporal affairs of the world. He aspired to supremacy, sole, absolute, and unlimited. This alone was wanting to complete that colossal fabric of power, the Popedom, and towards this the pontiff now began to strive.

Some of the arts had recourse to in order to grasp the coveted dignity were of an extraordinary kind. An astounding document, purporting to have been written in the fourth century, although unheard of till now, was in the year 776 brought out of the darkness in which it had been so long suffered to remain. It was the "Donation" or Testament of the Emperor Constantine. Constantine, says the legend, found Sylvester in one of the monasteries on Mount Soracte, and having mounted him on a mule, he took hold of his bridle rein, and walking all the way on foot, the emperor conducted Sylvester to Rome, and placed him upon the Papal throne. But this was as nothing compared with the vast and splendid inheritance which Constantine conferred on him, as the following quotation from the deed of gift to which we have referred will show: — "We attribute to the See of Peter all the dignity, all the glory, all the authority of the imperial power. Furthermore, we give to Sylvester and to his successors our palace of the Lateran, which is incontestably the finest palace on the earth; we give him our crown, our miter, our diadem, and all our imperial vestments; we transfer to him the imperial dignity. We bestow on the holy Pontiff in free gift the city of Rome, and all the western cities of Italy. To cede precedence to him, we divest ourselves of our authority over all those provinces, and we withdraw from Rome, transferring the seat of our empire to Byzantium; inasmuch as it is not proper that an earthly emperor should preserve the least authority, where God hath established the head of his religion."

A rare piece of modesty this on the part of the Popes, to keep this invaluable document beside them for 400 years, and never say a word about it; and equally admirable the policy of selecting the darkness of the eighth century as the fittest time for its publication. To quote it is to refute it. It was probably forged a little before A.D. 754. It was composed to repel the Longobards on the one side, and the Greeks on the other, and to influence the mind of Pepin. In it, Constantine is made to speak in the Latin of the eighth century, and to address Bishop Sylvester as Prince of the Apostles, Vicar of Christ, and as having authority over the four great thrones, not yet set up, of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. It was probably written by a priest of the Lateran Church, and it gained its object — that is, it led Pepin to bestow on the Pope the Exarchate of Ravenna, with twenty towns to furnish oil for the lamps in the Roman churches.

During more than 600 years Rome impressively cited this deed of gift, inserted it in her codes, permitted none to question its genuineness, and burned those who refused to believe in it. The first dawn of light in the sixteenth century sufficed to discover the cheat.

In the following century another document of a like extraordinary character was given to the world. We refer to the "Decretals of Isidore." These were concocted about the year 845. They professed to be a collection of the letters, rescripts, and bulls of the early pastors of the Church of Rome — Anacletus, Clement, and others, down to Sylvester — the very men to whom the terms "rescript" and "bull" were unknown. The burden of this compilation was the pontifical supremacy, which it affirmed had existed from the first age. It was the clumsiest, but the most successful, of all the forgeries which have emanated from what the Greeks have reproachfully termed "the native home of inventions and falsifications of documents." The writer, who professed to be living in the first century, painted the Church of Rome in the magnificence which she attained only in the ninth; and made the pastors of the first age speak in the pompous words of the Popes of the Middle Ages. Abounding in absurdities, contradictions, and anachronisms, it affords a measure of the intelligence of the age that accepted it as authentic. It was eagerly laid hold of by Nicholas I. to prop up and extend the fabric of his power. His successors made it the arsenal from which they drew their weapons of attack against both bishops and kings. It became the foundation of the canon law, and continues to be so, although there is not now a Popish writer who does not acknowledge it to be a piece of imposture. "Never," says Father de Rignon, "was there seen a forgery so audacious, so extensive, so solemn, so persevering." Yet the discovery of the fraud has not shaken the system. The learned Dupin supposes that these decretals were fabricated by Benedict, a deacon of Mainz, who was the first to publish them, and that, to give them greater currency, he prefixed to them the name of Isidore, a bishop who flourished in Seville in the seventh century. "Without the pseudo-Isidore," says Janus, "there could have been no Gregory VII. The Isidorian forgeries were the broad foundation which the Gregorians built upon."

All the while the Papacy was working on another line for the emancipation of its chief from interference and control, whether on the side of the people or on the side of the kings. In early times the bishops were elected by the people. By-and-by they came to be elected by the clergy, with consent of the people; but gradually the people were excluded from all share in the matter, first in the Eastern Church, and then in the Western, although traces of popular election are found at Milan so late as the eleventh century. The election of the Bishop of Rome in early times was in no way different from that of other bishops — that is, he was chosen by the people. Next, the consent of the emperor came to be necessary to the validity of the popular choice. Then, the emperor alone elected the Pope. Next, the cardinals claimed a voice in the matter; they elected and presented the object of their choice to the emperor for confirmation. Last of all, the cardinals took the business entirely into their own hands. Thus gradually was the way paved for the full emancipation and absolute supremacy of the Popedom.

CHAPTER 4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY FROM GREGORY VII. TO BONIFACE VIII.

The Wax of Investitures — Gregory VII. and Henry IV. — The Miter Triumphs over the Empire — Noon of the Papacy under Innocent III. — Continued to Boniface VIII. — First and Last Estate of the Roman Pastors Contrasted — Seven Centuries of Continuous Success — Interpreted by Some as a Proof that the Papacy is Divine — Reasons explaining this Marvelous Success — Eclipsed by the Gospel’s Progress

WE come now to the last great struggle. There lacked one grade of power to complete and crown this stupendous fabric of dominion. The spiritual Supremacy was achieved in the seventh century, the temporal sovereignty was attained in the eighth; it wanted only the pontifical supremacy — sometimes, although improperly, styled the temporal supremacy to make the Pope supreme over kings, as he had already become over peoples and bishops, and to vest in him a jurisdiction that has not its like on earth — a jurisdiction that is unique, inasmuch as it arrogates all powers, absorbs all rights, and spurns all limits. Destined, before terminating its career, to crush beneath its iron foot thrones and nations, and masking an ambition as astute as Lucifer’s with a dissimulation as profound, this power advanced at first with noiseless steps, and stole upon the world as night steals upon it; but as it neared the goal its strides grew longer and swifter, till at last it vaulted over the throne of monarchs into the seat of God.

This great war we shall now proceed to consider. When the Popes, at an early stage, claimed to be the vicars of Christ, they virtually challenged that boundless jurisdiction of which their proudest era beheld them in actual possession. But they knew that it would be imprudent, indeed impossible, as yet to assert it in actual fact. Their motto was Spes messis in semine. Discerning "the harvest in the seed," they were content meanwhile to lodge the principle of supremacy in their creed, and in the general mind of Europe, knowing that future ages would fructify and ripen it. Towards this they began to work quietly, yet skillfully and perseveringly. At length came overt and open measures. It was now the year 1073. The Papal chair was filled by perhaps the greatest of all the Popes, Gregory VII., the noted Hildebrand. Daring and ambitious beyond all who had preceded, and beyond most of those who have followed him on the Papal throne, Gregory fully grasped the great idea of Theocracy. He held that the reign of the Pope was but another name for the reign of God, and he resolved never to rest till that idea had been realized in the subjection of all authority and power, spiritual and temporal, to the chair of Peter. "When he drew out," says Janus, "the whole system of Papal omnipotence in twenty-seven theses in his ‘Dictatus,’ these theses were partly mere repetitions or corollaries of the Isidorian decretals; partly he and his friends sought to give them the appearance of tradition and antiquity by new fictions." We may take the following as samples. The eleventh maxim says, "the Pope’s name is the chief name in the world;" the twelfth teaches that "it is lawful for him to depose emperors;" the eighteenth affirms that "his decision is to be withstood by none, but he alone may annul those of all men." The nineteenth declares that "he can be judged by no one." The twenty-fifth vests in him the absolute power of deposing and restoring bishops, and the twenty-seventh the power of annulling the allegiance of subjects. Such was the gage that Gregory flung down to the kings and nations of the world — we say of the world, for the pontifical supremacy embraces all who dwell upon the earth.

Now began the war between the miter and the empire; Gregory’s object in this war being to wrest from the emperors the power of appointing the bishops and the clergy generally, and to assume into his own sole and irresponsible hands the whole of that intellectual and spiritual machinery by which Christendom was governed. The strife was a bloody one. The miter, though sustaining occasional reverses, continued nevertheless to gain steadily upon the empire. The spirit of the times helped the priesthood in their struggle with the civil power. The age was superstitious to the core, and though in no wise spiritual, it was very thoroughly ecclesiastical. The crusades, too, broke the spirit and drained the wealth of the princes, while the growing power and augmenting riches of the clergy cast the balance ever more and more against the State.

For a brief space Gregory VII. tasted in his own case the luxury of wielding this more than mortal power. There came a gleam through the awful darkness of the tempest he had raised — not final victory, which was yet a century distant, but its presage. He had the satisfaction of seeing the emperor, Henry IV. of Germany — whom he had smitten with excommunication — barefooted, and in raiment of sackcloth, waiting three days and nights at the castle-gates of Canossa, amid the winter drifts, suing for forgiveness. But it was for a moment only that Hildebrand stood on this dazzling pinnacle. The fortune of war very quickly turned. Henry, the man whom the Pope had so sorely humiliated, became victor in his turn. Gregory died, an exile, on the promontory of Salerno; but his successors espoused his project, and strove by wiles, by arms, and by anathemas, to reduce the world under the scepter of the Papal Theocracy. For well-nigh two dismal centuries the conflict was maintained. How truly melancholy the record of these times! It exhibits to our sorrowing gaze many a stricken field, many an empty throne, many a city sacked, many a spot deluged with blood!

But through all this confusion and misery the idea of Gregory was perseveringly pursued, till at last it was realized, and the miter was beheld triumphant over the empire. It was the fortune or the calamity of Innocent III. (1198-1216) to celebrate this great victory. Now it was that the pontifical supremacy reached its full development. One man, one will again governed the world. It is with a sort of stupefied awe that we look back to the thirteenth century, and see in the foreground of the receding storm this Colossus, uprearing itself in the person of Innocent III., on its head all the miters of the Church, and in its hand all the scepters of the State. "In each of the three leading objects which Rome has pursued," says Hallam — "independent sovereignty, supremacy over the Christian Church, control over the princes of the earth it was the fortune of this pontiff to conquer." "Rome," he says again, "inspired during this age all the terror of her ancient name; she was once more mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals." She had fought a great fight, and now she celebrated an unequaled triumph. Innocent appointed all bishops; he summoned to his tribunal all causes, from the gravest affairs of mighty kingdoms to the private concerns of the humble citizen. He claimed all kingdoms as his fiefs, all monarchs as his vassals; and launched with unsparing hand the bolts of excommunication against all who withstood his pontifical will. Hildebrand’s idea was now fully realized. The pontifical supremacy was beheld in its plenitude — the plenitude of spiritual power, and that of temporal power. It was the noon of the Papacy; but the noon of the Papacy was the midnight of the world.

The grandeur which the Papacy now enjoyed, and the jurisdiction it wielded, have received dogmatic expression, and one or two selections will enable it to paint itself as it was seen in its noon. Pope Innocent III. affirmed "that the pontifical authority so much exceeded the royal power as the sun doth the moon." Nor could he find words fitly to describe his own formidable functions, save those of Jehovah to his prophet Jeremiah: "See, I have set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down." "The Church my spouse," we find the same Pope saying, "is not married to me without bringing me something. She hath given me a dowry of a price beyond all price, the plenitude of spiritual things, and the extent of things temporal; the greatness and abundance of both. She hath given me the miter in token of things spiritual, the crown in token of the temporal; the miter for the priesthood, and the crown for the kingdom; making me the lieutenant of him who hath written upon his vesture, and on his thigh, ‘the King of kings and the Lord of lords.’ I enjoy alone the plenitude of power, that others may say of me, next to God, ‘and out of his fullness have we received.’" "We declare," ,says Boniface VIII. (1294-1303), in his bull Unam Sanetam, "define, pronounce it to be necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This subjection is declared in the bull to extend to all affairs. "One sword," says the Pope, "must be under another, and the temporal authority must be subject to the spiritual power; whence, if the earthly power go astray, it must be judged by the spiritual." Such are a few of the "great words" which were heard to issue from the Vatican Mount, that new Sinai, which, like the old, encompassed by fiery terrors, had upreared itself in the midst of the astonished and affrighted nations of Christendom.

What a contrast between the first and the last estate of the pastors of the Roman Church! — between the humility and poverty of the first century, and the splendor and power in which the thirteenth saw them enthroned! This contrast has not escaped the notice of the greatest of Italian poets. Dante, in one of his lightning flashes, has brought it before us. He describes the first pastors of the Church as coming

"barefoot and lean,
Eating their bread, as chanced, at the first table."

And addressing Peter, he says: —

"E’en thou went’st forth in poverty
and hunger
To set the goodly plant that,
from the Vine It once was,
now is grown unsightly bramble."

Petrarch dwells repeatedly and with more amplification on the same theme. We quote only the first and last stanzas of his sonnet on the Church of Rome: —

"The fire of wrathful heaven alight,
And all thy harlot tresses smite,
Base city! Thou from humble fare,
Thy acorns and thy water, rose
To greatness, rich with others’ woes,
Rejoicing in the ruin thou didst bear."

"In former days thou wast not laid
On down, nor under cooling shade;
Thou naked to the winds wast given,
And through the sharp and thorny road
Thy feet without the sandals trod;
But now thy life is such it smells to heaven."

There is something here out of the ordinary course. We have no desire to detract from the worldly wisdom of the Popes; they were, in that respect, the ablest race of rulers the world ever saw. Their enterprise soared as high above the vastest scheme of other potentates and conquerors, as their ostensible means of achieving it fell below theirs. To build such a fabric of dominion upon the Gospel, every line of which repudiates and condemns it! to impose it upon the world without an army and without a fleet! to bow the necks not of ignorant peoples only, but of mighty potentates to it! nay, to persuade the latter to assist in establishing a power which they could hardly but foresee would clash themselves! to pursue this scheme through a succession of centuries without once meeting any serious check or repulse — for of the 130 Popes between Boniface III. (606), who, in partnership with Phocas, laid the foundations of the Papal grandeur, and Gregory VII., who tint realized it, onward through other two centuries to Innocent III. (1216) and Boniface VIII. (1303), who at last put the top-stone upon it, not one lost an inch of ground which his predecessor had gained! — to do all this is, we repeat, something out of the ordinary course. There is nothing like it again in the whole history of the world. This success, continued through seven centuries, was audaciously interpreted into a proof of the divinity of the Papacy. Behold, it has been said, when the throne of Caesar was overturned, how the chair of Peter stood erect! Behold, when the barbarous nations rushed like a torrent into Italy, overwhelming laws, extinguishing knowledge, and dissolving society itself, how the ark of the Church rode in safety on the flood! Behold, when the victorious hosts of the Saracen approached the gates of Italy, how they were turned back! Behold, when the miter waged its great contest with the empire, how it triumphed! Behold, when the Reformation broke out, and it seemed as if the kingdom of the Pope was numbered and finished, how three centuries have been added to its sway! Behold, in fine, when revolution broke out in France, and swept like a whirlwind over Europe, bearing down thrones and dynasties, how the bark of Peter outlived the storm, and rode triumphant above the waves that engulfed apparently stronger structures! Is not this the Church of which Christ said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it?"

What else do the words of Cardinal Baronius mean? Boasting of a supposed donation of the kingdom of Hungary to the Roman See by Stephen, he says, "It fell out by a wonderful providence of God, that at the very time when the Roman Church might appear ready to fall and perish, even then distant kings approach the Apostolic See, which they acknowledge and venerate as the only temple of the universe, the sanctuary of piety, the pillar of truth, the immovable rock. Behold, kings — not from the East, as of old they came to the cradle of Christ, but from the North — led by faith, they humbly approach the cottage of the fisher, the Church of Rome herself, offering not only gifts out of their treasures, but bringing even kingdoms to her, and asking kingdoms from her. Whoso is wise, and will record these things, even he shall understand the lovingkindness of the Lord."

But the success of the Papacy, when closely examined, is not so surprising as it looks. It cannot be justly pronounced legitimate, or fairly won. Rome has ever been swimming with the tide. The evils and passions of society, which a true benefactress would have made it her business to cure — at least, to alleviate — Rome has studied rather to foster into strength, that she might be borne to power on the foul current which she herself had created. Amid battles, bloodshed, and confusion, has her path lain. The edicts of subservient Councils, the forgeries of hireling priests, the arms of craven monarchs, and the thunderbolts of excommunication have never been wanting to open her path. Exploits won by weapons of this sort are what her historians delight to chronicle. These are the victories that constitute her glory! And then, there remains yet another and great deduction from the apparent grandeur of her success, in that, after all, it is the success of only a few — a caste — the clergy. For although, during her early career, the Roman Church rendered certain important services to society — of which it will delight us to make mention in fitting place when she grew to maturity, and was able to develop her real genius, it was felt and acknowledged by all that her principles implied the ruin of all interests save her own, and that there was room in the world for none but herself. If her march, as shown in history down to the sixteenth century, is ever onwards, it is not less true that behind, on her path, lie the wrecks of nations, and the ashes of literature, of liberty, and of civilization.

Nor can we help observing that the career of Rome, with all the fictitious brilliance that encompasses it, is utterly eclipsed when placed beside the silent and sublime progress of the Gospel. The latter we see winning its way over mighty obstacles solely by the force and sweetness of its own truth. It touches the deep wounds of society only to heal them. It speaks not to awaken but to hush the rough voice of strife and war. It enlightens, purifies, and blesses men wherever it comes, and it does all this so gently and unboastingly! Reviled, it reviles not again. For curses it returns blessings. It unsheathes no sword; it spills no blood. Cast into chains, its victories are as many as when free, and more glorious; dragged to the stake and burned, from the ashes of the martyr there start up a thousand confessors, to speed on its career and swell the glory of its triumph. Compared with this how different has been the career of Rome! — as different, in fact, as the thunder-cloud which comes onward, mantling the skies in gloom and scathing the earth with fiery bolts, is different from the morning descending from the mountain-tops, scattering around it the silvery light, and awakening at its presence songs of joy.

CHAPTER 5 MEDIAEVAL PROTESTANT WITNESSES.

Ambrose of Milan — His Diocese — His Theology — Rufinus, Presbyter of Aquileia — Laurentius of Milan — The Bishops of the Grisons — Churches of Lombardy in Seventh and Eighth Centuries — Claude in the Ninth Century — His Labors — Outline of his Theology — His Doctrine of the Eucharist — His Battle against Images — His Views on the Roman Primacy — Proof thence arising — Councils in France approve his Views — Question of the Services of the Roman Church to the Western Nations.

The apostasy was not universal. At no time did God leave His ancient Gospel without witnesses. When one body of confessors yielded to the darkness, or was cut off by violence, another arose in some other land, so that there was no age in which, in some country or other of Christendom, public testimony was not borne against the errors of Rome, and in behalf of the Gospel which she sought to destroy.

The country in which we find the earliest of these Protesters is Italy. The See of Rome, in those days, embraced only the capital and the surrounding provinces. The diocese of Milan, which included the plain of Lombardy, the Alps of Piedmont, and the southern provinces of France, greatly exceeded it in extent. It is an undoubted historical fact that this powerful diocese was not then tributary to the Papal chair. "The Bishops of Milan," says Pope Pelagius I. (555), "do not come to Rome for ordination." He further informs us that this "was an ancient custom of theirs." Pope Pelagius, however, attempted to subvert this "ancient custom," but his efforts resulted only in a wider estrangement between the two dioceses of Milan and Rome. For when Platina speaks of the subjection of Milan to the Pope under Stephen IX., in the middle of the eleventh century, he admits that "for 200 years together the Church of Milan had been separated from the Church of Rome." Even then, though on the very eve of the Hildebrandine era, the destruction of the independence of the diocese was not accomplished without a protest on the part of its clergy, and a tumult on the part of the people. The former affirmed that "the Ambrosian Church was not subject to the laws of Rome; that it had been always free, and could not, with honor, surrender its liberties." The latter broke out into clamor, and threatened violence to Damianus, the deputy sent to receive their submission. "The people grew into higher ferment," says Baronius; "the bells were rung; the episcopal palace beset; and the legate threatened with death." Traces of its early independence remain to this day in the Rito or Culto Ambrogiano, still in use throughout the whole of the ancient Archbishopric of Milan.

One consequence of this ecclesiastical independence of Northern Italy was, that the corruptions of which Rome was the source were late in being introduced into Milan and its diocese. The evangelical light shone there some centuries after the darkness had gathered in the southern part of the peninsula. Ambrose, who died A.D. 397, was Bishop of Milan for twenty-three years. His theology, and that of his diocese, was in no essential respects different from that which Protestants hold at this day. The Bible alone was his rule of faith; Christ alone was the foundation of the Church; the justification of the sinner and the remission of sins were not of human merit, but by the expiatory sacrifice of the Cross; there were but two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and in the latter Christ was held to be present only figuratively. Such is a summary of the faith professed and taught by the chief bishop of the north of Italy in the end of the fourth century.

Rufinus, of Aquileia, first metropolitan in the diocese of Milan, taught substantially the same doctrine in the fifth century. His treatise on the Creed no more agrees with the catechism of the Council of Trent than does the catechism of Protestants. His successors at Aquileia, so far as can be gathered from the writings which they have left behind them, shared the sentiments of Rufinus.

To come to the sixth century, we find Laurentius, Bishop of Milan, holding that the penitence of the heart, without the absolution of a priest, suffices for pardon; and in the end of the same century (A.D. 590) we find the bishops of Italy and of the Grisons, to the number of nine, rejecting the communion of the Pope, as a heretic, so little then was the infallibility believed in, or the Roman supremacy acknowledged. In the seventh century we find Mansuetus, Bishop of Milan, declaring that the whole faith of the Church is contained in the Apostles’ Creed; from which it is evident that he did not regard as necessary to salvation the additions which Rome had then begun to make, and the many she has since appended to the apostolic doctrine. The Ambrosian Liturgy, which, as we have said, continues to be used in the diocese of Milan, is a monument to the comparative purity of the faith and worship of the early Churches of Lombardy.

In the eighth century we find Paulinus, Bishop of Aquileia, declaring that "we feed upon the divine nature of Jesus Christ, which cannot be said but only with respect to believers, and must be understood metaphorically." Thus manifest is it that he rejected the corporeal manducation of the Church at Rome. He also warns men against approaching God through any other mediator or advocate than Jesus Christ, affirming that He alone was conceived without sin; that He is the only Redeemer, and that He is the one foundation of the Church. "If any one," says Allix, "will take the pains to examine the opinions of this bishop, he will find it a hard thing not to take notice that he denies what the Church of Rome affirms with relation to all these articles, and that he affirms what the Church of Rome denies."

It must be acknowledged that these men, despite their great talents and their ardent piety, had not entirely escaped the degeneracy of their age. The light that was in them was partly mixed with darkness. Even the great Ambrose was touched with a veneration for relics, and a weakness for other superstitious of his times. But as regards the cardinal doctrines of salvation, the faith of these men was essentially Protestant, and stood out in bold antagonism to the leading principles of the Roman creed. And such, with more or less of clearness, must be held to have been the profession of the pastors over whom they presided. And the Churches they ruled and taught were numerous and widely planted. They flourished in the towns and villages which dot the vast plain that stretches like a garden for 200 miles along the foot of the Alps; they existed in those romantic and fertile valleys over which the great mountains hang their pine forests and snows, and, passing the summit, they extended into the southern provinces of France, even as far as to the Rhone, on the banks of which Polycarp, the disciple of John, in early times had planted the Gospel, to be watered in the succeeding centuries by the blood of thousands of martyrs. Darkness gives relief to the light, and error necessitates a fuller development and a clearer definition of truth. On this principle the ninth century produced the most remarkable perhaps of all those great champions who strove to set limits to the growing superstition, and to preserve, pure and undefiled, the faith which apostles had preached. The mantle of Ambrose descended on Claudius, Archbishop of Turin. This man beheld with dismay the stealthy approaches of a power which, putting out the eyes of men, bowed their necks to its yoke, and bent their knees to idols. He grasped the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, and the battle which he so courageously waged, delayed, though it could not prevent, the fall of his Church’s independence, and for two centuries longer the light continued to shine at the foot of the Alps. Claudius was an earnest and indefatigable student of Holy Scripture. That Book carried him back to the first age, and set him down at the feet of apostles, at the feet of One greater than apostles; and, while darkness was descending on the earth, around Claude still shone the day.

The truth, drawn from its primeval fountains, he proclaimed throughout his diocese, which included the valleys of the Waldenses. Where his voice could not reach, he labored to convey instruction by his pen. He wrote commentaries on the Gospels; he published expositions of almost all the epistles of Paul, and several books of the Old Testament; and thus he furnished his contemporaries with the means of judging how far it became them to submit to a jurisdiction so manifestly usurped as that of Rome, or to embrace tenets so undeniably novel as those which she was now foisting upon the world. The sum of what Claude maintained was that there is but one Sovereign in the Church, and He is not on earth; that Peter had no superiority over the other apostles, save in this, that he was the first who preached the Gospel to both Jews and Gentiles; that human merit is of no avail for salvation, and that faith alone saves us. On this cardinal point he insists with a clearness and breadth which remind one of Luther. The authority of tradition he repudiates, prayers for the dead he condemns, as also the notion that the Church cannot err. As regards relics, instead of holiness he can find in them nothing but rottenness, and advises that they be instantly returned to the grave, from which they ought never to have been taken.

Of the Eucharist, he writes in his commentary on Matthew (A.D. 815) in a way which shows that he stood at the greatest distance from the opinions which Paschasius Radbertus broached eighteen years afterwards.

Paschasius Radbertus, a monk, afterwards Abbot of Corbei, pretended to explain with precision the manner in which the body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist. He published (831) a treatise, "Concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ." His doctrine amounted to the two following propositions: —

• 1. Of the bread and wine nothing
  remains after consecration but the outward figure, under which the body and blood of
  Christ are really and locally present.
• 2. This body present in the
  Eucharist is the same body that was born of the Virgin, that suffered upon the cross, and
  was raised from the grave.

This new doctrine excited the astonishment of not a few, and called forth several powerful opponents — amongst others, Johannes Scotus. Claudius, however, thought that the Lord’s Supper was a memorial of Christ’s death, and not a repetition of it, and that the elements of bread and wine were only symbols of the flesh and blood of the Savior. It is clear from this that transubstantiation was unknown in the ninth century to the Churches at the foot of the Alps. Nor was it the Bishop of Turin only who held this doctrine of the Eucharist; we are entitled to infer that the bishops of neighboring dioceses, both north and south of the Alps, shared the opinion of Claude. For though they differed from him on some other points, and did not conceal their difference, they expressed no dissent from his views respecting the Sacrament, and in proof of their concurrence in his general policy, strongly urged him to continue his expositions of the Sacred Scriptures. Specially was this the case as regards two leading ecclesiastics of that day, Jonas, Bishop of Orleans, and the Abbot Theodemirus. Even in the century following, we find certain bishops of the north of Italy saying that "wicked men eat the goat and not the lamb," language wholly incomprehensible from the lips of men who believe in transubstantiation.

The worship of images was then making rapid strides. The Bishop of Rome was the great advocate of this ominous innovation; it was on this point that Claude fought his great battle. He resisted it with all the logic of his pen and all the force of his eloquence; he condemned the practice as idolatrous, and he purged those churches in his diocese which had begun to admit representations of saints and divine persons within their walls, not even sparing the cross itself. It is instructive to mark that the advocates of images in the ninth century justified their use of them by the very same arguments which Romanists employ at this day; and that Claude refutes them on the same ground taken by Protestant writers still. We do not worship the image, say the former, we use it simply as the medium through which our worship ascends to Him whom the image represents; and if we kiss the cross we do so in adoration of Him who died upon it. But, replied Claude — as the Protestant polemic at this hour replies in kneeling to the image, or kissing the cross, you do what the second commandment forbids, and what the Scripture condemns as idolatry. Your worship terminates in the image, and is the worship not of God, but simply of the image. With his argument the Bishop of Turin mingles at times a little raillery. "God commands one thing," says he, "and these people do quite the contrary. God commands us to bear our cross, and not to worship it; but these are all for worshipping it, whereas they do not bear it at all. To serve God after this manner is to go away from Him. For if we ought to adore the cross because Christ was fastened to it, how many other things are there which touched Jesus Christ! Why don’t they adore mangers and old clothes, because He was laid in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes? Let them adore asses, because He, entered into Jerusalem upon the foal of an ass."

On the subject of the Roman primacy, he leaves it in no wise doubtful what his sentiments were. "We know very well," says he, "that this passage of the Gospel is very ill understood — ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church: and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ under pretense of which words the stupid and ignorant common people, destitute of all spiritual knowledge, betake themselves to Rome in hopes of acquiring eternal life. The ministry belongs to all the true superintendents and pastors of the Church, who discharge the same as long as they are in this world; and when they have paid the debt of death, others succeed in their places, who enjoy the same authority and power. Know thou that he only is apostolic who is the keeper and guardian of the apostle’s doctrine, and not he who boasts himself to be seated in the chair of the apostle, and in the meantime doth not acquit himself of the charge of the apostle."

We have dwelt the longer on Claude, and the doctrines which he so powerfully advocated by both voice and pen, because, although the picture of his times — a luxurious clergy but an ignorant people, Churches growing in magnificence but declining in piety, images adored but the true God forsaken — is not a pleasant one, yet it establishes two points of great importance. The first is that the Bishop of Rome had not yet succeeded in compelling universal submission to his jurisdiction; and the second that he had not yet been able to persuade all the Churches of Christendom to adopt his novel doctrines, and follow his peculiar customs. Claude was not left to fight that battle alone, nor was he crushed as he inevitably would have been, had Rome been the dominant power it came soon thereafter to be. On the contrary, this Protestant of the ninth century received a large amount of sympathy and support both from bishops and from synods of his time. Agobardus, the Bishop of Lyons, fought by the side of his brother of Turin In fact, he was as great an iconoclast as Claude himself. The emperor, Louis the Pious (le Debonnaire), summoned a Council (824) of "the most learned and judicious bishops of his realm," says Dupin, to discuss this question. For in that age the emperors summoned synods and appointed bishops. And when the Council had assembled, did it wait till Peter should speak, or a Papal allocution had decided the point? "It knew no other way," says Dupin, "to settle the question, than by determining what they should find upon the most impartial examination to be true, by plain text of Holy Scripture, and the judgment of the Fathers." This Council at Paris justified most of the principles for which Claude had contended, as the great Council at Frankfort (794) had done before it. It is worthy of notice further, as bearing on this point, that only two men stood up publicly to oppose Claude during the twenty years he was incessantly occupied in this controversy. The first was Dungulas, a recluse of the Abbey of St. Denis, an Italian, it is believed, and biased naturally in favor of the opinions of the Pope; and the second was Jonas, Bishop of Orleans, who differed from Claude on but the one question of images, and only to the extent of tolerating their use, but condemning as idolatrous their worship — a distinction which it is easy to maintain in theory, but impossible to observe, as experience has demonstrated, in practice.

And here let us interpose an observation. We speak at times of the signal benefits which the "Church" conferred upon the Gothic nations during the Middle Ages. She put herself in the place of a mother to those barbarous tribes; she weaned them from the savage usages of their original homes; she bowed their stubborn necks to the authority of law; she opened their minds to the charms of knowledge and art; and thus laid the foundation of those civilized and prosperous communities which have since arisen in the West. But when we so speak it behooves us to specify with some distinctness what we mean by the "Church" to which we ascribe the glory of this service. Is it the Church of Rome, or is it the Church universal of Christendom? If we mean the former, the facts of history do not bear out our conclusion. The Church of Rome was not then the Church, but only one of many Churches. The slow but beneficent and laborious work of evangelizing and civilizing the Northern nations, was the joint result of the action of all the Churches — of Northern Italy, of France, of Spain, of Germany, of Britain — and each performed its part in this great work with a measure of success exactly corresponding to the degree in which it retained the pure principles of primitive Christianity. The Churches would have done their task much more effectually and speedily but for the adverse influence of Rome. She hung upon their rear, by her perpetual attempts to bow them to her yoke, and to seduce them from their first purity to her thinly disguised paganisms. Emphatically, the power that molded the Gothic nations, and planted among them the seeds of religion and virtue, was Christianity — that same Christianity which apostles preached to men in the first age, which all the ignorance and superstition of subsequent times had not quite extinguished, and which, with immense toil and suffering dug up from under the heaps of rubbish that had been piled above it, was anew, in the sixteenth century, given to the world under the name of Protestantism.

CHAPTER 6 THE WALDENSES — THEIR VALLEYS

Submission of the Churches of Lombardy to Rome — The Old Faith maintained in the Mountains — The Waldensian Churches — Question of their Antiquity — Approach to their Mountains — Arrangement of their Valleys — Picture of blended Beauty and Grandeur.

WHEN Claude died it can hardly be said that his mantle was taken up by any one. The battle, although not altogether dropped, was henceforward languidly maintained. Before this time not a few Churches beyond the Alps had submitted to the yoke of Rome, and that arrogant power must have felt it not a little humiliating to find her authority withstood on what she might regard as her own territory. She was venerated abroad but contemned at home. Attempts were renewed to induce the Bishops of Milan to accept the episcopal pall, the badge of spiritual vassalage, from the Pope; but it was not till the middle of the eleventh century (1059), under Nicholas II., that these attempts were successful. Petrus Damianus, Bishop of Ostia, and Anselm, Bishop of Lucca, were dispatched by the Pontiff to receive the submission of the Lombard Churches, and the popular tumults amid which that submission was extorted sufficiently show that the spirit of Claude still lingered at the foot of the Alps. Nor did the clergy conceal the regret with which they laid their ancient liberties at the feet of a power before which the whole earth was then bowing down; for the Papal legate, Damianus, informs us that the clergy of Milan maintained in his presence, "That the Ambrosian Church, according to the ancient institutions of the Fathers, was always free, without being subject to the laws of Rome, and that the Pope of Rome had no jurisdiction over their Church as to the government or constitution of it."

But if the plains were conquered, not so the mountains. A considerable body of Protesters stood out against this deed of submission. Of these some crossed the Alps, descended the Rhine, and raised the standard of opposition in the diocese of Cologne, where they were branded as Manicheans, and rewarded with the stake. Others retired into the valleys of the Piedmontese Alps, and there maintained their scriptural faith and their ancient independence. What we have just related respecting the dioceses of Milan and Turin settles the question, in our opinion, of the apostolicity of the Churches of the Waldensian valleys. It is not necessary to show that missionaries were sent from Rome in the first age to plant Christianity in these valleys, nor is it necessary to show that these Churches have existed as distinct and separate communities from early days; enough that they formed a part, as unquestionably they did, of the great evangelical Church of the north of Italy. This is the proof at once of their apostolicity and their independence. It attests their descent from apostolic men, if doctrine be the life of Churches. When their co-religionists on the plains entered within the pale of the Roman jurisdiction, they retired within the mountains, and, spurning alike the tyrannical yoke and the corrupt tenets of the Church of the Seven Hills, they preserved in its purity and simplicity the faith their fathers had handed down to them. Rome manifestly was the schismatic, she it was that had abandoned what was once the common faith of Christendom, leaving by that step to all who remained on the old ground the indisputably valid title of the True Church.

Behind this rampart of mountains, which Providence, foreseeing the approach of evil days, would almost seem to have reared on purpose, did the remnant of the early apostolic Church of Italy kindle their lamp, and here did that lamp continue to burn all through the long night which descended on Christendom. There is a singular concurrence of evidence in favor of their high antiquity. Their traditions invariably point to an unbroken descent from the earliest times, as regards their religious belief. The Nobla Leycon, which dates from the year 1100, goes to prove that the Waldenses of Piedmont did not owe their rise to Peter Waldo of Lyons, who did not appear till the latter half of that century (1160). The Nobla Leycon, though a poem, is in reality a confession of faith, and could have been composed only after some considerable study of the system of Christianity, in contradistinction to the errors of Rome. How could a Church have arisen with such a document in her hands? Or how could these herdsmen and vine-dressers, shut up in their mountains, have detected the errors against which they bore testimony, and found their way to the truths of which they made open profession in times of darkness like these? If we grant that their religious beliefs were the heritage of former ages, handed down from an evangelical ancestry, all is plain; but if we maintain that they were the discovery of the men of those days, we assert what approaches almost to a miracle. Their greatest enemies, Claude Seyssel of Turin (1517), and Reynerius the Inquisitor (1250), have admitted their antiquity, and stigmatized them as "the most dangerous of all heretics, because the most ancient."

Rorenco, Prior of St. Roch, Turin (1640), was employed to investigate the origin and antiquity of the Waldenses, and of course had access to all the Waldensian documents in the ducal archives, and being their bitter enemy he may be presumed to have made his report not more favorable than he could help. Yet he states that "they were not a new sect in the ninth and tenth centuries, and that Claude of Turin must have detached them from the Church in the ninth century."

Within the limits of her own land did God provide a dwelling for this venerable Church. Let us bestow a glance upon the region. As one comes from the south, across the level plain of Piedmont, while yet nearly a hundred miles off, he sees the Alps rise before him, stretching like a great wall along the horizon. From the gates of the morning to those of the setting sun, the mountains run on in a line of towering magnificence. Pasturages and chestnut-forests clothe their base; eternal snows crown their summits. How varied are their forms! Some rise strong and massy as castles; others shoot up tall and tapering like needles; while others again run along in serrated lines, their summits torn and cleft by the storms of many thousand winters. At the hour of sunrise, what a glory kindles along the crest of that snowy rampart! At sunset the spectacle is again renewed, and a line of pyres is seen to burn in the evening sky.

Drawing nearer the hills, on a line about thirty miles west of Turin, there opens before one what seems a great mountain portal. This is the entrance to the Waldensian territory. A low hill drawn along in front serves as a defense against all who may come with hostile intent, as but too frequently happened in times gone by, while a stupendous monolith — the Castelluzzo — shoots up to the clouds, and stands sentinel at the gate of this renowned region. As one approaches La Torre the Castelluzzo rises higher and higher, and irresistibly fixes the eye by the perfect beauty of its pillar-like form. But; to this mountain a higher interest belongs than any that mere symmetry can give it. It is indissolubly linked with martyr-memories, and borrows a halo from the achievements of the past. How often, in days of old, was the confessor hurled sheer down its awful steep and dashed on the rocks at its foot! And there, commingled in one ghastly heap, growing ever the bigger and ghastlier as another and yet another victim was added to it, lay the mangled bodies of pastor and peasant, of mother and child! It was the tragedies connected with this mountain mainly that called forth Milton’s well-known sonnet: —

"Avenge, O Lord, Thy slaughter’d saints,
whose bones Lie scatter’d on the Alpine mountains cold.
in Thy book record their groans
Who were Thy sheep, and in their ancient fold,
Slain by the bloody Piedmontese,
that roll’d Mother with infant down the rocks.
Their moans The vales redoubled to the hills,
and they To heaven."

The elegant temple of the Waldenses rises near the foot of the Castelluzzo. The Waldensian valleys are seven in number; they were more in ancient times, but the limits of the Vaudois territory have undergone repeated curtailment, and now only the number we have stated remain, lying between Pinerolo on the east and Monte Viso on the west — that pyramidal hill which forms so prominent an object from every part of the plain of Piedmont, towering as it does above the surrounding mountains, and, like a horn of silver, cutting the ebon of the firmament.

The first three valleys run out somewhat like the spokes of a wheel, the spot on which we stand — the gateway, namely — being the nave. The first is Luserna, or Valley of Light. It runs right out in a grand gorge of some twelve miles in length by about two in width. It wears a carpeting of meadows, which the waters of the Pelice keep ever fresh and bright. A profusion of vines, acacias, and mulberry-trees fleck it with their shadows; and a wall of lofty mountains encloses it on either hand. The second is Rora, or Valley of Dews. It is a vast cup, some fifty miles in circumference, its sides luxuriantly clothed with meadow and corn-field, with fruit and forest trees, and its rim formed of craggy and spiky mountains, many of them snow-clad. The third is Angrogna, or Valley of Groans. Of it we shall speak more particularly afterwards. Beyond the extremity of the first three valleys are the remaining four, forming, as it were, the rim of the wheel. These last are enclosed in their turn by a line of lofty and craggy mountains, which form a wall of defense around the entire territory. Each valley is a fortress, having its own gate of ingress and egress, with its caves, and rocks, and mighty chestnut-trees, forming places of retreat and shelter, so that the highest engineering skill could not have better adapted each several valley to its end. It is not less remarkable that, taking all these valleys together, each is so related to each, and the one opens so into the other, that they may be said to form one fortress of amazing and matchless strength — wholly impregnable, in fact. All the fortresses of Europe, though combined, would not form a citadel so enormously strong, and so dazzlingly magnificent, as the mountain dwelling of the Vaudois. "The Eternal, our God," says Leger "having destined this land to be the theater of His marvels, and the bulwark of His ark, has, by natural means, most marvelously fortified it." The battle begun in one valley could be continued in another, and carried round the entire territory, till at last the invading foe, overpowered by the rocks rolled upon him from the mountains, or assailed by enemies which would start suddenly out of the mist or issue from some unsuspected cave, found retreat impossible, and, cut off in detail, left his bones to whiten the mountains he had come to subdue.

These valleys are lovely and fertile, as well as strong. They are watered by numerous torrents, which descend from the snows of the summits. The grassy carpet of their bottom; the mantling vine and the golden grain of their lower slopes; the chalets that dot their sides, sweetly embowered amid fruit-trees; and, higher up, the great chestnut-forests and the pasture-lands, where the herdsmen keep watch over their flocks all through the summer days and the starlit nights: the nodding crags, from which the torrent leaps into the light; the rivulet, singing with quiet gladness in the shady nook; the mists, moving grandly among the mountains, now veiling, now revealing their majesty; and the far-off summits, tipped with silver, to be changed at eve into gleaming gold — make up a picture of blended beauty and grandeur, not equaled perhaps, and certainly not surpassed, in any other region of the earth.

In the heart of their mountains is situated the most interesting, perhaps, of all their valleys. It was in this retreat, walled round by "hills whose heads touch heaven," that their barbes or pastors, from all their several parishes, were wont to meet in annual synod. It was here that their college stood, and it was here that their missionaries were trained, and, after ordination, were sent forth to sow the good seed, as opportunity offered, in other lands. Let us visit this valley. We ascend to it by the long, narrow, and winding Angrogna. Bright meadows enliven its entrance. The mountains on either hand are clothed with the vine, the mulberry, and the chestnut. Anon the valley contracts. It becomes rough with projecting rocks, and shady with great trees. A few paces farther, and it expands into a circular basin, feathery with birches, musical with falling waters, environed atop by naked crags, fringed with dark pines, while the white peak looks down upon one out of heaven. A little in advance the valley seems shut in by a mountainous wall, drawn right across it; and beyond, towering sublimely upward, is seen an assemblage of snow-clad Alps, amid which is placed the valley we are in quest of, where burned of old the candle of the Waldenses. Some terrible convulsion has rent this mountain from top to bottom, opening a path through it to the valley beyond. We enter the dark chasm, and proceed along on a narrow ledge in the mountain’s side, hung half-way between the torrent, which is heard thundering in the abyss below, and the summits which lean over us above. Journeying thus for about two miles, we find the pass beginning to widen, the light to break in, and now we arrive at the gate of the Pra.

There opens before us a noble circular valley, its grassy bottom watered by torrents, its sides dotted with dwellings and clothed with corn-fields and pasturages, while a ring of white peaks guards it above. This was the inner sanctuary of the Waldensian temple. The rest of Italy had turned aside to idols, the Waldensian territory alone had been reserved for the worship of the true God. And was it not meet that on its native soil a remnant of the apostolic Church of Italy should be maintained, that Rome and all Christendom might have before their eyes a perpetual monument of what they themselves had once been, and a living witness to testify how far they had departed from their first faith?

CHAPTER 7 THE WALDENSES — THEIR MISSIONS AND MARTYRDOMS

Their Synod and College — Their Theological Tenets — Romaunt Version of the New Testament — The Constitution of their Church — Their Missionary Labors — Wide Diffusion of their Tenets — The Stone Smiting the Image.

ONE would like to have a near view of the barbes or pastors, who presided over the school of early Protestant theology that existed here, and to know how it fared with evangelical Christianity in the ages that preceded the Reformation. But the time is remote, and the events are dim. We can but doubtfully glean from a variety of sources the facts necessary to form a picture of this venerable Church, and even then the picture is not complete. The theology of which this was one of the fountainheads was not the clear, well-defined, and comprehensive system which the sixteenth century gave its; it was only what the faithful men of the Lombard Churches had been able to save from the wreck of primitive Christianity. True religion, being a revelation, was from the beginning complete and perfect; nevertheless, in this as in every other branch of knowledge, it is only by patient labor that man is able to extricate and arrange all its parts, and to come into the full possession of truth. The theology taught in former ages, in the peak-environed valley in which we have in imagination placed ourselves, was drawn from the Bible. The atoning death and justifying righteousness of Christ was its cardinal truth. This, the Nobla Leycon and other ancient documents abundantly testify. The Nobla Leycon sets forth with tolerable clearness the doctrine of the Trinity, the fall of man, the incarnation of the Son, the perpetual authority of the Decalogue as given by God, the need of Divine grace in order to good works, the necessity of holiness, the institution of the ministry, the resurrection of the body, and the eternal bliss of heaven. This creed, its professors exemplified in lives of evangelical virtue. The blamelessness of the Waldenses passed into a proverb, so that one more than ordinarily exempt from the vices of his time was sure to be suspected of being a Vaudes. If doubt there were regarding the tenets of the Waldenses, the charges which their enemies have preferred against them would set that doubt at rest, and make it tolerably certain that they held substantially what the apostles before their day, and the Reformers after it, taught. The indictment against the Waldenses included a formidable list of "heresies." They held that there had been no true Pope since the days of Sylvester; that temporal offices and dignities were not meet for preachers of the Gospel; that the Pope’s pardons were a cheat; that purgatory was a fable; that relics were simply rotten bones which had belonged to no one knew whom; that to go on pilgrimage served no end, save to empty one’s purse; that flesh might be eaten any day if one’s appetite served him; that holy water was not a whit more efficacious than rain water; and that prayer in a barn was just as effectual as if offered in a church. They were accused, moreover, of having scoffed at the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of having spoken blasphemously of Rome, as the harlot of the Apocalypse. There is reason to believe, from recent historical researches, that the Waldenses possessed the New Testament in the vernacular. The "Lingua Romana" or Romaunt tongue was the common language of the south of Europe from the eighth to the fourteenth century. It was the language of the troubadours and of men of letters in the Dark Ages. Into this tongue — the Romaunt — was the first translation of the whole of the New Testament made so early as the twelfth century. This fact Dr. Gilly has been at great pains to prove in his work, The Romaunt Version of the Gospel according to John. The sum of what Dr. Gilly, by a patient investigation into facts, and a great array of historic documents, maintains, is that all the books of the New Testament were translated from the Latin Vulgate into the Romaunt, that this was the first literal version since the fall of the empire, that it was made in the twelfth century, and was the first translation available for popular use. There were numerous earlier translations, but only of parts of the Word of God, and many of these were rather paraphrases or digests of Scripture than translations, and, moreover, they were so bulky, and by consequence so costly, as to be utterly beyond the reach of the common people. This Romaunt version was the first complete and literal translation of the New Testament of Holy Scripture; it was made, as Dr Gilly, by a chain of proofs, shows, most probably under the superintendence and at the expense of Peter Waldo of Lyons, not later than 1180, and so is older than any complete version in German, French, Italian, Spanish, or English. This version was widely spread in the south of France, and in the cities of Lombardy. It was in common use among the Waldenses of Piedmont, and it was no small part, doubtless, of the testimony borne to truth by these mountaineers to preserve and circulate it. Of the Romaunt New Testament six copies have come down to our day. A copy is preserved at each of the four following places, Lyons, Grenoble, Zurich, Dublin; and two copies are at Paris. These are plain and portable volumes, contrasting with those splendid and ponderous folios of the Latin Vulgate, penned in characters of gold and silver, richly illuminated, their bindings decorated with gems, inviting admiration rather than study, and unfitted by their size and splendor for the use of the People.

The Church of the Alps, in the simplicity of its constitution, may be held to have been a reflection of the Church of the first centuries. The entire territory included in the Waldensian limits was divided into parishes. In each parish was placed a pastor, who led his flock to the living waters of the Word of God. He preached, he dispensed the Sacraments, he visited the sick, and catechized the young. With him was associated in the government of his congregation a consistory of laymen. The synod met once a year. It was composed of all the pastors, with an equal number of laymen, and its most frequent place of meeting was the secluded mountain-engirdled valley at the head of Angrogna. Sometimes as many as a hundred and fifty barbes, with the same number of lay members, would assemble. We can imagine them seated — it may be on the grassy slopes of the valley — a venerable company of humble, learned, earnest men, presided over by a simple moderator (for higher office or authority was unknown amongst them), and intermitting their deliberations respecting the affairs of their Churches, and the condition of their flocks, only to offer their prayers and praises to the Eternal, while the majestic snow-clad peaks looked down upon them from the silent firmament. There needed, verily, no magnificent fane, no blazonry of mystic rites to make their assembly august.

The youth who here sat at the feet of the more venerable and learned of their barbes used as their text-book the Holy Scriptures. And not only did they study the sacred volume; they were required to commit to memory, and be able accurately to recite, whole Gospels and Epistles. This was a necessary accomplishment on the part of public instructors, in those ages when printing was unknown, and copies of the Word of God were rare. Part of their time was occupied in transcribing the Holy Scriptures, or portions of them, which they were to distribute when they went forth as missionaries. By this, and by other agencies, the seed of the Divine Word was scattered throughout Europe more widely than is commonly supposed. To this a variety of causes contributed. There was then a general impression that the world was soon to end. Men thought that they saw the prognostications of its dissolution in the disorder into which all things had fallen. The pride, luxury, and profligacy of the clergy led not a few laymen to ask if better and more certain guides were not to be had. Many of the troubadours were religious men, whose lays were sermons. The hour of deep and universal slumber had passed; the serf was contending with his seigneur for personal freedom, and the city was waging war with the baronial castle for civic and corporate independence. The New Testament — and, as we learn from incidental notices, portions of the Old — coming at this juncture, in a language understood alike in the court as in the camp, in the city as in the rural hamlet, was welcome to many, and its truths obtained a wider promulgation than perhaps had taken place since the publication of the Vulgate by Jerome.

After passing a certain time in the school of the barbes, it was not uncommon for the Waldensian youth to proceed to the seminaries in the great cities of Lombardy, or to the Sorbonne at Paris. There they saw other customs, were initiated into other studies, and had a wider horizon around them than in the seclusion of their native valleys. Many of them became expert dialecticians, and often made converts of the rich merchants with whom they traded, and the landlords in whose houses they lodged. The priests seldom cared to meet in argument the Waldensian missionary. To maintain the truth in their own mountains was not the only object of this people. They felt their relations to the rest of Christendom. They sought to drive back the darkness, and re-conquer the kingdoms which Rome had overwhelmed. They were an evangelistic as well as an evangelical Church. It was an old law among them that all who took orders in their Church should, before being eligible to a home charge, serve three years in the mission field. The youth on whose head the assembled barbes laid their hands saw in prospect not a rich benefice, but a possible martyrdom. The ocean they did not cross. Their mission field was the realms that lay outspread at the foot of their own mountains. They went forth two and two, concealing their real character under the guise of a secular profession, most commonly that of merchants or peddlers. They carried silks, jewelry, and other articles, at that time not easily purchasable save at distant marts, and they were welcomed as merchants where they would have been spurned as missionaries. The door of the cottage and the portal of the baron’s castle stood equally open to them. But their address was mainly shown in vending, without money and without price, rarer and more valuable merchandise than the gems and silks which had procured them entrance. They took care to carry with them, concealed among their wares or about their persons, portions of the Word of God, their own transcription commonly, and to this they would draw the attention of the inmates. When they saw a desire to possess it, they would freely make a gift of it where the means to purchase were absent.

There was no kingdom of Southern and Central Europe to which these missionaries did not find their way, and where they did not leave traces of their visit in the disciples whom they made. On the west they penetrated into Spain. In Southern France they found congenial fellow-laborers in the Albigenses, by whom the seeds of truth were plentifully scattered over Dauphine and Languedoc. On the east, descending the Rhine and the Danube, they leavened Germany, Bohemia, and Poland with their doctrines, their track being marked with the edifices for worship and the stakes of martyrdom that arose around their steps. Even the Seven-hilled City they feared not to enter, scattering the seed on ungenial soil, if perchance some of it might take root and grow. Their naked feet and coarse woolen garments made them somewhat marked figures, in the streets of a city that clothed itself in purple and fine linen; and when their real errand was discovered, as sometimes chanced, the rulers of Christendom took care to further, in their own way, the springing of the seed, by watering it with the blood of the men who had sowed it.

Thus did the Bible in those ages, veiling its majesty and its mission, travel silently through Christendom, entering homes and hearts, and there making its abode. From her lofty seat Rome looked down with contempt upon the Book and its humble bearers. She aimed at bowing the necks of kings, thinking if they were obedient meaner men would not dare revolt, and so she took little heed of a power which, weak as it seemed, was destined at a future day to break in pieces the fabric of her dominion. By-and-by she began to be uneasy, and to have a boding of calamity. The penetrating eye of Innocent III. detected the quarter whence danger was to arise. He saw in the labors of these humble men the beginning of a movement which, if permitted to go on and gather strength, would one day sweep away all that it had taken the toils and intrigues of centuries to achieve. He straightway commenced those terrible crusades which wasted the sowers but watered the seed, and helped to bring on, at its appointed hour, the catastrophe which he sought to avert.

CHAPTER 8 THE PAULICIANS

The Paulicians the Protesters against the Eastern, as the Waldenses against the Western Apostasy — Their Rise in A.D. 653 — Constantine of Samosata-Their Tenets Scriptural — Constantine Stoned to Death — Simeon Succeeds — Is put to Death — Sergius — His Missionary Travels — Terrible Persecutions-The Paulicians Rise in Arms — Civil War — The Government Triumphs — Dispersion of the Paulicians over the West — They Blend with the Waldenses — Movement in the South of Europe — The Troubadour, the Barbe, and the Bible, the Three Missionaries — Innocent III. — The Crusades.

BESIDES this central and main body of oppositionists to Rome — Protestants before Protestantism — placed here as in an impregnable fortress, upreared on purpose, in the very center of Roman Christendom, other communities and individuals arose, and maintained a continuous line of Protestant testimony all along to the sixteenth century. These we shall compendiously group and rapidly describe. First, there are the Paulicians. They occupy an analogous place in the East to that which the Waldenses held in the West. Some obscurity rests upon their origin, and additional mystery has on purpose been cast over it, but a fair and impartial examination of the matter leaves no doubt that the Paulicians are the remnant that escaped the apostasy of the Eastern Church, just as the Waldenses are the remnant saved from the apostasy of the Western Church. Doubt, too, has been thrown upon their religious opinions; they have been painted as a confederacy of Manicheans, just as the Waldenses were branded as a synagogue of heretics; but in the former case, as in the latter, an examination of the matter satisfies us that these imputations had no sufficient foundation, that the Paulicians repudiated the errors imputed to them, and that as a body their opinions were in substantial agreement with the doctrine of Holy Writ. Nearly all the information we have of them is that which Petrus Siculus, their bitter enemy, has communicated. He visited them when they were in their most flourishing condition, and the account he has given of their distinguishing doctrines sufficiently proves that the Paulicians had rejected the leading errors of the Greek and Roman Churches; but it fails to show that they had embraced the doctrine of Manes, or were justly liable to be styled Manicheans.

In A.D. 653, a deacon returning from captivity in Syria rested a night in the house of an Armenian named Constantine, who lived in the neighborhood of Samosata. On the morrow, before taking his departure, he presented his host with a copy of the New Testament. Constantine studied the sacred volume. A new light broke upon his mind: the errors of the Greek Church stood clearly revealed, and he instantly resolved to separate himself from so corrupt a communion. He drew others to the study of the Scriptures, and the same light shone into their minds which had irradiated his. Sharing his views, they shared with him his secession from the established Church of the Empire. It was the boast of this new party, now grown to considerable numbers, that they adhered to the Scriptures, and especially to the writings of Paul. "I am Sylvanus," said Constantine, "and ye are Macedonians," intimating thereby that the Gospel which he would teach, and they should learn, was that of Paul; hence the name of Paulicians, a designation they would not have been ambitious to wear had their doctrine been Manichean.

These disciples multiplied. A congenial soil favored their increase, for in these same mountains, where are placed the sources of the Euphrates, the Nestorian remnant had found a refuge. The attention of the Government at Constantinople was at length turned to them, and persecution followed. Constantine, whose zeal, constancy, and piety had been amply tested by the labors of twenty-seven years, was stoned to death. From his ashes arose a leader still more powerful. Simeon, an officer of the palace who had been sent with a body of troops to superintend his execution, was converted by his martyrdom; and, like Paul after the stoning of Stephen, forthwith began to preach the faith which he had once persecuted. Simeon ended his career, as Constantine had done, by sealing his testimony with his blood; the stake being planted beside the heap of stones piled above the ashes of Constantine.

Still the Paulicians multiplied; other leaders arose to fill the place of those who had fallen, and neither the anathemas of the hierarchy nor the sword of the State could check their growth. All through the eighth century they continued to flourish. The worship of images was now the fashionable superstition in the Eastern Church, and the Paulicians rendered themselves still more obnoxious to the Greek authorities, lay and clerical, by the strenuous opposition which they offered to that idolatry of which the Greeks were the great advocates and patrons. This drew upon them yet sorer persecution. It was now, in the end of the eighth century, that the most remarkable perhaps of all their leaders, Sergius, rose to head them, a man of truly missionary spirit and of indomitable energy. Petrus Siculus has given us an account of the conversion of Sergius. We should take it for a satire, were it not for the manifest earnestness and simplicity of the writer. Siculus tells us that Satan appeared to Sergius in the shape of an old woman, and asked him why he did not read the New Testament? The tempter proceeded further to recite portions of Holy Writ, whereby Sergius was seduced to read the Scripture, and so perverted to heresy; and "from sheep," says Siculus, "turned numbers into wolves, and by their means ravaged the sheepfolds of Christ."

During thirty-four years, and in the course of innumerable journeys, he preached the Gospel from East to West, and converted great numbers of his countrymen. The result was more terrible persecutions, which were continued through successive reigns. Foremost in this work we find the Emperor Leo, the Patriarch Nicephorus, and notably the Empress Theodora. Under the latter it was affirmed, says Gibbon, "that one hundred thousand Paulicians were extirpated by the sword, the gibbet, or the flames." It is admitted by the same historian that the chief guilt of many of those who were thus destroyed lay in their being Iconoclasts. The sanguinary zeal of Theodora kindled a flame which had well-nigh consumed the Empire of the East. The Paulicians, stung by these cruel injuries, now prolonged for two centuries, at last took up arms, as the Waldenses of Piedmont, the Hussites of Bohemia, and the Huguenots of France did in similar circumstances. They placed their camp in the mountains between Sewas and Trebizond, and for thirty-five years (A.D. 845 — 880) the Empire of Constantinople was afflicted with the calamities of civil war. Repeated victories, won over the troops of the emperor, crowned the arms of the Paulicians, and at length the insurgents were joined by the Saracens, who hung on the frontier of the Empire. The flames of battle extended into the heart of Asia; and as it is impossible to restrain the ravages of the sword when once unsheathed, the Paulicians passed from a righteous defense to an inexcusable revenge. Entire provinces were wasted, opulent cities were sacked, ancient and famous churches were turned into stables, and troops of captives were held to ransom or delivered to the executioner. But it must not be forgotten that the original cause of these manifold miseries was the bigotry of the government and the zeal of the clergy for image-worship. The fortune of war at last declared in favor of the troops of the emperor, and the insurgents were driven back into their mountains, where for a century afterwards they enjoyed a partial independence, and maintained the profession of their religious faith.

After this, the Paulicians were transported across the Bosphorus, and settled in Thrace. This removal was begun by the Emperor Constantine Copronymus in the middle of the eighth century, was continued in successive colonies in the ninth, and completed about the end of the tenth. The shadow of the Saracenic woe was already blackening over the Eastern Empire, and God removed His witnesses betimes from the destined scene of judgment. The arrival of the Paulicians in Europe was regarded with favor rather than disapproval. Rome was becoming by her tyranny the terror and by her profligacy the scandal of the West, and men were disposed to welcome whatever promised to throw additional weight into the opposing scale. The Paulicians soon spread themselves over Europe, and though no chronicle records their dispersion, the fact is attested by the sudden and simultaneous outbreak of their opinions in many of the Western countries. They mingled with the hosts of the Crusaders returning from the Holy Land through Hungary and Germany; they joined themselves to the caravans of merchants who entered the harbor of Venice and the gates of Lombardy; or they followed the Byzantine standard into Southern Italy, and by these various routes settled themselves in the West. They incorporated with the preexisting bodies of oppositionists, and from this time a new life is seen to animate the efforts of the Waldenses of Piedmont, the Albigenses of Southern France, and of others who, in other parts of Europe, revolted by the growing superstitions, had begun to retrace their steps towards the primeval fountains of truth. "Their opinions," says Gibbon, "were silently propagated in Rome, Milan, and the kingdoms beyond the Alps. It was soon discovered that many thousand Catholics of every rank, and of either sex, had embraced the Manichean heresy." From this point the Paulician stream becomes blended with that of the other early confessors of the Truth. To these we now return.

When we cast our eyes over Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, our attention is irresistibly riveted on the south of France. There a great movement is on the eve of breaking out. Cities and provinces are seen rising in revolt against the Church of Rome. Judging from the aspect of things on the surface, one would have inferred that all opposition to Rome had died out. Every succeeding century was deepening the foundations and widening the limits of the Romish Church, and it seemed now as if there awaited her ages of quiet and unchallenged dominion. It is at this moment that her power begins to totter; and though she will rise higher ere terminating her career, her decadence has already begun, and her fall may be postponed, but cannot be averted. But how do we account for the powerful movement that begins to show itself at the foot of the Alps, at a moment when, as it seems, every enemy has been vanquished, and Rome has won the battle? To attack her now, seated as we behold her amid vassal kings, obedient nations, and entrenched behind a triple rampart of darkness, is surely to invite destruction.

The causes of this movement had been long in silent operation. In fact, this was the very quarter of Christendom where opposition to the growing tyranny and superstitions of Rome might be expected first to show itself. Here it was that Polycarp and Irenaeus had labored. Over all those goodly plains which the Rhone waters, and in those numerous cities and villages over which the Alps stretch their shadows, these apostolic men had planted Christianity. Hundreds of thousands of martyrs had here watered it with their blood, and though a thousand years well-nigh had passed since that day, the story of their terrible torments and heroic deaths had not been altogether forgotten. In the Cottian Alps and the province of Languedoc, Vigilantius had raised his powerful protest against the errors of his times. This region was included, as we have seen, in the diocese of Milan, and, as a consequence, it enjoyed the light which shone on the south of the Alps long after Churches not a few on the north of these mountains were plunged in darkness. In the ninth century Claude of Turin had found in the Archbishop of Lyons, Agobardus, a man willing to entertain his views and to share his conflicts. Since that time the night had deepened here as everywhere else. But still, as may be conceived, there were memories of the past, there were seeds in the soil, which new forces might quicken and make to spring up. Such a force did now begin to act. It was, moreover, on this spot, and among these peoples — the best prepared of all the nations of the West — that the Word of God was first published in the vernacular. When the Romance version of the New Testament was issued, the people that sat in darkness saw a great light. This was in fact a second giving of Divine Revelation to the nations of Europe; for the early Saxon renderings of portions of Holy Writ had fallen aside and gone utterly into disuse; and though Jerome’s translation, the Vulgate, was still known, it was in Latin, now a dead language, and its use was confined to the priests, who though they possessed it cannot be said to have known it; for the reverence paid it lay in the rich illuminations of its writing, in the gold and gems of its binding, and the curiously-carved and costly cabinets in which it was locked up, and not in the earnestness with which its pages were studied. Now the nations of Southern Europe could read, each in "the tongue wherein he was born," the wonderful works of God.

This inestimable boon they owed to Peter Valdes or Waldo, a rich merchant in Lyons, who had been awakened to serious thought by the sudden death of a companion, according to some, by the chance lay of a traveling troubadour, according to others. We can imagine the wonder and joy of these people when this light broke upon them through the clouds that environed them. But we must not picture to ourselves a diffusion of the Bible, in those ages, at all so wide and rapid as would take place in our day when copies can be so easily multiplied by the printing press. Each copy was laboriously produced by the pen; its price corresponded to the time and labor expended in its production; it had to be carried long distances, often by slow and uncertain conveyances; and, last of all, it had to encounter the frowns and ultimately the prohibitory edicts of a hostile hierarchy. But there were compensatory advantages. Difficulties but tended to whet the desire of the people to obtain the Book, and when once their eyes lighted on its page, its truths made the deeper an impression on their minds. It stood out in its sublimity from the fables on which they had been fed. The conscience felt that a greater than man was speaking from its page. Each copy served scores and hundreds of readers.

Besides, if the mechanical appliances were lacking to those ages, which the progress of invention has conferred on ours, there existed a living machinery which worked indefatigably. The Bible was sung in the lays of troubadours and minnesingers. It was recited in the sermons of barbes. And these efforts reacted on the Book from which they had sprung, by leading men to the yet more earnest perusal and the yet wider diffusion of it. The Troubadour, the Barbe, and, mightiest of all, the Bible, were the three missionaries that traversed the south of Europe. Disciples were multiplied: congregations were formed: barons, cities, provinces, joined the movement. It seemed as if the Reformation was come. Not yet. Rome had not filled up her cup; nor had the nations of Europe that full and woeful demonstration they have since received, how crushing to liberty, to knowledge, to order, is her yoke, to induce them to join universally in the struggle to break it.

Besides, it happened, as has often been seen at historic crises of the Papacy, that a Pope equal to the occasion filled the Papal throne. Of remarkable vigor, of dauntless spirit, and of sanguinary temper, Innocent III. but too truly guessed the character and divined the issue of the movement. He sounded the tocsin of persecution. Mail-clad abbots, lordly prelates, "who wielded by turns the crosier, the scepter, and the sword;" barons and counts ambitious of enlarging their domains, and mobs eager to wreak their savage fanaticism on their neighbors, whose persons they hated and whose goods they coveted, assembled at the Pontiff’s summons. Fire and sword speedily did the work of extermination. Where before had been seen smiling provinces, flourishing cities, and a numerous, virtuous, and orderly population, there was now a blackened and silent desert. That nothing might be lacking to carry on this terrible work, Innocent III. set up the tribunal of the Inquisition. Behind the soldiers of the Cross marched the monks of St. Dominic, and what escaped the sword of the one perished by the racks of the other. In one of those dismal tragedies not fewer than a hundred thousand persons are said to have been destroyed. Over wide areas not a living thing was left: all were given to the sword. Mounds of ruins and ashes alone marked the spot where cities and villages had formerly stood. But this violence recoiled in the end on the power which had employed it. It did not extinguish the movement: it but made the roots strike deeper, to spring up again and again, and each time with greater vigor and over a wider area, till at last it was seen that Rome by these deeds was only preparing for Protestantism a more glorious triumph, and for herself a more signal overthrow.

But these events are too intimately connected with the early history of Protestantism, and they too truly depict the genius and policy of that power against which Protestantism found it so hard a matter to struggle into existence, to be passed over in silence, or dismissed with a mere general description. We must go a little into detail.

CHAPTER 9 CRUSADES AGAINST THE ALBIGENSES

Rome founded on the Dogma of Persecution — Begins to act upon it — Territory of the Albigenses — Innocent III. — Persecuting Edicts of Councils — Crusade preached by the Monks of Citeaux — First Crusade launched — Paradise — Simon de Montfort — Raymond of Toulouse — His Territories Overrun and Devastated — Crusade against Raymond Roger of Beziers — Burning of his Towns — Massacre of their Inhabitants — Destruction of the Albigenses.

THE torch of persecution was fairly kindled in the beginning of the thirteenth century. Those baleful fires, which had smoldered since the fall of the Empire, were now re-lighted, but it must be noted that this was the act not of the State but of the Church. Rome had founded her dominion upon the dogma of persecution. She sustained herself "Lord of the conscience." Out of this prolific but pestiferous root came a whole century of fulminating edicts, to be followed by centuries of blazing piles. It could not be but that this maxim, placed at the foundation of her system, should inspire and mold the whole policy of the Church of Rome. Divine mistress of the conscience and of the faith, she claimed the exclusive right to prescribe to every human being what he was to believe, and to pursue with temporal and spiritual terrors every form of worship different from her own, till she had chased it out of the world. The first exemplification, on a great scale, of her office which she gave mankind was the crusades. As the professors of an impure creed, she pronounced sentence of extermination on the Saracens of the Holy Land; she sent thither some millions of crusaders to execute her ban; and the lands, cities, and wealth of the slaughtered infidels she bestowed upon her orthodox sons. If it was right to apply this principle to one pagan country, we do not see what should hinder Rome — unless indeed lack of power — from sending her missionaries to every land where infidelity and heresy prevailed, emptying them of their evil creed and their evil inhabitants together, and re-peopling them anew with a pure race from within her own orthodox pale.

But now the fervor of the crusades had begun sensibly to abate. The result had not responded either to the expectations of the Church that had planned them, or to the masses that had carried them out. The golden crowns of Paradise had been all duly bestowed, doubtless, but of course on those of the crusaders only who had fallen; the survivors had as yet inherited little save wounds, poverty, and disease. The Church, too, began to see that the zeal and blood which were being so freely expended on the shores of Asia might be turned to better account nearer home. The Albigenses and other sects springing up at her door were more dangerous foes of the Papacy than the Saracens of the distant East. For a while the Popes saw with comparative indifference the growth of these religious communities; they dreaded no harm from bodies apparently so insignificant; and even entertained at times the thought of grafting them on their own system as separate orders, or as resuscitating and purifying forces. With the advent of Innocent III., however, came a new policy. He perceived that the principles of these communities were wholly alien in their nature to those of the Papacy, that they never could be made to work in concert with it, and that if left to develop themselves they would most surely effect its overthrow. Accordingly the cloud of exterminating vengeance which rolled in the skies of the world, whithersoever he was pleased to command, was ordered to halt, to return westward, and discharge its chastisement on the South of Europe.

Let us take a glance at the region which this dreadful tempest is about to smite. The France of those days, instead of forming an entire monarchy, was parted into four grand divisions. It is the most southerly of the four, or Narbonne-Gaul, to which our attention is now to be turned. This was an ample and goodly territory, stretching from the Dauphinese Alps on the east to the Pyrenees on the south-west, and comprising the modern provinces of Dauphine, Provence, Languedoc or Gascogne. It was watered throughout by the Rhone, which descended upon it from the north, and it was washed along its southern boundary by the Mediterranean. Occupied by an intelligent population, it had become under their skillful husbandry one vast expanse of corn-land and vineyard, of fruit and forest tree. To the riches of the soil were added the wealth of commerce, in which the inhabitants were tempted to engage by the proximity of the sea and the neighborhood of the Italian republics. Above all, its people were addicted to the pursuits of art and poetry. It was the land of the troubadour. It was further embellished by the numerous castles of a powerful nobility, who spent their time in elegant festivities and gay tournaments.

But better things than poetry and feats of mimic war flourished here. The towns, formed into communes, and placed under municipal institutions, enjoyed no small measure of freedom. The lively and poetic genius of the people had enabled them to form a language of their own — namely, the Provencal. In richness of vocables, softness of cadence, and picturesqueness of idiom, the Provencal excelled all the languages of Europe, and promised to become the universal tongue of Christendom. Best of all, a pure Christianity was developing in the region. It was here, on the banks of the Rhone, that Irenaeus and the other early apostles of Gaul had labored, and the seeds which their hands had deposited in its soil, watered by the blood of martyrs who had fought in the first ranks in the terrible combats of those days, had never wholly perished. Influences of recent birth had helped to quicken these seeds into a second growth. Foremost among these was the translation of the New Testament into the Provencal, the earliest, as we have shown, of all our modern versions of the Scriptures. The barons protected the people in their evangelical sentiments, some because they shared their opinions, others because they found them to be industrious and skillful cultivators of their lands. A cordial welcome awaited the troubadour at their castle-gates; he departed loaded with gifts; and he enjoyed the baron’s protection as he passed on through the cities and villages, concealing, not unfrequently, the colporteur and missionary under the guise of the songster. The hour of a great revolt against Rome appeared to be near. Surrounded by the fostering influences of art, intelligence, and liberty, primitive Christianity was here powerfully developing itself. It seemed verily that the thirteenth and not the sixteenth century would be the date of the Reformation, and that its cradle would be placed not in Germany but in the south of France.

The penetrating and far-seeing eye of Innocent III. saw all this very clearly. Not at the foot of the Alps and the Pyrenees only did he detect a new life: in other countries of Europe, in Italy, in Spain, in Flanders, in Hungary — wherever, in short, dispersion had driven the sectaries, he discovered the same fermentation below the surface, the same incipient revolt against the Papal power. He resolved without loss of time to grapple with and crush the movement. He issued an edict enjoining the extermination of all heretics. Cities would be drowned in blood, kingdoms would be laid waste, art and civilization would perish, and the progress of the world would be rolled back for centuries; but not otherwise could the movement be arrested, and Rome saved.

A long series of persecuting edicts and canons paved the way for these horrible butcheries. The Council of Toulouse, in 1119, presided over by Pope Calixtus II., pronounced a general excommunication upon all who held the sentiments of the Albigenses, cast them out of the Church, delivered them to the sword of the State to be punished, and included in the same condemnation all who should afford them defense or protection. This canon was renewed in the second General Council of Lateran, 1139, under Innocent II. Each succeeding Council strove to excel its predecessor in its sanguinary and pitiless spirit. The Council of Tours, 1163, under Alexander III., stripped the heretics of their goods, forbade, under peril of excommunication, any to relieve them, and left them to perish without succor. The third General Council of Lateran, 1179, under Alexander III., enjoined princes to make war upon them, to take their possessions for a spoil, to reduce their persons to slavery, and to withhold from them Christian burial. The fourth General Council of Lateran bears the stern and comprehensive stamp of the man under whom it was held. The Council commanded princes to take an oath to extirpate heretics from their dominions. Fearing that some, from motives of self-interest, might hesitate to destroy the more industrious of their subjects, the Council sought to quicken their obedience by appealing to their avarice. It made over the heritages of the excommunicated to those who should carry out the sentence pronounced upon them. Still further to stimulate to this pious work, the Council rewarded a service of forty days in it with the same ample indulgences which had aforetime been bestowed on those who served in the distant and dangerous crusades of Syria. If any prince should still hold back, he was himself, after a year’s grace, to be smitten with excommunication, his vassals were to be loosed from their allegiance, and his lands given to whoever had the will or the power to seize them, after having first purged them of heresy. That this work of extirpation might be thoroughly done, the bishops were empowered to make an annual visitation of their dioceses, to institute a very close search for heretics, and to extract an oath from the leading inhabitants that they would report to the ecclesiastics from time to time those among their neighbors and acquaintances who had strayed from the faith. It is hardly necessary to say that it is Innocent III. who speaks in this Council. It was assembled in his palace of the Lateran in 1215; it was one of the most brilliant Councils that ever were convened, being composed of 800 abbots and priors, 400 bishops, besides patriarchs, deputies, and ambassadors from all nations. It was opened by Innocent in person, with a discourse from the words, "With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you."

We cannot pursue farther this series of terrific edicts, which runs on till the end of the century and into the next. Each is like that which went before it, save only that it surpasses it in cruelty and terror. The fearful pillagings and massacrings which instantly followed in the south of France, and which were re-enacted in following centuries in all the countries of Christendom, were but too faithful transcripts, both in spirit and letter, of these ecclesiastical enactments. Meanwhile, we must note that it is out of the chair of the Pope — out of the dogma that the Church is mistress of the conscience — that this river of blood is seen to flow.

Three years was this storm in gathering. Its first heralds were the monks of Citeaux, sent abroad by Innocent III. in 1206 to preach the crusade throughout France and the adjoining kingdoms. There followed St. Dominic and his band, who traveled on foot, two and two, with full powers from the Pope to search out heretics, dispute with them, and set a mark on those who were to be burned when opportunity should offer. In this mission of inquisition we see the first beginnings of a tribunal which came afterwards to bear the terrible name of the "Inquisition." These gave themselves to the work with an ardor which had not been equaled since the times of Peter the Hermit. The fiery orators of the Vatican but too easily succeeded in kindling the fanaticism of the masses. War was at all times the delight of the peoples among whom this mission was discharged; but to engage in this war what dazzling temptations were held out! The foes they were to march against were accursed of God and the Church. To shed their blood was to wash away their own sins — it was to atone for all the vices and crimes of a lifetime. And then to think of the dwellings of the Albigenses, replenished with elegances and stored with wealth, and of their fields blooming with the richest cultivation, all to become the lawful spoil of the crossed invader! But this was only a first installment of a great and brilliant recompense in the future. They had the word of the Pope that at the moment of death they should find the angels prepared to carry them aloft, the gates of Paradise open for their entrance, and the crowns and delights of the upper world waiting their choice. The crusader of the previous century had to buy forgiveness with a great sum: he had to cross the sea, to face the Saracen, to linger out years amid unknown toils and perils, and to return — if he should ever return — with broken health and ruined fortune. But now a campaign of forty days in one’s own country, involving no hardship and very little risk, was all that was demanded for one’s eternal salvation. Never before had Paradise been so cheap! The preparations for this war of extermination went on throughout the years 1207 and 1208. Like the mutterings of the distant thunder or the hoarse roar of ocean when the tempest is rising, the dreadful sounds filled Europe, and their echoes reached the doomed provinces, where they were heard with terror. In the spring of 1209 these armed fanatics were ready to march, One body had assembled at Lyons. Led by Arnold, Abbot of Citeaux and legate of the Pope, it descended by the valley of the Rhone. A second army gathered in the Agenois under the Archbishop of Bordeaux. A third horde of militant pilgrims marshaled in the north, the subjects of Philip Augustus, and at their head marched the Bishop of Puy. The near neighbors of the Albigenses rose in a body, and swelled this already overgrown host. The chief director of this sacred war was the Papal legate, the Abbot of Citeaux. Its chief military commander was Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester a French nobleman, who had practiced war and learnt cruelty in the crusades of the Holy Land. In putting himself at the head of these crossed and fanatical hordes he was influenced, it is believed, quite as much by a covetous greed of the ample and rich territories of Raymond, Count of Toulouse, as by hatred of the heresy that Raymond was suspected of protecting. The number of crusaders who now put themselves in motion is variously estimated at from 50,000 to 500,000. The former is the reckoning of the Abbot of Vaux Cernay, the Popish chronicler of the war; but his calculation, says Sismondi, does not include "the ignorant and fanatical multitude which followed each preacher armed with scythes and clubs, and promised to themselves that if they were not in a condition to combat the knights of Languedoc, they might, at least, be able to murder the women and children of the heretics."

This overwhelming host precipitated itself upon the estates of Raymond VI., Count of Toulouse. Seeing the storm approach, he was seized with dread, wrote submissive letters to Rome, and offered to accept whatever terms the Papal legate might please to dictate. As the price of his reconciliation, he had to deliver up to the Pope seven of his strongest towns, to appear at the door of the Church, where the dead body of the legate Castelneau, who had been murdered in his dominions, lay, and to be there beaten with rods. Next, a rope was put about his neck, and he was dragged by the legate to the tomb of the friar, in the presence of several bishops and an immense multitude of spectators. After all this, he was obliged to take the cross, and join with those who were seizing and plundering his cities, massacring his subjects, and carrying fire and sword throughout his territories. Stung by these humiliations and calamities, he again changed sides. But his resolution to brave the Papal wrath came too late. He was again smitten with interdict; his possessions were given to Simon de Montfort, and in the end he saw himself reft of all.

Among the princes of the region now visited with this devastating scourge, the next in rank and influence to the Count of Toulouse was the young Raymond Roger, Viscount of Beziers. Every day this horde of murderers drew nearer and nearer to his territories. Submission would only invite destruction. He hastened to put his kingdom into a posture of defense. His vassals were numerous and valiant, their fortified castles covered the face of the country; of his towns, two, Beziers and Carcassonne, were of great size and strength, and he judged that in these circumstances it was not too rash to hope to turn the brunt of the impending tempest. He called round him his armed knights, and told them that his purpose was to fight: many of them were Papists, as he himself was; but he pointed to the character of the hordes that were approaching, who made it their sole business to drown the earth in blood, without much distinction whether it was Catholic or Albigensian blood that they spilled. His knights applauded the resolution of their young and brave liege lord.

The castles were garrisoned and provisioned, the peasantry of the surrounding districts gathered into them, and the cities were provided against a siege. Placing in Beziers a number of valiant knights, and telling the inhabitants that their only hope of safety lay in making a stout defense, Raymond shut himself up in Carcassonne, and waited the approach of the army of crusaders. Onward came the host: before them a smiling country, in their rear a piteous picture of devastation — battered castles, the blackened walls and towers of silent cities, homesteads in ashes, and a desert scathed with fire and stained with blood.

In the middle of July, 1209, the three bodies of crusaders arrived, and sat down under the walls of Beziers. The stoutest heart among its citizens quailed, as they surveyed from the ramparts this host that seemed to cover the face of the earth. "So great was the assemblage," says the old chronicle, "both of tents and pavilions, that it appeared as if all the world was collected there." Astonished but not daunted, the men of Beziers made a rush upon the pilgrims before they should have time to fortify their encampment. It was all in vain The assault was repelled, and the crusaders, mingling with the citizens as they hurried back to the town in broken crowds, entered the gates along with them, and Beziers was in their hands before they had even formed the plan of attack. The knights inquired of the Papal legate, the Abbot of Citeaux, how they might distinguish the Catholics from the heretics. Arnold at once cut the knot which time did not suffice to loose by the following reply, which has since become famous; "Kill all! kill all! The Lord will know His own."

The bloody work now began. The ordinary population of Beziers was some 15,000; at this moment it could not be less than four times its usual number, for being the capital of the province, and a place of great strength, the inhabitants of the country and the open villages had been collected into it. The multitude, when they saw that the city was taken, fled to the churches, and began to toll the bells by way of supplication. This only the sooner drew upon themselves the swords of the assassins. The wretched citizens were slaughtered in a trice. Their dead bodies covered the floor of the church; they were piled in heaps round the altar; their blood flowed in torrents at the door. "Seven thousand dead bodies," says Sismondi, "were counted in the Magdalen alone. When the crusaders had massacred the last living creature in Beziers, and had pillaged the houses of all that they thought worth carrying off, they set fire to the city in every part at once, and reduced it to a vast funeral pile. Not a house remained standing, not one human being alive. Historians differ as to the number of victims. The Abbot of Citoaux, feeling some shame for the butchery which he had ordered, in his letter to Innocent III. reduces it to 15,000; others make it amount to 60,000."

The terrible fate which had overtaken Beziers — in one day converted into a mound of ruins dreary and silent as any on the plain of Chaldaea — told the other towns and villages the destiny that awaited them. The inhabitants, terror-stricken, fled to the woods and caves. Even the strong castles were left tenantless, their defenders deeming it vain to think of opposing so furious and overwhelming a host. Pillaging, burning, and massacring as they had a mind, the crusaders advanced to Carcassonne, where they arrived on the lst of August. The city stood on the right bank of the Aude; its fortifications were strong, its garrison numerous and brave, and the young count, Raymond Roger, was at their head. The assailants advanced to the walls, but met a stout resistance. The defenders poured upon them streams of boiling water and oil, and crushed them with great stones and projectiles. The attack was again and again renewed, but was as often repulsed. Meanwhile the forty days’ service was drawing to an end, and bands of crusaders, having fulfilled their term and earned heaven, were departing to their homes. The Papal legate, seeing the host melting away, judged it perfectly right to call wiles to the aid of his arms. Holding out to Raymond Roger the hope of an honorable capitulation, and swearing to respect his liberty, Arnold induced the viscount, with 300 of his knights, to present himself at his tent. "The latter," says Sismondi, "profoundly penetrated with the maxim of Innocent III., that ‘to keep faith with those that have it not is an offense against the faith,’ caused the young viscount to be arrested, with all the knights who had followed him."

When the garrison saw that their leader had been imprisoned, they resolved, along with the inhabitants, to make their escape overnight by a secret passage known only to themselves — a cavern three leagues in length, extending from Carcassonne to the towers of Cabardes. The crusaders were astonished on the morrow, when not a man could be seen upon the walls; and still more mortified was the Papal legate to find that his prey had escaped him, for his purpose was to make a bonfire of the city, with every man, woman, and child within it. But if this greater revenge was now out of his reach, he did not disdain a smaller one still in his power. He collected a body of some 450 persons, partly fugitives from Carcassonne whom he had captured, and partly the 300 knights who had accompanied the viscount, and of these he burned 400 alive and the remaining 50 he hanged.

CHAPTER 10 ERECTION OF TRIBUNAL OF INQUISITION

The Crusades still continued in the Albigensian Territory — Council of Toulouse, 1229 — Organizes the Inquisition — Condemns the Reading of the Bible in the Vernacular — Gregory IX., 1233, further perfects the Organization of the Inquisition, and commits it to the Dominicans — The Crusades continued under the form of the Inquisition — These Butcheries the deliberate Act of Rome — Revived and Sanctioned by her in our own day — Protestantism of Thirteenth Century Crushed — Not alone — Final Ends.

THE main object of the crusades was now accomplished. The principalities of Raymond VI., Count of Toulouse, and Raymond Roger, Viscount of Beziers, had been "purged" and made over to that faithful son of the Church, Simon de Montfort. The lands of the Count of Foix were likewise overrun, and joined with the neighboring provinces in a common desolation. The Viscount of Narbonne contrived to avoid a visit of the crusaders, but at the price of becoming himself the Grand Inquisitor of his dominions, and purging them with laws even more rigorous than the Church demanded.

The twenty years that followed were devoted to the cruel work of rooting out any seeds of heresy that might possibly yet remain in the soil. Every year a crowd of monks issued from the convents of Citeaux, and, taking possession of the pulpits, preached a new crusade. For the same easy service they offered the same prodigious reward — Paradise — and the consequence was, that every year a new wave of fanatics gathered and rolled toward the devoted provinces. The villages and the woods were searched, and some gleanings, left from the harvests of previous years, were found and made food for the gibbets and stakes that in such dismal array covered the face of the country. The first instigators of these terrible proceedings — Innocent III., Simon de Montfort, the Abbot of Citeaux — soon passed from the scene, but the tragedies they had begun went on. In the lands which the Albigenses — now all but extinct — had once peopled, and which they had so greatly enriched by their industry and adorned by their art, blood never ceased to flow nor the flames to devour their victims. It would be remote from the object of our history to enter here into details, but we must dwell a little on the events of 1229. This year a Council was held at Toulouse, under the Papal legate, the Cardinal of St. Angelo. The foundation of the Inquisition had already been laid. Innocent III. and St. Dominic share between them the merit of this good work. In the year of the fourth Lateran, 1215, St. Dominic received the Pontiff’s commission to judge and deliver to punishment apostate and relapsed and obstinate heretics. This was the Inquisition, though lacking as yet its full organization and equipment. That St. Dominic died before it was completed alters not the question touching his connection with its authorship, though of late a vindication of him has been attempted on this ground, only by shifting the guilt to his Church. The fact remains that St. Dominic accompanied the armies of Simon de Montfort, that he delivered the Albigenses to the secular judge to be put to death — in short, worked the Inquisition so far as it had received shape and form in his day. But the Council of Toulouse still further perfected the organization and developed the working of this terrible tribunal. It erected in every city a council of Inquisitors consisting of one priest and three laymen, whose business it was to search for heretics in towns, houses, cellars, and other lurking-places, as also in caves, woods, and fields, and to denounce them to the bishops, lords, or their bailiffs. Once discovered, a summary but dreadful ordeal conducted them to the stake. The houses of heretics were to be razed to their foundations, and the ground on which they stood condemned and confiscated — for heresy, like the leprosy, polluted the very stones, and timber, and soil. Lords were held responsible for the orthodoxy of their estates, and so far also for those of their neighbors. If remiss in their search, the sharp admonition of the Church soon quickened their diligence. A last will and testament was of no validity unless a priest had been by when it was made. A physician suspected was forbidden to practice. All above the age of fourteen were required on oath to abjure heresy, and to aid in the search for heretics. As a fitting appendage to those tyrannical acts, and a sure and lasting evidence of the real source whence that thing called "heresy," on the extirpation of which they were so intent, was derived, the same Council condemned the reading of the Holy Scriptures. "We prohibit," says the fourteenth canon, "the laics from having the books of the Old and New Testament, unless it be at most that any one wishes to have, from devotion, a psalter, a breviary for the Divine offices, or the hours of the blessed Mary; but we forbid them in the most express manner to have the above books translated into the vulgar tongue." In 1233, Pope Gregory IX. issued a bull, by which he confided the working of the Inquisition to the Dominicans. He appointed his legate, the Bishop of Tournay, to carry out the bull in the way of completing the organization of that tribunal which has since become the terror of Christendom, and which has caused to perish such a prodigious number of human beings. In discharge of his commission, the bishop named two Dominicans in Toulouse, and two in each city of the province, to form the Tribunal of the Faith; and soon, under the warm patronage of Saint Louis (Louis IX.) of France, this court was extended to the whole kingdom. An instruction was at the same time furnished to the Inquisitors, in which the bishop enumerated the errors of the heretics. The document bears undesigned testimony to the Scriptural faith of the men whom the newly-erected court was meant to root out. "In the exposition made by the Bishop of Tournay, of the errors of the Albigenses," says Sismondi, "we find nearly all the principles upon which Luther and Calvin founded the Reformation of the sixteenth century."

Although the crusades, as hitherto waged, were now ended, they continued under the more dreadful form of the Inquisition. We say more dreadful form, for not so terrible was the crusader’s sword as the Inquisitor’s rack, and to die fighting in the open field or on the ramparts of the beleaguered city, was a fate less horrible than to expire amid prolonged and excruciating tortures in the dungeons of the "Holy Office." The tempests of the crusades, however terrible, had yet their intermissions; they burst, passed away, and left a breathing-space between their explosions. Not so the Inquisition. It worked on and on, day and night, century after century, with a regularity that was appalling. With steady march it extended its area, till at last it embraced almost all the countries of Europe, and kept piling up its dead year by year in ever larger and ghastlier heaps. These awful tragedies were the sole and deliberate acts of the Church of Rome. She planned them in solemn council, she enunciated them in dogma and canon, and in executing them she claimed to act as the vicegerent of Heaven, who had power to save or to destroy nations. Never can that Church be in fairer circumstances than she was then for displaying her true genius, and showing what she holds to be her real rights. She was in the noon of her power; she was free from all coercion whether of force or of fear; she could afford to be magnanimous and tolerant were it possible she ever could be so; yet the sword was the only argument she condescended to employ. She blew the trumpet of vengeance, summoned to arms the half of Europe, and crushed the rising forces of reason and religion under an avalanche of savage fanaticism. In our own day all these horrible deeds have been reviewed, ratified, and sanctioned by the same Church that six centuries ago enacted them: first in the Syllabus of 1864, which expressly vindicates the ground on which these crusades were done — namely, that the Church of Rome possesses the supremacy of both powers, the spiritual and the temporal; that she has the right to employ both swords in the extirpation of heresy; that in the exercise of this right in the past she never exceeded by a hair’s breadth her just prerogatives, and that what she has done aforetime she may do in time to come, as often as occasion shall require and opportunity may serve. And, secondly, they have been endorsed over again by the decree of Infallibility, which declares that the Popes who planned, ordered, and by their bishops and monks executed all these crimes, were in these, as in all their other official acts, infallibly guided by inspiration. The plea that it was the thirteenth century when these horrible butcheries were committed, every one sees to be wholly inadmissible. An infallible Church has no need to wait for the coming of the lights of philosophy and science. Her sun is always in the zenith. The thirteenth and the nineteenth century are the same to her, for she is just as infallible in the one as in the other.

So fell, smitten down by this terrible blow, to rise no more in the same age and among the same people, the Protestantism of the thirteenth century. It did not perish alone. All the regenerative forces of a social and intellectual kind which Protestantism even at that early stage had evoked were rooted out along with it. Letters had begun to refine, liberty to emancipate, art to beautify, and commerce to enrich the region, but all were swept away by a vengeful power that was regardless of what it destroyed, provided only it reached its end in the extirpation of Protestantism. How changed the region from what it once was! There the song of the troubadour was heard no more. No more was the gallant knight seen riding forth to display his prowess in the gay tournament; no more were the cheerful voices of the reaper and grape-gatherer heard in the fields. The rich harvests of the region were trodden into the dust, its fruitful vines and flourishing olive-trees were torn up; hamlet and city were swept away; ruins, blood, and ashes covered the face of this now "purified" land.

But Rome was not able, with all her violence, to arrest the movement of the human mind. So far as it was religious, she but scattered the sparks to break out on a wider area at a future day; and so far as it was intellectual, she but forced it into another channel. Instead of Albigensianism, Scholasticism now arose in France, which, after flourishing for some centuries in the schools of Paris, passed into the Skeptical Philosophy, and that again, in our day, into Atheistic Communism. It will be curious if in the future the progeny should cross the path of the parent.

It turned out that this enforced halt of three centuries, after all, resulted only in the goal being more quickly reached. While the movement paused, instrumentalities of prodigious power, unknown to that age, were being prepared to give quicker transmission and wider diffusion to the Divine principle when next it should show itself. And, further, a more robust and capable stock than the Romanesque — namely, the Teutonic — was silently growing up, destined to receive the heavenly graft, and to shoot forth on every side larger boughs, to cover Christendom with their shadow and solace it with their fruits.

CHAPTER 11 PROTESTANTS BEFORE PROTESTANTISM

Berengarius— The First Opponent of Transubstantiation — Numerous Councils Condemn him — His Recantation — The Martyrs of Orleans — Their Confession — Their Condemnation and Martyrdom — Peter de Bruys and the Petrobrusians — Henri — Effects of his Eloquence — St. Bernard sent to Oppose him — Henri Apprehended — His Fate unknown — Arnold of Brescia — Birth and Education — His Picture of his Times — His Scheme of Reform — Inveighs against the Wealth of the Hierarchy — His Popularity — Condemned by Innocent II. and Banished from Italy — Returns on the Pope’s Death — Labors Ten Years in Rome — Demands the Separation of the Temporal and Spiritual Authority — Adrian IV. — He Suppresses the Movement — Arnold is Burned

IN pursuing to an end the history of the Albigensian crusades, we have been carried somewhat beyond the point of time at which we had arrived. We now return. A succession of lights which shine out at intervals amid the darkness of the ages guides our eye onward. In the middle of the eleventh century appears Berengarius of Tours in France. He is the first public opponent of transubstantiation. A century had now passed since the monk, Paschasius Radbertus, had hatched that astounding dogma. In an age of knowledge such a tenet would have subjected its author to the suspicion of lunacy, but in times of darkness like those in which this opinion first issued from the convent of Corbei, the more mysterious the doctrine the more likely was it to find believers. The words of Scripture, "this is my body," torn from their context and held up before the eyes of ignorant men, seemed to give some countenance to the tenet. Besides, it was the interest of the priesthood to believe it, and to make others believe it too; for the gift of working a prodigy like this invested them with a superhuman power, and gave them immense reverence in the eyes of the people. The battle that Berengarius now opened enables us to judge of the wide extent which the belief in transubstantiation had already acquired. Everywhere in France, in Germany, in Italy, we find a commotion arising on the appearance of its opponent. We see bishops bestirring themselves to oppose his "impious and sacrilegious" heresy, and numerous Councils convoked to condemn it. The Council of Vercelli in 1049, under Leo IX., which was attended by many foreign prelates, condemned it, and in doing so condemned also, as Berengarius maintained, the doctrine of Ambrose, of Augustine, and of Jerome. There followed a succession of Councils: at Paris, 1050; at Tours, 1055; at Rome, 1059; at Rouen, 1063; at Poitiers, 1075; and again at Rome, 1078: at all of which the opinions of Berengarius were discussed and condemned. This shows us how eager Rome was to establish the fiction of Paschasius, and the alarm she felt lest the adherents of Berengarius should multiply, and her dogma be extinguished before it had time to establish itself. Twice did Berengarius appear before the famous Hildebrand: first in the Council of Tours, where Hildebrand filled the post of Papal legate, and secondly at the Council of Rome, where he presided as Gregory VII.

The piety of Berengarius was admitted, his eloquence was great, but his courage was not equal to his genius and convictions. When brought face to face with the stake he shrank from the fire. A second and a third time did he recant his opinions; he even sealed his recantation, according to Dupin, with his subscription and oath. But no sooner was he back again in France than he began publishing his old opinions anew. Numbers in all the countries of Christendom, who had not accepted the fiction of Paschasius, broke silence, emboldened by the stand made by Berengarius, and declared themselves of the same sentiments. Matthew of Westminster (1087) says, "that Berengarius of Tours, being fallen into heresy, had already almost corrupted all the French, Italians, and English." His great opponent was Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, who attacked him not on the head of transubstantiation only, but as guilty of all the heresies of the Waldenses, and as maintaining with them that the Church remained with them alone, and that Rome was "the congregation of the wicked, and the seat of Satan." Berengarius died in his bed (1088), expressing deep sorrow for the weakness and dissimulation which had tarnished his testimony for the truth. "His followers," says Mosheim, "were numerous, as his fame was illustrious."

We come to a nobler band. At Orleans there flourished, in the beginning of the eleventh century, two canons, Stephen and Lesoie, distinguished by their rank, revered for their learning, and beloved for their numerous alms-givings. Taught of the Spirit and the Word, these men cherished in secret the faith of the first ages. They were betrayed by a feigned disciple named Arefaste. Craving to be instructed in the things of God, he seemed to listen not with the ear only, but with the heart also, as the two canons discoursed to him of the corruption of human nature and the renewal of the Spirit, of the vanity of praying to the saints, and the folly of thinking to find salvation in baptism, or the literal flesh of Christ in the Eucharist. His earnestness seemed to become yet greater when they promised him that if, forsaking these "broken cisterns," he would come to the Savior himself, he should have living water to drink, and celestial bread to eat, and, filled with "the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," would never know want again. Arefaste heard these things, and returned with his report to those who had sent him. A Council of the bishops of Orleans was immediately summoned, presided over by King Robert of France. The two canons were brought before it. The pretended disciple now became the accuser. The canons confessed boldly the truth which they had long held; the arguments and threats of the Council were alike powerless to change their belief, or to shake their resolution. "As to the burning threatened," says one, "they made light of it even as if persuaded that they would come out of it unhurt." Wearied, it would seem, with the futile reasonings of their enemies, and desirous of bringing the matter to an issue, they gave their final answer thus — "You may say these things to those whose taste is earthly, and who believe the figments of men written on parchment. But to us who have the law written on the inner man by the Holy Spirit, and savor nothing but what we learn from God, the Creator of all, ye speak things vain and unworthy of the Deity. Put therefore an end to your words! Do with us even as you wish. Even now we see our King reigning in the heavenly places, who with His right hand is conducting us to immortal triumphs and heavenly joys."

They were condemned as Manicheans. Had they been so indeed, Rome would have visited them with contempt, not with persecution. She was too wise to pursue with fire and sword a thing so shadowy as Manicheism, which she knew could do her no manner of harm. The power that confronted her in these two canons and their disciples came from another sphere, hence the rage with which she assailed it. These two martyrs were not alone in their death. Of the citizens of Orleans there were ten, some say twelve, who shared their faith, and who were willing to share their stake. They were first stripped of their clerical vestments, then buffeted like their Master, then smitten with rods; the queen, who was present, setting the example in these acts of violence by striking one of them, and putting out his eye. Finally, they were led outside the city, where a great fire had been kindled to consume them. They entered the flames with a smile upon their faces. Together this little company of fourteen stood at the stake, and when the fire had set them free, together they mounted into the sky; and if they smiled when they entered the flames, how much more when they passed in at the eternal gates! They were burned in the year 1022. So far as the light of history serves us, theirs were the first stakes planted in France since the era of primitive persecutions. Illustrious pioneers! They go, but they leave their ineffaceable traces on the road, that the hundreds and thousands of their countrymen who are to follow may not faint, when called to pass through the same torments to the same everlasting joys.

We next mention Peter de Bruys, who appeared in the following century (the twelfth), because it enables us to indicate the rise of, and explain the name borne by, the Petrobrussians. Their founder, who labored in the provinces of Dauphine, Provence, and Languedoc, taught no novelties of doctrine; he trod, touching the faith, in the steps of apostolic men, even as Felix Neff, five centuries later, followed in his. After twenty years of missionary labors, Peter de Bruys was seized and burned to death (1126) in the town of St. Giles, near Toulouse. The leading tenets professed by his followers, the Petrobrussians, as we learn from the accusations of their enemies, were — that baptism avails not without faith; that Christ is only spiritually present in the Sacrament; that prayers and alms profit not dead men; that purgatory is a mere invention; and that the Church is not made up of cemented stones, but of believing men. This identifies them, in their religious creed, with the Waldenses; and if further evidence were wanted of this, we have it in the treatise which Peter de Clugny published against them, in which he accuses them of having fallen into those errors which have shown such an inveterate tendency to spring up amid the perpetual snows and icy torrents of the Alps.

When Peter de Bruys had finished his course he was succeeded by a preacher of the name of Henri, an Italian by birth, who also gave his name to his followers — the Henricians. Henri, who enjoyed a high repute for sanctity, wielded a most commanding eloquence. The enchantment of his voice was enough, said his enemies, a little envious, to melt the very stones. It performed what may perhaps be accounted a still greater feat; it brought, according to an eye-witness, the very priests to his feet, dissolved in tears. Beginning at Lausanne, Henri traversed the south of France, the entire population gathering round him wherever he came, and listening to his sermons. "His orations were powerful but noxious," said his foes, "as if a whole legion of demons had been speaking through his mouth." St. Bernard was sent to check the spiritual pestilence that was desolating the region, and he arrived not a moment too soon, if we may judge from his picture of the state of things which he found there. The orator was carrying all before him; nor need we wonder if, as his enemies alleged, a legion of preachers spoke in this one. The churches were emptied, the priests were without flocks, and the time-honored and edifying customs of pilgrimages, of fasts, of invocations of the saints, and oblations for the dead were all neglected. "How many disorders," says St. Bernard, writing to the Count of Toulouse, "do we every day hear that Henri commits in the Church of God! That ravenous wolf is within your dominions, clothed with a sheep’s skin, but we know him by his works. The churches are like synagogues, the sanctuary despoiled of its holiness, the Sacraments looked upon as profane institutions, the feast days have lost their solemnity, men grow up in sin, and every day souls are borne away before the terrible tribunal of Christ without first being reconciled to and fortified by the Holy Communion. In refusing Christians baptism they are denied the life of Jesus Christ."

Such was the condition in which, as he himself records in his letters, St. Bernard found the populations in the south of France. He set to work, stemmed the tide of apostasy, and brought back the wanderers from the Roman fold; but whether this result was solely owing to the eloquence of his sermons may be fairly questioned, for we find the civil arm operating along with him. Henri was seized, carried before Pope Eugenius III., who presided at a Council then assembled at Rheims, condemned and imprisoned. From that time we hear no more of him, and his fate can only be guessed at.

It pleased God to raise up, in the middle of the twelfth century, a yet more famous champion to do battle for the truth. This was Arnold of Brescia, whose stormy but brilliant career we must briefly sketch. His scheme of reform was bolder and more comprehensive than that of any who had preceded him. His pioneers had called for a purification of the faith of the Church, Arnold demanded a rectification of her constitution. He was a simple reader in the Church of his native town, and possessed no advantages of birth; but, fired with the love of learning, he traveled into France that he might sit at the feet of Abelard, whose fame was then filling Christendom. Admitted a pupil of the great scholastic, he drank in the wisdom he imparted without imbibing along with it his mysticism. The scholar in some respects was greater than the master, and was destined to leave traces more lasting behind him. In subtlety of genius and scholastic lore he made no pretensions to rival Abelard; but in a burning eloquence, in practical piety, in resoluteness, and in entire devotion to the great cause of the emancipation of his fellow-men from a tyranny that was oppressing both their minds and bodies, he far excelled him.

From the school of Abelard, Arnold returned to Italy — not, as one might have feared, a mystic, to spend his life in scholastic hair-splittings and wordy conflicts, but to wage an arduous and hazardous war for great and much-needed reforms. One cannot but wish that the times had been more propitious. A frightful confusion he saw had mingled in one anomalous system the spiritual and the temporal. The clergy, from their head downwards, were engrossed in secularities. They filled the offices of State, they presided in the cabinets of princes, they led armies, they imposed taxes, they owned lordly domains, they were attended by sumptuous retinues, and they sat at luxurious tables. Here, said Arnold, is the source of a thousand evils — the Church is drowned in riches; from this immense wealth flow the corruption, the profligacy, the ignorance, the wickedness, the intrigues, the wars and bloodshed which have overwhelmed Church and State, and are ruining the world.

A century earlier, Cardinal Damiani had congratulated the clergy of primitive tunes on the simple lives which they led, contrasting their happier lot with that of the prelates of those latter ages, who had to endure dignities which would have been but little to the taste of their first predecessors. "What would the bishops of old have done," he asked, concurring by anticipation in the censure of the eloquent Breseian, "had they to endure the torments that now attend the episcopate? To ride forth constantly attended by troops of soldiers, with swords and lances; to be girt about by armed men like a heathen general! Not amid the gentle music of hymns, but the din and clash of arms! Every day royal banquets, every day parade! The table loaded with delicacies, not for the poor, but for voluptuous guests! while the poor, to whom the property of light belongs, are shut out, and pine away with famine."

Arnold based his scheme of reform on a great principle. The Church of Christ, said he, is not of this world. This shows us that he had sat at the feet of a greater than Abelard, and had drawn his knowledge from diviner fountains than those of the scholastic philosophy. The Church of Christ is not of this world; therefore, said Arnold, its ministers ought not to fill temporal offices, and discharge temporal employments. Let these be left to the men whose duty it is to see to them, even kings and statesmen. Nor do the ministers of Christ need, in order to the discharge of their spiritual functions, the enormous revenues which are continually flowing into their coffers. Let all this wealth, those lands, palaces, and hoards, be surrendered to the rulers of the State, and let the ministers of religion henceforward be maintained by the frugal yet competent provision of the tithes, and the voluntary offerings of their flocks. Set free from occupations which consume their time, degrade their office, and corrupt their heart, the clergy will lead their flocks to the pastures of the Gospel, and knowledge and piety will again revisit the earth.

Attired in his monk’s cloak, his countenance stamped with courage, but already wearing traces of care, Arnold took his stand in the streets of his native Brescia, and began to thunder forth his scheme of reform. His townsmen gathered round him. For spiritual Christianity the men of that age had little value, still Arnold had touched a chord in their hearts, to which they were able to respond. The pomp, profligacy, and power of Churchmen had scandalized all classes, and made a reformation so far welcome, even to those who were not prepared to sympathize in the more exclusively spiritual views of the Waldenses and Albigenses. The suddenness and boldness of the assault seem to have stunned the ecclesiastical authorities; and it was not till the Bishop of Brescia found his entire flock, deserting the cathedral, and assembling daily in the marketplace, crowding round the eloquent preacher and listening with applause to his fierce philippics, that he bestirred himself to silence the courageous monk.

Arnold kept his course, however, and continued to launch his bolts, not against his diocesan, for to strike at one miter was not worth his while, but against that lordly hierarchy which, finding its center on the Seven Hills, had stretched its circumference to the extremities of Christendom. He demanded nothing less than that this hierarchy, which had crowned itself with temporal dignities, and which sustained itself by temporal arms, should retrace its steps, and become the lowly and purely spiritual institute it had been in the first century. It was not very likely to do so at the bidding of one man, however eloquent, but Arnold hoped to rouse the populations of Italy, and to bring such a pressure to bear upon the Vatican as would compel the chiefs of the Church to institute this most necessary and most just reform. Nor was he without the countenance of some persons of consequence. Maifredus, the Consul of Brescia, at the first supported his movement.

The bishop, deeming it hopeless to contend against Arnold on the spot, in the midst of his numerous followers, complained of him to the Pope. Innocent II. convoked a General Council in the Vatican, and summoned Arnold to Rome. The summons was obeyed. The crime of the monk was of all others the most heinous in the eyes of the hierarchy. He had attacked the authority, riches, and pleasures of the priesthood; but other pretexts must be found on which to condemn him. "Besides this, it was said of him that he was unsound in his judgment about the Sacrament of the altar and infant baptism." "We find that St. Bernard sending to Pope Innocent II. a catalogue of the errors of Abelardus," whose scholar Arnold had been, "accuseth him of teaching, concerning the Eucharist, that the accidents existed in the air, but not without a subject; and that when a rat doth eat the Sacrament, God withdraweth whither He pleaseth, and preserves where He pleases the body of Jesus Christ." The sum of this is that Arnold rejected transubstantiation, and did not believe in baptismal regeneration; and on these grounds the Council found it convenient to rest their sentence, condemning him to perpetual silence.

Arnold now retired from Italy, and, passing the Alps, "he settled himself," Otho tells us, "in a place of Germany called Turego, or Zurich, belonging to the diocese of Constance, where he continued to disseminate his doctrine," the seeds of which, it may be presumed, continued to vegetate until the times of Zwingle.

Hearing that Innocent II. was dead, Arnold returned to Rome in the beginning of the Pontificate of Eugenius III. (1144-45). One feels surprise, bordering on astonishment, to see a man with the condemnation of a Pope and Council resting on his head, deliberately marching in at the gates of Rome, and throwing down the gage of battle to the Vatican — "the desperate measure," as Gibbon calls it, "of erecting his standard in Rome itself, in the face of the successor of St. Peter." But the action was not so desperate as it looks. The Italy of those days was perhaps the least Papal of all the countries of Europe. "The Italians," says M’Crie, "could not, indeed, be said to feel at this period" (the fifteenth century, but the remark is equally applicable to the twelfth) "a superstitious devotion to the See of Rome. This did not originally form a discriminating feature of their national character; it was superinduced, and the formation of it can be distinctly traced to causes which produced their full effect subsequently to the era of the Reformation. The republics of Italy in the Middle Ages gave many proofs of religious independence, and singly braved the menaces and excommunications of the Vatican at a time when all Europe trembled at the sound of its thunder." In truth, nowhere were sedition and tumult more common than at the gates of the Vatican; in no city did rebellion so often break out as in Rome, and no rulers were so frequently chased ignominiously from their capital as the Popes.

Arnold, in fact, found Rome on entering it in revolt. He strove to direct the agitation into a wholesome channel. He essayed, if it were possible, to revive from its ashes the flame of ancient liberty, and to restore, by cleansing it from its many corruptions, the bright form of primitive Christianity. With an eloquence worthy of the times he spoke of, he dwelt on the achievements of the heroes and patriots of classic ages, the sufferings of the first Christian martyrs, and the humble and holy lives of the first Christian bishops. Might it not be possible to bring back those glorious times? He called on the Romans to arise and unite with him in an attempt to do so. Let us drive out the buyers and sellers who have entered the Temple, let us separate between the spiritual and the temporal jurisdiction, let us give to the Pope the things of the Pope, the government of the Church even, and let us give to the emperor the things of the emperor — namely, the government of the State; let us relieve the clergy from the wealth that burdens them, and the dignities that disfigure them, and with the simplicity and virtue of former times will return the lofty characters and the heroic deeds that gave to those times their renown. Rome will become once more the capital of the world. "He propounded to the multitude," says Bishop Otho, "the examples of the ancient Romans, who by the maturity of their senators’ counsels, and the valor and integrity of their youth, made the whole world their own. Wherefore he persuaded them to rebuild the Capitol, to restore the dignity of the senate, to reform the order of knights. He maintained that nothing of the government of the city did belong to the Pope, who ought to content himself only with his ecclesiastical." Thus did the monk of Brescia raise the cry for separation of the spiritual from the temporal at the very foot of the Vatican.

For about ten years (1145-55) Arnold continued to prosecute his mission in Rome. The city all that time may be said to have been in a state of insurrection. The Pontifical chair was repeatedly emptied. The Popes of that era were short-lived; their reigns were full of tumult, and their lives of care. Seldom did they reside at Rome; more frequently they lived at Viterbo, or retired to a foreign country; and when they did venture within the walls of their capital, they entrusted the safety of their persons rather to the gates and bars of their stronghold of St. Angelo than to the loyalty of their subjects. The influence of Arnold meanwhile was great, his party numerous, and had there been virtue enough among the Romans they might during these ten favorable years, when Rome was, so to speak, in their hands, have founded a movement which would have had important results for the cause of liberty and the Gospel. But Arnold strove in vain to recall a spirit that was fled for centuries. Rome was a sepulcher. Her citizens could be stirred into tumult, not awakened into life.

The opportunity passed. And then came Adrian IV., Nicholas Breakspear, the only Englishman who ever ascended the throne of the Vatican. Adrian addressed himself with rigor to quell the tempests which for ten years had warred around the Papal chair. He smote the Romans with interdict. They were vanquished by the ghostly terror. They banished Arnold, and the portals of the churches, to them the gates of heaven, were re-opened to the penitent citizens. But the exile of Arnold did not suffice to appease the anger of Adrian. The Pontiff bargained with Frederic Barbarossa, who was then soliciting from the Pope coronation as emperor, that the monk should be given up. Arnold was seized, sent to Rome under a strong escort, and burned alive. We are able to infer that his followers in Rome were numerous to the last, from the reason given for the order to throw his ashes into the Tiber, "to prevent the foolish rabble from expressing any veneration for his body.&quot

Arnold had been burned to ashes, but the movement he had inaugurated was not extinguished by his martyrdom. The men of his times had condemned his cause; it was destined, nevertheless, seven centuries afterwards, to receive the favorable and all but unanimous verdict of Europe. Every succeeding Reformer and patriot took up his cry for a separation between the spiritual and temporal, seeing in the union of the two in the Roman princedom one cause of the corruption and tyranny which afflicted both Church and State. Wicliffe made this demand in the fourteenth century; Savonarola in the fifteenth; and the Reformers in the sixteenth. Political men in the following centuries reiterated and proclaimed, with ever-growing emphasis, the doctrine of Arnold. At last, on the 20th of September, 1870, it obtained its crowning victory. On that day the Italians entered Rome, the temporal sovereignty of the Pope came to an end, the scepter was disjoined from the miter, and the movement celebrated its triumph on the same spot where its first champion had been burned.

CHAPTER 12 ABELARD, AND RISE OF MODERN SKEPTICISM

Number and Variety of Sects — One Faith — Who gave us the Bible? — Abelard of Paris — His Fame — Father of Modern Skepticism — The Parting of the Ways — Since Abelard three currents in Christendom — The Evangelical, the Ultramontane, the Skeptical.

ONE is apt, from a cursory survey of the Christendom of those days, to conceive it as speckled with an almost endless variety of opinions and doctrines, and dotted all over with numerous and diverse religious sects. We read of the Waldenses on the south of the Alps, and the Albigenses on the north of these mountains. We are told of the Petrobrussians appearing in this year, and the Henricians rising in that. We see a company of Manicheans burned in one city, and a body of Paulicians martyred in another. We find the Peterini planting themselves in this province, and the Cathari spreading themselves over that other. We figure to ourselves as many conflicting creeds as there are rival standards; and we are on the point, perhaps, of bewailing this supposed diversity of opinion as a consequence of breaking loose from the "center of unity" in Rome. Some even of our religious historians seem haunted by the idea that each one of these many bodies is representative of a different dogma, and that dogma an error. The impression is a natural one, we own, but it is entirely erroneous. In this diversity there was a grand unity. It was substantially the same creed that was professed by all these bodies. They were all agreed in drawing their theology from the same Divine fountain. The Bible was their one infallible rule and authority. Its cardinal doctrines they embodied in their creed and exemplified in their lives.

Individuals doubtless there were among them of erroneous belief and of immoral character. It is of the general body that we speak. That body, though dispersed over many kingdoms, and known by various names, found a common center in the "one Lord," and a common bond in the "one faith" Through one Mediator did they all offer their worship, and on one foundation did they all rest for forgiveness and the life eternal. They were in short the Church — the one Church doing over again what she did in the first ages. Overwhelmed by a second irruption of Paganism, reinforced by a flood of Gothic superstitions, she was essaying to lay her foundations anew in the truth, and to build herself up by the enlightening and renewing of souls, and to give to herself outward visibility and form by her ordinances, institutions, and assemblies, that as a universal spiritual empire she might subjugate all nations to the obedience of the evangelical law and the practice of evangelical virtue.

It is idle for Rome to say, "I gave you the Bible, and therefore you must believe in me before you can believe in it." The facts we have already narrated conclusively dispose of this claim. Rome did not give us the Bible — she did all in her power to keep it from us; she retained it under the seal of a dead language; and when others broke that seal, and threw open its pages to all, she stood over the book, and, unsheathing her fiery sword, would permit none to read the message of life, save at the peril of eternal anathema.

We owe the Bible — that is, the transmission of it — to those persecuted communities which we have so rapidly passed in review. They received it from the primitive Church, and carried it down to us. They translated it into the mother tongues of the nations. They colported it over Christendom, singing it in their lays as troubadours, preaching it in their sermons as missionaries, and living it out as Christians. They fought the battle of the Word of God against tradition, which sought to bury it. They sealed their testimony for it at the stake. But for them, so far as human agency is concerned, the Bible would, ere this day, have disappeared from the world. Their care to keep this torch burning is one of the marks which indubitably certify them as forming part of that one true Catholic Church, which God called into existence at first by His word, and which, by the same instrumentality, He has, in the conversion of souls, perpetuated from age to age.

But although under great variety of names there is found substantial identity of doctrine among these numerous bodies, it is clear that a host of new, contradictory, and most heterogeneous opinions began to spring up in the age we speak of. The opponents of the Albigenses and the Waldenses — more especially Alanus, in his little book against heretics; and Reynerius, the opponent of the Waldenses — have massed together all these discordant sentiments, and charged them upon the evangelical communities. Their controversial tractates, in which they enumerate and confute the errors of the sectaries, have this value even, that they present a picture of their times, and show us the mental fermentation that began to characterize the age. But are we to infer that the Albigenses and their allies held all the opinions which their enemies impute to them? that they at one and the same time believed that God did and did not exist; that the world had been created, and yet that it had existed from eternity; that an atonement had been made for the sin of man by Christ, and yet that the cross was a fable; that the joys of Paradise were reserved for the righteous, and yet that there was neither soul nor spirit, hell nor heaven? No. This were to impute to them an impossible creed. Did these philosophical and skeptical opinions, then, exist only in the imaginations of their accusers? No. What manifestly we are to infer is that outside the Albigensian and evangelical pale there was a large growth of sceptical and atheistical sentiment, more or less developed, and that the superstition and tyranny of the Church of Rome had even then, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, impelled the rising intellect of Christendom into a channel dangerous at once to her own power and to the existence of Christianity. Her champions, partly from lack of discrimination, partly from a desire to paint in odious colors those whom they denominated heretics, mingled in one the doctrines drawn from Scripture and the speculations and impieties of an infidel philosophy, and, compounding them into one creed, laid the monstrous thing at the door of the Albigenses, just as in our own day we have seen Popes and Popish writers include in the same category, and confound in the same condemnation, the professors of Protestantism and the disciples of Pantheism.

From the twelfth century and the times of Peter Abelard, we can discover three currents of thought in Christendom. Peter Abelard was the first and in some respects the greatest of modern skeptics. He was the first person in Christendom to attack publicly the doctrine of the Church of Rome from the side of free-thinking. His Skepticism was not the avowed and fully-formed infidelity of later times: he but sowed the seeds; he but started the mind of Europe — then just beginning to awake — on the path of doubt and of philosophic Skepticism, leaving the movement to gather way in the following ages. But that he did sow the seeds which future laborers took pains to cultivate, cannot be doubted by those who weigh carefully his teachings on the head of the Trinity, of the person of Christ, of the power of the human will, of the doctrine of sin, and other subjects. And these seeds he sowed widely. He was a man of vast erudition, keen wit, and elegant rhetoric, and the novelty of his views and the fame of his genius attracted crowds of students from all countries to his lectures. Dazzled by the eloquence of their teacher, and completely captivated by the originality and subtlety of his daring genius, these scholars carried back to their homes the views of Abelard, and diffused them, from England on the one side to Sicily on the other. Had Rome possessed the infallibility she boasts, she would have foreseen to what this would grow, and provided an effectual remedy before the movement had gone beyond control.

She did indeed divine, to some extent, the true character of the principles which the renowned but unfortunate teacher was so freely scattering on the opening mind of Christendom. She assembled a Council, and condemned them as erroneous. But Abelard went on as before, the laurel round his brow, the thorn at his breast, propounding to yet greater crowds of scholars his peculiar opinions and doctrines. Rome has always been more lenient to sceptical than to evangelical views. And thus, whilst she burned Arnold, she permitted Abelard to die a monk and canon in her communion.

But here, in the twelfth century, at the chair of Abelard, we stand at the parting of the ways. From this time we find three great parties and three great schools of thought in Europe. First, there is the Protestant, in which we behold the Divine principle struggling to disentangle itself from Pagan and Gothic corruptions. Secondly, there is the Superstitious, which had now come to make all doctrine to consist in a belief of "the Church’s" inspiration, and all duty in an obedience to her authority. And thirdly, there is the Intellectual, which was just the reason of man endeavoring to shake off the trammels of Roman authority, and go forth and expatiate in the fields of free inquiry. It did right to assert this freedom, but, unhappily, it altogether ignored the existence of the spiritual faculty in man, by which the things of the spiritual world are to be apprehended, and by which the intellect itself has often to be controlled. Nevertheless, this movement, of which Peter Abelard was the pioneer, went on deepening and widening its current century after century, till at last it grew to be strong enough to change the face of kingdoms, and to threaten the existence not only of the Roman Church, but of Christianity itself.

This article is from chapter 24 of “Out of the Labyrinth: The Conversion of a Roman Catholic Priest” by former Roman Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann, first published in 1947 and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org.

WHEN ROMAN CATHOLICS say to me they cannot believe that they can be saved completely and without the ministrations of their priests, I think back to the time when I too, as a priest, could not believe it. Like Martin Luther struggling to find the light, I thought of God’s righteousness as a punitive righteousness. And like Luther I wondered in despair how God could expect me to become righteous, and make others righteous, by the works of my own hands.

Luther’s discovery of the correct interpretation of the 17th verse of the first chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, touched off the spark that set the Protestant Reformation going. He read there about “The Gospel of Christ . .. for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith.”

No conversion of priest or layman from Roman Catholicism is complete without full acceptance of the fact here set forth, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ reveals that through faith in Jesus Christ man is actually invested with the very righteousness of God.

Like all other priests who have been converted to the Gospel teaching, Luther had believed, as he was taught in Roman Catholic theology, that this righteousness was solely an attribute of God which man could never attain, and which God held like a big stick over his head. For this reason he accepted the Gospel as a system of modified law under which salvation had to be earned by good works.

Two other Scripture passages clearly confirm Luther’s discovery. The first is Romans 3:21: “But now, without the law, the righteousness of God is manifested… righteousness by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe.” And again, in Phil. 3:9: “Not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God through faith.

Now, it is obvious that this “righteousness of faith” must mean that justifying righteousness with which we are invested by God through faith. It cannot mean the attribute of righteousness in God himself, which is an abstract thing, and which obviously is not possessed by God from faith or anything else, since it is inherent in Him by His divine nature. It comes to us instrumentally from faith, however, not from works. Paul describes it in the Greek as springing out of or from faith — ek pisteos. It is put onus by God, and is in every sense His work and gift.

Roman Catholics cannot understand how this is possible, because they are never taught to believe that salvation and justification can come to them in any other way except it is earned by conforming to the laws of the Church. This is the old pagan Roman principle that salvation must be earned piecemeal, the same as a salary or reward for proportionate work done by slaves for a master.

What the Pope Refuses to Believe

It must be remembered that the apostle Paul wrote this epistle about this new teaching of the Gospel to Romans in Rome itself. They knew of the pre-Christian religious principle of having to earn one’s salvation by works. If what Paul told them was in no way different from what they knew and saw around them, why should he want to explain it at all? His object was to show the Romans by contrast how much the Gospel teaching differed from the Roman principle of being justified by obedience to external law.

It is also necessary to explain further to Roman Catholics, as Paul did to the Romans of his day, that the actual act of faith, from which the righteousness of God comes, is not in itself anything that is meritorious, any more than other human acts are. A rope cast into the water is the instrument by which a drowning person who grasps it is saved. Faith is similar to the act of the hand that grasps the proffered aid. Paul brings this out farther on, in the fourth chapter of this epistle to the Romans, where he expressly contrasts faith with works of righteousness: “To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted FOR righteousnesss.” Far from faith being the meritorious root of righteousness, he makes it clear that, on the contrary, it is merely imputed for righteousness.

In other words, it has pleased God to attribute a value to faith which intrinsically it has not in itself. It is in a sense similar to what the Government does when it makes a piece of paper into a $ 100-bill by its official stamp of authority. The piece of paper thus obtains a conventional value which intrinsically it has not.

It is strange, tragic in fact, that the apostle Paul explained all this clearly for the Christian Church in Rome, and yet the Roman Church today refuses to accept it or teach it to the millions of people under its dominion throughout the world. Instead, it holds on to the opposite teaching of salvation by works as it existed in Rome before the Gospel was preached there by Paul. By so doing, it completely rejects the very pith and center of the whole Gospel message of “righteousness derived from faith” (dikaiosune ek pisteos), as Paul puts it, and thus robs its people of the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ, which is “the power of God unto salvation” and their spiritual birthright.

This article is from chapter 15 of “Out of the Labyrinth: The Conversion of a Roman Catholic Priest” by former Roman Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann, first published in 1947 and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org.

In this article you my learn something surprising like I did. A Catholic priest defines the word “celibacy” to only mean he cannot get legally married.

Quoted from the article:

At ordination these secular priests merely signify that they accept the Church’s condition for ordination that they will not get legally married. They take no vow of chastity, that is, they make no explicit promise to refrain from sexual relations.

ONLY THOSE PRIESTS who leave the ranks of the Roman priesthood are free to speak their minds about celibacy. Many even then hesitate to do so, for fear of scandalizing those they left behind them. But some, such as Father Chiniquy, Père Hyacinthe and others, considered it a duty to prove how harmful to the cause of Christ has been this false position into which Roman Catholic priests are forced with regard to sex and marriage. In the first place it is unscriptural, for the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 4:3) warns against those who depart from the faith and give heed to “doctrines of devils,” by “forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats.” And in the preceding chapter he tells Timothy that even “a bishop must be a man of one wife.”

Père Hyacinthe, French priest and famed preacher of Notre Dame in Paris, after his conversion compared the wounds inflicted upon the Christian Church by the Roman papacy to the wounds in the crucified body of Christ. “Behold ye bishops,” he exclaimed, “the Bride of Christ pierced, like Him, by five wounds!” He likens the first wound in the right hand of Christ, the hand that carries the light of truth, to the darkening of the Word of God — the denial of the Gospel to the people. The wound in the left hand is the abuse of hierarchical power. But he calls the wound in the very heart of Christ’s Church the forced celibacy of the clergy, “suffered most by those (the priests themselves) who dare least to speak of it.”

I am breaking no confidences when I assert that it is sheer pretense to say that this forced celibacy contributes in any way to the personal sanctification of priests. The sole benefit to be had from it is the strengthening of the organizational structure of the Church. Hitler, in his Mein Kampf, was uncannily accurate in figuring out and stressing this. “This particular significance of celibacy,” he says, “is not recognized by most people.” Holding up the organization of the Roman Catholic Church as a model example for his Nazi followers, he goes on to say (p. 643):

“Here the Catholic Church can be looked upon as a model example. In the celibacy of its priests roots the compulsion to draw the future generations of the clergy, instead of from its own ranks, again and again from the broad masses of the people… It is the origin of the incredibly vigorous power that inhabits this age-old institution. This gigantic host of clerical dignitaries, by uninterruptedly supplementing itself from the lowest layers of the nations, preserves not only its instinctive bond with the people’s world of sentiment, but it also assures itself of a sum of energy and active force which in such a form will forever be present only in the broad masses of the people. From this results the astounding youthfulness of this giant organism, its spiritual pliability and its steel-like will power.”

This fulsome praise by Hitler of the unnatural law of priestly celibacy should reveal to Americans how insincere are the pious protestations of deep concern of Catholic spokesmen for the “sacredness of the individual personality.” Hitler, whose Mein Kampf was ghost-written by a Roman Catholic priest, proves that the Catholic Church sacrifices the most natural human instincts of its own clergy to the strengthening of its “giant organism and its steel-like will power.”

The real shame and tyranny of priestly celibacy, as Père Hyacinthe rightly remarks, is the necessity to which its victims are forced of hiding the real facts of it from the public. It is unnecessary for me to say how many priests fail to live up to the harsh requirements of this unnatural law. Priests as a group are little different from other men of like temperament and profession. Their weakness in sex matters is no less than those of other men of corresponding position and education. It may safely be said, in fact, that the sex urge in priests is even stronger because of the denial to them of the cleansing effects of legal marriage. Roman Catholic priests do not have the advantage of active business men, whose sex tendencies are generally normalized by physical absorption in daily labor, unremitting cares of family life and harassing financial affairs.. They lead a very sedentary life, are freely supplied with an exceptionally good table and other bodily comforts, and are officials of a religion which does not prohibit indulgence in the copious use of alcoholic stimulants.

Similar to so many other man-made regulations of the Roman Catholic Church, priestly celibacy entails many contradictions, much deceit, and often leads to complete spiritual shipwreck of its victims. In the first place, there is the convenient confusion between the words celibacy and chastity. To the ordinary people these are made to appear identical, and both Catholics and Protestants are led to believe that every Roman Catholic priest must take “vows of chastity” before ordination. This confusion serves as an easy defense of the organization of the Catholic Church in more ways than one. In particular, it enables the defenders of the Church to cast a slur on priests who leave the priesthood and subsequently get married as having “broken their vows of chastity.” This is pure fiction. Only the very small percentage of priests who belong to the religious orders take an explicit vow of chastity. Of the 40,000 Roman Catholic priests in the United States, fully 80 per cent are ‘secular’ priests who serve in parishes and who do not take any vow of chastity at ordination.

At ordination these secular priests merely signify that they accept the Church’s condition for ordination that they will not get legally married. They take no vow of chastity, that is, they make no explicit promise to refrain from sexual relations. Cadets at West Point and Annapolis are bound by similar regulations. Much more, in fact, is said about chastity by a Protestant Episcopal bishop when ordaining ministers to that Church which permits them to marry as they please, either before or after ordination.

In other words, one can continue to be celibate without necessarily being chaste. A Roman Catholic priest ceases to be celibate in the eyes of his Church only by contracting marriage by permission of the Church. No amount of sexual relations will affect his celibacy. Sometimes it happens that a priest takes the law into his own hands and secretly contracts legal marriage before a Protestant minister or a civil judge. In such a case he would still be counted as celibate by the Catholic Church, since it does not recognize any power in a Protestant minister or a civil judge to join in matrimony those whom it has banned from marriage.

The absurd consequences of the Catholic Church’s law of priestly celibacy may be seen from the regulations governing the pardon of priests who sin by sexual relationship without getting married, compared to those who flout the Church’s law of celibacy and contract legal marriage before a Protestant minister or a civil judge. Pardon for sexual irregularities of priests outside marriage, whether adultery or fornication, can easily be had at any time by confession to any ordinary fellow-priest. On the other hand, absolution (with accompanying severe penalties) for a priest who gets legally married can be obtained for him only by recourse to the pope himself. Furthermore, to obtain such pardon a priest would be obliged to forsake his wife. What is regarded as the real crime in this latter case is not the actual marriage act, but the defiance of the law of celibacy.

Most dishonest of all is the use of the law of celibacy against priests who resign from the priesthood and subsequently get married. Against them is made the unfair accusation that they left just to get married, that they are so many ‘Judases’ who betray God and the Church merely to satisfy their base passions. The truth of the matter is, as is well known to all priests, that the priesthood provides a safe and convenient cloak for those who choose to lead an irregular sex life, whereas the restrictions and burdens of married life which an ex-priest chooses are a deterrent to such extra-marital sex irregularities. Nor do all priests who leave the priesthood get married afterwards. Many of them cannot afford to do so, and some are already past marriageable age.

Forced celibacy in any Christian Church is not only unscriptural but outmoded in democratic countries. The Roman Catholic Church was formerly admitted to be the sole law-maker for marriages of all Christians. But the will of the people in democratic countries has now placed that right in the hands of the civil authorities. The law of clerical celibacy, with its denial of legal marriage to priests, is now no longer binding. It has continued in the Roman Catholic Church only because its authorities have taken unfair advantage of the false idea it has fostered among the credulous people that priests are forbidden to marry by the law of God.

The fact is adroitly concealed from the submissive Catholic people that celibacy is merely a regulation of Church law, and that it is no sin or shame before God for a priest to get properly married. Roman Catholics will not believe that the apostle Peter had a wife, even though this fact is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew. Neither will they believe that, when it was expedient to do so, the Catholic Church released large numbers of priests from this law. The Vatican’s concordat with Napoleon, for instance, ratified the marriages of those priests who took the oath to the Constitution after the French Revolution of 1789, by which the legality of the marriages of priests was recognized. Talleyrand, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Autun who became Napoleon’s great statesman, took the law into his own hands and got married. The pope was willing to ratify the bishop’s marriage in return for other political concessions by Napoleon. Just because Napoleon did not consider it a good bargain for him, the pope spited him and withheld his permission for Talleyrand’s marriage. Roman Catholic people also find it difficult to believe that in New York and other American cities today parish priests of the Ruthenian and other Greek Catholic rites have wives and families.

In my book, The Soul of a Priest, I have told of the sad spectacles I met, in all parts of the world in which I traveled as a priest, of the ruined lives of so many fine young priests who through no fault of their own were unable to bear up against this harsh law of celibacy. It has been well said that marriage cleanses a man, and these young priests would have been cleansed of the annoyance and frustration of sex by normal marriage relations. A loving wife and the joy of legitimate children in a happy home life would have filled them with vigor and spiritual zeal. Even more important, these would have saved them from the inevitable indulgence in alcoholic liquor to which many priests are driven as a poor substitute for their God-given, natural rights in marriage.

The bishops know this well. So does the pope and his Roman counselors. But they prefer to wreck the souls and bodies of the priests in order to sustain the “giant organism” and “steel-like will power” of its organization that Hitler so greatly admired and imitated. They take the fresh young man, the rough, uncut diamond, use him for the ends of their organization and then cast him aside when his usefulness is gone, and then begin again on others. The “particular significance of celibacy” in their regimented, Nazi-like organization, which Hitler discovered as “not recognized by most people,” lies in the fact that the second and third generation of priests’ children would threaten its totalitarian structure, as well as its enormous wealth and secrets. To preserve these the individual souls of its priests are cruelly sacrificed.

There is an angle to this law of priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church that does not make sense to Protestants, as it did to Hitler. The loss to Roman Catholic countries because of the prohibition of legal marriage to its priests has been clearly shown by men like Professor Albert Wigham of Columbia University in New York, and by Havelock Ellis in England. Their investigations prove that the children of Protestant clergymen in England, America and Evangelical countries of Europe are proportionately much superior in intellectual and scientific achievement than those of all other professions. Their tabulations show that one member out of every twenty families of Protestant clergymen is to be found listed in Who’s Who compared to one out of every 800 families of farmers, and only one out of every 2,000 families of shopkeepers and tradesmen.

Priests and nuns are the cream of the Roman Catholic population in every country. Yet they leave no such superior progeny behind them as is to be found in Protestant countries. Even in the United States, the selection of the best youths for a celibate priesthood in the Catholic Church is sure to have harmful effects on future generations, especially if the number of Roman Catholics increases to any great extent.

It seems senseless, on the one hand, that the Roman Catholic Church insists on a tremendous increase of children among its poor and uneducated classes by unrelenting opposition to birth control, and, on the other hand, denies legal marriage and legitimate children to its millions of priests, nuns, monks and teaching brothers. These can produce children only surreptitiously — or employ the very methods of birth control which they are obliged to deny to the laity.

An absurd consequence of this denial of marriage to priests is the false idea, especially among Irish Catholics and the peasant peoples of southern Europe, that marriage and the priesthood are entirely incompatible. They believe that the priesthood eliminates in some miraculous way even the physical possibility of the marriage relation in one so endowed. A Protestant minister, of course, cannot be thus supernaturally affected, since he has no power of the priesthood. These credulous people scarcely allow their minds to think of their priests as having even the ordinary natural bodily functions of other men.

This was well illustrated to me by an Irish priest by the name of Frank Kelly in Capetown. He told the story purposely at his own father’s expense to prove the super-physical picture that Irish people have in their minds of their priests. His father was a store keeper in Waterford in the south of Ireland and often engaged the local Protestant minister in theological discussions. One day the conversation turned on the question of the marriage of priests. “Sure an’ that could never be,” Mr. Kelly objected to the Protestant minister. “’Twould be aginst all law of God and man!”

“But my dear Mr. Kelly,” the minister retorted, “in the Holy Bible Paul tells Timothy that even a bishop must be a man of one wife. Why then not also a priest?”

“Faith an’ bigorra,” the priest’s father indignantly answered, “that may be in your Bible, but ’tis sure not in mine!”

When the minister inquired if he had a Bible at home, Mr. Kelly heatedly replied: “Sure I have! We Catholics can have a Bible as well as Protestants.”

They agreed to go to his house and find out if the passage in question was in the Catholic Bible. Arrived there, Mr. Kelly proudly took down the family Bible from a shelf, carefully dusted it and handed it to the Protestant minister confident that he would be disappointed in his search. The minister quickly turned to 1 Tim. 3:2 and read aloud: “A bishop must be the husband of one wife…” He then handed the book to Mr. Kelly who adjusted his spectacles and read the passage for himself. Suspicious of some trick on the part of the minister he turned to the flyleaf, to convince himself it was really his own Bible by the record of all the Kelly baptisms written on it. He then removed his spectacles, carefully wiped them, and again read the passage aloud for himself. Finally, convinced but still unbelieving, he closed the book with a snap, threw it on the table and exclaimed:

“Faith, an’ ’tis Saint Paul ought to be ashamed of himself!”

This article is from chapter 11 of “Out of the Labyrinth: The Conversion of a Roman Catholic Priest” by former Roman Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann, first published in 1947 and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org.

The original title to the chapter is:

Keys For The Wrong Lock

KEYS are a symbol of power, the power to open up and distribute, or to lock up and deny things necessary or longed-for — be it jam in the cupboard, electric energy in the dynamo, or the power of God in the kingdom of heaven.

Everyone knows the “key story” which has been repeated throughout the centuries by the Church of Rome. It was told to me like a bedtime story when I was a child: How only to Peter the apostle did Jesus Christ give the keys of the kingdom of heaven with all power over men and nations. And how only to the popes of Rome as the rightful successors of Saint Peter can these keys be handed down for all time. This makes a pope in Rome, as the present Pope Pius XII reminded all Americans in a recent radio broadcast, “the only one authorized to act and teach for God.”

Thus this same Eugenio Pacelli, under the name of Pope Pius XII, residing on Vatican Hill in Rome, would today be the only one who has in his pocket these keys that can open the floodgates of the power of the spirit of God and heal the ills of the world. Hitler was tearing Christian civilization to shreds when Pope Pius XII made the above awesome announcement. This means that he could have stopped Hitler and the other war-guilty dictators and brought peace and salvation to all men. Instead, he helped their evil deeds. It was this same Eugenio Pacelli who helped Hitler to power by putting his signature to the Vatican’s concordat with Nazi Germany in 1933.

This key story may sound all right when things are going well with the world. When they go wrong, however, and criminal men ride their apocalyptic horses of tyranny and brutality, death and destruction over the face of the earth, we may well ask why the power of God is kept locked up by the one man who boasts of having the keys to release it. Today more than ever before, with the threat of atomic destruction hanging over the whole world, this power of God is the only effective weapon to save us all from complete annihilation. If Eugenio Pacelli has any keys at all, he must either refuse to put them to their proper use, or else they must fit the wrong set of locks.

Jesus Christ plainly warned against those who falsely profess to have the sole power to open up or lock the gates of heaven. In dire condemnation of them he says: “Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (Matt. 23:13).

The strangest paradox of Roman Catholic teaching is its claim, on the one hand, that Saint Peter was the first pope and Bishop of Rome; and its refusal, on the other hand, to listen to and obey the teaching of Saint Peter as written down in the New Testament. If a pope’s words are accepted as infallible today, one would think that Roman Catholics, including the pope himself, would accept as even more infallible what Peter decreed in New Testament teaching. They should at least accept with equal authority Peter’s writings and the encyclical letters and decrees of the popes of Rome down the centuries. The reason why Peter’s instructions are hushed up happens to be because what he decreed is a condemnation of the very position of the pope and his Roman curia.

Saint Peter wrote two epistles or letters, and in the first he solemnly instructs his coworkers in the Christian ministry how the Christian Church should be governed. In chapter 6, verses 1 to 3, he decrees as follows:

Here we have Peter, speaking with authority as Christ’s coworker and chief of the apostles, making it clear that the set-up of Christ’s Church must be first of all democratic, not authoritarian. He calls himself an “elder” (presbyter, which has nothing at all to do with a sacrificing priest), equal to the other apostles and Christian leaders whom he also calls elders. He exhorts them to minister to the faithful, not by forceful methods but in a way that will bring free response.

Most important of all, he forbids the Church leaders to become “lords” over the people. The full significance of this can only be understood from the Greek word which Peter used for “lords.” That word in the Greek is katakuriontes, which the Latin Vulgate version of the New Testament translates as dominates. But if Peter’s own Greek word katakuriontes is closely examined, it will be found to contain the word curia, which was the autocratic governing body of the Roman Empire of the Caesars. To Peter himself and to those he addressed in his letter, the full significance of this word was very plain. For the Roman curia at that time ruled the world with an iron fist. It was as plain to people in his time as if he told the leaders of the Christian Church today: “Don’t he Fascists or Nazis!”

In other words, Peter plainly decreed that the method of governing the Christian Church must not be patterned after that of Caesar — or sawdust imitators of him in the twentieth century. He wants it to be the very opposite of the curial system of Rome. It was to be a democratic system, with no one lording it over the others, and the people corresponding freely, not by coercion.

It is scarcely necessary for me to mention the fact that the Roman Catholic Church acts directly opposite to these instructions of Saint Peter, its so-called first pope. After the fourth century, the Bishops of Rome stepped right into Caesar’s shoes, took on his pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, the Supreme High Priest of the Roman religion, sat down on Caesar’s throne and wrapped themselves in Caesar’s gaudy trappings. Everything about the pope and his court today is as it was at the court of the Caesars in ancient Rome. Through the very Roman curia which Peter abhorred and condemned, the Vatican has ruled the Catholic Church to this day.

Not content with claiming the autocratic power of the Caesars in religion and politics, the popes of Rome also claimed to have the power of Almighty God himself. By infallible decree the pope has been made the very mouthpiece of God on earth, God’s sole deputy. He can impose dogmatic decrees under pain of excommunication and death in this life, and the loss of eternal salvation in the next. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

On these sky-high claims rests the whole foundation of the Church of Rome. But no pope will ever mention that they are in direct contradiction of the instructions that Saint Peter set down in the very book of the Gospels.

On other points too, the Church of Rome has completely perverted the word of the Gospel. Jesus Christ (Matt. 23:7) distinctly says: “Call no man your father on the earth, for one is your father which is in heaven.” Christ here meant spiritual father, one who usurps the place of our Father in heaven. But not only does the very name pope (papa) mean father as designating the pope’s spiritual office, but every Roman Catholic priest has to be called “Father” by the people. Another title of the pope is Sua Santita di Nostro Signore, “The Holiness of Our Lord.” Christ taught his apostles and disciples to be poor and humble, not lavishly rich and authoritative. Yet the pope of Rome, with his curia of cardinals and bishops, dresses in the most sumptuous and expensive garments of cloth of gold and lace studded with precious gems. In February, 1946, when thirty-two new cardinals were created by Pope Pius XII, Americans were shocked to learn that the scarlet robes alone of every new cardinal’s outfit cost $10,000. Everything the pope touches — even his telephone and microphone — is of gold.

In view of all this, how can the pope, cardinals and bishops be, as Saint Peter exhorts, “examples” to the people? And how can the people, in turn, imitate them, since their lives are so different from those of the people to whom they are supposed to minister? Far from carrying out Saint Peter’s instructions not to be “lords” over the people and not to coerce them, the leaders of the Church of Rome have always resisted democratic principles of equality and brotherhood and allied themselves to despotic kings and authoritarian governments. In our own time, the Roman curia at the Vatican bound itself by solemn concordats and alliances to the Nazi-fascist dictatorships of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco and others.

To me, who once served the altars of the Church of Rome, it becomes more sadly apparent, the farther I draw away from it, how much it has perverted both the form and teaching of the true Church of Christ. My work and prayers now are directed to the end that, by the preservation of our democratic freedoms, the Catholic people in America will some day discover the truth and, instead of blindly submitting to the curial dictatorship of the Vatican, accept the democratic, Gospel teaching of Saint Peter.

The growth of this ecclesiastical dictatorship of the Roman papacy began with the need for a ‘president’ who was later designated as ‘bishop’ or overseer over the other elders. This led to distinctions between ranks and authority, and, step by step, to a plan of Church government patterned after the law and regulation of Roman military regimentation, that was not sanctioned by the New Testament. The bishop soon extended his rule over several congregations called a ‘diocese,’ and thus established one-man rule over a district of Churches. Later, many dioceses were grouped together under one head called a ‘metropolitan,’ similar to the archbishop of today.

These departures from New Testament Church government continued until there developed a trend toward religious imperialism in the Christian Church. The last stage in its development was the establishment of the Roman papacy with its curia and hierarchy, at the apex of which was the Bishop of Rome as pope and autocratic monarch. This was in the year 606, when the title of “Universal Bishop of the Church” was bestowed upon him. But the papacy did not reach the zenith of its power until the time of Pope Gregory VII, in the year 1073.

Consummation of this growth of universal power of the Bishop of Rome took place in 1870, when Pope Pius IX, by the dogmatic decree of papal infallibility, proclaimed himself and all popes to come after him absolute dictator of the entire Christian Church. Were he to visit Rome today, Peter, the gentle elder of the New Testament Church, would be horrified to find himself and Jesus Christ impersonated by the bejeweled occupant of the throne of Caesar on Vatican Hill. For Peter was taught by Christ not to rule over the people the same as “the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them.” He heard from his Master’s own lips the command: “But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister: And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant(Matt. 20:25-27).

These departures from the spirit and teaching of the New Testament Church, and from the instructions laid down by Saint Peter himself, were the natural consequences of the self-interest and ambition of men to gain supreme and unlimited power over other men. They led, as history bears witness, to the spirit of tyranny which destroyed the congregational or democratic form of Church government in Europe. For ecclesiastical power succeeds where other institutions fail in forcing masses of trusting people to give up their liberty. Designing politicians, themselves scheming at all times to lord it over their fellow men, have always been quick to align themselves with those in supreme positions of power in the religious world.

It was thus in Jerusalem when the priests of the Jewish religion conspired with the Roman politicians to crucify Christ because they feared the moral reform his teaching threatened to bring about. And it is thus today in the big cities of the United States where the priests, the police and the politicians combine to control politics and the press. The Roman Catholic cardinal’s chancery office in New York City is known to all as the political “power house.”

But the politicians in the end become mere tools of the Church authorities. They are forced to serve as partners of the more dominant church power for fear of losing their own positions if they should act against the wishes of their ecclesiastical overlords. Europe has been bedeviled for fifteen centuries with this unbeatable combination of political- ecclesiastical control. Protestant America is now faced with its appearance on this side of the Atlantic. In the struggle to overcome it. the only effective remedy is a return to the spirit and pure teaching of the Gospel of Christ.

Albert Pike (December 29, 1809 – April 2, 1891) was an American author, poet, orator, editor, lawyer, jurist and Confederate States Army general who served as an associate justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court in exile from 1864 to 1865. He was also a 33rd-degree Freemason, Occultist, Grand Master and creator of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Masonic Scottish Rite Order of Freemasonry in the USA and a prolific Masonic writer who wrote Morals and Dogma.

Giuseppe Mazzini was an Italian revolutionary leader of the mid-1800s as well as the Director of the Illuminati.

The quote below is from famed Hollywood playwright, Myron Fagan, who in 1967 gave a talk, The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations which exposed the Devil’s plans in America.

In 1834 the Italian revolutionary leader, Guiseppe Mazzini, was selected by the Illuminati to direct their revolutionary program throughout the world. He served in that capacity until he died in 1872, but some years before he died, Mazzini had enticed an American General named Albert Pike into the Illuminati. Pike was fascinated by the idea of a one-world government and ultimately he became the head of this Luciferian conspiracy.

I believe there’s a high-level connection between the Illuminati and the Jesuit order. Satan’s conspiracy is vast with many secret societies all working together. If you have a Bible-based worldview, you should know the conspiracy has to be centered in Rome, the Vatican. With a biblical worldview, you won’t get misdirected to think it’s primarily a “Judeo-Masonic conspiracy” of mainly Jewish international bankers financing it. I don’t believe the conspiracy is primarily Jewish. Sad to say I know people who do.

The Bible uses the word “woman” in Revelation chapter 17 as a metaphor to refer to Satan’s organization on earth.

Revelation 17:4  And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5  And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6  And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

The Bible clearly defines where the center of Satan’s organization is:

Revelation 17:18  And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

What was the great city that ruled the kings of the earth in the Apostle John’s day? None other than Rome. Some say Jerusalem. No way! The last time Jerusalem had any power over other nations was during the reign of King Solomon. It never was a world power anytime after that. If you think the Antichrist will rule the earth from Jerusalem someday, please show me where it says so in the Bible.

Most conspiracy researchers already know about Pike’s letter to Mazzini. I’m sharing it now in light of the recent Hamas attack on Israel so I can add my own views below it.

Albert Pike to Mazzini, August 15, 1871

We can see Pike’s Illuminati plans came to pass in both World War One and World War Two. What about this current war between Hamas and Israel? Could it be the start of the final world war that Albert Pike predicted in the 19th century? To say it is would be just mere speculation. I’m bringing out the possibility only to get to the main point of what I want to share in this article.

This message is directed mainly to dispensationalists and futurists, Christians who believe the 1948 creation of the State of Israel by the United Nations was a fulfillment of Bible endtime prophecy, Christians who believe the Antichrist will make a seven-year peace treaty with Israel to rebuild a third temple, Christians who believe the Jews continue to be God’s covenant people. This is my question to you: What would happen to your faith if Albert Pike correctly predicted that Israel as a nation would be totally destroyed by the Muslims? What if that happens? Do you think there’s a danger that your faith in the Bible as God’s Word might wind up shipwrecked? Pike wrote not only Muslims and Zionist Jews would destroy each other in the 3rd war, but Christianity would also be destroyed with it. By that, he must mean organized Christianity would be destroyed. True Bible-based faith can never be destroyed. They can only destroy our bodies, not our Bible-based faith in Jesus Christ as our only hope of salvation.

I believe many evangelicals have been misled by false end-time doctrines they got from John Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield who got them from Jesuits. If you are a futurist who supports Israel, those guys are the ones who are the source of your end-time doctrines, not the Bible. There are many articles about that on this website. If your faith is based on false end-time doctrines rather than what the Bible actually says, what will become of it if what you expect to happen doesn’t come to pass?

You may want to reverse the question and ask me what will happen to my faith if all the futurist prophecies you hold to be true do come to pass. My answer to that is nothing. It will remain unscathed. If Israel survives the war and makes a deal with a powerful world leader and rebuilds the Third Temple, I will consider it to be yet another end-time deception to deflect attention away from the Pope, the Jesuits and the Vatican as being the primary source of all of Satan’s evils in the world today.

I was offline for a week to get a broken bone fixed. Now I’m back to work!

This article is from chapter 31 of “Out of the Labyrinth: The Conversion of a Roman Catholic Priest” by former Roman Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann, first published in 1947 and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org.

Leo Herbert Lehmann (1895-1950) was an Irish author, editor, and director of a Protestant ministry, Christ’s Mission in New York. He was a priest in the Roman Catholic Church who later in life converted to Protestantism and served as the editor of The Converted Catholic Magazine. He authored magazine articles, books and pamphlets, condemning the programs and activities of the Roman Catholic Church. (Quoted from Wikipedia)

I’m posting this chapter because it has encouraging information I have never heard from anyone before, testimonials from members of the Catholic church including priests and nuns who had true saving faith in the grace of Jesus Christ but who remained in the Church.

CAN ROMAN CATHOLICS BE SAVED without breaking with their Church? Are there any Evangelical Christian believers within the Roman Catholic Church? These are questions which deserve, and require, extended answers.

It is not generally known that movements toward acceptance of Evangelical Christian beliefs have always existed within the Roman Catholic Church — both before and after the Reformation. Protestants have been so engrossed with the history of their own Church since the Reformation that they know little of the struggles toward the revival of Evangelical Christianity within the Church of Rome since the sixteenth century. Because of this, Protestants today have lost perspective of their own teachings, and a necessary sense of contrast between the Gospel teaching which they believe, and the opposite erroneous teaching and practice of Roman Catholicism from which the early Protestants broke away. These early Protestants saw that contrast etched in all its clarity because they knew both sides.

The shining of a bright light on a dark object shows up its true condition. In the same way, the actual doctrinal state of Roman Catholicism is fully seen only when justification of sinners through faith in the finished sacrifice of Christ is definitely and fully preached against the background of the errors of Roman Catholicism. For the main dividing line in the struggle of Roman Catholicism against Evangelical Christianity is drawn between their opposing views as to how the grace of salvation comes to the souls of men. It is upon this ground that the Jesuits have fought their Counter- Reformation — not only against Protestants, but also against those who have tried to reassert Evangelical teaching within the Roman Church itself after the example of the Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century.

Three-Cornered Conflict

There have been, in fact, not just two but three sides to the religious struggle during the four centuries since the Reformation — between Protestantism and Jesuit Catholicism on the one hand, and Jesuit Catholicism and Evangelical factions within the Roman Church itself, on the other. The Jesuits have been as harsh and uncompromising against those who opposed them from within their own Church, as against the Protestants from the outside. It is sad to have to admit that today, there is little, if any, life left in Evangelical movements within the Church of Rome. The Jesuits have succeeded, almost completely, in crushing out the remnants of criticism in the Catholic Church of their teaching about grace and the means of salvation. Their Pelagian doctrine of salvation by works of man himself, with all it implies in their moral theology and devotional practices, is now almost universally accepted or reluctantly acquiesced in by the universal Roman Catholic Church.

(Note: Pelagianism is a set of beliefs associated with the British monk Pelagius (circa AD 354–420), who taught in Rome in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. Pelagius denied the doctrines of original sin and total depravity. According to his theology, people are not naturally sinful, but can live holy lives in harmony with God’s will and thereby earn salvation through good works. )

The very fury of Jesuit opposition to the Gospel teaching of salvation by faith, as reasserted by Luther, Calvin, and other sixteenth century reformers, has led to the denial today in Roman Catholic teaching of almost every truth upon which the Gospel teaching about the grace of salvation rests.

Council Of Trent

But it was not so within the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation, and even within the Council of Trent (held between 1545 and 1563) itself, which was convened shortly thereafter for the special purpose of resisting the Evangelical teachings of the Protestant reformers. Many Roman Catholic churchmen in that council maintained that the only way to stop Luther and his associates from causing a rift in the Christian Church was open opposition from the Church of Rome itself against the Pelagian error of the Jesuits, and a firm declaration of salvation full and free by acceptance of the grace of God through the merits alone of Jesus Christ.

Had these Catholic spokesmen been listened to, the history of Christianity from that day to this would have been different. But the Jesuits triumphed in the Council of Trent on this vital question, as they did in the Vatican Council of 1870 on the question of Papal Infallibility. They have now this latter weapon of undisputed papal power with which to whip everyone — priests, bishops and laity alike — within the Roman Church into blind acceptance of their peculiar teaching about salvation and their devotional practices.

In the Council of Trent the Archbishop of Sienna, two bishops and five others, fought long and hard against the Jesuits by upholding justification simply and solely by the merits of Christ through faith. The English Cardinal Pole, who presided at the Council in the absence of Pope Paul III, also entreated those assembled not to reject this doctrine simply because it was held by Martin Luther. But the Jesuits — through their spokesmen Lainez and Salmeron — were adamant against even a compromise, and in the end secured adoption of the long list of Tridentine canons and anathemas that were finally pronounced against Protestant Evangelical teaching. Cardinal Pole and the Archbishop of Sienna left the Council in despair. So bitterly has the Jesuit Lainez been hated by Catholic anti-Jesuit writers that they have gone so far as to interpret Rev. 9:1, as if he were the fallen star who let loose the scorpion-locusts — the Jesuits — on the world.

Rift Within Catholicism

But the opponents of the Jesuits in the Catholic Church itself did not submit at once after the Council of Trent. The fight went on, continually at first, intermittently ever since. The Jesuits’ chief opponents on the teaching about grace have been the Dominicans, and to this day a wide rift still exists between these two Orders in the Church of Rome, in spite of apparent unity from the outside. The Dominicans follow their great theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, who adopted a watered-down interpretation of Augustine’s teaching on grace as an entirely free gift of God, and put it in his medieval syllogistic form. This is enough in the eyes of the Jesuits to brand them as ‘Calvinistic.’ Few people today know of this serious rift within the Roman Catholic Church, or stop to think that it is actually wider than any doctrinal difference separating the denominations of Protestantism.

The conflict concerning the nature of grace was openly continued between the Jesuits and Dominicans till the end of the sixteenth century, and on into the seventeenth. In 1596, Pope Clement VIII consented to hear both sides and promised to give a decision. No less than sixty-five meetings and thirty-seven disputations were held on the subject in his presence. Pope Clement himself seems, from his writings, to have favored the Dominican side, but he put off giving a decision. The so-called infallible mouthpiece of God could not decide the most vital question of Christian teaching, on the question that really matters in the whole gamut of Christian doctrine: the truth about how men can be saved!

Pope Clement’s hesitation can easily be explained. The Jesuits by then had become, not only powerful, but violent and dangerous. They had made themselves the great political prop of the Roman Church that had been shaken to its foundations in the principal countries of Europe. They went so far as to threaten the Pope himself, since they counted on having King Henry IV of France on their side. Pope Clement was also well aware that the political power of the papacy at that time was on the wane, threatened by Protestant England under Queen Elizabeth on one side, and by Protestant Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia on the other. He was advised by the astute French Cardinal du Perron to leave matters as they were, since even a Protestant could subscribe to the doctrines of the Dominicans.

The dispute was continued under Pope Paul V, who became Pope in 1605. Seventeen meetings were held in his presence, but he too failed to condemn the Jesuits. Venice at that time was at war with the papacy, and the Jesuits fought so well for the Pope that they suffered expulsion by the Catholic rulers and people of the Venetian Republic rather than yield to the Pope’s enemies. It thus seemed more important to the Pope to please the Jesuits than to uphold the most vital doctrine of the Christian Church. In the end Pope Paul issued the Bull Unigenitus, in which he promised that a decision would be published “at the proper time,” and that in the meantime, neither side was to malign the other. And so it remains to this day in the Roman Catholic Church: no official decision has ever been made as to how the grace of salvation comes to the souls of men!

Jesuits Vs. Dominicans

This was a triumph for the Jesuits, and they have used it to great advantage ever since against both Protestants and those within the Roman Church who would dare to dispute their Pelagian doctrine of grace.

They have ruthlessly crushed any priest, bishop or even pope who seemed to veer in any way to the doctrine of the Reformation, namely that we can do no good works acceptable to God without the grace of God through Christ ‘preventing’ us; that the will to good, and the works we perform as a result of this good will, are all a free gift of God.

This was the teaching of Augustine against Pelagius and his followers, which was revived by the Protestant reformers. The Dominicans have always tended to this Augustinian doctrine of grace because St. Thomas Aquinas incorporated some of Augustine’s teachings about grace into his Summa Theologica. But even the Dominicans never have dared to carry Augustine’s teaching to its logical conclusion, as Calvin did, since it would have led to the complete rejection of papal power. The Jesuits have made sure to this day that the Dominicans would never be allowed to go so far. But certain sections of the Roman Church are still accused by the Jesuits as “tainted” with Calvinism because of their advocacy even of the watered- down teachings of Augustine as expounded chiefly by the Dominican theologians.

A particular instance of this may be seen in the fact that most Roman Catholic priests, especially of the Dominican order, who renounce the Church of Rome join up with the Presbyterian Church and ministry. Two examples recently noted by The Converted Catholic Magazine are Rev. Dr. George Barrois, formerly a Dominican priest and professor at Catholic University in Washington, D. C., now a Presbyterian minister and Professor at Princeton Seminary, and Rev. J. A. Fernandez, for sixteen years a priest of the Dominican Order, now a Presbyterian pastor in Philadelphia.

The most notable example of the opposition to Jesuit Pelagianism is that of the Jansenists, who publicly professed their belief in the Evangelical teaching of salvation and justification by faith alone in the merits of Jesus Christ, but who still steadfastly continued within the Church of Rome. The suffering they endured from the Jesuits, the wonderful example and encouragement they supplied to those within the Roman Church who secretly resented the domination of the Jesuits, should give hope that it may not yet be too late for a second Reformation within the Church of Rome in our day.

Jansenius

The Jansenists got their name from Cornelius Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, who was born in 1585 and died of the plague in 1638, after being bishop for only two years. It was only after his death that his opposition to the Pelagian teaching of the Jesuits became known. But for many years he had made it his business to study the writings of Augustine on the vital subjects of grace, free will and human impotence, original sin, election, faith, etc. Whereas Calvin used Augustine’s teaching on these subjects to oppose the whole nature and structure of Roman Catholicism, Jansenius used it only for one immediate object — to check the rising power of the Jesuits and their false teachings within the Church of Rome. His object was not to undermine the Roman Catholic Church as a whole, but to save it from complete corruption in matters of faith and morals.

He put his findings in a book, entitled, Augustinus, which was published in Louvain two years after his death and was made the chief weapon by his followers to save the Catholic Church from the evil influence of the Jesuits. For there were many within the Church of Rome at that time who sighed for some real spirituality and who, like Bishop Jansenius, found in the doctrine of salvation by grace, even though only partially and imperfectly apprehended, a great solace and an assurance which the ritualistic observances of the Church of Rome could not supply.

Jesuit Opposition To Grace

That was before the blight of Jesuitism had descended completely on the Roman Catholic Church as we find it today. But the Jesuits were then, a hundred years after their Order was founded, rapidly consolidating their power by their lax system of casuistry and other teachings which deadened the conscience. They had by then introduced themselves everywhere as confessors, and had gained great influence by softening all ideas of guilt. Their main purpose was to introduce into Catholic teaching the exclusion of real repentance before God as a prerequisite for forgiveness of sin. In this way salvation would become entirely dependent upon the priest, to the ultimate advantage of the Jesuits themselves — who have always aimed to make themselves the ruling caste of priests in the church of Rome. They have achieved this objective today, and hold the whip hand not only in religious matters, but also as the high political rulers of the Vatican.

What the Jesuits most abhorred, and continue today to abhor, is the true Christian teaching of justification of sinners through faith in the one finished sacrifice of Christ, and repentance for sin directly toward God. They were quick to see the danger to their aims in Jansenius’ book, Augustinus, which upheld this true Christian teaching. They therefore had the book banned, and began by venting their enmity on Jean Baptiste du Vergier de Hauranne — better known as St. Cyran, after the monastery of that name of which he was abbot. St. Cyran had secretly studied the doctrine of grace together with Jansenius at Louvain. He was also connected with the celebrated Abbey of Port Royal in France, a community of nuns which had grown very lax in discipline and morals. Yet, it was through this French convent that what is known as “Jansenism” began, and which for almost seventy-five years carried on its remarkable fight to rid the Catholic Church of the perverse teachings and control of the Jesuits. The cruel methods used by the Jesuits to crush out the Jansenists were equalled only by the atrocities of the Nazi Gestapo in our time. The inmates of Port Royal and their friends were hounded, brutally persecuted, excommunicated, and jailed, because they professed, above all else, the Evangelical doctrines of justification by grace.

Port Royal

There are two things about the nuns of Port Royal and their friends that Protestants and Catholics alike today may well be amazed at. One was that they persisted in remaining within the Church of Rome while professing absolute faith in the saving grace of Jesus Christ alone. They strenuously objected to being called Protestants.

The second extraordinary fact is that the abbey of Port Royal, which was to become the great champion of this Evangelical teaching, was so lax in discipline in 1602, that Mother Angelique — under whose later guidance Jansenism thrived there — was appointed abbess when she was but a girl of eleven years old. The church authorities in France and her family connived at this, and had her certified as abbess by the Pope, by pretending she was seventeen!¹

How thoroughly Evangelical the inmates of Port Royal later became — while still remaining within the body of the Roman Catholic Church — may be judged from the story of the last prioress, Mother Dumesnil Courtinaux, as she lay on her dying bed. Port Royal had been finally suppressed and uprooted by the Pope eight years previously, but this last Mother prioress still retained her faith in salvation by grace alone. But she desired to die in good standing in the Catholic Church and begged for the last sacraments. The Bishop of Blois came but refused to administer the sacraments to her, unless she first renounced her faith in the saving grace of Christ. But she remained steadfast in her Evangelical faith.

“What will you do when you have to appear before God, bearing the weight of your sins alone?” the bishop asked her.

The dying prioress replied: “Having made peace through the blood of His cross, my Saviour has reconciled all things unto Himself in the body of His flesh through death, to present us holy and unblameable and unreprovable in His sight, if we continue in the faith grounded and settled, and not be moved away from the hope of the Gospel.”

She then added, with clasped hands, “In Thee, O Lord, have I trusted, nor wilt Thou suffer the creature that trusts in Thee to be confounded.” The bishop reviled her, but she meekly urged, with tears, that she be permitted to receive the sacraments. He firmly rejected her plea as coming from a “confirmed heretic.”

“Well, my Lord,” she replied, wiping her eyes, “I am content to bear with resignation whatever deprivation my God sees fit. I am convinced that His divine grace can supply even the want of sacraments.”

She fell asleep in the Lord that same night, March 18, 1716, in her seventieth year. Such was the Evangelical spirit of the followers of Jansenius at Port Royal.²

Sufferings And Persecutions

The abbess Mere Angelique brought about an Evangelical reformation not only at Port Royal, at the head of which she had been so strangely placed at the age of eleven, but also in many others, such as the rich abbey of Maubuisson, which also had become very corrupt. A group of men famous for their scholarship and piety also became her disciples. Among them may be mentioned Pascal, Le Maitre, Quesnel, Lancelot, Le Maitre de Sacy, Nicole and Singlin.

No fewer than four popes — Urban VII, Innocent X, Alexander VII, and Clement XI — fulminated bulls of excommunication, at the instigation of the Jesuits, against these defenders of Evangelical teachings. They had also against them King Louis XIV of France and his infamous mistress, Madame de Maintenon, Cardinal Richelieu and Cardinal Mazarin. Four French bishops favored and tried to help them. The Dominicans, the Franciscans, and the Benedictines, who to this day still timidly oppose the Jesuits on the teaching of grace, defended the Jansenists of Port Royal as much as they dared. But all the power of the Church of Rome and the King of France was in the hands of the Jesuits, and they used it mercilessly to wipe out every trace of the Jansenists and their Gospel teaching of salvation which they detested and condemned as an “abominable heresy.”

Finally, on July 11, 1709, Cardinal de Noailles, archbishop of Paris, was forced by the Pope and the Jesuits to order the complete suppression of the abbey of Port Royal. On the following October 29, the valley was filled with the king’s troops, the abbey taken over and the nuns arrested and placed in confinement. The following year the cloister was pulled down; in 1711 the bodies of those buried there were dug up with gross brutality and indecency; two years later the church itself was destroyed. Cardinal de Noailles had ordered it all done according to the bull, Vineam Domini, of Pope Clement XI, in which he attacked the doctrines of grace. The cardinal later repented of his deed, and made a visit to the ruins of Port Royal, where on bended knees, he made public testimony of repentance for his weakness. After the death of King Louis XIV and his mistress, Cardinal de Noailles interceded for the imprisoned nuns of Port Royal and had them released.

Jansenism continued in Holland and other countries of Europe after the destruction of Port Royal. Ranke, the historian, says of the Jansenists: “We find traces of them in Vienna and in Brussels, in Spain and Portugal, and in every part of Italy. They disseminated their doctrines throughout all Roman Catholic Christendom, sometimes openly, often in secret.”³

But it was in the Protestant country of Holland that they found best shelter and most freedom. It was there that they were able to organize into a regular Church body under their own bishops. Almost all the Roman Catholics in Holland, to the number of 330,000, at the end of the seventeenth century were Jansenists. The Jesuits had little power there, and they themselves had gone so far in their intrigues and immoral teachings that Pope Clement XIV — who had Jansenist sentiments — yielded to the demands of the Catholic countries of Europe and completely abolished the Jesuits in 1773.

Catholics Today (1947)

Today also there are many sensitive souls within the Roman Catholic Church who sigh for true spirituality and an assurance of salvation that their priests cannot offer. They fear, however, to break with their Church, and continue to accept the sacraments in order to remain in good standing. Strictly speaking, there is nothing in Roman Catholic teaching to prevent Roman Catholics from professing secretly (in foro internet) their faith in the absolute saving power of the Gospel. What is forbidden, under pain of excommunication, is the public profession (in foro extemo) of such belief.

Thus a Roman Catholic who comes to the true knowledge of Christ, is faced with making the decision of either risking excommunication and the opprobrium of his family and friends by openly professing and demonstrating his faith in Christ as all-sufficient Saviour, or avoiding the penalties by keeping it secret in his heart while conforming outwardly to the rules and ritual as commanded by his Church. But today in America, where freedom of religion is guaranteed to all, no one can be excused if he fails to profess openly his faith in Jesus Christ, who warns (Matt. 10:33): “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him also will I deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

1. See, The Jansenists, Their Rise, Persecutions by the Jesuits, and Remnants, by S. P. Tregelles, London, 1851.↩
2.cf. The Jansenists, ut supra, pp. 40-41.↩
3.Op. cit. p. 45.↩

This talk by Christian J. Pinto was given on August 3rd, 2016 when Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump for president. I edited out some things that I consider to be dated. You can listen to the entire podcast below the text.

Okay, praise the Lord you guys and welcome. I’m Chris Pinto. This is Noise of Thunder Radio. Today on the show we are going to talk about Jesuits and the United States government, Jesuits in the US government.

This is a topic that we have talked about on and off the program. We carry a book with our ministry Washington in the lap of Rome 1888 by Justin B. Fulton. It is a 19th-century book. We did a republication of it a couple of years back and I wrote a 70-page forward to it. Why? Because you had Justin Dewey Fulton who was a 19th-century writer and minister, and he was very concerned about the role and the activities of the Jesuit order in the United States. In this book, he spends a lot of time quoting Charles Chiniquy who was a former Catholic priest, a friend of Abraham Lincoln who converted to Protestantism. Chiniquy wrote his book Fifty Years in the Church of Rome where he asserts a great many things, but among them, his belief was that the Jesuits were behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

There are actually a number of books out there that have reaffirmed that claim with their own investigations. We carried for a little while the book Who Killed Abraham Lincoln?, which was written by Paul Serup, a Canadian author who spent more than 20 years investigating this whole issue. (Note: Mr. Serup sent me an autographed copy of his book! He saw the Charles Chiniquy articles on this website.) The book was actually picked up by one of the bookstores in the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

Now, Chiniquy warned that the Jesuit’s ambition in the United States was to take over this country systematically, one step at a time. There’s a whole variety of warnings because this is what the Jesuits do. They go in, they infiltrate, and they take control of countries and take them over.

The Jesuits are the authors of social justice. That term can be traced back to a Jesuit priest named Luigi Toparelli in 1843. Toparelli first coined the phrase social justice. How they infiltrate through the education system. They developed through the 19th century. They actually developed it over centuries. They developed the principles of socialism and communism. And I believe what they’ve done is they’ve come up with basically a three-step program, social justice, then you go into socialism and then you go into full-blown communism. It’s a three-step process.

Social justice is the introduction of it. In Western countries, it seems compatible with Christianity because they’re building on the idea of the compassion of Christianity that Jesus ministered to the poor and this kind of thing. But then they take those arguments, turn them into humanitarian arguments and use them as a cloak of philanthropy as a cloak so that they can infiltrate positions of power and seize control typically of a nation’s economy. And they use philanthropy and the idea that, “Well, we have to be humanitarian, et cetera.” It’s all the rhetoric that we’re hearing from the Democratic Party, by and large. But social justice, then they move to socialism where they begin to phase out the elements of Christianity. And by the time they get to full-blown communism, they’ve cast off the Bible and Christianity entirely. And now they are pursuing militant atheism.

This is a system, but it wasn’t set up by Karl Marx. I mean, Karl Marx obviously played a part, but he was educated by Jesuit priests. I believe they would have taught him these principles, but the principles themselves were developed by the Jesuits over a very long period of time.

And so now today, once you realize this, and you begin to realize their influence in our education system because you’ve got a whole variety of Jesuit colleges and universities. There is a website called the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the AJCU. And they have a webpage that says Jesuit Alumni in Congress.

The website says,

A commitment to service as a hallmark of Jesuit education. Evidence of that commitment is demonstrated by the many Jesuit college and university alumni serving as members of the US Congress. 9% of members of the 114th Congress have obtained degrees from Jesuit institutions of higher education. See below for lists of the current alumni in Congress.

Then they have a list of those in the Senate.

(Note: I am getting the current data as of October 2023 directly from the Jesuit Alumni in Congress web article.)

And there are 14 members of the US Senate.

And there are 39 members of the House of Representatives.

So 14 members of the US Senate are Jesuit alumni, and 39 members of the House of Representatives. A total of 53 members of Congress are Jesuit alumni, educated by the Jesuit order in their various colleges and universities.

Some universities are more well-known than others. At Boston College, you’ve got Creighton University, Fordham University, Georgetown University, John Carroll University, Loyola, Marymount University. You’ve got a lot of institutions named after Loyola. That is a reference to Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit order, typically. There might be exceptions somewhere, but typically it is a reference to the very founder of the Society of Jesus, the so-called Society of Jesus.

So they’ve got Loyola, Marymount University, Loyola University, Chicago, Loyola University, Maryland, Loyola University, New Orleans, Marquette University, Regis University, Santa Clara University, Xavier University, Boston College School of Theology, and then the Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University, etc. And then, and there are others.

That’s really the backbone of how they infiltrate a society. This was really the genius of Ignatius Loyola and his company of priests, who went after the education system and captured the colleges and the universities. We talk about this in our film, A Lamp in the Dark, the untold history of the Bible, that this was the methodology that the Jesuits adopted throughout the Middle Ages. Why? Because you get control of the minds of young people.

The Bible says, train up a child in the way that he should go when he is old, he will not depart from it. Well, the Jesuits understand that, so they want to raise up children, they want to influence their thinking so that while you’re going to have some children who are actually going to cooperate with the Jesuit order directly as a result, you’re going to have other children who, even if they don’t cooperate with the Jesuit order, are still going to have that influence in terms of their worldview. This is how they influence a whole society. And it’s most certainly how they have had a dramatic influence on the United States.

I believe the Jesuits are behind the entire leftist movement in our country. And it’s their slow, steady, progressive, systematic movement to infiltrate and ultimately overthrow the United States of America.

Now, I’ve done programs in the past about the Vatican on issues like gun control. The Vatican’s view of the right to bear arms is that the common people should not have the right to bear arms. Look at the growing anti-second amendment movement that is at work in our country. The Democrats are speaking out against the NRA, calling for more and more gun control and this kind of thing. And you’ve got others who are openly saying that they want to undermine and overthrow the Second Amendment. Well, that would fit in entirely with Rome’s, the Vatican’s Jesuit worldview.

If you study the history of the right to keep and bear arms, it was very much developed by Protestantism. It’s historic in the Western world, and especially among English-speaking people, historically, it is a Protestant right. In terms of defining it through the pages of the Bible and history. And there’s that book to keep and bear arms. If you find that book, that book explains a lot of the history behind it. I believe that undermining the right to keep and bear arms is part of the counter-reformation. It’s a way of overturning this very important element that Protestantism developed. Because it is part of what allowed Protestant countries to become strengthened in such a way that they could not be so easily overthrown and infiltrated, infiltrated and then overthrown.

I want to go over some of these quotes from 19th-century historian J.A. Wiley, his book, The Jesuits Their Moral, Maxims and Plots Against Kings, Nations and Church with Dissertation on Ireland. It’s by the Reverend J.A. Wiley, who’s the author of the History of Protestantism.

If you want to understand Protestantism and its history from a pre-20th century worldview, I recommend Wiley’s work. I think it’s great. I highly recommend it. Because today, of course, the history books have just been rewritten. They’ve been rewritten.

And if you go study the Jesuits throughout history prior to the 20th century, brethren, it’s just incredible how so much historical data there is, so many warnings about this order, this company of priests and their ambitions to dominate and take over the entire world. I think that so much of that information today has been completely covered up in any kind of mainstream education, completely covered up because if people knew the history of the Jesuits, they would be very alarmed at their influence in our government, even today.

This is from the preface of Wiley’s book. He says,

The influx into our country of an order of men whose principle is the negation of all principle, and whose moral code is the subversion of the moral law.

Now think about that, brethren. They’ve been known for this throughout history. What’s happening in our country? Could it be said that the subversion of the moral law is part of what’s happening in America? An order of men whose principle is the negation of all principles. We’re going to abandon boundaries and principles, et cetera. We’re going to find a way to break them down whose moral code is the subversion of the moral law forms in the author’s humble judgment, a source of no small danger to the nation.

So Wiley is trying to warn his fellow Britons. He’s trying to warn them about what’s happening. He says,

“Cast out of all kingdoms for their execrable maxims and their treasonable practices. The Jesuits bestow themselves upon us.

And why? Because they’d been driven out of one country after another after another through the Middle Ages, all the way up into the early part of the 20th century. I’ve talked about before Switzerland, how the Jesuits were driven out of Switzerland in the 19th century. You go study all the countries that they were driven out of. Of course, they were driven out and then they would come back later on. They’d find a way to get back into those countries.

But so he says,

The Jesuits bestow themselves upon us. They change their soil, but not their nature. They come to pursue in their new home the intrigues that drew upon them expulsion from their old. Our law denies them the unobstructed entrance and unchallenged residence, which they claim.

So in other words, there were laws against having Jesuits in England.

He says,

There appears, however, no intention of putting the law in force.

Think about that. Think about what we’re dealing with in our country right now. One of the chief complaints on something like immigration, that the immigration laws are simply not being enforced. They’re not going to enforce the law. Why? Because there are people in government who are, for whatever reason, compromised and they won’t uphold and enforce the law. And this is what gave the Jesuits entrance into England, the UK. So he says, quote,

What then is to be done to counteract the evils sure to arise from the presence of men who have always and everywhere been the disturbers of the public peace? We can but expose their arts and put the unwary on their guard. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Never was the description more applicable or the warning that accompanies it more needful. The Jesuits come to us in the name of Him who was holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners. They call themselves the companions of Jesus or the company of Jesus or the society of Jesus. They call themselves the companions of Jesus. The name is but the sheep’s clothing.

He goes on, he says,

By their fruits ye shall know them. Their teaching is the doctrine of devils and their deeds are the works of Apollion, the destroyer.

And just so we understand, Wiley believed that Protestantism was revived Christianity or Bible-based Christianity. Praise the Lord.

Listen to the entire podcast from Chris’s website.

Dear friends, on October 15th, Sunday, I will go to a hospital to have surgery on my left elbow to fix a broken bone from an accident I had last September 24th. I may not be able to post any more articles for a while, at least not in the next few days. Please pray the doctor does a good job. I haven’t been able to do a lot of things for my wife the last 3 weeks, errands I used to do. But I’ve still been able to work on this website using one finger of my right hand, praise God!

Jesuit disinformation is rife on the Internet. The Jesuits are the leaders of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Their goal is to destroy Bible-based Christianity in the USA and the world. It’s no surprise, therefore, when some people are actively working to divert attention from the Jesuits and call Satan’s work on earth a “Jewish-Masonic cryptocracy.”

I’m thinking specifically now about a guy named Timothy Fitzpatrick of fitzinfo.net which has the tagline “Exposing the Judeo-masonic-Bolshevist conspiracy.” He mocks conspiracy researchers who point to the Jesuits as the movers and shakers of conspiracies that destabilize societies and calls them, “naïve dupes.” He specifically criticizes honest truth-telling conspiracy researchers such as Alexander Hislop, Walter J. Veith, Christian J. Pinto, Tupper Saussy, David Wilcock and Sherman Skolnick whose articles are on this website. But Fitzpatrick exposes himself when he writes such things as,

Documentary filmmaker Christian J. Pinto of Adullam Films pulls out all the tired old slanders against the Church—all for the advancement of the Jewish-Protestant alliance…

and,

Pinto is your typical Zionist shill accusing the Vatican of everything the world has known for 500-plus years that the Jews are responsible for. Make no mistake, the Vatican is now an agent of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, thanks to Jews and masons subverting the Church, especially during the buildup to the Protestant Reformation and the French Revolution, culminating in the Jewish-sponsored Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. But the true Church remains within the fractured Vatican as well as in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Protestantism has and always will be a Jewish perversion, a cheap imitation of the Church of Christ, right down to the sexually depraved Waledensians and Albigensians, whom Pinto specifically defends, giving away his Puritan bias. (Ref: https://fitzinfo.net/2014/04/01/christian-j-pinto-zionist-shill-espousing-what-else-jesuit-conspiracy-theories/)

Wow! Timothy Fitzpatrick is obviously identifying “the Church” as the Roman Catholic Church. And he’s calling Protestantism – which is really only Bible-based faith in Jesus Christ – a “Jewish perversion, a cheap imitation of the Church of Christ.” And he’s falsely accusing of wrongdoing the Waledensians and Albigensians. These are groups of Christians the Catholic Church charged with heresy and murdered just because they would not acknowledge the Pope as their spiritual leader. Who else would say such things but a Jesuit, a Catholic priest, or a hard-core traditional Catholic?

Who exactly is Timothy Fitzpatrick? He doesn’t give his bio on his website. If he did, we might find out some incriminating things about his biases such as what schools he attended. For all we know, Fitzpatrick may even be a Jesuit or a Catholic priest. Fitzpatrick is an Irish name. Many Irish are Catholics.

I believe the primary source of Neo-Nazi antisemitic rhetoric is the Roman Catholic Church. It’s very convenient for the Jesuits to deflect blame of the evils they are doing away from themselves and say, “The Jews did it!”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying all Jews are guiltless. Any Jew who purposely rejects Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah is an antichrist according to 2 John 1:7. What I am saying is the Jesuits are using the Jews as scapegoats to deflect blame from themselves and the Vatican. Former Catholic priest Leo H. Lehmann gives pretty convincing evidence that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was written by Jesuits, not Jews!

Articles about that:

• Evidence of Jesuit authorship of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
• Authors of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion — Jews? Or Jesuits!

If anybody has any further evidence of the Jesuits / Catholic Church as the source of antisemitism, please share it in the comments section.

This inspiring account is a re-post from https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/gods-goose

The German city of Constance (Konstanz) is one of the most beautiful in Europe. It overlooks the blue-green lake of the same name, and through it flows the mighty Rhine.

It was there, 600 years ago on July 6, 1415, that a thin and very sick man was fastened to a wooden stake by a rusty chain round his neck. Wood and straw were piled up to his chin. He had seen what he called “this dire, ignominious, and cruel death” coming for a long time, and now the horror had arrived. Yet when the fire was lit, he sang hymns.

This remarkable man was John Huss (also Jan Hus), a Bohemian by birth. Huss is Czech for goose. Why was he burnt alive, and why should we remember him on the 600^th anniversary of his death? The latter question is easy. Looking back at history as God arranged it, if there had been no John Huss there would have been no Martin Luther. And if there had been no Martin Luther then there would have been no Protestant Reformation and recovery of the gospel. In God’s providence, John Huss takes a critically important place in the history of Jesus’ church.

Huss was born in Husinec, Bohemia, in 1369. He was a top student at the University of Prague, and was made a priest in 1400. Huss inherited the church of high medieval Roman

Catholicism: the pope was the supreme authority; the Latin Vulgate was the “right” version of Scripture and other translations were wrong; at the Mass the bread and wine were “transubstantiated” into the actual body and blood of Christ; the work of priests was efficacious no matter their character; and the sale of indulgences — certificates that promised a quicker exit from purgatory — was the pope’s approved method for raising money. The church was considered to be more of a physical and organisational structure than the spiritual body of Christ, and justification by faith alone was forgotten.

At university, Huss joyfully discovered the writings of the Englishman John Wycliffe (1320-1384), the “Morning Star of the Reformation”. Wycliffe railed against English subordination to the Bishop of Rome, taught that transubstantiation was nonsense, and worked heroically for the translation of the Bible into his native tongue. Huss translated a number of Wycliffe’s books into Czech.

In his early 30s, Huss began preaching at Prague’s new Bethlehem Chapel. At this time two rival popes, one based in Rome, and the other in Avignon in France, each claimed to be the head of the church. In 1409 the Council of Pisa tried to break the deadlock by appointing a third pope. This fiasco, coupled with the notorious immorality of the senior clergy, severely damaged the church’s reputation. Huss did not hold back his criticism, and Prague’s masses flocked to hear his merciless attacks on the hierarchy.

The hierarchy counter-attacked. They condemned “Wycliffism”, burned the Englishman’s books, and ordered his followers to recant. Huss refused, and was excommunicated and banned from preaching. For Huss, this would mean breaking his ordination vows. So he kept preaching, and his popularity grew.

In 1412, John XXIII (one of the three claimants popes) ordered a fresh sale of indulgences to finance his crusade against Naples. Huss was enraged. “Why does not the pope have refuge in prayer rather than gold or silver!” His enthusiastic followers burned papal bulls.

The political and religious situation in Europe grew so volatile that Sigismund, King of the Holy Roman Empire, called a general church council in Constance in 1414. Huss went to plead against his excommunication, and though Sigismund promised him safe passage back to Prague, he was soon imprisoned in the dungeon of a Dominican monastery. There he was perpetually cold, hungry, and sick.

Huss was brought to trial before a large gathering of European princes and prelates in June 1415. He knew what the final outcome would be, and quipped bravely, “The Goose is not afraid to be cooked.”

Against those who accused him for his opposition to indulgences and other papal abuses, he said time and again, “Show me from God’s Word where I am wrong.” And when urged to submit to the authority of the pope, whether he agreed personally or not, he replied, “I cannot offend against God or my conscience by abjuring.” Biographer David Schaff said that Huss broke new ground by “contending for the right of the individual conscience in the presence of the open Bible”.

At each day of trial, the court openly mocked and ridiculed the sick and lonely prisoner, standing against the assembled pomp and might of European power. But he called Jesus his bellator fortis — “My Strong Champion” and in prison, pain-wracked, he prayed for Europe, and penned scores of powerful pastoral letters.

On Thursday July 6, 1415, everything was brought to its ghastly conclusion. Huss was ready. “It is better to die than to live ill. One should not flinch before the sentence of death.” He was mockingly robed as a priest, and then forcibly undressed and degraded. They crowned him with a paper cone bearing the word Haerersiarcha: Head of Heretics.

He was led to a vacant plot, where one last time he refused to save his life by recanting. “In the truth of the gospel which I have written, taught, and preached, drawing on the sayings and positions of the holy doctors, I am ready to die today.” As the flames consumed him he cried out, “Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on us!”

His ashes were shoveled into a wheelbarrow, and tipped into the Rhine.

A famous Czech medallion, cast in 1572, represents John Wycliffe striking sparks with a flint, John Huss lighting a flame, and Martin Luther holding high a blazing torch. This shows exactly where John Huss fits into the history of the church.

As Huss had devoured Tyndale’s books, Luther, as a curious teenager in Erfurt, read the heretic Huss’s sermons, and found himself deeply influenced. After nailing his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg’s Castle Church in 1517, Luther was accused time and again of being one of the loathed “Hussites”. At first he denied this, and said that only some of Huss’s articles were true. But by the time of his own 1521 trial in Worms, he revoked this, and affirmed that all of Huss’s articles were true, and that in condemning Huss, Constance had condemned the gospel. Luther’s peroration at Worms very much echoed the defence of Huss a century before:

If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons; if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything. I stand here and can say no more. God help me. Amen.

That’s why we should remember John Huss on the 6th of July. His courage inspired Luther, and his writings taught Luther to bind his conscience to the Word alone. Luther taught that to the world, and, as Protestant believers, we live and stand in that liberating and life-giving truth today.

Take time to thank God for the Goose, the great John Huss.

A regular visitor of this website suggested that I post testimonials of the martyrs and saints to inspire us all. The first person that came to mind was William Tyndale.

Quotes about Tyndale from https://www.worldhistory.org/William_Tyndale/

The following is a repost from https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/william-tyndales-concept-church

Introduction

A significant contribution to the reformation of the church in England was William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible. With no support and little assistance, Tyndale produced an edition of the New Testament in 1526, and published translations of parts of the Old Testament from 1530 until 1534. Having profited from Luther’s German translation and the writings of other continental reformers, Tyndale provided a version superior to the one by John Wycliffe. The Romanist clergy, however, noting that Tyndale’s translation excluded words that were associated with such customs as penance, ceremonies, and confession to priests, decried the work as “poison in the vulgar tongue.” And the college of bishops claimed that Tyndale’s version would infect the laity with the “sickness of heresy.” For it saw that Tyndale avoided vocabulary which papal decrees and other authorized documents had used to promote Romanist practices. In fact, wherever it was possible, Tyndale translated the original Greek and Hebrew with English words which had not been forced into false usage by Roman Catholicism.

It is not surprising that Tyndale’s translation received much criticism from the Roman Catholic bishops. Especially Thomas More, who was the spokesman for English Roman Catholicism, inveighed against Tyndale.

In 1529 More wrote a treatise, the Dialogue Concerning Heresies and Matters of Religion, in which he attacked the vocabulary of the new English Bible. More chided Tyndale for “mistranslating” several words of theological importance: the translator used “love” instead of “charity” for the Greek word agape, “senior” or “elder” instead of “priest” for presbyteros, and “repentance” instead of “penance” for the Greek metanoia. As one biographer observes, More declared Tyndale guilty of deliberately replacing theological terms with words not normally used by theologians.² And More tried to show that by means of these “radical” translations Tyndale was subverting the authority of the church and its doctrines.

Tyndale was obliged to reply to More, and he published An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue in 1531 to defend the vocabulary of his edition. ³ The debate between the two scholars was more than academic bickering, for as W. Clebsch notes, “resistance to More’s attacks on certain words was for Tyndale philological and literary but above all theological.”⁴ The upshot of More’s arguments was that Tyndale’s translation was unauthorized, not sanctioned by the Roman Catholic church. With its unorthodox vocabulary, the English edition posed a threat to the authority of the church. More and Tyndale knew that the new translation of the Bible could become a powerful tool in the hands of the reformers. And More intended to halt the spreading of Tyndale’s Bible by criticizing it forcefully.

One word in the new translation which annoyed More considerably was “congregation.” Tyndale preferred this word to “church” as a rendering of the Greek ekklesia and the Hebrew qahal and edah. Herein Tyndale was following the lead given by Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into German, in which Luther had avoided the word Kirche, preferring instead Gemeinde. Both reformers wished to avoid a word which in the popular mind referred to the so-called Holy Roman Church. Yet Tyndale’s reasons for avoiding “church” were not merely epigonal, but were based upon his own observations of the government of the church in England, and of spiritual life. After all, it was for the English ploughboy that Tyndale had laboured.

As we investigate Tyndale’s concept of the church, we must bear in mind that Tyndale is noted as a translator, not as a theologian. Unlike some of the continental reformers, he did not produce a systematic theology in which the doctrine of the church is exhaustively expounded. His statements about the church are unconnected, and little effort is made therein to link ecclesiology to other doctrines. For the doctrine of the church, Reformed readers are accustomed to turn to Book Four of Calvin’s Institutes, to Articles 27-30 of the Belgic Confession, and to other Reformed confessions. However, because Tyndale was forced to defend, among other things, his translation of ekklesia with “congregation,” he did write extensively about the church.

An examination of the concept of the church as it was formulated by one of the first English reformers will prove fruitful. Tyndale’s writings reflect many scriptural ideas formulated by the continental reformers, especially Martin Luther. Whenever he deemed the thoughts of the other reformers sound, he incorporated them into his own writings, sometimes adapting them to the English setting. Tyndale was influenced also by other writers; John Hus, Huldrych Zwingli, and the followers of Wycliffe, the so-called Lollards, are but a few. ⁵ Yet Tyndale does display his own concept of the church, especially as he was forced to develop it in his translation of the Bible. The purpose of this article is to reveal Tyndale’s reasons for using “congregation” and not “church” in his English translation of the Bible, and to make some observations about Tyndale’s concept of the church. I shall also note those features in Tyndale’s ecclesiology which strike me as particularly Reformed, and shall offer some criticism of his ideas. Perhaps an appreciation for Tyndale’s writings on the church will serve to sharpen our knowledge of a doctrine which remains relevant at the close of the twentieth century.

Why Tyndale does not use “Church” in his Translations

As we might expect from a translator, Tyndale begins his Answer with an exposition of the meaning and usage of the word “church” in sixteenth century England. Tyndale observes that the word is used in different senses, and that some of these were promoted falsely by the Roman Catholic clergy to its own advantage. Since the word “church” may mislead the reader, Tyndale does not use it in his translation.

First Tyndale treats the literal meaning of the word “church”:

it signifies a place or house, whither the Christian people were wont in the old time to resort … to hear the word of doctrine, the law of God, and the faith of our Saviour Jesus Christ.⁶

In short, “church” denotes the building in which the Word of God was preached. Tyndale goes on to describe the church building as it functioned before Roman Catholicism altered it.

In the ancient church building the minister preached the pure Word of God only, and prayed in a tongue that all men understood … and of him (all) learned to pray at home and everywhere, and to instruct every man his household (11).

Tyndale makes it clear that the function which the building performed in former times was unlike that of the sixteenth century building. He states that for his contemporaries “church” no longer implies the place where the true Gospel is proclaimed. Indeed, he complains that in the so-called church of his age only voices without meaning are heard, and “we be fallen into such ignorance, that we know of the mercy and promises, which are in Christ, nothing at all” (11).

Tyndale avoids “church” in his translation because an important connotation of the word – the true preaching of the Gospel – is absent. Although he does not state so explicitly, Tyndale notes that one of the marks of the true church is lacking to the sixteenth century Romanist church. And as an advocate for reform, Tyndale is annoyed that Roman Catholicism had deprived “church” of this fundamental characteristic. It is unfortunate, however, that Tyndale overlooks the fact that the true church of Christ exists beyond human observation. Perhaps the decrepit state of the church in Tyndale’s time caused the reformer to think that the true church was not to be found in England. But we may say that the church which preached the gospel of Christ did exist and would always exist: the Word of God is everlasting. Careful and accurate use of the word “church” is therefore appropriate.

Tyndale also avoids “church” in his translation because it had come to signify the Romanist clergy, which he describes pejoratively as “a multitude of shaven, shorn, and oiled.” According to this apparently common usage the word could refer to the pope, cardinals, legates, bishops, abbots, or monks; indeed, to “a thousand names of blasphemy and hypocrisies” (12). In everyday parlance the entire hierarchy within Roman Catholicism was referred to by the word “church.” Tyndale offers many examples of this usage; one must suffice. He quotes a commonly heard saying:

You must believe in holy church [i.e. the clergymen], and do as they teach you (12).

Tyndale avoids translating the Greek ekklesia or Hebrew qahal with “church,” because the reader may get the impression that the existence of numerous Roman Catholic orders is justified by the word “church” in Scripture. Tyndale does not want to give this impression to the innocent reader who may not know that the Bible does not speak of monks, or abbots, or even of popes.

“Church” was used in the sixteenth century as an inclusive term for all those who call themselves Christians, “though their faith be naught, or though they have no faith at all” (13).⁷ Just as “Christendom” is used in modern times to designate all those who call themselves Christians, so too the word “church” was used in the sixteenth century as a popular term for those who considered themselves Christians, although their thoughts, words and actions perhaps proved otherwise. Again, Tyndale suggests that the writers of the Bible did not employ the word for church in this sense; therefore he excludes “church” from his translation.

Tyndale also points out that the word “has, or should have, another signification: a congregation; a multitude or a company gathered together in one, of all degrees of people” (12). In this sense “church” refers to the people who are gathered together. And according to Tyndale the nature of that congregation is seen by “the circumstances thereof.” There may be a holy, righteous congregation, and there may be an ungodly, impious congregation. This distinction is based upon the two uses of ekklesia in the New Testament, as Tyndale himself knows well. Like the continental reformers, Tyndale uses Acts 19:32, 39, 41 (where the assembly in Ephesus is called ekklesia) as prooftexts that ekklesia is not used only to denote an assembly of Christians.

Tyndale explains what he means by a company of … all degrees of people”: “church” is used for “the whole multitude of all them that receive the name of Christ to believe in him and not for the clergy only (12).

To the modern reader Tyndale may seem to be stating the obvious, but in sixteenth century England many were led to believe that the church comprised only the Roman Catholic clergy. Tyndale struggles against the misappropriation of the term by one elite group. He offers a host of scriptural evidence which shows that ekklesia refers to the body of all believers. One text in which we read that the church comprises both the laity and the clergy is Galatians 1:13, where Paul writes that he had persecuted the church of God. Tyndale explains that Paul had tried to destroy “not the preachers only, but all that believed generally” (13). Comparing Scripture with Scripture, Tyndale adduces Acts 22:4 as further proof that Paul uses ekklesia in Galatians 1 to denote all the members of the church. For there he writes about his persecution of “men and women” of the church. Space prevents the discussion of all the other texts which Tyndale mentions in his condemnation of the restrictive use of “church.” But the attention which Tyndale paid to this matter reveals to what extent the Roman Catholic hierarchy had appropriated for itself the word “church,” and how it had excluded a vast number of believers.

While demonstrating that “church” refers to the laity as well as to the clergy, Tyndale offers another positive definition: “ … throughout all the Scripture, the church is taken for the whole multitude of them that believe in Christ in that place, in that parish, town, city, province, land, or throughout all the world” (13). It is noteworthy that he speaks of the church local and the church universal in one breath. This is in keeping with the writings of the church in its early existence, during the apostolic and patristic eras. In one and the same sentence, Tyndale describes the church as the gathering of true believers in one place or throughout the world. It is interesting to note that the sharp distinction which many documents of the continental Reformation, and some modern theologians, have drawn between the local and universal church is not to be found here in Tyndale’s treatise.

It is also interesting to read that Tyndale knows of a more strict usage of “church,” whereby the word refers only to those who have been chosen by God’s eternal decree.

“Sometimes it is taken specially for the elect only; in whose hearts God has written his law with His Holy Spirit, and given them a feeling faith of the mercy that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (13).

From the words italicized in the quotation one may note that Tyndale describes the body of the elect in terms of the triune God. Such language reminds one of Calvin’s definition in Institutes IV.1.7:

Sometimes by the term ‘church’ it means that which is actually in God’s presence, into which no persons are received but those who are children of God by grace of adoption and true members of Christ by sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

Yet the differences between the two definitions are also telling: Tyndale avoids the word “grace,” opting instead for “mercy;” he gives the law of God a prominent position, and he does not speak explicitly of the sanctification of God’s adopted children. Yet, according to both reformers, the elect are those who have been chosen by God the Father, saved by God the Son, and sanctified by God the Spirit. As we shall observe later, Tyndale knows that a difference exists between God’s elect and the members of the manifest church.

Why Tyndale uses “Congregation” in his Translations

Apart from the reasons stated above, Tyndale has no objection to the word “church.” Indeed, in the Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, and in other writings, he frequently interchanges “church” and “congregation.” To Tyndale they are, insofar as we are able to tell, synonymous. Yet he is steadfast in his use of “congregation” in the English translations of the Old and New Testaments. And just as Tyndale offers reasons based on philology for the rejection of “church,” so too he offers philological reasons for the use of “congregation.” Yet it should be obvious that the philological debate is merely the tip of a theological iceberg, and the diction hides a mass of theological reasons which was destined to collide with the ship of Roman Catholicism.

Tyndale provides philological reasons for his choice of “congregation.” The word has a broad range of uses, Tyndale suggests, which reflects the broad range of uses which the Greek word ekklesia also possessed in the first century. Like the reformers on the continent, Tyndale knew that the Greek word ekklesia had been employed long before the New Testament church was established. It was a common term for the assembly of people at civic functions in Athens and other Greek city-states. Even in the New Testament ekklesia is used with this secular meaning; we noted above that in Acts 19:32, 39, 41 Demetrius the silversmith addresses a public assembly (ekklesia) in Ephesus. The word “congregation,” according to Tyndale, is – like the Greek word – a “more general term” (13), and therefore appropriate in this, and similar, contexts.

Tyndale chose “congregation” also in part because Erasmus uses words other than ecclesia in his Latin translation of the New Testament. Tyndale reminds his opponent that Erasmus, More’s dear friend, also employs unorthodox language in the Latin translation, which had appeared in 1516. Though his tone is less than kind, Tyndale’s point is well taken: the Church has no right to impose its language upon Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Tyndale knows well, of course, that More and the other clergy saw in “congregation” a purposeful rejection of the language which the church had made standard over generations. Whereas “church” was a word with Roman Catholic associations, “congregation” belonged to the diction of the reformers.

At the conclusion of the philological rebuttal, Tyndale recapitulates the reasons for rejecting “church” from his English translation. “Church” is a word which in the New Testament denoted a place where the Gospel was preached. It did not denote the clergy only, did not exclude the flock of believers, did not refer to Christendom in general, and did not refer to the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Since his contemporaries might understand the word to refer to any, or any number, of these usages, Tyndale chose to avoid it. Tyndale argues positively that in Scripture “church” applied to an assembly of people. The assembly might be secular or sacred. In the early history of the church the word was also used for the body of God’s elect, and for the mixed congregation of believers and unbelievers.

Tyndale concludes: in as much as the clergy … had appropriated unto themselves the term that of right is common to all the congregation of them that believe in Christ … and brought (the people) into ignorance of the word …, therefore in the translation of the New Testament, where I found this word ekklesia, I interpreted it by this word congregation (13).

Tyndale’s Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue does not end there. After treating the words “church” and “congregation,” Tyndale explains his preference for other important words, such as “love”, “favour”, and “repentance.” Thereupon Tyndale gives a lengthy reply to More’s defence of the worship of images, pilgrimages, and prayers offered to saints. In several places Tyndale discusses the nature of the church, and shows that the truly Biblical ecclesiology is that of the reformers, whom More called the “pestilent sect of Luther and Tyndale.”

Reformed Elements in Tyndale’s Ecclesiology

Introduction

In the treatise, An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, William Tyndale defends the translation of ekklesia in the Bible with “congregation” and not “church.” Tyndale prefers “congregation,” since it does not lead the readers of the English Bible into thinking that the Roman Catholic church with its false doctrines and practices has its foundation in Scripture. Like the reformers on the European continent, Tyndale strives to establish a text of the Bible which is free of associations with Roman Catholicism.

Thomas More, the reader will also recall, in the Dialogue Concerning Heresies and Matters of Religion, attacked Tyndale for using unorthodox and revisionist language. It was obvious to all in England that Tyndale’s translation reflected many Reformed ideas. And therefore More’s treatise was not merely a critical review of the vocabulary of the new English Bible; it charged the “pestilent sect” of reformers with heresy. More defended the authority of the pope and the power of church tradition. He strongly restated the Romanist belief that the church is the sole, infallible source of divine truth. He argued that whatever the church states as true, the believers must accept as the Word of God. Indeed, More suggested, the church had existed before Scripture was written, and even since the writing of the Bible, the church has proclaimed other truths that are not contained in Scripture. The church, therefore, determines Scripture and is its only interpreter. Accordingly, More concluded, Tyndale’s translation constituted a heretical subversion of the church and its authority. ⁸

In An Answer to Sir Thomas More, Tyndale treats many of the “heresies and matters of religion” which More had discussed. The translator defends not only the vocabulary of his edition, but also the Reformed criticism of such matters as the position of the pope, the worship of images and relics, and pilgrimages. In discussing these matters, Tyndale has occasion to touch upon the nature and role of the church. The relationship between the church and Scripture, and between the church and Christ its Head, are but two of the topics Tyndale broaches. In so doing, the translator provides us with one of the earliest English documents which promoted the Reformed doctrine of the church. In this article we shall consider some of the attributes of the church as observed by Tyndale. We shall observe the influences of the continental Reformation upon Tyndale’s thought, point out the Reformed character of Tyndale’s ecclesiology, and shall conclude with some notes of criticism.

The Church is Formed by God’s Word

According to Tyndale, one attribute of the church is that it is formed by the preaching of the Word of God.

“The whole Scripture, and all believing hearts, testify that we are begotten through the Word.”⁹

As proof for this attribute, Tyndale offers Romans 10:14: “How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?”¹⁰

He explains the text thus, “Christ must first be preached, ere men can believe in him … And therefore, in as much as the Word is before faith, and faith makes the congregation, therefore is the Word or Gospel before the congregation” (24).

In stating that the preaching of the Gospel and the resultant faith are needed for the formation of a church, Tyndale follows the continental reformers. It was Luther who had described the church as creatura verbi: a creature of the Word. Tyndale espouses this tenet of the Reformation and refutes the Romanist ecclesiology as expressed by More, according to whom the church is above Scripture and its sole expositor.

In his Dialogue More had argued that the Roman Catholic Church is superior to the Bible in part because it predates Scripture, and that therefore it alone is able to instruct the laity in the meaning of Scripture and in the doctrine that it expresses. For this reason Tyndale’s translation was so hated by the clergy, which realized the English Bible would undermine its authoritative position. But Tyndale, as A.G. Dickens notes, “firmly believed that the Bible came first and should invariably determine the doctrines, institutions and ceremonies of a Church which had come to bear little or no relation to that of the New Testament.”¹¹ In stating that the church is a product of the preaching of the Word, Tyndale argues that the Church is subservient to the Word, and should conform to it.

Tyndale’s reasoning follows that of the continental Reformers. Huldrych Zwingli, for example, had also written about the church’s subservience to the Word. One may recall that of the sixty-seven theses which Zwingli published in 1523, several concerned the authority of Scripture.

The first thesis reads: “All who say that the Gospel is invalid without the confirmation of the church err and slander God.”

Following Zwingli, Tyndale replaces the authority of the Romanist Church with the authority of Scripture. The church must obey the Word of God by which it is formed. There is no divine revelation besides the Word, and the church may not claim to possess truths outside Scripture. In stating that the church is a product of the Gospel, Tyndale refutes More’s contention that the church is superior to the Word.

Faith is the Basis of the Church

We read in Romans 10:17, “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.” Tyndale has already argued that the preaching of the Gospel precedes the formation of the church; now he argues that faith in Jesus Christ’s saving work, which is granted through the preaching, is a cornerstone of Christ’s church. Tyndale points out that all who are born anew and become children of God, are members of his church. Though one might question Tyndale’s exegesis of Matthew 16:18, his statement that “faith is the rock, whereon Christ built his congregation” (31) is true. And this faith, Tyndale writes, is the “foundation, laid of the apostles and the prophets; whereon Paul says (Ephesians 2:20) that we are built, and thereby of the household of God” (31).

Following the continental reformers, Tyndale emphasizes the role of the saving work of Christ in the formation of the church. Without the satisfaction of Christ for the sins of the world, the church could not exist. After all, the church is Christ’s body (Colossians 1:18), “and every person of the church is a member of Christ (Ephesians 5:23b). Now it is no member of Christ that has not Christ’s Spirit in him” (Romans 8:9) (31). Especially Ephesians 5:23b supports Tyndale’s argument: “Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour.” Faith in the expiation of Jesus Christ unites members into one body, and those who do not share in this faith, do not contribute to the unity of Christ’s body. It is clear to Tyndale that “both they that trust in their own works, and they also that put confidence in their own opinions, be fallen from Christ, and err from the way of faith that is in Christ’s blood, and therefore are not of Christ’s church” (33-34). Sola fide is an important creed of the church.

Such line of reasoning leads Tyndale to the logical conclusion that the Roman Catholic church is not the church of Christ. For “he that has no faith to be saved through Christ, is not of Christ’s church. And the pope believes not to be saved through Christ” (39), for he teaches to put trust in penance, pilgrimages, ceremonies, and the like – which “all are the denying of Christ’s blood.” (40) Since the pope has replaced Scripture with his own doctrine, and because the pope and the clergy have shown themselves in their conduct to be unholy, the Roman Catholic church cannot be the true church.

On the other hand, all those who “depart from them unto true Scripture, and unto the faith and living thereof” (45) form the true church. Members of the true church, Tyndale writes, “thou shalt always know by their faith, examined by Scripture, and by their profession and consent to live according to the law of God” (45). Evacuation from the false church, from “Babylon,” as the Second Helvetic Confession expresses it, is a necessity for all true believers. For Tyndale all believers should depart from the false church, namely, the Roman Catholic church. At a time when the only church in England was the Roman Catholic church as controlled by Henry VIII, even departure from this congregation of Satan was virtually impossible. Notions of forming a true congregation of believers were still in infancy. Nevertheless Tyndale urges those who have faith to leave the Romanist church.

The Church is an Assembly of Sinful Believers

Tyndale’s most complete definition of the true church or congregation is expressed in his rebuttal of the Romanist claim that the church cannot err. Thomas More had argued that the Roman Catholic church was infallible. To this Tyndale angrily retorts that if by church More means the Roman Catholic church, then the church certainly does err! And he cites many instances in which the church of Rome erred from the truth of God’s Word.

But as for the question of sin within the true church of Christ, Tyndale posits that, whereas sin exists in all people, God forgives those believers who ask him.

The church is the whole multitude of all repenting sinners that believe in Christ, and put all their trust and confidence in the mercy of God; feeling in their hearts that God for Christ’s sake loved them, and will be, or rather is, merciful to them, and forgives them their sins of which they repent; and that he forgives them also all the motions unto sin, of which they fear, lest they should thereby be drawn into sin again (30).

The church consists of believers who are miserable sinners; yet it consists of believers whose sins are forgiven. Quoting 1 John 3:9 (“no-one born of God commits sin”) and other texts, Tyndale states that the church consists of sinners who ask God for forgiveness and show amendment of life. The church comprises sinful believers, who are totally depraved and totally saved.

Tyndale does not forget the role of the Holy Spirit in the sanctification of believers, for he writes that it is the Holy Spirit which “keeps a man’s heart from consenting to sin” (31). In a sense, Tyndale dares to write, we are not sinners: “Not sinners if you look to the profession of our hearts toward the law of God, to our repentance and sorrow that we have, to the promises and mercy in our Saviour Christ, and to our faith.”

And yet, Tyndale writes, “every member of Christ’s congregation is a sinner, and sins daily” (32).

1 John 1:8 reminds us: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.”

Sin is a matter of fact, even in the congregation of Christ. “Sinners we are,” writes Tyndale, “if you look to the frailty of our flesh, which is like the weakness of one who is newly recovered out of a great disease, by reason whereof our deeds are imperfect; and by reason whereof also, when occasions be great, we fall into horrible deeds, and the fruit of the sin which remains in our members breaks out” (32).

Yet, as Tyndale also reminds us, the Holy Spirit helps us in our weaknesses (Romans 8:26).

Hypocrites within the Church

Tyndale also treats the matter of unbelievers within the church. Like the continental reformers, he knows that there are hypocrites within the body of Christ (44). For this attribute of the church the reformers were indebted to Augustine, who had explained (de Doctrina Christiana, III, 32) that the church is “mixed”: in the church believers mingle with unbelievers. Tyndale calls the church “double,” that is, consisting of the “fleshly” and the “spiritual.” Just as the disciples of Christ could not look into the heart of the betrayer Judas, so too one cannot know perfectly what is in the heart of the members of one’s congregation. The Belgic Confession also speaks of “hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church along with the good and yet are not part of the Church, although they are outwardly in it” (Art. 29). And Calvin, too, would write about those “who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance” (Institutes IV.1.7). It is remarkable that already in the first decades of the Reformation in England, the word “church” could convey the nuanced sense of ecclesia permixta, the “mingled church.”¹²

The Church is the Gathering of the Elect

We noted above that Tyndale describes the church as “double.” He applies this sense also to the distinction between the elect of God (the “spiritual”) and those not chosen to everlasting life (“the fleshly”).

Tyndale explains:

there shall be in the church a fleshly seed of Abraham and a spiritual; a Cain and an Abel; an Ishmael and an Isaac; and Esau and a Jacob … a great multitude of them that be called, and a small flock of them that be chosen. And the fleshly shall persecute the spiritual (107).

Tyndale sees this attribute of the church in his own times, in which the pope and the Romanists are the “fleshly” who persecute the little flock of Christ. Pretending and believing to be the true church, the Roman Catholics “go unto their own imaginations” and “the manner of service they fetch out of their own brains, and not of the Word of God; and serve God with bodily service” (107). On the other hand, the body of the elect, “runneth not unto his own imaginations,” but seeks the Word of God. And the “little flock,” as Tyndale calls the elect, “receives this testament in his heart, and in it walks and serves God in spirit” (109). It is not surprising that Tyndale should depict the elect as a small and oppressed group within a large body of so-called believers, for in England the number of true believers must have appeared small in comparison with the large and powerful Romanist Church.

The Church as the Flock of the Shepherd

Of the other attributes of the church discussed in Tyndale’s Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue one in particular should not be overlooked. In the treatise Tyndale repeatedly refers to the church as “little flock.” This Biblical expression had been used by the Lollards before Tyndale, yet the translator appropriates it for his own reasons. ¹³ In several places of An Answer Tyndale uses the image of the church as a flock of sheep. The church is gathered by the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ.

Tyndale writes, “God, when He calls a congregation unto his name, sends forth His messengers to call” (107).

The church is formed by the power of God, and not by the impetus of man. The “little flock” is formed, guided, and fed by the Shepherd.

The “little flock,” because “they have run clean contrary unto that good law, they sorrow and mourn … But the preacher comforts them, and shows them the testament of Christ’s blood … And the little flock receives this testament in his heart …” (108).

This image of the church as Christ’s flock is, as all well know, a Scriptural image. Therefore, one will not be surprised to learn that it appears in the Second Helvetic Confession and in the writings of the continental reformers. Indeed, the image of the church as flock is used by modern Reformed theologians also: K. Schilder saw in congregatio the ongoing, active, church-gathering work of Jesus Christ, the Shepherd.

When one appreciates Tyndale’s depiction of the church as the flock of Christ, one understands more fully his reasons for preferring “congregation” to “church” as the translation of ekklesia in the English Bible. For the English word “congregation” derives from the Latin word for “flock,” grex. Tyndale the translator is keenly aware of this etymology of the word, and despite his penchant for non-Latinate words, he employs this one in his translation. It appeals to him for it conveys a meaning which the Biblical expressions for the church also convey. To Tyndale, “congregation” is altogether an appropriate word.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a number of critical observations of Tyndale’s ecclesiology are in order. Although Tyndale discusses the nature and the role of the church in An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, he makes no attempt to present an exhaustive, systematic argument. Important essential and accidental features of the church are lacking to Tyndale’s treatise. There is no discussion, for example, of the marks of the true church. Discipline within the church is not treated. There is no explanation of the relationship between the administration of the sacraments and the church. Matters which appear to the post-Reformation churches as crucial to ecclesiology are glossed over by Tyndale.

But one should bear in mind that Tyndale does not claim to put forth a complete doctrine of the church. And perhaps Tyndale’s inchoate ecclesiology is to be explained by the circumstances in which he wrote. The reformation of the church in England occurred after Tyndale’s death. During his lifetime there were few attempts to reform the church on the scale attempted by Luther and the continental reformers. Tyndale was among the first to begin to call for change in England. By providing an English translation of the Bible Tyndale made the important first step toward reform.

There are many other features of Tyndale’s ecclesiology which might be discussed critically; here I shall merely list them. Some have noted a development in the theology of Tyndale which might be called inconsistent. Luther and Calvin also developed their theologies over time, yet their more systematic approach to ecclesiastical reform caused them to be more complete and consistent. There is little evidence that Tyndale envisages a schematic reform of the church; he appears content to make changes within the existing “multitude.” Others have suggested that there is evidence for a development toward legalism in Tyndale’s thought. ¹⁴ His view of the covenant has been described as that of a contract between parties: Tyndale has been linked to the development of Puritanism. Yet again others have observed an emphasis upon individualism in the theology of Tyndale. Even in the language of Tyndale’s English Bible one could criticize the translator. But when all is said and done, it should be acknowledged that the role of William Tyndale in the Reformation of the church in England was not a minor one.