Continued from IV. Councils For Seven Centuries Repudiate Papal Jurisdiction.

The entire east, with all its great patriarchs, bishops and churches, with all its teeming population of Christians, orthodox and heterodox, was separate from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. The pope never had any authority over a single one of these churches up till the commencement of the seventh century. And never after that time, unless in our days, when he has acquired limited control over an insignificant list of schismatics that would not number one percent of the pope-rejecting Christians of the east.

The Christians in France regarded him as the first bishop of the Church, because the prelate of the most renowned city of the world, but as rightly possessing no power over them. The Christians of Germany, following the Irish and British missionaries who brought them salvation, rejected the supremacy of the pontiff root and branch, and observed neither Romish customs, nor papal edicts. This was substantially the position of the Spanish church, The churches of Ireland, of the ancient Britons, and of Scotland, manfully refused every claim of the pope, and regarded his missionaries and his religion as tainted with heresy.

Nine-tenths of the Germans were pagans; all the Anglo-Saxons, except the few thousands Augustine had converted; all the Poles and Scandinavians—in short, the ancestors of most of the great nations of to-day, were steeped in heathenism, and the supremacy of the pope was confined to his own old patriarchate in Italy, and the small but hopeful mission of Augustine located in Ethelbert’s kingdom of Kent.

Eminent witnesses give indisputable evidence that for ages the Church had no crowned bishop whose spiritual scepter ruled all ecclesiastics and Christians.

The inspired records unmistakably declare the absolute equality of bishops and presbyters. The leading Christians of the primitive Church taught the same doctrine;—a view of these officers which forbids the existence of any royal bishop exercising dominion over the faith and practice of the whole Church.

And when, in times a little later, bishops became the official superiors of presbyters, the equality of all bishops was held and defended by the great thinkers of the Christian fold whom all subsequent ages have revered. Showing a decided conviction that a kingly bishop, with royal attributes over Zion, had no place in the calculations of the mighty men who stood in the front rank of Christ’s army during the first seven centuries after his ascension.

Let us examine the facts:

The New Testament speaks with the greatest clearness on this question. In the Acts of the Apostles 20:17, Paul is said to have called the elders of the church at Ephesus, that is, the presbyters; and in his address to them, in the 28th verse, he says: “Take heed therefore-unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” The word “overseers” is in the original bishops (ἐπίσκοπος), so that, according to the spirit of inspiration, presbyters and bishops are the same officers. And the idea, that in Paul’s time, in the city of Ephesus, there could be two or more bishops after the power and privileges of modern episcopacy, is one of those preposterous delusions which the intelligent could not readily receive.

At Ephesus the bishops were simply ordinary pastors of the church. In the Epistle to Titus, i. 5, Paul tells Titus that he had left him in Crete to ordain elders in every city (πρεσβυτέριον); and speaking of these functionaries in the 7th verse, he says: “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God” (ἐπίσκοπος), showing that in Paul’s opinion the terms bishop and elder or presbyter described the same officers. Peter, in his 1st Epistle, v. 1, 2, addresses the presbyters, saying:

“The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also a co-presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ; feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight, not by constraint but willingly.”

Now the words “taking the oversight” are literally episcopising (ἐπισκοπέω), acting as bishops, so that, in the judgment of Peter, elders are bishops. There is no pretext in the divine Word for another conclusion.

Tertullian whose authority will ever have great weight, writing about the end of the second century, says:

“The highest priest, who is the bishop, has the right of administering baptism. Then the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the authority of the bishop, because of the honor of the church, which being preserved, peace is preserved. Otherwise, the right even belongs to laymen.”

Now, according to this witness, the bishop is only the highest priest. The honor of the church is the only reason why he is invested with the authority of baptizing. And the honor of the church is secured in this arrangement by preserving its peace. The dignity of a bishop in Tertullian’s day was conferred, not by Christ, but by the Church, to preserve its harmony; and he is only the first presbyter, in piety and talents, or in the honor conferred by venerable years.

Irenaeus, a bishop of great worth, who flourished about the same time as Tertullian, says:

“But when we return again to that tradition, which is from the apostles, and which is guarded in the churches through the succession of presbyters, we provoke those who are opposed to tradition; they say, that they, existing not only from the presbyters, but also from the apostles, are more plenteously endued with wisdom.”

Here the celebrated Bishop of Lyons represents a succession of presbyters as guarding the apostolical doctrine, as the chief human protectors of the revealed treasures of heaven. And again he says:

“Therefore, it is incumbent on those who are in the church to obey the presbyters, who have their succession from the apostles, as we have shown, who, together with the succession of the episcopacy, have received the unerring gift of truth, according to the will of the Father.”

Here the presbyters have their succession from the apostles, and these same presbyters, like those of Ephesus, have the succession of the episcopacy; in the time of Irenaeus the terms bishop and presbyter were given interchangeably to the same clergyman. Irenaeus, with force and Christian kindness, entreats Victor, Bishop of Rome, as Eusebius records, not to excommunicate whole churches for a difference of opinion about the observance of Easter; in this address he says:

“And those presbyters who governed the church before Soter, and over which you now preside, I mean Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus with Telesphorus and Xystus.”

These persons, whom he calls presbyters, are popes, the predecessors of Victor in the See of Rome.

Jerome, the scholarly and popular saint and monk of the fourth century, says:

“Therefore as presbyters know that they, from the custom of the church, are subject to him who has been placed over them, so bishops know that they, more from that usage, than from the fact of the Lord’s setting it in order, are superior to presbyters, and ought to govern the church for the common welfare.”

Here the learned maker of the Vulgate declares against any divine distinction between bishops and presbyters. The custom of the Church is the sole authority for the superiority of bishops over presbyters.

Jerome in another place says:

“I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth deacons before priests, that is to say, before bishops; whereas the apostle plainly teaches that priests and bishops are all one.”

Certainly this statement speaks with decision. And Jerome repeats it in other forms with equal clearness. He says:

“For at Alexandria, from Mark, the evangelist, to Heracles and Dionysius, bishops, the presbyters always elected one from among themselves, and having placed him in a higher rank, named him bishop, after the manner that an army chooses its general; the deacons select one from among themselves whom they know to be industrious, and him they call archdeacon.”

According to this statement a bishop at Alexandria at this period belonged to no order distinct from the presbyters, he was simply a presbyter elected to the presidency of the board of presbyters.

Again Jerome says:

“Presbyter and bishop are the same; the one name describes the age of the man, the other his dignity. Hence instruction is given to Titus and Timothy about the ordination of a bishop and of a deacon; but there is absolute silence about presbyters, because the presbyter is contained in the bishop.”

And again Jerome says:

“Hearken to another testimony in which it is very clearly established that a bishop is the same as a presbyter—(Paul says to Titus)—I have left thee in Crete that you may correct the things that are deficient, appointing presbyters through the cities, as T commanded you. If there is any one without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, free from the charge of luxury, or not hypocrites; for a bishop ought to be without crime, as a steward of God.”

Jerome’s own opinion, and the apostle’s testimony, are decisive evidence of the oneness of the office of a bishop and presbyter.

Again, says Jerome, Paul commands Timothy:

“To be unwilling to neglect the grace which is in you, which was given you by prophecy through the imposition of the hands of the presbytery.”

But also Peter, in his first Epistle, says:

“Presbyters, I, your (fellow-presbyter, exhort you, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a sharer in the coming glory which is to be revealed: rule the flock of Christ and oversee it, not by compulsion but freely, as being near to God.”

But, indeed, it is more strikingly expressed in the original Greek, that is, discharging the duties of bishops; from which word the name bishop is derived.

And again, commenting on Titus, Jerome says:

“For a bishop must be without crime, as it were a steward of God; a presbyter is the same as a bishop, and until by the instigation of the devil there arose divisions in religion, and it was said among the people: I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, churches were governed by a common council of the presbyters. Afterwards truly, every one reckoned those to be his whom he baptized, not Christ’s. Then it was decreed over the world, that one of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, to whom the whole care of the Church should belong, and that the seeds of schisms might be taken away.”

Speaking of Paul, Ambrose says:

“Moreover, after bishop he places the ordination of the deacon. Wherefore? but that there is one ordination of the bishop and the presbyter: for each is a priest, but the bishop is the first; since every bishop is a presbyter, though every presbyter is not a bishop. For he is the bishop who is first among the presbyters.”

The celebrated Bishop of Hippo says:“What is a bishop but the first priest, that is to say, the highest priest? According to the terms of honor which now the usage of the Church of Rome hath brought about, the episcopacy is superior to the presbytery.” But from this statement the superior position of bishops has no divine authority, and rests simply on the usage of the Church of Rome. And in any case, according to Augustine, a bishop is only a presbyter, though he is the highest.

Chrysostom says:

“Between a bishop and a priest there is, in a manner, no difference.” “The presbyters anciently were called bishops, and servants of Christ, and the bishops presbyters.”

In Scotland for a long period, the bishops of the country were subject to the Abbot of Iona, who received every mark of pious deference from the heads of the churches planted by the great Columba. And as this fact rests upon the very best evidence, we have another confirmation of the doctrine that, among the early Christians, there was no difference in the orders of bishops and priests. “Even bishops obeyed the abbots of Iona, though they were but simple priests.”

The celebrated Isidore, Bishop of Seville, presided at the second council, held in his episcopal city, A. p. 619, and, among other canons, it made the following:

“For although many services of the ministry are common to them with the bishops, they are aware that some are prohibited to them by new ecclesiastical rules, as the consecration of presbyters, deacons, and virgins. These are not lawful to presbyters.”

Du Pin gives a full account of this canon, but is careful to leave out the words, “by new ecclesiastical rules.”

In the researches of modern scholarship, men have forgotten their sectarian prejudices, and confessed their conviction that originally the names presbyter and bishop described the same ecclesiastic. Bishop Stillingfleet says:

“I believe, upon the strictest inquiry, Medina’s judgment will be found true, that Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Arius’ judgment as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive Church.”

Archbishop Cranmer says:

“The bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but one office in the beginning of Christ’s religion.”

Archbishop Usher said:

“I have declared my opinion to be, that episcopus and presbyter differ only in degree, not in order, and consequently in places where bishops cannot be had, the ordination by presbyters standeth valid.”

Opinions of this character might be multiplied in number, though in the United Church of England and Ireland, no other three names could fully equal those whose views have been quoted. The leading men of the first four and a half centuries, and some of the most distinguished Episcopalians of the great Reformation, receive the teachings of inspiration given in Acts xx. 17, 28, and declare that the terms bishop and presbyter describe the same order of clergymen. These men had a hierarchy, and this fact gives peculiar force to their testimony.

It follows that as bishops and presbyters are one, there is no scriptural ground for several bishops, or for one prelate to claim lordship over the presbyters, deacons, and churches. There is no divine location for a pontiff.

The origin of episcopacy, according to Jerome, is to be found in the factiousness of church members. “A presbyter,” says he, “is the same as a bishop, and until, by the instigation of the devil, there arose divisions in religion, and it was said among the people, ‘I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas,’ churches were governed by a common council of the presbyters.”

For the sake of securing peace and repressing anarchy in the churches, a bishop or permanent president of the College of Presbyters was appointed. As early as the end of the second century, a modified episcopacy was the common form of the government of the churches. At first, the presbyters retained many of their old rights; and, in some countries, they held most of their original privileges for a very long period. But the episcopal system very early became general and popular; just as kingly government in the state has, from the most ancient times, been the method of exercising sovereign powers to which most nations have submitted.

When episcopal government was first established in the churches, and for centuries later, the accepted theory about it was: That all bishops were equal, not in culture, not in the wealth of their respective sees, not in the honor which might be inseparably attached to some bishop at the seat of government, or in a large and opulent city, but in a general council, where the vote of every bishop had the same influence; and in the common duties of the episcopal office. The fiercest struggles were made to maintain this equality, and its assertion in manly words forms the most interesting records of the Church’s history.

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, the most eloquent and cultivated ecclesiastic of the Christian Church from the days of Paul, says:

“For none of us makes himself a bishop of bishops, or by a tyrannical terror compels his colleagues to a necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the license of his own liberty and power, hath his own freedom, and can no more be judged by another, than he himself can judge another.”

Cyprian lived before the age of general councils, when each bishop under God was master of the interests committed to his charge.

Cyprian on another occasion gave Stephen, Bishop of Rome, a severe rebuke for meddling in the affairs of two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martialis, who had been deposed from their bishoprics for their crimes. In his 68th letter addressed to the clergy and people of Spain, he says:

“Basilides going to Rome, imposed upon our colleague, Stephen, who lived a great way off, and was ignorant of the truth of the matter; seeking unjustly to be restored to his see, from which he had been justly deposed.”

Certainly Cyprian has few compliments here for the ignorant pope, and evidently writes as one who feels himself, and is regarded by others, as Stephen’s equal.

He writes to Antonius on the controversy between Cornelius and Novatian, and makes this declaration to him:

“The bond of concord abiding, and the sacrament of the Catholic Church persisting undivided, every bishop disposes and directs his own acts, having to render an account of his purpose to the Lord.”

Cyprian never dreamt of any bishop giving him orders, or demanding an account of his acts.

Again, in a letter to Pope Stephen himself, he says:

In which matter we neither force any one, nor give law, since every prelate hath in the administration of his church the free power of his will, having to render unto the Lord an account of his acting.”

[Pope] Pius IX. would be astounded at such sentiments in a letter from one of his bishops, but Stephen was not. No other obedience was given to popes by bishops like Cyprian in Stephen’s times. Cyprian writes to Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, after the same independent style.

As Du Pin translates him, he says:

“What benefit can they expect from going to Rome? If they repent of their faults they ought to understand that they must come back hither again to receive absolution for them, since it is an order established all the world over, and, indeed, but reasonable, that every one’s cause should be examined where the crime was committed. Every pastor has received a part of Jesus Christ’s flock to govern, and shall render an account of his actions to God alone. Upon this account it is not to be allowed that those persons who are under our charge should run to and fro, and sow dissensions among bishops by their temerity and artifices; but on the other hand, it is necessary for them to defend themselves in that place where they may be confronted with their accusers, and the witnesses of their crimes. Their cause has been examined, sentence has been pronounced against them, and it would be below the gravity of bishops to be justly reproached with being wavering and inconstant.”

The translation is very free, amounting to a paraphrase, and it is given because Du Pin has caught the exact drift of Cyprian’s indignant denunciation of appeals to Rome against an African decision. He plainly tells Cornelius throughout his lengthy letter, that he has nothing to do with Fortunatus and Felicissimus, the guilty African bishops, and that his interference could not help them. They must abide by the local decision, or have it reversed at home; as each bishop is independent.

According to Cyprian, no benefit could be obtained by an appeal to Rome. Even Du Pin is not always to be trusted. In the quotation from Cyprian’s letter, he passes over four lines to reach the end of his quotation without a hint that he omits anything, and the discarded part intimates that the African decision only appeared unimportant to a few ruined and abandoned men. So that only a handful of desperate persons approved of appeals from their own bishops.

There are eighty-three letters to and from Cyprian published in his works. These letters employ a style of address to Cyprian somewhat varying. Cyprian gives every bishop the same title, and that the simple one, Brother. He published seven epistles addressed to Cornelius, Bishop of Rome; the first one is his 41st Epistle, and it is inscribed: “Cyprianus to Cornelius, a brother, health.” The other six begin in the same way. “Cornelius to Cyprian, a brother, health,” is the address adopted by the Roman Bishop, as seen in the 46th Epistle of Cyprian’s collection, Firmilianus addresses Cyprian in this way in the 7th Epistle, “Cyprian and other colleagues assembled in council to the number of 66, address Fidus, a brother,” in the usual form; though Fidus was a very obscure and ignorant bishop. This letter is the 59th. The 67th is addressed in the same form to Stephen, Bishop of Rome. The 71st is addressed to Quintus, after the same fashion; the 73rd to Jubianus, the 74th to Pompey, and the 52nd to Antonianus. All unimportant African Bishops. The 26th is addressed to “Pope Cyprian,” by Maximus and Moyses, presbyters, Nicostratus and Ruffinus, deacons, and other confessors who are with them. The 30th and 31st are addressed to “Pope Cyprian,” by the presbyters and deacons of the Church of Rome.

In Cyprian’s time, as he himself says, each bishop had powers in his own city equal to every other, and the Roman Bishop, while treated with respect, as the pastor of the first city in the world, had no title not given to his brethren in the episcopal office, and no jurisdiction over the churches outside of his own diocese. Cyprian was more the “Head of the Church” than any Roman pontiff in his day, as Hosius of Cordova was three-quarters of a century later. He was consulted by bishops in France and Spain; and though living in Africa, time and again, he was approached for advice by the bishops, presbyters and deacons of Rome itself.

Du Pin says of Cyprian that:

“He looked upon the Bishop of Rome as superintendent of the first church in the world. But then he was of opinion that he ought not to assume any authority over the rest of the bishops, that were his brethren, or over their churches. That every bishop was to render to God an account of his own conduct. That the episcopal authority is indivisible, and every bishop has his portion of it.”

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in Africa, was the ablest man produced in the Christian Church for centuries. North Africa has laid the world under obligations for its Cyprian and its Augustine. The industry of Augustine has left the Church a superb legacy in the voluminous works to which his mighty mind gave birth. In common with all his countrymen, he denounced appeals from an African synod or bishop to any authority outside of the church of his countrymen. He very modestly denounces one of these appeals in his 162nd letter:

“Probably Melchiades, Bishop of Rome, with the transmarine bishops, his colleagues, ought not to have usurped that judgment which had been decided by seventy Africans, when Tigisitanus presided as primate. But why might he not assume it? Because the Emperor, when requested, sent bishops to be judges, who would sit with him, and would determine whatsoever appeared just in the whole case.”

In the exercise of a humility, for which Augustine is to be commended, he gently brands Melchiades as a usurper, and he tells him that seventy Africans had already settled the question.

The titles given in epistles to Augustine, and by him, show the wonderful reverence in which the Bishop of Hippo was held; and prove that, in the Christian world he had no superior.

Jerome in five letters addresses Augustine with these complimentary words: “To the lord, truly holy, and the most blessed Pope Augustine.” Surely, the learned St. Jerome knew the proper designation of a bishop.

Augustine is equally courteous to the distinguished scholar. His letters are addressed to: “The most illustrious and most desired lord, the brother in Christ to be honored, my fellow presbyter, Jerome.”

The 254th letter in Augustine’s epistles is addressed: “To the lord, truly holy, and sacredly preferred by us above all things, and revered with holy joy, the most blessed Pope Augustine, by Valentinus; the servant of thy holiness.” Certainly Augustine could desire nothing more in the way of high-sounding words of flattery.

Augustine addresses Pope Innocent: “To the lord, most happy, the brother deservedly most honored, Pope Innocent.” Augustine does not pay such compliments to Innocent as he receives from Valentinus.

Augustine addresses his 94th letter to: “Hilary, the most blessed lord, a brother in the truth of Christ, worthy of veneration, and a fellow priest.”

Consentius addresses his letter to: “The holy lord, and most blessed Pope Augustine.”

The titles of the 270 letters in the works of St. Augustine show that no one in the Christian world was more honored than himself. From those in his collection addressed to the Roman popes, it is abundantly manifest that they were not the rulers of the churches, the masters of the spiritual affairs of Christendom; and it is just as clear that in the discharge of their episcopal duties all bishops were equal.

The Synod of Antioch, complaining of the behavior of Pope Julius in the affair of Athanasius, as Sozomen relates, “Did not, therefore, think it equal that they should be thought inferiors, because they had not so large and numerous a church.”

ordain that: “The bishops of each nation should know him that is first among them, and should esteem him the head, and should do nothing considerable without his advice; as also that each one should only meddle with those affairs which concerned his own district, and the places under it, But he (the primate) should not do anything without the opinion of all, so that there may be concord.”

The apostolical canons are as old as the fourth, and might reach up to the close of the second century. And, according to their testimony, the Pope of Rome had no preeminence in the government of the churches. The principal city in each country was the seat of the first bishop; but even he must act by the advice of his fellow-bishops in everything of moment, that concord may be preserved.

At a council held in Rome, A.D. 359, a synodical letter was adopted, and sent to the Bishops of Illyria, which began: “Damasus (the pope), Valens, and the other bishops assembled at the holy council held at Rome, to the beloved brethren, the Bishops of Illyria.” Here Damasus, the pope, is only first on the list; Valens is in a position equally important; the others are evidently the peers of the two whose names are given. The pope is only primus inter pares, the first among equals.

Jerome says:

“Wherever a bishop may be, whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth, and of the same priesthood; the force of wealth and lowness of poverty do not render a bishop higher or lower; for all of them are the successors of the apostles.”

Again, the renowned monk and scholar condemns the whole papal system; for that scheme is destroyed by the removal of the pontiff, and there can be no proper pope without preeminent authority over the churches.

Hilary, of Arles, was a vigorous bishop, a sound thinker, a Bible reader, and a man of fearless independence. Celedonius, a bishop, had been married to a widow, and followed secular employments. For these two crimes, Hilary, in a council, deposed him. He appealed to Leo I., of Rome, and the pope restored him to his see. But neither Hilary nor the bishops of France would yield to the dictation of the pontiff. They were unaccustomed to obey such a master, and it was needful to obtain an imperial decree from Justinian, commanding, among other things, that: “Forever hereafter, neither the French bishops, nor the bishops of other provinces, shall undertake anything without the authority of the Bishop of Rome; that all that he orders shall be acknowledged for a law.” Well may Du Pin say: “This edict is contrary to the canons, as also to the decrees of the council of Sardica.” But it shows that up to that time, the first half of the fifth century, the French and German churches owed no allegiance to the See of Rome.

Eulogius, of Alexandria, had flatteringly said to the great Gregory, “sicut jusistis,”—as ye ordered. Gregory replied: “That word of command I desire to be removed from my hearing, because I know who I am, and who ye are; by place ye are my brethren; in goodness, fathers. I did not, therefore, command, but what seemed profitable I hinted to you.” Gregory was not the man to stop at giving an order where he had authority to do it, He was the first of the popes to begin his letters with the well known words, “servant of servants.” But none knew better than he how to climb the slippery heights of spiritual ambition and presumption.

Writing John the Faster, he reproachfully compares him to Lucifer in his defeated ambition in heaven, “What,” says he, “wilt thou say to Christ, the Head of the Universal Church, in the trial of the last judgment, who, by the appellation of Universal, dost endeavor to subject all his members to thee? Whom, I pray, dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word, but him who, despising the legions of angels constituted in fellowship with him, did endeavor to break forth unto the top of singularity, that he might both be subject to none, and alone be over all? Who also said, I will ascend into heaven, and will exalt my throne above the stars,—for what are thy brethren, all the bishops of the universal Church, but the stars of heaven, to whom, as yet, by this haughty word, thou deservest to prefer thyself; and to trample on their name in comparison to thee?”

On another occasion, he writes: “I confidently say that whosoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires to be so called, does in his elation forerun Antichrist, because he proudly places himself before others.”

It cannot be doubted that, in the estimation of Gregory and the other leading bishops of his day, that no prelate had any authority from God to be the master of his fellow-bishops; that in all fundamental matters the bishops of the Christian world were on a common platform, notwithstanding the honor conferred by the bishopric which contained the imperial residence, or the luster which surrounded bishops of extraordinary talents or unusual piety. But the time had now come when these primitive views were to be buried out of sight, and when the Roman bishops should appear as the lords of Christ’s spiritual heritage, as the masters of the ministers and doctrines of the whole Church of God in nearly all Europe.

Continued in VI. Steps to Papal Sovereignty Over The Churches

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart

Why has the word “popery” become archaic? It was a term well used by American Protestants in the 19th century. By the 20th century, Jesuit infiltration had become so great in American Protestant churches that most Protestants no longer considered the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church to be a threat to American democratic institutions.

The book, Popery The Foe of the Church and of the Republic was published in America in 1871, a time when Protestants were aware of the threat of the Roman Catholic church against the liberties of the United States of America. Has the Catholic Church changed much since that time? Only overtly, not in its covert purpose and goal of political control of the nations. The Protestant churches, however, have greatly changed! No longer is Protestantism feared by the Church of Rome.

I believe all this “wokeness” and insane policies of the Biden administration are a tool of the Jesuits to drive America back to conservatism which the Catholic church will offer them much more than most non-Catholic churches today. That’s my theory.

Information about the author, Joseph Smith Van Dyke (1832-1915), is found on https://www.logcollegepress.com/joseph-smith-van-dyke-18321915 He was the pastor of a Presbyterian church in Bloomsbury New Jersey. He was the author of several other books. From the text of this book, I believe he was a solid Christian and deeply knowledgeable of the Word of God.

PREFACE.

THE deep interest awakened in the hearts of many by the present condition and reawakened energies of the Papal Church, is our apology for presuming to call the attention of the public to Popery’s inveterate hostility to civil and religious liberty. And this, most assuredly, is a subject which, though lacking novelty, imperatively demands earnest, serious, thoughtful consideration. In this age of maudlin (sad) charity for all systems of faith—instead of genuine charity for all men—the Church greatly needs a fearless reassertion of the principles and doctrines essential to the hope of salvation. Souls struggling with sin need to know that Christ, our elder brother, ever accessible, is a mighty Saviour, and that all the ransomed are, “kings and priests unto God.”

If the aspirations of Romanism were restricted to increased spiritual power, our duty would terminate with proclaiming a free, untrammelled Gospel, hope for every penitent at the foot of Calvary. But Rome has never yielded her right to temporal rule. The unparalleled efforts now made to extend her influence are instigated by the hope of securing control in the political world. We need, therefore, a reaffirmation of the lesson written in the struggles of thirteen centuries, that Romanism is the ally of despotism, Protestantism the friend of constitutional liberty.

This volume, presented to the public with a deep consciousness that it falls far short of meeting the demand of the times, is a feeble effort to prove that Romanism in this nineteenth century is essentially the same that it has always been, the foe of the true Church and of Republicanism, the determined enemy of liberty, civil and ecclesiastical, personal and national. Prepared in the disconnected hours of ministerial life, we crave for it the reader’s generous criticism. Firmly convinced, however, that the subject is one claiming earnest attention, we timidly launch our tiny bark in the feeble hope that it may, in some slight measure at least, awaken attention to the danger to be apprehended from a system of despotism, which for fifteen centuries has fettered the limbs of freedom and darkened the way of salvation.

The Author.
Cranbury, N. J.,
Sept. 1, 1871.

INTRODUCTORY.

With those who prophesy the speedy triumph of Romanism in this country we have little sympathy; with those who counsel her supreme indifference to her increased activity, less still. Whilst —as a comparison of statistics clearly proves—there is no just cause for alarm on the part of the friends of civil liberty, there are reasons many and cogent why Protestants should put forth their most strenuous efforts to defeat the wily machinations of their arch-enemy, and to give the masses the only true antidote to Popery, the simple, unadulterated Gospel. This call to redoubled exertion is found not simply in the fact that the Papacy is by necessity bitterly hostile to the true Church and to Republicanism, but especially in its recent energy and growth. Earnest effort and unwearied vigilance are duties we owe alike to ourselves and to God. If activity is essential to healthful piety; if the truth as taught by Christ is in its very nature aggressive; if the true Church of God can fulfil its mission in the world only by conscientiously endeavoring to obey the commands of its ascended Lord; if, as every well instructed Protestant firmly believes, Popery is the uncompromising enemy of genuine Christianity, and of Republican forms of government, then most assuredly Protestants should exert themselves to counteract the unparalleled efforts now made to extend Rome’s baneful system of spiritual despotism over a country dedicated to Protestantism and civil liberty.

The subjoined figures show a remarkable growth of Romanism in the last thirty years. There were in the United States in

This condensed view fails in giving an adequate idea of the full strength of the Papal Church in the United States. In several of the dioceses the numbers are not given. Moreover, in addition to their regular priests, they have about 2000 seculars, and nearly 1000 clerical students. To these cohorts of Rome must be added several thousand “religious” in 286 nunneries and 128 monasteries. Imperfect as the figures are, however, they show a remarkable increase in the last three decades. Their dioceses have more than quadrupled; their bishops quintupled. Their churches are now seventeen times more numerous than in 1840; their priests nine times.

It is indeed true that during the same period Protestantism has greatly added to its numbers. And if it had kept pace with its adversary, there would be little, if indeed any, ground for fear. But what are the facts? Is the Catholic increase only absolute, or is it an increase relative to Protestants? In 1840, of the entire population, one-twelfth was Catholic; now about one-seventh is. And of the large number belonging to no creed, the Papal Church, which is to an alarming extent a political organization, can effectually control at least its proportion. It is the constant boast of their papers that if our nation is “Non-Catholic,” it is certainly “Non-Protestant ;” that they are as numerous as the members of the dissevered branches of the “damnable heresy,” and are therefore—even in point of numbers, to say nothing of divine right—entitled to control the future destinies of this country.

The number of their priests is indeed small when compared with the number of Protestant ministers; they are sufficient, however, to manage the affairs of the Church with energy and zeal. And an alarming feature in their rapidly increasing number is that many —and among these the most intelligent, zealous, efficient and intolerant—are American born: Bronson, Doane, Hecker, and a long list of others, sons of Methodists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians.

And all, from the highest to the lowest, archbishops, bishops, priests, Jesuits, monks and nuns, are assiduously engaged in advancing the interests of Rome. One will controls all. The entire country, from Maine to California, from Oregon to Florida, is comprised in the field of their operations. Divided into seven provinces, embracing fifty-three dioceses and nine vicariates-apostolic, each under the watchful eye of a bishop, there is no section of this broad land but Rome claims as her own. Wherever the interests of Popery can be subserved, a preaching station is established, an academy founded, or schools opened. As the tide of emigration rolls westward, Romanism is always the first to erect hospitals, to build churches, and to open institutions for the instruction of the young. We are learning by experience the truth of the European proverb: — “Discover a desert island, and the priest is waiting for you on the shore.”

Great shrewdness is also shown in the disposition of the men and means at their disposal. Points are selected which may become centers of influence. Their strength is not frittered away in sparsely settled rural districts; but establishing themselves in state capitals, county towns, and rapidly growing cities, they effectually guard the interests of Rome in all the surrounding country, moulding public opinion, securing influence with those who control legislation, and in many instances—to the burning shame of Protestantism— educating the children of those in the communion of the true Church.

The design of the efforts so persistently made in all parts of the west, is clearly announced in a Catholic paper in Boston :— “Catholics should control and sway the west. The Church has the right to claim the immense Valley of the Mississippi, of which the Jesuit missionaries were the first explorers.”

And in the south they are no less active. Organized efforts are made, on an extensive scale and with a lavish outlay of funds, to bring the freedmen over to Popery. At a convention of bishops held a few years since in Baltimore, measures to secure this end were adopted. The precaution required by the Papal Church, of conducting their proceedings with closed doors, renders it impossible for us heretics to learn all that was done by these assembled dignitaries. That agencies were inaugurated to proselyte the colored race on this continent is beyond question. And that the measures adopted and referred to the Pope for confirmation—whatever they were—received his approval, may be confidently inferred from the fact that the “Society for Propagating the Faith,” whose office is at Rome, straightway contributed $600,000 in gold for one year’s missionary work among the freedmen in our country. Is it not fair to assume that a contribution so large presupposes effective agencies for carrying forward the work on a scale corresponding with the cost? Jesuits—who, in worldly wisdom, if not in purity of purpose, have always been pre-eminent— seldom invest without securing large dividends, munificent (liberal) returns, in blind attachment to the interests of Rome.

Lavish expenditure is immediately succeeded by organized effort. With a celerity evincing great earnestness, sixty-six Romish priests were landed in New Orleans to commence missionary efforts. And these, we are informed, are only the pioneers, whose business it is to examine the field of operations, and report to their superiors the force needed, and the points where labor can be most advantageously prosecuted. Already they have opened large, well-equipped schools for the blacks at Raleigh, at Mobile, at New Orleans, and at many other important centers of influence. And most of these institutions are successful to an extent quite disheartening to the friends of Protestantism. They have drawn largely from the schools opened by the benevolence of the northern Church, and in some instances have driven their rivals from the field.

To most Protestants, we presume, it is but too painfully evident that the Romish Church, by its gorgeous displays, is well fitted to secure a powerful influence over the hearts of a half-civilized people. Enslaved by ignorance, naturally fond of show, and taught by long years of servitude to yield an unquestioning obedience, they are quite as likely to accept the religion presented them by Rome as the simple unostentatious Gospel of Christ. A future not very remote may, therefore, possibly witness a control maintained by the Romish Church over this helpless race as complete as that now exercised over the Irish—a spiritual despotism more debasing in its character and more permanent in its nature than the slavery from which they have so recently emerged.

Not alone in the west and south, but in the east as well, especially in our large cities, Rome is laboring untiringly to acquire power. Magnificent churches are built, hospitals founded, nunneries and monasteries established, schools opened, tracts and pamphlets distributed gratuitously, and popular lectures—designed to prove that Popery is the guardian of morals, the friend of civil liberty, the educator of the masses, the dispenser of charities to the poor, the inspirer of true devotion, and the only gateway to heaven—are frequently and unblushingly delivered in the very heart of cities which owe all their greatness to the principles of the Protestant religion. Nor have these efforts proved abortive, as New York, alas, can clearly testify. In the centers of wealth and culture, which invited those possessing a religion intensely hostile to our free institutions, Romanism has proved a Grecian horse, disgorging a legion of enemies. Lawlessness, excessive taxation, political corruption, and utter contempt for the interests and wishes of the people, have followed as naturally as darkness succeeds sunset.

In Rome’s list of agencies, schools occupy a prominent place. If these imparted only secular knowledge, the principles of morality and a system of religious faith free from superstition, all true friends of the rising generation might indeed rejoice. But, alas, the instruction is intensely Popish. Avowedly—except in the case of Protestant children, and there in reality—the primary object is to make the pupils ardent advocates of Romanism. Her seventy ecclesiastical institutions, her hundreds of colleges and boarding schools, her 2500 parochial schools, and her Sunday-schools in connection with almost every church, are so many nurseries of Popery, agencies for riveting the chains of spiritual despotism on the coming generation.

The design of these efforts is plain; Romanists are aiming at power in this country. We need not delude ourselves with the belief that they seek only the eternal welfare of our people. The aspirations of the Papacy in all countries during its entire history of thirteen centuries have been to become dominant in the state. And we can scarcely hope that an infallible Church will change its character at this late day. If the power for which they toil so arduously is acquired, there can be no doubt of the results. Protestantism will be persecuted, perhaps suppressed, as heretofore in Rome, and our free Bible, free schools, and free press will be things of the past. Possibly some Protestants with a smile of contempt may affirm, “Romanism, at least in this country, is a friend of liberty.” Let them point, however, to the country or the time in which Popery has not opposed a will of iron to all free institutions.*

In estimating the strength of the organization which seeks our destruction, we should remember that the 5,000,000 of our citizens whose first allegiance is due to Rome are drilled to implicit obedience and directed by one will: that their plans are cunningly masked, while ours—if indeed we have any—are well known: that they are a unit in action, waging an unceasing warfare, resolved on victory; we, disconnected bands, without unity of purpose, carrying on at best but a fitful struggle. Moreover, since they are thoroughly unscrupulous in the use of means, they necessarily wield more power with the irreligious masses than we. Possibly also the tendency to ritualistic forms, so apparent in certain quarters, may prepare the way for Popery by producing a love of meaningless rites and imposing ceremonies.

* A Catholic paper of St. Louis said, not many years since: “We are not advocates of religious toleration except in cases of necessity. We are not going to deny the facts of history, or blame the Church and her saints and doctors, for doing what they have done and sanctioned. . . . . We gain nothing by declaiming against the doctrine of civil punishment for spiritual crimes.”

Facts like these, and numerous others which might be adduced, make it but too painfully evident that there is more than an idle boast in the assertion of the Catholic World, that “The question put to us a few years since with a smile of mixed incredulity and pity, “Do you believe that this country will ever become Catholic?’ is changed into the question, ‘How soon do you think it will come to pass?’ Soon, very soon, we reply, if statistics be true, for it appears . . . . that the rate of growth of the Catholic religion has been 75 per cent. greater than the ratio of increase of population; while the rate of the increase of Protestantism has been 11 percent. less.” The Bishop of Cincinnati said, in 1866: “Effectual plans are in operation to give us the complete victory over Protestantism.” Another bishop affirms: “ Notwithstanding the Government of the United States has thought fit to adopt a complete indifference towards all religions, yet, the time is coming when the Catholics will have the ascendancy.” The Bishop of Charleston, in his report to Rome, said : “Within thirty years the Protestant heresy will come to an end.” The Pilot, a Catholic paper of Boston, recently affirmed: “The man is today living who will see a majority of the people of the American continent Roman Catholics.” “Let Protestants hate us if they will,” says another Catholic paper, “but the time will come when we will compel them to respect us.” Should that day ever arrive, we may expect little favor from a Church, all of whose priests, according to the assertion of one of their number, “swear, we will persecute this cursed evangelical doctrine as long as we have a drop of blood in our veins; and we will eradicate it, secretly and publicly, violently and deceitfully, with words and deeds, the sword not excluded.”

Though there may be no just cause for alarm, there certainly is an imperative call to action. Their oft-repeated prophecy, that from twenty-five to thirty years will suffice to give them a clear majority in this country—however absurd it may now seem to many— ought to arouse us to renewed exertion. If Papists conquered Rome, why may they not conquer America? Is it so utterly impossible that the next generation should witness the supremacy of Romanism that we can afford to fold our arms in ease?* Possessing the balance of power between the two political parties, demanding favorable legislation as the condition of support, and wielding political power in some of our largest cities, Popery is a foe whose giant strength it is folly to underestimate. Already it has succeeded in banishing the Bible from some of our public schools, and in securing, in some instances in marked degree, the advocacy of its interests in the secular press. A contest between the Papacy and Protestantism seems therefore inevitable. Other names may be substituted—Jesuitism can readily devise those that will better answer its purpose. Under the banner of civil liberty Rome may possibly bind upon us the fetters of spiritual despotism.

* Speaking of the Papacy, Mr. Disraeli said, in 1835: “What is this power beneath whose sirocco (hot dust-laden) breath the fame of England is fast withering? Were it the dominion of another Conqueror—another Bold Bastard with his belted sword—we might gnaw the fetters which we cannot burst. Were it the genius of Napoleon with which we were again struggling, we might trust the issue to the God of battles, with a sainted confidence in our good cause and our national energies, But we are sinking beneath a power before which the proudest conquerors have grown pale, and by which the nations most devoted to freedom have become enslaved—the power of a foreign priesthood.”

PART I Popery the Predicted Enemy of Christ’s Kingdom.\n
Chapter I. THE ROMAN POWER FORETOLD. (Daniel ii. 31-45.)

SOMEWHAT like the fabled Sphinx, who, sitting by the roadside, propounded her riddle to each passer-by, Popery has for centuries demanded an explanation of her seemingly charmed life. And he who has presumed to give an answer not in accordance with her arrogant assumptions, has incurred her lasting enmity; where she had the power, death. If she comes forth from God, however, as she claims, how shall we account for the errors, the follies and the crimes that blacken her name? If she is the outgrowth of the depraved heart, or Satan’s cunningest workmanship, how explain her continued power, her seemingly deathless life? Unquestionably the explanation is found in the fact that God, for infinitely wise purposes unknown to us, permits the continuance of this organized adversary of the true Church for the express purpose of testing the intelligence, the fidelity, and the zeal of his people.

Should we not expect a prediction of the rise and progress of Popery? This would be in accordance with God’s usual mode of dealing with his Church, Jehovah’s purpose of destroying the world by a flood was made known one hundred and twenty years before its execution. The destruction of Babylon, Nineveh, Tyre and Jerusalem, was accurately predicted. So likewise it was declared that the descendants of Abraham should be as numerous as the stars of heaven, when as yet he had no child; and that the land of Palestine should be their possession when the Father of the Faithful owned not even a burial-place for his dead. Not only was the coming of Christ predicted immediately after the transgression of our first parents, but in subsequent ages, and long prior to the incarnation, many circumstances of his birth, mission, life and death—and some apparently the least important—were foretold.

Nor are the prophecies mere isolated predictions of disconnected events. A system dating from the fall, and embracing all the principal changes which have taken place in either the Church or the world, and extending onwards to the final triumph of Christ’s cause, may be found in Scripture.

We should not, however, expect predictions respecting minute particulars. The portraiture of the future given by the prophets, is like the vivid description of a landscape viewed from a commanding eminence. Although the eye of the beholder surveys the whole extent, seeing all prominent objects, yet, by describing those which from his standpoint are most conspicuous, he presents a picture, imperfect indeed, yet accurate, of the scene. What description by a master hand is to the landscape, the predictions of the prophets are to the future. To complete the picture the reader must determine the position occupied by the seer in beholding the ceaseless current of events.

Hence, doubtless, arises the difficulty in interpreting prophecy. We are embarrassed not so much by what is said as by what is left unsaid. To unveil the half hidden meaning of a few sentences in which is compressed the history of centuries is almost or quite impossible. Shall we, therefore, give over all effort to understand the prophetical books? Is so large a portion of the Bible given us merely to confirm the faith of the Church after the events referred to have occurred? This cannot be, otherwise the command, “Search the Scripture,” would have read, ‘Search the Law, the Psalms, and the fulfilled prophecies.’

In the field of prophecy, co-extensive with time, and earnestly soliciting an unprejudiced examination, we are led naturally to expect some predictions respecting the rise and progress of Popery. It is highly improbable, scarcely possible, that no place should be found for a system of religion which, numbering its adherents by millions, has existed for more than twelve centuries, and while professing to be the only true form of Christian worship, and claiming for its ecclesiastical head the titles of “ Vicar of Christ,’ and “Vicegerent of God,” has not hesitated to claim and exercise the right to put to death those who, however devout, humble and Christlike in character and conduct, have denied its spiritual supremacy.

An examination of prophecy, even the most casual, reveals, in the Old Testament, two passages which refer to the Roman Empire; the former chiefly to its civil, the latter to its ecclesiastical power. In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. ii. 31-45), we have a prediction of the rise of the powerful kingdom of the west, which, during so many centuries, has lent its strength to sustain the Papal Church :

Daniel 2:31  ¶Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. 32  This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, 33  His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. 34  Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. 35  Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Here are presented two, and only two distinct objects—“the great image,” and “the stone cut out without hands.” Although the image has its several parts—by which four successive kingdoms are represented—these constitute the one great figure symbolizing a form of civil government essentially hostile to the Church, government by brute force, despotism. In all the members the same spirit prevails, hostility to the kingdom set up by the God of heaven. Though having “his head of fine gold, his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay,” yet this image forcibly presents the idea of unity. This, which is set forth by the first symbol of: the dream, is still more distinctly represented by the second. The little stone—not separated into members, but one and indivisible—is well fitted to symbolize the one spiritual kingdom, the Church of Jesus Christ, whose unity is preserved by the indwelling of the same spirit. As the invisible atoms of the stone of necessity cohere, so the different members of Christ’s Church, however far separated in space or time, constitute one spiritual kingdom.

By the several parts of this figure are represented the four kingdoms, the universal empires of the world. “The head of fine gold” is a symbol of the Assyrio-Babylonian Empire, founded, in the valley of the Euphrates, by Nimrod, the grandson of Noah. Of this kingdom the chief cities were Babylon and Nineveh.* “The breast and arms of silver” represented the Medo-Persian Empire, founded by Cyrus on the ruins of the Assyrio-Babylonian. It is probably not pressing the, symbol too far to suppose that by the arms are represented the two nations, the Medes and Persians, which uniting constituted this kingdom. The third kingdom, symbolized by “the belly and thighs of brass,” was the Graeco-Macedonian, founded by Alexander the Great. Before this victorious warrior the preceding kingdoms crumbled to pieces, and the kingdom of brass ruled the world. The two thighs may be intended to represent the two most powerful divisions of this kingdom—the Ptolemies in Egypt, and the Seleucide in Syria.

* These alternatively held each other in subjection till the year 625 B. C., when Nineveh was finally overthrown by the combined forces of the Medes and of Nabopolassar.

The fourth kingdom is the Roman.* In reference to this the prophecy is fuller, both as respects its character and its collision with the little stone. Its form of government, partly despotic and partly republican, combining the strength of iron with the brittleness of clay, is represented by “the legs of iron and the feet part of iron and part of clay.” Whereas the former three kingdoms were pure despotisms, this, whilst even more despotic, as symbolized by the harder metal, iron, always contained an clement of weakness. Under the form of a republic—which was often little more than a name—it maintained a stronger hold on the affections of its subjects, and, therefore, secured longer continuance. Yet, whilst always endeavoring to convert the fragility of clay into the hardness of iron, it failed in the end, and crumbled to pieces.

* Rome was founded in 753 B. about 150 years before the utterance of Daniel’s prophecy.

“And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: fornsmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes part of potter’s clay and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay, And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is curtain, and the interpretation thereof sure.”—Dan. ii. 40-45,

Here it is expressly said that “the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, and break in pieces and bruise.” During its existence as a limited monarchy (nearly two hundred and fifty years), it gradually extended its power till all the surrounding nations fell before its victorious arms. The exact date of its succession to the kingdom of brass we cannot fix. Of the fact, however, there can be no doubt. From the year 509 to 48 BC, during her existence as a republic, Rome extended her conquests over a great part of Asia, Africa and Europe. Britain was twice entered. Caesar’s legions penetrated to the heart of Germany. Macedon, Syria and Egypt were conquered. After the battle of Pharsalia (48 BC), in which Pompey, the commander of the armies of the republic, was utterly defeated by Caesar, the government was imperial rather than republican. For five hundred and twenty-four years subsequent to this, the emperors, for the most part, were content with retaining those provinces which were conquered under the republic. The advice bequeathed by Augustus, of confining the empire within its natural limits, the Euphrates, the Desert of Africa, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Rhine and Danube, was seldom departed from. A few exceptions there indeed were. Britain was made to submit to the Roman yoke during the reign of Domitian; Dacia, Armenia and Assyria during that of Trajan.

The fourth kingdom was, as Daniel had predicted, strong as iron, enduring in its three forms, of a monarchy, a republic and an empire, for more than twelve centuries, and wielding, for nearly the half of this long period, the scepter of universal dominion. During all the ages of its existence, however, it was “iron mixed with miry clay.” It was never a firmly consolidated empire. It was the unnatural union of despotism and democracy.

Of the Roman state, the fourth section of the image, Daniel declared, “the kingdom shall be divided.” The ten toes, like the ten horns of the fourth beast, (Dan. vii. 24, and Rev. xvii. 16,) represent the ten kingdoms established on the fall of the empire. “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom ……. . And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise.” By the reasoning of Bishop Newton, it has been successfully established that these ten kingdoms should be looked for in the Western Roman Empire, that portion of the fourth kingdom which was no part of the preceding three. As to the powers constituting them, however, diversity of opinion always has, and perhaps always will, exist.

By the words, “they shall not cleave one to another,” we have, perhaps, a prediction that the ten kingdoms shall never again be united in one empire. Certain it is, that since 476 AD (the date of the downfall of the Roman Empire generally received) they haye, with very slight changes, remained territorially the same.

By “the stone cut out of the mountain without hands” is symbolized the kingdom of Christ, which “the God of heaven shall set up,” and “which shall never be destroyed.” These expressions, and especially the latter, are evidently inapplicable to any form of civil government. “Cut out without hands” indicates God’s agency, and not man’s. Of the “kingdom not of this world,” all the benefits, blessings and privileges are heaven’s free gift to the human race. And of what earthly kingdom could perpetuity be predicated? Is not decay written on all?

Of this kingdom two states are here prefigured; one of comparative insignificance, represented by the stone; one of widely extended and powerful influence, symbolized by the mountain. The same gradual growth is alluded to in Christ’s parable of the Mustard Seed.

We are also told when this kingdom shall arise : “In the days of these kings.” It was during the existence of the last of the four, when the entire world humbly bowed at the throne of the proud Caesars, that God, by the incarnation of his Son, set up, or perhaps more properly, as the Latin Vulgate has it, “resuscitated” a kingdom. Having existed since the Fall, it was now strengthened, enlarged, and its privileges extended to the Gentiles.

In this entire prophecy reference is evidently had to the rise and progress of that empire which, divided into ten kingdoms, has given its power and strength to Popery. It makes war with the Lamb. It is the enemy of the Church and of Republicanism, the deadly foe of liberty, civil and religious, personal and national. With democracy it can form no alliance, and will make no compromise. The iron will not mix with the clay. With Protestantism, the parent and champion of constitutional government, it wages unceasing warfare. Deriving moral support from Popery, its natural ally, it is antagonistic to the kingdom of the little stone, so far at least as this is hostile to despotism.

The warfare, desperate and deadly, is not carried on, however, with carnal weapons. Noiselessly, but with terrible earnestness, the struggle is prolonged through centuries. Kingdoms rise, grow hoary with age and crumble to decay, still the contest is undecided. The three kingdoms, of gold, of silver and of brass, have become as “chaff of the summer threshing-floors,” but the stone has not yet become a great mountain filling the whole earth. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander and Caesar, sleep in their unknown graves, but not as yet have the feet and the toes of the great image, revealed in the palace of Shushan, crumbled to pieces.

Of the ten kingdoms which, “with one mind gave their power and strength unto the beast,” some are yielding to the rule of Immanuel; others, in still lending their strength to the papal Antichrist, are filling to the full the cup of wrath. In their adulterous alliance with the Mother of Harlots they are aiding in sustaining a system which, “composed of specious truth and solid falsehood,” is at war with the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. The Christian’s hope is sustained, however, by the assurance, “The ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.” (Rev. xvii. 16) Of Christ’s kingdom it is said, “It shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”

Chapter II. The Papacy predicted as the foe of the true Church (Daniel vii. 2-27.)

IT is the assertion of Protestants not only that Rome’s civil power, but that the Papacy itself, was predicted twelve centuries before its rise. Of this affirmation the truth becomes apparent if to a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s image be added an examination of Daniel’s vision; for by the former is foretold Rome’s civil despotism—by the latter, her spiritual. The powers represented to the king as four kingdoms, appeared in vision to the prophet as four wild beasts trampling upon Christianity. To the monarch even the Church is “a kingdom which the God of heaven should set up,” small indeed in its origin, but destined to fill the whole earth; to the prophet it is a feeble band of struggling martyrs, “the saints of the Most High,” oppressed by the little horn of the fourth beast. It is a small and scattered company of faithful witnesses, ground down by the: Papal hierarchy for the term of 1260 years, yet, inspired with faith in God’s promises, suffering in the assured hope of ultimate triumph. Daniel says:

“I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. And, behold, another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this, I beheld, and lo, another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.”—Dan. vii, 2-8.

These four beasts arise out of the troubled sea of human society. “The first, like a lion,” symbolizes the Babylonian Empire, the characteristics of which were boldness, consciousness of power, cunning and cruelty. “The wings of an eagle” represent its rapid conquests. In the later years of the empire these were plucked. Its victorious arms no longer struck terror. By the expression “a man’s heart was given unto it,” we are to understand that the rigors of despotism were somewhat abated.

By the “second beast, like to a bear,” is symbolized the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. In the expression, “it raised up itself on one side,” we find a prophecy of the superior energy and efficiency of one of the nations constituting this kingdom. The three ribs in the mouth of it denote a partially civilized people in the act of devouring kingdoms to increase their own strength. The command, “Arise, devour much flesh,” was fulfilled by Cyrus.

“The third beast, like a leopard,” represents the Greco-Macedonian empire. The rapidity of Alexander’s conquests, by the aid of his four distinguished generals, is denoted by “the four wings of a fowl,” and the division of the kingdom on his death, by four heads.

Having premised this much—which seemed necessary to an understanding of the scope of this famous prophesy—we hasten to consider the fourth beast. As this represents a power still in existence, and bitterly hostile to Christianity, it is, to us, more deeply interesting than its predecessors. Of it the interpreting angel says :

“The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand, until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”—Dan. vii. 23-27.

Diverse from all others, being the union of monarchical and republican principles, it had the power to repress revolt and the facility of adapting itself to the ever varying phases of human society. Hence, for more than six centuries, half the time between its founding and the division into the ten kingdoms, its very name was a terror. Of her extent and power we need no proof. “Half our learning is her epitaph.” She became terrible and strong exceedingly. By her invincible legions all independent nationalities were trampled in pieces. Being first crushed, they were devoured, and became parts of the all-embracing empire. At length, as we have seen (Chapter 1.), this kingdom was divided into ten, represented in Daniel’s vision by ten horns; in Nebuchadnezzar’s by the toes of the image. Thus, on the Roman state are found all the marks of the beast.

Among the ten horns another little horn came up, “before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.’ The belief that this little horn represents the Papal hierarchy is, among Protestants, almost universal. It was to arise after the ten kingdoms. These arose in the interval between 356 and 526 AD. The Papacy, after gradually acquiring power for three centuries, was perfected as an engine of ecclesiastical despotism in 606 A.p., when Phocas, the murderer and usurper, conferred upon Boniface III. the title of Universal Bishop. Then Romanism, as a system of oppression, became complete. The little horn had grown upon the unsightly monster.

The three horns plucked up by the roots were, it is commonly believed, the kingdom of the Goths, of the Ostrogoths, and of the Lombards.

Of this last foe of the true Church, the characteristics are given by Daniel. “And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man.” “By its eyes,” says Sir Isaac Newton, “it was a seer. A seer is a bishop; and this Church claims the universal bishopric.” Ecclesiastical power is its most marked characteristic. In this it is “diverse from all the kingdoms that were before it.” The mode in which this unlimited authority was acquired, furnishes an instructive chapter in history. On the conversion of Constantine, a golden opportunity was given of evangelizing the world. The bishops of Rome, however, caring more to extend their own authority than to spread a knowledge of the truth, labored zealously to acquire rule over the entire Church. Their stupendous assumptions, favored by the profound ignorance of the people, made the effort comparatively easy. Soon the Pope’s authority was believed to be equal, and by some, even superior to that of a General Council. Still, by the more intelligent of the clergy, these claims were stoutly resisted. Refusing, however, with characteristic effrontery, to yield the assumed right to all authority, secular and religious, they in the end won the victory—the Roman bishop was acknowledged spiritual and temporal sovereign. Henceforth the episcopal court occupied the room of the imperial.

Again; it is said, “He shall speak great words against the Most High.” The arrogant assumptions of the Popes know no bounds. They claim to be legitimate successors of the Apostle Peter, vicegerents of God, vicars of Christ. In their possession, they gravely tell us, are the keys of heaven and of hell. Sitting in the temple of God, the Pope may deal out glory or damnation, as suits his fancy. Even each priest, according to Roman infallibility, can forgive sins, and sell the most enrapturing bliss of heaven to the highest bidder or the wealthiest knave. Liguori—one of their canonized saints, and whose “Moral Theology,” a standard textbook in their theological schools, is declared, by the highest papal authority, to be “sound and according to God”—affirms, “the proper form of absolution is indicative: I, the priest, absolve thee.” To the claim of sole right to interpret Scripture, the Pope adds the still more absurd claim of infallibility. This, so recently exalted into a dogma, every true Catholic, according to the Freeman’s Journal of August 20th, 1870, must cordially assent.to, and believe with the whole heart. And the London Vatican of July 29th, 1870, uses this language: “It was not enough that a mortal should rule over God’s kingdom on earth, unless the keys of heaven were also committed to him. He (the Pope) was to reign in both worlds at once. It would seem that God in stooping to become man, had almost made man God.” Again: “We who lifts up his hand against the Pope resembles, without knowing it, the accursed Jew who smote Jesus in the face.” And again: “The Church has told them (the heretics) who and what his Vicar is. Either her message is true, and then all who refuse obedience to the chair of St. Peter are rebels against the Most High, and without hope of salvation ; or it is false, and then the Church of Christ has ceased to exist.” “Not a few are found,” we are told in the fourth chapter of the Constitution lately promulgated, “who resist it,” and for this reason, says the Decree, “we deem it altogether necessary solemnly to assert that prerogative (infallibility) which the only begotten Son of God deigned to annex to the supreme pastoral office.” Surely Popery has a mouth speaking great things.

Daniel further says, “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them.” And the interpreting angel says, “ He shall wear out the saints of the Most High.” What language could more fitly characterize the Papacy? It has waged for more than twelve centuries a relentless warfare against the followers of Christ. We may affirm, and without exaggeration, that this little horn of the fourth beast, the Papacy, has put to death millions of Christians. And of thousands of others the lives have been rendered more intolerable than death itself. History proves the appropriateness of the names given to Popery in Revelation, “the scarlet colored beast, drunk with the blood of the saints, and of the martyrs of Jesus;” “the tormentor of the saints of the Most High.”

“He shall think to change times and seasons.” Who, since the days of Julius Cesar, save the Popes, has assumed the right of regulating the calendar, and enacting laws for the world?

With the interpretation of Daniel’s expression, “a time, and times, and the dividing of time,” we have, in this chapter, little to do. It may be, and most probably is, an equivalent of the expression in Revelation, “a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” Each, perhaps, may be properly understood as indicating the continuance of Rome’s temporal supremacy, 1260 years. Possibly, also, dating the rise of Antichrist in a. p. 606, when Boniface II. was declared universal bishop, we ought to have expected, between the years 1866 and 1872, the overthrow of the Pope’s authority. And some, no doubt, will imagine that in the removal of the French troops from Rome, in the overthrow of Napoleon III., and in the Pope’s loss of temporal power—following as they did so close on the promulgation of the dogma of Papal infallibility—they discern one of the last acts in the drama of this mystery of arrogance.

Not less foreign to our present purpose is the explanation of the passage, “ But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” That this powerful foe of the true Church is to continue—not in its temporal power, but in its spiritual—till the judgment of the great day, seems highly probable. Paul affirms, “Then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” (2 Thess, ii. 8) In the Apocalypse (xiii. 3), where the history of this scourge of Christianity is fully given, we are told “the deadly wound shall be healed, and all the world shall wonder after the beast.” It seems probable, and some tell us certain, that the system of superstition, known as Popery, shall “continue unto the end;” that through all time it is to be the relentless enemy of the Church.

However this may be, certain it is that the Papacy is described in this chapter as during its entire continuance the uncompromising foe of Christ’s kingdom. Bearing unmistakably the marks of the little horn of the fourth beast, having an ever-living connection with the despotism from which it sprang, and waging an incessant warfare with the saints of the Most High, it has ever shown itself the tireless enemy of civil and religious liberty, of Christianity, and of Republicanism. As such it was predicted. As such it has ever been known. And yet, either with blindness that deserves pity, or with arrogance that richly merits rebuke, it even now proudly claims to be the Church, the only Church, Holy Mother infallible, visibly guided by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, the guardian of morals, the guide of conscience, the most efficient agent of civilization, the friend of freedom.

Chapter III. Formalism an old enemy of Christianity. (2 Thess. ii. 7.)

PAPISTS—we shall seldom honor them with the name of Catholics – greatly pride themselves in the antiquity of their organization. They boastingly ask Protestants, “Where was your so-called Church three centuries ago?” With a frequency and an eagerness which painfully remind one of the struggles of a drowning man, they quote, in proof of Rome’s greatness and especially of her perpetuity, a passage from Lord Macaulay’s “Review of Ranke’s History of the Popes:”

“No other institution (save the Catholic Church) is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday compared with the line of the supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth ; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. . . . Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long: dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished in Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigor when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.”

By the music of this inflated eloquence they have beat many an inglorious retreat. Nay, it has even done service in leading an attack. The Rev. James Kent Stone, a recent pervert to Popery, in his “Invitation Heeded,” hurls it against the luckless head of defeated Protestantism. But how much argument is there in it? The devil is as old as the Romish Church, and a little older, and probably has quite as long a lease on life; is he any better for that? If, however, an answer is necessary, or rather possible—bombast is generally unanswerable—it may be found in an appeal from the youthful, “vealy” (immature) reviewer, to the mature, accurate, learned and elegant historian; from Macaulay, the youth giving promise of future greatness, to Macaulay, the intellectual giant. In his “History of England,” with a sword that cuts the keener for its polished beauty, he lays bare the treacherous heart, pierces the arrogant assumptions, unveils the concealed wickedness, and utterly demolishes many of the absurd claims of the Papacy. One quotation must suffice. This, chosen because of its bearing on our general subject, the hostility of Popery to modern civilization, shall be taken from Vol. I. chap. i. page 37:

“During the last three centuries, to stunt the growth of the human mind has been her (the Church of Rome’s) chief object. Throughout Christendom, whatever advance has been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been in inverse proportion to her power. The loveliest and most fertile provinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk in poverty, in political servitude, and in intellectual torpor; while Protestant countries, once proverbial for sterility and barbarism, have been turned, by skill and industry, into gardens, and can boast of a long list of heroes and statesmen, philosophers and poets. Whoever, knowing what Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what, four hundred years ago, they actually were, shall now compare the country round Rome with the country round Edinburgh, will be able to form some judgment as to the tendency of Papal domination. The descent of Spain, once the first among monarchies, to the lowest depths of degradation, the elevation of Holland, in spite of many disadvantages, to a position such as no commonwealth so small has ever reached, teach the same lesson.”

If by Rome’s claim to antiquity is meant that her doctrines antedate those of Protestantism, few things are more untrue. The cardinal beliefs of the Reformed Churches are as old as the Gospel, nay, as the giving of the law from Mount Sinai, nay, as the announcement of salvation made to Eve in Eden. These doctrines,— that the one living and true God is the only legitimate object of divine worship; that Christ is the only Saviour, a perfect sacrifice; that his kingdom is not of this world, but an invisible, spiritual kingdom, composed of the faithful and their infant children ; that the condition of union with his spouse, the Church, is regeneration of heart wrought by God’s spirit; that the triune God alone can pardon sin; that he and he exclusively is the Lord of the conscience,— are doctrines not only as old as the Reformation, but as old as the inspired Word of God, and as imperishable as the Church itself. But the dogmas of Romanism are a mere novelty in the religious world. Thus the primacy of Peter, a doctrine now considered vital to the system, is of comparatively recent origin. Admitting that Peter was in Rome, we may safely challenge the proof that he was universal bishop. And his successors? They were persons so obscure that even Papal infallibility cannot agree upon their names. Though Vicars of Christ, supreme pontiffs, they are never even alluded to by the Apostle John, Peter’s survivor for at least forty years. Undutiful son, write so much Scripture, and make no mention of Holy Father! Strange indeed! Notwithstanding Pius IX., in his Invitation “To all Protestants and other Non-Catholics,” declares, “No one can deny or doubt that Jesus Christ himself… . . built his only Church in this world on Peter; that is to say, the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic,” we have the heretical hardihood to affirm that the primacy of Peter was entirely unknown in the early ages of the Church. It was devised in the latter part of the sixth century—a means to the accomplishment of an end—to bolster up the assumptions of Rome’s proud bishops. So likewise the supremacy of the Pope (never even claimed till AD 590) was resisted by Councils, denounced by many of the ablest of the fathers, and condemned by an infallible Pope and canonized saint, Gregory. (See next Chapter.) The invocation of the dead, now so common with Romanists, did not even begin to manifest itself till the third century. The use of masses, solemnly condemned in the Council of Constantinople, AD 700, and again in the seventh Greek Council, 754, was not established till the ninth century. The doctrine of purgatory—the hen that lays the golden egg—was not an essential part of Popery till the Council of Florence, A. p. 1430. The doctrine of celibacy— that mark of the great apostasy, “forbidding to marry,” (1 Tim. iv. 3,) is only about 780 years old. For nearly eleven centuries every priest might have a wife, and live a life free from scandal. Now they are “Fathers” without wives. Transubstantiation—Papal cannibalism —did not originate till about the middle of the fifth century, and was severely denounced by some fifteen or twenty of Rome’s most honored fathers. Not till A.D. 1215, in the fourth Lateran, Council, was it exalted into a dogma. So also the insufficiency of the Bible as a rule of faith and practice is an assertion frequently and pointedly condemned by at least a dozen of the fathers, Rome’s invariable resort. The adoration of relics—that wondrous promoter of traffic in dry bones —originated about the same time as the worship of saints and martyrs. The withholding of the cup from the laity was pronounced by Pope Gelasius (a. p. 492) to be an “impious sacrilege.” And to our own times was left the honor—if honor it be to have outstripped the superstition of the dark ages—of promulgating the dogma of the “Immaculate conception of the Virgin,” “ Mother of God,” “ Mirror of Justice,” “ Refuge of Sinners,” and “Gate of Heaven.” In fact, not till the present year was the system rendered complete, symmetrical, perfect. It needed, like Buddhism, its elder sister, the solemn announcement of the infallibility of the supreme pontiff. This, after six months’ angry discussion, has been ostentatiously presented to the world as the infallible dogma of five hundred fallible bishops. (How many fallibles may be necessary to make an infallible. possibly Pio Nono (Pope Pius IX) can now tell.) Thus we can conclusively show that the distinctive doctrines and rites of Romanism are mere novelties, less ancient than the doctrines and practices of Protestantism.

If by her claim to antiquity, however, is meant that the unhallowed love of forms is as old as the Gospel, we do not deny it. Even in the Apostle’s time, depraved man was beginning to corrupt the pure religion of Jesus. “The mystery of iniquity,” said Paul, “doth already work, only he who now letteth (hindereth) will let, until he be taken out of the way.” As under the tuition of Satan, the deceitful heart developed every system of false religion by which the world had been deluded, so by cunningly employing the truth revealed by Christ, it was commencing to weave a new system of superstition as much like to Paganism, as two garments made from the same material are like to each other. Originating in the preference of the forms of devotion to the spirit—a tendency dating backward to the Fall—this mystery of iniquity, after centuries of gradual development, culminated in Romanism, Satan’s last agency for recruiting the armies doing battle with the truth. Though last, its efficiency is by no means least, since the unrenewed naturally turn from the salvation of the Lord to that which, being of their own devising, is more congenial to fallen human nature, easier of attainment, and more flattering to vanity.

In one sense, therefore, we are ready to concede that Popery’s claim to antiquity is well founded. Romanism, as ritualism, has always existed, not only in the Pagan world—Paganism is unbaptized Popery—but also in connection with the religion revealed from heaven, and probably will continue to the end of time, and be destroyed only by the brightness of the Saviour’s coming. It originated in Eden; at once becoming more pleasing to sensuous man than the worship of God in spirit and in truth. Cain—preferring self-chosen rites to those enjoined by express divine command, and destitute of the spiritual vision of Christ as the sin-atoning Lamb—was a type of Pagan, Jew, Papist, all ritualists. And what was the worship of the wicked antediluvians but one of rites? What was Judaism itself, during almost the entire history of the Jewish nation, but a religion of ceremonies? Its ritual service, though intended and well adapted to keep the vital truths of redemption prominently before the mind, was allowed by many, may we not say by most, to assume such an importance as to overshadow the tree of righteousness. Hence, failing to apprehend its true spirit, they crucified him whom the types distinctly prefigured. Coming as “a preacher of righteousness,” and not to establish a kingdom in which the forms of devotion should prevail without piety in the heart, he was put to death, and that by those whose mission it was to announce him as the world’s spiritual deliverer.

So likewise Phariseeism, loaded with traditions and meaningless moral distinctions, was only Popery under another name. Hostile, then, as ever to the true Church, it was severely denounced by Christ. In his Sermon on the Mount, he laid the axe at the root of the evil, declaring that the righteousness which God accepts is not mere compliance with certain outward requirements of the law and the observance of traditional precepts, but piety in the heart. All, therefore, whether Pharisees or Romanists, who so love the forms of worship and exalt the “traditions of the fathers” as to make “the word of God of none effect,” are condemned in terms too explicit to be misunderstood.

Even in the Church of Christ, where the very first requirement is spirituality, this tendency to ritualism manifested itself. As Christianity was the outgrowth of Judaism, some were strongly disposed to place reliance in forms. “Certain men who came down from Judea taught the people, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Evidently some were trusting to the observance of a profitless rite. The mystery was working. The germ of Popery was developing. For the purpose of crushing this, a council, summoned from the entire Church, consisting of apostles and elders (Peter, it would seem, was not Pope), assembled in Jerusalem. After much discussion, in which Paul and Barnabas and James, as well as Peter. engaged, “the apostles and elders and brethren” (evidently there was as yet no spiritual sovereign) sent letters “unto the brethren of the Gentiles,” affirming, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than necessary things.” “Believing that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved,” they condemned dependence on circumcision, on any and every outward form, recommending Christians to the merit of Christ for redemption. Only necessary things, the essentials of religion, were enjoined. Thus the primitive Church, in council assembled, not only furnished evidence of the early working of this “mystery of iniquity,” and a refutation of the claim of supremacy for Peter, but in reality most solemnly and emphatically condemned the spirit of Popery, the ever existing and always pernicious tendency to rely upon the outward rites of religion.

Few unbiased readers will hesitate in conceding that Paul’s Epistles, and especially the one to the Galatians, were written with the design of denouncing the tendency to ritualism. He endeavors to refute the errors which were beginning to pervert the Gospel. He directs believers to Christ, and to Christ alone. He condemns dependence on forms—on anything save the blood of Jesus. In holy earnestness he exclaims, “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that we have preached, let him be accursed.” Full well did the Apostle discern the tendency of the human heart to become enamored with forms, and in the observance of these, vainly, and perhaps unconsciously, fancy it is working out its own salvation, content without the sense of forgiveness from Christ, or the spirit of godliness in the soul. Therefore, of this “mystery of iniquity” he affirms, “it doth already work.”

But although thus sternly reproved, in the lapse of time, from depraved human nature, it again sprang up, and having established itself, has tyrannized over the souls of men for nearly thirteen centuries. Hence, in one sense, we are ready to admit the claims of the Papists that theirs is the ancient Church. The principles upon which they found their system are as old as the Fall, and as enduring as the human race; but so far from receiving any countenance from Christ and his apostles, they were severely denounced by them; but arising out of corrupt human nature, however frequently refuted, and however severely condemned, they are sure to reappear, and almost certain to find stanch advocates. When these principles, perceptible only in germ in the Apostles’ time, had gained the ascendancy, Antichrist had arisen; the power and the spirit of godliness were supplanted by dead forms, “the man of sin,” “the son of perdition,” “the mystery of iniquity,” “that Wicked,” was revealed.

It is scarcely necessary for us to remind the reflecting reader that Romanism, as ritualism, as cold and heartless formalism, not only has ever shown itself the enemy of a pure, unfettered Gospel, but the endeared associate of despotism. If not the foe, it certainly has not been the friend of free institutions. Its pomp and glitter, its extravagance and meaningless pageantry, ill comport with the simplicity, economy, and rugged intelligence of Republicanism. Ritualism, Popery, despotism; intelligence, Protestantism, civil liberty, are inseparable friends.

Chapter IV. Romanism an apostasy. (2 Thess. ii 4)

IN the prophecy of Paul, the organized opposition to the Church is denominated “the man of sin,” “the son of perdition,” “the mystery of iniquity,” “that Wicked.” That the passage is a prediction of the rise, progress and overthrow of Popery, an examination, we think, makes clearly manifest. The Apostle affirms that even in that early age the mystery was beginning to work. This we have already found to be true of the Romish Church. Its remaining statements await, and in the progress of our work, we trust, shall receive, an examination, proving them not only strikingly applicable to the Papacy, but applicable to no other system of error, religious or political ; to no other form of wickedness, personal, social or national. It should exalt itself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, sitting in the temple of God, claiming to be God. This we shall hereafter find fulfilled in the arrogant assumptions of the proud pontiffs, Its coming should be “with all power and signs and lying wonders.” Its relics, its legends, its prodigies and its so-called miracles, “lying wonders,” will on examination be seen to be its most efficient agency in spreading and maintaining its soul-debasing superstitions. That God would send its followers strong delusion that they should believe a lie, Paul predicted. Most assuredly observation confirms the testimony of history, that in the Romish Church the willingness and power of the priests to deceive are only equaled by the capability and eagerness of the people to be deceived; deceit producing deceivableness, deceivableness evoking deceit, blinded of God, given over to believe falsehoods. Of this, however, hereafter. So likewise, the prediction that “the man of sin” should continue—not perhaps in organized form as now, but in essential characteristies—during the entire history of the Church on earth, and only be destroyed by the brightness of the Saviour’s coming, is precisely the same, as hereafter will appear, with that so emphatically made respecting Romanism. In each, in all of the particulars here enumerated, the prophecy is exclusively applicable to the Church of Rome. This will appear in the course of our work,

The first statement made respecting the “mystery of iniquity” is, that it should arise from apostasy. It was to be a falling away from the faith. We must therefore look for Antichrist among those who once embraced Christianity. In countries Christianized, or at least partially so, and not in those exclusively Pagan, must we expect “the man of sin.” And unless in the Papacy, where, in the entire history of the Church, does the prophecy find a fulfilment?

If this be not the apostasy, where is it? Does Protestantism bear the marks? Certainly one or the other is the predicted foe of Christ’s kingdom. And if it be Protestantism, then Romanism, with all its abominations, must be all it claims to be, the Church, the only Church, the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

The inquiry, therefore, which is the predicted “son of perdition?” we are entirely willing should await the answer given this question, which form of doctrine and worship has the sanction of the Apostles and primitive Christians? Confident that whilst before the beginning of the fourth century there was, as there always has been, and so long as human nature remains unchanged probably always will be, a strong tendency to ritualism, Popery—in the form in which it now exists and has cursed the world for nearly thirteen centuries—had no existence.

During the lives of the Apostles, and in times immediately subsequent, the Church was comparatively pure. Believers worshipped God, and God alone, and relied for salvation entirely on the merit of Christ’s death. The religion of the humble Nazarene had none of those unmeaning rites, imposing ceremonials, and debasing customs of Romanism, These all came in during the gradual apostasy, and came from Paganism. Prior to this the followers of Jesus were bitterly persecuted, thousands being put to death by every manner of torture which fiendish malignity could invent. They were sawn asunder; they were drowned; they were thrown to wild beasts; they were burned at the stake. Others, covered with the skins of animals, were torn by dogs; others were crucified ; others still, besmeared with combustible materials, and suspended by the chin upon sharp stakes, were set on fire, that they might light the gardens of Rome’s cruel emperor. And to add interest to the horrid spectacle, and attract the crowd, this heartless exhibition of Satanic malignity was accompanied with horse-racing.

To escape death, the faithful concealed themselves in dens, in caves, in deserts, and in subterranean burial places near the eternal city. During ten successive persecutions, Christianity retained its Apostolic purity. It was persecuted, and partly, no doubt, for this reason was the more spiritual. There was no vast external organization having the Pope at its head, and assuming spiritual power over the entire Church. The worship of images, counting of beads, bowing before altars, adoring the host and worshipping the Virgin, were unknown. Being poor, the Christians had few church edifices; they met for worship in caves and private houses. Magnificent cathedrals, gorgeous vestments, and costly ornaments, which Papists now seem to deem essential to proper worship, were at once impossible and unnecessary to the simple-minded followers of him who had not where to lay his head. Theirs was not the form of godliness, but its power in the heart. Their writings are of the most spiritual type. In these is found incontrovertible proof that the religion then preached was such as we now denominate Protestantism. The Emperor, so far from ruling in ecclesiastical matters, was the bitter enemy of Christianity.

During this period each minister of the Church ruled in his own congregation, and nowhere else. The bishop of the church in Rome was only the equal, in authority, of the humblest shepherd of souls in the most unknown, distant and ignorant part of the empire. Clemens tells us, “Those who were ordained rulers in the churches, were so ordained with the approbation and concurrence of the whole Church.” Clearly, therefore, Romanism did not prevail. Her system is a despotism, in which the people have no voice in the choice of their spiritual guides.

And the assumptions of Popery, like her mummeries, had no existence during the first three centuries. These the persecutions of Pagan Rome effectually repressed. Therefore, before “the man of sin” could be revealed, this let or hindrance must be removed. “And now,” says Paul, “ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed.”

In the year, AD 306, Constantine succeeded to the throne of his father. This marks an important era in the history of the Church. Having seen, as he claimed, the appearance of a cross in the heavens, exceeding bright, bearing the inscription, “Conquer by this,” he embraced Christianity, defeated Maxentius, and in 315, by formal edict, confirmed and extended the privileges of the Christians. Christianity was now established. The Emperor commenced the persecution of Paganism. A profession of the Gospel being no longer accompanied with danger, the churches being richly endowed, the clergy loaded with honors, it was but natural that upon the pure spiritual worship of him who came to abolish all forms, should be engrafted the superstitions of the ignorant heathen. Of a conversion of the heart, there was not even the pretence. With the growth of ignorance and love of ostentation came, not only further importations of unmeaning ceremonies, but also greater assumptions on the part of Rome’s bishop, until, in A.D. 606, the Emperor Phocas conferred upon Boniface III. the title of Universal Bishop. Thus Romanism, after a desperate struggle of three centuries, established itself. Henceforth none might, with impunity, despise its rites or ridicule its claims.

It must not be supposed, however, that the Roman pontiffs acquired supremacy without long continued efforts, and persistent opposition from those who looked upon the growth of this power as the rise of Antichrist. Protests and refutations were numerous. Irenaesus declared that the bishop of Rome was but a presbyter, for Jesus himself was the only bishop of souls. Maurus affirmed that all ministers were bishops, and all bishops were of equal rank. When summoned to Rome to stand trial for such blasphemous heresy, he paid no regard to the summons. When excommunicated he hurled back upon the Pope the sentence pronounced against himself, and continued, in defiance of the Pope’s authority, to discharge duty as pastor of his flock. On his death-bed he exhorted his people to continuance in disowning the usurped power of the great Roman Antichrist. The early Councils resisted Papal supremacy. The sixth of Carthage (AD 418) resisted three Popes; that of Chalcedon (AD 450), Pope Leo. St. Ibar, the Irish divine, wrote, “ We never acknowledge the supremacy of a foreigner.” Says Theodoret, “Christ alone is head of all.” In the early part of the sixth century a fierce contention arose “ between Symmachus and Laurentius, who were on the same day elected to the pontificate by different parties.” A Council assembled at Rome by Theodoric, king of the Goths, endorsed the election of the former. Ennodius, in an apology written for the Council and for Symmachus, first made the assertion, “The bishop of Rome is subject to no earthly tribunal.” He styles him, “judge in place of God, and vicegerent of the Most High.” These claims were maintained by the adherents of Symmachus, and detested and refuted by his opponents. Even Gregory, Pope, author and canonized saint—an authority surely with Papists—in his contest with the bishop of Constantinople, denounced the title of Universal bishop, as “vain,” “diabolical,” “anti-christian,” “blasphemous,” “execrable, infernal.”

He declares, “Our Lord says unto his disciples, be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your master, and all ye are brethren.” And again he affirms, “ Whosoever ADOPTS OR AFFECTS THE TITLE OF UNIVERSAL BISHOP, HAS THE PRIDE OF ANTICHRIST, AND IS IN SOME MANNER HIS FORERUNNER IN HIS HAUGHTY QUALITY OF ELEVATING HIMSELF ABOVE THE REST OF HIS ORDER. AND INDEED, BOTH THE ONE AND THE OTHER SEEM TO SPLIT UPON THE SAME ROCK; FOR AS PRIDE MAKES ANTICHRIST STRAIN HIS PRETENSIONS UP TO GODHEAD, SO WHOEVER IS AMBITIOUS TO BE CALLED THE ONLY AND UNIVERSAL BISHOP, ARROGATES TO HIMSELF A DISTINGUISHED SUPERIORITY, AND RISES, AS IT WERE, UPON THE RUINS OF THE REST.” As the doctrine of Papal supremacy is so strongly condemned by an infallible Pope, surely we ought to be excused for disbelieving it. As the Papacy is declared, by what Romanists deem the highest human authority, to be either Antichrist or his harbinger, further proof that she is the great apostasy is certainly uncalled for. Infallibility has spoken, and for once, we can believe, has certainly spoken the truth.

Two years after the death of Gregory, Boniface III. requested and obtained from the Emperor Phocas—the usurper and murderer—the title of Universal Bishop. This is the date commonly assigned as the origin of Popery. At this time the foundation stone of the entire structure was laid. Grant that the bishop of Rome is the legitimate successor of St. Peter, the primate of the Church, “the infallible judge in faith and morals,” sole interpreter of Scripture, and the entire system is logically defensible. Even, however, so late as the ninth century, Lewis, son of Charlemagne, owned no supremacy in the Pope, but sustained the power of the bishops and Council against him. To bring men to consent to their arrogant assumptions, the pontiffs now devised a new scheme. They procured, in the year 845, by the aid of their trusty friends, pretended decrees of early Popes, spurious writings of the fathers, and forged acts of synods and Councils, known since as the “Isidorian Decretals.” The most important of these documents was the pretended gift from Constantine the Great, in the year 324, of the city of Rome, and all Italy, with the crown, to Sylvester, then bishop of Rome. “We attribute,” says the imposture, “to the chair of St. Peter ALL THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY, GLORY AND POWER. Moreover, we give to Sylvester, and to his successors, our palace of Lateran—incontestably one of the finest palaces on earth; we give him our CROWN, OUR MITRE, OUR DIADEM, AND ALL OUR PRINCIPAL VESTMENTS; WE RESIGN TO HIM THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY. . . . . We GIVE As A FREE Gift To THE Holy Pontiff the city or Rowe, AND ALL THE WESTERN CITIES Or ITALY, AS WELL AS THE WESTERN CITIES OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES. To MAKE ROOM FOR HIM, WE ABDICATE OUR SOVEREIGNTY OVER ALL THESE PROVINCES and we withdraw from Rome, transferring the seat of our empire to Byzantium, since IT IS NOT JUST THAT A TERRESTRIAL EMPEROR SHALL RETAIN ANY POWER WHERE GOD PLACED THE HEAD OF RELIGION.” *

* Of Constantine’s pretended donation and the Decretals in general, Dr. Campbell remarks, “ ‘They are such bare-faced impostures, and so bunglingly executed, that nothing less than the most profound darkness of those ages could account for their success.”

By the aid of these base forgeries, approved by the Roman Pontiffs because designed to enrich the primacy of St. Peter, Nicolas I. succeeded, notwithstanding the determined opposition of the reflecting, in instilling into the minds of many the belief that the bishop of Rome was legislator and judge over the whole Church; that other bishops, and even Councils, derived authority solely from him, Nor were the results which flowed from this huge fabrication confined to the ninth century. Gradually, but surely, the whole constitution and government of the Church were changed. According to Mosheim, “The wisest and most impartial among the Roman Catholic writers, acknowledge and prove, that from the times of Lewis the Meck, the ancient system of ecclesiastical law in Europe was generally changed, and a new system introduced by the policy of the court of Rome.” The authors of the recent work entitled, “Janus,” “members of a school who yield to none in their loyal devotion to Catholic truth,” affirm: “ The Isidorian Deeretals revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, introducing a new system in the place of the old.” “ Upon these,” say they, “was founded the maxim that the Pope, as supreme judge of the Church, could be judged by no man.” It was on the strength of these fictions that Nicolas I. affirmed: “ {he Roman Church keeps the faith pure, and is free from stain.” These authors, certainly competent authority, at least with Catholics, affirm: “(Jesuit Cardinal) Bellarmine acknowledged that without the forgeries of the pseudo-Isidore, . . . it would be impossible to make out even a semblance of traditional evidence,” for the supremacy. (P. 319.)

As proving that Popery, as it now exists, is an apostasy from the true Church, we present some passages from “Janus,” that complete historical refutation of the Papal claim to supremacy and infallibility, which has recently caused the Catholic World and other publications of the “infallibles” such immense trouble, and—to say nothing of misrepresentation—such a vast amount of special pleading. They say:

“The Papacy, such as it has become, presents the appearance of a disfiguring, sickly, and choking excrescence on the organization of the Church, hindering and decomposing the action of its vital powers, and bringing manifest diseases in its train.”

“The well known fact speaks clearly enough for itself, that throughout the whole ancient canon law . . . there is no mention made of Papal rights.”

“When the presidency in the Church became an empire then the unity of the Church, so firmly secured before, was broken up.” (P. 21.)

“For a long time nothing was known in Rome of definite rights bequeathed by Peter to his successors.”

“The Church of Rome could neither exclude individuals nor Churches from the Church Universal.” (Pp. 64-66.)

“There are many national Churches which were never under Rome, and never even had any intercourse with Rome.” (P. 68.)

“The Popes took no part in convoking Councils.” (P. 63.)

“The force and authority of the decisions of Councils depended upon the consent of the Church, and on the fact of being generally received.” (Pp. 63, 64.)

Thus, the sons of “Holy Mother” themselves being witnesses, we confidently affirm that Romanism, in its form of worship, in its system of doctrines, and in its plan of government, is evidently different from the primitive Church. It must, therefore, be “the mystery of iniquity,” the great apostasy, “that man of sin,” “the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

The insolent ravings of this foe of the true Church, especially those of the last few months, may well strike us with amazement. Pope Boniface VIII. issued a decree, now embodied in the canon law, which solemnly proclaims:—‘ We declare, say, define, pronounce it to be of necessity to salvation, for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” In the fourth canon of the “Dogmatic Decrees on Catholic Faith,” promulgated in the third public session of the Vatican Council, April 24th, 1870, occur these words: “We admonish all that it is their duty to observe likewise the constitutions and decrees of this Holy See.” In the third chapter of the “ First Dogmatic Decree on the Church of Christ,” passed July 18th, 1870, it is affirmed:— “The decision of the Apostolic See, above which there is no higher authority, cannot be reconsidered by any one, nor is it lawful to any one to sit in judgment on his judgment. . . . . We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, according to which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the holy apostolic see and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and is the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians.” And in the fourth chapter of the same, we find this remarkable assertion, made in this nineteenth century, made after Rome has been again and again proved guilty of entertaining not only doctrines evidently erroneous, but dogmas precisely contradictory—exact opposites :— “KNOWING MOST CERTAINLY THAT THIS SEE OF St. PETER EVER REMAINS FREE from ERROR.” Assertion seems their only stock in trade. With this as their formula, “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia,” and this as their sole argument, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” they pronounce anathemas against all who deny, or even refuse cordially to accept, the doctrines of the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope. In this decree, the first on the Church, the unterrified five hundred thrice pronounce “anathema sit” against him who shall presume to call in question the primacy of St. Peter or the legitimate succession of Pius IX., Holy Father, Vicar of Christ, Vicegerent of God, infallible judge in faith and morals.

The Romish Church, which now boastingly claims inerrancy, nay even infallibility, has taught errors innumerable, has radically changed her ancient character and constitution, has become thoroughly corrupt in her centre of unity, has changed the forms of worship, has perverted the doctrines of the Gospel; in a word, has, as Paul predicted, fallen away.

Chapter V. Popery, Paganism.

ALTHOUGH the claim of the Pope to universal supremacy was not established until AD 606 (and is even now vigorously disputed by many loyal sons of Holy Mother), the candid historian is nevertheless ready to admit that the superstition denominated by Paul “an apostasy,” was, in all its chief features, distinctly visible prior to the arrogant assumptions of Boniface III. He, in the office of supreme Pontiff, did little more than sanction existing rites and enforce uniformity. The errors in doctrine and practice which have since attained such importance, and produced results so momentous, were most of them engrafted upon Christianity during the three preceding centuries. Whence they came is easily determined. Paganism was their fruitful source.

The motive which prompted to the introduction of these forms, adapting, as was supposed, the new religion to the deep-seated prejudices of the heathen, may have been, nay, we may say, certainly was, praiseworthy. With the fervent desire of becoming all things to all men, that they might by all means some, the early Christians, with the aid of imposing ceremonies and magnificent rites borrowed from Paganism, thought to win for Christ those who despised the simplicity of Christian worship. *

This policy, laudable in motive, was, however, exceedingly disastrous in its results. To purity of religion consequences the most pernicious ensued, Paganism began to supplant Christianity, leaving little save the name. The change in many doctrines and practices was indeed gradual—Rome boasts of her tardiness, deeming it wise deliberation—but on that account none the less real. Thus, the worship of images, though extensively prevalent in the beginning of the fourth century, was not established till the ninth. The sacrifice of the mass—Rome’s offering of human flesh—though originating about the middle of the fifth century, and almost universally believed in the ninth, being logically and compactly fitted into the system, an essential part thereof, was not erected into a dogma until the time of Pope Innocent III, at the fourth Council of the Lateran, AD. 1215. (Mosheim, III. chap. iii. part 2.) So likewise the invocation of saints, practised to some extent in the middle of the third century, was without ecclesiastical sanction till the ninth. No less gradual was her adoption of the doctrine of purgatory, that relic of ancient heathenism. So likewise the use of lamps, candles, incense, holy water, and priestly robes, became universal only by silencing opposition continued through centuries. But the gradual importation of these ceremonies, and the slowness with which they grew into favor, in no way affect their heathen origin. That Romanism is Paganism perpetuated, we shall endeavor to prove.

* Gregory, in his instructions given to Augustine, missionary to Britain, says: “Whereas it is custom among the Saxons to slay abundance of oxen, and sacrifice them to the devil, you must not abolish that custom, but appoint a new festival to be kept either on the day of the consecration of the churches, or the birthday of the saints whose relics are deposited there, and on those days the Saxons may be allowed to make arbors round the temples changed into churches, to kill their oxen and to feast, as they did while they were Pagans, only they shall offer their thanks and praises, not to the devil, but to God.” Says Mosheim: “This addition of external rites was also designed to remove the opprobrious calumnies which the Jewish and Pagan priests cast upon the Christians on account of the simplicity of their worship, esteeming them little better than atheists, because they had no temples, altars, victims, priests, nor any thing of that external pomp in which the vulgar are so prone to place the essence of religion. The rulers of the Church adopted, therefore, certain external ceremonics, that thus they might captivate the senses of the vulgar and be able to refute the reproaches of their adversaries, thus obscuring the native luster of the Gospel in order to extend its influence, and making it lose, in point of real excellence, what it gained in point of popular esteem.”

It was during the three centuries that elapsed between the pretended conversion of Constantine and the pontificate of Boniface III. that most of Rome’s customs and many of her doctrines were imported from heathenism. The religion of Jesus became a mere form, and not a life. Those who once, as idolaters, worshiped Jupiter and the host of gods, afterward, while worshiping the same images under the names of saints and martyrs, claimed to be Christians. As a necessary result, the same ceremonies, in the main, prevailed in the churches of these so-called followers of Jesus as in the Pagan temples. At the door of the temple stood a vase of holy water, from which the people sprinkled themselves.* How exactly has Rome copied this custom! Go into any Romish chapel or cathedral, and you will find the vessel containing the consecrated water, and modern heathens crossing themselves. The very composition of the water is the same, a mixture of salt with common water.

* “The Amula was a vase of holy water, placed by the heathens at the door of their temples, to sprinkle themselves with.”—Montfaucon.

One of the most ridiculous uses to which this water is applied, the sprinkling of horses, mules and asses, is, like all the other customs, borrowed from ancient Rome. On the Festival of St. Anthony, observed annually in the eternal city, the priest, dressed in sacerdotal robes, after muttering some Latin words, intended as a charm against sickness, death, famine, and danger, sprinkles with a huge brush all the animals brought in from the surrounding country, blasphemously repeating, “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Sancti Spiritus.” St. Anthony, taking literally the command, “Preach the Gospel to every creature,” concluded that the “Good Tidings” ought to be proclaimed to the inferior creation, to birds, beasts, and fishes. Hence the Pope has in the Vatican a picture representing even fish as devoutly listening, heads out of water, to a preaching friar! It is on the 17th of January that the festival of this famous St. Anthony, patron of animals, is celebrated. When this falls on Sabbath, great is the concourse, uproarious is the merriment, profitable indeed is the laughable farce: neighing horses, braying asses, bleating sheep, barking dogs, men, women, and children, each rivaling the other in loquacity, shouting priests, the rattling carriages of cardinals and nobles, and the clink of the fees as they drop into the sacred treasury, produce together a din that Pandemonium might envy, possibly could equal, certainly could not surpass. The entire scene is one that would almost certainly prove fatal to an old Pagan philosopher, should he rise from his grave. A fit of laughter would speedily terminate his second existence. And this benediction in this nineteenth century! The wheel of progress must be moving backwards. The dark age must be the present, the midnight in Rome. And then to see an ass pulled by the tail to the door of the church to receive perforce St. Anthony’s blessing, kicking and raising its solemn voice in earnest protest, and going home, tail straight out and head down, sighing, “Life is a failure.” Well! human nature, as it exists among Protestants, could endure only one such exhibition.

Even Romanists themselves regard this sprinkling of animals as a Pagan custom, perfected by the touch of infallibility. The old Romans, say they, were accustomed to sprinkle the horses at the Circensian games. It guarded them, it was believed, against evil spirits and accidents in the race. “Once on a time,” says a Catholic legend, “the horses of some Christians outran those of the heathen, because they were sprinkled with holy water.” Therefore this custom ought to be perpetuated; it has the sanction of God, the venerableness of antiquity, and was introduced by a saint, the great Anthony! The following may be found over the vessels of holy water in the Church of S. Carlo Borromeo, in the Corso, at Rome:

“Holy water possesses much usefulness when Christians sprinkle themselves with it with due reverence and devotion. The Holy Church proposes it as a remedy and assistant in many circumstances both spiritual and corporeal, but especially in these following:

“It’s Spiritual Usefulness.

“1. It drives away devils from places and from persons.

“2. Tt affords great assistance against fears and diabolical illusions.

“3. It cancels venial sins.

“4. It imparts strength to resist temptations and occasions to sin.

“5. It drives away wicked thoughts.

“6. It preserves safely from the passing snares of the devil, both internally and externally.

“7. It obtains the favor and presence of the Holy Ghost, by which the soul is consoled, rejoiced, and excited to devotion and disposed to prayer.

“8. It prepares the mind for a better attendance on the divine mysteries, and receiving piously and worthily the most Holy Sacrament.

“Its Corporeal Usefulness.

“1. It is a remedy against barrenness in women and beasts.

“2. It is a preservation from sickness.

“3. It heals the infirmities both of the mind and of the body.

“4. It purifies infected air and drives away plague and contagion.”

Wonderful water!

Nor is the use of holy water their only conspicuous theft. Clouds of smoke, we are told, arose from the burning incense as the idol worshipers entered the temple.* This custom of using incense for religious purposes was so peculiarly pagan, and felt, both by Christians and their enemies, as so strikingly unbecoming those who worshiped the humble Nazarene, that the method most frequently adopted by the heathen persecutors of testing the fidelity of a Christian to his convictions was to order him to throw incense into the censer. If he refused, he was accounted a Christian; if he threw even the least particle upon the altar, he was acquitted and classed among Pagans. In the churches of the great apostasy no one can fail to notice the use of perfumes. Often their cathedrals remain filled with the fumes of the incense for some considerable time after the services are concluded.

Closer still is Rome’s resemblance to Paganism. The heathen worshiper, on entering the temple, knelt before an idol and offered prayers. The devout papist, as he enters the church, often may be found kneeling before an image of the Virgin, praying, “O Holy Mary! MY SOVEREIGN QUEEN, AND Most Loving Mother! RECEIVE ME UNDER THY BLESSED PATRONAGE, AND SPECIAL PROTECTION, AND INTO THE BOSOM OF THY MERCY, THIS DAY, AND EVERY DAY, AND AT THE HOUR OF MY DEATH.”

“O GREAT, EXCELLENT, AND MOST GLORIOUS LADY, PROSTRATE AT THE FOOT OF THY THRONE, WE ADORE THEE FROM THIS VALLEY OF TEARS.”* “HAIL HOLY QUEEN, MOTHER OF MERCY, OUR LIFE, OUR SWEETNESS, AND OUR HOPE! TO THEE WE CRY, POOR BANISHED SONS OF EVE, TO THEE WE SEND OUR SIGHS, MOURNING AND WEEPING IN THIS VALLEY OF TEARS. TURN THEN, MOST GRACIOUS ADVOCATE! THY EYES OF MERCY TOWARDS US.”

“O HOLY MOTHER OF OUR GOD!
To THEE FOR HELP WE FLY;
DESPISE NOT THIS OUR HUMBLE PRAYER,
BUT ALL OUR WANTS SUPPLY.”

Were the most degraded of the heathen ever guilty of idolatry grosser than this ?

That they might clearly evidence the heathen origin of their customs, particulars seemingly the most insignificant were not allowed to pass into disuse. Even the arrangement of images in rows around the temple, the most highly prized standing alone in the most conspicuous place, has been slavishly copied, not only in centuries past, but in this late age. Nay, even the priest, dressed in robes apparently after the very pattern of those that decked the priests of ancient Rome, and attended, like his predecessors, by a boy in white, swings his pot of incense precisely as an old heathen in Homer’s time may be presumed to have done.

Laboriously endeavoring to exhaust the Pagan ritual, candles are kept burning before each altar and idol. In the churches of Italy they hang up lamps at every altar, says Mabillon. The Egyptians, says Herodotus, first introduced the use of lamps in worship. Rollin says (vol. i., pt. 2, ch. 2), “A festival surnamed the Feast of Lights, was solemnized at Sais. All persons throughout all Egypt, who did not go to Sais, were obliged to illuminate their windows.” So strikingly conspicuous was this part of the heathen worship, that the early Christians tauntingly said of their foes— “They light up candles to God as if he lived in the dark, . . . offering lamps to the Author and Giver of Light.”

Even the fiction of Purgatory, of which Gregory the Great has generally been represented by Papists as creator, and which has ever proved a source of immense wealth to the Pope and the clergy, is evidently an importation from Paganism. Like most of the other customs of the man of sin, it came in soon after Constantine’s pretended conversion, when Christianity became fashionable, and to men ambitious of distinction at the court, extremely profitable. Unknown to the Christian Church during the first five centuries, it was, however, well known in the heathen world even so early as Homer’s time. It is the old fire purification of souls; and the ceremonies now employed for the relief of those suffering the tormenting flames are remarkably similar to those anciently employed by Pagan priests. In fact the doctrine was so purely heathen, that not even Popish ingenuity could invent even an argument in its favor. Hence the Jesuit Cottonus, failing to find a passage in Scripture that would infallibly confirm it, implored the devil to assist him. For once even Satan himself was unable to wrest Scripture to his purpose. But, notwithstanding the small, the exceedingly unimportant consideration that no proof, except visions and dreams and assertion, was found, the Popes were able in the end to establish infallibly everything connected with purgatorial fires, and locate them at the earth’s center, 18,300.5 miles below the surface. Infallibility doesn’t need to know geography!

Their custom of invoking the dead is of heathen origin. The true Church of God never offered prayers to deceased mortals. The ancient Romans, however, deified their great men, and sought blessings from them. And the Papists, imitating their example, canonize those whom they honor during life, offer incense to them, bow before them and supplicate their assistance. Thus in “The Litany of Saints,” found in “The Catholic Manual,” their ordinary book of prayer, we find these petitions :

St. Stephen!
St. Laurence!
St. Vincent!
St. Fabian, and St. Sebastian!
St. John, and St. Paul!
St. Cosmas, and St. Damian!
St. Gervase, and St. Protase!
All ye holy Martyrs!
St. Sylvester!
St. Gregory!
St. Ambrose!
St. Augustin!
St. Jerom!
All ye holy Bishops and Confessors!
All ye holy Doctors!
St. Anthony!
St. Bennet!
St. Bernard!
St. Dominick!
St. Francis!
All ye holy Priests, and Levites!
All ye holy Monks, and Hermits!
St. Mary Magdalen!
St. Agatha!
St. Lucy!
St. Agnes!
St. Cecily ! (ete. for two more pages!) Make intercession for us !

And from the Freeman’s Journal (Sept. 24, 1870) we learn that the Archbishop of Cincinnati, in an address delivered at the ceremonies attending the depositing of relics in the convent of the St. Franciscan Sisters (Cincinnati), piously exhorted all devout Catholics to ask the mediation of St. Aureliana. The mortal remains of this saint, after sixteen centuries’ quiet rest, were taken (a chance to exercise faith), from the Catacombs of Rome, artistically encased in wax, transported across the Atlantic, and now rest, the object of devout veneration, in the metropolis of the West! This remarkable relic is the fruit of the indomitable perseverance of Mrs. Sarah Peters, the zealous convert whose untiring zeal was rewarded with the rare and blessed privilege of hearing mass said by Pope Pio Nono (Pope Pius IX) at the grave of St. Peter, beneath St. Peter’s, Rome. The tasteful correspondent of the paper, now so zealously engaged in raising Peter’s pence for “the infallible judge in faith and morals, the bishop of the Universal Church,” says, “The figure as it lay would have been “exquisite, had it not been marred by the ugly gash in the throat, and an appearance of wounds on the hands and feet, caused by pieces of the bones which were encased, being set in the white wax for the better veneration of the faithful.” Great indeed must be the faith which prompts persons, of even the least common sense, to venerate as the remains of the “virgin martyr of the proud and royal Aurelian family,” a wax figure, with a ghastly gash in the throat, and the bones sticking out! And what must be the superstition which leads to the invocation of this resurrected saint! We live in the year 1871, and boast of the world’s progress!

This idolatrous custom no doubt originated in veneration paid to departed worthies. Those, however, who so far conformed to heathen practices, soon offered worship to the creature. So universal became this superstition that even the ancient temple, sacred to Romulus, where infants were presented by their Pagan mothers to be cured of diseases, was consecrated to a Roman saint, Theodorus, to whom Catholic mothers present their sick children for healing. Nay, even the Pantheon, house of all the gods, the most celebrated heathen temple of antiquity, was rededicated by Pope Boniface IV. “to the blessed Virgin and all the saints And to this day, with the gods of old Rome bearing the names of Popish saints, the old Pagan worship, in all its essential features, is continued. There the traveller from every Catholic country may find his patron saint, and worship at his altar. And as with the Pantheon so with the other heathen temples; with the same ceremonies they worship the same idols under new names. Diana, Juno, Ceres, and Venus became the Virgin under different titles. Bacchus became St. Joseph. Orpheus and Apollo were regarded as types of Christ. Even the same festivals were perpetuated under new names, and consecrated to the commemoration of Christian anniversaries. The Liberalia were made to yield to the festival of St. Joseph, the ceremonies being slightly changed. The Palilia were retained as a festival in honor of St. John. The feast of St. Peter ad Vincula superseded the festival commemorative of Augustus’ victory at Actium. The Floralia, when the streets were strewn with flowers arranged in fantastic forms, were devoted to Our Lady. Even the wild festivities of the Saturnalia were in some measure retained in the excesses which were allowed at Christmas and Epiphany. The Cerealia, in honor of Ceres, the goddess of corn, were transformed into the visitation of the Virgin—the processions of women and virgins, in white robes, vowing chastity and strewing their beds with “agnus castus” being retained. In consequence of the vast increase in the number of saints, the list of heathen festivals was exhausted, so in AD 835, Gregory IV. established the feast of ALL SAINTS.

A recent traveller to Rome says:— “You frequently see persons prostrate before images, and in a state of the greatest apparent devotion, even if these images are formed out of materials taken from heathen temples. At Pisa I saw several females prostrate before the statues of Adam and Eve, which are exhibited in a state of almost entire nudity. The celebrated statue of St. Peter, in the Church of St. Peter’s at Rome, the toe of which is almost literally kissed away, was originally a statue of Jupiter, taken from the capitol. Many of the altars and ornaments in the churches, are entirely heathen in their origin and appearance. Naked forms in marble abound in all the churches. Many of the vases used for baptismal purposes, and those containing the Holy Water, were anciently used for similar purposes in the days of heathenism.”

Such unseemly haste has characterized Rome’s propensity to manufacture saints, that some ridiculous mistakes have occurred. Thus, they have canonized Julia Evodia, a heathen, respecting whom nothing is known except that she erected a tombstone to her heathen mother. They have, by the power of the keys, infallibly converted a mountain into a saint, Mount Soracte, becoming S. Oracte, St. Oreste. They have also a St. Viar, manufactured by a procrustean process from PrefectuS VIARum, overseer of roads; a sainted cloak, and a sainted handkerchief. In honor of the last-mentioned saint, whose surface bears an impression of the Saviour’s face, a true image, made as he wiped his face at the execution, Pope John XXII. composed a prayer as follows :—* HAIL HOLY FACE OF OUR REDEEDMER, PRINTED UPON A CLOTH AS WHITE AS SNOW; PURGE US FROM ALL SPOT OF VICE, AND JOIN US TO THE COMPANY OF THE BLESSED. BRING US TO OUR COUNTRY, O HAPPY FIGURE, THERE TO SEE THE PURE FACE OF CHRIST.” This sacred relic—preserved in St. Peter’s, where is an altar erected hy Pope Urban VIII. to the honor of Veronica, “vera icon,” the true image—grants, according to Pope Innocent III, ten days’ indulgence to all who visit it. Shades of Paganism, did ever superstition equal that! “His Infallibility,” Pope Pius IX., certainly deserves commiseration. To be the rock which shall support this mighty fabric of baptized Paganism, must be an oppressive life!

And to make the resemblance to heathenism complete in everything pertaining to saints, “ Holy Mother” earnestly recommends every Catholic to select some particular saint as a protecting divinity, a patron. Thus, in a “Catechism and Instructions” designed for very small children by M. C. Kavanagh, and having the unqualified commendation of one of Rome’s most honored Archbishops, occurs this pious advice, “ You should never be without some object of piety, such as a Crucifix, picture of Our Lady, your good Angel, or Patron Saint, in your bedroom.” Anciently, every Roman family had its penates, its household gods, a necessary appendage to every dwelling.

Their priestly power is an imitation of Pagan spiritual despotism. In the true Church, “all are kings and priests unto God.” Even the most humble, unknown, ignorant, and even sinful creature, “may come boldly unto the throne of grace.” But the Papal priests, servile copyists of the heathen, tyrannize over the souls of men, and claim the right to stand between the penitent sinner and his Saviour. All the blessings which he desires, and so much needs, must come through the good-will and efficacious services of priests. And these, forgetting that he who would serve God acceptably in the ministry of the Gospel, must be “least of all” and “servant of all,” are too often proud, insolent, tyrannical.

Their processions are of heathen origin. The ancient Romans, on set days, paraded, bearing lighted candles and carrying idols dressed in costly clothing. At these solenmities priests were assisted by the magistrates in ceremonial robes. The youth, gaudily dressed, followed, singing songs in honor of the god whose festival they were celebrating. Most slavishly has this custom been copied in Roman Catholic countries. At the festival of the Holy Virgin, or some other Romish saint, the priests, magistrates, and even ladies and mere boys, with lighted wax candles in their hands, form in solemn procession, bearing images, and chanting hymns. A traveler to Rome thus describes the festival of the Annunciation:—“ Processions of penitents are seen silently wending their way along the streets, clothed in long black robes, preceded by a black cross, and bearing in their hands skulls and bones, and contribution-boxes for souls in purgatory. . . . The Pope himself was clothed in robes of white and silver, and as he passed along the crowds of gazing people that lined the streets and filled the windows, he forgot not incessantly to repeat his benediction—a twirl of three fingers, typical of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—the little finger representing the latter. Many tiresome ceremonies followed his entry into the church. He was seated on his throne; all the Cardinals successively approached— kissed his hand—retired a step or two—gave three low bows—one to him in front, as personifying God the Father, one to the right, intended for the Son, and one to the left for the Holy Ghost.” Most powerfully do such scenes remind us of the pompous ceremonies of ancient Paganism; we seem standing in the midst of some heathen city of the ages past, and witnessing their grotesquely solemn superstitions.

The title of Pontifex Maximus is conspicuously a theft from ancient Rome. All good Papists are stanch advocates of the Pope’s supremacy. They consider him the Vicar of Christ, infallible Head of the Church, fountain of all holiness, source of all spiritual blessings, successor to St. Peter. Admitting that Peter was in Rome, and was bishop of the entire Church—which no Papist has ever yet successfully proved—the fact is yet undeniable that the name, the office, the authority, and the functions of the Pope are precisely the same as those of the chiefest pontiff in Pagan Rome. The worldly pomp and splendor that now surround the Papal court, comporting so poorly with what we know of the poverty, self-denial, and simple manners of the ardent, impetuous Apostle, point unmistakably to the Pontifex Maximus of old Rome. He, like his servile imitators, claimed to be the arbiter of all cases, civil and sacred, human and divine. If loyal Romanists, therefore, would say that the present Pope is the legitimate successor of the lordly pontiff who, even when Christ was a babe in Bethlehem, could claim regular succession from pontiffs dating backwards for centuries, they would tell the truth for once, and might add fresh laurels to their boasted claim of antiquity.

The votive offerings so frequently made in Catholic churches are an imitation of a custom practiced in Rome long prior to the Christian era. Nothing was more common than votive gifts presented to the gods in consequence of vows taken in times of danger, or for some supposed miraculous deliverance. Of this the authors of Greece and Rome make frequent mention. Even this means of fostering superstition did not escape Romish observation. It was early incorporated into the scheme of Popish worship. Around the shrines of the saints are hung, in almost countless number, these votive offerings, “evidences at once of the grossest superstition and of the most servile imitation of Pagan practices. A correspondent of a secular paper, writing recently from Paris, gives an animated description of a scene witnessed in one of the Cathedrals of the French capital on the reception of news by mail from MacMahon’s defeated army. Wives, sisters, lovers, were seen presenting their gifts to Our Lady—thanksgiving offerings for the deliverance of their loved ones; others, hanging up their gifts, knelt and tearfully implored the protection of the Mother of God for the exposed, the wounded, the suffering, the dying. Marble tablets, about eight inches by four, graven with sentiments such as these, “In humble thankfulness for the return of my beloved husband from the war,” “ Honor to Our Lady for her merciful deliverance,” “ In acknowledgment of the prayer Our Lady answered,” covered all the walls and even the pillars ‘overhead, so that the entire church of Our Lady of Victory was literally lined with these records of gratitude. To make the heathen scene complete, there were lighted candles and pictures, officiating priests in gaudy vestments, and a glittering altar loaded with ornaments and votive offerings.

The sacrifice of the mass is a conformity to Paganism as disgusting as it is slavishly accurate. Christians have always believed that Christ’s death is an all-sufficient sacrifice for sin, and has forever done away with the necessity and propriety of any other. “ For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin.” Popery, however, like Paganism, dishonors this one perfect sacrifice, by substituting others in its stead. It is indeed true that Papists do not offer the blood of bulls and goats; they offer, however, what is fur less reasonable and more grossly superstitious, A CONSECRATED WAFER, particles of bread, transubstantiated, by the magic words of the priest, into the “actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ;” into “his bones, nerves, muscles;” and the wine into “his real blood, which flowed in his veins.” If priest and people really believe what they so repeatedly affirm they believe, then are they among the most degraded of heathen worshipers— offering human flesh on their altars, eating human flesh and drinking human blood. Either, then, human sacrifices are perpetuated, and that, too, in the most shocking, most revolting form, or infallibility errs. Hither the priest creates a god, offers him as a sacrifice for sin, and ends in eating him, or all Papists worship FLOUR AND WATER. There is the dilemma! Romanists, choose which horn you please.

But even heathen, in their wildest vagaries, never clung to customs so repugnant to common sense as many that grow out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. For example, the priest, holding a wafer between his thumb and the forefinger of his right hand, says: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,” which he thrice repeats, then lays one wafer upon the tongue of each communicant. In winter, the wafers are consecrated twice a month, in summer, once a week. Consecration is oftener in summer than in winter, because the host, by the excessive heat, corrupts, producing worms! A god turned to worms!! It is an injunction of Holy Mother, however, that this corrupted host must be eaten. It is still “the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.” Again: “If in winter the blood be frozen in the cup, put warm cloths about the cup; if that will not do, let it be put into boiling water near the altar, till it be melted, taking care it does not get into the cup.” A god frozen and warmed with bandages or boiling water!! Surely, men have lost their reason! Heathen were never so devoid of common sense. Worse still: “If any of the blood of Christ fall upon the ground by negligence, it must be licked up with the tongue, the place be sufficiently scraped, and the scrapings burned; but the ashes must be buried in holy ground. “If after consecration a gnat or spider, or any such thing, fall into the chalice, let the priest swallow it with the blood, if he can; but if he fear danger, and have a loathing, let him take it out and wash it with wine, and when mass is ended, burn it and cast it and the washing into holy ground. It was solemnly declared by a reverend father, seconded by several friars, that a dog, which had accidentally caught and eaten the falling wafer, should be henceforth called “the sacrament dog ;” that when he died he should be buried in consecrated ground, that he must not be allowed to play with other dogs, and that the woman who owned him must place a silver dog on the tabernacle where the host was deposited, and pay a sum of money to the church, Surely Popery has out-paganized Paganism itself.

Nothing is more evident than that asceticism, which is manifestly opposed to the whole spirit of the Bible, is of Pagan origin. It is a vain attempt to work out salvation by severe self-denial, by withdrawing from the abodes of men and the customary pursuits of life, and undergoing penance with the hope that God is well pleased with those who render miserable the life he gave them. The Eremites of the heathen, especially those of Egypt, the Essenes and the Therapeutae, retiring from the world and all useful occupations, vowing chastity, poverty and obedience, clothing themselves in skins or the coarsest materials, dwelling in caverns, practicing tortures, sometimes even scourging themselves with whips, and passing much of their time in silent contemplation, were accustomed to travel from house to house, with sacks upon their backs, begging bread, wine, and all kinds of victuals for the support of their lazy fraternities. Precisely the same customs prevail even now in India and Siam, handed down from the same source, Egypt, the fruitful parent of so many gloomy misanthropes (people who hate or mistrust humankind). Hordes of mendicant (beggar) priests, claiming superior sanctity, feed on the people, consuming the fruits of honest industry, and returning no equivalent. After these heathen models, Rome’s religious orders of monks and nuns, in their almost endless variety, were unquestionably formed, and that too by the most raving fanatics. These orders have precisely the same vows—chastity, poverty and obedience. They retire into monasteries, nunneries, deserts, or caves, spend their time in filth or useless reverie and idleness; clothe themselves in rags and wretchedness, or in garments powerfully reminding one of their heathen prototypes, and practice severe self-inflicted tortures. So likewise celibacy, so vaunted in the Romish Church, and abstinence from animal food, are among the austerities recommended by Pagans centuries before the Christian era.

That no feature, at least no important feature, of Paganism might be allowed to fall into oblivion, Rome can boast of her sect, the legitimate successors of the Gymnosophists of Egypt, which claims that the perfection of piety consists in an annihilation of every affection implanted in human nature, including even love of one’s parents, which, to any but a heathen, might reasonably be presumed to be innocent. Those voluntarily choosing a hermit life—thus casting slander on the God that made them, and more frequently failing into gross sins than those preferring to remain in society, and there attempt to live worthy of him whose life was spent in labors of love with the multitude— became at one time so numerous in the infallible Church, that in Egypt alone their number was little less than 100,000. In one city, Oxyrinthus, there were 20,000 virgins and 10,000 monks. To find from 7000 to 10,000 lazy monks under the superintendence of one abbot was by no means unusual.

And even the self-whipping, copied from the priests of Isis, Papists have retained. True, the sect of the Flagellantes no longer exists (but flagellation continues in Opus Dei) , but then in the eternal city, during the season of Lent, fleshly discipline is still practiced. Only a short time since, in one of the churches of Rome, after a brief season of prayer, the candles being extinguished, a company of the faithful, for the space of an hour, sacredly devoted themselves to the use of the consecrated whip—either upon their backs or upon the benches. Seneca, referring to this same custom in Pagan Rome, says: “If there be any gods that desire to be worshipped after this manner, they do not deserve to be worshipped at all; since the very worst of tyrants, though they have sometimes torn and tormented people, yet have never commanded men to torture themselves.” And the Emperor Commodus, shrewd old Pagan as he was, being opposed to people wearing unearned laurels, ordered these self whippers “to lash themselves in good earnest, and not feign it merely and impose upon the people.”

Even so trifling a circumstance as kissing the Pope’s toe is borrowed from the heathen Emperor and tyrant, Caligula. When first the pontifical toe of the old pagan was introduced to the public, it aroused a violent storm of indignation, being taken as the greatest possible insult to freedom. Now, however, in Christian Rome, it scarcely ruffles the serenity of even the proudest and most honored Papist. It is the condition of access into the awe-inspiring presence of “Our Lord God the Pope, infallible judge in faith and morals.” And as he is the legitimate successor of the lordly pontiff who was conducted to the castle of Toici, in France, by two kings, one walking on either side of his horse, and holding the bridle rein; and of Gregory VIL, who compelled the Emperor Henry IV. to remain three full days at his palace gate, barefoot and fasting, humbly suing for admittance, it would be too cruel to deny the Holy Father of all Christendom the small honor of having the faithful kiss his jeweled slipper.

Instead of tracing the remaining characteristic features of Romanism back to their heathen origin, we must content ourselves with bringing forward a few authorities substantiating the position that Popery is perpetuated Paganism. The first shall be Dean Waddington. “The copious transfusion of heathen ceremonies into Christian worship, which had taken place before the end of the fourth century, had, to a certain extent, Paganized (if we may so express it) the outward form and aspect of religion, and these ceremonies became more general and more numerous, and, so far as the calamities of the times would permit, more splendid in the age which followed. To console the convert for the loss of his favorite festival, others of a different name, but similar description, were introduced; and the simple and serious occupation of spiritual devotion was beginning to degenerate into a worship of parade and demonstration, or a mere scene of riotous festivity.”

Aringhus, a Roman Catholic writer, acknowledging the conformity between Pagan and Popish rites, explains and defends it as follows :— The Popes found it necessary, in the conversion of the Gentiles, to dissemble and wink at many things and yield to the times, and not to use force against customs which the people are so obstinately fond of, nor to think of extirpating at once everything that had the appearance of profane.”

Dr. Middleton, in his letters from Rome, to which we acknowledge ourselves indebted for many of the above mentioned facts, affirm:— “All their ceremonies appear plainly to have been copied from the rituals of primitive Paganism; as if handed down by an uninterrupted succession from the priests of old, to the priests of new Rome.” After carrying out the comparison to an extent which would be wearisome were it not so deeply interesting, he employs this language :—“ I could easily carry on this parallel, through many more instances of the Pagan and Popish ceremonies, to show from what spring all that superstition flows, which we so justly charge them with, and how vain an attempt it must be to justify by the principles of Christianity a worship formed upon the plan and after the very pattern of pure heathenism.”

Considering the evidence we are able to present of the strikingly accurate conformity of modern Popery to ancient Paganism, who is not ready to believe that if Cicero should rise from his grave in the Campus Martius, and wandering through Rome should enter St. Peter’s, he would certainly imagine that the successors of the old priests, in scarcely a circumstance changed, were, with the same fopperies, which in the times of the Caesars excited the ridicule of the learned, worshipping Diana, or Venus, or Apollo?

If, as we believe has been successfully proved, modern Romanism is only the Paganism of Antechristian times perpetuated, then we may expect to find it bearing a close affinity to Buddhism, the oldest known religion of the Indo-European race. For unless Dwight and Max Maller, and in fact all philologists are incorrect in their oft-repeated declaration that India and Greece and Rome were peopled by kindred tribes, speaking cognate languages and having essentially the same religion, then is modern Popery the same as Buddhism of the present day, barring only the slight changes that have occurred since the separation. And as each prides itself in veneration of the past, in inerrancy and immutability, these may be presumed to he few.

That Romanism is indeed the twin sister of the Buddhist religion none surely can deny. A comparison of the two will force conviction upon even the most incredulous. Antedating Christianity by several centuries, and spreading over all the countries inhabited by what are now known as the Indo-European races, Buddhism has ever had, and now has, precisely those features which mark the Papal Church, consisting partly of maxims of morality and partly of dogmas of faith on subjects transcending the reach of reason, it rests conjointly on the authority of certain sacred books and the decisions of early councils—called, like Rome’s, ecumenical, and blindly venerated. The worshipers of Buddha in Burma, Siam, and the Chinese Empire— numbering more than the adherents of any other religious system known in either ancient or modern times— have their relics and their images, the objects of supreme veneration; their temples costing fabulous sums of money; their saints canonized by ecclesiastical authority; their priests with shaven heads, vowing chastity, poverty and obedience; their wax candles burning night and day; their penances and self-inflicted tortures; their endless traditions, and hair-splitting moral distinctions; and even their confessional. They have also their Lent, when for four or five weeks all the people are supposed to live on vegetables and fruits; their acts of merit, repetition of prayers, fasting, offerings to the images, celibacy, voluntary poverty, enforced devotions, and munificent gifts to temples, monasteries and idols. Even the rosary, a string of beads used in saying prayers, and supposed by Papists to be a device specially revealed to St. Dominic, is part of the sacred machinery of the devout Buddhist. And their monasteries, into which priests retire from the world, and engage in the instruction of the young, especially in the mysteries of their sacred books, almost startle one by their close resemblance to those of Popery. And to see the worshipers of Buddha, each with a rosary in his hand, prostrate themselves before an image and repeat their prayers, whilst priests in gaudy vestments, bowing before lighted candles, mutter their incantations in a language which has long since ceased to be spoken, forces upon even the least reflecting the conviction that though Rome has ever claimed the power of working miracles, she has shown little inventive genius. Not even are shrines and sacred places a monopoly with Rome. There are plenty of them, and pilgrims too, in India. And why not, since they have their preaching friars, spending their time alternatively in sacred oratory and in begging. Nay, even modem miracles, though by no means so numerous, and certainly not so astounding, are performed by Rome’s elder sister. And to complete the picture, they have their infallible pontiff. At Lhassa, as well as at Rome, dwells one whom the faithful make believe cannot err when speaking ea cathedra. With two infallibles, one in Asia and one in Europe, the world certainly ought not to err in faith and morals. And then, like the Romanist and the ancient Egyptian, the learned Buddhist indignantly repels the charge of idolatry, affirming that he only employs idols as a visible image of the invisible Buddha, an aid in spiritual worship. Alike in most things, and antedated only in one, infallibility, Rome is, as yet, ahead in the mad chase after superstition. Buddhism has no indulgences, no purgatory, no living Eucharist, that is, human sacrifices: —Paganism has been outstripped.

PART II. Popery essentially hostile to Christianity.
Chapter I. Arrogance. (2 Thess. ii. 4.)

HAVING proved—we trust to the satisfaction of unprejudiced minds—that Romanism is the predicted foe of Christ’s kingdom, the mystery of iniquity that even in the Apostles’ time was beginning to work, the great apostasy, baptized Paganism, it remains for us to show that she is, in spirit, doctrine and practice, hostile to the true Church of Christ; that in her leading characteristics she is necessarily antagonistic to Christianity, nor less so in this enlightened nineteenth century, than in the world’s midnight, Rome’s golden age; that her changes have most of them been for the worse, towards grosser superstition, greater pride, and more absurd dogmas.

In Paul’s glowing description of the rise of Antichrist, occur these remarkable words: “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” No arrogance that the world has ever witnessed can compare with that of the Papal Church. It claims not only immutability but also inerrancy, not merely the right to bind the conscience and destroy the body, but even to damn the soul. It boastingly proclaims itself able to work miracles, to forgive sins, and to create the world’s Creator. Its proud pontiff calls himself God’s vicegerent on earth, Vicar of Christ. By his subjects he is denominated, “ His Holiyess,” “Our Lord God THE Pope.” The celebrated canonist, Prospero Fagnani, the oracle of the court of Rome, in his commentaries on the Decretals, thus defines the Pope:

“We may make laws and institutions for all the world. He has power over all men, even infidels. The Pope judges all men, and can be only judged of God. Te cannot be judged of councils; nay, were the whole world to pronounce in any particular against the Pope, it would be right to submit to his judgment against the world. Everything he does is done by divine authority. The Pope may, by himself alone, determine the symbols of faith, since it belongs to him only to decide in matters of faith. The Pope is not subject to the desisions of his predecessors—not even to that of the Apostles; for there is no power that can limit the power of the keys. He may dispense with the observance of the divine laws and the Gospel precepts. The Pope may grant every species of dispensation, with the exception of one, to marry one’s father, or one’s mother. He may depose magistrates and princes, and free their subjects from their obligations to loyalty. He is king of kings and ruler of rulers; he is the prince of bishops, the judge of all men. He can create a law where before there was none.” If this is not dethroning the King of heaven, what shall we call it?

Innocent III, in his coronation sermon, said :—“Now you may see who is the servant who is placed over the family of the Lord; truly is he the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of Peter, the Christ of the Lord, the God of Pharaoh; placed in the middle between God and man, on this side of God, but beyond man; less than God, but greater than man; who judges all, but is judged by none.”

Bellarmine wrote :—“If the Pope should err by enjoining vices or prohibiting virtues, the Church, unless she would sin against conscience, would be bound to believe vices to be good and virtues evil.” What can we say to men who profess such doctrines?

Another writer, in defining the limits between Papal and secular power, affirms:—”The Pope is bound by no forms of law; his pleasure is law. The Pope makes right of that which is wrong, and can change the nature of things. He can change square things into round.”

Nor must it be imagined that these doctrines are only the legacy of the dark ages. They are the beliefs of the living present, held more firmly now than ever.

The Freeman’s Journal and Catholic Register of New York, under date of Oct. 1, 1870, holds this language :—“It is as obligatory to hear the voice of Pius IX., when he speaks, avowedly to the universal Church, as it is to listen to the voice of Jesus Christ.”

The Papal Church has the effrontery and the blasphemy to claim, even in this age, that she is, always has been and ever will be, immutable. Le Universe, an Ultramontane journal of France, lately contained the following:—

“The Catholic Church is in the commencement of all things. It has always existed and will always exist. It was before time, it is in time, it will be after time, without spots, or wrinkles, or any change. It does not change; it is developed. It is from God, it is through God, it will be God, for God has constituted it to fill the human race with divinity, that it may become an increase of God.”

This, in face of Rome’s numberless changes, her countless contradictions and variations (see “Edgar’s Variations”), is a faith that may well be denominated sublime. ‘The present Pope is a firm believer in transubstantiation, but Pope Gelasius I. wrote:— “The substance of the bread and wine ceases not to exist.” The doctrine of purgatory is, with all true Catholics of the present day, an essential part of that perfect, unchanged and unchangeable system. But this doctrine, little more than four hundred years old, is condemned by more than twenty of the fathers, including St. Augustine, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Tertullian, Ambrose, the two Cyrils, Chrysostom, Athenasius, and Jerome. Not always was Rome so unreflecting as publicly to proclaim her damnable avarice, her heartlessness and inhumanity in allowing the souls of her “beloved children” to lie “broiling in the fiercest flames” till a few coppers, wrenched from her poverty stricken victims, drop into her accursed coffers. Pio Nono (Pope Pius IX), and all intelligent Papists, it is fair to presume, agree with the teachers of science, as to the diameter of the earth. But Pope Gregory, and Bellarmine, and Dr. Rosaccio placed purgatory at the earth’s centre, more than 18,000 miles below the surface. They must be correct, for infallibility, it seems, has measured it. The Inquisition of Rome, in 1633, guided by the Vicar of God, infallible Pope Urban, in condemning Galileo, affirmed:— “The proposition that the earth moves is absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered, at least, erroneous in faith.” As infallibility cannot correct itself, in what a dilemma the Papal world finds itself! They are living on a flat, immovable planet, the centre of the universe. Similar countless contradictions and variations of Popery in no way stagger the faith of true Romanists, however. The children of Holy Mother, evidently believing some things because they are absurd, give us touches of arrogance that are truly sublime. Le Pére Lacordaire, the noted Dominican preacher, in a sermon delivered not long since in Notre Dame, exclaims :—

“Assuredly the desire has not been wanting to lay hold of us, or put us to fault against immutability; for what a weighty privilege to all those who do not possess it: a doctrine immutable when everything upon earth changes! A doctrine which men hold in their hands, which poor old men in a place called the Vatican guard under the key of this cabinet, and which without any other defense resists the course of time, the dreams of sages, the designs of kings, the fall of empires—always one, constant, identical with itself! What a prodigy to deny! What an accusation to silence!”

A little farther on he represents the Pope, after refusing the demand of the present age for change, and scorning a million of men under arms, as indignantly exclaiming, when offered half of Caesar’s sceptre on condition he will change just a little:

“Keep thy purple, O Caesar! tomorrow they will bury thee in it; and we will chant over thee the Alleluia and the De Profundis, which never change.”

Since this eloquent bombast penned, Pio Nono (Pope Pius IX) has yielded his temporal crown to a few shouting Liberals. Yet such is the grandeur of Papal arrogance that, ignoring changes, the Pope’s loyal sons shout: “‘Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity. We stand by now; and wait to see how the Lord will bring safety for our Church out of what, humanly considered, is a desperate case. But let the enemy take note of our confidence! We acknowledge we know not how, but we are sure of a deliverance. We do not know what the Holy Father will do. Perhaps the Holy Father does not know what he will do a month hence.” *

So the boasted immutability has been shivered to pieces by the waywardness of the Pope’s “poor misguided sheep.” And since infallibility is unfortunately not foreknowledge, even “Our Lord God the Pope” does not know what will come of his having so peremptorily refused the half of Caesar’s crown, offered him by the vivid imagination of “the great Dominican.”

The Church of Rome claims the exclusive right to interpret Scriptures. According to Popery, individual believers have no right whatever to form for themselves opinions as to the meaning of the Bible. In religious matters they have no right to think. It is their duty to believe and to obey. It is the exclusive right of the sovereign Pontiff to think and to command.* God has indeed given all men reason and conscience, but they may not use them except according to Papal rule. The Pope gives to the Word of God all the authority it can possess! Without his sanction it has no binding force. He can abrogate the laws of the Creator. He can declare the commands of Christ of no effect. If God should speak in an audible voice from heaven, we would not be required to obey unless the Pope endorsed the command. Nay, the case is even worse. For the spiritual despot in the eternal city has actually forbidden his subjects to read, or even possess, the will of heaven revealed for our salvation. The bull of May 5th, 1844, contains this remarkable prohibition :

*In the bull of Gregory XVI, dated May 8, 1844, occur these words: “Watch attentively over those appointed to expound the Holy Scriptures, that they dare not, under any pretext whatever, interpret or explain the holy pages contrary to the traditions of the Holy Fathers, or to the service of the Catholic Church.”

“MOREOVER, WE CONFIRM AND RENEW THE DECREES RECITED ABOVE, DELIVERED IN FORMER TIMES BY APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, AGAINST THE PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, READING AND POSSESSION OF BOOKS OR THE HOLY SCRIPTURE TRANSLATED INTO THE VULGAR TONGUE.”

Thus an erring, creature presumes to tell the King of heaven that he may not make known his will to his own creatures. Has not Romanism “exalted itself above all that is called God?”

In entire consistency this mystery of iniquity has denounced the American Bible Society as “a most crafty device, shaking the foundations of religion,” “a pestilence,” “a defilement of the faith most eminently dangerous to souls.” Again: “It is greatly feared that Bible societies will, by a perverse interpretation, turn Christ’s Gospel into a human Gospel, or, what is worse still, into a Gospel of the devil.” In a letter dated June 26th, 1816, and addressed to the Primate of Poland, Pius VII. said: “It is evident, from experience, that the Holy Scriptures when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit. Warn the people entrusted to your care, that they full not into the snares prepared for their everlasting ruin.” In the nineteenth century language such as this falls from lips claiming superior sanctity and even supernatural guardianship! If our versions are so shockingly dangerous, and that, too, when simple translations without note or comment, one would suppose they would industriously circulate a translation of their own. Instead of doing so, however, this proposition, “It is useful and necessary to study the Scriptures,” one of the Popes branded as “false, shocking, scandalous, seditious, impious, blasphemous.” It would seem that in the judgment of Rome the Bible is the most dangerous book in existence. And yet, strange to say, this immutable, infallible Church has, by solemn degree, granted her priests the privilege of selling licenses to read God’s Word. Among the ten rules enacted by the Council of Trent respecting prohibited books, we find this:

“It is referred to the judgment of the bishops, or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, PERMIT THE READING OF THE BIBLE TRANSLATED INTO THE VULGAR TONGUE BY CATHOLIC AUTHORS, TO THOSE PERSONS WHOSE FAITH AND PIETY, THEY APPREHEND, WILL BE AUGMENTED, AND NOT INJURED BY IT; AND THIS PERMISSION THEY MUST HAVE IN WRITING.”

Thus God’s Vicegerent tells him: “We will grant our subjects permission to read your message of life if they will pay us for the privilege.” Standing between the Creator and the creature, the Pope says to the former: “You may not speak to my subjects;” to the latter: “You may not receive the message of your Maker, unless you have the means of purchasing my permission.” And even this presumption is sustained by Roman logic. “The Pope has the chief power of disposing of the temporal affairs of Christians, in order to their spiritual good.” Wealth corrupts men. By every conceivable means, therefore, it should be taken from them. Verily we are prepared to read this claim: “The Pope has power above all powers in heaven and in earth.” “He, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

It is a maxim with Popery that ignorance is the mother of devotion. If this be true—and infallibility has affirmed it—the devotion of the mass of Papists must be the deepest, the purest, the noblest, and the most spiritual the erring creatures of God have ever rendered him. And hence arises a reason, all powerful with Romanists, why popular education should be opposed. And accordingly they are, and always have been, opposed to the freedom of the press, to the general diffusion of knowledge, to the progress of the arts and sciences. Pope Gregory, in his bull of 1832, denounces liberty of opinion, of conscience, and of the press, as “absurd and erroneous doctrines; pregnant with the most deplorable evils; and pests of all others most to be dreaded in a state.” And those who proclaim censures such as these irreconcilable with the rights of men, are charged with “falsity, rashness, and infamous effrontery.” Catholicism is, in interest, in principle, and in policy, the uncompromising foe to modern ideas of education. What Protestants denominate the dark ages Romanism calls the golden age. It disdains the civilization, intelligence, and sterling activity of the present, and were the power hers, no doubt the wheels of progress would be turned backwards four or five centuries.

The Church of Rome claims ability to forgive sins. Confession being made and the money demanded handed over, absolution is unconditionally granted. This is their claim. And in accordance therewith is their practice. We are indeed aware of the affirmation of many, that the priests, in granting absolution, merely declare, that to the penitent, sin is remitted by God. We affirm, however, that the Church claims the inherent power of forgiving sin. One of the anathemas of the Council of Trent, certainly no mean authority, is: “If any one shall say that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a naked ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins are remitted to the person confessing, provided only they be believers… . let him be accursed.” Here forgiveness of sin is claimed as a judicial act of the priest. He sits in Christ’s seat, granting pardon. And against each and every apologist, whether Papal or Protestant, who, smoothing down the asperities of Popery, would reconcile it with reason, Rome’s last argument is fulminated, “anathema sit (let him be accursed).”

And their theological works contain arguments to prove that to the Pope has been given the right of granting this pardoning power to every priest. Did not Christ say to Peter, “Whatsoever thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven?” Every priest, therefore, holding his commission from Peter’s successor, has ability to pardon the sinner. And why not? Is there not a storehouse of good works? Has not the Pope the key? May he not disinterestedly sell the merit accumulated from the obedience of the faithful above all that God required? Absolutions are, therefore, only the transfers of merit, of the supererogatory works of Rome’s renowned saints. And surely he who can make virtue vice, and vice virtue, can set some of this treasure to the account of the sinner who proves the genuineness of his desire for it by paying the stipulated price. Nay, “the Mother of Harlots” can do more than forgive sins. She has the right to sell indulgences. And every sin has its price. Did space permit, it would furnish a pitiable exhibition of the innate depravity of man to run over the list prepared by this trafficker in human souls. There is the price of an indulgence to “murder one’s father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or other relative, one dollar and seventy-five cents;” “for theft, sacrilege, rapine, perjury, two dollars;” “for incest with a sister, a mother, or any near relative, two dollars and a quarter.” At the end of one of the chapters in this, the “ Pope’s Chancery Book,” it is said: “Note well: Graces and dispensations of this kind are not conceded to the poor, because they have no means, therefore they cannot be comforted.” Poor creatures! Their poverty is their only sin! That the traffic in these indulgences is now dull, is not because Rome has willingly abandoned the lucrative business, but because the light of the Reformation has ruined the trade. Even yet, however, they are purchasable by prayers, and especially by the repetition of Mary’s rosary. “The Catholic Manual,” a collection of devotional exercises, promises a plenary indulgence on each of the solemn feasts of Christ and of the blessed Virgin Mary, to those who, with these heads, pray devoutly at least once a week. Whoever repeats a Hail Mary in the morning, is promised “an indulgence of a hundred days, each day of the week, and seven years and seven times forty days on each Sunday.” By carefully following the sixteen instructions on indulgences in “The Catholic Manual,” a devout Papist, by laboring with the machinery of devotion about four hours each day for five years, could, we think, very easily purchase a thousand years unbridled license in sin. About one hundred monks, working diligently, could, we believe, lay up merit adequate to pardon the entire world of sinners. They might thus open a new spiritual bank and rival the Pope in making merchandise of souls. Why, therefore, should the subjects of Pio Nono (Pope Pius IX) tremble with apprehensions of the torments of perdition? The infallible Church has granted, and therefore, of course, can again grant, permission to commit any sin, engaging to extinguish the flames of hell. None, to whom he grants a claim to the joys of the redeemed. can be finally lost. None can enter paradise without his passport. Did not Jesus say to Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven?” These keys have been handed down from Peter to the present Pope! Therefore, “He openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” On what condition will he open heaven to the soul? When the dues to the Church are paid. Did ever assumption equal this?

Claiming sovereignty over his people not only in this world but also in the world to come, the Pope controls even purgatorial fires. How long souls are kept in the purifying flames would seem to depend entirely on the willingness of living friends to pay money for the celebration of masses. Archbishop Hughes, when on earth, was lauded as one of the holiest of men. It required, however, a long time to pray his soul out of purgatory. “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Nor does Papal presumption stop even here. In the doctrine of the real presence, according to which in every crumb of bread and in every drop of wine Christ’s entire nature, human and divine, is comprehended, we have arrogance the most blasphemous which it is possible to conceive. Christ, in his undivided humanity, is present in heaven and on the countless Popish altars of all countries and all ages, entire, perfect, complete in every particle of the consecrated elements. And yet, lest human weakness should be horrified with eating flesh and drinking blood, the form, appearance, qualities, and taste of bread and wine remain unchanged. And this self-contradictory miracle, the most stupendous ever imposed upon human credulity, it is affirmed, is daily wrought by priestly power. A learned Cardinal says: “He that created me gave me, if it be lawful to tell, to create himself.” And Pope Urban af firmed: “The hands of the pontiff are raised to an eminence granted to none of the angels, or CREATING GOD THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, and of offering him up for the salvation of the whole world.” One shudders as he reads such blasphemy. And to find in the Freeman’s Journal of Sept. 8, 1870, such language as this, “How many prayers have they (the French priests praying for unhappy Napoleon III.) offered even with the Most Holy in their hands,” too plainly proves that Popery is the same unchanged monster of iniquity.

Add to the above list of assumptions, the last and greatest of all, infallibility, so recently exalted into a dogma, and you have all that it would seem possible for man to claim; all that the proudest and most cruel tyrant could desire. The arrogance is complete; the despotism is perfect. The Pope has the right to enslave the body; nay, even to take life, to bind the conscience, and to damn the soul. And in the exercise of these divine prerogatives, to err is impossible. These assumptions the faithful are not only expected to believe with the whole heart, but to yield unresisting obedience to the tyranny thence resulting.

“I’d rather be a dog, and bay the moon,
Than such a Roman.”

Chapter II Infallibility (2 Thes. ii. 4, and 1 Tim. iv. 2.)

THE year 1870 will be forever memorable in the history of the Papacy. It has witnessed the grotesquely solemn ascription of one of the attributes of deity to the pretended successor of Peter. “Speaking lies in hypocrisy,” and raving in a delirium of passion, the sovereign pontiff shouts:

“I am the Pope: the Vicar of Jesus Christ; the chief of the Catholic Church, and I have called this Council, which shall do His work, . . . . I say,—I, who can not but speak the truth, —that if we would establish liberty, we must never fear to speak the truth, and to denounce error. I too would be free as well as the truth itself”

“And there are those now who are in fear of the world! They fear revolution! . . . . They will sacrifice all the rights of the Holy See, and their love for the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Miserable men, what must they do? They seek the applause of men. We, my children, we seek the approbation of God. You must sustain the claims of truth and righteousness. It is the duty of the bishops fearlessly to fight in the defense of truth alongside of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. My children, do not forsake me.” – From the Pope’s speech to the Vicars Apostolic, March 23, 1870.

In answer to this pathetic appeal the unterrified made the Vatican ring with cries, “ No, No, No, Vive l’Infallible! Vive l’Infallible!! Vive l’Infallible!!!” At the public reception, May 14, 1870, one continuous deafening shout was heard, “ Long live the Infallible.” Was Paul picturing this scene when he wrote, “Who opposes himself, and exalts himself against all that is called God, and against all worship: even to seat himself in the temple of God, and take on himself openly the signs of Godhead?” (Conybeare and Howson’s Version.)

Preparations for this solemn farce were made even so early as the year 1864. Then was issued the Encyclical and Syllabus, since so famous, which commend most of the arrogant assumptions of previous Pontiffs, and denounce, in no measured terms, the civilization, progress, religion and education of the present. With characteristic impudence they claim for the Pope the right of abrogating civil law, of enforcing obedience to Catholic dogmas, of employing corporl punishment, and even of compelling princes to execute civil penalties for ecclesiastical offenses. They insist, in language not to be mistaken, that to Holy Mother belongs the exclusive right to educate the young, that priests are not subject to civil governments, that the Pope rules, jure divino, in temporal things, that the right to solemnize marriage is the exclusive possession of the priesthood, that Catholicism is the only system of faith entitled to man’s suffrage, and, accordingly, that Protestant worship ought not to be tolerated, and where it can be suppressed, as in New Granada and in Rome, must be.

Not content with endorsing Gregory’s condemnation of liberty of conscience as an insanity, His Infallibility denominates it the liberty of perdition. The privilege of embracing that religion which, led by the light of reason, a man conscientiously believes to be right, is repeatedly and emphatically denied. Even the will of an entire nation, though calmly, kindly and intelligently expressed, can by no possibility constitute law; cannot lawfully demand the respect of Christ’s Vicar. Having thus condemned all liberty, personal and national, civil and religious, he commits himself unqualifiedly to despotism, by anathematizing those who demand that the Roman Pontiff should harmonize himself with progress and modern civilization, and by denying to the down-trodden even the God-given right of rebellion. Fitly is this proud tyranny crowned with the unblushing assertion, that the judgments, decisions, dogmas and practices of the Church are infallible.

Conceived in iniquity, this now famous dogma was brought forth by the suppression of free discussion. Protests against its adoption, though respectfully worded and courteously presented, were sent back without comment or communication, and in some instances even unread. Arguments in every way deserving of serious attention obtained no answer.* The German prelates, in a carefully prepared protest, said, “Unless these (the great difficulties arising from the words and acts of the Fathers of the Church, as contained in authentic documents of Catholic history) can be resolved, it will be impossible to impose this doctrine upon Christian people as being a revelation from heaven.” And yet far from succeeding, scarcely an effort was made in removing the difficulties. “All religion,” said Cardinal Schwarzenberg, “is at an end in Bohemia if this definition is affirmed.” “No words,” said another prelate, “can express the evils which will accrue to the cause of religion throughout Hungary, if infallibility is affirmed.” These, like all the bishops who dared to anticipate social and political evils from the adoption of this new dogma, were treated as disturbers of the peace, as disloyal to Christ’s Vicar, as grossly impertinent and presumptuous.

A correspondent of the Liberté gives an account of a strange scene between the Pope and the Syrian Patriarch of Babylon. The Patriarch, who, before leaving for Rome had taken solemn oath to defend the liberties of the Oriental Churches, said in Council: “We Orientals reserve our rights, which moreover have been recognized by the Council of Florence.” The Pope, irritated, sent for him. The venerable Prelate immediately repaired to the Vatican. The Pontiff, pale and greatly agitated, presented a paper by which the Patriarch renounced all his rights and privileges. “Sign that,” said Pius IX.“ I cannot,” replied the Prelate. The Pope, seized with one of his violent fits of anger, striking his hand on the table, exclaimed: “You cannot leave without signing it.” The Patriarch reminded him of his oath. “ Your oath is a nullity, sign.” After an hour’s useless struggle the Prelate submitted, appending his signature.

Those who, with irresistible logic demanded unanimity as the condition of promulgating a new dogma, especially one so important and far-reaching in its consequences, were insulted, threatened with deposition, and in the end forced either to absent themselves or to vote infallibility.* The Pope, as in the preparations for the Council, so in its proceedings, assumed to decide the gravest questions. He ostentatiously proclaimed himself as by divine appointment the infallible head of the Church. By lauding and honoring the friends of infallibility, and insulting and denouncing their opponents, denominating them “bad Catholics,” he showed himself the worthy head of the order of Jesuits. Freedom of opinion became a mere name; discussion only a pretense. The result was predetermined; known when the Council was called. The French bishops, in a manifesto portraying with just indignation the successive steps taken in suppressing all freedom, affirm: “Debate in general convocation has been a mere illusion: discussion has been muzzled, and free speech gagged. Passion is dominating more and more: old traditions and usages are abandoned, just claims forgotten, and the most elementary rules set at naught. . . . . A good cause does not need to be supported by violence.”

By such agencies as these an assembly of bishops, who according to ancient Roman law had no right to originate dogma, but simply to express in formula doctrines which had ever been held as objects of universal belief, promulgated a dogma as dishonoring to God as it is insulting to man.

And the arguments by which this monstrous claim was supported, are, like those by which St. Liguori proves Mary a proper object of worship, so excessively weak as to excite contempt. We do not affirm that those who employ them are men of feeble intellect. This, in many instances, is certainly not the case. But men of powerful minds, when thoroughly committed to an absurdity, are, of course, forced to bring forward arguments which strike every unbiased listener as simply ridiculous. And to hear mitred bishops and self-inflated cardinals, and a host of priests repeatedly and solemnly declaring that the doctrine of infallibility is as old as the Christian Church, would certainly excite universal laughter, were not the consequences of the claim so appalling. And the argument from silence, so much employed, how conclusive! For ten centuries you find no protest against it. The fathers never mention it. They present no labored arguments in its favor. The councils uttered no anathemas against those refusing adhesion to it. The Popes, those sacred custodians of truth, have held no allocutions respecting it, have issued no bulls against those who questioned it. Therefore, of course, it must have been the universal faith from the time of the Apostles. Now, however, for the first time, some damnable heretics have presumed to call it in question. It is on this account that we deem it necessary to proclaim what has ever been the faith of those constituting the Church. Why this argument would not prove that two and two make five it would be difficult for a Protestant to conceive. But Papists, apparently, deem it entirely conclusive. The Rev. James Kent Stone, a recent convert to Catholicism, expands it to great length, and seemingly considers it unanswerable. Surely arguments must be scarce.

Dr. Henry Newman, another champion of Romeanism, in his “Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent,” appeals to common sense in proof of infallibility! He undertakes to show that the principles of assent applied to the ordinary affairs of life, logically lead to an enforced belief in the last dogma of Rome. We have the same reasons for believing that the Pope is infallible that we have for believing that Napoleon III. is a prisoner, viz., a great many people say so. We Protestants, upstarts of three centuries, ought to have the modesty to confess ourselves unable to see the force in metaphysical disquisitions so abstruse.

Then there is the Scriptural argument so laboriously drawn out in the London Vatican of July 29th, 1870: “Did not Christ say: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church?’ (We fancy we have heard that quoted before by Papists.) Even this, however, was not enough for the Most High to say to the first primate. Hence he adds, ‘And the gates of hell shall never prevail against it. Not enough yet. The sovereign Pope must reign in both worlds at once. ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Not sufficient still, ‘And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then, moreover, Jesus said to Peter, not to John (the records must needs be amended, so the facts of Peter’s fall, denial and profanity are cautiously and very considerately suppressed): ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.’ God’s Vicar could not err, because his fall would have been the ruin of the Church.” (The sacred record, you see, must be incorrect. Peter must have remained firm, for the Church has been infallible ever since. This passage must be like that other, which speaks of Peter’s wife’s mother, whereas Peter could by no possibility have been guilty of having a wife, since all his successors, following his illustrious example, vow celibacy.) Then follows the admonition addressed to the first pontiff, and through him to the long succession of Holy Fathers, “Confirm thy brethren.” So you see, or don’t you see?—the Pope is infallible. Can’t you say with “the greatest theologian of the age,” “There is hardly a doctrine of Christianity which is so conspicuously vouched in Holy Scripture, or which its divine author thought proper to reveal by such an astonishing iteration of words and acts, as that of the primacy and inerrancy of his Vicar?” This famous passage which does battle everywhere, which proves that priests can forgive sins, that the Pope can send a man to hell, to heaven, or to purgatory, that Peter was primate, that the Catholic Church is as unchangeable as a rock, that no man can be saved unless within its sinless pale, that Popery, in the exact form in which it now exists, shall continue till the Church militant becomes the Church triumphant, that corporp punishment for spiritual offenses is heaven ordained, and that Peter never fell, also, according to Papal logic, incontestably, unmistakably, irresistibly proves that Pio Nono, in this nineteenth century, is infallible.

Lastly, we have the argument of the bishop of Poitiers, which elicited such applause in the Vatican Council: “St. Paul was beheaded ; consequently his head, which represents the ordinary episcopate, was not indissolubly united to the body. St. Peter, on the contrary, was crucified with his head downwards, to show that his head, which was the image of the Papacy, sustained the whole body.” So you perceive the present Pope must be infallible. He says so. And how otherwise could he sustain the entire Church?—how be a Rock?

Proved, to the satisfaction of Papists by arguments such as these, infallibility was, July 18th, 1870, exalted into a dogma. The entire Catholic world must henceforth believe, on pain of eternal damnation, “ that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra . . . . he possesses infallibility. In interpretation of this the New York Freeman’s Journal and Catholic Register, of September 3rd, 1870, says: “Tn his personal character as Pope, without awaiting the agreement of the Catholic Episcopate, the Pope is infallible personally. The expression personal infallibility of the Pope is therefore correct.”

So the famous and long-continued discussion, where resides the infallibility of the Church—in the Pope, in a General Council, or in the concurrent voice of both?— is at last ended. No second Dean Swift need tauntingly say, “Really, Holy Mother might as well be without an infallible head, as not to know where to find him in necessity.” Five hundred and thirty-three robed bishops have solemnly proclaimed that he lives in Rome, or did, and is the legitimate successor of the fallible Peter. He eats bread, drinks wine, rides out daily in his coach, twirls his finger in an ecstasy of delight as he pronounces benedictions on those who shout, “ Vive l’Infallible,” and scowls with rage as he utters anathemas against the Protestant failure.

As this last and most insolent dogma of Popery has been established without argument, or rather in spite of argument, it certainly were folly for Protestants to dignify it by attempting a formal refutation. To argue a shouting crowd into silence is impossible. And a cloud, dense, dark, impalpable, portending storm, is not dissolved by man’s howling out a few syllogisms. Many an error has been argued into respectability by its opponents. For some absurdities no argument is more powerful than ridicule; for some pretensions no treatment so galling as silent contempt. And Protestants can certainly well afford to let bishops, priests, and people tell each other that they believe, or make believe, Pio Nono is infallible. If, however, any desire to examine a complete demolition of Rome’s last arrogant claim, we commend to their careful perusal, “The Pope and the Council,” by Janus. This work, originating in the bosom of the Papal Church, written by persons claiming to be genuine Catholics, and proving with inexorable logic that the doctrine of infallibility is a mere novelty in the religious world, has caused much uneasiness even in the seared conscience of the Papal Church, and called forth a vast amount of fruitless effort at refutation. We have seldom seen such pitiable exhibitions of the inherent weakness of a cause as may be seen in the absurdly feeble attempts to answer Janus. The Catholic World of New York (June, July, and August numbers, 1870), contains articles which, for feebleness and clumsy special pleading, are, we firmly believe, entitled to the first place in the literature of the last half century. Every unprejudiced reader must certainly rise from their perusal thoroughly convinced that the reception of the infallibility dogma is purely an act of faith. If that is Rome’s best showing, her proud claim evidently rests exclusively on bold and oft-repeated assertion and specious falsehood.

Since at last we have an infallible man, we ought to know how his decrees are to be transmitted to us fallibles. He is accessible only to a limited few. How can he make every child of Holy Mother infallibly certain what the truth is? Are all archbishops and bishops and priests to be next declared infallible? Are we to have a set of infallible telegraph operators, and infallible printers, who shall inform prelates and bishops, who in turn shall peddle out infallibility’s last announcement to every loyal Papist? And unless this is done, of what use is an infallible head? Must the faithful take an infallible system on the testimony of fallibles? Are they required to believe by proxy? The Pope says, “All must believe what I believe, because I believe what all believe.” Then every Romanist, it is to be presumed, believes everything contained in “the whole Word of God, written and unwritten.” This requires belief in at least one hundred and fifty folio volumes, a cart-load of contradictory doctrines and clashing traditions. If employing private judgment, the layman conscientiously endeavors to eliminate truth from this mass of useless rubbish, he is guilty of a damnable heresy. And how is he to know with infallible certainty what is the interpretation of Pius IX.? Must he go to Rome? Must he await the next Ecumenical Council which shall decree Papal transmission infallible? Or must he content himself with this circular argument? I believe what the Pope believes. The Pope believes what I believe. We both believe exactly the same. He and I are therefore infallible. And if he is, surely I must be. An unerring head and an erring body and members, were a kind of nondescript, a monster known neither in heaven, on earth, nor in hell.

This marvellous prerogative, it is now claimed, has always belonged to the successor of Peter. Has it ever decided a single controversy?—ever healed a single dissension?—ever settled a single quarrel either in private, in social or in national life? In this intensely practical age men therefore ask, what good is to result from this dogma? The fiercely bitter strifes between the Calvinistic Jansenists and the Arminian Jesuits, between the Franciscans and the Dominicans touching the kind of homage due the transubstantiated wafer, between the advocates and the opponents of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, were they, even in the slightest degree, alleviated or repressed by Christ’s infallible Vicar? And of what value was the inerrancy of Pope Liberius who embraced the Arian heresy? An infallible primate endorsing a doctrine which had already been repeatedly and emphatically anathematized, and by the present “ Infallible Judge in faith and morals” is deemed no less heinous than infidelity itself, is surely a strange proof of indefectibility. And of what value was this boasted prerogative to Pope Honorius, that old transgressor, whose doctrinal errors cost the last Ecumenical Council such an immense amount of arguing and falsifying? Being unanimously condemned by the sixth General Council for holding doctrines then, since, and now considered heretical, the advocates of Papal infallibility are placed in the awkward dilemma of being forced to believe that exact contraries are precisely the same. Benediction and anathema, assertion and denial, truth and error, are one and the same thing to those who can legislate vice into virtue and virtue into vice. Of what practical worth is that infallibility which in the seventeenth century, “desirous of providing against increased detriment to the holy faith,” solemnly affirmed: “The proposition that the earth moves is absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered at least, erroneous in faith;” and in this nineteenth century, not merely believes the Copernican system, but with brazen-faced effrontery endeavors to deny that Galileo suffered persecution for opinion’s sake? And then, too, unless His Infallibility can reconcile the two thousand variations between the authorized Vulgate Bible of Pope Sextus, the infallible, and that of Pope Clement, the infallible, the unbelieving world will continue to smile at the deliverance of the invincible five hundred.

Let Rome’s arguments and anathemas therefore be never so powerful, an infallibility which suspends civil law, spreads rebellion and celebrates a Te Deum for the massacre of heretics; which corrupts the doctrines of the Bible, opposes popular education, and hangs on the skirts of progress shouting halt; which inveighs against the civilization of the present, stops commerce, fetters science, enslaves the mind, impoverishes the nations, and mingles even with her prayers curses against civil and religious liberty, is a dogma which this age at least can contemplate only with mingled horror and derision. Were it less ridiculous we might almost weep tears of blood over the spiritual thraldom of one hundred and eighty millions of human beings henceforth forced, on pain of excommunication, refusal of the sacraments and everlasting damnation, to believe an erring mortal “infallible judge in faith and morals,” Christ’s inerrant Vicar. Were it less fatal to the freedom, the morals, and the eternal hopes of enslaved Papists we might give way to uproarious laughter, and shame the absurdity off the world’s stage. We can view it however only as a declaration of war against civilization ; only as a death knell to the hopes of those who are subject to the Roman priesthood. Henceforth Popery is to be narrower, more bigoted, more impenetrable to truth than ever. While the Protestant world is advancing in liberty, intelligence, morality and material prosperity, the Papal seems destined to stagnation, if not, alas, to even grosser superstition, deeper ignorance and more abject spiritual servitude.

What results may flow from this last arrogant assumption of Rome’s proud Pontiff, it is yet too soon to predict. The struggle of the last three centuries—a struggle between intelligence and superstition, between progress and reaction, between light and darkness, between all that makes this age hopeful and made the middle ages the world’s midnight—has ended, ended in the triumph of bigotry. In this we may, perhaps, discover the beginning of the end. Certainly Catholic aggression in civilized countries is henceforth impossible. The absurdity is too apparent to impose upon even common intelligence.

Infallible but powerless! French troops withdrawn, Napoleon dethroned, Catholic France beaten and helpless, the Pope’s temporal power gone, his erring sheep following the guidance of liberal ideas, himself, though claiming to be Supreme Judge over all kings, virtually a prisoner, bishops in scores denouncing the infallibility blunder, the entire Catholic world in momentary apprehension of yet more terrible calamities, surely we are powerfully reminded of that ancient and honorable declaration, “In one hour is she made desolate.” What wonders has God wrought! How suddenly have her woes come upon her!“ This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.”

And now from all parts of the Catholic world may be heard one long drawn sigh over Popery’s helpless condition, one deep wail of terror, harmonized from the cry of the impotent infallible, the half frantic whinings of bishops and priests, and the evil forebodings of pamphlets, magazines, periodicals, and papers. Plainly, whatever results were fondly anticipated from the consummation of the work for which the Council was summoned, Holy Mother deems herself in dreadful agonies. Says the Tablet, a Roman organ, “There is, alas, no room for doubt that a heavy calamity has befallen the Holy Church of Rome and the Apostolic See. ‘The infidels have converted and educated the bad Catholics up to the reception of certain opinions and principles of their own.” So even Romanists will think for themselves, notwithstanding there is an infallible Pope to think for them. And even now, after all their efforts, Italy is tainted to the very core with love of liberty; private judgment is even now untrammelled. The vengeance sworn against Republicanism, were it not so impotent, might strike terror. It is evidently, however, only the wail of despair.

A cloud, portentous, though small, may be seen on the horizon. An ominous increase in the number of Jesuits, those unprincipled political tricksters, has taken place. In Germany, France, England, and even in the United States, the Catholic papers are sounding “a call for a new Crusade.” With this as their watchword, “Rome belongs to the Catholic Church,” they are seeking to fire the hearts of the young. Already we learn on Papal authority, that “The Catholic youth of Europe are stirring, and preparing for the conflict. In our own land thousands of hearts, of young Catholic men, are burning with desire to add their part to the Grand Crusade.” In New Orleans an immense mass meeting has been held, and that too on Sunday, in utter disregard of the rights of Protestants and the laws of the country, to express sympathy with and secure material aid for the Infallible Judge in faith and morals.” All this may, most likely will, end in smoke. Possibly, however, they may be so infatuated as to continue their repinings over the terrible fate of Christ’s Vicar, perhaps may inaugurate agencies for his restoration, possibly may “take up arms against a sea of troubles,” and thereby hasten the end. The old Romans, whose Pagan religion these modern heathen have inherited, had an adage containing a mine of good sense, “ Whom the gods design to destroy they first make mad.” Are we witnessing the infatuation which precedes destruction?

Chapter III. Despotism. (2 Thess. ii. 9.)

NO political tyrant, no despotic Nero, even in his most frenzied mood, ever arrogated claims over man so cruelly tyrannical as those of Popery.

Despots have indeed tortured the body till death granted release; but to tyrannize over the mind, to traffic in the eternal destinies of the soul, to trample at will upon man’s dearest hopes, those that stretch beyond this troubled life, are abominations known only to Romanism. The only usurpations worthy of comparison with hers are the monstrous assumptions of Brahminism. And even these, though having the same parentage, and manifesting similar dispositions, sink into insignificance when compared with those of that mystery of iniquity whose coming, it was predicted, should be “with all power.”

To render the spiritual control complete, the Papal Church has made her seven sacraments so many instruments of despotism. These, in connection with her doctrine of INTENTION, form a power of oppression truly appalling. In the decree of the Council Of Trent we read: “If any one shall affirm, that when the minister performs and confers a sacrament, it is not necessary that they should, at least, have the intention to do what the Church does, let him be accursed.” Could anything, we ask, place the Romanist more completely under the power of the priest? Through him must come all spiritual blessings. Here center all hopes. In administering the ordinances of the church, however, the officiating priest may, through negligence, or to gratify personal resentment, or with the diabolical purpose of leaving the suppliant unblessed, withhold the intention, giving the form without the substance. Thus the poor penitent is entirely at the mercy of his spiritual despot.

The faithful are taught that marvelous grace comes through eating the bread transubstantiated by the prayer of the priest into the very body of Christ. Suppose, however, that when the words are pronounced, “This is my body,” the celebrant has in reality no intention of changing the wafer to flesh. Then the worshiper, ignorant of the secret purpose of the minister’s heart, but required by a Church claiming infallibility to believe that the visible wafer “is the body and blood, soul and divinity, of Christ,” is not merely guilty of believing a falsehood, but of the grossest idolatry—the worship of flour and water. On pain of eternal damnation, he is ordered to believe an absurdity, and to bow in adoration before what he cannot know to be a God; nay, what reason and the senses testify is bread. If, trusting these, he refuses homage, he is threatened by a Church, claiming to possess the keys of heaven and hell, with the endless torments of perdition. If he adores the host, then, on the concession of Rome herself, he may be guilty of worshiping the creature, a sin for which, according to the Papal Church, there is no forgiveness. If he follows common sense, Rome thunders her anathemas against him. If he obeys the Church, he may be rendering his damnation doubly more certain. Did ever despotism equal this? Eternal happiness is suspended on the mere whim of a priest, and he, perhaps a revengeful, licentious, drunken wretch.

Take the sacrament of baptism. In the “Abridgment of Christian Doctrine,” it is asked, “Whither go the souls of infants that die without baptism? Answer. To that part of hell where they suffer the pains of loss, but not the punishment of sense; and shall never see the face of God.” Tearfully, almost in hopeless despair, may the loyal Papist ask, as he kisses the pallid lips of the coffined babe, Do any reach the joys of the redeemed? The sweet whisperings of a hope natural to the parental heart are silenced by the stern voice of Holy Mother, “Unbaptized, unsaved.’ How many chances against the innocents! The parents neglect their duty: the babe is lost. It is brought to the priest and its brow sprinkled with water. Through carelessness or fiendish malignity, however, the intention is wanting. The helpless infant is eternally exiled from God. Perhaps the priest himself was never baptized; or if baptized, perhaps never ordained. Though these ordinances may have been administered, the intention may have been wanting. In either case the child is doomed to endless woe. Nor is this a mere fancied difficulty. No genuine Romanist can by possibility possess satisfactory evidence that either he himself or his child is validly baptized. And yet he is taught to believe that without this baptismal regeneration salvation is impossible. The legitimate result of such teaching is to produce a race of the most abject slaves, crouching, spiritless.

The dying Papist, as he receives penance and extreme unction, feels in his inmost soul that all his hopes for time and eternity are suspended on the intention of the priest, who, “sitting in the tribunal of penance, represents the character and discharges the functions of Jesus Christ. To heaven, to hell, or to purgatory, as best suits his fancy, he can send the departing spirit. However deep may have been its guilt, however black its crimes, however polluted its thoughts, the priest “can confer dying grace,” and “open the gates of paradise: he can send the most devout Romanist to endless despair, eternally beyond the reach of hope. Was ever another system devised, even in the hotbed of Pagan superstition, so perfectly fitted to crush its victims? What could produce slavery more abject, of reason, will, soul and body? All the efforts of the poor vassal must be directed towards propitiating the priest, who henceforth stands to him in the place of a god.

Two youthful hearts, innocent and pure, present themselves in the first fervor of new-born love, to be united in the bonds of holy matrimony. Hope paints a radiant future. They are pronounced husband and wife, If intelligent Catholics, however, and earnestly desirous of true union, they may well ask, as they turn from the priest, Are we really married? Perhaps there was no intention on the part of him professing to confer the sacrament; perhaps the bride, perhaps the groom lacked the intention. In either case, Holy Mother infallible affirms, the marriage contract is null. By the negligence or wickedness of him who should have conferred the matrimonial sacrament, two persons, though innocent, pure-minded and conscientious, live in mortal sin, and should death overtake them in that state—and how can they ever possess assurance that they are truly married?—they must sink down to endless perdition. Worse still; one of the parties may, when the health, wealth or beauty of the other is lost, declare under oath that the marriage ceremony, by the lack of intention on his or her part, was a nullity. The code of Rome declares the union dissolved. And what shall hinder an adventurous wretch from designing this beforehand, and thus sending to eternal woe one whose greatest, almost only sin, was a lavish bestowment of the entire wealth of her affections upon an object so unworthy?

To the other sacraments of Romanism, we need not refer. The despotism is of the same character as that apparent in all parts of her organized system of traffic in the souls of men.

As an engine of spiritual despotism, none, perhaps, is so powerful as the confessional. It crushes the poor deluded Papist to the very dust. Even for the forgiveness of sins committed against God, he looks to the priest. “Absolution is not a bare declaration that sin is pardoned by God to the penitent, but really a judicial act.” The subjection is complete. Are such down-trodden slaves ever likely to “become kings and priests unto God?” Could we expect them to seek the closet, and before the High-priest of our profession seek and obtain pardon in the blood that cleanses from all sin? And as for becoming guardians of civil liberty, the very idea is preposterous. They who, at the nod of Rome’s mitered bishops, lick the very dust and swear eternal loyalty to a distant spiritual despot; who openly proclaim that their first allegiance is due to Rome’s Sovereign Pontiff; who are educated under a system bitterly hostile to all existing forms of government, and especially to those founded on equal rights ; who anxiously, prayerfully, imploringly await the return of the nations to the despotic forms of government now so exceedingly obnoxious; who denounce the Reformation as the fruitful source of all the worst evils that have ever afflicted human society; who oppose our common school system, ridicule the right of private judgment, repress the sterling activity which has enriched the nations, transforming continents as if by magic, and determinedly resist the onward march of liberty, personal and national, civil and religious,— can such victims of Papal superstition ever become good citizens in a free enlightened republic?

Even the claim of ability to forgive sin, presumptuous as it is, and their yet more arrogant claim of power to send the soul to purgatory, or to release it from the purifying fires, are surpassed by that masterpiece of heartless malignity, the solemn assertion of a God given right “to damn the souls of rebellious and refractory men.” The bull against Henry VIII, as also that against Queen Elizabeth, the memorable patroness of literature, is the “excommunication and damnation of the Sovereign.” And more than once have the Popes pronounced anathemas against the entire Protestant world. Surely Paul was predicting Popery when he wrote: “Whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power.” Over those believing her doctrines Rome’s power is absolute. Nero himself could desire no more.

To render the bondage still more abject, if that were possible, one Pope, Stephen, laid the talent of Peter under contribution. When Aistulphus, king of the Lombards, burning with rage against the Pope, laid siege to Rome, Stephen, driven by stern necessity, dispatched a messenger to Pepin, king of France, with a letter purporting to come from St. Peter, servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ. The epistle, direct from heaven—written on mundane paper—earnestly entreated and peremptorily ordered “the first son of the Church” to earn an eternal reward “by hastening to the relief of the city, the Church, and the people of Rome.” Then, apparently fearing that his own requests and order’s should be despised by king Pepin, Peter considerately adds: “Our Lady, the Virgin Mary, mother of God, joins in earnestly entreating, nay, commands you to hasten, to run, to fly, to the relief of my favorite people, reduced almost to the last gasp.” Pepin obeyed. The letter from heaven was effectual. “The monarch of the first, the best and the most deserving of all nations,” marched immediately with a large army into Italy. Aistulphus was forced to surrender a part of his dominions to the Pope, “to be forever held and possessed by St. Peter and his lawful successors in the See of Rome.” Thus the Pope became a temporal sovereign. How mildly Stephen’s successor, Pius IX., has ruled, let the vote of his subjects so lately taken testify. If ever a ruler was emphatically pronounced a despot, the present Pope has been.

And to judge from his denunciations of liberty, so repeatedly and emphatically made, especially in the documents preparatory to the Vatican Council, the Italian people are certainly not wide of the mark. His pious soul seems inflamed with holy indignation against the present forms of government. “Anarchic doctrines,” he affirms, “have taken possession of men’s minds so universally, that it is not possible now to discover a single State in Europe that is not governed upon principles hostile to the faith.” And this proud potentate assumes the right to lord it over princes as well as people: “It is not he (the Pope) who has given up the State; it is the State that has revolted from him; the old days of the Passion have returned; the nations will not have this man to rule over them, so they give themselves to Ceasar.” Nor is this embodiment of despotic power, who claims spiritual and even temporal dominion over all secular princes, any more ready to acknowledge the authority of a General Council. Such a Council can convene only at his bidding. “And if, under some circumstances, all the bishops did meet, and formed themselves into a Council, their acts would be null, unless the Pope consented to them.” Even to the decisions of a Council properly convoked, the Pope, it is affirmed, is not required to submit. “As the Pope is higher than all bishops, none of them could have jurisdiction over him. . . . Not even of his own choice could he yield obedience. . . . He could not submit to their jurisdiction voluntarily, because his power is a divine gift.” Did ever another’s power reach so lofty an altitude as to render voluntary obedience an absolute impossibility? Even when seated in the Council, surrounded by those who are nothing more than counsellors of the supreme judge, his Holiness is still the Pope. “He is there as the Pope.” “The whole authority resides really in himself, for though he communicates of his powers to the assembled Prelates, yet he does not divest himself of his own. . . . Thus the supreme jurisdiction of the Church never passes away from the Supreme Pontiff, and does not even vest in a General Council. . . . The reason assigned for this lies in the fact that the gift of infallibility is not communicated to the Council, but abides in the Pope.” No wonder the Pope so tenderly commends that “teaching which makes the Church our Mother, and all the faithful little children listening to the voice of St. Peter.”

As an appropriate and suggestive conclusion to this chapter, we beg the privilege of introducing the reader to this lordly potentate, this king of kings, and bishop of bishops, this Infallible Judge in faith and morals, in the act of proving himself a servant of servants. Graphically is the scene described in the Catholic World of July, 1870. An eye-witness, evidently and certainly a loyal subject of Pius IX., touches the picture with an artist’s hand. During Holy Week in Rome, the bishops of the Vatican Council being present, the Sovereign Pontiff gave proof, to Papists entirely satisfactory, that he was of all men the humblest.

On a raised platform, in the full view of several thousand of his adoring subjects, His Humility prepares himself for the ceremony of washing and kissing the feet of thirteen pilgrim priests to Rome, one a Senegambian negro. As the voices of the choir, in soul-subduing melody, intone, “A new command I give you,” the humble servant—his head adorned with a mitre, typical, we suppose, of the poverty and humble station of St. Peter, his predecessor—girds on an apron. Before him are the thirteen travelers, dressed in long white robes, cut in the style of a thousand years ago, and wearing white rimless stove-pipe hats, surmounted by tufts. Shoes and stockings spotlessly white complete the costume of these weary pilgrims from distant climes. An attendant, full robed and exceedingly dignified, with studied precision, unlaces the brand new, stainlessly white shoe, and lets down the immaculate stocking on the right foot of the nearest pilgrim. Breathless silence reigns. All eyes are intensely fixed. A vessel of water, and span clean towels are handed the Pontiff. He washes the instep, wipes it, kisses it, and gives the happy possessor a nosegay (a small bunch of flowers; a bouquet) —minus the gold coin of former and better days, when the traffic in indulgences was brisk. A murmur of applause, like the ripple of many waters, runs through the vast cathedral. Another and another instep is washed and kissed. “The jet black negro,” as a new anthem rings through the vast arches of St. Peter’s, and the assembled spectators, in an ecstasy of humbled devotion, whisper in half-broken accents, “ Vive l’Infallible,” finds his instep pressed by the infallible lips of His Holiness, the Supreme Judge of all men. The ceremony is ended. During its continuance an hundred human beings have gone down to death. Infallibility can find no fitter employment than such exhibitions of mock humility! Washing the clean feet, and crushing the blackened souls!! Feigning the humility of the poor, despised, lowly Nazarene, and blasphemously claiming the attributes of Deity!!!

Chapter IV. Fraud:—Relics.

THE coming of the mystery of iniquity, Paul predicted, should be not merely with “all power,” but with “signs and lying wonders.” Could language more accurately describe the countless relics which Rome’s votaries venerate?—Lying wonders. Without attempting to furnish a complete list—the bare catalogue would make a large octavo volume—we present a few, enough to determine the character of all.

The early Christians, it would seem, must have been particularly careful to preserve the bones of their dead. In the Cathedral of St. Peter, at Rome, they have an arm of St. Lazarus; a finger and arm of St. Ann, the Holy Virgin’s Mother; and the head of St. Dennis, which he caught up and carried the distance of two miles after it had been cut off. In France they have four heads of John the Baptist. In Spain, France, and Flanders they have eight arms of St. Matthew! and three of St. Luke! In the Lateran Church, in Rome, they have the entire heads of St. Peter and St. Paul; and in the convent of the St. Augustines, at Bilboa, the holy monks have a large part of Peter’s head, and the Franciscans a large part of Paul’s. At Burgos they have the tail of Balaam’s ass, a part of the body of St. Mark, and an arm and finger of St. Ann. At Aixla-Chapelle they have two teeth of St. Thomas; part of an arm of St. Simeon; a tooth of St. Catherine; a rib of St. Stephen; a shoulder blade and leg bone of St. Mary Magdalene; oil from the bones of St. Elizabeth; bones of Sts. Andrew, James, Matthias, Luke, Mark, Timotheus and John the Baptist. Perhaps it is for the purpose of carrying all these sacred relics that Rome has five legs of the ass upon which our Saviour rode into Jerusalem.

Nor are bones their only precious mementoes. In almost every chapel in Europe may be found pieces of the cross on which our Lord was crucified. If these were all collected, no doubt they would furnish an amount of material equal to that contained in one of the largest dwellings in America. In Rome they have also the cross of the good thief; also the entire table on which our Lord celebrated the Paschal Supper. And a recent publication, “The Living Eucharist manifested by Miracles,” assures us, “this is the true table of the Lord, that on which the world’s Redeemer and God, Jesus, offered the first Eucharistic sacrifice.” And on the same authority we learn that at the cathedral of Valencia, in Spain, they have “the cup in which His blood was first laid, the chalice elevated from the table by his divine hands.” “At St. Mark’s, in Venice,” says the same author, “the knife used by our Lord in touching, not cutting, the bread, is exposed each year, on Holy Thursday for the veneration of the faithful.” Even the old room, that very upper chamber in Jerusalem, in which our Lord wrought that miracle of miracles, transubstantiating the bread into his actual flesh and blood, is even now “retained in a tolerable state.” Fearing that no Protestant can possibly believe men so credulous, and that my honesty in reporting these “Lying wonders” may be called in question, I refer the reader to the little tract published in London, AD 1869, written by George Keating, “The Living Eucharist manifested by Miracles.” Here he will find what is enough to make one shudder with horror as he contemplates the abyss of superstition into which Papists have fallen.

And they have yet more wonderful mementoes than bones and wood. In more than one cathedral they have specimens of the manna of the wilderness, and a few blossoms of Aaron’s rod. In Rome they have the very ark that Moses made, and the rod by which he wrought his miracles. At Gastonbury they have the identical stones which the devil tempted our Lord to turn into bread. In another of their chapels they have the dice employed by the soldiers in casting lots for the Saviour’s garments.

They have St. Joseph’s axe and saw; St. Anthony’s millstone, on which he crossed the sea; St. Patrick’s staff, by which he drove out the toads and snakes from Ireland; St. Francis’ cowl; St. Ann’s comb; St. Joseph’s breeches; St. Mark’s boots; “a piece of the Virgin’s green petticoat;” St. Anthony’s toenails, and “the parings of St. Edmund’s toes.”

Then, also, there are in their convents, all carefully suspended from the walls, most precious relics preserved in hermetically sealed bottles. There is a vial of St. Joseph’s breath, caught as he was exercising himself with the very axe and saw now in their possession. There are several vials of the Holy Virgin’s milk; and—will you doubt it, poor deluded Protestants? —a small roll of butter and a little piece of cheese made from her milk. They have also hair from the heads of most of their saints, and twelve combs, one from each of the Apostles, with which to dress it. And what is a little marvelous, these combs are declared to be “nearly as good as new.”

To end our enumeration of her sacred relies; they have a small piece of the rope with which Judas hanged himself; “a bit of the finger of the Holy Ghost;” the nose of an angel; “a rib of the Word made flesh;” “a quantity of the identical rays of the star which led the wise men to our infant Saviour;” Christ’s seamless coat; two original impressions of his face on two pocket-handkerchiefs ; a wing of the archangel Gabriel, obtained by the prayers of Pope Gregory VII.; the beard of Noah; a piece of the very same porphyry pillar, on which the cock perched when he crowed after Peter’s denial, and even the comb of the cock; and then the pearl of the entire collection, “one of the steps of the ladder on which Jacob, in his dream, saw the heavenly host ascending and descending.” A recent traveller to Rome not merely saw these wonders, but was considerately and affectionately told that inasmuch as he was a “devout man,” he could obtain a small portion of these precious relics at a moderate price. He was offered a feather from Gabriel’s wing for twenty-five cents.

If we add to the above idolatries, their adoration of statues and images and the consecrated wafer, we have a system of superstition, such as no Pagan in his wildest vagaries ever dreamed of. And that they do worship these relies is, alas, too evident. We speak not merely of the ignorant masses, perhaps for their debasing idolatries the Church is not entirely responsible (although this may be fairly questioned, since her whole system is, in its very nature, adapted to produce the grossest superstition), but we charge this idol worship upon the most highly educated of their clergy.

A noted Catholic historian tells us that when St. Ambrose needed relics with which to consecrate a church at Milan, “immediately his heart burned within him, in presage as he felt of what was to happen.” By a dream he was directed to the spot where he would find the bones of St. Gervasius and St. Prostasius. “Having discovered their skeletons, all their bones entire, a quantity of blood about, and their heads separated from their bodies, . . . they arranged them, covered them with cloths and laid them on litters. In this manner they were carried towards evening to the Basilica of St. Fausta, where vigils were celebrated all night, and several that were possessed received imposition of hands. That day and the next there was a great concourse of people, and then the old men recollected that they had formerly heard the names of these martyrs.” “Profane and old wives? fables.”

Thomas Aquinas says, “If we speak of the very cross on which Christ was crucified, it is to be worshiped with divine worship.” And the prayers which are to be said in the adoration of these sacred bits of wood are given in the “Roman Missal.”

“Oh, judgment! thou hast fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.”

Chapter V. Fraud :—Miracles.

Rome ever has claimed, and does still claim, the power of working miracles. One of her most eminent historians says: “The Catholic Church being always the chaste spouse of Christ, continuing to bring forth children of heroical sanctity,—God fails not in this, any more than in past ages, to illustrate her and them by unquestionable miracles.” The Rev. James Kent Stone, a recent convert to Romanism, in his “Invitation Heeded” repeatedly and emphatically claims for the Church of his adoption the unquestioned ability to work miracles. He even undertakes a defense of those she has published to the world, affirming that they are as credible, nay, in some instances more so, than those recorded in the Bible. Here is a specimen :—“In 1814, a man who had his back-bone broken was made whole by making a pilgrimage to Garswood, and there getting the sign of the cross made on his back by some unknown priest called Arrowsmith, who was killed in the wars of Charles I.” The bull of the Pope assigning a reason why the Virgin Magdalene should be canonized, reads thus: “Not without good reason with that incorruption and good odor of her body, which continues to this day.” A “delicious odor” was emitted from her grave. St. Patrick sailed to Ireland on a millstone, and drove out all the snakes and toads with his staff.

St. Francis, founder of the Franciscan order of monks, who “had no teacher but Christ, and learned all by an immediate revelation,” and of whom St. Bridget had a marvellous vision testifying that “the Franciscan rule was not composed by the wisdom of men, but by God himself,” was, on one occasion, sorely tempted by a devil in the form of a beautiful, fascinating lady. On a certain evening, however, when again tempted, “he spit in the devil’s face.” His biographer solemnly adds, “ Confounded and disgusted the devil fled.” A miracle! This same holy St. Francis predicted the day of his death, and even after his decease wrought miracles by his intercessory prayers. He had a vision of a seraph, the effect of which was that “His soul was utterly inflamed with seraphic ardor, and his body ever after retained the similar wounds of Christ.” In consequence of these wounds, and the miracles he performed, so great became his honor, that in Roman books it is written, “Those only were saved by the blood of Christ who lived before St. Francis but all that followed were redeemed by the blood of St. Francis.” (Such blasphemy!)

Miracles were wrought in favor of the Immaculate Conception, and miracles were wrought against it. And what to Protestants seems strange, Rome confirmed both classes, and canonized those who achieved miracles in favor of, and those who achieved miracles against, this precious doctrine.

Take another of Rome’s unquestionable miracles. St. Wenefride being a nun, of course could not marry. Her suitor, young Prince Caradoc, in anger at this, cut off her head. This gave rise to three miracles:

1. St. Beuno caused the earth to open, and young Caradoc was swallowed up;
2. A well opened on the spot where the nun’s blood was shed, and the holy waters of this healing fountain work miracles unto this day;
3. St. Beuno placed the nun’s head on the bleeding body, prayed to the “Mother of Christ,” and behold St.” Wenefride was immediately restored to life.

Who will dare to say that these miracles are not far more wonderful than any recorded in Scripture? Protestants, in their ignorance, may be inclined to call them “lying wonders,” but Roman infallibility has pronounced them “unquestionable miracles.”

St. Dominic, on one occasion, during a dreadful tempest, exhorted the inhabitants of Toulouse to appease the wrath of heaven by reciting their prayers. The arm of the wooden image of the Virgin in the church was raised in a threatening attitude. “ Hear me,” shouted St. Dominic, “that arm will not be withdrawn till you have obeyed my commands.” The terrified worshipers instantly set to work, counting their beads. Dominic, satisfied with their spiritual devotions, gave the order, and the arm of wrath immediately fell. The storm abated. The thunder and lightning ceased.

The blood of St. Januarius, preserved in a small bottle at Naples, is wont to liquefy, and sometimes boil, when exposed to the adoration of the faithful. This miracle, Protestants might be excused from believing, especially as on one occasion, when it refused to dissolve because the French soldiers occupied the kingdom, it afterwards concluded to do so, inasmuch as the Vicar of the bishops received this order from the French Commander: “If in ten minutes St. Januarius should not perform his usual miracle, the whole city shall be reduced to ashes.” The obstinate saint came to terms! The blood boiled furiously !

But perhaps some one may be inclined to question whether miracles so preposterously absurd are now offered to the faith of Papists. Possibly some, by reading “The Aspirations of Nature,” a work written to make converts to Catholicism, may imagine that Romanists are less credulous, less superstitious, less blindly bigoted now than in the middle ages. For the benefit of such we refer to miracles whose long drawn accounts are to be found in books now issuing, in this very country, under the official and authoritative endorsement of Rome. In the “Living Eucharist manifested by Miracles,” the infallible, authoritative, apostolic Church, the unerring teacher of divine truth, in this nineteenth century actually records some twenty or more miracles wrought in proof of the real presence.

Bishops, priests and nuns, we are solemnly told, certainly saw the wafer, after the benediction of the priest, changed into an infant. The bread became real flesh and blood, a perfect infant, Jesus himself. In one case a priest was seen laying a beautiful babe, Jesus, on the tongue of each communicant. Wafers carried several days in the pocket of a bishop, on being blessed became little infants. Did ever blasphemy and irreverence equal this? Dogmatically affirming that the testimony of the senses is not to be taken in matters of faith, Papists endeavor to establish a doctrine which is in itself so repugnant to reason that one would suppose none but an idiot could believe it. And this publication has the sanction of Papal infallibility. Now, therefore, heretics, doubt no longer. Believe that the priest creates a god, worships him, and then eats him. Presume not to smile at this precious doctrine of transubstantiation, this sublime mystery, which the Rev. James Kent Stone (who in a short fifteen months passed from a public defender of Episcopacy to a most ardent advocate of the Papacy) affirms is a doctrine so spiritual that purblind (slow in understanding or discernment; dull.) Protestants cannot be expected to comprehend it.

Another tract, published in London, “The Miracle of Liége, by the use of the water from the fountain of Our Lady of Lourdes,” deserves attention. This also can be purchased in almost any Catholic bookstore. “Mr. Hanquet’s Narrative.” —He was taken, he affirms, extremely ill in 1862. Continuing to grow worse, in July 1864 sitting up even for a few moments was an impossibility. In 1867, ulcers, erysipelas, “a back bent like a bow,” “a chest like a fiery oven,” and “bloodless withered legs,” rendered life a burden. The physician affirmed : “I find symptoms of almost all diseases.” In 1869 all hope of recovery faded away. His brother, however, on Oct. 13th, found in a bookstore the account of Our Lady of Lourdes. Already the dying man was praying most importunately to the Mother of God, Blessed Lady, Mary Immaculate. A bottle of water was sent for. A glass of it was poured down the throat of the dying man. Mary’s aid was invoked. For an instant the death rattle was heard; then one bound, and the man, well and strong, seized his hat and went outdoors wholly restored. A miracle indeed!!! And this, my dear Protestant friend, has the sanction of Papal infallibility. Who will not henceforth pray with devout Hanquet: “Holy Virgin, deign to ask for me from your divine Son that grace which is best for me, to die, to suffer or to be cured,” especially the last, to be cured? This wonderful account of a very remarkable miracle—unless you are sacrilegious enough to call it one of Rome’s lying wonders—this incontestable proof of the efficacy of prayer to the Blessed Virgin, you can make your own for twelve cents. This in the year 1870, and in New York.

M. C. Kavanagh, in her catechism and instructions for confession designed for very young children, having heartily commended the patience of St. Joseph, who, when a little lad, though bathed in tears, offered no reproach to those destroying his highly prized little garden (tradition, ¢. e. fiction pure and simple), our authoress gives, by way of enforcing the duty of penance, “a story of Our Blessed Lady.” Little Mary when three or four years old, informed the priest that she had imposed upon herself penances, to eat no fruit except one kind, to drink no wine or vinegar of which she was very fond, to eat no meat or fish, and to rise three times in the night to pray. Heartily do we join in the ejaculation of the narrator, “This at the age of three years!” We certainly think that the dogma of infallibility is really needed. How otherwise could such a dose as this be forced down even a Papist’s throat. The second instruction closes with this pious admonition: “Do not fail to pray to Our Lady and St. Joseph to help you.” Fed upon such food, is it any wonder that the children of our Catholic fellow-citizens grow up in the grossest ignorance, in superstition that would disgrace a heathen in Central Africa?

But the third instruction contains the gem, “a true miracle.” Only five years ago, in a village of France (how unfortunate, these miracles always occur in some distant land), there resided a certain curé (priest bearing the responsibility of a parish). Among those who came to him was a gentleman who had great temptations against faith in the Blessed Eucharist. (Not so unreasonable when he was asked to believe, contrary to the testimony of his senses, that bread was flesh.) One day, as this doubter came to communion, the sacred host left the hands of the curé and placed itself on the tongue of the gentleman. Our authoress, in holy fervor exclaims, “What a miracle of love!” And we are impious enough to respond, What a transparent falsehood! (LOL!)

Obedience is a Christian duty which certainly ought to be commended to children. Here is Rome’s way of enjoining it. St. Frances whilst saying the office of Our Lady, which she did daily (how adroitly Mary’s worship is commended), was called by her servant. Leaving her prayers she attended to the request. Returning, scarcely had she begun the psalm when she was called a second time. Without loss of patience again she left her book to obey the command. Just after she had resumed her prayers for the third time her husband called. Leaving all, she ran to him. Returning, what was her surprise to find the words, written in letters of gold: “ Now, therefore, dear children, always obey the calls of duty.”

Lengthy as our list has become, we cannot pass the two hundred or more remarkable miracles contained in the ever-memorable book, so celebrated in Catholic communities, “The Glories of Mary,” by St. Alphonsus Liguori. This book was never intended for Protestant eyes. The original having been carefully examined, and every line, even every word found in perfect harmony with the doctrines of Holy Mother, and the translation in like manner “expurgated,” approved and earnestly commended to the faithful, the work was introduced “with the hope that it might be found to retain the spirit of the learned and saintly author, and be welcomed by the devout in this country with the same delight which it has universally called forth in Catholic Europe.” Whatever miracles are herein found may therefore be taken as duly attested and approved by Papal infallibility.

Here is one. A gentleman devoted to Blessed Mary was accustomed often in the night to repair to the oratory of his palace to bow in prayer to an image of the Virgin. His wife, jealous and angered, asked him, “Have you ever loved any other woman but me?” He replied, “I love the most amiable lady in the world; to her I have given my whole heart,” meaning Mary (?) The wife still more suspicious asked, “ When you arise and leave the room, is it to meet this lady?” “Yes.” “Deceived and blinded by passion,” this wife, one night during her husband’s long absence, “cut her throat and very soon died.” The heart-broken husband on learning this, implored help of Mary’s image. No sooner was this done than the living wife, throwing herself at his feet, bathed in tears, exclaimed, “Oh, my husband, the Mother of God, through thy prayers, has delivered me from hell.”

“The next day the husband made a feast, and the wife told her relatives the facts, and showed the marks of the wound.” Now, heretics, doubt if you dare.

Let us have one in the exact language of “the learned and saintly author.” “There lived in the city of Aragona a girl named Alexandra, who, being noble and very beautiful, was greatly loved by two young men. Through jealousy, they one day fought and killed each other. Their enraged relatives, in return, killed the poor young girl, as the cause of so much trouble, cut off her head, and threw her into a well. A few days after, St. Dominic was passing through that place, and, inspired by the Lord, approached the well, and said: ‘Alexandra, come forth,’ and immediately the head of the deceased came forth, placed itself on the edge of the well, and prayed St. Dominic to hear its confession. The Saint heard its confession, and also gave it communion, in presence of a great concourse of persons who had assembled to witness the miracle. Then St. Dominic ordered her to speak, and tell why she had received that grace. Alexandra answered, that when she was beheaded, she was in a state of mortal sin, but that the most Holy Mary, on account of the rosary, which she was in the habit of reciting, had preserved her in life. Two days the head retained its life upon the edge of the well, in the presence of all, and then the soul went to purgatory. But fifteen days after, the soul of Alexandra appeared to St. Dominic, beautiful and radiant as a star, and told him that one of the principal sources of relief to the souls in purgatory is the rosary which is recited for them; and that, as soon as they arrive in paradise, they pray for those who apply to them these powerful prayers. Having said this, St. Dominic saw that happy soul ascending in triumph to the kingdom of the blessed.”—”Glories of Mary,” American Ed., p. 274.

Of others we have merely time to give the briefest outline. Mary’s image furnishes written prayers to a penitent (p. 76); rescues a condemned murderer from the gallows (p. 78); bows to a murderer (p. 213); becomes and continues a nun fifteen years, in order to shield a devotee who willfully deserted the paths of virtue (p. 224); leaves a church during the trial, condemnation and beheading of an infamous bishop (p. 391); speaks to a young man about to commit sin (p. 559), ete., ete., almost ad infinitum.

Blessed Mary herself cools the cheek of a dying devotee with a fan (p.110) ; with a cloth wipes the death damp from the brow of “a good woman” dying in a home of poverty (p. 112); secures from the devil a paper given by an abandoned sinner containing a written renunciation of God (p. 198) ; furnishes a letter to one of her ardent admirers (the same lady had entertained her admirers all night in “rooms richly furnished and perfumed as with an odor of paradise !”) (p. 454); burns an inn in which her children were sinning (five of the rescued affirm, on oath, that Mary, the Blessed Virgin, lighted the flames) (p. 659); by a second revelation of herself restores sight to one eye of a man who had regularly bargained with her for total blindness if he might be permitted twice to behold her (p. 512).

By the assistance of Our Lady, an ape becomes and declares himself a devil, and at the command of a priest goes through a hole in the wall, which hole no mechanical genius could fill up (p. 251); a man in spirit form comes to his friend and says, My dead body is in the street, my soul in purgatory, and I am here (p. 265); at the repetition of the magic rosary devils have been known to leave wretched men (p. 683). There, that is a dose sufficient for any Protestant stomach! If any, however, desire more, there are plenty in the “Glories of Mary.” Don’t the immutable Church need the dogma of infallibility? Barring the sense of shame for our race produced by such exhibitions of moral depravity and mental weakness, these “examples” are more interesting and certainly far more startling than the most exciting modern novel. And they are published as truth, approved by Papal inerrancy, earnestly commended to the devout, believed by Papists! They are sold in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and all large towns—sold in this nineteenth century, and in educated, enlightened, civilized, Christianized America! Can a republic long rest secure on a foundation of superstition? Judged by such literature, the present must indeed be the world’s midnight of ignorance! Did the dark ages produce anything more grossly absurd? And Rome anathematizes the times because there are some men so heretical, so unprecedentedly blasphemous as to make jest of such absurdities.

May we not apply to Popery the words of Pollok?

“The hypocrite in mask! He was a man
Who stole the livery of the court of heaven
To serve the devil in.”

If any desire to see the account of a recent miracle, with all the embellishments, drawn out “ad nauseam,” we refer them to “Our Lady of Lourdes, by Henri Lasserre,” found in the Catholic World (September, October, November, December, 1870, and January, February, March, and April, 1871).

At a grotto near Lourdes in France, a poor, simple minded, invalid, fourteen-year-old shepherdess, who could neither read nor write, knowing almost nothing except the superstitious use of Mary’s rosary, had, we are gravely informed, daily visions, for more than two weeks, of the Blessed Virgin, and gave accurate, full, elegant descriptions of her dress, features and beauty. The honored recipient of Mary’s favors, Bernadette, so named for her patron, St. Bernard, saw the heavenly vision, though no single observer of a vast crowd was able to see anything save the barren rock and the climbing eglantine; and heard words from lips seemingly lisping prayers for poor sinners as her fingers counted the beads of her glittering rosary. After days of ecstatic beholding, this wonderful message was sent from the “Queen of Heaven and Earth,” by the vision-beholding Bernadette, to the priests—those prudent men who received the current rumors of the wildly excited populace with dignified silence, looks of disapprobation, and words of suspicion— “Go tell the priests that I want a chapel built on this spot.” When these words were spoken in ordinary tone, in the midst of several thousand breathless spectators of Bernadette’s transfiguration, no ear caught the sound save that of the little, ignorant, simple-minded, pale-faced, nervous peasant girl.

At a subsequent vision this command was received: “Go drink and wash at the fountain, and eat of the herbs growing at its side.” Fountain? — there was none. Bernadette, however, essaying obedience, walked on her knees over the rocks, and into the furthest corner of the grotto. As she dug up the earth with her hands a fountain sprung up. This, which has since flowed unceasingly for thirteen years and wrought miracles innumerable, possessed, from its first outgushing, miraculous healing properties. A quarryman, rubbing his blinded eye with the first water that filled the cavity, and kneeling in prayer to the Blessed Virgin, “immediately uttered a loud cry and began to tremble in violent excitement.” “Cured.” “ Impossible,” said the physician. “It is the Holy Virgin,” said the devout Catholic. Many arose from beds to which they had been confined for years. Paralyzed limbs were instantaneously restored. Sores were cured. Deaf ears were unstopped. A dying child—the shroud already made—plunged by its mother into “the icy cold fountain,” and held there for more than fifteen minutes, was completely restored to health, and the next day, in the absence of the parents, “left the cradle and walked around the room,” its first effort at walking! Remarkable baby! Wonderful water! One morning, says the author, twenty thousand, many of whom had spent the previous night at the grotto, witnessed, in rapt silence, the ecstasy of the little saint. Even if the waters had wrought no miracles, superstitious faith might have manufactured at least one or two tolerably decent counterfeits. So we think. So evidently thought the Editor of the Ere Imperiale, a local paper.

“Do not be surprised,” said the organ of the Prefecture (Catholic), “if there are still some people who persist in maintaining that the child is a saint, and gifted with supernatural powers. These people believe the following stories :-—

“1st. That a dove hovered the day before yesterday over the head of the child during the whole time of the ecstasy.

“2d. That she breathed upon the eyes of a little blind girl, and restored her sight.

“3d. That she cured another child whose arm was paralyzed.

“4th. That a peasant of the Valley of Campan, having declared that he could not be duped by such scenes of hallucination, his sins had, in answer to her prayers, been turned into snakes, which had devoured him, not leaving a trace of his impious body.

“This, then, is what we have come to, but what we would not have come to if the parents of this girl had followed the advice of the physicians, who recommended that she should be sent to the lunatic asylum ”

Chapter VI. Idolatry.

IT was against the worship of idols that the early Christians most solemnly and most determinedly protested. “We Christians,” says Origen, “have nothing to do with images, on account of the second commandment; the first thing we teach those who come to us is to despise idols and images; it being the peculiar characteristic of the Christian religion to raise our minds above images, agreeably to the law which God himself has given to mankind.” And Gibbon affirms, “The primitive Christians were possessed with an unconquerable repugnance to the use and abuse of images.” Again: The public worship of the Christians was uniformly simple and spiritual.”

Most cunningly was this spirituality undermined and idolatry substituted. In the early part of the fourth century, after the subversion of Paganism, some bishops began to encourage the use of pictures and images as aids to the devotion and instruction of the ignorant. Even till the time of Gregory it was the prevalent opinion that, if used at all, images must be used merely as books for the unlearned. The Pontiff, however, so far encouraged their erection that almost every church in the west could boast of at least one. Before these the multitude soon learned to bow; to these they offered prayers.

So disgusting became this growing superstition that in 700 AD the Council of Constantinople solemnly condemned the use of images, and ordered their expulsion from the churches. But in 713 AD Pope Constantine pronounced an anathema against those who “deny that veneration to the holy images which the Church has appointed.” A few years later began that famous controversy between the Emperor Leo and Gregory II. which continued to distract the Church for more than fifty years. The Emperor and his successors, Constantine V., and Leo IV., strenuously endeavored to restore Christianity to its primitive purity. Gregory II, and the Popes succeeding him, with a zeal bordering on fanaticism, undertook a defense of image-worship. The Emperors were charged with ignorance, rudeness, pride, contempt of the authority of the sovereign Pontiff, and opposition to the teachings of the Church. Defying the wrath of the Pope, however, and encouraged by the unanimous decision of the Seventh Greek Council (AD 754), which condemned idolatry, Constantine V. burned the images and demolished the walls of the churches bearing painted representations of Christ, of the Virgin, and of the saints. The efforts of his son, Leo IV., were directed to the same end. But the Emperor dying suddenly—as is generally supposed from the effects of poison administered by his wife, Irene—the contest ended in a victory for the image-worshipers. Irene, prompted by a desire to occupy the throne, ordered, her own son, Constantine VI., to be seized and his eyes put out. The order was faithfully executed, and with such cruelty that the unhappy son almost immediately expired. To this wretched and terribly brutal woman Papists are deeply indebted. Assisted by Pope Adrian, she extended idolatry throughout the entire empire, and in 787 AD summoned a Council at Nice, which decreed “That holy images of the cross should be consecrated, and put on the sacred vessels and vestments, and upon walls and boards, in private houses and in public ways. And especially that there should be erected images of the Lord God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, of our blessed Lady, the Mother of God, of the venerable angels, and of all the saints. And that whosoever should presume to think or teach otherwise, or to throw away any painted books, or the figure of the cross, or any image, or picture, or any genuine relics of the martyrs, they should, if bishops or clergymen, be deposed, or if monks or laymen, be excommunicated.”

Owing a debt of gratitude to Irene, Papists have endeavored to defend her monstrous wickedness. Unable to deny the cruelties practiced upon her son, they attempt to justify them, nay, even to commend them, applauding her for so far overcoming the feelings of humanity, through love for the true Church and its honored doctrines, that she could sacrifice her own son, who stood in the way of her aiding in the establishment of image-worship.*

* “An execrable crime,” says Baronius, “had she not been prompted to it by zeal for justice. On that consideration she even deserved to be commended for what she did. In more ancient times, the hands of parents were armed, by God’s command, against their children worshiping strange gods, and they who killed them were commended by Moses.””

From that day to the present idolatry has been one of Rome’s chief characteristics. It is now so intimately interwoven with her forms of worship as to defy all opposition. Most probably it will hold its place until the prophecy of John finds fulfillment, “Babylon, the great, is fallen, is fallen.”

Nor are their images confined to churches and chapels. They are also set up by the road-side. In Popish countries, and especially in Italy, these images, fit successors of the old Roman gods that presided over the highways, are frequently to be met with. As the traveler passes, he uncovers his head, and reverently bows, or, time permitting, turns aside to kneel before the idol and implore a blessing. Did ever heathenism more unblushingly offer insult to common sense?

As our space will not permit an extended reference to the monstrous falsehoods, intrigues, and deceptions by which the priesthood succeeded in securing for these images the devout homage of the multitude, and the treasury of the Church the rich gifts so much coveted, we must content ourselves with calling attention to one or two specimens. In the “Master Key to Popery,” by Anthony Gavin, we have an historical account of the “ Virgin of Pillar,” an image religiously worshiped in Saragossa, Spain. The Apostle St. James, the account informs us, with seven new converts, came to preach the Gospel in Saragossa. While sleeping upon the brink of a river, an army of angels came down from heaven with an image on a pillar, which they placed on the ground, saying, “This image of Our Queen shall be the defense of this city. By her help it shall be reduced to your Master’s sway. As she is to protect you, you must build a decent chapel for her.” The order was obeyed. A chapel was built, which became the richest in Spain.*

* For “Our Lady of Pillar”? a chaplain was provided, whose business it was to dress the image every morning. Through him, the Virgin Lady once addressed a solemn admonition to the people of Saragossa, accusing them of illiberality, want of devotion, and the basest ingratitude, and expressing her determination to resign her government to Lucifer, unless the people should come for the space of fifteen days, every day with gifts, tears, and penitence, to appease her wrath and secure a return of her favor. They were exhorted to come with prodigal hands and true hearts, lest the Prince of Darkness should be appointed to reign over them. They were also assured that from this sentence there was no appeal, not even to the tribunal of the Most High, This device, enriching the Church, nearly beggared the inhabitants of the threatened city.

The crucifix of St. Salvador, when there is great need of rain and the barometer indicates a speedy change, is sometimes carried through the streets, while the accompanying priests sing the litany and repeat prayers, imploring rain. This well-timed ceremony is almost invariably followed, within a few days, by rain. All exclaim, “A miracle wrought by our Holy Crucifix.” Not to multiply instances, we have the authority of Pope Gregory for affirming that wonders and miracles wrought by images are by no means rare. In an epistle addressed to the Empress Constantina, who had requested from him the head of St. Paul, for the purpose of enshrining it in the church which she was erecting in his honor, the successor of St. Peter says: “Great sadness has possessed me, because you have enjoined upon me those things which I neither can, nor dare do; for the bodies of the holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, are so resplendent with miracles and terrific prodigies in their own churches, that no one can approach them without awe, even for the purpose of adoring them. The superior of the place having found some bones that were not at all connected with that tomb; and having presumed to disturb them and remove them to some other place, he was visited by certain frightful apparitions and died suddenly. . . . Be it known to you that it is the custom of the Romans, when they give any relics, not to venture to touch any portion of the body; only they put into a box a piece of linen, which is placed near the holy body; then it is withdrawn and shut up with due veneration in the church which is to be dedicated, and as many prodigies are wrought by it as if the bodies themselves had been carried thither. . . . . But that your religious desire may not be wholly frustrated, I will hasten to send you some parts of those chains which St. Paul wore on his neck and hands, if indeed I shall succeed in getting off any filings from them.”

So, dear Empress Constantina, be it known to you, that Rome will not part with the hen that lays the golden egg, nor even allow you, much less the infidel world, to examine the nest. These holy bodies are surrounded by a more sacred divinity than doth hedge a king. Death is the penalty of approaching them unhidden by the infallible Pope. He will sell you relics —linen rags and iron filings—which will work as great wonders as the head you so much covet. No doubt of it!!!

Notwithstanding the distinction made by Romanists between absolute and relative, proper and improper worship, between latria, dulia, and hyperdulia, there can be no doubt they offer to these images an idolatrous homage. Devised evidently for the sole purpose of warding off the charge so frequently brought against them, of offering to pictures, images and relics that adoration due to Deity alone, this hair-splitting distinction has no influence in modifying the worship of the vast mass of Rome’s devotees. The images are the real objects worshipped.

One of the ablest expounders of Papal doctrines says :— “From God, as its source, the worship with which we honor relics, originates, and to God, as its end, it ultimately and terminatively reverts.” Assuredly the worship which originates with God, and returns ultimately to God, must be that true and proper homage due to him alone.

In proof that Papists offer adoration to images, we refer to the custom of serenading, on Christmas morning, all the statues of the Holy Virgin in the streets of Rome. The reason assigned for this grand musical entertainment is that the Virgin is a great lover and an excellent judge of good music.

A recent visitor to the church erected about the house where it is said Blessed Mary was born, saw miserable women, very personifications of gross superstition, dragging themselves on their knees around the venerated building, counting beads, kissing the marble foundations, repeating prayers before the idol, and ordering masses to be said for the benefit of themselves and friends. Disgusting beggars, trafficking in superstition, clamorously promise to supplicate the idol on behalf of those who favor them with alms. Dealers in the implements of devotion hawk their sacred wares, rosaries, pictures, medals, and casts of the Madonna.

Certainly no one except an idolater will deny that real homage is offered when the worshiper, bowing before an image, hymns its praises, and to it offers his prayers. Papists indeed say, “We do not worship the image, but the personage represented, not the statue, but the Virgin, not the cross, but the Saviour suspended thereon.” Gregory III, in writing to the Emperor Leo, says:—“You say we adore stones, walls, and boards. It is not so, my Lord; but these symbols make us recollect the persons whose names they bear, and exalt our grovelling minds.” Intelligent Pagans have ever rendered precisely the same excuse.* They who knelt before the shrine of Jupiter, claimed that they were worshipping the invisible and spiritual by means of the visible and material. Those in India who now worship the images of Gaudama, do the same. Are we then to believe that there are not, never have been, and never can be, persons so degraded as to be properly denominated idolaters? Have all who employed images been capable of fully appreciating this sentimental distinction? Has not even superstitious ignorance worshipped the seen and forgotten the unseen? Admitting that in the Papal Church only the less gross idolatry exists, is this justifiable? Is it not condemned in Scripture? The prohibition reads:— “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing.” There has been given us, in the person of Jesus Christ, a visible image of the invisible God. Bowing before him, and crying, “My Lord and my God,” we worship the seen, God in human form, “the likeness of the Futher,” “the express image of his person,” and yet are not idolaters. Having so far accomodated himself to the constitution of our nature, he allows no other object to come between himself and the penitent heart.

* Plutarch, in explaining the worship of Egypt’s two most famous deities, Osiris and Isis, holds the following language :—‘ Philosophers honor the image of God wherever they find it, even in inanimate beings, and consequently more in those which have life. We are therefore to approve, not the worshipers of these animals, but those who, by their means, ascend to the Deity; they are to be considered as so many mirrors, which nature holds forth, and in which the Supreme Being displays himself in a wonderful manner; or as so many instruments, which he makes use of to manifest outwardly his incomprehensible wisdom. Should men, therefore, for the embellishing of statues, amass together all the gold and precious stones in the world, the worship must not be referred to the statues, for the Deity does not exist in colors artfully disposed, nor in frail matter destitute of sense and motion.”

Among Rome’s numerous idolatries, none certainly is more conspicuous, none more ardently advocated, none less inexcusable than the adoration offered to the Virgin. Her mere titles, as found in that ever-famous book, “The Glories of Mary,” and in her litany, a solemn supplicatory prayer, would fill more than a page of our present volume. She is denominated Queen of heaven, of earth, of mercy, of angels, of patriarchs, of prophets, of apostles, of martyrs, of confessors, of virgins, and of all saints; Mother of God, of penitents, and especially of obdurate and abandoned sinners; Ravisher of heart, finder of grace, hope of salvation, defense of the faithful, helper of sinners; our only advocate, our refuge, our protection, our health, our life, our hope, our soul, our heart, our mistress, our lady, our loving mother; secure salvation, Redeemer of the world, Virgin of virgins, Mother undefiled, unviolated, most pure, most chaste, most amiable, most admirable, most prudent, most venerable, most powerful, most merciful, most faithful; mirror of justice, seat of wisdom, cause of joy, spiritual vessel, vessel of honor, mystical rose, tower of David, house of gold, ark of the covenant, gate of heaven, morning star, comfort of the afflicted, etc., etc.

Liguori, since enrolled as a saint, mainly as the reward of his untiring efforts to supplant love of the Creator by love of the creature, boldly and unqualifiedly asserts that Mary co-operated in the original work of redemption :—

“When God saw the great desire of Mary to devote herself to the salvation of men, he ordained that by the sacrifice and offering of the life of this same Jesus, she might co-operate with him in the work of our salvation, and thus become mother of our souls.” (P. 43, American Ed.)

“God could indeed, as St. Anselm asserts, create the world from nothing; but when it was lost by sin, he could not redeem it without the co-operation of Mary.” (P. 186.)

He also asserts that Mary is the only fountain of life and salvation. “God has ordained that all graces should come to us through the hands of Mary.” (P. 15.) And how is this proved? In true Catholic style, by authority. St. Augustine mentions Mary’s name and affirms, “ All the tongues of men would not be sufficient to praise her as she deserves.” St. Bonaventure declares, “those who are devoted to publishing ‘The Glories of Mary’ are secure of paradise.” Did these fathers ever make these assertions? And if they did, is assertion proof? These two questions remorselessly pressed would leave all Liguori’s fine-spun arguments floating together distractedly in an ocean of balderdash. And here is a second kind of proof, Rome’s clinching argument, a miracle.— each section of the book has one, besides the eighty-nine additional. In the revelation of St. Bridget, we are told that Bishop Emingo, being accustomed to begin his sermons with the praises of Mary, the Virgin one day appeared to St. Bridget, and said: “Tell that bishop I will be his mother, and he shall die a good death.” He died like a saint. Now, therefore, all you Catholics bow the knee and repeat one of St. Liguori’s prayers to the Virgin. You have a fine selection from which to choose, well nigh a hundred. But the chief proof here, as elsewhere, is assertion. Here are a few specimens :—

“The kingdom of God consisting of justice and mercy, the Lord has divided it: he has reserved the kingdom of justice for himself, and he has granted the kingdom of mercy to Mary, ordaining that all the mercies which are dispensed to men should pass through the hands of Mary, and should be bestowed according to her good pleasure.” (Pp. 27, 28.)

“St, Bernard asks: ‘Why does the Church name Mary Queen of Mercy?? And answers: ‘Because we believe that she opens the depths of the mercy of God, to whom she will, when she will, and as she will; so that not even the vilest sinner is lost if Mary protects him?” (P. 31.)

“In Mary we shall find every hope…. In a word, we shall find in Mary life and eternal salvation.” (Pp. 178, 174.)

“For this reason, too, she is called the gate of heaven by the Holy Church. . . . St. Bonaventure, moreover, says that Mary is called the gate of heaven, because no one can enter heaven if he does not pass through Mary, who is the door of it” (P.177.)

“Richard, of St. Laurence, says: ‘Our salvation is in the hands of Mary’…Cassian absolutely affirms that the salvation of the whole world depends upon the favor and protection of Mary.” (P. 190.)

“O how many, exclaims the Abbot of Celles, who merit to be condemned by the Divine justice, are saved by the mercy of Mary! for she is the treasure of God, and the treasurer of all graces; therefore it is, that our salvation is in her hands.” (P. 300.)

“Thou hast a merit that has no limits, and an entire power over all creatures. Thou art the mother of God, the mistress of the world, the Queen of heaven. Thou art the dispenser of all graces, the glory of the Holy Church.” (P. 673.) [The italics are ours.]

He assures his readers that Mary is omnipotent :—

“Do not say that thou canst not aid me, for I know that thou art omnipotent, and dost obtain whatsoever thou desirest from God.” (P. 78.)

“Says St. Peter Damian, ‘The Virgin has all power in heaven and on earth’” (P. 201.)

“Yes, Mary is omnipotent, adds Richard, of St. Laurence, since the Queen, by every law, must enjoy the same privileges as the King. . . . And St. Antoninus says: ‘God has placed the whole Church, not only under the patronage, but also under the dominion of Mary” (P. 203.)

Infallibility has also approved these assertions of her canonized saint :-—

“Not only Most Holy Mary is Queen of heaven and of the saints, but also of hell and of the devils; for she has bravely triumphed over them by her virtues. From the beginning of the world God predicted to the infernal serpent the victory and the empire which our Queen would obtain over him, when he announced to him that a woman would come into the world who should conquer him.” (P. 155.) “Mary, then, is this great and strong woman who has conquered the devil, and crushed his head by subduing his pride, as the Lord added, ‘She shall crush thy head… . The Blessed Virgin, by conquering the devil, brought us life and light.” (P. 156.)

“Very glorious, O Mary, and wonderful,’ exclaims St. Bonaventure, ‘is thy great name. Those who are mindful to utter it at the hour of death have nothing to fear from hell, for the devils at once abandon the soul when they hear the name of Mary’” (P. 163.)

Greater blasphemy still! Liguori affirms that God the Father is under obligation to Mary, and cheerfully obeys her command:

“St. Bernardine, of Sienna, does not hesitate to say that all obey the commands of Mary, even God himself.” (P. 202.)

“Rejoice, O Mary, that a son has fallen to thy lot as thy debtor, who gives to all and receives from none.” (P. 210.)

“She knows so well how to appease Divine justice with her tender and wise entreaties, that God himself blesses her for it, and, as it were, thanks her, that thus she restrains him from abandoning and punishing them as they deserve.” (P. 220.)

“Rejoice, O mother and handmaid of God! rejoice! rejoice! thou hast for a debtor him to whom all creatures owe their being. We are all debtors to God, but God is debtor to thee.” (P. 327.) [What blasphemy!!!]

We have scarcely heart to quote from the petitions offered to the Virgin. In “The Glories of Mary,” one prayer, intended as the beautiful blossom or perfected fruit of the finished argument, very appropriately closes each section. Besides these, there is an interesting collection from Rome’s most honored saints—in all over three score. In their books of devotion,—the number and names of which are exceedingly perplexing to a poor heretic,—no prayers are more frequent, none more ardent than those offered to the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God :—

“O Mother of my God, and my Lady Mary, as a poor wounded and loathsome wretch presents himself to a great queen, I present myself to thee, who art the Queen of heaven and earth. From the lofty throne on which thou are seated, do not disdain, I pray thee, to cast thine eyes upon me, a poor sinner,” etc. (“ Glories of Mary,” p. 37.)

“I venerate,O most pure Virgin Mary, thy most sacred heart. I, an unhappy sinner, come to thee with a heart filled with all uncleanness and wounds. O mother of mercy, do not, on this account, despise me, but let it excite thee to a greater compassion, and come to my help.” (P. 140.)

“O Mother of God! O Queen of angels! O hope of men, listen to him who invokes thee, and has recourse to thee. Behold me today prostrate at thy feet; I, a miserable slave of hell, consecrate myself to thee as thy servant forever, offering myself to serve and honor thee to the utmost of my power all the days of my life.” (P.153,)

“O Lady, I know that thou dost glory in being merciful as thou art great. I know that thou dost rejoice in being so rich, that thou mayest share thy riches with us sinners. I know that the more wretched are those who seek thee, the greater is thy desire to help and save them.” (P, 252.)

“O Mary! O my most dear mother, in what an abyss of evil I should find myself, if thou, with thy kind hand, hadst not so often preserved me! Yes, how many years should I already have been in hell, if thou, with thy powerful prayers, hadst not rescued me! My grievous sins were hurrying me there; divine justice had already condemned me; the raging demons were waiting to execute the sentence, but thou didst appear, O mother, not invoked nor asked by me, and hast saved me.” (P. 266.)

“Hearken, O most holy Virgin, to our prayers, and remember us, Dispense to us the gifts of thy riches, and the abundant graces with which thou art filled. All nations call thee blessed; the whole hierarchy of heaven blesses thee, and we, who are of the terrestrial hierarchy, also say to thee: Hail, full of grace.” (P. 329.)

“Holy Virgin, Mother of God, succor those who implore thy assistance… . To thee nothing is impossible, for thou canst raise even the despairing to the hope of salvation. . . . Thou dost love us with a love that no other love can surpass… . All the treasures of the mercy of God are in thy hands.” (P. 331.)

For want of space we pause. Scores of other passages, equally or even more revolting, lie open before us. If any one desires to see Romanism as it is, let him purchase a “Catholic Manual,” and “The Glories of Mary.” Thenceforth, semi-political papers, like The Freeman’s Journal and Catholic Register, and Jesuitical pamphlets, like the Catholic World, will charm in vain, charm they never so sweetly.

Did space permit, quotations innumerable, as blasphemous as those already adduced, could be given from “The Manual,” “The Key of Paradise,” “True Piety,” “The Christian’s Vade Mecum,” and the several other Catholic collections of prayers. One, from Dr. John Power’s “Catholic Manual,” must suffice :—“ Confiding in thy goodness and mercy, I cast myself at thy sacred feet, and do most humbly supplicate thee, O Mother of the Eternal Word, to adopt me as thy child.”

Bonaventure, a Roman saint (worshiped annually, July 14: see Catholic Almanac), has actually gone over most of the Psalms of David, striking out the words Lord, God, etc., and inserting, Blessed Virgin, Our Lady, Holy Mother, etc. Psalm 110:—“The Lord said unto Our Lady, sit thou on my right hand.” Psalm 25:—“ Unto thee, O Blessed Virgin, do I lift up my soul.” Psalm 31:—“In thee, O Lady, do I put my trust.”

Pope Pius IX., who considers the dogma of the Immaculate Conception the glory of his reign, in his Encyclical of November 1, 1870, condemning the usurpers of the States of the Church, addresses to all devout Catholics this earnest exhortation: “Going altogether to the foot of the throne of grace and mercy, let us engage the intercession of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, mother of God.”

If we may not apply the word idolatry to these abominations of Popery, then, certainly, we have no need of the word. The future Noah Webster may as well omit it from his dictionary. Comment, however, is certainly uncalled for. “And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.” “Idolaters shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

“These wise logicians (heretics) of the world
Can prove with reasoning clear
How he, in heaven, will welcome those
Who scorn his Mother here! . . .
And this is reason! this is light!—
A light that blinds the eyes,
And leads to the fire of endless night,
And the worm that never dies.”
The Catholic World, Jan. No., 1871, p. 532.

Chapter VII. Will—Worship.

WILL-WORSHIP, self-imposed restriction, producing excessive spiritual pride, but leaving the heart impure and the life unchanged, is evidently a noteworthy characteristic of Popery. In Paul’s portraiture of the fatal apostasy these words occur: “Commanding to abstain from meats.” This passage, restricted in its application to an organization once truly Christian, must of necessity refer to the Romish Church; no other has made abstinence from animal food a religious duty. Popery, however, has enacted, that “meats eaten during Lent, or on Friday, pollute the body and bring down eternal damnation on the soul.” And must we, then, believe, on the authority of a Church which evinces its much-vaunted infallibility by abrogating its own immutable laws, that something from without, beef-steak, defiles the man?* The proud occupant of Peter’s chair, by a single word, may reverse the teachings of the humble Nazarene!

* Formerly it was enacted: “No meat shall be eaten during Lent, on Fridays, or on Saturdays.” One of the Popes, however, by a new unalterable law suspending all previous immutable enactments, granted universal and perpetual indulgence on Saturdays. A Pope’s word makes the eating of animal food healthful or a damning sin!

Must the conscientious Protestant, his life an epistle of love, eternally bear the frown of an incensed God because, alike on all the days of the week, he temperately enjoyed the gifts of God’s bounty? Shall the Catholic, his heart unrenewed, his life a slander on the religion of the spotless Jesus, find, in the hour of death and the day of judgment, heaven’s favor richly bestowed simply because, by an act of will, he refused animal food on one day in seven?

Even mortal sins, it seems, can be committed with impunity if the Pope grants permission. The bull of Clement XI., in favor of those who should assist Philip V. in the holy war against the heretics, “grants to all who should take this bull, that during the year… . they may eat flesh in Lent and several other days in which it is prohibited. …. that they may eat eggs and things with milk.” His Infallibility makes known when and for what services his subjects may eat eggs without incurring eternal damnation. Important business! In the world’s midnight, Popery’s palmiest days, even heretics could purchase indulgence to commit the heinous sin of dining on roast chicken.

Paul, discerning the natural tendency of the human heart to place reliance in self-imposed outward requirements, and disregard inward piety, affirmed: “Bodily exercise profiteth little, but godliness is profitable unto all things.” The entire system of penance is here condemned. Popery, however, losing sight of the very kernel of the Gospel, that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, has ever taught that self-chosen torture, will-worship, is an efficient aid to piety—is in fact itself piety. Merit wrought by self-effort is by Rome considered as acceptable to God as it is pleasing to the carnal heart. Suffering sent of heaven may indeed if rightly received strengthen and deepen devotion, but self-imposed penances, engendering spiritual pride, produce a type of piety—if indeed it be piety—far more resembling heathen fanaticism than the self-denial of him who, in obedience to the will of the Father, offered himself to death that man might live. Between the sufferings of Christ and those of an anchorite, who does not see a world-wide difference? In what respect a senseless, useless, hermit life, like that of the sainted Simeon,* is is a copy of our Lord’s, most certainly infallibility alone can perceive. Are we, then, to believe that useless reverie and Pagan asceticism, with all their disgusting filth, ignorance, beggary, and superstition, are services more acceptable to God than feeding the hungry, clothing the’ naked, instructing the ignorant, reforming the vicious, and living, in the sphere in which God has placed us, a life of active obedience to the precepts of his Word?

* This monk, who lived for thirty-six years on a solitary pillar in the mountains of Syria, exposed to summer’s heat and winter’s cold, refusing to speak even with his mother, has ever been considered, by the Papal Church, a paragon (a model of excellence or perfection of a kind; a peerless example) of piety.

Another predicted characteristic of the fatal apostasy was this: “Forbidding to marry.” Among those bearing the Christian name, none, except the Papists, have ever denied to a certain class the inalienable right of matrimony. They alone have pronounced that unholy which God’s Word declares “honorable in all.” “A bishop,” says Paul, “must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” ‘This—even supposing it does not recommend marriage to the clergy—certainly at least accords them the privilege. Since the days of Gregory VII, however, whose profligate life would have disgraced even Pagan Rome, the marriage of a priest has been looked upon as a sin incomparably greater than adultery, or fornication, or even incest. A priest may associate with prostitutes and escape Church censure, but to marry a virtuous woman is, in the casuistry of Rome, one of the greatest of sins.*

* The Catholic World, July, 1870, p. 440, says : “It is against these (licentiousness and low views of marriage) that the Church opposes her laws of marriage, and the absolute supernatural chastity of her priests and religious.” Thereby she “provides herself with angels and ministers of grace to do her will, accomplish her work, perform her innumerable acts of spiritual and corporeal mercy, and be literally the god-fathers and god-mothers to the orphaned human race, while they obtain for themselves and others countless riches of merit.” Chastity supernatural! Riches of merit countless!

This enforced celibacy, there can be no doubt, has been exceedingly disastrous to the cause of morality. With no desire of dwelling upon facts the bare recital of which produce shuddering disgust, we refer our readers to the confession of a priest in Gavin’s “Master-Key to Popery,” p. 35; to those of a nun, p. 43; and to the “Confessions of a Catholic Priest,” translated by Samuel F. B. Morse. From revelations frequently made, as in the “Memoirs of Sipio De Ricci,” and of “ Lorette,” it would seem that in some instances at least monasteries and nunneries are dens of infamy in comparison with which the temples of ancient Babylon were pure.* Even the halls of the Holy Inquisition were not unfrequently converted into harems. (‘Master-Key to Popery,” pp. 169-188.) In South America and Spain priests are among the most regular frequenters of the “house of her whose feet take hold on hell.” Lest, however, we may be charged with slander, we close by quoting the language of St. Liguori, certainly good authority with Papists: “Among the priests who live in the world, IT IS RARE, VERY RARE, TO FIND ANY THAT ARE GOOD.”

As human nature is much the same everywhere, is it not fair to charge this wickedness—the extent of which is scarcely conceivable by those who have given the subject no examination +—upon the scarlet-colored Beast whose forehead bears this inscription, “ Mystery, Babylon the great, the Mother of harlots and Abominations of the earth?”

* A few months since a motion was made, and carried by a small majority in the British Parliament, to appoint a committee to “ Inquire into Conventual and Monastic Institutions.” It was found there were 69 monasteries and 233 nunneries in which Rome claimed the prerogative to detain men and women against their will, and even transport them to convents upon the continent. Rome is above law.

+ A few extracts—the least objectionable—from the confessions of a priest ( Master-Key to Popery”) we append: “I have served my parish sixteen years, I have in money 15,000 pistoles, and I have given away more than 6000, My money is unlawfully gotten. My thoughts have been impure ever since I began to hear confessions. My actions have been the most criminal of mankind. I have been the cause of many innocent deaths, 1 have procured, by remedies, sixty abortions. We, six priests, did consult and contrive all the ways to satisfy our passions, Everybody had a list of the handsomest women in the parish. I have sixty nepotes alive. But my principal care ought to be of those I had by the two young women I keep at home. Both are sisters, and I had, by the oldest, two boys; and by the youngest one, and one which I had by my own sister is dead.”

Chapter VIII. Credulity. (2 Thess. 2:11; and 1 Tim. 4:2.)

ON examining the leading characteristics of Popery one instinctively asks, how can rational men even pretend to believe such monstrous absurdities, such palpable errors? Paul gives apparently the only possible explanation. Referring to the adherents of the “man of sin,” “the great apostasy,” he affirms :—God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” Surely, in perfect fairness we may ask, has there ever been, or is there now, among those who have fallen from the faith, a more conspicuous fulfilment of this prophecy than is furnished by the victims of Popish superstition?

If, as the best authority affirms, it was because “God gave them over to a reprobate mind,” that the heathen became guilty of such revolting immoralities and “worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,’ how else shall we account for the deeper degradation and the grosser idolatry of Papists? Paganism never sanctioned such enormities as have found strenuous advocates in the bosom of “Holy Mother.” True, in some ages they deified every vile passion that rankles in the heart of man. Those gods, however, were never placed on loftier thrones than Jupiter. Venus and Bacchus were not allowed to purchase Jove’s pardon of unbridled indulgence. Over all other gods there was ever one whose anger could be appeased, and whose favor could be secured only by earnest effort after a life of virtue. It was left for “the trader in human souls” to promulgate the doctrine that by gold and silver given to the priest forgiveness of all sins, even the most heinous, could be purchased from the High and Holy one who inhabits eternity, the King of kings and Lord of lords. He who in his Word so repeatedly proffers a free salvation, is thus represented as conferring upon an arrogant and corrupt priesthood the right of selling pardons to the highest bidders; nay, worse, of granting indulgences, permission to sin to the wealthiest knaves, and the most unprincipled miscreants. The heathen worshipped gods which their own hands had made, it is true. They never so far degraded themselves, however, as to bow in adoration before a morsel of consecrated flour. Such disgusting idolatry is found only among the advocates of transubstantiation.

Except that God had given them up to believe a lie, how could Papists found a hope of heaven on the absolution granted by a priest? Turning from the throne of free grace, they hasten to a confessor for pardon. A frail, sinning man, forgives sins committed against God! A criminal pardons his fellow-criminal! A creature forgives the violation of the Creator’s laws! Rome’s most honored Council has pronounced an anathema against all who deny that the act of the priest in granting absolution is properly a judicial act. “He sits on the judgment seat representing Christ, and doing what Christ does.” In the catechism sanctioned by the Council of Trent, it is said:—“In the minister of God, who sits in the tribunal of penance, as his legitimate judge, the penitent venerates the power and person of our Lord Jesus Christ; for, in the administration of this, as in that of the other sacraments, the priest represents the character and discharges the functions of Jesus Christ.” When a large number of the ignorant are so credulous as to believe that this claim is founded in truth, is it any wonder that we witness from even the most atrocious murderers such disgusting exhibitions of hopes belonging alone to the devoutly penitent? And certainly it need scarcely strike us with surprise, if in almost every community not a few were found who, goaded by conscience to seek remission of sin, bow at the feet of the priest confidently expecting to purchase forgiveness with a part of the wages of iniquity. This done, why should they not return with even intensified delight to their former mode of life? An earnest, long-continued endeavor to imitate the pure life of Christ could not be expected from those who are taught to believe that the favor of God can be purchased with dollars and cents. Even if left to the promptings of nature, untutored by an infallible church, man would be far more likely to become enamored of virtue. Consciously burdened with a sense pf guilt, he might be driven to him who alone “has power on earth to forgive sin.”

That Paul’s prophecy finds a fulfillment in the history of Romanism is apparent in the doctrine of the real presence. In this the faithful, on pain of eternal damnation, are expected to believe that bread and wine, by the enunciation of the magic words, “Hoc est corpus meum,” are changed into Christ’s “ body, blood, soul, and divinity.” It is flesh, though it tastes like bread. It is blood, though it tastes like wine. Did ever delusion equal this? Men claiming common sense deliberately profess disbelief in the testimony of their own senses. On the mere declaration of a priest, they contemn one of God’s immutable laws, that to which they are indebted for all the knowledge they have of an external world. In being faithful to Rome, they become the worst of infidels, without faith in themselves and without faith in the God that made them.

Instead of denominating this a delusion, perhaps, so far as intelligent Papists are concerned, it were more charitable to characterize it as a “lie spoken in hypocrisy.” Evidently it is “a commandment of men,” defended as an essential part of a perfected system of extortion. Without it there would be a manifest absurdity in claiming ability to forgive sins. Represented, however, as a “bloodless sacrifice,” offered by the priest to the Father of all mercies, the appearance of consistency is retained. Merit purchasable is also marketable. “Transubstantiation, like the doctrine of supererogation (acts performed beyond what God requires), is food for the hen that lays the golden egg.

And what shall we denominate (call) the doctrine of purgatory,—a profitable delusion, or a lie spoken in hypocrisy? What could be better calculated to make market for masses? “Saints,” says the Council of Florence, “go to heaven; sinners to hell; and the middling class to purgatory.” Among the middlings, the priests now cunningly manage, for an obvious reason, to include nearly all. Saints in heaven, and sinners in hell, are beyond the reach of further extortion. From the fires of purgatory, however, unbloody sacrifices, if well paid for, can secure release. Whilst belief in this intermediate state is either a delusion borrowed from Paganism, or a hypocritical falsehood intended to fill Rome’s coffers, the pretence that the offering of a consecrated wafer can open to the soul the gates of paradise, is a delusion or hypocrisy still more inexplicable; and most unaccountable of all is the claim that the Church can determine when the soul is released from the purifying flames. To those whom God has given up to believe a lie, is any delusion too great for credence?—any profitable falsehood too hypocritical for advocacy?

This monstrous doctrine of purgatory the deluded victims of Popish superstition believe, notwithstanding it is written, “The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin;” notwithstanding the Saviour’s promise to the thief on the cross, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise;” notwithstanding the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in which the former is represented as lifting up his eyes in hell, being in torments, the latter as safely folded in Abraham’s bosom. They credit this absurdity whilst professing to accept as of inspired authority the declarations of Paul, “I have a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better;” “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain;” “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Blinded of God, the intelligent strenuously advocate, and the ignorant superstitiously believes a doctrine which effectually “makes merchandise of the souls of men.”

And her doctrine of supererogation is a delusion no less absurd. It is gravely said, “Men can do more than God’s holy law demands.” Many have done so. These works have merit. This merit, collected from the deeds of thousands of worthies, has been gathered into a treasury of which the Pope has the key. Hence he can deal out these good works in the form of indulgences and absolutions. What a mine of wealth! And every man, however wicked, may thence derive merit that will atone for any sin he may commit, even theft, adultery, or murder, on the simple condition that the price of the requisite amount of treasured goodness is paid for in current coin. Is this a delusion?—or is it rascality? With the ignorant masses it is no doubt the former. But the educated—do they really believe that the Pope collects the merits of those who are more virtuous than God requires into a fund for insuring souls against the torments of perdition, and sells life policies to the highest bidder? If so, alas for frail humanity! Superstition, it would seem, can silence common sense!

That the Popes are legitimate successors of St. Peter, bishops over alt Christendom, is another of Rome’s delusions. Though unable to determine whether the rock upon which Christ founded his Church was Peter, the Apostles, Peter’s faith, Peter’s confession, or the Saviour’s own meritorious offering, infallibility yet confidently affirms that upon the Pope in Rome is founded the true, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, out of which none can even hope for salvation. Supposing the Apostolic office still continues—a purely gratuitous assumption, since none can show the requisite qualifications, personal knowledge of our Saviour’s resurrection, a call direct from his lips, infallibility in teaching truth, the gift of tongues, the power of working miracles, and a commission to teach truth to the entire human family in all countries and all ages—the claim of an unbroken succession from Peter has never been established. No Papist, even with the aid of inerrancy, has been able to trace the line. On the concession of Rome’s most honored historians, Bellarmine, Alexander, Du Pin and others, at least 240 years remain from the beginning of the Christian era in which no vestiges of Papal authority can be discovered. The most ancient of the fathers, Irenaeus, Justin, and Clemens of Alexandria, make no mention of it, direct or indirect. And it is undeniably true that in the tenth century abandoned women ruled in Rome, by whom false pontiffs, their paramours, were intruded into the Papal chair. Will any Romanist have the hardihood to affirm that grossly immoral men, thus illegally thrust into office, were successors of the holy Apostles? Moreover, there have been times in the history of the Church when the line of succession cannot be traced even through such monsters of iniquity, no one even claiming universal spiritual sovereignty. For fifty years there were two infallible pontiffs, one at Avignon, another at Rome, each claiming to be the only legitimate successor of St. Peter. Both of these were deposed by the Council of Pisa, and Alexander elected. This resulted in giving Holy Mother three infallible heads. These being deposed by the Council of Constance, each took solemn oath to yield obedience. Each immediately resumed the claim: thus there were three, all perjured. In the face of such facts, admitted by‘all candid historians, Papal as well as Protestant, it evidently requires no small amount of credulity to believe not merely that the Popes are true successors of St. Peter, but that the Church founded on them is the only Church of Christ on earth.

The Church of Rome assumes to be in possession of the keys of heaven, although it has forsaken the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. It denies that regeneration of heart and purity of purpose are necessary to salvation. Christ’s meritorious offering, the only sufficient atonement, is practically rejected. That justification is solely by faith in the Lord’s righteousness, and that sanctification is the work of God’s spirit, are repeatedly and emphatically denied. It condemns the declaration of Paul, that “there is no righteousness in us,” claiming merit from nature and justifying righteousness from the deeds of the law. Contradicting the teaching of the Apostle, it affirms, “Man can be just before God, yea, holier than his law requires.” The assertion of Scripture, “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified,” is met with the declaration, “We are set free from sin on account of our works.” That “God desires or wills that all men should repent,” and that “repentance is the gift of God,” are condemned in severe terms. These propositions: “Believers are about to enter into their rest,” “The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice,” are pronounced “damnable heresies.” And although the New Testament has given this, “forbidding to marry,” as one of the marks of the man of sin, yet they prohibit marriage in the clergy while permitting concubinage. Could delusion surpass this, that men should believe themselves the true Church of Christ whilst they have apostatized from almost every essential doctrine of the Gospel? Unless we accept one or other of Paul’s explanations —either believing them strongly deluded or hypocritically false—how shall we account for their use of incense; their solemn consecration of bells and burial places; their burning of wax candles; and their sprinkling of horses, asses, and cattle? Formerly pious solicitude was taken in the proper solution, by an infallible Church, of the vitally important question, “Shall the hair of the monks be shaved in the form of a semicircle or circle?” Do not such things evidence the presence of seducing spirits cunningly turning the thoughts from the state of the heart to unmeaning forms?

And by what terms shall we characterize those endless frauds by which superstitious people were made to believe pretended miracles; or those silly dreams by which the most unprincipled impostors that ever disgraced humanity pretended to be directed to the tombs of saints and martyrs? And the bones thus obtained, how powerful! “By them,” so says an infallible Church, “Satan’s cunningest machinations were successfully defeated: diseases both of body and mind, otherwise incurable, were instantaneously healed.” In one thing at least they were exceedingly potent. They filled Rome’s empty treasury. That, in the Romish code of morals, is all that need be demanded. “It is an act of virtue to deceive, and lie, when, by that means, the interests of the Church can be promoted.” Falsehood, sometimes adroitly conceived, always persistently adhered to, has ever been one of Rome’s most efficient agencies in establishing and perpetuating her power.* “God,” says Paul, “shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” “The spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in, hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry,” etc.—1 Tim. 4:1-3.

* As specimens of the agencies employed by Rome to keep her children from straying from the fold, take these drafts upon the credulity of the ignorant: “The Holy Scriptures are far more extensively read among Catholics than they are by Protestants.””—Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-Day, p. “Tradition has in itself as much authority as the Gospel.””—Idem, p. 127.‘Heresy is in itself a more grievous sin, an evil far greater and more baneful, than immorality and the inordinations of sensuality.”—Idem, p. 27. “Christianity and Catholicity are one and the same thing.”—Idem, p. 56. “To be a Christian is to be a Catholic: outside of Catholicity you may be a Lutheran, a Calvinist, a Mahommedan, a Mormon, a Free Thinker, a Buddbist, but you are not, you cannot be a Christian.”— p. 58. “It’s not very hard to be a good Protestant. Believe whatever you please in matters of religion. Believe nothing at all, if it suits you better. Be honest, as the world understands it. Read the Bible or not, as it pleases you; go to church, or do not go; forget not to subscribe to one, or two, or three Bible and evangelical societies; but, above all, hold the Catholic Church in abomination—and you shall be a good Protestant.”—p. 20. “One is poor, and wishes to emerge from his poverty; another is swayed by passions, which he does not wish to control; a third has too much pride, and is loath to subdue it; a fourth is ignorant, and allows himself to be led away. For such reasons people become Protestant.”—p. 87. “As for him who becomes a Protestant. . . . . Poor apostate! for him, no more the beautiful ceremonies of the Church, The images of our Lord, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the saints, become emblems of idolatry! —no more crucifix, no more the sign of the cross: it is idolatry! —no more prayers: no more respect or love for the Mother of God; idolatry! —no more trusting the intercession of saints, patrons in heaven, advocates, protectors near God : idolatry!”

“Let, then, in the presence of such frightful deaths and of the thought of eternity, those of our unfortunate brethren who may be tempted to abandon their Church, remember that a day will come when they will also be summoned to appear before God! Let them think, in their sober senses, of death, and of judgment, and of hell, and I pledge my word they will not think of becoming Protestants.” Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-Day, p. 236. Boston: Patrick Donahoe, 1870. Imprimatur, Joannes Josephus, Episcopus Boston.

Among the delusions of Romanism, none, perhaps, is more transparently absurd than their much-vaunted immutability. Bossuet, the celebrated Bishop of Meaux, detailed, with seemingly intense delight, the alleged variations of Protestantism, assuming, indeed asserting, that “Catholicity ever has been, is, and ever will be, as unchangeable as its Author.” In face of all the facts, for a Protestant to listen to this claim without a smile, certainly requires no ordinary measure of gravity. And for Papists to yield it cordial belief, imperatively demands either extreme ignorance, obstinate credulity, or gross bigotry. No doubt the Church which once condemned the revolution of the earth upon its axis, must now be, as it ever has been, immutuble. Unchangeable as Deity, and lasting as time, Popery’s great argument is a pathetic appeal to antiquity. By this the doubting faithful are confirmed, and heretics silenced. It is an end of all controversy. This question, “Where was your Protestant Church before the Reformation?” is the rallying cry of the advancing hosts of Papacy, and is expected to be the requiem sung over the lifeless corpse of soulless, godless Protestantism, “that spawn of hell,” destined, as infallibility assures us, speedily to go to his own place. Where was Protestantism three hundred years ago? Where were the Augean stables before they were cleansed by Hercules?—where the decaying palace before its crumbling towers, and ivy bound walls, and tottering foundations were repaired, strengthened, and beautified? The doctrines of Protestantism are as old as the promulgation of the Gospel. Romanism is the intruder. Its characteristic doctrines are mere novelties in the religious world.

By what terms shall we characterize that blindness which, disregarding the foul stains upon her history, denominates the Papal Antichrist “Holy Mother,” the one true, Catholic, Apostolic Church, out of which is no salvation? Pope John XII. was guilty of blasphemy, perjury, profanation, impiety, simony, sacrilege, adultery, incest, and murder. “ He was,” says Bellarmine, “nearly the wickedest of the Popes.”* John XXIII, however, exceeded him.

* When summoned to attend a Council and answer the charges brought against him, he refused, and excommunicated the Council in the name of God. Though deposed, he regained the Papal throne. Caught in adultery, he was killed, probably by the injured husband. See Edgar’s “Variations of Popery,” p. 110.

His Holiness, Infallible Judge in faith and morals, was, by the Council of Constance, convicted of denying the accountability of man, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and all the institutions of revealed religion. But his errors in faith were venial and few compared with his immoralities. He was found guilty of almost every crime of which it is possible to conceive. The list enumerated no less than seventy; among these, simony, piracy, exaction, barbarity, robbery, murder, massacre, lying, perjury, fornication, adultery, incest, and sodomy.

Of Alexander VI, another infallible Pope, a trustworthy historian says: “His debauchery, perfidy, ambition, malice, inhumanity, and irreligion, made him the execration of all Europe.” He died from drinking one of the poisoned cups prepared by him for the rich cardinals whose possessions he intended to seize. Humanity disowns the monster. His successor, Julius II., inherited, along with the tiara, all the immoralities of the Papacy. Having secured the triple crown by bribing the cardinals, no crime was too great to appal his unterrified conscience. Assassination, adultery, sodomy, and bestial drunkenness, are scarcely a moiety (part) of his enormities. “He was a scandal to the whole Church, He filled Italy with rapine, war, and blood.” Pope Leo X. denied the immortality of the soul, and in fact every doctrine of Christianity, denominating it a “lucrative fiction.” “Paul III., and Julius III, were such licentious characters that no modest man can write or read their lives without blushing.” The former, the convener of the Council of Trent, made large sums of money by selling indulgences and licenses to houses of ill fame. At least four pontiffs, Liberius, Zosimus, Honorius, and Vigilius, were convicted of heresy; seventeen of perjury, and twenty-five of schism. According to Genebrard, “For nearly 150 years about fifty Popes deserted wholly the virtue of their predecessors, being apostate rather than apostolic.” Baronius, himself a Papist, as if unable to repress the intensity of his disgust for the abominations of the Papal See, exclaims: “The case is such, that scarcely any one can believe, or even will believe it, unless he sees it with his eyes, and handles it with his hands, viz., what unworthy, vile, unsightly, yea, execrable and hateful things the sacred Apostolic See, on whose hinges the universal Apostolical Church turns, has been compelled to see.

To our shame and grief, be it spoken, how many monsters, horrible to behold, were intruded by them (the secular princes) into that seat which is reverenced by angels!” “The Holy See is bespattered with filth,” “infected by stench,” “defiled by impurities,” and “blackened by perpetual infamy!” Guiciardini, another defender of Holy Mother, speaking of the Popes of the sixteenth century, says: “He was esteemed a good Pope, in those days, who did not exceed in wickedness the worst of men.”

Of the Councils which have given us the dogmas of Romanism, some have been immortalized not less by villainy than by heresy. That of Constantinople is described by Nazianzen as “A cabal of wretches fit for the house of correction.” That of Nice, in approving a disgusting story, sanctioned perjury and fornication. Of the Council of Lyons, Cardinal Hugo, in his farewell address to the retiring president, Pope Innocent, presents this picture: “Friends, we have effected a work of great utility and charity in this city. When we came to Lyons, we found three or four brothels in it, and we have left at our departure only one. But this extends, without interruption, from the eastern to the western gate of the city.” The Council of Constance, composed of 1000 holy fathers, which solemnly decreed that “no faith shall be kept with heretics,” and consigned John Huss to the flames, although he had given himself into their hands only on the express pledge of protection given by the Emperor, was attended by 1500 public prostitutes. This same Council ordered the bones of Wyckliffe to be “dug up and thrown upon a dung-hill.” Well does Baronius exclaim: “What is, then, the face of the holy Roman Church! How exceedingly foul it is!” To believe that an organization, characterized, according to the assertions of its own historians, by such unheard-of abominations, is the only true Church, demands a credulity fitly termed, “delusion sent of God.”

On pain of unending woe, every genuine Romanist must now believe that Pius IX. is infallible. Here is a specimen of his inerrancy. Arguing for his temporal power (since needing stronger support than infallible reasoning), His Holiness, jumbling together two passages of Scripture entirely separate and distinct, said:

“In the garden of Olives, on the night before Christ’s crucifixion, the multitude with Judas came to him. And they said, ‘Art thou a king?’ and he answered, ‘I am.’ And they went back and fell on the ground.” Certainly this is no small tax on the credulity of those who so loudly proclaim the Pope infallible, especially and pre-eminently in interpreting Scripture.. This argument is only exceeded by that of Pope Boniface IV., who employed his infallibility in establishing this proposition : Monks ARE ANGELS.

Major Premise: All animals with six wings are angels.

Minor Premise: Monks have six wings, viz., the cowl, two; the arms, two; the legs, two.

Ergo: Monks are angels. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Part III. Popery the Foe of Liberty.
Chapter I. Percecution.

TYRANTS, the more effectually to secure power, have ever professed supreme regard for man’s highest interests. It was under the plea of extending Grecian learning, the proudest gift of human genius, that Alexander burned villages, sacked cities, and trampled upon rights dear as life itself. Under the cloak of unrivalled regard to the unity of God, Mohammed established, what had otherwise been impossible, a despotism as cruel as the most heartless fatalism could devise.

What others secured by reiterated protestations of devotion to one single principle, Rome attained by seizing upon the Gospel. The religion of Jesus, the fountain of all true liberty, personal and national, civil and religious, was so obscured by error as to become, in the hands of those claiming sole right to impart religious instruction, a most powerful engine of Satanic cruelty. When, therefore, all other agencies had failed in crushing the spirit of freedom, the Romish Church, in the sacred name of religion, a religion proclaiming good will to men, solemnly inaugurated a system of persecution unparalleled in the annals of the most blood-thirsty Paganism.

Popery, in her noonday of glory, unblushingly denied to those rejecting her dogmas even the right of inheriting property, of collecting moneys justly due them, and of bequeathing even the savings of poverty to their own children.* Is not this a fulfillment, to the very letter, of that ancient prediction, “He caused . . . . that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name?” (Rev. 13:17) For the single offense of rejecting Papal supremacy, the true followers of Christ were subjected to every species of annoyance which diabolical malignity could invent. With the design of tempting, or forcing men, from worldly considerations, to yield unquestioned obedience, treachery, deception, and cunning were freely resorted to, and in some instances with such success as to rivet the detested system of Popery upon people who loathed the very name.

* The Council of Constance anathematized “all who should enter into contracts or engage in commerce with heretics.” In a decree of Pope Alexander III., this sentence occurs: We therefore subject to a curse both themselves and their defenders and harborers, and under a curse we prohibit all persons from admitting them into their houses, or receiving them upon their lands, or cherishing them, or exercising any trade with them.” Frederick II, in an edict against the enemies of the faith,” orders “their goods to be confiscated, their children to be disinherited, and their memory and their children to be held infamous forever.”

When even these agencies, powerful as they were, proved ineffectual, others more potent still were speedily devised. The Inquisition, or, where the establishment of this was impossible, holy wars relentlessly waged against heretics, it was hoped, would bring all men within the pale of Mother Church. The employment of such agencies was clearly foretold. “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.” “And he had power . . . to cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” “I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” Rev. 13:7,15; 17:6.

That the Papacy makes persecution an essential of religion—although the Rev. James Kent Stone, Rome’s latest conquest, in his “Invitation Heeded,” ridicules the assertion—is certainly susceptible of clear proof. In its defense arguments are drawn, by their most eminent theologians, from Scripture, from the opinions of emperors, from the laws of the Church, from the testimony of the fathers (that inexhaustible treasury of unanswerable reasoning!), and from experience. That death is the proper penalty of presuming to disobey His Infallibility, is, we are told, the teaching of reason as well as the dictate of piety. Heretics, unless destroyed, will contaminate the righteous. By tortures inflicted on the few, however, the eternal salvation of the many may be secured. Nay, even to the deluded infidels themselves it is a mercy; it sends them to hell before they shall increase the torments of perdition.*

* “The blood of heretics,” says the Rhemish annotators, “is no more the blood of saints than the blood of thieves, man-killers, and other malefactors, for the shedding of which, by order of justice, no commonwealth shall answer.—Rev. 17:6.

Bossuet declares: “No illusion can be more dangerous than making toleration a mark of the true Church.”

Nor was the defense of a doctrine so essential as the right of the Church to persecute, left to the ingenious, though possibly fallible reasoning of bishops and cardinals. Even Popes, infallible vicars, in the exercise of sovereign authority, undertook the laudable task of hounding on crazed fanatics to murder men, women, and even defenseless children, in the name of the meek, loving, forgiving Jesus. Urban II. issued a bull declaring: “No one is to be deemed a murderer who, burning with zeal for the interests of Mother Church, shall kill excommunicated persons.” In 1825, Pope Leo XII. suspended his plenary indulgence on “the extirpation of heretics.” Can immutability change? Can infallibility err? Has any Pope of the last thousand years disapproved of persecution? Has Pius IX. abrogated one solitary law against heretics?

Even Councils, not provincial—the authority of these, Papists might possibly call in question—but general Councils, and of these not less than five, have enjoined or sanctioned the extermination of heretics, giving their voice for death as the proper punishment of what they choose to denominate heresy. Surely the Romish Church, if the declarations of her priests, bishops, cardinals, Popes, and Councils prove anything, is the deliberate defender of persecution, even to death, for opinion’s sake. Every priest, therefore, in taking oath “to hold and teach all that the sacred canons and general Councils have delivered, declared, and defended,” swears to believe and to teach Rome’s right to torture and burn heretics, that is, Protestants.*

* In the oath commonly administered to bishops occur these words: “Schismatics and rebels to our Lord, the Pope, and his successors, I will, to the utmost of my power, persecute and destroy.”

+ Frederick IL., loyal son of Popish arrogance, issued an edict, asserting the divine right of kings “to wield the material sword… . against the enemies of the faith, for the extirpation of heretical depravity.” “We shall not suffer,” he adds, “the wretches, who infect the world with their doctrines, to live.”

Even kings “were compelled by Church censures to endeavor, in good faith, according to their power, to destroy all heretics marked by the Church, out of the lands of their jurisdiction.” Four Councils, the Third Lateran, the Fourth Lateran, Constance, and Trent, endorsed this order.+ That the woman, Mother of Harlots, sitting upon a scarlet colored beast, and drunken with the blood of the martyrs, should be aided in her work of death by the civil authority, was plainly foretold: “These ten horns which thou sawest, are ten kings. . . . . These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”—Rev. 17:3, 13.

And with terrible energy did Rome vindicate her much-vaunted right to persecute. The holy Inquisition, Satan’s masterpiece, with St. Dominic, a raving fanatic, for its first general, Innocent III. for its founder, a powerful order of monks for its defenders, and kings for the executioners of its fiendish penalties, became an engine of unexampled cruelty, sending terror into every land, suspicion into every home, and anguish into almost every heart. Neither age, nor sex, position nor past services, were guarantees of security. A word jestingly spoken, or neglect in bowing to the consecrated wafer (the elevated bran-god), or a look of contempt cast upon a begging friar, might prove the occasion of imprisonment and torture. Personal resentment, or even suspicion, especially where the parties suspected were wealthy, might lead to arrest. Even ladies, in many instances, were torn from endeared husbands, or doting parents, because lust inflamed their fiendish persecutors.*

* When the French, on entering Aragon (1706), threw open the doors of the Inquisition, sixty young women were found, the harem of the Inquisitor General.—Gavin’s “Master-Key to Popery.”

+ In Spain alone, 18,000 were employed, whose business it was, with Satanic cunning, to insinuate themselves into every company, speak against the Pope and the Church—thus beguiling the unwary— and drag the suspected before the holy Inquisition.

Having made certain, through spics, that the person whom they determined to arrest was at home, the officers of the inquisition, at the dead hour of midnight, knocked at the door. To the question, “Who is there?” a voice from the darkness responds, “The holy Inquisition.” Terror opens the door, and the daughter, the son, the wife, or the husband, seized by ruffians, is carried away to the cells of a dungeon, the remaining members of the family not daring to complain, scarcely to disclose their grief. Theirs is a sorrow unknown except to him whose eye never slumbers, who counts the tears of suffering innocence.

These officers, the better to fit them for their fiendish business, were earnestly admonished not to allow nature to get the better of grace. In some instances they were actually ordered to arrest their own near relatives, that by conquering human weakness they might prove themselves worthy of the favor of Holy Mother. Fiendish heartlessness! Adamantine cruelty !

The accused were never confronted with the accuser. They were ordered to confess; refusing, torture was applied to extort an acknowledgment of guilt. If to save themselves from present anguish, they confess to doubts in regard to the real presence, papal supremacy, priestly absolution, the worship of images, the invocation of saints, the existence of purgatory, or the doctrine of infallibility, they sentence themselves to martyrdom; refusing to confess—perhaps because conscious of no crime—they are tortured to the extent of human endurance, and then bleeding, lacerated and trembling, are thrust into a loathsome dungeon to pine in solitude, unrelieved, unpitied, friendless, dying a hundred deaths in one. Were ever laws devised more evidently contrary to the plainest dictates of equity?

These punishments, inflicted in an underground apartment denominated the “Hall of Torture,” were of every species which fiendish ingenuity could invent. Of the unfortunate victims of Papal fury, some were suffocated by water poured into the stomach; others, with cords fastened around the wrists behind the back, and heavy weights suspended from the feet, were drawn up to great heights, and then let fall to within a few feet of the floor, dislocating every joint; some were slowly roasted in closed iron pans; of some, the feet smeared with oil were roasted to a crisp; of others, the hands were crushed in clamps, or the bodies pierced with needles. The Auto da fé periodically closed the horrid tragedy. On a Sabbath morning, day sacred to him whose essential attribute is love, numbers of these lacerated beings were led forth—and in the name of Christianity!—to the place of burning. The heart, sickening at the recital of such deeds of hellish cruelty, and recalling the names of such worthy martyrs as Wycliffe, Huss, Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, and thousands of others, joins, with a holy fervor of devotion, in the prayer of the redeemed souls ceaselessly ascending from under the altar of the Almighty: “How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth ?”—Rev. 6:10.

Having found, after centuries of trial, that the Inquisition and the Crusades were powerless in crushing the pure religion of Jesus, that, in fact, “the blood of the martyrs became the seed of the Church,” Rome endeavored, in the language of Scripture, to wear out the saints of the Most High. In place of death she substituted every species of annoyance which malignant hatred inspired of Satan could invent. Comparatively few however were induced to betray the Lord. “Therein is the faith and patience of the Saints.”

When the number of those denying the Pope’s supremacy became, in any country, too great to be killed by the Inquisition, holy wars were advocated. With the cross, symbol of love, on their banners, the Papal legions went forth in cold blood to butcher men, women, and children. For the mortal sin of presuming to employ the faculties God gave them, they must be utterly destroyed. In these Crusades the Romish Church actually gloried, and does still glory, feeling no remorse for the massacre of thousands, no shame for the extinction of kingdoms and people.

Armed with a bull of indulgence, the Papal emissaries went forth to preach the Crusade. Everywhere they exclaimed, “Who will rise up against the evil doers? Who will stand up against the workers of iniquity? If you have any zeal for the faith, any concern for the glory of God, any desire to reap the rich benefits of Papal indulgence, receive the sign of the cross, join the army of Immanuel, lend your aid in purging the nations, and extending the holy Catholic religion.” ‘

These crusades were waged not against those guilty of great sins, but against those whose only crime was a refusal to acknowledge the sovereignty of Rome’s arrogant bishop. This was the deep-seated error which roused such unequalled fury. Those communities which failed to recognize the proud pontiff enthroned in the eternal city as Christ’s Vicar on earth, must pay the penalty. The sword, and fire, and death, must proclaim that the rights of property and the comforts of home belong alone to those who permit His Holiness to think for them.

By way of extenuating the guilt of the Crusaders, modern Papists, though ardent advocates of Papal immutability and of the infallibility dogma, remind us that civilization had then made but little progress. These crusades, say they, are justly chargeable, not to Romanism, but to the barbarism of the times. Who instigated those wholesale butcheries? Infallible Popes. Who lauded those unparalleled atrocities which for centuries disgraced humanity? Infallible Popes. Does infallibility need the light of civilization’s dim taper? Erring Protestants might, with some show of candor, advance such a plea, but for Papists, it is a betrayal of doctrines vital to their system. Have they shown any sorrow for the past? Have they expressed repentance for the slaughter of unoffending Christians? Have they abandoned the right to persecute? Deceive ourselves as we may, Popery is the same unblushing monster of cruelty, unchanged, and unchangeable. Pharisee-like, while promising liberty of conscience, she is continuously engaged in honoring, applauding, and even canonizing those whose only title to fame consists in the horrid cruelties practiced towards the innocent followers of Jesus.

The blood-thirsty vengeance of the Popes against the infidels of the Holy Land, what pencil shall do justice to that scene of horror? Crusades, carried on with infernal fury for more than a century, caused the death of 2,000,000. Followers of Christ the Turks were not; but did butcheries convert them? Did they and their children learn to love that Saviour in whose name they were slaughtered? Can we even hope that in the moment of death on the hard-fought battle-field, many, even one, turning a tearful eye towards the ensigns of the hated foe, sought mercy from him whose cross emblazoned that blood-stained banner? The blood of these clings to the skirts of Romanism.

In the indictment against Popery, another specification is the deliberate massacre of 300,000 Waldenses and Albigenses. Against these true successors of the Apostolic Church, who, even on the concession of their murderers, were abstemious, laborious, devout and holy, Pope Innocent III. raised an army of 500,000. These blood-hounds of cruelty were let loose with intense delight upon those whose only crime was the belief, publicly and fearlessly expressed, that Rome was the “Babylonish Harlot” of the Apocalypse. Even Count Raimond, their Catholic sovereign, because tardy in the work of utterly exterminating his loyal subjects, was publicly anathematized in all the churches. Trembling under excommunication, the Count took solemn oath to pursue the Albigenses with fire and sword, sparing neither age nor sex, until they bowed to Papal authority. Rome, however, not content with even such abject subserviency, ordered him to strip naked and submit to penance. Nine times was he driven around the grave of the Monk Castelnau, and beaten with rods upon the bare back.

In the taking of Beziers, the Pope’s legate, when asked how the soldiers should distinguish the Catholics from the heretics, shouted: “Kill all; the Lord will know his own.” When the demon had completed his work, the city, swept by fire, was the blackened sepulchre of 60,000.

Bearing the standard of the cross, and singing “Glory to God,” the army of the Crusaders, under the bloody Montfort, entered Menerbe. Pointing to a prepared pile of dry wood, the legate roared: “Be converted, or mount this pile.” The merciful flames soon released the faithful from the relentless fury of their persecutors.

The persecutions in the valleys of Loyse and Frassinicre were cruel beyond description. Christians, after receiving the most solemn assurances of protection, were thrust into burning barns, suffocated in caves, led forth by scores and beheaded.

And the Waldenses of Calabria were subjected to barbarities no less incredible. Their children, forcibly taken from them, were placed in monasteries to be educated in the detested system of Popery. Large “numbers of truly devout Christians, encumbered not unfrequently with the aged, and even with helpless babes, were driven to the mountains, there to meet death in every conceivable aspect of horror : some were starved, some frozen, some buried alive in the drifting snows, some

But why proceed further? To recount Popery’s cruelties, even a tithe of them, is impossible. Her history is echoed in the carnage of the battle-field, in the sighs of suffering innocence, in the unmeasured anguish of widowhood. Her pathway upon the earth is but too plainly visible, marked in blood, the blood of fifty millions of earth’s noblest. Of this martyred host who can conceive the agonies? Can language convey any adequate conception of the sufferings of the Moors in Spain, the Jews in the various Catholic countries they have inhabited, the Christians in Bohemia, Portugal, Britain, and Holland?* Known alone to God are the sufferings of his chosen ones. In his book of remembrance are recorded the tears, the sighs, the sorrows of Christ’s struggling Church.

* In the last-mentioned country, the Duke of Alva boasted that in the short space of six months he had caused the death of 18,000 Protestants.

To relate the intrigues, deceptions and atrocities by which Rome succeeded in crushing out Protestantism in poor, down-trodden Ireland, we shall make no attempt. They are part of her history written in blood, —only other illustrations of the same intolerance.

In France, “with infinite joy”—if human joy can be infinite—Popery shed the blood of the saints. Passing by the butcheries of Orange and Vassey, the heart sickens in recounting the incidents of the Bartholomew massacre. On that day, recalled by Protestants only with shuddering horror, the demon of Popish cruelty went forth by royal command, to gorge himself with blood. The poor Huguenots, assembled in Paris under the pretext of a marriage between the Protestant king of Navarre and the sister of Charles IX., were attacked by hired assassins at midnight, and, notwithstanding the pledges of protection repeatedly and solemnly given (the occasion of their presence, and their defenseless condition) were slain in such numbers that the streets ran blood to the river. The dead bodies, dragged over the rough pavements, were thrown into the Seine. Even the king himself, from a window in his palace, viewed with seemingly intense delight the work of death going forward in the court beneath. Above the groans of the dying, and the curses of the soldiers, his voice could he distinctly heard, shouting, “Slay them, slay them.” Even those pressing into his immediate presence to implore mercy and plead his pledged protection, received this as their only answer, death from his hand. In one week, according to Davilla, 10,000 were slain in Paris alone. And the slaughter in the capital was the signal for rekindling the fires of persecution throughout the entire empire. In nearly all the provinces the scenes of Paris were re-enacted; at Lyons, at Orleans, at Toulouse, at Meaux, at Bordeaux. In these massacres 30,000 perished.

And upon this sea of blood—heaven forgive them— the Pope, the Church, and the king delighted to look. Standing over the dead body of Admiral Coligny, whom by assurances of friendship he had drawn within his grasp, Charles exclaimed: “The smell of a dead enemy is agreeable.” To the Pope he sent a special messenger: “Tell him,” said Charles,—“ tell him, the Seine flows on more majestically after receiving the dead bodies of the heretics.” “The king’s heart,” exclaimed one of Rome’s proud cardinals, “must have been filled with a sudden inspiration from God when he gave orders for the slaughter of the heretics.” And then— as if the Papacy must needs put on the scarlet robe— the Pope and the cardinals, entering one of Rome’s grandest cathedrals, returned solemn thanks to God, the God of mercy; thanks for the slaughter of Christians! thanks for the cold-blooded murder of thousands of unoffending followers of Jesus!

The record of these events, like that of the revolution in later times, France would now gladly bury in oblivion. They are spots on her history, however, which ages of tears can never efface. And that Papists of the present day ardently desire to reverse the testimony of history, or obliterate these unpleasant facts, is but too plain from the futile efforts repeatedly put forth, as in the “Invitation Heeded,” the Catholic World, the Freeman’s Journal and Catholic Register, to prove that the Pope and the cardinals were grossly imposed upon. Deceived by Charles’ special messenger into returning thanks for the murder of heretics, instead of expressing gratitude to God for the overthrow of those rebelling against civil authority! Certainly such a defense is well worthy the system it seeks to shield.

Chapter II: Popery the enemy of civil liberty.

THAT the Romish Church is nothing less than a conspiracy against liberty, personal and national, civil and religious, we firmly believe. Being the twin sister of despotism, she ever has been, and is now, most bitterly hostile to freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, education of the masses, distribution of the Bible, in fact to everything which Republicans are accustomed to regard as the basis and the safeguard of popular government. Accordingly she is industriously engaged, even now, and in this Republic, in undermining, insidiously but surely, the beauteous temple of liberty, whose foundations were laid in the blood of persecuted Protestants. Her system, in accordance with its time-honored principles, is producing hostility to our free institutions.

The Papal Church is the foe of our system of common schools. This scheme of popular education, the most successful agency ever devised for inculcating those moral principles which are indispensable to the continuance of self government, is the object of enmity as unrelenting as it is universal. Every available agency is employed to shake the confidence of our people in its equity, wisdom and efficiency. First, it was said, the public schools are sectarian. The Protestant Bible is used. That their hostility is not so much against our version as against the Bible itself, the basis of public morality, the most essential part of true education, the palladium of civil liberty, is conclusively proved by their unwillingness to circulate even their own version, the Douay Bible. Popery has always maintained that “the Bible is not a book to be in the hands of the people.” “Who will not say,” exclaims a recent advocate of Romanism, “that the uncommon beauty and marvellous English of the Protestant Bible is one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country?” “We ask,” says Bishop Lynch, of New Orleans, “that the public schools be cleansed from this peace-destroying monstrosity—Bible reading.” The Bishop of Bologna, in an advisory letter to Paul III, said: “She (the Catholic Church) is persuaded that this is the book which, above all others, raises such storms and tempests. And that truly, if any one read it, …. he will see… .that the doctrine which she, preaches is altogether different and sometimes contrary to that contained in the Bible.”

Since the council held in Baltimore in the spring of 1852, Rome’s efforts have been put forth to secure a distribution of the school fund. The demand is general, open, persistent. In New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Chicago, Newark,—in all our large towns and cities,—they have erected commodious school houses, employed nuns and priests as teachers, and petitioned for a pro rata (In proportion to some factor that can be exactly calculated.) share of the school money. The Tablet, a Catholic paper of New York, argues, March 14, 1868, as follows:

“The reason why the Catholics cannot, with a good conscience, send their children to the public schools, is that the public schools are really sectarian. The State is practically anti-Catholic, and its schools are necessarily controlled and managed by sectarians, who are hostile to the Catholic religion and seek its destruction. The reason why the sectarians want the children of Catholics brought up in the public schools is because they believe that if so brought up they will lose their Catholicity, and become sectarians or infidels. This, and this alone, is the reason why they are unwilling that Catholics should have their quota of the public moneys to support separate schools … It is idle to talk to sectarians, no matter of what name or hue, of justice or of the rights of conscience; and yet we cannot forbear to say that there is a manifest injustice in taxing us to support schools to which we cannot in conscience send our children….. What religious liberty is there in this?”

Again, in March, 1870, it exclaims:

“No, gentlemen, that will not do, and there is no help but in dividing the public schools, or in abandoning the system altogether.”

The Freeman’s Journal once said:

“What we Roman Catholics must do now, is to get our children out of this devouring fire, At any cost and any sacrifice, we must deliver the children over whom we have control from these pits of destruction, which lie invitingly in their way, under the name’ of public or district schools.” *

* In the year 1868, the Pope, in an allocution containing a violent assertion of Papal power, severely denounces the King of Austria for sanctioning a law “which decrees that religious teaching in the public schools must be placed in the hands of members of each separate confession, that any religious society may open private or special schools for the youth of its faith.” This law, His Infallibility solemnly pronounces “abominable,” “in flagrant contradiction with tho doctrines of the Catholic religion; with its venerable rights, its authority, and its divine institution; with our power, and that of the Apostolic See.” Consistency, that jewel! What Popery condemns in Austria, she clamors for in America.

Not only the press, but public lecturers are employed to bring this movement into favor. The most barefaced falsehoods are palmed off upon the credulous public. We are told that our political institutions are of Roman Catholic origin; that Protestantism is crumbing to pieces; that religion, beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, is “machinery, formalism, and mummery;” that infidels are the originators of our school system. Our common schools are denominated “pubic soup-houses, where our children take their wooden spoons.” “Every such school,” it is asserted, “is an insult to the religion and virtue of our people.” “The prototype of our school system,” said another Roman Catholic orator, “is seen in the institutions of Paganism. Unless the system be modified, and put the Christian (Catholic) school upon the same ground as the Godless school (Protestant), it requires but little sagacity to perceive its speedy and utter destruction.”

To accede to this demand would destroy our entire system of popular education. Upon no principle, bearing even the semblance of justice, can money be given to one class and withheld from another. If Catholics may claim their share of the school fund, so also may Jews, Infidels, Rationalists, Buddhists, and every denomination of Christians. To divide the fund among all the claimants would utterly destroy the efficiency of the system, leaving our children to be educated in small schools under incompetent teachers. And what shall we say of the logic of these self-lauded champions of religious liberty? Must we believe that our government, because it knows no state religion, is therefore purely atheistic? And what is atheism but a system of religious negations? Shall then the Government establish atheistic schools? No, to this the Catholics object. Shall it provide for the separate instruction of each sect? Shall it sanction, encourage, and aid schools opened for the incoming horde of Chinese Pagans? Shall it disburse funds to German Rationalists to teach that the stories of the Bible, however sacred they may be to Christians, are no more worthy of credence than the myths of Hesiod? Shall it support schools in which Protestant Irish, by recounting the soul-inspiring incidents of the Battle of the Boyne, shall rekindle the dying embers of hostility to Popery? This Papists would never endure. Even if this Republic should succeed in divesting itself of everything bearing relations to religion, Catholics would certainly complain. They would clamor for the introduction of Catholic instruction. Unless, therefore, we are prepared to abolish the entire system, giving over all efforts at popular education, our only motto must be, “NO SURRENDER.”

And none certainly have just cause of complaint. A system liberal and equitable—as much so as any ever devised—opens the school-room to all. Any class is of course at perfect liberty to educate its children in separate schools. To that no one has ever objected. If, however, a disaffected portion of the community have a right to destroy an organization in which the vast majority are deeply interested, then evidently government itself is impossible. Rome’s hostility to our public school system shows, therefore, the determined antagonism of Papacy to liberal (in this case, “liberal” is anything not according to Catholic doctrines) institutions.

That we do Romanists no injustice in assuming that the exclusion of the Bible from the public schools would not long satisfy them, is susceptible of clear proof. Already the question is entering upon a new stage. They loudly affirm that without Catholic instruction the schools are irreligious, infidel, godless. Their oft-repeated assertion is that to the Church belongs the exclusive right to educate the young. One day they affirm, “it is contrary to the genius of our republican government for the majority to dictate to the minority, especially in matters of faith;” the next they shout, “we, the minority, have the God-given right to coerce the majority: the organization and control of all educational agencies belong by divine right to us.” The Tablet contains the following:

“The organization of the schools, their entire internal arrangement and management, the choice and regulation of studies, and the selection, appointment, and dismissal of teachers, belong exclusively to the spiritual authority.”

The Boston Advertiser affirms :

“Catholics would not be satisfied with the public schools, even if the Protestant Bible and every vestige of religious teaching were banished from them.”

The Catholic Telegraph of Cincinnati declares : “It will be a glorious day for the Catholics in this country, when under the blows of justice and morality, our school system will be shivered to pieces. Until then modern Paganism will triumph.”

The Freeman’s Journal speaks as follows:

“Let the public school system go to where it came from—the devil. We want Christian schools, and the State cannot tell us what Christianity is.” Dee. 11, 1869.

“Resolved, That the public or common school system, in New York city, is a swindle on the people, an outrage on justice, a foul disgrace in matter of morals, and that it imports for the State Legistature to abolish it forthwith.”

“There ean be no sound political progress—no permanence in the State, where for any length of time children shall be trained in schools without (the Roman) religion.”

“This country has no other hope, politically or morally, except in the vast and controlling extension of the Catholic religion.”

It is idle to discuss the question of excluding the Bible from our public schools, when evidently those making the demand would not be satisfied if it were granted. Unless, therefore, we are prepared not merely to exclude the Bible and all Protestant text books, but to substitute Catholic instruction in their stead, we might as well abandon all efforts to satisfy the complainants. Do they expect we will sell our birthright? —and for what?—a mess of mummeries? The Constitution of the United States provides as follows: “Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to a good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” What religion? Christianity. What form of Christianity? Protestantism, the parent of constitutional liberty. And who are they who demand the sacrifice of our public school system? Are they the sons of our Protestant forefathers? Are they not foreigners from the priest-ridden countries of Europe? They who owe all they have acquired in the past, all they enjoy in the present, all they hope for in the future, to our free institutions, employ the very liberty we accord them in endeavoring to overturn our liberties.

The Catholics, withdrawing their children, especially in the large cities, from the public schools, and failing to obtain a portion of the fund, began to solicit assistance from Legislatures and Common Councils. With what success these appeals were made, the appropriations of the city and State of New York too plainly show. In 1863, the year of the New York riots, the Common Council donated $78,000 to Roman Catholic institutions. During the year ending Sept. 30, 1866, the Sate of New York paid to Roman Catholic orphan asylums and schools $45,674. In addition to this a special donation of $87,000 was made to the “Society for the Protection of Destitute Roman Catholic Orphan Children.” The entire contribution to the Papal Church this year reached $124,174. The Protestant sects received during the same year $2,367. Shall the State support the Catholic religion? Shall it tax its citizens for the purpose of inculcating doctrines subversive of Republican government? It would be difficult to conceive of injustice greater than this.

In 1867, by enactment of the Legislature of New York, $110 was appropriated to every ward of “The Society for the Protection of Roman Catholic Orphan Children.” For this purpose $80,000 was raised by tax on the city and county of New York. The city leased, in 1846, to the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum, two entire blocks on Fifth Avenue, for ninety-nine years, at one dollar year. Over the entire country the same spirit prevails. Even in the far west, Idaho and Colorado each appropriated $50,000 for Catholic schools.

Catholic consciences, so tender about the tax for public schools, silence their throbbings long enough to allow the acceptance of taxes paid by Protestants to schools intensely sectarian. Hands that would be defiled by touching Protestant Bibles, handle Protestant money with impunity. And they want even more than our money. A bill introduced into the New York Legislature by the party bidding for Catholic votes, and earnestly advocated, proposes a fine of one hundred dollars on any institution, public or private, incorporated or not incorporated, and upon any Protestant guardian, presuming to impart religious instruction to a Roman Catholic child. The faith of the drunken, house-less, shiftless father shall determine the belief of even the child that eats the bread of Protestant charity. Having stolen from our State treasuries large sums for the support of their schools, asylums, and hospitals, why not at once enact a law compelling us to support their poor, and instruct their children in the tenets of Catholicism? As it would he a good speculation, conscience need not make them linger. They who have stolen the chickens might as well take the coop.

And the schools, aided by these munificent donations, are maintained for the express purpose of inculcating the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. In the report (1866) of the “Society for the Protection of Roman Catholic Orphan Children,” this is expressly affirmed. The Freeman’s Journal once said: “This subject (the school question) contains in it the whole question of the progress and triumphs of the Catholic Church in the next generation in this country.” Their schools are strictly sectarian, The Catechism is taught. The children cross themselves before a crucifix. Bowing before an image of the Virgin they repeat, “ Hail, Mary, full of grace, our Lord is with thee, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of death.” In one of their reading books, “Duty of a Christian towards God,” occur these words: “ We sin by irreverence in profaning churches, the relics of the saints, the images, the holy water, and other such things. ….. The use of images is exceedingly beneficial. . . . . . It is good and useful to invoke them (the saints) that we may obtain from God those graces of which we stand in need…… A true child of Mary will say every day some prayers in her honor.” In the Catechism published by Sadlier & Co., N. Y., and taught in their schools, the second commandment, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,” etc., is entirely suppressed. In another text-book we find the following: “What is baptism?” “It is a sacrament which regenerates us in Jesus Christ by giving us the spiritual life of grace, and which makes us the children of God and of the Church.” “ Does baptism efface sin?” “Yes: in children it effaces original sin; and in adults, besides original sin, it effaces all the actual sin which they may have committed before being baptized.” “Is baptism necessary for salvation?” “Yes: it is so necessary for the salvation of men, that even children cannot be saved without receiving it.” “Of whom is this (the Devil’s party) composed?” “Of all the wicked, Pagans, Jews, infidels, heretics, and all bad Christians.” In a “Synopsis of Moral Theology,” prepared for theological students, this question occurs: “Are heretics rightly punished with death?” “St. Thomas says Yes, because forgers of money, and disturbers of the State are justly punished with death; therefore also heretics, who are forgers of the faith, are justly punished with death.” The dogma of Infallibility, and the doctrine of Purgatory are also taught. In one of the Catechisms now in use it is asked, “ Can the Church err in what she teaches?” “No, she cannot err in matters of faith.” “What do you mean by purgatory?” “A middle state of souls suffering for a time on account of their sins.” “Are all the souls in purgatory helped by our prayers?” “Yes, they are.”

Verily, only a Jesuit can see the justice in taxing Protestants for the purpose of making munificent donations—$400,000 in a single city in a single year—to schools in which such instructions are given. And while receiving the gift, they complain piteously of our injustice in denying them the right of converting our common schools into nurseries of Papal superstition.

Catholics by their crouching subserviency to a foreign despot are disqualified from becoming good Republican citizens. Bound by solemn obligations to the only Sovereign whom they can in conscience recognize, loyalty, if indeed it be loyalty, is suspended on the will of the Pope. And he, Peter’s successor, can, says the canon law, dispense with oaths and vows of allegiance, even the most sacred. That this arrogant ruler must of necessity, if faithful to the principles of his Church, claim sovereignty even in temporal affairs over Republicans, even in this country, can be proved beyond contradiction from assertions of eminent Papal writers, from the acts of the Popes, from canon law, and from the decrees of at least eight general Councils.* He wears the triple crown surmounted by the cross. He denominates himself, “Lord of all the earth.” Did ever assumption equal this? All other claims of authority are mere moonshine—a pleasing delusion. When the claims of our country come in collision with his—he being judge—the Catholic must obey the latter on pain of mortal sin, perjury.* Can such slaves ever become good citizens in a free Republic?

* “The spiritual power must rule the temporal, by all means and expedients, when necessary.”—Bellarmine.

“All things defined by the canons and general Councils, and especially by the Synod of Trent (these declare the Pope an absolute temporal Sovereign), I undoubtedly receive and profess; and all things contrary to them I reject and curse. And this Catholic faith I will teach and enforce on my dependents and flock.”—From the oath administered to priests.

And this claim, so resolutely maintained in the past, is adhered to in the present. The Syllabus of 1864, which contains ten general charges, supported by eighty specifications, denominated “damnable heresies,” denounces all the leading ideas of Republicanism, in fact, of modern civilization. It is an indictment of all Protestant educational agencies, of marriage by civil contract, of the independence of Church and State, of freedom of the press, of Bible societies, of the functions of modern legislation, of Democratic forms of government, and of the existing relations between the governed and the governing classes. In a letter addressed to Prosper Gueranger, an ardent defender of the Infallibility dogma, the Pope says: “This madness (Gallicanism, the belief that popular civil authority—often represented by the monarch’s or the state’s authority—over the Catholic Church is comparable to that of the pope) reaches such a height that they undertake to reform even the divine constitution of the Church, and to adapt it to the modern forms of civil government.”

* The Bishop’s oath contains the following: “To the extent of my power, I will observe the Pope’s commands (in temporal as well as spiritual things, for so the Pope explains the oath); and I will make others observe them: and I will persecute all heretics and all rebels to my Lord the Pope.”

“He who prefers a king to a priest, does prefer the creature to the Creator.”—Morn. Exer. on Popery, p. 67.

Evident and well authenticated as is Rome’s claim to temporal power over her subjects, and her consequent inherent hostility to Republicanism, Jesuits, with an effrontery that Satan himself might covet, peremptorily deny it. They pretend to love our form of government, to laud our liberty, and to wish for us a future of success.

Father Hecker—founder of the community of Paulist Fathers, New York, whose special mission it is to bring the steam printing-press to bear upon the spread of the Catholic religion in the United States, and who furnish most of the literary matter for the Publication Society, including tracts, the articles in the Catholic World, and volumes for Sunday schools—in a lecture delivered in Horticultural Hall, Philadelphia (Jan. 19, 1871), entitled “The Church and the Republic,” boldly affirms, in the face of all history, that Protestantism is essentially hostile to Republicanism, and Catholicism its unwearied friend. His only argument, laboriously drawn out to nearly an hour’s length, is summed up in this syllogism :

Protestants teach that man is totally depraved. (Untrue.)
They who believe in total depravity are incapable of self-government. (Untrue.)
Protestants are enemies of Republicanism. (Doubly untrue.)

And what shall we think of the propriety, to say nothing of the honesty, of affirming that Catholicism is the firm friend, the only true friend of Republican forms of government, and of making this assertion at the very time when all Catholics are clamorously shouting that Pius IX. shall be reinstated in temporal power against the will, formally and emphatically expressed, of those whom he proposes to govern? When every Catholic city in the United States, almost every Catholic church, is ringing with protests against what they choose to denominate the robbery of St. Peter, and every means, fair and foul, is employed to induce the Governments of Europe, and even the United States, to demand that the worst despotism which modern times has known, shall be resurrected and forced upon an unwilling people,—at this very time, Father Hecker dares to stand before an audience of American freemen, and affirm, “We Catholics are the truest, the best, the only firm friends of civil liberty, which is the gift of our Church to the world.”

Popery’s hostility to free institutions is manifested in ways almost innumerable. A priest some months ago peremptorily refused to give testimony in a St. Louis court, on the ground that by the authority of the Pope, the priesthood was under no obligation to obey the civil law.* In the city of Boston a man, believed to be a murderer by ninety-nine in every hundred who heard the evidence, was recently acquitted, because, on one trial, two jurors, on the next, one, obstinately refused to unite with the rest in conviction, and apparently, and in the opinion of the lawyers and judges, simply because they belonged to the same brotherhood, the immutable, infallible Church of Rome. During our recent struggle in breaking the chains of slavery—a struggle involving the question of national existence—the Catholics, true to their time-honored principles, proved themselves hostile to our Government. We speak advisedly. We know they boast much of their loyalty. It is indeed true that in the first year of the war many enlisted. Rome had not yet spoken. Carried along by the irresistible tide of patriotism they enthusiastically joined in the cry, “Secession is treason, and must be punished.” In the second year of the war, however, Archbishop Hughes visited Europe. Almost the first intimation we had of his presence at the Vatican was the acknowledgment by the Pope of the independence of the Confederate States. A written benediction was forwarded to Jefferson Davis, addressing him as “Illustrious and Honorable President.”

* “A priest cannot be forced to give testimony before a secular judge.””—Taberna, vol. ii, p. 288.

“A common priest is as much better than a king, as a man is better than a beast.” —Demoulin.

Very soon enlistments among the Irish ceased almost entirely. Desertions became frequent. The entire Catholic population became intensely hostile to the Government. Banded together, they declared, in language not to be mistaken, their determination to resist the draft. Riots were by no means infrequent, and would no doubt have been more numerous but for the apparent hopelessness of the effort to resist the will of the American people. Who inspired this fiendish malevolence? Who instigated outrages like those in New York? Was the Pope’s temporal power unfelt on this continent? Were we not furnished with illustrations frequent and painful that the first allegiance of our Catholic citizens is due to their spiritual sovereign in Rome?

And the assassination of President Lincoln, how strangely is it connected with Rome’s hostility to our Republican Government. The deed planned in the home of a devout Catholic. It was associated in its inception with the prayers and hopes of the Romish Church. One of the prominent actors, aided in his escape by our Catholic enemies in Canada, found refuge in a convent, and afterwards became a soldier in the army of Pius IX. These and other circumstances—all possibly purely fortuitous—taken in connection with the known principles of Romanism and the well-established fact that Catholics, during the last years of the war, were intensely disloyal, certainly reflect little honor on Popery’s ability to inspire devotion to civil liberty. If, as St. Liguori says, “Although a thing may be against God, nevertheless, on account of the virtue of obedience, the subject who does that thing, does not sin,” certainly it is reasonable to believe that Papists prefer the favor of the Pope, even if purchased by unwarrantable means, to the empty gratitude of their adopted country. The editor of the Catholic Quarterly, waxing bold, once said: “Protestants are not to inquire whether the Catholic Church is hostile to civil and religious liberty or not; but whether that Church is founded in divine right. If the Papacy be founded in divine right, it is supreme over whatever is founded only in human right, and then your institutions should be made to harmonize with it, and not it with your institutions… . Liberty of conscience is unknown among Catholics. The word liberty should be banished from the domain of religion. It is neither more nor less than a fiction to say that a man has the right to choose his own religion.”

Popery, to borrow a figure from Augustine, is the proud and gorgeous city of superstition, set over against the Church of God, which it attacks with all the forces which bigotry and malice can invent; or to change the figure, it is a vast political engine, employed in the effort to crush out the liberties of the human race. The Catholic World (endorsed by the highest dignitaries of Rome, including the Pope himself), in the leading article of July, 1870, entitled “The Catholic of the Nineteenth Century,” asserts in unmistakable language the supreme duty of the Papists to obey the commands of the Pope, and seek, in every way, and especially by means of the ballot, to render the Papal policy effective in this country. Its first’ assertion, “The Catholic, like the Church, is one and the same in all ages,” is followed by the still more arrogant affirmation, the Roman Catholic religion is, “with reference to time as well as eternity,” “absolutely perfect,” “as perfect as God.” This is the basis of the obligation, felt by every “dutiful subject,” “to vindicate with property, liberty and life,” the supremacy of the head of the Church. If the Pope’s authority and that of any civil government “come in conflict upon any vital point,” the Papist is to do, “in the nineteenth century, precisely as he did in the first, second, or the third.” Legislation is valid only when in harmony with Catholicism, “ the organic law;” all other is “unjust, cruel, tyrannical, false, vain, unstable, and weak, and not entitled to respect or obedience.” This has one transcendent virtue, clearness. And how is our legislation to be brought into harmony with “the organic law infallibly announced?” By “the mild and peaceful influence of the ballot, directed by instructed Catholic conscience.” And how shall Romanists know which way to vote? “The Catholic Church is the medium and channel through which the will of God is expressed.” His will is announced to men “from the chair of St. Peter.” To what extent must this devotion to Popery be carried? “We do not hesitate to affirm that in performing our duties as citizens, electors, and public officers, we should always and under all circumstances act simply as Catholics.” “The Catholic armed with his vote becomes the champion of faith, law, order, social and political morality, and Christian civilization.” By the ballot he must place “the regulation and control of marriage” where it “exclusively belongs,” in the hands of the Romish priesthood. And the rightful control of marriage “implies, by necessity, the Catholic view of all the relations and obligations growing out of it; the education of the young, the custody of foundlings and orphans, and all measures of correction and reformation applicable to youthful offenders and disturbers of the peace of society.”

Another victory to be achieved by Catholic votes is the destruction of “a godless system of education,” or— which is the same thing—an uncatholic system, and the substitution of the perfect system of that Church which “flatly contradicts the assumption on the part of the State of the prerogative of education.” Nor is this the only arduous task laid on the Catholic voters of the nineteenth century. They are to legislate all existing evils out of the world and into eternal oblivion; red-republicanism, Fourierism, communism, free love, Mormonism, mesmerism, phrenology, spiritism, sentimental philanthropy, sensuality, poverty, and woman’s rights. They propose to vote all men into holiness; if not, certainly into servitude. And then, too, over us Protestants, who freely accord them the privilege of denouncing severally and collectively every institution considered essential to civil liberty, they hope by the omnipotent power of the ballot to erect “a censorship of ideas, and the right to examine and approve or disapprove all books, publications, writings, and utterances intended for public instruction, enlightenment or entertainment, and the supervision of places of amusement.” Champions of liberty! Gladly would we add more quotations from an article, all of which so well deserves the serious consideration of every lover of his country. Want of space forbids. With one, showing the kind of republicanism which the author loves, we close:— “The temporal government of the head of the Church is today (July, 1870) the best in the world.” His subjects evidently thought otherwise.

Catholics are strangely consistent friends of liberty, if we may judge from the riots in New York, July 12th, 1870, the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne, when unoffending Orangemen peacefully celebrating the day commemorative of the victory of William of Orange over James II, and the consequent ascendancy of the Protestant religion, were attacked; some killed and many wounded. And the Catholic papers of the city—where for many long years Catholics have been permitted uninterruptedly to form processions on Sundays, and to celebrate St. Patrick’s and other days, blocking up the streets, excluding Protestants from their own sanctuaries, and making every demonstration calculated to exasperate them—argue, with surprising unanimity, that “this miserable faction ought not to be allowed to madden this nation by their annual celebration.” Have Protestants no rights which Catholics need respect?

It was left, however, for the year 1871, to witness a still more emphatic illustration of the intense devotion felt by our Catholic fellow-citizens to the doctrine of popular liberty. The Orangemen of New York having resolved to celebrate, notwithstanding the riotous proceedings of last year, the anniversary of the defeat of their enemies, nearly two centuries ago, the Roman Catholics announced their determination to suppress a public parade. The city authorities, quailing before the threats of those whose united vote, uniformly cast in the interest of political Romanism, elects to office or consigns to oblivion, surrendered and forbade the procession. “It is given out,” said the superintendent of police, at the dictation of the Mayor, “that armed preparations for defense have been made by the parading lodges.” Was it not first announced, however, that armed preparations had been made for an attack? Is Protestantism destitute of even the right to prepare for self-defense? Must we set it down as a fixed fact that when Catholics object to a procession, and arm for its suppression, it may not occur? And for such liberty New York—its wealth mostly in the hands of Protestants—pays $50,000,000 a year. Another pretext was, that processions in the streets are not matters of right, but merely of toleration. This important legal fact it seems was allowed to sleep in the ponderous tomes of the City Hall till a band of desperadoes chose to announce their determined purpose of preventing the Orange parade. Why was not this decision proclaimed prior to the overwhelming processions of St. Patrick’s day? Why are Catholic parades allowed both in the least frequented and the most important business streets of the city? If the circumstances had been reversed, and Orangemen had threatened a riot if Roman Catholics were permitted to celebrate the honors of Ireland’s patron-saint, who does not know that the city officers would have thundered their determination to defend the inalienable rights of American Citizens? Not less absurd is the pretext, as flimsy as it is specious, that foreign events and feuds are not to be allowed the opportunity of perpetuating their memory on American soil. Were not the Germans permitted, in their boisterous rejoicings over a united fatherland, to flaunt their banners in the very faces of the deeply humiliated and bitterly exasperated Frenchmen?

So intense and wide-spread was the popular indignation—showing that Protestants though submissive are not slaves—that the Governor issued a circular, pledging protection to the much-abused Protestant Irish, promising them the support of the strong arm of the State. The 12th of July, accordingly, witnessed an inspiring scene, the State in her majesty affirming that every class of its citizens, whether Orangemen, Germans, Frenchmen, Chinese, or Hottentots, whether two or ten thousand, should be defended in their rights; that a frenzied mob, though composed of infuriated Romanists, must respect the fundamental principle of American liberty, or take the consequences. The bigoted intolerance of their enemies thus thrust a small but heroic band of Orangemen into a prominence which they had otherwise in all probability never attained; securing for them the warm sympathy of every true patriot. These accidental representatives of a principle ever dear to the American people were escorted—all honor to the Governor of New York—by the militia and police, the superintendent joyously redeeming himself from the deep infamy to which political trickery had so nearly consigned him. Yet, notwithstanding the armed escort, an attack with clubs, brick-bats and firearms was made, necessitating a return fire from the defenders of law and order, and leaving more than a score of dead bodies, and over two hundred wounded, to mark the scene of Popery’s ardent devotion to liberty. Eighth avenue and Twenty-third street witnessed the inculcation of a lesson which it is earnestly hoped will be long remembered alike by Protestants and Catholics; by the former as evincing the spirit of Popery, by the latter as an indication, in fact an emphatic declaration, that Protestants, at least in their own land, will resolutely defend the principles of Republican Government.

We are told, however, that not Romanists, but Hibernians, a class of persons only nominally Catholics, are responsible for the riot and its accompanying horrors; that the priests, foreseeing the dangers, urged their congregations not to interfere with the proposed procession; that Archbishop McCroskry exhorted his flock “to make no counter demonstration of any kind.” He referred, however, with exceeding bitterness to the Orangemen, and expressed it as his deep conviction that the parade ought not to be permitted. It is undeniably true that Catholics, with scarcely a dissenting voice, said, with an emphasis not to be mistaken, “ Protestants as a body shall not parade in the streets of New York.” And the entire Catholic press of New York—the Tablet alone excepted—studiedly ignored the bare existence of Protestant rights. Among the headings of their leading editorials, after the riot, were the following: “Governor Hoffman’s Bloody Procession!” “Is John T. Hoffman, Governor of the State of New York, a Murderer?” “ Hoffman’s Holocaust!” “Hoffman’s Massacre!” “Our Orange Governor!” etc.*

Webmaster’s note: “The Orange Riots took place in Manhattan, New York City, in 1870 and 1871, and they involved violent conflict between Irish Protestants who were members of the Orange Order and hence called “Orangemen”, and Irish Catholics, along with the New York City Police Department and the New York State National Guard. The riot caused the deaths of over 60 civilians – mostly Irish laborers – and three guardsmen.” – Source Wikipedia

* “We call upon the friends of the murdered citizens, by every duty which they owe to society and to themselves, to raise this issue at the proper tribunals of the country, and impeach Gov. Hoffman before a jury of his peers to answer to a charge of murder.”—The Irish People.

The Society, formed on the day of the riot, in Hibernia Tall, “by the unanimous decision of all patriotic Irish soldiers present,” and which, it was affirmed, should prove ‘no delusion,” among others of similar import, unanimously passed the following resolution:— That we call upon all Irishmen in these States to form themselves into a combination for self-protection.”

The psychological explanation of such hearty devotion to liberty we scarcely know how to make. We would sooner attempt to explain how some men— “midway from nothing to the Deity ”—succeed in convincing themselves that they are atheists, notwithstanding the entire class have so far signally failed in persuading the world that a genuine consistent atheist has ever existed. Possibly we might conceive an explanation of the singular phenomenon that human beings, possessed of bodies, living on the earth, eating bread, and drinking laudanum negus, can reason themselves into the belief that they are really idealists, believing that the entire material universe, with its myriad forms of life, is a mere phantom, a conception of their own brain. Nor is it, perhaps, entirely impossible to imagine how some may dream themselves into the belief that God is everything, and everything God; that this impersonal, unconscious Deity sighs in the wind, smiles in the sunbeam, glitters in the dewdrop, rustles in the leaf, moans in the ocean, speaks in the thunder; that each person is part and parcel of God, a visible manifestation of the Invisible, one conscious drop of the unconscious ocean of being, existing for a brief moment between two vast eternities, a past and a future; coming, we know not whence; going, we know not whither, a troubled thought in the dream of half sleeping nature; sinking, like the ripple on the ocean, upon the heaving bosom of emotionless Infinitude. We might even venture a defense, or at least an apology, of the custom prevalent in Siam, of exposing the mother, for one month after the delivery of a child, on a cushionless bench before a roasting fire. Nay, we might even undertake to explain the couvade—a custom widely prevalent in the thirteenth century, and even now, Max Muller informs us, extant among the Mau-tze; according to which the father of a new-born child, as soon as its mother regains her accustomed strength, goes to bed, and there, fed on gruel, tapioca, and that quintessence of insipidness, panada, receives the congratulations of his friends. Even this custom, ridiculous as it is, and which prompted Sir Hudibras to say,—

“Chinese go to bed,
And lie-in in their ladies’ stead,”

is susceptible of an explanation at least semi-rational. But how to explain the idiosyncrasies of our Irish fellow-citizens, how to reconcile their conduct with their oft reiterated protestations of devotion to civil liberty, we know not. Call that liberty which has naught of liberty save its name, which has all of despotism save its manliness! Such faith as that which prompts Catholics to denominate Popery the stanch defender of freedom—if it be faith—we have seldom, if indeed ever, found, certainly not among Protestant Americans, scarcely among the Communists of Paris, or the enlightened citizens of Terra del Fuego.

And what interpretation shall be given to this sad, this long-drawn wail of the Papal Church, in all parts of the United States, over the Pope’s loss of temporal power?* As he and the Catholic Episcopate have declared the civil sovereignty indispensably necessary to the due exercise of his rightful spiritual supremacy, these liberty-loving Americans—having escaped from the cruel oppression of Catholic governments to proclaim themselves the stanch friends of liberty—are holding meetings, in cathedrals, in public squares, forming processions, making speeches, and signing protests against—what?— Against that cruel despotism which has for centuries disgraced the “States of the Church ?” No; against the liberation of a people who have been long hoping and struggling for freedom, and who have been kept down, only by foreign bayonets in the hands of Catholics, by the ill-fated Napoleon, and the misguided Papal Zouaves.

* The Archbishop of Baltimore, in a plea with Catholic ladies, affirms :— Their Father in Christ, like St. Peter, is in chains, robbed of the very necessaries of life, reduced to the very verge of want, and almost—starvation, and wholly at the mercies of his enemies, who are also the enemies of Christ, and of all religion, and all virtue.” To call this a liberal draft upon an excited imagination is too mild, too charitable entirely.

And these protests—”full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” reiterating for the thousandth time the infamous falsehood, “The Church in chains,” “Peter in prison,” and entirely ignoring the rights of the people who have deliberately chosen Italian unity —all claim temporal power for the Pope; many, sanctioned by office-hunting politicians, even. denying the validity of any plebiscitum (law enacted by the common people, under the superintendence of a tribune or some subordinate plebeian magistrate, without the intervention of the senate) against the Pope’s sovereign rights, even when fairly and freely taken.* Certainly these lengthy and carefully prepared documents—now crowding the pages of every Catholic paper, and making them, which is evidently needless, even more intensely political than ever before—may be legitimately denominated, The solemn Protest of American Papists against Republican forms of Government, against the Liberties of the People.

What is to be the end of all this bluster and war of words? If the Catholic papers are to be believed, there is to be no rest—movements creating sentiment, sentiment distilling into purpose, purpose developing into action, war in Italy, crusades from America, havoc and bloodshed—till the Vicar of Christ is again on his throne.+

*In the Philadelphia protest, read at a meeting which, according to the Freeman’s Journal, numbered 30,000, this language occurs:— “We do not believe that the ‘States of the Church’ ever did, or now do, desire Italian unity ; but even if they did, they had no right to demand it.”

“If there is nothing but a stupid grunt in response to the call of God, then there will be in this land of ours either a bloody persecution or an infamous apostasy.””—Freeman’s Journal, Feb. 11, 1871.

All over Europe men are volunteering to join the crusade against popular government. Funds are pouring into the Pope’s treasury. The faithful, even in democratic America, are asked to contribute. And the response has been such as to inspire bishops and archbishops, and even the despondent Pope himself, with new energy and fresh hopes. In Baltimore, at the Pontifical Jubilee, (the twenty-fifth anniversary of the accession of Pius IX. to the Papal throne,) that “beam from the immortal throne of St. Peter,” that “jewel fit to be placed in the Tiara,” when, according to Catholic authority, “twenty thousand, by receiving communion for Our Holy Father, promised to do all in their power to effect his restoration,” sixty men, dressed in the uniform of the Papal Zouve, knelt by the communion rails in St. James, “not as an idle pageant, not for mere form’s sake, but to proclaim what they and the Catholic Church will do when the time comes. By this they have given pledge of their espousal of the cause of the captive Pontiff.”* St. Peter, a new Catholic paper of New York, says:—“ To say it (the crusade) is not necessary, is equivalent to denying the necessary right of self-defense. Catholics have, by degrees, seen themselves despoiled by the revolution of their most precious rights. We have been patient, but we will not be slaves. What form the new crusade may take we know not; but a crusade there truly will be to deliver the Sepulcher of Peter and the Catholic world.”

* “This is not an act of transitory fervor, or the enthusiasm of the hour. By this act the Catholics of the United States of America have taken their stand with those of Europe and Canada. The fervor and enthusiasm of the hour will settle down into permanent and determined resolve, and by union with all parts of Christendom take a tangible and defined purpose. It is what the Pope predicted in saying that if union of action, resulting from identity of thought and feeling, be amongst Catholics, the gates of hell shall not prevail.” —Correspondence of Freeman’s Journal, July 8, 1871.

And the methods employed in securing funds for this and similar holy purposes are indeed worthy the inventive genius of St. Dominic. Among others, all shrewd, the raffle for the Pope’s sacred snuff-box strikes the infidel world as characteristically ingenious. The Prisoner Pope, “the most august of the poor,” gave, March 17, 1871, to Dr. Giovanni Acquiderni, President of the upper council of the association of the Catholic youth of Italy, “his gold snuff-box, exquisitely carved with two symbolic lambs in the midst of flowers and foliage,” to be disposed of for the benefit of Holy Mother Church. Dr. Acquiderni, “ anxious speedily to fulfil the sacred desire of the octogenarian Father and Pontiff,” opened a general subscription of offerings of one franc each, All good Catholics in the United States were earnestly exhorted to contribute twenty cents, and thereby secure a chance of one day possessing this sacred souvenir. They were assured—lest possibly lack of confidence might lessen the subscription—that “at the completion of the Pontifical Jubilee, Dr. Acquiderni will have an urn prepared containing as many tickets as there may be franc offerings, and in the presence of a Notary Public, proceed to the extraction of the fortunate name that will indicate the new possessor of the snuff-box of Pope Pius IX., which will be immediately sent to the address marked after his signature in the subscription list.”

What Patrick or Bridget was the fortunate drawer of this matchless prize, the uninitiated have not yet learned. Infallibility—if it is important the world should know—will no doubt inform us, explaining, perchance, at the same time the full import of those two symbolic lambs, symbols of a world-wide crusade.

As Protestants we have no fears. If Popery, in defying the common conscience of humanity, resisting the spirit of the age, and challenging the scorn of its own most liberal-minded men, wishes to commit suicide, let it go on.

Already Catholics, “standing afar off,” in Ireland, England, Germany, Oregon, Washington, New York, Philadelphia, in every country and city, are mournfully exclaiming, “Alas, alas! that great city, that mighty city, for in one hour is thy judgment come.”

Nor has Romanism shown less hostility to another principle of our national life, the separation of Church and State. This, which Protestants have ever viewed as one of the defenses of civil liberty, has been and now is the object of incessant attack. Almost every Pope for the last thousand years has pronounced it a “damnable heresy.” Schleigel, a member of the Leopold Foundation, in lecturing to the crowned heads of Europe with the design of showing the mutual supports which Popery and monarchy lend to and receive from each other, said:—“Church and State must always be united, and it is essential to the existence of each that a Pope be at the head of the one, and an Emperor at the head of the other. . . . Protestantism and Republicanism is the cause and source of all the discords, and disorders and wars of Europe.” (Vol. iii. Lect. 17, p. 286.) Again:—“ The real nursery of all these destructive principles, the revolutionary schools of France and the rest of Europe, has been North America.” This Antichrist, the union of Church and State, even the Pope St. Gregory himself being witness, was cradled in Rome.

Of Popery’s opposition to the freedom of the press, the free circulation of the Bible, and liberty of conscience, we have no time to speak. These may find a place in our next Chapter. Our task, in proving Romanism hostile to Republicanism, is completed. Further proof is needless. It must certainly be evident to every one of our fellow-citizens that where the principles and spirit of Popery attain full power, Republicanism must soon perish, and over her grave, the grave of man’s hopes for this life, the lordly priest, representative of civil and ecclesiastical despotism, shall exultingly shout, “Thus always: Popery ALONE HAS PERMANENCY.”

Chapter III. The papacy a foe to religious liberty.

WE presume it is already manifest to every unbiased reader that Romanism is a necessary and determined enemy of all liberty, civil and religious. Her cardinal principle takes away the right of private judgment, denying the subject the privilege of even obeying the clear teachings of conscience, thus forbidding him to use the very faculties God has given him, and for the proper exercise of which he alone is accountable. The people must receive their opinions from, and rely implicitly upon the priests; these are under the spiritual authority of bishops, and these under the Pope. Hence he alone has the right to think,—he alone has liberty: his is absolute. The people have an existence merely for the good of Christ’s vicegerent on earth, who owns them soul and body, life and property.

Rome—certainly none will deny—proves herself an enemy of religious liberty by condemning the use of the Bible. The Council of Trent declared:—“ It is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it.” Accordingly they condemn its use, and do everything in their power to prevent people from reading it. Societies for its publication and distribution have been repeatedly condemned by the Pope. Surely an enemy of the Bible is an enemy of all liberty—personal and national.

And this hostility to the inspiring cause of all true liberty is unmistakably evinced even in the full-orbed light of this nineteenth century, and in this Protestant country, which owes its greatness to the unfettered Word of God. A warfare, bitter, unrelenting, almost fiendish, has been waged for years against its reading in our common schools. Even in their own schools, though catechisms and crucifixes and rosaries are abundant, the Bible, even their own version, is a rare book.

With separate organizations for almost everything, the Romish Church has no society for the distribution of God’s will to men. In fact, they have never yet published, in the vernacular, an authorized edition, without note or comment.* Here is an extract from the version in general use :—‘ Images, pictures or representations, even in the house of God and in the very sanctuary, so far from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the Word of God.” (Comment on Second Commandment.)

* St. Liguori says:—“ The Scriptures, and books of controversy, may not be permitted in the vernacular tongue, as also they cannot be read without permission.” Cardinal Bellarmine declares:—“ The Catholic Church forbids the reading of the Scriptures by all, without choice, or the public reading or singing of them in vulgar tongues, as it is decreed in the Council of Trent.”

And even the burning of Bibles is not yet one of the lost arts; and the immutable Church seems loath to allow it to become such. In the year 1842 (Oct. 27), at Champlain, N. Y., according to a statement prepared and published by four respectable citizens appointed for that purpose, a pile of Bibles, brought from the priest’s house, was set on fire, and in open day, and in the presence of many spectators, burned to ashes. And the last year witnessed in unhappy Popery-cursed Spain a similar “act of faith,” accompanied by various Catholic ceremonies, and a tremendous philippic (a fiery, damning speech, or tirade) against the execrable heretics.

Liguori, one of Rome’s canonized saints, author of the “Glories of Mary,” and of a standard text-book on Moral Theology, exclaims with holy horror:—“ How many simple girls, because they have learned to read, have lost their souls.” The Freeman’s Journal once said:— “The Bible Society is the deepest scheme ever laid by Satan in order to delude the human family, and bring them down to his eternal possession.” Bishop Spotswood affirmed :—”I would rather a half of the people of this nation should be brought to the stake and burned, than one man should read the Bible and form his judgments from its contents.”

Catholicism is opposed to freedom of conscience. The Protestant Church holds—in fact the true Church in all ages has held—that God alone is Lord of the conscience, that this right He will not share with another, and that man should allow no miserable, arrogant human tyrant to usurp the throne of his Maker. Romanism, however, resembles all false religions in claiming the right to rule over the individual conscience; utterly denying its adherents the privilege of having any opinions except according to rules prescribed by an infallible Church. One of the recent Popes declared that “liberty of conscience is an absurd and dangerous maxim; or rather the ravings of delirium.” A bishop in the Council of Trent said, with the concurrence and approbation of the holy (?) fathers: —“Laymen have nothing to do but to hear and submit.” The New York Tablet recently informed its readers:—“There is no difference of opinion on this subject (the temporal power of the Pope), for we do not allow any difference on such questions. The decrees of the Church forbid it.” Father Farrel, of St. Joseph’s Church, New York, for the mortal sin of having written (Jan. 12, 1871) an exceedingly mild approval of a public meeting in favor of Italian Unity, was peremptorily ordered by Archbishop McCloskey—three holy fathers, the council summoned to try the case, and several politicians demanding the order—to retract his liberal ideas, that every people had a right to choose its own rulers, or immediately withdraw from the Church. So then there is only one mind, only one conscience in the Catholic Church. Priests are simply mirrors, to reflect the opinions and aims of His Infallibility, Pope Pius IX. What freedom can men retain after thus yielding the right of private judgment— after surrendering conscience? Very appropriately does one born in Catholicity, educated in her doctrines, and still in the enjoyment of her services, ask:—“ How long is this enlightened spirit of the nineteenth century to continue pandering to such narrow bigotry and prejudice as this?”

Romanism shows itself an enemy of religious liberty, by opposing the freedom of the press. Protestantism courts the light, loves the truth, and invites discussion, believing that error is inherently weak, and cannot present arguments which will sway the enlightened conscience of the educated masses. It is willing that the two should enter the lists, well assured that the former will gain an easy victory. Of the freedom of the press, it is, therefore, the stanch defendant; it has nothing to fear from discussion; everything to hope. On the other hand, of this liberty the Pope is a deadly foe. He denominates it “that fatal license of which we cannot entertain too much horror.” Weak, indeed, must be the cause which dares not undertake its own defense; corrupt must be the Church that endeavors to shut out the light of God; insecure must be the foundations of a system of religion which dreads, and, as far as lies in its power, prohibits public discussion. And assuredly this hatred of a free press is thoroughly antagonistic to the spirit of the age.

Nor are Papists less hostile to another support of religious liberty, the education of the masses. Rome detests the very term, popular education. Her maxim is, “Ignorance is the mother of devotion and order.” Accordingly, we nowhere find in Catholic countries good public school systems. They are the glory of Protestant lands. In this respect compare Spain with England; France with Prussia; Lower Canada with New England; Ireland with Scotland. In Protestant countries the people are intelligent, thrifty, industrious, moral; in Roman Catholic nations the masses are poor, degraded, ignorant, vicious. In Canada East, it is said, not more than one in ten can read; in Italy not one in fifty. In Ireland there reigns, even in this day, the ignorance, superstition and brutality of the dark ages. In Spain, out of a population of less than sixteen millions, according to the last census, more than twelve millions can neither read nor write. Certainly none will deny that such ignorance endangers civil and religious liberty.

In face of these, and countless similar facts which might be adduced, how astounding the frequent assertions of the Papal literature of the present day! The Catholic World, a monthly magazine published in New York, actually has the hardihood to affirm that Catholicism has ever shown itself the guardian of civilization, the friend of liberty, the advocate of Republican forms of government; that it fosters science, encourages education, and places no shackles on reason. And the same periodical denounces, in unmeasured terms, the civilization of the present day, defends the Crusades, advocates the dogma of Infallibility, asserts and reasserts the immutability of the Church, fights our common school system, and is ready to deluge Italy in blood to secure the restoration of the Pope to temporal power. Does warmth of devotion to the cause of Republicanism such as this enkindle a flame on liberty’s altar? Do we broil our beefsteak by the glowing fires of an arctic iceberg? Shall we entrust the cause we love to the hands of its enemies ?

Protestantism, now as ever, boldly presents itself to the world, challenging the fullest investigation; demanding an unfettered press, an open Bible, a free platform, an untrammelled conscience, liberal education, full discussion and fair play, having faith to believe that truth will ultimately triumph. Romanism fetters the limbs of freedom, represses independence of thought, trammels conscience, cuts the nerve of individual energy, and saps the foundations of all true liberty. Father Farrel presumes to breathe the hope that Italy may be free, and is summarily decapitated. A German writes “Janus,” an unanswerable refutation of Papal infallibility ; his work is placed in the list of condemned books, and Papists forbidden to read it. Hyacinthe conscientiously endeavors to bring the Church of his love into harmony with the spirit of the age, to extract the molar teeth from the growling despot, and is excommunicated. E. Ffoulkes candidly writes his impressions of Romanism; he is excommunicated and his book condemned. Thus Popery treats her own sons.

Without religious liberty, to which Romanism has ever shown herself an enemy, civil liberty is manifestly impossible. To establish the most perfect system of Republicanism in Spain, or Ireland, would be to cast pearls before swine. Despotism, government by brute force, is the only government fitted, or in fact possible, to those who, having sold reason and conscience, are ignorant, prejudiced, superstitious, passionate, brutal. Thus the Roman Catholic Church is at once a school and an engine of despotism. So long as it retains sway, promulgating its doctrines, civil liberty is a boon beyond the reach of its subjects, nay, would in fact be, as it once proved in France, and may again soon, their greatest curse. What Catholic countries need is education, virtue and individual self-restraint, at once fitting for, and bringing after them, true, lasting, heaven-bestowed freedom.

With an apt quotation from Gattini, the noted Italian, we close this chapter:— “Civilization asks what share the Papacy has taken in its work. Is it the press? Is it electricity? Is it steam? Is it chemical analysis? Ts it free trade? Ts it self-government? Is it the principle of nationality? Is it the proclamation of the rights of man? Of the liberty of conscience? Of all this the Papacy is the negation.” *

* Father Hyacinthe, in a letter addressed to Bishops, urging reforms, says:—”The result, if these documents (the Encyclical and Syllabus) were treated seriously, would be to establish a radical incompatibility between the duty of a faithful Catholic and the duty of an impartial student and free citizen.”

Chapter IV. Popery and morality.

THE author of the “Invitation Heeded” entitles one of his chapters, “The Church the Guardian of Morals.” Whatever effect his argument may have had upon others, there is one whom it has signally failed in convincing. With even increased boldness, we now affirm that Popery is unfriendly to morality. We do not affirm that Romanists are enemies of private and public morals; nor deny that many are extremely exemplary, patterns of goodness; nor even assert that they knowingly advocate a system which is far less efficient than Protestantism in wedding its adherents to a life of morality. We make the assertion, however, without the fear of refutation, that Romanism, as a system, has failed in reforming the morals of the masses. It has been frequently said in certain quarters that Protestantism is a failure, what then shall be said of Popery? As a moral educator, her failure is deplorable. Compare Mexico and South America with the United States; Italy with New England; Spain with Scotland ; the Protestant counties of Ireland with those mostly Popish; Ulster with Tipperary.

In Roman Catholic Belgium there are, we are officially informed, eighteen murders to a million of the population; in France thirty-one; in Bavaria thirty-two; In Italy fifty-two; in Protestant England four. The illegitimate births in Brussels are thirty-five in the hundred; in Paris thirty-three; in Vienna fifty-one; in England five. In Chicago, according to the report of the Superintendent of Police, the Irish, who are about one-tenth of the entire population, supplied, in the year 1867, one hundred and seventy-four more offenders than all the other nationalities together. During the month in which the report was rendered (September), one in eight of the Catholic voters reported at the police court. Are Papists worse in Chicago than in the other cities of the Union? The Irish Republic says, “No.”

The Westminster Gazette, a Roman Catholic journal, recently made the following acknowledgment:— “The neglected children of London are chiefly our children, and the lowest of every class, whether thieves or drunkards, are Catholics.”

The Pope’s own city, it is well known, has been in the past, and is now, extremely immoral. His Holiness, Alexander VI., for eleven years the occupant of the Papal chair, the anointed head of the so-called true Church, the pretended successor of Peter, gave a splendid entertainment to fifty public prostitutes in the halls of the Holy Vatican. And in our own day no caricatures are so much enjoyed in Rome as those at the expense of the priesthood ; no stories are too astounding to be believed, if against priests and cardinals; no cry is so emphatic and frequent as this:—“Down with the priests.” When those claiming sanctity, wearing the honors of the Church, careful in the observance of her forms, and zealous in extending her influence, are, many of them, openly or secretly immoral, what is to be expected from the lower classes? If, according to one of their own historians, Baronius, “ He was usually called a good Pope, who did not excel in wickedness the worst of the human kind;” if moral character is not an essential qualification of a legitimate priest, but spiritual blessings of incalculable value may be pronounced by the tongue that an hour before, in a drunken revel, cursed its Maker; if grace flows through an unbroken succession direct from Peter, unimpeded in its blessed flow, as it streams from the jewelled fingers of a mitered monster of iniquity, then assuredly unbridled wickedness is excusable in the laity. Can they see any beauty in such holiness that they should desire it? To what organized iniquity do these remarkable words refer— “Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth?”

That profanity should prevail in Catholic countries none need wonder. The Popes have set examples that may challenge the blasphemous ingenuity of the most hardened reprobate.* Cursing—solemnly and deliberately done, but cursing none the less—seems to be one of the functions of their office. The Bull of Excommunication, dated Oct. 12, 1869, pronounces damnation upon all apostates and heretics, thus separating not only from the Church on earth, but from the Church in heaven, eight hundred millions of the human race, cutting them off, as Romanism affirms, from all rational hope of salvation. Even this, alas! does not exhaust his power of cursing. He fulminates a particular anathema against all who knowingly possess or read any book condemned by himself or his predecessors.

*Take the cursing and excommunication of the Pope’s alummaker as a specimen :—“ May God the Father curse him! May God the Son curse him! May the Holy Ghost curse him! May the Holy Cross curse him! May the Holy and Eternal Virgin Mary curse him! May St. Michael curse him! May John the Baptist curse him! May St. Peter, and St. Paul, and St, Andrew, and all the Apostles curse him! May all the martyrs and confessors curse him! May all the saints from the beginning of time to everlasting curse him! May he be cursed in the house, and in the fields! May he be cursed while living, and while dying! May he be cursed in sitting, in standing, in lying, in walking, in working, in eating, in drinking! May he be cursed in all the powers of his body, within and without! May he be cursed in the hair of his head, in his temples, his eyebrows, his forehead, his checks, and his jaw-bones, his nostrils, his teeth, his lips, his throat, his shoulders, his arms, his wrists, his hands, his breast, his stomach, his reins, . . . his legs, his feet, his joints, his nails! May he be cursed from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot! May heaven and all the powers therein rise against him to damn him, unless he repent and make satisfaction! Amen.”—Spelman’s Glossary, p. 206. If this poor man is not suffering in the deepest pit of hell, it’s not the Pope’s fault. He was well cursed. If there is any hope, even the faintest, then the righteous indignation, the foaming fulminations of an infallible Pope, are harmless; then we more fortunate heretics may safely despise the feeble anathems pronounced against us.

As the interdicted list contains books in most of the cultivated languages, both ancient and modern, and upon almost every subject—Science, History, Religion, Morals, Metaphysics, and Literature, including most of our standard classics—down go the hopes of by far the greater number of educated Papists the world over. And then too, all who impede the work of the Church, directly or indirectly, especially such as subject priests to trial before civil courts—which even Catholic nations are now doing—are honored with a special malediction, sealing the fate of many millions more. That only a select few may escape a sound cursing, other classes also are pronounced anathema, all members of secret societies—Free Masons, Odd Fellows, Orangemen, and even his own dear children, Ribbonmen and Fenians. Still further to narrow the number of the elect, a curse is pronounced upon all who hold converse with excommunicated persons, upon all guilty of simony, and upon all ecclesiastics presuming to grant absolution to excommunicants, except in the article of death. The whole immense power of the keys is exerted, it would seem, in peopling the regions of the lost. “The Infallible teacher of faith and morals,” “the only mouth-piece of divine mercy,” dams more than four-fifths of the human family.

Nor is the character of Rome’s stanch adherents, the Jesuits, any less worthy of reprehension. Having taken one of the most solemn oaths ever administered of unflinching fidelity to the interests of “Mother Church,” they are thenceforth dead to every sentiment of virtue, to every motive of honor, to every feeling of humanity, unless these are means for the accomplishment of their deep-seated schemes of Popish aggrandizement. They have no love of morality, no fear of God before their eyes, no chord of sympathy with suffering humanity; they are simply, and almost solely, unprincipled, unreasoning, but shrewd, energetic, untiring devotion to Rome. Inheriting from their illiterate founder, Ignatius Loyola, a fanaticism the blindest conceivable – and for that very reason the most intense possible—they have been during all the years of their existence one of the greatest curses Europe has been called upon to endure.*

* The Parliament of France, in ordering their expulsion from the Empire (1762), set forth their moral character as follows:— “The consequences of their doctrines destroy the law of nature; break all bonds of civil society; authorize lying, theft, perjury, the utmost uncleanness, murder and all sins! Their doctrines root out all sentiments of humanity; excite rebellion; root out all religion; and substitute all sorts of superstition, blasphemy, irreligion and idolatry.”

Lord Macaulay says :— “It was alleged, and not without foundation, that the ardent public spirit which made the Jesuit regardless of his case, of his liberty, and of his life, made him also regardless of truth and of mercy ; that no means which could promote the interests of his religion seemed to him unlawful, and that by these interests he too often meant the interests of his society. It was alleged that, in the most atrocious plots recorded in history, his agency could be distinctly traced; that, constant only in attachment to the fraternity to which he belonged, he was in some countries the most dangerous enemy of freedom, and in others the most dangerous enemy of order. . . . Instead of toiling to elevate human nature to the noble standard fixed by Divine precept and example, he had lowered the standard till it was beneath the average level of human nature. . . . In truth, if society continued to hold together, if life and property enjoyed any security, it was because common sense and common humanity restrained men from doing what the Society of Jesus assured them they might with a safe conscience do.”—Vol. i., chap. 6

Some, perhaps, may be inclined to account for the increased prevalence of crime in Roman Catholic countries, by assigning other causes than the influence of the Romish Church. But certainly human nature is the same in all lands; and while external influences and modifying circumstances may indeed in some measure affect the state of morals, it is inconceivable that these should universally operate, in all climates and in all ages, to the evident greater deterioration of lands under the rule of the Pope. The conclusion is irresistible, that these gross immoralities are the result, the natural fruit of Rome’s teaching. The whole system tends to produce exactly this state of things. When men believe that the favor of heaven can be purchased for a few paltry dimes, why should they endeavor to secure it by a life of self-denying virtue? Why follow the despised, humble and meanly-attired Jesus, in the narrow way, with few companions, when taught from early infancy to believe that the gay, the worldly, and even the immoral, being within the Church, are sure of entering the bliss of heaven? With no just sense of the heinousness of sin as a violation of divine law; with no fear of the righteous indignation of Almighty God, in fact, with conscience thoroughly debauched by the teachings of the priest, what shall restrain them from the commission of any crimes they may desire to commit? Could any system be devised better fitted to spread vice, disorder and crimes; to dissolve the bonds of society? If men were left without any religion, it is believed that even the natural conscience, unenlightened by divine revelation, would prompt to a purer code of morals than that of Rome.

Another powerful agent in producing these abounding immoralities, there can be no doubt, is the confessional. The influence of this can be only bad, both on the minds of those who recount all their sins to the confessor, and on the mind of the priest. The heart of Father Confessor is a receptacle for all the villanies and immoralities of an entire congregation. If these do not corrupt even one who holds his office under the authority of St. Peter, he must be more than human. But, alas! we have innumerable evidences all around us that priests are men of like passions with others. Defiled in mind by becoming familiar with forms of sin, the listener becomes the tempted; the tempted becomes the tempter.

And the maxims laid down for the direction of confessors in the discharge of their duties with the faithful are worthy a passing notice. “After a son has robbed his father, as a compensation, the confessor need not enforce restitution, if he has taken no more than the just recompense of his labor.” “Servants may steal from their masters as much as they judge their labor is worth more than the wages they receive.” There would seem to be some virtue in doing the deed secretly.+ Are we to infer that Papists, like the ancient Spartans, deem theft honorable, if so adroitly done as to escape detection? And how convenient the standard by which to determine how much may be taken without sin—as much as the Catholic judges his or her services worth more than the wages received. Some servants, under such instruction, learn to set a very high estimate on their labors. Not only may servants steal from their employers, but wives may from their husbands. “A woman may take the property of her husband to supply her spiritual wants, and to act as other women act.”

+The Catechism approved by French Bishops—their catechisms, like their prayer-books, are unnumbered—asks, “Is one always guilty of robbery when he takes the property of another? No. It might happen that he whose goods he takes has no right to object. For instance, when he takes in secret of his neighbor by way of compensation.”

According to the moral theology of Liguori, “To strike a clergyman is sacrilege;” but, “It is lawful for a person to sell poison to one who, he believes, will use it for bad purposes, provided the seller cannot refrain from selling it without losing his customer.” It is likewise lawful to keep a concubine, to shelter prostitutes, to rent them a house, and to carry messages between them and their gallants. “In case of doubt whether a thing which is commanded be against the commandment of God, the subject is bound to obey the command of his superior.” The same high authority assures us that gambling, betting, disobedience of parents, gluttony, vain-glory, hypocrisy, opening another’s letters, babbling, scurrility, and the ordination of drunkards and debauchees to the priesthood, are lawful under certain circumstances. Condemning the Wycliffites for opposing simony, he makes an excuse for its prevalence in the Romish Church. “A voluntary confession to a priest,” he affirms, “is a sign of contrition.”

For the practical carrying out of their cherished principle, “The end justifies the means,” the injured Catholic may read, “ If a calumniator will not cease to publish calumnies against you, you may fitly kill him, not publicly, but secretly, to avoid scandal.” Again :— “It is lawful to kill an accuser, whose testimony may jeopardize your life and honor.” And to make this code of infamous morals as convenient as possible, it is further affirmed:— “In all the above cases, when a man has a right to kill any person, another may do it for him, if affection move the murderer.”

We know it may indeed be said, these precepts are not widely known, nor generally practiced; they are only found in Rome’s books; they are merely a portion of the legacy of the dark ages, and to hold Rome to account for them is, in every sense, and to the highest degree, unfair. No, not unfair; for immutability changes not, and a Church which assumes the right to place its ban on every immoral issue from the press, to tell the world what to believe, what to read, and now to act, and has gone to the most distant publishing houses of the civilized world to drag thence for condemmation the principles of Protestantism, might surely take the trouble to expunge these and similar teachings from books written by her own sons, and once sanctioned.

The practice of the Popes in dispensing with oaths, obligations and contracts, and absolving, subjects from allegiance to their lawful sovereigns in cases where kings rebel against the authority of Rome, has had no little influence in producing immoralities. It is a principle with Rome that “no faith is to be kept with heretics.”*

* Gregory IX. decreed :—“Be it known to all who are under the dominion of heretics, that they are set free from every tie of fealty and duty to them; all oaths and solemn agreement to the contrary notwithstanding.” Pope Innocent VIII, in his bull against the Waldenses, gave his nuncio full authority “to absolve all who are hound by contract to assign and pay anything to them.” Gregory VII., in a solemn council held at Rome, enacted:—“We, following the statutes of our predecessors, do, by our Apostolic authority, absolve all those from their oath of fidelity who are bound to excommunicate persons, either by duty or oath, and we loose them from every tie of obedience.” Martin V. says:—“Be assured thou sinnest mortally, if thou keep thy faith with heretics.”

And this dogma of Roman Infallibility has on several occasions been practically interpreted. John Huss was conducted to the Council of Constance, under the solemn pledge of protection from the Emperor. The Council, however, condemned the reformer as a heretic, and ordered him to be burned at the stake. In vain the Emperor interposed, pleading his pledged word of honor. It was solemnly decreed:—”The person who has given the safe conduct to come thither shall not, in this case, be obliged to keep his promise, by whatever tie he may have been engaged;” and poor Huss perished in the flames! Did ever ingenuity in devising rules of casuistry excel this? It is only equalled by the treachery of Judas. And even he, without attempting a defense of faithlessness, exclaimed, in the bitterness of remorse, “I have sinned.” But Rome, to this day, has never expressed the slightest regret in having—not merely on this occasion, but on hundreds of others—deliberately broken faith, and consigned to the rack, the dungeon, or the flames those whose only crime was, that they loved Christ, the Bible, and a pure Christianity more than the Scarlet Mother on the seven hills of Rome.

In remembrance of such deeds, it is with a sense of holy satisfaction that the follower of Jesus reads, “Her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” And the prayer of the devout soul is, “Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly;” vindicate truth and justice; let the angel’s voice be heard above the waves of earth’s turmoil, saying, “Is fallen, is fallen, Babylon the great.”

Did space permit we might easily prove that unblushing atheism is a natural fruit of Popery. In every Catholic country of the present day the more intelligent classes are either infidel or atheistic. Without pausing to ascertain whether Popery is condemned or taught in Scripture, but presuming it is all it claims to be, the only form of religion having the sanction of the Bible, they deliberately reject God’s Word as a guide to morality, holiness and happiness. To receive as a boon from our Father in heaven a book which, it is believed, wrongly indeed, yet firmly believed, sanctions such enormities, is justly considered a slander on the Creator. Accordingly, they look upon it as a cunningly devised fable, admirably adapted to bind the fetters of despotism on an ignorant people, precisely fitted to uphold and enrich an arrogant priesthood, but no guide to the sin-burdened soul on the way to eternal favor with God. Some, however, of the educated in Romish countries, perhaps the greater number, do not pause short of atheism. In rejecting a system of religion which cannot command even common respect, they, alas! reject also the triune God, who, although worthy the devout homage of every heart, is so dishonored by those who profess to serve him, as to be despised by those outside the Church claiming to be his. By the excesses of Popery they are drawn away from the Bible and God, and driven into atheism. Consciously or unconsciously they have reasoned, if this be the true religion of the true God (and they who claim talent, knowledge and piety so affirm), then we deliberately prefer to believe there is no God. The atheism, which, in the bloody excesses of the French Revolution, disgraced humanity, was the legitimate offspring of Romanism.

With the testimony of Coleridge as to the ruinous moral effects of Popery, we close :—”When I contemplate the whole system of Romanism as it affects the great principles of morality, the terra firma, as it were, of our humanity; then trace its operations on the sources and conditions of human strength and well being; and lastly, consider its woeful influence on the innocence and sanctity of the female mind and imagination; on the faith and happiness, the gentle fragrancy and unnoticed ever-present verdure of domestic life, I can with difficulty avoid applying to it the Rabbi’s fable of the fratricide, Cain—that the firm earth trembled wherever he trod, and the grass turned black beneath his feet.”

Chapter V. Popery unchanged.

IN some respects Popery has indeed changed, notwithstanding her boasted claim of immutability. Pius IX, the world’s “infallible teacher in faith and morals,” though the successor of Gregory VII, would find exceeding great difficulty in forcing a modern Henry IV. to stand in the court of his palace, hungry and shoeless, humbly pleading during three successive days from morning till night—the Holy Father meanwhile enjoying the society of an intelligent, beautiful, honored countess, his illegitimately endeared friend— for the superlative privilege of kissing the toe of him, “appointed of heaven to pull down the pride of kings.” Popery, so far as regards the respect it is able to command, has greatly changed since the twelfth century, when kings considered themselves honored in being permitted to lead by the bridle rein the sacred horse, or even the holy mule, that bore Christ’s Vicar. Now his Holiness begs the favors he no longer can command, soliciting Peter’s pence from those despising his anathemas; impotently imploring the support of bishops who scorn his holy indignation. Urban VIII. condemned as “perverse in the highest degree” the doctrine of the earth’s revolution. His successors, with as much grace as possible, have silently yielded to the inevitable. Now this little orb is allowed to revolve, no one, not even an infallible Pope, objecting. Formerly, and even now in countries purely popish, agencies for disseminating religious literature must incur anathema; now, as the press is a powerful agent in moulding public sentiment, the Catholic Publication Society of New York, organized with the sanction of the Pope for the express purpose of combating Protestantism with its own weapons, is issuing tracts and pamphlets which in Italy would even now, as in former times, be considered unfriendly to the sacred prerogatives of God’s vicegerent on earth.

Whilst in methods of exhibiting her temper, Rome has changed somewhat—endeavoring to put old wine into new bottles—it is undeniably true that in reality she is the same, unprincipled monster; in dogma unaltered, in spirit unbroken, unsubdued, untameable. “Those,” says Hallam, “who know what Rome has once been, are best able to appreciate what she is.” “It is most true,” says Charles Butler, “that Roman Catholics believe the doctrines of their Church unchangeable ; it is a tenet of their creed that what their faith ever has been, such it was from the beginning, such it is now, and such it ever will be.” What else could be expected from a Church claiming infallibility? To alter its dogmas, or to condemn the cruel practices of the past, would be to overturn the foundation on which it rests.

Hence we search in vain in the Encyclical Letters of the present for the slightest intimation that Popery has changed its character or purposes. Has one single decree been revoked? one solitary regret expressed for the atrocities which have made her name a synonym for cruelty? Does any doctrine once held by the Church now lack strenuous defenders? All the superstitious and idolatrous practices of the past find advocates in the present,—the adoration of the host, the invocation of saints, the granting of indulgences, the worship of the Virgin, the veneration of relics, absolution by the priest, the cursing of “all heretics, be they kings or subjects,” and detestation of “Protestantism, that damnable heresy of long standing.”

Patient waiting for a return of strength, or of a favorable opportunity, is not change of nature. The sleeping lion, with wounded paws and broken teeth, is a lion still. In most countries Romanism does indeed lack the power to execute its fiendish designs; and even in those nations almost exclusively Roman Catholic, it would be the acme of human folly to insult the untrammelled conscience of Christendom; but its principles, doctrines and spirit are in no respect changed for the better. It is simply restrained by a public sentiment which it despises and does all in its power to break down, which, however, it dares not so far disregard as to re-enact the untold horrors of the Inquisition. This would be its certain destruction. And yet, even in republican America, it is in spirit the same despotism it was in Europe. Of individual liberty, of education, of the general diffusion of gospel truth, and of government by the people, it is the same uncompromising foe it has always been.

Is the Romish Church less eager for power now than during her past history? Certainly not. Never were greater exertions made to retain the influence it has, and to recover what it has lost. The Jesuit order, which has been revived and inspired with new energy, is straining every nerve to enlarge its numbers and secure a controlling influence in legislation, especially in these United States, with the hope of ultimately bringing them under Papal domination. True to their principles —deceitful always—they laud the liberty of our country while forging the weapons for its destruction. Warmed into life by our self-denying kindness, like the fabled serpent, they are distilling deadly poison into the bosom to which they owe existence itself.

Is Rome less avaricious now than in the ages past? No. Her system which, it would seem, must have been devised for the express purpose of procuring money—each of her seven sacraments is a market, every spiritual blessing has a price—is as admirably adapted to this end, and as efficiently operated now as heretofore. And so perfect is the machinery of this iniquitous system of collecting revenues, and so successfully is it driven, that Catholicism has impoverished every country in which it has held sway. Spain pays annually out of her penury fifty millions to the Romish Church. Ireland’s poverty is traceable directly to Popery. Even from our own land large sums are annually exported to the treasury of the Pope,—last year three millions, this year all that can possibly be raised for “Peter in prison.”

Is Romanism less intolerant than formerly? The hope is vain. Her ever memorable words are: “The good must tolerate the evil, when it is so strong that it cannot be redressed without danger and disturbance to the whole Church, . . . . otherwise, where ill men, be they heretics or other malefactors, may be punished without disturbance and hazard of the good, they may and ought, by public authority, either spiritual or temporal, to be chastised or executed.” Is this less than an open declaration of determination to persecute even unto death so soon as they can obtain the power? We exist merely by tolerance, being mercifully allowed to retain our own cherished doctrines and worship God in the way that to us seems according to Scripture, simply because Rome has granted us present indulgence. But the right to chastise us with rods of iron, Holy Mother has not yielded. Her loyal sons defend every act of persecution, even all her past enormities. The Crusades are lauded. Even the Inquisition is unblushingly defended and even applauded. It is declared: “It saved society from a danger only second to that from which it was preserved by the Crusaders.” Rome is represented as the one “place on earth where error has never been permitted to have a foothold.” Protestantism is declared to be “a gigantic rebellion against the Church of God.” Accordingly, Rome establishes “the Congregation of the Inquisition” to “protect the souls of her children from the fatal pestilence of heresy and unbelief.” “ Protestantism is everywhere the intruder—the innovator.” By the right of prior occupation, “in a special manner she claims this land.” And whilst they have the right to persecute and silence us, we have scarcely the right to protest, for “Protestantism tolerating every error can make no exception against the truth.” Sublime arrogance!

With a candor that is truly refreshing, considering whence it proceeds, the Jesuits, Rome’s sworn adherents —who by intrigue and perjury and diabolical malignity have sown discord everywhere, and been thirty nine times expelled from the different countries of Europe— whilst claiming full liberty to extend the principles of their Church unmolested and even unchallenged, yet unequivocally deny that they have abandoned the right to persecute. Did ever audacity equal this? It amounts to saying that constitutional liberty must warm them into vigor, that they may have the power to inflict upon it a deadly wound. The Shepherd of the Valley, a Catholic paper published in St. Louis, with the approbation of the archbishop, says:

“The Catholic who says that the Church is not intolerant, belies the sacred spouse of Christ. The Christian who professes to be tolerant himself, is dishonest, ill-instructed, or both!”

“We say that the temporal punishment of heresy is a mere question of expediency. Where we abstain from persecuting them (the Protestants), they are well aware that it is merely because we cannot do so; or think that by doing so we should injure the cause that we wish to serve… .. If the Catholics ever gain—which they surely will do—an immense numerical majority, religious freedom in this country is at an end. So say our enemies, so we believe.”

“Heresy and unbelief are crimes, that’s the whole of the matter; and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the laws of the land, they are punished as other crimes.”

The Freeman’s Journal a few years since treated its readers to the following:—

“A Catholic temporal Government would be guided in its treatment of Protestants and other recusants, solely by the rules of expediency.. . . . Religious liberty, in the sense of liberty possessed by every one to choose his own religion, is one of the most wicked delusions ever foisted upon this age by the father of all deceit. The very word liberty, except in the sense of permission to do certain definite acts, ought to be banished from the domain of religion.”

“None but an atheist can uphold the principles of religious liberty. Short of atheism, the theory of religious liberty is the most palpable of untruths, Shall I therefore fall in with this abominable delusion and foster the notion of my fellow countrymen, that they have a right to deny the truth of God, in the hope that I may throw dust in their eyes, and get them to tolerate my creed as one of the many forms of theological opinion prevalent in these latter days?”

“Shall I hold out hopes to him that I will not meddle with his creed, if he will not meddle with mine? Shall I lead him to think that religion is a matter of private opinion, and tempt him to forget that he has no more right to his religious views than he has to my purse, or my house, or my life-blood? No! Catholicism ts the most intolerant of creeds, It is intolerance itself—for it is truth itself. We might as rationally maintain that a sane man has a right to believe that two and two do not make four, as this theory of religious liberty. Its impiety is only equaled by its absurdity.”

A Papal bull annually “excommunicates and curses —on the part of God Almighty, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost—all heretics, under whatever name they may be classed.” To such anathemas we may reply in the language of David to Shimei, “It may be the Lord will look on our affliction, and requite us good for their cursing.”

The text-books now studied in their theological seminaries are well calculated to keep alive the spirit of persecution. Dr. Den, in his “System of Theology,” a standard with Papists, affirms: “Protestants are by baptism and by blood under the power of the Romish Church. So far from granting toleration to Protestants, it is the duty of the Roman Catholic Church to exterminate their religion.” Again, “It is the duty of the Roman Catholic Church to compel Protestants to submit to her faith.” The Rhemish Testament, in its commentary on Matthew xviii. 17, declares: “Heretics therefore, because they will not hear the Church, be no better, nor no otherwise to be esteemed of Catholics, than heathen men and publicans were esteemed among the Jews.” Again, 2 Cor. vi. 14: “Generally here is forbidden conversation and dealing with all heretics, but especially in prayers and meetings at their schismatical service.” Once again: “Protestants ought by public authority, either spiritual or temporal, to be chastised or executed.” In exposition of these words, “ drunken with the blood of the saints,” these Rhemish annotators say: “The Protestants foolishly expound it of Rome, for that there they put heretics to death, and allow of their punishment in other countries; but their blood is not called the blood of saints, no more than the blood of thieves, man-killers, and other malefactors, for the shedding of which by order of justice no commonwealth shall answer.” Liguori, in his “ Moral Theology,” a work very highly prized in their theological seminaries, says: “As the Church has the right of compelling parents to hold to the faith, so she has the power of taking their children from them.” Canon XII. of the recent Ecumenical Council affirms :—“If any think that Christ, our Lord and King, has only given to his Church a power to guide, by advice and permission, but not ordain by laws, to compel and force by anterior judgments, and salutary inflictions, those who thus separate themselves, let them be anathema.” Surely, in language at least, Rome is no less intolerant than in the centuries past. And doctrines such as these are taught to youth in this land of Protestant liberty!

And Rome’s actions, as well as her teachings, unmistakably evince the same unchanged spirit. Jewish parents in Rome employ a Catholic nurse. Their infant son is clandestinely baptized by a Popish priest. Henceforth it is the child of the Church. Stolen from the home of its parents—who in vain demand the God-given right to their child—immured in a monastery, carefully instructed in the doctrines of Popery, the Jewish dog, transmuted into a priest, Mortara, at manhood enters the world thanking God that His true church is a babystealer.

Raffaele Ciocci, honorary librarian of a Papal college in Rome, is entrapped by Jesuits into a monastery. Infallibility, carefully instructing him in the mysteries of Romanism, designs him for a missionary to distant lands steeped in the ignorance of Protestantism. Becoming, through the instrumentality of God’s blessed Word, a determined enemy of the Papacy, death is decreed against him. With Jesuitical hypocrisy, under the cloak of friendship, a poisoned beverage is handed him. Saved by a timely antidote, he seeks release from the iron grasp of his inhuman persecutors by appealing to the Pope. This only rendering his situation doubly more intolerable, he finally consents to sign a recantation in the hope of effecting an escape. Landing, in the year 1842, on the shores of free England, he is watched and dogged by Franciscans and Jesuits, and every available means employed to entangle him again in the cruel snares of Romanism. In his revelations of the Man of Sin, Ciocci has conclusively proved that Popery in this nineteenth century is the same uncompromising foe of the Gospel, the same bitter persecutor, unchanged and unchangeable.

We must content ourselves with a mere reference to most of the recent cases of Popish intolerance. Protestants, and especially American Protestants, ought not to forget the cruel persecutions of the unhappy inhabitants of Lower Valais, Switzerland, where, in 1845, the Jesuits after innumerable iniquitous proceedings, signalized their triumph by the passage of a law prohibiting all Protestant worship, public and social; forbidding God’s people to meet for the reading of his Word even in their own houses. And in what language shall we characterize the banishment, in 1837, of 400 Protestants from one of the States of Austria on the simple charge of refusing Papal supremacy?—or the imprisonment, in 1843, of Dr. Kally, a Scottish physician, on the island of Madeira?—or the sentence of death pronounced against one of his converts, Maria Joaquina, for “maintaining that veneration should not be given to images, denying the real presence of Christ in the sacred host, and blaspheming the Most Holy Virgin, Mother of God?” And assuredly every lover of liberty will bear in sad remembrance the history of the lengthy imprisonment, cruelty and protracted sufferings of the Madiai family; the studied persecution, arrest, impoverishment, imprisonment, and sufferings of Matamoros in a loathsome cell —where in sickness he was refused a physician and even medicine; his condemnation to the galleys for nine years on the testimony of suborned witnesses; his banishment from Spain, to which his throbbing heart and enfeebled voice would fain have proclaimed, “Salvation is of the Lord,” and his triumphant death in Switzerland, whither he had gone in the faint hope of sending some message of life to his endeared countrymen enslaved by the superstitions of Rome. Even our own land within a few years, for aught we know, may have given a martyr to the truth. Bishop Reese of Michigan, charged with ecclesiastical error, entered Rome in response to the citation of the Pope. So far as the world knows, he entered eternity the day he stepped within the magic circle of the heartless Inquisition.

Until the present year—and for the change no thanks to Popery—Protestant worship was prohibited in Rome. Did ever intolerance equal this? While allowed in England and the United States to hold their services, build churches, found monasteries, establish theological seminaries, collect enormous sums of money for transmission to the Pope, and foment insurrection and rebellion against the Governments whose protection they claim, they will not permit Protestant worship even in a private house where they have the power to prevent it. The foreign resident who dares to join with his countrymen in worshipping God according to the forms of worship to which he has been attached from youth, places himself “in the power of the Inquisition, both for arrest and imprisonment,” and is earnestly advised, unless he courts exile or a dungeon, “never again to repeat these illegal acts.”

Another fact evincing the present spirit of Popery claims attention. A full regiment of Canadians, a few years since, proffered their services to aid in upholding the temporal power of the Pope. The spirit of Peter the Hermit still lives. From every Catholic pulpit in Canada appeals were made for aid for Pius IX. in his embarrassments. With every Catholic newspaper office a recruiting station, and with a central committee to secure unity of action, volunteers offered themselves in greater numbers than were needed. On the day of their departure an address was delivered by Archbishop McCloskey:— “You are going to stand with others like you, as a rampart of defense and a tower of strength around the presence of your Holy Father, to protect his safety and defend his rights.” Defend his rights; his right to steal the children of heretics, to imprison Protestants, to prevent all forms of worship except Popish, to fetter freedom, to curse the institutions of modern liberty, to trample on the dearest hopes of the Italian people, and keep them, though longing for escape, in the grossest ignorance, under the severest despotism, in the most abject poverty!

The Archbishop continues :

“They (Catholics in the United States) are as strongly devoted to the sustenance and maintenance of the temporal power of the Holy Father as Catholics in any part of the world; and if it should be necessary to prove it by acts they are ready to do so. . . If that policy (non-interference) should ever change to a sympathy with the Italians as against the Holy Father, then Catholics must be prepared to show their readiness by acts as well as words, to give their lives, if necessary, for their Holy Father.”

This first crusade failed. And now, forsooth, the tocsin is sounding a grander, a world-wide crusade. From all the nations that on earth do dwell, the faithful, for multitude like the swarms of flies in Egypt of old, are to meet at some designated spot, proceed to Italy, wipe out the rebellious sons of Holy Mother, and restore Pius IX. to the throne from which he has been ejected by the almost unanimous voice of his own people. Festinate. “Whom the gods design to destroy, they first make mad.” In this holy work the Catholics of these United States—those ardent friends of popular Government, who so loudly proclaim that every nation, even every State has the right to the choice of its own government—are expected, and are preparing, by firing their enthusiasm by volumes of wordy protests—they have all turned Protestants at last—to take a prominent part, the highest seat in the synagogue of war.

We have authority stamped with the signet of infallibility for asserting that the first allegiance of the Catholic of the United States is due not to our Government, but to the Pope. We are explicitly told that we are protecting an organization which holds itself ready at any time to obey the commands of a foreign despot.*

*The Tablet, in a recent issue, asks:—Is the American idea higher than this Church idea? No Catholic can pretend it; for to him the Church idea is divine, and nothing is, or can be, higher than God, who is Supreme Creator, proprietor and Lord of all things, visible and invisible. If, then, between the Church or Catholic idea, and the American idea, there should happen to be a collision, which should give way, the lower or higher? The Catholic idea being supreme, must be the law, the universal standard of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, and consequently all ideas, whether Celtic or Saxon, English or American, that contradict it, or do not accord with it, are to be rejected as false and wrong, as repugnant to the supreme law of God, even to God himself, and not to be entertained for a moment.”

Certainly, on the question of intolerance and detestation of civil and religious liberty, none can charge Rome with vacillation. If language and actions express the determination of the will, and the desire of the heart, we may certainly be excused for believing the assertion of our Catholic friends :— “If the Catholics EVER GAIN AN IMMENSE NUMERICAL MAJORITY, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THIS COUNTRY IS AT AN END.”

Since Popery is an outgrowth of the depraved heart, may we not expect that it will remain essentially unchanged, so long as human nature remains unaltered? Are we not taught in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and Daniel’s vision, and Paul’s prophecy, that this giant evil shall afflict the world until the dawn of the millennium?*

* But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end.”—Dan. 7:26.

“And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” “ Unto the end,” “shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.”The best Commentators say, till Christ’s Second Advent.—2 Thess. 2:8.

By gradually undermining the foundations of a simple faith in the unadulterated Gospel, Popery established itself as the desperate and malignant foe of all that is life-giving in the spiritual religion of Christ, all that is ennobling in the liberty it inspires. And how otherwise than by gradual destruction can the doctrines and superstitions of millions of human beings be utterly consumed? Their overthrow “in an hour” would not produce in the hearts of the enslaved instantaneous detestation of these follies and errors. Rome’s temporal power is indeed gone, perhaps forever, but her spiritual despotism is still complete, and may continue nearly or quite the same for centuries. So long as there are those who are willing to be victims of spiritual thraldom, there will no doubt be those who are ready to enslave them. Consume the hated organization today, and tomorrow another, phoenix-like, will spring from its ashes. Love of power, and preference of the forms of devotion to the spirit, will no doubt continue— calling for the unceasing labors of God’s people—till the river of time issues into the ocean of eternity.

We may, therefore, expect in the future what we have witnessed in the past—an unceasing struggle. Many complications may arise. Often victory may seem to perch on the banners of the enemy. Many hopes will be crushed, the hearts of God’s people “failing them for fear, and for looking after those things that are coming upon the earth.” Since, however, we have witnessed in the last three centuries the gradual decay of Popery, may we not confidently rejoice in the hope that He who delights to write on the page of history the evidence of his far-reaching designs will, in his own time, strike the final blow, causing this gigantic system of falsehood to dissolve like mist before the rising sun? Ours is the task of hoping, laboring, praying, till even in Rome spiritual liberty shall dawn on civil,

“Like another morning risen on mid-noon.”
“How long, O Lord our God,
Holy, and true and good,
Wilt Thou not judge Thy suffering Church,
Her sighs, and tears, and blood?”

THE END.

Continued from III. The Ancient Scottish Church

For fifteen hundred years a general council has been the chief center of authority, the chief source of hope to the Church of Rome. It is supposed that a universal synod is governed by the Holy Spirit, and reaches infallible conclusions; and, therefore, ordains laws that must work for the best interests of the Christian world.

In modern times, the pope calls a council, and presides over it by deputies; no question can be discussed in it without the permission of his representatives; its decisions are worthless till he confirms them; from beginning to end, it is his abject slave. And he claims the widest range of authority over these judicatories. Leo X., in 1512, with the approbation of his Lateran Synod, says:

“That the Roman Pontiff, for the time being, as one who has authority over all councils, hath alone the full right and power of convening, transferring, and dissolving councils; and this not only from the testimony of Holy Scripture, the sayings of the holy fathers, and the decrees of our predecessors, and of the sacred canons, but also by the proper confession of councils themselves, is manifest.”

Pius II., elevated to the popedom in 1458, says:

“Among general councils we find nothing ratified without the authority of the pope, when one was reigning, because the Church is not a body without a head, from which all power flows to the members.”

For centuries, the doctrine has been firmly held, and sometimes haughtily expressed, that the birth, life, death, and toils of a council, by the decree of Jehovah himself, depended on the Roman Pontiff. For seven centuries of the Christian era

This declaration is capable of being sustained by any amount of evidence. From a very early day the bishop of the chief city of the world-embracing empire of Rome, in virtue of his place of residence, was held in high esteem, his name was placed first in a list of bishops, and his opinion was naturally enough received with great attention. But when you examine his power as he sits in person, or by delegates beside his brethren in councils, he is weak as other men in the episcopal office.

The first great synod which ever sat was a convention of the highest importance. It met to compose the bitter differences excited by the Arian controversy. It convened to show in its composition, workings, and claims what all coming ecumenical councils should be; it assembled at

The number of bishops attending it is variously represented from 250 to 318. The place in which its sessions were held was a room in the imperial palace. Many bishops were there who still enjoyed the power of working miracles—one of them had raised the dead, The bitter persecution of Licinius had maimed or scarred many of them: some had their right eyes torn out, some their right hands cut off; and some by holding hot iron had lost the use of both hands. The Council of Nice had largely the appearance of an assembly of martyrs. When they met in their chamber, a low chair of gold was placed in the center of the hall, and the Emperor, the first Christian sovereign in the world, of unusual height, of majestic aspect, attired in the gorgeous robes of Roman royalty, entered the meeting and sat upon the seat of gold. It was a scene never to be forgotten by these victims of heathen cruelty, who had witnessed the butchery of so many of the saints of God. The human master of the nations, with a sword of victory, was now the leader and protector of the Christian Church! The council made the celebrated Nicene Creed, condemned Arianism, and issued twenty canons. After their toils they returned to their homes laden with imperial gifts, and cheered with bright hopes.

The Roman pontiff was not present in the council at any of its meetings. He was represented by two presbyters, named Vito and Vicentius, who took no remarkable part in its proceedings. There were a score of bishops there whose influence was greater than that of the aged bishop of the Eternal City.

Constantine himself managed the council. There is ground for doubting whether it had any other president during most of its discussions; though several persons are said to have occupied this position. He delivered exhortations to the council. He heard the propositions of all with patience and attention; reasoned with them, appealed to them, encouraged them, and exercised such a marvellous influence over them that he led the whole assembly to one mind respecting disputed questions. And for the time he became the ruler of the council, and the common father of Christendom.

Accusations were made in writing, against a number of bishops, to be presented to the council through Constantine. He placed them all in a package and sealed them up without looking at them; and when the factions were reconciled he brought out these documents and burned them before the parties concerned, declaring upon oath that he had not read them; by which he showed plainly that he was master of the council, and regulated the questions which it should debate.

Constantine summoned its members together; and they came at the voice of no ecclesiastic in the east or the west. Commanded by their Emperor they came to the city called Victory, and held the first general council under the auspices of a secular prince.

Nor had the Roman pontiff anything to do with the presidency of the council. When Constantine entered the apartment used by the bishops, and occupied his golden chair, “the great Eustathius, bishop of Antioch,” first spoke, and took occasion to compliment the Emperor in the most flattering terms, Evidently according to Theodoret, who records the speech of the Bishop of Antioch, he was the leader of the council. Du Pin says: “It is very probable that it was Hosius who held the chief place in the Council of Nice in his own name, because he had already taken cognizance of this affair, and was much esteemed by the Emperor.” Du Pin Yearning is universally recognized; and when it is remembered that he was a Catholic, and that he gives it as his conviction that a Spanish bishop, in his own name, was probably the first officer of the first general council, it must appear very evident that the pope had nothing to do with managing the bishops at Nice.

The sixth canon of the Council of Nice has given for centuries the greatest trouble to the advocates of papal jurisdiction over the churches of the world, and no effort has been spared to destroy its force. This celebrated article gives the same authority over his province which the bishop of Rome enjoyed in his see to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and by its terms it shows clearly that the Roman pontiff was simply on a level with his brother bishops in the East. The canon is:

“Let the ancient customs prevail which are in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; that the Bishop of Alexandria have authority over all, since this is customary also to the Bishop of Rome. In like manner also as regards Antioch, and in all other provinces, let the churches preserve their dignity. This is altogether certain, that if any one become a bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great synod has determined that he ought not to be a bishop.”

From this decision of the first and purest synod that ever was held, the patriarchs of eastern provinces are authorized to perpetuate in their respective dioceses the authority conferred by ancient customs; and this authority is declared to be according to the usage of the Bishop of Rome. Du Pin says: The most natural sense that can be given to it is this:

“We ordain that the ancient custom shall be observed which gives power to the Bishop of Alexandria over all the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, because the Bishop of Rome has the like jurisdiction over all the suburbicary regions. We would likewise have the rights and privileges of the church of Antioch, and the other churches preserved; but these rights ought not to prejudice those of the Metropolitans.”

It is not a cause for astonishment that the popes should hate a canon which placed them on the same platform with prominent prelates of the East; and which, if carried out everywhere, would strip them of their entire sovereignty over the Church.

Constantine confirmed the decrees of the Council of Nice, and immediately they became binding throughout the whole Christian world; and he recommended universal obedience to decrees in themselves so important and reached in so much unity.

No one in those days imagined that the confirmation of the canons of Nice by the Roman Bishop was essential to their validity. It was, however, a common practice to solicit the ratification of the decrees of a council by all absent bishops; not with a view to give them legal authority, but for the purpose of increasing the respect in which they might be held. As among ourselves, when a petition is adopted and unanimously signed at a public meeting, but still other names are wanted, and absent parties are invited to append their signatures, so after a general synod adjourned it was common to invite all bishops who were not present to endorse its decrees, And through this practice the number of bishops at councils has frequently been greatly magnified; the calculation being based upon the names appended to its canons. In this way the Council of Sardica is occasionally represented as having three hundred bishops at its meetings, when it had about half that number; the balance came from the absent who subscribed its documents.

Constantine himself recommended the Nicene decrees to all bishops, and he undertakes to secure their assent to them. Pope Liberius recommended to Constantius: “That the faith delivered at Nice might be confirmed by the subscription of all bishops.” The Council of Sardica, after the completion of their work, wrote to the “bishops of every nation commanding them to confirm these decrees.” When we look at the party calling the Synod of Nice, at its probable presiding officer, at the character of its sixth canon, at the confirmation of its decrees by Constantine, at the entire absence of allusions in any form to papal jurisdiction over the Churches, we cannot be mistaken in the assertion that the pope had no supremacy in authority in the days of the first Christian Emperor.

If in the time of the Council of Nice, or if during the first few years after its dissolution, there was any man in the Christian world who seemed to be the “Head” of the Church rather than another, Hosius, Bishop of Cordova in Spain, has the strongest claim to that position. At the outbreak of the Arian controversy, when Constantine became anxious about its angry results, he determined to send a man of commanding influence into Egypt, whose mission might quiet the animosities of Alexander and Arius, and out of all Christendom he selected Hosius to transact, as he regarded it, the most important business claiming his attention in any part of his dominions. Speaking of the mission to Alexander and Arius, Sozomen says:

“The emperor deputed one who was honored for his faith, his virtuous life, and his steadfast confession of truth, to put an end to the strife which existed in Egypt. This man was Hosius, Bishop of Cordova.”

Eusebius, describing the same circumstance, says:

“He selected from the Christians in his train one whom he well knew to be approved for the sobriety and genuineness of his faith; and who had before this time distinguished himself by the boldness of his religious profession, and sent him to act as mediator between the dissentient parties at Alexandria.”

In describing the distinguished bishops at the Council of Nice, Eusebius classes Hosius among the most illustrious. “Even from Spain itself,” says he, “one whose fame was widely spread took his seat as an individual in the great assembly.” The Council of Sardica, in their synodical letter, speak of the bishops forming that body “As worthy of honor and respect, particularly the venerable Hosius, on account of his advanced age, his adherence to the faith, and his labors in the church.”

Hosius, beyond a doubt, was for some years the leading bishop in the Christian world, with the sovereign and the people. The celebrated Athanasius, as quoted by Theodoret, says:

“It is unnecessary that I should speak of the great Hosius,that aged and faithful confessor of the faith; of all the bishops he is the most illustrious. What council can be mentioned in which he did not preside, and convince all present by the power of his reasoning? What church does not still enjoy the glorious effects of his ministration?”

This great man who, according to Du Pin, presided at the first Council of all the Churches held at Nice, and at the Council of Sardica, though the pope had delegates there to represent him, and who, according to Athanasius, was the chief officer of all the councils, has evidence to prove that he was the Head of the Church, far exceeding anything accorded to the Roman bishops in the first seven centuries.

This council met A. D. 345, or as others say A. D. 347. It was convoked by the emperors Constans and Constantius, as its own episcopal members declare. Theodoret tells us that it had 250 bishops when it convened. The object of the council was to compose difficulties agitating the Church in connection with Athanasius, Marcellus, and the Arian controversy. The eastern bishops, taking umbrage at the composition of the council, withdrew in a body. The western bishops, with Hosius as their president, proceeded to legislate as a General Synod. The most important business transacted by this council was the enactment of three canons, the spirit of which is admirably presented by Du Pin:

“They do not,” says he, “give the Bishop of Rome power to judge the cause of a bishop in his own tribunal at Rome; they only give him authority to inquire whether it were well or ill determined, and in case he find that it was determined wrong, to order a new decision of it in the country, and by the neighboring bishops of the province where it was determined, whither he might send legates in his own name to be present, if he thought it convenient.”

Du Pin frankly declares that, “The discipline which these fathers establish is new.” It was never heard of in the Christian Church till the Convention at Sardica, And though the jurisdiction conferred on the Roman Bishop was very slender, not authorizing him to judge any ecclesiastic outside the diocese of Rome, but simply giving him power to order a new trial by bishops adjoining the offender in cases in which he believed that an unjust sentence had been imposed, yet it excited the bitterest opposition. In fact, the recognition of such an authority in the pope was one of the chief causes of that separation which finally divided the churches of the East and West.

The Council of Sardica, on account of the retirement of the eastern bishops, was never recognized in that section of the world. And as Du Pin says of its decrees:

“They were never put in the code of the canons of the universal Church, approved by the Council of Chalcedon. The East never received them, neither would the bishops of Africa own them. The popes only used them, and cited them under the name of the Council of Nice, to give them the greater weight and authority.”

The popes for centuries practised this detestable deception, and not only quoted them as canons of Nice, but gave them a latitude of application, equally astonishing and iniquitous. Only the bishops of the West united in the effort to honor a brother prelate; and of course the sole reason why Rome was preferred to Cordova was that the City of the Seven Hills was the old capital of the empire of the Caesars.

The second council received as general met at Constantinople A.D. 381. It was summoned by the Emperor Theodosius to calm the troubles excited by the heresy of Macedonius. This man taught that the Son of God is not of the same substance as the Father, but that he resembles him in every particular. He also affirmed that the Holy Spirit is a creature. His followers were numerous and influential. The council condemned the Macedonian and some other heresies, and made some changes in the Nicene creed. One of their principal acts was to place the See of Constantinople next in point of dignity with the bishopric of Rome. Their canon was: “Let the Bishop of Constantinople have rank next after the Bishop of Rome, for Constantinople is new Rome.”

Now in this canon the reason for the elevation of Constantinople is given: it is because it is new Rome. What is the meaning of this designation? It certainly does not imply that Peter had founded the Church of new Rome, and after having labored on the banks of the Tiber, had conferred equal honor on the city of Constantine. But it does mean that as the Roman Bishop had the highest rank among prelates, because his residence was the capital of the empire, so Constantinople, being now the seat of the Emperor’s government, the consideration which gave old Rome its ecclesiastical rank, must stand in church honors next to the city of Romulus. This is the view of the historian Sozomen, who, commenting A.D. 450 on this canon, says: “Constantinople was not only favored with this appellation (new Rome), but was also in the enjoyment of many privileges, such as a senate of its own (like old Rome), and the division of the citizens into ranks and orders; it was also governed by its own magistrates, and possessed contracts, laws, and immunities similar to those of Rome in Italy.”

Evidently the point of comparison between the two cities was that each had been the seat of government. The canon implies that this circumstance had given the pope his sacerdotal standing, and on this account the Bishop of new Rome must appear next him in church dignity. The Roman pontiff had nothing to do with calling this council, presiding over it, or inspiring its canons. Nor did his see reap any honor from its decrees— especially from the one which we have given.

The Council of Ephesus met a. p. 431. It was summoned by the Emperor Theodosius to condemn the so-called heresy of Nestorius. He had taught that Mary was not the “Mother of God” but the mother of Christ, that “That could not be called God which admitted of being two months old or three months old.” His idea was that the Godhead of the Son dwelt merely in the body of Christ, so that he was composed of two persons. These opinions excited general horror.

Two hundred bishops gathered at Ephesus to try Nestorius, and in due time they condemned him. Cyril was President of the Council. The imperial letter convoking the council was addressed to “Cyril and the presidents of the holy churches in every quarter.” In this council, for the first time, a practice was introduced by the pope which very cunningly increased his power, and at the same time flattered his friend. As one man in some financial corporations can cast the vote of another who is absent, so Celestine, Bishop of Rome, authorized Cyril to represent him as well as himself in the Synod of Ephesus, and Cyril, to increase his own importance, seems to have yielded to the temptation. But Cyril was master of the council without the aid of Celestine; the Emperor’s summons addressed to “Cyril and the presidents of the holy churches in every quarter” proclaimed to all the favor which Theodosius had for Cyril; and his desire that he should be first bishop in the approaching Synod.

The next General Council was summoned by the Emperor Marcian in a. D. 451. It met first at Nice, and was transferred to Chalcedon. It was composed of 630 bishops. It was called to dispose of the heresy of the monk Eutyches. He denied that the Saviour had two natures; he insisted that the body born of the virgin was not real flesh and blood, but merely the appearance of it, so that he had no suffering.

The council met in the church of St. Euphemia, directly opposite Constantinople. This holy place consists of three immense buildings. One is open to the sky, including a court of great extent, and adorned on all sides with columns; and next to it there is another structure resembling it in length, breadth, and columns, but with a protecting roof. On the north of this, and facing the east, stood a circular building, skilfully terminating in a dome, and surrounded in the interior with beautiful columns which support a gallery. Under the dome, at the eastern side, is a splendid enclosure, within which are guarded the sacred remains of Euphemia, the saint and martyr. They are preserved in a long coffin of silver, ingeniously made, The mightiest prodigies are said to have been wrought by these relics.

Here the emperor, ecclesiastics, and multitudes from New Rome are accustomed to gather at stated times; and, through a little door which can be opened, the priests introduce an iron rod with a sponge on the end, which they turn around several times, and withdraw covered with stains and clots of blood. The clots are permanent; the blood retains its color, and the greatest blessings rest on those who possess the gory sponge. And the quantity obtained is so great that a liberal distribution is made to the sovereign, priests, people, and distant friends. But the most curious part of, the story is that St. Euphemia frequently appears in a dream to the bishops and others, inviting them to come and “gather a vintage” among her bones. Leo, the Bishop of old Rome, urges Marcian to call this council, showing that he had no authority to issue such a summons. And Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, was lacking neither in ability nor in audacity in exacting what was due his see, and something more when circumstances favored him.

Pope Leo had three representatives in the council, Paschasinus and Lucentius, bishops, and the presbyter Boniface. Marcian was the master-spirit of the assembly. Eusebius, for himself and others, demanded that a petition should be read in the council, addressed to the emperors, and he ended with this appeal:

“And this we will do on the issuing of your divine and revered mandates to the holy and universal synod of the bishops, highly beloved of God, to the effect that they should give a formal hearing to the matters which concern both us and the before-mentioned Dioscorus, and refer all the transactions to the decision of your piety, as shall seem fit to your immortal supremacy. If we obtain this, our request, we shall ever pray for your everlasting rule, most divine sovereigns.”

And the imperial commissioners who had charge of the council granted the request. In fact, there was nothing done in the council without them or their master Marcian. The form of one decision of the senators of the council is:

“It seems to us, according to God’s good pleasure, to be a just proceeding, if approved by our most divine and pious sovereign, that Dioscorus, the most reverent Bishop of Alexandria; Juvenalis, the most reverent Bishop of Jerusalem; Thalassius, the most reverent Bishop of Ceesarea, in Cappadocia; Eusebius, the most reverent Bishop of Ancyra; Eustathius, the most reverent Bishop of Berytus; and Basilius, the most reverent Bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria, who exercised sway and precedency in that synod (a synod of Ephesus), should be subjected to the self-same penalty, by suffering at the hands of the holy synod deprivation of their episcopal dignity, according to the canons; whatever is consequent hereupon, being submitted to the cognizance of the emperor’s sacred supremacy.”

Du Pin states the situation exactly: “This council was held in the great church of St. Euphemia, the emperor’s commissioned officers and the counsellors of state being present, who were to direct all their motions. On their right, the Bishop of Alexandria and others; and on their left the pope’s delegates.” To them the speakers addressed themselves, and by them all questions were decided except a few more serious cases, which they submitted to the Emperor himself. The Council of Chalcedon was more an advisory convention, called by their sovereign, to give him their opinions, which he might accept or decline, than an independent deliberative assembly. No body could strike heavier blows at, the divine supremacy of the Roman See than the renowned Synod of St. Euphemia. The 9th canon says:

“If one clergyman have a matter against another, let him not leave his own bishop and go to the secular courts; but first let him lay open the cause before his own bishop; or else, with the consent of the same bishop, before those who shall be chosen by both parties. But if any one shall do contrary to this, let him be subjected to canonical censure. If any clergyman have a matter against his own bishop, or against another, let it be judged by the synod of the province. But if a bishop or clergyman have a dispute with the metropolitan of the province, let him have access either to the exarch (a bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church) of the diocese, or to the throne of the imperial Constantinople, and let it be there judged.”

Here there is no appeal to Rome. In the courts to which an injured ecclesiastic may carry his case, Rome has no place whatever, The throne of imperial Constantinople is either the throne of the Emperor or the throne of the Patriarch of new Rome, and, in either case, there is an utter prohibition of appeals by ecclesiastics beyond the city of Constantinople; and that, too, by the largest and most respectable council of all antiquity. It is commonly supposed that the throne of the Bishop of Constantinople is referred to, and that it makes him the final judge of all disputes among clergymen.

The 28th canon of Chalcedon occupies the most important place in its entire transactions. By it the honor paid the Bishop of Rome in ecclesiastical matters is expressly declared to be given, not because Peter was first Bishop of Rome, or the pontiff the vicar of Christ, or Peter the rock on which the Church was built; Christians had not yet fallen into that sleep in which they had these dreams; but because ROME WAS THE IMPERIAL CITY. The canon reads:

“We, everywhere following the decrees of the holy fathers, and acknowledging the canon which has been just read of the 150 bishops, most dear to God, do also ourselves decree and vote the same things concerning the precedency of the most holy Church of Constantinople,—New Rome; for the fathers, with reason, gave precedency to the throne of old Rome, because it was the imperial city; and the 150 bishops beloved of God, moved by the same consideration, awarded EQUAL PRECEDENCY TO THE MOST HOLY THRONE OF NEW ROME, reasonably judging that a city which is honored with the government and senate should enjoy equal rank with the ancient queen Rome; and, like her, be magnified in ecclesiastical matters, having the second place after her; but so that the metropolitans alone of the Pontic, Asiatic and Thracian dioceses, and also the bishops among the barbarians in the said dioceses, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the Holy Church of Constantinople, to wit: that each metropolitan of the said dioceses, with the bishops of the province, should ordain the bishops of the province, as it is stated in the divine canons; but that the metropolitans of the said dioceses, as has been said, be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, where there has been an agreement in the election, according to custom, and a report been made to him.”

The grand foundation of the spiritual supremacy of the pontiff for many centuries has been its supposed divine origin. Such a doctrine was entirely unknown in the councils of the first seven centuries, when the Church was measurably pure. A certain amount of rank was given to the Bishop of Rome, but wholly on the ground that his city was THE IMPERIAL CITY. And by the decree just quoted, Constantinople is raised to equal authority with the ancient queen Rome in ecclesiastical matters.

Rome, at the Council of Chalcedon, made strenuous efforts to acquire power over the churches; through the far-seeing Leo, she had letters written to move the council in her favor. A portion from one of these, written by Placidia, the mother of Theodosius, says: “Seeing it becometh us in all things to preserve the dignity of this chief city, which is the mistress of all others.”

For this reason, Placidia and Eudoxia, the empresses, endeavored to maintain the dignity of the Roman See. This is the starting point of all the power Rome ever acquired over the nations. The Synod of Chalcedon, “the greatest of all ancient synods,” gave no other, knew none besides. Du Pin says: “The 28th canon grants to the Church of Constantinople, which is called New Rome, the same privileges with old Rome, because this city is the second city in the world.”

It met A.D. 553. It was called by Justinian the younger, and it was composed of 165 bishops. “It condemned and anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, also whatever Theodoret had impiously written against the right faith, against the twelve chapters of the sainted Cyril, against the first holy synod at Ephesus, and all that be has written in defence of Theodore and Nestorius; it also anathematized the epistle said to have been written by Ibas to Maris, the Persian.” Vigilius, Bishop of Rome, was in Constantinople during the sessions of the council, but refused to attend its meetings, or to subscribe to its decrees, for which he was sent into exile, until finally, as an illustration of papal infallibility, he changed his mind and gave his approbation to the measures of the synod. Through bribing the celebrated general Belisarius, Vigilius secured his own election to the papal throne, and the deposition of Silverius, and he rendered his title unquestionable by putting Silverius, his predecessor, to death. Of this council Du Pin says: “Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, held the first place in it.” Nothing flattering to papal supremacy occurred in the Fifth General Council.

It met A.D. 680. It was called by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus. It had 160 bishops in attendance during its later meetings. It held eighteen sessions. “The Emperors occupied the first place in its gatherings.” The great patriarchs were either present or represented by delegates. The council was specially convened to condemn a new heresy, a species of the Eutychian, by which it was taught that: In the union of the two natures of Christ, there was but one will, from which circumstance the advocates of this theory were called Monothelites. This general council condemned Honorius, Pope of Rome, and anathematized him as a heretic. The words of the council are:

“In addition to these, we acknowledge also Honorius, who was formerly pope of old Rome, to be amongst those cast out of the holy Church of God and anathematized, because we find from his letter to Sergius that he altogether followed his opinions, and confirmed his impious dogmas.”

Strong language for an infallible council to use about a pope of Rome. And in the 17th action of the council, “they all exclaimed, “Anathema to the heretic Honorius!”

The popes of Rome themselves have denounced this unhappy successor of Peter. Leo II. says: “He did not only favor the new heresy by his silence and negligence, but did suffer the apostolic traditions to be sullied and defiled by a contrary doctrine,” for which conduct Leo condemned him. In the Liber Diurnus, we find that the successors of Honorius were regularly in the habit of cursing him. So that, though incapable of error in matters of faith, he was anathematized by the popes following him as an unmitigated heretic. Surely this council showered few distinctions on Rome.

This convention ought to be the Seventh General Council, it had more claim to the character of a general synod than several to which this title and character have been given. It was called by Justinian II., and was attended by about 200 bishops; among its members were representatives of the Bishop of Rome; and the other great patriarchs were present in person. This council met in a tower of the Emperor’s palace called Trullo, from which it sometimes takes its name. It was called Quini-Sextum, because it was regarded as a supplement to the fifth and sixth councils. It made 102 canons. The 36th renews the canons of Constantinople, granting the church of Constantinople the same privileges as the church of old Rome, the same authority in ecclesiastical affairs, and the second place in honor. The third, it gave to Alexandria, the fourth to Antioch, the fifth to Jerusalem. The Greek Church recognized this body as a general council, but because it interfered with some of their customs and claims, the Latins rejected its authority. Its decrees were signed by all present, including the Emperor, whose name appears first.

We think any candid mind will conclude that the great councils of the first seven centuries, including the synod of Sardica, which, though not a general synod, was a highly important body, give no claim whatever to the Bishops of Rome to supremacy over the churches of Christendom. A place of honor was readily conceded to the popes as the prelates of the imperial city, but a position of power, of jurisdiction was sternly denied them. Neither friend nor foe on earth can lay his finger on a genuine canon, decree, or resolution of any general council during the first seven hundred years after the Saviour’s death, giving any pre-eminence in legislative, judicial, or other departments in which power is accustomed to be exercised over Christendom to the Pope of Rome. There is not a scholar in the Christian world to-day who pretends to show such a decree, canon, or resolution. These great councils then, that are led by the Holy Spirit, for SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS KNEW NOTHING OF THE SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOPS OF ROME. And as the chain of spiritual sovereignty wants the seven hundred links next to Christ, the great mooring pillar, it will not be able to protect and hold the papal ark, which trusts it when the wind is angry, and the sea rages.

Continued in V. Christendom at the Beginning of the Seventh Century

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart

Continued from II. The Ancient Irish Church.

The country known, in comparatively modern times, as Scotland was blessed with gospel light at a later day than England or Ireland. It is reported that Ninias, a native of North Wales, in A. D. 400, preached the gospel to the Picts or ancient Scotch, and that his labors were attended with some success in the southern portions of their country. But the conversion of the entire people was reserved for other men, and for a later period than the time of Ninias.

Columba was brought up in the evangelical faith of St. Patrick, in Ireland. He was of an ardent spirit, a man of great enterprise, and he was governed by supreme love to Jesus, and burning zeal for the salvation of perishing men. To him nothing possible, however difficult, was a permanent obstacle. He would readily make the greatest sacrifices, and begin the grandest and most laborious undertaking. Previous to his departure from his native land, he built a noble monastery in Ireland, at Dearm Ach, —The Field of Oaks, now called Derry, which became the parent of many similar houses in Ireland.

His heart bled over the idolatry and perdition of the neighboring Picts; and, about A. D. 565, he entered Scotland. Bridius, a powerful monarch, was king of the Pictish nation, whose favor the missionary soon obtained. And, as he and his twelve companions sought the blessing of Heaven upon their labors, and toiled with apostolical zeal and purity of life, they quickly gathered as a harvest the nation of the Picts.

The king gave him the island of Hii, or Iona, as a mission station. The island is about three miles long, and a mile in breadth, Here Columba erected a monastery and churches; and soon the whole island was covered with cloisters and temples. And a multitude of monks, students, and devout visitors, seeking holy light, crowded the sea-girt and heaven-favored island. There the clergy, nobles, and sovereigns of Scotland were educated. There missions were planned for the north of England and the continent of Europe. There the brightest epochs of gospel zeal and success were equalled. And to that birth-place of Christian light all Scotland looked with devout gratitude and holy enthusiasm. For generations, the Scottish kings were buried in consecrated Iona; and its abbot ruled the whole churches of the land.

Columba died A.D. 597. A copy of the gospels, said to be in his handwriting, and known as The Book of Durrow, is still in existence in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. There are also another copy of the gospels, called the Book of Kells, and a copy of the Psalms, supposed to have been written by him, which are held as sacred treasures by the learned.

It is not to be understood that everything taught or practised by those good men was Scriptural or wise; but sprung, as they were, from a people emerging out of barbarism, and not long since out of heathenism, there is ground for astonishment at their measurable purity of doctrine, and at their remarkable charity and holiness of life. The faithful historian of the early Anglo-Saxon Church, though himself an ardent Roman Catholic, and though earnestly condemning the Scotch clergy for their opposition to papal customs and claims, declares that these men were renowned for their continency, their love of God, and their observance of monastic rules. “By reason of their being so far away from the rest of the world,” he says, “they only practised such works of piety and chastity as they could learn from the prophetical, evangelical, and apostolical writings.” Well would it have been for Christians of all ages if they had learned their faith and practice from the same full and blessed fountains.

Of Bishop Aidan, one of their chief prelates, the most flattering record is made. He was a man of singular meekness and piety, and very zealous in the cause of God; he lived according to the tenor of his own teachings; he neither sought nor loved worldly possessions of any description; he delighted in giving to the poor the gifts he received from princes and kings; he traveled on foot, not on horseback, and when he met an unbeliever, he tried to lead him to trust in Jesus; and if he fell in with a Christian, he endeavored to encourage him by words and actions to alms and good works. All his companions, whether monks or laymen, were employed in “Reading the Scriptures, or in learning the Psalms. This was the daily occupation of himself, and all that were with him, wheresoever they went.” What was true of Aidan was nearly as just about Coleman and many of his brethren who labored in Scotland and the north of England in the end of the sixth, and in the seventh centuries.

In that age, when the Bishop of Rome was recognized as a superior prelate, the allegiance demanded was very slight. He had nothing to do with the consecration of bishops; the metropolitan attended to that business. Except in England, and a little afterwards in Germany, his chief connection with the appointment of archbishops was to send them the pall. Loyalty to Rome was shown by keeping Easter at the Romish time, by wearing a circular tonsure instead of one shaped like a crescent. And as the sturdy Irishmen who led the Picts to Christ had learned no regard from the successors of St. Patrick for the authority of the pope, they taught the Pictish nation to receive nothing at his dictation. And as stoutly as the immortal Covenanters resisted Popery in its full strength, or in its diluted forms, did these old Christians resist every papal encroachment upon their usages and rights.

These Scotch priests ministered in A.D. 664 to Oswy, king of the Northumbrians, who kept Easter at their time; his wife, Eanfleda, a Kentish princess, observed Easter after the Roman time. And it happened that when the king, having ended his fasting, was celebrating Easter, the queen and her followers were still fasting and keeping Palm Sunday; and as the Scotch would not yield a jot, there was confusion in many families, and not a little pious indignation in the breasts of papal priests and bishops.

Adamnan, abbot of Iona, came to Alfrid, king of Northumbria, on an embassy from his nation, and was assailed while in Alfrid’s court with all kinds of arguments to submit to the Roman usages, and to lead his countrymen along with him. Adamnan fell; but though, as Abbot of Iona, he was the first ecclesiastic in Scotland, and though he endeavored to “Bring his own people that were in Iona, or that were subject to that monastery, into the way of truth, yet in this he could not prevail.”

After the celebrated council held in Whitby, in England, in the time of Oswy and Hilda, when the Scotch were condemned by the king, Bishop Coleman resolved never to bow the knee to Rome, and collecting all his missionary monks at the famous monastery of Lindisfarne, and about thirty English brethren whom they had instructed, and who, like themselves, preached Jesus unfettered by papal chains, he returned to Iona, where they could worship God without the presence of a priest, monk, or bishop, who paid reverence or recommended respect to the See of Rome.

For the first seven hundred years of the Christian era, the servants of Christ in Scotland were as bitterly opposed to the pretensions, and to many of the ways of the bishops of Rome, as the immortal John Knox. Never till, through the superstition and tyranny of Naitan, king of the Scotch, A.D. 716, was the Church of Columba placed under the feet of the Roman bishops. By such an act of wicked despotism as marked the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the early Church of Scotland was robbed of her independence, and finally of her Bible and her purity; and fitted to produce Cardinal Beaton, and the other licentious and cruel men, who, at the Reformation, were a stain upon Christianity, and a reproach upon the land rendered illustrious by the hallowed memories of Columba and Tona.

The ancient Churches of Ireland, England, and Scotland, loving an open Bible, and cultivating purity and love, by the testimony of friends and foes, paid no deference to papal authority; knew nothing of the prince of the apostles or his successors, and were as independent of the See of Rome as any Protestant Church of the nineteenth century.

Continued in IV. Councils For Seven Centuries Repudiate Papal Jurisdiction

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart

Continued from I. The Ancient British Church.

THE POPES HAVE NO POWER IN THE IRISH CHURCH FOR MANY CENTURIES AFTER CHRIST.

The people of Ireland, for ages, were called Scots. Bede tells us that Laurentius, the successor of Augustine, wrote an epistle, in which he exhorted the “Scots who inhabit the island of Ireland,” as well as the ancient Britons, to maintain conformity with the Church of Christ spread over the world. This was the common designation of the inhabitants of Ireland for ages. It is not certain at what time the first light of the gospel reached the natives of Ireland; but it is well known that there were Christians in that country before the time of St. Patrick. He, however, properly merits the title of

There are conflicting accounts of his birth, nationality and acts, some insisting that there were three Patricks, whose deeds are commonly credited to one. The most probable history of the great Patrick is, that he was a native of Scotland; that his name was Succathus; and that he had a godly father, who gave him religious instruction in early life. At the age of sixteen, he was captured by pirates, and sold as a slave to the Scots in what is now called Ulster in Ireland. His daily toil in the neighborhood of Slemish, a beautiful mountain, from whose top the prospect is sublime, and his helpless and hopeless wrongs, led him to think of that Saviour of whom he had heard so much on the banks of his native Clyde. He touchingly describes his exercises at this time in his confessions:

“I was sixteen years old, and knew not the true God; but, in a strange land, the Lord brought me to a sense of my unbelief, so that, although late, I minded me of my sins, and turned with my whole heart to the Lord my God, who looked down on my lowliness, had pity on my youth and ignorance, who preserved me ere I knew him, and who protected and comforted me as a father does his son, ere I knew how to distinguish between good and evil.”

He found Jesus, and afterwards escaped from bondage and reached his friends. After passing through various changes, some of them of a very unhappy character, he felt he must go and preach to the pagans of Ireland the salvation of Jesus. He had calls in visions of the night, and deep impressions throughout the day, that he must be a missionary in Ireland; and, in opposition to remonstrances from friends, and misgivings in his own mind, after some preparation, he started for the scene of his future labors and successes. It is probable that he was ordained a bishop in Britain in his 45th year, notwithstanding all the tales of monks about Pope Celestine sending Patrick to convert the Scots to the faith of the Holy Trinity.

Nennius says that he preached in Britain some time before he went to Ireland. The Irish, he says, beheld in Patrick the most astonishing powers, natural and supernatural. He gave sight to the blind, cleansing to the lepers, hearing to the deaf; he cast out devils, raised nine persons from the dead, and redeemed many captives of both sexes. He wrote three hundred and sixty-five canonical and other books; he founded as many churches, and ordained as many bishops, and three thousand presbyters. He converted and baptized twelve thousand persons in Connaught. He baptized seven kings in one day, the sons of Amalgaid, king of Connanght. He fasted forty days and nights on the summit of Croagh Patrick, and made three requests to God for the people of Ireland. First: That God would receive every repenting sinner, even at the last moment; second, that the Irish might never be exterminated by barbarians; and, third, as Ireland will be overflowed with water seven years before the judgment, that the crimes of the people might be washed away through his intercession.

Matthew Paris says that in preparing for his ministry “he read through the Holy Scriptures, and made himself master of their divine mysteries.” He preached in Ireland eighty years, and reached the age of 122. He repeats everything mentioned by Nennius in such a way that it is evident either one is a copy of the other, or that both are transcripts of some old document.

Patrick invented the Irish alphabet, and infused a love for learning and for the sacred Scriptures among his converts, which rendered the monastic schools of Ireland the wonder and admiration of Europe for several ages.

Patrick was a man of extraordinary ability; he gathered the people by beat of drum, and listening thousands caught the words of life as they fell from his lips. In his day chieftains wielded immense power over their dependents, and the Irish apostle laid siege to their hearts first, and he quickly enlisted them and their clans. Their bards were men of commanding influence, and Patrick secured many of the most illustrious of them, and induced them to compose eloquent songs in honor of the man of Nazareth. Ireland under this remarkable preacher was completely renovated, and piety of a high order reigned all over the Green Isle. St. Patrick’s religion was

This truth is strikingly exhibited in the history of the Church which he planted. The monkish historians of the middle ages have many allusions to this fact in the character of the Irish Christians. Bede, speaking about Coinwalch, says: “There came into his kingdom out of Ireland a certain bishop called Agilbert, by nation a Frenchman, but who had then been in Ireland a long time, ‘for the purpose of reading the Scriptures.’”

Bede speaks of the most reverend father Egbert, who long led a monastic life with St. Chad in Ireland, praying, observing continency, and “meditating on the Holy Scriptures.”

Columbanus, a celebrated Irish monk, a missionary on the continent, was accustomed to retire from his convent into the dense forest, bearing on his shoulder “a copy of the Holy Scriptures, which he wanted to study in the solitude.”

Bishop Clement, an Irishman who had some trouble with the renowned Boniface, apostle of Germany, is said to have denied “to the writings of the older fathers, and to the canons of councils, authority binding on faith,” from which Neander justly infers “that he conceded such authority to the Holy Scriptures alone, acknowledging them as the only fountain and directory of Christian faith.”

And speaking of the pious Irish generally, Neander says: “Ireland became the seat of famous monasteries, in which the Scriptures were diligently read, ancient books eagerly collected and studied. They became missionary schools.” Like the revered Patrick, they became masters of the mysteries of the divine Word by careful reading. For a couple of centuries, Ireland was the Bible school of western Europe, whither the student and man of devout meditations came to read the Scriptures, The Church of St. Patrick was distinguished by

In A. D. 664, a pestilence swept over the south and north of England, destroying a great multitude of people, and creating universal dismay. The same plague raged with equal fury and fatality in Ireland. Many of the English nobility, and persons of inferior rank from England, were at the time in Ireland, either “for the sake of divine studies, or of a more continent life. The Scots (Irish) willingly received them all, and took care to supply them with food, and also to furnish them with books to read, and their teaching gratis.” Such is the testimony of the English Bede about men who rejected the pope whom he revered, and who belonged to a foreign nation. The Irish Church, for centuries after St. Patrick, was

Easter in the West showed whether a Christian was a papist or a Free churchman. The Irish followed no Romish custom, and they were specially vigorous in declining the papal time for observing Easter. Laurentius deplores their obstinacy in a letter addressed to them and the ancient Britons, in 605, soon after he succeeded Augustine as Archbishop of Canterbury. Himself wearing the livery of the bishop of Rome, he wanted the independent churches of Britain and Ireland to assume it too, And in this letter he tells the Scots that he once had a very exalted opinion of them; but Bishop Dagan (an Irish bishop) “coming into this aforesaid island, and the Abbot Columbanus in France informed us that the Scots (Irish) in no way differ from the Britons in their behaviour; for Bishop Dagan coming to us, not only refused to eat with us, but even to take his repast in the house where we were entertained.” It is evident that the Irish had no respect for the Roman bishop at this time, when such an insult, solely on religious grounds, was leveled at one of his exalted prelates.

Pope Honorius wrote to the Irish about Easter, and gave them to understand how presumptuous it was for a handful of people, living on the outskirts of the earth, to think themselves wiser than “all the ancient and modern churches of Christ throughout the world, and to celebrate a different Easter.” John, his successor, when pope elect, wrote to the Irish, admonishing them about Easter, telling them that “some among them, contrary to the orthodox faith, do through ignorance reject our Easter, when Christ was sacrificed.” But neither popes nor archbishops could turn the hearts of these old heroes from the Bible and the usages of mighty Patrick.

The Irish missionaries in France and Germany established churches and monasteries everywhere, taught the purest piety, and exemplified it in their own lives; and if they did not convert nations, they led hundreds of thousands to the true Saviour, who read the Scriptures, trusted Jesus, and walked with God. These men were a great source of trouble for a long period to the nominal Christians around them, who belonged to the old Frankish Church, and in later times to the Romish Church set up in Germany by Boniface. They were hated as Christ’s disciples were detested by the Pharisees; and their worst enemies were not the numerous Pagans, but the Christian priests of Gaul and Germany.

And we are not surprised at this treatment; for these missionaries loved God, and were not much afraid of men. They had an offensive way of telling popes, when they were wrong, that they disliked heresy or iniquity in any one; and of practising their Church rites in the heart of Germany or France before the eyes of Romish priests or bishops, entirely indifferent to their expostulations and prohibitions. Columbanus wrote Gregory the Great that he ought not to be governed by a false humility in refusing to correct what was erroneous, even though it bore the authority of Pope Leo the Great; “for,” said he, “a living dog may be better than a dead lion.” He adjured Boniface IV., by the unity of the Christian fold, to give him and his people permission, as strangers in France, to observe their own ancient customs; for they were just the same, dwelling in the wilderness, as if they were in their own country. And when Boniface, the Englishman, gathered such hosts in Germany from idols to the gospel of Augustine of Canterbury, and of the Pope of Rome, the pontiff, expecting some trouble from a man coming from the country of the ancient Britons, and Scotch heretics, and Irish independents, prescribed a solemn oath for Boniface, which he took at the tomb of St. Peter in Rome, which, in substance, was as follows:

“I promise thee, the first of the apostles, and thy representative, Pope Gregory, and his successors, that, with God’s help, I will abide in the unity of the Catholic faith; that I will in no manner agree with anything contrary to the unity of the Catholic Church; but will in every way maintain my faith pure, and my cooperation constantly for thee, and for the benefit of thy Church, on which was bestowed by God the power to bind and loose, and for thy representative aforesaid and his successors, And whenever I find that the conduct of the presiding officers of churches contradicts the ancient decrees and ordinances of the fathers, I will have no fellowship or connection with them; but, on the contrary, if I can hinder them, I will hinder them; and, if not, report them faithfully to the pope.”

This entire oath supposes that in Germany, the See of Boniface, there were bishops and churches who broke the unity of the pope’s faith by not receiving him as their master, which he was determined to crush. And Neander is not mistaken in asserting that the oath of Boniface was expressly intended to suppress the Irish and British churches in Germany. The author of a learned work recently published, states the exact truth when he says: “In the West, the ancient Irish and the ancient British Church remained for centuries autonomous, and under no sort of influence of Rome.”

In A. D. 1155, Ireland was not in the papal ranks. And Henry II. of England, sent a solemn embassy to Adrian, to Rome, to solicit his permission to “subdue Ireland, and bring into the way of truth its bestial inhabitants, by extirpating the seeds of vice among them.” Adrian readily consented, and issued a bull, declaring, among other things, “that to extend the frontiers of the Church, to teach a rude people the doctrines of the Christian faith, to extirpate the seeds of vice out of the Lord’s field, to secure to St. Peter the annual sum of one penny for every house, and to extend the Christian religion, he might seize Ireland.” It is very evident that the Irish of A. p. 1155, were, like Bishop Dagan and Columbanus, that they had nothing to do with Rome; and while in the twelfth century they had lost the piety and learning of the sixth, seventh and eighth, they were still free from the Roman yoke. And these ages of freedom from Romish interference and ecclesiastical supremacy are the most glorious centuries in the history of the Irish people.

Continued in III. The Ancient Scottish Church

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart

PREFACE.

The objects aimed at in this work are to sketch the birth, growth, and maturity of every Romish belief and practice; to furnish a contrast between papal and ancient Christianity, to present all decrees, canons, and other testimonies in their original languages and in translations; to show the bearings of popery upon some of our cherished institutions; to describe the present observances of the Catholic Church; and to give reliable, and generally, Romish authorities for every important statement; together with the pages, or the books and chapters, by which quotations can be verified. This treatise is entirely undenominational.

It is not intended for the learned, but for the mass of English readers; and the extracts in Latin and Greek are designed to furnish proofs of the truth of all leading declarations, which can be easily translated in every village, and in most rural districts of our highly favored land.

Not a few atrocious transactions have been entirely omitted, because, while they may be perfectly true, the evidence seemed insufficient to support them.

The Author has never been in the communion of the Church of Rome, but he hopes that the information which he conveys to the reader from credible witnesses will not be less valuable on that account.

Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius wrote their Ecclesiastical Histories inside the first six centuries; they belonged to the Church universal, and enjoy the confidence of the Christian world. The same statement applies to Ireneus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Hilary, and in the main to Tertullian and Origen.

Venerable Bede, William of Malmesbury, Matthew of Westminster, Matthew Paris, and Ingulph of Croyland were English monks, who wrote histories from the eighth to the middle of the thirteenth century which are held in very high and deserved estimation.

Du Pin was “a priest and doctor of divinity” of the faculty of Paris in 1688; his History, issued in parts, bears two certificates of approval from the Sorbonne, for centuries the most celebrated Catholic School in Europe.

The work called “Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentint” —Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent—was published at Leipsic with the approbation of the Catholic authorities of Saxony, and is the most important book in the Roman Church.

The “Catechism of the Council of Trent,” issued under the same sanction and in the same city, can receive no higher favor from popes and ecclesiastics than for centuries it has enjoyed.

Father Paul Sarpi, who wrote “The History of the Council of Trent,” lived and died a Roman Catholic, was secretary of the first president of that Synod, and was, perhaps, among the ablest men of the age.

The Vulgate which furnished our quotations has the text approved by Clement VII. and Sixtus V. The edition of the Councils by Labbe and Cossart, which we have frequently used, has the highest reputation in and out of the papal Church.

May this volume in some humble measure serve the interests of liberty, education, and true religion.

Philadelphia, December 13th, 1871.

I. The Ancient British Church

PAPAL SUPREMACY OVER THE CHURCHES.

The Bishop of Rome claims absolute and lasting kingship over all the churches of Christ on earth; and he presumes to assert that he has exercised this authority by the gift of Christ from the first planting of Christianity.

Before tracing the outlines of that marvellous history in which Roman pontiffs are seen marching from victory to victory, until they waved their spiritual swords in undisputed triumph over the prostrate form of western Christianity, and sat down as conquerors in the throne of the Church designed for her Heavenly Head, we shall first show by unimpeachable witnesses that no papal king reigned over the earthly spouse of Christ for many ages after his ascension into Paradise. We shall appeal to the ancient churches of Britain and Ireland; to the great councils of the first seven centuries; and to the admissions of eminent fathers about the equality of presbyters and bishops at the beginning, and of all bishops a little later for infallible testimony, to prove that the bishops of Rome had no dominion over the universal Church for hundreds of years after Peter’s supposed presence in the city of the Caesars.

The authorities differ about the men who first planted the Gospel in Britain. Some hold that Joseph of Arimathea and twelve others, about A. D. 63, introduced salvation among the islanders. Others declare that Paul preached the glad tidings in England. And others affirm that Britain was converted by missionaries sent from Rome, A. D. 176, by Pope Eleutherius, at the request of Lucius, an imaginary English king. (Geoffrey’s British History, lib. iv. cap. 19.)

According to Matthew Paris, the faith of Jesus was first preached to his countrymen in A, D. 167. Neander declares that the Gospel reached the Britons as early as the end of the second century; that it came to them, not from Rome, but from the East; and that in very early times the Britons were a Christian nation. They differed widely on some points from the Roman Church, and were in perfect harmony on these questions with the Eastern Churches. This latter circumstance renders it all but certain that some Greek missionary, like Irenaeeus of Lyons, was their first Christian teacher.

After the invasion of Britain, in the middle of the fifth century, by the Anglo-Saxons, the churches were plundered, burned, or turned into heathen temples by these idolaters, and the Christian religion was threatened with extinction in every section of their future home. They might be described as rivalling the fiercest monsters of persecution of any age. They destroyed the temples of Christ; they slew the priests at the altars; they gave the Holy Scriptures to the flames; they showed their contempt for the venerated tombs of the martyrs by covering them with mounds of earth; and the clergy who escaped had to hide in woods, and deserts, and mountain retreats, And after seizing and wasting the whole land, they compelled the wretched remnant of the ancient Britons to fly from their ruined churches and blood-stained homes, and to settle in “Cornubia, or, as it is called by some, Cornwall; Demeeia, or South Wales; Venedocia, or North Wales.” And there they clung to the faith of Jesus.

And as he and his forty brethren are soon enriched with a large list of converts among the Anglo-Saxons, he learns something of the ancient Christian inhabitants of England; and, being a man of considerable self-importance, he demands a conference with them, that he may compel them to change their religions customs, and recognise the pope and himself as their masters. The bishops and teachers of the ancient Britons meet him at Augustine’s Oak, on the Severn; he there proposes that they shall give up their time of keeping Easter, and adopt the pope’s; that they shall administer baptism according to the custom of the holy Roman Church, and preach the word of God to the Anglo-Saxons; and if they will yield on these three points, he offers to tolerate patiently their other customs, though contrary to his. Angustine strongly urges these demands. He insists, too, that they shall receive him as their archbishop, and the pope and Church of Rome as authorities to be respected and obeyed. Deynoch, abbot of the celebrated monastery of Bangor, whose opinion in the ancient British Church was most influential, replied:

“We are all ready to listen to the Church of God, to the pope at Rome, and to every pious Christian, that so we may show to each, according to his station, perfect love, and uphold him by word and deed. We know not that any other obedience can be required of us towards him whom you call the pope, or the father of fathers. But this obedience we are prepared constantly to render to him, and to every Christian.”

When neither Augustine’s prayers nor arguments could secure compliance, Augustine proposed a miracle to decide which is the true way to the heavenly kingdom. A blind man is brought forward, whose sight the bishops of the Britons could not restore. Augustine, however, had better success; for, on bowing the knees and begging the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ that sight might be given to the eyes of one, that thereby the grace of spiritual light might illumine the hearts of many believers, immediately the eyes of the blind were opened. But the Britons, either supposing that the healing was no miracle, or that it was not from God, obstinately refused to give up their customs, Some time after, a larger number of the British clergy met Augustine in conference about the same controversy; and before entering the council the British priests took advice from a “holy and discreet man,” who led the life of a hermit, and who told them to follow Augustine if he should prove himself to be a man of God, and he informed them that they would discover this by his humility. “If,” said he, “the words of the Lord mark his spirit and life; ‘Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart, it is to be believed that he bears Christ’s yoke himself, and offers the same to you.” And he told them that they should let him reach the place of meeting first, and if he arose to greet them on entering, he had the Saviour’s humility; but if he sat still, he was proud, and they must have nothing to do with him.

Augustine did not arise, and they rejected himself for their archbishop, and his Romish traditions. “The servant of the Lord,”(?)as Matthew Paris says, then threatened that if they would not have peace from the Anglo-Saxons as friends, they must have war from them as enemies; and soon after, at the instigation, it is judged, of Augustine, Ethelfrid, a powerful king of the Northumbrians, assembled a large army at the city of Legions; and, just as he was about to make an attack on the Britons, he observed their priests in large numbers, standing apart, engaged in prayer for the success of their brethren; and on learning the object at which they were aiming, he said: “If, then, they cry unto their God against us, in truth they fight against us, though they do not bear arms; for they assail us with their prayers.” He, therefore, attacked them first, and slew 1200 of them; then he destroyed the army of the Britons, called “impious” by Matthew Paris; but an army not unworthy of the name of holy patriots, when viewed in the light of liberty and an open Bible.

Most of the priests came from Bangor, an institution which, according to Paris, was divided into seven parts, with a ruler over each, and in which no section had less than three hundred monks.

Bede gives precisely the same account about the meeting with Augustine; the three propositions; the blind man whose eyes were opened, who, he says, was of the Saxon race, not of the British; about the meeting of another synod; about the hermit’s advice in reference to Augustine’s humility; about Augustine’s sitting posture; and finally about the rejection of Augustine’s religious innovations; and his insolent claims to authority over British churches.

He also describes the slaughter, by Ethelfrid, of the British army, soon after; and of the twelve hundred priests who prayed for its success, most of whom were from the monastery of Bangor, with its seven departments, each division containing more than three hundred monks, who all lived by the labor of their own hands, And good old Bede actually thought this slaughter a mark of the vengeance of heaven against “perfidious men, because they had despised the offer of eternal salvation,” when, in reality, they only despised the insolent usurpations of Augustine, and the pope who sent him, and maintained the rights of a nation’s Church, which, in the language of Neander, “withstood for a long time the authority of the Romish papacy.” For seven hundred years, the British Church maintained its independence of the See of Rome, and some portions of it most probably till a much later period.

Geoffrey of Monmouth states that when Augustine came, he found in Britain seven bishoprics, and an archbishopric, all filled with devout prelates, and a great number of abbeys, by which the flock of Christ was kept in order. He describes, in glowing terms, the most noble Church of Bangor, with the seven divisions, of which Bede and Paris speak, each section with more than three hundred members; he pays a generous tribute to the learning and piety of the celebrated Deynoch, their abbot, “who answered Augustine with several arguments, that they owed no subjection to him, since they had their own archbishop; neither would they preach to their enemies (the Saxons), because the Saxon nation persisted in depriving them of their country. For this reason they esteemed them their mortal enemies; reckoned their faith and religion as nothing, and would no more communicate with the Angles than with dogs.” In the next chapter, Geoffrey gives an account of the battle in which the priests of Bangor were slaughtered. He says that “Ethelbert, king of Kent (the earliest patron of Augustine, whose wife wrote to Pope Gregory to send Catholic missionaries into England), when he saw that the Britons disdained subjection to Augustine, and despised his preaching, was highly provoked, and stirred up Ethelfrid and the other petty kings of the Saxons to raise a great army, and march to the city of Bangor, and destroy the Abbot Deynoch, and the rest of the clergy who held them in contempt.” Geoffrey agrees with Bede and Paris in everything about the battle, except in the number of ecclesiastics slain. He places it at two hundred.

William of Malmesbury is less minute, but he is careful to state that Ethelfrid vented his fury upon the priests first, and that their number must have been incredible for those times. He states that the ruins remaining were vast, such as were to be seen nowhere else; that their monastery was mighty even in its desolations.

Bangor was the university for the education of the British clergy, as Iona was for the Scotch; it was the divinity school; it was the headquarters of ancient British missions; it was the seat of Deynoch, the master-mind of the British Church. And as that Church had never recognized the headship of any pope, and had recently and decidedly declined to receive the pope’s authority in changing their customs, or in imposing an archbishop upon them, Bangor must be blotted out. The British Church must be extinguished, if it will not be enslaved. After this butchery, the success of Augustine and his friends among the Saxons becomes unexampled; all the race in Britain submits to the missionaries of Gregory the Great, and the ancient British Christians pass into obscurity; but their principles live in Scotland, and spread over the whole Saxon settlements in the North of England. There is discord in families, and anger in sacerdotal hearts, and unhappiness in the Eternal City itself, because Scotch priests in England will not wear a circular tonsure, nor keep Easter on the Roman day, nor obey the popes.

A council is called at Streaneshalch—Whitby. It met in 664. Whitby Abbey at this time contained a large number of men and women. It was a seat of learning for the entire region around; it was a school of divinity, out of which in a little time five bishops were graduated, men of distinguished ability and piety: Bosa, Hedda, Oftfor, John, and Wilfrid. Hilda taught the inmates of her monastery justice, piety, chastity, and other virtues, and particularly peace and charity. Her wisdom and zeal extended her reputation to distant localities; and not only the obscure, but princes and kings asked her advice. She compelled the inmates of her house to study the Holy Scriptures, and become thoroughly acquainted with the will of God. She was, undoubtedly, a woman of distinguished piety, and of a vigorous intellect, and eminently fitted to direct the studies and toils of the great male and female community over which she presided.

To her house the advocates of papal supremacy and of the non-Roman Church of North Britain came. Among the distinguished persons present were King Oswy, Bishop Coleman, with his Scottish clerks, Bishop Agilbert, with the priests Agatho and Wilfrid, James and Romanus. The Abbess Hilda, with her troops of followers, the venerable Bishop Cedd, ordained many years before among the Scots, were on the anti-papal side. King Oswy seems to preside in the council. The discussion is chiefly in the hands of Coleman and Wilfrid. Coleman, on behalf of the Free Church, defended his observance of Easter by the facts that, “he received the time of keeping Easter from his forefathers, men beloved of God, from the custom of John the Evangelist, the disciple beloved of our Lord, and of all the churches over which he presided.” Wilfrid maintained the popish time of keeping Easter, because all Rome, where mighty Peter and Paul taught, must be right; because the same time was observed in Italy, France, Africa, Asia, Greece, Egypt,and all the world, “except only these and their accomplices in obstinacy (‘I mean the Picts (Scots) and the Britons’), who foolishly, in those two remote islands of the world, and only in part even of them, oppose all the rest of the universe.”

As the discussion progressed with much Christian courtesy and gentleness by Coleman, with decided ability and insolent derision-by Wilfrid, he quoted Christ’s words to Peter: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” and then he inquired if any of the fathers who had taught Coleman his customs could be compared to that first bishop of Rome? The king demanded from Coleman, if it was true, that our Lord had spoken these words to Peter? Coleman admitted the fact. The king then asked if he could show such power given to the great Scottish father, St. Columba? Coleman replied, “No.” Then said the king: “He is the doorkeeper, whom I will not contradict; but I will, as far as I know and am able, in all things obey his decrees, lest when I come to the gates of the kingdom of heaven, there should be none to open them, he being my adversary who is proved to have the keys.” Oswy’s decision was difficult to dispute; he had a sharp sword, a strong arm and a violent temper: and as he imagined that everything pledged to Peter was promised to all Roman bishops, from that moment he became the most obsequious servant of the pontiff, and under his influence the Council of Whitby enthroned Romanism in the North of England.

Coleman very wisely went into Scotland among his own brethren. The other advocates of his opinions were silenced. But these opinions, embracing an anti-popish Easter and tonsure, had their principal strength from opposition to papal supremacy over the government of the Church; and this idea could not be easily destroyed. It worked in men’s minds, and another council was convoked at Hertford.

Archbishop Theodore convened the synod A. p. 673. It was composed of bishops and other teachers of the Church, who loved and were acquainted with the canonical statutes of the fathers. It adopted ten chapters, and signed them. And then it was voted that every offender should be excluded from sacerdotal functions, and from “our society.” The very first of these “chapters ” reads: “That we all in common keep the holy day of Easter on the Sunday after the fourteenth moon of the first month.” This anti-papal leaven was still disturbing the Roman bishops. Theodore, who called this synod, was a Greek by birth, a mere dependent of the Bishop of Rome, who had sent him into England to fill its highest ecclesiastical office, and to do the bidding of the successor of Peter. Doubtless, at Hertford he was carrying out his orders.

Theodore was the first Roman prelate who could carry out his primacy over all England. He banished the usages of the Scotch Free Church out of the Anglo-Saxon nations. The Council at Hertford was a potent agent in accomplishing this task. The ancient Britons retained their church independence for a longer period, and it is not definitely known when it became extinct.

Here, then, is a lofty monument, rearing its head for at least seven centuries into the heavens, upon which is written in great letters, “THE EARLY CHRISTIANS KNEW NOTHING OF THE POPE’S SUPREMACY OVER THE CHURCHES.”

Continued in II. The Ancient Irish Church.

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart

In this article, Dr. Phil Stringer satisfactorily answers a question I have had for a while about the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. That question was, “If the Septuagint was the Scriptures that Jesus and all the New Testament writers quoted from, why did the translators of the Old Testament of the King James Bible use the Hebrew Masoretic text which was compiled by Jewish scholars hundreds of years later?

Transcription

There is a position that says, God has inspired certain words. God has promised to preserve those words. Those words have been translated for us in English. We can know the certainty of the words of truth, we can know we have God’s words, and as a result of knowing we have God’s words, we can have an answer for those who have questions.

There is another position among those who profess to be evangelicals and claim to believe in inspiration, that God gave His words, but the words were never kept in an exact form. In a vague sort of, well you know, we might not be sure of the text, we might not be sure of the translation, and there’s room for differences of opinion, and you can’t be certain, it’s kind of vague. And that position has come to dominate in professing evangelical Christianity.

It’s not as dominant as it was a few years ago, but it’s clearly still there and still dominant. And when I began to talk about the certainty of the words, there were folks who would say, that can’t be true. And you know how we know that can’t be true? Man, they do have an answer, you know how we know that cannot be true? Christ and the apostles used the Septuagint, and the Septuagint does not match the King James, it does not match the Hebrew Masoretic text, and so the text isn’t really an issue, you can have different texts, you can have different words, they can disagree because Christ and the apostles used a very loose translation of the Old Testament and referred to it as the Scripture, so the word Scripture, holy writings, you know, it can mean different things and variations of the text are okay, and so it doesn’t matter, and so that just can’t be true.

What you said just cannot be true, because Christ used the Septuagint, and that doesn’t fit with your approach to Scripture. What you said, Brother Ketchum, can’t be true, because Christ used the Septuagint, and that doesn’t fit with your message. What you said, Brother Brown, cannot be true, because Christ used the Septuagint, and Christ could not have used the Septuagint if what you said was true.

That is the argument. I thought for a while it might be one of the arguments, but after having heard it over and over and over again, I have come to realize it is the argument the average Evangelical who believes in a loose approach to Scripture has and uses, Christ used a loose translation, so the translation issue is not important, pick any translation you want, use them all, they’re all the same, Christ used the Septuagint. And so I ask questions, and I have discovered on this issue when you ask questions you make people angry.

How do you know Christ used the Septuagint? The answer is everybody knows! I am always suspicious of anything when the answer is everybody knows. Everybody knows evolution is true. Why does everybody know that? Everybody knows, the smart people know. If you don’t know, you’re just not smart. Everybody knows global warming is true. Everybody knows that. We’ve stood in Chicago in the midst of snow drifts and bitter weather, being lectured about how that was caused by global warming, because everybody knows global warming is true.

And so I have asked the question, how do you know? Everybody knows, the intelligent people know, the smart people know, if you don’t know you’re not intelligent, you’re not smart.

It’s what I call the tyranny of the expert. All the “smart” people know this, so if you don’t know, you must not be very smart. Did you know socialism is good for the poor? And if you ask anybody, can you show me one example in thousands of years of recorded world history where socialism ever benefited the poor, the answer you will get is that, “Everybody knows it benefits the poor.” But don’t ask for a specific example.

The tyranny of the expert, the smart people know this, and anytime somebody defends a position by saying everybody knows, I’m instantly suspicious of that position. And here’s why. If you ask that question and they had an answer, instead of saying everybody knows, they would give you the answer.

Everybody knows Christ used the Septuagint. And I begin to wonder about that in that lesson, and Roman Catholicism is very adamant that Christ used the Septuagint, and they have a reason. The Septuagint, and I’ll explain what that is in a minute, the Septuagint has the Apocrypha in it.

So if you accept the idea that Christ used the Septuagint, then Christ authorized the Apocrypha by using a Bible with the Apocrypha in it. And so the folks who believe in concept inspiration, they do not believe in God-inspired words, they believe in God-inspired ideas, they love the idea that Christ used the Apocrypha because it justifies their doctrine of inspiration since we’re really not worried about the words if we’re using the Septuagint.

But why evangelicals? Why Baptists? Why do people who profess to believe in verbal inspiration? And they can be very adamant about this.

And I asked myself, and I watched this for a while and I came to this conclusion, that the reason they say this is because the Catholics and the modernists will question their scholarship if they don’t. And so they repeat it because they do want to look good to the world. They want to look intelligent.

I’ve had a couple of people tell me over the years, “Stringer, you would come across as an intelligent guy if you would just drop this King James stuff, but everybody knows that no intelligent person believes all that. They declare that they’re scholars, they repeat what they got from Catholicism, they repeat what they got from the modernists, they say, see that proves how educated we are, how intelligent we are. They not only repeat it, they repeat it as doctrine. They not only repeat it as doctrine, but they also repeat it as fundamental doctrine that affects your beliefs about everything. And you know how they know? All the Catholic scholars say that. And they do. And all the concept inspiration modernists say that. And they do. And if we were not to agree with it, we would get called names.

Let me explain what the Septuagint is. According to Miller’s general biblical introduction, the Septuagint version is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language for the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria of Egypt.

It is commonly called the Septuagint. The abbreviation is LXX for 70, it’s sometimes called the Alexandrian version. But why, when Christ was preaching to the Jews of Palestine, would he use a Greek version designed for the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt?

The idea that this translation existed at that time is based on a document called the Letter of Aristeas. And there are several people who quote this letter. And in the Letter to Aristeas, he says he’s a high official of the Egyptian court, and he was assigned by the royal librarian to create a Greek translation of the Old Testament for the Egyptian royal library. So he asked the high priest to send six scribes from each of the tribes of Israel to Alexandria, which is 72, by the way.

For a period of years, the story is told with 72 translators, and then it changes to 70, hence the name 70. I do not know why it changed. But it’s 72 translators, and they all come to Egypt, and they had translated for 72 days, and that each one of them did an individual translation, and when they were done, they compared the 72 translations, and they were identical, thus proving they were inspired of God.

And there’s a question, I read that story, and all these people are talking about the Septuagint. Do you believe that story? 72 guys, each translated the entire Old Testament, and their translations were identical word for word? Well, no. No one I know will admit to believing that story!

But they also considered it authoritative, as well as being untrue. One well-known general introduction Bible says, that the details of this story are undoubtedly fictitious, but the letter does relate the authentic facts. Everybody knows that.

In the introduction, if you buy something called the Septuagint today, and I want to suggest to you that is not the Septuagint of ancient times, it is a Septuagint produced after the time of Christ, but if you buy something called the Septuagint today, and if you read the introduction, the introduction to the Septuagint states that the letter to Aristeas is not worthy of notice, except for the myth being connected with the authority which this version was once supposed to have possessed. It goes on to say, that we don’t know that what we have now called the Septuagint is anything similar to an ancient Septuagint. And for some reason, they quit calling it the 70 and referred to the 72.

If you don’t believe the letter of Aristeas, which is the only ancient reference to the Septuagint, you’ve got nothing to go on.

Jerome, whose writing is a contemporary of Augustine, in the 4th century, wanted to make a new translation of the Old Testament from Latin into Hebrew, and he and Augustine exchanged letters about these things. Augustine did not want to use the Hebrew because he thought God had inspired the Septuagint. And the Hebrew, no available Hebrew text matches the Septuagint, so he didn’t want to use the Hebrew because he said, we have an inspired Greek Septuagint.

Really? Folks who don’t believe that God inspired the words in the beginning, or don’t believe that God could have used the King James translators to preserve the Word of God, but you believe some Greek guys we’ve never known anything about were inspired? Really? Jerome understood that the Septuagint of his day was developed by Origen. He did not believe it was a Septuagint of previous references. He believed that Origen used several different Greek manuscripts and that all of them have been corrupted.

He disputed Augustine’s assertion that the Apostles usually quoted from the Septuagint. I’ve had folks tell me that is something you King James guys invented. Really? Do you think, Jerome, was a King James guy in the 4th century?

Well, Jerome pointed this out. These, the things they refer to as quotations of Christ, not only don’t match the Hebrew Old Testament word for word, they don’t match the Septuagint either. They don’t match anything, and there is an explanation for why.

Well, in 1588, 23 years before the release of the King James Bible, William Whitaker wrote,

“Learned men question whether the Greek version of the Scriptures now extant, be or be not the version of the 70 elders. The sounder opinion seems to be that those who determine that the true Septuagint is wholly lost and that the Greek text as we have it is a mixed and miserably corrupted document.

He said, what we have now, we’re calling a Septuagint, this is just a horrible translation.

And so, for what particular reason do you think that Christ quoted from it? People say, “Well, you know, we have manuscripts of the Septuagint.” But with four possible exceptions, I’m going to mention real quickly, every one of them comes after 350 AD. And they say, “See, Christ quoted from this because there are a few places where it matches.” 350 AD is long after the time of Christ.

Whoever produces that can go back and match word for word what Christ said, rather than it be the other way around. Four fragments called the Rylands papyrus have been found. Three of them were found in one place, and a fourth were found in a different place in Egypt. They all have little pieces of Deuteronomy, and they go back to before that time. However, the verses in them are not quoted by anybody in the New Testament, Jesus or the apostles. They don’t have anything to do with this debate. They do prove somebody produced a Greek Old Testament of some kind back that early, but it doesn’t tell you anything about what Christ or the apostles were saying or doing.

In the last century, a professor named Paul Cayley, he was a German professor of oriental studies, addressed this issue of the Septuagint and what’s involved. He’s a recognized scholar of mid-eastern languages. He said it is silly to believe anything based on the letter of Aristeas, really. He said it’s just propaganda, it’s just fiction. He says what we have the Septuagint at calling it the Septuagint today probably has nothing to do, and if it has in any way anything to do with an early Greek translation, we have no way of knowing it because we do not have a quotation of anything from before the time of Christ.

He just said, listen, guys, you cannot take this fairy tale and build an idea off of it. It doesn’t hold. And he, I think, would be shocked to see what’s happened more recently when folks took this fairy tale and not only built an idea of it, they built a doctrine out of it. For them, this is the fundamental doctrinal position that describes the nature of Scripture. Christ used the Septuagint, the Septuagint doesn’t match the Textus Receptus, consequently, it cannot matter the exact wording of Scripture, it just can’t matter.

How do you know? And I’ve asked dozens, by email and in person. I’ve asked critics, I’ve asked people I don’t know anything about, I’ve asked friends. Why do you think Christ used the Septuagint? Now this is not some little quibbling about a minor detail, this is what their doctrine of Scripture is based on, and I say their doctrine of Scripture is not based on a biblical statement at all. It’s not even based on confusing a biblical statement.

(End of transcription.)

The transcription of the audio is only a partial one. It contains the main points of what Dr. Stringer teaches about the Septuagint.

I think it should be a red flag for any evangelical when they hear recommendations of the Septuagint from Catholic sources. It is a red flag for real Protestants. Sadly all modern English Bible translations use the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the reason Daniel 9:27 has been mistranslated in modern English Bibles.

Daniel 9:27 is a Messianic prophecy about Christ confirming the Covenant God made with Abraham to the House of Israel. Daniel 9:27 translated from the Septuagint makes it sound like an end-time treaty the Antichrist will make with the Jews. This should give you good reason to stick to the KJV.

This is another talk by Robert Caringola. I like him because he’s a former Roman Catholic like me who has found the truth of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ through the Scriptures, and is knowledgeable about both the history of the Protestant Reformation and the Jesuit led Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation.

In this article, Robert Caringola brings out a very interesting interpretation of 1 Thessalonians, 4:17, “to meet the Lord in the air.” I have never heard his interpretation before, but it makes sense to me because it’s based on meanings of the Greek words in the text. Just read the article or listen to the audio and find out what he says about it!

Transcript

Welcome to Truth in History. My name is Robert Caringola, and what we’re going to talk about, and believe me, I’m going to fly by the seat of my pants on this one because there’s so much that could be presented, but I want you to leave edified, encouraged, and for some of you, what I’m going to show you in your Bible, it will stun you, it will change you. But the title of this message is, “Scofield Bible is Another Gospel.”

Now, I was going to title this, “Dispensationalism is a Thief of Understanding,” because when we talk about the Scofield Bible, you’re going to understand why I will reference it as a thief of understanding.

Now, I have mentioned several times when I teach, and even in my book, The Seventy Weeks, I believe, that I contend with no man’s person, but that which concerns only the words of truth. But as you will hopefully go from here and do some homework after hearing what I’ve presented, there’s a lot of problems with the character of Cyrus Scofield and his associates, and some of what we’re going to look at. But that’s not going to be the theme of what we want to look at.

I want to show you and just kind of give a basic picture, because most of you were raised on the notes of the Scofield Bible before you came into the truth. A lot of you were, I know, and that’s where you learned your dispensationalism. That’s where you learned your secret rapture. That’s where you went and bought your Clarence Larkin’s book, Dispensational Truth, but it’s far from anything near the truth, and we have dealt with that here at Truth in History several times.

When Jesus was asked, it’s pretty significant, “What shall be the sign of thy coming?” One of the first words out of His mouth was, “See that no man deceive you. ” The amount of deception around the coming of Christ is, and if you’ve been following Truth in History for years, and the works of myself, Pastor Jennings, other great ministries, Carl Tester, the elders here, you know we have exposed, documented, put it on a silver platter for you, the truth, and the errors, and their origins, and irrefutable rebukes of their false doctrines. Secret rapture is a big part of all this.

The Scofield Bible, I think published 1909, I just thought about that. I wasn’t even worried about all that etymological history of it and stuff because of where I want to go with this, but the secret rapture, it’s a heresy. There’s nothing secret about it as we’re going to see the resurrection of the dead, and we’re going to see some things that will forever change how you look at Paul’s message to the Thessalonians concerning this, and what I’m going to share with you, you will not find in the Scofield Bible. And I want to reiterate again that if you do your homework, you will find much, much reputation of the Scofield Bible, of dispensationalism, exposure of the man’s life. It’s all there for you if you want to educate yourself and find out what’s going on, and then you’ll walk away scratching your head and wonder why Dallas Theological Institute and others use the Scofield Bible.

“Take heed that no man deceive you,” Christ said. Modern dispensationalism, now I’m having to just mention things that I know many of you are familiar with, and a big part of its push in the 20th century, in the early decade of the 20th century, came about. It had been metastasizing all these errors, but it really got a big push in the publication of the Scofield Bible, and the Plymouth Brethren and stuff. In my book, The Seventy Weeks, and I know many of you have probably read it, but on page 31 I talk about how all this error came into the Protestant Church, which was prior to all these men, it was a historicist. It was a historicism.

They all knew that the unifying doctrine of the Reformation was that the papacy was the dynasty of the foretold Antichrist, or man of sin, or little horn of Daniel. The thought of an Antichrist yet to come in a seven-year tribulation is all dispensationalism, Scofieldism. It’s all Roman Catholic Jesuit counter-theology. It’s that whole mixed bag of soup put together into a poisonous potion that has devastated Protestantism, Evangelicalism, or all several isms out there.

We talk about the players, who they were, the Plymouth Brethren, John Nelson Darby, Scofield, William Kelly, and we’ll be mentioning some of these people. There was a process by which we turned from centuries of understanding into a world of fanciful speculation, into a world of the 70 weeks, instead of glorifying and proving that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, even pointing out the exact year it was prophesied that He would appear in His public ministry, to having the 70 weeks at the end of the age, Antichrist appearing, rapture here, rapture there. That’s all Scofieldism, dispensationalism. And there’s not near enough time to get into the mechanics of all that. I want to show you a couple examples of what that has taken from the body of Christ. And it is evil. It is evil, what it has done.

One thing about the big difference, what Scofieldism and these dispensationalists tried to do, and have been teaching, is they look at man’s 7,000 or 6,000 years of recorded history. And they say, well, we really have seven dispensations. I read about dispensations in the Word, and what the word really means about service and stuff. But they break it up and they say, well, we have innocence, conscience, human government, promise, law of Moses, grace of the New Testament, then the kingdom to come in a thousand year millennium. I don’t read that in my Bible.

As a matter of fact, when you read the Bible, you find out that God dealt with man in covenants, not in dispensations.

We have a covenant in Eden. We have an Adamic covenant with Adam. We have a covenant with Noah. We have an unconditional covenant with Abraham. We have a covenant with Moses. We have a covenant with David. And then we have a new covenant with Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. That’s what your Bible teaches.

It’s just like Paul in his New Testament writings talked about a five-fold ministry of apostles, of prophets, of pastors, teachers, evangelists. Well, we have a massive apostasy that was prophesied and clearly defined in Daniel and the Revelation and in Paul’s writings that instead of that, we get nuns, priests, monsignors, cardinals, papacy. Where’d all that come from? Well, those of us who know our history know exactly where it came from.

And see, this is what happens when you start speculating and you start applying non-biblical understanding or conjectures of what you think the Bible is saying instead of just showing people the covenants of the Bible and watching them unfold. Behold, the days will come that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Not that I will grant them a new dispensation. That’s not what the Bible says, but that’s what these Scofieldites and dispensational people and Hal Lindsey’s and Scofield is wrong in much of his teaching. And why he got so popular was when his Bible came out, all the annotations and notes, people were reading the notes before they’d read the Bible and think they were getting correct interpretation. But as we’re going to see here, it was nefarious of what was happening around Scofield as all this was developing and who some of these players were. And again, I’m going to show you what were two examples, two great examples, of what was stolen from you. And believe me, I’ve written books on what was stolen from you. So has Pastor Jennings and others.

Scholars have looked at this and let me zip through this and have looked at the Scofield notes, compiled the theology of dispensationalism, its prophetic interpretations called futurism. These are in hand here. There’s a lot of devils involved, a lot of false doctrine, a lot of players. And we know our history. There’s a lot of enemies of the kingdom of God. And they write, and they’re liars because their leader is the father of lies.

Seven principal errors: First, we’ve been talking about that word dispensationalism. Antinomianism is the second. The false ideas of Antichrist, number three, those are dealt with in the 70 weeks in the present reign of Jesus Christ. This idea of Antichrist restricted to an individual at the end of the age is the lie of Francisco Ribera, rejected for centuries by Protestants. Until what I showed you, the players started reading their lies and other counter schemes. Then it evolved.

Men got lazy! They loved this fanciful speculation. The Plymouth Brethren, all this developing, all these Bible conferences, all these tracts, all these guys getting excited, something new. You know what you mean, “I don’t have to spend 20 years studying history? Oh, it’s all in the future!”

And boy, things happened. And the Scofield Bible fueled the fire that would ultimately produce a Hal Lindsey. Scofield Bible produced the fire that would produce a John Hagee. I’m not talking about these men’s lives. Don’t get me wrong. It’s what they’re touting and the poison that has been spewed and the theft of your understanding.

Secret Rapture is number four. Return of Jews to Jerusalem as they perceive it. And what they’re trying to tell you Jews are, Truth in History has made very clear. It’s been part of Pastor Jennings’ life to reveal to you the difference between, as we were warned in the Revelation, beware of them who say they are Jews but are not. They are the synagogue of Satan. That’s the Words of your Lord.

False teachings regarding the kingdom. Dispensationalists don’t have a clue what the kingdom of God is. And false hopes, probably the worst, is the false hopes for a batch of Jews in the coming millennium after the time of Antichrist and during the seven year tribulation. A false hope of another chance of salvation.

Let me show you one of the thefts. Let’s talk about this thing called the Rapture, the secret Rapture that’s so ingrained. It’s unbelievable. But, as I heard a man on the radio today talking about all this news unfolding about President Trump and Biden’s demise and he was wise and he said, remember, remember, remember, false news hits the airways before the truth and facts can be put together. They say a lie is heard all the way around the world before the truth can get its socks on in the morning. And that’s happened to us historically.

And by the way, the tree of liberty will bleed periodically. And we just saw last Saturday with the shooting of President Trump, a bulwark in the cry for the tree of liberty. We saw blood on his face. There’d been a lot of blood over the centuries. There’s more to come. A lot of folks going to die before things are settled.

But Paul writing to the Thessalonians in chapter four, verse 15, he says, “For this we say unto you by the Word of the Lord.” Paul said, I’m telling you what Jesus Christ would tell you if He was sitting here looking at you. “That we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep (or dead.)” The dead in Christ. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout.”

What’s the secret rapture all about? I’ll spell it for you. S-H-O-U-T. Shout!

“With the voice of the archangel, the trump of God, the dead in Christ shall rise first.” This is the time of the dead that Daniel saw. “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so shall we ever be with the Lord. ”

The Lord who will be our God walking in the midst of the new Jerusalem on this earth. He will be the sun and the moon and the stars and the light and the government. We will see and walk with our God.

Well, let’s look at a couple things here. Rapture says we’re going to fly ascend up and meet the Lord. Paul says the Lord Himself is going to descend. This will make more sense in a minute. He’s going to descend from heaven with a shout, voice of the archangel, the trump of God. Well, I guarantee you this one’s going to wake the dead.

“We, which are alive and remain,” we haven’t gone anywhere. I talk about that in the 70 weeks in this secret rapture and who’s taken and who remains. The wicked are destroyed from the earth. The righteous remain on the earth that is without end as Paul said, new heaven and new earth. There’ll be one, a better quality as the Greek tells us, but this planet’s not going anywhere.

“Shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.”

Now, if you will get your Strongs [concordance] out and begin to do some work…Years ago in the early eighties, when this was brought to my attention that there’s a word used here in this caught up, be caught up theme called Harpazo. H-A-R-P-A-Z-O. And we get it in the English, you know, is “coming up.” Well, if we are ascending out of our graves, but the old dead body’s not going to ascend, we’re going to appear in the heavenly body. As Paul said, there’s bodies terrestrial and there’s bodies celestial. And we were going to transform, this is going to die and be buried, and we will be manifested in our heavenly bodies, celestial bodies.

But the word Harpazo, remember it says, Christ is descending from heaven. We’re not flying up into heaven, it says Christ is descending. Where’s He descending to? Well, the Revelation tells us where He comes to. And He told you on the Mount of Olives, the angel said this same Jesus was just taken from you. He’s going to come back in like manner.

I had a chance of ministering and I cannot remember the brother’s name now. And he was from Greece, spoke many languages. And we were talking about this. He said, “Y’all don’t understand in your English language what this “caught up” is properly translated to mean in the context.

He was a big old boy. He said, “Brother Robert, come here.” So I stood up. We were all up on the stage at some event long time ago.

He grabbed me and He pressed me and just gave me a big old bear hug catching me up off my feet. He said, what that means is, “I have pressed you into me.”

That’s what Christ is going to do. In the resurrection, He’s going to harpazzo. He’s going to press us into Him after He descends.

And it will happen in the air, but here’s going to shock some of y’all. But we have in the Greek language a more perfect understanding of the word air because it’s two different words. We have the word spelled air, A-E-R (transliterated from Greek spelling), which is the atmosphere that we walk in. Ten feet and under, we walk in the air.

And then we have air used in the New Testament and I talk about this in my book, 70 Weeks Air, which is called the Oranos. O-R-A-N-O-S That’s the clouds. That’s the heavens. That’s where your airplanes fly. That’s where the birds fly. These words are never confused.

The word here is air, A-E-R. The atmosphere, ten feet or under, the atmosphere we walk on on this earth is where this pressing in and transformation will happen. And Christ in the clouds, over and over again in the language of the prophets, clouds are symbolizing God moving in power.

Paul was a prophet. I have articles in Truth in History currently about the language of the prophets. If you don’t understand it, you get dispensationalism.

They have stolen this from you. They’ve got you all thinking you’ll fly up into heaven, but that’s not what the Scriptures say. The righteous remain. The righteous inherit the earth. The righteous rule and reign forever. Forever means forever.

There’s your resurrection. No secret rapture. It is a lie. It has devastated more people. And now people that have been from the real crazy surge in the 1980s and stuff, they’re going, what’s going on here? Well, they should be questioning. I’ve been screaming bloody murder about this since 1981.

So, that was stolen from you because of the notes in the Scofield Bible. Because of those that we’re going to talk about here in just a few minutes. It’s another gospel. False hope for the second chance.

In a little pamphlet here from Emma Weston that I worked with for years on the Weston Study Bible, she’s quoting the Apostle Paul. And she reminds us that Paul says, “Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Remember, we’re warned. Teachers and preachers, you mess it up, you’re going to get a hard judgment. We’re going to have the most to answer for. You get out there preaching another gospel, you’re accursed. And we’re to tell you that.

As we said before, so say we now again, that ain’t the first time that came out of Paul’s mouth. “If any man preach another gospel unto you than ye have received, let him be accursed.” – Galatians chapter 1 verses 8 and 9.

Then in Acts 20 and 27, Paul said, “I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. I marvel that ye are soon removed from him that called you unto another gospel, another gospel, which is not another, but there be some who would trouble you, who would perverse the gospel of Christ.”

Paul said he declared the whole gospel of Christ. There’s nothing new to be declared. Dispensationalism says, “Oh yes, there is. A bunch of Jews are going to get a special dispensation after the first resurrection and the age of grace is over.” That’s a lie! That’s why it’s called another gospel. The Scofield Bible might as well just be another gospel Bible, with all its futurism, with all its dispensationalism.

Talk to them about it. Don’t be afraid to declare. And as I had mentioned in the message I just taught before this about the seven separations of Abraham, don’t be afraid to start a fire. You’re going to do it no matter what. But I’m glad somebody started a fire with me over 40 years ago. And thank God that I was given the ability to obey. For Christ said, without me, you can’t do anything. Period.

Here’s another example that you won’t find referenced in dispensationalist teachings. You won’t find referenced in the Scofield Bible. Let’s talk about the temple and all this talk about a new temple coming. And that’s all part of this other gospel of God honoring sacrifice again. And boy, we had tore into that here at Truth In History. Both Pastor Jennings and myself. How can people fall for this? But if you don’t know your Bible, if you don’t know the Scriptures… And I’ve often told Brother Charles, I said, “Unfortunately, it’s just who got to them first.

In 2 Thessalonians, let’s look at something here. They’ve got you all wound up thinking that a new temple is going to be built and red heifers are going to be sacrificed and God is going to honor this and this is that other gospel for the Jew. Which most of you don’t even have a clue who a Jew is anyway. Or a Gentile. You can’t rightly divide them in your mind because you haven’t been taught properly. You haven’t learned your Bible. You haven’t learned your history. You haven’t learned that Christ came only to marry His bride which is the house of Israel and the house of Judah and then there’s other aspects of this great salvation on the face of the earth.

I’m not alone folks. There’s a lot of men and women out there that are very much aware and are teaching and I rejoice in it. I rejoice in it. I see it more and more and more and I thank God for it.

Chapter 2 of 2 Thessalonians: “Let no man deceive you by any means.” I think Paul’s quoting Jesus Christ. Trying to get it through our thick skulls. Don’t let men deceive you, and you’re deceived and destroyed if you have lack of knowledge, and lack of knowledge usually comes from not studying your Bible to the measure of grace God gave you. We’re not all the same.

“That day shall not come except there come a falling away first.” And they have devastated that understanding. “and that man of sin be revealed the son of perdition who opposed and exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God showing himself that he is God.”

Now, this is so simple it’s ridiculous but then again you have to do a little homework do a little word study and you begin you find out that in the New Testament writings when Paul uses the word temple or when it’s used in the Scriptures that there’s two Greek words for it. One is the heron H-E-I-R-O-N very well spelled out in the 70 weeks and the other is the naos N-A-O-S. The heron is when Scripture talks about Peter and John going to the temple to worship the word heron is used. It’s the building. The building. The Romans took care of that building in 70 A.D. It is no more. And in the new heavens and the new earth and in the new Jerusalem John said. “I saw no temple therein.”

Where are they getting this garbage from about a rebuilt temple? “Well see, it says right here that the man of sin goes into the temple!” Folks, the word Paul uses here – and he does not confuse them, they are not confused in the New Testament – is naos spiritual temple. You are the temple of God. You are the naos N-A-O-S. Paul said that the man of sin sits in the spiritual temple of God and shows himself as God.

It’s the popes of Rome that have said, “Who can I be but God?” and there are libraries full, and men are afraid to teach the truth. They are cowards. They would rather have another gospel. They refuse to separate and go into higher revelation and understanding. But they will give an account (to God).

There is a reconciliation coming. There is an age of correction evolving. And Truth and History (this podcast) is a big part of it. Tell somebody about it.

I have some great quotes from some very stout theologians, and you can find all this stuff very easily but I want to get to something that I think is important, and you are going to get a homework assignment. I found when Pastor Jennings asked me to do a little presentation on the Scofield Bible and I haven’t done anything near that, I’m just talking to you about some truths and trying to warn you to educate yourself. Ask your preachers about what about this Rapture and this caught up in the air, what about this temple, and this heron and naos and expect the left foot of fellowship. But good for you. But there will be some who will listen. God will prepare hearts. God will prepare, and out of the mouths of babes and sucklings he’s going to produce praise that’s going to get through to some of these, some their hearts are hardened, they believe a lie and we’ll just let God handle all that in the resurrection.

Now, when Pastor Jennings asked me to do a presentation on Scofield Bible, my eyes rolled back in my head and I said, “How in the world do I do that? Where do I start what do I do?” But then I remembered that I had in my files, and I’ve had it for decades tucked away, I had a folder here started with Scofield on it, something about Scofield, and the Lord quickened me, and I looked at this probably since I don’t know when, I don’t even remember where I got this from. I can’t even find it on the internet! I don’t know where I got this from, but I’m going to tell you what it is, and hopefully you can find it and dig it up, because I’m better at history books than I am computers. I’m like my brother Charles, old school. Carl and Matthew Dyer and Brother Paul and these others, we let them do all that fancy computer stuff. I’m staying in the books.

It’s an article entitled, “Arno the Wizard, The Man behind Scofield.” It’ll knock your socks off the information that’s in here. Let me read you just a quick excerpt then I’m going to show you some more about the article. He’s quoting a writer, Joseph Canfield, who wrote a book called “The Incredible Scofield.”

“The tin man rattled, the straw man cowered, and the great Oz thundered amidst smoke and flames. But Toto pulled the curtain and Dorothy saw the snake oil salesman from Kansas at the controls.”

Sounds like Barack Obama doesn’t it?

“Like the great Oz, C.I. Scofield was an imposing figure in the early 20th century. He was revered for the genius reverend, for the genius of his novel footnotes.”

He was a prolific writer, I’m not saying he wasn’t.

“But research has pulled the curtain on the Kansas con man. We now know who actually wrote the notes, and created the illusion of the patriarch of the dispensationalist movement. If you had been on second street in the lower East Side of New York in 1896, you could have walked into the office of the Zionist publication Our Hope, and met its editor Arno Gaebelein. He would have been busy at his typewriter surrounded by stacks of his magazine awaiting the delivery.”

Frank Gaebelein, Arno’s son, it goes on and talks about as this story is developed, comes clean. the man behind Scofield is another big part of this article. Another section of it, Arno Gaebelein again, the man behind Scofields. What’s going on here? Another section Arno’s support team again the man behind Scofield and the support team that put this Scofield Bible together! They were Zionists! What was their goal? What were they trying to do? Arno and the aristocrats – this is all documented too – Arno and King James the man behind Scofield. Arno does Dallas, the man behind Scofield. Then you get into how all this evolved, and one of the biggest promoters of the Scofield Bible Dallas Theological Seminary.

I heard when the Seventy Weeks was first published decades ago, word got back to me that seminary students at Dallas Theological Institute were putting this in a brown bag and passing it around to each other, but they didn’t want to get caught with the book. Hopefully we bailed some of them out, not enough evidently.

Now the thing is, I have no idea and I apologize I have no idea where I got this from, but it’s documented, you’ve got the references the writers, the books and there’s the story. You know, if the tree is rotten the fruit is rotten. And so we know the story behind dispensationalism, Scofield. We know the story behind the poisoning of the Seventy Weeks of Ribera, and putting that seven years in the future. We know the story behind stealing from you the understanding of the seals, the trumpets, and the vials and the Revelation, and the glorious divine time measures that apply, and how the woes intervene, and how the great Reformation chapters of 10 and 11, and above all we know that the story was twice told!

That’s all been taken from you. All been taken from you because of these characters. I challenge you, do your homework. Paul said what now have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth? I’ve become a lot of people’s enemies but that’s alright. I’m going to stand before Christ. I’m not standing before them and I will not back down. And we will as President Trump said “fight, fight, fight!! Because we’re called into a fight, we’re called into a war, we’re called to expose the enemy. And I hope that raised some flags. I hope that gave you because there’s so much that we could talk about I’m surprised Pastor Jennings didn’t jump in here.

Be blessed, do your homework. If you watched the message prior to this on the seven separations of Abraham, don’t be afraid to be separated for the gospel of the kingdom because then Christ will take you in to more truth than you’ll know what to do with for the rest of your life, and you’ll know what real freedom is.

God bless you.

“John Charles Ryle (10 May 1816 – 10 June 1900) was an English evangelical Anglican bishop. He was the first Anglican bishop of Liverpool.” – Quoted from Wikipedia.

The title of this article is referring to the Protestant martyrs in England during the reign of Roman Catholic Mary of Scots, also known as “Bloody Mary.”

The author, J.C. Ryle, was a Protestant in the true sense of the word. In his lecture, he talks about English history that the Roman Catholic Church does not want you to know. Regular readers of this website know how important history is to me. I believe the problems in the world we are facing today have a lot to do with the public’s lack of knowledge of what happened in the past.

J.C. Ryle

There are certain facts in history which the world tries hard to forget and ignore. These facts get in the way of some of the world’s favorite theories, and are highly inconvenient. The consequence is that the world shuts its eyes against them. They are either regarded as vulgar intruders, or passed by as tiresome bores. Little by little they sink out of sight of the students of history, like ships in a distant horizon. Of such facts the subject of this paper is a vivid example: “The Burning of our English Reformers; and the Reason why they were Burned.”

It is fashionable in some quarters to deny that there is any such thing as certainty about religious truth, or any opinions for which it is worth while to be burned. Yet, 300 years ago, there were men who were certain they had found out truth, and were content to die for their opinions. It is fashionable in other quarters to leave out all the unpleasant things in history, and to paint everything with a rose-colored hue. A very popular history of our English Queens hardly mentions the martyrdoms of Queen Mary’s days! Yet Mary was not called “Bloody Mary” without reason, and scores of Protestants were burned in her reign. Last — but not least, it is thought very bad taste in many quarters to say anything which throws discredit on the Church of Rome. Yet it is as certain that the Romish Church burned our English Reformers — as it is that William the Conqueror won the battle of Hastings. These difficulties meet me face to face as I walk up to the subject which I wish to unfold in this paper. I know their magnitude, and I cannot evade them. I only ask my readers to give me a patient and indulgent hearing.

After all, I have great confidence in the honesty of Englishmen’s minds. Truth is truth, however long it may be neglected. Facts are facts, however long they may lie buried. I only want to dig up some old facts which the sands of time have covered over, to bring to the light of day some old English monuments which have been long neglected, to unstop some old wells which the prince of this world has been diligently filling with earth. I ask my readers to give me their attention for a few minutes, and I trust to be able to show them that it is good to examine the question, “Why were our Reformers burned?”

I. The broad facts of the martyrdom of our Reformers are a story well known and soon told. But it may be useful to give a brief outline of these facts, in order to supply a framework to our subject.

Edward VI, “that incomparable young prince,” as Bishop Burnet justly calls him, died on the 6th July, 1553. Never, perhaps, did any royal personage in this land die more truly lamented, or leave behind him a fairer reputation. Never, perhaps, to man’s poor fallible judgment, did the cause of God’s truth in England receive a heavier blow. His last prayer before death ought not to be forgotten, “O Lord God, defend this realm from papistry, and maintain Your true religion.” It was a prayer, I believe, not offered in vain.

After a foolish and deplorable effort to obtain the crown for Lady Jane Grey, Edward was succeeded by his eldest sister, Mary, daughter of Henry VIII, and best known in English history by the ill-omened name of “Bloody Mary.” Mary had been brought up from her infancy as a rigid adherent of the Romish Church. She was, in fact, a very Papist of Papists, conscientious, zealous, bigoted, and narrow-minded in the extreme. She began at once to pull down her brother’s work in every possible way, and to restore Popery in its worst and most offensive forms. Step by step she and her councillors marched back to Rome, trampling down one by one every obstacle, and as thorough as Lord Stratford in going straight forward to their mark. The Mass was restored; the English service was taken away; the works of Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, Tyndale, Bucer, Latimer, Hooper, and Cranmer were forbidden. Cardinal Pole was invited to England. The foreign Protestants resident in England were banished. The leading divines of the Protestant Church of England were deprived of their offices, and, while some escaped to the Continent, many were put in prison. The old statutes against heresy were once more brought forward, primed and loaded. And thus by the beginning of 1555 the stage was cleared, and that bloody tragedy, in which Bishops Bonner and Gardiner played so prominent a part, was ready to begin.

For, unhappily for the credit of human nature, Mary’s advisers were not content with depriving and imprisoning the leading English Reformers. It was resolved to make them abjure their principles — or to put them to death. One by one they were called before special Commissions, examined about their religious opinions, and called upon to recant, on pain of death ii they refused. No third course, no alternative was left to them. They were either to give up Protestantism and receive Popery — or else they were to be burned alive! Refusing to recant, they were one by one handed over to the secular power, publicly brought out and chained to stakes, publicly surrounded with faggots, and publicly sent out of the world by that most cruel and painful of deaths — the death by fire. All these are broad facts which all the apologists of Rome can never gainsay or deny.

It is a broad fact that during the four last years of Queen Mary’s reign, no less than 288 people were burnt at the stake for their adhesion to the Protestant faith.

• In 1555, 71 were burnt
• In 1556, 89 were burnt
• In 1557, 88 were burnt
• In 1558, 40 were burnt

Indeed, the faggots never ceased to blaze while Mary was alive, and five martyrs were burnt in Canterbury only a week before her death. Out of these 288 sufferers, be it remembered, one was an archbishop, four were bishops, twenty-one were clergymen, fifty-five were women, and four were children.

It is a broad fact that these 288 sufferers were not put to death for any offence against property or person. They were not rebels against the Queen’s authority. They were not thieves, or murderers, or drunkards, or men and women of immoral lives. On the contrary, they were, with barely an exception, some of the holiest, purest, and best Christians in England, and several of them the most learned men of their day.

I might say much about the gross injustice and unfairness with which they were treated at their various examinations. Their trials, if indeed they can be called trials, were a mere mockery of justice. I might say much about the abominable cruelty with which most of them were treated, both in prison and at the stake. But you must read Fox’s Book of Martyrs on these points.

Never did Rome do herself such irreparable damage as she did in Mary’s reign. Even unlearned people, who could not argue much, saw clearly that a Church which committed such horrible bloodshed could hardly be the one true Church of Christ! But I have no time for all this. I must conclude this general sketch of this part of my subject with two short remarks.

For one thing, I ask my readers never to forget that for the burning of our Reformers, the Church of Rome is wholly and entirely responsible. The attempt to transfer the responsibility from the Church to the secular power, is a miserable and dishonest subterfuge. The men of Judah did not slay Samson; but they delivered him bound into the hands of the Philistines! The Church of Rome did not slay the Reformers; but she condemned them, and the secular power executed the condemnation! The precise measure of responsibility which ought to be meted out to each of Rome’s agents in the matter, is a point that I do not care to settle. Miss Strickland, in her “Lives of the Queens of England,” has tried in vain to shift the blame from unhappy Mary. With all the zeal of a woman, she has labored hard to whitewash her character. The reader of her biography will find little about martyrdoms. But it will not do. Mr. Froude’s volume tells a very different tale. The Queen, and her Council, and the Parliament, and the Popish Bishops, and Cardinal Pole — must be content to share the responsibility among them. One thing alone is very certain. They will never succeed in shifting the responsibility off the shoulders of the Church of Rome. Like the Jews and Pontius Pilate, when our Lord was crucified — all parties must bear the blame. THE BLOOD is upon them all.

For another thing, I wish my readers to remember that the burning of the Marian martyrs is an act that the Church of Rome has never repudiated, apologized for, or repented of — down to the present day. There stands the huge blot on her escutcheon; and there stands the huge fact side by side — that she never made any attempt to wipe it away.

 Never has she repented of her cruel treatment of the Vaudois and the Albigenses;
 never has she repented of the wholesale murders of the Spanish Inquisition;  never has she repented of the massacre at St. Bartholomew’s;  never has she repented of the burning of the English Reformers!

We should make a note of that fact, and let it sink down into our minds. Rome never changes. Rome will never admit that she has made mistakes. She burned our English Reformers 300 years ago. She tried hard to stamp out by violence the Protestantism which she could not prevent spreading by arguments. If Rome had only the power, I am not sure that she would not attempt to play the whole game over again!

II. The question may now arise in our minds: WHO were the leading English Reformers that were burned? What were their names, and what were the circumstances attending their deaths? These are questions which may very properly be asked, and questions to which I proceed at once to give an answer.

In this part of my paper I am very sensible that I shall seem to many to go over old ground. But I am bold to say that it is ground which ought often to be gone over. I, for one, want the names of our martyred Reformers to be “Household Words” in every Protestant family throughout the land. I shall, therefore, make no apology for giving the names of the nine principal English martyrs in the chronological order of their deaths, and for supplying you with a few facts about each of them. Never, I believe, since Christ left the world, did Christian men ever meet a cruel death with such glorious faith, and hope, and patience, as these Marian martyrs. Never did dying men leave behind them such a rich store of noble sayings, sayings which deserve to be written in golden letters in our histories, and handed down to our children’s children.

(1) The first leading English Reformer who broke the ice and crossed the river, as a martyr in Mary’s reign, was John Rogers, a London Minister. He was burned in Smithfield on Monday, the 4th of February, 1555. Rogers was a man who, in one respect, had done more for the cause of Protestantism than any of his fellow-sufferers. In saying this I refer to the fact that he had assisted Tyndale and Coverdale in bringing out a most important version of the English Bible, a version commonly known as Matthews’ Bible. Indeed, he was condemned as “Rogers, alias Matthews.” This circumstance, in all human probability, made him a marked man, and was one cause why he was the first who was brought to the stake.

Rogers’ examination before Gardiner gives us the idea of his being a bold, thorough Protestant, who had fully made up his mind on all points of the Romish controversy, and was able to give a reason for his opinions. At any rate, he seems to have silenced and abashed his examiners even more than most of the martyrs did. But argument, of course, went for nothing. “Woe to the conquered!” If he had the Scripture — his enemies had the sword.

On the morning of his martyrdom he was roused hastily in his cell in Newgate, and hardly allowed time to dress himself. He was then led forth to Smithfield on foot, within sight of the Church of Sepulcher, where he had preached, and through the streets of the parish where he had done the work of a pastor. By the wayside stood his wife and ten children (one a baby) whom Bishop Bonner, in his diabolical cruelty, had flatly refused him permission to see in prison. He just saw them — but was hardly allowed to stop, and then walked on calmly to the stake, repeating the 51st Psalm. An immense crowd lined the street, and filled every available spot in Smithfield. Up to that day men could not tell how English Reformers would behave in the face of death, and could hardly believe that some would actually give their bodies to be burned for their religion. But when they saw John Rogers, the first martyr, walking steadily and unflinchingly into a fiery grave, the enthusiasm of the crowd knew no bounds. They rent the air with thunders of applause. Even Noailles, the French Ambassador, wrote home a description of the scene, and said that Rogers went to death “as if he was walking to his wedding!” By God’s great mercy he died with comparative ease. And so the first Marian martyr passed away.

(2) The second leading Reformer who died for Christ’s truth in Mary’s reign was John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester. He was burned at Gloucester on Friday, the 9th of February, 1555.

Hooper was perhaps, the noblest martyr of them all. Of all Edward the Sixth’s bishops, none has left behind him a higher reputation for personal holiness, and diligent preaching and working in his diocese. None, judging from his literary remains, had clearer and more Scriptural views on all points in theology. Some might say that he was too Calvinistic; but he was not more so than the Thirty-nine Articles. Hooper was a far-sighted man, and saw the danger of leaving nest-eggs for Romanism in the Church of England.

A man like Hooper, firm, stem, not naturally congenial, unbending and unsparing in his denunciation of sin, was sure to have many enemies. He was one of the first marked for destruction as soon as Popery was restored. He was summoned to London at a very early stage of the Marian persecution, and, after lingering eighteen months in prison, and going through the form of examination by Bonner, Gardiner, Tunstall, and Day — was degraded from his office, and sentenced to be burned as a heretic.

At first it was fully expected that he would suffer in Smithfield with Rogers. This plan, for some unknown reason, was given up, and to his great satisfaction, Hooper was sent down to Gloucester, and burnt in his own diocese, and in sight of his own cathedral. On his arrival there, he was received with every sign of sorrow and respect by a vast multitude, who went out on the Cirencester Road to meet him, and was lodged for the night in the house of a Mr. Ingrain, which is still standing, and probably not much altered. There Sir Anthony Kingston, whom the good Bishop had been the means of converting from a sinful life, entreated him, with many tears, to spare himself, and urged him to remember that “Life was sweet — and death was bitter.” To this the noble martyr returned this memorable reply, that “Eternal life was more sweet — and eternal death was more bitter.”

On the morning of his martyrdom he was led forth, walking, to the place of execution, where an immense crowd awaited him. It was market-day; and it was reckoned that nearly 7000 people were present. The stake was planted 100 yards in front of the Cathedral. The exact spot is marked now by a beautiful memorial at the east end of the churchyard. The window over the gate, where Popish friars watched the Bishop’s dying agonies, stands unaltered to this day.

When Hooper arrived at this spot, he was allowed to pray, though strictly forbidden to speak to the people. And there he knelt down, and prayed a prayer which has been preserved and recorded by Fox, and is of exquisitely touching character. Even then a box was put before him containing a full pardon, if he would only recant. His only answer was, “Away with it; if you love my soul, away with it!” He was then fastened to the stake by a chain round his waist, and fought his last fight with the king of terrors. Of all the martyrs, none perhaps, except Ridley, suffered more than Hooper did. Three times the faggots had to be lighted, because they would not burn properly. Three quarters of an hour the noble sufferer endured the mortal agony, as Fox says, “neither moving backward, forward, nor to any side,” but only praying, “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me; Lord Jesus, receive my spirit;” and beating his breast with one hand until it was burned to a stump! And so the good Bishop of Gloucester passed away.

(3) The third leading Reformer who suffered in Mary’s reign was Rowland Taylor, Rector of Hadleigh, in Suffolk. He was burned on Aldham Common, close to his own parish, the same day that Hooper died at Gloucester, on Friday, the 9th February, 1555.

Rowland Taylor is one of whom we know little, except that he was a great friend of Cranmer, and a doctor of divinity and canon law. But that he was a man of high standing among the Reformers is evident, from his being ranked by his enemies with Hooper, Rogers, and Bradford; and that he was an exceedingly able and ready divine is clear from his examination, recorded by Fox. Indeed, there is hardly any of the sufferers about whom the old Martyrologist has gathered together so many touching and striking things. One might think he was a personal friend.

Striking was the reply which he made to his friends at Hadleigh, who urged him to flee, as he might have done, when he was first summoned to appear in London before Gardiner — “What will you have me to do? I am old, and have already lived too long to see these terrible and most wicked days. Hurry, and do as your conscience leads you. I believe before God that I shall never be able to do for my God such good service as I may do now!”

Striking were the replies which he made to Gardiner and his other examiners. None spoke more pithily, weightily, and powerfully than did this Suffolk incumbent. Striking and deeply affecting was his last testament and legacy of advice to his wife, his family, and parishioners, though far too long to be inserted here, excepting the last sentence — “For God’s sake beware of Popery! For though it appears to have in it unity — yet the same is vanity and Antichristianity, and not in Christ’s faith and truth.”

He was sent down from London to Hadleigh, to his great delight, to be burned before the eyes of his parishioners. When he got within two miles of Hadleigh, the Sheriff of Suffolk asked him how he felt. “God be praised, Master Sheriff,” was his reply, “never better! For now I am almost at home. I lack but just two stiles to go over, and I am even at my Father’s house!”

As he rode through the streets of the little town of Hadleigh, he found them lined with crowds of his parishioners, who had heard of his approach, and came out of their houses to greet him with many tears and lamentations. To them he only made one constant address, “I have preached to you God’s Word and truth — and have come this day to seal it with my blood.”

On coming to Aldham Common, where he was to suffer, they told him where he was. Then he said, “Thank God, I am even at home!”

When he was stripped to his shirt and ready for the stake, he said, with a loud voice, “Good people, I have taught you nothing but God’s Holy Word, and those lessons that I have taken out of the Bible; and I am come hither to seal it with my blood!” He would probably have said more, but, like all the other martyrs, he was strictly forbidden to speak, and even now was struck violently on the head for saying these few words. He then knelt down and prayed, a poor woman of the parish insisting, in spite of every effort to prevent her, in kneeling down with him. After this, he was chained to the stake, and repeating the 51st Psalm, and crying to God, “Merciful Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, receive my soul into Your hands!” stood quietly amidst the flames without crying or moving, until one of the guards dashed out his brains with an axe. And so this good old Suffolk incumbent passed away.

(4) The fourth leading Reformer who ,suffered in Mary’s reign was Robert Ferrar, Bishop of St. David’s, in Wales. He was burned at Carmarthen on Friday, the 30th March, 1555. Little is known of this good man beyond the fact that he was born at Halifax, and was the last Prior of Nostel, in Yorkshire, an office which he surrendered in 1540. He was also Chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, and to this influence he owed his elevation to the Episcopal bench.

He was first imprisoned for various trivial and ridiculous charges on temporal matters, and afterwards was brought before Gardiner, with Hooper, Rogers, and Bradford — on the far more serious matter of his doctrine. The articles exhibited against him clearly show that in all questions of faith, he was of one mind with his fellow-martyrs. Like Hooper and Taylor, he was condemned to be burned in the place where he was best known, and was sent down from London to Carmarthen. What happened there at his execution is related very briefly by Fox, partly, no doubt, because of the great distance of Carmarthen from London in those pre-railways days; partly, perhaps, because most of those who saw Ferrar burned could speak nothing but Welsh. One single fact is recorded which shows the good Bishop’s courage and constancy in a striking light. He had told a friend before the day of execution that if he saw him once stir in the fire from the pain of his burning, he need not believe the doctrines he had taught. When the awful time came, he did not forget his promise, and, by God’s grace, he kept it well. He stood in the flames holding out his hands until they were burned to stumps, until a bystander in mercy struck him on the head, and put an end to his sufferings. And so the Welsh Bishop passed away.

(5) The fifth leading Reformer who suffered in Mary’s reign was John Bradford, Prebendary of St. Paul’s, and Chaplain to Bishop Ridley. He was burned in Smithfield on Monday, July the 1st, 1555, at the early age of thirty-five. Few of the English martyrs, perhaps, are better known than Bradford, and none certainly deserve better their reputation. Strype calls Bradford, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer — the “four prime pillars” of the Reformed Church of England. At an early age his high talents commended him to the notice of men in high quarters, and he was appointed one of the six royal chaplains who were sent about England to preach up the doctrines of the Reformation. Bradford’s commission was to preach in Lancashire and Cheshire, and he seems to have performed his duty with singular ability and success. He preached constantly in Manchester, Liverpool, Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Ashton, Stockport, Prestwich, Middleton, and Chester — with great benefit to the cause of Protestantism, and with great effect on men’s souls. The consequence was what might have been expected. Within a month of Queen Mary’s accession, Bradford was in prison, and never left it until he was burned. His youth, his holiness, and his extraordinary reputation as a preacher — made him an object of great interest during his imprisonment, and immense efforts were made to pervert him from the Protestant faith. All of these efforts, however, were in vain. As he lived — so he died.

On the day of his execution, he was led out from Newgate prison to Smithfield about nine o’clock in the morning, amid such a crowd of people as was never seen either before or after. A Mrs. Honeywood, who lived to the age of ninety-six, and died about 1620, remembered going to see him burned, and her shoes being trodden off by the crowd. Indeed, when he came to the stake, the Sheriffs of London were so alarmed at the press, that they would not allow him and his fellow-sufferer, Leaf, to pray as long as they wished. “Arise,” they said, “and make an end; for the press of the people is great.”

“At that word,” says Fox, “they both stood up upon their feet, and then Master Bradford took a faggot in his hands and kissed it, and so likewise the stake.” When he came to the stake, he held up his hands, and, looking up to Heaven, said, “O England, England, repent of your sins! Beware of idolatry; beware of false Antichrists! Take heed they do not deceive you!” After that he turned to the young man Leaf, who suffered with him, and said, “Be of good comfort, brother; for we shall have a merry supper with the Lord this night!” After that he spoke no more that man could hear, excepting that he embraced the reeds, and said, “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leads to eternal life, and few there are who find it.” “He embraced the flames,” says Fuller, “as a fresh gale of wind in a hot summer day.” And so, in the prime of life, he passed away.

(6, 7) The sixth and seventh leading Reformers who suffered in Mary’s reign were two whose names are familiar to every Englishman, Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London, and Hugh Latimer, once Bishop of Worcester. They were both burned at Oxford, back to back, at one stake, on the 16th of October, 1555.

The history of these two great English Protestants is so well known to most people, that I need not say much about it. Next to Cranmer, there can be little doubt that no two men did so much to bring about the establishment of the principles of the Reformation in England. Latimer, as an extraordinary popular preacher, and Ridley, as a learned man and an admirable manager of the Metropolitan diocese of London, have left behind them reputations which never have been passed. As a matter of course, they were among the first that Bonner and Gardiner struck at, when Mary came to the throne, and were persecuted with relentless severity until their deaths.

How they were examined again and again by Commissioners about the great points in controversy between Protestants and Rome — how they were shamefully baited, teased, and tortured by every kind of unfair and unreasonable dealing — how they gallantly fought a good fight to the end, and never gave way for a moment to their adversaries — all these are matters with which I need not trouble my readers. Are they not all fairly chronicled in the pages of good old Fox? I will only mention a few circumstances connected with their deaths.

On the day of their martyrdom, they were brought separately to the place of execution, which was at the end of Broad Street, Oxford, close to Balliol College. Ridley arrived on the ground first, and seeing Latimer come afterwards, ran to him and kissed him, saying, “Be of good heart, brother; for God will either assuage the fury of the flames, or else strengthen us to abide it!” They then prayed earnestly, and talked with one another, though no one could hear what they said. After this they had to listen to a sermon by a wretched renegade divine named Smith, and, being forbidden to make any answer, were commanded to make ready for death.

Ridley’s last words before the fire was lighted were these, “Heavenly Father, I give You most hearty thanks that You have called me to a profession of You even unto death. I beseech You, Lord God, have mercy on this realm of England, and deliver the same from all her enemies.” Latimer’s last words were like the blast of a trumpet, which rings even to this day, “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day, by God’s grace, light such a candle in England as I trust shall never be put out!”

When the flames began to rise, Ridley cried out with a loud voice in Latin, “Into your hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit! Lord, receive my spirit,” and afterwards repeated these last words in English.

Latimer cried as vehemently on the other side of the stake, “Father of Heaven, receive my soul.” Latimer soon died. An old man, above eighty years of age, it took but little to set his spirit free from its earthly tenement.

Ridley suffered long and painfully, from the bad management of the fire by those who attended the execution. At length, however, the flames reached a vital part of him, and he fell at Latimer’s feet, and was at rest. And so the two great Protestant bishops passed away. “They were lovely and beautiful in their lives, and in death they were not divided.”

(8) The eighth leading English Reformer who suffered in Mary’s reign was John Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester. He was burned in Smithfield on Wednesday, December the 18th, 1555. Philpot is one of the martyrs of whom we know little comparatively, except that he was born at Compton, in Hampshire, was of good family, and well connected, and had a very high reputation for learning. The mere fact that at the beginning of Mary’s reign he was one of the leading champions of Protestantism in the mock discussions which were held in Convocation, is sufficient to show that he was no common man.

The thirteen examinations of Philpot before the Popish bishops are given by Fox at great length, and fill no less than one hundred and forty pages of one of the Parker Society volumes. The length to which they were protracted, shows plainly how anxious his judges were to turn him from his principles. The skill with which the Archdeacon maintained his ground, alone and unaided, gives a most favorable impression of his learning, no less than of his courage and patience.

The night before his execution he received a message, while at supper in Newgate, to the effect that he was to be burned next day. He answered at once, “I am ready! God grant me strength and a joyful resurrection.” He then went into his bed room, and thanked God that he was counted worthy to suffer for His truth.

The next morning, at eight o’clock, the Sheriffs called for him, and conducted him to Smithfield. The road was foul and muddy, as it was the depth of winter, and the officers took him up in their arms to carry him to the stake. Then he said, merrily, alluding to what he had probably seen at Rome, when traveling in his early days, “What, will you make me a Pope? I am content to go to my journey’s end on foot.”

When he came into Smithfield, he kneeled down and said, “I will pay my vows in you, O Smithfield.” He then kissed the stake and said, “Shall I disdain to suffer at this stake — seeing my Redeemer did not refuse to suffer a most vile death on the cross for me?” After that, he meekly repeated the 106th, 107th, and 108th Psalms; and being chained to the stake, died very quietly. And so the good Archdeacon passed away.

(9) The ninth and last leading Reformer who suffered in Mary’s reign was Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. He was burned at Oxford, on the 21st of March, 1556. There is no name among the English martyrs so well known in history as his. There is none certainly in the list of our Reformers to whom the Church of England, on the whole, is so much indebted. He was only a mortal man, and had his weaknesses and infirmities, it must be admitted; but still, he was a great man, and a good man.

Cranmer, we must always remember, was brought prominently forward at a comparatively early period in the English Reformation, and was made Archbishop of Canterbury at a time when his views of religion were confessedly half-formed and imperfect. Whenever quotations from Cranmer’s writings are brought forward by the advocates of semi-Romanism in the Church of England, you should always ask carefully to what period of his life those quotations belong. In forming your estimate of Cranmer, do not forget his antecedents. He was a man who had the honesty to grope his way into fuller light, and to cast aside his early opinions and confess that he had changed his mind on many subjects. How few men have the courage to do this!

Cranmer maintained an unblemished reputation throughout the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, although frequently placed in most delicate and difficult positions. Not a single man can be named in those days who passed through so much dirt — and yet came out of it so thoroughly undefiled.

Cranmer, beyond all doubt, laid the foundation of our present Prayer-book and Articles. Though not perhaps a brilliant man, he was a learned one, and a lover of learned men, and one who was always trying to improve everything around him. When I consider the immense difficulties he had to contend with, I often wonder that he accomplished what he did. Nothing, in fact — but his steady perseverance, would have laid the foundation of our Formularies.

I say all these things in order to break the force of the great and undeniable fact that he was the only English Reformer who for a time showed the white feather, and for a time shrank from dying for the truth! I admit that he fell sadly. I do not pretend to extenuate his fall. It stands forth as an everlasting proof, that the best of men are only men at the best. I only want my readers to remember that if Cranmer failed as no other Reformer in England failed — he also had done what certainly no other Reformer had done.

From the moment that Mary came to the English throne, Cranmer was marked for destruction. It is probable that there was no English divine whom the unhappy Queen regarded with such rancour and hatred. She never forgot that her mother’s divorce was brought about by Cranmer’s advice, and she never rested until he was burned.

Cranmer was imprisoned and examined just like Ridley and Latimer. Like them, he stood his ground firmly before the Commissioners. Like them, he had clearly the best of the argument in all points that were disputed. But, like them, of course, he was pronounced guilty of heresy, condemned, deposed, and sentenced to be burned.

And now comes the painful fact that in the last month of Cranmer’s life, his courage failed him, and he was persuaded to sign a recantation of his Protestant opinions. Flattered and cajoled by subtle kindness, frightened at the prospect of so dreadful a death as burning, tempted and led away by the devil — Thomas Cranmer fell, and put his hand to a paper, in which he repudiated and renounced the principles of the Reformation, for which he had labored so long.

Great was the sorrow of all true Protestants on hearing these tidings! Great was the triumphing and exultation of all Papists! Had they stopped here and set their noble victim at liberty, the name of Cranmer would probably have sunk and never risen again. But the Romish party, as God would have it, outwitted themselves. With fiendish cruelty they resolved to burn Cranmer, even after he had recanted! This, by God’s providence, was just the turning point for Cranmer’s reputation. Through the abounding grace of God, he repented of his fall, and found Divine mercy. Through the same abounding grace, he resolved to die in the faith of the Reformation. And at last, through abounding grace, he witnessed such a bold confession in St. Mary’s, Oxford, that he confounded his enemies, filled his friends with thankfulness and praise, and left the world a triumphant martyr for Christ’s truth!

I need hardly remind you how, on the 21st March, the unhappy Archbishop was brought out, like Samson in the hands of the Philistines, to make sport for his enemies, and to be a gazing-stock to the world in St. Mary’s Church, at Oxford. I need hardly remind you how, after Dr. Cole’s sermon he was invited to declare his faith, and was fully expected to acknowledge publicly his alteration of religion, and his adhesion to the Church of Rome. I need hardly remind you how, with intense mental suffering, the Archbishop addressed the assembly at great length, and at the close suddenly astounded his enemies by renouncing all his former recantations, declaring the Pope to be Antichrist, and rejecting the Popish doctrine of the Real Presence. Such a sight was certainly never seen by mortal eyes since the world began!

But then came the time of Cranmer’s triumph. With a light heart, and a clear conscience, he cheerfully allowed himself to be hurried to the stake amidst the frenzied outcries of his disappointed enemies. Boldly and undauntedly he stood up at the stake while the flames curled around him, steadily holding out his right hand in the fire, and saying, with reference to his having signed a recantation, “This unworthy right hand,” and steadily holding up his left hand towards heaven. Of all the martyrs, strange to say, none at the last moment showed more physical courage than Cranmer did. Nothing, in short, in all his life became him so well as the manner of his leaving it. Greatly he had sinned — but greatly he had repented. Like Peter he fell — but like Peter he rose again. And so passed away the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury.

I will not trust myself to make any comment on these painful and interesting histories. I have not time. I only wish my readers to believe that the half of these men’s stories have not been told them, and that the stories of scores of men and women less distinguished by position might easily be added to them — quite as painful and quite as interesting. But I will say boldly, that the men who were burned in this way were not men whose memories ought to be lightly passed over, or whose opinions ought to be lightly esteemed.

Opinions for which “an army of martyrs” died, ought not to be dismissed with scorn. To their faithfulness, we owe the existence of the Reformed Church of England. Her foundations were cemented with their blood. To their courage we owe, in a great measure our English liberty. They taught the land that it was worth while to die for free thought. Happy is the land which has had such citizens! Happy is the Church which has had such Reformers! Honor be to those who at Smithfield, Oxford, Gloucester, Carmarthen, and Hadleigh — have raised stones of remembrance and memorial to the martyrs!

III. But I pass on to a point which I hold to be one of cardinal importance in the present day. The point I refer to is the special reason why our Reformers were burned. Great indeed would be our mistake, if we supposed that they suffered for the vague charge of refusing submission to the Pope, or desiring to maintain the independence of the Church of England. Nothing of the kind! The principal reason why they were burned, was because they refused one of the peculiar doctrines of the Romish Church. On that doctrine, in almost every case, hinged their life or death. If they admitted it — they might live; if they refused it — they must die!

The doctrine in question was the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated elements of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. Did they, or did they not, believe that the body and blood of Christ were really, that is, corporally, literally, locally, and materially, present under the forms of bread and wine after the words of consecration were pronounced? Did they or did they not believe that the real body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, was present on the so-called altar, as soon as the mystical words had passed the lips of the priest? Did they or did they not? That was the simple question. If they did not believe and admit it — they were burned!

There is a wonderful and striking unity in the stories of our martyrs on this subject. Some of them, no doubt, were attacked about the marriage of priests. Some of them were assaulted about the nature of the Catholic Church. Some of them were assailed on other points. But all, without an exception, were called to special account about the real presence, and in every case their refusal to admit the doctrine formed one principal cause of their condemnation.

(1) Hear what John Rogers said: “I was asked whether I believed in the sacrament to be the very body and blood of our Savior Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary, and hanged on the cross, really and substantially? I answered, ‘I think it to be false. I cannot understand really and substantially to signify otherwise than corporally. But corporally Christ is only in Heaven, and so Christ cannot be corporally in your sacrament.'”

And therefore he was condemned and burned.

(2) Hear what Bishop Hooper said: “Tunstall asked him to say, ‘whether he believed the corporal presence in the sacrament,’ and Master Hooper said plainly ‘that there was none such, neither did he believe any such thing.’ Whereupon they bade the notaries write that he was married and would not go from his wife, and that he believed not the corporal presence in the sacrament — as to why he was worthy to be deprived of his bishopric.”

And so he was condemned and burned.

(3) Hear what Rowland Taylor said: “The second cause why I was condemned as a heretic was that I denied transubstantiation, and concomitation, two juggling words whereby the Papists believe that Christ’s natural body is made of bread, and the Godhead by and by to be joined thereto — so that immediately after the words of consecration, there is no more bread and wine in the sacrament — but the substance only of the body and blood of Christ.”

“Because I denied the aforesaid Papistical doctrine (yes, rather plain, wicked idolatry, blasphemy, and heresy) I am judged a heretic.”

And therefore he was condemned and burned.

(4) Hear what was done with Bishop Ferrar. He was summoned to “grant the natural presence of Christ in the sacrament under the form of bread and wine,” and because he refused to subscribe this article as well as others, he was condemned. And in the sentence of condemnation, it is finally charged against him that he maintained that “the sacrament of the altar ought not to be ministered on an altar, or to be elevated, or to be adored in any way.”

And so he was burned.

(5) Hear what holy John Bradford wrote to the men of Lancashire and Cheshire when he was in prison: “The chief thing which I am condemned for as an heretic is because I deny in the sacrament of the altar (which is not Christ’s Supper — but a plain perversion as the Papists now use it) to be a real, natural, and corporal presence of Christ’s body and blood under the forms of bread and wine — that is, because I deny transubstantiation, which is the darling of the devil, and daughter and heir to Antichrist’s religion.”

And so he was condemned and burned.

(6) Hear what were the words of the sentence of condemnation against Bishop Ridley: “The said Nicholas Ridley affirms, maintains, and stubbornly defends certain opinions, assertions, and heresies, contrary to the Word of God and the received faith of the Church, as in denying the true and natural body and blood of Christ to be in the sacrament of the altar, and secondarily, in affirming the substance of bread and wine to remain after the words of consecration.”

And so he was condemned and burned.

(7) Hear the articles exhibited against Bishop Latimer: “That you have openly affirmed, defended, and maintained that the true and natural body of Christ after the consecration of the priest, is not really present in the sacrament of the altar, and that in the sacrament of the altar remains still the substance of bread and wine.”

And to this article the good old man replied: “After a corporal being, which the Romish Church furnishes, Christ’s body and blood is not in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine.”

And so he was condemned and burned.

(8) Hear the address made by Bishop Bonner to John Philpot: “You have offended and trespassed against the sacrament of the altar, denying the real presence of Christ’s body and blood to be there, affirming also material bread and material wine to be in the sacrament, and not the substance of the body and blood of Christ.”

And because the good man stoutly adhered to this opinion he was condemned and burned.

(9) Hear, lastly, what Cranmer said with almost his last breath, in St. Mary’s Church, Oxford: “As for the sacrament, I believe, as I have taught in my book against the Bishop of Winchester, the which my book teaches so true a doctrine, that it shall stand at the last day before the judgment of God when the Papist’s doctrine contrary thereto shall be ashamed to show her face.”

If any one wants to know what Cranmer had said in this book, let him take the following sentence as a specimen — “They (the Papists) say that Christ is corporally under or in the form of bread and wine. We say that Christ is not there, neither corporally nor spiritually; but in those who worthily eat and drink the bread and wine He is spiritually, and corporally in Heaven.”

And so he was burned.

Now, were the English Reformers right in being so stiff and unbending on this question of real presence? Was it a point of such vital importance that they were justified in dying before they would receive it? These are questions, I suspect, which are very puzzling to many unreflecting minds. Such minds, I fear, can see in the whole controversy about the real presence, nothing but a strife of words. But they are questions, I am bold to say, on which no well-instructed Bible reader can hesitate for a moment in giving his answer. Such a one will say at once that the Romish doctrine of the real presence strikes at the very root of the Gospel, and is the very citadel and foundation of Popery. Men may not see this at first — but it is a point that ought to be carefully remembered. It throws a clear and broad light on the line which the Reformers took, and the unflinching firmness with which they died.

Whatever men please to think or say, the Romish doctrine of the real presence, if pursued to its legitimate consequences, obscures every leading doctrine of the Gospel, and damages and interferes with the whole system of Christ’s truth! Grant for a moment that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, and not a sacrament — grant that every time the words of consecration are used, the natural body and blood of Christ are present on the Communion Table under the forms of bread and wine — grant that every one who eats that consecrated bread and drinks that consecrated wine, does really eat and drink the natural body and blood of Christ — grant for a moment these things, and then see what momentous consequences result from these premises. You spoil the blessed doctrine of Christ’s finished work when He died on the cross. A sacrifice that needs to be repeated, is not a perfect and complete thing. You spoil the priestly office of Christ. If there are priests who can offer an acceptable sacrifice of God besides Him — the great High Priest is robbed of His glory.

You spoil the Scriptural doctrine of the Christian ministry. You exalt sinful men into the position of mediators between God and man.

You give to the sacramental elements of bread and wine an honor and veneration they were never meant to receive, and produce an idolatry to be abhorred of faithful Christians.

Last, but not least, you overthrow the true doctrine of Christ’s human nature. If the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it is not a body like our own, and Jesus was not “the second Adam” in the truth of our nature. I cannot doubt for a moment, that our martyred Reformers saw and felt these things even more clearly than we do, and, seeing and feeling them, chose to die rather than admit the doctrine of the real presence. Feeling them, they would not give way by subjection for a moment, and cheerfully laid down their lives. Let this fact be deeply engraved in our minds. Wherever the English language is spoken on the face of the globe, this fact ought to be clearly understood by every Englishman who reads history. Rather than admit the doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s natural body and blood under the forum of bread and wine — the Reformers of the Church of England were content to be burned!

IV. And now I must ask the special attention of my readers while I try to show the bearing of the whole subject on our own position and on our own times. I must ask you to turn from the dead — to the living, to look away from England in 1555 — to England in this present enlightened and advanced age, and to consider seriously the light which the burning of our Reformers throws on the Church of England at the present day.

We live in momentous times. The ecclesiastical horizon on every side is dark and lowering. The steady rise and progress of extreme Ritualism and Ritualists are shaking the Church of England to its very center. It is of the very first importance to understand clearly what it all means. A right diagnosis of disease — is the very first element of successful treatment. The physician who does not see what the real problem is — is never likely to work any cures.

Now, I say there can be no greater mistake than to suppose that the great controversy of our times is a mere question of vestments and ornaments — of more or less church decorations — of more or less candles and flowers — of more or less bowings and crossings — of more or less gestures and postures — of more or less show and form. The man who imagines that the whole dispute is a mere aesthetic one, a question of taste, like one of fashion and clothing style, must allow me to tell him that he is under a complete delusion! He may sit on the shore, like the Epicurean philosopher, smiling at theological storms, and flatter himself that we are only squabbling about trifles; but I must tell him that his philosophy is very shallow, and his knowledge of the controversy of the day very superficial indeed.

The things I have spoken of are trifles, I fully concede. But they are pernicious trifles, because they are the outward expression of an inward doctrine. They are the skin disease which is the symptom of an unsound constitution. They are the plague spot which tells of internal poison. They are the curling smoke which arises from a hidden volcano of mischief. I, for one, would never make any stir about church millinery, or incense, or candles — if I thought they meant nothing beneath the surface. But I believe they mean a great deal of error and false doctrine, and therefore I publicly protest against them, and say that those who support them are to be blamed.

I give it as my deliberate opinion that the root of the whole Ritualistic system is the dangerous doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s natural body and blood in the Lord’s Supper under the form of the consecrated bread and wine. If words mean anything, this real presence is the foundation principle of Ritualism. This real presence is what the extreme members of the Ritualistic party want to bring back into the Church of England. And just as our martyred Reformers went to the stake rather than admit the real presence — so I hold that we should make any sacrifice and contend to the bitter end, rather than allow a materialistic doctrine about Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper to come back in any shape into our Communion.

I will not weary my readers with quotations in proof of what I affirm. But I ask any reflecting mind to mark, consider, and digest what may be seen in any thorough-going Ritualistic place of worship. I ask him to mark the superstitious veneration and idolatrous honor with which everything within the sanctuary, and around and upon the Lord’s table, is regarded. I boldly ask any jury of twelve honest and unprejudiced men to look at that chancel and communion table, and tell me what they think all this means. I ask them whether the whole thing does not savor of the Romish doctrine of the Real Presence, and the sacrifice of the Mass?

I believe that if Bonner and Gardiner had seen the sanctuaries and communion tables of some of the churches of this day, they would have lifted up their hands and rejoiced; while Ridley, Bishop of London, and Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester, would have turned away with righteous indignation and said, “This communion table is not meant for the Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Supper — but for counterfeiting the idolatrous Popish Mass!”

I do not for a moment deny the zeal, earnestness, and sincerity of the extreme Ritualists — though as much might be said for the Pharisees or the Jesuits. I do not deny that we live in a singularly free country, and that Englishmen, now-a-days, have liberty to commit any folly short of crime. But I do deny that any clergyman, however zealous and earnest, has a right to reintroduce Popery into the Church of England. And, above all, I deny that he has any right to maintain the very principle of the Real Presence, for opposing which the Reformers of his Church were burned.

The plain truth is, that the doctrine of the extreme Ritualistic school about the Lord’s Supper, can never be reconciled with the dying opinions of our martyred Reformers. The members of this school may protest loudly that they are sound churchmen — but they certainly are not churchmen of the same opinions as the Marian martyrs. If words mean anything, Hooper, and Rogers, and Ridley, and Bradford, and their companions, held one view of the Real Presence — and the ultra-Ritualists hold quite another. If they were right — then the Ritualists are wrong. There is a gulf that cannot be crossed between the two parties. There is a thorough difference that cannot be reconciled or explained away. If we hold with one side — then we cannot possibly hold with the other. For my part, I say, unhesitatingly, that I have more faith in Ridley, and Hooper, and Bradford — than I have in all the leaders of the ultra-Ritualistic party.

But what are we going to do? The danger is very great, far greater, I fear, than most people suppose. A conspiracy has been long at work for unprotestantizing the Church of England, and all the energies of Rome are concentrated on this little island. A sapping and mining process has been long going on under our feet, of which we are beginning at last to see a little. We shall see a good deal more by and by. At the rate we are going, it would never surprise me if within fifty years the crown of England were no longer on a Protestant head, and High Mass were once more celebrated in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul’s! The danger, in plain words, is neither more nor less than that of our Church being unprotestantized — and going back to Babylon and Egypt. We are in imminent peril of reunion with Rome.

Men may call me an alarmist, if they like, for using such language. But I reply, there is a cause. The upper classes in this land are widely infected with a taste for a sensuous, histrionic, formal religion. The lower orders are becoming sadly familiarized with all the ceremonialism which is the stepping-stone to Popery. The middle classes are becoming disgusted with the Church of England, and asking what is the use of it. The intellectual classes are saying that all religions are either equally good or equally bad. The House of Commons will do nothing unless pressed by public opinion. And all this time, Ritualism grows and spreads. The ship is among breakers — breakers ahead and breakers astern — breakers on the right hand and breakers on the left. Something needs to be done, if we are to escape shipwreck.

The very life of the Church of England is at stake, and nothing less. Take away the Gospel from a Church — and that Church is not worth preserving. A well without water, a scabbard without a sword, a steam- engine without a fire, a ship without compass and rudder, a watch without a mainspring, a stuffed carcass without life — all these are useless things. But there is nothing as useless as a Church without the Gospel. And this is the very question that stares us in the face — Is the Church of England to retain the Gospel or not? Without it, in vain shall we turn to our archbishops and bishops, in vain shall we glory in our cathedrals and parish churches. Ichabod will soon be written on our walls. The ark of God will not be with us. Surely something ought to be done!

One thing, however, is very clear to my mind. We ought not lightly to forsake the Church of England. No! As long as her Articles and Formularies remain unaltered, unrepealed, and unchanged — so long we ought not to forsake her. Cowardly and base is that seaman who launches the life-boat and forsakes the ship — as long as there is a chance of saving her. Cowardly, I say, is that Protestant Churchman who talks of seceding — because things on board our Church are at present out of order. What though some of the crew are traitors, and some are asleep! What though the old ship has some leaks, and her rigging has given way in some places! Still I maintain there is much to be done.

There is life in the old ship yet! The great Pilot has not yet forsaken her. The compass of the Bible is still on deck. There are yet left on board, some faithful and able seamen. So long as the Articles and Formularies are not Romanized — let us stick by the ship. So long as she has Christ and the Bible — let us stand by her to the last plank, nail our colors to the mast, and never haul them down. Once more, I say, let us not be wheedled, or bullied, or frightened, or cajoled, or provoked — into forsaking the Church of England.

In the name of the Lord let us set up our banners. If ever we would meet Ridley and Latimer and Hooper in another world without shame — let us “contend earnestly” for the truths which they died to preserve. The Church of England expects every Protestant Churchman to do his duty. Let us not talk only — but act. Let us not act only — but pray. “He who has no sword — let him sell his garment and buy one.”

There is a voice in the blood of the martyrs. What does that voice say? It cries aloud from Oxford, Smithfield, and Gloucester, “Resist the Popish doctrine of the Real Presence to the death!”

Please share this article with your Futurist friends who teach about the rebuilding of a third temple in Jerusalem and the rise of the Antichrist.

Transcription

Welcome. My name is Robert Caringola and I want to welcome you to my, I’m going to title it a Presentation Ministry of the Great Protestant Historical Interpretation of the Visions of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. I encourage you to look forward to a very systematic teaching on what are very critical issues in the kingdom of God and prophecies that for the most part are not understood anymore like great men of God once understood them, great men of God who could lecture kings and rulers and interpret the scriptures based upon the way they have unfolded in history.

I’m the author of two books here that are available at Truth in History Ministries. One is Seventy Weeks, the Historical Alternative and the other is entitled, The Present Reign of Jesus Christ.

Now this presentation ministry is going to encapsulate the information that is in these books, not necessarily in all the detail, but we’re going to surmise where we need to and get to the point where this first half of the presentation ministry or part one of this presentation ministry, I want to be able to lay a foundation for you so we can go in directions and when we get to points of the presentation where I’m using words such as historicism, such as preterism, or dispensationalism, futurism, all these things, when we get to the Book of Revelation and we have worked through much of Daniel, you will be very comfortable with these terms.

Now I am very much aware that this series is going to be viewed by both the novice and the scholar. So I pray that God will give me the ability to rightly divide [the Word of truth] and as David said in the Psalms, to put my foot in an even place when presenting this material.

Now let me tell you how I got here and what happened. I have known what I’m going to share with you for over three decades. It all started in 1981.

I was a young marine sergeant. I had just been overseas, been out to sea a lot, infatuated with the study of Bible prophecy. When I would go, I went to Singapore for example, went to a Christian bookstore and I bought a stack of books three feet high on Bible prophecy, books by men like Hal Lindsey and these other writers at the time.

I didn’t know anything. I had a zeal for the Lord at the time but not according to knowledge. And I would spend my time at sea and overseas and stuff and I read and I read and I read and I just, I was just amazed at reading because see I was born and raised in Roman Catholicism.

I went to schools, Roman Catholic schools for 12 years, some of the best money could buy and we never once opened the Bible and that is a fact. So needless to say, reading the scriptures and then being excited about the study of Bible prophecy, I was reading what was available. And it was of a school that is called Futurism.

I didn’t know that at the time really. One of the great, I guess the big demarcation points of a lot of its teachings came with Hal Lindsey’s work, the late great planet Earth and things like that. And let me just mention right off the bat here.

We’re going to be talking about a lot of historical figures. We’re going to be talking about people who are alive. I do not contend with any man’s person. I am only contending with that which are the words of truth. So I, we’re dealing with a lot of good folks here that things happened and by the time we get through this, you’re going to understand exactly what happened, who the players were, how we completely deviated from something that united the whole Reformation in Europe and again it’s going to have to be line upon line and precept upon precept.

So back to 1981, I believed first in the futuristic school of prophecy, looking for that Antichrist to come in a seven-year tribulation period, teachings of something called a rapture and a rebuilt temple and all this stuff that is very familiar to many of you out there.

I was fortunate, I was back home on leave in North Little Rock, Arkansas and I was invited to attend an apostolic church, a seminar on the 70 weeks of Daniel by the …he came in from England, a great English teacher. He’s now deceased and gone on to be with the Lord. His name was Reverend David Campbell. And so we showed up on one Saturday morning, myself, there were 30, 40 ministers there, some had been teaching all their lives, prophets and prophecies and, and what they thought to be the truth.

What that man did in three hours and when he took us through both the history, who the players, the originators of these schemes and these counter schemes, what was believed for millenniums and centuries and stuff, literally in three hours he tore and destroyed our, and as I’m going to mention here, our Clarence Larkin charts, our futurism of Hal Lindsey and the others, and devastated it and then rebuilt with the truth of the 70 weeks of Daniel.

And as I am going to prove to you in this presentation ministry, is part of laying the foundation to get to major prophecies in Daniel and in the Revelation, that period, that 490 years has perfectly run itself in history. And we will develop that and present that without a, there’ll be no question when I’m done with you, I promise you, because it is the facts of history and the facts of Scripture.

The testimony was for those of you who are new because I mean, I was in shock. I looked around after, after David finished with us, it was about a four-hour seminar presentation. I looked at men of God that, who were scholars who were in absolute shock. They were crying. They, they didn’t know what had happened. All that they had built, all these works of the school called Futurism – Dispensationalism, it all got burned up.

I mean, the axe was laid to the root of the tree, and we were introduced to characters and concepts we’d never heard of as I’m going to show you in several of these books here, information and and stuff that were common 100, 200 years ago, works that were commonly read and understood. Now you can go to seminaries, and you can turn teachers on TV and the radio that never even heard of these works and these writers.

And I think you’re going to be quite, quite amazed as we get down the continuum of time and unfold a very, very dramatic story here, folks. There’s going to be a lot of history and we’re almost having to turn into theological lawyers. We’re going to put some stuff on trial and we’re going to find out whether these things be so, and I will leave the judgment up to you. You will have the evidence produced. I have written books that are now been out, like I mentioned, over 20 years. I have not seen them refuted and we’ll go from there.

But there is for those of you who are the scholars and teachers, you’re very much aware of this book by Clarence Larkin. It’s called Dispensational Truth. And many have even called it the Second Bible of prophecy or eschatology students. And, and of course there’s just tons, I mean, tons of work went into this. I understand that and all his charts and his calculations and the schemes of this is going to happen, that, that, and that.

I mean, if you’re a teacher or you’re a scholar, I know you’re very much aware of this book. If you’re not, you need to get your hands on it and let me, and go with me to what I’m going to share, because I’m going to read his testimony verbatim to you.

Now in the, in the edition I have, it’s on page five. There are several editions that have come out over the years of where he writes, this is the 46th printing. There are other printings, but what I’m going to read to you is on page five. And here we go. This is out of the great Clarence Larkin.

He’s introducing his concepts going to his start in his segmenting and, and presenting of the book of Revelation. And he says, they’re fundamentally three basic schools of thought. There are the preterist school, the historical school, and there is what’s called the futurist school. And he begins to define them. And let me read it to you and just listen to what he says here, because I know of so many people over the years that have referenced these charts. And I asked them, “Did you ever read what he actually said, where his foundation started, where he got this from, and what he admitted in his opening verses?”

Clarence went on to say the preterist school, he said it originated … Now, if you’re new, you don’t even know what I’m talking about what a preterist school is. It’s a very big school out there, and it teaches very simply that the book of Revelation, the seals, trumpets, and vials have already happened in the past. That all this dealt with the destruction of Jerusalem and the great epic slaughter under Titus in 70 A.D. and the fulfilling of so much prophecy there. It is the preterist school who take the events of the Revelation and visions, and they throw it all into the past.

Well, the man who first penned that, and over the course of this presentation, you’ll see pictures of the title pages of their books come up. We have them. He was a Jesuit called Alcazar, and we will be talking about the Jesuits before we’re done. And he put his view, it was about 1614 when he published this apocalyptic view. And it limits the scope of the apocalypse to the events of the Apostle John’s life. And affirms that the whole prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, great history that we will be talking about in this seminar, and the subsequent fall and persecuting Roman Empire, making basically Emperor Nero as their point for the concept of Antichrist.

Now, listen to this:

“The purpose of the scheme was transparent. It was to relieve the papal church from the stigma of being called the harlot church.”

We’re in the heat of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation here. We’re talking about Luther and his contemporaries and all that led up to what changed Western civilization forever, i.e. why you have a Bible in your hands now.

“And he called the Pope, and from the Pope from being called the Antichrist. (He called the Pope the Antichrist.) It is a school that is now, but little advocated.”

When Larkin wrote, it wasn’t being advocated that much.

Then he wrote about, he said,

“There’s the historical school.”

Sometimes there’s other words for it. I’m not going to bog you down with this technology. But he says,

“The advocates of this school interpret the symbols of the book of Revelation as referring to certain historical events that have and are having or happening in the world. They claim that Antichrist is a system rather than a person.”

We’ll prove that, that it is a system.

“And it is represented by the harlot church of Rome.”

I don’t know how many of you are aware of this, but that doctrine alone, that the man of sin, the dynasty of Antichrist, all these things that we’re going to look at over the many hours that we’re going to spend in the Apocalypse (book of Revelation), that was the one unifying doctrine of the Reformation. They all agreed on it, and they proved it out the Scriptures. They knew what was happening to them and who had been killing them.

He goes on:

“They interpret the time element in the Book on what’s called a year-day scale.

And he said, “This school has great or very ingenious advocates.” And he goes on and talks about one of the greatest works ever written on this. I have all four volumes of it. I’ll talk more about it later. I have spent years in these books. It’s called the Horae Apocalypticae, or Hours in the Apocalypse by the great Eliot. Unmatched, unmatched. And I guarantee you, there might be 10 or 20 people on this planet alive that have read that work. If you haven’t read that work, you really have no business teaching prophecy, quite frankly. And you’ll understand why as we proceed.

“So that great work was called the Horae Apocalypticae, and it is frequently called the Protestant interpretation because it regards popery as exhausting all that had been predicted of the anti-Christian power. It (the doctrine of the papacy system being the Antichrist) was a powerful and formidable weapon in the hands of the leaders of the Reformation. And the conviction of its truthfulness nerved them to love not their lives unto death. It was the secret of the martyr heroism of the 16th century.

What is in Eliot’s works, and Ganesa’s works, and Newton’s works, and Cacciamelli’s works, and Johnson’s works, all these things. Ganesa, as I mentioned, what these Reformers knew, and what they had discovered, what had evolved to their time in the unfolding of the prophecies of Daniel and other scriptures, they took it to the fires (being burned at the stake for calling the papacy the Antichrist).

You haven’t been taught that in your modern schools. Because see, your modern schools are called schools of futurism. You turn on your TVs, and we have a series by authors like Tim LaHaye and these others, and you know what’s out there, and we’ll mention them as we go down. But that’s called the Futurist School.

Do you have any idea where that came from? I mean, did the Apostles teach it? Did the Albigensians and the Waldensians of the 11th, 12th century and stuff, did they believe it? Did the Wyclivites of Wycliffe’s time in the 1300s, all these great epics of Reformers, is this what they taught? What you’re hearing today on TV and on the shows? Here’s what Clarence Larkin goes to tell you about. Remember he’s introduced you to the Preterist School, Jesuit Alcazar that takes all these great prophecies and throws them into the past. The Historical School said, this has been unfolding, and we can show you where divine time measure after divine time measure after divine time measure has begun and run its course to perfection. And we will look at that in this presentation series. But he goes on,

“The Futurist School interprets the language of the Apocalypse literally, except such symbols that are named, and that the whole book from the end of the third chapter is yet all thrown into the future. And that’s why it’s called Futurism, really beginning at chapter 6, a lot of them through 19, describes what they call will come to pass during Daniel’s 70th week.”

See, in essence to their school, there was a great prophecy that we are going to lay the foundation of these presentations with called the 70 weeks of Daniel. And they take the final seven years of that prophecy, throw it into the future and encapsulate the entire book of Revelation around that. Well folks, who was the first one to do that? Let’s see what Larkin says.

“This view, while it dates in modern times, only from the close of the 16th century. In its present form, it may be said to have originated at the end of the 16th century with the Jesuit Ribera.”

His name was Francisco Ribera, out of Salamanca, Spain. And you’re gonna be hearing quite a bit about him. Because everything that these future teachers are teaching, this was birthed by Ribera. Because see, we not only had a Reformation in history, we had a Counter-Reformation. Rome fought back, and she got her best scholars to go in and try to protect the papacy, and Alcazar was one of them, and Francisco Ribera, and I’ll talk more about another man in his same school called Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, they just attacked and destroyed many great themes and apostolic doctrines that had been understood for a long time.

So he goes on and says, “The Jesuit Ribera, who actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar,…” Remember, who took and threw everything into the past, called the Preterist or the Preterist school that is being taught now.

So, he goes on, he said,

“As the Jesuit Alcazar sought to rid the papacy of the stigma of being called the Antichrist, and so referred the prophecies of the apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, and for a long time confined to it, strange to say, it has been wonderfully revived. The futurist interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.”

You’ve probably never been told that. I mean, there it is, you can go read it. What has happened, what is setting the stage to what’s gone on in our lifetime? We’re all excited in studying Bible prophecy and trying to figure out what’s going on here, and little did we know that without knowledge of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, where all this stuff came from.

You haven’t been taught that all the Reformation fathers understood clearly that the little horn of Daniel chapter seven that we’re going to look at represented the rise of the papacy and its power. And you’re probably scratching your head going, “What in the world are you talking about here?” But I’m telling you, it’s historical fact, you cannot get around it. They all knew that the man of sin was not to come at the end of time. They knew he was going to be a dynasty. They understood the prophecies of Daniel that were unfolding.

And now, I’ve just introduced to you, and again, I assert these are facts, the fathers of the two most commonly taught schools now, and we’re going to get into the history of how all this toppled into Protestant theology. The history is stunning. We have names, we have dates, we have facts, we have key players, we have their attitudes, and just in a nutshell, most of you, when you turn on and you’re being taught prophecy, especially in the futuristic school, you’re being taught the prophecy of the Jesuit Ribera, you’re being taught the prophetic interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. There’s just no way around it.

And there are other issues we’re going to talk about, dispensationalism, and Jewry, and all these things that are playing their hands and creating this most contorted situation where people are just throwing up their arms, going, this doesn’t make any sense. You know, we thought we were going to have a rapture in 1988, and I did a program here at Truth in History with Pastor Jennings one time where we pulled up a document that showed us over 240 date setters that have gone throughout history. We never learn, do we?

Let me read you the words of Peter. In the second epistle of Peter is again, all we’re doing right now is laying the foundation for a seminar that you will notice, I will make accusations. There will be times I will leave you hanging, and that is for a reason, because foundations are going to have to be set so that when we get into the book of Revelation, and we can start talking about 150 day years of the Mohammedans of the first woe, or the 391 day years of the Turkish hordes of the second woe, or the 10 day years of the church of Smyrna, or the three and a half day years of the witness, all these things, you will know what has been developing. You will know what has been taken place, but then you, by then, you will have the tools to follow and see exactly, I’m going to show you where we are in the book of Revelation.

I’m just going to tell you right now that we are going to walk through the seals, the trumpets, the vials, and we are in the epic of history right now where we are in transition somewhere in the sixth and seventh vial. And you might look at me and go, that’s impossible. I encourage you to not have contempt prior to investigation, which, if you do, it’s a guarantee of ignorance for a lifetime.

We’re going to be Berean. We’re going to search the scriptures. We’re going to find out whether these things are so.

But as I conclude my little introduction here, let me share with you the words of Peter. In the second epistle of Peter, chapter one, let’s start with verse 12. Verse 12.

Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
13  Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
14  Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
15  Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
16  ¶For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17  For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19  ¶We have also a more sure word of prophecy;

Everything, and I interject here, everything we have in the New Covenant is based upon the law and the prophets.

19  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Peter 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

What I’m gonna present to you in the scriptures and history, we are gonna prove and we are gonna vindicate.

Right now, there are whole schools of thought speaking evil of it, because they speak and they teach that which they know not. I have sat down with some of them and looked them in the eye over and over the decades.

Now here, this is what’s happening.

2 Peter 2:3  And through covetousness (or greed) shall they with feigned words (or deceptive words) make merchandise of you: (The audience.)

We have empires, not just one, but several empires of superstition out there that with the truth of the Word of God and by the grace of God, we are gonna go after their pernicious ways, because they are making merchandise of you.

Walt Stickle and Jörg Glismann, discuss various Issues. Also included in the talk is the author of The Creature of Jekel Island, G. Edward Griffin.

Transcription

Walt Stickel: Greetings and welcome to Mystery Babylon News Radio on May 10th 2015. My co-host tonight is going to be Jörg Glismann from Belgium and we’re going to be discussing some clips from G. Edward Griffin.

G. Edward Griffin is an American author, he’s a lecturer, and a filmmaker. He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System.

Now tonight’s broadcast, like I said, is the conspiracy of misdirection. At no time I want you to feel that I am picking on G. Edward Griffin. The point that I want to make is, the point that we’re going to make in this discussion, is it’s not what people are saying, it’s not what history is telling us, it’s what history is not telling us.

So with that, I’m going to start the broadcast. In eight minutes we’ll make a comment. Jörg Glismann from Belgium and my name is Walt Stickle, your host.

G. Edward Griffin: I’m Ed Griffin. I’m a writer. I write controversial works. I think they’re very important works. I deal with such topics as banking history, health issues, United Nations, U.S. foreign policy, the wind of topics where people get all heated up because they have strong opinions, but I consider myself to be a researcher and I try to be a historian as best I can. So I deal with facts mostly, not in opinions.

I’ve been doing this most of my adult life. I started becoming interested in issues of this nature in 1959, and by 1960 I was really revved up to it. I left my employment with a large insurance company and went in full time in doing writing and speaking on these topics.

The growth of the Tea Party movement and the left-right paradigm, they’re all sort of intertwined and yet there are very separate intellectual threads that need to be followed in all of that.

I think first of all it’s important to talk about and understand this left-right paradigm. What is this all about? Most of this, including myself for certain, in my younger years I was brought up thinking that you had to choose, if you were smart at least, you would have to choose politically between being on the right or the left. You had to have a political view and I thought that in those days I thought that the extreme right would be something like fascism or Nazism and on the extreme left of course you would have communism or socialism, just a little bit short of that.

So that was the paradigm that I was taught and it seemed to make sense at the time. But as I became more involved in these issues and learned more about them I began to realize that the basic philosophy between the so-called extreme left people and Communists and Socialists and the so-called philosophy on the right of the Fascists and the Nazis was really the same. How can this be? They’re supposed to be opposites of each other.

Then I began to realize that there is something more common to all of these philosophies that was left out of my training and education and that was the ideology of collectivism. I began to realize that the thing that was common to them all is something called collectivism. That’s a word that is not very well used. It’s not very entrenched in the vocabulary of most people today but I found out that it was a very commonly used word about a century ago. People wrote a lot about collectivism and the opposite of that would be individualism. Those are two words that are sort of abandoned today but in my view I think they need to be recaptured and understood and used more.

I realized that communism and fascism, the so-called opposites, are merely variants of collectivism. They’re the same thing and they believe that the group is more important than the individual, for example, and the individual must be sacrificed if necessary for the greater good of the greater number. They believe that the State should be all-powerful and that the people should obey the State for the greater good of the greater number and all of that sort of thing.

They believe that rights are granted by the State. They’re not part of the human being. They’re not God-given. They’re not entrenched in his body and soul. They have to be granted by the State. All of these things, and you look at them one by one, Communists and Fascists and Nazis and Socialists, they all believe that.

So wherein lies the conflict? I began to question that and I realized that it’s partly a trick. In fact, I think it’s a huge trick. It’s a great scam because people even today are thinking that they have to choose between the right or the left, not realizing that no matter which way they go, they’ve accepted basically the same ideology underneath.

Now it’s true that the leaders of these groups, like the Stalins of the world and the Adolf Hitlers of the world and the Mao Zedongs of the world and so forth, the leaders of these groups on left and right will fight each other and they will go to war with each other and there will be tremendous battles as we saw in World War II, for example. But what are they fighting over? Ideology? Not at all, because they agree on ideology. What they’re fighting over is dominance. Who is going to rule? That’s all they’re fighting over.

Once you get that picture historically, it’s not too difficult to see that that’s the same thing going on even today, as certainly going on in American politics. We have the left versus the right sort of embodied today in the Republican Party supposedly on the right and the Democrat Party supposedly on the left.

Now here’s a choice, isn’t there? Well, why is it if this is such a choice? So we go from Republicans to Democrats and then four years later we go back to Republicans again and we keep doing this. We’ve been doing this since World War I. How come the country keeps moving in the same direction all the time, deeper and deeper and deeper into collectivism, regardless of which party is in in favor, because they both believe in collectivism. They both believe in big government.

Their slogans are different, their leaders are different, but the poor voter out there trying to make sense of all this is, he’s tricked, he’s stuck, he’s trapped. And so this is the important thing to, I think, understand that this left-right paradigm is a it’s a political ploy. It works very well for those who know what they’re doing.

We find that the Republican Party and the Democrat Party both are pretty much in the hands of a relatively small group of people with a membership of about 4,000. It’s called the

Council on Foreign Relations

. These are the people that are really pulling the strings in both the Republican and the Democrat Party and they’ve even written about it. There’s a fellow by the name of Carroll Quigley.

Walt Stickel: Yes, Carroll Quigley is a professor at Jesuit Georgetown University. He wrote a book called Tragedy and Hope. It is 1,363 pages. I’m going to give a little quick quiz here and we’ll answer it later on in the broadcast. The question is, how many times was the word Jesuits, plural, used in a book that’s 1,363 pages?

A. Numerous.
B. Few.
C. One. Or,
D. None.

(I think it’s probably D.)

We’ll comment on this at the end of this clip.

G. Edward Griffin: There’s a former history professor at Georgetown University. By the way, he (Carroll Quigley) was the mentor of William Clinton when Clinton was a student there. He wrote several books about this group of people and their origins and their roots coming from Europe and England in particular. He comes to a very interesting point in one of his books where he says, Okay, this is the way the real world is. He said, “How is it that we collectivists, we elitists, how can we rule the world when at the same time we want to let the average person think that they’re living in a, “democracy”? They’re living in a system where their vote counts. They’re living in this world in which they feel that they must participate in their own political destiny.”

This is a carefully nurtured myth that they want to create so people will be content with no matter what happens to them. They’ll say, “Well, I voted for it or I did it. This government is my government. No matter how bad it is, it’s responsible to me.” And as long as people have that image, then they don’t complain so much about how bad it gets because they did it, they think. So Quigley deals with this question, how do you let people think that they’re directing their own political destiny when at the same time we, the elite, we are the ones who must direct their political destiny without them knowing it? How do you do that?

And he answers the question brilliantly. He said, it’s very simple. You’ve got to have two major political parties and they’ll both have the same major goals, the same basic fundamental principles, and they’ll argue with each other on the surface with slogans and leadership and style and all of that sort of thing. He said, but we will control them both.

There’s the strategy. There’s the whole scam behind this left-right paradigm. When you understand this history and this reality, you look at it and you say, “Well, yes, we’ve got a left wing and a right wing, but they’re just opposite wings of the same ugly bird, and that bird is called collectivism.

Walt Stickel: Greetings and welcome! This is Hour of the Truth from Belgium. Are you ready for a $64,000 question?

Jörg Glismann: Only $64,000, Walt? I need more.

Walt Stickel: Edward Griffin is a researcher. He’s been on Alex Jones, and as you heard in the tape, he went full-time and he was an insurance salesman. So he makes a living of selling books and speaking. But the title of this broadcast, I want to really lay this out so you understand where we’re going here. The conspiracy of misdirection.

Now, he mentioned Carroll Quigley at Georgetown University, but he left out – it’s not in their vocabulary – that’s Jesuit Georgetown University, founded in 1789, the same year that our country officially became a nation. It was in 1789.

The seal for Georgetown University and the seal of the Great Seal of America are so similar! I don’t know if George Washington gave the seal to Georgetown or if John Carroll gave the seal to George Washington, but my question to you, Jörg, is how many times do you think in this 1,363-page book was the word Jesuits, plural, mentioned? Or the word Jesuit? Okay. A, numerous times? B, few? 3, 1? Or D, none? What would you guess?

Jörg Glismann: Well, when you know Carroll Quigley, you don’t even have to read his book to know that the answer is D, none.

Walt Stickel: Let me correct you now. It was 1. He did mention it once, but you were very close, okay? So I’m not gonna flunk you, you didn’t flunk the test, so continue, please.

Jörg Glismann: Well, the point is that Carroll Quigley himself is Jesuit-educated, and people who follow the Jesuit agenda are only allowed to a certain point to expose them. When you go into so-called researchers like Eric Jon Phelps, for example, who exposed the Jesuits on many levels in his book Vatican Assassins, there’s only so much that he can or is allowed to reveal in his book.

And when there comes another author along, like Tupper Saussy, who reveals things that he left out in his book, then he is made out as a Jesuit coadjutor. And Carroll Quigley has the “problem” that he is only allowed to disclose so much information. He knows exactly what he is allowed to say and what he is not allowed to say.

Of certainty he is not allowed to say that Jesuit Georgetown University in the first place was founded by John Carroll, was it, right? A Jesuit. And he is not allowed to say that the whole American foreign policy is actually formatted at Jesuit Georgetown University. So by that you can save yourself the time of reading 1,363 pages of Tragedy and Hope, and just ask yourself why is an author that is teaching as a professor at that university, when he writes a book with that kind of an interesting title, not talking about the figures behind the curtain?

And that’s exactly the same thing that Edward G. Griffin didn’t do. I mean, I didn’t read his book The Creature from Jekyll Island, but I’m willing to ask the same $64,000 question back to you. How often does he mention the Jesuits, or the Roman Catholic Church, for that matter, in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island?

Walt Stickel: Well I would say that it’s either one time maybe, or none.

Jörg Glismann: I even tend to none, because people like Edward G. Griffin do not go the same way that F. Tupper Saussy did, looking up the Encyclopedia Judaica, and looking up what the Rothschilds stands for. The Rothschilds stands for in the Encyclopedia Judaica, according to the research that F. Tupper Saussy did. And you can do that by yourself, by just googling the Encyclopedia Judaica, and read it for yourself online.

Walt Stickel: It’s in the book Rulers of Evil by F. Tupper Saussy. It’s a Jesuit-Vatican Conspiracy,

Jörg Glismann: But my point being is that F. Tupper Saussy made this inquiry in the Encyclopedia Judaica, and he found out that in that Encyclopedia itself states that the Rothschilds are not anything more, and also not anything less, but the guardians of the papal treasure. They are the war bankers of the Vatican.

An interesting little anecdote is that the name Rothschild, as you speak, as you pronounce it in English, in German spoken means Roth Shield, and that is a red shield. And that is the same red shield that the pagan Roman soldier used to defend themselves when they went into battle. You know, when you were a soldier 2,000 years ago, and you went into battle, you had a shield and a sword. A shield to protect yourself, and a sword to attack. And that color of that shield was red. So the color of the soldiery of the army of the then ruling pagan Roman Empire was red.

And it is no coincidence, let me tell you, that the god of war in the Roman pagan Empire was the planet Mars. M-A-R-S. The same planet that we call today the Red Planet, and where NASA, so-called, sends one drone after another.

The red planet Mars is a symbol for the Rothshields, of Rothschilds, as you say in English. And the planet Mars spells M-A-R-S, and the company that the Rothschilds founded was called Meier, Amschel, Rothschild und Söhne. Now take the first letters of that, that is Meier, M, Amschel, A, Rothschild, R, Söhne, sons. M-A-R-S. Do you think that there’s any coincidence in this fact that I’ve just told you here about? I don’t think that it’s any coincidence in any way.

And this is the kind of research that Edward G. Griffin and a lot of other so-called conspiracy researchers in the so-called conspiracy research scene are not going to touch. Because if they would touch it, they would probably be JFK’d. (Murdere.)

Walt Stickel: Well, it’s the conspiracy direction, and a lot of it is, you see, it’s religion that runs the world.

Jörg Glismann: Yeah, but you are not allowed to point in the direction. You’re only allowed to point in the misdirection. And that is exactly what Edward G. Griffin does.

Walt Stickel: That’s exactly. And also, he mentions the left and the right. I want to quote, “The right and left wing of party politics are both wings of the same bird.” The head of the bird determines the directions, not the wings. And the head of the bird is the Jesuits.

Jörg Glismann: And that’s what he leaves out.

Walt Stickel: And that’s what he leaves out. It’s not what he’s saying. It’s not what Alex Jones is saying. It’s not what Eric Phelps is saying. It’s not what the Hagmonds are saying. It’s not what Quayle says. And all the, all the reptilian book writers, it’s what they leave out. And we’re not leaving out the word Jesuit. They want to leave that word Jesuit out of their vocabulary. It’s part of history. We have a Jesuit coming to speak at a joint session of Congress on September 23rd, 2015. This is not a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy, but it’s no theory. The Pope is coming.

So, you know, I got two more clips. I’d like to play this another clip. It’s only five minutes. So I’m going to start that clip right now.

G. Edward Griffin: So how does that apply to the Tea Party movement that we see today? There it is. I mean, that’s the blueprint. The Tea Party movement seems to have been a very genuine, spontaneous movement arising from people who were unhappy with both the Bush administration and the candidacy of Obama. They didn’t like either one of them. They were people who understood more or less, maybe not intellectually and historically, that there was collectivism in both parties, but they understood that something wasn’t right and they didn’t want more of the same.

And so the Tea Party movement, just think about it. What does that mean? It goes back to the historical episode where the colonists in Boston dumped the Tea Party into the Boston Bay because it was a protest against the taxes and the restriction of liberties and the Stamp Act and so forth on the part of Great Britain against the colonies. And so the Tea Party movement really was a rebellion against big government, no matter what camp it came from, whether it came from the Republicans or the Democrats.

Well, it didn’t take long, especially when the Tea Party movement began to gain momentum. And I was privileged to see that because I was invited to participate in some of these early events. And I remember the first event I went to, maybe they had a couple of hundred people, but they were all, you know, dedicated to the principles that made this country great, had nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, it had to do with political philosophy, the concept of limited government and the people being in charge, not the government in charge.

So I saw it start in a small fashion like that, and then over the next couple of years it grew and grew and grew until finally it was a very large movement. And at this point the political parties, the leadership of the political parties began to take very careful note of it. They said, wait a minute, this is something we should be doing, because they’re experts at orchestrating movements and letting the people think that it’s their movement, you see.

This was a genuine grassroots spontaneous movement, had nothing to do in the beginning with political parties. Well, the leadership of the parties couldn’t let that be. So they both looked at it very carefully and the Democrats decided that because of the nature and the slogans and so forth, it didn’t fit well. So they began to attack it. They began to try and make it look like it was a bunch of idiots and wackos and tin-hat people and all this sort of thing.

And the Republicans thought, hmm, this is something we can use. And so they started to go into it as best they could and take it over. That was their goal, to cop it for their for their program.

And so here we are today looking at this process underway. They’re still trying very hard to convert the Tea Party movement into a Republican front. And I’m sorry to say that they have achieved some success in that direction, primarily because of some very well-known people who are closely aligned with the Republican Party.

We’re talking about the candidate, of course, Sarah Palin, who is a Republican from top to bottom. And she represents this right wing image. She fills the bill perfectly. She’s this Republican right wing collectivist. And she can speak with great fervor and great emotion and great meaning against the extremes of the Democrats, those bad left wingers. And she does a good job of it. And everything she says is true.

But she doesn’t speak out against those bad right wingers, you see, because she’s part of that group. Her mission is not to bring about a restoration of the principles of America, but to get the Republicans back into power. That’s her mission.

And, of course, we have people like Glenn Beck, who have the power of the Fox broadcasting system behind him. That’s tremendous power. And he’s always speaking against those bad left wing Democrats with great conviction and great fervor and great truth. Nothing wrong with what he says. What’s wrong is what he doesn’t say.

Walt Stickel: Let’s keep in mind that Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a Knight of Malta.

G. Edward Griffin: He’ll never attack somebody from the Republican Party. We’ve got people like Rush Limbaugh, he plays the same role. He’s very good at exposing the Democrats. He’s very good at pointing out the absurdity of the left wing philosophy. But he’ll never say anything bad about a right winger or a Republican. So there you have it.

Of course, on the Democrat side, you’ve got the same team. These are the cheerleaders and the players. They work together. And the average voter gets caught in the middle of this. He hasn’t any idea what’s going on. He just thinks that the debate is such that he has to choose.

Who are you going to vote for? Are you going to vote Republican or are you going to vote Democrat? And so as long as they’re in that role, they’re like a tennis ball in a tennis match. They get hit back and forth across the net. First, they’re on the right. Bing! Then they’re back on the left. Bing! Back there on the right. They’re Republican. They’re Democrat. And the game goes on and on and on. And although it’s possible for the players of that game to win, the tennis ball never wins that game.

So I think it’s time for people to stop being tennis balls in this game and just get out of the game completely.

Walt Stickel: Jörg, he mentions the press. Give me a little definition of what a Knight of Malta is.

Jörg Glismann: Well, first of all, I want to say this were five minutes were the pot was calling the kettle black. He accuses Rupert Murdoch of not telling the whole truth. It’s not about what he says, but it’s about what he doesn’t say. Well, this is exactly the same according to him (meaning it’s not what G. Edward Griffin is saying, it’s what he’s not saying.) Right? So this is the pot calling the kettle black. And this is exactly the same thing that he does, what he accuses other people of, being the tennis ball, being pushed from the left to the right, from the right to the left, back and forth. And that’s exactly what he is doing.

And what about his political party analysis there? You have the Democrats on the left. You have the Republicans on the right. And then you have the Tea Party movement calling that a grassroots movement. If that is a grassroots movement, then I don’t want to be part of a grassroots movement, because that’s as grassroots movement as the Democrats and the Republicans are. It’s just a third party they throw in there to put more distraction on it.

People who came out of this so-called grassroots movement, if I’m not completely mistaken, are people like Ron Paul. How many times has Ron Paul been to Rome? Ron Paul has been speaking at Georgetown University. Is anybody ever talking about that?

Walt Stickel: No, because the word Jesuit is not in their vocabulary.

Jörg Glismann: And not even the word Jesuit, even the word Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism, or the Pope. Or even worse. You said the Pope is coming this year, September 23rd, to the United States of America to speak before a joint session of Congress on behalf of the American people, right? He is not just a Pope. He is not just a Jesuit. He is a Jesuit Antichrist. He is the biblical, historical, and prophetic Antichrist, coming to a so-called Protestant nation to speak on behalf of the so-called Protestant inhabitants. That is something that has to be covered.

He is playing exactly the same game that he accuses Rupert Murdoch of. And you said Rupert Murdoch is a Knight of Malta, and you want me to go deep into the Knights of Malta? Well, I can only say, Walt, I want to make this short, because otherwise we are still at midnight talking about this.

I made a very interesting video about two or two and a half hours long when I was on the broadcast on Popping Puppets Boots, Michael Adams. And we did a broadcast for more than two hours on the power of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. And what and who do they all control in this world? And to make it short for the people who have no idea what the Knights of Malta are, the Knights of Malta are a military religious order from the Vatican that control banking and food and politics all over the world on behalf of the Antichrist, to make it that simple. If you want to have any more information on that, go to my YouTube channel, Jogler66, look up in the playlist, the playlist of nothing but the truth, and you will find that video as one of the first six videos that I’ve uploaded in that series. It’s a broadcast from the beginning of this year or the end of last year, I don’t remember anymore. And there you will learn much more than we can talk about now in five minutes about the Knights of Malta.

But these Knights of Malta are the same Knights of Malta that also the Rothschilds are part of. Meier Amschel Rothschild was a Knight of Malta. So he was a papal knight!

And that was another point that F. Tupper Saussy made in his book. Who would expect an Orthodox Jewish family to be behind the banking affairs of the Roman Catholic Church? Nobody! And this leads directly back to the title of your show today, The Conspiracy of Misdirection, because everybody is pointing their finger at the Jews, at the Zionists, and they are leaving out, or better said, the people are being so indoctrinated with this kind of “knowledge” that they do not any further search on where do these come from, who is behind that.

(End of transcription.)
I transcribed a little over 30 minutes of the 44-minute audio. I think the speakers have made their point about the conspiracy of misdirection. My opinion: Jörg Glismann is too hard on G. Edward Griffin. I think what Mr. Griffin had to say about collectivism is important information! I didn’t know that term and how it applies to the world of politics. And I think he just may not know about the Jesuit / Vatican connection to Satan’s New World Order conspiracy. I didn’t know about it until after the year 2000. John Todd didn’t know about it in his testimony about witchcraft and the Illuminati, but to Todd’s credit, he did say it was not primarily a Jewish conspiracy. At the time I did not believe that, but I do now.

Knowledge is a shared resource. Nobody knows everything. We learn from others. One of my friends told me I don’t need to read Bible commentaries from authors such as Matthew Henry or John Gill. He says all I need is the Holy Spirit. I don’t agree with that. The Bible says,

1 Corinthians 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers…

If all we need is the Holy Spirit, why did God also give us teachers? Because teachers have knowledge and sources of information that we may not have, knowledge for example about the history of certain fulfilled prophecies. That’s not to say all teachers and pastors are good. This is where our own connection to the Lord, the Holy Spirit, and knowledge of the Word of God comes in. We need to pray for discernment.

I know people who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit in their doctrinal teaching, but who also parrot Jesuit-based false doctrines such as the 70th Week of Daniel as an end-time event, the rebuilding of a third temple, and the rise of the Antichrist, etc., but who fail to see the Antichrist is alive and working against them TODAY and has been around for centuries in the office of the papacy.

I believe there indeed are people who do know about the Jesuit’s and Vatican’s connection to the New World Order conspiracy who intentionally withhold that information from the public. For sure Carroll Quigley must know about it. But just because a researcher doesn’t talk about it doesn’t mean he is purposely trying to misdirect you. For sure all the major news media sources are intentionally misdirecting the public, and I would also be leery of big-name alternative media people such as Alex Jones! I stopped listening to him over 20 years ago.

The people I am most interested to listen to are true Protestant Christians who are knowledgeable about the Jesuit led Counter-Reformation. You won’t find any of them working for a major news service.

This is a talk by Tom Friess which you can either listen to, read, or both. Tom is very passionate when he tells us that a rebuilt temple with animal sacrifices would indicate further rejection of the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, for our sins. The original title for the talk is The Third Temple Deception, but because I already have covered this subject on this website with an article of the exact same title, The Third Temple Deception, I am using a different title for this article.

Transcription

We’re continuing reading the book, Exploding the Israel Deception by Steve Wohlberg. The subject we’re talking about is the futurist interpretation of Daniel chapter 9 and the passage beginning of verse 24 through 27, and the modern day interpretation of that indicating a need, a requirement for a modern nation state of Israel and a rebuilding of a temple and the beginning of animal sacrifices again, and the so-called salvation of Israel. Is this what the Bible teaches?

We’re focusing now on the subject of the temple, this proposed third temple. Backing up a paragraph or two for continuity this morning, I’ll begin reading in the book. It says,

It’s a fact that several Jewish organizations in Jerusalem are now preparing for the building of a third Jewish temple on Temple Mount. A popular Christian book called The Edge of Time by Peter and Patty Lalonde gives the following report: ‘A model of the third temple has been constructed and sits on exhibit in old Jerusalem. Even a computerized list of candidates who fulfill the requirements of a temple priest has been drawn up and rabbinical students have been training for ancient Jewish temple rites and sacrifices.’

Many religious Jews want another temple. Millions of Christians now believe, and I was one of them, millions of Christians now believe the Bible definitely predicts one will be built. But does it really? Does the Bible really predict the building of a third temple? Is it possible that the third temple theory is just another grand illusion of the last days?

First of all, let’s focus on what happened before the second temple was destroyed. Now that took place in 70 A.D. It says when Jesus Christ died, “the veil of the temple was rent in twain,” in other words ripped in two, “from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake.” This is Matthew chapter 27 verse 51. By ripping the veil, God Almighty showed all mankind that the value of animal sacrifices was over.

The earthly temple service was coming to an end. Why? Because the great sacrifice had been offered. Christ himself, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that which the prophecies of the Old Testament foretold, that which was even foretold by Christ when he clothed Adam and Eve with coats of skins.

One can read over that passage and not realize that Christ would have had to make a sacrifice in order to cover Adam and Eve with the coats of skins, wouldn’t he? Their aprons that they fashioned of leaves was inadequate to cover their nakedness and to cover their shame and to cover their sin. It was only a covering provided by Christ himself that would cover Adam and Eve, and it was a promise of that which he fulfilled 2,000 years ago when he became the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, the Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world. Once and for all, it is finished. There is now, therefore, no more sacrifice for sin.

Now, I use the equivalent today to point out the error of making still more sacrifices, and that example is the Eucharist or the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, where the bread of the communion wafer becomes the literal blood, body, soul and divinity of Christ, according to the Catholics. The priest says five magic, hocus-pocus Latin words, and all of a sudden Christ is yanked off his throne and put in the Jesus cookie, I call it, and they put him up to open shame again.

They call it the sacrifice of the Mass, another sacrifice, whereby grace is infused for those who participate in the Mass. They put him to open shame. They revel in the crucifixion and the shame that Christ bore in our behalf.

The Mass is committed, and I use the word correctly, it’s committed because it’s a crime, all over the world, thousands of times every day. Again, they put Christ to open shame, rejecting his all-efficacious, once and for all sacrifice. It is an abomination, it is a direct repudiation of that one time, all-sufficient sacrifice that Christ made on the cross of Calvary 2,000 years ago.

There’s just no excuse for the Mass. They can belabor it with all kinds of flowery words, but the bottom line is, when they participate in the Mass, they’ve rejected Christ. They’ve eaten and drunk damnation to themselves.

Now, the regular listeners to my broadcast can understand this, surely. We’ve talked about it so much, but how is it, how is it that we can rationalize in our minds that it’s a good thing that the Jews, now living in the nation-state of Israel that was created in 1948, so-called miraculously, are ready to build a temple and begin animal sacrifices again. How can we rationalize it in our minds that that is God’s will?

And I want to remind my listeners, I’ve believed this for most of my life. I’m 54 years old now. How many years have I believed that lie? God’s not going to be honored, God’s not going to be blessed, and there’s no sin going to be remitted by the blood of animals on Temple Mount in Jerusalem. God does not live in temples built with hands, but they’re going to build a temple with their hands on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, and we think God’s going to dwell in it? Christ said, your house is left unto you desolate.

God left the building! Is He now going to turn around and say, “Oh, Indian giver, I reneged, I made a mistake. I’m going to inhabit and dwell in this temple. I’m going to honor animal sacrifices as I did before. Even after I gave my own blood.” It’s not going to happen. Not going to happen.

There’ll be no Shekinah glory standing over the temple in Jerusalem when they build it. Jesus is the great high priest. Why are they investing so much time and trouble with his computers to try to draw up a list of rabbinical students to serve this sacrificial system they’re planning on erecting?

Grievous error, grievous error. They’re repeating the same error they committed 2,000 years ago when they rejected Christ. They rejected him, and they insisted on continuing that rabbinical service on Temple Mount. Animal sacrifices for the remission of sins, reconciliation of God through the blood of goats and sheep.

What a horror! I’m telling you, I believe the creation of the nation-state of Israel as we saw it in 1948 was for the very purpose of destroying the Jews. The final Jewish question. They couldn’t kill them all in Europe during World War I and World War II, but they made life so miserable. Six million Jews went up in ashes and smoke in the crematoria of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. What a horror for the Jewish people! And they had an answer. “We’ll create for you homeland so you can escape the wrath of the Pope.”

So they created the nation-state of Israel, and they sold us all this bill of goods because a clever Jesuit priest said, “No, the 70th week of Daniel is lopped off from the 69th week and tacked on the very end of time.” Unbelievable lie! Unbelievable lie!

And they’re going to force the Jews to eat and drink damnation to themselves, just like the Catholics. This is all about destroying the Jewish people. The ones that Paul wept over. He said, “I’d give up my own salvation for the salvation of the Jewish people.” If Paul could only see what they’re doing today.

The Jews have but one lamb. It’s Christ. They have but one hope in this world. Christ! There’s no hope in a modern nation-state of Israel. There’s no hope in a temple. There’s no hope in a Jewish priesthood. There’s no hope in the blood of lambs and goats. We’ve been sold a lie!

How can we read the scriptures and how to understand this? What happened? Let’s focus on what happened before the second temple was destroyed. When Jesus Christ died, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, and the earth did quake. By ripping the veil, God Almighty showed all mankind that the value of animal sacrifices was over. The earthly temple service was coming to an end.

Why? Because the great sacrifice had just been offered. A few years later, Paul wrote, in reference to this earthly temple, “Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Hebrews chapter 8 verse 13.

Would God re-institute it and make Paul a fool? God is not behind this, what’s happening in the world today. This is a man-made fulfillment of the 70th week of Daniel. The Pope and all the kings of the earth have concerted to deceive the whole world, and to destroy the Jews, and to try to destroy spiritual Israel, too.

In AD 70, the second temple was demolished by the Romans. Now think for a moment. Would the providence of God ever lead the Jewish people to rebuild a third temple? Would God Almighty sanction the building of another temple in Jerusalem? Would the Father ever initiate the restarting of animal sacrifices that ended with the death of his own son? What Jesus cried out, “It is finished,” He abolished all sacrifices. And that includes the Jesus cookie. He was the final sacrifice.

Why would we repudiate that? Why would we wish our worst enemy to repudiate that? He was our sacrifice. Therefore, would not the restarting of sacrifices be once again an open denial that Jesus Christ is the Messiah? If Israel ever did rebuild a third temple and begin to offer sacrifices, would not this be another official national rejection of their Messiah? God have mercy! God have mercy.

What happened? What happened 2,000 years ago when the leaders of Israel officially rejected their Messiah? The result was disaster. A thousand. No, a million. A million Jews perished. How many are going to perish when they build another temple? Would they reject their Messiah not once but twice?

Reminds me, Jesus said before the cock crows twice, you’ll deny me thrice, Peter. Is that an omen? The Jews are poised right on the precipice of rejecting their Messiah again. And the unspeakable horror is that all the God-believing Christians in this world are ready for it to happen. They promote this. They support it like God has another means of salvation for the Jews that he would repudiate the salvation of his own son by giving the Jews another opportunity, another chance, by another way, another gospel, another savior. How do we reconcile this with God’s own word? We can’t.

Three main sections of scripture are being used today by Christians to support the third temple theory. They’re Daniel 9.27, as we’ve talked about so voluminously on the program, assorted temple texts in the book of Revelation, and 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 4. Yet in all three of these sections, nothing is said about a temple being rebuilt in Jerusalem. Not one word. Where do we get this? If it doesn’t come from God’s Word, shouldn’t we be just a little suspicious? Not one word in the Bible said about a third temple in Jerusalem.

You can read Daniel until your eyeballs fall out. You’ll never say one word about a third temple being rebuilt. Ain’t happening. Not in God’s world it ain’t. So who’s fomenting this garbage?

All three sections, not a word is said about any temple being rebuilt. In the Old Testament, major portions of scripture are devoted to the building of the wilderness temple, the first temple, and the second temple. Exodus 35-40, 1 Kings 6, Ezra 3-6. Yet as far as the building of a third Jewish temple, we find nothing in God’s word. There’s nothing there.

Now let’s listen to these arguments for this proposed third Jewish temple. They use Daniel 9:27 as we’ve said before. It says, popular prophecy scholars today argue that when Daniel 9:27 describes the coming of the one who will cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease, this must refer to an end time antichrist who will stop the sacrifices of a rebuilt Jewish temple. Yet we proved in chapter 5 of this book that it was Jesus Christ who already caused the sacrifice and oblations to cease, 2000 years ago through His own death on the cross.

Matthew Henry, one of the great commentators of God’s holy word, faithfully declared that it was Jesus, it was Jesus who caused the sacrifice and the oblations to cease, by offering Himself a sacrifice, praise His holy Name, once and for all, He shall put an end to all Levitical sacrifices.

You know what, I’ve got the passage right here mentioned. I drew out my e-sword early this morning. Decided to go to battle against this futurist interpretation. It’s killing God’s people! My e-sword is drawn.

Daniel 9:27: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even to the consummation. And that determined shall be poured out upon the desolate.

Any mention of a third temple there? Any mention of a seven-year period of great tribulation there? Who caused the sacrifice and the oblations to cease? Just listen to the great man of God, Matthew Henry. In his commentary he says, He, with a capital H, must cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease, by offering Himself a sacrifice, by offering Himself a sacrifice, once and for all, He shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices. He shall supersede them and set them aside. When the substance comes, the shadows shall be done away. He caused all the peace offerings to cease when He was made peace by the blood of His own cross, and by it, He confirmed the covenant of peace and reconciliation.

By the preaching of his gospel to the world, with which the apostles were entrusted, He took men off from expecting remission by the blood of bulls and goats, and so caused the sacrifice and the oblations to cease. Praise God!

Thank God for Matthew Henry! Let us listen to Matthew Henry, and not a black-robed demon called Ribera, who has foisted this futurist lie to destroy God’s people and the Jews. The greatest killing machine that ever drew a breath, the Roman Catholic Church, and leading the bloodletting of the Jesuit priest that came up with this futurist abomination. Let none of us any longer be deceived by this. In Jesus’ Name!

(Also see The Third Temple Deception.)

The information in this article is something you will never hear from any of your favorite media people such as Tucker Carlson or Megyn Kelly, and you probably won’t hear it from the most famous of the alternative media people. You’ll get it only from researchers who are savvy of both the history of the Protestant Reformation and the Jesuit Roman Catholic Counter Reformation. Please listen to the broadcast or read the text with an open mind, and ask the Lord to show you the truth based on what you read from the Bible about the Fourth Beast of the Book of Daniel chapter 7, and about Babylon the Great of chapters 17-18 of the Book of Revelation.

In the article, Bill Hughes says that all churches signed the BEM document of the World Council of Churches, but I think he must mean all churches that are a member of the World Council of Churches (WCC). Not all churches are WCC members. I don’t see how every single church in the world would sign that document. Most Baptist churches would not sign it because the document states things that are categorically against Baptist doctrines!

Transcription

Tom Friess: Good morning! Welcome to LibertyRadioLive.com. (No longer online.) You’re listening to Inquisition Update on this Thursday, May 27, 2010 edition. And it’s nice to be here with you this morning on this bright, sunny Thursday morning.

And I’m blessed to introduce my returning guest, Bill Hughes, who I look forward to talking to every Thursday, every Thursday morning, and I hope you do too. And he’s author of the book The Enemy Unmasked and The Secret Terrorists, both very informative books, small little pocket-sized books that you can carry with you in your shirt pocket and read and share with friends. I just gave my sister a copy of both of those books the other day, and I’m anxious to see what she has to say about them.

And Bill, if you’re with me this morning, I’ve got now one member of my family who is beginning to comprehend what this is all about. And I have partly you to thank for that, for helping educate me and helping bring me along the understanding of this Vatican-Jesuit-led New World Order. My guest this morning, Bill Hughes.

Bill Hughes: Tom, it’s good to be here. And any praise or credit, Tom, praise God. I’m just so thankful to hear that the books have been a blessing to you, and hopefully they will be to your sister, and we’ll pray to that end that they will be.

Tom Friess: Yes. Thank the Lord, and thank the Lord for Bill Hughes and your dedication to exposing the evil that rules the world, that is exposed in history and in God’s book, helping us to make sense out of the complicated, complex problems that plague the world today. The source of all of it can be found in one man. Amazing, isn’t it?

Bill Hughes: Oh, it is, Tom, indeed. You know, Tom, there’s so many arms to the octopus, but when you start putting some of these things together, as we want to do here this morning, it all starts to just click, Tom, and you begin to realize that there’s a head, there’s a master mind, a worldly power that is running and calling the shots, running the program. But then, Tom, it’s got all of these arms to it, and you start analyzing this stuff, Tom, and you always come across the same people. They always seem to pop up, and whether they’re a part of the Bilderbergers or the Bohemian Grove, or they’re involved in helping communism get started, they were helping Hitler to get going, a part of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve Bank. You know, and you just start connecting all of these dots, Tom, and they all fit together. They all fit together.

Tom Friess: Connecting the dots suddenly begins to paint a recognizable picture, and that’s what’s so stunning about this, that we’ve had the answer. Those of us who read God’s Word have had the answer all along. We just didn’t understand it.

Bill Hughes: Well, you know, Tom, the picture that’s painted in Revelation chapter 17 of this harlot woman, and this harlot woman, Tom, well, of course, the Bible is very clear that a harlot woman represents a false church, and it talks about the fact that this harlot woman or this false church, it commits blasphemy. And throughout Scripture, Tom, whenever, of course, Christ was accused of blasphemy, and blasphemy was claiming to be God on Earth and claiming the power to forgive sins. Now, that’s the biblical definition for blasphemy, and so this world power, this false church, claims that it’s God on Earth and claims that it can forgive sins.

Well, Tom, immediately, immediately, one has to be as challenged by that obvious, simple declaration, and then they must say, well, what false church claims that they are God on Earth and claims they have power to forgive sins? Well, Tom, immediately, you’ve arrived at who this whorish Babylon the Great is in Revelation chapter 17. And a person arrives at the same conclusion that all of the Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries, they all arrived at the same conclusion, that it was the papacy or the Catholic church system. Then, Tom, as you continue to delve into Revelation 17 and 18, you begin to realize that the kings of the Earth are in unlawful communion with the papacy.

And so you say, well, who are the kings of the Earth? Well, obviously, it’s talking about the political powers, the presidents, the dictators, the prime ministers, the high government officials throughout the world are in cahoots with and are dominated by the Roman Catholic church system. Well, Tom, the ramifications of that are staggering. We’re talking about Barack Obama, the president of the United States. We’re talking about the former prime minister of England, Tony Blair. We’re talking about Saddam Hussein. We’re talking about the leader of North Korea!

These leaders, Tom, are doing the bidding of the Vatican. And then, of course, Tom, you’ve got to look and say, well, where are they heading with all this? Where is it going to end up? And then you start analyzing some of the encyclicals of Benedict and of John Paul. Then you start filling in more pieces of the puzzle.

Another thing, Tom, that Revelation 17 and 18 brings us is not only the political leaders of earth that are under the control of the Vatican, but then you come to Revelation 18, and it talks about the merchants of the earth, Revelation 18, 11 to 15. Well, Tom, it describes what the merchants do. It says they buy and sell wood and all manner of vessels of ivory and wheat and sheep and goats and slaves. And, you know, Tom, obviously we’re looking at the great wealthy people of our world, the men that control the international banking systems, the great businessmen of the earth that control so much of the world’s commodities and so much of the world’s goods. And, Tom, it says that those merchants were made rich because they were connected to Babylon the Great, the Vatican.

Well, Tom, again, consider the ramifications of that simple little awareness. We’re talking about the Rothschilds. We’re talking about the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Waltons, the Stevens, the Drexels, the Stanfords. All of these people, Tom, are using their wealth, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, and the list goes on and on and on, that these men, Tom, are working with the papacy to bring about what the papacy wants in this world.

And, Tom, it’s just staggering. These wealthy men, they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, and they’re telling the world what to believe. And, of course, Tom, they’re lying by the skin of their teeth.

Then, finally, Tom, you’ve got the churches. Revelation 17.5 says that Babylon the Great is the mother of many little harlot daughters that do exactly what she tells them.

Tom Friess: Of all the things that are revealed in the Scriptures to me about this New World Order that I now comprehend, I think the most horrifying realization for me was discovering who those harlot daughters were. It’s painful, Bill, to realize that God’s people, the very elect of God, unbeknownst to them, wittingly and unwittingly, are serving the papacy.

And it’s unbelievable to me. I mean, you’d think that after 10 years of doing day and night research into this, that I could finally learn to be able to speak this passionately. But it’s difficult, I’m telling you, to understand how they’ve corrupted our churches with false doctrines and got us to believe a lie that plays right into their global New World Order hands, this entire ecumenical movement, and what influence Vatican Council II had on the Protestant churches, and how our Protestant churches have forgotten the singularity, the single piece of knowledge that fomented the Protestant Reformation in the very beginning, and how that’s been lost to us, how we’ve forgotten that the Protestant Reformers left the Roman Catholic Church because they realized that the Church of Rome was the synagogue of Satan and that the Pope was Antichrist himself. How could Satan have stripped us of that knowledge? How could we be so spiritually lethargic and scripturally inept and historically bereft of knowledge that we could lose the key to understanding so much of the Word of God is just staggering to me.

Bill Hughes: Oh, it is, Tom. It is. But, you know, Tom, let’s face it. Unless we are earnest and diligent and alert and clear thinking as to what’s going on, Tom, we can all get caught in the web and get turned aside. And, tragically, let’s face it, Tom. Back in 1981, 1982, right there in Lima, Peru, the World Council of Churches, Tom, that included every church throughout the world, every church. And they all signed the BEM document. (Baptism, Eucharist and, also known as the Lima Document, is an ecumenical document adopted by members of the World Council of Churches in Lima in January 1982.- Source:Wikipedia) If you’ve ever wondered, since the early 1980s, why churches, when you look at church marquees, they’ll have these three wavy lines out on their marquee. Well, Tom, that was the symbol that came out of the Lima, Peru, World Council of Church meetings back in the early 80s.

Logo of the World Council of Churches

Tom Friess: Oh, interesting. I wasn’t aware of that. But that’s a common logo on the marquees of churches that are signatories to this?

Bill Hughes: Absolutely, Tom. It’s funny, Tom. I can go through central Florida, and I can find anywhere between a half a dozen to a dozen different churches, and they all have on their marquees this little representation. It looks like three wavy lines or three torches of fire. But that came, Tom, straight from the BEM document. And in that document, Tom, all of the churches that signed it, and all churches did.

They all agreed the B represents baptism, meaning that people, and they all agreed that a person can be baptized in any way, shape, or form that they jolly well choose. It doesn’t make any difference how old they are. They can be babies. They can be ready to go in the grave and not have a clue what they’re doing, but they can be baptized. They can be sprinkled. It makes no difference. Well, Tom, millions…

Tom Friess: That’s Catholicism.

Bill Hughes: Absolutely. And millions, millions of people were killed in the 16th and 17th centuries because they said that baptism must be by immersion, and it must be done by somebody who understands what they’re doing.

Well, Tom, how any church could sign that document is just unfathomable. The E, Tom, in the document for you…

Tom Friess: Don’t tell me. Let me guess. Eucharist, right?

Bill Hughes: That’s right, Tom. How any Protestant church, any Protestant church could sign that.

Tom Friess: That’s inconceivable to me. That’s inconceivable. And I talk about this stuff on amateur radio. Tom, what is the Eucharist? You talk about the Eucharist. And I’m stunned at the number of people that don’t have a clue what the Eucharist is. It’s another sacrifice. It’s another Savior, and it’s another gospel. It is a total repudiation of Christ. Anyone who thinks that they need to make another sacrifice to receive grace from God has repudiated Christ, and that’s what the Eucharist is.

I had one of my regular participants in my amateur radio discussion ask me about the Eucharist, and I spent about a half an hour telling him everything I knew about it. And only a few, when I tell them this, understand the spiritual significance of it. They don’t comprehend what’s the difference, I mean, between the Eucharist, even after I explain it. It’s no big deal to them. They don’t comprehend. Bill, just take some time, if you want to, and speak to my listeners about the Eucharist. What an abomination it is.

Bill Hughes: Tom, in a nutshell, it’s a priest. It’s a human being made from the dust of the ground, Tom, who is blasphemously claiming that they are actually creating the Creator in the Mass, in the wafer, that the priest is so powerful and so mighty that he is actually creating Christ in that wafer.

It’s beyond abomination. It’s beyond abomination. And then, of course, with the juice, you have, when the priest lifts up his cup, he actually believes that he has literally turned that juice or that wine into the actual blood of Jesus Christ.

Tom Friess: Now, many of my listeners have never heard the term transubstantiation before, but this is the act of changing the substance of the bread and wine into the literal blood, body, soul, and divinity of Christ, the whole Christ, nothing lacking, to be sacrificed again on the altar of the Roman Catholic churches. It’s called the Mass. The priest has some kind of hocus-pocus ability.

After saying four or five magic Latin words, hoc est inim corpus meum, that wheat flour wafer literally, without changing its appearance, is 100% changed in substance, and it is Christ’s body, his literal body, blood, body, soul, and divinity.

And the Mass is just another sacrifice. It’s a perpetual sacrifice. That’s what is taught in the Roman Catholic church. And when that Eucharist, that consecrated piece of bread that has been changed or transubstantiated, its substance has been changed from wheat flour bread to the Christ, then they parade it around in a gold-plated sunburst fixture they call the monstrance. And it must be worshipped as Christ, because in the Roman Catholic church it is Christ, whole and entire.

And this abomination is inconceivable to people. It is to me, and I dare say how difficult it is, unless someone who is familiar with the finished work of Christ, to comprehend what an abomination it is. And I’m afraid that what is revealed in this is just how lacking our understanding is of the finished work of Christ on the cross. That’s the tragedy in my heart that I just feel every time I talk about this.

Bill Hughes: Well, the fact, Tom, that it’s been hoisted onto Protestantism and it’s been embraced, it’s just a heartbreak, Tom. It’s an absolute heartbreak.

But the M part in that document, Tom, is called ministry. And what it says is that within ministry we can reach out to people that have left our church, you know, and try to win them back. But as far as doing evangelism throughout the world, we can’t do that. And, Tom, our message is to go to the whole world. And it’s not to be isolated and said just for a part of the people or just for people that are in our church. But we’re supposed to preach the truth to every nation, to every kindred, to every tongue, and to every person.

But this BEM document, Tom, it’s just diabolical. It’s diabolical. And the fact that the churches of the world find it is just nothing short of a tragedy, just an absolute tragedy with incredible proportions.

Tom Friess: Ministry has been redefined by the Vatican to not be evangelization or the spreading of the gospel. But ministry now is social projects, you know, global warming, feeding the hungry, which is a charitable thing. But the total emphasis on ministry is based on the Pope’s global agenda. And part of that ministry is the redistribution of wealth and the taking from rich Protestant nations and giving to underprivileged third world, usually Catholic nations or pagan or heathen nations.

And since that document came out, I’ve learned a lot more about the ministry segment of this abomination called BEM. And the gospel is completely lacking. Doctrine is completely lacking. Evangelization is completely lacking.

Bill Hughes: Absolutely, Tom. No question about it. No question. Tom, for the next half hour here with what we have left, I’d like to go into one of the groups that the papacy is using, that the Jesuit order has been using for the last nearly hundred years. And I’d like to take a look at that. It’s the CFR.

Tom Friess: That’s an excellent idea. Let’s show the people the facts on the ground, the militia of the papacy and what organizations they comprise and how they function in the world to bring about this Vatican Jesuit led New World Order. The Council on Foreign Relations figures large in this. And if you can bring to my listeners more understanding about the Council on Foreign Relations, then I’m anxious to hear it.

Bill Hughes: Tom, the thing that I’ve been looking at here lately, you know, so few people, Tom, have any clue that the papacy is running things. I was talking with a guy on an interview here just the other day, and he said,

“Oh, that’s impossible! There’s no connection between the Jesuit order and the Catholic Church with what’s going on in America. That’s impossible.”

Well, I’ve been doing some research, Tom, for quite a while on this, obviously. And I want to go back and look with the listeners as to the rise of the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations. I have been shocked, Tom, to find out that, well, let me just go through a little bit here.

From 1952 right up to our current day, I want you to notice something. Adlai Stevenson was a Democrat that ran in 1952 and 1956, and he challenged Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower for the presidency both times. Eisenhower won both elections. Both of those men were members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy ran against Richard Nixon. Both of them were members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson and his opponent, Barry Goldwater, neither of them were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. But it’s clear that Lyndon Johnson, who was elected in 1964, had already staffed his administration with many people who were members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

1968, Richard Nixon ran against Hubert Humphrey. Both Republican Nixon and Democrat Humphrey were members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1972, Richard Nixon ran against the Democratic Party member George McGovern. George McGovern and Nixon were both members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1976, the Republican person who ran for the presidency was Gerald Ford. Gerald Ford was a member of the CFR. His Democratic opponent, who won the election in 1976, was Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter, of course, was a member of the CFR. So was an independent man who also ran in that election, a man by the name of John Anderson.

Now, Ronald Reagan was not a CFR member, but his running mate, George Bush, was. And right after Ronald Reagan came into office, he quickly named 313 members to his team who were all members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1984, Walter Mondale was nominated by the Democratic Party to challenge Reagan. Walter Mondale was a member of the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1988, George Bush went against a Democrat by the name of Michael Dukakis. George Bush, of course, as we already noted, was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Michael Dukakis, who was a Democrat that year, was also a member of the CFR.

In 1992, George Bush ran again on the Republican ticket. He is a CFR member. He ran against a little-known obscure governor from Arkansas by the name of Bill Clinton. Now, Bill Clinton was not only a member of the CFR, but also the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberger Group.

In 1996, Clinton ran again. He was a CFR member. He was challenged on the Republican ticket by Bob Dole. Bob Dole is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In the year 2000, Al Gore ran. He was a CFR member. He ran against George Bush, the son. George Bush was not a member of the CFR. However, his running mate, Dick Cheney, was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Tom Friess: That’s something that he kept secret from his local constituents back home, too, that he admitted. He admitted keeping secret.

Bill Hughes: In 2004, Bush, going on the Republican ticket, not a member of the CFR. He was challenged by CFR member John Kerry. Now, it’s interesting, Tom, and this gets into a whole other discussion, but both Bush and Kerry, who ran in 2004, were members of the Order of Skull and Bones from Yale University.

In 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain ran against each other. Both of these men are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Now, Tom, for the last 58 years, almost without interruption, the Council on Foreign Relations has controlled the White House of the United States. If they haven’t controlled the actual president, they have had so many people in high positions, whether it be the vice president or in the cabinet, just so many members, Tom, that to say anything short of the fact that the Council on Foreign Relations has dominated the political landscape of the United States for the last 50-odd years, at least, that would be absolutely true.

Now, it’s also true, Tom, that other people, let me just give you an example of a few other people who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, of course, Obama and McCain, John Edwards, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd. Now, it’s interesting, Mike Huckabee spoke to the CFR in September, and since then he has risen to a point to where he looks to be a top-tier candidate in future political elections.

So the CFR, Tom, has had an incredible, an incredible influence on the politics, on the foreign policy, on the domestic policies of the United States for the last 50~60 odd years.

With that in mind, Tom, I think it behooves us to find out all we can about the Council on Foreign Relations. Where did it come from? Who started it? What are their goals? I want to read a statement to you from a book called The Secret Side of History by D. Zanner. It says,

To guard against exposure, and to mold public opinion, powerful men in America working on world government set out to control the news media. They accomplished this by appointing 12 leading men in the newspaper field to found out what was necessary to control the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. It was decided this could be accomplished by purchasing control of the 25 greatest [news]papers.

While the Council on Foreign Relations was working to remake the world for the first 35 years of its existence, no feature article about it appeared in the news media.

It was not until the 1960s that this near-total control of the media began to be circumvented. For decades, many top officials of the United States government had been members of the Council on Foreign Relations. This includes presidents, 14 secretaries of state, 14 treasury secretaries, 11 defense secretaries, and scores of other federal department heads.

Tom Friess: Well, I’ll tell you something. Not long ago, I came across a video on Google of David Rockefeller, Council on Foreign Relations, Knight of Malta, standing in front of a huge group at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting, telling about this New World Order that they’ve created, and that they couldn’t have done it without the cooperation of the press. He publicly, at a meeting, congratulated and thanked the press for cooperating in order to help bring this to pass.

Do you have that quote right in front of you? I wish I had that quote in front of me. I’d read it verbatim, what he said to the press.

Bill Hughes: Tom, I don’t have it in front of me. However, I do have a statement here that says that the financing of not only the newspapers, but the financing for the Council on Foreign Relations itself came from J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller family, Jacob Schiff. They were the prime movers in providing the money, not only to control the papers.

See, Tom, when Rockefeller thanks the media, they didn’t have any choice, Tom. It was either print what we tell you to print, write what we tell you to write, or you’re gone.

Tom Friess: Yeah, they just simply bust them financially, and they would have lost their businesses had they not cooperated.

Bill Hughes: Exactly. Now, Tom, where did this Council on Foreign Relations begin? When was it first created? Where was it created? Who created it? And then we’ll analyze what the purpose was behind it.

A little background: Toward the end of World War I, Woodrow Wilson, who was then the President of the United States, was trying to figure out what they were going to do following the war, what would be done. Well, in 1917, 1918, there was an academic board that included Woodrow Wilson’s closest advisor and longtime friend, a man by the name of Edward Mandell House. Well, Edward Mandell House and this group of academics, they got together, and they were analyzing the political, economic, and social facts globally that would be helpful for Wilson in the peace talks. So the CFR, Tom, came into existence out of this little academic band of men who were advising Woodrow Wilson. And so the CFR was actually created right towards the end of World War I. Actually, right around 1920, the CFR was officially created.

Now, this man, Edward Mandell House, he was the prime mover in the creating of the CFR. Just a few quotes here. And again, Tom, you start to connect the dots, and they all start to fit together. Everything pieces together into this perfect puzzle. From the book by G. Edward Griffin called The Creature from Jekyll Island, Griffin says,

Well, right there, Tom, you see Edward Mandell House, the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations, and lo and behold, J.P. Morgan shows up.

Now, when Edward Griffin refers to the old banking families of Europe, which specific old banking family of Europe was the, what would we say, the cream of the crop? Which one was the one that would always rise to the top and had such control over the banking systems of Europe?

Tom Friess: The Rothschild banking dynasty, Freemasons, and I also understand from the book Rulers of Evil by F. Tupper Saussy, on page 160, it talks about he knew that they were a Jewish family, and so he looked them up in the Encyclopedia Judaica, and in the Encyclopedia Judaica, under Rothschild, it is said that they are the guardians of the Vatican treasury.

Bill Hughes: Absolutely, Tom. What we have is you start with the Council on Foreign Relations. The man who started it was Edward Mandell House. The people who financed Edward Mandell House in the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations were the Morgans, the Rockefellers, and the Rothschilds.

Tom Friess: And we had to believe that those same families were interested in the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations for a specific purpose, too.

Bill Hughes: Absolutely, Tom. Then, as you just stated from F. Tupper Saussy’s book Rulers of Evil and his quote from the Encyclopedia Judaica, you then take it one more step back. Most people, Tom, you know, when we start talking about conspiracy, and this is what the CFR is all about, it’s a conspiracy. Most people, Tom, like to take you back and say, okay, it’s the Rothschilds, the international Jewish banking families, that’s where everything stops. But the Encyclopedia Judaica takes it back one more step. The quote from F. Tupper Saussy,

So, Tom, right there you start connecting the dots. You go CFR, Edward Mandell House. Edward Mandell House, Rockefeller’s, Morgan’s, Rothschilds. Rockefeller’s, Morgan’s, Rothschilds, the Jesuit order, and the Catholic Church.

Tom Friess: And if you care to go back even further than that, from the Jesuits, you go back to the Knights Templar. But that might be another discussion. But it’s the Roman Catholic, it’s the financial heritage of the Roman Catholic Church. That’s what this is all about. It’s Roman Catholic Vatican money that has financed the Council on Foreign Relations. And if you don’t think the Council on Foreign Relations, I’m speaking to my listeners, if you don’t think the Council on Foreign Relations is important to the Vatican, you’re not doing the math.

Bill Hughes: Not at all, Tom. You know, Tom, here’s a statement that I make in my book, The Enemy Unmasked, page 80 and 81. It was Edward Mandell House, under the watchful eye of Jacob Schiff, who was under the watchful eye of the head of this international conspiracy, that established in 1921 what their earlier comrades established over through the governments of France and Russia, called the Jacobin Clubs in France in the 18th century. This aristocratic revolutionary movement today in America is called the Council on Foreign Relations. Its offshoot is the Trilateral Commission.

The Council on Foreign Relations is the political side of the Illuminati today. They have produced congressmen, senators, presidents. They’ve used them to pass laws that have little by little led America into becoming a socialist country. Tom, that is exactly what is happening today.

From Eric Phelps’ book, Vatican Assassins, he says, the agents of the Jesuits created the Council on Foreign Relations. You know, a lot of people down what Eric Phelps says, Tom, in his book Vatican Assassins, but this statement right here, he is saying exactly what we have just said by connecting the dots.

The locations would be in the two most powerful Roman Catholic dioceses in the American Empire, New York and Chicago. The CFR would control the Empire’s finance, government, industry, religion, education, and press. No one could be elected to the presidency of the United States without the Council’s consent, as the office would be a tool for the Archbishop of New York to subject to the vicar of Christ in Rome.

And then it says, one of the founders of the CFR also aided in the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. He was the holy monk and agent of the Jesuit general. His name, Edward Mandell House. Tom, you have all of these things that are connected, and you have, in every case, the hands are always the same. It’s Edward Mandell House, it’s the Rockefellers, it’s the Morgans, it’s the Rothschilds, it’s the Titanic, it’s the Federal Reserve Bank, it’s the Council on Foreign Relations, it’s the Federal Income Tax Act. You know, Tom, it goes on and on and on. Just by connecting the dots, we can see how it all is tied together.

Tom Friess: Well, Bill, you’ve mentioned all the popular names and all the popular organizations that are talked about in all the alternative media. Let’s just name them. Alex Jones, Stanley Monteith, Glenn Beck. You’ve probably got a list as long as my arm of people that talk about all of these organizations. But they only go back so far. Some of them are talking about Edward Mandell House, but they never take him back to the Jesuits. They never take it back all the way to the Roman Catholic Church. They’re protecting the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church.

And I spent four days Thursday, last Thursday, with you on the broadcast, and I worked on it Friday and Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday on this broadcast, telling the truth about Glenn Beck’s program that he aired on the 18th, showing the listeners what he failed to mention. And it’s stunning how these people can get so close and yet so far from the truth.

We have to understand that the Bible told us about the final kingdom that would rule the world in Daniel chapter 2. It’s Daniel’s vision. It started with Babylon, then Medo-Persia, then Greece, and then Rome. There’s not a fifth. Why does no one ever talk about Rome? Why does no one ever talk about the Jesuit order? Why do the most powerful and prominent and wealthy names in the media and the alternative media get by with not talking about Rome? God’s people ought to know all about Rome.

The Protestant Reformers knew all about Rome. Why are we so ignorant today? It’s because of these people that gobble up all the airtime. Alex Jones, Stan Monteith, Glenn Beck, on and on and on. They gobble up all the airtime, they get all the attention, and they leave out the jack of all trades: The Jesuit order and the Roman Catholic Church, the papacy, and the Vatican. And Bill Hughes makes that connection in terms that anyone can understand.

And that’s why I want my listeners to pay particular attention to Bill Hughes when he comes on as my guest on this program. I want to thank you, Bill, for joining with me today. I’m looking forward again next time.

Ralph Epperson is an historian, author, and lecturer who has been researching the CONSPIRATORIAL VIEW OF HISTORY (the view that the major events of the past have been planned years in advance by a central conspiracy) for 50 years. He has written or produced four “best selling” books entitled THE UNSEEN HAND, THE NEW WORLD ORDER, MASONRY: CONSPIRACY AGAINST CHRISTIANITY, JESSE JAMES, UNITED STATES SENATOR, six booklets, and 15 DVDs. – Source: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/273463.Ralph_Epperson

Ralph Epperson is my Facebook friend. These are his views about the California fires. I cannot verify that the fires were indeed deliberately started using direct energy weapons. You can call it opinion based on circumstantial evidence if you want to, but I think the similarities between the Lahaina fire on Maui in August 2023, and the fires now in southern California are too great to ignore. And I believe Ralph Epperson is an honest credible historian and researcher. He’s now 87 years old and his mind is still sharp as a razor!

From Ralph Epperson’s Facebook post:

– All three fires started at exactly the same time
– Nothing blue is burning.
– Some trees not burning despite houses being reduced to ash.
– Metal rims of cars melting, when they are designed to withstand up to 2500 degrees, and “forest fires” do not get hotter than 2000 degrees.
– No water in dams to feed fire hydrants.
– Strange light anomalies spotted in the sky above L.A.
– Insurance companies cancel fire cover only a few months ago
– We see all the same hallmarks as the fires in Lahaina, Maui
– Like Lahaina, plans for LA to become a Smart City.

CONCLUSION:

Direct Energy Weapons (DEWs) have been used to deliberately destroy parts of Los Angeles in order to facilitate Orwellian / New World Order style Smart Cities.

I have lived in California twice. Once From December of 1970 to July of 1971 in Sacramento when I served in the USAF at McClellan AFB. It was at a church in Sacramento where I got saved in January 1971. From February 1979 to August that year, I lived first in Monterey and then in Salinas when I worked at Ft. Ord as a civilian doing odd jobs such as driving a laundry truck. From the end of August, I moved back to Sacramento and worked at McClellan AFB at the logistics center up to January 1980. I loved the California climate. I thought California was a great place to live. Crime then was low and the Californians were friendly. Plus I met many Christians with whom I fellowshipped.

I am now very concerned for my friends living in the Los Angeles area. I visited them in December of 2014 and was in West Hollywood for a week. My prayer is not only for their safety, but that any loss they may experience doesn’t harden their hearts toward God. Unfortunate circumstances can make us either bitter or better. When we perceive something bad happening, we should call out to God for His help!

And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.
Psalms 50:15

One lady I know who was raised in a missionary family in Japan and who has been taught the Bible most of her life now lives in a suburb just to the west of Los Angeles. She wrote a post on Instagram saying, “Let’s invite the rain.” Is that something we should say? I wrote a comment to her post, “How about prayer?” Sad to say she renounced her faith in the Word of God. I pray this experience will cause her to cry out to the Lord for deliverance from her doubts and the fires.

The Lord allows things to happen for a reason. Many American Christians are asleep spiritually due to the infiltration of Jesuit doctrines in churches, doctrines such as Futurism that puts the Antichrist in the unknown future in order to blind their eyes so they don’t see him in the present. If you are a true Protestant, you absolutely know who the Antichrist is! The Pope!

Is the Lord allowing bad things to happen to California to cause God’s people to draw closer to Him? Have churches in California stood up to Gavin Newsom’s liberal woke policies and unbiblical ideologies? John MacArthur is the only pastor in California I know of who stood up to Newsom and kept his church open during the pandemic. I don’t agree with Pastor MacArthur’s dispensationalism and futurism, but what he says about governments being the primary enemies of God’s people is certainly true. The Scriptures and history verify it. May all God’s people in California seek the Lord through all the suffering they may be experiencing.

Below is an email I received on January 9th. from my very good friend Steve who lives in Huntington Beach, about a 40-minute drive from downtown Los Angeles. My comments are in parentheses.

Links to news sources about the fires that Steve sent me

• Day 4: LA fires now span 35,000 acres, projected to be the costliest in California’s history
• Stunning drone footage shows thousands of LA homes in ashes, 293,000 evacuated as fires rage
• Distraught LA mother confronts Gov. Newsom in neighborhood leveled by fire: ‘Why was there no water?’
• LA Mayor’s Stone-Faced Response When Asked to Apologize to Residents Triggers Outrage

According to what Tom Friess says in this article, the doctrines of Futurism and Preterism started in the church nearly from the beginning, way before Jesuits Ribera and Alcazar wrote their papers about it! This confirms what I believe about the so called “Church Fathers.” We can’t get our doctrines from those guys! Heresy began in the Church when the Apostles were still alive! The only source of true doctrine is, what saith the Scriptures? What does the Bible say about it?

Transcription

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to another edition of Inquisition Update. My name is Tom Friess, and I’ll be your host for the next hour.

This morning, we’re going to begin a reading and discussion of a little booklet entitled The Origin of Futurism and Preterism. These are the two primary schools of prophetic thought that counter the Historicist view, the biblical view, the scriptural view, and the view held by all Christians throughout history from the first century to the present.

That school of interpretation of Bible prophecy is called the historicist school of Bible prophecy. You never hear about it today, because futurism and preterism have replaced it. Now, what does historicism teach? Historicism teaches that the book of Revelation is an outline of the entire church age from the time of the Apostle John on the island of Patmos when he received the revelation from the Lord in a vision to the return of Jesus Christ.

The book of Revelation covers the whole period. There are elements within that book that cover the entire history of the Christian era, as we call it, the prophecy given and history fulfilling those prophecies. All throughout the book of Revelation, there are prophecies given, an apocalypse, a revelation, an opening of the eyes of God’s people throughout all periods of time throughout the last 2,000 years, and then we just simply watch for their historical fulfillment.

That’s the belief held by the early Christians that the book of Revelation was a foretelling of the entire Christian era until Christ returns. In the historicist view we find the rise of the man of sin, who was supposed to immediately follow upon the heels of the Caesars of the pagan Roman Empire 2,000 years ago. At the fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of the man of sin, the son of perdition, the little horn of Daniel, the Antichrist would arise in his place, and he would persecute the saints of the Most High. He would blaspheme God.

The historicist school of interpretation sees the fulfillment of that Antichrist, that man of sin, that son of perdition, that little horn of Daniel is the papacy. And the papacy has existed and has fulfilled the role of the Antichrist all throughout the history of the Revelation. Prophecy perfectly fulfilled in the papacy.

Now, if you’re the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and if you have possession of the Scriptures, and you see it for yourself that the Bible is predicting the rise of the man of sin, and you wish to shed the onus of the Antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the little horn of Daniel away from yourself, what is your logical strategy? Well, since it’s imperative for your continued existence on the earth as the papacy, if you truly are indeed the man of sin, the son of perdition, then you must shed the onus of Antichrist away from yourself. In other words, you must distort or abolish somehow the historicist understanding of the Scripture. It’s imperative at all costs, if you’re going to remain anonymous in the world and operate and fulfill all the prophecies, then you must deceive the whole world. That’s your objective as a Pope, as the papacy. You have to burn Bibles, prevent people from reading the Bible, because the Bible points at the papacy.

And we find in history that’s exactly what the Popes did. They burnt Bibles. They authorized the burning of Bibles, and they charged the leaders of the civil governments of all of Europe to be the ones to go about house to house to round up all the Bibles and burn them.

And then if burning the Bibles doesn’t dissuade people from reading it and coming to the unavoidable conclusion that the man of sin, the son of perdition, the little horn, the Antichrist is the papacy, then you have to turn up the heat a little bit. You have to not only burn Bibles, but you have to burn those who read it, and send a message all over Europe. “The Bible is for the priests of the Roman Catholic Church and no one else. We are the only ones who can interpret Bible prophecy. You have no business reading the Scriptures for yourself. We are the divine institution in the world, and it is up to us to read and interpret the Scriptures and then teach you.”

So they burnt Bibles. When that didn’t work to stop the accusation of the papacy as the man of sin, they kept burning Bibles, and they also burnt those who read the Bible. They forbid anyone to read the Bible. They left it in the hands of the priests of the Roman Catholic Church, the priests and the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and them alone.

If you insisted upon reading the Scripture, then the law was that you had to read it with the express permission of your bishop, and then you were instructed by your bishop not to interpret the Bible any differently than the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches. In other words, you can’t read the Scriptures without the church’s glasses on your face, so that it reads and says whatever the church says it reads and says. And of course, and as always, the papacy says these mentions of the man of sin, the son of perdition, the Antichrist, the little horn of Daniel, are not the papacy. It’s someone else.

Now, that left open a problem for Rome. Since the Antichrist is someone other than the papacy, well then who must it be? Well, the Roman Catholic Church, desperate to shed the onus of Antichrist away from itself, created two schools of Bible prophecy thought and teaching. The one is called Preterism.

Preterism is the school of interpretation of Bible prophecy that says all the prophecies were fulfilled at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire. That the Antichrist of the Scriptures, since it cannot be the papacy according to the popes, well it must have been one of the pagan Roman Caesars, either Nero or Caligula or Domitian or one of the other heathens Caesars of the old pagan Roman Empire.

Or if that’s even difficult to believe, maybe it was Antiochus Epiphanes or someone from the Grecian Empire that preceded the Roman Empire. Nonetheless, take whichever interpretation you want, the Antichrist cannot be the papacy if it was Nero or Caligula or Domitian or Antiochus Epiphanes, then the Antichrist has already been done away with. He’s no longer a factor in the world. All the prophecies have been fulfilled regarding the Antichrist.

And so that leaves the papacy in the very seat of Christ on the earth. The Antichrist has been vanquished, no longer a factor, and now Christ, through the papacy, has the opportunity to establish his eternal kingdom. That Christ, in his absence, has seated himself behind the breast of the papacy. That when we look upon the popes of Rome, we are actually seeing Jesus Christ hidden under a veil of flesh.

And having vanquished the Antichrist, the Antichrist is no longer a factor in the world. It’s now the divine prerogative of the popes to rule the whole world, one way or another, to establish Christ’s kingdom on the earth. And that’s essentially what the papacy’s been trying to do for 2,000 years, and in the process, fulfilling all the prophecies of the Antichrist.

Okay, so there’s the Preterist view in a nutshell. The Antichrist was in the long-distance past. It was prophesied that the Antichrist would arise before Christ established his kingdom on the earth, and that he would be destroyed by the spirit of his mouth and by the brightness of his coming. He would be destroyed without hand, the Scripture says. Well, prophecy fulfilled then, because the pope destroyed him. And he destroyed the Antichrist without ever laying a glove on him, if he’d be Caligula, or Nero, or Antiochus Epiphanes, or the Roman pagan emperor Domitian, or any of the three, any of the four.

So now, the papacy has justified itself as the very replacement of Christ on the earth, the very instrument, the human agency through which Christ now establishes his kingdom. And that has been the ground rules for the Roman Catholic Church for the last 2,000 years. The papacy believes it is their divine prerogative to conquer the world for Christ.

That’s the Preterist view. The Preterist view views the kingdom of the papacy to be the kingdom of Christ. And all who resist that kingdom should be burned, should be killed, their properties confiscated, their children taken from them and given over to the Roman Catholic Church to be raised Roman Catholic, their lands to be pilfered and sold off and given away to the nations where they reside and the benefit goes to the kings or to the papacy. That’s the Preterist view.

It’s very easy to understand. I mean, if you’re the Pope of Rome and you have to shed the onus of Antichrist away from yourself, well then, Preterism’s a pretty good way of doing it, isn’t it?

Okay, the other school of Bible interpretation is called Futurism. In other words, if you’re one of those who so well studies your Scriptures that you cannot be deceived by the Preterist lie, then you might believe the Futurist lie, which is just like Preterism, only that the Futurist view sees the Antichrist not arising in the world until just before Christ’s literal return. So Antichrist and the Futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy has not appeared in the world today and will not appear. He’s not a concern for any of us. All of us Christians ought to unite against him when he comes, and that’s the big power behind the ecumenical movement to reunite all the Protestant churches back to the Roman Catholic Church, to unite all of Christianity against the rise of this future Antichrist. And in the meantime, the papacy simply asserts its prophetic role in deceiving both Preterists, and Futurists, and aligning them all in support of his divine right to rule.

Now look, those of us who’ve raised children, and I confess I never have, but I was a child once, so I know a little bit about what I’m speaking. When you ask your child a specific question, “Son, did you get into the cookie jar?” And your son tells you first one lie, and he sees by the look in your eye or the demeanor or your gestures and discovers or senses that you don’t believe that lie, and then turns right around and tells another lie, a contradicting lie, one that contradicts the first lie that he told, then you automatically know the son got into the cookie jar. Right? I mean, we’ve all seen it.

The little kid got caught, and he tried to bail himself out with first one lie, and if that lie doesn’t convince mommy or daddy that he got into the cookie jar, he tells another lie. First, no, I was in the bathtub, and I couldn’t have gotten in the cookie jar, and if mother and father look at him like, come on, son, you haven’t bathed for two or three days, well, then the son says, well, I was down the street at Jimmy’s house. I didn’t take any cookies out of the cookie jar, and you realize the kid hadn’t left the house all morning. So because of the lie, the child has convicted himself. It’s as good as an admission, isn’t it?

So what about futurism and preterism? That’s what they are. Two contradictory lies, and all you have to do is examine carefully who preterism protects and who futurism protects, and you have the liar! Preterism protects the papacy. Futurism protects the papacy.

So the papacy is that man of sin, that son of perdition, that antichrist. The papacy is the liar. He’s the father of lies, as Martin Luther suggested, that the papacy is nothing but a mask for Satan himself. Those are Martin Luther’s words, not mine. He said, the papacy is the mask for Satan himself. In other words, if you could rip off that fancy beehive hat that the Pope wears, you could rip off all the papal pretension, what you would find is Satan himself, and that’s who preterism and futurism protect, the papacy, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the antichrist. That’s the historicist belief.

Now, there’s a funny thing about historicism. They’ve never had to make up any excuses. They’ve never had to make up any lies. They’ve never had to retract from what they ever taught. They stand full in the face of both the history and future and present day and say the same thing they’ve ever said for the last 2,000 years. The papacy is, was, and always will be the antichrist.

The book of Revelation doesn’t end at 70 A.D. It spans the entire Christian era. The book of Revelation doesn’t begin at just 7 years before Christ returns. It spans the entire Christian era. It’s a reliable chronological prediction of history, Christian history, from the first century until the time that Christ returns. It predicts the rise of the man of sin, who succeeds immediately after the fall of the Caesars of the Roman Empire.

Rome can’t deny that. The papacy did elevate itself to power immediately after the fall of the pagan Roman Empire. It became the Holy Roman Empire. See, they call it the Holy Roman Empire. They’re admitting that they were that power that rose immediately after the fall of the old Roman Empire. The papacy stood up in the place of the Caesars and it became then the Holy Roman Empire.

So as condemning and damning as that historical fact is, what else arose about the time of the fall of the Roman Empire? The Gothics. The Gothic Empires. Remember the Bible even tells us that the little horn, the man of sin, the mouth that roared blasphemies against God and against his king and his kingdom? He would uproot three kings, wouldn’t he? He did, too. The three Gothic kings. It’s recorded in history. And they were so evidently rooted out of history that it’s difficult for historians to even put back together what it is that they believed.

But we can certainly attribute their destruction to the papacy. No one argues about that. So what did the papacy use as a justification to kill those three Gothic Empires? Well, that’s easy. If this power that threatens the kingdom of Christ, this Antichrist power rises after the fall of the Caesars, after the fall of the Roman Empire, and it cannot be the papacy, well, then it must be the Goths. And so the papacy in destroying what appeared to it as being the rise of the Antichrist literally fulfilled Bible prophecy proving that it is the Antichrist.

Interesting. Every time Rome tries to shed the onus of Antichrist onto someone else, God slams the door and actually causes the Roman Catholic Church to identify itself as Antichrist. The papacy has always tried to shed the onus of Antichrist away from itself and on to someone else, either someone in the distant past or someone in the distant future. So that the papacy can rule supreme in developing and building the kingdom of Christ on this earth. The head of Christendom, the sole interpreter of the Scriptures, the sole possessor of the Holy Spirit, the very seat of Christ on the earth, that every man woman and child on the earth must be subject to the holy Roman pontiff.

And so the world by and large except for those Bible believing Christians of every generation throughout the Christian era, since most of the world doesn’t read their Bibles, they believe the Pope’s lies even as ridiculous as they are, both preterism and futurism.

Now, what I told you is both preterism and futurism have been a fixture teaching in the Roman Catholic Church for nearly two thousand years. Forever the papacy has tried to shed the onus of Antichrist away from itself, and it has chosen either one of two false teachings. It would choose either preterism or futurism, and in which case by either one you have exonerated the papacy of the charge.

Now, back in the early centuries, they probably were not known as preterism and futurism, but their teachings were still alive and well. They were in the embryonic stages. Maybe they were not fully developed until the Protestant Reformation or shortly before, but they always been in the Roman Catholic Church. I mean let’s face it, were it not for preterism and futurism the papacy would have been discarded centuries and centuries and centuries ago. Because true Bible believing Christians pointed at no one else but the papacy. They were never deceived neither by futurism nor preterism. They read their Scriptures. They saw the fulfillment of prophecy in history that that prophecies were fulfilled by the Antichrist, the papacy. There was no question about who the Antichrist was. The were the ones who were most persecuted by the papacy. Hounded, persecuted, chased up and down the Alps until they nearly wiped them out!

They were in just as much jeopardy by the papacy as were the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, and the Vandals, the three kings that the Pope uprooted prior or just after the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the papacy. They were pursued even past the grave. Some true Bible-believing Protestants were even dug up. Their bones were dug up from their graves and put on trial, a papal trial, an inquisition of their bones and then their bones were broken and placed in a pile and burnt and the ashes were thrown into the Tiber. That’s how bitterly the Vatican has hated the true saints of Almighty God.

Now, we don’t talk about those saints anymore today because, well, we don’t see the Antichrist as the Pope anymore. All of his atrocities throughout history are disregarded as just hate speech or some kind of, well, misguided accusation.

No, there are only two schools of Bible prophecy that continue in the churches today. It’s either Preterism or Futurism, both of which exonerate the papacy.

So we’re not allowed to criticize the papacy. The first thing you’ll do when you walk into a church and you begin to point the finger at the papacy is you’ll get another finger pointed at you, pointed at the door. Get yourself out of our church. They’re not going to hear it. They are dead set on establishing the Kingdom of Christ before He returns to establish it Himself. And they’re all lining themselves up behind the papacy.

They’re going to unite all of Christianity. And anybody who stirs up any division with Rome is persona non grata. And that’s to say the least of it.

And I can tell you my own experiences, how bitterly they persecute those who challenge their so-called unity with the Roman Catholic Church. And if you endeavor to take upon this mission yourself, you’re going to experience the same thing. Persecution. You’ll be minimalized and marginalized by anyone and everyone, including your own family. So this mission isn’t for the faint of heart. It’s for the strong in spirit. Only the strong in spirit. You’ve got to be strong in the Spirit. You’ve got to be strong in the Scriptures. You’ve got to be strong in history. And when you have those three, you have Christ. And no weapon on earth can win against you. The truth is going to win out in the end. Until the end when Christ comes, we suffer. But we don’t suffer for nothing.

Now, having fully prepared you for what we’re about to read, the title of this little booklet is called The Origin of Futurism and Preterism. Is the end near or is the end past? That’s the title of the book. There are two authors. There are two portions of this book, either one authored by a different author.

The first, The Origin of Futurism and Preterism, was written by a man by the name of Paul Owen. Paul Owen was born in 1916 in a farming community in southern Illinois. He was raised in a Baptist church by dedicated Christian parents. The family moved to Burbank, California in 1923. Soon afterward, Paul accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Savior at eight years old in a Sunday school class.

In California, he received his education, raised his family, and began a secular career in the United States Post Office. He willingly served his country for four years in the military service during World War II. Paul Owen has spent his life as a follower of Jesus Christ and a student of the Scriptures.

The 1940s, the Holy Spirit placed within him a deep desire to have an in-depth understanding of God’s Word. Ever since then, his life’s passion has been to live a life for the glory of his Savior, Jesus Christ, and the furtherance of God’s kingdom.

The second author, the author of The Tragic Aftermath of Futurism, the second part of this book, is a man by the name of Charles Jennings.

Charles Jennings was born into a home of devout Christian parents. He was raised in South Florida with a rich spiritual legacy of traditional Pentecostal heritage and ancestry. At the age of nine, Charles had a personal life-changing experience with Jesus Christ.

By age 14, he began to realize the ministerial calling upon his life, followed by many spiritual experiences which enhanced his call and vision. After earning a B.A. degree in Biblical Studies from Central Bible College in 1969, he has served in Christian ministry for many years as pastor, evangelist, and Bible teacher. He is the author of two books, his most recent titled, quote, The Book of Revelation from an Israelite and Historicist Interpretation, unquote, as well as numerous booklets and brochures on Bible-related subjects.

Together, these two authors, Paul Owen and Charles Jennings, have produced this little booklet, The Origin of Futurism and Preterism, and we’ll begin with the reading. The Origin of Futurism and Preterism by Paul Owen. This is section one. He says,

“This booklet falls naturally into three sections. The first section is the most important because it addresses the origin of both the futurist and preterist views of prophecy. Section two will show the progression of the development of preterism. From the period of the early church,…”

From the period of the early church, that’s talking about the first century church, right down through the Protestant Reformation, that’s from the first century to the 16th century, in a nutshell. Continuing, he says,

“While there are divisions among preterists as to certain of their dogmas, most hold to the belief that Christ’s second coming has already occurred, that all of prophecy has been fulfilled, and that we are now in the kingdom.”

Okay, now stop and think what we discussed before the program. The preterists believe that the Antichrist was vanquished prior to the fall of the pagan Roman Empire, and that ever since then, Christ has been establishing his kingdom in the Roman Catholic Church, and has made the papacy his vicar, or his replacement on the earth, to conquer the whole world for Christ, that the papacy is, as it were, Christ on earth. And that when the Pope speaks, it is God who speaks. Papacy believes that it is the mask behind which resides the true Christ.

This is in contrast to what Martin Luther taught us, that the papacy is merely a mask covering the face of Satan himself. So the preterist view is that Antichrist has long ago been vanquished before the rise of the Holy Roman Empire under the Popes, and it is now the Pope’s divine right to rule the world, to conquer all the world, to make the whole world Roman Catholic.

Since it cannot make the world Christian, it must make it Roman Catholic, right? Even if it can pass itself off as Christianity, which it inevitably does. I mean, if you ask anybody on the street, are Roman Catholics Christians? Well, they say, well, they’re kind of weird, but yeah, they’re Christians. They believe in Jesus. Well, so did Judas. He believed in Jesus until the Last Supper.

So, he says, “while there are divisions among preterists,” in other words, they don’t agree on everything, but generally speaking, most of their belief centers around the fact that Jesus’ second coming has already occurred, and that all of prophecy has already been fulfilled, and that we are now in the kingdom. Obviously, that means kingdom under the Popes.

Now, I want to tell you the truth. Jesus did establish his kingdom, and there were added to his kingdom daily, as the gospel spread from Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. But this kingdom, Christ’s kingdom, is not under the papacy, has nothing to do with the papacy, denounces the papacy as the Antichrist, as a mask for Satan himself on the earth, and we follow Christ and him alone. So, the kingdom is established, but it is not through the papacy. Now, he continues. He says,

“This section will provide numerous Bible passages that offer sufficient biblical support for the view that the second coming of Christ as foretold in Scripture has not yet occurred.

We who read our Scriptures absolutely know that Christ has not yet returned, and we know from the Scriptures that says when they beheld, Jesus was lifted up and received out of their sight by a cloud. And the angel said, why do you stand here gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus that is taken from you shall return in like manner. He’s going to come down from the clouds.

And the Scripture also tells us that we don’t know what we shall be, but we know this, that we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. In other words, no flesh at any time in history has ever beheld the glory of God and lived to tell about it. So, when Christ returns, we literally have to be changed to be like him in order to behold him. Otherwise, we would go up in smoke. So, are we like him? Are we gloriously changed and have bodies like his glorious body at the present time? Obviously not. So, obviously, Christ has not yet returned.

So, there are just a few right off the top of my head that prove that Christ has not yet literally returned to the earth. His kingdom is still established. Can’t a kingdom exist when the king is absent from his land? Absolutely. What happens to this kingdom when a papist president of the United States jumps on his old Air Force One nag and they go galloping off to Rome for a couple weeks? Playing pokey with the Pope. The kingdom still exists, doesn’t it? Still operates. Still functions. It’s not even aware of his absence. That’s how the kingdom of Christ operates too, don’t you know? And if you don’t know, then you ought to fire your pastor!

So, the kingdom of Christ is up and running. The flag is flying. The king has not yet returned, but we anxiously await him. We are not waiting on the Pope or any kingdom to be established by flesh and blood men. It ain’t happening! So, we’re not deceived. We cannot be deceived by the papal liar.

We can see both of his lies and how they contradict one another, papal preterism and futurism. We know the Pope’s made of a robe of flesh just like you and me. Sinful, fallen, wicked flesh just like you and me. He’s nothing in the world. We’re not deceived. And we’re here, despite all the persecution, to bring everyone else up to our level of understanding.

And that’s not to be boastful. It’s helpful. That’s what we’re about. Helping God’s people who are deceived. And we give no credit to ourselves. Not to our own intellect. We give the credit strictly to the one who gives us this understanding. And that’s Christ himself, the king. We’re beggars just like the rest. And we just are dutiful to use the gifts and the knowledge that Christ has given us through the Scripture. Nothing boastful about it. Nothing pride or arrogant about it. Nothing. It’s helpful. That’s what we are, helpers.

All right. Now, he continues. He said,

The third section of the booklet will submit an Old Testament prophecy that puts to rest, (in other words, puts in the trash can,) the preterist theory of the early fulfillment of all of Bible prophecy.”

We’re going to show you from the Old Testament that preterism can’t be the truth. It says,

“It will conclude with two examples of the preterist misunderstanding or misapplication of Scripture.”

It says the history of futurism and preterism could cause any thinking Christian flirting with either one of these two errors to make a serious in-depth look at both schools of prophecy and Scripture. We’ve already given you plenty of reason.

Carefully examine futurism and preterism and compare those lies with the facts as they are given to us in Scripture, and they are easily refuted as error. Now, the only thing left to decide is who told these lies and for what purpose. And you have the advantage of me as setting you up for the truth before we even began reading this book.

Now, the author is going to define these two schools, or rather three schools of Bible prophecy. Two that we’ve already talked about, preterism and futurism, and the third, the oldest, the most tightly held by Bible-believing Christians for the entire church era from the first century to the current century, and that is historicism. The view that says that the book of Revelation and the prophecies foretell every age from the first century church all the way to the return of Jesus Christ. That is historicism. And in the historicist school of Bible interpretation, we believe and teach unerringly that it was the papacy that rose to power after the fall of the Caesars. It is the papacy that is the man of sin, the son of perdition, the little horn, the antichrist, the beast, who is drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus for 2,000 years, who has a golden cup in his hand, that is the Eucharistic cup, is decked in scarlet and purple, the color of his bishops and his cardinals, the persecutor of the saints. It’s too easy. But then we have a master deceiver in Rome that would strip us of any historical record of his atrocities.

And since Bible prophecy is simply foretelling of history, if the papacy can distort or eliminate history, then we cannot see from history that those prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled in the papacy. That’s been one of the major prerogatives of the papacy all along, to destroy history, to subvert history, to rewrite history, to deny history, to focus on the future, to focus on the distant past, to give every kind of diversion. But we’re wise to his means and methods, and we hold fast to history and to the scriptures and to prophecy, and the papacy, as hard as it works, cannot deceive us.

He’s going to define these three schools of Bible prophecy. First, historicism. Historicism teaches that Jesus Christ’s unveiling to the Apostle John that comprises the book of Revelation renders an ongoing history of the church for the called-out ones, the ecclesia, from the time of John, that’s the first century Christians, until the second advent, yet future.

We believe, I believe, that the church era, as we are told, begins at the first century church and ends when Christ returns, will be approximately 2,000 years. I say longer than 2,000 years. and I have a specific reason for saying longer, a bit longer than 2,000 years, and I give the example of the parable of the Good Samaritan in the Bible.

Maybe we’ll have time to discuss that later at the end of the reading of this book. I’m not a date setter, but I believe, as most Bible-believing Christians have believed for 2,000 years, that Christ will return approximately 2,000 years after his crucifixion.

All right, historicism, again, teaches that Jesus Christ’s quote-unquote unveiling or his revealing to the Apostle John that comprises the book of Revelation renders an ongoing history of the church or the called-out ones from the time of John until the second advent.

And in terms that I’ve already used to describe it, it’s a chronological history of the entire church age, from the beginning to the ending, from the beginning of the church at Jerusalem to the return of Jesus Christ. The book of Revelation encompasses it all. It predicts it all. It lays it all out so that we can understand who the Antichrist is and that he will reign over the entire church age.

Every generation has to decide who is Christ and who is Antichrist, okay? That’s the historicist view. That’s the historicist definition. And it’s the truth.

I’m excited to find an audio talk about the power of the Popes of Rome from an authoritative website, CFR.ORG! CFR is the acronym for The Council On Foreign Relations. Former Hollywood playwright Myron Fagan called the CFR the American branch of the Illuminati. Most conspiracy researchers talk about the Deep State or shadow government in America, but not many identify the primary body of the Deep State as The Council On Foreign Relations. I believe it is. Moreover, it’s all under the rule and control of the Vatican.

You can listen to the audio from www.cfr.org/podcasts/power-of-the-pope.

Transcript of the first 12 minutes 40 seconds

Gabrielle Sierra: You know you’ve made it to the highest level of prestige when you get to meet the Pope. Actors, artists, athletes, and politicians, they all clamor for a handshake with his holiness. But aside from his star power, the Pope also has a lot of actual power.

He runs a massive organization that serves over 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide, nearly a fifth of the global population. On any given issue, you may find the Church’s position agreeable or egregious. What you may not realize, though, is that for some 2,000 years, the Pope has been at the center of global affairs.

He has a seat at the table alongside heads of state and is sought after for his distinct form of influence and diplomacy. I’m Gabrielle Sierra, and this is Why It Matters. Today, the Pope’s one-of-a-kind role in international relations.

Pope #1: If men and women hope to transform society, they must begin by changing their own hearts first.

Pope? #2: As a nation faces increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight to build a more human and free society.

Pope #3: Peace is not simply the absence of war, but the work of justice.

Gabrielle Sierra: Let’s sort of dive right into it. When you look at lists of the most powerful people in the world that come out every year, you often find the Pope in top 10. And he’s next to people like Joe Biden or Vladimir Putin or, probably a Kardashian (laughter).

And it occurs to me that I don’t really understand why the Pope is powerful. So is the Pope powerful? And what kind of power does he wield?

Timothy Burns: The question of whether he’s powerful is a difficult question. I think he is. I think there are three reasons. First is, as we know, he leads this huge global institution of the Catholic Church. There’s over a billion Catholics. He has ready access to them through encyclicals, through sermons that priests and bishops give. So because of that, and because I think he’s sort of prominently dressed and presented as a religious figure in a world that takes that seriously, he’s surrounded by a media circus of incredible intensity and attention.

Gabrielle Sierra: This is Timothy Burns. He’s a professor of political science at Colgate University (a private college in Hamilton, New York). He’s also the author of four books about the Catholic Church’s role in politics and global affairs.

Timothy Burns: And since the middle of the 20th century, popes have used modern forms of communication and travel to take advantage of this. So he’s on Twitter, for example. Millions of followers. He travels all over the world. So he’s this major sort of religious figure leading the largest single religious institution in the world. That’s one reason.

But he’s also the leader of the Catholic hierarchy throughout the world. And by that, I mean every bishop in the world is appointed by the Pope, personally. And he is the leader of each national hierarchy.

So when you think about world politics or international relations, whatever country is interacting with another country, there are Catholics in those countries, and they are led by bishops who are appointed by and led by the Pope. He’s involved with all of these national hierarchies all over the world.

And then finally, and really kind of oddly, to be honest with you, he’s a formal participant in diplomatic relations. The Pope, the Holy See, at the moment has diplomatic relations with 183 countries, including the United States, for example. So he has access to international relations in a way that no other religious leader could even imagine happening. He’s a permanent observer at the United Nations. He’s invited as a formal participant in UN conferences and conventions.

Gabrielle Sierra: Did you get that? Relations with 183 countries. For perspective, that’s more than the U.S. And the U.S. does a lot of diplomacy. And this gets at the crux of it. The Pope’s role on the world stage is not just symbolic or religious. He’s involved in negotiations and diplomacy on a daily basis.

Can you tell me a little bit about the structure of the Vatican’s foreign policy arm? Do they have a state department?

Timothy Burns: They do. There’s a person who’s called the Vatican Secretary of State, interestingly enough. There’s two people below him. One runs the kind of internal church matters. And the other, well, the undersecretary for relations with states. He runs, they’re all he, of course, runs relations with states. So, yes, it’s a kind of a state department. And they have country desks. They have regional leaders, just like any state department would in a country.

And then they have these ambassadors. They’re called nuncios or apostolic delegates, but mostly nuncios. And those are sent to these countries with which the Vatican has diplomatic relations.

And then, interestingly enough, the countries with whom the Holy See has diplomatic relations, there are ambassadors from those countries in Rome. So, like, the United States has an ambassador who lives in Rome and who interacts with the Holy See and the Pope, pretty much as any other diplomat would.

So he has this really unique place in the world. He leads this huge religious institution, which brings with it an enormous amount, I’m interested you mentioned Kardashians, a sort of celebrity focus of this global religious figure. He heads the hierarchies in all countries around the world that they interact with politics and international relations. And then he’s a diplomatic legal player in international relations and UN processes.

Gabrielle Sierra: Is the Pope the only religious leader welcomed into these discussions?

Timothy Burns: Formally, yes. I mean, you don’t have diplomatic relations with Islam or [Eastern] Orthodoxy or Judaism or any other religion. So in formal terms, for sure he is.

But there are other religious leaders. We can think about Islamic leaders in Iran, for example, who are certainly players in international relations largely through their leadership in an individual state. And so those religious leaders do have a certain political role to play. But in terms of transnational global religious leaders, no, I’m waiting for someone to come along who can mention anyone who’s even in the same category.

Gabrielle Sierra: Before we go any further, there are three phrases we’re using in this episode. The Pope, the Holy See, and the Vatican. They refer to different things, but they often get used interchangeably. You can think about it sort of like the president, the executive branch, and the White House. One is a person, one is an organization, and one is a place.

The Pope is the person in charge. The Holy See is the organization he’s in charge of. And the Vatican, or Vatican City, is the place where that organization is located.

Timothy Burns: The Vatican is the headquarters of the International Catholic Church in Rome. So it comprises St. Peter’s, it comprises a bunch of other buildings that are used administratively, residentially. Vatican City is about a hundred acre microstate, which was ceded to the church and the Holy See in the 1920s as part of the Lateran Accord.

So Vatican City, if anyone’s ever been there as a tourist, that’s when you walk into St. Peter’s Square and you’re no longer in Italy. The Vatican are those buildings that house the international headquarters of the Catholic Church.

Gabrielle Sierra: So it’s its own country to itself?

Timothy Burns: It is.

Gabrielle Sierra: Because I went as a kid, I don’t remember doing a passport thing.

Timothy Burns: No, there are no passports, but I’m surprised you didn’t do what my kids did, which is they put one foot in Italy and one foot in Vatican City and come back and forth.

Gabrielle Sierra: I mean, that’s pretty cool. And the Pope lives there?

Timothy Burns: Yeah. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, actually. He’s elected by the College of Cardinals to serve as the Bishop of Rome. And as Bishop of Rome, he also serves as what’s called the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. So he is, in a sense, the head bishop of all Catholics throughout the world.

Gabrielle Sierra: And the president or king of the Vatican in that sense, then?

Timothy Burns: Well, again, I would say Vatican City. He is the absolute ruler. They don’t use the word king or certainly not president. But he is, in fact, legally the absolute ruler of the micro-state of Vatican City.

Gabrielle Sierra: So the Pope has a unique combination of institutional, diplomatic, and soft power. But what does this look like in reality? Well, a lot of it is happening every day behind the scenes. But every once in a while, these interactions make history.

Timothy Burns: When Julian Assange released WikiLeaks, one of the things that was released that drew my attention, but maybe not yours, was that there were a huge number of documents within the United States State Department which reflected the communications between the U.S. State Department and the Holy See. And they were fascinating. You know, this was under President George W. Bush and Obama mostly.

The U.S. diplomatic leaders acknowledged and recognized that the Holy See was a unique actor in international relations because it wasn’t just a state. And so you read cables and documents from State Department leaders in the Obama administration, for example, saying, like I would, there’s nobody else like this. These people are kind of diplomatic representatives of a global institution.

And we can work with them on all kinds of issues. Having to do with Middle Eastern politics, having to do with climate change, having to do with diplomatic relations with Cuba, which is a fascinating story I’d like to tell.

So as I’m sure you know, the United States broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba after the Castro revolution. The United States imposed an economic embargo on Cuba for decades. And so the United States and Cuba not only didn’t have diplomatic relations, they almost didn’t talk to each other at all. It was like a basic fact of American electoral college dynamics that you just couldn’t even talk about in relation to Cuba.

Obama was interested in reaching out to Cuba. This was just something he thought would be a kind of historic step that he could take. But he knew that he couldn’t do it himself. And so what he did was he contacted prominent Catholic bishops in the U.S. who, remember, are not only American citizens. They’re also bishops of the Catholic Church who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the Pope and have these kind of relationships with other bishops around the world. And so Catholic bishops in the U.S. and Catholic bishops in Cuba began to communicate to each other through diplomatic pouches sent from the Holy See and the Vatican to the U.S. State Department in the United States. So the Vatican or the Holy See served as a kind of a honest broker with full secrecy and discretion between the Cuban government and the United States government as mediated by Cuban bishops and American bishops.

And then one day Barack Obama called a press conference and said,

And that was done through the Church.

Gabrielle Sierra:The Vatican had contacts on both sides in part because there were large Catholic communities on both sides and they used that trust to open a door that had been closed for decades. Now, we should mention that the Trump administration undid this diplomatic progress with Cuba a few years later. But that’s another story.

(End of transcript.)

I didn’t feel it necessary to transcribe the entire audio file, only about a little over 1/3rd. I think the speakers pretty much confirm what other articles on this website are saying, namely, the Holy See is a world superpower to be reckoned with, and the Pope is acknowledged by governments as a world ruler.

This is part 2 of Tom’s talk about Richard Bennett’s newsletter about Pope Francis. You can also read Richard Bennett’s entire newsletter Pope Francis the Fox from the Berean Beacon website.

Transcription

Welcome to another edition of Inquisition Update. My name’s Tom Friess and I’ll be your host for the next hour.

If you were listening in the broadcast yesterday, you heard me reading and discussing Richard Bennett’s latest newsletter. It came out in May (2017), and because of the reading of another book, I have saved it until now. It’s a dissertation, rather Richard Bennett’s dissertation, on Pope Francis I’s recent encyclical entitled Laudato Si, Mi Signore, which means Praise Be to You, My Lord.

And Richard Bennett tactfully but firmly paints the papacy as the self-styled King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And in this encyclical, we see the Pope’s agenda for religion and for politics and for economics. And we’re reminded by the scripture that the papacy reigns over the kings of the earth. So this is a global policy.

And yesterday, we concluded under the subtitle, if I can find it here, the Pope’s agenda, Pope Francis’s agenda, and the last paragraph of which I will read for continuity purposes this morning, and then we’ll continue with the rest of the newsletter. He writes,

The emphasis on economics is such that Pope Francis mentions the concept eighty five times. This is the same Francis and his Vatican system which teach that private property is not personal as such, but belongs to all people.

In other words, the Pope just on his own, of his own authority, which he says is divine, redefined personal property, private property. It has placed upon it a prior social mortgage, they call it, a prior social mortgage, which means is you can call your private property your private property, so long as it’s being used, and so long as somebody else doesn’t need it. At which point, it can remain your private property, but it has to be taken over to the possession of the one who needs it. In other words, this is Vatican speak for theft. No one owns any private property.

All goods come with it a prior social mortgage, and so it belongs to the one who has need. So long as you have it in your possession, you’re free to use it, but the Vatican says that if someone else has need, they can come and take it, or if they know someone who has need, they can take it and give it to someone else. That’s called the redistribution of wealth in Vatican speak, but it’s theft according to the Bible.

The Bible gives private property, ownership, goods that are bought and sold at fair market value, and when one decides to keep his private property, it remains his. There is no prior social mortgage. All right.

Now, he continues,

A Vatican Council II document upholds the same principle of the “universal ownership of all goods.”

Now, I failed to mention this yesterday. I correct myself today. The word universal, as is taught by the Vatican, is synonymous with Catholic. Those two words, although they are different spelling, have exactly the same meaning. Universal and Catholic are one and the same word.

Now, while you and I hear the phrase universal ownership of goods to mean one thing, the Vatican means something entirely different. The Catholic ownership of all goods. And if it’s Catholic, Pope has jurisdiction over it, and he can redistribute it at his will. And he can also authorize the civil government to do his bidding. In other words, to take your property and give it to someone else. This is what happens when you fail to pay your taxes to the state. The state is authorized to take your property and sell it to someone else. Our whole system is built around Roman Catholic canon law. And as I said yesterday on the broadcast, taxation is theft. Government is a thief. And it is inspired and educated and authorized and empowered by the Vatican. The man of sin, the son of perdition.

It says,

A Vatican Council II document upholds the same principle of the “universal ownership of all goods” and emphatically teaches, “If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.”

This is official teaching, Roman Catholic social doctrine. This is what is taught in the Church of Antichrist.

Pope Francis’ philosophy is simply a justification for theft, says Richard Bennett, whether on an individual level or a government level. What did Richard Bennett just do? He called government a thief. A Vatican or papally authorized thief.

The Vatican uses the government to implement Roman Catholic canon law. And never acknowledging that it’s following Roman Catholic canon law, it upholds and enforces Roman Catholic canon law without the knowledge of the people. Richard continues, he says,

The Bible states, “Thou shall not steal…. Thou shall not covet… any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”[20] Instead, people should be looking to the Father in heaven and His Word to learn biblical stewardship of their money and property.

They shouldn’t be looking to the Pope. Neither the government nor the people should be looking to the Pope for direction on these issues.

He continues, he says,

Catholics, and now nations across the world, are being exhorted to look to Pope Francis and his encyclical as a sure path for resuscitation of the international economy.

So we brought this international economic crisis so that the world will turn to Pope Francis for direction. So that the governments of the world will turn to Pope Francis for direction. That means the Antichrist of the Bible is now going to direct the world on international economic subjects. It’s going to be a global economy dictated by the Pope.

It’s going to be a global religion, a global government, and a global economic system headed up by the man of sin. The author continues, Richard Bennett says,

Biblical principles of divine justice, property rights, and equivalent value exchange economics needed for stability and well being of nations, are negated by Francis’s economic policies.

Biblical principles and divine justice are negated by Pope Francis’s economic policies. And what else would we expect from the Antichrist? Now this is where we continue, or this is where we concluded yesterday. We’ll continue now with the next portion of this newsletter. It’s entitled, Real Legal Power to Implement the Pope’s Agenda.

Now just stop and realize the Vatican is 108 acres. There’s only a thousand people or so living there. And they humanly can’t possibly manage every aspect of human life. They cannot implement all the rules that they promulgate, all the laws and these encyclicals, without the help of the governments of the world. As many times as I’ve said before, if the kings of the earth, which the Bible recognizes as those who served the Pope, if they all walked away from him, the Pope could legislate until the cows come home and there would be no one to implement his rules and regulations. There would be no one to put into practice his government. The Pope would find himself overnight a vagabond in the Vatican.

So the papacy depends on the governments of the world to implement the Pope’s agenda. The Pope’s just one man. The Vatican doesn’t contain enough people in it to manage itself, let alone the whole world. So it depends upon the governments of every nation. And that’s why the kings of the earth serve the Antichrist, as revealed in the Bible.

Now he says,

Francis’s predecessor, Benedict XVI, called for “a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. T-E-E-T-H.”

So the god of this world, the Antichrist of the Bible, the counterfeit Christ in Rome, presumes to reform the United Nations, a global government, and to dictate to the world economic institutions of this world, and also direct international finance, so that a global family of nations can acquire real teeth. In other words, enforcement power. And as we read before in The Global Vatican by Francis Rooney, the papacy does indeed rule over the United Nations, as well as our own individual national and international governments.

And he wants the governments of the world to have real teeth to enable them to implement the Pope’s agenda for economics, for global warming, for international finance, and for the civil laws of the nation and the world. He says,

Social and religious dominance, upheld and maintained by means of civil law throughout the European nations, is what the Catholic Church enjoyed and thrived on throughout the Dark Ages and Middle Ages. It is to that same end which Francis now moves.

And what did he just tell you? The complete and total control of the European nations over social and religious aspects of life, as well as the civil laws of Europe. This is exactly how the Pope ruled during the Dark and Middle Ages. That system, that rule of the Pope, was uprooted by the Protestant Reformation, and now that the Protestant Reformation has capitulated to Rome, the Vatican is simply reinstating that old world order. And they dare to call it new.

There’s nothing new about the new world order. It’s simply the recreation on a global scale of the power and influence and control exerted by the papacy prior to the Protestant Reformation. He continues,

It is to that same end which Francis now moves. Listing global warming, pollution, poverty, global inequality, over-consumption by first world nations and like issues, he states,

“These situations have caused sister earth, along with all the abandoned of our world, to cry out, pleading that we take another course. Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last two hundred years.

Who is that singling out? May I ask? He’s making reference to the last 200 years. The United States of America. Right? Listen.

“These situations have caused sister earth, along with all the abandoned of our world, to cry out, pleading that we take another course. Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last two hundred years.

So who’s going to have to make the changes? The United States of America. And how will that change be made? Industry’s got to disappear, because industry is the polluter. Industry is the one who has caused harm to Sister Earth, according to the Antichrist of the Bible.

Do you know how to pollute the Earth according to the Bible? False doctrine. False religion. Idolatry. Pedophilia. Sodomy. Sin. Idolatry is what defines the Roman Catholic Church. The papacy being the principal idol of the Roman Catholic Church, let alone all the statues and paintings and iconography within the Roman Catholic Church.

I maintain that God put us on an Earth that was able to sustain a whole world of men and women and children. Enough resources to support the creation that He created 6,000 years ago. And this whole idea that the Earth can no longer sustain us, and that we’re polluting ourselves and poisoning our environment to the degree that it threatens that creation, I believe is all a lie. It’s failure of the Vatican to understand what truly pollutes both the mind and the world. And in that basis, on that interpretation, the biblical interpretation, the greatest polluter in the world today is the Vatican. That’s where all the false doctrine, that’s where all the sexual perversion, that’s where all the idolatry and all the other ills of this life reside. He’s chief among sinners. He’s anti-Christ.

And if we wish to clean up the world, we must clean up the pollution. All right? He says again,

These situations have caused Sister Earth, along with all the abandoned of the world, (that’s the poor Roman Catholic Third World nations,) to cry out, pleading that we take another course. Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home, the Earth, as we have in the last 200 years. Yet we are called to be instruments of God our Father, so that our planet might be what He desired when He created it, and correspond with His plan for peace, beauty, and fullness.

Correspond with His plan for peace, beauty, and fullness? Where’s that in the Scripture?

The problem is that we still lack the culture needed to confront this crisis.”(Says Pope Francis.)

After personifying the earth, Francis moves smoothly to state, “[To commit] crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God.”

Again, I ask my listeners, where is that written in the Bible?

He then calls for the establishment of a legal framework, which can set clear boundaries and ensure the protection of ecosystems, and has become indispensable.

We must have a legal framework to implement the Pope’s agenda!

His solution of changing the culture by his enforced legal prescriptions, rather than evangelizing the world with true gospel of grace, is absolutely unbiblical, but it fits seamlessly into the ongoing papal agenda.

See how familiar we must be with our Bibles, in order to interrogate, and to examine, and to come to the right conclusions about what this papacy dictates? It’s by the reading of the Bible, and the careful reading of these encyclicals, that we come to the determination, the infallible interpretation, that he’s an antichrist. The emphasis isn’t on Jesus Christ, it’s all the emphasis is on the Pope’s power, and his solutions for the world’s problems. When in fact, this Vatican mentality, is the cause of all the world’s wars, and all the world’s ills.

Richard Bennett continues, he says,

has much influence in the formulation and implementation of national and international laws, particularly in the nations in which she has papal nuncios as ambassadors.

We’ve talked about the political power structure of the Vatican, papal nuncios residing in each nation, and assemblies and the synods of the bishops throughout the nation, that gather together in synod, and propose legislation to govern Catholics, and when that legislation has been introduced, it is sent to the Vatican for approval, and once it obtains the Vatican’s approval, then it is sent back to be written up in the Jesuit universities, law professors, law schools, and once this legislation is written up, then it is put in the docket for passage by all legislative bodies, the House and the Senate of the United States, and when these civil laws are passed and become law, that is the implementation of the Vatican’s agenda through civil law.

And again, I refer my listeners to the wonderful YouTube video by Richard Bennett entitled, Vatican Control Through Civil Law. And you’ll find what he says very consistent with many of the books that we’ve read here on Inquisition Update, Rome and Civil Liberty, and The Papacy and the Civil Power, and many other books, such like books.

This is how the Vatican rules. The Vatican rules through civil law, through the civil laws of the land, and it is Washington, D.C., and your state government, and your county government that implement the Pope’s legislations. So you’re being made to be Roman Catholic without your knowledge. This is how the Vatican controls the peoples of the world, and it’s so not just in the United States of America, but all over the world, especially the European Union.

Now, at present, says Richard Bennett,

At present, she maintains diplomatic relations with one hundred seventy-four countries at embassy level. Expediency, deceit, and cunning have always been defining elements of the Roman Church’s geopolitical pronouncements.

Pope Francis and his Vatican desire to maintain official diplomatic relationships. Their understanding is that political civil power is subordinate to the spiritual control of apostate Rome. Pope Francis, the present necessary and willing instrument, is seeking to fulfill these aspirations and objectives.

So, who really rules the world? Is it the Rothschilds? Is it the Bilderbergers? Is it the Council on Foreign Relations? Or are all these people just agents of the papacy? Who rules the United States? The Democrats? The Republicans? Or do they both get their agenda from Rome? That’s the assertion here at Inquisition Update, and you’ll find if you study it, it’s the only one that makes sense.

Now, Richard Bennett is going to give us the conclusion.

That Francis and his encyclical are intent on ruling religious, political and economic activities worldwide should not be surprising. Papal arrogance tallies well with Scripture’s prediction for such claims, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” There can be but one Vicar of Christ who is infinite, supreme, omnipotent, and all sufficient; namely, the Holy Spirit. The Papacy is a demonically energized apostate system that will be judged and utterly condemned by the Lord. Biblical insight apprehends that “the whole world lies in wickedness” and, “the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand.”

The Papal program is wicked and willful, and its genius in means and method, satanic. From the beginning, the Lord God purposed to glorify Himself “in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end, Amen.” He created the world and formed man for this purpose. His all-wise design was not defeated when Adam and mankind fell, for Jesus Christ the Lord was the Lamb “slain from the foundation of the world.”[30] Almighty God’s will is from eternity, and reigns supreme in time. He sovereignly orders, directs and controls all events. He it is “who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” Satan and his present neo-Babylonian empire (that is the Roman Catholic empire) cannot resist Him. It is written, “The Lord reigns; let the people tremble.”

Please join us in prayer that many people will understand this, and that they also would be drawn by God’s Spirit to seek His grace. Grace is unmerited, divine favor. By mercy alone, He saves hell-deserving sinners, demonstrating that all the glory of redeeming power is His alone. Since God works all things after the counsel of His own will, Papal Rome’s modern manipulation of civil power, false ecumenism, and unbiblical economic policies are merely instruments that God for His sovereign purposes has allowed.

We can be sincerely thankful that Almighty God in His supreme wisdom has set limits to the intrigues of Rome. Pope Francis and the Roman Church will be punished for their willful rejection of the Lordship of Christ. The Lord’s people will not be deceived by the powerful delusion that has descended on the world. Rather they “should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” True believers are those who adhere only to God and His written Word: these know that they are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and that to God solely is due all glory and praise.

And I will add obedience. Now, that’s the end of the newsletter. I would suggest that since we know the papacy is the counterfeit Christ on the earth, the anti-Christ, and that he proposes unbiblical laws and doctrines, false doctrines, false ecumenism, that he’s a lying wonder who deceived the whole world.

And we also know from Scripture that he reigns over the kings and the governments of the world. He’s a liar and the father of lies in this world. He’s Satan’s emissary in the world. He’s the god of this world, according to the Bible. He’s not the God of heaven. He’s the god of this world.

And the kings of the earth, the governments of the earth, are his vassals, whether they be national governments, as the government in Washington, D.C., or the United Nations, an international government. They are all servants of the man of sin. The counterfeit Christ.

What obedience do we owe them? Does Romans chapter 13 require us to serve an ungodly government? Does the Bible instruct us to obey an ungodly government? Ask the question, did Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego obey an ungodly government? We should obey God and not men. God’s instrument for the exercise of righteousness in this world was supposed to be the civil government. God placed in the hands of the civil government the power to enforce the second table of the law, man’s relationship man, so that the earth wouldn’t be destroyed by sin.

But when that government decides not to obey Christ and to enforce his divine law, and chooses, rather, to promulgate, pass into legislation, impose upon the people, and enforce upon the people an ungodly set of laws, what is our responsibility to that government but to condemn it for what it is?

Do we have the faith enough in Christ to stand up in His behalf and proclaim Him King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Or do we try to save our own keisters and obey the civil power and disobey God? The Bible teaches us not to fear those who can destroy the body, but rather, fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were right to point their finger in Nebuchadnezzar’s face and say, we will not bend, we will not bow, and we will not worship your image. And even if you burn us in the fire, we will not bend, bow, or worship to your image.

I think that’s the right course for God’s people today. Who are we going to serve, Christ or Antichrist? Is Christ really the one behind this ecumenical movement to unite all Christians under the authority of the man of sin in Rome? Are we supposed to follow their lead, though they outnumber us thousands and thousands to one? I choose to go alone with Christ. If that brings me persecution, if that costs me materially in any other way, I know Christ will reward me when it’s over. I think that’s a decision each and every one of us need to make.

Now, Richard Bennett, as most people know, I don’t spend a great deal of time here on Inquisition Update endorsing other ministries. I’ve learned from long and hard experience to be very choosy about who I endorse because life has taught me that I’ll probably regret it eventually. But I don’t hesitate to endorse Richard Bennett. He knows God’s Word inside and out. He was a Roman Catholic priest for many, many years. He knows Rome inside and out. And it was his Bible who converted him. It was God’s Word who converted him, who reformed him, and made him what he is today in his old age, a saint of Almighty God.

He preaches the truth no matter how much it hurts. He’s not appreciated by many, but he’s appreciated by me. And I trust him, and I endorse him, and I suggest that my listeners ought to try him on for size. Go to his website, bereanbeacon.org, and take a look at the information that he presents there. I think you’ll find him second to none. He’s a humble man, much more humble than I am.

And if you find my style objectionable, if you don’t like my passion, if you don’t like my direction, if I were to suggest someone else that you might seek the truth from, it would be Richard Bennett. Richard is failing in health, and he’s soon to go the way of man. (Richard passed away in 2019.) And I pray for him, pray for his health and for the health of his wife, and hope that God can replace him in this ministry and keep the truth coming forward.

Now, one thing you’ll notice about Richard Bennett’s website and about Richard Bennett himself, his principal ministry is toward Roman Catholics and former Roman Catholics. And many Roman Catholics and former Roman Catholics listen to him and depend on him. And they’ve given their lives to Christ and serve him only.

His ministry has produced great fruit for the kingdom of heaven. That’s the test of any ministry. But there’s plenty there for true Bible-believing Protestants. Any true Bible-believing Protestant would be thoroughly impressed with Richard Bennett and his ministry. And I also highly recommend that you go to youtube.com and type in Berean Beacon, and watch all of Richard’s videos. And subscribe to his channel. And support him financially, if the Lord leads. And to share his ministry with others, as many as you possibly can. I admire him, I trust him, and I support him and promote him. God bless you, Richard Bennett.

Now, many of you know and many of you do not know that 2017, or specifically October 31st, 2017, is the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s nailing his 95 theses on the door of the Wittenberg Church, protesting the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk who fell out of favor with Rome because he read his Bible. And he decided not to obey Rome anymore. And he wrote against the Roman Catholic Church. And he began the Protestant Reformation, what is generally regarded as the starting of the Protestant Reformation, October 31st, 1517.

And this year is the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. What Rome intends to do, post-Vatican Council II, is to organize what is going to appear on its face to be a celebration of the Protestant Reformation. Rome’s got to be very careful. She’s almost totally deceived the Protestants into coming back to the Roman Catholic Church, or at least subjecting their Protestant churches to papal authority and uniting all of quote-unquote Christendom. So they’re going to have to be very tactful in their means of celebrating this 500th anniversary because Martin Luther is regarded by the Roman Catholic Church and by the papacy especially as a rebellious heretic and a troubler of Christianity, a troubler of Christendom. And that what resulted from Martin Luther and the rest of the Protestant Reformers of that time was the complete destruction of the old world order when the Pope ruled supreme over the kings of the earth and they did his bidding and enforced Roman Catholic canon law and made all of Europe Catholic whether they were Protestant or not. Same thing the papacy’s doing today.

So the Vatican carries a grudge against Martin Luther and against all the Reformers. So they launch the Counter-Reformation initiated at the Council of Trent designed as I’ve said so many times to annihilate Protestantism by whatever means necessary and to reestablish the papacy as the king of kings and the lord of lords in the world, the governor of the world. And to subject all the kingdoms of the world once again to his authority as vassals on a slave ship.

Martin Luther stood in the way of the man of sin. The son of perdition. It was God’s Word that liberated him and it was Martin Luther’s word and God’s Word together that liberated all of Europe and reformed the governments to serve the people and not the Pope.

Rome thinks we ought to celebrate that 500th anniversary and to do it in such a way as to recognize the Protestant Reformation but at the same time tactfully to denounce Martin Luther a heretic and the entire Protestant movement heretical. Remember Vatican Council too declared the Vatican, the papacy, and the Roman Catholic Church to be the victor in the war that was established at the Council of Trent.

Vatican Council II was an assembly of the combating parties and a signing of a peace treaty between the Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. Unconditional capitulation, unconditional surrender. That’s what Vatican II represents.

You’ve got to be asking yourself what has got to be the motive of the Roman Catholic Church to support a celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation and Martin Luther? You’re going to have to be able to read between the lines when this celebration comes forward.

It’s going to pretend for all intents and purposes to be the object of unity. Rome must have unity for her own purpose to increase her power, prestige, and authority among all these once rebellious Protestant churches. The papacy seeks to unite all the nations into a family of nations underneath the authority of the papacy and that once again the governments of the world will serve him and him alone. What is the objective but to subtly but positively label the Protestant Reformation as a failure and Martin Luther as a heretic.

In the next series of broadcasts I’m going to be reading some of Martin Luther’s writings and you can see for yourself whether or not Martin Luther was a heretic or whether his eyes were opened by the Scriptures to understand who was the man of sin the son of perdition the little horn of Daniel the antichrist of the Bible and what did Martin Luther teach? Was it heretical? Or was it scriptural? We’re talking about the legitimacy of the Protestant Reformation. Was it a move of God? Or was it rebellion against the self-styled legitimate throne of God on earth the papacy? Was Martin Luther a troubler of Christendom? Or was he a liberator of Christendom? That’s something all my listeners are going to have to decide for themselves but I’m going to read Martin Luther’s works and you can compare it with the King James Version of the Bible and make that determination on your own.

I know what I believe and though I don’t agree on every count with Martin Luther for what he taught I am admonished rightfully by those who listen to Inquisition Update that Martin Luther was a recently reformed Roman Catholic. (Webmaster: Recently in the sense from the time he understood the Gospel to the time he nailed his 95 theses to the church door.) He had a life of indoctrination by the Roman Catholic Church and he had lived the life of a Roman Catholic a monk and he wasn’t reformed overnight. He didn’t come to truth overnight. It took the rest of his life and he learned until the day he died.

So if we find some controversy, some error in his teaching, we should take it with a grain of salt, and we should examine the Protestant Reformation and what it taught after a more mature period of advancement and reform.

And I think you’ll find as I do that Martin Luther was a man of God, a sinner saved by grace through faith, abandoning the works of the Roman Catholic Church, the sacraments, whereby grace according to Rome is earned. Martin Luther eventually believed the sovereign will of Almighty God. He believed as did John Calvin, God sovereignly calls, He sovereignly chooses, He sovereignly sanctifies, He sovereignly justifies, and He will sovereignly glorify those that He has called and chosen and sanctified and justified. Salvation is not the will of man nor any works that a man can perform, and salvation does not come through a man, and especially not the papacy.

And so, Inquisition Update will be an instrument for exonerating Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation and what they believed and taught, and we’re going to examine Rome’s so-called 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation and expose the lies. 2017 marks the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation and we’re going to do due diligence to the Scriptures and to the Reformers and to the Protestant Reformation and we’re going to condemn Vatican Council II and the Council of Trent and the papacy and uphold the Protestant belief On Inquisition Update.

In the video, Tom Friess of Inquisition Update is sharing a newsletter by former Catholic priest Richard Bennett of Berean Beacon. There are a lot of insights in this post about Pope Francis’ agenda for the world. It turns out that idea behind Klaus Schwab’s “You’ll own nothing and be happy” statement may have originally come from the Vatican!

You can also read Richard Bennett’s entire newsletter Pope Francis the Fox from the Berean Beacon website.

Transcription

Good morning everyone, welcome to another edition of Inquisition Update. My name’s Tom Friess and I’ll be your host for the next hour.

Yesterday on the program we concluded our reading of Richard Bennett’s book, the second book that I’ve read of his here on Inquisition Update, entitled The Foundations Under Attack, The Roots of Apostasy. I hope my listeners availed themselves of the vital information contained in that book and will act upon it.

And this morning we’re going to move on with a newsletter that I received from Richard Bennett from bereanbeacon.org. Richard Bennett is a gloriously reformed Roman Catholic priest who I highly admire and respect and trust.

And along about May 30th I received this newsletter from Richard as I’m subscribed to his newsletter, but I hesitated to interrupt the reading of Michael de Semlyen’s book to read it and discuss it and I put it on the back burner until I finished the book. So this morning we will read and discuss Richard Bennett’s insights into the current Antichrist in Rome, Pope Francis I, and this work by Richard Bennett entitled Pope Francis the Fox by Richard Bennett. Now first before I even begin reading I want to remind my listeners that Pope Francis, Antichrist Francis I, is a Jesuit priest and he’s part and parcel of the Counter-reformation, a Jesuit-led Counter-reformation to destroy Protestantism.

He is a world-class criminal and my opinion is that in lieu of or to evade prosecution from his world-class crimes in Argentina, they elected him Pope so that he could not be prosecuted. Remember the papacy cannot be prosecuted by any jurisdiction in the world. The Pope claiming sovereignty and supremacy and the office of Vicar of Christ and just as Christ can be judged by no man, neither can the Pope be judged or tried by any court of man.

So they hustled him off to Rome and he’s now the Antichrist of the world and he’s unable to be prosecuted. But that doesn’t mean we can’t tell the truth about him, right? Richard Bennett is all about telling the truth about Pope Francis I and Pope Francis I recently wrote an encyclical entitled Laudato Si, Mi Signore, which means Praise be to you my Lord on the Common Care of our Home. This is a blasphemous work by this Antichrist and lauding the earth upon which we live as our sister and our mother.

I’ll read the text of this email, newsletter, and you be the judge of where, what platform the god of this world sits. In Pope Francis’s encyclical entitled Laudato Si, Mi Signore, which means praise be to you my Lord, and the remaining of the title is on the common care of our home, the Pope identifies himself as the “Holy Father” and as a Christian. Nevertheless, Francis teaches the following in his encyclical,

“In the words of this beautiful canticle, St. Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home, that is the earth, is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us.”

Quoting further, he says,

“Praise be to you my Lord through our sister mother earth who sustains and governs us and who produces various fruit with colored flowers and herbs.”

I mean, the New Agers would love that one, wouldn’t they? Is Pope Francis endorsing the idea that the earth, “governs” us rather than the Lord? Nowhere in the Bible is the earth called mother or sister. This is demonic theology rooted in the, “Mystery religion of Babylon.”

Anthropomorphizing the earth, especially as female, has always been a mark of pagan and satanic worship. As Alexander Hislop points out, and I’ll remind my listeners, Alexander Hislop is the author of the book, The Two Babylons, which we read years ago here on Inquisition Update, an essential book for my listeners, for your libraries. Richard says,

“As Alexander Hislop points out, ‘It has been known all along that popery was baptized paganism, but God is now making it manifest that the paganism which Rome has baptized is, in all its essential elements, the very paganism which prevailed in the ancient literal Babylon.'”

So the Roman Catholic Church, the faith of the Roman Catholic Church is simply a Christianized version, a baptized version of that abomination which existed in Babylon.

Now, Pope Francis is first and foremost a Jesuit, says Richard Bennett. As a Jesuit, he is known to be cunning as a fox.

In the third paragraph of the encyclical, he clearly specifies a crisis and targets his intended audience.

“Now, faced as we are with global environmental deterioration, I wish to address every person living on this planet about our common home.”

It remains to be seen, then, why Pope Francis has so early in his reign come forth with a statement of gross paganism as part of his supposedly Christian worldview.

And first of all, in my opinion, it should be very telling what position the papacy occupies in this world to audaciously assume to lecture the whole world about this creation. And that’s what he asserts to do. And no other power on earth does this but the papacy.

Now, under the subtitle Biblical Truth, here’s what Richard Bennett says.

“The truth is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

And I want to ask the question to my listeners, where was the Pope when God created the heavens and the earth? He didn’t exist, did he? It says, as the Bible states, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

These foundational words aside, Pope Francis has chosen instead to quote 13th century Catholic Saint Francis’ pagan understanding of the issue. Therefore, it cannot be by accident that Pope Francis has chosen to cover his papacy in the supposedly benign robes of Francis of Assisi. Under the subtitle Basic Untruth, the author writes,

“A major fact to be considered is that Pope Francis believes in his absolute authority. As his own Roman Catholic Church teaching proclaims that the Supreme Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority.”

Now, listen. This is words directly from Roman Catholic canon law. This is Roman Catholicism proper. In the Roman Catholic Church, it is taught that the Supreme Pontiff, that is the Pope, in virtue of his office, let me explain what that is, the office of the papacy continues after a Pope has died, and is simply occupied by a successive Pope. But they remain Popes, and the office remains no matter who is seated in the throne. So, when I say that the Antichrist is the office of the papacy, Roman Catholic canon law acknowledges this! As his own Roman Catholic Church teaching proclaims that the Supreme Pontiff, whoever he is, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority.

Now, let me analyze this a little further for you. The Pope possesses, it says, infallible teaching authority. Now, we all know man is fallible, isn’t he? Every man is fallible. Only God himself is infallible, and so to claim one of the unique attributes of God upon a man is blasphemy, is it not? Now, if this Pope is, as he attests, infallible, and a teaching authority, who does he replace? The Holy Spirit. Jesus said, I must go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come. But if the Comforter come, He will teach you all things.

And we can assume, rightly, that He will teach infallibly, too, won’t he? Further, we know His teaching is infallible when His teaching is commensurate, or perfectly in align, with God’s written Holy Word. And never does the Holy Spirit teach contrary to the written Word of God. But does this so-called infallible teacher (the Pope) teach according to the written Word of God? Absolutely not.

Another aspect of this that needs to be brought out, if the world accepts the papacy, or even allows the papacy to assume infallibility in teaching, well, then common sense dictates that he should be in control of all education, as the supreme teaching authority in the world. And I’ll let my listeners do their own research to find out how many Roman Catholics have occupied the office of the Secretary of Education in this country. And that’s why our schools are anti-Christ in their teaching.

They teach evolution, they don’t teach creation. They’re not even allowed to teach it. Who is in authority over our schools but this so-called self-styled infallible teaching authority, the papacy, that teaches that the earth is our mother and our sister?

Before the program, I heard some talk about the moral decay of our country, and that millennials could overthrow the Constitution of the United States because of their lack of moral compass. And then the question was posed, how should we restore morality in this country? Well, according to Pope Francis, it would be to believe in his infallible teaching authority. But we know from the reading of Scripture that if we wish to improve or reverse our moral decay in this country, we must return to true biblical Christianity, which is diametrically counter to Roman Catholic canon law and Roman Catholic teaching and this so-called infallible teaching authority. You want to reverse the decline in morality in this country? Restore true biblical Christianity.

Now, the author continues. He says,

“However, the reality is that Jesus alone possesses all power and teaching authority. As Christ himself proclaimed, ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.’

It says again, “All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth.” Now, who gave him this power? His father. And that wasn’t the pope. The author continues. He says,

“Thus does Jesuit Francis, having first covered himself in the pagan mantle of Francis of Assisi, attempt to usurp divine authority in a claim that is totally counterfeit.

Another example of this Roman Catholic counterfeited authority by Pope Francis is seen in the following. Francis professes to impart Christ by masses and the Holy Spirit by sacraments, including his current idea that, “as Christians,” we are also called to, “accept the world as a sacrament of communion.” Listen again. “To accept the world as a sacrament of communion, as a way of sharing with God and our neighbors on a global scale.”

The world is a sacrament? Where is that in the Bible? It’s not. Now, he says,

“Where is there any evidence of Scripture truth and the gospel in this spiritually blind papal teaching? The Scripture commands each man to repent and to believe the gospel. But no man can do this without conviction of the Holy Spirit. Yet these elementary facts are silently set aside as the Pope expands his argument by stating that the papacy’s worldview is relevant for today. However, his teachings end up in totalitarianism.”

If you follow the papal logic, if you follow the papal teaching, which is regarded as infallible, then you can only conclude that being infallible, and that he is the only infallible source in the world, that he has a right to totalitarian government. That’s where this is leading.

Now, Francis starts with our supposed sin against, “sister earth,” as the encyclical states, and moves in an entirely unbiblical direction.

This sister, that is, the earth, now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air, and in all forms of life.”

Francis’ stated view is utterly pathetic, says Richard Bennett. The Bible states,

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of majesty on high.”- Hebrews 1:1-3

The Bible states the facts. Contrarily, Francis teaches that the heaven and the earth are parts of the Lord God. This is utterly pagan philosophy. This is, I will add, deification of the earth. That is, making gods of the creation. What does it say in Romans chapter 1? Those who worship the creation more than the creator. This is profane, according to scriptural teaching. This is blasphemy. It’s paganism. It’s idolatry.

And it robs the glory that is owed to the Creator and places it on His creation. Now, this is right up the Pope’s alley, because he is a creation, is he not? He’s a man. He’s a flesh and blood man. He was created in the Garden of Eden. And the deification of the creation is exactly what Popery is. A deification of a sinful, wicked, infinitely sinful and wicked human being.

And I even hate to use that term. The Bible calls us man, not human beings. We are men, created in the image and likeness of God. But we are in rebellion. And there’s no more rebellion ever expressed in the world today than in this man, sinful and wicked and desperately wicked, according to the scriptures, that asserts himself as an infallible teacher in the world and leads the whole world astray.

The deification of the creation – That’s the root definition of paganism. Every time you see in history a pagan religion, if you study it carefully, it’s always worship of the creation and ignorance of the creator.

This is what sets biblical Christianity apart from all other religions. It worships the Creator only. Pope Francis would have us believe that the earth is our mother and our sister, when the truth is that God is our Father. And the whole purpose of man is to keep His commandments. To love God and keep His commandments. That’s the whole purpose of man.

Would Pope Francis, being a man, keep the commandments of God? No. Instead, he usurps God’s throne and places his infallibility and holiness upon himself, calling himself blasphemously as Holy Father. Now, Pope Francis’ cunning conjectures. The author continues.

“What must be understood is that Francis’ encyclical, with its elevated and inspiring tone in pursuit of ethical excellence, is heavily laden with all the classical assumptions of the papacy. Principally, what is being presented in the encyclical is an idealized plan for the world. It is based on the Vatican’s view of both what the world presently is and what it could be, as if the Pope were the temporal Lord Director of all things spiritual, political, and economic.

The whole argument of the encyclical hangs upon the veracity of its alleged self-evident axioms. However, the assumptions are false. If Pope Francis wants to be a prophetic voice in the modern world, allegedly speaking on Christ’s behalf, then his assumptions must be evaluated according to the measure given in the Word of God, namely, to the law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20.)

So if Pope Francis is to be taken with any authority in the world at all, then he must speak according to the gospel. He must speak according to the law and to the testimony. That’s the Old Testament and the New. Does Pope Francis speak according to the law and to the testimony? No.

Now, I want to add before I continue that the reason I value and respect Richard Bennett so much is that being a Reformed Roman Catholic priest, he has had much learning in Latin, and these papal encyclicals and every other papal authoritative writing is written in Latin. It’s to be read by those who can read and understand Latin to get the correct interpretation.

If one were to tell us what is basically at the root of these encyclicals, it would take someone like Richard Bennett who can read Latin to read it and interpret it for us. And that’s why I trust Richard Bennett. So, continuing with this encyclical, it says, or rather Richard Bennett’s assessment of it, he says,

“Principally, what is being presented in the encyclical is an idealized plan for the world. Inherent in that is that the Pope is the world leader, king of kings and lord of lords. It is based on the Vatican’s view of both what the world presently is and what it could be as if the Pope were the temporal lord director of all things spiritual, political, and economic. The whole argument of the encyclical hangs upon the veracity of its alleged self-evident axioms. However, the assumptions are false. If Pope Francis wants to be a prophetic voice in the modern world, allegedly speaking on Christ’s behalf, then his assumptions must be evaluated according to the measure given in the Word of God, namely, ‘To the Law and to the Testimony. If they speak not according to this Word, the Law and the Testimony, it is because there is no light in them. – Issaiah 8:20′”

So if Pope Francis speaks contrary to the written Word of God, what we call the Old and the New Testaments, then there is no light in him. My assertion directly is this. The papacy is the prince of darkness in this world.

Now, continuing,

“The Lord Jesus Christ was emphatic that Scripture is absolute truth, that it cannot be refuted. As Scripture states, ‘Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.’

Thus, from the outset, it becomes clear that Pope Francis is an imposter with an objective. He’s a counterfeit Christ with an alternative global kingdom. An earthly kingdom as directly opposed to Christ and his heavenly kingdom. The pope wishes to be king of kings and lord of lords in an earthly global realm while Christ came to deliver us from it and give us a heavenly home wherein dwelleth righteousness. That is Christ himself.

Now, what Francis does not make explicit in his encyclical is that since the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century, the Roman Catholic Church has held that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church, and formally denied the gospel. Rome formally went apostate at the Council of Trent.

Now, this is Richard Bennett’s assessment.

“Let me tell you, the Roman Catholic Church has been apostate since its formation.”

This is where we may differ a bit with the author as much as I respect him, but I’m sure a personal conversation with Richard Bennett would clarify this point. (Webmaster: I agree with Richard Bennett’s assessment.)

But nonetheless, Richard says, “Rome formally went apostate at the Council of Trent.” He says it has never revoked the Council of Trent. And what is my consistent consensus of the Council of Trent? That it was a declaration of all-out war against biblical Christianity.

And what could we expect from the Antichrist but to make war against the saints and to make war against the Bible? And that’s what the Council of Trent launched. Not that there wasn’t war against the saints and against the Bible before the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent resulted after the Protestant Reformation when much of the Roman Catholic Church rebelled in protest against the papacy after they had read God’s word for themselves.

So the Council of Trent was launched to reform the Reformation, to bring the reformed Protestants back into and under the supreme authority of the Pope once again. Thus rather than the gospel, to make one right before a holy God, Rome has only sacraments to offer. These do not deliver salvation, for it is only, “The gospel of Christ. It is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” No mention of the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church in the Bible, right? This should be obvious to everyone.

This is a man-made system. It’s a counterfeit system. And it denies Christ and the power of God to salvation and puts it all upon itself. Therefore the papacy must take in hand another tool. It must find another route by which to snare people into the folds of modern Babylon.”

That’s Richard Bennett’s description of the Roman Catholic Church in which he used to be a monk. He calls it modern Babylon.

Now, dialogue on environmental issues is the current mode. Near the end of the encyclical, there is much religion talk about God and the duty of Christians. But this is in fact only a postscript to the encyclical. The real thrust of the encyclical is the promotion of a political agenda couched in pagan terms. It cannot be otherwise because in its conception, objective, and method, it stands contrary to Scripture.

In face of this, the Lord Jesus Christ’s message to those who are His own is totally different. He proclaims,

“All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” -Matthew 28:18-20

So there’s our instruction. We’re to go into all the world, preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, the remission of sins, the salvation of man in Christ, baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and teaching them, that is the world, to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. No mention of the Pope is there. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

And we had to be reminded that He would be with us always, even unto the end of the world, because there would be times when we, being dominated and persecuted and killed and martyred by this Antichrist in Rome, that we would perceive that maybe God has forsaken us. That’s how bad it was going to get. That’s how bad it was. That’s how bad it is. But we are yet reminded, Jesus said, the infallible Lord of glory said, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. That’s a promise.

And God keeps His promises. So when we are persecuted, when there seems to be no support in this world for the truth anymore, when we are treated as criminals and vagabonds in this world, Jesus is with us. He’s with us even in our suffering and in our persecution. He said, offenses must come, but woe be to the man by whom these offenses come. Who is that man? The man of sin in Rome.

Now following on this message is the assurance that those who by grace alone believe in Christ alone, through faith alone, i.e., the true spiritual family of people across the globe, are the real family of God.

“But as many as received Him, to them gave He the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name, which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, (there goes your free will,) nor the will of man, but of God.” – John 1:12-13

There’s the sovereignty of God. He chooses. Did He choose the Pope? Did He choose His priests? No, they teach an entirely other gospel.

Now, as prescribed in the gospel, those who by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ alone, have been declared by God to be, “sons of God” through the Lord Jesus Christ’s perfect life and sacrifice.

As the apostle claimed, “You have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. “the spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.”

What does the papacy call us? Those who believe in grace alone, by faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. He calls us heretics. Historically. Nowadays they call us separated brethren. But we know why they’ve changed the terms. We are still, until we submit to the total supreme authority of the papacy, we are heretics. And we are heretics by any other name.

Rome has painted herself into a corner. She can’t extricate herself. And so, don’t be deceived when Rome graciously, semi-graciously refers to us now as separated brethren. Rome says, and still says, that outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation.

Now what is Pope Francis’ agenda? Throughout the encyclical, Francis’ environmental theme cannot be ignored. With over 170 references to global warming, climate change, environment and environmental issues, it is clear that this is a means to an end. While we are rightly concerned with what Francis is saying, it is also imperative to grasp why he is saying it. Francis’ encyclical is not in any sense a labor of original thought. Both his analytical style and argumentative form are firmly grounded in the Vatican’s preeminent sense of its own self-importance and presumed lordship over every aspect of human life.

Francis exhaustively demonstrates that his views truly represent the historical essence of Rome’s religious and social teaching. However, that teaching is not the teaching of the Bible. Thus, Francis shows himself again to be a cunning fox.

His objective is to firmly ground his institution’s own welfare and future in terms of an, “integral human development,” that encourages his primacy as the sole arbiter of ethics and moral order. It is quite clear that Francis is writing his encyclical to assert once again the papacy’s autocratic claims. The aim of Francis in his encyclical is to propound and promote a type of world government.

Specifically, he envisions a renewed and rejuvenated global society over which the Roman Catholic Church rules as the principal ethical entity. And what better way to gain moral authority but by weaving together environmental activism based upon global warming and climate change synthesized by modern, “science, falsely so-called.” Truly, it is a cunning plan to solidify a political base with the non-religious left, thereby creating a harmonious church and global state. A global church state.

The ecumenical activity since the early days of Vatican Council II has been extremely successful in unifying the religious right under papal dominance.

Now what have I said always about politics? What Richard Bennett has said right here. That the papacy aligns itself with the left and the right. The papacy controls both political parties. And they both work for papal advancement.

I give the example of the grandfather clock. The hands of the clock, that is the hands of the grandfather clock, father time, move always in the same direction. And that movement is a result of the diametric swinging of the pendulum, both left and right.

So no matter which way the politics swings, either left or the right, the papal hand always continues in the same direction. So the papacy uses politics as a means to a religious end. Politics is the main access, or rather the main instrument, the dynamo, of papal advancement in the world.

No matter what political party you ascribe to, you are ascribing to a Roman Catholic agenda.

“Truly it is a cunning plan to solidify a political base with the non-religious left, thereby creating a harmonious church and global state. The ecumenical activity since the early days of Vatican Council II has been extremely successful in unifying the religious right under papal dominance. If this continues, it is just a matter of time before all are ushered in to another chapter of the Dark Ages.”

What did Richard Bennett just tell you? That the new world order is not new at all. It’s simply the restoration of the old world order, the Dark Ages.

“Now, the term globalize is used 53 times in this document. In the terms of the argument, it is meant to reinforce not merely the concept of an inevitable necessary global synthesis, but to generate, in his own words, a, “just and sustainable economic order.”

Part of Francis’ agenda is the development of an increasingly globalized society by the nations, thinking for, “the common good,” of all. Thus, in Section 7 concerning the common good, he states, “It is the good of all of us, made up of individuals, families, and intermediate groups who together constitute society.” And you can extend this to mean even the nations.”

After all, the Pope is, as we learned in the global Vatican, that the Pope is the overseer of the United Nations. Now, but because, “there is none righteous, no, not one, there is none that doeth good, no, not one, and all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” there’s no such thing as the common good on a collective basis such as the Pope is promoting. Rather, in the Bible, the ultimate end of man is to glorify God through the appreciation and adoration of His Son, Jesus Christ, to the complete satisfaction of our souls. That is redemption. In the Bible, it is on an individual basis that through the commitment to the whole counsel of God, we glory and find our good. Therefore, His revealed will in His Word is the only standard of good for natural creatures.

“There is none holy as the Lord, for there is none beside Thee, neither is there any rock like our God.” Where is there room left for the papacy? There is none.

“The emphasis on economics is such that Pope Francis mentions the concept 133 times. This is the same Francis and his Vatican system which teach that private property is not personal but such that belongs to all people.

Did you know that according to Roman Catholic canon law, you have no private property? That on every item of private property in your possession, there resides a prior obligation? That is, based on need? And if the Vatican says you have something that you don’t need or that you’re not putting into production or using, then someone next to you or down the road or even in a different country or even on a different continent, if they have need for those resources, they have a right to them, a more right than you have, even if you call yourself an owner. The papacy calls it the prior social mortgage. You have no private property according to Roman Catholic canon law.

And that was instituted in the Constitution of the United States. The government of the United States says there’s a private social mortgage on your property and if you don’t pay your taxes, we can take your property from you based on Roman Catholic canon law. The state has a need. If you don’t pay that need, then we can take your property based in Roman Catholic canon law, not based on anything biblical.

Taxation is theft, flat out, and it’s instituted globally through the civil powers of the world to confiscate the property of the righteous. The global redistribution of wealth, we see it in our face every day. You have no private property according to Roman Catholicism. And the world follows Rome’s lead, not God’s lead, not the gospel lead. It follows the papacy. A Vatican Council II document upholds the same principle of the, “universal ownership of goods,” and emphatically teaches, “if one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.” So if you have a need, you are justified to take from someone else.

This is global theft. It’s observed by the governments of the world, and now it’s going to come to your neighborhood. And we’ve read Caritas Invertate, another papal encyclical here, where the pope asserts that if someone has need of your property, they can not only take it for themselves, but they can take it for someone else that has need.

So what role does the government play? Taking from you and giving to someone else. That’s the role of government. It’s been following Roman Catholic canon law all along.

Now Pope Francis’ philosophy is simply a justification for theft, says Richard Bennett, whether on an individual level or a government level. The Bible states, “Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor’s.” Inherent in that is the possession of personal property.

Is that what the world observes? No. What government in the world observes personal property? None. So whose example do they follow? Now you know why governments of the world, kingdoms of this world, are regarded in the Bible as beasts. And the head of those beasts is the papacy. Instead, people should be looking to the Father in Heaven and His Word to learn biblical stewardship of their money and their property.

Catholics and now nations across the world are being exhorted to look to Pope Francis and his encyclical as a sure path for a resuscitation of the international economy. Biblical principles of divine justice, creaturely property rights, and equivalent value exchange economics needed for stability and well-being of nations are negated, negated by Francis’ economic policies. And you need to know the meaning, what Pope Francis represents in the world.

This is the continuation of The Key to Pope Francis’s Identity – Part II. Master of the Jesuit Spiritual Exercises by Tom Friess.

You need one thing and one thing only, and that is the written Word of God. It is through the written Word of God that the true Holy Spirit convicts of sin and of righteousness and of judgment. You cannot arrive at Christ’s righteousness, Christ’s truth, any other way than the Scriptures.

And that is what the Jesuits hate the most. They must replace the Scriptures with subjectivity, with vain imaginations, with imaginings, with visions. And this isn’t the first time that the Jesuits have used this tactic. They always use it.

Now, Richard Bennett doesn’t speak about this particular subject at this particular time, but I’m going to interject it. The first time in modern times when the Jesuits used vain imaginations and spiritual imagery was during the Charismatic Movement.

Now, I know that’s going to offend most of my listeners, but the Charismatic Movement replaced the Scriptures with divine revelation by the so-called gift of speaking in tongues. This is when a man in some ecstatic state begins to utter unintelligible words, and then after it’s over, feels like he’s been blessed by God with this gift, and that he feels so good after being washed by this glossolalia, these so-called divine utterings that neither he nor anyone else can understand. It feels so good.

And that is why the Charismatic Movement has failed spiritually, because it relies upon the vain imaginations and the vain gifts that they call of the Spirit. But the gift given by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was a way to spread the gospel to foreign nations of foreign-speaking tongues. It was the use of known languages. The speaker was all of a sudden able to speak a language that he had never learned. And that was for the purpose of spreading the gospel to Jews of other lands. The gospel went first to the Jews, then the Gentiles. And there were foreign-speaking Jews in Jerusalem at that time. And so the apostles and the followers of Jesus were gifted, or rather the curse that God placed upon language at the time the Tower of Babel was all of a sudden rescinded, in order that the gospel could spread in their own language to foreign-speaking Jews. And I don’t doubt that those who heard the gospel for the first time in their own language were also able to confirm or interpret what they had heard in their own language to the language of the Jews in Jerusalem, so that Satan could not deceive.

But that’s not the case with the so-called charismatic movement. This language they call a heavenly language, a language of the angels they call it. And no one can understand it. Not the one speaking and not the one hearing. This is why I condemn the charismatic movement as being just another example of Ignatian spirituality, visualizations, ritual, and a phony gospel. Now, the hatred that I’m going to receive from some of my listeners is probably the reason why Richard Bennett doesn’t touch this subject at this time.

But I’m not fearful to do it. Look, let me ask you a question. For those of you out there who supposedly have this gift, why hasn’t this “Holy Spirit” spoken to you in a language that you can understand warning you that the papacy is, was, and always will be the Antichrist of the Bible? Now, wouldn’t you think the Holy Spirit who sits in the portals of glory, a third person of the Godhead, would find it most important to reveal to you that the man who runs the governments of this world is the man of sin, the son of perdition, the Antichrist of the Bible? That he is the one who is guilty of the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus? That this papacy is the one who will be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming? Tell me why that Holy Spirit that you say you possess that empowers you to speak in this gibberish does not tell you, expose to you, or reveal to you the truth about the greatest lie told since the Garden of Eden?

Test the Spirit to see whether it’s of God. Will it condemn the papacy as the Antichrist? Or will it secretly seek to ecumenically reunite with the papacy? Where is your charismatic church going? Is it going back to Rome? I tell you it is. And part of the draw of the charismatic churches back to the Roman Catholic Church is the fact that Roman Catholics can demonstrate this very same so-called gift of speaking in tongue. They believe they are of the same spirit. And I agree with them. And I know that won’t win me friends, but that’s the truth.

And there has to be someone with courage enough to tell you the truth. If you’ve been deceived, you are deceived, and you’re going to continue to be deceived until you rely only upon the written Word of God for your revelation. If you seek to obtain God’s revelation by any other means than the written Word of God, the authorized King James Version of the Bible, you are going to be deceived.

Know Ignatian spirituality in the body of Christ. Don’t be in imagination. We don’t rely upon our own imaginations. We don’t rely upon our own wicked hearts. We can trust only the written Word of God. And that’s what we abide by. That’s how we judge ourselves, and that’s how we judge one another, by the written Word of God. Only it can be trusted. That is, of course, unless you pick up a Jesuit Bible, which has been corrupted.

And that’s any and every Bible except the authorized King James Version. I know that, too, is going to fly in the face of many listeners here at Inquisition Update, but that’s just the way it is. All right.

Continuing now. This is the way Ignatius learned from his reading of the lives of the saints and the mystics, but it’s not the way of Scripture. Rather, Scripture states, “…the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Thus it is a great mercy that God deigns to convict the sinner of his precarious state before the holy God.

The sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ was on behalf of sinners to propitiate God’s wrath against each sinner. The one who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ alone is saved unto eternal life through faith alone in God’s grace alone. How will the unsaved sinner know this if he’s not taught that the Bible alone is the final authority? How will the unsaved sinner know the true gospel if he does not read a Bible or no one tells him? So clearly you can see from Richard Bennett and those of the Protestant Reformation, the great Protestant Reformers, all agreed on this one premise, the Bible alone.

So what is Ignatian spirituality? It’s not the Bible nor anything like the Bible. It’s all about imaginations, about visualizations, about emotions, about works. It’s all about fashioning a God of your own liking.

It has completely overturned the gospel. And it is practiced today even in the Protestant and evangelical churches under the guise of the Alpha Course. But under any guise, it’s straight from the pits of hell.

And the only safe answer in any case is “what saith the Scripture?” That’s the simple answer. What saith the Scripture?

Now Ignatius’ most important endeavor was to lock both the rulers and the common people of the so-called Holy Roman Empire, which was all of Europe, into unquestioning obedience to the Roman Catholic Church. That was Ignatius Loyola’s main objective, to return Protestant Europe into direct and unquestioning obedience to the Roman Catholic Church. So they had to defeat the Bible, and through defeating the Bible, they had to defeat the Protestant Reformation.

And once the Bible is destroyed, the Protestant Reformation crumbles, and then everyone is then again subject to the Holy Roman Pontiff, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the little horn of Daniel, the Antichrist of the Bible. They’ve simply replaced the written Word of God with Ignatius’ man-made visions, the content of the corruptness of man’s mind. Fashioning an image or an idol in the name of Jesus Christ into the image of a man. That’s what it is.

Ignatius Loyola’s primary tactic was to train his men to excellence in various skills and professions with the intent to convert the children of Bible-believing Christians into Roman Catholics. The Jesuits thought the best way to convert all of Europe back to Roman Catholicism was to advance the Jesuits to become the most astute teachers in the universities and the colleges and the high schools. They were experts in every endeavor of life and they became teachers.

And what Bible-believing Christian wouldn’t want a good education for his child? And that’s what Bible-believing Christians did. They sent their children off to the schools that were secretly run by Jesuits. Jesuits who were designed and crafted in order to destroy the Bible and to destroy the Protestant Reformation.

Here we have Protestants sending their children to Jesuit-run schools in order to obtain a good education. His principal book, Spiritual Exercises, was intended to teach people how to reach a mystical union with God as a substitute for real conversion to Jesus Christ. This mysticism is taught even to kindergartners. It forms the basis of the education system in every land. The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola relying upon a person’s artistic abilities, his acting abilities, his storytelling abilities, his abilities to imagine things. The imagination is what is so greatly emphasized in all the schools all over the world.

And that’s just the building blocks of the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola. They’re not interested in objective truth, especially if it comes from the Bible. The Bible’s not permitted in the schools.

The Spiritual Exercises are the curriculum of all the schools. And that’s for the purpose of destroying the Bible, which is for the purpose of destroying the Protestant Reformation, and the default mode at that point is the restoration of the papacy. See how it works? Now, the author continues.

He says, “Without the Gospel, and locked into subjective mysticism, both the priests and the lay people are then without biblical authority, except as mediated to them by their Roman Catholic Church.” In other words, if you’re going to handle the Bible, you must listen to what the Roman Catholic Church says. You’re not encouraged to read the Bible on your own under the leading and teaching of the Holy Spirit. No. If the Bible is the subject of any discussion, it must be in the context of the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. You have to put on the Church’s glasses in order to be able to read and understand the Scriptures.

So, why bother? Just sit. Enter the Church. Check your brain, your Bible, and your coat at the door. Walk in. Sit down in the pews. Shut up and just listen to whatever the priest says. And when you leave, all you can do is regurgitate what the priest or the priestess says, the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. So what you get on one hand is spiritual imagery of subjective Ignatian spirituality in the schools.

And what you get in the churches is Roman Catholicism. So it’s 24-7-365 Roman Catholicism. And you can continue to call yourself a Baptist or a Lutheran or a Presbyterian or Protestant even if you want, as long as you are exposed around the clock 365 days a year Roman Catholicism.

That was the goal of the Jesuit Order. That’s why they took over the schools. And that’s why they taught Futurism in the colleges and universities and seminaries to get everyone to think that the Antichrist is not the papacy, but a single individual that comes just before Christ’s return.

You see how complex their attack is on the Bible and on Christianity through Bible-believing Christianity on Protestantism? The Jesuits have thought of everything. It’s only my duty to expose it. Francis, having completed the spiritual exercises, that is Pope Francis I, the Antichrist of the Bible in his time, having completed the spiritual exercises, is now detached, which means he’s free from any disordered attachments. You know what this disordered attachment might be? Personal relationship with Jesus. Been completely detached from Christ.

That’s Ignatian spirituality. That’s the Alpha Course. That is Futurism. It’s all part and parcel of the Jesuit-led Counter-Reformation. Antichrist Pope Francis I is now free of any “disordered attachments” so that all his attachments or desires are supposedly ordered toward God.

So I have to ask you the question now, if he’s detached from Jesus and he’s now ordered toward God, what God is he talking about? Satan. That’s the God of the Jesuit Order. That’s the God of the Papacy. That’s the God of this world.

And they are all in unity attacking the Scripture, the written Word of God. They do it in the schools. They do it in the churches. They do it in the media. They do it in the halls of government. They do it in the halls of justice. Everywhere they do it. And those who maintain the Protestant truth, the Biblical truth, the historical truth, are considered to be religious wackos, fundamentalists, extremists, and enemies of the state. You see how they demonized God’s people? They did the exact same thing during the Dark Ages when the Papacy held sway over all the kings of the earth in the then known world.

Those who held out for Christ, those who held out for the Scriptures were deemed enemies of the state and the Papacy instructed the governments of the world to kill them. And they did. The Jesuits are simply preparing the world for another inquisition.

The demonization of God’s people, that is their business. They cannot hope to rule this world as long as God’s people are still in it. So, the obvious is evident what they are proposing. Now, Pope Francis’ apprising himself to be, in the terminology of the spiritual exercises, one of “Christ’s captains, he now, as Pope, is able to serve God according to the subjective dictates of his own darkened conscience.

He says he serves God. He says he serves Christ. But he serves a figment of his own wicked imagination. Satan’s got him in a terminal grip. And he won’t let go. And you can’t expect anything like a conversion in the life of the Antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition, Francis Bergoglio.

Francis Jorge Bergoglio. Pope Francis I. He’s a militia in Satan’s army against the truth. There’s no other way we can take it.

Richard continues. He says, “Therefore, it’s not surprising as Jesuit priest Martin points out, Pope Francis breaks Catholic tradition whenever he wants. Because he is, “from disordered attachments,” according to the subjectivity of his own mindset rather than worshiping or serving God according to the authority of Scripture.

That’s a quote by a Jesuit. Pope Francis is free from any disordered attachments. That means he’s free from the Scriptures.

He’s not only free from the Scriptures, he’s free from Roman Catholic tradition. In other words, Pope Francis I has become a God unto himself. He answers to no authority, not even Roman Catholic authority.

Clearly, the Roman Catholic Church has entered a new phase. With the advent of its first Jesuit pope, it is obviously ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone, or even its own dictates or traditions plus Scripture. In other words, Richard Bennett says, Jorge Bergoglio has literally made of himself a God of gold. He answers to no authority, not even the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Under the subtitle Ignatian Spirituality at the Present Time, the author continues. He says the Jesuits are quite active in promoting the spiritual exercising. For example, on their website, www.ignatianspirituality.com comes this quote.

“The spiritual exercises are a compilation of meditations, prayers, and contemplative practices developed by Saint Ignatius Loyola to help people deepen their relationship with God. For centuries, the exercises were most commonly given as a long retreat of about 30 days in solitude and silence.”

I see we’ve run out of time. We’ll continue with this quote tomorrow on the broadcast.

Thanks for coming. It’s my pleasure and blessing to be here and we’ll continue tomorrow on Inquisition Update. Don’t miss this.

This is critical information for your understanding. It’s been my pleasure to host. I’ll see you tomorrow.