|
1.
REFORMATION REVERSAL
THE VISIT of Pope John Paul II to
England in June 1982 was not merely a courtesy call of a popular religious
leader devoted to peace and harmony. It was, rather, the crescendo of a
well-orchestrated concerto that has as its theme, the re-unification of the
Church of Rome and the Church of England. The concept of unification appeals
to many today - it appears to be a sensible and cherished ideal - something
like a desirable restoration of a broken marriage after many years of
unnecessary estrangement. But “Rome and Canterbury” is not simply a case of
religious partners coming together again. The Anglican Church today is
experiencing and demonstration a reformation reversal - to the delight of
the “holy see” (the Pope), and other oneworld ecumenical symphonists. The
beating of the kettle drums by English leaders accentuate the rhythm - “the
Reformation of the 16th century was unnecessary – it was a mistake - a
product of the unenlightened and intolerant Middle Ages.” Some
enthusiastically maintain, “the Church of Rome has changed, so now we can
unite!” There are still some Anglican stalwarts who maintain an independent
orchestra, and play a different theme; but mostly their tunes are drowned
out by the Canterbury Band with its heavy brass and symbols. “In the 20th
century,” the ecumeniphones blare out, “the churches are becoming more
‘Christian’ — more loving, more understanding, and the Spirit of God is
moving in the churches to restore all that has been lost because of our
divisions and squabbles.” That is the impression you would receive as you
view the Roman Pontiffs embracing the Archbishops of Canterbury; and as you
listen to present ecumenical, theological “thought.” The truth is that the
majority of churches today are not experiencing a restoration, but a subtle
sellout to Mystery Babylon — the notorious, blood-thirsty “woman in the
saddle” —the religious system that began at the Tower of Babel, that has
persecuted the people of God down the centuries, and that, in the end times,
rules over the nations and peoples of the world in dazzling splendour.
(Revelation 17). Some of our readers will not appreciate this assertion.
Some will accuse us of narrow-mindedness and of hindering the cause of peace
and unity. Some will argue that the Lord told us that we must be one, and
therefore we must be willing to compromise and tolerate each other’s
differences. It is true that the Lord Jesus prayed that we might be one.
John 17:21. But He is praying for those who have been given to Him by the
Father (John 17: 9) He is not praying for a one-world religion to be
established. He’s not even praying that socalled Christendom might be
united. He is praying that His followers - His born again followers - might
be one. Now don’t be surprised when I say that not all “Christians” belong
to Christ. It is not for me to say, however, which individuals belong, or
don’t belong to Christ. God knows the heart. He knows every person who has
truly embraced His Son, and who, as a consequence, has been born again by
His Spirit. But tragically, it is a very discernible fact that much of
“Christendom” today, bears the brand of the Whore of Babylon, rather than
the Seal of God.
SELL-OUT TO BABYLON
The Church of Rome, in the 5th century
sold out to Babylon, when the Pope Leo the First was crowned “Pontifex
Maximus” (the title of the pagan high priest of Rome which was originally
used by the Babylon religion in Philistine). The Roman church also enthroned
the “Queen of Heaven,” and taught its people to pray to her instead of
directly to God Himself. Mystery Babylon is portrayed in Scripture as a
drunken woman riding on a beast, and holding a golden cup in her hand. The
Roman Church has actually taken this symbol as its own chosen emblem. In
1825, Pope Leo XII struck a medal, bearing on one side his own image, and on
the other, that of the Church of Rome symbolised as a “woman,” holding in
her left hand a cross, and in her right hand a CUP. Engraved around the
image was the legend, ‘Sedet super universum’, “The whole world is her
seat.” (Hislop).
WOMAN WITH THE CUP, ON REVERSE OF LEO
XII MEDAL.
One by one, other denominations have
been capitulating to Satan’s counterfeit religion. One by one, they have
signalled their willingness to unite with Rome, and moreover, to enter into
dialogue with all religions, with a view to promoting a oneworld “faith.”
The melody of this one-world symphony is: There is one God. We are one
family, so therefore let us harmonise our faiths, and perform our ‘ode to
joy,’ together.” The music starts with a lovely tune, but as the movement
progresses, it develops into cacophony (loud, clanging discord) which sounds
like anything but harmony. The “theology” of this synchronized religion is
the very antithesis of God’s truth - the opposite of the revelation of God’s
Word. It is a subtle counterfeit, a satanic deception and masterpiece. It's
a religious whore that will trample down all opposition, guillotine the true
followers of Christ, and lead its own adherents into Great Tribulation, and
into eternal hell fire. (Revelation 2:22; 21:8) Some of my readers will
admit Mystery Babylon will do just that, but they will deny the “Christian”
churches have any part in the whorish system. To such, we would urge the
reading of the facts. See “Mystery Babylon - the World Church in the Saddle”
(obtainable from the Maranatha Revival Crusade); and other books available
on the subject. Some will say we are unloving because we do not approve of
the Papacy and its erroneous teachings. Some will say we are uncharitable
because we refuse to hobnob with those of unlike faith. Some may say that if
we don’t want to join the church union that’s our business, but we should
not condemn others who do. We are sure to be accused of hatred because we
reject the Pope’s claim to be the Head of Christ’s Church; because we refuse
to agree that Mary is a way of access to God; because we refuse the Roman
teaching that Christ is physically and corporally present in the bread of
the Mass or Communion service; and because we assert that Christ Himself is
the Head of the Church, and that His Word — the Bible, alone, is our source
of authority and direction. We want to point out that we do not have
animosity towards any individual. We show regard to the Pope as a man, but
we abhor the system he heads, and the position he holds. We do not believe
the Pope is appointed by God, or that he is a “successor of Peter.” We
lament the sell-out the Pope is leading. The first Protestant Archbishop of
Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, was burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic
authorities, on 21 March, 1556. In Oct 2009, the present Archbishop of
Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, spoke of Anglicans who share a common
catholic faith and accept the Petrine (Peter’s) ministry. Williams may well
be the last “Protestant” Archbishop of Canterbury. Again I say, we do not
hate any individuals, even though they may differ widely from our
understanding of the Word of God. But we do abhor the statements that are
being made by leaders of the so-called Christian church today. And we would
urgently and fervently warn of the end result of the current roller-coaster
dash of the ecumenical, “one-world faith.” We emphasise, we are not against
the unity of the Body of Christ. Rather, we pray for this; and we are
willing to recognise as brothers, all who are born again by the Spirit of
God, as a result of the grace of God, following a person’s personal faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ. But we do not accept water-sprinkling of a baby as
regeneration. Nor do we accept a mere nominal or outward profession as
personal faith. A Christian label does not make a man a Christian. Nor does
any amount of religiosity make a woman a believer. Faith in Christ means a
deliberate embracing of Christ as Saviour, Lord and God. It is a “two arm
embrace,” that causes us to drop the idols, the superstitions and the
falsities that we have been clinging to for so long. To truly believe in
Christ, a Catholic needs to turn from Mary, and from the saints, and embrace
Christ alone. To be born again, a Protestant, no matter by what name he may
be called, must turn from religiosity, and from self-righteousness, and from
his trust in the church, and put his faith in Jesus alone. A religionist, if
he would be saved, must turn from “righteousness by the works of the law,”
and embrace Jesus, and accept His righteousness alone. (Galatians Chapter 3)
Idolaters must turn from their idols. Unbelievers must turn from their
unbelief. All, whoever would be saved, must turn from their sin and call
upon the Name of Christ — and Christ alone — for He, and He alone can save.
“And there is salvation is no one else; for there is no other name under
heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.” (Acts
4:12) “Whoever will call upon the Name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans
10:13) We recognise that God is moving in wonderful ways in these days — in
many denominations. Many Catholics, for instance, are discovering Jesus in a
new and vital way, and are embracing Him as their personal Saviour. Praise
God! We love them, not only as individuals, but as brothers and sisters in
Christ. We long also that they might enter fully into the freedom of Christ.
“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ... If
therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.” (John
8:32, 36) We rejoice when souls are liberated from the darkness of sin and
slavery, but we grieve when souls are led back into captivity. And that’s
exactly what the “world church” is doing. It is destroying faith in the Word
of God, and drawing many precious souls away from the Truth – the Saviour.
Oh sure, they may use the Name of Jesus. But some say He is a political
liberator; others say He’s merely a great teacher; or that He’s the one and
the same Lord as Krishna, Buddha, and Maitreya. The “world church” denies
Jesus is the eternal, unique, Son of God, and that He is the one and only
Saviour. And that’s why we have no part in it. We may be called bigots
because we believe Jesus is the one and only Way — but that’s what we
believe, and will continue to believe and preach — and if necessary, like
the 16th century Reformers, we will embrace the fiery faggots, for the faith
of the living Christ.
2.
A TIMELY REMINDER
from
one of the 19th Century’s most forceful Christian Leaders.
THE MAIN article of this book is to
remind us of what the leading English Reformers did and taught, and why they
suffered at the hands of the Church of Rome. Such a subject cannot but be of
interest to every English Christian, and a wake up call for all of us. Had
the sixteenth century Reformers not withstood Rome even to death, the pages
of our subsequent history would have contained a very different story. As it
was, England became, in Cardinal Manning’s words, “the head of
Protestantism, the centre of its movements and the stronghold of its
powers.” From that position, Rome has long worked to bring non-conformists
down, and never with greater energy than in recent times. “Our aim,”
declared the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clifton in 1957, “is the ‘conversion’
of every single man, woman, and child in this country.” To accomplish that
objective, every possible influence is being brought to bear on the life of
Britain - literature, wireless, television, education and the national
press. The church of Rome has now more independent schools in the UK than
any other religious body, and she has more monasteries and convents than
there were before the Dissolution of the monasteries in the days of Henry
VIII! It is easy to pass off such statements as pessimistic, but pessimistic
or not, they are FACTS. While we sleep, an onslaught is being mounted
against us — an onslaught which Protestant Churches were never less ready to
sustain. Anglican and nonconformist leaders alike have thrown away the only
weapon that could defend us — “the sword of the Spirit,” the infallible Word
of God. The Word of God alone, the grace of God alone, the power of the
Spirit alone, were the watch cries which 6 prevailed 450 years ago. They are
not the watch cries of most of our Protestant pulpits today. There was
perhaps no one better qualified than J. C. RYLE, the first Bishop of
Liverpool, to write such a warning as this. As a student in Oxford in the
1830’s he witnessed the commencement of the Romeward movement in the Church
of England, and he lived long enough to see the stream become a flood — a
flood which, as he prophesied in his old age, might “in the next century
carry all before it.”
J C. RYLE
Ryle’s convictions on this subject
were developed over a long period; he was no hasty alarmist. He watched
Rome’s power grow; he read and re-read our Church history; he knew human
nature, and he spoke accordingly: “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.”
(It is solemn to note that on February 2,
1960, a service of Requiem Mass was held for the late Earl of Halifax in the
Anglican Westminster Abbey.) It
is not surprising, now that God’s truth has been rejected, that we find Rome
being viewed as an ally rather than an enemy; thus we find a more recent
Archbishop of Canterbury declaring: “We should like to see the churches of
England, Scotland, the United States and any other countries, bound together
in one body. If the Pope would like to come in as chairman, we should all
welcome him.” While Ryle wrote principally for adherents to the Church of
England, his subject is of equal interest to non-conformists whose heritage
descends as much from the English Reformers as does the Anglican. The
message that was thundered through England by such evangelists as Hugh
Latimer and John Bradford 450 years ago, is the message that is needed in
every pulpit today. * * * John Charles Ryle was born in 1816 and educated at
Eton and Oxford with the intention that he should follow his father as a
wealthy landowner and member of Parliament. But in 1838, during his last
year at Oxford, Ryle was converted, and in 1841 he entered the Christian
ministry. For three years he laboured in Hampshire, then from 1844 to 1880
he ministered in country parishes in Suffolk, first at Helmingham then at
Stradbroke. There he mastered the great literature of the Reformers and
Puritans, wrote between 200 and 300 tracts (which were circulated all over
the world in many languages), and published several famous books. By the
1870’s his trenchant (effective and powerful) pen, bold preaching and
fearless adherence to Scripture had earned him recognition as one of the
most forceful leaders in the Church of England. In 1880 he became the first
Bishop of Liverpool. He retired in March, 1900, a few months before his
death. Few Christians have lived a more influential life and few have left
writings of such enduring value.
3.
WHY WERE OUR REFORMERS BURNED?
By
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 favourite theories, and are highly inconvenient. The
consequence is that the world shuts its eyes against them. They are either
cut dead 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, or are left behind like a luggage train in a siding. 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 opinion for which it is worthwhile
to be burned. Yet, in the mid 16th century 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 coloured 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?”
4.
THE FACTS OF THE MARTYRDOM
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 Thy true religion.” It was a prayer, I believe, not
offered in vain. Edward was succeeded by his eldest sister, Mary, who was
the daughter of Henry VIII and his first Queen, Catherine of Aragon. Mary
became 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 offensive forms. Step by step she and her councilors marched
back to Rome, trampling down one by one every obstacle, and as thorough as
Lord Strafford 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 proscribed.
Cardinal Pole was invited to England. The foreign Protestants resident in
England were banished. The spiritual leaders 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 renounce their principles, or be put 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 if 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 bundles
of fire wood, 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 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 there were 71 burned
at the stake
In 1556 there were 89 burned
at the stake
In 1557 there were 88 burned
at the stake
In 1558 there were 40 burned
at the stake
Total 288
Indeed, the wood piles never ceased to
blaze whilst 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, or caught red-handed in
arms. They were not thieves, or murderers, or drunkards, or unbelievers, 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 Martyrs on these points. I make no comment on
the stupid impropriety of the whole persecution. 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
laboured hard to whitewash her character. The reader of her biography will
find little about martyrdoms. But it will not do. Mr. Fronde’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 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 of St. Bartholomew; 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 in
the 16th century. 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.
5.
WHO WERE THE MARTYRS?
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 children’s children.
(1) JOHN ROGERS
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, Vicar of St. Sepulchre’s, and Prebendary and
Reader of Divinity at St. Paul’s. He was burned in Smithfield on Monday, the
4th of February, 1555. Rogers was born at Deritend, in the parish of Aston,
near Birmingham. He 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
abashed and silenced 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 word, 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 St. Sepulchre 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 the diabolical cruelty of Bishop
Bonner had flatly refused him leave 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 Prebendaries and Dignitaries 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) JOHN HOOPER
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 a
Somersetshire man by birth. In many respects he 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
Edward the Sixth’s Bishop of Gloucester was too Calvinistic; but he was not
more so than the Thirty-nine Articles. Hooper saw the danger of leaving
nest-eggs for Romanism in the Church of England. In his famous dispute with
Cranmer and the other bishops about wearing Romish vestments at his
consecration, it has been, I know, the fashion to condemn him as too stiff
and unbending. I say boldly that the subsequent history of our Church makes
it doubtful whether we ought not to reverse our verdict. The plain truth is
that in principle Hooper was right, and his opponents were wrong. A man like
Hooper, firm, stern, not naturally genial, 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, which went out on the Cirencester Road to meet him, and
was lodged for the night in the house of a Mr. Ingram, 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 directly in front of the western gate of the
Cathedral-close, and within 100 yards of the deanery and the east front of
the Cathedral. The exact spot is marked now by a beautiful memorial at the
east end of the churchyard of St. Mary-de-Lode. The window over the gate,
where Popish friars watched the Bishop’s dying agonies, stands unaltered to
this day. When Hooper arrived at the 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 an iron 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 fire wood 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 till it was
burned to a stump. And so the good Bishop of Gloucester passed away.
(3)
ROWLAND TAYLOR
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 spiritual leader 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 ye have me to do? I am old, and have already lived too long to
see these terrible and most wicked days. Fly you, and do as your conscience
leadeth you. I am fully determined, with God’s grace, to go to this Bishop
and tell him to his beard that he doth naught. I believe before God that I
shall never be able to do for my God such good service as I may do now.” —
Fox’s “Acts and Monuments.” 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 appear to have in
it unity, yet the same is vanity and Anti-Christianity, and, not in Christ’s
faith and verity.” — Fox’s “Acts and Monuments.” 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 am
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, repeating the 51st Psalm, and crying to God,
“Merciful Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, receive my soul into Thy hand.”
He stood quietly amidst the flames without crying or moving, till one of the
guards dashed out his brains with a halberd. And so this good old Suffolk
incumbent passed away.
(4) ROBERT FERRAR
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 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 the Protector Somerset, 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,
in the latter days of Edward the Sixth, after the fall of the Protector
Somerset, 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 till 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) JOHN BRADFORD
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. Strype calls Bradford, Cranmer,
Ridley, and Latimer, the “four prime pillars” of the Reformed Church of
England. He was by birth a Manchester man, and to the end of his life
retained a strong interest in the district with which he was connected. 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 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 these efforts, however, were in vain. As
he lived, so he died. On the day of his execution he was led out from
Newgate 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 than Master Bradford took a some of the fire wood 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 thee
of thy 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 leadeth to eternal life, and few there
be that 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 )
HUGH LATIMER
 NICHOLAS
RIDLEY
The sixth and seventh leading
Reformers why 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. Ridley was born at Willimondswike, in
Northumberland, on the borders. Latimer was born at Thurcaston, in
Leicestershire. 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 religious leader 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 Thee most hearty thanks that Thou hast called me to a
profession of Thee even unto death. I beseech Thee, 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 thy 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.”
RIDLEY
AND LATIMER IN DEATH WERE NOT DIVIDED
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) JOHN PHILPOL
The eighth leading English Reformer
who suffered in Mary’s reign was John Philpol, 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 relentless virulence (hostility) with which he was
persecuted by Gardiner is easily accounted for when we remember that
Gardiner, when he was deposed from his See in Edward VI’s time, was Bishop
of Winchester, and would, naturally regard his successor, Bishop Ponet, and
all his officials, with intense hatred. A Popish bishop was not likely to
spare Philpot, a Protestant archdeacon at Winchester. 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 favourable 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 bedroom, 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 travelling 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 thee, 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) THOMAS CRANMER
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. Cranmer was born at
Aslacton, in Nottinghamshire. 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 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 one who was always trying to improve everything around him.
When I consider the immense difficulties he had to contend with, I often
wonder how 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 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 spiritual leader 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 till 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 laboured 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 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
gazingstock 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.
CRANMER
TRIUMPHANT IN MARTYRDOM
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 worthwhile to die for free
thought. Happy is the land which has had such citizens! Happy is the Church
which has had such Reformers! Honour be to those who at Smithfield, Oxford,
Gloucester, Carmarthen, and Hadleigh have raised stones of remembrance and
memorial to the martyrs!
6.
WHY?
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 principle reason why they were burned was
because they refused one of the peculiar doctrines of the Roman 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 so 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 principle cause of their
condemnation. (1) Hear what
Rogers
said: — “I was asked whether I believed the sacrament to be the very body
and blood of our Saviour 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.’ “ - Fox in loco, vol. iii. p. 101, edition,
1684. And therefore he was condemned and burned. (2) Hear what
Bishop
Hooper said: — “Tunstall asked
him to say, ‘whether he believed the corporal (physical) presence was 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; wherefore he was worthy
to be deprived of his bishopric.” - Fox in loco, vol. iii p. 123. 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 mere bread and wine in the sacrament, but the
substance only of the body and blood of Christ.” “Because I denied the
aforesaid Papistical doctrine (yea, rather plain, wicked idolatry,
blasphemy, and heresy) I am judged a heretic.” - Fox in loco. vol. iii.
p.141. (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 to 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.” - Fox in loco, vol. iii. p. 178. 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 and accidents 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.” - Fox in loco, vol. iii. p. 260. 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.” -
Fox in loco, vol. iii. p. 426. And so he was condemned and burned. (7) Hear
the articles exhibited against
Bishop Latimer: —
“That thou hast openly affirmed, defended, and maintained that the true and
natural body of Christ after the consecration of the priests, is not really
present in the sacrament of the altar, and that in the sacrament of the
altar remaineth still the substance of bread and wine.” And to this article
the good old man replied:— “After a corporal being, which the Romish Church
furnisheth, Christ’s body and blood is not in the sacrament under the forms
of bread and wine.” - Fox in loco, vol. iii. p. 426. And so he was condemned
and burned.
(8) Hear the address made by Bishop
Bonner to
Archdeacon 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.” - Fox in loco, vol iii. p. 425.
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; that which my book teaches is 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.” - Fox in loco, vol.
iii. p. 562. 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 them that worthily eat and
drink the bread and wine He is spiritually, and corporally in heaven.” —
“Cranmer on the Lord’s Supper.” - Parker Society edition, p. 54. And so he
was burned.
7.
WERE THE REFORMERS RIGHT?
Now, were the English Reformers right
in being so stiff and unbending on this question of the 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 keep 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 that
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 honour
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 graven 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 forms of bread and
wine, the Reformers of the Church of England were content to be burned.
8.
THE BEARING ON OUR POSITION TODAY!
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 centre. 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 is the matter 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 (priestly garments and cloths) and ornaments - of more or less
church decorations - of more or less candles and flowers - of more or less
bowings and turnings and crossings - of more or less gestures and postures -
of more or less show and form. The man who fancies that the whole dispute is
a mere aesthetic one, a question of taste, like one of fashion and
millinery, 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 take leave to 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 1 hold that we should make and
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. They have heard enough, perhaps too much, of them.
But I must ask permission to give two short extracts. Observe what Dr. Pusay
says, in a sermon called
“Will ye also go away?”
(Parker’s, 1867): “While
repudiating any materialistic conceptions of the mode of the presence of our
Lord in the Holy Eucharist, such as I believe is condemned in the term
‘corporal presence of our Lord’s flesh and blood,’ i.e., as though His
precious body and blood were present in any gross or carnal way, and not
rather sacramentally, really, spiritually - I believe that in the Holy
Eucharist the body and blood of Christ are sacramentally, supernaturally,
ineffably, but verily and indeed present, ‘under the forms of bread and
wine; and that ‘where His body is, there is Christ.” Observe what Dr.
Littledale says, in a tract called
“The Real Presence”: —
I. The Christian Church teaches, and has always taught, that in the Holy
Communion, after consecration, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ
are ‘verily and indeed’ present on the altar under the forms of bread and
wine. II. The Church also teaches that this presence depends on God’s will,
not on man’s belief, and therefore that bad and good people receive the very
same thing in communicating, the good for their benefit, the bad for their
condemnation. III. Further, that as Christ is both God and Man, and as these
two natures are for ever joined in His one person, His Godhead must be
wherever His body is, and therefore He is to be worshipped in His sacrament.
IV. The body and blood present are that same body and blood which were
conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius
Pilate, ascended into heaven, but they are not present in the
same
manner as they were when Christ
walked on earth. He, as Man, is now
naturally
in heaven, there to be till the last day, yet He is
supernaturally,
and just as truly, present in
the Holy Communion, is some way which we cannot explain, but only believe.”
In both these quotations, we may observe, there is an attempt to evade the
charge of maintaining a “gross and carnal presence.” The attempt, however,
is not successful. It is a very curious fact that the Romish
controversialist, Mr. Harding, Bishop Jewell’s opponent, said just as much
in the 16th century. He said: —
“Christ’s body is present not after a
corporal, or carnal, or naturally wise but invisibly, unspeakably,
miraculously, supernaturally, spiritually, Divinely, and in a manner by Him
known.” — “Harding’s Reply to Jewell,” p. 434. Parker Society edit. In both
cases we can hardly fail to observe that the very expressions which our
martyrs steadily refused, is employed, “present under the forms of bread and
wine.”
It is
clear, to my mind, that if Dr. Pusey and Dr. Littledale had been brought
before Gardiner and Bonner in the mid 16th
century, they would have left the court with flying colours, and at
any rate, would not have been burned.
I might refer my readers to the other published sermons on the Lord’s Supper
by men of high position in our Church. I might refer them to several
Ritualistic manuals for the use of Communicants. I might refer them to the
famous book “Directorium Anglicanum.” I simply give it as my opinion that no
plain man in his senses, can read the writings of extreme Ritualists about
the Lord’s Supper and see any real distinction between the doctrine they
hold and downright Popery. It is a distinction without a difference, and one
that any jury of twelve honest men would say at once could not be proved.
9.
EXTREME RITUALISM
I turn from book and sermons to
churches, and 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 honour with which
everything within the chancel (the area in a chapel where the communion
table was positioned, and where the priests sat), 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 where the whole thing does not
savour of the Romish doctrine of the Real Presence, and the sacrifice of the
Mass? I believe that if Bonner and Gardiner had seen the chancel 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
board, 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 suicide. 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 – the principle the
Reformers of his Church opposed even though it meant their death by fire.
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 means 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,
the Ritualists are wrong. There is a gulf that cannot be crossed between the
parties. There is a thorough difference that cannot be reconciled or
explained away. If we hold with one side, 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.
10.
CONSPIRACY AT WORK
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 of the Church being
unprotestantized and going back to Babylon and Egypt. We are in imminent
peril of re-union 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 finding out that all religions are
either equally good or equally bad. The House of Commons will do nothing
unless pressed by public opinion. We have no Pyms or Hampdens there now. 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 so 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. Not so 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 boat and forsakes the ship so 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 the deck. There are yet left on board some faithful and able seamen. So
long as the Article 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 colours 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. (We wonder what J. C.
Ryle would say about the state of the Anglican church today.) 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 that hath 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 to the
death the Popish doctrine of the Real Presence, under the forms of the
consecrated bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper!”
END OF J C RYLE’S ARTICLE
11.
HAS ROME CHANGED?
BY
T. O. JENKINS GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE EUROPEAN MISSIONARY FELLOWSHIP
In all conscience the Pontiff and his
monolithic organisation has little to do with Bible Christianity; indeed it
continues to be the very antithesis of it, despite every claim that Rome has
changed. There has been change in Rome and its church over the past few
decades, but only in outward appearance ... The present Pope (John Paul 2)
with his genial character and rapport with the public is an essential part
of that apparent change as are his highly-charged visits to Britain and
other parts of the world. Of real change, however, there has been little or
none. A more cursory consideration of its tenets reveals that Rome’s ‘new
birth’ is baptismal regeneration mechanically resulting from the priestly
action. Its ‘conversion’ is to change from any and every position to
unqualified acceptance of its dogmas. Its ‘salvation’ is uncertain because
purgatory with its fires stand in the way. Jesus Christ is remote and is
best approached through Mary, while His death is hardly efficacious
atonement since it has to be re-enacted regularly in the Mass. Sin is mortal
and venial but both are open to negotiation through penance and absolution,
and men and women have no access to God and His Son except through priests,
Mary and the ministry of the Church. There is no change in any of these. One
could mention other equally false doctrines that have likewise seen no
change whatsoever. The fact is that Rome’s major dogmas cannot be really
changed without the whole edifice, falling apart. In its real form and
colours it is an authoritarian religious system produced by men which stands
all of one piece. Change it or take away any part of it and the whole will
crumble. That is why its leaders from the Pope downwards are actually re-emphasising
and reinforcing Catholic tenets at the very time they are adopting a more
conciliatory attitude towards Protestants and others. In our view thus,
while the sheer facts of life in a modern world has forced a change of
stance and appearance, what Catholicism is in its basic and indispensable
doctrines precludes any change in its essential nature. It would be a
blessed day if another mighty Reformation came to Europe so that Romanism
was broken and its “faithful” converted to Christ alone ... May such a day
come soon is our heart’s desire, but until it dawns, we must press on to
preach and uphold New Testament Christianity whenever possible. We must pray
on also that the Spirit of God will truly glorify Christ in turning
thousands “to God from idols.” Let the Pope come and do his thing; he too
will go the way of all flesh and his heresies will duly perish. Thank God,
His Word endures for ever and His Son Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
today and forever. He laid aside His kingly robes and came down to seek and
to save lost sinners. We hail Him as our chosen King and reject anyone and
anything which denies His crown rights or impugns His finished work.
JOHN PAUL II SAID:
“UNITY MUST CENTRE ON ROME”
Christian church unity must centre on
Rome, Pope John Paul II told some 30,000 Catholic and Protestant youths
gathered in Rome for an end-of-the-year ecumenical peace vigil. The European
youths, led by Brother Roger Schutz of the famed ecumenical community of
Taize, France, met in Rome Dec. 27-Jan. 1, for a pilgrimage of prayer in the
parish churches and catacombs of Rome, which concluded with participation in
the papally proclaimed World Day of Peace, Jan. 1, 1981.
Meeting with them Dec. 30 in St.
Peter’s Basilica, Pope John Paul focused on two themes: church unity and
reconciliation, and the Christian task of building a “civilization of love”
in the world. In his seven-language address (French, Spanish, English,
Portuguese, German, Polish and Italian), the pope particularly stressed the
“profound mystery” of church unity and the need to express it in a visible
way. “In the first place,” he said, “this unity of the church, given by
Christ, marred by Christians and therefore ceaselessly to be rebuilt, was
especially entrusted to the apostle Peter ... It was not to John, the great
contemplative, nor to Paul, the incomparable theologian and preacher, that
Christ gave the task ... but to Peter alone.” He added that “the charism of
St. Peter passed to his successors. This is why at a very early time the
church of Rome played a leading role ... St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons at
the end of the second century, proclaims that every church desiring to
preserve the apostolic tradition must for this purpose make sure that it
remains in communion with Rome.”
“POPE SHOULD BE HEAD”
In January 1978, a Joint International
Commission of the Anglican and Catholic churches met to investigate ways of
fulfilling the Malta Agreement of 1968, which envisaged the two churches
coming together in stages. The Commission, by “consensus” established that
the Pope should head the future union. In 1978, Pope John
Paul II — the first pope from a communist country (Poland) — came to power.
In his inaugural speech, he expressed his desire to work for the ecumenical
goal. “Hopefully”, he said “thanks to a common effort, we might arrive at
Full Communion with other Christians.” In mid-1980 Archbishop Runcie met
Pope John Paul II, in Ghana, during the latter’s visit to Africa. After a
45-minute meeting, they declared, “The time is too pressing to waste
Christian energy pursuing old rivalries,” and added, “The talents and
resources of all the Churches must be shared if Christ is to be seen and
heard effectively
”
POPE
BENEDICT:
OTHER DENOMINATIONS NOT TRUE CHURCHES
Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the
universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document that
says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations
were not true churches.
POPE TELLS YOUNG PEOPLE TO TRUST IN
MARY May 18/08. At a
meeting with young people in the northern Italian city of Savona, Pope
Benedict XVI recited the Angelus prayer with the young people and invited
them to trust in Mary. He recalled the words the Virgin Mary spoke to
shepherd Benedict Pareto in the year 1400 urging him to build a shrine on
Mount Figogna, the place where she appeared.
VATICAN THANKS MUSLIMS FOR RETURNING GOD TO EUROPE
Nov 28/08. A senior Vatican cardinal
has thanked Muslims for bringing God back into the public sphere in Europe
and said believers of different faiths had no option but to engage in
inter-religious dialogue 30
12.
ELEVEN REASONS WHY BRITISH BIBLE-BELIEVERS OPPOSE THE POPE’S VISIT
1. SOVEREIGNTY. The
Pope claims to be the VICAR of CHRIST - CHRIST’S REPRESENTATIVE on earth.
But CHRIST alone is the HEAD of the Church, the only POTENTATE (1 Tim 6:15),
and HE is at the right hand of GOD in heaven. Christ did not appoint any man
to take his place on earth, but sent the HOLY SPIRIT as HIS representative
to glorify HIM. (Ephesians 1:19:23) (John 16:7-13). In another sense, all
born again believers are representatives – ambassadors for Christ. (2 Cor
5:20)
2.
APOSTOLATE. The Pope claims to
be the successor of the apostle Peter. But no proof exists that Peter was
ever at Rome. Peter appointed no successor, but he himself wrote to the
elders “not to be lords over God’s heritage” (1 Peter 5:3). CHRIST was the
ROCK, not Peter. (Matthew 16:16, 1 Cor. 10:4)
3.
INFALLIBILITY. He
claims to be infallible, when speaking ex cathedra officially. This dogma of
infallibility is not found in Scripture and is not part of the Faith once
delivered to the saints, which cannot be altered or added to without
incurring God’s curse. It was promulgated in 1870 against great opposition,
with every sign of GOD’s anger in the supernatural darkness which fell upon
the City of Rome.
4.
SALVATION. Through many
centuries the Church of which the Pope is head has been adamant there is no
salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. Thus it contradicts GOD’s Holy
Word, which says: “Believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you shall be saved”
and “there is none other Name given under heaven whereby we must be saved.”
(Acts 16:31). The latter words were spoken by Peter himself to the high
priest and authorities of Israel (Acts 4:12). Rejecting the Gospel, the
Church of Rome has no heaven to comfort sinners who repent, but only the
fear of Purgatory.
5.
DOMINATION. The Pope claims
jurisdiction over all the kingdoms of the earth and of all the sons of men
and their families. The secret army of the Jesuits would enforce that
control by their use of the Holy Office of the dreaded Inquisition. Our
freedom and way of life would vanish overnight. But Jesus said, “But it
shall not be so among you, whosoever shall be chief among you, let him be
your servant.” (Matthew 20:26).
6.
GOSPEL. The Roman Catholic
Gospel of salvation by baptism, confessions, Mass and good works is false,
cheats untold millions of a Saviour and brings GOD’s curse. “There be some
that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or
an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Paul repeats this warning (Gal.
1:7-9.) The voice of our martyred Christian ancestors who would not betray
their Saviour and worship the Mass, cry out unto GOD and unto us that we
suffer not our fair island to be accursed.
7.
THE FREEDOM OF THE REFORMATION.
Ecclesiastical tyranny is the worst of
all tyranny. The moral pollution spread through confessions enforced by
priests has brought untold numbers of women to shame and death. If we sin,
we sin against GOD and we must confess to GOD. “The blood of JESUS CHRIST,
GOD’s Son, cleanses us from all sin.” “And ye shall know the truth and the
truth shall make you free.” “Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures, He was buried and He rose again according to the Scriptures. The
Gospel I preached ... ye received, and wherein ye stand, by which also ye
are saved.” (1 John 1:9, 2:1-2; John 8:32, 36; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
Salvation is God’s free gift by grace. It cannot be earned by human merit or
religious rites (Ephesians 2:8-10). The Pope represents a Church which adds
tradition to Scripture, works to faith, and the Virgin Mary as Mediator to
CHRIST who is the one and only Mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5).
God wants all men to be saved and to know the truth. CHRIST is the only way
to GOD, because He gave Himself a ransom for all (v. 16, John 14:6).
8.
THE MASS. Masses the Pope and
priests offer are “blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits” - Church of
England Article 31. They are Satanic counterfeits which bewitch, deceive and
inoculate millions. There is now no more sacrifice for sin, for CHRIST
offered one sacrifice for sins for ever. To offer CHRIST again on the altar
is the greatest blasphemy which can be done against the SAVIOUS, who came
into the world to save sinners, and who cried on the cross, “It is
finished.” (Hebrews 10:12,18; John 19:30; 1 Timothy 1:15).
9.
PRIESTHOOD. Some people might
call the Pope “the Super Priest” or PONTIFF which is the title of the
ancient Roman High Priest. But GOD recognises no such high priest on earth.
Christ Himself is our great High Priest (Heb 4:14) who has an everlasting
priesthood in heaven — “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,
made higher than the heavens.” He has a non-transferable priesthood (Hebrews
7:24, 26). There is no “altar” now except Calvary; there’s no sacrifice
needed by anyone except sacrifice of the slain LAMB of GOD (John 1:29). And
His sacrifice was once for all. (Heb 10:12, 18) All born again believers are
priests unto God – not to offer a sacrifice for sin, but fulfil the ministry
of praise and intercession. (1 Peter 2:5, 9. Rev 1:6. 5:10. Heb 13:15. 1 Tim
2:8)
10.
PAGANISM. Pagans are those who
worship false gods. The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they “sacrifice
to demons, and not to GOD” (1 Corinthians 10:20). Heathen gods have no
remedy for sin. Rome has no remedy for sin, and can only attract worshippers
to her own false remedies by alluring ceremonies and counterfeit miracles.
The Pope and his priests stand between GOD and the sinner. Instead of
saying, ‘JESUS said, “Come unto ME”, they say, “Come to Mass, pray to the
Virgin Mary, come to Confession.” Penances, holy days, saints, relics,
pilgrimages, vows, even the “Holy Father” himself (who dares to appropriate
this sacred title — see John 17:11) they all humanise the Divine and
materialise the spiritual and so rob the sinner of the peace he can receive
through CHRIST’S Blood - the redemptive work of Christ. In his conclusion to
his great work — THE TWO BABYLONS – “The Papal Worship proved to be The
Worship of Nimrod and His Wife” - Alexander Hislop writes, “Is there one
reader who will venture to deny that, from the foundation to the topmost
stone, it is essentially a system of Paganism”? ... “If Rome is now to be
admitted to form a portion of the Church of CHRIST, where is the system of
Paganism which has ever existed, or that now exists, that could not put in
an equal claim?” “How could it have entered into the heart of John, the
solitary exile of Patmos, to imagine that any of the professed disciples of
that Saviour whom he loved, and who said, “My kingdom is not of this world,”
should gather up and systematise all the idolatry and superstition and
immorality of the Babylon of Belshazzer, introduce it into the bosom of the
Church and, by the help of it, seat themselves on the throne of the Caesars,
and there, as the Priests of the Queen of Heaven, and gods upon earth, for
twelve hundred years, rule the nations with a rod of iron?”
11.
SUBJUGATION. The Vatican has
plotted for centuries to present Great Britain to the Virgin Mary as her
dowry. This would bring about a stranglehold of despotism upon our country.
Every family would come under priestly control, because of confession. Every
individual not worshipping the wafer god of the Mass would be imprisoned,
tortured or killed. The murder of a heretic is not a murder in the eyes of
Rome. 288 were burned to death “for CHRIST’S sake” in Queen Mary’s reign.
Now the Roman Catholics control our press, radio and television, and are
dominant in aforetime Protestant city councils, and have dominance in the
Foreign Office, great influence in Parliament through well known
individuals. - “Berean.” Norfolk, U.K.
“Come out of her, my
people, that you may not participate in her sins and that you may not
receive of her plagues; for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and
God has remembered her iniquities.” (Revelation 18:4-5)
|
