Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 44, No. 14.

THE INQUISITION AND PAPAL INTOLERANCE

Review and Herald

Sep 22, 1874

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 22, 1874

THE INQUISITION AND PAPAL INTOLERANCE

By John Norton Loughborough

BY ELD. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
One might suppose, on reading the utterances of Romish priests of the present day, that all the accounts of torture under the surveillance of the inquisition were invented by the Protestants in order to obtain sympathy for themselves, and to arouse feelings of indignation and disgust against the papists. We have learned, however, from the statement of Rome’s Moral Theology, a sample of which we quoted in our last article, to look with suspicion on what the priests say, till we have examined the facts.
The Catholic church may argue that they are not using the rack, the torture, and stake now. Is that proof that they never have used them? As Rev. John Hemphill of San Francisco says, “No thanks to the cat that she does not scratch when her claws are cut, or to the thief that he does not steal when confined in prison walls.” We shall inquire, not simply what Rome is doing now, but what has she done? What has she taught should be done? If she never changes, and is infallible in her teachings, then, at heart, she has no more respect for heretics to-day than in the past.
Let her claws be grown, or release her from the prison, by giving her the power to suppress heretics, and she is just the same as ever. As we have already quoted from her own periodicals, she says if she once “gets a numerical majority in America, religious freedom is at an end.”
Father Buchard, the Jesuit, in a lecture in St. Ignatius’ church, Market St., San Francisco, delivered Aug. 5, 1873, said of the inquisition, “We deny not the excesses of the inquisition; but we affirm that the reproaches cast upon it cannot, with rigorous justice, be applied to the church. If the inquisition has subjected itself to the criticism of the world, it must stand alone. The action of the church in the matter was indirect. If a new doctrine arose, the church visited it with her anathema. If heretics submitted, no penalty was incurred; but if they persisted, they were consigned to the secular arm to undergo condign vengeance in proportion to their criminality.”
On the above, Mr. Hemphill says, “The lecturer, either from accident or design, failed to tell us the relative positions of the civil and ecclesiastical powers in the days of the inquisition. Here, obviously, is a point on which we require accurate information. So utterly have times changed that we are hardly able to picture to ourselves the awful power of the Catholic church in the days of its greatness. Does the reverend lecturer forget that the State was the bond-slave of the church for more than a decade of centuries? Does he forget how the emperor of Germany held the stirrup for Pope Gregory VII. to mount his mule? How Henry Plantagenet, of England, walked barefoot through the streets of Canterbury and knelt in the chapter house to be flogged by the monks? Does he forget how the Roman Pontiff opened the campaign against the British John by a national interdict? How the institutions of religion were suspended? the churches closed? the images of the saints laid on the ground, and the bells ceased to toll? How the dead were deposited in pits like dogs, without ceremony or funeral solemnity? How the English king was excommunicated, and all were forbidden to hold any communication with him? How, in 1212, he was deposed, his people’s oath of allegiance rescinded, and his kingdom transferred to Philip of France? How British independence yielded to Roman tyranny, and John, in an assembly of nobility and clergy, took the crown from his head and delivered it, in token of subjection, to the papal nuncio? Does he forget that pope after pope claimed, as the vicegerents of God, the right to dethrone princes, and that these king-deposing claims were sanctioned by eight general, holy, apostolic, Roman councils?”
“Let not this clerical casuist shirk the question by misrepresentation and evasion. At the time we speak of, the church ruled the State with a rod of iron. From the throne downward, every secular office was dependent on the church. These are facts; and you may form some notion from them what a tremendous power the church must have exercised in Catholic Europe before the Reformation.”
“‘Kings and princes are responsible for the deeds of the inquisition, not the Roman pontiff.’ The Reverend Father might as well say ‘the pistol is responsible for the shooting, not the man who fires the shot.’ We admit that princes and kings wielded the secular arm against the abettors of heresy. But why? Because they were admonished to purify their dominions from heretical perversity; and if they refused, their crowns and lands might, without hesitation, be seized by the champion of Catholicism.”
“Again, the Catholic church is responsible for the acts of the inquisition, because she consented thereunto. I ask the reverend lecturer to tell me what pope or General Council condemned the cruelties of the inquisition. I can produce scores on the other side. Pope Urban II., for example, in 1090, decreed that ‘the person, who, influenced with zeal for Catholicism, should slay any of the excommunicated, was not guilty of murder.’ Lucius III. fulminated red-hot anathemas against the Waldenses, and consigned them to the secular arm to undergo condign vengeance. Innocent IV. sentenced heretics to be burned alive.”
“And the bulls of popes were sanctioned by the edicts of General Councils. The third General Council of the Lateran excommunicated the Cathari of Gascony, Albi and Tolosa, confiscated their possessions, and consigned them to slavery. The fourth and fifth General Councils of the Lateran, the Council of Constance, and the Council of Sienna, published persecuting enactments of a similar kind. The General Council of Trent also sanctioned persecutions. This assembly, in its second session, ‘enjoined the extermination of heretics by the sword, the fire, the rope, and all other means, when it could be done with safety.’ And, again, in its last session, it admonished ‘all princes to exert their influence to prevent the abettors of heresy from misrepresenting or violating the ecclesiastical decrees; and to oblige these objectors to accept and to observe the canons with devotion and fidelity.’ Clearly this was an appeal to the secular arm.”
Let us now hear Gavazzi, on the responsibility of the church, in this matter of the inquisition. “‘Oh! but,’ cry some, ‘the Romish Catholic church is not guilty of the inquisition.’ In England and Scotland I often hear it said, first, that the inquisition was not an ecclesiastical tribunal, and that, therefore, the church could not be made accountable for its acts; secondly, that the church of Rome never persecutes any one for his religious opinions. Hum! inquisitions not ecclesiastical, and the church never a persecutor! You will oblige me by answering a few questions. Was or was not the inventor of the inquisition, one St. Dominic Guzman, also founder of the Dominican order of friars?
“Did or did not the first approval of the inquisition come from one Innocent III., an infallible pope of Rome? Did or did not twenty-four different popes (not kings or laymen), but infallible popes, vicars of Christ on earth, and so forth, issue twenty-four different bulls in favor of the inquisition?”
“And are not the judges of the inquisition always prelates, priests, and especially Dominican and Franciscan friars? Are not the tribunals of the inquisition held in the monasteries of Franciscan or Dominican friars? To the present day, is not the pope himself, and always and forever shall not the pope himself be, the supreme head and prefect of the inquisition? To the dishonor of the church and priesthood of Rome, is not Pius IX. at this moment the supreme head and prefect of the holy inquisition? And, therefore, are not all cruelties, perpetrated in the inquisition, done by the authority of this angel of goodness, His Holiness, Pius IX.? Therefore, my dear Catholics, the inquisition is really an ecclesiastical tribunal.”
“But the church of Rome never persecuted! This is the preaching and writing of some Roman priests! Really, did it never persecute? A hundred thousand Waldenses slaughtered under the commandment of the cruel Montfort, and the direction of St. Dominic Guzman are nothing! Forty thousand Huguenots slaughtered on the eve of St. Bartholomew are nothing! Thousands and thousands of women and men, thousands of children and boys, perishing in the flames, in the slaughter of the templars and Mirandoles, are nothing! Three hundred and twenty-four thousand victims of the Spanish inquisition in those countries are nothing! Six and a half millions of Indians, native Americans (as say La Casas and Pallafox, Dominican friar and Catholic bishop) hunted down like wild beasts by enraged bulldogs, by order of the inquisition, and assistance of its holy ruffians, are nothing! Hundreds of thousands of victims in France, Portugal, Sicily, Lombardy, in the secret prison of the inquisition, and in the auto-da-fé, are nothing! The church of Rome has never persecuted any one for religious opinions! Oh! shame and curse for the lie!”
Again Gavazzi says: “The ancient popes had their inquisition, and so, too, have the modern. Pius IX., that angel of God, grateful to God for his restoration to the Vatican throne by means of holy Austrian guns, and very Christian French bayonets, Pius IX. made it his first care to re-establish the inquisition in Rome. We, Italian liberals, are called infidels and atheists. After the flight of Pius IX., one of our first cares was to open the dungeons of the inquisition, to free its many victims, to destroy the relics of these priestly cruelties, and to change the inquisitorial apartments into almshouses for the poor people deprived of their habitations during the Roman siege. But the first care of Pius IX. on his return was to renew those inquisitorial prisons. To destroy the inquisition it was necessary to be Italian patriots; to restore it, it was necessary to be the vicar of Christ, and the protégé of Paris.”
Of the nature of the trial by the inquisition, Gavazzi says, “In the inquisition all is secret; the incarceration is executed by means of secret ruffians; the trial is secret; the accused may be anonymous, and the accuser is always secret; the witnesses are all kinds of persons, even those condemned to the galleys, and (mark the inconsistency) even heretics are admitted to testify. There are also witnesses against nature, because all relatives are obliged to testify, even fathers and mothers against their own offspring. But never are the witnesses and actors in this trial confronted with the accused, because they, under an oath of silence, are assured of never being known.”
“There is no free defense, no public sentence, all is done in the private room of the inquisitor. All is secret, unless when the dreadful drama of an auto-da-fé is given to the world. The consequence is, that all kinds of partiality and cruelty are exercised.”
“A victim, after having fulfilled the years of his imprisonment, in leaving, is obliged to swear upon the gospel never to reveal anything of what passed in his prison; thus his lips are sealed, until he leaves the place where the Roman Catholic church is dominant.”
The inquisition, as we have before quoted, was founded by Saint Dominic who was born A. D. 1170 and died 1221. “This man suggested to Pope Innocent III. the erection of this tribunal; and having given abundant proofs that his own genius lay in that way, he was appointed Inquisitor General by the pope, in the beginning of the thirteenth century. . . . A pope, Sextus IV., sent a bull to Ferdinand and Isabella, bearing date Nov. 1, 1478, authorizing them to appoint two or three ecclesiastics as inquisitors, for the detection and suppression of heresy throughout their dominions. . . . Five years later we find the same pope encouraging Ferdinand and Isabella to proceed in the great work of purification, and in the course of the same year, he expedited two briefs appointing Thos. de Torquemada Inquisitor General of Castile and Aragon. This was the origin of that terrible tribunal, the Spanish or modern inquisition, familiar to most readers, whether of history or romance.”
“Of the cruelty of priests Gavazzi says: ‘A clergy, bachelor by system, must necessarilybe cruel. The Romish Catholic clergyman takes an oath of perpetual celibacy; he has no domestic affection, as husband or father; he has no relation at all; he denies all love of native country; he lives as only one of a sect, a caste, a party, and a cruel party and a pernicious sect; because, to revenge themselves upon the happiness of society, they display cruelty in the inquisition, unexcelled in the ancient times of Rome, unsurpassed by Tiberius, Dionysius of Syracuse and Caligula; for those tyrants invented but one kind of torture against Christians, who were accused as guilty of treason against those Caesars and their religion; but what name will you give to the Roman Catholic priesthood, who have invented, not one, but fourteen species of torture, not against enemies, but against brethren; not against traitors, but against Christians?’”
“No! I respect, in this point, the authority of Diderot, who said, ‘When you speak of the inquisition, do not exaggerate, because the simple truth will appear so enormous, so incredible, that the future generations will call the simple truth an exaggeration.’”
(Concluded next week)

SEED-TIME AND HARVEST.

By Ada Cambridge

Fret not thyself so sorely, heart of mine, For that the pain hath roughly broke thy rest,— That thy wild flowers lie dead upon thy breast, Whereon the cloud-veiled sun hath ceased to shine.
Fret not that thou art seamed, and scarred, and torn; That clods are piled where tinted vetches were; That long worms crawl to light, and brown rifts, bare Of green and tender grasses, widely yawn.
God's hand is on the plow. So be thou still. Thou canst not see him, for thine eyes are dim; But wait in patience; put thy trust in him. Give thanks for love, and leave thee to his will.
Ah! in due time the lowering clouds shall rain Soft drops on my parched furrows; I shall sow In tears and prayers, and green-corn blades will grow;— I shall not wish the wild flowers back again.
I shall be glad that I did work and weep— Be glad, O God, my slumbering soul did wake— Be glad my stubborn heart did heave and break Beneath the plow—when angels come to reap.
Be glad, O Father, that my land was tilled, And sown, and watered, in the harvest day— When thou wilt cast the weeds and tares away, And when with ripened fruit thy barns are filled.
Keep me my faith, I pray! I cannot see, And fear to intermeddle with thy work. Oh, though I wince and fret, I would not shirk The discipline that is so good for me!
I know that thou wilt make my grief to cease— Wilt send the cool, soft drops of healing rain, And make my scarred heart green with springing grain; That after patient waiting cometh peace.
That after faithful labor I shall rest, And after weeping have my fill of joy. Thou breakest down, to build up—not destroy; Thou doest right, O Lord!—Thou knowest best.
—Ada Cambridge.

Cannot I Be Saved and Keep Sunday?

By H. F. Phelps

THIS question is often asked by those who have examined the Sabbath question, and, finding no evidence for the first day, the first thing they meet is the cross of keeping the seventh day. This cross is no easy one to lift; and, besides, it places us out of joint with the world two days each week. Worldly positions often have to be sacrificed. And there is also often a separation of those who before were near friends, they often uniting with the world in reproaches because of our faith. If we belong to a church, our names are soon cast out as evil simply for the crime of trying to keep the fourth commandment. These things and many more stand in the way, and the question very naturally arises, Cannot I be saved and still keep Sunday?
I purpose briefly to notice a few Bible facts, and then ask all to decide this question in the light of eternity. It seems to me to depend very much upon whether or not God meant just what he said, and who would dare say that he did not mean what he said? Would God give us a law, and then not be particular whether we obeyed it or not? Or does he say what he means when he declares that “the soul that sinneth it shall die”? Has God, in so important a matter as the revelation of his will, dealt in non-essentials? or has he left these all out of his word? Does God give us light upon his word and then not care whether we receive this light or not? Has God ever required a certain sacrifice and accepted something else? The Bible gives us a few remarkable examples of this, from which we may draw a lesson. They are from the Old Testament, but none the less important, as Paul says, “These things were written for our learning and admonition.”
See the example of Cain. God has ordained that without shedding of blood there should be no remission. And the offering of a lamb without spot shadowed forth the great sacrifice. And Abel “by faith offered unto God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he being dead, yet speaketh.” If he speaks, let us be willing to hear him. Abel seemed to think that God meant what he said, and by faith in the arm of the living God, he obeyed. But Cain offered the fruit of the ground, and seemed by this act to confess his want of faith and fidelity in the word of God. Shall we dare to follow the example of Cain, and try to reason ourselves into a belief that God does not mean what he said when he requires the seventh day to be observed as a holy day?
Let us look at the example of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron. One instrument of service in the sanctuary was the golden altar before the second vail. By a divine miracle, fire was kept burning continually on this altar. The priests were to offer incense in their censers when they went in to minister in the sanctuary. God had told them that they never should offer incense with common fire, but should ever use fire from off this altar. The sons of Aaron became drunken, and were thus unable to detect the difference between sacred and common things; and in this state of intoxication they offered incense with common fire, and God was displeased with them, and smote them that they died. In this case, did God mean what he said? Did it make no difference with God what fire they used? They became intoxicated and disobeyed God. The punishment quickly followed. And in these days of apostasy, men have become drunken with the pleasures of the world, pride and popularity have filled the heart of the professed followers of Christ, and they stand willing to excuse themselves from obedience to God. They would fain try to make themselves believe they can be saved and break one of the plainest commandments in the word of God—try to make themselves believe God will ask a certain thing of us and then allow us to offer a service he has never required, allow us to do as we please about obeying.
Did Christ die to save us in sin, or from sin? If to save us in sin, of course we can break the holy Sabbath and be saved; and if he will save one soul in willful disobedience, he will save all; universal salvation is sure, and it makes no difference whether we repent or not.
God has blessed his people in the past. He has blessed us, doubtless he has blessed you, dear reader, while we were keeping the first day of the week, and breaking the Sabbath, not because we did so, but because of the sincerity of the heart, because we lived up to all the light we had. Shall we now refuse to walk in the light? God forbid; for if we walk not in the light, darkness will come upon us. Do we walk according to the sincerity of the heart, in conferring with flesh and blood, refusing to keep the day God has blessed and given us as a Sabbath? and keeping a day he has never blessed, never sanctified, and has never even left an intimation that it was to be a Sabbath? I think not.
Let us not deceive ourselves. If we are deceived, it will be by a failure upon our part; first, by not receiving the truth. God is not mocked. God has spoken plainly upon this subject. He means what he says. And very soon he will show that the way of the transgressor is hard. Then why should we remain upon enchanted ground?
Dear reader, wait no longer. Make haste and delay not to keep all God’s commandments. Now is the accepted time. To-morrow may be too late. It is not by-and-by, sometime, but now. Then be entreated to break away from the foe who is seeking to destroy you. Whom do you fear? Oh! it is man, an heir of death, a slave to sin, and soon he will be a subject of God’s wrath. But what says the prophet? Read Isa. 51. “Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.” Why not? “For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool.” “I, even I, am he that comforteth you; who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, . . . and forgetest the Lord thy maker, . . . and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy?”
Christ tells us whom to fear—not man—but Him that is able to take away this life and the life to come. Let men revile. Let them mock on. God will finally speak in behalf of his people and will be heard saying, “Thou art my people.” Then will be the time of our rejoicing. But their “laughter will be turned into mourning;” and, says God, “I will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh.” Let us be wise, and choose the better part now, while we have the opportunity.
H. F. PHELPS.
Sauk Rapids, Minn.

Discerning of Spirits.

MANY years ago the devoted Charlotte Elizabeth, author of “Principalities and Powers,” and other excellent works, wrote thus, “We shall soon need to exercise judgment in the discerning of spirits. The sixth vial is marked by the going forth of the three unclean devils, of whose wonder-working we are forewarned.”
Says the author of this work, “Spiritualism Condemned by the Bible,” “These spirits of demons are gathering their forces, a mighty host, imbued with their influence, strengthened by their power, and guided by their counsels, and we doubt not that the fearful crisis is at hand when these forces will be consolidated and concentrated in that place designated in the apocalyptic vision, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon, i. e., the mountain of distraction. How appropriate the admonition, ‘Behold, I come quickly!’”—Guide to Holiness.

Hypocrisy Unmasked: Nature Betrays the Feigned Character

I have known hypocrisy, treachery, pride, malice and lust, assume the opposite semblance of saintship, fidelity, lowliness, benevolence, and chastity. But it is painful to keep the bow of nature long bent; its elasticity will struggle to have it restored; and a skillful discerner, at the time of such delusion, will often detect the difference between a real character and the acting of a part. For when nature dictates, the whole man speaks: all is uniform and consenting in voice, mein, motion, the turn of each feature, and the cast of the eyes. But when art is the spokesman, and nature is not altogether suppressed, the turn of the eye may contradict the tongue, and the muscles of the face may counteract each other in their several workings.—Sel.

Living to Christ on Earth

If we expect to live with Christ in Heaven, we must live to him on earth.

Thomas Paine.

By Jos. Clarke

It is evident that Thomas Paine was educated amid influences which gave him a low and mistaken view of Christianity. This of course unfitted him to discuss its merits, or to judge of its claims and tendency.
With this one-sided, narrow view of the subject, he presumptuously undertook to enlighten mankind upon religious subjects. Here was his second failure. He was wholly ignorant of the workings of true religion. This unfitted him to discuss its merits, or to judge of its authority.
Thomas Paine was evidently an extremist, and was impulsive; without caution, or prudence, or reverence; and however useful or popular he might be as a writer, he could not be trusted as a leader, because of his prejudice on religious subjects. Such a person's ideas should be received with caution.
The unexemplary life and miserable death of Thomas Paine go very far in invalidating his religious principles. His cowardice when in peril and danger, and his tendency to associate with the vicious and low, all mark him as a man of dangerous opinions and principles. His mind seems to have run by fixed habit in defiance of sound logic and common sense.
JOS. CLARKE.

Our Thoughts.

By J. P. Henderson

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” The answer follows: “I the Lord search the heart.” Jer. 17:9, 10. It is the secret thoughts that we harbor in our minds, and dare not communicate to our nearest friend, that make our hearts “desperately wicked.” We may not be able at all times to avoid hearing evil words and corrupt conversation, but it is when we reflect on what is heard that our hearts become corrupt.
It is the evil thought that leads the mind astray, that corrupts our nature, that inflames our passions. God judges the secrets of men; for they cannot be hid from him. “The Lord seeth not as man seeth: for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” 1 Sam. 16:7.
David understood this when he cried; “Cleanse thou me from secret faults.” “Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me.” “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditations of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.” Ps. 19:12, 13, 14.
We may allow our thoughts to reflect upon evil until it becomes engrafted into our nature; so with imaginary persecutions. But where is our faith at such times? surely, not on Jesus, or our souls would rejoice that we have trials to endure, that we may, by continually overcoming, grow in grace and bring to ourselves that greatest of all promises, spoken by our Saviour: “Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.” Matt. 5:8. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Phil. 4:8.
J. P. Henderson.
Goodland, Ind.

Love of Things Temporal Versus Things Eternal

THE love of things temporal can only be overcome in us by pleasure in things eternal.

Antichrist: Romanist and Protestant Views Examined

By John Nevins Andrews

Antichrist.

The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge in treating upon Antichrist tells us how the Romanists set aside the prophecies of the New Testament on this subject. It also states the views which are held by Protestants. Finally, it shows that Protestants themselves have some share in the iniquity of Antichrist. J. N. A.
The papists imagine they view, in the prophetical picture of Antichrist, imperial Rome, elated by her victories, exulting in her sensuality and her spoils, polluted by idolatry, persecuting the people of God, and finally falling like the first Babylon; whilst a new and holy city, represented by their own communion, filled with the spotless votaries of the Christian faith, rises out of its ruins and the victory of the cross is completed over the temples of paganism. This scheme has had its ablest advocates, at the head of whom may be placed Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, Grotius, and Hammond. But in order to establish the resemblance, they violate the order of time, disregard the opinions of the primitive Christians, and overlook the appropriate descriptions of the apostles. After the point had been maturely debated at the council of Gap, held in 1603, a resolution was taken thereupon to insert an article in the confession of faith, whereby the pope is formally declared to be Antichrist. Pope Clement VIII. was stung with this decision; and even King Henry IV. of France was not a little mortified to be thus declared, as he said, an imp of Antichrist.
With respect to the commonly received opinion, that the church of Rome is Antichrist, Mede and Newton, Daubuz and Clarke, Lowman and Hurd, Jurieu, Vitringa, and many other members of the Protestant churches, who have written upon the subject, concur in maintaining that the prophecies of Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John, point directly to this church. This was likewise the opinion of the first reformers; and it was the prevalent opinion of Christians in the earliest ages, that Antichrist would appear soon after the fall of the Roman Empire. Gregory the great, in the sixth century, applied the prophecies concerning the beast, in the Revelation, the man of sin, and the apostasy from the faith, mentioned by St. Paul, to him who should presume to claim the title of universal priest, or universal bishop, in the Christian church; and yet his immediate successor, Boniface III., received from the tyrant Phocas the precise title which Gregory had thus censured. At the synod of Rheims, held in the tenth century, Arnulphus, bishop of Orleans, appealed to the whole council, whether the bishop of Rome was not the Antichrist of St. Paul, “sitting in the temple of God,” and perfectly corresponding with the description of him given by St. Paul. In the eleventh century, all the characters of Antichrist seemed to be so united in the person of Pope Hildebrand, who took the name of Gregory VII., that Johannes Aventinus, a Roman historian, speaks of it as a subject in which the generality of fair, candid, and ingenuous writers agreed, that at that time was the reign of Antichrist. And the Albigenses and Waldenses, who may be called the Protestants of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, expressly asserted in their declarations of faith, that the church of Rome was the whore of Babylon. . .
An important question, however, says Mr. Jones, still remains for inquiry, “Is Antichrist confined to the church of Rome? The answer is readily returned in the affirmative by Protestants in general; and happy had it been for the world were that the case. But although we are fully warranted to consider that church as “the MOTHER of harlots,” the truth is, that, by whatever arguments we succeed in fixing that odious charge upon her, we shall, by parity of reasoning, be obliged to allow all other national churches to be her unchaste daughters; and for this plain reason among others, because, in their very constitution and tendency, they are hostile to the nature of the kingdom of Christ.
All national establishments of Christianity must, in their very nature, be antichristian; because they are opposed to the spirit of the doctrines of Christ, and to the nature of his kingdom, which he himself has declared to be not of this world.

Evil Surmising.

By Jos. Clarke

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Ex. 20: 16.
The first step in the direction of slanderous conversation consists in imagining evil against one's associates and cotemporaries.
Often evil exists, and breaks out in open sin, and numbers love to publish the same to all who will listen: and when well-authenticated reports are become stale with repetition, the best actions of the righteous are canvassed, and base motives are imputed, in order to fill up the gap of time, and to satiate the carnal heart.
Had an evil surmiser been present when Jesus applauded the liberality of the poor widow who cast into the treasury her two mites, which was all her ready change, such surmiser would doubtless have said that it was done by her in order to get applause, to make a noise in the world: another would have said, Charity begins at home; and so the poor widow would have gone home in sorrow, had she heard of these poisonous remarks. But the dear Lord, who knew the heart, gave her the needed and deserved encouragement.
When the repentant and humble Christian came and washed Jesus’ feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, these evil surmisers would have said, This woman has some low design in this act; and the Master should at least forbid so gross an act of servility.
These surmisers would have accused Paul of fickleness, in so soon changing from Judaism to Christianity; and Jude and Peter would be accused of harshness, and lack of love; and the beloved John would have been weeping for effect; Elijah would be called rash and imprudent, and only wanted notoriety; Moses and Joshua would have been suspected of being in quest of renown; and David and Solomon would have been guilty, in the eyes of these surmisers, of covetousness and ambition; they would imagine the Lord had designs which he did not speak of, and his apostles would not escape their evil imagination. No wonder the Lord brought the flood upon the world, because all the imagination of man’s heart was evil continually. Gen. 6: 5.
What is most grievous is that the most innocent are oftener the victims of this surmising spirit than others; because it is only the wicked who surmise evil. See 1 Tim. 6. 4. And let us bear in mind that it is better to think too well of a person than to unjustly condemn him.
JOS. CLARKE.

Disasters by Flood.

THERE has been a perfect epidemic of sad disasters by storm and flood during the present summer. First came the Mill River calamity, in which by the bursting of a reservoir one hundred and forty-five persons were swept into eternity, an immense amount of property destroyed and hundreds of families left destitute. Then occurred several minor calamities from a similar cause, until it seemed that our reservoirs generally were about to break away. Then came the Salisbury disaster, by which another valley was devastated, and which was accompanied by storms and floods in various parts of the country. A fortnight since, we had an account of the bursting of a water-spout in Nevada, which swept through the town of Eureka, killing twenty persons and causing great destruction of property. Last week we published the accounts of the fearful storm at Pittsburgh, by which portions of that city and Allegheny city were inundated, and from one to two hundred lives lost. We give further particulars of the calamity this week. The number of bodies of the dead which had been recovered at the last account, was one hundred and thirty-three, and many persons were still missing. The Atlantic cable now brings the intelligence that the damage done by the recent storms in Moravia, of which we had previous accounts, far exceeds the first estimates. Eleven villages and two towns were devastated. Numerous storms and floods, only less destructive to life and property, have occurred during the present summer, making an unusual record, and one full of sad particulars.
Some of these calamities might have been prevented, and would have been by an honest construction of the works which gave way, and so far they are attributable to human negligence. But others may be regarded as a direct visitation from God, who holds the winds in his fists, and the waters in the hollow of his hand. And they are not to be regarded merely as casualties; as accidental occurrences. They should be looked upon as solemn lessons to our whole people not to set their hearts upon uncertain possessions which may be swept away in an hour—not to be too confident of the continuance of life, when there are so many perils surrounding us whether we wake or sleep.—N. Y. Observer.

THE ARSENAL AT SPRINGFIELD.

By Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

This is the arsenal. From floor to ceiling, Like a huge organ, rise the burnished arms; But from their silent pipes no anthem pealing Startles the villages with strange alarms.
Ah! what a sound will rise, how wild and dreary, When the death-angel touches those swift keys! What loud lament and dismal Miserere Will mingle with their awful symphonies!
I hear, even now, the infinite fierce chorus, The cries of agony, the endless groan, Which, through the ages that have gone before us, In long reverberations reach our own.
On helm and harness rings the Saxon hammer, Through Cimbric forest roars the Norseman's song, And loud, amid the universal clamor, O'er distant deserts sounds the Tartar gong.
I hear the Florentine, who, from his palace, Wheels out his battle-bell with dreadful din, And Aztec priests upon their teocallis Beat the wild war-drums made of serpents' skin;
The tumult of each sacked and burning village; The shout that every prayer for mercy drowns; The soldiers' revels in the midst of pillage; The wail of famine in beleaguered towns.
The bursting shell, the gateway wrenched asunder, The rattling musketry, the clashing blade; And ever and anon, in tones of thunder, The diapason of the cannonade!
Is it, O man, with such discordant noises, With such accursed instruments as these, Thou drownest nature's sweet and kindly voices, And jarrest the celestial harmonies?
Were half the power that fills the world with terror, Were half the wealth bestowed on camps and courts, Given to redeem the human mind from error, There were no need of arsenals or forts:
The warrior's name would be a name abhorred! And every nation that should lift again Its hand against a brother, on its forehead Would wear forevermore the curse of Cain!
Down the dark future, through long generations, The echoing sounds grow fainter and then cease; And like a bell, with solemn, sweet vibrations, I hear once more the voice of Christ say, “Peace!”
Peace! and no longer from its brazen portals, The blast of war's great organ shakes the skies! But beautiful as songs of the immortals, The holy melodies of love arise.—
— H. W. Longfellow
Continue reading: A. P. LAWTON