Title

Dark Freedom
The Rise of Western Lawlessness
by C.W. Steinle
Copyright 2015 by C.W. Steinle
All rights reversed

выберите язык

Follow on Facebook

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Dark Freedom: The Rise of Western Lawlessness - Chapter Eight

Dark Freedom: The Rise of Western Lawlessness - Chapter Eight

by C.W. Steinle
Copyright 2015 by C.W. Steinle

Copyrighted material.  All rights reserved.  No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise - without written permission from the publisher.  This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to purchase this book or share with another person, please purchase a copy for each reader from any online bookseller.  Visit Dark-Freedom.com for purchase details or: http://darkfreedombook.com/

Part II - The Legacy of the Manmade Church
Protest, Reformation, and Peace

This is our last chapter on Christian History.  We simply cannot appreciate where we are in the journey of lawlessness unless we know from whence we have come.  Western Christianity, on the whole, is so far removed from the mindset of the Early Church that we must follow the breadcrumbs back through time in order to look beyond our contemporary attitudes.  As we follow the threads of religious and political philosophy over the course of history we will once again limit our observations to those excerpts which have had a direct bearing on the authority question.
Protestant Christians are generally aware of the theological arguments of the Reformation.  But the political positions of the Reformers are not so well known.  The attitudes toward civil and religious authority discussed in this chapter are drawn from Christian sources.  That is to say that the men making these proposals, and stating their opinions, were all Christians; and most of these men were clergymen.  These illustrations vary widely and are not meant to be cohesive.  Although independent, each development has had its own significance in shaping western thought.  In effect, we are merely turning these puzzle pieces right-side up so that a clear impression of the spiritual system of lawlessness might begin to form in mind's eye of the reader.
Thomas More is known primarily for his objection to the divorce and remarriage of King Henry VIII.  More had desired to enter the ministry but his father required him to pursue a career as a lawyer.  More eventually became Lord Chancellor of England.  He was sainted by the Catholic Church as a martyr of the Reformation because of his stand against the Protestant Movement.  More was imprisoned and then beheaded by Henry for his refusal to attend the king's wedding to Anne Boleyn.  Our chief interest with Thomas More is a fictional book, Utopia88, which he published in 1516 about a model commonwealth built on the imaginary Island of Utopia.
"Utopia" has become a common word for idealistic governments.  But this word coined by More carries a twofold meaning.  Phonetically, Utopia can mean either a "good land" or a "no-man's land."  The word was probably concocted as a whimsical reference to both as a type of pun, representing a good place - which in reality did not exist.
More placed his imaginary island somewhere in the New World; but for credibility he connected its discovery to one of the crew members of the actual explorer Amerigo Vespucci.  The Island of Utopia was supposedly created from a peninsula by drudging away the land connecting it to the mainland, in order to create a fifteen mile channel.  Access to and from the island was controlled by the island-state government.  Even travel between the island's 54 cities required an internal passport.  The people of Utopia were not allowed the freedom of privacy.  They were kept in open sight at all times so that they might be on their best behavior.  Utopians were required to eat in public halls and there were no taverns or other public gathering places.  Although several different religions were tolerated, Judeo-Christian morals were strictly enforced.  People who worshipped their ancestors, or the celestial bodies, were educated in the hopes that they might convert to Christianity.
Each city in Utopia had 6,000 household units.  The households were made up of 10 to 16 adults.  The adults were moved around the island from city to city and house to house when it was necessary to maintain the fixed population quotas.  But all adults were required to change houses every ten years.  In the event the island was overpopulated, people were relocated to the mainland, but could be recalled should the population fall below the ideal number.  Citizens who were in good standing could choose to leave the island.  Likewise, the mainlanders were welcome to move to the island within the specified limits of the island's population.
The administration of Utopia was managed by a prince, who was elected but then remained for life unless he was later deposed.  The prince could be removed from office if he behaved too much like a tyrant.  Every 30 households acted as a group to elect a representative, resulting in 200 of these representatives per city.  The prince was elected by these representatives in a secret ballot.
Figure 7 - Title woodcut for Utopia by Thomas More89
There were no locks on the doors because the people had no private property.  The wealth of the community was held in gold and jewels.  The gold was used for sewage pots and for the chains of the people who had become slaves due to misconduct.  Using the gold for such dishonorable utilities was intended to make gold an undesirable commodity.  The jewels were worn by children and were passed down as a sign of their maturity.  Goods were distributed to the people from public warehouses.  Everyone on the island was required to work for at least six hours each day.  All of the citizens were taught to farm, as well as learning a secondary trade such as weaving or metalworking.  The people were encouraged to educate themselves in their spare time.  Children who excelled in their studies were segregated for special education so that they might become qualified for administrative positions.
Immoral behavior was punishable by slavery.  People who were caught without their passports were warned once and became slaves upon a second offence.  Premarital sex was punished by lifelong celibacy and enforced by slavery if they failed to remain celibate.  Utopia also provided free medical care and other public welfare as needed.  The state also had the right to approve euthanasia.
It is curious that the Chancellor of English Finance would be so obsessed by the notion of communism.  Plato had proposed a Golden Age with communal property.  Although, Aristotle had argued that personal property enhanced virtue by necessitating responsibility.  More's contemplation of communal property could be attributed to two sources.  Sir Thomas was accepted by the monks of a nearby monastery and participated in their worship.  His observation of monastic life may have triggered his interest in communal living.  England was also in a transitional stage between allowing open range for common grazing and the restriction of these pastures by the landowners.  This privatization was not isolated to the British Isles, but was causing the same problems among the peasants on the Continent.  So now we will turn our attention back to the Reformation of Europe, where these social changes were in full swing.
The German peasants were the beasts of burden for society, and in no better condition than slaves.  Work, work, work, without reward, was their daily lot, even Sunday hardly excepted.  They were ground down by taxation, legal and illegal.  The rapid increase of wealth, luxury, and pleasure, after the discovery of America, made their condition only worse. . . The peasants formed, in self-protection, secret leagues among themselves: as the "Kasebroder" (Cheese-Brothers), in the Netherlands; and the "Bundschuh," in South Germany.  These leagues served the same purpose as the labor unions of mechanics in our days.  Long before the Reformation revolutionary outbreaks took place in various parts of Germany, - A.D. 1476, 1492, 1493, 1502, 1513, and especially 1514, against the lawless tyranny of Duke Ulrich of Wutemberg.  But these rebellions were put down by brute force, and ended in disastrous failure.90 
Thomas Muntzer was a German theologian who became an organizer in Germany's Peasant Wars.  He tried to come under the coattail of Martin Luther by adopting Luther's objection to papal authority.  But Muntzer rejected all authority except for his own.  Muntzer thought that the reformed churches should employ the same military might that the Roman Church had wielded.  He came up with his own plan for a utopian city which he envisioned to be the New Jerusalem of the Gentiles.  Supposedly motivated by a prophecy (of which he later recanted) Muntzer preached that the time had come for Christ's return, but that He would not come again until a New Zion had been prepared for His throne.
Muntzer chose the city of Muhlhausen to establish his kingdom.  The craftsmen in the city where attempting to establish a new city council.  Muntzer proposed the adoption of an "eternal council", based on what he considered to be divine justice.  In spite of a printed circular which was sent out to the nearby villages, Muntzer's plan was rejected; primarily because it did not address the rural peasants' grievances.  Subsequently he was thrown out of Muhlhausen by the existing councilmen.
The next year, in 1542, Muntzer returned to Muhlhausen with a modified plan which included some of the old council members.  This time he was successful and an "Eternal League of God" was established.  Muntzer then took over the council by violence and began to create his own communistic utopia.  But the nearby cities took up arms against Muhlhausen in order to topple Muntzer's new stronghold.  Even with the enlistment of 8,000 peasants, Muhlhausen was defeated by Frankenhausen.  Muntzer was tortured, executed, and then dismembered; his body parts were then displayed on the Muhlhausen city gate. (It is interesting to note that his banner was a rainbow flag.)  Friedrich Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, wrote a book on the Peasant Wars in which he insinuated that Muntzer had used biblical language in his socialist experiment only because it was familiar to the German peasants.  Philip Schaff offers the following account of Muntzer's campaign.
Thomas Muntzer, one of the Zwickau Prophets, and an eloquent demagogue, was the apostle and travelling evangelist of the social revolution, and a forerunner of modern socialism, communism, and anarchism.  He presents a remarkable compound of the discordant elements of radicalism and mysticism.  He was born at Stolberg in the Harz Mountain (1590); studied theology at Leipzig; embraced some of the doctrines of the Reformation, and preached them in the chief church at Zwickau; but carried them to excess, and was deposed.
After the failure of the revolution in Wittenberg, in which he took part, he labored as pastor at Altstadt (1523), for the realization of his wild ideas, in direct opposition to Luther, whom he hated worse than the Pope.  Luther wrote against the "Satan of Altstadt."  Muntzer was removed, but continued his agitation in Muhlhausen, a free city in Thuringia, in Nurnberg, Basel, and again in Muhlhausen (1525). 
He was at enmity with the whole existing order of society, and imagined himself the divinely inspired prophet of a new dispensation, a sort of communistic millennium, in which there should be no priests, no princes, no nobles, and no private property, but complete democratic equality.  He inflamed the people in fiery harangues from the pulpit, and printed tracts to open rebellion against their spiritual and secular rulers.  He signed himself "Muntzer with the hammer," and "with the sword of Gideon."  He advised the killing of all the ungodly.  They had no right to live.  Christ brought the sword, not peace upon earth.  "Look not," he said, "on the sorrow of the ungodly; let not your sword grow cold from blood; strike hard upon the anvil of Nimrod [the princes]; cast his tower to the ground, because the day is yours."91 
The Swiss cantons had their own standing armies of trained militia.  These soldiers were hired, primarily by France, as mercenaries to help fight in the battles of the Holy Roman Empire.  Some of these mercenaries hired themselves out for service.  But the governments of the cantons also contracted to engage their own citizen armies in foreign conflicts.  Theologically, Zwingli is remembered for his unyielding opinion that the Eucharist elements embody only the spiritual presence of Christ.  But as a countryman, Zwingli was just as adamantly opposed to the Swiss being enlisted to the fight for France and the Empire.  He would rather that the Swiss cantons turn their military efforts to enforcing the freedom of Protestant preaching.  But Zwingli was unable to establish a consensus sufficient to override the Catholic resistance.  He was able, nevertheless, to secure Zurich as a Protestant stronghold.  He died as a patriot at the age of 47 as part of a small force which had rallied to defend Zurich against the armies of the Catholic Swiss cantons.
Figure 8 - The murder of Zwingli by Karl Jauslin92
Zwingli, provoked by the burning of Kaiser, and seeing the war clouds gathering all around, favored prompt action, which usually secures a great advantage in critical moments.  He believed in the necessity of war; while Luther put his sole trust in the Word of God, although he stirred up the passions of war by his writings, and had himself the martyr's courage to go to the stake.  Zwingli was a free republican; while Luther was a loyal monarchist.  He belonged to the Cromwellian type of men who "trust in God and keep their powder dry."  In him the reformer, the statesman, and the patriot were one.  He appealed to the examples of Joshua and Gideon, forgetting the difference between the Old and New dispensation.  "Let us be firm," he wrote to his peace-loving friends in Bern (May 30, 1529), "and fear not to take up arms.  This peace, which some desire so much, is not peace, but war; while the war that we call for, is not war, but peace.  We thirst for no man's blood, but we will cut the nerves of the oligarchy.  If we shun it, the truth of the gospel and the ministers' lives will never be secure among us."93
Martin Luther was keenly aware that all authority is established by God.  Luther was compelled to object to the will of the papacy where that will contradicted God's Word and God's ways; but he was not willing to discount the authority vested by God in the civil magistrate.  Luther distanced himself from the liberal Reformers.  He was more interested in correcting the errors of One Holy Catholic Church than in blazing a new trail of faith.  If John Hus and his Bohemian followers had not already influenced the princes of Northern Europe to show tolerance toward the Protestant Movement, Luther would surely have been handed over to suffer execution under the Papal Bull.  Had this been the case, Luther, like Socrates, would likely have accepted the sentence of the State without resistance.
Even so, Luther did recognize certain God-sanctioned limits on civil authority.  In his 1523 essay, Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should Be Obeyed,94 he wrote; "God has ordained two governments among the children of Adam, - the reign of God under Christ, and the reign of the world under the civil magistrate, each with its own laws and rights.  The laws of the reign of the world extend no further than body and goods and the external affairs on earth.  But over the soul God can and will allow no one to rule but himself alone.  Therefore where the worldly government dares to give laws to the soul, it invades the reign of God, and only seduces and corrupts the soul."  Luther also rebuked King Henry for overreaching the limits of his earthly authority. 
He defends here the divine right and authority of the secular magistrate, and the duty of passive obedience, on the ground of Matt. 5:39 and Rom. 13:1, but only in temporal affairs.  While he forbade the use of carnal force, he never shrank from telling even his own prince the truth in the plainest manner.  He exercised the freedom of speech and of the press to the fullest extent, both in favor of the Reformation and against political revolution.  The Reformation elevated the state at the expense of the freedom of the church; while Romanism lowered the dignity of the state to the position of an obedient servant of the hierarchy.95
From the time of Wycliffe and throughout the Reformation, the pope or his papacy were accused of being the antichrist of John's Revelation.  Most Protestants retained this opinion well into the nineteenth century.  John Wesley's Commentary on Revelation Chapter Twelve reads: "Now, all the countries in which Christianity was settled between the beginning of the twelve hundred and sixty days, and the imprisonment of the dragon, may be understood by the wilderness, and by her place in particular.  This place contained many countries; so that Christianity now reached, in an uninterrupted tract, from the eastern to the western empire; and both the emperors now lent their wings to the woman, and provided a safe abode for her.  Where she is fed - By God rather than man; having little human help.  For a time, and times, and half a time - The length of the several periods here mentioned seems to be nearly this: The little time = 888 years, The time, times, and half a time = 777, The time of the beast = 666.  And comparing the prophecy and history together, they seem to begin and end nearly thus: The non - chronos extends from about 800[AD.] to 1836[AD.], The 1260 days of the woman from 847 - 1524, The little time 947 - 1836, The time, times, and half 1058[AD.] - 1836[AD.], The time of the beast between the beginning and the end of the three times and a half."96
The tradition that the Book of Revelation was an account of the history of the Christian Church continued through the lifetime of Charles Spurgeon, who wrote; "It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is, no sane man ought to raise a question.  If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name.  If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description."97
Martin Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers also believed they were living during the time of the fulfillment of Revelation.  The pre-tribulation rapture theory was not considered by the Protestant Church to be a valid doctrine until the mid-nineteenth century; and it is still rejected by the Catholic and Orthodox churches.  Because Luther interpreted Revelation as a prophetic history of the Church, he struggled with the paradox of a legitimate Catholic Church headed by the antichrist.  Ultimately, he used his resolve that the pope was the antichrist to confirm the authenticity of the Roman Church.  He reasoned the Catholic Church had to be the true Church in order for the pope to sit in the temple of God declaring himself to be God.
At the same time, Luther continued the careful study of history, and could find no trace of popery and its extraordinary claims in the first centuries before the Council of Nicaea.  He discovered that the Papal Decretals, and the Donation of Constantine, were a forgery.  He wrote to Spalatin, March 13, 1519, "I know not whether the Pope is anti-christ himself, or his apostle; so wretchedly is Christ, that is the truth, corrupted and crucified by him in the Decretals."98
"I can hardly doubt," he [Martin Luther] wrote to Spalatin, Feb. 23, 1520, "that the Pope is the Antichrist."  In the same year, Oct. 11, he went so far as to write to Leo X. that the papal dignity was fit only for traitors like Judas Iscariot whom God had cast out.99
In his controversy with the Anabaptists (1528), Luther makes the striking admission:  "We confess that under the papacy there is much Christianity, yea, the whole Christianity, and has from thence come to us.  We confess that the papacy possesses the genuine Scripture, genuine baptism, the genuine sacrament of the altar, the genuine keys for the remission of sins, the true ministry, the true catechism, the Ten Commandments, the articles of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer. . . . I say that under the Pope is the true Christendom, yea, the very elite of Christendom, and many pious and great saints."
For proof he refers, strangely enough, to the very passage of Paul, 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, from which he and other Reformers derived their chief argument that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist, "the Man of Sin," "the Son of Perdition."  For Paul represents him as sitting "in the temple of God;" that is, in the true church, and not in the synagogue of Satan.  As the Pope is Antichrist, he must be among Christians, and rule and tyrannize over Christians. . . 100Luther was not pleased with this moderation, and added the margin:  "But they shall violently condemn popery with its devotees, since it is condemned by God; for popery is the reign of Antichrist, and, by instigation of the Devil, it terribly persecutes the Christian church and God's Word."101
Lastly in our investigation of the authority question during the Reformation we will review two groups of deviants.  These factions were the enemies of John Calvin in Geneva.  Calvin's political structure in Geneva is so widely known as a Protestant enclave that we need not cover Geneva as part of this study.  Suffice it to say that Calvin's Church ruled over the civil government to the extent allowed by the people.
Calvin's opponents draw our interest because they represent two reactions to Bible-based government.  The so-called Patriots were irreligious and the Libertines were the followers of a Gnostic cult.  The latter is a typical example of the fruit of the Gnostic religion, which always boasts of knowing God but is rarely accompanied by the fear of the Lord.  Because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, the Libertines obviously had not known Him.  Whatever else they might have known, they did not know the God of the Bible.
We must distinguish two parties among Calvin's enemies - the Patriots, who opposed him on political grounds, and the Libertines, who hated his religion.  It would be unjust to charge all the Patriots with the irreligious sentiments of the Libertines.  But they made common cause for the overthrow of Calvin and his detested system of discipline.  They had many followers among the discontented and dissolute rabble which abounds in every large city, and is always ready for a revolution, having nothing to lose and everything to gain.
1. The Patriots or Children of Geneva (Enfants de Geneve), as they called themselves, belonged to some of the oldest and most influential families of Geneva, - Favre (or Fabri), Perrin, Vandel, Berthelier, Ameaux.  They or their fathers had taken an active part in the achievement of political independence, and even in the introduction of the Reformation, as a means of protecting that independence.  But they did not care for the positive doctrines of the Reformation.  They wanted liberty without law.  They resisted every encroachment on their personal freedom and love of amusements.  They hated the evangelical discipline more than the yoke of Savoy.
They also disliked Calvin as a foreigner, who was not even naturalized before 1559.  In the pride and prejudice of nativism, they denounced the refugees, who had sacrificed home and fortune to religion, as a set of adventurers, soldiers of fortune, bankrupts, and spies of the Reformer.  "These dogs of Frenchmen," they said, "are the cause that we are slaves, and must bow before Calvin and confess our sins.  Let the preachers and their gang go to the ----."  They deprived the refugees of the right to carry arms, and opposed their admission to the rights of citizenship, as there was danger that they might outnumber and outvote the native citizens.  Calvin secured, in 1559, through a majority vote of the Council, at one time, the admission of three hundred of these refugees, mostly Frenchmen.
The Patriots disliked also the protectorate of Bern, although Bern never favored the strict theology and discipline of Calvin.
2. The Libertines or Spirituels, as they called themselves, were far worse than the Patriots.  They formed the opposite extreme to the severe discipline of Calvin.  He declares that they were the most pernicious of all the sects that appeared since the time of the ancient Gnostics and Manichaeans, and that they answer the prophetic description in the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude.  He traces their immediate origin to Coppin of Ysel and Quintin of Hennegau, in the Netherlands, and to an ex-priest, Pocquet or Pocques, who spent some time in Geneva, and wanted to get a certificate from Calvin; but Calvin saw through the man and refused it.  They revived the antinomian doctrines of the mediaeval sect of the "Brethren and Sisters of the Free Spirit," a branch of the Beghards, who had their headquarters at Cologne and the Lower Rhine, and emancipated themselves not only from the Church, but also from the laws of morality.
The Libertines described by Calvin were antinomian pantheists.  They confounded the boundaries of truth and error, of right and wrong.  Under the pretext of the freedom of the spirit, they advocated the unbridled license of the flesh.  Their spiritualism ended in carnal materialism.  They taught that there is but one spirit, the Spirit of God, who lives in all creatures, which are nothing without him.  "What I or you do," said Quintin, "is done by God, and what God does, we do; for he is in us."  Sin is a mere negation or privation, yea, an idle illusion which disappears as soon as it is known and disregarded.  Salvation consists in the deliverance from the phantom of sin.  There is no Satan, and no angels, good or bad.  They denied the truth of the gospel history.  The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ have only a symbolical meaning to show us that sin does not exist for us.
The Libertines taught the community of goods and of women, and elevated spiritual marriage above legal marriage, which is merely carnal and not binding.102
The doctrines of the Libertines are strikingly similar to the teachings of a nineteenth century cult misnamed Christian Science.  This so-called science simplifies the spiritual realm to accommodate human reasoning.  Gnosticism denies the heaven and angels of God's creation and replaces them with a metaphysical abstraction which is nothing more than the opposite of matter.  This "scientific" reasoning cannot distinguish between the Holy Spirit and demonic spirits because the Gnostic "spirit" only exists as a logical place-holder representing everything outside the visible realm.  The lusts of the flesh can never be held in check by the fear of a theoretical god.
The Patriots represent a general type of the world's demography that is unbelieving and wants nothing to do with God and His laws.  The Protestant Movement was not isolated to the theology and authority of Church.  The Reformer's break from the Roman Church validated in the minds of non-Christians a sense that they should be extended the same freedom to break away from the Church and God's laws altogether.  Thus the hope of religious freedom by the God-fearers was countered by the hope among the ungodly that they might be free from the restrictions of Christian morality.  Though at the time of the Reformation, only a small minority would have been willing to confess they were Atheists.
The spread of Protestantism in various regions of Europe led to the question of how to determine a nation's religion.  Germany became the first test case by recognizing Protestant and Catholic zones.  Europe had a greater problem with establishing national and intra-national religions as a continent, due to the fragmented control of her multiple rulers.  Control of the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne had by 1438 been assumed by the Hapsburg Dynasty.  The Holy Hapsburg Empire was divided geographically by the independent nation of France.  It was also divided by the three mainline religions; Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism.  These divisive forces came to a head during the Thirty Years' War, from 1618 to 1648.  This war was complex in its origin, and in its many fronts.  These details would not shed light on our discussion of lawlessness.  But the underlying causes for war; dominion, religion, and climate, do all represent topics which continue to impact the future; and will be revisited near the end of this book.
Figure 9 - Thirty Years' War103
The Peace of Westphalia was a pact among the kings and princes agreeing that they would respect each nation's sovereignty.  Until this point in world history it was expected that successful rulers would expand their kingdoms.  The treaties resulting from Westphalia made some redistribution of territories, and formed alliances to balance the powers of Europe in order to inhibit acts of aggression.  The resulting Westphalian Sovereignty established a model for later international law.  It is worth noting that the House of Hapsburg continued (officially) into the eighteenth century.  And although some regions of the Holy Roman Empire gained sovereign status under the treaty, the Empire was not completely dissolved until the beginning of the nineteenth century.
The coexistence of multiple Christian faiths was accomplished by adopting Germany's treaty of Augsburg.  This method had succeeded in Germany by allowing the rulers of each sovereign state to choose which denomination would be supported under their administration.  Denominations other than the official state religion would be able to hold services at prescribed times, and to worship at all times in private.  By attaching religious affiliations to independent religions, a spirit of patriotism was woven into the fabric of Protestantism.  God and country were bound together in one allegiance - in one faith.
As for the climate, the seventeenth century marked the middle of the Little Ice Age.  The civil unrest during the time of the Thirty Years' War was exacerbated by the famine, pestilence, and extreme weather conditions caused by a two hundred year solar minimum cycle.  History shows that nearly the whole northern hemisphere was engaged in war during these centuries.  Some countries had three major national wars accompanied by internal civil wars all within a single century.  Two and three year consecutive crop failures caused mass migrations, invasions, and pillaging.  The countries of Europe were so expended of resources that soldiers were not paid, but were expected to survive on looting and extortion.  Farmers feared their own troops more than they dreaded their enemies.
Secular accusations that Christianity was responsible for these wars of Europe are simplistic at best.  But the Church did cause immeasurable bloodshed from the Middle Ages until modern times.  The problem caused by the unchristian doctrines and practices of the Roman Church called for protest and reform.  The Apostle Paul warned that it was possible to preach to others and afterwards to be personally disqualified.  The Roman Church disqualified itself from its God given ministry.  And Rome was never qualified by God to rule nations of the earth.  However, raising individual authority to an equal position with properly established authority became a faulty and unstable foundation for the Protestant faiths.
God bless those Reformers who made their good confession standing on God's Word alone.  Obeying God rather than man is always the right thing to do when God has given His direct revelation.  That revelation is most reliably discerned from the Bible, but is sometimes imparted in a personal way that is unmistakably clear.  The instruction of God, however imparted, is the only basis for standing in opposition to authority which God has ordained.
Meanwhile, the desperation of the Little Ice Age inflamed the spirit of individualism by turning daily life into a fight for survival.  Productive fields where parched, flooded, or frozen, sending their inhabitants to flight.  This age of "every man to himself" shattered the community paradigm, giving further appeal to the philosophical arguments for individualism promoted by Humanism.
Christians rejected the authenticity of the Roman Church and longed to return to the Early Church, but they ended up exalting individual conscience as the basis for spiritual judgment.  The spirit of individualism was unknown at the time of the Apostles.  It would have been better if these reformers had only used the pure milk of God's Word for their defense.  Today, in the twenty-first century, we are beginning to see the fruit of those tares which were sown among the roots of the Protestant faith.

Purchase Dark Freedom in print or ebook at Amazon, B&N, and more.Details at: http://www.darkfreedombook.com


Sunday, February 14, 2016

Dark Freedom: The Rise of Western Lawlessness - Chapter Seven

Dark Freedom: The Rise of Western Lawlessness - Chapter Seven

by C.W. Steinle
Copyright 2015 by C.W. Steinle


Copyrighted material.  All rights reserved.  No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise - without written permission from the publisher.  This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to purchase this book or share with another person, please purchase a copy for each reader from any online bookseller.  Visit Dark-Freedom.com for purchase details or: http://darkfreedombook.com/

Part II - The Legacy of the Manmade Church
The Renaissance of Classical Philosophy

The two prior chapters recounted the oppression of Europe by Church leaders who were not honest or humble enough to admit that they had ceased from following Christ.  Taking advantage of that Name above all names, they wore it as cloak for vice.  The papacy profaned that precious Name in exchange for worldly pleasures.  The people were compelled to make sense of this spiritual tragedy by drawing three general conclusions; that God is not able, that the Church must be reformed, or that a false Church had arisen and needed to be replaced by a revived Early Church.  (This third reaction bears similarities to the attitude of today's Emergent Church.)
Christians were left with the quandary of what to make of a Church which had obviously and inexcusably fallen into sin.  They were forced to answer the sensitive question of; "What constitutes the true Church?"  Obviously God, His Christ, and His Spirit could not have failed.  Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.  Reformers, like Martin Luther, affirmed that the Roman Church was part of the Universal Church, but that its leadership and practices had missed the mark.  Other groups, such as the Anabaptists, rejected Rome as a false Church.  But all of the major Reformers made a distinction between the masses who attend church and those individuals who have genuinely surrendered to Christ.  This distinction was necessary in order to maintain that the Catholic Church was the continuing Church of Christ; and at the same time, to account for souls in that Church, including its leaders, who had lived like they were sons of the devil.
Because the unfolding of the mystery of lawlessness is our chief interest, this chapter will cover the social and political thought of the late Middle Ages through the Renaissance.  During this period most people were still grounded in the Christian faith, whereas during the Enlightenment many began to fall into Deism.  We will continue to draw on the research and commentary of Philip Schaff through this third chapter of Church History.
The turn of the first millennium without the return of the Lord, along with the unsettling corruption of the Church, gave rise to a movement called Scholasticism.  The schoolmen began to make an extensive study of the sea of writings by the Church Fathers in order to solidify the doctrines of the faith.  The Bible became one of many sources used in this search for truth; thus, the writings of the Fathers were canonized and set on a par with the Scriptures.  Writings from outside the church were also included in scholars' libraries. These included classical Latin and Greek texts.  During the first millennium these writings were mostly banned because they promoted worldly wisdom and pagan morality.
The ban, which had been placed by the Church upon the study of the classic authors of antiquity and ancient institutions, palsied polite research and reading for a thousand years.  Even before Jerome, whose mind had been disciplined in the study of the classics, at last pronounced them unfit for the eye of a Christian, Tertullian's attitude was not favorable.  Cassian followed Jerome; and Alcuin, the chief scholar of the 9th century, turned away from Virgil as a collection of lying fables.74

At first the schoolmen sided with the papal claims that the apostolic see held authority over the Church and the State.  But the northern nations of the Holy Roman Empire began to look to the classics of antiquity as reasonable alternatives to the violence and chaos caused by a Church which had been high-jacked by the selfish desires of fallen men.  The philosophies of men held the promise of a system that might better the human condition.  This study of the Humanities was even embraced by the churchmen.  People began to reason that God was in control of the spiritual realm, but man was the proprietor over the material realm, and should do whatever he could to make his world a better place.  Soon the Humanists began to estimate the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle to be equal, or even above, Christian ideology.  Thomas Aquinas studied Aristotle and incorporated some of Aristotle's philosophy into his theological catalog, the Summa Theologica.75
Figure 6 - Celestial Orbs in the Latin Middle Ages76
The scheme of the aforementioned division of spheres. · The empyrean (fiery) heaven, dwelling of God and of all the selected · 10 Tenth heaven, first cause · 9 Ninth heaven, crystalline · 8 Eighth heaven of the firmament · 7 Heaven of Saturn · 6 Jupiter · 5 Mars · 4 Sun · 3 Venus · 2 Mercury · 1 Moon
The image above depicts the medieval concept of the universe according to the scheme of Aristotle.  It was believed that the "Primu Mobile" (outer sphere) had its own consciousness, "nous", or Divine Mind; a concept tied to Plato's belief in the Demiurge and the World Soul.  The second book of Dante's Convivio describes the Ptolemaic universe.
"Outside all of these [orbs] the Catholics place the Empyrean heaven, which is to say, "the heaven of flame," or "luminous heaven"; and they hold it to be motionless because it has in itself, with respect to each of its parts, that which its matter desires.  This is why the Primum Mobile has the swiftest movement; for because of the most fervent desire that each part of the ninth heaven has to be conjoined with every part of that divinest, tranquil heaven, to which it is contiguous, it revolves beneath it with such desire that its velocity is almost incomprehensible.  Stillness and peace are the qualities of the place of that Supreme Deity which alone completely beholds itself.  This is the place of the blessed spirits, according to the will of the Holy Church, which cannot lie.  Aristotle, to anyone who rightly understands him, seems to hold the same opinion in the first book of Heaven and the World [i.e. De caelo].  This is the supreme edifice of the universe in which all the world is enclosed and beyond which there is nothing; it is not itself in space but was formed solely in the Primal Mind, which the Greeks call Protonoe.  This is that magnificence of which the Psalmist spoke when he says to God: "Your magnificence is exalted above the heavens."77
He begins by citing "the Catholics," or orthodox belief, as authority for his account of this "abode of the supreme deity," but then goes on to treat the Empyrean as a created thing, "formed in the Primal Mind," and as the motionless cause of motion in the physical universe. If God dwells in this place, the Empyrean resides equally in Him, and the universe at large is encompassed, causally and locally, by the Empyrean. Dante deploys the Aristotelian physics of desire to explain the relationship of the Empyrean to the lesser heavens, yet it is at the same time beyond space, a wholly spiritual realm where blessed spirits participate in the divine mind. Dante seems to emphasize this double status by mingling theological and philosophical language, and invoking Aristotle and the neo-Platonists side by side with the poet of the Psalms.78
The failure of religion's rule over the civil governments of Europe drove the people to contemplate other forms of government.  Through their rediscovery of Classical philosophy they were awakened to the thought that man could design his own ideal society.  Plato's The Republic provided a basic examination of various types of government.
During his life in Athens, Plato witnessed the fall of democracy and the installation of a tyrannical government.  In his Republic, Plato made a critique of various political structures.  Plato believed democracy to be the most unfavorable form of government.  He viewed democracy a great experiment that ended badly.  He concluded that it amounted to anarchy and resulted in slavery.  Athens was the first known attempt by a society to allow the crowd to rule themselves.
Just prior to 500 B.C. Athens became the first democracy in history.  The people had expelled a series of tyrants and established a popular assembly.  The other city-states mistrusted the Athenians and their aberrant form of government, and Athens gave the others additional cause for concern:  Following the expulsion of the Persians from Greece and, soon afterward, from some Greek cities of Asia Minor, Athens founded the Athenian League, a confederation of Greek cities around the Aegean Sea.79  
Recall from Chapter Four that Plato's idea of Justice was an equity or balance between competing elements.  Plato proposed an ideal society with three types of citizens: rulers, auxiliaries, and producers.  Plato's three parts of the human soul were coincidental to his three types of citizens.  The rulers are men whose rational part holds mastery over the other parts of their soul.  The auxiliaries are men driven by their spirit of honor.  And the producers are people who are slaves to their appetites.   Plato says that these characteristics should be recognized in children so that they might be trained in the area for which they are naturally qualified.  Plato's proposed perfect state is, of course, ruled by a philosopher-king.
Plato identified five types of government: tyranny, timocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, and democracy.  Tyranny is imposed government, established by the tyrant or by an outside party.  A timocracy is a government in which the right to rule is based on the value of the individual in terms of their ability to produce revenue for the community.  An aristocracy is governed by the most qualified members of society - such as the philosophers.  Plato said that a democracy occurs when an oligarchy breaks down and the lowest class, which is driven by immediate gratification, takes control.  The democratic man is obsessed with unnecessary desires and is disorderly.  Because they lack the intellect of the Philosopher, and the Auxiliary's sense of honor, the public will desire to do whatever they want, whenever they please - leading the society to become the slaves to their appetites.
Plato was not eclectic in his disgust with the democratic man. (This explains why democracy was not perceived as a desirable form of government for two thousand years after the Athenian experiment.)  The reason for western civilization to have changed its view can be explained quite simply.  Throughout history, until the Renaissance, the community was perceived as meriting the greatest importance.  People were given recognition by their community based upon how well they could work within that community toward the survival and benefit of society as a whole.  Not until the latter years of the Renaissance did individualism emerge.  It is an interesting observation that this inward focus set the stage for the rise of Deism and Atheism.
The overbearing government by the Roman Catholic Church resulted in the same reaction that Israel had as they fled from the oppression of Rehoboam: "Each of you to your own tent, O Israel!"- II Chron. 10:16 Going to one’s own tent implied more than a redirection of allegiance to a different government.  It expressed a desire by Israel to return to the days before Saul; a regret that they had ever asked for a king.  Individualism was the natural reaction of the people to Rome's unreasonable micromanagement of the Empire.  But the Europeans were accustomed to kings, so their first response was to free their individual nations from the yoke of Rome.
We will now trace the history of reform over time and throughout Europe in order to follow the changes in prevailing attitudes concerning authority and the law.  Pay close attention to the struggle to resolve these two dichotomies: the authority of the Bible vs. the authority of the Church; and, human authority vs. the conviction of conscience.
Those who were closest to Rome were unable to ignore the problems caused by her meddling in worldly affairs.  Italy bore the greatest exposure in the fight between the popes and the kings for control over the Empire.  Consequently, Florence became the incubator of the Renaissance.  Dante Alighieri was born in the mid-thirteenth century and was caught in the midst of these controversies.   The Florentines became divided over the issue of dominance by the Holy Roman Empire, which at that time was controlled by Philip IV of France.  Dante sided with the party who wanted more independence from The Roman Empire, which eventually resulted in his banishment from Florence.  In his work, The Monarchia,80 Dante said that civil and religious authority should be separated.  He believed in the necessity of a potentate with enough authority to keep peace and maintain order.  This organization of society, Dante insisted, was necessary for civilization to thrive.  The happiness of individuals can only be achieved as the greater community is enriched.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers the following commentary.
The Monarchia is in its own way as idiosyncratic as the Convivio. Its purpose, foreshadowed in the discussion of empire in Convivio IV, is to demonstrate the necessity of a single ruling power, reverent toward but independent of the Church, capable of ordering the will of collective humanity in peace and concord. Under such a power the potential intellect of humanity can be fully actuated—the intellect, that is, of collective humanity, existent throughout the world, acting as one. For just as a multitude of species must continually be generated to actualize the full potentiality of prime matter, so the full intellectual capacity of humanity cannot be realized at one time nor in a single individual [Mon. 1.3.3–8]. Here Dante adds his own further particularization of this Aristotelian doctrine [De Anima 3.5, 430a10–15], asserting that no single household, community, or city can bring it to realization. The ordering of the collective human will to the goal of realizing its intellectual potential requires universal peace [1.4], and this in turn requires a single ordering power through whose authority humanity may achieve unity and so realize the intention and likeness of God [1.8].   The basis of this argument for empire is evidently the first sentence of the Prologue to Thomas' literal commentary on the Metaphysics, where he declares that when several things are ordered to a single end, one of them must govern, "as the Philosopher teaches in his Politics" [Thomas, Exp. Metaph., Proemium; Aristotle, Politics 1.5, 1254a-55a.]
The second of the Monarchia's three books deals with the great example of Rome, describing the city's providential role in world history, largely by way of citations from Roman literature aimed at demonstrating the consistent dedication of Roman power to the public good, and the conformity of Roman imperium with the order of nature and the will of God. The third book deals with the crucial issue of the relationship between political and ecclesiastical authority. Dante argues on various grounds that power in the temporal realm is neither derived from nor dependent on spiritual authority, though it benefits from the power of the Papacy to bless its activity. These arguments consist largely in refutations of traditional claims for the temporal authority of the Papacy, but the final chapter makes the argument on positive grounds. Since man consists of soul and body, his nature partakes of both the corruptible and the incorruptible. Uniting two natures, his existence must necessarily be ordered to the goals of both these natures [Mon. 3.16.7–9]:
Ineffable providence has thus set before us two goals to aim at: i.e. happiness in this life, which consists in the exercise of our own powers and is figured in the earthly paradise; and happiness in the eternal life, which consists in the enjoyment of the vision of God (to which our own powers cannot raise us except with the help of God's light) and which is signified by the heavenly paradise. Now these two kinds of happiness must be reached by different means, as representing different ends. For we attain the first through the teachings of philosophy, provided that we follow them putting into practice the moral and intellectual virtues; whereas we attain the second through spiritual teachings which transcend human reason, provided that we follow them putting into practice the theological virtues, i.e. faith, hope, and charity. These ends and the means to attain them have been shown to us on the one hand by human reason, which has been entirely revealed to us by the philosophers, and on the other by the Holy Spirit . . .
This is Dante's most explicit, uncompromising claim for the autonomy of reason, reinforced by the entire world-historical argument of the Monarchia and constituting its final justification for world empire. Dante here goes well beyond Augustine's sense of the stabilizing function of empire, and eliminates any hint of the anti-Roman emphasis in Augustine's separation of the earthly and heavenly cities. In the final sentences of the Monarchia the temporal monarch becomes, like the aspiring intellect of the Convivio, the uniquely privileged beneficiary of a divine bounty which, "without any intermediary, descends into him from the Fountainhead of universal authority" [Mon. 3.16.15]. Like the Averroistic reasoning of his earlier claim that only under a world empire can humanity realize its intellectual destiny, this crowning claim shows Dante appropriating Aristotle to the service of a unique and almost desperate vision of empire as a redemptive force. But whether we consider the world view of the Monarchia an aberration [D'Entreves, 51] or take it as Dante's straightforward exposition of his views on the relations of secular and religious authority, its categorical definition of the twofold purpose of human life is impossible to explain away. In the Paradiso [8.115–17] as in the Monarchia, to be a "citizen" is essential to human happiness, and the idea of an imperial authority independent of papal control remained fundamental to his political thought.81
Shortly after Dante, another advocate for civil independence arose from the western shores of the Empire.  Just as the remoteness of Rome from the center of Christianity had allowed her to rebel against Constantinople, so England's distance from Rome provided her with the leeway to be the last to submit, and among the first to be stirred by the spirit of freedom.  John Wycliffe has been called the Morningstar of the Reformation.  He is often remembered as a Bible translator, but his greatest impact on Europe during his lifetime was made by his political boldness in contesting against Rome's far reaching tentacles.  Wycliffe's opinion that authority must be questioned or rejected if it acts wickedly, was boldly declared by his words, "There is no moral obligation to pay tax or tithe to bad rulers either in Church or state.  It is permitted to punish or depose them and to reclaim the wealth which the clergy have diverted from the poor."82
In the summer of 1374, Wycliffe went to Bruges as a member of the commission appointed by the king to negotiate peace with France and to treat with the pope's agents on the filling of ecclesiastical appointments in England.  His name was second in the list of commissioners, following the name of the bishop of Bangor.  At Bruges we find him for the first time in close association with John of Gaunt, Edward's favorite son, an association which continued for several years, and for a time inured to his protection from ecclesiastical violence.
On his return to England, he began to speak as a religious reformer.  He preached in Oxford and London against the pope's secular sovereignty, running about, as the old chronicler has it, from place to place, and barking against the Church.  It was soon after this that, in one of his tracts, he styled the bishop of Rome "the anti-Christ, the proud, worldly priest of Rome, and the most cursed of clippers and cut-purses."  He maintained that he "has no more power in binding and loosing than any priest, and that the temporal lords may seize the possessions of the clergy if pressed by necessity."83
With the year 1378 Wycliffe's distinctive career as a doctrinal reformer opens.  He had defended English rights against foreign encroachment.  He now assailed, at a number of points, the theological structure the Schoolmen and mediaeval popes had laboriously reared, and the abuses that had crept into the Church.  The spectacle of Christendom divided by two papal courts, each fulminating anathema against the other, was enough to shake confidence in the divine origin of the papacy.  In sermons, tracts and larger writings, Wycliffe brought Scripture and common sense to bear. . . . As Luther is the most vigorous tract writer that Germany has produced, so Wycliffe is the foremost religious pamphleteer that has arisen in England; . . . .84 
It was in 1381, the year before Courtenay said his memorable words, that Walden reports that Wycliffe "began to determine matters upon the sacrament of the altar."  To attempt an innovation at this crucial point required courage of the highest order.  In 12 theses he declared the Church's doctrine unscriptural and misleading.  For the first time since the promulgation of the dogma of transubstantiation by the Fourth Lateran was it seriously called in question by a theological expert.85
Wycliffe also became aware of the importance of distinguishing between man's philosophy and the truth of God's Word.  According to Schaff, Wycliffe confessed that in his earlier years he had leaned on the classical systems instead of fully relying on the Bible.  John Wycliffe was one of the first politically active Christians to realize that the problem of government should not be solved through the application of pagan principles.
As for the philosophy of the pagan world, whatever it offers that is in accord with the Scriptures is true.  The religious philosophy which the Christian learns from Aristotle he learns because it was taught by the authors of Scripture.  The Greek thinker made mistakes, as when he asserted that creation is eternal.  In several places Wycliffe confesses that he himself had at one time been led astray by logic and the desire to win fame, but was thankful to God that he had been converted to the full acceptance of the Scriptures as they are and to find in them all logic.86
While it is not our intent to cover the history and theology of entire Protestant Movement, it is worth noting why Wycliffe has been called the Morningstar of the Reformation.  Although Wycliffe's writings were banned in England, they made their way into the hands of one of his European contemporaries, John Hus of Bohemia.  Hus translated Wycliffe's writings into Czech and read them from the pulpit.  The Czech nation was the first to reject the Christianity taught by Rome, and to form its own doctrines.  The Bohemian Movement was condemned by the papacy and Hus was burned at the stake.  But the Bohemian Kingdom withstood a series of papal crusades against it and was eventually left to practice its faith as Hussites.   Hus' primary grievances with Rome were over the sale of indulgences and the teaching of transubstantiation.  Thus, Wycliffe's teachings had gained acceptance in Northern Europe long before Luther.  And the Czechs' tenacity also set a precedent that would allow Martin Luther and his nation the ability to defy Rome.
Back in Florence the European Morningstar, Girolamo Savonarola, began around 1490 to condemn the immorality and greed of the province.  He became politically active when the ruling family of the Medici was expelled.  Savonarola spoke out publically against Pope Alexander VI until he was banned from speaking in public.  But he continued to speak out in spite of the ban.  After he was excommunicated he continued to call for reform until at last he was burned at the stake in 1498.  After the Medici family was restored to power, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the political handbook, The Prince.87 Like his predecessor Dante, Machiavelli was convinced of the benefit of a local authoritative ruler who could defend the province from the dictates of the Empire.
These early responses to the Church's dominance were aimed at establishing even stronger local magistrates who could defend their own territories from the political struggle between the papacy and the kings of Europe.  Because of Europe's faith at this time, they still believed their civil authorities were under God's control.
Wycliffe's call for a national response to reject a corrupted clergy was eventually consummated in the Peace of Westphalia, which dissolved the Holy Roman Empire; thus allowing the sovereign nations of Europe to regain their autonomy.  But first the spiritual monopoly of the Roman Catholic Church had to be broken so that the nations might object to the papacy without the fear of eternal condemnation.  The authority question during the Protestant Reformation will be examined in the next chapter.
The Renaissance was merely the revival of the Humanities.  Not until the Enlightenment did Humanism emerge in its present form.  Platonism and Neo-Platonism were interwoven with Scholasticism during the Renaissance in the hopes that mankind might lay hold of the mysteries of God by using the tools of the Ancient Greeks.  The Church had opened itself up to the doctrines of men when it granted the weight of Scriptures to oral traditions and the writings of the Church Fathers.
The Greek and Latin philosophers, as Paul put it, were merely groping that they might find God.  Yet their murky visions were accepted by the Schoolmen as if they had already found Him.  In their foolishness these Christian theologians opened the door to the belief that all of the nations worship the same God.  The Church sought to gain a clearer understanding of God by merging the Gentiles' darkened image of God with the Bible's revelation of God.  Instead, they further contaminated and diluted the Church's knowledge of God.  Furthermore, the writings of the Fathers and scholars remain bound within the Latin concepts of God to this day.  The God of the Bible is the Creator of all men.  But He has chosen to reveal Himself through the Jews.  God is not the god that all nations worship.  This false doctrine of Universalism is a growing pestilence that is leading the unsaved down the road with those who are the enemies of the cross of Christ.
"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.  For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power." – Col. 2:8-10

Purchase Dark Freedom in print or ebook at Amazon, B&N, and more.Details at: http://www.darkfreedombook.com


Sunday, February 7, 2016

Dark Freedom: The Rise of Western Lawlessness - Chapter Six

Dark Freedom: The Rise of Western Lawlessness - Chapter Six

by C.W. Steinle
Copyright 2015 by C.W. Steinle


Copyrighted material.  All rights reserved.  No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise - without written permission from the publisher.  This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to purchase this book or share with another person, please purchase a copy for each reader from any online bookseller.  Visit Dark-Freedom.com for purchase details or: http://darkfreedombook.com/

Part II - The Legacy of the Manmade Church
The Kingdoms of the World and Their Glory

"The devil took Jesus up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.  And he said to Him, ‘All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.’" – Matt. 4:8-9
By the early fifteenth century the claim of unlimited power over the whole earth by the Bishop of Rome compelled Laurentius Valla to conclude that Peter (referring to the Papacy) had taken the devil up on his offer.  The city of Rome's place as the ruler of the world had been lost when Constantine moved the capital to New Rome, but the Church provided Old Rome with a vehicle by which she might regain her title.  Her ultimate control over Europe was accomplished through methodical spiritual and temporal encroachments.
Christianity had spread as far as England by the end of the second century.  Constantine's Christian mother, Helena, and Constantine himself, were from England.  Furthermore, the Gaelic and Irish isles were not only converted to the faith in the early centuries, they had sent missionaries deep into Europe and established churches and monasteries long before Rome's bid for the primacy.  Rome refused to acknowledge that any Christian community outside of its own authority was part of the true Church.  Thus these long-established churches were destroyed or confiscated as Rome's territory enlarged, and their ministers were treated as heretics.
As the Northern Tribes invaded the Western Empire, many of these nations and their leaders converted to Christianity.  Soon the Bishops of Rome gained control of these national leaders by threatening them, and their nations, with spiritual retributions.  The struggle for power between the Church and the State continued into the seventeenth century.  The most important development of the nation-states during this period was the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire.
During the eighth century an Anglo-Saxon missionary who came to be known as Saint Boniface was stirred by the Lord to evangelize the Franco-Germanic area of Europe.  Boniface understood the necessity of coming under the auspices of Rome.  After spending some time at Rome, and having been accepted as an approved ambassador of the faith, Boniface journeyed to Northern Europe and experienced great success.  The Frankish prince Charles Martel had just defeated a formidable army of Muslims.  The massive Muslim cavalry was defeated at the Battle of Tours in 732.  His remarkable victory gained him the recognition as the power behind the Frankish kingdom.  Charles was an admirer of Saint Boniface and desired to promote the cause of Christianity.  Charles' son, Pepin the Short, was acknowledged by Rome as the king of the Franks.
Because Rome had already been conquered once by the Lombards, she sought an alliance with a militia of sufficient strength to act as her protectorate.  The Franks became that covering, and by way of the successful expansion of Pepin's son, Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire was formed.  After the death of Charlemagne, the cohesiveness of the Empire was lost.  Soon the Frankish kingdom was fighting against the Germans and other tribal nation-states.  The Roman Church insisted on approving, or even appointing, the kings of the various nations, and often openly favored the Franks over the other members of the Holy Roman Empire.
In the meantime, the claims of authority by the papacy as God’s uniquely appointed agent for the government of mankind were pushed to the limit.  Beginning with Innocent III., it became customary for the pope to speak of himself as the vicar of Christ and the vicar of God.  He was henceforth exclusively addressed as "holiness" or "most holy."  A papal bull by Pope Boniface VIII stated that there was no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church: "Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff, - this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation."63
Aegidius Colonna was a tract writer contending for the authority of the papacy in opposition to the laity, who were beginning to vocalize their objections to the overreaching powers claimed by the papacy.  Aegidius made the bold assertion that the pope may himself be called "the Church."
The pope judges all things and is judged by no man, 1 Cor. 2:15.  To him belongs all plenary power, plenitudo potestatis.  This power is without measure, without number, and without weight.  It extends over all Christians.  The pope is above all laws and in matters of faith infallible.  He is like the sea which fills all vessels, like the sun which, as the universally active principle, sends his rays into all things.  The priesthood existed before royalty.  Abel and Noah, priests, preceded Nimrod, who was the first king.  As the government of the world is one and centres in one ruler, God, so in the affairs of the militant Church there can be only one source of power, one supreme government, one head to whom belongs the plenitude of power.  This is the supreme pontiff. The priesthood and the papacy are of immediate divine appointment.  Earthly kingdoms, except as they have been established by the priesthood, owe their origin to usurpation, robbery, and other forms of violence.
In the second part of his tract, Aegidius proves that, in spite of Numb. 18:20, 21, and Luke 10:4, the Church has the right to possess worldly goods.  The Levites received cities.  In fact, all temporal goods are under the control of the Church.  As the soul rules the body, so the pope rules over all temporal matters.  The tithe is a perpetual obligation.  No one has a right to the possession of a single acre of ground or a vineyard without the Church's permission and unless he be baptized.
The fullness of power, residing in the pope, gives him the right to appoint to all benefices in Christendom, but, as God chooses to rule through the laws of nature, so the pope rules through the laws of the Church, but he is not bound by them.  He may himself be called the Church.  For the pope's power is spiritual, heavenly and divine. [Summarization of tract called Power of the Supreme Pontiff by Aegidius.]64
By the thirteenth century, with most of Europe under submission, the Papacy broadened its aspirations and began to boast that Peter was the ruler of the world.  As such, Rome was entitled to manipulate kingdoms and to override the laws of every nation.  All the lands of the earth belonged to the pope.
England, Poland, Norway, and Sweden, Portugal, Aragon, Naples, Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily, not to speak of portions of Central Italy, were in this period, for a longer or shorter time, fiefs of the apostolic see.  In 1299, the same claim was made over Scotland.  The nations from Edessa to Scotland and from Castile to Riga were reminded that Rome was the throbbing centre of divinely bequeathed authority.  The islands of the West were its to bestow.  To Peter was given, so Innocent wrote, not only the universal Church, but the whole earth that he might rule it.  His practice, as we have seen, followed his pen.  There was a time when the pope recognized the superior authority of the emperor, as did Gregory the Great in 593.  Peter Damiani, writing in the age of Gregory VII., recognized the distinction and coordination of the two swords and the two realms.  But another conception took its place, the subordination of all civil authority under the pope.  To depose princes, to absolve subjects from allegiance, to actively foment rebellion as against Frederick II., to divert lands as in Southern France, to give away crowns, to extort by threat of the severest ecclesiastical penalties the payment of tribute, to punish religious dissenters with perpetual imprisonment or turn them over to the secular authorities, knowing death would be the punishment, to send and consecrate crusading armies, and to invade the realm of the civil court, usurp its authority, and annul a nation's code, as in the case of Magna Charta, - these were the high prerogatives actually exercised by the papacy.  .  .  Now and then the wearers of the tiara were defeated, but they never ceased to insist upon the divine claims of their office.  In vain did emperors, like Frederick II., appeal to the Scriptures as giving no countenance to the principle that popes have the right to punish kings and deprive them of their kingdoms.65
Tithes were prescribed by the laws of Moses to support the priests and to fund the religious services.  But the prophet Samuel warned the Children of Israel when they asked for a king that a king would place additional demands on the people.  What Samuel had not mentioned was that, among mortals, there lies the potential for either good or bad character.  King Saul was immediate proof that even a mortal under God's anointing is not exempt from the corruption of man's fallen nature.  This mortal malfunction was further magnified in the kings of Israel and Judah who followed King David.  Far more of these kings did evil in the sight of the Lord than did right by following after their father David.
Likewise, those men who presumptuously seated themselves on the throne of Christ's Church became especially vulnerable to the failings of the flesh.  The debaucheries of the Bishops of Rome plumbed the depths of human depravity.  Their detestable behavior, their ignorance of God's Word, and the lowliness of their character was freely acknowledged, even among the clergy of the Roman Church; and even to the point that some popes were accused of being antichrist.  Hundreds of years of these dysfunctional popes might be presented; but the examples below will suffice to justify the cries for religious and civil reform - the discussion of our next chapter.
The political disorder of Europe affected the church and paralyzed its efforts for good.  The papacy itself lost all independence and dignity, and became the prey of avarice, violence, and intrigue, a veritable synagogue of Satan.  It was dragged through the quagmire of the darkest crimes, and would have perished in utter disgrace had not Providence saved it for better times.  Pope followed pope in rapid succession, and most of them ended their career in deposition, prison, and murder.  The rich and powerful marquises of Tuscany and the Counts of Tusculum acquired control over the city of Rome and the papacy for more than half a century.  And what is worse (incredibile, attamen verum), three bold and energetic women of the highest rank and lowest character, Theodora the elder (the wife or widow of a Roman senator), and her two daughters, Marozia and Theodora filled the chair of St. Peter with their paramours and bastards.  These Roman Amazons combined with the fatal charms of personal beauty and wealth, a rare capacity for intrigue, and a burning lust for power and pleasure.  They had the diabolical ambition to surpass their sex as much in boldness and badness as St. Paula and St. Eustachium in the days of Jerome had excelled in virtue and saintliness.  They turned the church of St. Peter into a den of robbers, and the residence of his successors into a harem.  And they gloried in their shame.  Hence this infamous period is called the papal Pornocracy or Hetaerocracy. 
Some popes of this period were almost as bad as the worst emperors of heathen Rome, and far less excusable.
Sergius III., the lover of Marozia (904-911), opened the shameful succession.  Under the protection of a force of Tuscan soldiers he appeared in Rome, deposed Christopher who had just deposed Leo V., took possession of the papal throne, and soiled it with every vice; but he deserves credit for restoring the venerable church of the Lateran, which had been destroyed by an earthquake in 896 and robbed of invaluable treasures.
After the short reign of two other popes, John X., archbishop of Ravenna, was elected, contrary to all canons, in obedience to the will of Theodora, for the more convenient gratification of her passion (914-928).  He was a man of military ability and daring, placed himself at the head of an army - the first warrior among the popes - and defeated the Saracens.  He announced the victory in the tone of a general.  He then engaged in a fierce contest for power with Marozia and her lover or husband, the Marquis Alberic I.  Unwilling to yield any of her secular power over Rome, Marozia seized the Castle of St. Angelo, had John cast into prison and smothered to death, and raised three of her creatures, Leo VI., Stephen VII. (VIII.), and at last John XI., her own (bastard) son of only twenty-one years, successively to the papal chair (928-936).
After the murder of Alberic I. (about 926), Marozia, who called herself Senatrix and Patricia, offered her hand and as much of her love as she could spare from her numerous paramours, to Guido, Markgrave of Tuscany, who eagerly accepted the prize; and after his death she married king Hugo of Italy, the step-brother of her late husband (932); he hoped to gain the imperial crown, but he was soon expelled from Rome by a rebellion excited by her own son Alberic II., who took offence at his overbearing conduct for slapping him in the face.  She now disappears from the stage, and probably died in a convent.  Her son, the second Alberic, was raised by the Romans to the dignity of Consul, and ruled Rome and the papacy from the Castle of St. Angelo for twenty-two years with great ability as a despot under the forms of a republic (932-954).  After the death of his brother, John XI. (936) he appointed four insignificant pontiffs, and restricted them to the performance of their religious duties.
On the death of Alberic in 954, his son Octavian, the grandson of Marozia, inherited the secular government of Rome, and was elected pope when only eighteen years of age.  He thus united a double supremacy.  He retained his name Octavian as civil ruler, but assumed, as pope, the name John XII., either by compulsion of the clergy and people, or because he wished to secure more license by keeping the two dignities distinct.  This is the first example of such a change of name, and it was followed by his successors.  He completely sunk his spiritual in his secular character, appeared in military dress, and neglected the duties of the papal office, though he surrendered none of its claims.
John XII. disgraced the tiara for eight years (955-963).  He was one of the most immoral and wicked popes, ranking with Benedict IX., John XXIII., and Alexander VI.  He was charged by a Roman Synod, no one contradicting, with almost every crime of which depraved human nature is capable, and deposed as a monster of iniquity. 
Among the charges of the Synod against him were. . . . that he had mutilated a priest, that he had set houses on fire, like Nero, that he had committed homicide and adultery, had violated virgins and widows high and low, lived with his father's mistress, converted the pontifical palace into a brothel, drank to the health of the devil, and invoked at the gambling-table the help of Jupiter and Venus and other heathen demons! . . . .  Before the Synod convened John XII. had made his escape from Rome, carrying with him the portable part of the treasury of St. Peter.  But after the departure of the emperor he was readmitted to the city, restored for a short time, and killed in an act of adultery.66
Bishop Arnulf of Orleans gave the following oration during this Synod.  "Looking at the actual state of the papacy, what do we behold?  John [XII.] called Octavian, wallowing in the sty of filthy concupiscence, conspiring against the sovereign whom he had himself recently crowned; then Leo [VIII.] the neophyte, chased from the city by this Octavian; and that monster himself, after the commission of many murders and cruelties, dying by the hand of an assassin.  Next we see the deacon Benedict, though freely elected by the Romans, carried away captive into the wilds of Germany by the new Caesar [Otho I.] and his pope Leo.  Then a second Caesar [Otho II.], greater in arts and arms than the first, succeeds; and in his absence Boniface [VIII], a very monster of iniquity, reeking with the blood of his predecessor, mounts the throne of Peter.  True, he is expelled and condemned; but only to return again, and redden his hands with the blood of the holy bishop John [XIV.].  Are there, indeed, any bold enough to maintain the priests of the Lord over all the world are to take their law from monsters of guilt like these - men branded with ignominy, illiterate men, and ignorant alike of things human and divine?
If, holy fathers, we be bound to weigh in the balance the lives, the morals, and the attainments of the meanest candidate for the sacerdotal office, how much more ought we to look to the fitness of him who aspires to be the lord and master of all priests!  Yet how would it fare with us, if it should happen that the man the most deficient in all these virtues, one so abject as not to be worthy of the lowest place among the priesthood, should be chosen to fill the highest place of all?  What would you say of such a one, when you behold him sitting upon the throne glittering in purple and gold?  Must he not be the 'Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God'?  Verily such a one lacketh both wisdom and charity; he standeth in the temple as an image, as an idol, from which as from dead marble you would seek counsel.
But the Church of God is not subject to a wicked pope; nor even absolutely, and on all occasions, to a good one.  Let us rather in our difficulties resort to our brethren of Belgium and Germany than to that city, where all things are venal, where judgment and justice are bartered for gold.  Let us imitate the great church of Africa, which, in reply to the pretensions of the Roman pontiff, deemed it inconceivable that the Lord should have invested any one person with his own plenary prerogative of judicature, and yet have denied it to the great congregations of his priests assembled in council in different parts of the world.  If it be true, as we are informed by common report, that there is in Rome scarcely a man acquainted with letters, - without which, as it is written, one may scarcely be a doorkeeper in the house of God, - with what face may he who hath himself learnt nothing set himself up for a teacher of others?  In the simple priest ignorance is bad enough; but in the high priest of Rome, - in him to whom it is given to pass in review the faith, the lives, the morals, the discipline, of the whole body of the priesthood, yea, of the universal church, ignorance is in nowise to be tolerated. . . . Why should he not be subject in judgment to those who, though lowest in place, are his superiors in virtue and in wisdom?  Yea, not even he, the prince of the apostles, declined the rebuke of Paul, though his inferior in place, and, saith the great pope Gregory [I.], 'if a bishop be in fault, I know not any one such who is not subject to the holy see; but if faultless, let every one understand that he is the equal of the Roman pontiff himself, and as well qualified as he to give judgment in any matter.'"67
Machiavelli gave this condemnation of the Roman Church.  "We Italians are of all most irreligious and corrupt."   "We are so because the representatives of the Church have shown us the worst example."68 The papacy's greed was perhaps at its peak during the 60 year period in which the papal residence was relocated from Rome to Avignon, France.  By the reign of Boniface VIII, the pope, his curia, and the bishops had created several means of increasing their personal wealth.  Two of the most notorious sources of additional income were the Crusades (briefly discussed near the end of the book) and the sale of indulgences.  Bribes for appointments to state and church offices, and even fees for reassigning the clergy to new jurisdictions, required the payment of 'processing' fees.  Sometimes the bishops were relocated for no other reason than to gather more money.  Portions of all of these cash-flows were divided between the Church and the individual ministers involved in each transaction.  The pope and his curia received their own cut from all of these collections.
According to German Church Historian Ferdinand Gregorovius, "Boniface [VIII] was devoid of every apostolical virtue, a man of passionate temper, violent, faithless, unscrupulous, unforgiving, filled with ambitions and lust of worldly power."69 Alvarus Pelagius, in his Lament over the Church, wrote:  "No poor man can approach the pope.  He will call and no one will answer, because he has no money in his purse to pay.  Scarcely is a single petition heeded by the pope until it has passed through the hands of middlemen, a corrupt set, bought with bribes, and the officials conspire together to extort more than the rule calls for."70 According to Schaff, Pope John XXII, and the Avignon popes who followed him were some of the wealthiest men in Europe.
Gregorovius calls him [John XXII.] the Midas of Avignon.  According to Villani, he left behind him 18,000,000 gold florins and 7,000,000 florins' worth of jewels and ornaments, in all 25,000,000 florins, or $60,000,000 of our present coinage.  Recent investigations seem to cast suspicion upon this long-held view as an exaggeration.  John's hoard may have amounted to not more than 750,000 florins, or $2,000,000 of our money.  If this be a safe estimate, it is still true that John was a shrewd financier and perhaps the richest man in Europe.71 
The Roman church would have avoided the guilt of innocent blood if it had heeded the words of Peter, its purported leader, "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a meddler in other people’s affairs." - I Peter 4:15  As it is, the Latin Church can neither deny the charges of murder, the doing of evil, nor the fact that it meddled in the affairs of nations and of empires.  Rome bears the stains from the bloodshed of needless wars, the shed blood of the saints; and the bloodstains of countless souls convicted of heresy merely because of their misinterpretation of the Scriptures, or their reluctance to acknowledge the legitimacy of the apostate Church.
Since the time of the persecutions of the Early Church until the present day, the Church has ignored Daniel's warning that the world and the devil win - until the intervention of the Ancient of Days.  The angel told Daniel that before the end, "the power of the holy people will be completely shattered." - Dan. 12:7  The Church erred at the time of Constantine when it assumed that man should rise up and establish Christ's kingdom on earth.  For almost two thousand years the Church has sought to attain the status of Christ's glorious second coming, instead of submitting to the example of Christ's first coming.  Jesus clearly laid out the life that His followers should expect; to be rejected, handed over to men, to suffer and even die, but then to be raised again to eternal life.  The fallen sin-self hates and rejects this teaching.  But to ignore the words of Christ in this matter is as heretical as any other twisting of the Scripture.
"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.  If you were of the world, the world would love its own.  Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.  Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.'  If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.  If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.  But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me." - John 15:18-21
"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.  And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.  Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.  And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.  But he who endures to the end shall be saved.  And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." – Matt. 24:9-14
The last two of statements of Martin Luther's The Ninety-Five Theses embody these principles: "94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ their head through pains, deaths, and hells; 95. And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations, rather than in the security of peace."72
The achievement of absolute power by the papacy, magnificent as it was, represents an ideal utterly at fault, whether we consider the teaching of Scripture or the prevailing judgment of the present time.  Ambitions, pride, avarice, were mingled in popes with a sincere belief that the Roman see inherited from the Apostle plenitude of authority in all realms.  Europe, more enlightened, cannot accept such a claim and the moral degeneracy and spiritual incompetency of the popes, in the period following this, were an experimental proof that the theory was wrong.73 
The world's reaction to the Church-gone-wrong is the subject of our next chapter.  Just as individual sin, even though forgivable, must often bear the consequences of that sin; even so, the consequences for the sin of claiming to sit in the seat of Christ has not gone unchastened.  Striking the rock in anger disqualified Moses from entering into the Promised Land.  The papal misrepresentation of Christ was an error that altered the course of Western Christianity.  Christians must recognize that retribution from God and through men was to be expected for this most grievous of sins.  Some of the consequences from the catastrophic failure of the Roman Church may well follow the Church into the end of the age.
Dear Christian reader, our Church Fathers have sinned.  May we remember the deeply repentant prayer of Daniel in captivity, and sincerely confess as he did, "O Lord, to us belongs shame of face, to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, because we have sinned against You." – Dan. 9:8
Merciful Lord, do not hold the sins of our fathers against us.