Against Rome

This was related by Joseph Hall, witnessed while he was travelling through Europe. It has long been noted, and there are several likewise accounts in Foxes Book of Martyrs, how the methos of torture or cruelty the inquisitors wrought on God’s chosen people, God revenged their blood and suffering, by ironic and almost paradoxical turn of events in the tormenters own lives, often ending in their death, but the act they had commited just a short while before, to one of the martyrs, their own death so strikingly had resemblance to the act, yet it came directly from the hand of God, that one would have to be blind to deny God’s justice and revenge over the blood of the martyrs and the cruelty inflicted upon them. Joseph Hall’s account of a similar scenario that he witnessed:

a short but memorable story which the graphier of that town (though of a different religion) reported to more ears than ours. When the last inquisition tyrannized in those parts, and helped to spend the faggots of Ardenne, one of the rst, a confident confessor, being led far to his stake, sung psalms along the way, in a heavenly courage and victorious triumph. The cruel officer, envying his last mirth, and grieving to see him merrier than his tormenters, commanded him silence. He sings still, and desirous to improve his last breath to the best. The view of his approaching glory bred his joy; his joy breaks forth into a cheerful confession. The enraged sherriff causes his tongue to be cut off near the roots. Bloody wretch! It had been good music to have heard his shrieks; but to hear his music was torment. The poor martyr dies in silence, rests in peace. Not many months after, our butcherly officer hath a son born with his tongue hanging down upon his chin, like a deer after a long chase, which never could be gathered up within the bounds of his lips. O the Divine hand, full of justice, full of revenge. —Joseph Hall

This was related by Joseph Hall, witnessed while he was travelling through Europe.  It has long been noted, and    there are several likewise accounts in Foxes Book of Martyrs, how the methos of torture or cruelty the inquisitors wrought on God’s chosen people, God revenged their blood and suffering, by ironic and almost paradoxical turn of events in the tormenters own lives, often ending in their death, but the act they had commited just a short while before, to one of the martyrs,  their own death so strikingly had resemblance to the act, yet it came directly from the hand of God, that one would have to be blind to deny God’s justice and revenge over the blood of the martyrs and the cruelty inflicted upon them.

Joseph Hall’s account of a similar scenario that he witnessed:

a short but memorable story which the graphier of that town (though of a different religion) reported to more ears than ours. When the last inquisition tyrannized in those parts, and helped to spend the faggots of Ardenne, one of the rst, a confident confessor, being led far to his stake, sung psalms along the way, in a heavenly courage and victorious triumph. The cruel officer, envying his last mirth, and grieving to see him merrier than his tormenters, commanded him silence. He sings still, and desirous to improve his last breath to the best. The view of his approaching glory bred his joy; his joy breaks forth into a cheerful confession. The enraged sherriff causes his tongue to be cut off near the roots. Bloody wretch! It had been good music to have heard his shrieks; but to hear his music was torment. The poor martyr dies in silence, rests in peace. Not many months after, our butcherly officer hath a son born with his tongue hanging down upon his chin, like a deer after a long chase, which never could be gathered up within the bounds of his lips. O the Divine  hand, full of justice, full of revenge.
—Joseph Hall

I’m sorry I have not blogged at this site for longer than I care for; there have been various things that have prevented me, not least of all my daily struggles in my illnesses and afflictions; I try to keep up at the other sites, a puritan at heart, and 2. Covenanted Reformation, particularly the former, when the sites are all merged into one, I think it will be an aid to being more organized with blogging.

But since I have had little to say, and didn’t want to go another day without having something for the reader, thought I would make three book recommendations, which are not puritan, but are definitely reformed.
There is much it seems to me, ignorance amongst the reformed community, (some of it at least) about what Calvin taught and thought exactly about the insitute of marriage and family. Calvin was very much a man of his times, and to read him in one place it seems like he contradicts himself in others; however, Calvin was no chauvinist, the woman was made equal and the heart of the home in Calvin’s Geneva. Same as the divorce laws we currently have,, originated from Calvin’s Geneva. Before that time, women were not seen as equal to the men in the home, they were treated often as slaves or children, or definitely as inferiors, and Calvin and his time in Geneva changed this, and we are still reaping the benefits of this today.
Yes, Calvin does seem to contradict himself on some subjects, but he wrote and lived so long ago, that we only have the translated works of Calvin, (for English speaking folk) and language and use of it, has changed since his time, and some of what is translated is likely very far from what Calvin originally intended, hence we are left with what often appears contradictions.
But two books on this subject I would reccommend are:

Sex, Marriage, and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva.

Family Reformation: The Legacy of Sola Scriptura in Calvin’s Geneva by Scott T. Brown

And

The third book, if you are an iconoclast though written by a papist it is a very good book to read on this subject by Carlos Eires called
The War against Idols. Which starts pre reformation and goes up to Calvin’s time, and how idols in the Worship of God were seen by the Church.

It is about time, we as Presbyterians took our foot out of Rome, which it is sad to say, much of Presbyterianism is still steeped by Romish superstition.

On  a sermon preached on December 25, 1551, his 20th sermon on Micah,  on  Micah: 5:7-14 Calvin preached:

Now, I see here today more people than I am accustomed to having at
the sermon. Why is that? It is Christmas Day. And who told you
this? You poor beasts. That is a fitting euphemism for all of you
who have come here today to honor Noel. Did you think you would be
honoring God? Consider what sort of obedience to God your coming
displays. In your mind, you are celebrating a holiday for God, or
turning today into one. But so much for that. In truth, as you have
often been admonished, it is good to set aside one day out of the year
in which we are reminded of all the good that has occurred because of
Christ’s birth in the world, and in which we hear the story of his
birth retold, which will be done on Sunday. But if you think that
Jesus Christ was born today, you are as crazed as wild beasts. For
when you elevate one day alone for the purpose of worshipping God, you
have just turned it into an idol. True, you insist that you have done
so for the honor of God, but it is more for the honor of the Devil.

Let us consider what our Lord has to say on the matter. Was it not
Saul’s intention to worship God when he spared Agag, the king of the
Amalakites, along with the best spoils and cattle? He says as much:
“I want to worship God.” Saul’s tongue was full of devotion and good
intention. But what was the response he received? “You soothsayer!
You heretic! You apostate! You claim to be honoring God, but God
rejects and disowns all that you have done” [1 Samuel 15:8,9].
Consequently, the same is true of our actions. For no day is superior
to another. It matters not whether we recall our Lord’s nativity on a
Wednesday, Thursday, or some other day. But when we insist on
establishing a service of worship based on our whim, we blaspheme God,
and create an idol, though we have done it all in the name of God.
And when you worship God in the idleness of a holiday spirit, that is
a heavey sin to bear, and one which attracts others about it, until we
reach the height of iniquity. Therefore, let us pay attention to what
Micah is saying here [Micah 5:7-14], that God must not only strip away
things that are bad themselves, but must also eliminate anything that
might foster superstition. Once we have understood that, we will no
longer find it strange that Noel is not being observed today, but that
on Sunday we will celebrate the Lord’s Supper and recite the story of
the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ. But to all those who barely
know Jesus Christ, or that we must be subject to him, and that God
removes all those impediments that prevent us from coming to him,
these folks, I say, will at best grit their teeth. They came here in
anticipation of celebrating a wrong intention, but will leave with it
wholly unfulfilled.

The Westminster Confession of faith, chapter XXI says thus:

I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the hearth, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.

The Directory for The Public Worship of God, also penned by the Westminster Divines, says thus:

THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is the Christian Sabbath.

Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.

Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people.

As no place is capable of any holiness, under pretence of whatsoever dedication or consecration; so neither is it subject to such pollution by any superstition formerly used, and now laid aside, as may render it unlawful or inconvenient for Christians to meet together therein for the publick worship of God. And therefore we hold it requisite, that the places of publick assembling for worship among us should be continued and employed to that use.

The Reformation was built and stood on the principles of Sola Scriptura. By Scripture Alone. The Regulative Principle also stands on the same principle. Can any Presbyterian, who denies or rejects the teachings of our Reformed fore-fathers, and instead opts for celebrating the Christ mass and Easter, expressly rejected by our Reformed fore-fathers,  and even more importantly has no warrant from the word of God, in truth say they are reformed? Because I humbly suggest they cannot. There is far more to Calvinism than T.U.L.I.P. Calvin’s Calvinism, is not met by the majority of the Reformed churches today, they say they are following Calvin while practicing entirely opposing things to what man himself did.
There is a huge difference in my opinion, in people who are open to the truth, but may not have arrived at a full understanding of this yet,  to those who just utterly reject this principle, on no Biblical grounds whatsoever. Scripture is either sufficient or is it not? And if Sola Scriptura is what the Reformation was built upon, why would Reformed people now want to add to Scripture? The argument is commonly used that God never forbade it. It’s something I don’t have the health to go into at this point in time, but, He never commanded it. And in other places in Scripture one can only draw the conclusion by sure and necessary consequence it is an abomination in his site, and an unacceptable sacrifice.

Is any Presbyterian who may read this, willing to argue against Sola Scriptura?  And if not, if also partaking of man made festival days, we are expressly denying the sufficiency of Scripture while proclaiming with our lips by Scripture alone.  As I have said a thousand times,  Actions speak much louder than words.

Shortly after, if not before, the publication of his great work, in March, 1536, Calvin, in company with Louis du Tillet, crossed the Alps to Italy, the classical soil of the literary and artistic Renaissance. He hoped to aid the cause of the religious Renaissance. He went to Italy as an evangelist, not as a monk, like Luther, who learned at Rome a practical lesson of the working of the papacy.

He spent a few months in Ferrara at the brilliant court of the Duchess Renée or Renata (1511–1575), the second daughter of Louis XII., of France, and made a deep and permanent impression on her. She had probably heard of him through Queen Marguerite and invited him to a visit. She was a small and deformed, but noble, pious, and highly accomplished lady, like her friends, Queen Marguerite and Vittoria Colonna. She gathered around her the brightest wits of the Renaissance, from Italy and France, but she sympathized still more with the spirit of the Reformation, and was fairly captivated by Calvin. She chose him as the guide of her conscience, and consulted him hereafter as a spiritual father as long as he lived.462462 Beza (xxi. 123): “Illam [Ferrariensem Ducissam]in vero pietatis studio confirmavit, ut eum postea vivum semper dilexerit, ac nunc quoque superstes gratae in defunctum memoriae specimen edat luculentum.” Colladon (53) speaks likewise of the high esteem in which the Duchess, then still living, held Calvin before and after his death. Bolsec in his libel (Ch. v. 30), mentions the visit to Ferrara, but suggests a mercenary, motive. “Calvin,” he says, “s’en alla vers Allemaigne et Itallie: cherchant son adventure, et passa par la ville de Ferrare, ou il receut quelque aumone de Madame la Duchesse.” He discharged this duty with the frankness and fidelity of a Christian pastor. Nothing can be more manly and honorable than his letters to her. Guizot affirms, from competent knowledge, that “the great Catholic bishops, who in the seventeenth century directed the consciences of the mightiest men in France, did not fulfil the difficult task with more Christian firmness, intelligent justice and knowledge of the world than Calvin displayed in his intercourse with the Duchess of Ferrara.”463463 St. Louis and Calvin, p. 207. He adds: “And the duchess was not the only, person towards whom he fulfilled this duty of a Christian pastor. His correspondence shows that he exercised a similar influence, in a spirit equally lofty and judicious, over the consciences of many Protestants.”

Renan wonders that such a stern moralist should have exercised a lasting influence over such a lady, and attributes it to the force of conviction. But the bond of union was deeper. She recognized in Calvin the man who could satisfy her spiritual nature and give her strength and comfort to fight the battle of life, to face the danger of the Inquisition, to suffer imprisonment, and after the death of her husband and her return to France (1559) openly to confess and to maintain the evangelical faith under most trying circumstances when her own son-in-law, the Duke of Guise, carried on a war of extermination against the Reformation. She continued to correspond with Calvin very freely, and his last letter in French, twenty-three days before his death, was directed to her. She was in Paris during the dreadful massacre of St. Bartholomew, and succeeded in saving the lives of some prominent Huguenots.464464 See the correspondence in the Letters by Bonnet, and in the Strassburg-Braunschweig edition. On Renée and her relation to Calvin see Henry, I. 159, 450-454; III. Beilage 142-153; in his smaller work, 62-69; 478-483; Stähelin, I. 94-108; Sophia W. Weitzel, Renée of France, Duchess of Ferrara, New York, 1883; and Theod. Schott, in Herzog2, XII. 693-701.

Threatened by the Inquisition which then began its work of crushing out both the Renaissance and the Reformation, as two kindred serpents, Calvin bent his way, probably through Aosta (the birthplace of Anselm of Canterbury) and over the Great St. Bernard, to Switzerland.

An uncertain tradition connects with this journey a persecution and flight of Calvin in the valley of Aosta, which was commemorated five years later (1541) by a memorial cross with the inscription “Calvini Fuga.”465465 In the city of Aosta, near the Croix-de-Ville, stands a column eight feet high, surmounted by a cross of stone, with the following inscription:
Hanc
Calvini Fuga
erexit
Anno MDXLI
Religionis Constantia
Reparavit
Anno MDCCXLI.
The inscription was renewed again in 1841, with the following addition (according to Merle d’Aubigné, who saw it himself, vol. V. 531):
Civium Munificentia
Renovavit Et Adornavit.
Anno MDCCCXLI.
“Religionis constantia” must refer to the Roman faith which drove Calvin and his heresy away. Dr. Merle d’Aubigné accepts Calvin’s flight on the ground of this monumental testimony as a historical fact, but the silence of Calvin, Beza, and Colladon throws doubt on it. See J. Bonnet, Calvin au Val d’Aosta, 1861; A. Rilliet, Lettre àMr. Merle d’Aubignésur deux points obscure de la vie de Calvin, 1864; Stähelin, I. 110; Kampschulte, I. 280 (note); La France Prof., III. 520; Thomas M’Crie, The Early Years of Calvin pp. 95 and 104.
Fontana: Documenti del archivio vaticano e dell’ Estenso circa soggiorno di Calvino a Ferrara, 1885. Comba in “Rivista christiana,” 1885; Sandovini in Rivista stor. italiana,” 1887.

At Basel he parted from Du Tillet and paid a last visit to his native town to make a final settlement of family affairs.466466 This visit to Noyon is mentioned by Beza in the Latin Vita, who adds that he then brought his only surviving brother Antoine, with him to Geneva (XXI. 125). Colladon (58) agrees, and informs us that Calvin left Du Tillet at Basel, who from there went to Neuchâtel. In his French Life of C., Beza omits the journey to France: “A son retour d’Italie … il passa àla bonne heure par ceste ville de Genève.”

Then he left France, with his younger brother Antoine and his sister Marie, forever, hoping to settle down in Basel or Strassburg and to lead there the quiet life of a scholar and author. Owing to the disturbances of war between Charles V. and Francis I., which closed the direct route through Lorraine, he had to take a circuitous journey through Geneva.

The above is from Phillip Schaff’s history of the Christian Church. But there are some additions I want to make about this great French Hugeonot heroine. Calvin’s friendship had sowed such strength in her, that when she returned to France, after all her friends had been exiled out of Italy, and she was given an ultimatum to either convert to Rome or leave the country, she went back to her homeland for the first time in 30 years. Her castle became a refuge for French Hugeonot refugees. The castle was often rioted against by the Duke of Guise, a bigotted roman catholic and her son-in-law. The castle became known as the “Hotel of the Lord.” At one time at the castle she had 300 refugees at her table.
The Roman Church was of course incensed by her favour and mercy to the protestants. Her Son in law, the Duke of guise threatened that if she did not leave, that he would send his army to destroy the castle and all the preachers within it. When the Army general sent by the Duke of Guise to carry out his threat, accompanied by six company of soldiers, made the ultimatum to leave or else. This frail, prematurely aged woman, replied: “Malacorn, consider well what you do, for no man in the kingdom has a right to command me but the King. If you advance, I will put myself into the breach, and see whether you will have the audacity to kill a King’s daughter, whose death, heaven and earth will avenge on you, and your seed even to the children of the cradle.”

The General and his six company of soldiers, faced by this frail, woman, played the coward, and stepped down. God was with her. Another great heroine of the REformation.  Calvin’s last three French letters by the way, were addressed to this woman.

That Man of Lawlessness-Son of Perdition Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. >Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. [2 Thess 2]

That Man of Lawlessness-Son of Perdition Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. >Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. [2 Thess 2]

Pope Gregory I was a powerful man, as the pope but the office then had nowhere near the power it wielded in later years.

These were Pope Gregory I words when a guy named John in Constantinople wanted to claim for himself the title of the Universal Bishop.A word the papacy has used for a long time now. Pope Gregory didn’trefute and rebuke this guy John because he wanted the title for himself, he refuted and rebuked him,because he could see how wrong it was. Please note carefully Pope Gregory’s usage of the term Anti-Christ, to anyone who takes and uses the name The Universal Bishop of the Church.

"The whole church falls from its condition if anyone who is called universal falls. For our brother and fellow Bishop to take the name of sole Bishop, despising all others is a very sad thing to bear patiently. But what else does this pride of his signify except that the times of Anti-Christ are already near at hand. For he’s obviously imitating Him, who spurning fellowship with the angels tried to climb to the pinnacle of uniqueness. None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word. For clearly, if one Patriarch is called universal then the name patriarch is taken away from the rest. But let this be far from the Christian mind that anyone should wish to claim for himself an advantage by which to threaten the honor of his brethren in the slightest degree. To consent to this wicked word is nothing less than to destroy the faith. Its one thing that we should preserve unity of faith, another that we ought to repress self-exaltation, but I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself universal Bishop or wishes to be called so, is in his self-exaltation Anti-Christ’s precursor. For in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest. I have said the church cannot have peace with us unless he corrects his pride over superstition and proud words which the first apostate invented. And if one Bishop is called universal the universal church goes down, when the universal bishop falls.".