Revisions adopted by the
E. G. White TrusteesNovember 19, 1956, and December 6, 1979
Page 50. [Return to Page:
Titles. —In a passage which is included in the Roman Catholic Canon Law, or
Corpus Juris Canonici, Pope Innocent III declares that the Roman pontiff is
“the vicegerent upon earth, not of a mere man, but of very God;” and in a gloss
on the passage it is explained that this is because he is the vicegerent of
Christ, who is “very God and very man.” See Decretales Domini Gregorii Papae
IX (Decretals of the Lord Pope Gregory IX), liber 1, de translatione
Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops), title 7, ch. 3; Corpus
Juris Canonici (2d Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2,
Decretales, col. 205. The documents which formed the Decretals were gathered
by Gratian, who was teaching at the University of Bologna about the year 1140.
His work was added to and re-edited by Pope Gregory IX in an edition issued in
1234. Other documents appeared in succeeding years from time to time including
the Extravagantes, added toward the close of the fifteenth century. All
of these, with Gratian’s Decretum, were published as the Corpus Juris
Canonici in 1582. Pope Pius X authorized the codification in Canon law in
1904, and the resulting code became effective in 1918.
For the title “Lord God the Pope” see a gloss on the Extravagantes
of Pope John XXII, title 14, ch. 4, Declaramus. In an Antwerp edition of
the Extravagantes, dated 1584, the words “Dominum Deum nostrum Papam”
(“Our Lord God the Pope”) occur in column 153. In a Paris edition, dated 1612,
they occur in column 140. In several editions published since 1612 the word
“Deum” (“God”) has been omitted.
Page 50. [Return to Page:
Infallibility. —On the doctrine of infallibility as set forth at the Vatican
Council of 1870-71, see Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2,
Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, pp. 234-271, where both the
Latin and the English texts are given. For discussion see, for the Roman
Catholic view, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, art. “Infallibility,”
by Patrick J. Toner, p. 790 ff.; James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our
Fathers (Baltimore: John Murphy Company, 110th ed., 1917), chs. 7, 11. For
Roman Catholic opposition to the doctrine of papal infallibility, see Johann
Joseph Ignaz von Doellinger (pseudonym “Janus”) The Pope and the Council
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1869); and W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman
Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909). For
the non-Roman view, see George Salmon, Infallibility of the Church
(London: John Murray, rev. ed., 1914).
Page 52. [Return to Page:
Image worship. —“The worship of images . . . was one of those corruptions of
Christianity which crept into the church stealthily and almost without notice or
observation. This corruption did not, like other heresies, develop itself at
once, for in that case it would have met with decided censure and rebuke: but,
making its commencement under a fair disguise, so gradually was one practice
after another introduced in connection with it, that the church had become
deeply steeped in practical idolatry, not only without any efficient opposition,
but almost without any decided remonstrance; and when at length an endeavor was
made to root it out, the evil was found too deeply fixed to admit of removal. .
. . It must be traced to the idolatrous tendency of the human heart, and its
propensity to serve the creature more than the Creator. . . .
“Images and pictures were first introduced into churches, not to be
worshiped, but either in the place of books to give instruction to those who
could not read, or to excite devotion in the minds of others. How far they ever
answered such a purpose is doubtful; but, even granting that this was the case
for a time, it soon ceased to be so, and it was found that pictures and images
brought into churches darkened rather than enlightened the minds of the
ignorant—degraded rather than exalted the devotion of the worshiper. So that,
however they might have been intended to direct men’s minds to God, they ended
in turning them from Him to the worship of created things.” —J. Mendham, The
Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicaea, Introduction, pages iii-vi.
For a record of the proceedings and decisions of the Second Council of
Nicaea, A.D. 787, called to establish the worship of images, see Baronius,
Ecclesiastical Annals, vol. 9, pp. 391-407 (Antwerp, 1612); J. Mendham,
The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicaea; Ed. Stillingfleet,
Defense of the Discourse Concerning the Idolatry Practiced in the Church of Rome
(London, 1686); A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d
series, vol. 14, pp. 521-587 (New York, 1900); Charles J. Hefele, A History
of the Councils of the Church, From the Original Documents, b. 18, ch. 1,
secs. 332, 333; ch. 2, secs. 345-352 (T. and T. Clark ed., 1896), vol. 5, pp.
Page 53. [Return to Pages:
The Sunday Law of Constantine. —The law issued by the emperor Constantine on the
seventh of March, A.D. 321, regarding a day of rest from labor, reads thus:
“All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the
venerable Day of the Sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the
cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other days are
better adapted for planting the grain in the furrows or the vines in trenches.
So that the advantage given by heavenly providence may not for the occasion of a
short time perish.” —Joseph Cullen Ayer, A Source Book for Ancient Church
History (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), div. 2, per. 1, ch. 1,
sec. 59, g, pp. 284, 285.
The Latin original is in the Codex Justiniani (Codex of Justinian),
lib. 3, title 12, lex. 3. The law is given in Latin and in English translation
in Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, 3d period, ch.
7, sec. 75, p. 380, footnote 1; and in James A. Hessey’s Bampton Lectures,
Sunday, lecture 3, par. 1, 3d ed., Murray’s printing of 1866, p. 58. See
discussion in Schaff, as above referred to; in Albert Henry Newman, A Manual
of Church History (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society,
printing of 1933), rev. ed., vol. 1, pp. 305-307; and in Leroy E. Froom, The
Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald
Publishing Assn., 1950), vol. 1, pp. 376-381.
Page 54. [Return to Pages:
Prophetic dates. —An important principle in prophetic interpretation in
connection with time prophecies is the year-day principle, under which a day of
prophetic time is counted as a calendar year of historic time. Before the
Israelites entered the land of Canaan they sent twelve spies ahead to
investigate. The spies were gone forty days, and upon their return the Hebrews,
frightened at their report, refused to go up and occupy the Promised Land. The
result was a sentence the Lord passed upon them: “After the number of the days
in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye
bear your iniquities, even forty years.” Numbers 14:34. A similar method of
computing future time is indicated through the prophet Ezekiel. Forty years of
punishment for iniquities awaited the kingdom of Judah. The Lord said through
the prophet: “Lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of
the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.”
Ezekiel 4:6. This year-day principle has an important application in
interpreting the time of the prophecy of the “two thousand and three hundred
evenings and mornings” (Daniel 8:14, R.V.) and the 1260-day period, variously
indicated as “a time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25), the
“forty and two months” (Revelation 11:2; 13:5), and the “thousand two hundred
and threescore days” (Revelation 11:3; 12:6).
Page 56. [Return to Page:
Forged writings. —Among the documents that at the present time are generally
admitted to be forgeries, the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian
Decretals are of primary importance. “The ‘Donation of Constantine’ is the name
traditionally applied, since the later Middle Ages, to a document purporting to
have been addressed by Constantine the Great to Pope Sylvester I, which is found
first in a Parisian manuscript (Codex lat. 2777) of probably the
beginning of the ninth century. Since the eleventh century it has been used as a
powerful argument in favor of the papal claims, and consequently since the
twelfth it has been the subject of a vigorous controversy. At the same time, by
rendering it possible to regard the papacy as a middle term between the original
and the medieval Roman Empire, and thus to form a theoretical basis of
continuity for the reception of the Roman law in the Middle Ages, it has had no
small influence upon secular history.” —The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge, vol. 3, art. “Donation of constantine,” pp. 484, 485.
The historical theory developed in the “Donation” is fully discussed in
Henry E. Cardinal Manning’s The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ,
London, 1862. The arguments of the “Donation” were of a scholastic type, and the
possibility of a forgery was not mentioned until the rise of historical
criticism in the fifteenth century. Nicholas of Cusa was among the first to
conclude that Constantine never made any such donation. Lorenza Valla in Italy
gave a brilliant demonstration of its spuriousness in 1450. See Christopher B.
Coleman’s Treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine (New
York, 1927). For a century longer, however, the belief in the authenticity of
the “Donation” and of the False Decretals was kept alive. For example,
Martin Luther at first accepted the decretals, but he soon said to Eck: “I
impugn these decretals;” and to Spalatin: “He [the pope] does in his decretals
corrupt and crucify Christ, that is, the truth.”
It is deemed established that the “donation” is (1) a forgery, (2) the
work of one man or period, (3) the forger has made use of older documents, (4)
the forgery originated around 752 and 778. As for the Catholics, they abandoned
the defense of the authenticity of the document with Baronius, Ecclesiastical
Annals, in 1592. Consult for the best text, K. Zeumer, in the Festgabe
fur Rudolf von Gneist (Berlin, 1888). Translat- ed in Coleman’s Treatise,
referred to above, and in Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of
the Middle Ages (New York, 1892), p. 319; Briefwechsel (Weimar ed.),
pp. 141, 161. See also The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge (1950), vol. 3, p. 484; F. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages,
vol. 2, p. 329; and Johann Joseph Ignaz von Doellinger, Fables Respecting the
Popes of the Middle Ages (London, 1871).
The “false writings” referred to in the text include also the Pseudo-Isidorian
Decretals, together with other forgeries. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are
certain fictitious letters ascribed to early popes from Clement (A.D. 100) to
Gregory the Great (A.D. 600), incorporated in a ninth century collection
purporting to have been made by “Isidore Mercator.” The name “Pseudo-Isidorian
Decretals” has been in use since the advent of criticism in the fifteenth
Pseudo-Isidore took as the basis of his forgeries a collection of valid
canons called the Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis, thus lessening the
danger of detection, since collections of canons were commonly made by adding
new matter to old. Thus his forgeries were less apparent when incorporated with
genuine material. The falsity of the Pseudo-Isidorian fabrications is now
incontestably admitted, being proved by internal evidence, investigation of the
sources, the methods used, and the fact that this material was unknown before
852. Historians agree that 850 or 851 is the most probable date for the
completion of the collection, since the document is first cited in the
Admonitio of the capitulary of Quiercy, in 857.
The author of these forgeries is not known. It is probable that they
emanated from the aggressive new church party which formed in the ninth century
at Rheims, France. It is agreed that Bishop Hincmar of Rheims used these
decretals in his deposition of Rothad of Soissons, who brought the decretals to
Rome in 864 and laid them before Pope Nicholas I.
Among those who challenged their authenticity were Nicholas of Cusa
(1401-1464), Charles Dumoulin (1500-1566), and George Cassender (1513- 1564).
The irrefutable proof of their falsity was conveyed by David Blondel, 1628.
An early edition is given in Migne Patrolgia Latina, CXXX. For the
oldest and best manuscript, see P. Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianiae
at capitula Angilramni (Leipzig, 1863). Consult The New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1950), vol. 9, pp. 343-345. See also H.
H. Milman, Latin Christianity (9 vols.), vol. 3; Johann Joseph Ignaz von
Doellinger, The Pope and the Council (1869); and Kenneth Scott Latourette,
A History of the Expansion of Christianity (1939), vol. 3; The
Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, art. “False Decretals,” and Fournier, “Etudes
sure les Fausses Decretals,” in Revue d’Historique Ecclesiastique
(Louvain) vol. 7 (1906), and vol. 8 (1907).
Page 57. [Return to Page:
Dictate of Hildebrand (Gregory VII). —For the original Latin version see
Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, ann. 1076, vol. 17, pp. 405, 406 of the
Paris printing of 1869; and the Monumenta Germaniae Historica Selecta,
vol. 3, p. 17. For an English translation see Frederic A. Ogg, Source Book of
Medieval History (New York: American Book Co., 1907), ch. 6, sec. 45, pp.
262-264; and Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar H. Mcneal, source Book for Medieval
History (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905), sec. 3, item 65, pp.
For a discussion of the background of the Dictate, see James Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire, rev. ed., ch. 10; and James W. Thompson and Edgar
N. Johnson, An Introduction to Medieval Europe, 300-1500, pages 377-380.
Page 59. [Return to Page:
Purgatory. —Dr. Joseph Faa Di Bruno thus defines purgatory: “Purgatory is a
state of suffering after this life, in which those souls are for a time
detained, who depart this life after their deadly sins have been remitted as to
the stain and guilt, and as to the everlasting pain that was due to them; but
who have on account of those sins still some debt of temporal punishment to pay;
as also those souls which leave this world guilty only of venial sins.” —Catholic
Belief (1884 ed.; imprimatur Archbishop of New York), page 196.
See also K. R. Hagenbach, Compendium of the History of Doctrines
(T. and T. Clark ed.) vol. 1, pp. 234-237, 405, 408; vol. 2, pp. 135-150, 308,
309; Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, b. 2, ch. 12;
The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 12, art. “Purgatory.”
Page 59. [Return to Pages:
Indulgences. —For a detailed history of the doctrine of indulgences see Mandell
Creighton, A History of the Papacy from The Great Schism to the Sack
of Rome (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1911), vol. 5, pp. 56-64, 71; W.
H. Kent, “Indulgences,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, pp. 783-789;
H. C. Lea, A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin
Church (Philadelphia: Lea Brothers and Co., 1896); Thomas M. Lindsay, A
History of the Reformation (New York; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917), vol.
1, pp. 216-227; Albert Henry Newman, A Manual of Church History
(Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1953), vol. 2, pp. 53,
54, 62; Leopold Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany (2d London
ed., 1845), translated by Sarah Austin, vol. 1, pp. 331, 335-337, 343-346;
Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation (New York: Henry Holt and
Company, 1920), pp. 23-25, 66.
On the practical outworkings of the doctrine of indulgences during the
period of the Reformation see a paper by Dr. H. C. Lea, entitled, “Indulgences
in Spain,” published in Papers of the American Society of Church History,
vol. 1, pp. 129-171. Of the value of this historical sidelight Dr. Lea says in
his opening paragraph: “Unvexed by the controversy which raged between Luther
and Dr. Eck and Silvester Prierias, Spain continued tranquilly to follow in the
old and beaten path, and furnishes us with the incontestable official documents
which enable us to examine the matter in the pure light of history.”
Page 59. [Return to Page:
Mass. —For the doctrine of the mass as set forth at the Council of Trent see
The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent in Philip Schaff, Creeds
of Christendom, vol. 2, pp. 126-139, where both Latin and English texts are
given. See also H. G. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
(St. Louis, Missouri: B. Herder, 1941).
For a discussion of the mass see The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 5,
art. "Eucharist,” by Joseph Pohle, page 572 ff.; Nikolaus Gihr, Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass, Dogmatically, Liturgically, Ascetically Explained,
12th ed. (St. Louis, Missouri: B. Herder, 1937); Josef Andreas Jungmann, The
Mass of the Roman Rite, Its Origins and Development, translated from the
German by Francis A. Brunner (New York: Benziger Bros., 1951). For the
non-Catholic view, see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,
b. 4, chs. 17, 18; and Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real
Presence (Oxford, England: John H. Parker, 1855).
Page 65. [Return to Page:
Sabbath Among the Waldenses. —There are writers who have maintained that the
Waldenses made a general practice of observing the seventh-day Sabbath. This
concept arose from sources which in the original Latin describe the Waldenses as
keeping the Dies Dominicalis, or Lord’s day (Sunday), but in which
through a practice which dates from the Reformation, the word for “Sunday” has
been translated “Sabbath.”
But there is historical evidence of some observance of the seventh-day
Sabbath among the Waldenses. A report of an inquisition before whom were brought
some Waldenses of Moravia in the middle of the fifteenth century declares that
among the Waldenses “not a few indeed celebrate the Sabbath with the Jews.”
—Johann Joseph Ignaz von Doellinger, Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des
Mittelalters (Reports on the History of the Sects of the Middle Ages),
Munich, 1890, 2d pt., p. 661. There can be no question that this source
indicates the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.
Page 65. [Return to Page:
Waldensian Versions of the Bible. —On recent discoveries of Waldensian
manuscripts see M. Esposito, “Sur quelques manuscrits de l’ancienne litterature
des Vaudois du Piemont,” in Revue d’Historique Ecclesiastique (Louvain,
1951), p. 130 ff.; F. Jostes, “Die Waldenserbibeln,” in Historisches Jahrbuch,
1894; D. Lortsch, Histoire de la Bible en France (Paris, 1910), ch. 10.
A classic written by one of the Waldensian “barbs” is Jean Leger,
Histoire Generale des Eglises Evangeliques des Vallees de Piemont (Leyden,
1669), which was written at the time of the great persecutions and contains
firsthand information with drawings.
For the literature of Waldensian texts see A. Destefano, Civilta
Medioevale (1944); and Riformatori ed eretici nel medioeve (Palermo,
1938); J. D. Bounous, The Waldensian Patois of Pramol (Nashville, 1936);
and A. Dondaine, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum (1946).
For the history of the Waldenses some of the more recent, reliable works
are: E. Comba, History of the Waldenses in Italy (see later Italian
edition published in Torre Pellice, 1934); E. Gebhart, Mystics and Heretics
(Boston, 1927); G. Gonnet, Il Valdismo Medioevale, Prolegomeni (Torre
Pellice, 1935); and Jalla, Histoire des Vaudois et leurs colonies (Torre
Page 77. [Return to Page:
Edict Against the Waldenses. —A considerable portion of the text of the papal
bull issued by Innocent VIII in 1487 against the Waldenses (the original of
which is in the library of the University of Cambridge) is given, in an English
translation, in John Dowling’s History of Romanism (1871 ed.), b. 6, ch.
5, sec. 62.
Page 85. [Return to Page:
Wycliffe. —The historian discovers that the name of Wycliffe has many different
forms of spelling. For a full discussion of these see J. Dahmus, The
Prosecution of John Wyclyf (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), p. 7.
Page 86. [Return to Page:
For the original text of the papal bulls issued against Wycliffe with
English translation see J. Dahmus, The Prosecution of John Wyclyf (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), pp. 35-49; also John Foxe, Acts and
Monuments of the Church (London: Pratt Townsend, 1870), vol. 3, pp. 4-13.
For a summary of these bulls sent to the archbishop of Canterbury, to King
Edward, and to the chancellor of the University of Oxford, see Merle d’Aubigne,
The History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century (London: Blackie
and Son, 1885), vol. 4, div. 7, p. 93; August Neander, General History
of the Christian Church (Boston: Crocker and Brester, 1862), vol. 5, pp.
146, 147; George Sargeant, History of the Christian Church (Dallas:
Frederick Publishing House, 1948), p. 323; Gotthard V. Lechler, John Wycliffe
and His English Precursors (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1878), pp.
162-164; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915), vol. 5, pt. 2, p. 317.
Page 104. [Return to Page:
Council of Constance. —A primary source on the Council of Constance is Richendal
Ulrich, Das Concilium so zu Constanz gehalten ist worden (Augsburg, 1483,
Incun.). An interesting, recent study of this text, based on the “Aulendorf
Codex,” is in the Spencer Collection of the New York Public Library, published
by Carl Kup, Ulrich von Richental’s Chronicle of the Council of Constance
(New York, 1936). See also H. Finke (ed.), Acta Concilii Constanciensis
(1896), vol. 1; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte (9 vols.), vols. 6, 7; L.
Mirbt, Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums (1934); Milman, Latin
Christianity, vol. 7, pp. 426-524; Pastor, The History of the Popes
(34 vols.), vol. 1, p. 197 ff.
More recent publications on the council are K. Zaehringer, Das Kardinal
Kollegium auf dem Konstanzer Konzil (Muenster, 1935); Th. F. Grogau, The
Conciliar Theory as It Manifested Itself at the Council of Constance
(Washington, 1949); Fred A. Kremple, Cultural Aspects of the Council of
Constance and Basel (Ann Arbor, 1955); John Patrick McGowan, d’Ailly and
the Council of Constance (Washington: Catholic University, 1936).
For John Huss see John Hus, Letters, 1904; E. J. Kitts, Pope
John XXIII and Master John Hus (London, 1910); D. S. Schaff, John Hus
(1915); Schwarze, John Hus (1915); and Matthew Spinka, John Hus and
the Czech Reform (1941).
Page 234. [Return to Page:
Jesuitism. —For a statement concerning the origin, the principles, and the
purposes of the “Society of Jesus,” as outlined by members of this order, see a
work entitled Concerning Jesuits, edited by the Rev. John Gerard, S.J.,
and published in London, 1902, by the Catholic Truth Society. In this work it is
said, “The mainspring of the whole organization of the Society is a spirit of
entire obedience: ‘Let each one,’ writes St. Ignatius, ‘persuade himself that
those who live under obedience ought to allow themselves to be moved and
directed by divine Providence through their superiors, just as though they were
a dead body, which allows itself to be carried anywhere and to be treated in any
manner whatever, or as an old man’s staff, which serves him who holds it in his
hand in whatsoever way he will.’
“This absolute submission is ennobled by its motive, and should be,
continues the . . . founder, ‘prompt, joyous and persevering; . . . the obedient
religious accomplishes joyfully that which his superiors have confided to him
for the general good, assured that thereby he corresponds truly with the divine
will.’” —The Comtesse R. de Courson, in Concerning Jesuits, page 6. See
also L. E. Dupin, A Compendious History of the Church, cent. 16, ch. 33
(London, 1713, vol. 4, pp. 132-135); Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History,
cent. 16, sec. 3, pt. 1, ch. 1, par. 10 (including notes); The Encyclopedia
Britannica (9th ed.), art. “Jesuits;” C. Paroissen, The Principles of the
Jesuits, Developed in a Collection of Extracts From Their Own Authors
(London, 1860—an earlier edition appeared in 1839); W. C. Cartwright, The
Jesuits, Their Constitution and Teaching (London, 1876); E. L. Taunton,
The History of the Jesuits in England, 1580-1773 (London, 1901).
See also H. Boehmer, The Jesuits (translation from the German,
Philadelphia, Castle Press, 1928 ); E. Goethein, Ignatius Loyola and the
Gegen-reformation (Halle, 1895); T. Campbell, The Jesuits, 1534-1921
(New York, 1922); E. L. Taunton, The History of the Jesuits in England,
1580-1773 (London, 1901).
Page 235. [Return to Page:
The Inquisition. —For the Roman Catholic view see The Catholic Encyclopedia,
vol. 8, art. “Inquisition” by Joseph Bloetzer, p. 26 ff.: and E. Vacandard,
The Inquisition: A Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power of the
Church (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1908).
For an Anglo-Catholic view see Hoffman Nickerson, The Inquisition: A
Political and Military Study of Its Establishment. For the non-Catholic view
see Philip Van Limborch, History of the Inquisition; Henry Charles Lea,
A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, 3 vols.; A History of
the Inquisition of Spain, 4 vols., and The Inquisition in the Spanish
Dependencies; and H. S. Turberville, Medieval Heresy and the Inquisition
(London: C. Lockwood and Son, 1920—a mediating view).
Page 265. [Return to Page:
Causes of the French Revolution. —On the far-reaching consequences of the
rejection of the Bible and of Bible religion, by the people of France, see H.
von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, b. 5, ch. 1, pars. 3-7;
Henry Thomas Buckle, History of Civilization in England, chs. 8 , 12, 14
(New York, 1895, vol. 1, pp. 364-366, 369-371, 437, 540, 541, 550);
Blackwood’s Magazine, vol. 34, No. 215 (November, 1833), p. 739; J. G.
Lorimer, An Historical Sketch of the Protestant Church in France, ch. 8,
pars. 6, 7.
Page 267. [Return to Page:
Efforts to Suppress and Destroy the Bible. —The Council of Toulouse, which met
about the time of the crusade against the Albigenses, ruled: “We prohibit laymen
possessing copies of the Old and New Testament. . . . We forbid them most
severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular.” “The lords of the
districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and
forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out.” —Concil.
Tolosanum, Pope Gregory IX, Anno. chr. 1229. Canons 14 and 2. This Council
sat at the time of the crusade against the Albigenses.
“This pest [the bible] had taken such an extension that some people had
appointed priests of their own, and even some evangelists who distorted and
destroyed the truth of the gospel and made new gospels for their own purpose . .
. (they know that) the preaching and explanation of the Bible is absolutely
forbidden to the lay members.” —Acts of Inquisition, Philip van Limborch,
History of the Inquisition, chapter 8.
The Council of Tarragona, 1234, ruled that: “No one may possess the books
of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses
them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after
promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or
a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.” —D. Lortsch,
Histoire de la Bible en France, 1910, p. 14.
At the Council of Constance, in 1415, Wycliffe was posthumously condemned
by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury, as “that pestilent wretch of damnable
heresy who invented a new translation of the Scriptures in his mother tongue.”
The opposition to the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church has continued
through the centuries and was increased particularly at the time of the founding
of Bible societies. On December 8, 1866, Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical
Quanta cura, issued a syllabus of eighty errors under ten different
headings. Under heading IV we find listed: “Socialism, communism, clandestine
societies, Bible societies. . . . Pests of this sort must be destroyed by all
Page 276. [Return to Page:
The Reign of Terror. —For a reliable, brief introduction into the history of the
French Revolution see L. Gershoy, The French Revolution (1932); G.
Lefebvre, The Coming of the French Revolution (Princeton, 1947); and H.
von Sybel, History of the French Revolution (1869), 4 vols.
The Moniteur Officiel was the government paper at the time of the
Revolution and is a primary source, containing a factual account of actions
taken by the Assemblies, full texts of the documents, etc. It has been
reprinted. See also A. Aulard, Christianity and the French Revolution
(London, 1927), in which the account is carried through 1802—an excellent study;
W. H. Jervis, The Gallican Church and the Revolution (London, 1882), a
careful work by an Anglican, but shows preference for Catholicism.
On the relation of church and state in france during the French Revolution
see Henry H. Walsh, The Concordate of 1801: A Study of Nationalism in
Relation to Church and State (New York, 1933); Charles Ledre, L’Eglise de
France sous la Revolution (Paris, 1949).
Some contemporary studies on the religious significance of the Revolution
are G. Chais de Sourcesol, Le Livre des Manifestes (Avignon, 1800), in
which the author endeavored to ascertain the causes of the upheaval, and its
religious significance, etc.; James Bicheno, The Signs of the Times
(London, 1794); James Winthrop, A Systematic Arrangement of Several Scripture
Prophecies Relating to Antichrist; With Their Application to the Course of
History (Boston, 1795); and Lathrop, The Prophecy of Daniel Relating to
the Time of the End (Springfield, Massachusetts, 1811).
For the church during the Revolution see W. M. Sloan, The French
Revolution and Religious Reform (1901); P. F. La Gorce, Histoire
Religieuse de la Revolution (Paris, 1909).
On relations with the papacy see G. Bourgin, La France et Rome de
1788-1797 (Paris, 1808), based on secret files in the Vatican; A. Latreille,
L’Eglise Catholique et la Revolution (Paris, 1950), especially
interesting on Pius VI and the religious crisis, 1775-1799.
For Protestants during the Revolution, see Pressense (ed.), The Reign
of Terror (Cincinnati, 1869).
Page 280. [Return to Page:
The Masses and the Privileged Classes. —On social conditions prevailing in
France prior to the period of the Revolution, see H. von Holst, Lowell
Lectures on the French Revolution, lecture 1; also Taine, Ancien Regime,
and A. Young, Travels in France.
Page 283. [Return to Page:
Retribution. —For further details concerning the retributive character of the
French Revolution see Thos. H. Gill, The Papal Drama, b. 10; Edmond de
Pressense, The Church and the French Revolution, b. 3, ch. 1.
Page 284. [Return to Page:
The Atrocities of the Reign of Terror. —See M. A. Thiers, History of the
French Revolution, vol. 3, pp. 42-44, 62-74, 106 (New York, 1890, translated
by F. Shoberl); F. A. Mignet, History of the French Revolution, ch. 9,
par. 1 (Bohn, 1894); A. Alison, History of Europe, 1789-1815, vol. 1, ch.
14 (New York, 1872, vol. 1, pp. 293-312).
Page 287. [Return to Page:
The Circulation of the Scriptures. —In 1804, according to Mr. William Canton of
the British and Foreign Bible Society, “all the Bibles extant in the world, in
manuscript or in print, counting every version in every land, were computed at
not many more than four millions. . . . The various languages in which those
four millions were written, including such bygone speech as the Moeso-Gothic of
Ulfilas and the Anglo-Saxon of Bede, are set down as numbering about fifty.” —What
Is the Bible Society? rev. ed., 1904, p. 23.
The American Bible Society reported a distribution from 1816 through 1955
of 481,149,365 Bibles, Testaments, and portions of Testaments. To this may be
added over 600,000,000 Bibles or Scripture portions distributed by the British
and Foreign Bible Society. During the year 1955 alone the American Bible Society
distributed a grand total of 23,819,733 Bibles, Testaments, and portions of
Testaments throughout the world.
The Scriptures, in whole or in part, have been printed, as of December,
1955, in 1,092 languages; and new languages are constantly being added.
Page 288. [Return to Page:
Foreign missions. —The missionary activity of the early Christian church has not
been duplicated until modern times. It had virtually died out by the year 1000,
and was succeeded by the military campaigns of the Crusades. The Reformation era
saw little foreign mission work, except on the part of the early Jesuits. The
pietistic revival produced some missionaries. The work of the Moravian Church in
the eighteenth century was remarkable, and there were some missionary societies
formed by the British for work in colonized North America. But the great
resurgence of foreign missionary activity begins around the year 1800, at “the
time of the end.” Daniel 12:4. In 1792 was formed the Baptist Missionary
Society, which sent Carey to India. In 1795 the London Missionary Society was
organized, and another society in 1799 which in 1812 became the Church
Missionary Society. Shortly afterward the Wesleyan Missionary Society was
founded. In the United States the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions was formed in 1812, and Adoniram Judson was sent out that year to
Calcutta. He established himself in Burma the next year. In 1814 the American
Baptist Missionary Union was formed. The Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions
was formed in 1837.
“In A.D. 1800, . . . the overwhelming majority of Christians were the
descendants of those who had been won before A.D. 1500. . . . Now, in the
nineteenth century, came a further expansion of Christianity. Not so many
continents or major countries were entered for the first time as in the
preceding three centuries. That would have been impossible, for on all the
larger land masses of the earth except Australia and among all the more numerous
peoples and in all the areas of high civilization Christianity had been
introduced before A.D. 1800. What now occurred was the acquisition of fresh
footholds in regions and among peoples already touched, an expansion of
unprecedented extent from both the newer bases and the older ones, and the
entrance of Christianity into the large majority of such countries, islands,
peoples, and tribes as had previously not been touched. . . .
“The nineteenth century spread of Christianity was due primarily to a new
burst of religious life emanating from the Christian impulse. . . . Never in any
corresponding length of time had the Christian impulse given rise to so many new
movements. Never had it had quite so great an effect upon Western European
peoples. It was from this abounding vigor that there issued the missionary
enterprise which during the nineteenth century so augmented the numerical
strength and the influence of Christianity.” —Kenneth Scott Latourette, A
History of the Expansion of Christianity, vol. IV, The Great Century A.D.
1800-A.D. 1914 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941), pp. 2-4.
Pages 327, 329. [Return to Pages:
Prophetic Dates. —According to Jewish reckoning the fifth month (Ab) of the
seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign was from July 23 to August 21, 457 B.C. After
Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem in the autumn of the year, the decree of the king
went into effect. For the certainty of the date 457 B.C. being the seventh year
of Artaxerxes, see S. H. Horn and L. H. Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7
(Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1953); E. G. Kraeling,
The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven or London, 1953), pp.
191-193; The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D.C.:
Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1954), vol. 3, pp. 97-110.
Page 335. [Return to Page:
Fall of the Ottoman Empire. —The impact of Moslem Turkey upon Europe after the
fall of Constantinople in 1453 was as severe as had been the catastrophic
conquests of the Moslem Saracens, during the century and a half after the death
of Mohammed, upon the Eastern Roman Empire. Throughout the Reformation era,
Turkey was a continual threat at the eastern gates of European Christendom; the
writings of the Reformers are full of condemnation of the Ottoman power.
Christian writers since have been concerned with the role of Turkey in future
world events, and commentators on prophecy have seen Turkish power and its
decline forecast in Scripture.
For the latter chapter, under the “hour, day, month, year” prophecy, as
part of the sixth trumpet, Josiah Litch worked out an application of the time
prophecy, terminating Turkish independence in August, 1840. Litch’s view can be
found in full in his The Probability of the Second Coming of Christ About
A.D. 1843 (Published in June, 1838); An Address to the Clergy
(published in the spring of 1840; a second edition, with historical data in
support of the accuracy of former calculations of the prophetic period extending
to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, was published in 1841); and an article in
Signs of the Times and Expositor of Prophecy, Aug. 1, 1840. See also article
in Signs of the Times and Expositor of Prophecy, Feb. 1, 1841; and J. N.
Loughborough, The Great Advent Movement (1905 ed.), pp. 129-132. The book
by Uriah Smith, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, rev. ed. of 1944,
discusses the prophetic timing of this prophecy on pages 506-517.
For the earlier history of the Ottoman Empire and the decline of the
Turkish power, see also William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its
Successors, 1801-1927 (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1936); George
G. S. L. Eversley, The Turkish Empire from 1288 to 1914 (London : T.
Fisher Unwin, Ltd., 2d ed., 1923); Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte
des Osmannischen Reiches (Pesth: C. A. Hartleben, 2d ed., 1834-36), 4 vols.;
Herbert A. Gibbons, Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1403 (Oxford:
University Press, 1916); Arnold J. Toynbee and Kenneth B. Kirkwood, Turkey
Page 340. [Return to Pages:
Withholding the Bible From the People. —The reader will recognize that the text
of this volume was written prior to Vatican Council II, with its somewhat
altered policies in regard to the reading of the Scriptures.
Through the centuries, the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church toward
circulation of the Holy Scriptures in vernacular versions among the laity shows
up as negative. See for example G. P. Fisher, The Reformation, ch. 15,
par. 16 (1873 ed., pp. 530-532); J. Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our
Fathers, ch. 8 (49th ed., 1897), Pp. 98-117; John Dowling, History of
Romanism, b. 7, ch. 2, Sec. 14; and b. 9, ch. 3, secs. 24-27 (1871 ed., pp.
491-496, 621-625); L. F. Bungener, History of the Council of Trent, pp.
101-110 (2d Edinburgh ed., 1853, translated by D. D. Scott); G. H. Putnam,
Books and Their Makers During the Middle Ages, vol. 1, pt. 2, ch. 2, pars.
49, 54-56. See also Index of Prohibited Books (Vatican Polyglot Press,
1930), pp. ix, x; Timothy Hurley, A Commentary on the Present Index
Legislation (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1908), p. 71; Translation of
the Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII (New York: Benziger Brothers,
1903), p. 413.
But in recent years a dramatic and positive change has occurred in this
respect. On the one hand, the church has approved several versions prepared on
the basis of the original languages; on the other, it has promoted the study of
the Holy Scriptures by means of free distribution and Bible institutes. The
church, however, continues to reserve for herself the exclusive right to
interpret the Bible in the light of her own tradition, thus justifying those
doctrines that do not harmonize with biblical teachings.
Page 373. [Return to Page:
Ascension Robes. —The story that the Adventists made robes with which to ascend
“to meet the Lord in the air,” was invented by those who wished to reproach the
Advent preaching. It was circulated so industriously that many believed it, but
careful inquiry proved its falsity. For many years a substantial reward was
offered for proof that one such instance ever occurred, but no proof has been
produced. None who loved the appearing of the Saviour were so ignorant of the
teachings of the Scriptures as to suppose that robes which they could make would
be necessary for that occasion. The only robe which the saints will need to meet
the Lord is the righteousness of Christ. See Isaiah 61:10; Revelation 19:8.
For a thorough refutation of the legend of ascension robes, see Francis D.
Nichol, Midnight Cry (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing
Assn., 1944), chs. 25-27, and Appendices H-J. See also Leroy Edwin Froom,
Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald
Publishing Assn., 1954), vol. 4, pp. 822-826.
Page 374. [Return to Page:
The Chronology of Prophecy. —Dr. George Bush, professor of Hebrew and Oriental
Literature in the New York City University, in a letter addressed to William
Miller and published in the Advent Herald and Signs of the Times
Reporter, Boston, March 6 and 13, 1844, made some important admissions
relative to his calculation of the prophetic times. Dr. Bush wrote:
“Neither is it to be objected, as I conceive, to yourself or your friends,
that you have devoted much time and attention to the study of the chronology
of prophecy, and have labored much to determine the commencing and closing dates
of its great periods. If these periods are actually given by the Holy Ghost in
the prophetic books, it was doubtless with the design that they should be
studied, and probably, in the end, fully understood; and no man is to be charged
with presumptuous folly who reverently makes the attempt to do this. . . . In
taking a day as the prophetical term for a year, I believe you are
sustained by the soundest exegesis, as well as fortified by the high names of
Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Kirby, Scott, Keith, and a host of others
who have long since come to substantially your conclusions on this head.
They all agree that the leading periods mentioned by Daniel and John, do
actually expire about this age of the world, and it would be a strange
logic that would convict you of heresy for holding in effect the same views
which stand forth so prominent in the notices of these eminent divines.” “Your
results in this field of inquiry do not strike me so far out of the way as to
affect any of the great interests of truth or duty.” “Your error, as I
apprehend, lies in another direction than your chronology.” “You have
entirely mistaken the nature of the events which are to occur when those
periods have expired. This is the head and front of your expository offending.”
See also Leroy Edwin Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Washington,
D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1950), vol. 1, chs. 1, 2.
Page 435. [Return to Page:
Threefold Message. —Revelation 14:6, 7 foretells the proclamation of the first
angel’s message. Then the prophet continues: “There followed another angel,
saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen. . . . And the third angel followed them.”
The word here rendered “followed” means “to go along with,” “to follow one,” “go
with him.” See Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, Greek English Lexicon
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), vol. 1, p. 52. It also means “to accompany.”
See George Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament
(Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1950), page 17. It is the same word that is used in
mark 5:24, “Jesus went with him; and much people followed Him, and thronged
Him.” It is also used of the redeemed one hundred and forty-four thousand,
Revelation 14:4, where it is said, “These are they which follow the Lamb
whithersoever He goeth.” In both these places it is evident that the idea
intended to be conveyed is that of “going together,” “in company with.” So in 1
Corinthians 10:4, where we read of the children of Israel that “they drank of
that spiritual Rock that followed them,” the word “followed” is translated from
the same Greek word, and the margin has it, “went with them.” From this we learn
that the idea in Revelation 14:8, 9 is not simply that the second and third
angels followed the first in point of time, but that they went with him. The
three messages are but one threefold message. They are three only in the
order of their rise. But having risen, they go on together and are inseparable.
Page 447. [Return to Pages:
Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome. —For the leading circumstances in the
assumption of supremacy by the bishops of Rome, see Robert Francis Cardinal
Bellarmine, Power of the Popes in Temporal Affairs (there is an English
translation in the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.); Henry Edward
Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ
(London: Burns and Lambert, 2d ed., 1862); and James Cardinal Gibbons, Faith
of Our Fathers (Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 110th ed., 1917), chs. 5, 9, 10,
12. For Protestant authors see Trevor Gervase Jalland, The Church and the
Papacy (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1944, a Bampton
Lecture); and Richard Frederick Littledale, Petrine Claims (London:
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1899). For sources of the early
centuries of the Petrine theory, see James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis,
The See of Peter (New York: Columbia University Press, 1927). For the
false “Donation of Constantine” see Christopher B. Coleman, The Treatise of
Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine (New York, 1914), which gives
the full Latin text and translation, and a complete criticism of the document
and its thesis.
Page 565. [Return to Page:
Withholding the Bible from the People. —See
note for page 340.
Page 578. [Return to Page:
The Ethiopian Church and the Sabbath. —Until rather recent years the Coptic
Church of Ethiopia observed the seventh-day Sabbath. The Ethiopians also kept
Sunday, the first day of the week, throughout their history as a Christian
people. These days were marked by special services in the churches. The
observance of the seventh-day Sabbath has, however, virtually ceased in modern
Ethiopia. For eyewitness accounts of religious days in Ethiopia, see Pero Gomes
de Teixeira, The Discovery of Abyssinia by the Portuguese in 1520
(translated in English in London: British Museum, 1938), p. 79; Father Francisco
Alverez, Narrative of the Portuguese Embassy to Abyssinia During the Years
1520-1527, in the records of the Hakluyt Society (London, 1881), vol. 64,
pp. 22-49; Michael Russell, Nubia and Abyssinia (Quoting Father Lobo,
Catholic missionary in Ethiopia in 1622) (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1837),
pp. 226-229; S. Giacomo Baratti, Late Travels Into the Remote Countries of
Abyssinia (London: Benjamin Billingsley, 1670), pp. 134-137; Job Ludolphus,
A New History for Ethiopia (London: S. Smith, 1682), pp. 234-357; Samuel
Gobat, Journal of Three Years’ Residence in Abyssinia (New York: ed. of
1850), pp. 55-58, 83-98. For other works touching upon the question, see Peter
Heylyn, History of the Sabbath, 2d ed., 1636, vol. 2, pp. 198-200; Arthur
P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1882), lecture 1, par. 1; C. F. Rey, Romance of the
Portuguese in Abyssinia (London: F. H. and G. Witherley, 1929), pp. 59,