The age of Ahaziah in Chronicles

An explanation of the discrepancy of age found in 2 Chronicles 22:2:

"Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.''

Compare with 2 Kings 8:26:

"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.''

==__==__==__==__==__==__==__==__==__==__==

During the reigns of Jehoshapat in the south [house of Judah] and Ahab in the north [house of Omri], it is possible that both of these houses sought to achieve control in their own ways over the twelve tribes, through inheritance and marriage alliances.

Thus we read in 2 Chronicles 18:1 that Jehoshaphat “joined affinity” with Ahab at some point after the third year of his reign,1“Now Jehoshaphat had riches and honour in abundance, and joined affinity with Ahab.”
— 2 Chronicles 18:1
possibly to this end.

This might also serve to explain the overlapping names of four heirs at this era, two Ahaziahs (one from each house) and two Jehoram/Jorams2in scripture both individuals are referred to variously by either name (also one from each house).

Perhaps both houses were planning to establish their own lineage as the inheritors of both kingdoms, thus reuniting the “divided monarchy.”

To start with, Ahab’s order of succession was his son Ahaziah (the one who reigned in the north), and next in line was his other son Jehoram/Joram (the one who reigned in the north). This Ahaziah ruled for only one year (but two years counting inclusively, as the northern kings did3compare 1 Ki. 15:25 with 15:28,
1 Ki. 16:8 with 16:10,
1 Ki. 22:51 with 2 Ki. 3:1
), he fell in the lattice at the beginning of 2 Kings and was succeeded by his brother (Jehoram/Joram) because he had no son.4“So he died according to the word of the Lᴏʀᴅ which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son.
Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?”
— 2 Kings 1:17-18
The Jehoram/Joram who reigned in the north would be the king within roughly a year of Ahab’s death, and this Jehoram/Joram reigned twelve years until Jehu purged the house of Omri.

Meanwhile, Jehoshaphat’s order of succession was his son Jehoram/Joram (the one who reigned in the south) and then presumably Jehoram’s own sons after him. However, this order of succession was also severely disturbed by unexpected events.

According to 2 Kings 8:26-27, it is known for a fact that Ahaziah (the one who reigned in the south) had his mother in Athaliah and was therefore a son-in-law of the house of Ahab, as it says.5Athaliah in turn was a daughter of Ahab (2 Kings 8:18, 26) of the house of Omri This second Ahaziah now became the heir apparent to Jehoram/Joram (the one who reigned in the south) unexpectedly, because according to the 2 Chronicles 21:16-17 narrative, all of Jehoram/Joram’s sons and wives were suddenly taken away by the Arabians leaving only one: Jehoahaz, which is another name for the Ahaziah in the south.6not to be confused with several other men called Jehoahaz long after

Therefore, because of this slaughter, Jehoram/Joram of the south had no other choice but to name Ahaziah (of the south) as his successor. This occurred in his last year7noted in 2 Kings 9:29 where he was named co-regent of Judah8the southern kingdom during Jehoram/Joram’s extreme sickness (2 Chronicles 21:18-19). In the following year, the southern Jehoram/Joram died, so Ahaziah in the south became sole ruler of Judah (2 Kings 8:25-26), noted there as the following year in Jehoram/Joram of the north’s reign.9as compared to 2 Kings 9:29 He only ruled one year of his own, because Jehu soon purged house of Omri (2 Kings 9). As we have explained, both kings (Jehoram/Joram of the north and Ahaziah of the south) were currently of the house of Omri at this point, becoming targets for Jehu.

Now an interesting set of circumstances seems to surround this situation, suggested by two odd statements in the Chronicles passage. It seems plausible that the second Ahaziah, who only reigned in Jerusalem for one year, had in previous years also been part of a plan to unite the two houses of Judah and Omri.10the northern and southern kingdoms

It is stated in 2 Chronicles 22:9, upon his death, that he was a “son of Jehoshaphat” and they felt he should be buried with honors.11“And he sought Ahaziah: and they caught him, (for he was hid in Samaria,) and brought him to Jehu: and when they had slain him, they buried him: Because, said they, he is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought the LORD with all his heart. So the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the kingdom.”
— 2 Chronicles 22:9
This does not require him to be a direct biological father, but the strength of the association might easily suggest it. We therefore suggest that this southern Ahaziah had his biological parents as Jehoshaphat and Athaliah, daughter of Ahab.

An interesting piece of information is gained by the two statements given in 2 Chronicles 22:1-2. The chroniclist says that Ahaziah was “his [Jehoram/Joram’s] youngest son”12“And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead:” and yet that he was forty-two years old.13Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.” We glean from 2 Chron. 21:20 that Jehoram/Joram himself was only forty years old upon his demise!14Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired.” – the prior verse Therefore, it is not possible that he is the direct father but only the father-in-law, which would be the case given our assumptions since, after Jehoshaphat died, this Jehoram/Joram15son of Jehoshaphat married Athaliah daughter of Omri, and, by this strategic marriage the consequence is that the Ahaziah who reigned in the south became his son-in-law, despite being two years older. Then the unexpected massacre of all of Jehoram/Joram’s own sons meant, he had no choice but to name his son-in-law by Athaliah as the heir of Judah, which would explain why the chroniclist thought it noteworthy to add that this Ahaziah was “the youngest.” There were no younger heirs remaining, forcing him to name a 42-year-old son-in-law as heir.

Now another unusual piece of information that very much obscures this story, is the fact that, in the Kings account (2 Kings 8:26) the same man’s age is given as 22 and not 42. Almost all commentaries assume at this point that the Chronicles account must have a scribal error, but let us examine another possibility for explaining this.

If we continue with our assumption that Jehoshaphat directly fathered Ahaziah (who eventually reigned in the south), we ask ourselves why this situation might have occurred in the first place. It was noted before that 2 Chronicles 18:1 specifically tells, that at least for some period of time, Jehoshaphat “joined affinity” with Ahab, father of Athaliah. There may have been some kind of short-lived plan to merge the two houses by forming this (hypothetical) union of Jehoshaphat himself with the daughter of Ahab. Thus Ahaziah the son of Athaliah was conceived directly via Jehoshaphat. However, later Jehoshaphat decided to name his son Jehoram/Joram as heir of Judah and only by unexpected situation did Ahaziah come to inherit this throne.

Let us go back to the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Ahab. Supposing that both houses sought to extend their own lineage to inherit the throne of a united monarchy, it would make sense that each house, in periods of rivalry, would try to extend their own claims over the whole twelve tribes of Israel. After the birth of the southern Ahaziah, these two houses might have experienced a rise in hostility (comp. 1 Kings 22:4916“Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not.”
— 1 Kings 22:49
). It is posited that Jehoshapat during his reign attempted to claim the throne of Judah for one of his sons, and the throne of Israel for the other, each being the two sons of Jehoshaphat, the southern Jehoram/Joram and the southern Ahaziah respectively.

We note that, towards the very end of Ahab’s life, his son the northern Ahaziah was placed by Ahab as the regent over the north. But this is the very same year that the southern Jehoram/Joram was raised to the regency of the south by Jehoshaphat (comp. 1 Kings 22:51, 2 Kings 1:17, 2 Kings 3:1). The following year is the year Ahab died. Perhaps the two rival kings were each trying to set up their own dynasties to inherit the northern throne.

After the death of Ahab, the most senior members of Omri would be Ahab’s two sons the northern Ahaziah and Jehoram/Joram, as well as the (posited) son of Jehoshaphat, the southern Ahaziah. Obviously, Jehoshaphat, having outlived Ahab, would now be attempting to rally the northern kingdom around his candidate for the northern throne, against the northern brothers who were first generation descendants of Ahab. After the northern Ahaziah fell through the lattice and died in the first year after Ahab’s death, the northern kingdom would seem to have just two candidates remaining. The northern Jehoram, last remnant of Ahab’s sons, would be clinging onto his throne against the combined efforts of Jehoshaphat and his two regents who would each be set to inherit one of the thrones. In fact, it is likely that, similar to Jehoshephat’s son Jehoram/Joram (who was elevated to the sub-regent of the south when Ahab’s death seemed imminent and/or in response to Ahab naming his heir), Jehoshaphat would have had reasons to elevate his chosen heir for the north even sooner. The southern Ahaziah would be the only descendant of Omri under Jehoshaphat’s control, a fact he would use to promote this son’s candidacy as the true successor of Ahab. This would then explain the statement in 2 Kings 8:26 that Ahaziah (the son of Jehoshaphat) was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, because this was his age at the beginning of his reign in the capacity as the rival claimant king of Israel to the north. He would have continued to assert this claim all the way until the death of his half-brother in the south (the southern Jehoram/Joram) who unexpectedly lost all of his family and heirs. Therefore he had been reigning since he was age 22 (being promoted by his father Jehoshaphat), but, at age 42 he was unexpectedly required to inherit the throne of Judah, being the last remaining possible heir. In that specific capacity, he only reigned (in Jerusalem) one year.

It is well-known that in the Chronicles version of the account, in general the writer is focused on the kingdom of Judah, and hardly at all on the northern kingdom. Therefore, he would instead give the southern Ahaziah’s age upon becoming king of Judah (42) because he is focusing on Judah, rather than his age at being promoted to co-regent17of Israel (in dispute w/ Ahab) by Jehoshaphat (22). The writer of the Kings account would have instead given his age upon starting his claimancy to the northern kingdom first. But in either case he only reigned one year in Jerusalem during his final year, and this would be important to clarify in either case.

This also explains the extra, unusual statement given in 2 Kings 9:29, which is to clarify that this Ahaziah had been reigning in Judah specifically only since the eleventh year of the northern Jehoram/Joram.182 Kings 9:29 tells us the exact time when he began to be set up to inherit Judah, during the last disease-stricken year of his father-in-law. This statement would be necessary to clarify the details, if, in fact, Ahaziah had also had an earlier reign where he was promoted to be ruler of the northern kingdom, which is what evidence not only limited to this verse suggests.

One last interesting observation is the fact that Ahaziah of the south and Jehoram/Joram of the north seemed to be in friendship and alliance in the last year before Jehu’s purge. This quick reconciliation between the two, might seem to suggest there was yet another plot to place sons of Omri on both thrones. The fact Ahaziah of the south was spared from the wholesale destruction of Jehoram/Joram of the south’s lineage, leaving himself as the sole heir, might not have been an accident.

However, neither side seems to have predicted that Jehu, an outsider would appear the following year to destroy the whole remnant of Omni. The narrative is in 2 Kings 9:16-27. Nothing the two remaining kings could do would turn him away. The only remaining piece was the queen Athaliah who remained in control of the south for seven woeful years. She immediately rose to destroy the remnant of Judah’s lineage, however another woman named Jehosheba rescued a single son of the king named Jehoash/Joash, who was her nephew.

Jehoash subsequently became the grandfather to Uzziah/Azariah, officially listed by Matthew as the next successive generation to Jehoram/Joram (of the south), the king whose lineage had apparently been “taken away” by the Arabians (2 Chronicles 21:16-17), possibly a plot of the house of Omri. This might suggest that perhaps, there had been survivors of that attack also, which could have restored the lineage by union with the next two kings of Judah. The immediate (rescued) son of Ahaziah of the south would have been at minimum 1/4 of the house of Omri, probably 3/4, which indicates the reason why Matthew in chapter 1 leaves out him, his father, and his son, three kings total in his list. The wickedness of Athaliah to extend her purge even to those of her own grandchildren, just to attempt to wipe out the lineage of Judah is also surprising. –End of theory.

⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜

Historical Outline Part 3

Last part: After Year 1300.

Part One (70-990)  Part two (990-1300)

A.D. 1381: Wycliffe Bible translated

An early English translation of the entire Bible from the Latin is accomplished by John Wycliffe, and his followers. It has been determined that most likely Wycliffe himself worked on the New Testament portion. There is a great deal of backstory that leads up to this point: The people who wrote and preached alongside and after Wycliffe, possibly before him, were known as “Lollards” in England. We find that there were people in the Netherlands (modern Netherlands and Belgium) at an earlier date than Wycliffe, who had much the same name as this. The historian Johann Mosheim (1693 – 1755) deals with a description of this group as below:1Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History (1811 ed.) translated by Archibald Maclaine, Vol. III, pp. 355-359.

“As the clergy of this age took little care of the sick and dying, and deserted such as were infected with those pestilential disorders which were then very frequent, some compassionate and pious persons at Antwerp formed themselves into a society for the performance of these religious offices, which the sacerdotal orders so shamefully neglected. In the prosecution of this agreement, they visited and comforted the sick, assisted the dying with their prayers and exhortations, took care of the interment of those who were cut off by the plague, and on that account forsaken by the terrified clergy, and committed them to the grave with a solemn funeral dirge. It was with reference to this last office, that the common people gave them the name of Lollards.[n]2See footnote in the next paragraph The example of these good people had such an extensive influence, that in a little time societies of the same sort of Lollards, consisting both of men and women, were formed in most parts of Germany and Flanders, and were supported, partly by their manual labours, and partly by the charitable donations of pious persons. The magistrates and inhabitants of the towns, where these brethren and sisters resided, gave them peculiar marks of favour and protection on account of their great usefulness to the sick and needy. But the clergy, whose reputation was not a little hurt by them, and the Mendicant friars, who found their profits diminished by the growing credit of these strangers, persecuted them vehemently, and accused them to the popes of many vices and intolerable errors. Hence it was, that the word Lollard, which originally carried a good meaning, became a term of reproach to denote a person, who, under the mark of extraordinary piety, concealed either pernicious sentiments or enormous vices.”

(footnote)3ibid., pp. 355-358. (footnote)[n] Many writers have given us copious amounts concerning the sect and name of the Lollards; yet none of them are to be commended for their fidelity, diligence, or accuracy on this head. This I can confidently assert, because I have carefully and expressly inquired into whatever relates to the Lollards, and, from the most authentic records concerning them, both published and unpublished, have collected copious materials from which their true history may be compiled. Most of the German writers, as well as those of other countries, affirm, that the Lollards were a particular sect, who differed from the church of Rome in many religious points; and that Walter Lolhard, who was burned in this century at Cologne, was their founder. How so many learned men came to adopt this opinion, is beyond my comprehension. They indeed refer to [Johannes] Trithemius as the author of this opinion: yet it is certain, that no such account of these people is to be found in his writings. I shall therefore endeavor, with all possible brevity, to throw all the light I can upon this matter, that they who are fond of ecclesiastical history may have a just notion of it. The term Lollhard, or Lullhard, or, as the ancient Germans wrote it, Lollert, Lullert, is compounded of the old German word lullen, lollan, lallen, and the well known termination hard, with which many of the old High Dutch words end. Lollen, or lullen, signifies to sing with a low voice. It is yet used in the same sense among the English, who say, lull a-sleep, which signifies to sing any one into a slumber with a sweet indistinct voice. See Franc. Junii Etymologicon Anglicanum, ab Edvardo Lye editum Oxon. 1743, fol. under the word Lollard. The word is also used in the same sense among the Flemings, Swedes, and other nations, as appears by their respective Dictionaries. Among the Germans, both the sense and pronunciation of it have undergone some alteration; for they say, lullen, which signifies to pronounce indistinctly, or stammer. Lolhard, therefore, is a singer, or one who frequently sings. For as the word beggen, which universally signifies to request any thing fervently, is applied to devotional requests, or prayers; and in the stricter sense in which it is used by the Germans, denotes praying fervently to God; in the same manner the word lollen, or lullen, is transferred from a common to a sacred song, and signifies, in its most limited sense, to sing a hymn. Lolhard, therefore, in the vulgar tongue of the ancient Germans, denotes a person who is continually praising God with a song, or singing hymns to his honour. Hocsemius, a canon of Liege, has well apprehended and expressed the force of this word in his Gesta Pontificum Leodiensium, lib. i. cap. xxxi. in Jo. Chapeauvilli Gestis Pontificum Tungrensium et Leodiensium, tom. ii. p. 350. ‘In the same year (1309), says he, certain strolling hypocrites, who were called Lollards, or praisers of God, deceived some women of quality in Hainault and Brabant.’ Because those who praised God generally did it in verse; to praise God, in the Latin style of the middle age, meant to sing to him; and such as were frequently employed in acts of adoration, were called religious singers. And, as prayers and hymns are regarded as a certain external sign of piety towards God, those who aspired to a more than ordinary degree of piety and religion, and for that purpose were more frequently occupied in singing hymns of praise to God than others, were, in the common popular language, called Lollhards. Hereupon this word acquired the same meaning with the term Beghard, which denoted a person remarkable for piety; for in all the old records, from the eleventh century, these two words are synonymous: so that all who were styled Beghards, are also called Lollards, which may be proved to a demonstration from many authors, and particularly from many passages in the writings of Felix Malleolus against the Beghards: so that there are precisely as many sorts of Beghards as of Lollards. Those whom the monks now call Lay Brothers, were formerly called Lollard Brethren, as is well observed by Barthol Schobinger, ad Joach. Vadianum de colegiis monasteriisque Germaniæ Vater. lib. i. p. 24. in Goldasti Scriptor. rerum Alemannicarum, tom. iii.

“The Brethren of the free spirit, of whom we have already given a large account, are by some styled Beghards, by others Lollards. The followers of Gerard Groote, or Priests of the community, are frequently called Lollard Brethren. The good man Walter, who was burned at Cologne, and whom so many learned men have unadvisedly represented as the founder of the sect of the Lollards, is by some called a Beghard, by others a Lollard, and by others a Minorite. The Franciscan Tertiares, who were remarkable for their prayers and other pious exercises, often go by the name of Lollards. The Cellite Brethren, or Alexians, whose piety was very exemplary, no sooner appeared in Flanders, about the beginning of this century, than the people gave them the title of Lollards, a term much in use at that time. A particular reason indeed for their being distinguished by this name was, that they were public singers, who made it their business to inter the bodies of those who died of the plague, and sang a dirge over them in a mournful and indistinct tone as they carried them to the grave. […] Hence we find in the Annals of Holland and Utrecht, in Ant. Matthæi Analect. ve. ævi., tom. i. p. 431. the following words: ‘Die Lollardtjes die brochten de dooden by een, i. e. the Lollards who collected the dead bodies;’ which passage is thus paraphrased by Matthæus, ‘The managers of funerals, and carriers of the dead, of whom there was a fixed company, were a set of mean, worthless creatures, who usually spoke in a canting mournful tone, as if bewailing the dead; and hence it came to pass, that a street in Utrecht, in which most of these people lived, was called the Loller street.’ The same reason that changed the word Beghard from its primitive meaning, contributed also to give, in process of time, a different signification to that of Lollard, even to its being assumed by persons that dishonoured it. For among those Lollards who made such extraordinary pretences to piety and religion, and spent the greatest part of their time in meditation, prayer, and the like acts of piety, there were many abominable hypocrites, who entertained the most ridiculous opinions, and concealed the most enormous vices, under the specious mask of this extraordinary profession. But it was chiefly after the rise of the Alexians, or Cellites, that the name Lollard became infamous. . .”

Thus far, an explanation of the Lollards of the Netherlands.

Here we see that the terms Beghard and Lollard were interchangeably used one for the other by the people of Netherlands at this time. It is further the case that the historian Mosheim above tries to link the Lollards (as they were called in the Netherlands), with the Cellites or Alexians. But we note: that there was a series of papal edicts from 1259 to 1311 which exclusively condemned those called Beghards.4Gieseler, A Text-book of Church History (1857 ed.) translated by Davidson, Winstanley, Vol. II, pp. 441-442. Equally importantly, the Cellites and Alexians did not begin to exist until 1365, so the term could not be referring to them before that date. We also read that the Cellites or Alexians, despite existing, did not receive any official sanction from the state until 1472, as historian Mosheim states.5Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History (1811 ed.) translated by Archibald Maclaine, Vol. III, p. 359. So then, we see that the term Beghard could not have become synonymous with Cellite and entered into universal disrepute, until at least the year 1365. During the time in which we are interested before this, Beghard or Lollard was a profession in the Netherlands and parts of Germany that was unilaterally condemned by Catholic officials. And during this early time, these people were in disrepute only with state church officials, while the rest of society saw them as useful for dealing with the plague, as noted by the historian.

The first so-called Beghard or Lollard community originated in Antwerp in 1228,6ibid., p. 235. which is about the same time that the Council of Toulouse took place in the south of France. This is the Council which, in the following year of 1229, established the papal inquisition, which has already been discussed. No sooner had the occupation known as Lollard or Beghard spread to additional cities than was it quickly targeted for persecution by the inquisitors. Further support for this state of affairs may be drawn from Gieseler, another historian. In the later years, the officials of Catholicism were having difficulties pinpointing exactly the group they were trying to destroy from among these communities. In 1377, one group called “personae pauperes” were given indulgences by the pope of Rome, but in 1395 another group called “Beghardi, seu Lullardi et Zwestriones” were made a target for the Inquisition to destroy.7see: Gieseler, A Text-book of Church History (1858 ed.) translated by John Hull, Vol. III, pp. 128-129. (footnote) Gieseler remarking upon this concludes, “…the treatment of all these communities depended entirely upon the decision of the bishops and inquisitors, and these Papal protective laws guaranteed to the … pauperes no more security than they had without them.

This also appears to be the earliest etymology for the Lollards of England, a group who appeared in the 1300s, soon after its Netherlands counterpart. In common English usage however, the word instead gradually came to represent those with a Christian doctrine who identified with John Wycliffe, who was intent on providing Biblical education and knowledge to the masses, rather than representing a particular living community, or profession or line of work. Yet we find that the name Lollard, and the doctrine,8which is derived purely from Scripture both predate Wycliffe.

About Walter Lolhard in particular – who it seems certain was a real person, but whether he ever came to England: the nearest source about him, as mentioned above by the historian Mosheim, appears to be silent on the subject. Consider the writing of Trithemius, Chronicon Hirsaugiense, pp. 235r-236.

The handwritten record from Trithemius, penned down sometime around 1499, copied from a digital scan above, seems to be the true source of information on Walter. There it reads, “MCCCxxij. Colonie deprehensus fuit lolhardus quidam nomine Walterus magister et princeps schole hereticorum illius secte…” or, “at Cologne in 1322, there was detected a certain ‘lolhardus’ whose name was Walter, the magister and principal of a school of heretics, belonging to the sect earlier mentioned…” This writing by Trithemius continues on to allege various offensive doctrines9which were mostly calumnies, as carefully documented by Allix: Remarks upon the ecclesiastical history of the ancient churches of the Albigenses, pp. 228-230. to this man and finally adds that he was burnt at the stake after all this. But no mention of England exists, not in this entry.

There is some information to glean from this. To the extent that Walter was a principal of a school of those called “lolhardus” in or around the city of Cologne, in the year 1322. A question remains whether his surname “Lollard” was a name that he himself held, or else, as was often the case with surnames, his adopted profession; and whether this individual had visited Britain before this must be left as a possibility. Many have claimed this as the explanation – and no better explanation has been provided – for how that name became widespread in England in the 1300s after these events, but an explanation must be made.

One last point about the names of the Lollards remains. In the Britannica article, we are told the following description of the name.

LOLLARDS, the name given to the English followers of John Wycliffe (q.v.); it is of uncertain origin; but the generally received explanation derives it from the verb lollen or lullen, to sing softly. The word is much older than its English use; there were Lollards in the Netherlands at the beginning of the 14th century, who were akin to the Fratricelli, Beghards and other sectaries of the recusant Franciscan type.10“Lollards,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol 14, p. 340.

We should completely discount the association of these persons with the Fraticelli, as we have explained that group’s antinomian origins in part two of this outline.11See A.D. 1262 The unusual description given of the Lollards of ‘recusant Franciscan type’ leaves significant space to wonder, what is meant by the authors of the Britannica here. Recusing an order would seem to leave one as diametrically opposed to it, as we see that recusing means to “refuse, reject or challenge.” If someone is recusing something, it makes little sense to associate them as being a type of that same thing. This term “being a recusant type” makes little sense whatsoever. We might as well describe a Nicolaitan as being of the recusant Christian type.

Notwithstanding all of this, some other resources on church history really have attempted to compare the Lollards or Beghards with the strict Franciscans, which was another monastic order that was involved in the inquisition. However similar these two groups could have possibly appeared on the surface, they bear no resemblance whatsoever as they were spiritually worlds apart. One were targets and the other were the enactors of the Inquisition itself. The former as we noted had no legal protection at all and were subject to papal displeasure starting from 1259. The Franciscans, which participated in the Inquisition, enjoyed vast privileges under the temporal law. To compare the two is ludicrous.

To account for the significant presence of this group in England, there is a mention of them in the chronicle of Knighton, which was written in 1396, just fourteen years after the fact, giving the following details:12Henry Knighton, Chronicon de Eventibus Angliæ (c. 1396), edited by Lumby, J.R., (London ed. 1889), vol. 2, p. 191.

(Year 1382.)
Willelmus de Swyndurby associated in this year with some of the sect of Wyclyf, at a certain chapel of St. John the Baptist, near the dwelling-place of the lepers. This sect was held in the highest honor in those days, and was multiplied to such an extent, that it was difficult to pass by two men in the way without one of them being a disciple of Wyclyffe.

This would have been in the year after Wycliffe finished his Bible translation.

With regard to Wycliffe (c. 1328 – 1384), some enlightening quotes from him:
We have a perfect knowledge of all things necessary to salvation, from the faith of Scripture.13Wycliffe, De veritate sacrae scripturae, p. 108.
The merit of Christ is of itself sufficient to redeem every man from hell: it is to be understood of a sufficiency of itself, without any other concurring cause.14Wycliffe, De veritate sacrae scripturae, pp. 552-553.
All that follow Christ, being justified by his righteousness, shall be saved as his offspring.15Wycliffe, De veritate sacrae scripturae, p. 550.

Possibly the most very classic words of Wycliffe are those memorialized by his enemies through a quotation, in the Council of Constance, made long after his passing. This was John Wycliffe’s refutation of the idea of transsubstantiation, which is reproduced from the council records as follows:16Council of Constance, records for July 6, 1415.

Since heretical falsehood about the consecrated host is the most important point in individual heresies, I therefore declare to modern heretics, in order that this falsehood may be eradicated from the church, that they cannot explain or understand an accident without a subject. And therefore all these heretical sects belong to the number of those who ignore the fourth chapter of John: We worship what we know.

It is appropriate also to mention the fact that has come to our attention that some large number of Wycliffe’s books – especially those of later years as it seems – were destroyed. This is as Thomas Crosby pointed out in 1738:

And when [Wickliffe] set himself to reform Religion, he knew, all the Power and Malice of that corrupt Church he had left, would be bent against him. Therefore, it is probable, he might use all proper Means to prevent his Books as well as his own Person, from falling into the Hands of his inveterate Enemies. Yet after all, it is manifest, that many of his Books were burnt and destroyed;17Crosby, A Brief Reply to John Lewis’s Brief History of the Rise and Progress of Anabaptism in England (1738), p. 25.

This path of destruction follows from the burning of Peter Valdo’s work, which was yet another translation ruthlessly suppressed by the Council of Toulouse in 1229, in addition to any other treatise that was written by the targets of the Inquisition for destruction. It has to be openly admitted that the greater part of their work has been destroyed. This has resulted in some cases of only the hostile accounts surviving, of those that burned these writings and in some cases the people that wrote them. However, two things can be learned right away from this. First, the forces of the Inquisition were never able to destroy the Bible itself, the most important and irreplaceable record that mankind has ever possessed. Manuscript evidence supporting the received text has been preserved through all this time, despite the efforts employed toward its destruction and replacement with an altered version of Scripture more suited to the interests of the inquisitors. Secondly, we see that the state (or at least the state church) was not in complete control of the book copying process during this time. Otherwise, there had never been a need for destroying voluminous copies of the books produced by the targets of the inquisition.

Anne of Bohemia (1366-1394), the Queen Consort of England, had also been an avid collector of Wycliffe’s works. Her followers after 1394 had brought these writings back into Bohemia, where they reached the proto-reformer Jan Hus. After this, upwards of two hundred of these books were burned at Prague, under order from a papal edict in 1410.18this was from the pope in Pisa, not from either of those of Rome or Avignon: for there were three simultaneous popes at that time

Back in England in 1382, a bill for suppressing “heretics” was passed by the various high church officials in the court of fifteen-year-old Richard II. Even though parliament disowned and condemned that pretended law in the year following, these same officials suppressed this, and went after the Lollards to the fullest extent their 1382 bill would allow them to go. But we might say that, through Wycliffe and others, the confessors of the faith gained for themselves a great number of eminent guardians of good reputation for a significant amount of time. This provided for them – it seems – such an open field for them to teach and preach freely in England, that notwithstanding every legal restriction set up in 1382 and beyond, the driving out of these believers from Britain (England and Wales) had clearly been an impossible task.

There are still examples of this style of teachers going under several different titles as well during this period. From Mellinus, writing in 1619, we learn this about France in this time:19Mellinus, A., Eerste deel van het Groot recht-ghevoelende Christen Martelaers-Boeck (Amsterdam, 1619), p. 497r, col. 3.

John Tilius writes, in his Chronijcke bande Coninghen van Djanckrijck, on the year 1372, respecting the sect of Turlupinen, the following: ‘The superstition of the Turlupinen, whose surname originated from the common poverty of them all, were condemned in this year as heretics, and all of their writings, books and clothes were burned together.’

Vignier writes concerning the sect of Turlupinen in 1373, that in Paris they were denounced as heretics by the Inquisitor, Bernardus van Lutzenburch, who openly burned their books, and with these, one named Peronne from Aubeton; and who identified these Turlupinen with a certain sect, namely the Beghards and Beguinen, charging that they derived their doctrine from the old natural philosophy of the Cynics— that is, that they taught according to the rule that one should not be ashamed of those things which have been received by nature: in this way were the Turlupinen accused.

From Matthias Flacius writing in 1556, we learn this about Germany.20Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis, qui ante nostram ætatem (1556), p. 721.

I possess another book full of proceedings, in which 443 named Valdenses are examined in Pomerania, Marchia,21Some have identified Marchia with the county of Mark in the West of Germany, but it seems actually to refer to Meissen and/or Brandenburg, (lit. Markgrafschaft Meißen/Brandenburg) which were both East-German frontier settlements and neighboring countries, circa A.D. 1391, where the above-mentioned articles are confessed. Many of them testified, that for 20, or 30 years they had continued in the sect: many affirmed, for even longer. This observation indicates, that he [the writer of the book] was in the frequent habit of speaking with the teachers22doctores of these men, which are now in Bohemia. It appears that these regions of Saxony have had orthodox, ‘security-minded’ Christians, far preceding Hus, by two hundred years or more. Take note that when the 443 named were examined, it follows easily by reason, that there were many others not examined, who either remained concealed, or chose to flee from giving such a counsel: and of course, those who were examined at this time, in their sayings, mentioned the names of many men who were not there.23Mellinus add this in the margin: “Among other points, in the process of the boastings of this Inquisition, the truth was revealed, that these were sober and level-headed people, simple in their speech, careful to avoid lying, swearing, and all other things that are prevented by natural scandal.” in ibid., rev. of p. 505, col. 4.

In other words, it seems from these authentic historical records, that there were plenty of believers who were targeted by the inquisition of Rome, but continued to exist undeterred, as we see, in France and Germany.

We have already found evidence of the predecessors of the Vaudois traveling to Germany-Rhineland (in Letter of Everwin, A.D. 1143.), Netherlands (Synod of Arras, A.D. 1025.), England (Council of Oxford, A.D. 1160.) and Spain (Adelphonsus’ proclamation, A.D. 1194.) according to all of the records given in part two of this history (appendix D, E, F, G), and it supports the fact that we see here of some who also traveled into the colonies of eastern Germany according to this account. For two hundred years before 1391 (as it says in the record given by Matthias Flacius) proceeds back to the time period when the very first German colonists came to this area of Pomerania and Marchia. These facts tend to support the account, which appears to be commonly reflected by all these historical records together. We see that the Petrobrusians, Henricians, non-gnostic Albigenses, Leonists, and the Vaudois or Valdenses all share the same history. The disappearance of one and the subsequent appearance of another occurs in perfect congruity.

The common intention in ascribing each of these names was the attempt to belittle the origins of these churches, as being something other than Christ’s church.

Now, with regard to many of the Lollards of England who knew Wycliffe directly, we shall obtain a very favorable account of some of their activities, which is in quite a contrast to most of the hostile witnesses we find that remain against Wycliffe himself. For this, we may turn, at last, to the books written by Pastor Joshua Thomas, a Pastor who lived in the 18th century and who has contributed much to the historical record in this regard, in providing some help in accounting for their activities. He is quoted below in his description of Wales and the churches there.24Thomas, Joshua, The History of the Baptist Churches in Wales, in: The American Baptist Heritage in Wales, pp. 10,11-12.

Olchon, or perhaps more properly Golchon, is a small, narrow Valley, in the parish of Clodock, and county of Hereford: nearly on the line between the Hay and Abergavenny, but somewhat nearer to the former, and about 10 miles or more from Hereford. The Western side of it is formed by a long, steep, and lofty hill: part of what is called, the Black Mountain. The situation is rather singular, as in, or near, this valley, the three counties of Hereford, Monmouth, and Brecknock meet; and likewise the three dioceses of Hereford, Landoff, and St. David.

This spot, and parts adjacent have been always inhabited by Cambro-Britons, or properly Cymry, usually called Welsh or Welch. The writer of this preached there about twice in the month statedly from June, 1746 to November, 1754; always in the British language, except a person happened to be present who did not understand it. But many English gradually intermingling, the language now of course is mixed. […]”

Wickliff’s ministry met with great acceptance and amazing success. One of his zealous disciples was Walter Brute. What follows makes it probable that he was born and lived in or near Olchon.

He was of the Diocese of Hereford, and he gloried in being a Briton by father and mother. It is recorded that he was a graduate of Oxford, a gentleman of rank, learning, and parts; though reputed a layman by the popish clergy. Trevnant (rather Tresnant) Bishop of Hereford chargeth Brute with seducing the people as much as he could, from day to day, teaching openly and privily, as well the nobles as the commons. Messrs. William Twinderby and Stephen Bell, were preachers of note then, intimate friends of Brute, and zealous all for Wickliff’s doctrine. By a commission from Richard the II, about 1392, it appears that Twinderby and friends were fled into Wales, out of the diocese of Hereford. Very probably they were gone among the mountains about or beyond Olchon, where so many counties and dioceses met; which was a very favorable circumstance, in persecuting times. They had then, by means and help of Brute an opportunity to inform and instruct the ancient Britons among those lofty hills.

Fox in his martyrology, gave a large account of Brute, his sentiments and zeal taken from the register of the Bishop of Hereford. He refuted many popish errors and reformed much in the article of Baptism. He pleaded that faith should preceed that ordinance; and yet that salvation did not essentially depend on it. Mr. Thomas Davye, in his Treatise of Baptism, 1719, page 96-197, supposes that Brute was more a Baptist than represented by Fox, as the latter was not so himself.

King Richard, above named, directed a letter to the nobility and gentlemen of the county of Hereford, and to the Mayor of the city, charging all to prosecute Brute, accused of preaching heresy, in the diocese and places adjacent; and also of keeping conventicles. […] He lived about a century before printing began in England.

So we see that Walter Brute (given alternately as Walter Brut or Brit) was a contemporary and friend of Wycliffe who was known to keep conventicles in the furrowed valleys of Wales when the persecution of laws, as we have earlier described, began under King Richard II. Moreover, there is available evidence of Brute’s preaching from plenty of other sources.25“Walter Brute,” Encyclopaedia Cambrensis, Vol. 10, p. 480, writes this:
He was born of a Welsh family, living in the Olchon neighborhood, in the vicinity of Brecknock and Hereford. Although intended as a clergyman, he did not take orders; and he chose instead to be a farmer, and to preach to his countrymen; independent of clergy. While at Oxford University, he embraced the principles of Wickliff.
In particular, this book26Y Ffydd Ddi-Fyiant (3rd Ed.) (1677), p. 194. says, (translating from the Welsh):

Walter Brute was known from the diocese of Hereford, who was learned, and a diocesan counselor to godliness, though he was a poor man. He convinced his countrymen regarding charm words, or holy water, reminding them that Jesus’ name did not lend itself to Sceva’s measures.27footnote: Acts 19:14 He explained how opposed to Christ the common attitude was, because Christ commands love, not bloodshed, and the gospel abolishes fleshly rituals, but the Pope brings them back.”

Any account of Walter Brut after the year 1393 is neither known by J. Thomas, nor any other source that I have found. So we leave the final mention of this man as a preacher last known to be teaching at Olchon.

Not long afterward, the clergy, who had assisted Henry IV to usurp the crown in 1399, also continued to push strongly for a death penalty against those Lollards whom they had already confined under the 1382 decree. At length, they persuaded Henry IV to grant this. Thus beginning with the Act titled De Heretico Comburendo in 1401, a death penalty against the Lollards in England continued with interruptions until the Act of Toleration (1 Will & Mary c 18) in 1688.

The first enforcement of this law was carried out against a man who had converted from the state church whose name was William Sawtre. Already imprisoned for previous “offenses,” William was taken to the stake and burned to death in Smithfield in 1401. In a way, this mirrors the deaths mandated against the rebaptizandi by the emperors Honorius and Justinian. Since they could not find any reasonable way to deal with the situation of believers who converted from their camp, they turned to suppression by violence. However, it is written that every work shall be brought into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:14

Some of the most prominent executions followed not long after this one. The first to be burnt in neighboring domain Scotland was John Resby, who was condemned as a Lollard in 1405 having entered the country. The fire for his burning was set in Perth, Scotland,28Bower, W., Scotichronicon, xv. 20. but remember that the love of God was so great for this country, that He gave His own Son Christ, the only begotten Son, also.

An interesting event occurred after this, when preacher William Thorpe was taken from Shrewsbury (a stronghold of faith in those times) in 1407, to Saltwood Castle, where the following historical account is found, being translated into modern, 1825 English.29Hugh Owen, in: A history of Shrewsbury (1825), Vol. 1, pp. 202-204.

Thus protected, the Lollards, as the disciples of Wiclif were opprobriously styled, spread over the kingdom. … One of these, master William Thorpe, a priest, came to Shrewsbury in 1407, and on the 3d Sunday after Easter, mounted the pulpit in St. Chad’s church, from whence he condemned the favourite tenets of popery, transubstantiation, images, and pilgrimages. This boldness may be regarded as no mean proof of the general encouragement which these preachers of reformation had received in this part of the kingdom. But the clergy had taken the alarm; and as the king, feeling the instability of usurped dominion, found it necessary to conciliate that powerful body by a show of zeal for their interests, they had obtained an act in the second year of his reign, by which heresy was made a capital felony.30De Heretico Comburendo

Either in consequence of instructions which the corporation of Shrewsbury received from the court, or from their own attachment to the established religion, Thorpe was thrown into prison in this town, where he lay for a month or more, and was then conveyed to Lambeth. After a confinement of several months, and, as it may be presumed, in the Lollards’ Tower of that palace, he was in August following convened before the archbishop of Canterbury, then resident at his castle at Saltwood, on a complaint exhibited against him by ‘the bailives and worshipful cominalte’ of this town. Of his examination we have a rude but curious account written by himself; a picture of the age, and drawn with apparent fairness, considering that the narrator is the hero of his own tale. We see the prelate, conscious of his high birth and station, boisterous, yet at the same time evidently anxious to save his prisoner, and no incompetent master of the theology of his day: the culprit, steady to the truth, and zealous in his support of scripture, which he sometimes misunderstands and sometimes misrepresents; yet behaving with a decent respect, seldom seen in the conduct of a zealot towards his spiritual superior.

The result of the trial, and the subsequent history of Thorpe, we no where find. Fox, the martyrologist, who, with his many and very great merits, cannot be called a very candid historian, (which indeed, at the time when he wrote, was scarcely to be expected,) conjectures that he was either made away in prison, or died of sickness and hard usage. But as it seems certain that our Salopian reformer did not retract his opinions, (for he records his own perseverance,) and as in confinement he would hardly have been permitted to write the account which we have of his conduct, it appears much more probable that he obtained his liberty on the decease of the archbishop, which took place seven years after. Such passages of his examination as are at all of a local nature are here subjoined.

Archbishop. ‘Lo! here it is certified against thee, by worthy men and faithful of Shrewsbury, that thou preachedst there openly in St. Chad’s church, that the sacrament of the alter was material bread after the consecration: what sayest thou?’ And I said, Sir, I tell you truly, that I touched nothing there of the sacrament of the altar, but in this wise: as I stood there in the pulpit, busying me to teach the commandment of GOD, there knilled a sacring bell, and therefore mickle people turned away hastily, and with great noise ran from me, and I, seeing this, said to them thus, ‘Good men! ye were better to stand here full still and to hear GOD’s Word. For, certes, the virtue and the mede of the most holy Sacrament of the Altar standeth much more in the Belief thereof that ye ought to have in your soul, than it doth in the outward Sight thereof. And therefore ye were better to stand quietly to hear GOD’s Word, because that through the hearing thereof, men come to very true belief.’ And otherwise, Sir, I am certain I spake not there, of the worthy Sacrament of the Altar. […]
Archbishop. ‘But I command thee now, answer me shortly, Believest thou that, after the consecration of this foresaid Sacrament, there abideth substance of bread or not?’ And I said, Sir, as I understand, it is all one to grant or to believe that there dwelleth substance of bread, and to grant or to believe that this most worthy Sacrament of Christ’s own body is one Accident without Subject. But, Sir, for as mickle as your asking passeth mine understanding, I dare neither deny it nor grant it, for it is a School matter, about which I busied me never for to know it: and therefore I commit this term ‘accidens sine subjecto’, to those Clerks which delight them so in curious and subtle sophistry, because they determine oft so difficult and strange matters, and wade and wander so in them, from argument to argument, with pro and contra, till they wot not where they are! nor understand not themselves! But the shame that these proud sophisters have to yield them to men and before men, maketh them oft fools, and to be concluded shamefully before GOD. Archbishop. ‘I purpose not to oblige thee to the subtle arguments of Clerks, since thou art unable thereto! but I purpose to make thee obey to the determination of Holy Church.’ And I said, Sir, by open evidence and great witness, a thousand years after the Incarnation of Christ, that determination which I have, here before you, rehearsed was accepted of Holy Church, as sufficient to the salvation of all them that would believe it faithfully, and work thereafter charitably. But, Sir, the determination of this matter, which was brought in since the Fiend was loosed by Friar Thomas31Aquinas again, specially calling the most worshipful Sacrament of Christ’s own body, an Accident without Subject; which term, since I know not that GOD’s law approveth it in this matter, I dare not grant: but utterly I deny to make this friar’s sentence or any such other my belief; do with me, GOD! what Thou wilt! Archbishop. ‘Well, well! thou shalt say otherwise ere that I leave thee!’

Another brief account can be found regarding John Badby who was burned from inside of a barrel at Smithfield in 1410. The court presided over by Archbishop Thomas Arundel, and his brother-in-law William, passed the sentence themselves. The martyr’s saying was this: “If every host consecrated at the altar were the Lord’s body, then there be 20,000 Gods in England.

Another martyr and scholar of distinction was sentenced by the tribunals of England in 1418, whose name was Sir John Oldcastle. The account of John Bale:

“In the Christmas following was Sir Roger Acton, Knight, Master John Browne, Esquire, Sir Roger Beverley, a learned preacher, and divers other more, attached for quarrelling with certain priests, and so imprisoned.

“The complaint was made unto the King of them, that they had made a great assembly in St. Giles’s field at London, purposing the destruction of the land, and the subversion of the commonwealth. As the King was thus informed, he erected a banner (saith Walden) with a cross thereupon (as the Pope doth commonly by his legates, when he pretendeth to war against the Turk), and with a great number of men entered the same field, whereas he found no such company. Yet was the complaint judged true, because the Bishops had spoken it at the information of their priests. […] In the mean season Sir John Oldcastle, the Lord Cobham, escaped out of the Tower of London in the night, and so fled into Wales, whereas he continued more than four years after. […]

“In the year of our Lord 1415 died Thomas Arundel, which had been Archbishop of Canterbury more than thirty-two years to the great destruction of Christian belief. Yet died not his prodigious tyranny with him, but succeeded with his office in Henry Chicheley, and in a great sort more of that spiteful spirituality. For their malice was not yet sated against the good Lord Cobham. But they confedered with the Lord Powis (which was at that time a great governor in Wales), feeding him with lordly gifts and promises to accomplish their desire. He at the last thus monied with Judаs, and outwardly pretending him great amity and favour, most cowardly and wretchedly took him, and, in conclusion, so sent him up to London, whereas he remained a month or two imprisoned again in the Tower. And, after long process, they condemned him again of heresy and treason by force of the aforenamed act, he rendering thanks unto God that He had so appointed him to suffer for His name’s sake.

“And this was done in the year of our Lord anno 1418, which was the sixth year of the reign of King Henry the fifth, the people there present showing great dolour. How the priests that time fared, blasphemed and cursed, requiring the people not to pray for him, but to judge him damned in hell, for that he departed not in obedience of their Pope, it were too long to write. This terrible kind of death with gallows, chains and fire, appeareth not very precious in the eyes of men that be carnal, no more than did the death of Christ when he was hanged up among thieves. ‘The righteous seemeth to die,’ saith the wise man,32in Apocrypha ‘in the sight of them which are unwise, and their end is taken for very destruction.’

“The more hard the passage be, the more glorious shall they appear in the latter resurrection. Not that the afflictions of this life are worthy of such a glory, but that it is God’s heavenly pleasure so to reward them. Never are the judgements and ways of men like unto the judgements and ways of God, but contrary evermore, unless they be taught of him. ‘In the latter time,’ saith the Lord unto Daniel, ‘shall many be chosen proved, and purified by fire: yet shall the ungodly live wickedly still, and have no understanding that is of faith.’ (Daniel 12:10) By an angel from heaven was John earnestly commanded to write that ‘blessed are the dead which hence departeth in the Lord.’ (Revelation 14:13) ‘Right dear,’ saith David, ‘in the sight of God is the death of his true servants.’ (Psalm 116:15) Thus resteth this valiant Christian knight, Sir John Oldcastle, under the altar of God (which is Jesus Christ) among that godly company which, in the kingdom of patience, suffered great tribulation with the death of their bodies for His faithful word and testimony, abiding there with them the fulfilling of their whole number, and the full restoration of His elects. The which He grant in effect at His time appointed, which is one God eternal. Amen.

“Sir John Oldcastle was burnt in chains at London in St. Giles’s field, under the gallows, among the lay people, and upon the profane working day, at the Bishops’ procurement. And all this is unglorious, yea, and very despisable unto those worldly eyes. What though Jesus Christ his master afore him were handled after a very like sort? For he was crucified at Hiеrusаlеm, without the city, and without the holy synagogue, accursed out of the church, among the profane multitude, in the midst of thieves, in the place where as thieves were commonly hanged, and not upon the feastful day but afore it, by the Bishops’ procurement also.”

Accompanying is Pastor Thomas’ account:33Thomas, The History of the Baptist Churches in Wales, in: The American Baptist Heritage in Wales, pp. 12-13.

“The famous Sir John Oldcastle comes next in course. Oldcastle as Bradwardine is the name of a parish adjoining to Clodock, and situated on the side of the same hill, which forms the western part of Olchon; but is in Monmouthshire. It is natural to conclude that Sir John had part of his instruction in the Gospel from Brute and Bradwardine’s writings. His character, suffering and death, are so fully given by Church historians and martyrologists, that it is needless to expatiate on these here. The valiant Henry 5th was born at Monmouth and highly regarding his countrymen, he promoted [Oldcastle] to be one of his domestic lords with the title of Earl of Cobham. He was commonly styled Lord Cobham. Yet this Noble Briton, then in the Kings Court, like Daniel, was full of zeal against popery, and the corruption of those times.

“Yet after many consultations, they found ways and means to work so far upon the king, as to have Sir John apprehended, and brought to trial in 1413, about 20 years after the last account I saw of Brute. Lord Cobham was soon condemned to die and under that condemnation was committed to the tower. But he soon found means to liberate himself from that confinement. It is supposed that it was under the influence of and with the approbation of His Majesty that he returned to his native country. The Memoirs of Monmouthshire say p. 87, that he lay concealed among his tenants and friends at, or about Oldcastle above four years. Then he was treacherously taken, and barbarously burnt in London. Where Rafim relates this tragical affair, his translator adds this note, ‘As this was the first noble blood shed in England by popish cruelty, so perhaps never any suffered a more cruel martyrdom.’ ”

One local history written in 1898 further pinpoints the location of Oldcastle during his escape.34Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club Herefordshire, Vol. 44 (1898), pp. 260-261.

After luncheon the President made some remarks respecting the associations of Sir John Oldcastle and the mediæval Baptists with this locality.

Olchon Court is a farm building with substantial walls of masonry, a 14th century doorway, and square-headed and mullioned windows. One room on the ground floor, in which we lunched, has a recess like an aumbry, and one of the windows retains its original antiquity. The window in a room above, pointed out traditionally as the window through which Sir John Oldcastle escaped from his pursuer, has undergone restorations since his period. The escape of Sir John Oldcastle is as fresh to-day in the current traditions of this locality as if it had taken place within the lifetime of the oldest inhabitant. This farmhouse is also locally known as Court Walter. It is supposed to have been the home of Walter Brute, one of the earliest Lollards in Herefordshire, a man of considerable talents and learning, who was in 1391 cited to appear before Trevenant, Bishop of Herefore, for heresy. It is not positively known what became of him, though some think that he was put to death at Bodenham. Sir John Oldcastle, afterwards Lord Cobham, was in his youth a favourite companion of Henry V. before his accession to the throne, and was, so says Coxe, ‘awakened to virtue by a sense of religion.’ In 1413 he was charged with a breach of the Statute, and with encouragement of the Lollards, particularly in the Dioceses of London, Rochester, and Hereford, by sending out ‘unlicensed preachers,’ and himself attending their meetings, and was committed to the Tower. Upon his escape from the Tower, a rising of the Lollards occurred round London, and Sir John fled into Wales, when a reward of 1,000 marks was offered for his capture dead or alive. Owing to his friendship with the Brute family, it is believed that he sought refuge in this secluded valley, where he is supposed to have remained concealed for a period of four years. Eventually, after his escape from Olchon Court, he was betrayed by some followers of the Earl of Powis, taken prisoner at Broniarth, in Montgomeryshire, and thence again conveyed to London, where, being adjudged as ‘traitor and heretic,’ he was hanged and burnt hanging…

There is in Herefordshire a third Oldcastle, on the western border of Deerfold Forest, between Lingen and the ruined abbey, or nunnery, of Limebrook, but neither history nor investigation encourage us to support the statement of some antiquaries that he may have been born there; that he may have visited this locality is possible enough since we know that William de Swynderby (William the Hermit) was there in 1390, and that many Lollards for a long time remained in the Forest of Deerfold, and most probably conducted their religious services in the Chapel Farm. (See the excellent paper by Dr. Bull in Transactions 1869, page 168, on The Lollards in Herefordshire,’ and the accompanying illustration of the beautiful 14th century roof of Chapel Farm.)

Dealing with the general treatment of the masses of Lollards found in England around this time, there were a number of different “abjurations” which churchmen of the state caused their captives to recite. This was done by force, of course. The practice of compelling abjurations might be compared to more modern-day indoctrination practices, which try to break down any resistance to re-education by first assaulting the integrity of a person, causing the subject to excessively repeat and affirm things they know to be untrue – likewise, to repeat and deny things they know to be true. Here is one example of such a “formula” that men were forced to repeat, the content of which testifies as further evidence to examine about Lollard doctrine during this time period.35Burnet, The History of the Reformation of the Church of England, Vol. 1, pp. 44-45.

On the 2d of May, in the year 1511, six men and four women, most of them being of Tenterden, appeared before Archbishop Warham, in his manor of Knoll, and abjured the following errors.
First, that in the sacrament of the alter is not the body of Christ, but material bread.
Secondly, that the sacraments of baptism and confirmation are not necessary nor profitable for men’s souls.
Thirdly, that confessions of sins ought not to be made to a priest.
Fourthly, that there is no more power given by God to a priest than to a layman. […]
Ninthly, that a man should pray to no saint, but only to God.

One further example:36Foxe, The Acts and monuments of the Church; A new ed., revised and corrected by M. H. Seymour (1838 ed). p. 341.

Besides these, we also find in the said old manuscripts within the diocese of Norfolk and Suffolk, specially in the towns of Beccles, Ersham, and Ludney, a great number both of men and women to have been vexed and cast into prison, and after their abjuration brought to open shame in churches and markets, by the bishop of the diocese, … so that within the space of three or four years, that is, from the year 1428 to the year 1431, about the number of one hundred and twenty men and women were examined, … and some of them were put to death and burned … Now as touching their articles which they maintained and defended:

To make it more odious to the ears of the people, the notaries gave out the articles, as if they held that the sacrament of baptism used in the church by water is but a light matter and of small effect.
Other articles were objected against them, as these which heretics follow:
That auricular confession is not to be made to a priest, but to God only; because no priest has any power to absolve a sinner from his sin.
That no priest has power to make the body of Christ in the sacrament of the altar; but that, after the sacramental words, there remains pure material bread as before.
That every true christian man is a priest to God.
That no man is bound under pain of damnation to observe Lent, or any other days prohibited by the church of Rome.
That the pope is antichrist […]
That prayers made in all places are acceptable to God.
That men ought not to pray to any saint, but only to God.”

The common thread of faith between these two examples cannot be missed. The mention of baptism is present, but is so slightly remarked upon by the writer in comparison to the other points, that the natural explanation here is that the people being abjurated did not completely disregard water baptism itself. If they had no water baptism at all, then it would have been plainly presented as one of their beliefs to be rejected. Rather, they only did not recognize some particular aspect of the baptisms that the state church performed. For example, such as applying baptism to infants to whom no faith could be accounted. And if this is so, then these people called Lollards would likewise be called “anabaptists” according to the later categorization of doctrines (i.e. after the Münster Rebellion rendered the so-called “anabaptist” cause of sufficiently ill repute37see A.D. 1534 below). These beliefs and professions by these early nonconformists come as no surprise considering that Brut, Oldcastle, and likely many more were, according to most or all of our sources, well known to be “true Christians,” as we now know.

The burnings of the Lollards continued unabated through the reigns of Henry IV, V, VI. In the latter’s time, 1453, the war in France was finally lost. A division in the country followed this, during the Wars of the Roses, in which supporters of the house of York (white rose) came against Henry’s house of Lancaster (red rose). One incident taken from the judicial records, during this remission from the religious persecution, to prove this point, is the following:38Tremaine, Pleas of the Crown in Matters Criminal and Civil, p. 352.

29 September, 1465.
[W]e have received the grievous complaint of our beloved in Christ Isabella Stephens of Alyesford in our diocese, stating that John Keyser of East Peckham, within our immediate jurisdiction for his manifest contumacy, rebellion and offence in not obeying our certain lawful monitions to him at the instance of the said Isabella rightly and lawfully made, is by our ordinary authority involved in the greater excommunication, and in such greater excommunication rightly, duly and lawfully denounced for eight months and more, hath hardily persevered, and as yet doth persevere with incorigible disposition, wickedly despising the authority of the holy mother church, and the said John Keyser as publick fame reports, and as we understand by the notoriety of facts, and by the evidence of witnesses worthy of belief, advisedly asserts, declares and affirms that such mandates are not to be feared, and that he doth not fear the same, and although we or our commissaries have excommunicated him, that he doth not care for the same, because ‘as to God he is not excommunicated,’ and that this was true as he asserted it, plainly appeared from this, that in last autumn so standing excommunicated he had as great a plenty of corn and of other grain for the quantity of his land as any of his neighbours, and he shows his field of corn to his neighbours, saying to them in derision, that an excommunicated person ought not to have such corn, from which premisses and others we have justly suspected the said John of heresy…”

However, the secular tribunal at King’s Bench decided that the Archbishop had no cause for imprisoning Keyser or anyone else under “suspicion of heresy,” and he was released(!)

During the next era of persecution under Henry VII and Henry VIII, a substantial number of the “anabaptists” who were tried during that time claimed to have joined first to the cause of the faith during the relatively subdued period preceding it under King Edward IV (1461-70, 1471-83).39many of King Edward’s House of York also had strongholds in the same places in the country that the Lollard strongholds were

One of those tried during the era of Henry VII gives the following testimony, in which he presents a very clever “recantation,” wherein he managed to re-state and even argue in favor of his nonconformist views:40see: Register Blythe (Salisbury), fol. 74v.

Thomas Boughton of Hungerford: response given in year of our Lord 1499:
Sith the tyme of my first acqueyntaunce with the said heretikes I haue had a great mynde to here sermouns and prechynges of doctours and lerned men of the church. And, as long as they spack the veray woordys of the gospels and the epistles such as I had herd afore in oure Englissh bookys, I herkned wele vnto them and had great delight to here them. But as sone as they began to declare scripture after their doctouris, and brought in other maters, and spack of tythes and offrynges, I was sone wery to here them and had no savour in their woordys, thynkyng that it was of their owen makyng for their profight and avauntage.41It’s a wonder that the above ‘recantation’ made it into the records, without a second thought by the copyist who dutifully wrote everything down

Our entry lastly includes appendix J, which is another contemporary account of the Lollards of England, as described by Reginald Pecock in the year A.D. 1449.

c. A.D. 1462: Renaissance Humanism

For a number of years starting in the 1300s, the rulers of Europe were divided on who they recognized as pope, with multiple different figures being put forward, leading to the increasing prominence of universities at the expense of Rome. As the historic shift toward absolute monarchy began to unfold, the court of Rome as a response to this took increasingly grand titles for itself. Drawing from the work of the historian Gieseler, we even note the following example of this attempt at aggrandizement:

“Zenzelinus, A.D. 1325, in his gloss to Extravag. Jo. XXII. Tit. XIV. C. 4, in fine says: ‘Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam, conditorem dictae decretalis, sic non potuisse statuere, prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.’ So also in the Lyons editions of 1584 and 1606, and in the Paris editions of 1585, 1601 and 1612: in the later editions the Deum is left out.”42Gieseler, A Text-book of Church History (1858 ed.) translated by John Hull, Vol. III, p. 47 (footnote 3)

Translating the latin text above, this law says: “But to believe that our Lord God the Pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical.”

The explanation for this is as follows, as reported from the same historian:

“Augustini Triumphi, Qu. IX. Art. 1. Utrum Papae debeatur honor, qui debetur Christo secundum quod Deus? Videtur:—quia honor debetur potestati, sed una est potestas Christi secundum quod Deus et Papae: quod probatur, quia potestas Christi secundum quod Deus est peccata dimittere juxta illud Marc ii. quis potest peccata dimittere nisi solus Deus? istud autem convenit Papae, quia quodcumque ligat vel solvit super terram, est ligatum vel solutum in caelis.”43ibid., same page, earlier in the same footnote.

Again, translating the latin text yields: “Question IX, Whether the Pope deserves the same honor, as that is due to Christ as God? It appears: that honor is rendered for power, but identical is the power of Christ according to both God and the Pope; this is proved, that the power of Christ as God to forgive sins is according to Mark ii, who can forgive sins but God only? This is likewise true of the Pope, that whatsoever you shall bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven.”44We learn, from this example, that the pope for some time, starting in 1325, claimed to be God. He did not even bother to have this claim stricken from the records until at least 1612.

Despite this, the major universities started to become the real centers of power in European continental affairs. Due to the political infighting, two or three popes at a time began to excommunicate all those that opposed them in every direction. The university of Paris often became the arbiter in these disputes. It was through the arbitration of the major universities, whose prestige began to grow immensely, that many systems of government became restructured. It came to pass, at the beginning of religious unification talks with the state church of the Greeks, who were soon to be overtaken by the Turkish muslims of Asia, that one of the leaders from a Greek faction45Georgius Gemistus, or Plethon had a meeting with officials from Italy and traded ideas with them, leading to the founding of the “Platonic academy” (actually more of a small group or conventicle), in the city of Florence. This was commonly called the Florentine academy. This group was headed by one of the Catholic officials of Italy from about 1462 to 1492, and had the dual purpose of translating and promoting the forgotten works of Plato, Platonists, and also the neoplatonists.46“Ficino, Marsilio,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 9, p. 219.47“Medici, Cosimo’s Patronage of Art,” ibid., Vol. 15, p. 190.48“Gemistus Pletho [or Plethon], Georgius,” ibid., Vol. 10, p. 95. This cultural exchange is sometimes referred to as part of the Renaissance.49“Renaissance, The revival of learning in Italy,” ibid., Vol. 19, p. 125. and “Renaissance, Science and Philosophy,” ibid., p. 127. Many scholars who followed after this school also were inspired by various gnostic works, as these were related to the neoplatonist ones. Many of the same “Renaissance” scholars began to dig into more studies of various kabbalistic and apocryphal sources as well.50See A.D. 242: Manichæism and
A.D. 245: Neo-platonism in part one
51One example is a “tribute” to the Zоhаr written and published by a Franciscan friar, Francesco Giorgi, in the year 1525, which was the same year in which William Tyndale’s New Testament was banned. More than enough has been said here regarding this.52“Pico Della Mirandola, Giovanni,” ibid., Vol. 17, p. 912.53“Agrippa von Nettesheim, Henry Cornelius,” ibid., Vol. 1, p. 429.

In quite the contradiction, these books on thoroughly gnostic and anti-Christian philosophies were being freely published at the same time that the ban was firmly in place against the Holy Bible: both Tyndale’s translation in 1525, as well as earlier translations of the Bible.

The Bible prohibition was repeated in 1564, and sounded like this:

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.54Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pius IV, 1564

In contrast, however, encouragement for the creation of occultic books flourished in Italy and elsewhere, under the same regime during this time.

From said philosophical studies, new techniques of evading the truth were developed, such as the use of “mental reservations,” as they are so called, by some agents as a way to cover up the truth, and other similar ‘situational codes of ethics,’ used cynically by the nobility in order to justify a lie. One such example is the ideal of the ‘pious fraud,’ taught by Machiavelli. He taught that ‘the prince’ was to promote superstitions, under the concept of a ‘noble lie,’ and was to put on a show of being religious and devout, so far as it resulted in material gain for him. These unashamedly dishonest practices are worthy of being roundly condemned according to Scriptural standards.55See: “Ecclesiastical history, Platonists,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 8, p. 307.

One final, grave offense to add to all of this was the envelopment of these same philosophies within yet another subversive false teaching, known as pantheism. A typical description of pantheism appears here:

“In general, Spinoza commits a great error wherein he obviously misuses words to denote terms that have other names elsewhere to the rest of the world, while on the other hand takes away the meaning that they have everywhere: thus he calls ‘God’ that which is everywhere called ‘the world’; ‘justice’ that which is everywhere called ‘power’, etc.56see: Schopenhauer, Parerga und Paralipomena, Vol. 1, p. 13.

Likewise, advocates of humanism will sometimes promote a “God” of sorts, as they often refer to this being as such, but in fact what they mean to describe in uttering the word “god” is merely a disembodied, impersonal deity that is not a Lord at all,57For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
— Romans 1:20-21
neither is it a person at all. The thing they refer to by the word “god” is merely a disembodied force, perhaps one for ‘good’ – or perhaps the world itself. That again is pantheism. In other words, they still choose not to acknowledge the Lord, and in the Creator’s rightful place they imagine more like some manmade concept of a great disembodied force. This is a force that may work sometimes, but it only does so through nature, and by natural selection. What this might be called is a “god of forces” or munitions.58see Daniel 11:38 This impersonal being is incapable of acting or judging. It is merely a placename for the forces of nature.

The disembodied force also might not be called “god” at times. It might instead be called by the name “progress.” The worshippers of progress then are “progressives.” What they call “progress” amounts to their god, similar to the pantheists. Some also claim secularism as their belief (or secular humanism). This is because they choose to worship the world (the root word of secular) in their words and their actions. This is due to the simple fact that there are no such thing as ‘neutral’ values.59Any number of ways can prove this. Everyone has priorities, values, and, whether they use the word “god” or not, they have something they worship. But this idea of pantheism is not a very original nor a true idea. We have already shown that the exact same false idea can be found within similar refrains that gave rise to what we categorize as older pantheist cults, such as the medieval dualists, and so on. Likewise, these later groups are of the same stripe, as they ineffectually try to change power into ‘justice’ by a near-identical misuse of words. This is seen in the modern “woke” movement, in cancel culture, and in their forerunners, both political correctness and the “politically conscious,” and so on.

See Amos 4:12, however— “prepare to meet thy God,

2 Timothy 3:9— “But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men,

A.D. 1523: Zürich organization

Within one year of Luther’s first German translation of the New Testament being typeset and published, a spiritual front began to open in the eastern part of Switzerland, 1523, in the city of Zürich. Here, the townspeople had enough consciousness of the Bible to not only withstand the ecclesiastical fasting laws, as many other cities did – but in this particular town, they also came to the true knowledge of Scripture to the extent that a large gathering began to debate the legal standing of infant baptism, which was by law imposed on their city by that point as well. In other words, with no other prompting besides the availability of the Bible – as they saw there was no example anywhere in the New Testament, they began to question how lawful this form of baptism had been. It can be commented, what a difference one word from above can make.

Due to the leadership of Huldrych Zwingli, one of the Reformers, in this city, a new translation in the local dialect of German was quickly started, which is called the Zürich Bible, progressing so rapidly that it became the first complete Bible in that language, in 1531. This was about three years before Martin Luther finished his Old Testament translation to complete his work. The official title of this translation was Die Gantze Bibel.60The Complete Bible Credit for this translation probably belongs to a team, rather than a single translator, where Zwingli was part of the effort, as well as the contribution to the translation that they derived from Luther’s New Testament.

At almost this same time, Tyndale completed his New Testament in 1526, and he added to this a translation of the Pentateuch as early as 1530. These were, of course, the English translations that first appeared from the original Greek and Hebrew text. The timeline of these English and German translations therefore runs approximately parallel. Earlier translations predating these had mostly used Latin as their source. An exception was the Wessex Gospels, which did use the Greek as its source, back in year 990. But it was translated into Old English, which is not the English of Tyndale’s time, therefore in an obscure language and not well known at that time.

However, it was from one of these groups of Bible believers in Zürich, from which Zwingli would also emerge, and he would attempt to direct all the assemblies of the city to stay in line with various council decisions. Zwingli ultimately changed his view from an acceptance of the need to abolish the sacrificial mass, to the rejection of that position. He would also change his view from being against infant baptism61however, this is still rather unusually called the “Zwinglian position”(!) by some. For a source both more accurate in describing the doctrine and predating Zwingli, see e.g. appendix F from part two of this outline. to advocating for it. This change of views all happened in the span of time from 1525-1527. At first glance, the reformer’s reason for changing these views seems to be in keeping with the will of the city council, but of the true reason, we cannot be sure. In that short window of time, the council quickly moved to create new laws outlawing believer’s baptism on March 7, 1526. The first was drowned according to the penalty for believer’s baptism on January 5, 1527. This might be considered an important moment in the creation of a state church in that locality, or the maintenance of that view, and soon after these events, the “Protestant” alliance spread to other cities. The Dutch martyrologist Van Bright has the following to say about this juncture:

Felix Manz assisted in bringing about a reformation of opinion in Germany; but because he practised, taught, and preached the professed truth of the gospel with great zeal, he was envied, accused, and apprehended by his adversaries, and eventually drowned at Zürich, for the truth of the gospel, and as a witness of the sufferings of Christ. This event took place, A.D. 1526; he left the following for the consolation and admonition of his brethren:

My soul rejoices in God, who has given and imparted to me much knowledge, that I may escape an eternal, unending death. I praise thee, therefore, Jesus, Lord of heaven, that thou avertest my sorrows and afflictions; thou whom God sent to me as a Savior, an example, and a light, who has called me in time to his heavenly kingdom, that I may be made partaker with him of everlasting joy; and love him, together with his righteousness, which exists throughout time and eternity, without which righteousness nothing can subsist; hence, so many are deceived with a bare opinion, destitute of the substance. Alas! how many are found at this day who make their boast of the gospel, teach much concerning it, and announce it unto others, but are nevertheless full of hatred and envy, destitute of divine charity, whose deceit is manifest to all; as we have experienced in these latter days, that those who come to us in sheep’s clothing, are inwardly ravening wolves; they hate the pious, and obstruct the way to life, and to the true fold. Thus act the false prophets and the hypocrites of this world, out of whose mouth proceed cursing and praying, whose life is disorderly, who call upon the magistrates to put us to death, thus destroying the very nature of christianity. But I will praise Christ the Lord, who is of great compassion toward us; he instructs with his divine grace; he displays his love unto all men according to the nature of God, his heavenly Father, which is done by none of the false prophets...

I hereby resolve that I will remain faithful to Christ, and put my trust in him who knows my every distress, and is mighty to deliver. Amen. 1 Peter 5:2, John 16:20, 5:42, 10:2, Matthew 7:15, 20:26, 2 Thessalonians 3:2, Acts 2:38, Luke 6:36, Genesis 3:6, 4:8, 1 John 2:15, John 5:42.62van Braght, Thieleman J., The Bloody Theatre or Martyrs’ Mirror, (Lampeter Square, Penn. 1837 Ed.) tl. by J. D. Rupp, part second, p. 343.

There is another witness that presents us a unique insight, because this witness shows us that Bible distribution reached Franconia in central Germany as early as 1528, and has been inserted below. It takes the form of a letter written from prison:

Beloved brethren! I have received the tablets, and the account of our worship, doctrine and faith, and likewise, six candles and quills; but the bible I did not receive, as is written in the fore part of the tablets; but it is my request, that you will send it to me, if it can still be found; I would like to have it above all things, if it was the will of God that it should be so; for I need it greatly, and suffer great hunger and thirst for the Word of the Lord for many years; To God and His church I make this complaint; the days of my miserable imprisonment are twenty years, wanting eight weeks. The Wednesday after All-Saints will be the anniversary. I John Bair of Lichtenfels, who am the most miserable of the miserable, and the most forsaken of the forsaken, a prisoner of Jesus Christ our Lord, make this complaint to God, to His angels, to all His laborers, churches, and communities. Now, my most dearly beloved brethren and sisters in the Lord, pray to God in my behalf, that He may release me from this peril and great distress, which is indescribable; this God knows, and I, miserable man, and you know it also with me; I herewith commend myself to God. Writing in a dungeon at Bamberg, A. D. 1548.

“—He remained in confinement three years after the writing of this letter, that is, twenty-three years in all; when, in the year 1551, he fell asleep in the Lord, in his prison, and obtained the crown of martyrdom. Amos viii. 12. Eph. iv. 8; vi. 18, 19. 2 Tim. ii. 3.”63van Braght, Thieleman J., The Bloody Theatre or Martyrs’ Mirror, (Lampeter Square, Penn. 1837 Ed.) Translated by J. D. Rupp., part second, p. 429.

Around this time, the Council of Trent, of the state church of Rome, eventually passed a mandate similar to what we have read so far64Council of Trent, 1547: On Baptism, Canon 13 & 14. due to the growing perception of a spread of “anabaptists” in the many lands where Bibles were being shared, particularly in areas close to the Alpine region like Switzerland and Tyrol, as well as in Alsace and Lorraine. Similar to how there were observed to be great masses of Lollards of the English variety in England and Wales, these congregants now likewise seemed to appear in every place independently. This apparently happened despite the fact that none of them had any magisters or officials on their side, ordering their doctrines, or representing them. Indeed, very few state officials were even willing to tolerate them. Strasbourg was a key city for many in these years, because it had relatively tolerant officials. However, they still exiled some preachers merely for not recognizing infant baptism. Gradually, over time some continental European areas such as Bohemia and various Swiss cities opened up more and allowed a move, for those baptizing believers, from conventicle churches back to open meetingplaces or meeting houses; meanwhile, Henry VIII of England continued to pursue those that he derided as anabaptists.

In accounting for the preservation of scripture up to this time, here are some excerpts about the churches of those people called Vaudois, from the account of Theodore Beza65(1519-1605) A prominent scholar of Geneva and publisher of biblical texts which he wrote in his book on history, which is translated out of the French as follows:

Thus in the year 1536 the Faithful of the Valleys of Piedmont, who were always beseiged and horrified by the Romans, and who had never in successive times declined in their piety, or in their doctrine, sent unto Guillaume Farel at Geneva, who was renowned for his doctrine and piety, two characters, one named Jean Girard, who has since been a printer in said city, and the other, called Martin Gonin, who having been imprisoned on his return to Grenoble, was secretly drowned there on 26 of April, to the chagrin of the Inquisitor, after having so resisted the adversaries of truth that they dared not execute it by day.66Beza, Histoire ecclesiastique des Eglises reformes au Royaume de France, Vol. 1, pp. 38-39.

The Vaudois, who are so called, from time immemorial in opposition to the abuses of the Roman Church, have been so pursued, not by the sword of the word of God, but by every kind of violence and cruelty, joined with a million slanders and false accusations, forcing them to expand everywhere or to have little, wandering through the deserts like poor wild beasts; always having the Lord preserve and keep their abode, that notwithstanding the rage of the world, they are maintained, as they still are maintained in three countries well removed from each other: some in Calabria, others in Boismé and surrounding countries, and the others in valleys of Piedmont, which have been scattered through the districts of Provence for about two hundred and seventy years, mainly in Merindol, Cabrieres, Lormarin and surrounding neighborhoods.67p. 52.

Their lives by attestation and public voice has been peaceful to all. They were agreeable to their neighbors, gaining a reputation of being loyal, charitable and marvelous people, gaining fans in their debates, and generally being enemies of vices. As for Religion, they never adhered to papal superstitions. . .68p. 53.

Now, to return to our history, after the above-mentioned heard the grace that God did in some cities of Germany and Switzerland, they sent there for their part Georges Morel de Freissiniere of Dauphine, a minister whom they themselves had supported at the schools, and one Pierre Masson de Bourgongne, who conferred diligently of all the points of doctrine, both in Basel with John Œcolampade, in Strasbourg with Capito and Martin Bucer, and in Bern with Berthold Haller, prime minister of that Church. By their report, they understood little by little the purity of the doctrine that remained between them, and gave orders sending as far as Calabria69This branch of “Waldensian” churches, having constructed for itself two towns St. Xist and La Garde, within the locality of Montalto Uffugo, were apparently destroyed, at the contrivance of the orders of the friars, who multiplied accusations against them falsely, having a financial incentive to seize their goods.
See: Foxe, Actes and Monuments (aka Book of Martyrs), pp. 107-110.
to their brothers, to whom everything was restored to better condition; and since the year 1535 they have printed at their expense, at Neuchatel in Switzerland, the first printed French Bible of our time, translated from the Hebrew by Pierre Robert Olivétan,70Olivétan first published the Bible in French, made possible by the personal expenses and manuscripts which Vaudois supplied to him, and he was in communication with the ongoing translation work of Lefèvre and Bonaventure des Périers in this field. His 1535 Bible was the first French edition. with the help of Jean Calvin, who has often since amended it in a few passages. As for the translation of French Bibles printed during the darkness of ignorance, this was only falsehood and barbarism.71p. 53.

Boyer in 1691 remarked: “O marvelous! God, by his wise providence has preserved the purity of the Gospel in the Valleys of Piedmont, from the times of the Apostles to our times.72Boyer, Abrege de l’histoire des Vaudois, p. 23.

Following the publication of the Olivétan Bible in 1535, a second edition was proofread by John Calvin, so that this first Bible later became the basis of the French Geneva Bible (published in 1560, the same year as the English Geneva Bible). Olivétan, meanwhile, on a trip to Rome over questions of Hebrew translation, disappeared.731538: Reports of uncertain reliability state that he was poisoned, being about 32 years of age. An excerpt from his original preface to the Bible will be given later in this article.

The state of evidence left behind leads us to a conclusion that by the year 1523 of which we have been discussing, there still remained a stronghold of faith, which is commonly referred to as the peoples and churches of the Vaudois located in their Valleys. In English literature, they have historically been described as “Waldensians” frequently, although those closest to them referred to them by the French term “Vaudois.” Living still in the valleys where the Henricians had once passed, and the original evangelists had in the early centuries of Christ before them, these churches remained so close to that initial site of the papal Crusade against them in 1209, the closest to Rome itself, the remnant also, perhaps, of those North Italians that still had not relinquished the faith once delivered unto the saints, all the way until that time. This is despite all of the efforts, apparently, that Rome had previously undertaken to remove them. They were the “faithful of the Valleys,” as Beza described them. In their hands they still held the light of the gospel, and with a part to play, one more journey to begin.

As the scripture says in Ephesians 2, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

And so, because of this, there will be given a brief description (in appendix K) of the place in which these people lived, and there will be a brief summary, from all the information, of the true recountings of the things that happened here.

A first item of note is the message sent from some prelates to the papacy during the heat of the Crusade. At one time they complained to the archbishops of Arles and Narbonne (Hugues Béroard and Petrus Amelii) that there was not enough limestone or sand to build prison space for all of the captives they had gathered,74Leger, Histoire générale des églises evangeliques des vallées de Piemont, part ii, p. 6. many of whom would have been ancestrally related to the later Vaudois of this region. The prelates in their message were asking for further instruction on what to do with all of the captured ‘heretic’ prisoners, as they simply did not have enough prison cell space for them. Therefore, they would have to keep the rest of the prisoners which they had taken under constant guard. This complaint occurred in 1228, just before the infamous Council of Toulouse in the following year against the Albigensians.

Another date of mention is the edict of 1332 in which a pope identified Angrogna as the main meeting place of this group of Christians in that year, and also mentioned the valleys Lucerna and Perosa as two valleys in which they lived.75Monastier, A history of the Vaudois Church, translated from the French (1848 ed.), p. 121. Just as noted by the 1332 pope, there are the two primary valleys. This is so because, S. Martin, which is commonly described as the third great valley, is tributary to Perosa. Despite these pronunciations, there are no records to show whether anything further came of it.

Next we move forward to the year 1400 to the details of a major event in the history of what became the Vaudois. It was Christmas of 1400 when a major attack was planned. An inquisitor and monk who had been appointed by a second pope in Avignon twenty years prior, had spent the former years leading up to 1400 engaged in the task of entrapping the Vaudois on the western side of their border in Dauphine. From Leger we learn that 130 men and women were killed by the inquisitor in these efforts, including these four names: “Guillaume Marie, Pierre Long, Jean Truchi, and Albert Vincens.”76Leger, Histoire générale des églises evangeliques des vallées de Piemont, part ii, p. 20.

But then a major atrocity, a criminal and cowardly act, was to be made by this man on that winter night of 1400. A plan was conceived, where, on Christmas night,77Perrin (1618) writes, “enuiron les festes de Noel,” or about the time of this celebration; and Leger (1669), another native of the valleys, writes “justement en tems” or precisely at that time. a certain village hamlet was to be spitefully attacked and ambushed with no warning or pretext whatsoever. It was to be executed so that before anyone from the neighboring areas could be notified, the damage would be done.

The event’s description is simple enough; A band of armed men, having secretly prepared in advance for that villainous deed, at their chosen time suddenly broke into the square with no warning. This caused the greater part of the village to escape from their sudden attack to a place that has ever since been called Albergam or Refuge, aside the valley of Massello. This location is visible on the map below as Mt. Albergam. As night fell, the occupiers stationed for one night in the abandoned homes of those who were were faced with the choice to flee or be cut down without any mercy. At this same time the survivors were forced to hide, in the very dead of winter, at that empty clearing in the snow which has the name “Refuge” ever since then. Leger gives the description of what happened:

Again the poor escaped, surprised, by night, on the Mountains, and among the snows were pitiful wanderers, tormented by hunger and cold: several even had their feet and hands frozen, and a few others were found frozen solid among the snows. Among others fifty poor little Children were found icy, some in their little cradles, and others in the arms of their poor dead Mothers as well as themselves.78Leger, Histoire générale des églises evangeliques des vallées de Piemont, part ii, p. 7.

Perrin wrote: “The inhabitants of that valley look upon this persecution to be the most violent, that in their time, or in the time of their forefathers, they had ever suffered. They speak of it to this day, as if the thing were but lately transacted, and fresh in their memory; so often have they from generation to generation made mention of that sudden surprise, which was the occasion of so many miseries amongst them.79Perrin, Histoire des Vaudois, p. 117.
—And the translation of this by Mason & co., 1884: History of the Old Waldenses, Anterior to the Reformation, p. 65.

Wylie80one visitor to the region wrote in 1880: “In the Valley of Pragelas, to this day, sire recites to son the tale of that Christmas tragedy.81Wylie, History of the Waldenses, p. 27.

Now it happens that, the limited number of “home” Valleys which the Vaudois still lived in at this point— aside from the other numerous settlements, which we find their people were in all ages travelling and evangelizing into – were reduced in number after 1487, which is when a new war, or crusade perhaps, was declared against the entire people living in this region. This time, thousands of troops were sent in from both sides, from France and from Italy. And countless thousands fell in 1487 and the following year, to this sudden violence and assault. This could only be described as being attacked because of a hatred of their way of life, and it was done by those that did not understand them.

Not only were the valleys attacked in a military campaign which is about to be described, but also the commissioner who oversaw this, namely Archdeacon Alberto de’ Capitanei [Albertus de Capitaneis], gave separate instructions at this time “to all Dukes, Princes and potentates” by way of a papal commission, “so that you make it clear that the same Inquisitor is received and admitted to the free exercise of his Office, and that by your remedies you might induce the very abominable Sectateurs of the Sect of the Vaudois, & others tainted with any such heresy, to abjure their Errors, and obey the Commandments of the same Inquisitor,” and they were supposed, “all together with you, to carry out their execution, to take up arms against the so-called Vaudois, and other heretics, and of a common intelligence to crush them as poisonous Asps.82Leger, Histoire générale des églises evangeliques des vallées de Piemont, part ii, pp. 9,11. Leger places the total number killed by this campaign in 1487-1489 throughout all of Europe (France in particular), to exceed one hundred thousand,83more than a hundred thousand Vaudois, or professors of their Doctrine, not only in various places of the Valleys, Dauphine, Languedoc, and Provence, but [also] in several other places of Europe, were martyred without mercy.
in ibid., p. 8.
which is not an entirely unrealistic number, when compared to later figures that we see, though most later historians either downplay, or more often simply ignore or sadly are unaware of this event and its significance in history.

The campaign within the valleys itself happened in three theaters. The first two parts of the campaign have fewer surviving accounts. The first area that we will start out with is the Western part of the valleys, which extends into what was Dauphine, which today is in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur administrative region of France. On the confrontation made against the Vaudois in this region:84Perrin, Histoire des Vaudois, pp. 129-134.
—Also the translation by Mason & co., 1884: History of the Old Waldenses, Anterior to the Reformation, pp. 69-71.

The method of harassing the Vaudois by war was never known till that time [1487]; but Albert de Capitaneis, Archdeacon of Cremona, sent against them by Pope Innocent VIII, began to desire the aid and assistance of the King’s Lieutenant in Dauphiny, called Hugues de la Palu, who for this service levied troops, and marched those to places where the said Albert told him any of the Vaudois were, in the valley of Loyse. … Upon their arrival at the said val Loyse, they could meet with none of the inhabitants, for they had all fled into their caverns on the top of the mountains, having carried thither with them their little children, and whatsoever they accounted most precious, and fit for their sustenance and nourishment. This Lieutenant of the King caused a great quantity of wood to be placed at the entrance of their caves, and to be set on fire, so that either the smoke by suffocating, or the fire by burning them, constrained a great number to throw themselves headlong from their caverns upon the rocks below, where they ended their lives, being dashed in pieces. If there were any one amongst them who dared to stir, he was immediately slain by the soldiers of Palu. That persecution was very severe: for there were found within the said caverns four hundred little children, suffocated in their cradles, or in the arms of their dead mothers.

Among the Vaudois dwelling in the adjacent valleys, above three thousand persons, men and women, belonging to the said valley, then perished. To say the truth, they were wholly exterminated; so that thenceforward that valley was peopled with new inhabitants […] That Lieutenant of the King having destroyed the inhabitants of the valley of Loyse, fearing lest the Vaudois in the neighbouring country should settle there again, and that they might not hereafter be put to a second trouble to expel them, he gave the goods and possessions of the valley to whom he pleased; which were not so soon divided, but that the Vaudois of Pragela and Fraissinière85also Argentière in the north (Monastier, p. 128.) had made provision for their safety, expecting the enemy at the passage and narrow straits of their valleys; so that when the Lieutenant of the King came to invade them, he was obliged to retreat. Albert de Capitaneis’s commission called him elsewhere, he substituted a Franciscan monk, named Ploieri, who began to exhibit fresh informations against the Vaudois of Fraissinière, in the year 1489. […]

In the same parcel of writings, containing the process against the Vaudois, we find one drawn up against François de Gerondin and Pierre de Iacob, two barbes [pastors], who were taken, about the hill in the side of the plain, in 1492. Being asked the reason why the sect of the Vaudois multiplied and increased so fast, and for a long time together had spread itself into so many places, this monk wrote down the answer of Gerondin after this manner, that ‘the dissolute and debauched lives of the priests was the cause of it; and because the cardinals were covetous, proud, and luxurious, it being manifest to all, that there was neither pope, cardinal, nor bishop, who kept not their concubines, and few or none who were not guilty of unnatural crimes; and therefore it was an easy matter for the pastors of the Vaudois to persuade the people, that the religion of such scandalous persons could never be good, since the fruits of it were so bad. […]

That persecution was extremely severe; for the Vaudois being condemned as heretics by the Inquisitor, Ponce the Counseller, and Oronce the Judge hurried them to the fire, without suffering their appeal.

Leaving this account of the western regions, the next area to account for is the valley of Pragelas, in Italy. This is the one valley that specially forms the passageway between Italy and France, because of its Alpine torrent which flows into Italy— passing north of the other valleys, then turning east to Pinerolo. The SP23R route follows this route today. The battle of Pragelas was fought here, according to Monastier. The movement of one army from France was meant to link up with the main force on the Italian side, led by the Archdeacon,86A detachment of the French army struck across the Alps in a south-east direction, holding their course toward the Waldensian Valleys, there to unite with the main body of the crusaders under Cataneo.
in: Wylie, History of the Waldenses, p. 34.
which would then complete the entrapment of the Vaudois within the last valleys on the eastern side. This attack through the mountain passage is according to the following account:

A corps detached from the army that was assembled in Dauphiné, on the western side of the Alps, crossing the elevated defiles of the mountains, came suddenly by Cesane, on the eastern side, into the valley of Pragelas, or Clusone, the most northern of all the Vaudois valleys. The hostile force, falling unexpectedly like an avalanche on a people occupied as usual in their peaceful labors, surprised them without the means of defence, threw them into consternation, laid waste and ravaged their towns, pillaged their cottages, and massacred the inhabitants. The fugitives themselves were not able to escape the fury of their pursuers. As in the vale of Loyse, inflammable materials were heaped at the entrance of the caverns, to which they had retreated from the fury of their pitiless adversaries; and if they tried to escape from the flames that devoured, or the smoke that stifled them, they were instantly slain by the sword.87Monastier, A history of the Vaudois Church, translated from the French (1848 ed.), pp. 128-129.

Until this year, this ancient passageway thrived by every account for 1400 years, that is fourteen centuries – before being stricken by this attack. The amount of scorched earth here however was to such an extent, according to our sources, that little on earth remained at the end of the march.

Another stronghold yet remained behind after this. On the final front, in the Eastern Italian side of the passage, a description is given of the enemy forces assembled there:

This Papal Commissioner, assisted by the forces of all the Princes & Potentates as he pleased, tormented in a strange way the poor Vaudois in various places. But over all, the Valleys of Piedmont were not lacking in his recommendation in a special way, as they were meeting in Italy, & were those closest to Rome. So he went against them with an army made up of 18,000 men, not including an incredible multitude of Volunteer Piedmontese, who, to have part in the indulgences of the Pope as well as in the spoils of the poor Vaudois, joined him with a merriment of heart.88Leger, Histoire générale des églises evangeliques des vallées de Piemont (1669), part ii, p. 26.

The description of the ensuing battle and its environment:89Wylie, History of the Waldenses, pp. 35-40.

We now turn to the Piedmontese portion of this army. It was led by the Papal legate, Cataneo, in person. It was destined to operate against those valleys in Piedmont which were the most ancient seat of these religionists, and were deemed the stronghold of the Vaudois heresy. […]

The first step of the invaders was to occupy the town of La Torre, situated on the angle formed by the junction of the Val Lucerna [valley of Light] and the Val Angrogna [valley of Groans], the silver Pelice at its feet and the shadow of the Castelluzzo covering it. The soldiers were probably spared the necessity or denied the pleasure of slaughter, the inhabitants having fled to the mountains. The valley beyond La Torre is too open to admit of being defended, and the troop advanced along it unopposed. […]

Immediately behind Bobbio shoots up the ‘Barion,’ symmetrical as Egyptian obelisk, but far taller and more massive. Its summit rises 3,000 feet above the roofs of the little town. Compared with this majestic monolith, the proudest monument of Europe’s proudest capital is a mere toy. Yet even the Barion is but one item in this assemblage of glories. […] In this unrivalled amphitheatre sits Bobbio, in summer buried in blossoms and fruit, and in winter wrapped in the shadows of its great mountains, and the mists of their tempests. What a contrast between the still repose and grand sublimity of nature and the dreadful errand on which the men now pressing forward to the little town are bent […]

One detachment, a full 700 footsoldiers if it can be imagined, was sent to march over one of the alpine passes, via a small footpath between the major valleys. Once crossed over, in an unstoppable formation they were to descend on Prali valley, to the unsuspecting villagers. What actually happened was not according to plan. All but one of the attackers fell to the defenders there, so the remaining stretch of that valley was saved. In the Psalms: “thou hast given commandment to save me: for thou art my rock and my fortress.”

The one and only survivor of this failed assault on the village retreated into the slopes of the mountain, where he hid for several days in a convenient spot where the snow had melted. He then made the decision to surrender due to the cold and hunger he suffered, and was sent home unharmed by the inhabitants of Prali. It is not known whether the man afterward changed his way of life, but the burden of reporting this defeat was his as he traveled down the stream to the army leaders in Pinerolo.

The primary detachment of the army had turned north at La Torre, heading for the valley of Angrogna at the center of the mountain formation. All of the inhabitants of this region had retreated into a narrow passage,90Cataneo now put his soldiers in motion. Advancing to near the town of La Torre, they made a sharp turn to the right, and entered the Val di Angrogna. Its opening offers no obstruction, being soft and even as any meadow in all England. By-and-by it begins to swell into the heights of Rocomaneot, where the Vaudois had resolved to make a stand. […] In the Pra del Tor, or Meadow of the Tower, Cataneo expected to surprise the mass of the Waldensian people, now gathered into it as being the strongest refuge which their hills afforded.
in: Wylie, History of the Waldenses, pp. 43,44.
where a description of this battle of two days begins:

The inhabitants concentrated themselves on the most inaccessible points; the enemy, on the contrary, were spread out over the plain, and whether from incapacity for strategy, or from his pride moving him to make a grand display of his military force, Cattanée thought proper to commence an attack upon all points at once; so that from the village of Biolets, situated in the marquisate of Saluces, to that of Sezanne, which belonged to Dauphiny, his lines, without any depth, occupied all the country. He proposed to destroy by a single effort the hydra of heresy. […] The weapons employed in this combat were only pikes, swords, and bows. […]

There was, however, one post where, notwithstanding the vigour of their defences, the enemy seemed on the point of forcing a passage. It was the central point of this great line of operations on the height of St. John, where they abut upon the mountains of Angrogna, at a place called Rochemanant. The crusaders had invaded this quarter from beneath, mounting step by step, and closing their ranks around that natural bulwark behind which the Vaudois had sheltered their families. Seeing their defenders yield, these families threw themselves upon their knees with many tears; women, and children, and old men united together in fervently crying, ‘O Dio aiutaci! O Lord, help us! O my God, save us!’ This cry of prayer was the only cry which broke from their hearts in their distress, and arose to heaven. But their enemies laughed at it, and seeing this company upon their knees, hastened their advance. ‘My fellows are coming—they are coming to give you your answer’ exclaimed one of their chiefs, surnamed the Black of Mondovi; and immediately, joining bravado to insult, he raised the visor of his helmet, to show that he was not afraid to encounter the poor people whom he insulted. But at that moment a steel-pointed arrow, let fly by a young man of Angrogna, named Peter Revel, struck this new Goliath with such violence, that it penetrated into his skull, between his eyes, and laid him dead. His troop, struck with terror, fell back in disorder; a panic seized them; the Vaudois took advantage of the moment, and impetuously rushed forward, hurling their adversaries before them, and, eagerly continuing the pursuit, swept them into the very plain, where they left them vanquished and dispersed. Then, re-ascending to their families so miraculously delivered, they flung themselves upon their knees, and all together gave thanks to the God of armies for the victory which they had just gained.

O Dieu de mon salut, Dieu de ma delivrance! might they have sung, if that beautiful hymn had then been composed. But they had all its sentiments in their hearts. It is trust in God which is the real strength of man…

A new attempt was made next day to seize on that formidable post, where the strength of victory from on high seemed seated with these heroic mountaineers. The enemy took a different route; ascending by the bottom of the valley of Angrogna, in order to penetrate to the Pra du Tour [Meadow of the Tower], whence, mounting by La Vachera, they would have been masters of the whole region. But a dense and dangerous mist, such as sometimes unexpectedly appears in the Alps, settled down upon them just at the very moment when they were entangled in the paths most full of difficulty and of peril.91Muston, L’Israel des Alpes (1852 ed.) Translated with Author’s sanction and co-operation, pp. 33-34.

Undaunted by this rout in a day of desperate struggle, the crusade commander with new legions went into the valley,92He passed the height of Rocomaneot, where he had encountered his first defeat, without meeting any resistance. […] He was now master so far of the Val di Angrogna, comprehending the numerous hamlets, with their finely cultivated fields and vineyards, on the left of the torrent. But he had seen none of the inhabitants. These, he knew, were with the men of Lucerna in the Pra del Tor…
in: Wylie, History of the Waldenses, pp. 45-46.
determined to accomplish his aim. The remaining survivors had now withdrawn their defense to the last possible place, where they hoped for life they could remain safely until the evil was past.

…These, he knew, were with the men of Lucerna in the Pra del Tor. Between him and his prey rose the ‘Barricade,’ a steep unscaleable mountain, which runs like a wall across the valley, and forms a rampart to the famous ‘Meadow,’ which combines the solemnity of sanctuary with the strength of citadel.

Must the advance of the Papal legate and his army here end? It seemed as if it must. Cataneo was in a vast cul-de-sac. He could see the white peaks round the Pra, but between him and the Pra itself rose, in Cyclopean strength and height, the Barricade. He searched and, unhappily for himself, found an entrance. Some convulsion of nature has here rent the mountains, and through the long, narrow, and dark chasm thus formed lies the one only path that leads to the head of Angrogna. The leader of the Papal host boldly ordered his men to enter and traverse this frightful gorge, not knowing how few of them he should ever lead back. The only pathway through this chasm is a rocky ledge on the side of the mountain, so narrow that not more than two abreast can advance along it. If assailed either in front, or in rear, or from above, there is absolutely no retreat. […] Here lateral fissures admit the golden beams of the sun, which relieve the darkness of the pass, and make it visible. There a half-acre or so of level space gives standing-room on the mountain’s side to a clump of birches, with their tall silvery trunks, or a châlet, with its bit of bright close-shaven meadow. But these only partially relieve the terrors of the chasm, which runs on from one to two miles, when, with a burst of light, and a sudden flashing of white peaks on the eye, it opens into an amphitheatre of meadow of dimensions so goodly, that an entire nation might find room to encamp in it.

It was into this terrible defile that the soldiers of the Papal legate now marched. They kept advancing, as best they could, along the narrow ledge. They were now nearing the Pra. It seemed impossible for their prey to escape them. Assembled on this spot the Waldensian people had but one neck, and the Papal soldiers, so Cataneo believed, were to sever that neck at a blow. But God was watching over the Vaudois. […] The instrumentality now put in motion to shield the Vaudois from destruction was one of the lightest and frailest in all nature; yet no bars of adamant could have more effectually shut the pass, and brought the march of the host to an instant halt.

A white cloud, no bigger than a man’s hand, unobserved by the Piedmontese, but keenly watched by the Vaudois, was seen to gather on the mountain’s summit, about the time the army would be entering the defile. That cloud grew rapidly bigger and blacker. It began to descend. It came rolling down the mountain’s side, wave on wave, like an ocean tumbling out of heaven—a sea of murky vapour. It fell right into the chasm in which was the Papal army, sealing it up, and filling it from top to bottom with a thick black fog. In a moment the host were in night; they were bewildered, stupefied, and could see neither before nor behind, could neither advance nor retreat. They halted in a state bordering on terror.

The Waldenses interpreted this as an interposition of Providence in their behalf. It had given them the power of repelling the invader. Climbing the slopes of the Meadow, and issuing from all their hiding-places in its environs, they spread themselves over the mountains, the paths of which were familiar to them, and while the host stood riveted beneath them, caught in the double toils of the defile and the mist, they tore up huge stones and rocks, and sent them thundering down into the ravine.93Wylie, History of the Waldenses, pp. 46-48.

Monastier adds:

At this juncture, the Angrognines, emboldened by this interposition of Providence in their favour, issued forth from all their retreats, vigorously attacked their perplexed aggressors, whom they defeated, put to flight, and pursued. Profiting by the knowledge they possessed of the locality, they soon came up with them, by crossing the rocks, and took them in the flank. The fugitives, choking up the narrow road, were crowded together, and in pressing forwards precipitated one another over the rocks into the foaming waters. The fog, the precipices, the rocks, and the torrent, made more victims on that day than the swords of the Vaudois. The number of deaths was very considerable. Tradition has preserved a faithful memorial of one of the men whom the hand of God smote in this defeat—a captain Saguet, or Saquet, of Polonghera, in Piedmont, a man of colossal size, who filled the air with his blasphemies and his menaces against the Vaudois. His foot slipped over the edge of a rock, he fell into the boiling waters of the Angrogna, was carried away, and thrown by them into a whirlpool or basin, which still goes by his name; Tompi Saquet [Gulf of Saquet].94Monastier, A history of the Vaudois Church, translated from the French (1848 ed.), p. 134.95On the ‘gulf of Saquet,’ Wylie writing in 1880 adds: “The Author was shown this pool when he visited the chasm. None of the Waldensian valleys is better illustrated by the sad, yet glorious, scenes of their martyrdom than this Valley of Angrogna.

What few troops remained behind were deterred from further expeditions, their morale and numbers being so depleted from the fight. They realized they could not battle nature itself, which lended itself to the aid of the defenders. That is to say that the 18,000 regular soldiers and more irregular troops, commissioned by a papal decree and despite being in combination with the French army, had been unable to accomplish their task, but instead were forced to retreat at the end. It is likely because of this one event, the legacy of the Vaudois was singlehandedly saved, instead of being lost or forgotten.96These were the same people from whom Jean Girard and Martin Gonin were in 1536 sent unto Geneva to help with the Bible publishing work, along with many others; and these are those who Beza later mentioned in his book. Winter then fell on the country. In this time, the Duke Charles I of Savoy, in whose domain the Vaudois valleys were included, had a change of mind. The account of Leger on the aftermath in 1489 is translated as follows:97Leger, Histoire générale des églises evangeliques des vallées de Piemont, part ii, pp. 26-27.

This murderous army was reduced to a state of not being able to do them much harm. So that Charles I Prince of Piedmont, then reigning, was obliged to put an end to a war so pernicious and fatal to his subjects, and so unrewarding for him. God even softened his heart so much towards this poor people, that in testifying to his regret for what he had been obliged to undertake, he said loudly and repeatedly, recalling, that he ‘did not have such good, so faithful, & so obedient subjects as these Vaudois,’ and that for this he would not allow them to be treated so cruelly in the future by force of arms. And as to what happened, he ordered, pro forma, that twelve of them come to Pinerol, where he was making his residence for the time, to obtain pardon for having dared to take up arms against him, which they did. Having received them very humanely, he had them send at the same time a general amnesty for all that had happened during the war, admitting that he recognized that he had been very badly informed as much as regards their persons and their Religion. However, he wanted to see some of their Children, in order to clarify even touching what they had made him believe, that they were extremely monstrous, having only one eye in the middle of the forehead, having four rows of teeth, all black, and many similar things. These Deputies being accompanied by their own Mothers, and this Prince having considered them with admiration, as finding them very well made, and of a very pleasant sight, having even taken pleasure in hearing their little jargon, could not help but testify the great irritation which he had against the impudence of the impostors who had dared to persuade him of these Deceits.

This is why he not only confirmed the Privileges and immunities of these poor Vaudois, but even graciously promised them that he would make sure that they would be left in peace in the future. And do not doubt that it was for the sincere resolution of this Prince, that afterwards, the importunity of the Inquisitors, joined to their pious frauds, still obtained to make several more frauds, even with the assistance of the secular arm.

Turning back to the account of Beza, more is described of the segment of these Christians in the valleys which remained in France after this incident, of which Beza is more familiar and speaks of more frequently.98Beza, Histoire ecclesiastique des Eglises reformes au Royaume de France, Vol. 1, p. 162.

The churches of the valleys of Piedmont—namely of Angrongne, Lucerne, S. Martin, and other countries inhabited from time immemorial by a part of those who are remnants of the former persecutions prepared against those called Albigois & Vaudois—when, considering the cruelty exerted against their colleagues in Cabrieres and Merindol, would not have been considered to be under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Turin; and during the wars between the [French] King, and the Emperor Charles (supporting the Duke of Savoy, his brother-in-law), they would have been in no way spared by the governors of Piedmont. . .

Our histories next state, briefly, that in 1534, the archbishop and Inquisitor of Turin connived to have Charles III, Duke of Savoy, (titled “the Good,”) send a man called ‘the Noble, Pantaleon Bressour, of the Community of Rocheplatte,’ to attack the Vaudois community again. We learn that some 500 men of Bressour went into the Valleys in 1534 and committed complete massacre, until they were cut off from behind and only some of the attackers managed to escape with their lives.

The Duke realized at this point that “the skin of a deceased Vaudois always cost him fifteen, or came from those of his good Catholics” so that he instead set up bandits paid for by him to stalk the exits of the valleys and ambush them when they came out. Leger’s history continues:

There were several who in the long run fell into these disastrous traps, and were the prey of these brigands, who after having resented them mercilessly, did not allow their life to be taken away, cruelly: but all these torments did not prevent them from constantly persevering in the profession of the truth until their last breath, either to the point that they were slaughtered by these Executioners: or even that their sufferings must be of longer breath.

Observe Catalan Girard, of S. Jean in the Lucerne Valley, who having been condemned to be burned in Reuel Ville de Piedmont, when he was laid down on the stake, had the courage to ask for two stones, and (according to his own executioners) holding them in his hands, to cry out aloud in these words: ‘you believed, miserable persecutors, to root out our poor Churches entirely by this way: but know that it will be as impossible for you to ever come to the end of it, as it would be to chew and digest these stones at present.’ […]

George Morel confessed, in 1530, that, even after all this, there were still more than eight hundred thousand of the Vaudois99Reformed? Religion.100Leger, Histoire générale des églises evangeliques des vallées de Piemont (1669), part ii, p. 27.

Indeed, these methods were quite variously used by the Romans. Consider once again Perrin, who in 1618 wrote this testimony about the time period:

A.D. 1487: We may observe a remarkable piece of villany in the process formed by this monk Veiliti. Having the said process in our hands, we discovered little bills, wherein the said commissioner used to take the answers of the persons accused, simply and nakedly, as they came out of their mouths, but we found them afterwards stretched and extended in the process, altogether contrary to what they were in the sumptum, as they called it, altering therein the intention of the said person, making him to say that of which he never thought.

Inquiring, whether he believed, that after the words of consecration were pronounced by the priest in the Mass, the body of Christ was present in the Host in as gross and extensive a manner as it was upon the Cross? if the Waldenses101i.e. Vaudois shall answer, ‘no,’ Veiliti, or his clerk, dictating it, set down the answer thus: ‘he confessed he believed not in God.’ Inquire whether we ought not to pray to the saints? if he answer, ‘no,’ they set down, ‘he reviled and spake evil of the saints.’ Inquire whether we ought to reverence the Virgin Mary, and pray unto her in our necessities? if he answer no, they write, ‘that he spake blasphemy against the Virgin Mary.’ Thus you may see the fidelity of the inquisitors in so weighty and important an action. It could not be without the great Providence of God, that the history of such villanies should be preserved till now, that men might see by what spirit they were actuated and inspired, who cut the throats of, and burnt the faithful members of the church, after they had loaded them with impostures; demanding of us notwithstanding, where these faithful members of the church were, whom they had massacred before our time.

If the reader desires to know how the process and indictments fell into our hands; here he will again see the great Providence of God, in causing the very same persons, who were the authors and actors of those cruelties and villanies, to keep the said papers and process in their libraries, and other places wherein their records are laid up; the archbishops of Ambrun themselves, John and Rostain, and others, until the city was recovered out of the hands of the rebels in the year 1585. Then all the said process and proceedings, attempted and contrived for many hundred years together against the Vaudois, were flung out into the street, because the archbishop’s palace was set on fire by the enemies themselves.”102Perrin, Histoire des Vaudois, pp. 127-129.
—Also the translation, by Mason & co., 1884: History of the Old Waldenses, Anterior to the Reformation, pp. 68-69.

Even after all of the above-detailed injustice, in 1545 another great branch of these churches in France were massacred, at Mérindol and in “many villages,” as is commonly known as the Massacre at Mérindol, this attack being another unprovoked military action against the church which gained the approval of both the king of France and the Roman pope.

Inscription on this event: “In memory of the Vaudois of Provence who died for their faith.

This is noteworthy because this siege of 1545 is commonly supposed by many historians as start of the Wars of Religion in France. But in actuality these wars first began much earlier, as we see in our sources. The Wars actually began with the attack by Hugues de Palu on the inhabitants of Vallouise, when the French army was instigated to a crusade by the Archdeacon Cataneo in 1487. These wars continued until 1545 and beyond.

Regarding the doctrine of the Vaudois much has been written, but one extract from their work is copied below, taken from a document called On Antichrist, (which dates most likely to A.D. 1120, the original claim – due to its language structure and for its denunciations having been limited to Roman superstitions that already existed at that time, not mentioning ones invented later.103Blair, History of the Waldenses (1832 ed.), pp. 219-220.104Jones, W., The History of the Christian Church (1832 ed.), pp. 336-337.105Morland, The history of the Evangelical churches of the valleys of Piemont (1658), p. 142. (document preserved on pp. 142-160.)):

“…The second Work of the Antichrist is, that he robs and bereaves Christ of his Merits, together with all the sufficiency of Grace, of Justification, of Regeneration, Remission of Sins, Sanctification, Confirmation, and spiritual Nourishment, and imputes and attributes the same to his own authority…
“The third Work of Antichrist consists in this, that he attributes the Regeneration of the Holy Spirit unto the dead outward work, baptizing Children in that Faith…”

For the moment, this will suffice. Later in this article we will refer to additional material from the Vaudois. Finally, with regards to the etymology of the name “Baptist,” the following three quotes provide us with additional historical grounding:

“Baptists” in The Edinburgh Encyclopedia (1830): “It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. It is but justice to acknowledge, that they reject the latter appellation with disdain; and maintain, that as none of the forms adopted by other churches are consonant to scripture, the baptism of these churches is in reality no baptism. Hence, in their opinion, they do not re-baptize. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.”106“Baptists,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 3, p. 251.

In S. Baptismi Historia (1647): “From Peter de Bruis they were called Petrobrusians; from Henry, Henricians; from Peter Waldo, Waldenses, and so forth. […] Among us Germans, the papist, Lutheran, and Calvinistic pedobaptists still contemptuously call them Anabaptists.”107Montanus, Hermanus [author], Mehrning, Jacob [author, translator]; S. Baptismi Historia: Das ist Heilige Tauff-Historia, p. 694-696.

In Summary of the British settlements in North-America (1748): “The Anabaptists, at their first appearance in New-England, were enthusiastically troublesome; they chose among themselves the meanest of the people for their ministers; they call themselves Baptists by way of abbreviation of the name Anabaptists, after the Lollards[d] (who were the first in the Reformation) followed the Lutherans and Anabaptists. Some of them vainly imagine, that they ought to be called by that name in a peculiar manner; their baptism being the only scriptural baptism: they would not communicate with persons baptized in infancy only; if occasionally in a congregational meeting, upon a child’s being presented for baptism, they withdrew, to the great disturbance of the congregation: fines were enacted; Holmes,108Obadiah Holmes because he would not pay his fine, was whipped thirty lashes.

(included footnote) “[d] The Lollards (so called from Walter Lollard, the author of this sect in Germany in the thirteenth century) were our first Reformers; their name is now lost, the first Reformation being subdivided into many denominations. They first appeared in England, under Wickliff, D.D. of Oxford, about the middle of the fourteenth century; they clamoured against transubstantiation, auricular confession, celibacy of the clergy, hierarchy, and several pecuniary perquisites of the Roman catholic clergy; with some enthusiastical notions, viz. the church consists only of the predestinated,109i.e. the regenerate faithful converting of church-effects to other uses is no sacrilege, neither public nor private succession is indefeasible, &c.”110Douglass, William, A summary, historical and political, of the first planting, progressive improvements, and present state of the British settlements in North-America (1748), pp. 445-446, footnote p. 445.

From the above enlightening quotations, we see that the same people were called by many different appellations. And we see that none of these titles were of their own choosing, except that of “Baptists.” We find this term only in the sources we can find which are not hostile to this group. In hostile accounts, they are called by one name or another in an effort to degrade and denounce them. Sometimes they were called names with an intent to imply that they were gnostics, when this was not the case. Three other interesting quotes regarding these churches are as follows:

“Here our Anabaptists again disclose their ignorance, when they teach that no one should be compelled to that which is good, or to the faith… They resemble the ancient Anabaptists, the Donatists, in every respect. […] These were of the opinion, that heretics should be allowed to live without restraint and with impunity in their faith;”111Heinrich Bullinger, Adversus Anabaptistas Libri VI. (1560), p. 181.

“For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing.”112Stanislaus Hosius (c. 1568), Opera Omnia Coloniæ, Epistle 150: Alberto Bauariæ Duci, p. 309.

In response to their presence in England, one Bp. Ridley also wrote, in 1550, another rejoinder which, through sheer inadvertency came not far from arriving at truth:

“If this reason should take place, ‘The apostles used it not, ergo it is not lawful for us to use it’—or this either, ‘they did it, ergo we must needs do it’—then all Christians may have no place abiding, all must, under pain of damnation, depart with their possessions, as Peter said they did, Ecce nos reliquimus omnia,113Behold, we have forsaken all” —Matt. 19:27 &c.; we may have no ministration of Christ’s sacraments in churches, for they had no churches, but were fain to do all in their own houses; we must baptize abroad in the fields as the apostles did; we may not receive the holy communion but at supper, and with the table furnished with other meats, as the Anabaptists do now stiffly and obstinately affirm that it should be; our naming of the child in baptism, our prayer upon him, our crossing, and our threefold abrenunciation, and our white chrisom, all must be left, for these we cannot prove by God’s word, that the apostles did them. And, if to do anything which we cannot prove that they did (!!) be sin, then a greatest part is sin that we do daily in baptism. What followeth then other things, than to receive the Anabaptists’ opinion, and to be baptized anew? O wicked folly and blind ignorancy!”114The Writings of John Bradford, M.A. Edited by Aubrey Townsend, 1853. in: “Reply of Bishop Ridley to Bishop Hooper, 1550.” Vol. 2, pp. 382-383.

A.D. 1534: The Münster rebellion

In the German city of Münster, an event took place which was of retrospective significance. Strictly lasting from 1534-1535, the Münster uprising came to be a landmark in history among Reformation theologians and scholars, and for the next three hundred years or so. Its long term significance was as slander against those who still maintained the argument against infant baptism. For centuries afterward, popular rhetoric claimed that all baptists originated from this event. Of course, today we know it is not true (although the idea is still sometimes posited as factual), because of the manifold proof of the existence of these Christians, apart from the doings of Münsterite rebels115This they deny, for no impartial historian of that period now asserts that Baptists descended from those fanatics, or that then they, as a body, had any participation in the dangerous doing of those men.
in: Burder, The History of All Religions of the World (1881 ed.), p. 405.
116The Catholic historians of the times excuse all their brethren, who were concerned in it, and lay the whole blame at the door of Luther and the reformation. The Lutheran historians, from whom the English took their accounts, endeavored to clear themselves, by accusing the Anabaptists of being the prime movers […] the Munster affair, as it was first related by the Lutheran historians, has been transmitted from one generation to another […] it has been transmitted by a thousand Pedobaptist pens, as a salutary memento for the seditious dippers; it is the dernier resort of every slanderous declaimer against them; it is the great gun, the ultima ratio of every disputant, which they keep in reserve against the time of need.
in: Brown, Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge (1844 ed.), p. 77.
which is simply too overwhelming. They simply could not have originated from that event. Certainly, the source from which these Christians claim all doctrine and practice, the Bible, dates to the time of the apostles. The exact term anabaptist, however, is seldom mentioned117I have been able to locate only three examples. before the Münster rebellion, as these churches went under different names. This has been discussed in aforementioned entries.

The idea that the origins of these numerous churches happened at Münster, where the label of anabaptist appeared, was simply a rhetorical tool of adversaries. It made it seem as though the people, who observed Biblical teachings in churches across many countries, do not represent the church founded by Christ, but instead were merely a rebel group. The idea was that these churches would be easy to defeat and destroy if thought of this way. This is because many still feared and believed the promise of Christ in Matthew 16:18, which says that the gates of hell “shall not prevail” against the church. They knew that the church founded by Christ would last from its foundation until the Son’s return in glory. Because of this, a wicked group that was soundly rebuked by the church had to quickly grasp for a way of creating a false origin for the churches of these believers. They finally settled, after 1534, on the Münsterite origin theory. Thus the myth or narrative of the Münsterite origin lasted for a number of centuries, before eventually collapsing due to its significant flaws. Also, in 1881 another narrative about origins of the baptists emerged from the writings of Henry M. Dexter, centered around John Smyth. This one has gained some popularity today, while the Münsterite origins theory that once held sway is largely forgotten. In any case, after the scene of rebellion in 1534, it became standard to call our true Christians “anabaptists,” which is the same term also used of the specific rebels here. This often leads to confusion between the two groups, even today. This is despite the vast differences between the anarchistic rebels of Münster and the numerous orderly Christian churches of true New Testament tradition; Even as much as existed between these peaceful churches and the radical gnostics at the time of the Albigensian Crusade.

Zwingli, for example, in 1527 had not called them anabaptists but catabaptists.118See: In catabaptistarum strophas elenchus. Recall that this work of theological dispute with the baptists in Switzerland was still before the Münster rebellion. Hence, they were not yet called anabaptists. However, Bullinger in 1560 called them anabaptists. In fact, we can date virtually all uses of this new term to after the rebellion in 1534-35. Even if not intended, this new usage of terms created a very unnatural link between a general set of beliefs regarding the practice of believer’s baptism and the events of the Münster rebellion. Although untrue, this link was very convenient for the suppressors of many other supposed “anabaptists,” long after the Münsterite fires were extinguished.

The story of this rebellion begins with a travelling preacher named Bernhard Rothmann, who left Strasbourg in 1531 and entered Münster. According to his personal confession of faith, published in 23 January 1532, he was Lutheran at this time. In it, almost every point was copied from the Wittenberg confession.119Detmer, Heinrich, Hermanni A. Kerssenbroch Anabaptistici Furoris (1900 ed.), pp. 176-189. On 10 August, Rothmann became the political leader of the city, taking advantage of a vacancy in the bishopric of Münster. Having solidified his power base, he quickly established his faction in command of all the churches in the city. This is, of course, not in accord with congregational church polity. On 16 August, Rothmann published a new personal confession of faith, where, in article six he speaks directly against Luther and for Zwingli.120Korte Anwisunge der Missbruch der Romischen Kerken,” in: Die Schriften der Münsterischen Täufer und ihrer gegner (1970), pp. 58-59. From this fact we see that in fewer than seven months, Rothmann changed his view from being almost fully supporting Luther, to being diametrically opposed to Luther.

But let us continue. Around this time, on 6 September 1532, Rothmann wrote an epistle to a friend where he harshly criticized the so-called anabaptists. The “anabaptists” in this context would have included a few preachers who were opposed to infant baptism who entered Münster in the same year: Hendrik Slachtscaep and Johannes Campanus. From these, we might trace the Münsterite origin of the anabaptist mark, as soon after this letter Rothmann would change his mind yet again, so that by 6 May 1533 he had clearly reversed his opinion on baptism to being in agreement with these anabaptists. Throughout this time Rothmann remained the leader of the bishopric in the city. Opportunity then struck when a band of radical spiritualists entered the town later that year. From here, the more well known history of the city under the severely deluded rule of Jan Matthijsz commenced. The city became the New Zion (according to Matthijsz), and with it, the worldly kingdom of the Lord was instated. Instead, lawlessness, debauchery and polygamy commenced. Our focus should be on higher things than to recount everything committed here. Matthijsz claimed to receive private revelations, and quickly he gained the real leadership in the city. Rothmann seems to have handed over control to Matthijsz willingly. While these men may have opposed infant baptism, they also held apocalyptic “spiritualist” views and their city descended into a lawless madness. This was more akin to the gnostics of earlier times, than to anything peaceful or orderly.

Those with half a mind to escape this impending disaster did so – it is not known whether Rothmann survived the invasion and recapture of the city in 1535. The most influential aspect of this event was that the blame for this catastrophe was pinned for centuries on (ana)baptists. This is notwithstanding the fact, that Rothmann had been a state-church minister with non-baptist views.121It is certain that the disturbances in the very city of Munster were began by a Pedobaptist minister of the Lutheran persuasion, whose name was Bernard Rotman, or Rothman; that he was assisted in his endeavors by other ministers of the same persuasion; and that they began to stir up tumults, that is, teach revolutionary principles, a year before the Anabaptist ringleaders, as they are called, visited the place.
in: Brown, Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge (1844 ed.), p. 77.
In 1538 the first burning of “anabaptists” in England nevertheless took place in Smithfield.122“Baptists,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 3, p. 251.123van Braght, Thieleman J., The Bloody Theatre or Martyrs’ Mirror, (Lampeter Square, Penn. 1837 Ed.) Translated by J. D. Rupp., part second, p. 376.124date: Nov. 29, 1538.
names: Peter Franke, his wife, and Jan Mathijsz [a different Jan Mathijsz: ‘van Middelburg,’ and not ‘van Haarlem,’ which was the rebel who died at Münster].

Three years earlier, another account of fourteen Christians being martyred does not mention the term “anabaptist,” although they are now considered to have been the same group, and they share the similarity of being Dutch immigrants who were burned in England in the 1530s. This event is recorded in the following account:

“Mr. Lewis begins his Account of the English Baptists, page 38. of his Brief History; and there tells us from Stow, ‘That on the 25th of May, 1535. nineteen Men and six Women were examined in Saint Paul’s Church London; that fourteen of them were condemned, a Man and a Woman of them burnt in Smithfield, and the other twelve sent to other Towns, there to be burnt.’ …
Mr. Lewis adds, ‘That Bishop Latimer said in one of his Sermons before King Edward VI. that he had heard, of credible Men, that they [the aforesaid fourteen Persons] went to their Death even intrepidè, as ye will say, without any Fear in the World.’ ”125Crosby, A Brief Reply to John Lewis’s Brief History of the Rise and Progress of Anabaptism in England (1738), p. 13.

A.D. 1550: Stephanus text produced

The Biblical manuscript scholar Robert Estienne or Stephanus made a very important contribution to scholarly critical textualism in the year 1550. Having more than redone the efforts of Greek manuscript compilers in previous times, Stephanus compiled and published a comprehensive series of the New Testament in the original language, which is commonly called textus receptus. In his 3rd, and most refined, 1550 edition, the T.R. truly began to take its complete shape. The work of Stephanus in this regard cannot be overlooked, as he brought it closer to accuracy than had been accomplished by any other scholars of his age. By reference to his access of the original Greek manuscript copies, Stephanus was able to correct significant amounts of inaccuracies that were found to exist in the version of the original Greek text published by Erasmus a few decades prior. He could only have done this by reference to a more complete set of manuscripts.

Ever since Stephanus’ contribution, all textual criticism from a Biblical perspective has remained within a close proximity to this very accurate edition. The textus receptus of Stephanus, and the subsequent work of Beza after him, always remained very closely aligned to the 1550 edition, and these all quite accurately reflect the state of the Greek manuscripts that still existed at that time. Ones that were buried or forgotten are, importantly, not included. This is important because it is stated in God’s word that, “the word of our God shall stand for ever.126Isaiah 40:8. And In Psalm 119, “Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” It also says in Luke 16:17, “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” And also in Proverbs, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Someone who agrees with this prophecy could not also think that part of the Bible was lost during this or any time. Nor could they think that at any time it was successfully corrupted. Nor could they think that it was confused by the church with a counterfeit at any time.

This is in contrast to the thinking behind the modern versions, which are based on many different critical texts that are partially reliant on new discoveries. Indeed, they even openly market the modern versions as being updated from new discoveries. Although, each modern version is actually a unique mix of new and traditional readings, rather than being purely based on one family of manuscripts, one with a common, and unbroken history, like the received text. As it says in Matthew 4:4, “He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” It is important therefore that we receive every word with due care, not carelessly.

Through this process of being published in the 16th century and onward, the T.R. has been the vehicle by which the Lord has been able to preserve all Biblical readings within, for the future, against all attrition of individual manuscripts from that point onward. The 1551 edition was the first to include the New Testament verse divisions, still in use today. Consequently because of this, modern versions that remove verses yet try to retain Stephanus’ ever-popular verse scheme are often left with gaps where no text is present in a verse. This is in places such as at Matthew 18:11 or Acts 8:37 where, both times the whole verse is completely removed, and so the verse numbering in that translation must skip over that number. More often, multiple verses are dramatically reduced by the deletion of modern editors, such as in Luke 9:55-56127“55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.”
— Luke 9:55-56 (KJV) underlined portion in modern Bibles removed
.

By 1557, translations were also produced at Geneva which made reference to the improved Greek sources made possible by Stephanus. In 1557 first came the Geneva New Testament– and later the complete Geneva Bible of 1560. However, the examination of our Greek text never completely stopped. The scholar Theodore Beza reproduced Stephanus’ work almost exactly in several more rounds of T.R. editions from 1556-1604.128Biblia utriusque Testamenti. (1556).
Iesu Christi D. N. Novum Testamentum. (1565, 1567, 1580, 1582).
Testamentum novum. (1588).
Novum Iesu Christi Testamentum. (1590).
Iesu Christi Domini nostri Novum Testamentum. (1598).
Novum Iesu Christi Testamentum. (1604).
This work by Beza over the incredible course of nearly fifty years reflects the careful process of gathering together and compiling all of the manuscripts that could ever be gathered from the preserved manuscript sources at that time. From the vast resources collected in these tasks, Beza, Stephanus, and several other compilers also, all individually arrived at virtually the same New Testament text. The variation is minor: most of the differences between the editions are over miniscule spelling differences that would always translate the same way. This then reflects the definitive state of the manuscript evidence at that time. We see, by comparison of them, how so little variation existed among the manuscripts. Consequently, these works became preserved sources for our times, in this way conserving the chain of preserved manuscripts in the Greek that runs unbroken, from the 1st century until today, which is ultimately unchanged during all that time.

Of course, any claim or implication that all of these Biblical scholars were blindly following Erasmus (as many books that disparage the received text or KJV in fact claim) is shown here to be entirely incorrect, as well as being narrow-minded, ahistorical and overly simplistic.

A.D. 1689: Nonconformity allowed

In the year A.D. 1688, William of Orange, the Prince of Orange, Stadtholder and head of state in the Dutch republic, entered England to accept the crown alongside his wife Mary, after being invited by a group called “The immortal seven” to take over from the pro-Catholic former monarch James II. Thereby he became William III & II, in a joint rule with Mary II. In the following year the Act of Toleration (1688) received their assent. This declaration helped the cause of the baptists in England, as far as allowing the church to legally assemble once more in open places. The church at this point began to be legally recognized by the law of the land as having a right to exist.

The presence of the church, in Britain, at least, can be traced back to an ancient heritage long preceding this.

The oldest site known to be dedicated explicitly to Christian study is discussed in the entry on A.D. 395. But as far as the oldest congregation of the church, we conclude by taking into account the known facts that— Christianity in its primitive, early church and Bible-believing essence during this time could only have had a succession in the most exceedingly humble and modest places of shelter found on the British Isles. Often they must have been forced to meet privately, especially in England proper and other places where the state church cast its darkest shadows. The Bible-believing churches of true Christians, we learn, were often comprised of those who were only recently escaped from adversity and hardship, sometimes refugees made to start anew in a land. The world has always been a place where the majority of people are unsympathetic to the view of Christians. That was true in the first century and it remains true today. The cause of Christianity was often hindered, from A.D. 597 in England and 1093 in Wales, until 1689, by the state church. This being beside the fact that this opposition by the state was constitutionally unlawful. The Magna Carta and Charter of Liberties speaks to that. Nevertheless, throughout the dark ages the cause of Christ outlived this persecution in glorious fashion, by still continuing all the way until the year 1689, when persecution by the state church could not (legally) be maintained throughout the dominion. As the Lord says, “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.129Matthew 28:20

Nevertheless, more challenges lay ahead, as seen in history. With regards to the oldest meeting sites for the churches in Britain during this time, we have spoken to this in detail in the A.D. 1093 entry. The older church buildings built by the resourceful Britons – who were pushed into Wales by the Anglo-Saxons – were wooden, as opposed to the stone church buildings used by other groups in Britain in the dark ages. Because of this, and because of the deterioration of wood over time, many of their physical remains are not available. However, Joshua Thomas, a Pastor in the late 18th century, was one who described the “Olchon church” as a relatively early meeting ground in Britain, giving this account:

Olchon, or perhaps more properly Golchon, is a small, narrow Valley, in the parish of Clodock, and county of Hereford: nearly on the line between the Hay and Abergavenny, but somewhat nearer to the former, and about 10 miles or more from Hereford. The Western side of it is formed by a long, steep, and lofty hill: part of what is called, the Black Mountain. The situation is rather singular, as in, or near, this valley, the three counties of Hereford, Monmouth, and Brecknock meet; and likewise the three dioceses of Hereford, Landoff, and St. David. This spot, and parts adjacent have been always inhabited by Cambro-Britons, or properly Cymry, usually called Welsh or Welch.130Thomas, Joshua, The History of the Baptist Churches in Wales, in: The American Baptist Heritage in Wales, p. 10.

But for a moment let us observe what Mr. Vavasor Powell says of this subject. He was as well acquainted with the state of religion in Wales about 1640, and for 20 years after, as most, if not as any living. He throws some light upon this subject in his brief narrative of the former propagation and the late restriction of the Gospel (and the Godly preachers and professors thereof) in Wales. The 2nd Edition printed in 1662, and prefixed to his Bird in the Cage Chirping. There he says that in or about 1641, the professors of religion were exceeding rare and few, unless in some corners of two or three counties, about which time was the first, if not the only gathered church in all the country. This begins in the very first page of the narrative and in p. 8 he says ‘In the beginning of the wars (which was still about 1641 or 1642) there was but one or two gathered congregations in all Wales.’ Here it may be noted that Llanfaches church was constituted in 1639. We may be certain he reckoned that for one in 1641. Those in some corners of two or three counties agree exactly with the situation of Olchon, but not at all with Llanfaches, which is near the center of Monmouthshire. But the former being a small and obscure society, having no university person for their pastor, Mr. Powell seemed to look upon it so diminutive that he was rather at a loss whether it were right to style it a gathered church or not; though in the two passages he could not be quite willing to leave it out. In one he says ‘The first, if not the only gathered church.’ In the other, ‘one or two gathered congregations.’ Now let others judge of these things with freedom. I can give no better account of them. My sentiments are that there had been a few famous people in and about Olchon a long time, yet very probably there had been ebbings and flowings. When they were baptised and formed into a Baptist church I have never been able to learn to satisfaction, though so carefully inquired for near 50 years.

In the last century there was a good man in the society, of considerable note and property, whose name was John Rhys Howell. He was not pastor of the church, but an occasional assistant in the ministry. He sailed to America in the persecuting time, but returned home to finish his days. He died about 1692, very aged. About 1770 the writer of this was told, that this aged man had left a chest full of papers, which was then in a certain house in Olchon. In 1775 he went thither, but it was too late, the valuable papers were demolished. Thus it happened to many papers, which if preserved had been of great services to cast light on others.131Thomas, Joshua, The History of the Baptist Churches in Wales, in: The American Baptist Heritage in Wales, pp. 17-18.

Olchon may be styled the Cathedral of their church, though never very pompous, yet there is antiquity to boast of. No doubt the aged people there well remembered the former troubles, before 1640. From 1660 to 1688 they were much persecuted despised, yet a remnant continued through the whole.

They met to worship in various places where they could; sometimes in a friend’s house and often out. One day or night they would meet in some retired place of the Black Mountain, but when they understood that informers had heard of the place; then they would change it and fix upon another spot; thus they shifted from place to place. A noted rock, they frequented for the purpose, is called, Y Darren ddn, on the west side of Olchon, and well known still. A little below it, there was then a large wood, there is part of it now; that wood was often their meeting place. That was the estate of Mr. Hugh Lewis, a gentleman of property and influence but no persecutor. His son, Mr. Nathan Lewis, was a strong advocate for the persecuted Baptists. Mr. Thomas Lewis, another son, was a Baptist after and lived at Abergavenny. There was also a daughter, who was a member.

At times when they met to worship at friends’ houses, it was running great risk and hazards. A place called Wern-wen, where Mr. David Watkins and his brother Daniel lived, was often their meeting house. They both were worthy members of this persecuted society. Mr. Thomas John William’s house was another place of worship: he was a plain man, but much adored the Gospel in his life and death. Before the persecution was over, it is said that Mr. John Gilbert encouraged them to meet at his house…132Thomas, Joshua, The History of the Baptist Churches in Wales, in: The American Baptist Heritage in Wales, pp. 28-29.

However, Thomas also notes that the records of the pastorship at Olchon were not definitely known until the year 1649. He also records that in the time period between 1633 and 1649 at least two other churches had formed semi-openly so that they were well known, one in Llanfaches and the other at Swansea.

As we have shown earlier, the meeting site at Olchon was also the place where Walter Brut, who was a contemporary of John Wycliffe in the 14th century, until 1393, was last seen preaching; as has been discussed, this location was ideally situated between the juncture of three separate counties. Two of these counties were in Wales and one (Herefordshire) was in England. Another local history, written in 1898, tells us more about this site and these activities. It says:

In ‘Herefordshire Biographies’ Mr. John Hutchinson says that Sir John Oldcastle was born about the year 1360, and this author shares with Robinson in his ‘Castles of Herefordshire’ the belief that Oldcastle in Almeley was most probably the place of his birth. There is in Herefordshire a third Oldcastle, on the western border of Deerfold, between Lingen and the ruined abbey, or nunnery, of Limebrook, but neither history nor investigation encourage us to support the statement of some antiquaries that he may have been born there; that he may have visited the locality is possible enough since we know that William de Swynderby (William the Hermit) was there in 1390, and that many Lollards for a long time remained in the Forest of Deerfold, and most probably conducted their religious services in the Chapel Farm. (See the excellent paper by Dr. Bull in Transactions 1869, page 168, on ‘The Lollards in Herefordshire,’ and the accompanying illustration of the beautiful 14th century roof of Chapel Farm).

Mr. John Howells, in his pamphlet ‘The Old Baptist Church at Olchon, and Life and Martyrdom of Sir John Oldcastle,’ published in 1886, says, on page 41, ‘Olchon may, upon the whole, be looked upon as the birthplace of the first Reformers, the first Nonconformists, and the first Baptists among the Welsh; the district must be deemed a consecrated spot by many. It is certain that a church was gathered here as early as 1415, and probably much earlier.’ Vestiges of foundations near Olchon Court show the site of the old chapel, and tombstones bearing date 1387 have been dug up in the burial ground belonging to the church.133Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club Herefordshire, Vol. 44 (1898), p. 261.

Another meeting site, which was at an unknown location, was mentioned in the following 14th-century chronicle, which makes it a contemporary of the medieval Olchon:

(Year 1382.) Willelmus de Swyndurby associated in this year with some of the sect of Wyclyf, at a certain chapel of St. John the Baptist, near the dwelling-place of the lepers. This sect was held in the highest honor in those days, and was multiplied to such an extent, that it was difficult to pass by two men in the way without one of them being a disciple of Wyclyffe.134Henry Knighton, Chronicon de Eventibus Angliæ (c. 1396), edited by Lumby, J.R., (London ed. 1889), vol. 2, p. 191.

Another ancient church site, aside from these, can also be shown in the north of England – at an area not too distant from Wales, but again at the juncture between two counties in England, which is the church site located at “Hill Cliff.”

A unique monument here is the underground, and concealed, “well cemented” stone baptistery, which was later uncovered by the church during building renovations and expansion in the year 1800. The only reason to construct an underground, adult-sized baptistery would be the need to maintain the practice of baptising but in the security of absolute secrecy. It is not surprising that by 1800, the existence of this centuries-old monument had been forgotten already. The hidden baptistery was only rediscovered by accident during renovations. Some time after this occurred, records regarding this church site were obtained. These records pertained to a certain Pastor of a Baptist church, who was surnamed Weyerburton, according to which he shepherded this church at Hill Cliff until his passing away in 1594.135Stokes, The history of the Midland Association of Baptist Churches (1855), p. 163. Other pastors at Hill Cliff following Mr. Weyerburton were Mr. Daynteth, followed by Mr. Thomas Tillam (also a pastor at Hexham at various times), and Mr. Thomas Lowe. Lowe represented this same church at the great convention in 1689,136entry under “Lancashire,” in: Ivimey, A History of the English Baptists (1811), p. 506. ninety-five years after Weyerburton had pastored there. However in the interval between these two dates, it is not known if this meetingplace was actively being used during a visit to the same church site by Oliver Cromwell and his men in August 1648,137In August, 1648, Cromwell was in pursuit of the Scots army under the Duke of Hamilton. At Warrington he captured all of their foot, to the number of 4000, which had been deserted by the cavalry. It is further asserted, and with every probability of truth, that Cromwell attended divine worship at the ancient Dissenting (Baptist) Chapel at Hill-Cliff, a mile and a half distant from Warrington, and that one of his soldiers occupied the pulpit upon this occasion.
in: Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire (1851), Vol. 4, p. 20.
where he spent a Sunday during his northern campaign against the Scots.

This meetingplace could be as old as Olchon, or nearly as old – there is simply no record of its time of founding. Giving further attention to the situation at Hill Cliff, or Hill Cliffe, we also take notice of a directory from the year 1825, which records the presence of an additional, “Baptist Meeting-Room in Bridge Street.138Baines, History, Directory, and Gazetteer, of the County Palatine of Lancaster, Vol. 2, p. 584. This street would be located 4.5 km to the north of the main site of Hill Cliff, where the underground baptistery was located. It is located just across the river Mersey.139At that time, this river formed the border between Cheshire and Lancashire; in modern times the border has changed so that both locations are in Cheshire. No additional information is given for this meeting-room, which is simply described as, “an elder branch of the early Meeting-House at Hill Cliff.” This meeting room on Bridge Street would have provided an alternate meeting place located across county borders in Lancashire. If threats of persecution came from the authorities in Cheshire, the church would have another meeting place to assemble outside of that jurisdiction, similar to Olchon’s situation.

Documentation of the ministers at these Baptist churches likewise has an acceptable level of consistency. The following is from Crosby in the early 18th century:

I did observe from this Author, tho’ Mr. Lewis takes no Notice of it, how he endeavoured to shew the near Agreement there was between the Anabaptists and the Puritans; and that the Doctor did acknowledge, that there were several Anabaptistical Conventicles in London, and other Places; and that some of their Ministers had been bred at our Universities. So that, from this Author, Mr. Lewis could not but see there were many Anabaptists, and learned ones too, before the Year 1600. Now such was the State and Condition of the Church of England, in those early Days of the Reformation, that great Diversity of Opinions were found amongst them. Those stiled, by way of Contempt, Puritans, inveighted against some Abuses; refused to comply with some Ceremonies, and question’d the Superiority of the Bishops. They set up a new Model of Church Discipline, and, in the End, resolved to further a Reformation of the Church, without waiting for the Consent of the Magistrate. How ridiculous then is Mr. Lewis’s contemptible Sneer upon the Anabaptists in the Year 1615; when he says, ‘These were so far come to their Senses, as to acknowledge Magistracy to be God’s Ordinance’?140Crosby, A Brief Reply to John Lewis’s Brief History of the Rise and Progress of Anabaptism in England (1738), pp. 20-21.

Similarly, from J. Thomas we receive the following history:

John Perry—M.A. according to historians, was born in Wales. Some say ‘Mountains of Wales and County of Brecknock.’ This still, is the description of the vicinity of Olchon. Mr. Perry might have been born, near, or further westward. We have sufficient evidence that he was affectionately concerned for the salvation of his countrymen. The very titles of two books published by him in 1588, amount to a full proof of that. The first runs thus, ‘A View of some parts of such public wants and disorders as are in the service of God, written her Majesty’s country of Wales; with an humble petition to the high court of Parliament for their speedy readiness.’ There in is shown the necessity, and the way to reform in that country. The other title is ‘An exhortation unto the governor’s and people of Her Majesty’s Country of Wales to labor earnestly, to have the preaching of the Gospel planted among them.’ These titles are taken out of Ath. Oxon. where an account is given of many other books written by him. […]

Mr. Neale, in his History of the Puritans saith, that Mr. Perry was a Welsh divine, and gives him an excellent character for learning, piety, ministerial gifts, diligence, etc., though not a hint that he was a Baptist. However, A. Wood, in Ath. Oxon. many years before Neale, speaks out plainly saying, that Perry ‘was a notorious Anabaptist, of which partly he was the Coryphous (or leader).’ He was educated at Oxford, and went to Cambridge, preached at both places; and was, says Wood himself, ‘esteemed by many a tolerable Scholar, and edifying preacher, and a good man.’ This was a great character given by those authors to a Baptist in those days. The noted Strype wrote sufficiently acrimonious against Mr. Perry blaming him for saying that popery then was intolerable in Wales. Though even Mr. Strype owns that Mr. Perry expressed a great concern for his native country; yet chargeth him with anabaptistery. So great was the rage and fury against him in those days, that he was apprehended, condemned and put to violent death in 1593 or 1594, aged 34. Dr. Henry Sampson names Mr. Perry among ‘the several persons that were troubled, deprived, and silenced by Whitgist or agents in the high commissions court, the star chamber, and the courts’ ecclesiastical.’ The Dr. S. Calamy’s Abridgement, second edition preface.141Thomas, Joshua, The History of the Baptist Churches in Wales, in: The American Baptist Heritage in Wales, pp. 14-15.

J. Thomas adds:

One considerable motive for my conjecture, that [William Tyndale] was a native of those parts is, that Llewelyn Tyndale, and his son Hezekiah, were members of the Baptist Church at Llanwenarth, near Abergavenny at the close of the last century. There are some of the Tyndale stock still about Abergavenny. I knew one of the names at Hereford about 1740, 55 years ago. If Mr. W. Tyndale was born in, or near Olchon, as he was young moved to Oxford, then to Cambridge, and after that settled for some years in Gloucestershire, it is not to be supposed, that he could much instruct his friends in his native land… Of his translating the scripture into English the first time; of his other writings, his sufferings from the papists, how they persecuted him even beyond the sea, for his zeal to promote truth and the salvation of sinners, and how at last they prevailed against him, had him apprehended, condemned, and burnt in 1536, see Fox, Wood and most of our ecclesiastical historians.142ibid., pp. 13-14.

Thomas’ information accords with the DNB.143“TYNDALE, WILLIAM (d. 1536), translator of the Bible, was born ‘on the borders of Wales,’ probably between 1490 and 1495. Tyndale’s parentage is uncertain, but John Stokesley, bishop of London [q.v.], in a letter to Cromwell dated 26 Jan. 1532-3, states that he was the brother of Edward Tyndale, who, on 18 July 1519, was appointed general receiver of the lands in Gloucestershire, Somerset, and Warwickshire of Maurice, lord Berkeley (Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, iii. No. 405, vi. No. 82).”
in: “Tyndale, William,” Dictionary of the National Biography (1885-1900), Vol. 57, p. 424.

Past 1603, the transition from Elizabeth I to James I & VI did not see the freeing of our nonconformists. Although James was already King of Scotland when he inherited the crown, and he was inclined much toward John Knox and his style of Presbyterianism, James I still did not lift the legal and policy clamps on Nonconformist churches. His motto became: “No bishop, no king!

Of congregational church polity, he said: “it agreeth as well with a monarchy as God with the Devil. Jack and Tom and Will and Dick shall meet and at their pleasures censure me!

Thus the “Act to retain Her Majestie’s Subjects in due obedience,” of Elizabeth I remained in force, which mandated “12d. every Lord’s Day144The state church had been ‘1st-day sabbatarian’ long before the codification of the common law – this is inherited via the concept of ‘Sunday laws’ in some places that they did not attend to hear the Word of God preached or expounded in His Own House on His Own Day—unless they can produce a sufficient cause of absence…” The law remained. The only distinction was the change in perception by James as to what “His Own House” was. Despite this inconsistency, which is glaring, this fine was necessarily paid by many nonconformist church members if they did not meet the church attendance duty.

The events that we will next describe seem to originate mainly from the reigning style of Charles I, the successor of James I. Beginning around 1629, there were a series of disruptive actions, known as the ‘personal rule’ of Charles I, as well as “Laudianism,145Laud’s complete neglect of the national sentiment, in his belief that the exercise of mere power was sufficient to suppress it, is a principal proof of his total lack of true statesmanship. The hostility to ‘innovations in religion’ was probably a far stronger incentive to the rebellion against the arbitrary power of the crown, than even the violation of constitutional liberties; and to Laud, therefore, more than to Strafford, to Buckingham, or even perhaps to Charles himself, is especially due the responsibility for the catastrophe.
in: “Laud, William (1573-1645),” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 13, p. 765.
146Shortly after his accession Charles asked Laud to inform him who among the clergy were suitable for promotion. Laud gave him a list in which the names of the prominent clergy were marked with O and P, the orthodox to be favoured or the puritan to be discouraged. […] Laud, knowing that his opinions were those of a minority among the clergy, and of a still smaller minority among the laity, looked to the royal power to redress the balance. Circumstances thus combined with his own sense of the value of external discipline and with his own unsympathetic nature to blind him to the danger of using the king as an instrument for the reform of the church.
in: “Laud, William (1573-1645),” Dictionary of the National Biography (1885-1900), Vol. 32, p. 187.
which seems to have backfired tremendously by raising awareness to the dangers lurking within the “state church,” most specifically in its potential for tyranny. The disruptions caused by the king and his ministers then made it necessary to declare for or against it, rather than to try to remain neutral.147On 19 Sept. 1633 the king wrote to the bishops, directing them to restrict ordination, except in certain specified cases … The direction was intended to stop the supply of the puritan lecturers, who were maintained by congregations or others to lecture or preach, without being compelled to read the service to which they objected.
in: ibid., p. 190.
In this process of time, Baptist churches grew in prominence – the dangers of the state church, and its vulnerability to corruptions, villainy and abuse by absolute tyrants were simply too obvious. As these nonconformist churches replenished the country, the effects and indeed the original purpose of De Heretico Comburendo were thus unwittingly undone by the rash actions of Charles I and his administration. His greatly disruptive policies raised significant questions over the “separation of powers.” The three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland would soon fall into a Civil War (1639-51). This is known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, with the primary conflict of all being the English Civil War. The “blowback” of Charles’ attempt to rule against parliament proved far greater than anticipated. As an unintended result, there was no more energy within the state apparatus to attack evangelical, i.e., nonconformist Christians.

This split had an effect on the American colonies’ church structure as well:

After some time, [nonconformists] became more moderate and sociable; they converted the designation Independent, to that of congregational: although they retained the notion of an independent supreme ecclesiastic power in each congregation; they allowed, that sometimes it may be expedient to have the advice of synods and councils: thus insensibly and naturally, for sake of good order, they fall into the Presbyterian mode; and, in fact, have had several synods appointed by the civil legislature. In August 30, 1637, in Newtown148Newton, Massachusetts was called an universal synod to condemn the errors of the Rigids and Antinomians; M. Williams, Mr. Vane, and Mrs. Hutchinson were their leaders; this synod continued three weeks: this occasioned an emigration, and the settling of the colony of Rhode-island.149Douglass, William, A summary, historical and political, of the first planting, progressive improvements, and present state of the British settlements in North-America (1748), p. 439.

This historian adds, speaking more particularly of Roger Williams:150ibid., pp. 443-444.

Anno 1634, Roger Williams, minister of Salem, was banished because of his [b] Antinomian and [c] fanatical doctrines; after some removes, with his disciples, he settled on the south side of the Patucket river and called their settlement Providence plantations, which name it retains to this day; they purchased it of the Indians, or had liberty from them to settle there:

[b] Antinomians hold, that the law of Moses is unprofitable under the Gospel; that justification is without good works; that morality and good works are no help to salvation, but rather a hindrance: such pernicious doctrines are inconsistent with civil society, and with goodness and honesty, or a private life.

[c] The various enthusiastical modes, at their first appearance in the world, were frantic with a violent, indiscreet, religious zeal: they generally agree in two pernicious articles; 1. They disclaim a civil magistracy and temporal punishments; and, 2. Their own wild notions are by themselves called impulses from GOD.

From this account we see clearly that charges of antinomianism had continued into later times. As a matter of fact, the only idea from these two footnotes that can be truthfully attributed to the baptists of America at this time would be the statement, “that justification is without good works.” The rest is simply an attempt to make the church seem lawless, when it really is not, as can be demonstrated to a point from their own writings of these times. We will see some of their writings shortly.

In 1636, while the catastrophic split in the Church of England was unfolding, Williams, along with a small party, led the settlement of a new colony, which was initially at a place near Rumford, Rhode Island; however the Plymouth colony claimed the area, so Williams then moved west across the Seekonk where there were no claims. Here, Williams used his language skills with the native Narragansett to purchase new ground for a settlement called Providence. This became the administrative capital of what has ever since been Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

Under the administration of Williams, this colony became the first outpost where the state was separate from the church, as many of those who had been burdened by church taxes in the other colonies came here. He was also an early advocate for abolishing slavery in the colonies, as well as an excellent negotiator and diplomat for establishing trade with the natives in the area.

In 1637, Williams added to his jurisdiction several of the small islands nearest to the home city, which were a gift from the chieftain Miantonomoh that were given along with his purchase of the northern half of the larger Prudence Island (later sold to other interests). One of the sayings that Williams was known to teach his children in identifying the islands was, “Prudence, Patience, Hope, and Despair; And little Hog Island, right over there.

“Hope” is also the motto of Rhode Island and appears on the state seal, in reference to the passage “Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul,” in Hebrews 6:19.

Also in 1637, what is now Aquidneck Island was negotiated by Williams to be purchased by other colony leaders, such as John Clarke, who was a buyer, and city builder and administrator on that larger island, which was for a time called Rhode Island.

At the same time as this was happening, another leader, who would oversee a church in New Hampshire, was the baptist pastor Hanserd Knollys. By renouncing his orders from the Church of England, he resigned his living in 1632. The occasion that caused him to leave England for the colonies was, that in 1636 he was arrested and imprisoned for a short time in Boston, England due to the King’s increased efforts against “nonconformists.” It appears the keeper deliberately allowed him to escape, and he quickly entered, with his wife and child, on a ship departing from London.

His autobiography states, after arriving in Boston early 1638: “Being very poor, I was necessitated to work daily with my hoe, for the space of almost three weeks. The magistrates were told by the ministers that I was an Antinomian, and desired that they would not suffer me to abide in the patent.

At this time, two men approached Knollys with an offer. They requested him to fill the office of pastor at their church which they were forming in New Hampshire. With this offer, Knollys moved to the settlement at Dover, on the right bank of the Piscataway151Piscataqua River, along the border with Maine. Upon his arrival there, Knollys was prevented from taking his post immediately by Governor George Burdett. Eventually, in September, Burdett was expelled for misconduct-related reasons, allowing Knollys to take his position and to earn a livelihood as a pastor, in this way forming the first church in Dover in 1638.

Another arrival to Dover in 1640 was the English clerical minister Thomas Larkham. The influence of Larkham, which was freely allowed by the others, resulted in a second main faction being formed in Dover. Larkham claimed both church and civil authorities over the entire town for himself. For these reasons the town dealt with serious turmoil, as both Knollys and Larkham were individually removed and re-established in their respective offices.152They two fell out about baptizing children, receiving of members, etc.
in: Gov. John Winthrop’s Journal, p. 27 note.
153There soon grew sharp contention between him [Larkham] and Mr. Knollys, to whom the more religious still adhered; whereupon they were divided into two churches.
in: ibid.
Larkham called in some allies from Boston, and commissioners arrived in 1641 to adjudicate the dispute in his favor. Dover and the entire province of New Hampshire were also annexed by Boston into its jurisdiction for some time.

Knollys heeded a call from his aging father to return to England, and left with his wife and (second) child, while the remaining congregation relocated itself to a remote area of Long Island. In 1664, this church was forced to move again because of English annexation, as New Amsterdam became New York City. They sold or carried off what they could and moved to the wilderness of New Jersey, at a township they called Piscataway, still existing today, which was named after the original river they lived near in New Hampshire. Mr. Knollys, meanwhile, was present in England where he, as a Pastor, signed the 1646 [2nd] edition of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith as well as, forty-three years later, the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession.

In the same year as the Dover church was getting started, John Clarke, previously mentioned, was helping to lay the groundwork for the cities of Portsmouth and Newport in Rhode Island, on its namesake island.154i.e. Aquidneck Island The compact for the plot stated:1551 Col. Recs., R. I. 52.

The 7th day of the first month, 1638. We whose names are underwritten do here solemnly, in the presence of Jehovah, incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick, and, as he shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of his given us in his holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby. Exod. 24, 3-4. 2 Cron. 11, 3. 2 Kings 11, 17.

A baptist congregation on the island was started by Clarke at some point between 1638-1641, probably having its beginnings in 1638.156There is no record of the demise of Dr. Clarke’s church or of the formation of any other in these years. There is every reason to believe that the present church is the one founded by Dr. Clarke in 1639, or, perhaps, 1638. The first meeting house was built very soon after the organization of the church at the place now known as the ‘Green end.’
in: Newport Daily News, Dec. 20, 1873. Pg. 2.
157I have not been able to find a single individual, out of Providence, who united with that church till after 1652; but every baptist up to that time, known to belong to a church, live where he may, belonged to the church at Newport. The case of the brethren in Rehoboth is peculiarly in point. In 1650 they left the Congregationalists and became baptists. If at that time a church had existed in Providence, a neighboring town, how natural that they should unite with it, so near and easy of access, and not go all the way down to Newport to unite with the church there.
Adlam, The First Church in Providence, Not the Oldest of the Baptists in America (1850), p. 24.
One very important step in securing this future was performed by Clarke some time later, after these island settlements united with the government of Williams.158approximately 1647. Roger Williams first obtained a patent guaranteeing religious liberty for his entire colony in 1644, by sailing in person to England. He was able to obtain this, due to the disarray of the Civil War that was ongoing in Britain. But later mistrust between the colonists in Rhode Island, and the end of the Civil War in England, with the grand Restoration of Charles II, in 1660, threatened this arrangement.

When the Restoration occurred, John Clarke was already in England to work for the colony for a strengthened charter, and this time it would need the assent of the new King. Through details that are little known to us, Clarke managed to secure a much stronger royal charter in 1663, one that guaranteed even further protections. This accomplishment is especially surpising, given how much the new King Charles II was otherwise opposed to dissent. In 1662, Charles II had passed the Act of Uniformity, which brought back the main restrictions that earlier kings had placed on all English subjects requiring compulsory church service. But quite different to that, the Rhode Island Royal Charter of 1663 saved all of the favorable terms of the 1644 charter, including the guaranteed separation between church and state, which was called the freedom of conscience, and is often characterized as rights of religious freedom. The Royal Charter states that no resident of this colony shall be “molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question for any differences in opinion in matters of religion”. This charter also, critically, granted the right of the colonists to legislate for themselves.

Clarke’s mission ensured that his one jurisdiction, that of Rhode Island, was safe from conformist policies. This had an effect on the balance of power in all colonies. This charter prevented any one from realistically attempting to control religious policies in all the colonies as a whole.159Religious uniformity in the American colonies had once been an openly stated goal of the New England Confederation of 1643, an alliance of states whose intent was to enforce Puritanism throughout the colonies: the confederation made a point of always excluding Rhode Island from the alliance, as that was where the nonconformists lived— in order to surround and isolate that state, with the intent to drive it into surrender. Those who were kicked out or banished from one colony were not driven into the wilderness, as Rhode Island and Providence Plantations would take them. This fact made it more difficult for Puritan strongholds, such as Boston, to threaten colonists to agree to their terms. Hence, this charter had an effect on all the colonies.

Inscription on the Rhode Island Statehouse in Providence.

The petition by John Clarke reads more fully as follows: “That they might be permitted to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be maintained, with a full liberty in religious concernments; and that true piety, rightly grounded upon gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligation to true loyalty.160H.R. Doc. No. 546, 28th Cong., 1st Sess. (1844).

With this charter, the idea of forcing religious unity in the states was never seriously considered again. As this charter had been signed by the king, there was no realistic way to make it happen. Somewhat contradictorily, the same king also passed the Act of Uniformity in 1662, which brought back the (mandatory) state church in England. This difference in religious policy between colonies and the motherland resulted in a great mass of dissidents migrating out of Britain from 1662-1688, which had an effect on future differences of ideology between the inhabitants of the two territories. It is for this reason that Dr. Clarke’s renewed charter seems to have had quite a significant impact on history past this point.

William Kiffin is another name we find as a signature on both of the London Baptist Confessions – the 1644 (and 1646 2nd edition) as well as the 1689 Confession. Mr. Kiffin was a pastor of one of the seven baptist churches of London in 1644. He wrote this about his own confession: “I used all endeavors, by converse with such as were able, and also by diligently searching the Scriptures, with earnest desires to God that I might be directed in a right way of worship; and, after some time, concluded that the safest way was to follow the footsteps of the flock, namely, that order laid down by Christ and His apostles, and practised by the primitive Christians in their time, which I found to be, after conversion they were baptized, added to the church, and continued in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers.161Kiffin, A sober discourse of right to church communion, pp. 1-2

Independent church organization in America occurs at least as early as 1649, when Dr. John Clarke went to Seekonk, Massachusetts to help start a new church. One of the men he baptized there was Obadiah Holmes. After his conversion, he ended up moving to Newport as authorities were angered by Clarke’s action of baptising an adult.162Baptist congregations were started once again in Massachusetts at Scituate in 1655, by Henry Dunster, who was also the first president of Harvard College (see DNB for “Dunster, Henry, president of Harvard College”) – another congregation was started at Boston in 1665, by Thomas Gould, which first met in seclusion without the authority’s permission on Noddle’s Island in Boston Harbor

Two years later, Clarke, Holmes and John Crandall were apprehended during a visit to an senior gentleman in northern Massachusetts, named William Witter, for whom they were conducting religious services. They were forced by the authorities to attend a Puritan service, but refused to remove their hats. At the end of the service Dr. Clarke stood and explained to those assembled the reason why they refused to remove their hats. Being taken to Boston afterward, they were charged with violating religious laws, including “maintaining that infant baptism was false baptism.” They were sentenced without any witness against them coming forward.

The penalties assigned were £30 to Holmes, £20 to Clarke, and £5 to Crandall. Sympathizers quickly paid the fines for the latter two. Holmes, however, was able to prevent the payment of his fine, and in return for his refusal he was given 30 lashes with a three-corded whip. The injury he received from this was frequently called by him “marks of the Lord Jesus.” Governor Williams, the founder of Providence, wrote the tract “The Bloody Tenent yet more Bloudy163full title: “The Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody: by Mr Cotton’s endevour to wash it white in the Blood of the Lambe; Of whose precious Blood, spilt in the Blood of his Servants; and Of the blood of Millions spilt in former and later Wars for Conscience sake, That Most Bloody Tenent of Persecution for cause of Conscience, upon a second Tryal, is found now more apparently and more notoriously guilty. in response to the event.

In closing our account then, another major event occurred for church history in 1649 when one congregation in Wales sent their missionary to America across the Atlantic. J. Thomas presents the following account:

It does not appear when Mr. [John] Miles sailed for America, when he landed in that country, nor what family, friends, or neighbors accompanied him. The first account we have of him west of the Atlantic is in Mr. Backus’ History, Vol. 1, Page 353, naming Mr. Miles among the ejected ministers164due to Laudianism, it is added, ‘upon which, he and some of his friends came over to our country, and brought their church Records with them.165note: this church record, titled ‘Ilston Book,’ is still kept to this day at Brown University, in Providence, RI. And at Mr. Butterworth’s in Rehobath, in 1663, John Miles, elder, James Brown, Nicholas Tanner, Joseph Carpenter, John Butterworth, Eldad Kingsley, and Benjamin Alby, joined in a solemn covenant together.’

This was the first Baptist church in that part of America as noted above. It seems the men members of it were only seven. What number of women members there were we know not. It does not appear that any of the men members went with Miles to America, but Mr. Nicholas Tanner, who was said in the records to have been baptized on the 11th of the 11th month, 1651. This young church was then in Plymouth Colony; where they had quiet about four years: but at a court holden at Plymouth, 2nd July 1667, the society was fined in a considerable sum of money, and ordered to remove from that place. On the 30th of October ensuing, that court made them an ample grant in another place, which Mr. Miles and his friends called Swanzay.166today: Swansea, MA It seems they so spelled Swansea in Wales then. ‘There they made a regular settlement which has continued to this day … Their first meeting house was built a little west of the great bridge which still bears his name,’

In an Indian war, which broke out in 1675, Mr. Miles house was made the headquarters (Page 419). And in page 460 it is said, ‘The Baptist Churches in Wales gathered by our Mr. Miles and others, published a confession of their faith.’ […]

Page 506 etc. says, ‘The learned and pious Mr. Miles having returned to his flock in Swanzay fell asleep in Jesus on Feb 3rd, 1683. And his memory is still precious among us. We are told that being once brought before the magistrates, he requested a Bible: and upon obtaining it he turned to these words: ‘Ye should say, why persecute we him? Seeing the root of the matter is found in Me (Job 19:28). Which having read he sat down, and the word had a good effect upon their minds, and moved them to treat him with moderation if not kindness.’

It may be but right to add what a famous American writer, no less than the celebrated Dr. Cotton Mather, says of him; mentioning some godly Anabaptists, as he thought proper to style them, he names Mr. Hanford Knollys, then says: ‘And Mr. Miles of Swanzay who afterwards came to Boston, and is now gone to his rest. Both of these have a respectable character in the churches of this wilderness.’ (Crosby, Vol. 1, 120).

Dr. Calamy, in his Account of the Ejected Ministers, 2nd edition, said not more of this worthy minister than, ‘Ilston, Mr. John Miles, an Anabaptist. The name is wholly omitted in the index. Mr. Palmer only says, ‘A Baptist, he afterward went to New England.’

This is our account of the origins of baptists in Britain and the colonies.

On continental Europe, there are reports of numerous communities of believers, all of whom maintained distinctive attributes of the church. Some of these were by this point in history very well established in the record. They met either openly or in conventicle, depending on their legal status. For examples of the writings of these churches, see appendix L and appendix M. We note specifically about appendix M that some of the Vaudois confessions – namely those written in 1532 and 1535 – did contain allusions to infant baptism in them. This can be seen in the account of Morland,167op. cit. pp. 39-41, 43-57. which was Protestant168certainly the target audience of his book was and accepting of infant baptism. Nevertheless this teaching runs contrary to some of the older documents than these that Morland also provided, where the baptism of infants or nonbelievers was entirely renounced. This paints a complex state of affairs in the Waldensian valleys by this time, suggesting that by the second quarter of the 16th century some of the inhabitants may have changed their views toward baptism, or else they were not ready to openly renounce the state church on this point. The ultimate reasoning for this decision in the 1532 and 1535 confessions that runs contrary to the earlier confessions is a question of history. See appendix Y and appendix Z for confessions from the translators of the first English and French translations, and compare these also to what is found in appendix L and M. To make a final remark about the Vaudois, we know at least some of their teachers and leaders removed themselves into Switzerland according to Beza’s account of the year 1535. This may have been due to upheavals at that time. At least one of them became a printer responsible for reproducing translations of the Scripture into various European languages. From there, the doctrine of the Vaudois (as a witness to the Biblical non-state church that existed before the medieval Inquisition), was propelled to the ends of the earth, as it states in Acts 19, So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

Other examples of independent congregation organization can be seen early in the American colonies. A Pastor, William Screven, was sent by the church of John Miles at Swansea to start a church in Kittery, Maine in 1682. They were later forced to move by the local mob, and relocated to Charleston, South Carolina in the year 1696, thus marking the beginning of baptist churches in the southern states. Another group of settlers from England, Wales and Ireland, who had immigrated individually, were gathered together in Pennepeck, Pennsylvania with a Pastor, Samuel Jones, in 1686. The first church in Philadelphia was formed in 1698 from English Baptists sent from Hanserd Knolly’s church in London.

Another example of this was a church who constituted themselves before traveling to America; their pastor’s name was Thomas Griffiths. They sailed from Milford Haven in Wales, landing together at Philadelphia in 1701. They removed however in 1703 to a territory called Welsh-tract, granted to them by William Penn. This tract of land now straddles the Maryland-Delaware border, and is near Newark, Delaware. They soon planted a second church in 1714 at a place called London Tract, which actually is in Pennsylvania. They also became the source for another branch of churches in South Carolina.169Then in the same letter he informs, that about the year 1737, about thirty members from Welshtract removed to Peedee, in South Carolina, and there formed a church in 1738, which church is now (said he then) shot into five branches, that is, Cashawa, Catfish, Capefear, Linches Creek, and Mar’s Bluff or Cliff. Mr. Joshua Edwards is one of the ministers who served those churches lately.
in: J. Thomas, The History of the Baptist Churches in Wales, in: The American Baptist Heritage in Wales, p. 108.

We may note that First Baptist Church in Newport, c. 1638, helped to establish early churches at Groton, Connecticut in 1705 and at North Kingston, New Hampshire in 1710. The Connecticut church sent more members to start the First Baptist Church of New York in 1712.

Church planting was not only the result of movement between states. I found one list of people which meet the following conditions: Pastors of a Particular Baptist church in America before 1770, who were also first-generation immigrants. Apart from those already mentioned, their names are: Hugh Davis, Abel Morgan, David Evans, Benjamin Griffiths, Richard Jones, Thomas Davis, Morgan Edwards, John Thomas, Caleb Evans.

-updated version 8/15/21

Unknown: Abomination of Desolation

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
— 2 Thessalonians 2:7

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judаеа flee to the mountains:
And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:
And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.
But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.
For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
— Mark 13:14-19

Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lᴏʀᴅ shall be a light unto me.
— Micah 7:8

signed by – Аndrеw Тоllеfsоn

_________
Extra material:
Appendix 1 and Appendix 2

  
Appendix J

The Repressor of Reginald Pecock
His refutation against the Lollards (A.D. 1449), as found in the book:

First Part, First Chapter

“Thre trowingis or opiniouns ben causis and groundis of manie and of weel nygh alle the errouris whiche manie of the lay partie holden, and bi which holding thei vniustly and ouermyche wijten and blamen the clergie and alle her othere neighbouris of the lay side, which not holden tho same errouris accordingly with hem, and therfore it is miche nede forto first gheue bisynes to vnroote and ouerturne tho thre trowingis, holdingis, or opiniouns, bifore the improuyng of othere; sithen if tho thre be sufficiently improued, that is to seie, if it be sufficientli proued that tho thre ben nought and vntrewe and badde, alle the othere vntrewe opiniouns and holdingis bildid vpon hem or upon eny of hem muste needis therbi take her fal, and lacke it wherbi thei mighten in eny colour or semyng be mentened, holde, and supportid.

“The firste of these thre trowingis, holdingis, or opiniouns is this: That no gouernaunce is to be holde of Cristen men the seruice of the lawe of God, saue it which is groundid in Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament, as summe of the bifore seid men holden; or namelich, saue it which is groundid in the Newe Testament or in the Oold, and is not bi the Newe Testament reuokid, as summe othere of hem holden. In this trowing and holding thei ben so kete and so smert and so wantoun, that whanne euer eny clerk affermeth to hem eny gouernaunce being contrarie to her witt or plesaunce, though it ligge ful open and ful sureli in doom of resoun, and ther fore sureli in moral lawe of kinde, which is lawe of God, forto be doon; ghit thei anoon asken ‘Where groundist thou it in the Newe Testament?’ or ‘Where groundist thou it in Holi Scripture in such place which is not bi the Newe Testament reuokid?’ And if thei heere not where so in Holi Scripture it is witnessid, thei it dispisen and not receyuen as a gouernaunce of Goddis seruice and of Goddis moral lawe. This opinioun thei weenen to be groundid, Mat. xxij. c., where Crist seide to the Saduceis thus: ‘Ye erren, not knowing Scripturis, neither the vertu or strengthe of God. In the resurrectioun forsothe thei schulen not wedde neither be weddid, but thei schulen be as aungelis of God in heuen. Han not ye rad of the resurrectioun of dede men, that it is seid to us of God, I am God of Abraham, God of Ysaac, God of Iacob, et cætera.’ Also thei weenen this opinioun be groundid, Iohun v. c., where Crist seide to the Iewis thus: ‘Serche ye Scripturis, for ye trowen you forto haue euerlasting liif in hem, and thei ben whiche beren witnes of me.

“The secunde trowing or opinyoun is this: That what euer Cristen man or womman be meke in spirit and willi forto vndirstonde treuli and dewli Holi Scripture, schal without fail and defaut fynde the trewe vndirstonding of Holi Scripture in what euer place he or sche schal rede and studie, though it be in the Apocalips or oughwhere ellis: and the more meke he or sche be, the sooner he or sche schal come into the verry trewe and dew vndirstonding of it, which in Holi Scripture he or sche redith and studieth. This ij. opinioun thei wenen to be groundid in Holi Scripture. Ysaie lxvj. c. in the bigynnyng, where God seith thus: ‘To whom schal y biholde but to a litle pore man, broken in herte, and trembling at mi wordis?’ And also Iames the iiij. c., and i. Petre v. c., where it is seid thus: ‘God aghenstondith proude men, and he gheueth grace to meke men.’ Also Ysaie lvij. c., where it is seid, ‘that God dwelling in euerlastingte dwellith with a meke and a contrite spirit, that he quykee the spirit of meke men and that he quykee the herte of contrite men.’ And in othere dyuerise placis of Scripture mensioun is mad that God gheueth goode thingis to meke men more thanne if thei were not so meke.

“The iij. trowing or opinioun is this: Whanne euere a persoon hath founde the vndirstonding of Holi Scripture into which he schal come bi the wey now bifore seid of the ij. opinioun, he or sche oughte bowe awey her heering, her reeding, and her vndirstonding fro al resonyng and fro al arguyng or prouyng which eny clerk can or wole or mai make bi eny maner euydence of resoun or of Scripture, and namelich of resoun into the contrarie, though the mater be such that it passith not the boondis neither the capacite of resoun forto entermete therwith and forto iuge and gheue kunnyng ther upon; which trowing and opinioun to holde and fulfille thei wenen hem be bede bi Poul, Colocens ij. c., where he seith thus: ‘Y seie to you these thingis, that no man bigile you in heighte of spechis.’ And soone after there, Poul seith thus: ‘Se ye that no man bigile you bi philsophi and veyn falsnes aftir the tradiciouns of men and after the elementis of the world, and not aftir Crist.’ Also i. Cor. i. c., weelnygh thorugh al the chapiter, Poul meeneth that Cristen bileeuers oughten not recche of wisdom such as wise worldli men vsen and setten miche therbi. [End chapter]”

Mr. Pecock’s book from this point forward is meant as a refutation of these opinions. We find a useful account of what these opinions are in this first chapter.

Return to (the end of) entry A.D. 1381

  
Appendix K

Geographical description of the Valleys:

In Encyclopædia Britannica 12th ed., “Waldenses,” (Vol. 28, p. 255):

“The Waldensian valleys lie to the south-west of Turin, in the direction of Monte Viso […] The principal town near the valleys is Pinerolo (Pignerol). Just to its south-west there opens the chief Waldensian valley, the Val Pellice, watered by the stream of that name […] near Torre Pellice the side glens of Angrogna and Rora join the Pellice valley. To the north-west of Pinerolo, up the Chisone valley, there opens at Perosa Argentina the valley of St. Martin, another important Waldensian valley, which is watered by the Germanasca torrent, and at Perrero splits into two branches, of which the Prali glen is far more fertile than that of Massello, the latter being the wildest and most savage of all the Waldensian valleys.”

The following is written in Samuel Morland’s description from 1658:170Morland, The history of the Evangelical churches of the valleys of Piemont, pp. 1-7.

“I shall intreat the courteous Reader to spend with me a few minutes in viewing the situation of those Valleys, where not onely those poor people then inhabited, but where, in all humane probability, their Forefathers and Ancestours have both had their abode, and protest the same Religion, ever since the days of the Apostles.

“Now because the said valleys are for the most part inclosed within the Confines of Piemont, it will not be amiss in the first place to give a brief Description of the whole Province, which indeed is but a little Spot of Earth in comparison, and of a very small Extent, yet as pleasant for situation, and likewise by its incredible fruitfulness, bringing in as great a Revenue (in proportion) to its Prince, as any Province of Europe.

“This Province of Piemont (so called, because situated a pede montium, or at the feet of the Alps, which separate Italie from France) the County of Nizza being thereto adjoyned, has for its Confines, on the East, the Duchy of Milan, Montferrat, and the Common-wealth of Genoa; on the South-side it has for a Trench, the Mediterranean Sea; on the West and the North part, it has the Alps for a Wall or Bulwark, and is by them separated on the West-side from Provence and Dauphine, and on the North-side from Savoy, and the Countrey of Valley171i.e. Vaud […]

“The Valley of Clusone otherwise called Pragela, that is to say, the High and the Low Communality […] was the ordinary Passage of the French Armies into Italie.

“These Valleys, especially that of Angrogna, Pramol, and S. Martino, are by nature strongly fortified, by reason of their many difficult Passages, and Bulwarks of Rocks and Mountains, as if the All-wise Creatour had from the beginning designed that place as a Cabinet, wherein to put some inestimable Jеwel, or (to speak more plainly) there to reserve many thousands of souls, which should not bow the knee before Baal […]

“The Communalty of La Torre, took its name from an ancient and high Tower, which stood upon a little Hill near Bourg. Francis the first, King of France, considering the great prejudice that this Citadel, being so near the conflux of the two Rivers of Lucerna and Angrogna, in the very centre of the said Valley of Lucerna, might bring to the affairs and interest of France, and the safety of Pignerole, caused it to be demolished. And this is the place where the Duke of Savoy did rebuild that Citadel, 1652 which served before as a Slaughter-house to murder and make away with so many innocent souls […] “The Valleys of Perosa and S. Martino are on the North of Lucerna, Angrogna, and Roccapiatta […] The Valley of Perosa, being about six miles long, is distributed part in Mountains, part in fair Plains, and very fruitfull Hills. At the lower part thereof it hath the Communalities of Porte, S. Germano, and Villaro; in the middle, Pinachia, and in the higher part, that of Perosa, where there is the City and Citadel of Perosa, from whence the Valley takes its name […]

“The Valley of S. Martino containing eight miles in length, is on the West of the Valley of Perosa, inclosed between the Valley of Lucerna and Clusone, in the highest part of the Alps… and comprehend eleven Communalties, namely, Rioclaret, Faet, Prali, Rodoretto, Salsa, Macel, Maneglia, Chabrans, Traverses, Bovili, and S. Martino, which gives the name to this Valley. This is the poorest of all, but yet the strongest by reason of its situation, wherein for this reason the Barbes or Ministers, (of whom we shall hereafter speak) had anciently their chief residence, or abode, for security and preservation against the rage of their malicious Adversaries […]

“Before the late horrible dispersion of those poor Protestants in the Year, 1655. There were in the said Valleys which were peopled with Waldenses, fourteen Churches, which composed two Classes or Colloques […]

“The one of these two was called the Colloque of the Valley of Lucerna, comprising the Churches of S. Giovanni, La Torre, Villaro, Bobio, Rorata, and Angrogna, which belong to the Valley of Lucerna, and the Church of Roccapiatta, which is between the Valley of Lucerna, and Perosa, situated upon those little Hills which separate the two Valleys, and is annexed to the said Colloque of Lucerna.

“The other Colloque which was called the Colloque of the Valley of Perosa and S. Martino, contained the other seven Churches, namely, four in the said Valley of Perosa, and three in the Valley of S. Martino. Those of Perosa were Villaro and S. Germano, joyned together and making one onely Church; Pinachia, La Capella, and Pramol; And those of S. Martino were Villa Secca, Maneglia, and Prali.

“The Church of S. Giovanni contains within itself a very fair Plain, and little Hills, very fertile and abounding in Grain, Vines, Chestnuts, Figs, Olives, and all sorts of Fruits. But for as much as the whole is thus employed in Husbandry, there is want of Pastures and Woods, which is the reason that they have not there much Cattel […]

“The Church of La Torre is the same for situation and quality with that of S. Giovanni, containing one Plain, where is the Town of La Torre, and also Hills adorned with the same kindes of Fruits as the said Church of S. Giovanni.

“The Church of Bobbio confineth with that of Villaro, being a little higher towards the Mountain on the West, but as fertile every way as that of Villaro. And as the said places are environed with a multitude of Mountains and fat Pastures, so the Inhabitants had a very great number of Oxen, Kine, and smaller Cattel, together with Milk and Wool in abundance, which returned them a considerable profit, as also the Chestnuts which they dried and cleansed to sell, or exchange for other Commodities.

“The Church of Rorata is a little Dale or Valley situated on the other side of the River Pelice, on the West of Lucerna, being bounded by the Mountains of Villaro. The said place abounds in Pastures, and is otherwise very fertile, especially in Chestnuts.

“The Church of Angrogna is North-west to that of S. Giovanni, inclining towards Perosa, in a mountainous Countrey, but fertile in Chestnuts, Grain, and Pastures, incompassed with very beautiful and fertile Mountains for Pasturage in the Summer Season.

“The Church of Pramol, is situated upon a Mountain, between the Valley of Lucerna and Perosa, at the feet whereof grows a little quantity of Wine, and very good Fruits, but in the highest part thereof grows nothing but Grain, and abundance of Wood, and there is also Pasture-ground; this is the Native Countrey of Captain Jaher […]

“The Church of Chiotti or Villa Secca, is at the lowest part of the Valley S. Martino, where there is almost no Plain, save onely there where the River Germanasca takes its course. The little Hills which lie South from the said River said are very cold, so that there grow no Vines near them. But those that lie North, whose sides open towards the South, are hot, and by that means have on them store of Vines. In sum, all the parts thereof are tolerably fruitfull in Grain, Fruits, and Pasture.

“The Church of Prali, is situated in the upmost part of the Valley of S. Martino, and contains two Communalties, namely, Prali and Rodoret, which are confined on the South, by the Alps, with the Valley of Lucerna, on the West by the Valley of Queyras in Dauphine, and on the North by the Valley of Pragela: there grows here nothing but Hay, and a great quantity of Herbage.

“Generally in all these Churches (unless it be on the tops of the Mountains) there is found great plenty of Fruits, but especially Chestnuts; yea, there are some places thereof where are vast spaces of Ground yielding almost nothing else; as for example, in the little Hills of Bubiana, and all along the Valley of Lucerna, and the South parts of the Valley of Perosa, which look towards the North; in so much that the Inhabitants of those places dry and cleanse great quantities of them, a part whereof they lay up for their own spending, and the rest they sell or exchange for Corn, and that, quantity for quantity, with the Inhabitants of the Plain (this being a great part of their food in Piemont.) They likewise make of these Nuts, dried in an Oven, or upon a Kiln, an excellent sort of Bisquet, which in France they call Marrons; These they frequently make use of, instead of Macqueroons, or such other kinde of Confects.”

Return to previous spot in entry A.D. 1523

  
Appendix L

A Clear Refutation,” from The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck, pp. 62-67.

[below is a section from a treatise originally written in 1531, which has been translated out of German by Klaassen and Klassen in 1978 – the author is not known but the writing is commonly attributed to Marpeck, who was in Strasbourg at that time]

“So take a lesson from the clarity of vision present before His coming; how much more clearly is He known since His coming. Scriptures speak more clearly of Him after His coming than they had done before. After He came, He is clearer and more powerful than He was before, as He said Himself (Mt. 13). Many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, but did not see it; they longed to hear what you hear, but did not hear it. Therefore, the present world, since His coming, will experience sharper condemnation than did the one before He came (Mt. 10, 11, 12; Lk. 10). For, since we are now more able to know Him and can say more about Him, we can pattern ourselves after Him, and more fully partake of the divine nature and spiritual good.

“Thus, revenge is no longer permitted in the New Testament for, through patience, the Spirit can now more powerfully overcome enemies than it could in the Old Testament. Therefore, Christ forbade such vengeance and resistance (Lk. 9, 21; Mt. 5), and commanded the children who possessed the Spirit of the New Testament to love, to bless their enemies, persecutors, and opponents, and to overcome them with patience (Mt. 5; Lk. 6).

“Such a powerful Spirit, a Spirit promised for the last days, could not come as long as Christ was personally upon the earth with His disciples (Jn. 12, 16). Now we are to reflect upon Him spiritually, upon what kind of a mind, spirit, and disposition He had, and how He lived; the more we reflect upon His physical words, works, deeds, and life, the better God allows us to know His mind, and the better He teaches and instructs us (Jn. 6). Whoever does not think of Him, reflect upon Him, pray, or seek Him will not receive from Him (Mt. 7, Luke 11, 13; 1 Chron. 29). The more one now learns to know Him and see Him spiritually (Jn. 6, 17; Heb. 12), the more one learns to love Him, to become friendly and pleasant toward Him and, through such knowledge, receives Him into the heart and grows therein (2 Pet. 1, 2). Finally, one jumps with Peter himself, freely and voluntarily (Jn. 21), into the sea of tribulations and, concentrating on Christ, casts aside the mantle or the old garment. Through such a knowledge of Christ, man also comes to the knowledge of God (Jn. 8, 14; 2 Cor. 4) and partakes of divine nature, but only if he is willing to flee from the lusts of this world, under God’s rule. […]

“Whoever retains, practices, or accepts baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or anything else, even Scriptures, word or deed, according to the command, attitude, form, essence, or example of the Antichrist is a child, member, and brother of the Antichrist, worships the image of his being, and with him will inherit destruction.

“But whoever retains, practices, and accepts such ceremonies according to the command, attitude, form, essence, and example of Christ and the apostles, indeed according to the instruction and urging of the free Spirit, participates without blemish, misunderstanding, or abomination […]

“Whoever practices or receives such ceremonies and matters without true faith, because of an external urge or other reasons, errs even though there is, externally, correctness of words and procedures. Such mistakes some have confessed to have made, but they confess it only out of anger and not for the good, which makes them unbelieving and unloving; these I admonish to believe and to genuine confession.

“Whoever has been inwardly baptized, with belief and the Spirit of Christ in his heart, will not despise the external baptism and the Lord’s Supper which are performed according to Christian, apostolic order; nor will he dissuade anyone from participating in them. Rather, he should willingly accept them and practice them, not merely imitating them externally in a beastlike manner, but in truth and in the spirit with which the true worshipers use external means, such as the mouth, hands, and knees. For, as one can see, the heart moves our external members. Whenever one laughs, is compassionate, rejoices, or gets angry, then the mouth, eyes, head, hands, and feet laugh, are compassionate, rejoice, get angry, move, and grasp without delay the external things which correspond to anger, joy, mercy, or laughter. The opposite is also true. So it is with baptism and the Lord’s Supper.”

“In summary: The believer will retain, undissolved or unchanged, the commandment of his Master and will be a faithful disciple, who does not long to be master or to run ahead of Christ; he will diligently seek to be faithful in all things (2 Cor. 2), to fulfill all righteousness (Mt. 3), not only inwardly before God, but also externally before man (2 Cor. 8, Tit. 2). If anyone acts differently, he is not to be believed, whatever boastful claims he may make. Yes, even if an angel were to come from heaven and teach differently than Christ and His apostles one taught and commanded, he should not be believed.

“Whoever teaches that believers do not need external baptism and the Lord’s Supper, or teaches that these ceremonies are not expected of believers or given to them, errs, for Philip demands that faith go before (Acts 8). Christ also places faith first (Mk. 16) and, according to the Acts of the Apostles, faith always precedes baptism. […]

“May God grant it to all who desire it from their hearts. May He strengthen us, build us, lead us, and keep us in His knowledge, love, long-suffering, friendliness, meekness, patience, and other fruits and powers of the Spirit. Through these powers, and through true faith in Christ by whom, and none other, we accomplish to His praise our acting and willing, life, cross, and death, we may grow and increase in divine, quiet nature without causing others to be offended by the only name that saves, the name which cannot be deceived and does not deceive, Jesus; that name will not be put to shame (1 Pet. 2).

“This man and Lord is Jesus of Nazareth, a future Judge and avenger (Jn. 5; Acts 10; 2 Thess. 1) who is Christ (Jn. 20; Acts 19), who was before Abraham (Jn. 8). Whoever denies this is a liar (1 Jn. 2). Whoever does not believe this is so will die in his sins (Jn. 8), for such an unbeliever is not born of God (1 Jn. 5). Indeed, this Jesus Christ is also true God (Rom. 9; 1 Jn. 5) and eternal life. To Him be praise unto eternity. Amen. 1531

  
Appendix M

Writings of the Vaudois churches, copied from the report of Samuel Morland in 1658.172Morland, The history of the Evangelical churches of the valleys of Piemont. Four excerpts are contained below, taken from the ancient commentaries and confessions written by their leaders and pastors from c. 1120 to 1535 AD.

The following is written in a Vaudois document (c. 1120) titled “Of Antichrist”:

“Q: What are the works [of Antichrist] that proceed from these first works?
“A: The first is, that it perverts the service of Latria, that is, the worship properly due to God alone, by giving it to the Antichrist himself and to his works, to the vain creature, whether rational or not, sensible or senseless; to the rational, as to mankind, deceased Saints, and unto images, carcasses, or relics. His works are the Sacraments, especially the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which he adoreth as God, and as Jesus Christ, together with the things blessed and consecrated by him, and prohibits the worshipping of God alone.

“The second work of Antichrist is, that he robs and bereaves Christ of his merits, together with all the sufficiency of grace, of justification, of regeneration, remission of sins, of sanctification, of confirmation and Spiritual nourishment; and imputes and attributes the same to his own authority, to a form of words, to his own works; and unto Saints and their intercession, and unto the fire of the Purgatory; and separates the people from Christ, and leads them away to the things aforesaid, that they may not seek those of Christ, nor by Christ; but only in the works of their own hands, and not by a lively faith in God, nor in Jesus Christ, nor in the Holy Spirit, but by the will and pleasure, and by the works of Antichrist, according as he preacheth, that all salvation consists in his own works.

“The third work of Antichrist consists in that he attributes regeneration unto the dead outward work, baptizing children in that faith,173i.e. not believer’s baptism and teaching that thereby Baptism and regeneration must be had, and therein he confers and bestows Orders and other Sacraments; and herein he groundeth all his Christianity, which is denying the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

“The fourth work of Antichrist is, that he hath placed all Religion and holiness of the people in going to Mass, and hath patched together all manner of ceremonies, some Jеwish, some Gentile, and some Christian: and leading the congregations thereunto, and the people to hear the same, doth thereby deprive them of the spiritual and Sacramental meat,174John 6:63 and seduceth them from the true Religion, and from the Commandments of God, and withdraws them from the works of compassion, by his offerings; and by such a Mass hath he lodged the people in vain hopes.

“The fifth work of the Antichrist is, that he doth all his works so that he may be seen, that he may glut himself with his insatiable avarice, that he may set all things to sale, and do nothing without simony.

“The sixth work of the Antichrist is, that he allows of manifest sins, without any Ecclesiastical censure,1751 Cor. 5:11 and doth not excommunicate the impenitent.

“The seventh work of Antichrist is, that he doth not govern nor maintain his unity by the Holy Spirit, but by the secular power, and maketh use thereof to effect spiritual matters.

“The eighth work of the Antichrist is, that he hates, and persecutes, and searcheth after, despoils and destroys the members of Christ.

“These things are in a manner the principal works which he commits against the truth, they being otherwise numberless, and past writing down.”


The following is written in “An ancient Confession of Faith of the Waldenses, copied out of certain Manuscripts, bearing date Anno Dom. 1120.”

Article 7.
That Christ is our life, truth, peace, and righteousness, as also our Pastour, Advocate, Sacrifice, and Priest, who died for the salvation of all those that believe, and is risen for our justification.

Article 8.
In like manner, we firmly hold, that there is no other Mediatour and Advocate with God the Father, save onely Jesus Christ. And as for the Virgin Mary, that she was holy, humble, full of grace176Latin: plena de gratia: and in like manner do we believe concerning all the other Saints, viz. that being in Heaven, they wait for the Resurrection of their Bodies at the Day of Judgment.

Article 9.
Item, we believe that after this life, there are onely two places, the one for the saved, and the other for the damned, the which two places we call Paradise and Hell, absolutely denying that Purgatory invented by Antichrist, and forged contrary to the truth.

Article 10.
Item, we have always accounted as an unspeakable abomination before God, all those Inventions of men, namely, the Feasts and the Vigils of Saints, the Water which they call holy. As likewise to abstain from Flesh upon certain Days, and the like; but especially their Masses.

Article 11.
We esteem for an abomination and as Anti-Christian, all those human Inventions which are a trouble or prejudice to the liberty of the Spirit.

Article 12.
We do believe that the Sacraments are signs of the holy thing, or visible forms of the invisible grace, accounting it good that the faithfull sometimes use the said signs or visible forms, if it may be done. However, we believe and hold, that the abovesaid faithfull may be saved without receiving the signs aforesaid, in case they have no place nor any means to use them.

Article 13.
We acknowledg no other Sacrament but Baptism and the Lords Supper.

Article 14.
We ought to honour the secular powers, by subjection, ready obedience, and paying of Tributes.


In “Another Confession of Faith of the Waldenses, extracted out of Charles du Moulin de la Mon: des Francois,” the following is written:

Article 5.
We hold that the Ministers of the Church, as Bishops and Pastours, ought to be irreprehensible, as well in their life as Doctrine. And that otherwise they ought to be deprived of their Office, and others substituted in their place. As likewise, that none ought to presume to take upon him this honour, but he who is called by God as was Aaron, feeding the Flock of God, not for the sake of dishonest gain, nor as having any Lordship over the Clergy, but as being sincerely an Example to his Flock, in Word, in Conversation, in Charity, in Faith, and in Chastity.

Article 6.
We confess, that Kings, Princes, and Governours, are ordained and established as Ministers of God, whom we ought to obey. For they bear the Sword for Defense of the Innocent, and for the punishing of evil Doers, for which cause we are bound to give them honour, and to pay them tribute; from whose power none can exempt himself; it being likewise forbidden by the Example of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was willing to pay tribute, not pretending jurisdiction over the temporal powers.

Article 7.
We believe, that in the Sacrament of Baptism, Water is the visible and external Sign, which represents unto us that which (by the invisible virtue of God operating) is within us; namely, the renovation of the Spirit, and the mortification of our members in Jesus Christ; by which also we are received into the holy Congregation of the People of God, there protesting and declaring openly our faith and amendment of life.

Article 8.
We hold, that the holy Sacrament of the Table or Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ is an holy commemoration, and giving of thanks for the benefits which we have received by his Death and Passion; that we ought to assemble together in Faith and Charity, examining our selves, and so to eat of that Bread, and communicate of that his Bloud, in the very same manner as he hath prescribed in the holy Scripture.

Article 9.
We confess, that Mariage is good, honourable, holy, and instituted by God himself; which ought not to be prohibited to any person, provided that there be no hindrance specified by the Word of God.


In “The ancient Discipline of the Evangelical Churches in the Valleys of Piemont, Extracted out of divers Authentick Manuscripts, written in their own Language,” the following excerpt is written:

Minister: By what Mark knowest thou the false Ministers?
Answer: By their fruits, by their blindness, by their evil works, by their perverse Doctrine, and by their undue administration of the Sacraments.

Min. Whereby knowest thou their blindness?
Answ. When, not knowing the truth, which necessarily appertains to salvation, they observe human Inventions as Ordinances of God. Of whom is verified what Isaiah says, and which is alleged by our Lord Jesus Christ, This People honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men.

Min. By what Marks knowest thou evil works?
Answ. By those manifest sins of which the Apostle speaks, saying, That they which do such things, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Min. By what Mark knowest thou perverse Doctrine?
Answ. When it teacheth contrary to Faith and Hope; such is Idolatry of several sorts, viz. towards a reasonable, sensible, visible or invisible Creature. For, it is the Father alone with his Son and the Holy Spirit, who ought to be worshipped, and not any creature whatsoever. But when on the contrary they attribute to man and to the work of his hands, or to his words, or to his authority, in such a manner that men ignorantly believe that they have satisfied God by a false Religion, and by satisfying the covetous Simony of the Priests.

Min. By what Marks is the undue Administration of the Sacrament known?
Answ. When the Priests not knowing the intention of Christ in the Sacraments, say, that the grace and the truth is included in the external Ceremonies, and persuade men to the participation of the Sacrament without the truth, and without the faith.177i.e. not believer’s baptism But the Lord chargeth those that are his to take heed of such false Prophets, saying, Beware of the Pharisees, that is to say, of the Leaven of their Doctrine. Again, Believe them not, neither go after them. And David hates the Church or the Congregation of such persons, saying, I hate the Church of evil men.178Ps. 26:5 And the Lord commands to come out from the midst of such people, Depart from the tents of the wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in their sins.179Numb. 16:26 And the Apostle, Be ye not unequally yoaked with unbelievers. For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness, and what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel. And what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye seperate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you.1802 Cor. 6:14-17 Again, Now we command you, Brethren, that you withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly.1812 Thess. 3:6 Again, Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”182Rev. 18:4

[…]

Minister: What is the third virtue necessary to salvation?
Answer: Hope.

Min. What is hope?
Answ. It is a waiting for Grace and Glory to come.

Min. How does a man wait (or hope) for Grace?
Answ. By the Mediatour Jesus Christ, of whom St. John saith, Grace comes by Jesus Christ. Again, We have seen his Glory, who is full of Grace and Truth. And we have all received of his fullness.

Min. What is that Grace?
Answ. It is Redemption, Remission of sins, Justification, Adoption, and Sanctification.

Min. Upon what account is this Grace hoped for in Christ?
Answ. By a living Faith, and true Repentance, saying, Repent ye, and believe the Gospel.

Min. Whence proceedeth this Hope?
Answ. From the gift of God, and the promises of which the Apostle mentioneth, He is powerfull to perform whatsoever he promiseth.1832 Cor. 1:20 For he hath promised himself, that whosoever shall know him, and repent, and shall hope in him, he will have mercy upon, pardon, and justify, &c.

Min. What are the things that put us beside this hope?
Answ. A dead faith, the seduction of Antichrist to believe in other things beside Christ, that is to say, in Saints, in the power of that Antichrist, in his authority, words, and benedictions, in Sacraments, Reliques of the Dead, in Purgatory, which is but forged and contrived, in teaching that faith is obtained by those ways which oppose themselves to the truth, and are against the Commandments of God. As is Idolatry in divers respects. As also by wickedness and Simony, &c. Forsaking the fountain of living water given by grace, and running to broken cisterns, worshipping, honouring, and serving the creature by Prayers, by Fastings, by Sacrifices, by Donations, by Offerings, by Pilgrimages, by Invocations, &c. Relying upon themselves for the acquiring of grace, which none can give save onely God in Christ. In vain do they labour, and lose their money and their lives, and the truth is, they do not onely lose their present life, but also that which is to come; wherefore it is said, that the hope of fools shall perish.”184See Job 27:8, Ps. 112:10, Prov. 10:28, 11:7, Jer 3:23, 17:5-6.

Return (to previous spot) in entry A.D. 1689

  
Appendix Y

Preface of Robert Olivétan to his Translation of the Bible into French
Printed at Neuchatel, June 3, A.D. 1535.

“This book needs neither the favour, support, or protection of humane powers or principalities, nor indeed any patronage though never so Sovereign, but thine onely, O poor little Church, together with those thy faithfull ones, who have truly learned and known God in Jesus Christ, his onely Son and our Lord; I mean not that Church which triumphs with pomp and riches; neither do I mean the Church militant which defends itself by force of arms: No it is Thee alone to whom I present this precious treasure (whereof thou mayst say מן הוא as the Children of Israel,185מָן הוּא
Exod. 16:15, “what is this?” or “it is manna.
yet hoping that it shall never create thee any trouble) in the name of a certain poor people thy friends and brethren in Jesus Christ, Who ever since they were blessed and enriched therewith by the Apostles and Ambassadors of Christ, have still enjoyed and possessed the same. And being now willing to gratifie thee with what thou desirest so earnestly, they have given me a commission to draw this precious treasure out of the Hebrew and Greek cabinets, (and having wrapt up the same in a French mantle, to the best of my skill, and according to that talent which the Lord hath given me), forthwith to present thee with it, O poor Church, on whom no man bestows any thing. And indeed I see no reason why it should be presented to any but thyself, for what can be given to those that have all things, and to whom every one gives what he hath? As for this, which is of as great, yea of much greater value than all worldly wealth or riches, I say it is for thee, O poor Church, whose substance they would much sooner diminish than increase. To thee, I say, who art so unprovided of all things, who art so thin and lean, and out of heart, and hast nothing left thee but the voice onely, no I say, Thou hast nothing left thee but voice and words (yet) the word of truth and life, The word of God, which endureth for ever: and whereby thou hast been created and begotten.”

“[…] Now then, O noble and worthy Church, that art the happy spouse of the King’s Son, accept and receive this Word, Promise, and Testament […] For his name, who here speaks, and who desires to be known and heard, is of such authority, that there is no ear but ought to be open to receive the true and living word of his Eternal and immutable will, by which word all things do subsist; which blessed and holy will of God he will have to be entertained by the ears of our hearts, there to remain and dwell, that so in stead of our wicked and depraved lusts, we may here be furnished with the holy and immutable will of God, to whose favour (O poor little Church) we heartily recommend thee; From the Alpes, 12 of February, 1535.

En Dieu tout. (God is all-sufficient.)

Fear not little flock, For it is your Father’s good will to give you the Kingdom. Luc. 12.”186Luke 12:32

  
Appendix Z

Prologue of William Tyndale to his translation of the New Testament into English,
Printed at Cologne, in quarto, A.D. 1525.

“I have here translated (brethren and sisters most dear and tenderly beloved in Christ) the new Testament for your spiritual edifying, consolation and solace: Exhorting instantly and beseeching those that are better seen in the tongues than I, and that have higher gifts of grace to interpret the sense of the Scripture, and meaning of the Spirit, than I, to consider and ponder my labor, and that with the spirit of meekness.

==The gospell or evangelion
“Evangelion (that we call the gospell) is a Greek word; and signifieth good, merry, glad and joyful tidings, that maketh a man’s heart glad, and maketh him sing, dance, and leap for joy. As when David had killed Goliath the giant, came glad tidings unto the jеwеs, that their fearful and cruel enemy was slain, and they delivered out of all danger: for gladness whereof, they sung, danced, and were joyful. In like manner is the Evangelion of God (which we call Gospel; and the New Testament) joyful tidings; and as some say, a good hearing published by the apostles throughout all the world, of Christ the right David how that he hath fought with sin, with death, and the devil, and overcome them. Whereby all men that were in bondage to sin, wounded to death, overcome of the devil, are with out their own merits or deservings, loosed, justified, restored to life, and saved, brought to liberty, and reconciled unto the favour of God, and set at one with him again: which tidings as many as believe, laud praise and thank God; are glad, sing and dance for joy. This evangelion or gospell (that is to say, such joyful tidings) is called the new testament. Because that as a man when he shall die appointeth his goods to be dealt and distributed after his death among them which he nameth to be his heirs. Even so Christ before his death commanded and appointed that such evangelion, gospell, or tidings should be declared through out all the world, and there with to give unto all that believe all his goods, that is to say, his life, where with he swallowed and devoured up death: his righteousness, where with he banished sin: his salvation, where with he overcame eternal damnation. Now can the wretched man (that is wrapped in sin, and is in danger to death and hell) hear no more joyous a thing, then such glad and comfortable tidings, of Christ. So that he cannot but be glad and laugh from the low bottom of his heart, if he believe that the tidings are true.

“To strength such faith with all, God promised this his evangelion in the old testament by the prophets (as Paul sayth in the first chapter unto the romans). How that he was chosen out to preach God’s evangelion, which he before had promised by the prophets in the holy scriptures that treat of his son which was born of the seed of David. In the third chapter of Genesis, God saith to the serpent: I will put hatred between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed, that self seed shall tread thy head under foot. Christ is this woman’s seed, he it is that hath trodden under foot the devil’s seed, that is to say sin, death, hell, and all his power. For with out this seed can no man avoid sin, death, hell and everlasting damnation. Again Gen. xxij. God promised Abraham saying: by thy seed shall all the generations of the earth be blessed. Christ is that seed of Abraham sayth saint Paul in the third to the Galathyans: He hast blessed all the world through the gospell. For where Christ is not, there remaineth the curse that fell on Adam as soon as he had sinned; So that they are in bondage under the domination of sin, death, and hell. Against this curse blesseth now the gospell all the world, in as much as it crieth openly, who so ever believeth on the seed of Abraham shall be blessed, that is, he shall be delivered from sin, death and hell, and shall hence forth continue righteous, living, and saved for ever, as Christ him self saith (in the xi. of Ihon) He that believeth on me shall never more die.”

“[…] In the old testament are many promises, which are nothing else but the evangelion or gospell, to save those that believed them, from the vengeance of the law. And in the new testament is oft made mention of the law, to condemn them, which believe not the promises. Moreover the law and gospell may never be separate: for the gospell and promises serve but for troubled consciences which are brought to desperation and feel the pains of hell and death under the law, and are in captivity and bondage under the law. In all my deeds I must have the law before me to condemn mine unperfections. For all that I do (be I never so perfect) is yet damnable sin, when it is compared to the law, which requireth the ground and bottom of mine heart. I must therefore have always the law in my sight, that I may be meek in the spirit, and give God all the laud and praise, ascribing to him all righteousness, and to my self all unrighteousness and sin. I must also have the promises before mine eyes, that I despair not, in which promises I see the mercy, favour, and good will of God upon me in the blood of his son Christ, which hath made satisfaction for mine unperfections, and fulfilled from me, that which I could not do.

“Here may ye perceive that two manner of people are sore deceived. First they which justify them self with outward deeds, in that they abstain outwardly from that which the law forbiddeth, and do outwardly that which the law commandeth. They compare them selves to open sinners and in respect of them justify them selves condemning the open sinners. They see not how the law requireth love from the bottom of the heart. If they did they would not condemn their neighbours. Love hideth the multitude of sins, saith Saynct Peter in his first pistel. For whom I love from the deep bottom and ground of mine heart, him condemn I not, neither reckon his sins, but suffer his weakness and infirmity, as a mother the weakness of her son, until he grow up in to a perfect man.

“Those also are deceived which with out all fear of God give them selves unto all manner vices with full consent, and full delectation, having no respect to the law of God (under whose vengeance they are locked up in captivity) but say: god is merciful and christ died for us, supposing that such dreaming and imagination is that faith which is so greatly commended in holy scripture. Nay that is not faith, but rather a foolish opinion springing of their own nature, and is not given them of the spirit of God. True faith is (as saith the apostle Paul) the gift of God and is given to sinners after the law hath passed upon them and hath brought their consciences unto the brim of desperation, and sorrows of hell.

“They that have this right faith, consent to the law that it is righteous and good, and justify God which made the law, and have delectation in the law (not with stonding that they can not fulfill it, for their weakness) and they abhor what soever the law forbiddeth, though they cannot avoid it. And their great sorrow is, because they cannot fulfill the will of God in the law, and the spirit that is in them crieth to God night and day for strength and help with tears (as saith Paul) that cannot be expressed with tongue.

**A justiciary
“The first, that is to say a justiciary, which justifieth him self with his outward deeds, cosenteth not to the law in ward, neither hath delectation therein, yea, he would rather that no such law were. So justifieth he not God, but hateth him as a tyrant, neither careth he for the promises, but will with his own strength be favour of him self: no wise glorifieth he God, though he seem outward to do.

**A sensual man
“The second, that is to say the sensual person, as a voluptuous swine, neither feareth God in his law, neither is thankful to him for his promises and mercy, which is set forth in Christ to all them that believe.

**A Christen man
“The right Christen man consenteth to the law that it is righteous, and justifieth God in the law, for he affirmeth that God is righteous and just, which is author of the law, he believeth the promises of God, and so justifieth God, judging him true and believing that he will fulfill his promises. With the law he condemneth him self and all his deeds, and giveth all the praise to God. He believeth the promises, and ascribeth all troth to God, thus every where justifieth he God, and praiseth God.

“Whatsoever is our own is sin. Whatsoever is above that, is Christ’s gift, purchase, doing, and working. He bought it of his father derely with his blood, yea with his most bitter death and gave his life for it. Whatsoever good thing is in us, that is given us freely with out our deserving or merits for Christ’s blood’s sake. That we desire to follow the will of God, it is the gift of Christ’s blood. That we now hate the devil’s will is also the gift of Christ’s blood, unto whom belongeth the praise and honour of our good deeds, and not unto us.”

Prologue of William Tyndale to his translation of the Bible
Printed at Antwerp, A.D. 1530.

“When I had translated the new testament, I added a pistel unto the latter end, in which I desired them that were learned to amend if ought were found amiss. But our malicious and wily hypocrites which are so stubborn and hard hearted in their wicked abominations that it is not possible for them to amend any thing at all (as we see by daily experience, when both their livings and doings are rebuked with the truth) say, some of them that it is impossible to translate the scripture into English, some that it is not lawful for the lay people to have it in their mother tongue, some, that it would make them all heretics, as it would no doubt from many things which they of long time have falsely taught, and that is the whole cause wherefore they forbid it, though they other cloaks pretend. And some or rather every one, say that it would make them rise against the king, whom they themselves (unto their damnation) never yet obeyed. And lest the temporal rulers should see their falsehood, if the scripture came to light, causeth them so to lie. And as for my translation in which they affirm unto the lay people (as I have heard say) to be I wot not how many thousand heresies, so that it cannot be mended or correct, they have yet taken so great pain to examine it, and to compare it unto that they would fain have it and to their own imaginations and juggling terms, and to have somewhat to rail at, and under that cloak to blaspheme the truth, that they might with as little labour (as I suppose) have translated the most part of the bible. For they which in times past were wont to look on no more scripture than they found in their Duns or such like devilish doctrine, have yet now so narrowly looked on my translation, that there is not so much as one i therein if it lack a tittle over his head, but they have noted it, and number it unto the ignorant people for an heresy. Finally in this they be all agreed, to drive you from the knowledge of the scripture, and that ye shall not have the text thereof in the mother tongue, and to keep the world still in darkness, to the intent they might sit in the consciences of the people, thorow vain superstition and false doctrine, to satisfy their filthy lusts, their proud ambition, and unsatiable covetousness, and to exalt their own honour above king and emperor, yea and above God himself.

“Which thing only moved me to translate the new testament. Because I had perceived by experience how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order, and meaning of the text: for else whatsoever truth is taught them, these enemies of all truth quench it again, partly with the smoke of their bottomless pit whereof thou readest Apocalypse ix. that is, with apparent reasons of sophistry, and traditions of their own making, founded without ground of scripture, and partly in juggling with the text, expounding it in such a sense as is impossible to gather of the text, if thou see the process, order, and meaning thereof.

“And even in the bishop of London’s house I intended to have done it. For when I was so turmoiled in the country where I was that I could no longer there dwell (the process whereof were too long here to rehearse) I this wise thought in myself, this I suffer because the priests of the country be unlearned, as God it knoweth there are a full ignorant sort which have seen no more Latin than that they read in their portesses and missals which yet many of them can scarcely read, (except it be Albertus de secretis mulierum187or, “Mysteries of Human Generation,” a Neoplatonist work written in Latin in the 13th century in which yet, though they be never so sorrily learned, they pore day and night, and make notes therein and all to teach the midwives as they say, and Linwode188That is, William Lyndwood, (d. 1446) state church canonist under Henry V. a book of constitutions to gather tithes, mortuaries, offerings, customs, and other pillage, which they call, not theirs, but God’s part and the duty of holy church, to discharge their consciences withall: for they are bound that they shall not diminish, but increase all things unto the uttermost of their powers) and therefore (because they are thus unlearned, thought I) when they come together to the ale house, which is their preaching place, they affirm that my sayings are heresy. And besides that they add to of their own heads which I never spake, as the manner is to prolong the tale to short the time withall, and accused me secretly to the chancellor and other the bishop’s officers. And indeed, when I came before the chancellor, he threatened me grievously, and reviled me, and rated me as though I had been a dog, and laid to my charge whereof there could be none accuser brought forth, (as their manner is not to bring forth the accuser) and yet all the priests of the country were the same day there. As I this thought, the bishop of London came to my remembrance whom Erasmus (whose tongue maketh of little gnats great elephants and lifteth up above the stars whosoever giveth him a little exhibition) praiseth exceedingly among other in his annotations on the new testament for his great learning. Then thought I, if I might come to this man’s service, I were happy. And so I gat me to London, and, thorow the acquaintance of my master came to sir Harry Gilford, the king’s grace’s controller, and bought him an oration of Isocrates which I had translated out of Greek into English, and desired him to speak unto my lord of London for me … But God which knoweth what is within hypocrites, saw that I was beguiled, and that that counsel was not the next way unto my purpose. And therefore he gat me no favour in my lord’s sight.

“Whereupon my lord answered me, his house was full, he had more than he could well find, and advised me to seek in London, where he said I could not lack a service. And so in London I abode almost a year, and marked the course of the world, and heard our praters, I would say our preachers how they boasted themselves and their high authority, and beheld the pomp of our prelates, and how busied they were as they yet are, to set peace and unity in the world (though it be not possible for them that walk in darkness to continue long in peace, for they cannot but either stumble or dash themselves at one thing or another that shall clean unquiet all together) and saw things whereof I defer to speak at this time and understood at the last not only that there was no room in my lord of London’s palace to translate the new testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England, as experience doth now openly declare.

“Under what manner therefore should I now submit this book to be corrected and amended of them which can suffer nothing to be well? Or what protestation should I make in such a matter unto our prelates those stubborn Nimrods which so mightily fight against God, and resist his holy spirit, enforcing with all craft and subtlety to quench the light of the everlasting testament, promises, and appointment made between God and us: and heaping the fierce wrath of God upon all princes and rulers, mocking them with false feigned names of hypocrisy, and serving their lusts at all points, and dispensing with them even of the very laws of God, of which Christ himself testifieth, Matt. v. that not so much as one tittle thereof may perish, or be broken. And of which the prophet saith, Psalm cxviiij.189i.e. Psalm 119:4 Thou hast commanded thy laws to be kept meod, that is in Hebrew exceedingly, with all diligence, might and power, and have made them so mad with their juggling charms and crafty persuasions that they think it a full satisfaction for all their wicked lying, to torment such as tell them truth, and to burn the word of their souls’ health, and slay whosoever believe thereon.

“Notwitstonding yet I submit this book and all other that I have either made or translated, or shall in time to come, (if it be God’s will that I shall further labour in his harvest) unto all them that submit themselves unto the word of God, to be corrected of them, yea and moreover to be disallowed and also burnt, if it seem worthy when they have examined it with the Hebrew, so that they first put forth of their own translating another that is more correct.”
[Note: He had translated the Pentateuch already by 1530. Over the next five years, would further translate Joshua through 2 Chronicles, and the book of Jonah, before his betrayal and execution. Moreover, this was a Hebrew translation before Olivétan’s time, and a Greek translation before Stephanus’ publications. Tyndale’s work however has a far-reaching influence on English Biblical phraseology and English language.]

Return (to previous spot) in entry A.D. 1689



  
Appendix 1

The Noble Lesson
The following was written in Occitan verse by an unknown author

I.
1 O brothers, hear a noble lesson:
2 Often we must watch and keep ourselves in prayer,
3 For we see this world near ruin;
4 We should be very eager to do good works,
5 For we see this world approaching the end.
6 There are already a thousand and one hundred years fully accomplished,
7 Since the hour it was written we are at the last time;
8 We should not covet because we are at the latter end.
9 Every day we see the signs coming to their fulfillment,
10 The increase in evil and decrease in good.
11 These are the perils that Scripture says:
12 The Gospel tells it, and so does Saint Paul,
13 That no man living can know the end;
14 So we should fear more, for we are not sure
15 If death will take us today or tomorrow.
16 But when it comes to the day of judgment,
17 Everyone will receive a full payment,
18 Whoever has done wrong, and whoever has done well.
19 And the Scripture says, and we must believe it,
20 That all men go two ways away from the world:
21 The good will go to glory and the wicked to torment.
22 But let him who does not believe in this counsel,
23 Search the scriptures to the end from the beginning,
24 From the time Adam was formed, to the present day.
25 He can find there, if he has understanding,
26 How few are saved, from the rest.
27 But each person who wishes to do the good works
28 Must have the name of God the Father in the beginning,
29 And call upon his glorious and dear Son for help,
30 Son of Saint Mary,
31 And on the Holy Spirit, that he might set us right.
32 These three, the Holy Trinity,
33 Must be prayed as one God,
34 Full of omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness.
35 We often have to pray and require it,
36 Let him give us strength against enemies,
37 So that we may defeat them before we die,
38 Them, that is to say the world, the devil and the flesh;
39 May he give us wisdom with kindness,
40 So that we may know the way of truth,
41 And keep pure the soul which God has given us,
42 Soul and body, in the way of charity;
43 So let us love the Holy Trinity,
44 And our neighbor, for God commanded it,
45 Not only those who do us good, but even those who do us harm,
46 Let us ask for faith and hope in the heavenly king,
47 So that in the end he may lodge us in his glorious abode.
48 But whoever does not do what is in this lesson,
49 Will not enter the holy house.
50 But this is hard to observe for the bad people,
51 Who love gold and silver,
52 And despise the promises of God,
53 And do not keep the law and the commandments,
54 And do not suffer good people to keep them,
55 But prevent them to the utmost of their power.

II.
56 How came evil unto mankind?
57 Because Adam has sinned from the very beginning,
58 For he ate the apple despite this being forbidden,
59 And the grain of the bad seed has taken root in others;
60 He died for this and so did the others who followed.
61 We can say that this was a bad song.
62 But Christ redeemed the good by his passion.
63 Alas, we find in this lesson
64 That Adam was disbelieving towards God his Creator.
65 So we can see that they’re getting worse now,
66 Those who abandon God, the Almighty Father,
67 And believe in idols, to their own destruction,
68 Which is forbidden by the law from the beginning.
69 It is called natural law, common to all people,
70 God put it in the heart of man’s first form;
71 He gave him freedom to be able to do right or wrong;
72 He forbad him from evil and ordered him to do good.
73 You can clearly see by this that it was badly kept,
74 We have all left the good and practiced evil,
75 As did Cain, Adam’s first son,
76 Who killed his brother Abel for no reason,
77 But because he was good
78 And had faith in the Lord, not in any creature.
79 Here we can take an example of the law of nature,
80 Which we have corrupted, passing the measure.
81 We have sinned against the Creator, and offended the creature.
82 It was a noble law that God had given us;
83 In the heart of every man he put it in writing,
84 So that he could read it, keep it and follow righteousness,
85 Love God in his heart more than any creature,
86 And fear and serve him, and this without measure,
87 For this law is not [only] revealed in Holy Scripture.
88 This law commanded him to keep marriage firmly, that noble accord,
89 To live in peace with the brothers, to love all other people,
90 To hate pride, to love humility,
91 To do to others as he would have to be done by,
92 And if one has done the contrary, he should be punished.
93 There were few who kept the law;
94 There were many who transgressed,
95 Abandoned the Lord, denying him honor,
96 But they believed the devil, and his temptation,
97 Loved the world too much, and paradise too little,
98 And served the body more than the spirit.
99 So we find that many have died.

III.
100 Here can be reproved any man that says,
101 That God did not make people to let them perish.
102 But let everyone beware that what happened before might happen to him,
103 For the flood came and destroyed the felons
104 But God made an ark, and he locked up the good.
105 The evil had increased so much and the good had diminished so much,
106 That in the whole world there were only eight saved.

IV.
107 We can take example, in this sentence,
108 To keep us from evil and to repent entirely.
109 For Jesus Christ said it, and it is written in Saint Luke,
110 Let all who do not repent perish.190Luke 13:3,5
111 But to those who escaped, God promised them
112 That the world would never perish by water.
113 These believed and multiplied.
114 Of the good that God did to them, few remembered,
115 But their faith was so weak and their fear so great,
116 That they did not really believe the word of the Lord;
117 But fearing that the waters would still drown the world,
118 They said to make a tower to take refuge there;
119 They started it well, according to what is written;
120 They said to make it wide, and so tall, and so great,
121 That it reached heaven, but they couldn’t do as much,
122 For it displeased God, and God made them see it.
123 Babylon was the name of this great city,
124 And now it’s called confusion because of its perversity.
125 There was only one language among humanity;
126 But so that they would not get along, God made a partition there,
127 So they would not finish what they had started.
128 Languages were spread by everyone;
129 Then men sinned seriously, abandoning the law, that is to say the law of nature,
130 Because Scripture says it and we can prove it
131 That five cities perished, which did evil:
132 God condemned them to fire and sulfur;
133 He destroyed the felons and delivered the good ones:
134 It was Lot and those of his house, the angel brought him out;
135 There were four in all, but one condemned herself:
136 It was the woman, only because she turned around despite the defense.
137 Here is a great example for all people,
138 They must guard themselves against what God forbids.

V.
139 At that time Abraham was a man pleasing to God;
140 He fathered a patriarch from whom the Jеws descended.
141 It was a noble nation in the fear of God;
142 They lived in Egypt among a wicked people,
143 There they were oppressed and constrained for a long time,
144 And cried to the Lord, who sent Moses,
145 Delivered his people and destroyed the other nation:
146 Through the Red Sea they passed as if by a beautiful exit;
147 But their enemies, who pursued them, all perished there.
148 God did many other miracles for his people;
149 Fed them forty years in the desert and gave them the law;
150 On two stone tables, he transmitted it by Moses;
151 They found it nobly written and orderly.
152 It showed that there is a Lord for mankind,
153 We have to believe in him and love him wholeheartedly,
154 And fear him and serve him until the last day;
155 Everyone must love his neighbor as himself,
156 Advise the widows, support the orphans,
157 Shelter the poor, clothe the naked,
158 Feed the hungry, bring back the lost,
159 Keep well your law.
160 To those who would observe it, he promised the celestial kingdom;
161 He forbad the worship of idols,
162 Homicide, adultery, all fornication,
163 Lying, perjury, false witness,
164 Usury, rapine, evil coveting,
165 Also greed and all wickedness;
166 To the good, he promised life, and gave death to the bad people.
167 Justice then reigned in his lordship,
168 For those who sinned and misbehaved
169 Were dead and destroyed without forgiveness.
170 Scripture says, and it is very manifest,
171 That thirty thousand remained in the desert,
172 Thirty thousand or more, according to what the law says.
173 They died by the sword, the fire and snakes,
174 And many others perished by extermination:
175 The earth opened and hell received them.
176 Here we can blame ourselves for our great drowsiness.
177 But those who pleased the will of the Lord,
178 Inherited the promised land.
179 There were many, and excellent ones of this sort,
180 Like David, and the King Solomon,
181 Isaiah, Jeremiah, and many other men,
182 Who fought for and defended the law.
183 God had one elected people out of all the world.
184 Enemies were numerous around them to persecute them.

VI.
185 We can take a great example in this lesson:
186 When they kept the law and the commandments,
187 God fought for them against the other nations;
188 But when they sinned and did wrong,
189 They were dead and destroyed, and taken by the others.
190 The people grew so much and were so full of great wealth
191 That he began to pull his sandals against the Lord.
192 So we find in this lesson,
193 That the king of Babylon put them in his prison;
194 There they were oppressed and constrained for a long time;
195 They cried out to the Lord with a repentant heart:
196 Then he brought them back to Jеrusаlеm.
197 A few were obedient to keep the law,
198 Who were afraid of offending their King.
199 But there were some people full of great falsehood:
200 These were the Pharisees and the other scribes;
201 It was very obvious that they were observing the law,
202 That they might be seen and honored;
203 But it is not worth much, this honor which soon falls into ruin.
204 The saints and the righteous and the good were persecuted,
205 And with tears and groans prayed to the Lord
206 That he came down to earth to save this world,
207 Because all the human lineage was going to perdition.
208 Then God sent the angel to a noble maiden of the royal line;
209 He greeted her gently, for he came by command,
210 Then he said to her, Fear not, Mary,
211 For the Holy Spirit will overshadow you;
212 From you will be born a son whom you shall call Jesus:
213 He shall save his people from the sin they have committed.
214 Nine months did the glorious virgin bear him in her womb,
215 But so that she wouldn’t be blamed, Joseph espoused her.
216 Pure was our lady, and Joseph also;
217 We have to believe it, because the Gospel says it,
218 When the child was born, they put him in a manger;
219 They wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and he was poorly housed:
220 Here can be exposed the envious and the miserly,
221 Who never want to stop increasing their assets.
222 There were many miracles when the Lord was born:
223 God sent the angel to announce him to the shepherds;
224 In the East appeared a star to three wise men;
225 Glory was given to God in heaven, and on earth peace to the good.
226 But soon after they suffered persecution.
227 The child grew in grace and in age,
228 And in divine wisdom, in which he was instructed.
229 And he called twelve apostles who were well named.
230 He wanted to change the law he had previously given;
231 He did not change it, so that it was abandoned,
232 But he renewed it so that it was more strongly guarded.
233 He received Baptism in order to give salvation,
234 And went and said to the apostles to baptize the people,
235 For then the renewal began:

VII.
236 The old law forbids fornicating and committing adultery,
237 But the new catches the eye and lusts.
238 The old law allows to break the marriage,
239 And you had to give a divorce letter,
240 But the new says not to take the abandoned,
241 And let no one separate what God has united.
242 The old law curses the breast that does not give birth,
243 But the new advises to guard the virginity.
244 The old law only forbids perjury,
245 But the new says don’t swear at all,
246 And let your conversation be only yes or no.
247 The old law orders to fight against enemies and to render evil for evil,
248 But the new says, Do not seek revenge,
249 Leave vengeance to the heavenly King;
250 Let those who hurt you live in peace,
251 And you will obtain forgiveness from the celestial King.
252 The old law says, Love your friends and hate your enemies,
253 But the new says, You will not do so again,
254 But love your enemies and do good to those who hate you,
255 Pray for those who persecute and accuse you,
256 So that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.
257 The old law commands those who do evil to be punished,
258 But the new says: Forgive everyone,
259 And you will obtain forgiveness from the Almighty Father;
260 For if you do not forgive, you will not find salvation.
261 No one should kill, or hate any kind,
262 We must not even despise the simple or the poor,
263 Neither despise a vile stranger who comes from another country,
264 For in this world we are all pilgrims.
265 All we that are brethren, must serve God.
266 This is the new law that Jesus Christ told us to keep.

VIII.
267 He called his apostles and ordered them
268 To go out into the world, to instruct men,
269 And preach to the Jеws, to the Greeks and to all;
270 He empowered them over snakes,
271 And told them to cast out demons, to heal the infirm,
272 To raise the dead, to cleanse the lepers,
273 And do to others as he had done to them.
274 They were to have neither gold nor silver,
275 But be satisfied with food and clothing;
276 To love each other and live on good terms.
277 Then he promised to them the kingdom of heaven,
278 And to those who would be poor in spirit.
279 But we would quickly count, if we knew,
280 Those who want to be poor by their own free will.
281 He began to tell them about the future,
282 How he was to die, then rise again.
283 He told them the signs and the demonstrations
284 Which were to come before the end.
285 He said to them and to all many beautiful parables,
286 Which were written in the New Testament.
287 But if we want to love Christ and know his doctrine,
288 We need to watch and read the Scripture.
289 We can find there, after reading,
290 It was only for doing good that Christ was persecuted.
291 He raised the dead by divine virtue,
292 He made the blind to see who had never seen,
293 He purified the lepers, made the deaf hear,
294 And cast out demons, performing many more miracles,
295 And the more good he did, the more he was persecuted.
296 It was the Pharisees who persecuted him,
297 And those of King Herode and those of the clergy,
298 For they envied him because the crowd followed him,
299 Because they believed in him and in his commandments.
300 They resolved to kill him and place great torment on him,
301 Spoke to Judаs and agreed with him,
302 That if he delivered this to them, he would have thirty pieces of silver.
303 And Judаs was greedy and committed treason,
304 And delivered his Lord to evil people.
305 It was the Jеws which crucified him,
306 They nailed hard his feet and hands,
307 And placed on his head a crown of thorns;
308 Addressing him with many reproaches, they blasphemed him;
309 He said he was thirsty: they quenched him with gall and vinegar.
310 The torments were so bitter and painful,
311 That the soul parted from the body, to save sinners.
312 The body remained hanged on the cross,
313 In the middle of two thieves.
314 They began with four wounds on him, not to mention the other blows,
315 Then made the fifth, to complete the number,
316 For one of the horsemen came and opened his side:
317 So there came out blood and water together.
318 All the apostles fled, but one returned,
319 And he was standing there with two Marys near the cross.
320 All were in great pain, but especially Our Lady,
321 When she saw her dead son, naked and fastened to the cross.
322 He was buried by the good and guarded by the felons.
323 He rose again from d’enfern [hell] the third day,
324 And appeared to his own, as he had told them.
325 Then they were very glad when they saw the Lord,
326 And they were strengthened, for before they had great fear;
327 He spoke with them until the day of the ascension.
328 Then our Savior went up into glory,
329 And said to his apostles and to the other disciples,
330 That until the end of the centuries he would always be with them.

IX.
331 When at Pentecost he remembered them,
332 He sent to them the Holy Spirit, who is the Comforter;
333 He instructed the apostles of divine doctrine,
334 And they knew tongues, and Holy Scripture.
335 Then they remembered what he had said;
336 Without fear they announced the doctrine of Christ,
337 Preached to Jеws and Greeks, working miracles,
338 And baptized the believers in the name of Jesus Christ.
339 Then was made a people of new converts:
340 They were called Christians because they believed in Christ.
341 But we find that Scripture says,
342 That they were greatly persecuted by Jеws and Saracens;
343 But the apostles were so strong in the fear of the Lord,
344 As well as the men and women who were with them,
345 That for them they ceased neither to act nor to speak,
346 To the point that many killed them, as they had killed Jesus Christ.
347 Great were the torments, as it is written,
348 And only because they showed the way of Jesus Christ.
349 But those who persecuted didn’t have to suffer so much,
350 For they had no faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,
351 Like those who now seek accusation and persecute so much,
352 They must be Christians, but they are a poor semblance.
353 But in this is a reprisal to those who persecute, and a comfort to the good:
354 Because you don’t find in any lesson,
355 That the saints persecuted or put any in prison.
356 But after the apostles were qualified doctors,
357 Who showed the way of Jesus Christ, our Savior;
358 There are still some in the present time,
359 Which are known only to very few people;
360 They would be very eager to show the way of Jesus Christ,
361 But they’re so persecuted that they can do it only a little;
362 So many false Christians are blinded by error,
363 And more than others those who are pastors,
364 For they persecute and kill those who are better,
365 And let those live quietly, who are false and deceivers.
366 But here is where we can recognize that they are not good pastors,
367 Because they love sheep only for fleece;
368 But Scripture says, and we can see,
369 That if there is some good man who wants to love God and fear Jesus Christ,
370 Who doesn’t want to curse, swear, or lie,
371 Neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor take that which is another’s,
372 Neither take revenge on his enemies,
373 They say he is vaudés [Vaudois] and worthy of being punished,
374 And they find an accusation, by falsehood and deception,
375 To be able to take away from him what he has by his just labor;
376 But let him take courage, he who is persecuted for the fear of the Lord,
377 For the kingdom of heaven will be prepared for him out of this world;
378 Then he will have great glory, after having had dishonor.
379 But here is how their wickedness is very obvious:
380 It’s because whoever wants to curse, lie, swear,
381 Lend for usury, kill, commit adultery,
382 And take revenge on those who harm him,
383 They call him prud’homme [proud man] and account him as loyal;
384 But at the end he should take care not to be deceived:

X.
385 When the deadly evil comes, death presses him and he can barely speak,
386 He asks for the priest and wants to confess;
387 But according to the Scriptures, it is too late, because it orders and says:
388 Confess yourself healthy and alive, and don’t wait for the end.191Luke 12:16-21, Romans 13:11, Hebrews 3:13, Hebrews 11:25, Revelation 2:16, Revelation 3:3
389 The priest asks him if he has any sin,
390 He answers him two or three words, and soon ends speaking.
391 The priest tells him well that he could not be forgiven,
392 If he does not return all that is to others, and if he does not correct his wrongs well.
393 But when he hears that, he thinks for a long time,
394 And thinks to himself that, if he renders everything,
395 What will be left to his children, and what will people say?
396 He commands his children to amend their wrongs,
397 And he concludes a contract with the priest to be able to be absolved:
398 If he leaves a hundred Livres to others, or even two hundred,
399 The priest acquits him for a hundred Sous,
400 And sometimes for less, when he can get no more,
401 And tells him a long story and promises forgiveness;
402 That he will have masses said for him and for his parents,
403 And he promises him forgiveness, though he be just or guilty;
404 So he puts his hand on his head;
405 When he leaves, moreover, he makes great celebration,
406 And makes him understand that he is very much absolved;
407 But he has badly made amends to those he has harmed;
408 He will be deceived by such absolution,
409 And whoever made him believe it, he sinned to death.
410 For me, I dare say, that because this is true,
411 Of all the popes, from Silvestre until now,
412 And all the cardinals, and all the bishops and all the abbots, and the like,
413 They don’t have enough power to absolve, that they can forgive
414 To any creature one mortal sin.
415 God alone forgives, which no one else can do.

XI.
416 But here is what those who are pastors should do:
417 They should preach to the people and stand in prayer,
418 Shepherd often with divine doctrine,
419 And punish sinners by giving discipline,
420 That is to say, true admonition, so that they repent;
421 That they first of all confess, without any reserve,
422 And to repent in this present life,
423 Fasting, giving alms and praying with a burning heart,
424 For by these things they shall find absolution.192defined as absolution, peace, exoneration, or the relief from guilt; asolvament. – cf. Rom. 14:4.

TL Note: This word has been mistranslated as “salvation” in multiple other translations, but in the original Occitan “salvament” is the equivalent word for that; see Lines 233 and 260. Compare line 424 with its parallel use in line 408.

425 So we Christians, bad Christians, who have sinned,
426 Abandoned the law of Jesus Christ,
427 Having no fear, faith, or charity,
428 Must confess, and without delay;
429 With weeping and repentance we need to amend
430 The offense that we made by three mortal sins,
431 Lust of the eyes, enjoyment of the flesh,
432 And pride of life, because we have done evil.
433 This is the way we have to stand,
434 If we want to love and follow Jesus Christ:
435 We must observe spiritual poverty from the heart,
436 Love chastity, serve God in humility;
437 Then we would follow the way of Jesus Christ,
438 So we would defeat our enemies.

XII.
439 Here is the brief recount of this lesson.
440 Of the three laws that God gave to the world:
441 The first law shows, to him who has sense and reason,
442 The knowledge of God and the honor to their Creator;
443 For whoever is intelligent can think for himself,
444 That he did not form himself, nor any thing else;
445 So he can know here, who has sense and reason,
446 That there is one Lord God who shaped the whole world.
447 And, knowing him, we must honor him very much,
448 For those who did not want to do this were damned.
449 The second law, the one that God gave Moses,
450 Teaches us to fear God and to serve Him strongly,
451 For he condemns and punishes every man who offends him.
452 The third law, which is to the present day,
453 Teaches us to love God with good heart and to serve him purely,
454 For he waits for the sinner and gives him time,
455 So that he can repent in the present life.
456 We should no longer have any other law,
457 Than to follow Jesus Christ, to do his will,
458 To keep firmly what he commanded,
459 And to be well advised when the antichrist comes,
460 So that we do not believe in his actions, or his words.
461 According to Scripture, there are now many antichrists:
462 For he is an antichrist who is contrary to Christ.
463 Many signs, grand demonstrations
464 Will be from that moment until the day of judgment.
465 Heaven and earth will burn, all the living will die,
466 Then all will revive as not to die anymore,
467 And whatever has been built will be overturned.
468 Then the last judgment will be made:
469 God will divide his people as it is written;
470 To the wicked, he will say: Separate yourself from me,
471 Go to the fire of hell which will never end;
472 There you will be subject to three harsh conditions,
473 Multitude of sorrows, and torments,
474 And damnation without return:
475 God protect us, by his good will,
476 And that we are given to hear, before it is long, what he will declare to his own,
477 When he says, Come with me, blessed of my Father,
478 To have the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world,
479 Where you will have enjoyments, riches and honors.
480 May this Lord, who formed the world,
481 Let us be chosen to remain in his court.
Thanks be to God. Amen.

Appendix 1, second part.
The following are three Letters from the churches in Britain.
Excerpts from the record of Joshua Thomas, from The History of the Baptist Churches in Wales.193op cit., pp. 46-47, 52-54, 61-62.

Letters From the Church in London:

In [1650] there was a letter sent from the church at the Glasshouse in London to the Churches of Christ in Wales as follows:

Beloved in the Lord in Christ our Head:

We salute you, praying daily for you, that God would be pleased to make known his grace to you, so that you may be made able to walk before him in holiness and without blame all your days. We assure you it is no small joy to us to hear of the goodness of God to youward; that now the scriptures, again are made good, namely, to those who sit in darkness God hath wonderfully appeared; even to you whose habitations were in dark corners of the earth. The Lord grant that we may acknowledge his goodness in answering prayers, for we dare boldly affirm it to be so, for we have poured out our souls to God, that he would enlighten the dark corners of the land, and that to them who sit in darkness God would arise, and God hath risen indeed. We cannot but say that God sent our Bro. Miles to us; we having prayed that God would give to us some who might give themselves to the work of the Lord, in those places where he had work to do; and we cannot but acknowledge it before the Lord, and pray that it may be more than ordinary provocation to us to call upon our own hearts, and upon each other’s hearts to call upon that God who hath styled himself, God hearing prayers. And now brethren, we pray and exhort you to walk worthy of the mercies of God, who hath appeared to you; and that you exhort one another daily to walk with God, with an upright heart, keeping close to him in all your ways, and to go forward, pressing hard after the mark, for the mark, for the prize of the high calling which is in Christ Jesus. The Lord grant that you may be strengthened against the wiles of that evil and subtil enemy of our salvation, knowing that he and his servants turn themselves into glorious shapes, and make great pretences, speaking swelling words of vanity, endeavoring to beguile souls: but blessed be God, we hope you are not ignorant of his devices. Time would fail us to tell you how many ways many have been ensnared and have fallen; yet praised be his name, many have escaped his snares, even as a bird from the hand of a cunning fowler. So committing you to God, and the word of his Grace, we take leave, subscribing ourselves:

Your brethren in the faith and fellowship of Christ, according to the Gospel:

William Consett, Edward Cressett, Joseph Stafford, Edward Roberts, John Harmon, Robert Bowes.

This letter happened not to be dated in the records; but the next is dated “At the Glasshouse, London, 12th of the 11th month, 1650,” which was written to the young church at Llanharan.

[…]

[T]here is a letter from the church at Llantrisaint, to the churches of Christ at Ilston, Hay and Carmarthen, dated Llantrisaint 17th of the 8th month, 1652. It is not a long letter, but as it is a good one, and Mr. Backus was so kind as to send it, we shall insert it here, thus:194note on transcription: both ellipses are part of the letter

Honored and endeared Brethren:

We bend our knees to the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he goes along the countries, enlarging the kingdom of his dear Son, delivering souls that were held captive under Satan, who is called the God of this world, and the prince of the power of the air. Oh, the admirable love of God to us! that he should bring us from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God; to receive remission of sins, and an inheritance among those who are sanctified, through the faith that is in Jesus! That he should fetch us home when we wandered from him, and manifested himself to us, who were alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that was in us, because of the blindness of our hearts! He hath made us near to himself, to be sons and heirs of God in Christ, who were afar off, even enemies and strangers to the covenants of promise. Our good God give us hearts to consider the wonderful things he hath done for us, and the inestimable things he hath promised to us; that we may be wise and watchful, how to walk worthy of such great mercies… Dear brethren it behoveth you and us, to consider whither the goodness of God leadeth us, and whether we be better thereby, does it lay any ties or engagements on our spirits to keep close to the Lord, and to walk more holy before him; seeing the Holy Ghost hath told us, this is the will of God even your sanctification? Indeed we have great cause to mourn, and to walk humbly with our God in the sight and sense of our manifold failings and frailties; but our corruptions are so strong, and our graces so weak; that our God is so full of mercies to us, and we so empty in thankfulness to him; that he hath done us so many honors above all about us, in upholding, sparing, and protecting us, against all men’s imagination that were designed against us, But oh! we have done little honor to God; we have been wanting to God, to ourselves, and to one another, in sundry duties, in our several stations. Let the word of the Lord be dear and precious to your souls, by which you were called to the knowledge of God the Father, and of his Son Jesus Christ.

In all your actions, let your candle be lighted by the word, as David made it a lantern to his feet, and a light to his path; so shall you be taught how to walk one towards another and towards all men, and how to order the church of Christ. If your knowledge and gifts be increased, let grace humble you, lest jealousy swell you up. Oh! that the Lord would teach you and us to condescend one to another in things indifferent, minding the counsel of the Apostle, none to please himself, but every one to please another. Take heed of judging one another as void of grace upon every failing, lest all fall to judge one another as carnal, and as bite and devour one another, till you be consumed one of another: for it is not one act that makes one gracious, nor one failing that makes one ungodly. Let there not be such a spirit among you that strives to prepossess others against a brother or sister, to work prejudice or hard thoughts one against another, for that may divide the hearts of saints, and if our hearts be divided we shall be found faulty (Hos. 10: 2), and the grace of love will be lost among us. In the word we are advised to love one another, and that all our things be done in love. Saith the Apostle, love envieth not, thinketh no evil, suffereth long, is kind, doth not behave itself unseemly, is not easily provoked (1 Cor. 13: 4). Oh dear brethren! cry to the father that this grace may abide and abound in and among us; so shall we have much joy and delight in the society of each other, and be amiable in the sight of others; do not lie open to Satan’s onsets: for it is his design to make breaches, and to enter in at all the breaches he hath made, to hinder the peace of the churches. Beware of watching faults in each other, but watch over one another, in love, to prevent faults. Watch to see corruptions in yourselves. So will you be humble in yourselves, and tender towards others. If some grace appears among many weaknesses in a brother, let the sight of that grace stir your affections to endeavor, in love, to recover the brother from his corruptions; and be not embittered by his weaknesses to deny or disown that grace which is to be seen in him. It is rich mercy that grace is to be seen in a Brother; and we must consider, there is more corruption than grace in the best. Let all the gifts and graces that God hath given you be employed to the edification of the body. Obey them who have the oversight of you, and esteem them for their work’s sake.

Let not discipline be slacked or neglected among you. Let not him that hath five talents despise him who hath but two; and let not him that hath two envy him that hath five. Let every member study how to serve the body in his place and calling. Let not the foot say ‘because I am not the eye, or the ear, therefore I am not of the body.’ Take heed of being wanton under mercies received; search the word and your own hearts, to bring them both together, and be not wise above what is written… We the rather take occasion to call these things to mind, to you and to ourselves because of the willingness and watchfulness of the enemy to work upon any distemper that may arise in or among you or us; for Satan is busy here with us, presenting his designs afresh, seeking to delude unstable souls, and if it were possible to deceive the elect, to slight and suspect the ways and word of God, and the ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Wherefore, dear brethren, Let us cleave close to the Lord, his word and ordinances, and to each other, through whose grace we stand unshaken against the power of antichrist; and the Lord is adding to us such as believe.

Now dear brethren, desiring you to mind us before your and our Father, that he will continue his goodness to us, and pour of his Spirit of grace upon us, that we may stand unmoved, and go on in wisdom and power of his Spirit, to bear witness to his truth; as we shall likewise for you. We commit you to God and to the word of his Grace, to strengthen, settle, and establish you in every good word, work and rest.

Your brethren in the faith of Christ and fellowship of the gospel.

David Davis, Howell Thomas, Thomas Jones, Edward Prichard, Wm. Thomas, and Thomas Evans.

[…]

In the Abergavenny records there is a letter thus prefaced, “A copy of the first letter we have received from the church at Ilston, for the church of Christ at Abergavenny.” It bears no date, but by the contents it is probable that it was sent this year, 1653, either before or after the Association. It is an epistle of friendly advice, the close of it runs thus:

Endeavor to have peace with all men; speak and deal kindly with the poor blind world, pitying their sad condition as infants cast into the open field to the loathing of their persons. Endeavor in love to turn them to righteousness; for then you shall shine as the stars for evermore. Love and honor all saints, though as to baptism hitherto dissident: yet take heed lest your affections to them make you too much to bear them in their disorder. Go not you to them in their error, but let them come to you, who are in the truth; only be sure that your carriage towards such be very meek and affable. Take all seasonable opportunities to persuade them to their duty. Dear Brethren, we pray you, accept of these few exortations as the fruit and testimony of our dearest and tenderest affections towards you; so desiring to salute everyone of you in the Lord, we recommend you to our Father’s Grace, desire your prayers, and rest.

Your brethren in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel of Christ,

John Davis, William Thomas, John Price, Lyson Davis, Hugh Matthew, John Miles, Harry Griffeth, Thomas Proud, John Gwilim, Matthew Davis, William Rees, Owen David, Simon Butler, Thomas Farmer, Evan Lewelyn, Thomas Hopkins, Morgan Jones, Thomas Ab Evan, Lewis Thomas, Evan Thomas, Llewelyn Ab Evan, Edward Hilzey.

  
Appendix 2

The Acts of the Abitinian Martyrs195Note: as with the Noble Lesson and Passio Marculi, this document has several variant manuscripts. We may not possess the exact original. In this case, we have not included the later variant of this text, which actually casts some shade and doubt on the martyrs of this story, as noted by the translator. For more information on this subject see Maureen Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories: The Church in Conflict in Roman North Africa, pp. 25-27.
The following is taken from Bibliothèque National Latin Ms. 5297.
[primarily from the translation of Tilley from Latin to English in 1996]

Warning: Some graphic depictions follow.

§ In the times of Diocletian and Maximian, the devil waged war against the Christians in this manner: he sought to burn the most holy testaments of the Lord, the divine scriptures, to destroy the sanctuaries of the Lord, and to prohibit the sacred rites and the most holy assemblies from celebrating in the Lord. But the army of the Lord did not accept such a monstrous order and it bristled at the sacrilegious command. Quickly it seized the arms of faith and descended into battle. This battle was to be fought not so much against human beings as against the devil. Some fell from faith at the critical moment by handing over to unbelievers the scriptures of the Lord and the divine testaments so they could be burned in unholy fires. But how many more in preserving them bravely resisted by freely shedding their blood for them! When the devil had been completely defeated and ruined and all the martyrs were filled with God’s presence, bearing the palm of victory over suffering, they sealed with their own blood the verdict against the traitors and their associates, rejecting them from the communion of the Church. For it was not right that there should be martyrs and traitors in the Church of God at the same time.

Now when the war trumpet sounded in the city of Abitina, the glorious martyrs set up the standards of the Lord in the house of Octavius Felix. While they were celebrating the sacraments of the Lord, as was their custom, they were taken into custody by the magistrates of the town and by the soldier stationed there. Those arrested were Saturninus and his four children, i.e., Saturninus Jr. and Felix, the lectors; Maria, the consecrated virgin; and the child Hilarianus. Also arrested were: Dativus, the one who was a senator, Felix, another Felix, Emeritus, Ampelius, Rogatianus, Quintus, Maximus, Telica, Rogatianus, Rogatus, Januarius, Cassianus, Victorianus, Vincentius, Caecelianus, Restituta, Prima, Eva, Rogatianus, Givalius, Rogatus, Pomponia, Secunda, Januaria, Saturnina, Martinus, Clautus, Felix, the elder Margarita, Honorata, Regiola, Victorinus, Pelusius, Faustus, Dacianus, Matrona, Caecilia, Victoria, Hecretina, and another married woman named Januaria.

§ Here the martyrs of Christ first received the chains they had longed for, and formed into a line, happy and cheerful, they sang hymns and songs to the Lord all along the road from this city to Carthage. When they arrived at the office of Anulinus who was then the proconsul, they stood in battle formation, steadfast and brave. Their steadfastness in the Lord beat back the blows of the raging devil. But when the fury of the devil could not prevail over all the soldiers of Christ together, he demanded them in combat one by one.

When it comes to the struggles of their battles I shall not proceed so much in my own words as in those of the martyrs so that the boldness of the raging enemy may be known in the torments and the sacrilegious invective, and the power of their leader Christ the Lord may be praised in the endurance of the martyrs and by their confession itself.

§ Therefore, since they were handed over by the local officials to the proconsul and since it had been proposed that the Christians be sent by the officials of Abitina—for they celebrated the Lord’s Supper against the prohibition of the emperors and caesars—the proconsul first asked Dativus what his station in life was and whether he had come to the assembly. When he declared that he was a Christian and that he had come to the assembly, the proconsul demanded the name of the leader of this most holy assembly. Immediately he ordered the official on duty to put Dativus on the rack and, once he was stretched out, to prepare the claws. The executioners carried out their cruel orders with dreadful speed, and standing there filled with rage as they were appointed, with the claws raised, they threatened the wounded sides of the martyr which were already stripped and exposed.

Next Tazelita, the bravest martyr, in front of everyone submitted himself to torments and exclaimed, “We are Christians.” He said, “We do assemble.” Then the anger of the proconsul blazed hot. Groaning and severely wounded by a spiritual sword, the executioner struck the martyr of Christ with heavy blows as he hung there on the rack. He stretched him out and tore at him with the horrible grating claws. But in response, in the midst of the fury of the executioners, Tazelita, the most glorious martyr, poured out his prayer of thanksgiving to the Lord in this manner: “Thanks be to God. In your name, O Christ, son of God, free your servants.”

§ Blood flowed out along with his voice as he prayed to the Lord, and, mindful of the precepts of the gospel, he asked for forgiveness for his enemies even as his body was being torn apart. Then in the midst of the most severe tortures of the blows he reproached his torturers and the proconsul equally with these words: “You act unjustly, you wretches, you struggle against God. O God most high, do not hold these sins against them. You are sinning, you wretches, you struggle against God. We keep the precepts of God most high. You act unjustly, you wretches. You tear apart the innocent. We are not murderers. We are not criminals. O God, have mercy. To you be thanks. For your name’s sake, give me endurance. Free your servants from the captivity of this world. To you be thanks. I cannot thank you enough.”

His sides shook violently as claws bit into them like a plow. A wave of gore flowed out from the blood-red furrows. He heard the proconsul saying to him, “You are only beginning to feel what you ought to suffer.” But Tazelita continued, “To glory. I thank you, God of all kingdoms. May the eternal kingdom come, an incorruptible kingdom. Lord Jesus, we are Christians; we serve you. You are our hope, you are the hope of Christians. God most holy, God most high, God omnipotent, we praise you for your name.”

He prayed this way while the devil, through the judge, said, “You ought to obey the law of the emperors and the caesars.” From a body now tormented, a victorious spirit answered with a strong and persistent voice, “I respect only the Law of God which I have learned. This is what I obey. I die for this. I am consumed by it, by the Law of God. There is no other.” By saying such things, it was the most glorious martyr himself who tormented Anulinus even worse than his own great torments. Finally, his anger sated with ferocity, Anulinus said, “Stop,” and he bound over to a well-deserved passion the martyr confined to his prison.

§ Next Dativus was strengthened for battle by the Lord. He had been closely associated with Tazelita. While he was tortured, he observed Tazelita hanging on the rack. Repeatedly, Dativus bravely proclaimed that he was a Christian and had taken part in the assembly.

The brother of the most holy martyr Victoria, Fortunatianus, arrived on the scene. He was quite a distinguished Roman citizen, but at that time he was hostile to the practice of the most holy religion. Now he was reproving the martyr hung on the rack with unholy words, “Sir,” he said, “this is the man who in the absence of our father kept trying to seduce our sister Victoria while we were studying here. He lured her from this most splendid city of Carthage all the way out to the town of Abitina along with Secunda and Restituta. He never came into our house except to lead their young hearts astray with his proselytizing.”

But Victoria, the most distinguished martyr, did not endure her associate and fellow martyr being assailed by the lying senator. With Christian candor she immediately said, “No one persuaded me to leave and it was not with him that I went to Abitina. By the testimony of the citizens I can prove this: I did everything on my own initiative and by my own free will. Certainly I have been a member of the assembly; I have celebrated the Lord’s Supper with my brothers and sisters because I am a Christian.”

Then her shameless legal counsellor flung even more foul-mouthed abuse against the martyr [Dativus]. But from his place on the rack, the glorious martyr refuted all the charges with his truthful rebuttal.

§ Meanwhile Anulinus grew more angry and ordered the claws to be applied to the martyr. Immediately the executioners attacked his sides which had been stripped and prepared for their blows by his bloody wounds. Their savage hands flew, more swift than their speedy orders. In the midst of these events, the mind of the martyr stands firm and even if his limbs were broken, his viscera torn to pieces and his sides ripped apart, nevertheless, the martyr’s soul endures whole and unshaken.

Finally, mindful of his dignity, Dativus the senator poured out his prayer to the Lord as follows in the presence of the mad executioner: “O Christ, Lord, let me not be put to shame.” With these words196Psalm 119:31 the most blessed martyr merited so easily what he had so succinctly requested from the Lord.

Finally now, the mind of the proconsul was deeply disturbed. In spite of himself he burst forth: “Stop!” The executioners stopped, for it was not right that the martyr of Christ should be tortured for the sake of Victoria his co-martyr.

§ Although Pompeianus the savage prosecutor attacked him with unjustified suspicion and initiated a slanderous suit against him, the martyr fixed a look on him and deeply affected him saying: “What are you doing in this place, you devil? What are you trying to do to the martyrs of Christ?” The senator of the Lord and martyr overcame both the power and rage of this lawyer. But how the most famous martyr had to be racked for Christ!

Questioned whether he had been in the assembly, he firmly confessed and said that when there was an assembly, he had come; along with his sisters and brothers he had celebrated the Lord’s supper with a devotion befitting his religion; and that there was one single organizer of this most holy assembly. This again so readily incited the proconsul against him and his savagery broke out again. The dignity of the martyr is redoubled as he is flogged with the furrowing claws. But the martyr tormented in the midst of his most cruel wounds repeated his original prayer: “I beseech you, O Christ, let me not be put to shame. What have I done? Saturninus is our presbyter.”

§ While the harsh and grim executioners scraped Dativus’ sides with crooked claws, as if their teacher were Cruelty itself, showing them the way, Saturninus the presbyter is summoned to the battle. In his contemplation of the heavenly kingdom, he considers these things truly small and of no consequence. He began to support his fellow martyrs and to fight alongside them. The proconsul said, “You acted against the order of the emperors and the caesars when you gathered all of these people together.” Saturninus the presbyter, with the prompting of the Spirit of the Lord, fearlessly responded, “We celebrated the Lord’s supper.”

The proconsul said, “Why?” He responded, “Because it was not possible to neglect the Lord’s supper.” When Saturninus had said these things, the proconsul immediately ordered Dativus to be prepared for torture. Dativus meanwhile observed the tearing of his body rather than grieve. His mind and spirit depended on the Lord. He thought nothing of the pain in his body but only prayed to the Lord saying, “Come to my aid, I pray. O Christ, have pity on my soul. Care for my spirit. Let me not be put to shame, I pray, O Christ.”

The proconsul said to him, “It would have been better, if you had called others from this most splendid city to a right disposition, and if you had not acted against the order of the emperors and the caesars.” But steadfastly and constantly he cried out, “I am a Christian.” Overcome by this reply, this devil said, “Stop!” Throwing him also into prison, the proconsul set this martyr aside for a worthy passion.

§ But while the presbyter Saturninus hung on the rack anointed by the newly shed blood of the martyrs, he was incited to persist in the faith of those in whose blood he stood fast. While he was being interrogated whether he had been the organizer and whether he had gathered everyone together, he said, “I was there in the assembly.” Contending alongside the presbyter, Emeritus the lector springing up for battle said, “I am the organizer in whose home the assemblies were held.” By now the proconsul had so often been gotten the better of, that he shook with horror at the attack of Emeritus. Nevertheless, turning toward the presbyter, he said, “Why did you act against the order? What do you get out of confessing?” Saturninus said to him, “The Lord’s supper could not be neglected; so the Law orders.” Then the proconsul said, “Nonetheless, you should not have made light of what was forbidden but rather you should have observed the order of the emperors and not acted against them.” And with a voice well practiced against the martyrs, he admonished the torturers to begin to torment him.

He is obeyed with willing compliance. The executioners fall on the elderly body of the presbyter and, with their anger raging, they tear the broken bonds of his sinews. You should have seen the lamentable tortures and the exquisite torments of a new kind inflicted on the priest of God. You should have seen the executioners vent their anger as if they had a rabid hunger for wounds as food and for the entrails now open to the horror of those watching. Amidst the red of the blood, the bones gleamed white. Lest his soul being pressed out from his body desert it in the delays between rackings, the presbyter prayed to the Lord in this way: “I beseech you, O Christ, hear me. I give you thanks, O God. Order me to be beheaded. I beseech you, O Christ, have mercy. Son of God, come to my aid.”

The proconsul said to him, “Why do you act against the order?”

The presbyter said, “Thus does the Law order. Thus does the Law teach.” At last, frightened by the mention of the Law, Anulinus said, “Stop!” Throwing him back into the confinement of prison he destined him for the suffering for which he hoped.

§ Once Emeritus was charged, the proconsul said, “Were assemblies held in your home against the order of the emperor?” Emeritus filled with the Holy Spirit said to him, “We did hold the Lord’s supper in my home.” In reply the proconsul said, “Why did you permit them to enter?” He responded, “Because they are my brothers and sisters and I could not prevent them from doing so.” Then the proconsul said, “You should have prevented them.” In response Emeritus said, “I could not because we cannot go without the Lord’s supper.”

At once the proconsul ordered him to be stretched out on the rack, and once stretched out, to be tortured. After new executioners came on duty, while he was suffering heavy blows, he said, “I beseech you, O Christ, come to my aid. You wretches are the ones acting against the command of God.”

The proconsul interrupted, “You should not have admitted them.” Emeritus responded, “I could not but admit my brothers and sisters.” Then the sacrilegious proconsul said, “But the order of the emperors and the caesars takes priority.” In reply the most pious martyr said, “God is greater—and not the emperors. I pray, O Christ, praise to you. Give me endurance.”

The proconsul interrupted him as he prayed, “Do you have any scriptures in your home?” He responded, “I have them but they are in my heart.” “Do you have them in your home,” he said, “or do you not?” Emeritus the martyr said, “I have them in my heart. I plead, Christ, praise to you. Free me, Christ. I suffer in your name. Briefly do I suffer, freely do I suffer, O Christ. Lord, let me not be put to shame.”

Once he heard this, the proconsul said, “Stop!” and recalling to memory Emeritus’ profession, along with the rest of the confessions, he said, “For all your misdeeds, you will pay the punishment merited by your confession.”

§ But now with his countenance changed, the proconsul’s wild rage faded, appeased by the torments of the martyrs. But when Felix, both by name and suffering, had marched forward into combat and the entire battle line of the Lord stood uninjured and unconquered, the tyrant’s mind was destroyed, his voice dispirited, his soul and body torn asunder. He said, “I hope that you will choose to obey orders so that you may live.” In response the confessors of the Lord spoke as if with one voice: “We are Christians. We can do not other than to keep the Law of the Lord even unto the shedding of blood.” Battered by such speech, the enemy said to Felix, “I am not asking whether you are Christians but whether you held assemblies or whether you have any scriptures.” He said, “If you are a Christian, shut up about it,” and he added, “Answer whether you were in the assembly.” Felix added, “We celebrated the most glorious assembly. We always gathered to read the scriptures of the Lord at the Lord’s supper.”

Deeply disturbed by this profession, Anulinus united to the heavenly council the lifeless martyr, who had been struck down by the blows of cudgels and was at that moment hastening to the heavenly judgment seat now that his suffering has been completed.

§ But another Felix follows Felix, equal in name and confession, similar in his very suffering. Contending with equal strength, he was battered by blows of cudgels. Laying down his life in the torments of prison, he was united with the previous Felix as a martyr.

After these, Ampelius, guardian of the Law and most faithful protector of divine scripture, took up the contest. When the proconsul asked whether he was part of the assembly, lighthearted and secure he answered with a vigorous voice. He said, “I held an assembly with my brothers and sisters, I celebrated the Lord’s supper, and I have with me the scriptures of the Lord. They are written in my heart. Christ, I give you praise. Hear me, Christ.” When he had said these things, he was bruised about the neck. He was happy to be bound up with his brothers, there in prison, like a light in the tabernacle of the Lord.

Rogatianus followed him. Having confessed the name of the Lord, he was joined unharmed to the aforementioned brothers.

Then Quintus, having been charged and having confessed the name of the Lord uncommonly well, magnificently, was struck down by blows and thrust into jail, to be held for a well-deserved martyrdom.

Maximus followed him, his counterpart in confession, similar in combat, equal in the triumph of victory.

Following him, the younger Felix proclaimed the Lord’s supper as the hope and salvation of Christians. He himself fell, similarly beset by blows. He said, “With a faithful spirit, I celebrated the Lord’s supper. I held an assembly with my brothers and sisters because I am a Christian.” By this confession, he was worthy to be associated with his aforementioned brothers.

§ Now the younger Saturninus, the holy offspring of the priest Saturninus, quickly approached the anticipated battle, hastening to equal the most glorious virtues of his father. The proconsul under the influence of the devil said to him, “And you, Saturninus, were you mixed up in this?”

Saturninus responded, “I am a Christian.” The proconsul said, “I didn’t ask you that, but whether you attended the Lord’s supper.”

Saturninus responded, “I attended the Lord’s supper because Christ is the saviour.” When he heard the name of the saviour, Anulinus grew angry and prepared the rack used on the father for the son. When Saturninus had been stretched out, he said, “Saturninus, what evidence do you offer? Consider your situation. Do you have any scriptures?” Saturninus responded, “I am a Christian.”

The proconsul said: “I am asking whether you assembled and whether you have any scriptures.” He responded, “I am a Christian. There is no one else we ought to consider holy except Christ.”

The devil, enraged by this confession, said, “Because you have remained obstinate, it is fitting to question you by torture to see whether you have any scriptures.” And he said to the officials, “Torture him.”

The weary torturers attacked the sides of the son with lacerations like those of his father and they mixed the father’s blood which has dampened the claws with the corresponding blood of the son. Through the furrows of the open wounds you saw the father’s blood dripping from the sides of the son and the blood of the son mixed with the father’s dripping from the dampened claws. But the youth, reinvigorated by the mixture of familial blood, felt it a healing remedy rather than a torment. Fortified by his torments, he exclaimed with loud cries, “I have the scriptures of the Lord, but I have them in my heart. I beg you, Christ, give me endurance. In you there is hope.”

Anulinus said, “Why did you act against the order?”

He responded, “Because I am a Christian.”

When he heard that, Anulinus said, “Stop,” and as soon as the torments were discontinued, Saturninus was joined in fellowship with his father…

[After this, the remaining church members were sent into the prison without any food or water.]

§ Truly the living Spirit, the Holy Spirit, directed the minds of the confessors by infusing them with eternal and divine discourse. Then, after the cruel calamity and the horrible threats of persecution, when by these threats tyrannical rage had attacked the Christian religion, so that the eternal peace of the Christian Name might shine ever more pure and more serene, there was lacking neither intense deception on the part of all those traitors nor the conspiracy of the noxious remainder of those whose faith had been shipwrecked. These were brought together by diabolical art which, under the guise of religion, attacked faith, overturned law and disturbed divine authority. When Mensurius, so-called bishop of Carthage, polluted by the recent handing over of the scripture, repented of the malice of his misdeeds, he then began to reveal greater crimes: he who had had to beg and implore from the martyrs’ pardon for burning the books, raged against the martyrs with the same resolve with which he handed over the divine laws: thus adding to his transgressions even more shameful acts. More ruthless than the tyrant, more bloody than the executioner, he chose Caecilian his deacon as a suitable minister of his misdeeds and he stationed him before the doors of the prison, armed with whips and lashes so he might turn away from the entrance and exit all those who brought food and drink to the martyrs in prison. Thereby, he further harmed those already wronged by grave injustice. People who came to nourish the martyrs were struck down right and left by Caecilian. The cups for the thirsty covered in chains were broken. Food was scattered at the entrance of the prison, to be consumed by dogs. Before the doors of the prison, the fathers of the martyrs fell and the most holy mothers. Shut out from the sight of their children, they kept their vigil day and night at the entrance of the prison. There was the dreadful weeping and the bitter lamentation by all who were there. To keep the pious from the embrace of the martyrs and to keep Christians from a duty of piety, Caecilian was more ruthless than the tyrant, more bloody than the executioner.

[Finally is the account of how these martyrs made a judgment to remove Caecilian from communion due to his actions. A few years after this text was written, Caecilian was appointed the bishop of Carthage by Roman Catholicism.197Matthew 18:17-18]

§ Meanwhile neither the squalor of prison nor the pain of the flesh nor, finally, the lack of anything disturbed the martyrs of Christ. But already near to the Lord by their merits and their confession, they directed those who succeeded them, the renewed progeny of the Christian name, to be separated from all filth and communion with traitors by this warning: “If anyone communicates with the traitors, the same will have no part with us in the heavenly kingdom.” And they endorsed this verdict of theirs by the authority of the Holy Spirit written in such evidence: “It is written,” they said, “in the Apocalypse, ‘Whoever adds to this book one part of a letter or one letter, to him will the Lord add innumerable afflictions. And whoever blots them out, so will the Lord blot out his share from the Book of Life.’198Revelation 22:18-19 If, therefore, a part of a letter added or a letter omitted cuts off a person at the roots from the Book of Life and if such constitutes a sacrilege, [then] it is necessary that all those who handed over the divine testaments and the honored laws of the omnipotent God and of the Lord Jesus Christ to be burned in profane fires, should be tormented in the eternal flames of Hell and inextinguishable fire. And, therefore, as we have already said, if anyone communicates with the traitors, the same will not have a share with us in the heavenly kingdom.”

Sharing in these judgments, one by one, they hurried off to the glory of suffering and to the ultimate testimony. Each one of the martyrs signed the judgment with their own blood. Accordingly, the Holy Church follows the martyrs and curses the treachery of the traitor Mensurius.

§ Therefore, these things being so, would anyone who is strong in the knowledge of divine law, endowed with faith, outstanding in devotion and most holy in religion, who realizes that God the Judge discerns truth from error, distinguishes faith from faithlessness, and isolates false pretense from sure and intact holiness, God who separates the upright from the lapsed, the unimpaired from the wounded, the just from the guilty, the innocent from the condemned, the custodian of the Law from the traitor, the confessor of the name of Christ from the denier, the martyr of the Lord from the persecutor, would that person think that the church of the martyrs and the conventicle of traitors is one and the same thing? Of course, no one does. For these repel each other so and they are as contrary to each other as light is to darkness, life to death, a holy angel to the devil, Christ to the Antichrist. As Paul the Apostle said: “Do not be joined to unbelievers. For what sharing is there between justice and iniquity, or what communion between light and darkness? What accord is there between Christ and Belial, what small share between a believer and an unbeliever, what agreement between the temple of God and idols? For you are the temple of the living God. He says, I will live in them and I will walk among them, and I will be their God and they shall be my people. Because of this, go out from their midst and separate, says the Lord God almighty, And do not touch the unclean, and I will take you back, and I will be a father to you and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord almighty.”1992 Cor. 6:14-18

On account of all this, the good must flee the conspiracy of the traitors, the home of hypocrites, and the judgments of the Pharisees, and the devout must always avoid them. Would that those spiritually born200John 1:12-13, John 3:5-7, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Jn. 5:1 should worthily succeed to adoption as the sons and daughters of God in the holy Church and would that they not be sunk in the crimes of others,2012 John v. 9-11 acquiring darkness instead of light, death instead of life, destruction instead of salvation! Such is the nature of the Church of the Lord that I do not say “this part” because it is one alone and cannot be split or divided into two parts.2021 Cor. 1:13 But after the horrible night of persecution, and the pestilential whirlwinds of tyrants, the Devil by a craftiness of the most nimble fraud devises for himself a council of the shipwrecked to deceive the innocent and to plunder the people. Thus if he cannot swallow down people in the clear disaster of persecution, and if he cannot hold them fast in the bonds of transgression in a sacrilegious sect in the service of idols for their everlasting destruction, joining those to himself with polluted traitors, he destroys them under pretext of most holy religion. Then spurious rites of the holy and pretended mysteries are celebrated not so much for salvation as for the ruin of those wretches, since the impious man erects the altar, the profane celebrates the sacraments, the guilty baptizes, the wounded cures, the persecutor venerates the martyrs, the traitor reads the Gospel, the one who burned the divine testaments promises the inheritance of heaven. It is these whom the Lord rebukes and reproves in the gospel saying: “Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you circle the sea and the dry land to make a single proselyte. And when you have made him, you make him a son of Gehenna more duplicitous than you yourselves are.”203Matt. 23:15 Rejecting their polluted sacrifices, he said through the prophet, “Their sacrifices are like the bread of affliction; anyone who has touched it will be defiled.”204Hos. 9:4 Through Haggai the most famous prophet: “The Lord says, Ask the priests about the law, If a person receives consecrated meat in the fold of the garment and the fold of the garment touches another portion of bread, wine, or oil, will it be made holy? And the priests will say, No. And the Lord said, If a person polluted in his soul touched anything of these things, will it be polluted? And the priests said, It will be polluted. The Lord said, Thus it is with this people and this nation before me.205Hag. 2:11-14 So says the Lord and whoever will be like this will be polluted.

§ Therefore, one must flee and curse the whole corrupt congregation of all the polluted people, and everyone must seek the glorious lineage of the blessed martyrs, which is the one, holy, and true Church, from which the martyrs arise and whose divine mysteries the martyrs observe. They, and they alone, broke the force of infernal persecution; they preserved the law of the Lord even to the shedding of blood. In them the virtues of the people are cultivated in the presence of the Holy Spirit, saving baptism is performed, life is renewed forever.

God remains ever merciful to them. The Lord Christ is here and with the Holy Spirit rejoices and is glad, the victor among the confessors, the conquerer among the martyrs.

This is the end of the confessions and the judicial records of the martyrs Saturninus the presbyter and his companions.206Not long after the text of this account was written, Roman Catholicism began under Constantine, circa 311-313 AD.

Historical Outline Part 2

second part of outline, through year 1300.

Part One                                              Part Three

Note: The early part of this page has some dense sections, but this will bring light to the background for the rest of the outline.

A.D. 1093: First Occupation of Wales

Following the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, William the Conqueror begins making invasion plans for Wales. This is accomplished under his son William II in 1093. This first invasion, however, was rolled back by a successful revolt by the Welsh in 1094, leaving England only in control of the southern region, but including the region of Brecknock and Monmouth where the Olchon baptist church was later located.1“Walter Brute,” Encyclopaedia Cambrensis, Vol. 10, p. 480.2Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club Herefordshire, Vol. 44 (1898), pp. 260-261.3Y Ffydd Ddi-Fyiant 3rd Ed., p. 194. The later King Henry II, who ruled from France, would continue these efforts but he suffered defeats. Wales maintained its separation until the end of the reign of its ruler Llywelyn ap Gruffydd in 1282. His brother Dafydd ap Gruffydd was executed by Edward I on October 3, 1283.4“Wales, The English Conquest,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 23, p. 296. The title Prince of Wales then entered its current usage.

Despite the relative isolation of Wales during this intervening time, outside contact between nobility was still maintained; it is noted that the last regions in Wales synchronized their calendars to the Catholic calendar by 768.5Sir John Edward Lloyd, A History of Wales from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest, Vol. 1, p. 203.

No fewer than sixteen different colleges6See: “Asser,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 2, pp. 528-529.7“Asser (d. 909?),” Dictionary of the National Biography (1885-1900), Vol. 2, p. 198. were observed and recorded in Wales at various times throughout the pre-conquest period. These structures dedicated to religious study were not to be confused with ordinary churches.8Sir John Edward Lloyd, A History of Wales from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest, Vol. 1, pp. 205-206.9Territory in Wales was never parceled into dioceses, nor were there metropolitan sees (or seats of bishoprics), see ibid. p. 157. In this culture, a particular form of monasticism existed, tied to training in scribe work, languages, translations and copyists. While these might be called monasteries, we have noted instead that with regard to similar structures that also existed in early Scotland and Ireland: “it has been justly observed, that they may more properly be viewed as colleges, in which the various branches of useful learning were taught, than monasteries.10William McGavin, in his Introduction to Knox’s History of the Reformation of religion in Scotland, p. xiii.11Full quote: “Although it appears that they observed a certain institute, yet, in the accounts given of them, we cannot overlook this remarkable distinction between them and those societies which are properly called monastic, that they were not associated expressly for the purpose of observing this rule. They might deem certain regulations necessary for the preservation of order: but their great design was, by communicating instruction, to train up others for the work of the ministry. Hence it has been justly observed, that they may more properly be viewed as colleges, in which the various branches of useful learning were taught, than monasteries. These societies, therefore, were in fact the seminaries of the church, both in North Britain and Ireland. As the presbyters ministered in holy things to those in their vicinity, they were still training up others, and sending forth missionaries, whenever they had a call, or any prospects of success. It is reasonable to extend McGavin’s conclusion to the same colleges in Wales in the same era, lasting until the conquests of 1093-1283. There is less specific information about the churches themselves. Manuscript transcription was done at the colleges, while the church buildings that these people used (the Welsh or Britons) were traditionally of wood.12As it was said, “Ecclesiam de lapide, insolito Brettonibus more.
Bede, Eccl. Hist., lib. iii, ch. 4.
Remains of stone buildings, meanwhile, are those of the Anglo-Saxon, and later Norman and English churches.

The evidence of a preserved line of manuscripts during this time, the Anglo-Saxon translation of the four Gospels, has lasted until today.13The Wessex Gospels This translation lines up with the received text of the New Testament, and not the Latin Vulgate— and could have been possessed in the original tongue then subsequently translated by native speakers into a common dialect of Old English, namely the “Wessex” dialect.14Translated in approximately A.D. 990, as mentioned in the previous article. This seems to coincide closely in space and time with the college in Llantwit Major (see A.D. 395), having been ransacked by a Viking raid in 987.15The continuation of at least one received line of scripture is important for the following reasons: “Many of the converts and churches in different parts of the world, in the first century, must have been as illiterate as the Scots were in the fourth, yet we do not find that they set one class of ministers over the rest. Those indeed who enjoyed the ministry of apostles and evangelists had the advantage of their superintendence. When they were all become extinct, their writings were left to supply their place; and they are perfectly sufficient for the purpose, —able to make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished for every good work, which implies being perfectly qualified for the ministry of the gospel...” (cont’d in next footnote)16…The apostles never contemplated such a state of things in any church, as would make it lawful to depart from the order and government which they appointed, or to have recourse to human expedients on any immergency whatever. The proper measures for supplying what was wanting, would have been to multiply copies of the scriptures, to have the people generally taught to read; that at least every church should have a Bible, and some able to read it distinctly. By such means, with prayer and spiritual conference, our Christian ancestors might have had all their wants supplied.
in: William McGavin’s Introduction to Knox’s History of the Reformation of religion in Scotland, p. viii.

A.D. 1103: The Investiture Controversy

Sharing of power and authority, between Kings and state-Bishops, became a very great controversy around this time. This dispute made its way to England in a major way around the year 1103. Many ceremonial rights in the state-appointed churches were put into question at this time. Further, deciding what temporal authority held the right of selecting (or of merely confirming) the nominations of state-bishops, the order of priority in cases of disagreement, and the ownership of symbolic objects that represented these supposed rights were greatly disputed.17“Investiture,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 12, p. 563. However, this entire controversy admittedly amounted to a political exercise, as it was unrelated to any doctrinal matters.18“Gregory VII,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 10, p. 870.

By 1103 there was already an existing dispute between the (Holy Roman) Emperor, Henry IV, who maintained one side of the dispute, and the sitting Bishop of Rome on the other side. This latter office, since 756, had been successively instated by the Emperors. The early popes had been created by the Frankish kings, this title merely existing as a continuation of Byzantine traditions. These popes, being subjects, had very little political power.19“Italy,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 12, pp. 35-36.20Gieseler, A Text-book of Church History (1857 ed.) translated by Davidson, Winstanley, Vol. II, pp. 34-42. In 1059, they created an electoral college, no longer content to remain under the power of a weaker sovereign.21“Nicholas II,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 16, p. 416. This was around the time that the term Pope began to be used only to refer to bishop of Rome in particular. No one else in the West took the Latinised title for “Father” past this date in the 11th century.22Dictatus Papae, article 11. (A.D. 1075)23The Archbishop of Canterbury still maintained for himself the title “Papa alterius orbis” however; see article, “Archbishop,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 2, p. 301. Also around this time, strife arose regarding rights claimed by the popes placing themselves over the German emperors.

The controversy spread to England when the archbishop was told not to return to England in 1103, due to his similar arguments against King Henry I of England having predominance over him.24“Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 2, p. 170. The archbishop’s hand was weakened in this second dispute by the papal need for Henry I of England against the German Henry IV. This was because the Roman pope was wary of supporting the English archbishop, as long as the pope needed the English king as a threat against the German emperor. Further weakening the archbishop’s position was the existence of yet a third dispute, the Canterbury-York dispute, where the archbishop of York, another archbishop, fought for privileges over Canterbury. The English Henry relied on the archbishop of York to perform ceremonial rites while the archbishop of Canterbury was alienated.25“Roger (d. 1181), Archbishop of York,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol 19, p. 381. So, this second dispute strengthened the York side of the third dispute. The Pope was wary of influencing this third dispute in a way that might alienate either party, whose help might be useful at some future time in some other political dispute, such as his own dispute at present with the Emperor.

Around this time, King Henry I of England had his faction of the state church pen the strongly pro-royalist Tractatus Eboracenses.26MS. 415: The Norman Anonymous. This tractate dealt with perceived standards of time of the king’s preeminence in handling all state matters in the church of England, which would include over the whole institution of state church. This tract exists as sort of a final rebuke against any concept of “outside” interference in what are seen by it as “internal” state affairs, including the state-related matters in which the Roman state church (or its potential allies in the offices of the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York), now began ambitiously to claim its own rights. The Tractatus Eboracenses, drafted at such an early date, stands in contrast to all later claims of papal or other foreign precedence. We see from this unusual diplomatic posture by the King of England that attempted interference against the King of England would only draw the two states of Rome and England into conflict.27See: Letter of King Henry I to Paschal– in which the King Henry I threatened that (pope) Paschal ought, “using with yourself a better deliberation in this matter, let your gentleness so moderate itself,” or else the king would be “forced to withdraw his obedience” (a vestra me cogatis recedere obedientia), if the pope did not do so- noting that his nobles and the great people of England, “would not suffer it,” were he to do otherwise than what he writes.
From: Epist. Henrici ad Paschalem P. ann. 1103, in J. Bromptoni (c. 1326) chron. in Rymer foedera, etc. Regum Angliae ad h. a.

The nature of these disputes is typified in the feud in 1163 that occurred between Archbishops Roger de Pont L’Évêque and Thomas Becket as part of the Canterbury-York dispute. They argued for three entire days over who should have the more honorable seat placement at the council.28“Roger of Pont L’Evêque (d. 1181),” Dictionary of the National Biography (1885-1900), Vol. 49, p. 109. Finally, in 1352, during the plague, it was decided that the archbishop of York should be “Primate of England,” while the archbishop of Canterbury should be “Primate of all England.”

With regard to the second dispute, the kings, at least in England, always had the upper hand over the popes when needed.29“Concordats in History,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th Ed. (1929), Vol. 6, p. 206. The right of the king not to be betrayed to agents of Rome was guarded very carefully against.30See A.D. 1267 below. Poor policy decisions that occurred in this time therefore, were attributable to the judgments of the sovereign monarchy.

Finally, the primary Investiture dispute was settled at the Concordat of Worms in 1122. Unlike that of London, this agreement became a destabilizing compromise and changed the political balance. The emperor kept his rights in his personal sub-kingdom of Germany, but he lost them in both kingdoms of Italy and Burgundy, where he remained emperor, but would no longer be allowed to select his own archbishops. Predictably his son Henry V reignited the controversy for his ancestral rights, and political fighting lasted until the end of Frederick II, the last Hohenstaufen. After Frederick’s death in 1250, the emperor’s authorities were degraded so far that no holder of that office would ever obtain absolute sovereignty over the lands that his family had.31“Germany,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 10, p. 252. Independent states sprang up in Central Europe, giving marginal recognitions and privileges to the later Emperors. Stronger polities, such as Italian city-states, and the Confederation of the Swiss would force themselves free from this, maintaining their own armies. Due to this situation, minor disputes would arise among the ruins of this empire, and factions for and against Rome would take sides in all of them.32“Guelphs and Ghibellines,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th Ed. (1929), Vol. 10, p. 947. The result then became that the state church was less monolithic after 1122, having a shorter reach than the Ottonian dynasty that it replaced had once been, as it had no clear head for over a hundred years, til the death of Frederick II. One thing that did change is that the state of Rome became an electorate, rather than a vassal, as it had been. The obvious contradiction remained in that this elected ruler was actually a fief-lord over part of central Italy including Rome. Therefore, this was a continuation of the state-church, as the two offices of overlord and archbishop were now merged.

c. A.D. 1119: Petrobrusian and Henrician uprising

Starting in around 1119, a powerful resistance occurred in the south of France against state church appointments. At issue were the Roman state church doctrines of infant baptism, the rite of Communion, prayers for the dead and icon venerations, which were proclaimed as idolatry. Many Petrobrusians in the south and east of France, objected to these appointments and insisted that one must be baptised after a profession of faith. A contemporary writer, Peter the Venerable33Peter of Cluny, writing in A.D. 1146, gives an explanation of their doctrine:

They say, Christ sending his disciples to preach, says in the gospel, ‘Go ye out into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature: He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.’ From these words of our Saviour it is plain that none can be saved, unless he believe, and be baptized; that is, have both christian faith and baptism; for not one of these, but both together, does save: so that infants, though they be by you baptized, yet since by reason of their age they cannot believe, are not saved. It is therefore an idle and vain thing, for you to wash persons with water, at such a time when you may indeed cleanse their skin from dirt in a human manner, but not purge their souls from sin: But we do stay till the proper time of faith; and when a person is capable to know his God, and believe in him, then we do, not as you charge us, re-baptize him, but baptize him; for he is so to be accounted, as not yet baptized, who is not washed with that baptism, by which sins are done away.34Epistola Sive Tractatus adversus Petrobrusianos Haereticos” in Patrologia Latina, Vol. 189, col. 728-729.

Leaders of this movement were Peter of Bruys, active throughout the south of France during the early stages, and Henry of Lausanne, who was sometimes called by his opponents Henry of Bruys,35“Henry of Lausanne,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th Ed. (1929), Vol. 11, p. 448.36The same was also called “Henry of Toulouse/of Toulouze” in many older documents. as he continued the controversy after Peter was killed in 1126 at Saint-Gilles. Henry was known to have traveled further north, into Le Mans and Poitiers before eventually being arrested in 1134. The uprising or controversy was still ongoing fully in areas such as Languedoc as of 1163,37Anno 1163. He caused some Decrees likewise to be made against the Hereticks who had spread themselves over all the Province of Languedoc. There were especially of two sorts. The one Ignorant, and withall addicted to Lewdness and Villanies, their Errors gross and filthy, and these were a kind of Manicheans. The others more Learned, less irregular, and very far from such filthiness, held almost the same Doctrines as the Calvinists, and were properly Henricians and Vaudois. The People who could not distinguish them, gave them alike names, that is to say, called them Cathares, Patarins, Boulgres or Bulgares…” Mézeray, Abbregé chronologique, ou Extraict de l’histoire de France, Tome III, p. 89. and there is no record of any settlement ending this controversy which some people had with the Roman-appointed leaders and bishops.

The Papal faction was also dealing with populist uprisings against them around the same time in Italy, as so-called “Arnoldist” leaders and everyday civilians had taken control of the city of Rome, establishing the short-lived “Commune of Rome” by taking over the city during 1144-1188.38“Arnold of Brescia,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 2, p. 455. Each of these incidents, despite occurring at roughly the same time span for the same reason, are rather unusually treated in Roman state records as separate and unrelated outbreaks of heresy. Each instance of rejection of their policies at that time is typically labelled according to various leaders of the movements, and the doctrines of those that proceeded with them were impugned with various accusations of gnosticism.39Allix, Remarks upon the ancient Churches of the Albigenses, p. 138. Although there was indisputably a presence of gnosticism around this time, that is not the whole story- and there is good reason to believe that most of these accusations were false. At the same time, there is clearly a common thread between these contemporaneous groups by the objections that they are known to have raised regarding baptism (and particularly, the rejection of infant baptism) as well as other doctrinal matters of significance.40In Allix’s remarks, we find that Alanus of Lille ‘confounded’ the doctrines of the Arnoldistæ together with the Cathari, and in both cases charged, “that they believed that Baptism is of no use to infants,” see Allix, Remarks upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 170. Each of the uprisings mentioned so far also rejected new Roman appointments of leaders to govern them, as well as their churches- something that had not been done in the former era when the state of Rome had held a vassal status, being entirely subject to the Emperors. So, this change from the emperor to the pope would serve a common motivation behind the political reactions in different regions about this time. The state church from Rome, led by a new figurehead, was not willing to be so lenient as the German state church had been.41Muratori confirms […] the principality was constantly passing under different sovereigns, and that the people took advantage of these changes to obtain grants favourable to their rights and privileges.” W. Gilly, Waldensian Researches during a Second Visit to the Vaudois of Piedmont, p. 74.

*As one example of popular mislabelling in official documents, consider that the Arnoldists in Rome were also being labelled Poplecans, as reference to the Paulician uprisings which had occurred in Armenia, centuries earlier; this was charged as if what was happening in Rome were a continuation of a much more obscure group- a group which had likewise already been charged with gnosticism.

†A historical pattern is established, where serious opposition to the state church of Rome is labelled according to a contemporaneous leader, and when necessary, derided either as a rival state church to itself, or else charged with gnosticism. These labels serve a propagandist purpose, and are known to be not accurate, as may easily be shown by fuller examination of the evidence. The reality behind the situation is that there have, simply, always been conscientious Christian objectors to the state church from fourth century until now, who also oppose its policy of baptising infants, as well as its various alterations to scripture. It must be through these Christians that the uncorrupted Scriptures were preserved and kept available until now – which provides an answer to the question of where the “received text” of Scripture comes from.

Division along these lines, indeed, predates Peter of Bruys in these “Italian” and “Occitanian” regions, as evidence for the dispute reaches back to the year 1025 by an older group42Allix, Some Remarks upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 102,110. (also holding the baptist distinctives43Synod of Arras: “But if any shall say, that some sacrament lies hid in Baptism, the force of that is taken off by these three causes: […] The third, because a strange will, a strange faith, and a strange confession do not seem to belong to, or be of any advantage to a little child [parvulum], who neither wills nor runs, who knows nothing of faith, and is altogether ignorant of his own salvation, in whom there can be no desire of regeneration, and from whom no confession of faith can be expected.” in ibid., p. 104.) which are part of a larger group of Christians which was later labeled as Paterines.44ibid., p. 122.45General History of the Christian Religion and Church: From the German of Dr. Augustus Neander, Vol. 4, p. 592. Although false doctrines were also attributed to this group. See appendix D for further information. The signal dispute against the metropolitan clergy in the region appears to pre-exist this further still, to an obscure group known simply as “Prophets,” which was in A.D. 945 denounced by Atto of Vercelli, for “by the words of simple brutes [having] left the holy mother Church, that is, the priests,46Spicilegium of Dacherius (Ed. 1723), Vol. 1, p. 434.. Information as to what these “Prophets” did except for leaving the state church priests is not given there.

Turning to the records of state churches of these times, there is more evidence suggesting that the practice of paedobaptism (that is, infant baptism) had not yet firmly spread or established itself through all state churches before the ninth century. From Joseph de Vicecomes, a paedobaptist writing in 1620, we gather the following:

Alcuin, in the chapter on baptism, writes: ‘For the purpose of the baptism of the elect, who are examined, according to the rule of the apostles, consecrated by fasting, and instructed by diligent preaching, two seasons are set apart, [namely] Easter and Whitsuntide.’ If these examinations were held according to the rules of the apostles, they must needs have been observed; but subsequently, when infant baptism came into vogue, this necessary practice was abolished by the church. A. D. 860, in the reign of the Emperors Lothaire and Louis; of which abundant proof exists.47J. Vicecomes, Observationes Ecclesiasticae de Baptismo, Confirmatione, & de Missa, Vol. 1, l. 3, p. 262.

So by this account, state church policy regarding baptism, whether it was to be an infant or a believer, it was still in an undecided state within the Carolingian state church – in Germany and Burgundy. This accords with our earlier understanding that the Roman law of Justinian had not had any time to establish in these “barbarian” areas. This also accords with other accounts of officials of the time, who protested often and severely against some of the Frankish-installed popes.48Recorded in the year 858. Guntherus, Bishop of Cologne, writes to the Pope Nicolas, ‘he plays the tyrant, under the habit of a Shepherd, but we know that he is a wolf: his Title is called Father, but to you he shows himself as a Jupiter,’ &c.
from: Samuel Veltius, Gheslacht-Register, Van der Roomscher Pausen Successie, p. 127.
49Recorded in the year 900. Tergandus, Bishop of Trier: calls the Pope of Rome, the Antichrist, a Wolf, and [calls] Rome Babylon, a usurper of the ruler, a deceiver of Christians.
from: Samuel Veltius, Gheslacht-Register, Van der Roomscher Pausen Successie, p. 128.
50Two synods held by Lothair II in 862 (Aachen) and 863 (Metz) were annulled by the pope in 867. The sharply fallen state of affairs of this time, with the Frankish Empire then divided into three equitable parts, made room for the Roman bishop to intervene— king Charles the Bald, in the west, took sides with the pope, while the king to the east, Louis the German, sided with Lothair II in the dispute. However, both parties in the dispute were dead by 869 and the short-lived “central” kingdom was divided between its two neighbors. If the Roman mode of infant baptism had not fully extended beyond the borders of the Ravenna exarchate, it would explain why it wasn’t established even in the state churches of Francia, lands to the north and west of Italy, until around 860. It comes as little surprise that we find followers of “the Italian, Gundulf” (see the above appendix) free to send evangelists to Arras, nor, afterward, some Petrobrusians or Henricians defending themselves against the recent, strange impositions by the decrees of an overlord, which had until recent times been a vassal of the emperor. Peter of Cluny explained according to his account in A.D. 1146, they were also “anabaptists.”51Epistola Sive Tractatus adversus Petrobrusianos Haereticos” in: Patrologia Latina, Vol. 189, col. 728-729. See translation given above.

These sentiments are comprehensible as reactions against the new forms of governmental interference that came in the aftermath of the Concordat of Worms in 1122, not among the least of which is forced infant baptism. Likewise, image worship had also likewise long been denounced in the provinces.52Year 792, Charles king of France sent to Britain the book of the synod directly from Constantinople. In the book, alas, unfortunately! Many things inconvenient and contrary to the findings of the true faith, most of all that nearly all oriental scholars, no fewer than three hundred bishops, have mandated episcopal commissions requiring the worship of images, which is excerable to the church of God. Contrary to what they wrote, Alcuin has confirmed wonderfully from the authority of the Divine scriptures, against the same book which the king of France has brought to our princes and bishops.
in: Symeonis Dunelmensis Opera et Collectanea, Vol. 1, p. 30.
53Agobard, Liber Contra Eorem Superstitionem qui picturis et imaginibus sanctorum adorationis obsequium deferendum putant, in: Patrologia Latina, Vol. 104, col. 199-228.54Florus of Lyons, Opuscula Adversus Amalarium, in: Patrologia Latina, Vol. 119, col. 71-96. Therefore Peter of Bruys was not teaching anything new- the new thing in those years is the appointment of officials from Rome to impose new ideas such as infant baptism and images to the region by force. And it is simply a fact that not every person was going along with this.

A.D. 1209: First Albigensian Crusade

At the start of the 13th century, the Roman Catholic state launched an invasion into southern France, in the domain of the Count of Toulouse— not yet incorporated at that time into the domain of the crown of the kings of France.

This is none other than the very same region where the Henrician uprising had been ongoing (as we read before) as late as the year A.D. 1163, with no signs of stopping.

At some point in the 12th century, various gnostic ideas had spread through the towns of the area, due to the religious liberty allowed under Count Raymond VI of Toulouse. This would later become the pretext for an invasion and papal crusade against the rebaptizandi which had evaded Justinian’s grasp — as the historian Mézeray notes, that the gnostics were regularly confused and confounded with the baptists.55Anno 1163. He caused some Decrees likewise to be made against the Hereticks who had spread themselves over all the Province of Languedoc. There were especially of two sorts. The one Ignorant, and withall addicted to Lewdness and Villanies, their Errors gross and filthy, and these were a kind of Manicheans. The others more Learned, less irregular, and very far from such filthiness, held almost the same Doctrines as the Calvinists, and were properly Henricians and Vaudois. The People who could not distinguish them, gave them alike names, that is to say, called them Cathares, Patarins, Boulgres or Bulgares…” Mézeray, Abbregé chronologique, ou Extraict de l’histoire de France, Tome III, p. 89. With the exception of Peter of Cluny’s description of their practice in 1146, we see similar mistakes, mistakes just as Mézeray describes, in state church literature of the time.56In A.D. 1179, an edict says “those whom some call the Cathars, others the Patarenes, … [have] grown so strong in Gascony and the regions of Albi and Toulouse…” See: Third Lateran Council (1179), article 27.57In A.D. 1184, an edict says: “Cathari and Patarines and those Humiliati or the Poor of Lyons, with the false name of Passagines, Josephines, Arnoldists, lie under a perpetual anathema.” See: Ad Abolendam (1184).58An encyclopedia states: “All who differed from the church of Rome, however much they might differ from each other, were comprehended under this denomination. This may also account for the great variety of appellations by which the Albigenses were known; for they were called by different authors, Henricians, Abelardists, Catharests, Publicans, and Bulgarians; […] They are also frequently confounded with the Waldenses.
In: “Albigenses,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 1, p. 368.
Yet we also know that the Patarines had allegedly appeared as early as the year 1025, when two of their evangelists (sent, as they confessed, by the Italian ‘Gundulf’) were interrogated at the Synod of Arras59Allix, Some Remarks upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 102, 110., also that these were of the same belief and heritage as were later called the Vaudois or Waldenses.60ibid. p. 122. This second fact is confirmed by the inclusion of those two both as the same church, comprehended under different names in Ad Abolendam (1184), in our previous footnote (note: the “Poor of Lyons” was another derogatory name for the Vaudois61i.e. as having all of their property taken away was one of the punishments, they were subsequently derided for having little property).

We have then three prominent groups living in the domain of Toulouse on the eve of this first crusade in 1209: First, catholics of the various state churches; second, the gnostic Cathars; Third: Petrobrusians or Henricians (formerly known as Paterines, and ‘rebaptizandi’, which is another word for anabaptists, anciently). The heritage of this third group would later outlive the Crusade, by turning to the Valleys of Piedmont within Savoy, bordering to the east of this region; In later times, the surviving remnant of these churches were known as Vaudois, meaning, “those dwelling in the valleys.”62For unequivocal proof of this etymology, see: Monastier, A history of the Vaudois Church, translated from the French (1848 ed.), pp. 53-62.

A peculiar event of the initial invasion of 1209, involves the battle or massacre of Béziers. On the first day of the army’s arrival, this first city fell into the hands of the crusaders. Caesarius of Heisterbach, writing from Westphalia about thirteen years after these events, relates the following account:

When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot ‘Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.’ The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied ‘Kill them all, for the Lord knoweth them that are his (2 Tim. ii. 19)’ so countless number in that town were slain.63Strange, J., Dialogus miraculorum V, ch. XXI, Vol. 1, p. 302.

The crusade saw prolonged warfare, as Count Raymond VI later regained control over the capital. Raymond VI had lost it for some time to Simon V de Montfort, who was a Roman-backed candidate intended to replace him. Simon V died while besieging Toulouse in 1218, a man perhaps accursed by the atrocities he committed.

A.D. 1229: Inquisition established

Even before the first phase of the Albigensian Crusade was over, the Pope brought fresh requests for a renewed crusade. This time, the plan was to annex the region to France. This brought a renewed assault from the French in 1225.

The count Raymond VII did not resist the onslaught for long, and in 1229, he decided to sue for peace, where he ceded the greater part of his lands to France. The rest was to be inherited from him on his death, if he were obedient to France and acted to assassinate nonconforming Christians. At this point, the Inquisition was set up to seek out all non-Catholic Christians in as many lands as possible, especially in southern France. The “inquisitors” were commissioned, a sort of prosecutor with unlimited immunities, and the state64typically the local Catholic bishop participated by carrying out the executions. This was started at the Council of Toulouse, 1229. Banned from possession were all Bibles.65We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament…” Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14. This was its response to the translation of the whole Bible that had been paid for by Peter Valdo in the previous century. Information on how widely Valdo’s translation had been spread is now difficult to determine. Another legal article of interest is the following:

It is prohibited by a perpetual edict: Not by the laity, but rather by the canons of the Pontiff shall elections66for church office be decided.
If an election should, perhaps, be undertaken, it shall have no force: notwithstanding the fact this may be contrary to the custom, it ought rather be called the corruption of things.
67From: Decretals of Gregory IX. 1. c.c. 56.

By this decree, it was imposed upon the churches that all offices of the growing state church were to be appointed by the pope himself. Furthermore, votes by the local church to elect their pastors were now being called a corruption. Not long after this, the supposed right of the popes to replace even the leader or king of a nation and for the pope to dissolve all loyalties to that leader or king was retroactively reasoned by Thomas Aquinas, as can be found in one isolated entry in his book, Summa Theologica – Under the section on “oaths”:

Sometimes what is promised under an oath is such, that there is doubt about whether it is right or wrong, advantageous or harmful, either in itself or under a particular circumstance; In a case like this, any bishop can grant a dispensation [of the oath]. Sometimes, however, what is promised under an oath is something that is clearly lawful and useful; And in a case of this sort there seems to be no room for a dispensation or commutation [of the oath], unless something better to do for the common good comes up, which would seem to pertain especially to the power of the Pope, who has the charge of the universal Church; even an absolute relaxation [of the oath], for this too belongs to the Pope in all matters of ecclesiastical administration, over which he has the fullness of power. In fact, any man may cancel an oath made by one of his subjects in matters that come under his jurisdiction; for instance a father may annul his daughter’s oath (Numbers 30:6), and a husband his wife’s, as stated above with regard to vows.68Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae, question 89, answer 9.

Now it happened in A.D. 1252, that additional grants were given to the inquisitors in which they were permitted to torture their captives in order to acquire information from them. This was followed soon by an inquisitor’s manual or handbook, of which copies still survive today. The author of this is attributed the name Pseudo-Reinerius, and it was probably written sometime around 1254-1259 in Passau. In it, a straightforward account is given about the doctrine of the Waldenses from this time period.

Reineri, Ordinis Praedicatorum Liber Contra Waldenses Haereticos, Ch. IV.
“-The sects of the ancient heretics.
Among the sects of ancient heretics, there have been more than seventy: all of which, thanks to God, have been destroyed, except the sects of the Manicheans, the Arians, the Runcarians and the Leonists, which have infected Germany. Among all the sects, which are, or which have been, there is none more pernicious to the Church, than that of the Leonists. This is for three reasons. The first reason is; because it is the more ancient69diuturnior among them: for some say, that it has lasted from the time of Sylvester; others, from the time of the Apostles.
The second reason is; because it is more general: for there is hardly any land, in which this sect is not. The third reason is; because, While all other sects, through the enormity of their blasphemies against God, strike horror into their audience, this the way of the Leonists, has a great appearance of piety; the fact that they live justly before men, and they believe all good things about God, as are contained in the articles of the Creed; only they blaspheme the Roman Church, and Clergy, which the multitude of the Laity are ready enough to believe. And as we read in the book of Judges; Samson caught many different foxes, but tied their tails together: so the heretics, by sects, are divided among themselves, but in impugning the Church, are united. If heretics should be in one house, each of the sects condemns the other, at the same time the Roman Church attacks: And so it subdues the little foxes, and the vineyard of the Lord, that is, the Church, is purged of error.70Jacobi Gretseri, Opera Omnia (1738 ed.), Tome XII, Pars Posterior (book 2), Index 1, pp. 27-28.

The authenticity of this book is not all that surprising. Since this was an inquisitor’s manual, it was written for professional use, not for propaganda. This is clear from the lack of any attempts by Pseudo-Reineri to cloud the pure reputation of these Leonists;71before they were called Vaudois, or Waldenses he is not spreading propaganda here, but wished to clear away any wrong expectations about these people, Christians, in advance for a new inquisitor reading this manual. We gain a better than normal insight from this document. All too often, in other publications there was an attempt to muddle these same Leonists in various official proclamations, and make them one party along with the Manichaeans or gnostics, so as to bring all into ill-repute— so to harm the reputation of the “Leonists” thereby, who were separate from the catholics. However as can be seen in this authentic mid-13th century document, they are treated differently when speaking candidly. They are treated as they are, simply as very pious Christian churches.

Picking up on the subject of the different names which the Vaudois – this same group – were originally called: to attempt to cast some light upon this hard subject we examine the Histoire des Vaudois, written by Jean-Paul Perrin in 1618. There, he relates the following:

“-The names that the Vaudois have been assigned by their adversaries, and what blasphemies they have charged them with.
“THE inquisitor monks, mortal enemies of the Vaudois, not being content to bind them every day with the secular arm, have also charged them with reproaches, respecting the heresies that are in the world, which they repudiate; and often [they] impute that such monsters were forged only from the Vaudois: as if only they72the Vaudois had been the vessels of all errors.
“They therefore first called them, from Valdo a citizen of Lyons, Vaudois: and from the country of Albi, Albigeois.73Albigensians
“In Dauphine they were called Chaignards by mockery.
“Also because a part of them crossed the Alps, they were called Tramontains.
“And for one of the disciples of Valdo named Joseph, who pressed in Dauphine to the bishopric of Dye, they were called Josephites.
“In England Lollards, named after Lollard who taught there.
“Of two pastors who taught the doctrine of Valdo in Languedoc named Henry and Esperon, they were called Henricians and Esperonnistes.
“From one of the Barbes who preached in Albigeois named Arnaud Hot, they were called Arnoldists.74Here is a marginal note by Mellinus (1619), marked ‘Arnoldus de Brixia’: “He also taught completely differently concerning the sacraments of the altar and of biblical infant baptism compared to past church teaching: no doubt in this respect he did the same service as Peter of Bruys, and Henry of Toulouse— denying transubstantiation, and denying that the mass is a sacrifice for the living and the dead: and that neither baptism nor the faith of others saves infants [jonge kinderen], just as we have read of Peter of Bruys.” Mellinus, A., Eerste deel van het Groot recht-ghevoelende Christen Martelaers-Boeck (Amsterdam, 1619), p. 425r, col. 3.
“In Provence they were called Siccars, from an unknown tongue that means purse-snatchers.
“In Italy they were called Fraticelli,75More of this group in A.D. 1262 below. It is possible this is an accurate reference to some Vaudois who were confused with this group. that is, little brothers, because they lived as brothers in true unity.
“Also, as they observed no other day of rest than Sunday, they were called Insabathas, because they did not observe the Sabbaths.76Another possible reason for this name, see Blair, in History of the Waldenses: “They wore a habit of white or grey, with shoes open at the top, and were by a mark distinguished from the poor men of Lyons or Waldenses, who, from this part of their dress, were sometimes called ‘insabatati’. Gretzer considers the Spanish name for the Albigenses, to wit, Xabatati, Xabatenses and Chabatati, as from Xabata, Chabata, or Chapata, shoes, which Ebrard and others call sotulares […] May not Insabatati just mean those people who have sandals on, or a peculiar shoe?op. cit. pp. 384-385. The wooden shoes of the working and lower classes in the Netherlands were also called sabot.
“And because they were exposed to continuous suffering, they were called Patarenians or Sufferers, from the Latin word Pati, which means to suffer.
“And since, as momentary passengers, they fled from one place to another, they were called Passagenes.
“In Germany, they are called Gazares, a word which means excerable and insignificant.
“In Flanders, they are called Turlupins, inhabitants with wolves, because on account of persecution, they were often forced to live in woods and deserts.
“Sometimes they were named from the countries and regions they inhabit, such as: from Albi, Albigeois; from Toulouse, Toulousains; from Lombardy, Lombards; from Picardy, Picards; from Lyons, Leonists; from Bohemia, Bohemians.
“Sometimes to make them more execrable, they make them accomplices of the ancient heretics, but nevertheless under ridiculous pretexts. For as much as they make profession of purity in their life and belief, they call them Cathars. And because they deny that the host of the monstrous Priest at the Mass is God, they have called them Arians, with respect to the Divinity of the eternal Son of God; And when they rejoined that the authority of the Emperors and Kings of the earth does not depend on the authority of the Popes, they called them Manichaeans, as constituting two principles. And for other such imaginary causes they have likewise called them Gnostics, Cataphrygians, Adamites, and Apostolics.”77Perrin, Jean-Paul, Histoire des Vaudois (1618), pt. 1, chapter III, pp. 7-10. [on ‘insabatati’: please read appendix E.]

As we previously mentioned, it was after the times of inquisition that the people came to be called Vaudois. The surname, from thereafter crystallized into its current meaning, signified those remnants that outlasted the Inquisition, in an area, from where once, there had been many and widespread. As we read, the remote Valleys where they lived on the Alpine slopes, were both remote and difficult to access for large bodies of armed forces. In this region, through some succeeding centuries, a lineage of Biblical scholarship passed, from man to man, eventually into the halls of the academy in Geneva, a location bordering on the north of these Valleys, in the time of Calvin and Beza. This is of some interest to us because we can trace from here the Geneva Bible translated to English in 1557, which became an influence on the Authorized King James Bible.78For many years in Scotland, it was required by law for every household with sufficient means, to possess one of this translation of the Bible

Very revealing with respect to the position of these “anabaptists” on baptism, and other doctrines, are the corresponding records found in many neighboring countries at this time: See the letter of Everwin of Steinfeld, dated A.D. 1143, written in appendix F; and the Council of Oxford, dated A.D. 1160, which we have here written in appendix G.

Carrying on from the Council of Oxford decision in 1160, where the chroniclist William of Newburgh writes, “And this rigorous severity cleansed the kingdom of England from the creeping pest, but also prevented its future intrusion,” we see that this was very evidently not the case. From Roger of Howden, another chronicler, is recorded:

[A.D. 1182] About the time at which this vision took place many of the ‘Publicani’ heretics were burned in many places throughout the kingdom of France, a thing that the king would in nowise allow in his territories, although there were great numbers of them.79Riley, Henry T, The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, Translated from the Latin, Vol. 2, p. 20.

Whether the people in this account were located on the isle of Britain, over which Henry II was king, or in his French domains (which took up about the western half of that country) is unclear. But it was possible for population to transfer to and from England through this connection. This was then called the Angevin Empire. Part of these domains, especially in Gascony in the south-west, were connected to England until 1453, when France annexed the rest. This provided a means of escape from southern France through Gascony to England.

However, it is certain that this act did not manage to remove them all from the kingdom, nor did it prevent them from continuing to be present; because, in another place, Henry Knighton, another chronicler, gives this short entry:80Henry Knighton, Chronicon de Eventibus Angliæ (c. 1396), edited by Lumby, J.R., printed in London (ed. 1889), vol. 1, p. 185.

(Year 1208.) Certain Albigensian heretics came to England, of whom some were burnt alive.

This atrocity was in the year 1208, just one year prior to the Crusade, suggesting that some may have escaped from the impending Crusade out of southern France, in this direction, where some of the refugees were burnt alive presumably by order of the king or his delegates. The chronicle entry here specifically says they were Albigensians and that they came to England. However this cannot have removed them, as the London Chronicle, another chronicle by another author, tells us this:81John Bale, Scriptorum illustrium maioris Brytanniae, Vol. 3, p. 258. Contains quote of London Chronicle.

Albigensians, which infected England, have reviled the clergy, on account of which one man was burnt alive at London in the year of our Lord 1210.

We see from these accounts that these people were not absent in Britain, but they were found within England itself, so that one of them was burnt alive in London. The account says there were multiple of them. Now, we might give one last example which appears to us with special significance for this period, which is the following account. Of events in Strasbourg at around this same time, the following record was found:82Hugwald, Ulrich, De Germanorum prima origine. moribus, institutis, legibus, (1539), lib. 19, p. 196.

In the year of our Lord 1212, there was a heresy in Alsace by which both the nobles and the common were led astray. They affirmed that it is lawful to eat flesh every day of the year, and that there is as much excess in the immoderate consumption of fish, as of meat in general; also, that it is an evil thing to prohibit marriage, since God has created all things, and all holy things may be received with thanksgiving by them which believe. They tenaciously defended this opinion, and a multitude believed them; and doubtless they blasphemed the holy lord the Pope because he forbade ecclesiastical persons from marrying and commanded them to abstain from certain kinds of food on certain days. Thus the Pope of Rome commanded that these men should be taken away. On a certain day, about one hundred men were burnt together by the bishop of Strasbourg.

Though the above Chronicle mentions nothing of it, we must make notice the similarity of a Biblical passage, with this event, especially the underlined section.

1 Timothy 4:1-5
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

The pinnacle of the Inquisition lasted until the Great Famines of 1315/1317. About that time, the Germans elected Louis IV who was solidified in his claim after the Battle of Mühldorf. Louis IV then created a rival pope in 1328, contributing in this way to the whole downfall in disgrace of that false religion.

To close this entry, soon after the original Council of Toulouse in 1229, indulgences also became widespread, as local peddlers would make contracts with the officials in each area for the business of selling indulgences, which were sold reportedly for a single mite. This deterioration to this situation was denounced by the last generations of troubadours which still spoke the local Provençal language in Toulouse, southern France and its surrounding towns:

The clergy call themselves pastors and are butchers. Kings and Emperors once used to rule the world: now priests exercise lordship with theft and treason — with hypocrisy, force and threats. They are not satisfied unless every thing is surrendered to their hands, and, though there be delay, in the end it is brought about. The higher their rank, so much the less virtue they possess and the more folly, the less truthfulness and the more falsehood, the less learning and the more faults, and withal so much the less courtesy. —The priests are so full of ambition, that they can not bear to see any one in the whole world hold sway except themselves. They work with all their might to draw over the whole world to themselves, whoever may be the sufferer; they win such persons with obsequiousness and gifts — with pardons and hypocrisy — with indulgences — with eating and drinking — with preaching and cursing — with God and the devil. Vultures and birds of prey scent not the mouldering carrion so swiftly as they scent a rich man. Immediately he is their friend; sickness lays him low, he must heap gifts on them to the prejudice of his relations. Frenchmen and priests gain the praise of superior wickedness.83F. Diez, Leben und Werke der Troubadours, p. 446.Peire Cardenal, troubadour (fl. 1220)

Rome, you make it a game to send Christians to martyrdom. But in which book have you read, that you must exterminate the Christians?
Rome, you are practicing nefarious sermons against Toulouse; ugly, like an angry snake, you wound the hands of the small and the great. Let the excellent count live for another two years, he shall make France repent for having submitted to your impostures.
Rome, it is my consolation that you will soon fall into ruin, when the Righteous Emperor shines forth and does as he should; truly, Rome, you will see your power crumble! God, save the world let me experience that soon!84ibid., pp. 565-566.Guillem Figueira, troubadour (fl. 1244)

Ha, ye false priests, liars, traitors, perjurers, whoremongers, infidels, so much open wickedness ye work day by day, that ye have thrown the whole world into consternation. St. Peter never drew revenues from France, nor extorted usury — no, he held upright the balance of justice. Ye do naught of the kind. For money ye unjustly pronounce and recall sentence of excommunication; without money there is no redemption for us.85ibid., p. 587.
Bertran Carbonel, troubadour (fl. 1255)

c. A.D. 1262: Antinomianism

Around this time, several shadowy groups of antinomianists first appear in the records. These were on matters of substance no different than the Manichaeans, who had previously been defeated militarily at Montségur,86the last of these gnostics perished in a siege at Montségur in the year 1244. yet they differed from these in various externalities. Many now openly affirmed the position of antinomianism (which can be summarized as, “the only sin is that which offends the conscience”) leading to the most horrendous of degenerate behavior. This is similar to what had resulted with the former Manichaeans87Anno 1163. He caused some Decrees likewise to be made against the Hereticks who had spread themselves over all the Province of Languedoc. There were especially of two sorts. The one Ignorant, and withall addicted to Lewdness and Villanies, their Errors gross and filthy, and these were a kind of Manicheans. The others more Learned, less irregular, and very far from such filthiness, held almost the same Doctrines as the Calvinists, and were properly Henricians and Vaudois. The People who could not distinguish them, gave them alike names, that is to say, called them Cathares, Patarins, Boulgres or Bulgares…” Mézeray, Abbregé chronologique, ou Extraict de l’histoire de France, Tome III, p. 89. or Cathari and the ‘imperfecti.88or “perfecti” as they would often call themselves Also like the medieval Cathari that came before them, the antinomians were murderous menaces, which provided a convenient casus belli (or cause of justification) to the inquisitors that also abounded in this era. We have little reason to doubt many of the horror stories regarding these groups. They were often conflated, whether intentional or mistakenly, with the regular, congregational and orderly Christian churches, which also were driven underground by the inquisitors. Sometimes the same slur was applied to both groups indiscriminately, just as “Albigensians” had originally been used, at the time, to portray both Vaudois and Manichaeans as though they were one group.89Sometimes to make [the Vaudois] more execrable, they make them accomplices of the ancient heretics, but nevertheless under ridiculous pretexts. For as much as they make profession of purity in their life and belief, they call them Cathars. And because they deny that the host of the monstrous Priest at the Mass is God, they have called them Arians, with respect to the Divinity of the eternal Son of God; And when they rejoined that the authority of the Emperors and Kings of the earth does not depend on the authority of the Popes, they called them Manichaeans, as constituting two principles. And for other such imaginary causes they have likewise called them Gnostics…” in: Perrin, Jean-Paul, Histoire des Vaudois (1618), pt. 1, ch. III, pp. 9-10.

The primary group which emerged around this time were the Brethren of the Free Spirit. They appeared some time between 1262 and 1280. We have explained their belief: they taught that nothing is sin except what offends oneself. There is nothing else to say about that, nor a sharper possible condemnation, aside from what Scripture already tells.

Around 1263 another event related to this occurred, which we took a brief note of in the former entry: The appearance of another sect called Fraticelli.90“Fraticelli,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 9, p. 702. It is possible that at some point, some of the Vaudois were confused with this group which got its start in Italy. The story behind this is, a man named Gerard Segarelli was denied entry into the order of Franciscan friars, so around the year 1263 he gathered a large following of similar-minded spiritualists. Spiritualists are known by their claim to have personal revelations. So they reject the word of God in favor of their own ideas, even though these have nothing to do with scripture. Segarelli’s successor, Friar Dolcino, led the violent band into the Sesia valley, near Biella, Italy. When asked why he pillaged and butchered the people of this valley during his occupation, to this Dolcino replied: “To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. – (Titus 1:5)”91See: 2 Pet. 3:16they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2 Sam. 1:16for thy mouth hath testified against thee,

These groups of Friars called themselves Apostolics or Apostolical Brethren, because they insisted that their alleged voluntary poverty or other acts gave them freedom to violate every other commandment and law. Another early antinomian in this movement was named Angelo da Clareno, a man who got his start in Italy in 1278. From the records we can conclude that these were dissident monastics. These antinomians first appeared in Italy around 1263, and they mostly operated in the Mediterranean provinces. The antinomians are not to be confused with the Lollards of the Netherlands which we will discuss in the third article, although the latter may very well have been accused of being the same as them in some sources.

A.D. 1267: Statute of Marlborough

In 1267, the closing days of the Second Barons’ War, King Henry III restored peace to England by making a full commitment to the Magna Carta with this statute. The events that led up to this however, started in the year 1205.

Under King John (1199-1216), the archbishopric had been contested between two men who had both been elected by separate groups to fill the office. The pope chose this moment to strike and create a conflict between himself and the king, and he did this by nullifying both elections and having another chapter of Englishmen elect Stephen Langton to fill the office, and held him up as the true replacement. The king, weakened by his recent loss of Normandy to France, was opposed to this. He was obliged to oppose it, because this action challenged his right as king to make the selection. Soon many churchmen withdrew or were expelled from the domain of the English King, in response to the subsequent dispute that took place. However, King John lacked military support to a worse degree than he knew, so that his schemes were gradually outdone.

Through increasing pretensions, the pope eventually declared that the king of England was deposed from his rule of England. Then, in January of 1213 the pope gave the king of France the warrant and indulgences to invade the country, and to violently kill and destroy that land, just as he had done (or was going to do) to Toulouse in the south of France.

The king of France eagerly pursued this, gathering a navy of 1700 sails and summoning all the vassals of his kingdom in preparation for this invasion of England.92“England,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 8, pp. 613-614. Additionally, the English King John had just the prior year been forced to cancel his planned expedition into Wales by reports that many of his own barons were planning to take the other side against him. They were angry at his military losses and he stood accused of improprieties. Finally, giving in to fear, John came to Temple Ewell near Dover, England on May 15, 1213 to become a vassal and surrender his crown to the legate (representative) of the pope.

A line engraving by W. Blake (1797)
King John absolved on May 15, 1213

Immediately, the sides shifted. Now the nobles of the realm were opposed to not only France but also directly opposed to King John and the pope. The king meanwhile found himself with full and unrestrained papal support. In a turn that no one expected, Stephen Langton now took sides with the nobles, and met with them first at Westminster in August 25, 1213. They resolved themselves to uphold the privileges of the kingdom in opposition to any ruler who stood in their way.93“England,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 8, p. 614. Stephen then called to their attention the existence of a charter given by Henry I in 1100: the Charter of Liberties. It had guaranteed the rights of the subjects to retain the ancient laws of the land.94“England,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 8, pp. 602-603. This document had been written down from oral traditions by several individuals who had been in the kingdom before the invasion of 1066.

The events are described in this way:

The barons had entered into a confederacy for the restoration of their ancient privileges. They were encouraged and supported in their design by the archbishop of Canterbury, who, being of a generous and liberal spirit, was anxious to promote the real interests of the kingdom. At a numerous meeting of the barons summoned by him at St. Edmondsbury, under pretence of devotion, he produced an old charter of Henry I. of which he exorted them to demand the renewal and observance; and represented in such strong colours the arbitrary conduct of their sovereign, that they all swore before the high altar to support each other, and to make endless war upon the king, till he should grant their demands.95“England,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 8, p. 614.

This second meeting took place on November 20, 1214 in Bury St. Edmunds, in Suffolk, England.96Flores historiarum (1570 ed.), pp. 95-96. A little known fact about this alliance of nobles is its name: ‘Army of God and Holy Church.’

The rebels had support from the population anywhere they went. John met with them in 1215, and after several revisions they agreed upon the first version of what would be called the Magna Carta and both parties signed it. However, John claimed it was signed under duress, and the pope upon hearing about it annulled his signature to the document. This led to the First Barons’ War, which didn’t end until John was dead, whereupon his young son quickly gained preference by the English populace over the French invader. This invading prince had landed in England and was still seeking to fight John and take the English throne for himself, ever since the pope had given him the original indulgences to invade.

As part of the path toward reconciliation with the rebels, the young Henry III proposed a new edition of the Magna Carta in 1216, which loosened some of the restrictions on the king, making it more a more realistic constitution. However, this proposal by the new king was not respected. However after peace had been achieved with France, as a final gesture of reconciliation, Henry issued the Magna Carta libertatum (along with the Charter of the Forest) in 1217. This 1217 version is often cited as the original Magna Carta.

However, at a later opportunity, Henry III claimed that he had signed the document under duress, since he had only been ten years old in 1217 and he threatened to act in disregard to the charter. Thus in 1225, he signed a new edition of the charter, which was updated with the line that he had signed it of his “spontaneous and free will.” This was in return for additional taxes.

However, in 1227 at the age of twenty, Henry had himself proclaimed “of age and able to rule independently.” He announced that all future charters had to be issued under his seal, therefore raising questions over his 1225 agreement. He continued to threaten to overturn the law whenever it was convenient until 1253, when he signed a new edition of the charter in exchange for taxation. However, during this time he generally stayed close to the bounds of this law, so that his threat would remain potent.

Nevertheless, in 1258 there was a coup d’état against the king, led by barons who wanted a more strictly enforced charter. Notwithstanding this however, these barons’ proposal, called the Provisions of Oxford did not have a necessary level of approval, and ultimately the country slipped into the Second Barons’ War. Finally in 1267, the sixty-year-old king signed the Statute of Marlborough as part of the peace deal, which came with a full commitment to uphold the terms of the charter. His son Edward I also reconfirmed it again in 1297.97Confirmatio Cartarum

It is a lesser known fact, that the circumstances that brought about the writing and commitment to the principles of the Magna Carta, a document which is so remembered today, was the need to impede papal influence, as formerly cited from the Edinburgh Encylopedia from its article on England: “to promote the real interests of the kingdom.” Thus, the exhalations of threats breathed out from Rome seemed to lose their weight, and became as air upon reaching the solid shores of this island.

But this was not the only law passed in England in order to prevent exposure to these interferences from the ruler of Rome. Among the early acts of Edward I during his reign was to codify the whole law of England, along with the Charter, into 51 chapters.98Statute of Westminster, 1275 Additionally, he passed laws further intending to restrict foreign church land holdings.99Statutes of Mortmain, 1279 & 1290, although this was not entirely effective due to use of cestui que use and cestui que trust distinction See appendix H for an overview which we have copied by the lawmaker Sir William Blackstone on this history. The so-called Peter’s pence, a tax to Rome, was also paid for a very long time, until the year 1327 when the King ended this practice as well.

c. A.D. 1271: Beginnings of Secular Humanism

From around A.D. 1271 the syncretist Rаmоn Llull, a scholar of Arabic and other languages, begins to write works which acquire a more recognizably humanist tone than before.100“Lull, Rаimоn (c. 1235-1315),” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 14, p. 478.101“Chemistry, Raymond Lully,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 6, p. 3. Having drawn from many aspects of Islam, as well as tаlmudіsm and neoplatonist gnosticism, many of these works were reference points in the future fields of secular humanism, Catholicism, and rаbbіnіcal scholarship. Also in a key point of development for tаlmudіsm, the kаbbаlаh was expanded, with the Zohar being written in Iberia, year 1291.102“Kаbbаlаh, Works,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 13, p. 234. These works especially emphasized the Gnostic Manichaean principle of unifying the ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ planes.103As exemplified in the identity of the false deity ‘Shеkhinаh’ which was said to represent this unification104“Eclectics,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 7, pp. 326-327.105Modern times: ‘Multiculturalism

This is not a philosophy built on anything other than finding common ground between majorities of people, and thus at least in theory, winning a majority; which, some seem to suppose, in the absence of any firm truth such as the truth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, will bring about their cause. See A.D. 242: Manichæism and A.D. 245: Neo-platonism in part one for more. End of part two.

Link: Part three (final) of this Outline

  
Appendix D

The following is written in Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Amplissima Collectio,
Vol. 19, col. 424-425:

SYNODUS ATTREBATENSIS [The Synod of Arras, 1025.]
A Gerardo Cameracensi & Attrebatensi Episcopo celebrara anno MXXV
[translated from the Latin]

In the year of our Lord 1025. Eighth indiction. To Lord Gerard of Cambray and Arras. It came about that after Christmas and Epiphany had been observed with solemn ceremony within the see of Cambrai, in accordance with the custom annually followed the Prelate was to stay for several days in the see of Arras. There, while they were performing appropriate church functions, he was informed that certain men had come to that locality from Italy, which were introducing certain new heretical doctrines, attempting to overthrow the instruction of evangelical and apostolical sanctions; they established a certain justice, asserting that men were purified by it alone, and that no other Sacrament in the Church could save them.

On hearing these things, the lord Bishop sought to inquire of these men, and gave orders for them to be found. Upon hearing of their search, they prepared to leave secretly, but they were prevented by the magisters and drawn before the Bishop. Being occupied with other matters, he exchanged only a few words with them on their belief; perceiving that they were fascinated by certain wicked dogmatical errors, he ordered them to be held in custody until the third day; and the next day he imposed a fast on all clerics and Monks, that the grace of God might cause the prisoners to recover their understanding of the catholic faith.

On the third day, which was a Sunday, the Bishop returned, together with his Archdeacons carrying crosses and gospel texts, surrounded by a great throng of all the clergy and people, proceeding to the church of blessed Mary to hold a great synod; after the antiphon ‘O God arise,’ the whole Psalm was completed. Then the Bishop sat in his consistory, as did each Lord Abbot, with his monks, and the Archdeacons on either side, and the rest, according to the rank of their ordination, according to their degree, and then the men were brought in. At first, the bishop made some general remarks about them to the people. Then, he turned to them with these words: ‘What,’ he asked, ‘is your doctrine? what is your law and way of life, and who is the originator of your discipline?’ They replied, that they were followers of one Gundulf, from certain parts of Italy, and that he had instructed them in the commandments of the gospel and the apostles, that they accepted no other scripture than what they had received, but to this they held in word and deed. However, the Bishop had in fact received notice of them, that they utterly abhorred the holy mystery of Baptism, that they rejected the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, that they denied the work of penance to the lapsed, that they openly maintained the invalidity of the church, that they cursed lawful marriages, that they saw no special power in the gifts of the holy Confessors, and that they thought none but the Apostles and martyrs should be venerated.

On these things the Bishop asked: ‘How has it come to pass,’ he asked, ‘that what the evangelical and apostolic institutions hold, is contrary to what you preach?’ He narrated, ‘in the text of the gospel, unto the prince and Ruler Nicodemus, who regarded those signs and wonders as signifying that Jesus was of God, the Lord continued to answer, “that no confession alone could merit a role in the kingdom of heaven, unless a man be born again of water and the spirit.” So either you are able to receive regeneration from this mystery, or else the gospel words must conflict with what Jesus said.’

To these things they gave this answer as follows: ‘The law and discipline we have received from our Master will not appear contrary either to the Gospel decrees or apostolical sanctions, if we carefully examine these. This discipline consists in leaving the world, in bridling carnal concupiscence, in providing our own livelihood by the labor of our hands, in seeking the harm or hurt of no one, and in affording our charity to our fellowservants who are of the same purpose. Now if we have safeguarded this righteousness, then Baptism will add nothing further to this; and if we have transgressed against this truth, then Baptism will not profit to salvation. This is our greatest justification, to which baptism can accrue nothing, for this is the end of all the apostolical and evangelical institutions. But if any man among you shall say, that some hidden sacrament lies within baptism, that is thrown off by three causes. First, because the reprobate life of the minister itself is not able to provide life to the person to be baptized. Second, because whatsoever sins are renounced at the font, shall be repeated later in life. Third, because a strange will, a strange faith, and a strange confession do not seem to belong to, or be of any advantage to a little child,106parvulum who neither wills nor runs, who knows nothing of faith, and is altogether ignorant of his own good and salvation, in whom there can be no desire of regeneration, and from whom no confession of faith can be expected.’

And the Bishop responds: . . .” End quotation. [Because of this one response, they are afterward charged of Manichaeism, of dissolving marriages, and more…]

Note: The rest of chapter I, and then chapters II – XVI, consist entirely of the Bishop’s prepared remarks.107Note: Based on this historical record alone, there seems to be no reason to think the “Manichaean” or “gnostic” charge brought against these men had any substance to it beyond an accusation prepared in advance, which ought not to be readily believed.
In chapter 1, it is implicated that they rejected water baptism, and instead practiced foot washing.
In chapter 2, it is implicated that they rejected the Eucharist.
In chapter 3, it is implicated that they denied that a church is the house of God.
In chapter 4, it is implicated that they objected to the altar and the use of incense.
In chapter 5, it is implicated that they objected to the use of bells in churches.
In chapter 6, it is implicated that they objected to ordination.
In chapter 7, it is implicated that they objected to the use of holy burial grounds because of simony.
In chapter 8, it is implicated that they denied the efficacy of penance.
In chapter 9, it is implicated that they objected to prayers for the dead.
In chapter 10, it is implicated that they objected to the institution of marriage.
In chapter 11, it is implicated that they objected to auricular confession.
In chapter 12, it is implicated that they objected to psalmody in church services.
In chapter 13, it is implicated that they objected to veneration of the Cross.
In chapter 14, it is implicated that they objected to images of Christ on the Cross or saints because they were the work of human hands.
In chapter 15, it is implicated that they opposed the hierarchy.
In chapter 16, it is implicated that they held a heretical doctrine of justification.
In the conclusion, it is stated that the men are released after being “stunned into silence” and agreeing with all of the Bishop’s rebuttals.

No further record of direct testimony of the accused men exists. It is often assumed that the men were gnostics as the Bishop of Arras mantained against them. However, the only direct record of testimony from the accused men is recorded from the initial part of Chapter I, as given by the above translation.

Return to entry A.D. 1119

  
Appendix E

The following is written in Maxima Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum,
Tome 25, p. 190:

Aldephonsus Dei gratia
[translated from the Latin]

-A.D. 1194
Aldephonsus, by the grace of God, King of Aragon, and Count of Barcelona, and Margrave of Provence, to all Archbishops, Bishops, and all the rest of the Prelates of the Church of this Kingdom, to all the Earls, Viscounts, soldiers, and to the entire people of the kingdom and our dominion, greeting, and good wishes for the integrity of the Christian religion. As it has pleased God to place us over his people, it is right that we should take great concern to, according to our ability, tend to the salvation and defense of our people. For this reason, in faithful continuity with our predecessors, and in rightful obedience to the canons that all heretics before God and Catholicism should be cast down, condemned and persecuted— the Waldenses or Insabbatatos, who are called the Poor of Lyons, and all other heretics who are so many they are beyond numbering, have been anathematized by the holy Church, from all of our kingdom and dominion, as enemies of the Cross of Christ, a dishonor to the Christian religion and our person, and public enemies of the kingdom itself, and are commanded to go out and flee into exile. And from this day on, if any one shall meet and receive these Waldenses and Insabbatatos, or other heretics of whatever profession, into their homes, or listen to their deadly preaching in any place, or give them food, or dare to show them any other favor, then he has incurred the wrath of God omnipotent, and of ourselves, and his goods shall be confiscated without appeal, for he has committed the crime of lese majesty.

This is our edict and the continuing ordinance for every city, castle and village in our kingdom and dominion, and throughout all the land of our jurisdiction, which shall be recited by the Bishops each Sunday; Church leaders, as well as Governors, Bailiffs, Justiciaries, Merinis, and Zafalmerinis, and all the people, shall observe it, so that the aforementioned penalty shall be inflicted upon all offenders. Be it further known, that if any person, noble or ignoble, shall find any of these wicked spirits anywhere in our lands, after the three days’ proclamation, who, knowing our decree, do not speedily depart, but rather remain stubbornly, then there shall be no punishment for any evil, disgrace, or hurt, except death or maiming, inflicted upon them; and he shall rather merit my favor, and he shall know that this is acceptable to us. We shall give a respite from this (though beyond their deserts, and against reason) until tomorrow, which is All Saints Day, to leave our land; and if any are found remaining, we give full lenience to rob and dispossess them, to fashion clubs and to beat them, to shamefully abuse them.

Return to entry A.D. 1229

  
Appendix F

The following excerpt is from “The letter of Everwin of Steinfeld
Dated A.D. 1143.
Title: “The heretics of our time.

EPISTOLA CDXXXII.
EVERVINI STEINFELDENSIS PRÆPOSITI AD S.BERNARDUM
[translated from the Latin]

There have been lately some heretics discovered amongst us. […]

When they saw they could go no further, they desired that a day might be appointed for them, upon which they might bring along with them men skilful in their belief, promising to return to the Church, provided they should find their masters defective in answering what was opposed to them; but that otherwise they would rather die than depart from their judgment. Upon this their declaration, after that for three days together they had been admonished, and found unwilling to repent, they were seized by the people, being incited by overmuch zeal, and put into the fire, and burnt; and (what is most wonderful) they entered to the stake, and bare the torment of the fire, not only with patience, but with joy and gladness. In this case, O holy Father, were I present with you, I should be glad to have your answer, how these members of the Devil could with such courage and constancy persist in their heresy, as is scarcely to be found in the most religious in the faith of Christ.

Their heresy is this:” [a description of Manichaeism follows here: the belief that souls are fallen angels, the doctrine of voluntary poverty, also abstenance from ‘all milk, and whatsoever is made of it,’ transsubstantiation, as well as the following:] “…They also openly confess, that besides water, they baptized also with fire and the Holy Ghost, and had been so baptized themselves; alleging to this purpose the testimony of St. John the Baptist baptizing with water, and saying concerning Christ, ‘He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:’ (Matth. III, 11); and in another place ‘I indeed baptize you with water, but there stands one in the midst of you, whom you know not, who shall baptize you with another baptism besides that of water.’ (John, I, 26), And that this other baptism was to be performed by the imposition of hands, they endeavored to make out by the testimony of St. Luke, who, in the Acts of the Apostles, describing Paul’s baptism, which he received from Ananias at the command of Christ, makes no mention of water, but only of the laying on of hands; and whatsoever else we find, whether in the Acts of the Apostles or in St. Paul’s Epistles, they apply to this baptism; and they say, that every Elect (for so they call all those that are baptized amongst them) hath power to baptize others whom they find worthy, and to consecrate the body and blood of Christ at their meals. For first, by their laying on of hands they receive some of their auditors into the number of believers, and then they have leave to be present at their prayers, until that, after having had sufficient trial of them, they make them Elect. They contemn our baptism, condemn marriage; but the reason why, I could not get out of them, either because they durst not own it, or rather because they knew none.108The above is a description by Everwin of Manichaeism.

There are also some other heretics in our country, who are altogether different from these, by whose mutual discord and contests they were both of them discovered to us. These deny that the body of Christ is made on the altar, because all the Priests of the Church are not consecrated. For the apostolical dignity, say they, is corrupted, by engaging itself in secular affairs, and the sitting in the chair of Peter; yet because it does not wage God’s warfare as Peter did, it has deprived itself of the power of consecrating, which was so great in Peter; and what it has not itself, the Archbishops and Bishops, who live like men of the world, cannot receive from it, viz. the power of consecrating others: to this purpose alleging these words of Christ, ‘The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’s chair; what therefore they bid you do, that do.’ (Matth. XXVIII, 2, 3): As if such as these had only the power of preaching and commanding, but nothing more. Thus they make void the Priesthood of the Church,109sacerdotium Ecclesiæ and condemn the Sacraments besides Baptism only; and this only in those who are come to age, who, they say, are baptized by Christ himself, whosoever be the Minister of the Sacraments. They do not believe infant baptism; alleging that place of the Gospel, ‘Whosoever shall believe, and be baptized, shall be saved.’ (Marc. XVI, 16). All marriage they call fornication, besides that which is between two virgins, male and female;110This appears to be genuine misunderstanding by Everwin. quoting for this the words of our Saviour, wherewith he answers the Pharisees, ‘What God hath joined, let no man separate;’ as if God did only join such together, as he did our first parents: as likewise those words of our Saviour, which he speaks to the Jеws, in answer to what they objected to him about the bill of divorce, ‘From the beginning it was not so;’ and the following words, ‘Whosoever marrieth her that is divorced, commits adultery;’ (Matth. XIX, 6-9); and that of the Apostle, ‘Let marriage be honourable to all, and the bed undefiled.’ (Hebr. XIII, 4).

They put no confidence in the intercession of the saints; they maintain that fasting, and other afflictions which are undertaken for sin, are not necessary to the just, nor to sinners; because at what time soever the sinner repents of his sin, they are all forgiven to him; and all other things observed in the Church, which have not been established by Christ himself or his Apostles, they call superstitions. They do not admit of any purgatory fire after death; but that the souls, as soon as they depart out of the bodies, do enter into rest or punishment; proving it from that place of Solomon, ‘Which way soever the tree falls, whether to the south or to the north, there it lies:’ (Eccl. XI, 3); by which means they make void all the prayers and oblations of believers for the deceased.

We therefore desire you, holy Father, to employ your care and watchfulness against these manifold mischiefs, and that you would be pleased to direct your pen against these wild beasts of the reeds; not thinking it sufficient to answer us, that the tower of David, to which we may take our refuge, is sufficiently fortified with bulwarks, that a thousand bucklers hang on the walls of it, all shields of mighty men. For we desire, Father, that for the sake of us simple ones, and that are slow of understanding, you would be pleased by your study to gather all these arms in one place, that they may be the more ready to be found, and more powerful to resist these monsters. I let you know also, that those of them who have returned to our Church, told us, that they had great numbers of their persuasion scattered almost every where: and that amongst them were many of our Clergy and Monks.

. . .Two years later, Bernard gave a sermon in response to this letter (Bernard. super Cantic. serm. lxvi. p. 766.) and he seems to include there a response to the “heretics” described in Everwin’s epistle. However he makes no effort to distinguish the two groups, as Everwin had done. In all points Bernard confounds the two groups that, as Everwin noted, had been debating when Everwin found them. Yet Bernard treats them as if they were one. They are all charged with the same charges of outright condemning all marriages, with abstaining from meats, and also mocking at infant baptism and prayer for the dead. Towards the end of this sermon, in speaking about them some additional information seems to be revealed, translated below:

When as they, after their manner, denied all things whereof they were suspected, being examined by the trial of water, they were found liars: and being no longer able to deny it, because they were found guilty, by the water not admitting of them, they confessed their crimes, offered themselves to defend them to the death, and were knocked on the head by the people.

This sermon given in 1145 gives an extra insight into the thought process at that time. Everwin gave Bernard all of the information which he thought might be useful by a private letter written to him in 1143, which we still have today. Everwin informed Bernard of the two groups and how the two groups differed. Two years later when preaching in public about them, Bernard seems to make a deliberate attempt to make the two groups equal, despite being given the letter by Everwin which distinguishes the two groups. Furthermore, Bernard seems to inadvertently reveal information that one would only know firsthand, namely that their custom (as he says, ‘after their manner’) was to deny all these charges, namely, that they denied being gnostics. Furthermore, Bernard dismisses the sacrifice of their lives as being for an unworthy cause. Following this, Bernard chastises the people supposedly because they rushed to murder these men. But he does not rebuke them for the act of murder, but only for denying the opportunity for them to be taken and condemned formally in court first before being killed.

Return to entry A.D. 1229

  
Appendix G

The following is written in Historia rerum Anglicarum,
Book 2, ch. XIII:

De hæreticis Angliam ingressis, et quomodo exterminati sunt.
[translated from the Latin]

About that same time some heretics came into England, of that sect, as it is believed, which are commonly called Publicans. These are they who have in many regions spread the virus of their heresy, which had originated from an unknown author in Gascony.111Mellinus writes this in the margin: Perhaps from Peter of Bruys, Henry of Toulouse, or Berengarius himself Such a number have been infected with this heresy throughout the extensive provinces of France, Spain, Italy and Germany, that we may pronounce, in the words of the prophet, ‘Lord, how are they increased that trouble me.’ (Ps. 3:1). In short, when the bishops of the churches, and the magistrates of the provinces are too lenient toward them, these subtle foxes come out from their dens and, under the pretension of piety, lead astray the simple, and lay waste grievously and widely to the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts. However, when the zeal of the faithful is kindled against them by the inspiration of God, they lie hidden in their dens, and become less noxious; however, in secret they spread their virus still, and so the harm does not come to an end. Rustics and idiots, dwellers in the fields are they, and consequently they are slow to understand their errors; so that when once tinctured with this heresy, they are inflexible to all discipline, so that it very rarely happens that they will be converted, when dragged out of their hiding-places.

Of course, England has always been immune from pests such as these and other heretics, of which so many have sprang up in other parts of the world. Now, when this island had been under the tribes of the Britons, it gave birth to Pelagius, the future heresiarch in the East, and was under the same error herself: unto which the Gallican church in her great foresight sent forth once and again the blessed Germanus. However, once the English had completed the expulsion of the Britons from this island, so that it was no longer Britain, but England, it has been said, that none of the pestilence of the virus of heresy has ever issued forth: and it was not until the reign of Henry II, that it propagated and expanded in. And at this time, also, by the assistance of God, the pest, which has now crept in, has been blocked, so that it would fear to enter again into this island.

There were a little more than thirty men and women who, hiding their error, came in, in order to graciously propagate their plague here, under the leadership of Gerard, to whom the rest looked as a commander and ruler. He alone was learned among them: the others were illiterate and idiots, men who were rude and rustic, who were of the German nation and language.

During their stay in England, they entrapped one woman, who it is said was bewitched by certain sorceries, and so joined them. They could not remain long concealed, for certain persons had carefully examined them and found they were of a foreign sect, and they were arrested as such, and confined in public prisons. The King was not willing that they should be released or punished without an examination, therefore he commanded that a council of bishops be convened at Oxford.112in A.D. 1160 At that time, when the suit was brought concerning their religion: the man who appeared literate, and who was best informed of their cause, spoke on behalf of all, testifying that they were Christians, and that they venerated the Apostolical doctrine. Under interrogation on all the articles of the faith, it was found that they answered rightly concerning the nature of the supreme Physician; but regarding the means which He has used to heal our infirmities, that is, the divine sacraments, they answered perversely; the holy baptism, the eucharist, and marriage, they detested— and the catholic unity, they derogated, which admits of these divine assistances.

And when they were taken off course by the testimony of the holy scripture, they all said that they believed as they were taught, and were not willing to respond to a dispute about their faith. Being warned to repentance, to be united to the body of the church, they all despised this counsel. When they were menaced with godly threats, inducing them to become wise through fear, they despised this, abusing the word of the Lord, ‘Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.’ (Matthew 5:10). The bishops therefore, to prevent the spread of the heretical virus, pronounced them publicly as heretics, and delivered them to the catholic prince for corporeal punishment. He commanded their foreheads to be branded with the mark of heretical disgrace, and they be whipped in the eyes of the people, and expelled from the city, and strictly forbade anyone to receive, or supply, or provide them with any comfort whatsoever. After the sentence was read, they were led out to punishment rejoicing, their leader leading on before them in haste, and singing ‘Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you.’ To such a degree, the seducing spirit deceived their minds. The woman whom they had led astray in England confessed her error and was reconciled, having departed them for fear of punishment. Moreover, this detestable band, with branded foreheads, was subjected to just severity: and he who had the supremacy over them, for a sign of his leadership, was seared with two brands, one on his forehead and one on his chin. Their garments being torn down to their waists, they were publicly scourged, and while the lash yet resounded, they were expelled from the city, to the intolerable cold, for it was winter; so they perished in misery, and no person showed them the smallest mercy. And this rigorous severity cleansed the kingdom of England from the creeping pest, but also prevented its future intrusion, by the terror which it so struck into heretics.

Note: A question to be raised here is, why did the annalist in this description go to the extra trouble to specifically describe the first sacrament as ‘holy’ baptism if the group of ‘heretics’ renounced all baptism altogether? It seems to reason that this specific distinction of ‘holy baptism’ over simply ‘baptism’ was made likely because they only disregarded infant baptism (which the writer called holy baptism), but not water baptism altogether.

Note: With regard to the other charge that they detested marriage, I can think of three equally valid explanations. First, it is possible that what this group spoke against was the common practice of divorce and remarriage. If this is the case, then the annalist transformed this into a charge that they condemn all marriage. In that case, the reality is that the group simply holds different standards, teaching that divorce and remarriage is adultery – and for this they were (wrongly) accused of condemning all marriage. Second, it is possible they were accused of condemning marriage in total for the sole reason simply to make them appear to be Manichaeans. In this case, a false charge was added by someone, along with the rest of the charges made against the group, simply to make sure that the group of foreigners would surely be viewed as wrong overall in their teachings; it follows after all that condemning all marriage would be incompatible with Christian society, which recognizes and protects marriages. Third, it is possible that someone manufactured this charge against the group by a leap of logic from the fact that, as we know, the group did not recognize the priests. If the group did not recognize the priesthood, then was simply assumed without merit that the group would deem marriages performed by such priests illegal. By the logic of their time, marriage was one of the ‘seven sacraments,’ and thus by their reasoning could only be performed by a “valid” priest. Though, as we have discussed, baptists differ from this in that they hold only two ordinances, of which marriage is not considered an ordinance: hence, there is no need to assume that this group would not recognize marriages just because of the fact that they would not recognize the priesthood. Any of these three explanations for the (false) charge against the group of not recognizing marriage would suffice, along with the explanation of ‘holy’ baptism, the baptism which they would not recognize, being a euphemism for ‘infant’ baptism.

Mellinus also made the below remark about the same group at the end of his own account of the council of Oxford of 1160, but the provenance for this is less clear:113in: Mellinus, A., Eerste deel van het Groot recht-ghevoelende Christen Martelaers-Boeck (Amsterdam, 1619), p. 440.

They said that [the Roman church] was like the barren fig-tree, which our Lord Jesus Christ had cursed: they also said, regarding the commandments of the Pope and the Bishops, that they should not be obeyed if they strive against God; also, that Monasticism was a stinking carrion, and that monastic vows are nothing more than a curse, yea, that they foster lasciviousness114sodomije; also, that the titles and orders of the Priestly dignity are the marks of the great beast: they said that purgatory, masses, church consecrations, worship of the Saints, yearly memorials for the dead, etc., are genuine inventions of the devil. And these were without a doubt the most famous articles that the Fathers of the Oxford Council could not brook, on account of which they scourged and banished them out of their country, yea, let them freeze to death.

Return to entry A.D. 1229

  
Appendix H

The following is written in Sir William Blackstone’s
Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Ch. VIII, pp. 109-112, 115:

“[L]et us now return to the statutes of praemunire, which were framed to encounter this overgrown yet increasing evil.

“King Edward I., a wise and magnanimous prince, set himself in earnest to shake off this servile yoke. He would not suffer his bishops to attend a general council, till they had sworn not to receive the papal benediction. He made light of all papal bulles and processes: attacking Scotland in defiance of one: and seizing the temporalities of his clergy, who under pretence of another refused to pay a tax imposed by parliament. He strengthened the statutes of mortmain; thereby closing the great gulph, in which all the lands of the kingdom were in danger of being swallowed. And, one of his subjects having obtained a bulle of excommunication against another, he ordered him to be executed as a traitor, according to the antient law.(6) And in the thirty-fifth year of his reign was made the first statute against papal provisions, being, according to sir Edward Coke, the foundation of all subsequent statutes of praemunire, which we rank as an offence immediately against the king, because every encouragement of the papal power is a diminution of the authority of the crown.

(6) But because that lawe had not of long time beene put in execution, the chancellor and treasurer kneeled before the king, and obtained grace for him, so as he was onely banished out of the realme.

“In the weak reign of Edward the second the pope again endeavored to encroach, but the parliament manfully withstood him; and it was one of the principal articles charged against that unhappy prince, that he had given allowance to the bulles of the see of Rome. But Edward the third was of a temper extremely different: and to remedy these inconveniences first by gentle means, he and his nobility wrote an expostulation to the pope; but receiving a menacing and contemptuous answer, withal acquainting him, that the emperor, (who a few years before at the diet of Nuremberg, A.D. 1323, had established a law against provisions,) and also the king of France, had lately submitted to the holy see; the king replied, that if both the emperor and the French king should take the pope’s part, he was ready to give battle to them both, in defence of the liberties of the crown. Hereupon more sharp and penal laws were devised against provisors, which enact severally, that the court of Rome shall not present or collate to any bishoprick or living in England; and that whoever disturbs any patron in the presentation to a living by virtue of a papal provision, such provisor shall pay fine and ransom to the king at his will, and be imprisoned till he renounces such provision; and the same punishment is inflicted on such as cite the king, or any of his subjects, to answer in the court of Rome. And when the holy see resented these proceedings, and pope Urban V. attempted to revive the vasalage and annual rent to which king John had subjected his kingdom, it was unanimously agreed by all the estates of the realm in parliament assembled, 40 Edw. III., that king John’s donation was null and void, being without the concurrence of parliament, and contrary to his coronation oath: and all the temporal nobility and commons engaged, that if the pope should endeavor by process or otherwise to maintain these usurpations, they would resist and withstand him with all their power.

“In the reign of Richard the second, it was found necessary to sharpen and strengthen these laws, and therefore it was enacted by statutes 3 Ric. II. c. 3. and 7 Ric. II. c. 12. first, that no alien should be capable of letting his benefice to farm; in order to compel such as had crept in, at least to reside on their preferments: and, afterwards, that no alien should be capable to be presented to any ecclesiastical preferment, under the penalty of the statutes of provisors. By the statute 12 Ric. II. c. 15. all liegemen of the king, accepting of a living by any foreign provision, are put out of the king’s protection, and the benefices made void. To which the statute 13 Ric. II. st. 2. c. 2. adds banishment and forfeiture of lands and goods: and by c. 3. of the same statute, any person bringing over any citation or excommunication from beyond sea, on account of the execution of the foregoing statutes of provisors, shall be imprisoned, forfeit his goods and lands, and moreover suffer pain of life and member.

“In the writ for the execution of all these statutes the words praemunire facias, being (as we said) used to command a citation of the party, have denominated in common speech not only the writ, but the offence itself of maintaining the papal power, by the name of praemunire. And accordingly the next statute I shall mention, which is generally referred to by all subsequent statutes, is usually called the statute of praemunire. It is the statute 16 Ric. II. c. 5. which enacts, that whoever procures at Rome, or elsewhere, any translations, processes, excommunications, bulles, instruments, or other things, which touch the king, against him, his crown, and realm, and all persons aiding and assisting therein, shall be put out of the king’s protection, their lands and goods forfeited to the king’s use, and they shall be attached by their bodies to answer to the king and his council: or process of praemunire facias shall be made out against them as in other cases of provisors.

“By the statute 2 Hen. IV. c. 3. all persons who accept any provision from the pope, to be exempt from canonical obedience to their proper ordinary, are also subjected to the penalties of praemunire. And this is the last of our antient statutes touching this offence; the usurped civil power of the bishop of Rome being pretty well broken down by these statutes, as his usurped religious power was in about a century afterwards. . .”

“This then is the original meaning of the offence, which we call praemunire; viz. introducing a foreign power into this land, and creating imperium in imperio, by paying that obedience to papal process, which constitutionally belonged to the king alone, long before the reformation in the reign of Henry the eighth: at which time the penalties of praemunire were indeed extended to more papal abuses than before; as the kingdom then entirely renounced the authority of the see of Rome, though not all the corrupted doctrines of the Roman church. And therefore by the several statutes of 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12. and 25 Hen VIII. c. 19. & 21. to appeal to Rome from any of the king’s courts, which (though illegal before) had at times been connived at; to sue Rome for any licence or dispensation; or to obey any process from thence; are made liable to the pains of praemunire.”

Return to entry A.D. 1267

Historical Outline Part 1

Preface

Providing historical context can often be helpful. The following three articles, starting with this, will provide an overview of some widely known events and cover some lesser known events in church history. I intend to keep descriptions brief so that this can overall serve as an outline. This one is a long read, and it covers a large number of subjects, so be prepared. I would also say any other well-sourced information which is reliable is also welcome to be included. Please make use of the comments area below, if you like.

While many of the events covered here may be related to Biblical prophecy, they are not explicitly taken out of the Scripture so our understanding of these events may not be complete. For some important events, we only have access to the accounts of the opposing side of an issue of interest to us.

I should note that these historical outlines are presented as they are, not as arguments for the existence of the validity and purity of God’s church, for that must be gathered from Matthew 16:18, the Great Commission and the other words of Christ, which state that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against his church. These are the truths that everyone can believe in. This is the understanding from which all things can be viewed. People should be saved by hearing God’s word and enter the church for the same reason today as they did when the words of the Bible were first spoken. What is covered below should be considered an extra subject by comparison.

There is one subject to note at the outset. The word which God has revealed by inspiration (see Titus 1:21In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
— Titus 1:2-3
), has always existed, and those words were originally in existence before all things. There were never any real uncertainties about what the Word of God is. From the time of the inspiration of God’s word, it has never been a question to the church what these holy Scriptures were, because they are preserved, which again is exactly as we have discussed throughout this site. Consider:
Psalm 119:1602Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. — Psalm 119:160, Deuteronomy 29:293The secret things belong unto the Lᴏʀᴅ our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
— Deuteronomy 29:29
, Proverbs 30:5-64Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. — Proverbs 30:5-6.
, Luke 16:175And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
— Luke 16:17.
,
1 Peter 1:236Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
— 1 Peter 1:23
, John 18:377Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. — John 18:37b, Hebrews 4:12-138For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
— Hebrews 4:12-13.
. Also, John 8:479He that is of God heareth God’s words: — John 8:47a.

Therefore, no council of men decided the canon of Scriptures. So, you will not find a point in the outline where a council allegedly determined the composition of Scripture, wherefrom their authority is supposed to be taken as the reason why we have the word of God. In fact, it can further be said that such misguided efforts which did take place, only managed to include apocrypha erroneously. This proved their inability to discern scriptures and disqualification in those cases. The church, who has known the word of God, never needed a council to determine this to begin with. Saved people have known God’s word in a direct way. They know that it is from God, which is why they are saved. The “believers” knew the authority of the word, knowing that it should be believed, upon hearing it. That is something that needed no council. Thus, we do not present any kind of theological council as a historical point in the outline below. The only thing that has ever been needed to know what is true from false is the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.

The truth was not decided upon a majority either. This is because the majority is often in error with respect to the truth. Nor yet was the preservation of the same Bible reliant merely upon a majority of people approving of it. In fact, quite the contrary.

Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
– Mark 13:33

I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
– Romans 16:19

Dedicated to the Lord.

Here follows the first part of the history from A.D. 70 – 990, with three appendices included at the end.

A.D. 70: Second Temple defiled

Before the close of the Biblical period, the Roman General (future Caesar) Titus beseiged and laid waste to the city of Jеrusаlem in the land of Judеа.

A.D. 136: Bar Kokhba Revolt

In the time of the end (after the book of Revelation), a political revolt in Judеа, led by a Jеwish “savior figure,” is ended by the Roman empire, under Hаdriаn.10“Hаdriаnus,” Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 2, pp. 321-322. The city of Jеrusаlеm is completely levelled to the ground, is replaced by a colony (Aеlia Cаpitolinа) and, by law of Rome, ongoing ethno-religious cleansing of the whole city is decreed. The whole province is renamed to Syria Pаlаеstinа.11“Pаlеstine,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 15, p. 340.

One effect of this was a geographic redistributing of phаrisаical or pre-tаlmudіc predecessors, and those which at that time did not want to acknowledge Christ, to places outside of the Levant where the kingdom had been located. Early Judаіsm in these times made its primary stronghold in the city of Babylon, which was eastward and outside the reach of Roman laws.12“Tаlmud, Growth of the Mіshnаh and Gеmаrа,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 21, p. 770. Meanwhile, Christianity continued to grow elsewhere, especially at that time in the opposite direction towards the West.

A.D. 140: Marcionism

Marcion travels to Rome and attempts to join the church there in 140, while preaching from apocryphal book “Gospel of Marcion.” He was excommunicated or banned in 144, so afterward he changed locations to continue his gnostic sect.13“Marcion,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 13, p. 868. The Marcionites counted 115 years and 6 months from the time of Christ until their founding, making them a relatively old, but false sect.

Marcion himself became the apparent source of many characteristic “gnostic” doctrines, such as physical-spirit dualism. Dualism regards all matter as evil in essence, employs self-abuse of the body in various ways, and separates the “good God” of the New Testament, from the Creator. The Creator from the Old Testament is termed malorum factorem (“the author of evils”); and furthermore, gnostics of this type claimed that Jesus is not the Messiah, and the Old Testament was a false promise. Rather, they claimed, that he came from an “higher plane” and took a non-physical body. Also it was claimed that the descent into Hades was meant to redeem those who had resisted the “malevolent creator” such as Cain, who was seen by the Gnostics as a hero. He was approved by the Gnostics because he resisted the Creator. Likewise, resurrection of the spirit was accepted, but of the body, denied. Marcion taught asceticism, fasted on Sundays (to resist the “malevolent creator,”) and abstained from all meat, except for fish— he appealed at a dispute in 144 to the passage of Scripture in Luke 6:43.14“Marcion,” Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 2, pp. 943-944. Many ideas of dualism have been adapted into other “gnostic” sects, so that Marcionites were similar to other versions of gnosticism, which have appeared in numerous local forms in history.

Marcion was also the author of the Antitheses, a work which very methodically went through the entire Old and New Testament and tried to find contradictions, in order to make a case for the ill intent of the Creator of the Old Testament. He was also the first person known to produce a corrupted Bible. He rejected the four Gospels, except his own version of the Gospel of Luke, which removed everything before v. 4.31 and every other passage which acknowledged the Creator. Marcion was the one who started the tradition of arranging a “council” in which the correct books of the Bible were proclaimed. But this was done falsely by including in it only Paul’s epistles (but not the pastoral epistles of 1, 2 Timothy and Titus) and adding his own corrupted gospel. Therefore, Marcion excluded some or all of the work of every author of the Bible.

A.D. 157: “Old Italic” Bible translated

The “Old Italic” or Vetus Latina translation of the Scriptures is produced by this date, at the latest.15Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical Students, Vol. 2, p. 43.16John Mill, Prolegomena to Novum Testamentum cum lectionibus variantibus, § 377, p. 41. This line of Biblical transmission continued through the Vaudois, a population that was located in the extreme north of Italy, in alpine valleys bordering on France, Switzerland.17W. Gilly, Waldensian Researches during a Second Visit to the Vaudois of Piedmont, pp. 69-71, 74. This line of Biblical manuscripts would later be acquired by the Geneva translators for reference in producing French, Italian, English and other Bibles.18Beza, Histoire ecclésiastique des églises réformées au royaume de France, Vol. 1, pp. 13-14, 87. This early Latin translation predates and is unrelated to the Vulgate.

c. A.D. 213: Sabellian Controversy

An early Christological controversy occurred around this time involving the main faction of Trinitarians disputing the modalist Sabellians. Referring incorrectly to John 10:30,19“I and my Father are one.”
— John 10:30
(passage very similar to 1 Jn. 5:7)
they taught that the Son was a mere aspect of a unitary god and they denied the distinct personhood of the Son being fully God.20“Sabellius,” Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 3, p. 685.21“Tertullianus,” Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 3, pp. 1008-1009. Beyond a general description, there is not much reliable information. Controversy continues with various unitarians.22Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
—1 John 2:23

c. A.D. 240: Hexaplar Septuagint first produced

Sometime on or before this date, Origen of Alexandria produced the Hexaplar Septuagint, which is his version of the (older) LXX— a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.23“Origenes, works,” Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 3, pp. 50-51.24“Beryllus,” Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 1, p. 485. The Septuagint of today can always be traced back to Origen. Also included in this work were many apocrypha. See linked article (goes to another page) for more information on the Hexaplar Septuagint and its various differences from the Old Testament.

A.D. 242: Manichæism

Around 240, Mani travels to India to study religions. He later returns to his homeland in Persia in 242 with a new religion resembling Hinduism, Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism. It is composed of six books (such as “the book of Giants”), written in Syriac, with one additional picture book.25“Manichaeism,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 14, p. 801.26A. Henrichs and L. Koenen, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 5 (1970), pp. 104-105, 120.

Manichaeism grows into one of the most widespread religions of the world at the time, before disappearing in the 8th century. Mani’s literature had a lasting effect on formative rаbbіnіc judаіsm and on gnosticism. This effect is still found to be present in those traditions.27The correspondences between the Persian and the Phаrіsаіc faith, in regard to doctrines, are of too arbitrary and peculiar a character to allow us for a moment to suppose them to have been an independent product spontaneously developed in the two nations; though even in that case the doctrines in question have no sanction of authority, not being Mosaic nor Prophetic, but only Rаbbіnіcаl. One must have received from the other. Which was the bestower and which the recipient is quite plain…
What was that Manichæanism which nearly filled Christendom for a hundred years,—what was it, in great part, but an influx of tradition, speculation, imagination, and sentiment, from Persia? The Gnostic Christians even had a scripture called ‘Zoroaster’s Apocalypse.’
Alger and Abbot, The Destiny of the Soul, 10th edition (Boston, 1880), pp. 174-175.
28“ ‘The conception of an under-world,’ says Dr. Röth, ‘was known centuries before Zoroaster; but probably he was the first to add to the old belief the idea that the under-world was a place of purification, wherein souls were purged from all traces of sin.’ Of this belief in a subterranean purgatory there are numerous unmistakable evidences and examples in the Rаbbіnіcаl writings.
“These notions and others the Phаrіsееs early adopted, and wrought into the texture of what they called the ‘Oral Law,’ that body of verbally-transmitted legends, precepts, and dogmas, afterwards written out and collected in the Mіschnа, to which Christ repeatedly alluded with such severity…”
† Röth, Eduard, Die Zoroastrische Glaubenslehre, (1862), p. 450.
‡ See, in Kаbbаlа Denudata, Synopsis Dogmatum Libri Sohаr, Book 1, Part 1, pp. 108, 109, 113.
Excerpt from: ibid., p. 173.
This was aided by the fact that Mani’s writings were originally in Syriac, which was common language in the near East.

A.D. 245: Beginnings of Neo-platonism

Plotinus establishes his school of “Platonic” thought in Rome in 245, resulting in his systematic theology, which has been called Neoplatonism by later historians. This term is used to distinguish it from Plato’s philosophy, from which neoplatonism drew many of its ideas. This ‘newer platonic’ philosophy has deeply influenced gnosticism and judаіsm.29“Plotinus,” Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 3, p. 428.30“Porphyrius,” Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 3, p. 500. Its malign influence can still be seen today.31To Porphyry (q.v.) belongs the credit of having recast and popularized the system of his master Plotinus. He was not an original thinker, but a diligent student, distinguished by great learning, by a turn for historical and philological criticism, and by an earnest purpose to uproot false teaching, especially Christianity…
As he advanced in life, Porphyry protested more and more earnestly against the rude faith of the common people and their immoral worships. His work Against the Christians was directed, not against Christ, nor against what he believed to be Christ’s teaching, but against the Christians of his own day and their sacred books… [I]n his trenchant criticism of the origin of what passed for Christianity in his time, he spoke bitter and severe truths, which have gained for him the reputation of the most rabid and wicked of all the enemies of Christianity…
Porphyry marks the transition to a new phase of Neoplatonism, in which it becomes completely subservient to polytheism, and seeks before everything else to protect the Greek and Oriental religions from the formidable assault of Christianity…
in: “Neoplatonism,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 16, p. 219-220.
It also deeply influenced later “kаbbаlists” and self-described “enlightenment humanists.”32such as Johannes Reuchlin and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola33From ‘Oration on the Dignity of Man’: “If you turn to the Platonists, to mention but a few, you will, in Porphyry, be delighted by the wealth of matter and by his preoccupation with many aspects of religion; in Iamblicus, you will be awed by his knowledge of occult philosophy and the mysteries of the barbarian peoples; in Plotinus, you will find it impossible to single out one thing for admiration, because he is admirable under every aspect.” in: Oration on the Dignity of Man: Translated by A. Robert Caponigri (1956), pp. 45-46.34See also: Pico della Mirandola, Theologia Platonica De immortalitate animorum: duo de viginti libris, pp. 81-82. A key thing to note is that neoplatonism is, in essence, a philosophy that is anti-Christian. This is evidenced, as its founder Porphyry was, as noted by the footnotes in the above paragraph.

A.D. 250: The Decian Persecution

The emperor Decius (died in 251) mandates that everyone throughout the Empire must make pagan ritual sacrifices to the Roman gods.35To the commission in charge of the sacred victims and sacrifices of the town […]
I have always and without interruption sacrificed and poured libations to the gods, and now in your presence in accordance with the decree I have poured a libation, and sacrificed, and partaken of the sacred victims, together with my son […] and my daughter […] I request you certify this for me below. The year one of the [Αὐτοκράτορος]/Emperor Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius Pius Felix Augustus,…
in: Knipfing, John R. “The Libelli of the Decian Persecution.” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 16, no. 4, 1923, pp. 345–390.

A.D. 251: Novatianism

After the end of the Decian Persecution, a large camp of churches decided that any Christians who had bowed to the persecution and made pagan ritual sacrifices should never be permitted to rejoin the churches under any circumstance.36“Novatianus,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 16, p. 571. This movement of churches was initially headed by Novatian, an inhabitant of Rome. Novatian, an influential early church figure, helped to establish mirror churches throughout the empire that maintained this common view, which existed for several centuries before the term ‘Novatianist’ fell into obscurity. However the self-description which they gave themselves of Cathari, meaning pure, would continue to be used in later times.

A.D. 303: The Diocletianic Persecution

Co-emperors Diocletian and Galerius issued a series of edicts targeting all Christians, thus making a universal persecution: The first two prohibited all assemblies, and demanded confiscation of property, and particularly the burning of their Scriptures. Many buildings were also razed. On the basis of professed Christianity, its adherents were instantly deprived of any status of court recognition, which resulted in some becoming re-enslaved.37“Dioclesian or Diocletian,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 7, p. 747.

In the third edict, the imprisoned were given conditional release if they would participate in ritual sacrifices. Harshness varied greatly. Some were burned alive, but others were officially declared to have sacrificed and released without having done anything.38Eusebius, Church History, l. 8, ch. 3. By the time of the fourth edict, enforcement of these laws had ceased in the Western half of the Empire. The overlords in the East in their last edict required a group or collective sacrifice to the Roman gods to be made by each church, with punishments of different severity.

By late 306, Constantine and Maxentius had ended the persecution in the Western half and rewarded property back. In 311, Galerian pronounced the Edict of Serdica (Sofia, Bulgaria) which fully reversed all the persecutions.39ibid., l. 8, ch. 17. Maximinus, however, revived the persecutions in his district of Asia and Egypt until his defeat in 313.40ibid., l. 9, ch. 6.

A.D. 313: Constantinian Shift

Following the Battle of Milvian Bridge, the emperor Constantine enacts the Edict of Milan in 313 which in his view, officially recognizes and tolerates Christianity. By 325, Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea: creating a state-established church (or a state church) for his empire. At first, the Arians41those who deny Christ after the manner of Arius are exiled from the state church and the empire, but later in 335, Constantine reinstates Arius.42“Arius,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 2, p. 359. The order of events later on in Constantine’s rule gradually morphs his initial toleration of Christianity towards just one approved state church doctrine. This doctrine is devised by Constantine and the pro-Constantine faction of bishops. It was set forth under the ruse of being state policy and yet ‘consensus’ as well, with an eye to pursuing unity in the empire, which was a matter of importance to Constantine.

A.D. 313: Donatist Controversy

In many provinces of Caesar’s realm, a controversy arose over some churches not accepting the appointment of church leaders of those who had, formerly, subverted the church in the Persecutions. Donatism, according to its common description, differed from Novatianism, however, by accepting these people as members if they underwent valid baptism, but disqualifying them from leadership positions.431 Timothy 3:1-7 This was not useful for appointing the emperor’s selections for church leaders, so this obviously did not receive favor from Constantine. The Emperor singlehandedly decided against them.44Council of Arles 314. The people of the church should reasonably have sought toleration for their practices by the sovereign ruler, who was the emperor. Nevertheless, the fact they made an appeal to him was later counted against them. Constantine himself did not embark on a crusade against these churches, except for an initial skirmish, when they were attacked and had property forcibly taken from them and given to the state church. He made peace with “the Donatists” in 321. The council of Nicaea then took place in 325. Later Romans would continue to attack these churches through enacting of laws against them.

The “Donatist” churches were so named after the prominent North African bishop Donatus (later exiled in 347), although it was claimed elsewhere to have been started before this by Majorinus.45“Constantine I,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 6, p. 299. Despite the death of Majorinus in 313-315, this faction existed throughout the entire empire. These churches, which were solidly rooted in the Scripture as we noted before, made up a significant number of the so-called “pars Majorini,” or Donatists. In addition to scriptural roots, they also held some historical roots in a council of churches that took place some hundred years earlier at Carthage, around 215, which had been led by Agrippinus.46“Baptists,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 3, p. 250. His policy had been that those who were converted had to join the church by baptism, and he firmly maintained that any other immersions prior to this point were regarded as nothing – not only by reason of invalid mode or an invalid minister, but by the reason that the convert had not been converted at the time of the prior immersion, therefore making it invalid.47“Agrippinus,” Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 1, p. 82. These churches and Agrippinus, therefore, would have been considered “re-baptizers” by those who eventually upheld infant baptism as the standard. Of course, it is not likely that infant baptism or the idea of baptismal regeneration existed as early as 215, because the evidence for it existing this early is lacking. It may be added also, the practice of baptism by immersion48baptism is always by immersion, any word study in Greek will show this as method of entrance into the church, upon confession of faith, and not before this, exists clearly in the New Testament. The evidence for that is presented in this article. So then, it was in the year 313, when the churches were ordered for the first time to accept invalid baptisms by allowing such leaders to be appointed over them by Constantine, that the controversy became unavoidable. By implication, these churches had coexisted peacefully in separation from those which did not practice Biblical baptism prior to this time, as no order had been placed on them to accept such leaders.

One segment of “Donatists” remained politically influential in North Africa, with many churches of other doctrinal beliefs also persisting in the area, but largely agreeing on baptism (against Rome) and thus being collectively labeled by those who favored Rome, as “Donatist,” until the conquest of the Umayyad dynasty around 670. This means that the term Donatist was usually tied to a specific doctrinal position, not to a specific group in Africa. In the later Reformation era, Baptists were once again labeled as Donatists in reference to this divide.49Rursus autem in hac causa, cum neminem ad bonum et ad fidem cogi uolunt, produnt Anabaptistæ suam imperitiam rerum veterum, […] et Donatistis veteribus Anabaptistis per omnia similes sunt. Contra quos ante 1100. annos scriptis pugnavit D Augustinus cuius sententiam in eorum gratiam, qui hæc magna ex parte ignorat. . .” in: Bullinger, Adversus Anabaptistas Libri VI. (1560), p. 181. This initial series of incidents surrounding Emperor Constantine, the Council of Arles in 314, and Majorinus, may therefore also be known as the Catholic controversy or the Baptist controversy. However, this controversy may rightly be seen as a byproduct of the ecclesiastical or state church ordering controversy (which has effects on the policy of baptism), which in turn exists as a result of a greater historical divide over final authority either in Scripture or in traditions.50“Bishop,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia Vol. 3, p. 541. Those who wanted to follow Scripture did not want to have their church leaders appointed over them, and did not want to change baptism away from what it was. Those that instead believed in development of “traditions” apart from Scripture, went along with these changes implemented by Constantine and the pro-Constantine faction. The pro-Constantine faction was comprised of personalities in the state church of Rome, which – after the reign of Theodosius – came to be known as Roman Catholicism.

The Donatists of the city of Carthage, for their part, maintained a separation of church and state in the wider dispute with Rome, which also took political dimensions. To Donatus was attributed the remark “Quid est imperatori cum ecclesia?” or, “What has the emperor to do with the church?”51“Donatists,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 7, p. 525. Following the era of Constantine was the reign of his son Constans, who attempted sometime after the year 343 to induce prominent Donatist leaders to join his cause. When offers of material riches and subversion failed, the legates of Constans— named Macarius and Paul— next turned to violent persecution.52Bright, History of the church from the edict of Milan, A. D. 313, to the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, p. 58. It was in the town of Bagai in Numidia that a clash occurred, but whether the rebel leaders, Donatus of Bagai and Marculus, were killed, or whether they threw themselves upon the rocks— in line with the fanaticism of the Circumcellions at that time— is unclear. It is arguable that their lifeless bodies were thrown over the ledge after they were killed, and were accused afterward of throwing themselves down. In any case, these two were hailed as martyrs in the aftermath of the battle, and the legate Macarius, by carrying out the will of Constans and of his accomplices, was widely denounced as an imperial puppet and “prophet of antichrist,” and as a malign persecutor who was sent by Emperor Constans to corrupt the nonconformist church which observed Scripture, and the old ways, uncorrupted. To view that account, please see appendix A (linked) of this article.

A.D. 325: Arian Controversy

The political battle to be recognized by the emperor for state church authority, continues past Constantine’s personal appointment Arius to official state priesthood in 335.

Arius was a prominent figure who taught that the Son of God is a lesser, created entity, and not of the same essence as God the Father. Evidence suggests that many passages of scripture were altered by the Arian faction around this time, including 1 John 5:7.53Ariani abstulerant ex evangelio Joh. 4. Spiritus est Deus, sed indicavit et notavit Ambrosius lib. 3. de Spiritu s. c. 11. et nostri codices Graeci omnes hoc testimonium habent. Dictum 1. Joh. 5, v. 7: Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo etc. Ariani ex quibusdam codicibus abstulerunt, sed piorum ecclesiae doctorum vigilans industria illud restituit, ut in disp. priore de hoc dicto habita ostendimus. 5. Consequens absurditas. Si textus Graecus in N. T. corruptus esset, non amplius purum et incorruptum haberemus primum et summum fidei Christianae principium, cum a rivulis non possit major puritas sperari, quam a fontibus; frustraneum esset studium, quod fontium cognitioni impenditur; divina providentia in quodam necessario ecclesiae suae defuisset etc. quae cum sint absurda, ideo etiam absurdum illud, ex quo talia consequuntur.” Johann Gerhard, Loci Theologici, vol. 1, ch. 16, p. 152.54Potius ergo corrupti Codices illi sunt, in quibus versus ille expunctus est, quod etiam Hieronymus ‘Prologo in Epist. Canon.’ observat, questus videlicet, ‘ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse in fidei veritate, Patris, Verbi ac Spiritus testimonium omittentibus,’ quod proin in Codicibus emendatioribus ille invenerit oportet.” Johann Heinrich Heidegger, Corpus theologiae Christianae, vol. 1, ch. 4, article 33, p. 118. Particularly, emperor Constantius II went to great lengths to promote the dominance of his favored Arian bishops, such as at the Council of Ariminum in 359, in which the Roman state-approved bishops all (wrongly) recognized Arian doctrine as the orthodox state church doctrine for the Roman church.55See Council of Ariminum, article 1: “Credimus in unigenitum Dei Filium, qui ante omnia saecula et ante omne principium natus est ex Deo, natum autem unigenitum solum ex solo Patre, Deum ex Deo, similem genitori sui patri secundum scripturas, cujus nativitatem nullus novit nisi qui solus eum genuit pater.

The pattern of Emperors reinstating Trinitarians and subsequently Arians continues, until Theodosius. In the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, he declares by his authority the 325 Council to be one state-approved official religion.56Imperatoris Theodosii codex, Book 16, Title 1.2. After the year 380, the Arians are commonly presumed to have lost their place in the seats of power at Rome.

The newly created offices of the state bishop, head-bishop, or archbishop take on more political significance, starting in 313, as offices of imperial favor. These positions are given out by the governing Caesar to favored officers and lieutenants, and not elected by members. Churches observed by these rulers as not adapting to accept this state policy begin to be deprived of various privileges and rights at various times, momentarily favoring the politically-favored state church/state churches, whether Arian or otherwise. Sacerdotalism is a teaching seen as politically advantageous by the rulers after Constantine which becomes widely adopted, and synonymous with the state church.57“Bishop,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia Vol. 3, p. 542.58“Constantine I,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 6, p. 299. The reverse teaching to this is “priesthood of the believer.”

c. A.D. 350: Gothic Bible translated

The agent Ulfilas writes a Bible translation into the local language, and an alphabet, for the barbarian Goths.59See: Codex Argenteus. He uses this to preach Arianism to the Gothic tribes on the north of the Danube, with official state charter of the Roman state church, under Constantius II.60Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, l. 4, ch. 33.

The raiding Goths would later take a part in the migration period during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, spreading Arianism into Hispania (Visigoths) and Italy (Ostrogoths) and establishing rival Arian state churches in these places.61“Arianism,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 2, p. 329.

Due to the fact that the Arians did not baptize with the formula as given in Matthew 28, trinitarians regarded their baptism as not valid, and regularly baptized converts from Arianism into their churches.62“Baptists,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 3, p. 250. Also, churches widely regarded as “Donatists” did not regard baptism performed on the unregenerate, or administered by those unqualified, and they regularly baptized converts into their churches.

c. A.D. 395: Christian College founded in Wales

Sometime during the reign of Theodosius, a college devoted to Biblical studies was founded in Wales, near Llantwit Major. It is known as Cor Tewdws, a name given retrospectively from the era of Theodosius.63“Lantwit-Major,” Topographical Dictionary of Wales, Vol. 2, p. 4. Despite being ransacked some fifty years after this, the college was rebuilt in the sixth century and flourished for many centuries during Wales’ existence, as it was for a long time separate from rule of foreign powers. It was surpassed by the English academies of late and became defunct at the dissolution of the monasteries.64“Lantwit-Major,” Topographical Dictionary of Wales, Vol. 2, p. 5.65Most land revenue was transferred in 1092, see: “Tewkesbury,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 21, p. 990.66“Fitzhamon, Robert (d. 1107),” Dictionary of the National Biography (1885-1900), Vol. 19, p. 161. The national sovereignty of Wales was also separate from the nearby Anglo-Saxons and England until 1283. Wales had a separate order of churches, unassociated to that of England, during this time.67see: A.D. 603 below.

A.D. 405: The Catholic Persecutions

At the death of Theodosius and the reign of his weak son Honorius as Caesar of the West in A.D. 395, the state church faction began exerting a greater control over laws and imperial matters. On February 12, 405, non-conforming churches, those which were sometimes called “Donatist” and peacefully continued in non-acceptance of the state church’s baptism, were attacked, beginning with the official edict68Imperatoris Theodosii codex,
Book 16, Title 6.4.2.
in Imperatoris Theodosii, which decreed that any persons which they considered to be “rebaptizandi” should suffer loss of all property, and extending also for their children, unless their children recanted.

However, this law was— seemingly— not sufficiently far enough, because on March 21, 413, a further law was decreed by the same legislator,69Imperatoris Theodosii,
Book 16, Title 6.6.
which increased the severity of the penalty to death for both the baptized person and the minister, who were both deemed “rebaptizandi.” Thus, individual baptist churches would be expressly included as outlawed by this law, along with the Novatians70named in ibid., Book 16, Title 6.6.1. and Donatists71named in ibid., Book 16, Title 6.5., who were expressly named in separate titles under this law. This order of events seems to suggest that the first law was viewed as not effective enough in its time, likely because those churches continued on despite these laws, so that they decided to make a more severe penalty by raising the punishment to death in 413.

However, the true extent of the enforcement of this law was likely not everywhere. This is because the reign of Honorius also marked the start soon after of Caesar’s power crumbling in the West. Enforcement of this law would have required resources that were not available at that time. In the year 414, all of the Roman legions had to be withdrawn from Britain to contain rebellions on the continent. The Rescript of Honorius released the land and people of Britain at this time, leaving them to their own defense.72Zosimus, Historia Nova, l. VI, ¶. 10

c. A.D. 415: Pelagianism

Following an open controversy caused by Pelagius, at Diospolis (near Lod, Isrаеl) in the year 415, a round of preachers began to openly teach his newfound Pelagian doctrine across Europe.73“Pelagius,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 13, p.448.

Pelagius was educated in Britain before taking these teachings to the continent, in which he claimed that man was capable of choosing good or evil of his own will and volition. That is, man makes himself a good creature, without grace provided by God, and is supposed to do this. The teaching equates to a works gospel. The state churches, while condemnatory, were not capable of preventing this until the wave of Pelagian preachers finally died out around 455.74“Julianus Eclanensis,” Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 2, p. 643.

A.D. 482: The Arian Persecution

An intense period of sustained persecution befell those in Africa who confessed the divinity of Christ.

In 429, the Roman Bonifacius allowed the Vandal chief, Genseric, to cross into Africa. Bonifacius— who, since 413, was the official responsible for enforcing the Catholic persecutions in Africa— had, despite the close advisement of Augustine of Hippo against the matter, converted to Arianism sometime before 424.75“Bonifacius,” Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Vol. 1, p. 500.

Bonifacius had taken in a number of Arian concubines, and at some point he was temporarily misled into believing that he had a quarrel with the establishment in Rome, so had allowed the Vandal troops (also Arians) to ferry across. They immediately overwhelmed the undermanned provincial areas and secured the large fleets of ships kept there. They would proceed to capture Sicily and other isles with these ships, and conduct a sack of Rome. This was the most dogmatical Arian regime that Africa had ever seen, owing to their desire for religious unity, especially among the victorious upper class,— and so, little space was given for any Trinitarianism. For instance, four loyal servants of Genseric, Spaniards, were nevertheless tortured and put to death for later rejecting Arianism.76“Genseric,” Dictionary of Christian biography and literature to the end of the sixth century A.D., p. 385. Thus, they chose to reject religious unity with their sovereign, although they had been loyal.

However, the persecution became universal in the kingdom under the reign of that sovereign’s son, Hunneric. While content with a situation of mutual tolerance for the first five years of his reign (477-481), Hunneric perceived the winds of politics shifting quickly. Suddenly, the Catholics and other Trinitarians were no longer favorable to him. Thus, any churches he found that did not conform to Arianism were scattered and destroyed, its members exiled into the Saharan deserts or to cut timber in Corsica.77“Hunneric,” Dictionary of Christian biography and literature to the end of the sixth century A.D., pp. 502-503.

The Catholic state church in north Africa, as previously discussed starting in 405, had engaged in 25 years of assassinations against non-conforming churches there.78Imperatoris Theodosii, Book 16, Title 6.6.79Item: That the agitations of the Donatists about baptism be attacked, as Paul [in] Acts 23, by military force.” Sebastian Franck, Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtbibel, p. 324. From 413 until 429 in Africa, rebellion from the authorities in Rome by baptizing separately from them was even punished by death sentences. Now, under the Arian regime, openly professing the divinity of Christ was considered treasonable by that king. In fact, during the intensification of this persecution, the laws that were passed in A.D. 413 against the “rebaptizandi” were now extended by Hunneric80…after reciting the penalties imposed on the Donatists in 412 and 414 by edicts of Honorius, enacting that the Catholics should be subject to the same penalties and disabilities.” in: Dictionary of Christian biography and literature to the end of the sixth century A.D., “Hunneric,” p. 503. to all who remained opposed the Arian state church. These were none other than the same persecutions enacted by Rome which Augustine of Hippo had formerly argued were just to be employed against non-conforming churches. See appendix B.

The most remembered moment of this period was the imposition of an Arian bishop on the port town of Typasa, which happened sometime between 483 which was the height of the persecution, and Hunneric’s death in 484. This bishop tried first by persuasion and then by threats to urge the church there into unity under his leadership. Finally, he sent an accusation against them to the king, who ordered that their tongues and right hands should be publically maimed, which was done. After the persecution was over these persons were still able clearly to frame their words that “Jesus is Lord,” thus testifying to His divinity. This was verified by many witnesses of that time.

A.D. 529: Justinian’s law codices

With approval from the Eastern Emperor Zeno, the Arian-led Ostrogothic army conquers Italy in 493.81“Italy,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 12, p. 334. After a “night of the long knives,” Theoderic kills off his rival Odoacer and rules over Italy and nearby regions for 33 years. Similarly the Visigoths, also Arians, drive out the Romans from the Iberian peninsula, and the Franks, who were ruled by Chalcedonians— so named after an A.D. 451 council— invade the vast areas of Soissons and Alemannia.82“France,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 9, p. 543. By the year 500, all of Western Europe had fallen outside of Roman control.83“Burgundy,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 5, p. 110.84“Spain,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 17, p. 316.

This situation was somewhat reversed for a time by the reign of Justinian in the Eastern Roman empire. Shortly before his conquest of western lands, this Emperor had written in his law code, in the year 529, a copy of the law, passed by Honorius from 116 years earlier.85cf. Codex Justinianus, 1.6.2. This law declared the death penalty for baptism outside of the state church. He would attempt to reimpose the Roman law in Italy, wherever he could. Book 1, Title 6 was in fact a special section on its own, reserved only to condemn what it called “rebaptizandi.” In the entire law code, this was the only statute that made a profession of belief in itself a capital crime, other than to separately condemn Arianism.86in: Codex Justinianus, 1.5.8.5. This suggests that, according to Justinian, he perceived that there was still rebaptizandi in some places in A.D. 529, when the law code was written.

Judаіsm and other beliefs conformable to the state church meanwhile were tolerated.87Codex Justinianus, 1.9.8.

Justinian, with his general Belisarius, re-conquered Italy, North Africa and intervening lands in the period 533-562.88“Italy,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 12, p. 334. How much time the Romans had to actually impose their new laws is another question. In the year 568, the Lombards had migrated southward into Italy to control the greater part of the war-torn area. The eastern Romans, who were culturally Greek, lost control once again, although they held on to Rome itself (Exarchate Ravenna).89ibid., p. 335. The Plague of Justinian also took a vicious toll during this time, as more than 10%, possibly 20% of the world population died. Thus the new Roman law was yet not firmly established in much of Italy, especially in the North.

With regard to the Vaudois in the far north of Italy, who were mentioned earlier as possessing early Latin translations of the Scripture: the Franks victoriously took control of what became Swiss and Savoyard regions,90“Burgundy,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 5, p. 110. while the Lombards took control over the neighboring Aosta Valley region and Turin. These were two “barbarian” kingdoms. The Romans therefore never firmly controlled the area to impose this law against re-baptism again.

A.D. 603: Canterbury excommunication

Augustine of Canterbury, an archbishop who had recently established his office inside England in the year 597, attempts to impose various measures on the churches in Wales. However, the leaderships of these churches strongly refused to recognize or associate with him at all. The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms at this time had no means to enforce a uniformity with these older churches, which were located in an area of what was formerly Roman Britain which they had not already conquered, bordering to the West of their domain. However, the delegation of 1200 Christians was killed. This instance is related in the Latin chronicle, Flores Historiarum, among others. See appendix C for the account of this.

*As can be seen in the records, these populations also sent some of their people to the continent in Armorica (modern Brittany) and Gallaecia (modern Galicia).91“Brittany,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 4, p. 204.92SYNODUS BRACCARENSIS SECUNDA, signatures.

A.D. 692: Latin Bibles made in Britain

The oldest surviving complete Bible in Latin was commissioned in northern England (kingdom of Northumbria) by Ceolfrid of Jarrow, also around the same time and place as the historian Bede lived.93“Jarrow,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 12, p. 968. This Bible, however, follows the Vulgate mold, not the Vetus Latina,94see: A.D. 157 above. and has in fact been used as the primary source in reconstructing Jerome’s original. It survives because one of the three copies was misplaced on its way to Rome in 716. This copy, Codex Amiatinus, found its way instead to Mount Amiata in Tuscany at Abbazia di San Salvatore, where it was located in 1036.

This version of the Bible is of interest because it is possible one of the other copies95British Library Add MS. 45025 Bible fragment from the Book of Kings (‘the Ceolfrith or Ceolfrid Bible’) eventually found its way to the Synod of Chelsea in 787, when the Anglian king Offa of Mercia created the archdiocese of Lichfield in the north. He did this as a way to diminish the influence of Canterbury, and to elevate his own loyal officer, Hygeberht, to the rank of archbishop in order to perform a ceremony. It is likely the sitting archbishop in Canterbury, being controlled by a rival king, refused. But Rome went along with Offa’s decision.96Chase, Two Alcuin Letter-books, p. 188. Hygeberht was then used to consecrate Offa’s son Ecgfrith as the royal heir.97“Offa (d. 796),” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 16, p. 711. This occurred with a ceremony— involving likely this Bible, and likely at Brixworth Abbey.98existed A.D. 675 not far from the capital of Tamworth However, Mercian King Ecgfrith ultimately only reigned for a mere 141 days, being taken by a sudden illness. Only a few pages from Chronicles survive of the copy that remained in Britain. This would make a very ancient example of the ceremonial use of Bibles for vows and oaths in the English part of Britain. However, later Bibles, such as the Wessex Gospels, would be written in common vernacular, not Latin, and sourced from the received text, of the original Greek gospels.99see: c. A.D. 990 below.

Offa is also the king who built the still-standing Offa’s dyke, a landmark which, at one time, divided England and Wales.100“Wales, history,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 23, p. 295.

A.D. 732: Battle of Tours

A battle was fought between the invading Umayyad army and the forces of Frankish ruler, Charles Martel. Victory in battle went to the Franks, and the tide was turned against the muslim armies in Western Europe.101“France, history,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 9, p. 543. East of Vienna – toward the Balkans and Asia, these would remain a threat. They would also initiate a piratical reign of terror in the sea as well until the response of Norman, Pisan and Venetian (as well as other) naval powers in defense— the practice of islamic piracy did not fully end until the 19th century.102“Roger I,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 19, p. 381. 103“Naples,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 14, p. 167.104“Pisa, History,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 17, p. 954.105“Turkey, history,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 18, p. 113.106“Barbary,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 3, p. 257.107“Barbary Pirates,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 3, p. 96.

A.D. 785: First Saxon Capitulary

The Frankish king Charles I108Charlemagne enacts a set of 34 laws in response to his forces’ successful expansion into the non-Christian Saxony. The 19th of these laws mandates that all infants must be baptised within a certain time on penalty of severe fine.109Likewise, it has been pleasing to insert in these decrees that all infants shall be baptized within a year; and we have decreed this, that if any one shall have despised to bring his infant to baptism within the course of a year, without the advice or permission of the priest, if he is a noble he shall pay 120 solidi to the treasury, if a freeman 60, if a litus 30.
in Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae. (A.D. 785)
The ostensible purpose of this law is to convert the Saxons, and while it demonstrates one aspect of state enforcement of paedobaptism, it is also true that this law would place baptistic churches throughout the realm under persecution. This is because if an infant were baptised under fear of this law, to avoid the penalty, but in later years of maturity, elected for a Biblical mode of baptism to join a church, they would be prohibited by the state church perception that this is a rebaptism. This law effectively brought back official persecution of the churches for as long as it was enforced.110cf.: SYNODUS BRACCARENSIS SECUNDA, article 1.

A.D. 793: Lindisfarne attacked

The first recorded Viking raid happened on a small island near the coast of Britain, initiating a long period of instability.111“Holy Island,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 11, p. 89.

Full-scale invasions and settlements by the pagan Norse raiders begin, and soon Orkney, Mann and the Hebrides become active settlements.112“Viking,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 23, p. 148.113“Scotland, Ecclesiastical state,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 16, p. 730. The death of Charlemagne’s son in 840 fractures the empire into opposing parts, increasing the occasion for raiders.114“France, history,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 9, p. 544. In Britain, Beorhtwulf takes control of Mercia, again disuniting the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. By 850 the Norsemen had also taken complete control of Frisia and Holland, and had constructed large coastal towns in Ireland, marking its first invasion. After this came the invasion of England by the Great Heathen Army, led by Ivar the Boneless in 865, supposedly in revenge for the execution of Ragnar Lodbrok.115“Viking,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 23, p. 149.

A parallel realm known as the Danelaw existed in Britain: After 878 and the Battle of Edington, this area too was overseen by a Christian ruler.116“Alfred the Great,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 1, p. 588. Around this time, the English king Alfred the Great117Ælfred ordered translations from selections in the Old and New Testament, which are now presumed lost.118ibid., p. 590.119“Ælfred (849-901),” Dictionary of the National Biography (1885-1900), Vol. 1, pp. 158, 161. He also encouraged the study of the scriptures in Anglo-Saxon, as opposed to Latin. Separately, around A.D. 911 the Norse leader Rollo negotiated his position to rule (upon his conversion) in what is now called Normandy.120“Normandy, History,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 16, p. 493. Norsemen forces also occupied Brittany for a time after 919. These would later become known instead as Normans. Starting with Ælfred, England and later Britain would go through a succession of monarchs of different Christian backgrounds, including from those of the French-speaking Normans in 1066.121“England, history,” Edinburgh Encyclopædia, Vol. 8, p. 599. Meanwhile Charlemagne’s empire would dissolve into the earliest precursor kingdoms of France, Germany, Italy and Burgundy. The area of the Vaudois remained on the Alps near these borders, in a remote corner of Italy. From the death of (Emperor) Frederick II, the County of Savoy would take hold in that area, with Upper Burgundy, and later, the Old Swiss Confederacy taking hold immediately to the north after 1536.122“Savoy, house of,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 20, p. 24.123“Vaud,” Encyclopædia Britannica 14th ed. (1929), Vol. 23, p. 13.

c. A.D. 990: Wessex Gospels translated

A translation of the four Gospels from the original Greek into Old English is commissioned during the reign of supreme Anglo-Saxon king, Æthelred the Unready.124Thorpe, The Anglo-Saxon Version of the Holy Gospels edited from the original manuscripts.125Online Version readable here. This translation features the full passages of Mark 16:9-20, of Luke 17:36 and of John 7:53-8:11. It also includes the original Greek reading of both Matthew 6:11 and John 3:5, as opposed to the Vulgate variations. It is conjecture, but nevertheless a fascinating one to offer at this point that the college in Wales had supplied this source. The existence of some source, though, is beyond doubt.

The source could not have been the Vulgate because it does not contain the Vulgate’s alterations but it follows the original Greek text, in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Also produced around this time was the Junius Manuscript, which contains within it the much older “Genesis A” fragment, written in very early Anglo-Saxon.126Bodleian Library MS. Junius 11. Genesis A, as it is called, is a paraphrase of the first 22 chapters of Genesis (though fragments are missing today) which shows an awareness of other Biblical passages in respect to this. This commentary, written in an Old Saxon dialect, suggests that these ancient writers, centuries even before the Wessex Gospels, were aware of said Old Testament and New Testament passages, and the connections between them, as well as the book of Genesis.127Lawrence Mason, Ph.D. (1915), Genesis A Translated from the Old English.

Link: For Part two of this Outline

  
Appendix A

The following is written in, “Passio benedicti martyris Marculi”:

[based on the translation of Tilley, 1996]
Ҥ Here begins the Passion of the blessed Marculus which took place three days before the Kalends of December. (Nov. 29, AD 347)

“§ Vicious rumblings of the Macarian persecution thundered forth from the tyrannical home of king Constans and from the pinnacle of his palace. Two beasts were sent to Africa, viz., the same Macarius and Paul. In short, an accursed and detestable war was declared against the Church, so that the Christian people would be forced into unity with the traitors, a unity effected by the unsheathed swords of soldiers, by signals given by the standard bearers and by the shouts of crowds. But while Macarius, the more fearsome of the two beasts, had for a long time carried on this bloody business in the rest of the provinces in an underhanded way, however, in Numidia, he made public charges against the renowned Marculus of barbarous cruelty and unheard of ferocity.”

[According to the account following, Marculus was one of a group of ten chosen pastors who were sent specifically to meet with Macarius in hopes of resolving a peaceful solution, or if necessary, to serve as the first to fall in resistance – to risk their own captivity if necessary before that of others. Marculus had given up a secular study of law, according to this account, to become what they call a summus pontifex.128Not the same as pontifex maximus which means greatest priest in the Roman tradition. The word summus or summa would mean comprehensive or learned, possibly in reference to him being a pastor or bishop of a church. This would be given since pontifex by itself would refer to all believers, under the concept of priesthood of the believers; see Rev. 1:5-6, also 1 Peter 2:9 comp. Exodus 19:6. Similarly, the term summa cum laude which is used today means “with highest praise.”]

Ҥ But truly, as soon as the enemy had devised an exquisite and grim form of death, it immediately led him with them under a strict guard of soldiers to the citadel of Nova Petra which is situated near the precipice of a steep mountain by the same name.

“§ Then, because the rest were afraid, one of the number of those soldiers, the most repulsive executioner, he who alone had been prepared by the devil to bring about the death of this distinguished man, anticipated the deed in his speech. He began to explain the martyrdom, in detail to all who listened. He himself had seen it in some sort of dream. ‘When I was being held by the quiet of night, suddenly I saw you appearing to me as if you were tied with rough bonds and utterly weighed down by heavy ropes. Then I untied the ropes with my own hand. Because of this, hope for mercy and for a pardon to be followed by your release.’

“It was not an absurd dream, an incongruous vision, which the executioner saw. Not without cause did he repeat what he had seen. But he followed the example of the impious Caiaphas who when he was about to kill the Lord, prophesied about his passion.129John 18:14 Rightly now had he seen the martyr tied up. So not without some logic had the executioner dreamt that he had untied him.

“By those cruel hands Marculus had to be separated from his body with the help of death. When we are freed from this world and hurry to the Lord, we are released from heavy bonds. The Apostle demonstrates this when he says: ‘It seems much better to be released and to be with Christ.130Phil. 1:23 For by similar reasoning the most just Simeon pointed this out, aroused by the certainty of his approaching death. He rejoiced that he would be able to escape the troubles of this world. He said: ‘Now, O Lord, you dismiss your servant in peace, for my eyes have seen your salvation.131Luke 2:29-30

“§ Then no delay, no span of time came to pass before the most cruel executioner attacked as in a predawn robbery, to bring to pass what he had already seen. Immediately turning hostile, he urged that the witness of God be brought forth from custody and be led to the rugged heights of the natural rock, a precipice of rough stone. The bloodthirsty and barbaric exactor of profane ‘unity,’ and the cruelty of the traditors accursed for all ages, chose this harsh mode of death. The glorious Marculus left the building surrounded by a squad of guards and a division of soldiers, honored even by his persecutors. He left resolute in the constancy of his Christian virtue, leaving behind the dwellingplace of humanity, hurrying on to the abode of angels. He left joyful in appearance, accelerating his pace, thinking not so much of the present punishment as of future glory. He was led along the road to the sacrifice which had been prepared for him. Banks of earth were built up on both sides, piles of stone rising little by little. He arrived at the summit notorious for his passion. The very nature of the mountain made itself useful, so that first treading the lower slopes of the hill, then the lofty heights, as if he were mounting up to the top by some sort of steps, he approached heaven and the stars in his body itself.

“When he had ascended to the very summit of the rock, all the soldiers pulled back, some from fear, some from distress, and they kept their distance from the singularity of the crime. Even if they were present with a guilty fear, they did not want to be involved in the deed.

“§ Then the savage executioner with a double dose of cruelty, there on the precipice, armed with a sword, wielded a double death with his hands. He hurled the martyr downward with his cruel right arm. He believed he had thrown into the dark depths the man to whom belonged the heights of heaven. In fact, once the solidity of the earth was removed, Marculus’ body, descending from on high to the depths, was borne through the empty expanse of air. The moderation of his speed was managed from on high so that his limbs, exempt from all adversities, might be placed atop the harshness of the rocks as if on the softest bed or the calmest waves. Then his victorious soul, by its natural progress, sought heaven more swiftly than his body had descended to earth; so with his own passion completed, both entities should be returned to the ancient sources of their origin by the hands of the omnipotent God, who always kindly cared for the martyr. He ordered that his spirit should be placed in its eternal dwelling place by the assistance of the angels and that his intact body, encircled by caressing breezes, supported by gently assisting winds, should be laid at the center of the base of the rocks.

“§ The exquisite schemes of the persecutors and the evil counsels of the traitors were brought into disarray by the help of Christ. They had planned on such a punishment as this so that the memory of the martyr might never be honored by the people of God in their testimony. For they erroneously thought that the body might be mangled on the precipice, that it might be torn by the sharp-edged rocks, so that the one deprived of life might not even have need for burial. They thought that nothing could even arrive at the ground which the pious fraternity might collect and bury, since each of the limbs might be held in the recesses of the high mountain or the entire body might be swallowed up all at once in some cleft in the fissures of the rocks or in the fractured recesses of the cliffs. But look! The hard stones and rough rocks spared his consecrated limbs. The mountains feared to harm the man whom the traitors did not fear to slay. Except for those people, every creature adores its Creator and in this respect the mountains could not lack the capacity to deserve God’s favor. Scripture even gives them a voice for his praise.132Ps. 96:11-12, Ps. 148:9

Ҥ Meanwhile, the fact that the glorious Marculus had achieved blessed victory in his struggle was concealed within the individual recollections of the soldiers. So in the silence of the night they brought the crime to its conclusion so secretly that not even in the fortress in which he was guarded could outsiders or the brethren have known about it, had not divine help and heavenly signs disclosed what had happened. For as soon as entry of the dawning of the day poured into the pale light of the orb of the night, and the dissimilarity of the dark and the light changed the variously colored face of heaven, immediately a magnificent cloud appeared at the center of the base of the mountain. While lightning flashed, the cloud bore witness concerning the body of the martyr with its caressing light. That cloud, heavy with morning dew, failed to throw any shadow, like a dark cover, on the vividly colored hills, but all aglow it wrapped his auspicious limbs with a bright fleecy cover. While human ceremonies might have been omitted at that time, in a way the cloud seemed to take the place of a shroud. Meanwhile, the cloud was occasionally pierced by bright lightning and it glimmered through the winding clefts so that by wondrous mighty feats it might alert the ignorant about his passion, or, because the darkness of the night still hung over the area, it might show those who were piously searching a way to find the body.

Ҥ Therefore, the excitement of the association of believers flamed bright, kindled by these admirable works of God, and suddenly the entire area resounded with a ringing shout, and they declared to each other their common commitments in their pious scurrying to and fro. People of both sexes equally and of every age left their homes in a hurry and flew to the mountain and the cloud in their longing for the martyr. Neither the impairment of old age nor the weakness of youth nor the fragility of sex could hold back any soul from the place. The ardor of their common faith set them all aflame. As the scurrying throng had come to those places which lay beneath the precipice, their common purpose in running had brought them together into one crowd; then their concern for finding the body dispersed them over the whole mountain. There you could see the duties of piety divided up among the people. Some with impulsive hands explored the briar patch with its rough stalks; others cast their eyes as witnesses into the crooked crevices in the gaping rocks; still others went back over the rocks they had already looked behind with their anxious eyes, lest their haste make fools of them. In the end, because their search could not be successful without the Lord, lightning was sent to that place to reveal the location which they were all seeking. The radiance of the cloud served as an indicator to point out the body longed for by the brethren. On that spot, what weeping mixed with all their joy! What embraces round his distinguished limbs! At last, when with difficulty they were all satisfied, funeral rites were celebrated with great joy by the brethren and the honor of a religious burial was restored with the greatest jubliation. For the glory of his name, the Lord revealed everything that the enemy had tried to conceal.

“§ O the memorable and extraordinary martyrdom of blessed Marculus! O the example of unshaken virtue so eagerly sought by all the devout! O the exemplar necessary for all the ranks of the clergy, by which he came to the palm, the reward of his praiseworthy life. He renounced the world in his catechumenate, showing himself worthy of the priesthood as a neophyte. In his priesthood the office of martyrdom was honored; in his martyrdom a testimony to the power of the Divine. To whom be honor and glory and power forever and ever. Amen.”

Return to entry A.D. 313

  
Appendix B

An examination and reply to the Letter of Augustine, dated A.D. 408,
titled, “To Vincentius, my brother dearly beloved, Augustine sends greeting.

In 408, the prominent theological writer Augustine of Hippo wrote a short apologetic, written out in the form of a letter, to explain the actions of the early state church of Rome, regarding its persecutions, which began at least three years prior to the writing of this letter. I will provide excerpts and some comments in the form of a potential response under each section where appropriate.

Augustine133(c. 354-430), if this letter is genuine and authentic. If not, then we refer to the real writer. wrote (blue text):

§1. “I have received a letter which I believe to be from you to me: at least I have not thought this incredible, for the person who brought it is one whom I know to be a Catholic Christian, and who, I think, would not dare to impose upon me. But even though the letter may perchance not be from you, I have considered it necessary to write a reply to the author, whoever he may be. You know me now to be more desirous of rest, and earnest in seeking it, than when you knew me in my earlier years at Carthage, in the lifetime of your immediate predecessor Rogatus. But we are precluded from this rest by the Donatists, the repression and correction of whom, by the powers which are ordained of God, appears to me to be labour not in vain. . .”

§2. “If we were to overlook and forbear with those cruel enemies […] as that nothing at all should be contrived and done by us with a view to alarm and correct them,134[emphasis mine] truly we would be rendering evil for evil. For if any one saw his enemy running headlong to destroy himself when he had become delirious through a dangerous fever, would he not in that case be much more truly rendering evil for evil if he permitted him to run on thus, than if he took measures to have him seized and bound?”

Response (white text):
Scripture tells us, “But them that are without God judgeth.1351 Cor. 5:13 A church is comprised only of voluntary members. Those who do not join of their own accord are not part of the church, so “alarming and correcting” others by using force against them is not the right of the church, but of God only.

§4 “Not every one who is indulgent is a friend; nor is every one an enemy who smites. Better are the wounds of a friend than the proffered kisses of an enemy.”

Rendering evil for evil, destroying violently what another has built up, or inflicting torment upon the body, is not the “wound of a friend.” Those not in the church, whom we are called to be separate from (cf 2 Corinthians 6:14-17), will be judged by God. Furthermore, many prayers and intreatments to turn from evil, the rebuke of wisdom, are the wounds of a friend (Proverbs 27:6); not killings, inquisition and persecution. As it is written, rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.136Prov. 9:8

§5 “You are of opinion that no one should be compelled to follow righteousness; and yet you read that the householder said to his servants, ‘Whomsoever ye shall find, compel them to come in. . .’137Luke 14:23138In another letter, being told that some Christians were known to say “Man is at liberty to believe or not believe. Towards whom did Christ use violence? Whom did He compel?”, this writer in that other letter also cited Acts 9:1-18, comparing the employment of forced conversions by the sword, to Christ “striking Paul” on the road to Damascus. (See letter 185 of Augustine to Count Boniface, paragraph 22.) This is another fallacy not worthy of further response.

§6 “ ‘…But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now;’ whence those who have understanding may perceive that it is rather the Catholic Church which suffers persecution through the pride and impiety of those carnal men whom it endeavours to correct by afflictions and terrors of a temporal kind. Whatever therefore the true and rightful Mother does, even when something severe and bitter is felt by her children at her hands, she is not rendering evil for evil, but is applying the benefit of discipline to counteract the evil of sin, not with the hatred which seeks to harm, but with the love which seeks to heal.”

In this we find that those who the writer, at one point, claims to be the Mother’s “children” who are being “disciplined,” according to him, he also says of the same that they need to be “compelled to come in,” which seems to imply as though they were not in. Someone cannot both be inside and outside of the church at the same time. So both analogies cannot work together, and they are individually faulty.

In response to this, if we keep in mind that the kings of the earth fall under the authority of the higher powers, as mentioned in the epistle to the Romans chapter 13,139And according to Eccles. 5:8, there are higher powers than they, namely the Lord God then we will see, that the state and the church are separate entities. As one passage applies to one, other passages apply to the other, and these entities need not to be confused. In Acts 2:47,140And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” — Acts 2:47 it is written that such as should be saved were added to the church. And not all. This contradicts the concept of a coercive militant church which afflicts and terrorizes the unwilling, through force of arms – into joining it.

§9 “You say that no example is found in the writings of the evangelists and apostles, of any petition presented on behalf of the Church to the kings of the earth against her enemies. Who denies this? None such is found. But at that time of prophecy, ‘Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth: serve the Lord with fear,’141Psalm 2:10-11 was not yet fulfilled. . .
In the age of the apostles and martyrs, it was fulfilled which was prefigured when the aforesaid king [Nebuchadnezzar] compelled pious and just men to bow down to his image, and cast into the flames all who refused. Now, however, is fulfilled that which was prefigured soon after in the same king. The earlier time of that king represented the former age of the emperors who did not believe in Christ, at whose hands the Christians suffered because of the wicked; but the later time of that king [of Babylon] represented the age of the successors to the imperial throne, now believing in Christ, at whose hands the wicked suffer because of the Christians.

Does the above sound right? Later in this letter, this writer claims that the times of the end have not yet begun. He uses this as the basis for another argument. But as we see in this place, in the very same letter, contradicting his other claim, the writer of the letter says that the things prefiguring ‘the times of the end’ have been fulfilled, and uses this as an argument.

But regardless of this inaccuracy, we notice this statement: ‘There is no example found of any petitions on behalf of the church to the kings of the earth against her enemies.’ Exactly! This is an important concession by the writer and it represents the central part of why the ‘state church’ is not Biblical. Since there is no Biblical example of it, every church who wants to follow the Biblical example of the church cannot resort to it. Biblically, churches cannot resort to using kings of the earth to persecute, kill or harm their enemies. Even the writer of this letter agrees that there is no Biblical example of this.

The interesting, but not satisfactorily explained application of prophecy from Daniel here does not detract from the above plainly-admitted fact. We do recognize however that the state-church is a type of Babylon, so it is of some interest that The writer himself in the blue text above just nonchalantly links Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon to the state church, and acted as if it was a good thing. (!)

§14 “The Emperor, as you know, in that case decreed for the first time that the property of those who were convicted of schism and obstinately resisted the unity of the Church should be confiscated.142This is the A.D. 405 law If, however, the issue had been that your predecessors who brought the accusations had gained their case, and the Emperor had made some such decree against the communion to which Caecilianus belonged, you would have wished the emperors to be called the friends of the Church’s interests, and the guardians of her peace and unity. But when such things are decreed by emperors against the parties who, having of their own accord brought forward accusations, were unable to substantiate them, and who, when a welcome back to the bosom of peace was offered to them on condition of their amendment, refused the terms, an outcry is raised that this is an unworthy wrong, and it is maintained that no one ought to be coerced to unity, and that evil should not be requited to evil to any one. What else is this than what one of yourselves wrote: ‘What we wish is holy?’ And in view of these things, it was not a great or difficult thing for you to reflect and discover how the decree and sentence of Constantine, […] should be in force against you; and how all succeeding emperors, especially those who are Catholic Christians, necessarily act according to it as often as the exigencies of your obstinacy make it necessary for them to take any measures in regard to you.”

How would the writer of this letter choose to reply against the Arians, who later invaded Africa under the Vandal invasion twenty one years after this letter was written? We would like to know from the writer, if it was possible, since Africa was likely his provincial home. Should every church have accepted the appointment of Arian ministers, which took place, so to keep unity with them? Should he take his advice then? If some wisely choose not to join in with Arians, should the decrees of Vandalic king Hunneric be employed in force against them as well, just as the edicts of Constantine were employed against Donatists and others?

It is seen that the ‘unity’ of the state church is an unstable thing, changing itself one day and the next, being false, like shifting sand;143“And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.”
— Matthew 6:26-27
that it renders evil for evil,144“See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.” — 1 Thess. 5:15145“Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.” — 3 Jn. v. 11 and that the gospel of Jesus Christ with which we are charged is one of peace,146“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” — Rom. 12:18147“That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” — 1 Tim. 2:2 not of envy and strife. There is no coercion into unity148“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us:” — 1 Jn. 2:19, rather there is peaceable separation from those which cause divisions and offences.149“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” — Rom. 16:17 Yet also, “as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”150Romans 12:18 The following of these things is what marks the church. Because, as it says, on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.151Luke 8:15 And also: Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein.152Rev. 1:3

“…Why should those whom Christ has sown in His field, that is, in this world, and has commanded to grow alongside of the tares until the harvest,— those many thousands of believers in all nations, whose multitude the Lord compared to the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea, to whom He promised of old, and has now given, the blessing in the seed of Abraham,— why, I ask, should the name of Christians be denied to all these, because, forsooth, in regard to this case, in the discussion of which they took no part, they preferred to believe the judges, who under grave responsibility gave their decision, rather than the plaintiffs, against whom the decision was given?”

If the judges were judges of Hunneric and the Arians instead, what would be his conclusion? Should all people prefer to simply believe the judges set up by Hunneric and the Arians? Equally, what about the fact that Constantine was the judge who promoted Arius? Does the writer propose this to make Arius’ doctrine Christian to be believed? In other words, If they were to follow this writer’s advice, they would also follow after emperor Hunneric’s decisions to set up Arianism! And in fact many really did follow after the error of this writer and became Arians!

The answer to this is that they should always resort to keeping things which were once delivered, the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.153“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” — Jude v. 3 They are commended to God and to the word of his grace.154“And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.” —Acts 20:32 Paul also says in another place, “continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them”.1552 Timothy 3:14 This means we should continue in the doctrine of Scripture, wherein we have learned, which is of the apostles who delivered this revelation to us, the faith once delivered unto the saints, regardless of what the current rulers say.

§15 “The deeds of guilty parties which either cannot be proved to those who are innocent,156meaning unclear, but this could be a reference to the idea that looking the other way when a sin or crime happens is a sign of innocence or cannot be believed by them, bring no stain upon any one, since, even when known, they are borne with in order to preserve fellowship with those who are innocent. For the good are not to be deserted for the sake of the wicked, but the wicked are to be borne with for the sake of the good; as the prophets bore with those against whom they delivered such testimonies, and did not cease to take part in the sacraments of the Jеwish people; as also our Lord bore with guilty Judas, even until he met the end which he deserved, and permitted him to take part in the sacred supper along with the innocent disciples; as the apostles bore with those who preached Christ through envy,— a sin peculiarly satanic; as Cyprian bore with colleagues guilty of avarice, which, after the example of the apostle, he calls idolatry.”

The wicked and depraved are not to be praised, called righteous or part of the church, but the believers are told by the Lord to separate from them.157“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,”
— 2 Cor. 6:17
158“But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” — 1 Cor. 5:11 The Proverbs relate this: “He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.159Proverbs 24:24-25

The deeds of guilty parties that are known should be dealt with accordingly.160“It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.” — 1 Cor. 5:1-2
Some things have been brought to light and they cannot remain hidden or be swept away. Especially not in respect of persons of wealth.161“But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.” — Col. 3:25162“My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.”
— James 2:1
163“These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.” — Jude v. 16164“Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;” — 2 Pet. 2:14-15

The fact that a deed is known makes all the difference and will be judged accordingly and should not be allowed in the church, as 1 Corinthians 5 delineates.1651 Corinthians 5:1-13

Prophecy tells us moreover:
My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
” — Proverbs 1 : 15-16

Choosing to join in the transgressions with the openly guilty, to call them righteous, or to walk in their path, or to knowingly tell them godspeed in a case that it is known for certain what they do in ungodliness, that is not Biblical.

Again, the apostle says:
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
but rather reprove them.” — Ephesians 5:11

§17 “For originally my opinion was, that no one should be coerced into the unity of Christ, that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason, lest we should have those whom we knew as avowed heretics feigning themselves to be Catholics. But this opinion of mine was overcome not by the words of those who controverted it, but by the conclusive instances to which they could point…”

These instances are anecdotal. These “instances” have nothing to do with Scripture, words, arguments or force of reason, or anything of that sort referenced to whatsoever.

Earlier in the same letter, the writer tells us that, “[Christians] are (rightly) admonished to consider what they suffer, and wherefore, and are taught to prefer the Scriptures which they read to human legends and calumnies.

Yet in the above place, if it is authentic, this same writer is suddenly preferring human legends over Scriptures. He admits that his opinion was changed by anecdotal instances, not by words! Whoever this writer is, he shows that his whole view in this regard is based not on the word of God. Elsewhere in the letter he called upon this for authority, but has now contradictorily conceded that his reasons for leaving the truth are due to things other than that word, such as anecdotes. This, not Scripture, becomes the reason why he changed his mind, despite what was said about following Scripture over human legends. Can the writer not even practice what he preached? And should we believe things like this letter in place of the 1st century apostles in the Bible? The answer is that we should not believe the author of this letter which has the name Augustine attached to it – we ought rather believe the Scriptures which we read above human legends and calumnies.

§30 “For the same Church of holy and good believers is both small if compared with the number of the wicked, which is greater, and large if considered by itself… It is the same Church which is occasionally obscured, and, as it were, beclouded by the multitude of offences, when sinners bend the bow that they may shoot under the darkened moon at the upright in heart.”

Scripture does say that the wicked have drawn out their sword and bent their bow so as to slay such as be of upright conversation. But also, that their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.166Ps. 37:14 The same Psalm tells us that the wicked plotteth against the just.167Ps. 37:12 It says that the Lord’s saints are not forsaken, his saints are preserved forever, but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.168Ps. 37:28 Notice the distinction. We don’t place the wicked in among with the saints, just as the Psalm does not. Because of what the Scriptures command, as we have said formerly.169“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,”
— 2 Cor. 6:17
170“But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” — 1 Cor. 5:11

§41 “It is true that those who then stood most resolute, and were able to understand the treacherous phrases used by the [Arians], were few in number when compared with the rest; but some of them it is to be remembered were then bravely enduring sentence of banishment, and others were hiding themselves for safety in all parts of the world. And thus the Church, which is increasing throughout all nations, has been preserved as the Lord’s wheat, and shall be preserved unto the end, yea, until all nations, even the barbarous tribes, are within its embrace. For it is the Church which the Son of man has sown as good seed, and of which He has foretold that it should grow among the tares until the harvest. For the field is the world, and the harvest is the end of time.”

By the letter’s own reasoning then, the Arians were numerous in the Roman Empire for a time while Trinitarians were yet hiding for safety in all parts of the world. However, the letter also says:

§9 The earlier time of that king represented the former age of the emperors who did not believe in Christ, at whose hands the Christians suffered because of the wicked; but the later time of that king represented the age of the successors to the imperial throne, now believing in Christ, at whose hands the wicked suffer because of the Christians.

Which is it, we must ask. Are false teachings predominant with men today? or is truth? Clearly, the former, not the latter. And the idea that the state church causes the wicked to suffer by the edict of the world’s kings is false. We have shown that already. The thesis of this writer, about the state church ushering in utopia is disproved easily by the events of centuries that occurred after 408 A.D. when the letter was written. Thus, the claims of the letter are shown to be untrue by plain facts. The events after the year 408 aid to dispell the myth of this false prophecy. The simple truth here is that the second coming of Christ and time of the Lord taking rule, as it says in the book of Revelation, did not happen then. It still remains to be fulfilled, over 1600 years after this letter, as this is being written now. This is the reason why the writer of the letter in 408 A.D. cannot be correct in his assertions about this.

Every church which obeys the truth continues to patiently and peacefully await the return of Christ before their reign in earth can begin.171“And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” — Rev. 5:10172“Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” — Rev. 1:5-6173“Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?”
— 1 Cor 6:2-3
174“It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the LORD.” — Lamentations 3:26175“Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass.
And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.” — Psalm 37:5-6
As it says, ‘the Lᴏʀᴅ loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.’176Psalm 37:28-29177“For the Lᴏʀᴅ will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.” — Ps. 94:14

And also Scripture says: ‘Wait on the Lᴏʀᴅ, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.’178Psalm 37:34 And also: ‘Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;’179Titus 2:13 Also: ‘unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.’180Hebrews 9:28

§42 “[I]t is beyond question that no man in the unity of Christ can be stained by the guilt of the sins of other men if he be not consenting to the deeds of the wicked, and thus defiled by actual participation in their crimes, but only, for the sake of the fellowship of the good, tolerating the wicked, as the chaff which lies until the final purging of the Lord’s threshing-floor. These things being so, where is the pretext for your schism?”

The answer of where is the pretext for separation from the world is as follows. We are commanded by the Lord that, we are “not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”1811 Cor. 5:11

Those that disregard such a commandment, and do it so very openly, are manifestly false prophets. They do this by making the word of God of none effect, as mentioned by the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in Mark’s Gospel, ch. 7.182Mark 7:6-13

Therefore, as the first epistle of John declares, they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.183“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
— 1 Jn. 2:19
This is shown by a visible non-adherence to the doctrine of separation. As soon as these false doctrines of unity with the ungodly were revealed, of concord with Belial,184“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,”
— 2 Cor. 6:14-17
it was made manifest that these teachers of false unity185“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” — John 15:19186“Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” — James 4:4 were among those that had, in places, crept in privately and unawares.187“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” — 2 Pet. 2:1188“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation,” — Jude v. 4 And this false doctrine of unity was surely a greater subversion to uncover upon finding it,189“And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:” — Gal. 2:4190“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” — 2 Pet. 2:19191“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” — Acts 20:30-31 requiring even more absolute separation.192“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;” — Titus 3:10193“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”
— 1 Tim. 6:3-5
This is to ensure the commandment of God is followed, and in the faith of the continuation of all things, as the operation of God continues even now. So true unity, around the truth, cannot exist with false unity that hides from the truth.

False prophets of this variety were appointed over the unstable by an abject respect of persons through the emperor Constantine. All things were inappropriately performed there, and were of none effect. After all, they taught that one may be baptised despite having not believed, even as infants. This goes against the council of Agrippinus, A.D. 200. More importantly still, it contradicts the clear requirements of scripture, which is our guiding light.194“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” — Acts 2:41195“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”
— Acts 8:36-38
These ceremonies were also very widely performed by political appointees who we know to have been false teachers of the sort already mentioned. This helps to explain why so many have known it to be wrong and avoided it. It is a fact of ungodliness manifest. The Gospel says we shall know the corrupt by their corrupt fruit which they bring forth.196Matthew 7:16-20

ENDING:
3. “Many whom we know well, when arguments had been brought before them, and the truth made apparent by testimonies from the word of God, answered us that they desired to pass into the communion of the Catholic Church, but were in fear of the violence of worthless men, whose enmity they would incur; which violence they ought indeed by all means to despise when it was to be borne for righteousness’ sake, and for the sake of eternal life.

This writer admits that violence should be despised (that is, not regarded) when it is incurred for righteousness’ sake. It is the same for those that use violence to compel joining Catholicism, the writer’s cause, or anything else.

Do not “compel others to righteousness,” using force as this writer would argue in this letter.197We suppose that this letter is genuine and authentic. But if not, we reply to whoever is the writer. We are not to viciously threaten others to induce them to fear, these things ought not to be. That is something not Biblical and not the gospel of Christ. We should continue to hear the record that God gave of his Son in Scripture1981 Jn. 5:10 and not fear these violences.

We are rather to fear God’s word.199“Thus saith the Lᴏʀᴅ, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lᴏʀᴅ: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.”
— Isaiah 66:1-2
Fear him which is able to cast and destroy both soul and body in hell.200“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” — Matt. 10:28 Paul also reasoned with Felix the governor, of righteousness, temperance, and judgement to come.201Acts 24:25 This is all done through words. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
— 1 Corinthians 1:18

Return to entry A.D. 482

   
Appendix C

The following is written in Flores Historiarum:

A.D. 603. Ethelfrid, king of the Northumbrians, fighting against the Britons at Caerleon, slew a great number of religious men belonging to the abbey of Bangor.

At this time the man of God, Augustine,202Augustine of Canterbury, by some called Austin availing himself of the authority and assistance of king Ethelbert, summoned to his synod the bishops and doctors of the nearest province of Britain to the place which, in the language of the Angles, is called to this day Augustines-ac, that is to say, the Oak of Augustine, on the borders of the West Saxons and the Wiccii, and began to persuade them with fraternal admonitions to hold the catholic faith with him, and to unite with him in undertaking the joint labour of preaching the gospel to the nations for the sake of the Lord ; as hitherto they had celebrated the sacred feast of Easter and done many other things in a manner contrary to the unity of the church. And after a long discussion, when they would not assent to either the prayers or exhortations of Augustine, he said, ‘Brethren, let us pray to Almighty God that he will vouchsafe, by his heavenly tokens, to declare to us, which tradition is to be followed, and which is the true way to his heavenly kingdom. Let some sick man be brought, and let all belief be placed in, and all authority given to, that party by whose prayers he is cured.’ And when his adversaries, though against their will, had agreed, a sick man was brought in, deprived of his eyesight. And when he had been submitted to the bishops of the Britons, but had derived no advantage from their ministry, at length Augustine bent his knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, entreating him to restore sight to the blind, in order that, by the bodily illumination of one man, God might kindle the grace of spiritual light in the heart of many believers. And immediately the blind man received his sight, and Augustine was proclaimed by every one as the true messenger of the highest right. Then the Britons confessed they understood then that that was the true way which Augustine preached, but still they said that they could not, without the consent of their chiefs, forsake their ancient customs, so that they begged that another synod might be held, consisting of more members. And when that had been decided on, there came, as it is related, seven bishops and many most learned men of the Britons, especially from their most noble monastery, which, in the language of the Angles, is called Bangorneburg, over which, at that time, Dionotus is said to have presided as abbot. And they, when on their way to the aforementioned council, came first to a holy and prudent man, who had led the life of a hermit among them, and consulted him whether they ought to desert their own traditions at the preaching of Augustine. And he answered them, ‘If he be a man of God, follow him.’ They said, ‘And how can we prove this?’ He said to them, ‘The Lord has said, “Learn of me, because I am meek and lowly of heart.” If, therefore, that Augustine is meek and lowly of heart, it is credible that he himself both bears Christ’s yoke himself, and offers the same to you to take upon you. But if he be stern and haughty, then it is plain that he is not of God, nor are you to regard his words.’ They replied again, ‘And how are we to discern this?’ ‘Contrive,’ said the hermit, ‘that he shall first arrive with his friends at the place of council, and then if he, of his own accord, rises up when you approach, you may know that he is a servant of Christ, and obediently listen to him. But if he disdains you, and will not rise up to you, though you are more in number, then he, likewise, may be disdained by you.’ It therefore so happened, that when they arrived, Augustine was sitting in his chair. And they, on seeing this, presently fell into a passion, and considering him full of pride, set themselves to contradict every thing he said. And Augustine said to them, ‘If you are willing to comply with me in three things only, namely, so as to celebrate Easter at its proper time, to fulfil the ministry of baptism, by which we are regenerated to God, according to the customs of the Roman Church, and to preach the word of God to the nation of the Angles in union with us, we will patiently tolerate your other customs, though contrary to ours.’ But they declared that they would do none of these things, and that they would not consider him as archbishop, arguing with one another, ‘If he would not rise up to us, how much more will he slight us, if we once become subject to him?’ And the man of God, Augustine, is related to have said to them, ‘If they would not have peace with their brethren, would they accept war from their enemies? And if they were unwilling to preach the way of life to the nation of the Angles, he told them they would endure the revenge of death at their hands.’ And all this came to pass in every respect as he had foretold, through the working of God’s vengeance. And not long afterwards, Ethelfrid, king of Northumberland, a man of great courage and a most ferocious pagan, having collected a great army in the city of Legions, which is called by the Britons Caerleon, and which was called the city of the Legions, because the Roman Legions used to be stationed there, made a great slaughter of them. For being about to engage in battle with the Britons, when he saw that their priests, who had come together to address their prayers to God on behalf of the soldiers who were occupied in war, were stationed in a safe place, he asked who they were, or what they were going to do there. For there were a great many of them from the monastery of Bangor, which is said to have contained such a number of monks that they were divided into seven classes with seven rectors, and no division contained fewer than three hundred religious brethren. And the greater part of them having kept a fast for three days, met together with other priests also for the sake of praying to God, having Brochimallus for their defender, to protect them from the swords of the barbarians while they themselves were engaged in praying. And when the tyrant Ethelfrid had learnt the object of their presence, he said, ‘And if these men invoke the aid of their God against us, then, they are fighting against us, although they do not bear arms, for they assail us with their prayers.’ Therefore he directed the attack to be made on them first, and then destroyed the rest of that wicked army, not without great loss to his own forces. In that battle it is said that of these men who had come to pray, there were about twelve hundred men slain, and that only fifty escaped by flight. Brochimallus fled also with his men at the first onset of the enemy, and left those whom he ought to have defended, unarmed and exposed to the swords of their slayers. And thus the prophecy of the blessed pontiff Augustine was fulfilled.

Return to entry A.D. 603

English Common Law on the Crime against Nature

The following is an excerpt from Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the Fourth, XV Chapter, p. 215.

This is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of his views or of English Common Law itself.

“IV. What has been here observed, especially with regard to the manner of proof, which ought to be more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity,—the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast; a crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out; for if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.

“I will not act so disagreeable a part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate, in this respect, the delicacy of our English law, which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named: ‘peccatum illud horribile, inter Christianos non nominandum.’ (k) A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans :(l) ‘ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis pænis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt rei.’ Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.

“This the voice of nature and of reason and the express law of God(m) determined to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance long before the Jewish dispensation by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven; so that this is a universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our antient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burned to death,(n) though Fleta(o) says they should be buried alive; either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the antient Goths.(p) But now the general punishment of all felonies is the same, namely, by hanging; and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made felony without benefit of clergy by statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6, revived and confirmed by 5 Eliz c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et consentientes pari pæna plectantur.(q)”

Faith, Repentance, and Works

The opposing viewpoints surrounding Biblical repentance seems to be a serious issue in churches today. I would like to briefly summarize this issue in a way that I believe centers at the root of the controversy. This is how two positions that seem to conflict, when taken in their purest form, are sound Biblical reactions to false teachings. The only way a situation like this can happen is that each of the positions, when presented faithfully, add up to a single truth. There is a true doctrine that refutes both of the errors, that each of these positions concurrently seek to correct and protect against. This is the main thesis that I submit for the consideration of every person.

Because of the above situation, there are also very false doctrines and teachers of said doctrines taking part in this same controversy. These masquerade at times as the true doctrine, making the situation more difficult. In attempting to refute one of the errors, some people have either by mistake or intention promoted an erroneous view. I will address that in this post, after getting into the specifics. But only by understanding things well can false prophets be exposed. The thing to remember is that none of them, if they are false, is able to expound the truths of God’s word.1“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” — 1 Corinthians 2:12-14.

Objects of much controversy now are the Biblical terms of repentance, turning, justification, faith, sins, works and dead works. What these all mean in relation to reality and each other is truly at the center of the issue. This also lies at the very foundation of doctrine, because as it is written:

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, — Hebrews 6:1 (A.V.)

According to this word, this is an issue that stands at the foundation of the ‘doctrine of Christ.’ Therefore, it follows that one must attend to it with due diligence, as it is also told us by Paul:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. — Galatians 1:6-8

From this it follows that one must be exceptionally decisive and discerning concerning the controversy. In fact no Christian can afford not to give attention to this issue. And how, then, will we separate the true doctrine from the false? except by paying attention to the absolute closest adherence to Biblical doctrine concerning these things. I say this can be the only way.

First, I will give the groundwork which is necessary to carry on this discussion.

It is well known in the church that the justification in the eyes of God can only be attained by the finished work of our Lord Jesus Christ who came to accomplish that thing which no man ever could. As it is clearly delineated in the Bible, man cannot attain justification by his own works, only by the works of another, which is the shed blood of Jesus. And this is understood. See for example—

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. — Galatians 3:22

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. — Ephesians 2:8-10

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
— Philippians 3:9

But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. — Titus 3:4-7

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
— Romans 4:13-25

So the question of relying on personal works for salvation rather than that which our Lord Jesus Christ did for us is the factor here. Whether or not a person is a saved believer who knows that Jesus is able to save them— who knows what God said— or whether they would doubt this, and therefore, choose to keep trusting in their own works.2“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” — Matthew 7:22-23

Works salvation has always been around. It is a false gospel that teaches that one must perform some set list of works in order to earn their way to justification of their lives before God. It appeals to the immediate desires of man and to his pride to live in such a way, and to think in such a manner. It leads one to hope that God will honor one’s own achievement as something different over others. Yet it is written again outright in Romans:

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. — Romans 4:5

This is entirely not what the prideful expect, it goes against their inclinations in every way to think that someone, who may have sinned in some way or another, should be counted as a child of God. Yet here we have to believe that it isn’t the working but the belief on him that justifies the ungodly. And it is the ungodly who first believes who receives his justification, not the proud man who made a human effort to achieve greatness. For God has one thing that he respects, it is the thing that he said, and the offering that he wants to receive is the belief in his Son.

Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. — Ecclesiastes 5:1

Fairly frequently in this conversation one hears a reference at some point during this talk, to the passage in James chapter 2 verses 14-26 which, seemingly it is said, paints a different picture than Romans 4:5. The contrast presented by this new passage being introduced seems to be that one must be justified by works. And this is indeed what the passage in James states. So how is it that Romans 4:5, being seemingly to many its polar opposite, still stands true? It is. Because the difference is, in whom the saved believer is being justified to. We find that in James 2:14-26, also Matthew 5:163“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” — Matthew 5:16, Matthew 7:204“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” — Matthew 7:20, 1 John 4:15“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” — 1 John 4:1 and elsewhere we are dealing with justification before men. Indeed, it is “required that a man be found faithful” according to Paul, 1 Corinthians 4:2. But this is not for our justification before God, this is for the salvation of their souls, just as James 2 describes that Abraham is justified to us by his works and thereby, helps us. According to Romans 4, he was already justified to God before all of this,6“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” — Romans 4:3 and according to James 2:21-227“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”
he afterward justified himself to us. His faith was made manifest then. Everyone could see it. Yet according to Romans 4:5, he was already justified in faith to God. So there is no contradiction in these passages of scripture. Indeed, this very situation is fully spelled out for us in the epistle 1 Corinthians—

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. — 1 Corinthians 4:1-4

So then justification in the eye of God and justification in the eye of man are accomplished by two different methods. One is by faith, other is by works. If someone were the last person on earth, they would not need to see their own works to know based on the word of God that they have eternal security. God already knows their faith from the start. In reality, however, there are other people that are not able to see this faith without manifesting as works. This is why Jesus makes it important in his word:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. — Matthew 5:16

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: — 2 Corinthians 4:3

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled;
notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. — James 2:14-17

Now put into perspective, the justification James tells me about is that which is manifested by continuing in the “good works, which God hath before ordained8Ephesians 2:10 and this is that which is seen in the eyes of men, and attains to the glory of God.9Matthew 5:16 Why is this glorifying to God and not the worker? Because, as it is written:

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
— Romans 4:2

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. — Romans 3:27

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
— Philippians 2:13

But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. — 1 Corinthians 15:10

Let us return to James 2:14 to take a closer look now. Let us see how this passage of scripture fits into the above perfect framework.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? — James 2:14

So then we see that we have a man who says he has faith to someone, and the question then becomes can faith alone save that person? Let us read on to the next verses.

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. — James 2:15-17 (A.V.)

So it is very clear from the example that James gives in verses 15-16 that my faith alone can do nothing to save another person. Me saying that I have faith but with no further action can do nothing to help that person out. It is just as if I had turn away a starving man with the words “be filled.” Even if I had food, even if I had clothing, even if I had the capability, I did nothing and gave nothing. Therefore, to that man, my faith is no different than that of the everyday false confessor. And indeed, if God is able to work through me, this kind of event should not be happening, because we see in God’s word:

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: — Philippians 1:6

Therefore, no man should be perceiving that our faith is dead. James continues with the next verse, which continues the theme of one man trying to show his faith to another man:

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. — James 2:18

So this confirms it. The passage of James starting in verse 14 has been about one man who says he has faith to another man. Yet we see that without works, his faith is dead, and also by Philippians 1:6 that justification to man by works is intrinsic to anyone who has received the grace of God – We know that God will perform these things, and according to Ephesians 2:10 we were before ordained to walk in them just as in the same way as all who believe were ordained to eternal life!10“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” — Acts 13:48 These are not our works, they are God’s work, and so boasting is excluded by the law of faith.

Therefore we truly are not justified by works, except in that God has worked for us. We received the gift of God and he did all of the work. And he that began a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. Moreover, scripture says, “and whom he justified, them he also glorified.11Romans 8:30 Therefore we cannot take credit for any of those things.

However, we are entitled to give thanks always, as written:

In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. — 1 Thessalonians 5:18 (A.V.)

Having said all of that, we may now turn to face our two misconceptions that have always been around. These are 1) the works gospel, which emphasizes justification before God through works, a false gospel; and 2) antinomianism, which ignores the ordination of God. Both of these are real false doctrines taught by countless false prophets. Yet we need not compromise the above doctrine in order to deal with these. This is actually a false dichotomy. We do need not to say, that Biblical repentance as described by Paul is anything other than what it is.

To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
— Acts 26:18-20

So it seems to me from these passages of God’s word, that repentance refers to a change, which is a turning away from the power of Satan unto God.

Does that mean that one becomes sinless or that one necessarily fulfills man’s measuring stick of worthiness for salvation? No, it means that God has forgiven that man’s iniquities and that his sins are forgiven. It also means that he which has begun a good work in that man’s life will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ, that this man is predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, that God will be glorified, that he will endure chastening as a son, and that he delights in the law of God after the inward man. Therefore, because of this, it is possible to try the spirits to see whether they be of God.12“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” — 1 John 4:1

Epilogue: Is it not true that Christ said (Jn. 8:34-36), “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Does it not say in Romans 6:16 this, “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

An Ordering of the Four Gospels

Here we take an interest in ordering some of the events described in multiple places in the Bible. Among the greatest sets of such events is presented in the four Gospel accounts of the New Testament. With a dedication of study, although no amount of time seems sufficient for ultimate perfection, this is one possible timeline of the Gospels. These articles are submitted for the simple purpose of being better able to defend the chronology overall. Only the Scriptures themselves were studied to prepare for this, other existing chronologies were not studied beforehand.

I am especially interested to hear feedback on any of the articles here as to their accuracy, and I do plan to dedicate further time to research into this subject so that the below system may be further maintained and possibly improved.

The below ordering is set forward as one possible way to synchronize all the events of the Gospels, because it quickly becomes clear – that, from a purely Scripture-based perspective, there exists at least some extent of minor ambiguity in the precise ordering of events. As an example, Matthew 13 and Mark 4 both give an account of the Parable of the Sower as well as the Parable of the Mustard Seed – however between these two parables is, in Matthew, the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, but in Mark, instead of this is the Teaching about the Lit Candle and the Parable of the Seed Growing Up. So between these parables, Matthew tells us about one, while Mark tells about two others, but there is no reason to place the part in Matthew before or after that of Mark, although, in any case they are between the same two parables. So it is clear that all of these parables were explained at that time. But whether the Matthew 13 parable was told before or after the Mark 4 parable appears to be, unless there is a further basis on which to suppose why one would be told before the other, an immaterial point.

Our goal is thus minimizing ambiguities of these kind to the greatest extent possible, and we may do so by taking advantage of the total Scriptural context. And, as far as possible, to draw the events of all the Gospels into one plausible stream of events. This is done without asserting that this timeline is the only possible order of events, but just that it stands as one possible and likely order of events until further evidence can be provided from the faithful witness of Scripture to say otherwise. So now we have at least one ordering of events that contains no contradictions. This timeline admits, in places, where such timeline assignments were not completely possible, although not to the detriment of the overall ordering. In a few cases, we note where probability weighs more toward one possibility than another.

A remark from me about the result of this study has been the neatness with which it appears the overall Gospel account, or at least the great majority, admits a place in the timeline. To start, I have subdivided the events into exactly four parts or subdivisions, which are:

A) Before John the Baptist was imprisoned
B) After part A and before the execution of John the Baptist
C) After part B and before the Triumphal Entry
D) After the Triumphal Entry

It is interesting how the timeline of the Gospels can be neatly divided by this way. Finding that the above subdivision holds well for our task, as far as I am able to tell – the passage about John is brought to mind here: “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

In the footnotes I generally tried to include the most variants between the passages as possible, because many times different details may be gained from parallel passages, but of course this is not always feasible.

Opening
  1. Prologue
    (Matthew 1:1-17)1“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
    Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; […]
    And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
    And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
    So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.”
    — Matthew 1:1-2…15-17

    +
    (Mark 1:1-3)2“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
    As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
    The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”
    — Mark 1:1-3

    +
    (Luke 1:1-4)3“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
    Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
    It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
    That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.”
    — Luke 1:1-4

    (Luke 3:23b-38)4“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
    Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, […]
    Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
    Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”
    — Luke 3:23-24…37-38

    +
    (John 1:1-5)5“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    The same was in the beginning with God.
    All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
    And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
    — John 1:1-5

     
  2. John the Baptist Conception
    (Luke 1:5-25)6“There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. […]
    And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple. And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless. And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
    Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.”
    — Luke 1:5…21-25
  3. Gabriel Sent to Mary
    (Luke 1:26-38)7“And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
    To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
    And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. […]
    For with God nothing shall be impossible.
    And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.”
    — Luke 1:26-28…37-38

     
  4. Angel Sent to Joseph
    (Matthew 1:18-23)8“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
    But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
    Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
    Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
    — Matthew 1:18-23

     
  5. Mary visits Zacharias
    (Luke 1:39-56)9“And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
    And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
    And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
    And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. […]
    He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
    As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
    And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.”
    — Luke 1:39-42…54-56
  6. John the Baptist Birth
    (Luke 1:57-66)10“Now Elisabeth’s full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.
    And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her. […]
    And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all.
    And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
    And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
    And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be! And the hand of the Lord was with him.”
    — Luke 1:57-58…63-66
  7. Zacharias’ Prophecy Concerning John the Baptist (possibly later than here)
    (Luke 1:67-79)11“And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
    Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, […]
    And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
    To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
    Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
    To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.”
    — Luke 1:67-68…76-79

     
  8. Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem
    (Matthew 1:24)12“Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:”
    — Matthew 1:24

    +
    (Luke 2:1-5)13“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
    (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
    And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
    And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
    To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.”
    — Luke 2:1-5

     
  9. Jesus’ Birth
    (Matthew 1:25)14“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
    — Matthew 1:25

    +
    (Luke 2:6-7)15“And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
    And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.”
    — Luke 2:6-7

    +
    (John 1:14)16“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
    — John 1:14

     
  10. The Shepherds and Angels
    (Luke 2:8-20)17“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
    And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
    And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
    For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. […]
    And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.”
    — Luke 2:8-13…20

     
  11. The Magi Pilgrimage
    (Matthew 2:1-11)18“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, […]
    When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
    When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
    And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.”
    — Matthew 2:1…9-11

     
  12. Jesus Circumcised
    (Luke 2:21)19“And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.”
    — Luke 2:21
  13. Jesus Taken to Temple
    (Luke 2:22-39a)20“And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
    (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
    And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
    And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. […]
    And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned…”
    — Luke 2:22-25…39a

     
  14. The Flight to Egypt
    (Matthew 2:12-20)21“And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
    And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
    And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. […]
    But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
    Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life.”
    — Matthew 2:12-15…19-20

     
  15. Jesus Moved to Nazareth
    (Matthew 2:21-23)22“And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
    But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
    And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”
    — Matthew 2:21-23
    footnote for 23: see Isaiah 11:1

    +
    (Luke 2:39b)23“…they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.”
    — Luke 2:39b

     
  16. Jesus Twelve Years Old
    (Luke 2:40-52)24“And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
    Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
    And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. […]
    And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?
    And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
    And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
    And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”
    — Luke 2:40-42…49-52

     
    —John the Baptist Matures
    (Luke 1:80)25“And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.”
    — Luke 1:80

     
  17. John the Baptist Ministry (15th year of Tiberius, A.D. 26/27)
    (Matthew 3:1-12)26“In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
    And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. […]
    I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
    Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
    — Matthew 3:1-2…11-12

    +
    (Mark 1:4-8)27“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
    And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
    And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
    And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
    I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.”
    — Mark 1:4-8

    +
    (Luke 3:1-18)28“Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
    Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
    And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; […]
    Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
    And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people.”
    — Luke 3:1-3…17-18

    +
    (John 1:6-8)29“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
    The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
    He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.”
    — John 1:6-8

    (John 1:15-18)30“John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
    And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
    For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
    No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
    — John 1:15-18

     
  18. Jesus Baptised
    (Matthew 3:13-17)31“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
    But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
    And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
    And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
    And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
    — Matthew 3:13-17

    +
    (Mark 1:9-11)32“And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
    And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
    And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
    — Mark 1:9-11

    +
    (Luke 3:21-22)33“Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
    And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”
    — Luke 3:21-22

     
    — Jesus Thirty Years Old
    (Luke 3:23a)34“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age…”
    — Luke 3:23a

     
  19. Jesus Tempted in Wilderness for 40 Days
    (Matthew 4:1-2a)35“Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
    And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,”
    — Matthew 4:1-2a

    +
    (Mark 1:12-13a)36“And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
    And he was there in the wilderness forty days…”
    — Mark 1:12-13a

    +
    (Luke 4:1-2)37“And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
    Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.”
    — Luke 4:1-2
  20. Jesus Tempted at the End of 40 Days
    (Matthew 4:2b-11a)38“…he was afterward an hungred.
    And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
    But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. […]
    Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
    Then the devil leaveth him,”
    — Matthew 4:2b-4…10-11a

    +
    (Mark 1:13b)39“…tempted of Satan…”
    — Mark 1:13b

    +
    (Luke 4:3-13)40“And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
    And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. […]
    And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
    And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.”
    — Luke 4:3-4…12-13

     
  21. Jesus Ministered by Angels
    (Matthew 4:11b)41“…and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.”
    — Matthew 4:11b

    +
    (Mark 1:13c)42“…and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.”
    — Mark 1:13c

     
  22. John the Baptist Testifies about Jesus to Onlookers
    (John 1:19-34)43“And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
    And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. […]
    The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
    This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
    And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
    And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.”
    — John 1:19-20…29-34
  23. Jesus Meets Andrew and Peter
    (John 1:35-42)44“Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
    And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! […]
    One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
    He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
    And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”
    — John 1:35-36…40-42
  24. Jesus Meets Philip and Nathanael
    (John 1:43-51)45“The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. […]
    Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
    And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”
    — John 1:43…50-51
  25. The Marriage at Cana
    (John 2:1-11)46“And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: […]
    And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
    This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.”
    — John 2:1…10-11
  26. Jesus, Mother and Brethren, and Disciples go to Capernaum for Some Days
    (John 2:12)47“After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.”
    — John 2:12
  27. Jesus goes to Jerusalem for Passover
    (John 2:13)48“And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,”
    — John 2:13
  28. Jesus Drives Out the Money Changers
    (John 2:14-17)49“And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
    And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
    And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.
    And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.”
    — John 2:14-17
  29. Jesus Predicts the Temple is Rebuilt in Three Days
    (John 2:18-22)50“Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
    Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
    Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
    But he spake of the temple of his body.
    When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.”
    — John 2:18-22
  30. Jesus Attends the Feast Day (Passover #1)
    (John 2:23-25)51“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
    But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
    And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.”
    — John 2:23-25
  31. Nicodemus Visits Jesus
    (John 3:1-21)52“There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
    The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
    Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. […]
    And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
    For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
    But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”
    — John 3:1-3…19-21
  32. Jesus and His Disciples Baptize Others in Judea
    (John 3:22)53“After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.”
    — John 3:22
  33. John the Baptist Baptizes Disciples in Aenon
    (John 3:23-24)54“And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
    For John was not yet cast into prison.”
    — John 3:23-24
  34. John the Baptist Answers Question on Baptism
    (John 3:25-36)55“Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.
    And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
    John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. […]
    The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
    He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
    — John 3:25-27…35-36
  35. Jesus goes from Judea to Sychar in Samaria
    (John 4:1-6)56“When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
    (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
    He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.
    And he must needs go through Samaria.
    Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
    Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.”
    — John 4:1-6
  36. Jesus Speaks with a Samaritan Woman
    (John 4:7-30)57“There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
    (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) […]
    And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?
    The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
    Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
    Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.”
    — John 4:7-8…27-30
  37. Teaching about the Work of God
    (John 4:31-38)58“In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.
    But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. […]
    And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
    I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.”
    — John 4:31-32…37-38
  38. Jesus Stays with the Samaritans Two Days
    (John 4:39-43a)59“And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
    So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
    And many more believed because of his own word;
    And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
    Now after two days…”
    — John 4:39-43a
  39. Jesus Returns to Galilee
    (John 4:43b-45)60“…he departed thence, and went into Galilee.
    For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.
    Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast.”
    — John 4:43b-45
  40. John’s narrative (Before #132, Feeding of the Five Thousand)
    (John 4:46–5:47)61“So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum. […]
    So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
    This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.”
    — John 4:46…53-54
    62“After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
    Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
    In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. […]
    Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
    The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
    And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.”
    — John 5:1-3…14-16
    63“But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
    Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
    Then answered Jesus and said unto them, […]
    For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
    But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”
    — John 5:17-19a…46-47

     
  41. John the Baptist Imprisoned
    (Luke 3:19-20)64“But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip’s wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done,
    Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.”
    — Luke 3:19-20
—— END SECTION ONE
  1. Jesus Hears about John in Prison, goes to Galilee (Nazareth -> Capernaum)
    (Matthew 4:12-16)65“Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
    And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
    That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
    The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
    The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.”
    — Matthew 4:12-16

    +
    (Mark 1:14a)66“Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee,”
    — Mark 1:14a

    +
    (Luke 4:14a)67“And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee:”
    — Luke 4:14a
  2. Jesus Begins to Preach in Galilee
    (Matthew 4:17)68“From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
    — Matthew 4:17

    +
    (Mark 1:14b-15)69“…preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
    And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”
    — Mark 1:14b-15

    +
    (Luke 4:14b-15)70“…and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
    And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.”
    — Luke 4:14b-15

     
  3. Jesus Recruits Simon and Andrew, James and John
    (Matthew 4:18-22)71“And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
    And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
    And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
    And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
    And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.”
    — Matthew 4:18-22

    +
    (Mark 1:16-20)72“Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
    And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
    And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
    And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.
    And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him.”
    — Mark 1:16-20

     
  4. Jesus goes to Nazareth
    (Luke 4:16a)73“And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up:”
    — Luke 4:16a
  5. Jesus Preaches on Isaiah 61:1-2/42:7 in Nazareth
    (Luke 4:16b-27)74“…and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
    And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, […]
    And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.”
    — Luke 4:16b-17…27
  6. Jesus leaves Nazareth
    (Luke 4:28-30)75“And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
    And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
    But he passing through the midst of them went his way,”
    — Luke 4:28-30

     
  7. Jesus goes to Capernaum
    (Mark 1:21)76“And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.”
    — Mark 1:21

    +
    (Luke 4:31)77“And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days.”
    — Luke 4:31
  8. Jesus Casts out Devil in Synagogue (Art thou come to destroy us?)
    (Mark 1:22-28)78“And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
    And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, […]
    And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
    And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.”
    — Mark 1:22-23…27-28

    +
    (Luke 4:32-37)79“And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power.
    And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice, […]
    And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out.
    And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about.”
    — Luke 4:32-33…36-37

     
  9. Jesus Heals Simon’s Mother-in-law
    (Matthew 8:14-15)80“And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.
    And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.”
    — Matthew 8:14-15

    +
    (Mark 1:29-31)81“And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
    But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
    And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.”
    — Mark 1:29-31

    +
    (Luke 4:38-39)82“And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon’s house. And Simon’s wife’s mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.
    And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.”
    — Luke 4:38-39
     
  10. Jesus Heals Many at Sunset (Suffered not to speak)
    (Matthew 8:16-17)83“When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
    That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.”
    — Matthew 8:16-17

    +
    (Mark 1:32-34)84“And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
    And all the city was gathered together at the door.
    And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.”
    — Mark 1:32-34

    +
    (Luke 4:40-41)85“Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.
    And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.”
    — Luke 4:40-41


  11. Jesus Departs Early and Embarks to Other Synagogues in Galilee
    (Mark 1:35-38)86“And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.
    And Simon and they that were with him followed after him.
    And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.
    And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.”
    — Mark 1:35-38

    +
    (Luke 4:42-43)87“And when it was day, he departed and went into a desert place: and the people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them.
    And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.”
    — Luke 4:42-43

     
  12. Jesus Heals and Preaches at Synagogues throughout Galilee
    (Matthew 4:23-25)88“And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
    And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
    And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.”
    — Matthew 4:23-25

    +
    (Mark 1:39)89“And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.”
    — Mark 1:39

    +
    (Luke 4:44)90“And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.”
    — Luke 4:44

     
  13. The Catch of Fish at Gennesaret
    (Luke 5:1-11)91“And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, […]
    And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.
    When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
    For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken:
    And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.
    And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him.”
    — Luke 5:1…7-11

     
  14. Jesus goes up into a Mountain
    (Matthew 5:1)92“And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:”
    — Matthew 5:1
  15. The Sermon on the Mount
    (Matthew 5:2–7:29)93“And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
    Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. […]
    And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
    And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
    For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”
    — Matthew 5:2-3… 7:27-29
  16. Jesus comes down from Mountain with Multitudes
    (Matthew 8:1)94“When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.”
    — Matthew 8:1

     
  17. Jesus Heals Leper, Who Spreads His Fame Abroad
    (Matthew 8:2-4)95“And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
    And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
    And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”
    — Matthew 8:2-4

    +
    (Mark 1:40-45a)96“And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
    And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
    And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
    And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;
    And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
    But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter,”
    — Mark 1:40-45a

    +
    (Luke 5:12-15)97“And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
    And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
    And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
    But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.”
    — Luke 5:12-15

     
  18. Jesus Withdraws to Wilderness
    (Mark 1:45b)98“…insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.”
    — Mark 1:45b

    +
    (Luke 5:16)99“And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed.”
    — Luke 5:16

     
  19. Jesus goes to Capernaum
    (Mark 2:1a)100“And again he entered into Capernaum, after some days;”
    — Mark 2:1a

     
  20. Jesus Heals Paralytic and Forgives Sins at Synagogue
    (Matthew 9:2-8)101“And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. […]
    But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
    And he arose, and departed to his house.
    But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.”
    — Matthew 9:2…6-8

    +
    (Mark 2:1b-12)102“…and it was noised that he was in the house.
    And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.
    And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
    And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: […]
    But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
    I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
    And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.”
    — Mark 2:1b-4…10-12

    +
    (Luke 5:17-26)103“And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.
    And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus. […]
    I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God.
    And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things to day.”
    — Luke 5:17-19…24b-26

     
  21. Jesus Teaches the Multitude at the Sea Side
    (Mark 2:13)104“And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them.”
    — Mark 2:13

     
  22. Jesus Recruits Levi
    (Matthew 9:9)105“And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.”
    — Matthew 9:9

    +
    (Mark 2:14)106“And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.”
    — Mark 2:14

    +
    (Luke 5:27-28)107“And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.
    And he left all, rose up, and followed him.”
    — Luke 5:27-28
  23. The Feast at Levi’s House (I came not to call the righteous)
    (Matthew 9:10-13)108“And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
    And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
    But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
    But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
    — Matthew 9:10-13

    +
    (Mark 2:15-17)109“And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.
    And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
    When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
    — Mark 2:15-17

    +
    (Luke 5:29-32)110“And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.
    But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
    And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
    I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
    — Luke 5:29-32

     
  24. Jesus Questioned about Fasting111By scribes and Pharisees, not John’s disciples. This marks a different event than as in Matthew 9:14-17
    (Mark 2:18-22)112“And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?
    And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. […]
    And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.”
    — Mark 2:18-19…22

    +
    (Luke 5:33-39)113“And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?
    And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? […]
    But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
    No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.”
    — Luke 5:33-34…38-39

     
  25. The Corn Field on the Sabbath
    (Matthew 12:1-8)114“At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
    But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. […]
    But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
    But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
    For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.”
    — Matthew 12:1-2…6-8

    +
    (Mark 2:23-28)115“And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
    And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? […]
    And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
    Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.”
    — Mark 2:23-24…27-28

    +
    (Luke 6:1-5)116“And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
    And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days? […]
    And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.”
    — Luke 6:1-2…5
  26. Jesus Heals Man with Withered Hand at Synagogue on Sabbath
    (Matthew 12:9-15a)117“And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
    And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. […]
    Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
    Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
    But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence…”
    — Matthew 12:9-10…13-15a

    +
    (Mark 3:1-6)118“And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
    And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. […]
    But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
    And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.”
    — Mark 3:1-2…5-6

    +
    (Luke 6:6-11)119“And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
    And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him. […]
    And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
    And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.”
    — Luke 6:6-7…10-11

     
  27. Jesus has a Ship Because of the Multitude
    (Mark 3:7-12)120“But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea,
    And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him.
    And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him.
    For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues.
    And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
    And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known.”
    — Mark 3:7-12

     
  28. Jesus goes to a Mountain to Pray All Night
    (Mark 3:13a)121“And he goeth up into a mountain…”
    — Mark 3:13a

    +
    (Luke 6:12)122“And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.”
    — Luke 6:12
  29. Jesus Selects Twelve Disciples to be Apostles
    (Mark 3:13b-19)123“…and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.
    And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
    And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:
    And Simon he surnamed Peter;
    And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
    And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,
    And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.”
    — Mark 3:13-19

    +
    (Luke 6:13-16)124“And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
    Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
    Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
    And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.”
    — Luke 6:13-16

     
  30. Jesus Returns with Disciples and Heals in a Plain
    (Luke 6:17-19)125“And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;
    And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed.
    And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.”
    — Luke 6:17-19
  31. The Sermon on the Mount (“In the Plain” Version)
    (Luke 6:20-49)126“And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
    Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. […]
    Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
    He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
    But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.”
    — Luke 6:20-21…47-49

     
  32. Jesus goes to Capernaum
    (Matthew 8:5a)127“And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum,”
    — Matthew 8:5a

    +
    (Luke 7:1)128“Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.”
    — Luke 7:1
  33. Jesus Heals a Centurion’s Servant
    (Matthew 8:5b-13)129“…there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
    And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. […]
    When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
    And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
    But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
    And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.”
    — Matthew 8:5b-6…10-13

    +
    (Luke 7:2-10)130“And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
    And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. […]
    When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
    And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.”
    — Luke 7:2-3…9-10

     
  34. Jesus goes to Nain
    (Luke 7:11)131“And it came to pass the day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him, and much people.”
    — Luke 7:11
  35. Jesus Raises the Widow’s Son
    (Luke 7:12-17)132“Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.
    And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not.
    And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.
    And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.
    And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
    And this rumour of him went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about.”
    — Luke 7:12-17

     
  36. Jesus Questioned about Prophecy by Disciples of John
    (Matthew 11:2-6)133“Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,
    And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
    Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see:
    The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
    And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.”
    — Matthew 11:2-6

    +
    (Luke 7:18-23)134“And the disciples of John shewed him of all these things.
    And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
    When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
    And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.
    Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
    And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.”
    — Luke 7:18-23
  37. Jesus Preaches about John the Baptist
    (Matthew 11:7-19)135“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? […]
    For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
    The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.”
    — Matthew 11:7…18-19

    +
    (Luke 7:24-35)136“And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? […]
    For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
    The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!
    But wisdom is justified of all her children.”
    — Luke 7:24…33-35

     
  38. Jesus Upbraids the Cities
    (Matthew 11:20-30)137“Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
    Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
    But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. […]
    Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
    Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
    For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
    — Matthew 11:20-22…28-30

     
  39. Jesus visits a Pharisee’s House to Eat
    (Luke 7:36)138“And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to meat.”
    — Luke 7:36
  40. Woman Anoints Feet of Jesus
    (Luke 7:37-39)139“And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
    And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
    Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.”
    — Luke 7:37-39
  41. Jesus Answers Thoughts of Pharisee
    (Luke 7:40-50)140“And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
    There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
    And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? […]
    And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
    And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
    And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”
    — Luke 7:40-42…48-50
  42. Jesus Preaches Through Cities with the Twelve
    (Luke 8:1)141“And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,”
    — Luke 8:1
  43. Jesus Ministered by Certain Women
    (Luke 8:2-3)142“And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
    And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.”
    — Luke 8:2-3
  44. The Parable of The Sower
    (Luke 8:4-8)143“And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable:
    A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
    And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.
    And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
    And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
    — Luke 8:4-8

     
    — The Parable of the Sower Explained to Disciples144Flashforward after #99
    (Luke 8:9-15)145“And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
    And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
    Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. […]
    But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.”
    — Luke 8:9-11…15

     
  45. Teaching about the Lit Candle
    (Luke 8:16-18)146“No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.
    For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
    Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.”
    — Luke 8:16-18
  46. Jesus’ Mother and Brethren Attempt to See Him
    (Luke 8:19-21)147“Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
    And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
    And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.”
    — Luke 8:19-21

     
  47. Another Multitude Gathers Around Jesus
    (Matthew 12:15b-21)148“…and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
    And charged them that they should not make him known:
    That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
    Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
    He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
    A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
    And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”
    — Matthew 12:15b-21

    +
    (Mark 3:20)149“And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.”
    — Mark 3:20

     
  48. Jesus Heals the Possessed, Blind and Dumb
    (Matthew 12:22)150“Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.”
    — Matthew 12:22

     
  49. Scribes and Pharisees Remark at His Report
    (Matthew 12:23-24)151“And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
    But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.”
    — Matthew 12:23-24

    +
    (Mark 3:21-22)152“And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
    And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.”
    — Mark 3:21-22
  50. Jesus Summons and Responds to Scribes and Pharisees (A House Divided)
    (Matthew 12:25-29)153“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
    And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
    And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
    But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
    Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.”
    — Matthew 12:25-29

    +
    (Mark 3:23-27)154“And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?
    And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
    And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
    And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
    No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.”
    — Mark 3:23-27

     
  51. He that is not with me is against me
    (Matthew 12:30)155“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.”
    — Matthew 12:30

     
  52. Jesus Teaches on Blasphemy
    (Matthew 12:31-32)156“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
    And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”
    — Matthew 12:31-32

    +
    (Mark 3:28-30)157“Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
    But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
    Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.”
    — Mark 3:28-30

     
  53. A Good Man Bringeth Forth Good Things, An Evil Man Evil
    (Matthew 12:33-37)158“Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
    O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
    A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
    But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
    For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
    — Matthew 12:33-37
  54. The Sign of Jonas for the Scribes and Pharisees
    (Matthew 12:38-42)159“Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
    But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
    For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
    The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
    The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.”
    — Matthew 12:38-42
  55. An Unclean Spirit and Seven More Wicked
    (Matthew 12:43-45)160“When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
    Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
    Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.”
    — Matthew 12:43-45

     
  56. Jesus’ Mother and Brethren Attempt to See Him Again
    (Matthew 12:46-50)161“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
    Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
    But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
    And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
    For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
    — Matthew 12:46-50

    +
    (Mark 3:31-35)162“There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
    And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
    And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
    And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
    For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.”
    — Mark 3:31-35
  57. Jesus Resumes His Discourse with the Multitude Standing in the Boat
    (Matthew 13:1-2)163“The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
    And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.”
    — Matthew 13:1-2

    +
    (Mark 4:1)164“And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land.”
    — Mark 4:1
  58. The Parable of the Sower (Boat Version)
    (Matthew 13:3-9)165“And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; […]
    But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
    Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
    — Matthew 13:3…8-9

    +
    (Mark 4:2-9)166“And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,
    Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: […]
    And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.
    And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
    — Mark 4:2-3…8-9

     
    — The Parable of the Sower Explained to Jesus’ Disciples
    (Matthew 13:10-23)167“And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
    He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
    Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: […]
    But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”
    — Matthew 13:10-14…23

    +
    (Mark 4:10-20)168“And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
    And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
    That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
    And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
    The sower soweth the word. […]
    And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.”
    — Mark 4:10-14…20

     
  59. (or 101.) Teaching about the Lit Candle
    (Mark 4:21-25)169“And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?
    For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.
    If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
    And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.
    For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.”
    — Mark 4:21-25
  60. (or 102.) The Parable of the Seed Growing Up
    (Mark 4:26-29)170“And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
    And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.
    For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.
    But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.”
    — Mark 4:26-29

     
  61. (or 100.) The Parable of the Wheat and Tares
    (Matthew 13:24-30)171“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
    So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
    He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
    But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
    Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.”
    — Matthew 13:24-30

     
  62. The Parable of the Mustard Seed
    (Matthew 13:31-32)172“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
    Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.”
    — Matthew 13:31-32

    +
    (Mark 4:30-32)173“And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
    It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
    But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.”
    — Mark 4:30-32

     
  63. The Parable of the Leaven
    (Matthew 13:33)174“Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.”
    — Matthew 13:33

     
  64. Jesus Explains the Use of Parables
    (Matthew 13:34-35)175“All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
    That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”
    — Matthew 13:34-35

    +
    (Mark 4:33-34)176“And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.
    But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.”
    — Mark 4:33-34

     
  65. Jesus goes into the House with His Disciples
    (Matthew 13:36a)177“Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house:”
    — Matthew 13:36a
  66. The Parable of the Wheat and Tares Explained to His Disciples
    (Matthew 13:36b-43)178“…and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
    He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
    The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
    The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
    As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
    The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
    And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
    Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
    — Matthew 13:36b-43
  67. Three Parables for Jesus’ Disciples
    (Matthew 13:44-53)179“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
    Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.
    Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.”
    — Matthew 13:44-48
    180“So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
    And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
    Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
    Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
    And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.”
    — Matthew 13:49-53

     
  68. Jesus Calms the Storm181Same day as the above Discourse in Matthew and Mark, and different day from the earlier Luke 8:4-21 Discourse (note Luke 8:22)
    (Matthew 8:23-27)182“And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
    And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
    And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
    And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
    But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!”
    — Matthew 8:23-27

    +
    (Mark 4:35-41)183“And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.
    And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships.
    And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.
    And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?
    And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
    And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?
    And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”
    — Mark 4:35-41

    +
    (Luke 8:22-25)184“Now it came to pass on a certain day, that he went into a ship with his disciples: and he said unto them, Let us go over unto the other side of the lake. And they launched forth.
    But as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm of wind on the lake; and they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy.
    And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm.
    And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.”
    — Luke 8:22-25
  69. Jesus and His Disciples Arrive at the Country of the Gadarenes
    (Matthew 8:28a)185“And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes…”
    — Matthew 8:28a

    +
    (Mark 5:1)186“And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.”
    — Mark 5:1

    +
    (Luke 8:26)187“And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee.”
    — Luke 8:26
  70. Jesus Banishes Devils into Swine
    (Matthew 8:28b-33)188“…there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
    And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? […]
    And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
    And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.”
    — Matthew 8:28-29…32-33

    +
    (Mark 5:2-14a)189“And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
    Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
    But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
    And cried with a loud voice, […]
    And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.
    And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country.”
    — Mark 5:2-7a…13-14a

    +
    (Luke 8:27-34)190“And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.
    When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not. […]
    Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.
    When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country.”
    — Luke 8:27-28…33-34
  71. Locals Find Jesus and Ask Him to Leave
    (Matthew 8:34)191“And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.”
    — Matthew 8:34

    +
    (Mark 5:14b-20)192“And they went out to see what it was that was done.
    And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
    And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine.
    And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts.
    And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.
    Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.
    And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.”
    — Mark 5:14b-20

    +
    (Luke 8:35-39)193“Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
    They also which saw it told them by what means he that was possessed of the devils was healed.
    Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again.
    Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
    Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.”
    — Luke 8:35-39
  72. Jesus Returns to Near Side of the Lake of Galilee
    (Matthew 9:1)194“And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.”
    — Matthew 9:1

    +
    (Mark 5:21)195“And when Jesus was passed over again by ship unto the other side, much people gathered unto him: and he was nigh unto the sea.”
    — Mark 5:21

    +
    (Luke 8:40)196“And it came to pass, that, when Jesus was returned, the people gladly received him: for they were all waiting for him.”
    — Luke 8:40

     
    NOTE: Matthew 9:2-13 recounts events in [#61-64]197See also: explanation for this in conclusion section.
     
  73. Jesus Questioned (by Disciples of John the Baptist) about Fasting
    (Matthew 9:14-17)198“Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
    And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
    No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
    Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.”
    — Matthew 9:14-17

     
  74. Jairus Seeks Out Jesus
    (Matthew 9:18-19)199“While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
    And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.”
    — Matthew 9:18-19

    +
    (Mark 5:22-24)200“And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet,
    And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
    And Jesus went with him; and much people followed him, and thronged him.”
    — Mark 5:22-24

    +
    (Luke 8:41-42a)201“And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue: and he fell down at Jesus’ feet, and besought him that he would come into his house:
    For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying.”
    — Luke 8:41-42a
  75. Jesus Heals the Issue of Blood
    (Matthew 9:20-22)202“And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
    For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
    But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.”
    — Matthew 9:20-22

    +
    (Mark 5:25-34)203“And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.
    For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.
    And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.
    And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? […]
    …and told him all the truth.
    And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.”
    — Mark 5:25-30…33b-34

    +
    (Luke 8:42b-48)204“…But as he went the people thronged him.
    And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
    Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
    And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
    And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me. And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.
    And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.”
    — Luke 8:42b-48
  76. Jesus Raises the Maiden
    (Matthew 9:23-26)205“And when Jesus came into the ruler’s house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise,
    He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.
    But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.
    And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.”
    — Matthew 9:23-26

    +
    (Mark 5:35-43)206“While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house certain which said, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further?
    As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe. […]
    …he taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying.
    And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
    And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment.
    And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat.”
    — Mark 5:35-36…40b-43

    +
    (Luke 8:49-56)207“While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue’s house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master.
    But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.
    And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden.
    And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.
    And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.
    And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.
    And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.
    And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.”
    — Luke 8:49-56

     
  77. Jesus Heals Two Blind Men
    (Matthew 9:27-31)208“And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
    And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
    Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
    And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.
    But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.”
    — Matthew 9:27-31
  78. Jesus Heals A Mute Man, and Pharisees Blaspheme
    (Matthew 9:32-34)209“As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil.
    And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.
    But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.”
    — Matthew 9:32-34

     
  79. Jesus goes to Nazareth
    (Matthew 13:54a)210“And when he was come into his own country…”
    — Matthew 13:54a

    +
    (Mark 6:1)211“And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.”
    — Mark 6:1
  80. Jesus’ Teaching Offends the Nazarenes
    (Matthew 13:54b-58)212“…he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
    Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
    And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
    And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
    And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.”
    — Matthew 13:54b-58

    +
    (Mark 6:2-6a)213“And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
    Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
    But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
    And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
    And he marvelled because of their unbelief.”
    — Mark 6:2-6a
  81. Jesus Teaches Around the Villages
    (Matthew 9:35)214“And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.”
    — Matthew 9:35

    +
    (Mark 6:6b)215“And he went round about the villages, teaching.”
    — Mark 6:6b

     
  82. Jesus Remarks to His Disciples about the Multitudes
    (Matthew 9:36-38)216“But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
    Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;
    Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.”
    — Matthew 9:36-38

     
  83. Jesus Gives Authority to the Twelve
    (Matthew 10:1-15)217“And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
    Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; […]
    And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
    And when ye come into an house, salute it.
    And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
    And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
    Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
    — Matthew 10:1-2b…10-15

    +
    (Mark 6:7-11)218“And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
    And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
    But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
    And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.
    And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
    — Mark 6:7-11

    +
    (Luke 9:1-5)219“Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
    And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
    And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
    And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.
    And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.”
    — Luke 9:1-5

     
  84. Jesus Further Commands the Twelve
    (Matthew 10:16-42)220“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
    But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; […]
    He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.
    And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.”
    — Matthew 10:16-17…41-42

     
  85. The Twelve Preach and Do Miracles
    (Mark 6:12-13)221“And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
    And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.”
    — Mark 6:12-13

    +
    (Luke 9:6)222“And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.”
    — Luke 9:6

     
  86. Jesus Departs to Teach and Preach in their Cities
    (Matthew 11:1)223“And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.”
    — Matthew 11:1

     
  87. Herod the Tetrarch Remarks About These Things
    (Matthew 14:1-2)224“At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,
    And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.”
    — Matthew 14:1-2

    +
    (Mark 6:14-16)225“And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
    Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.
    But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.”
    — Mark 6:14-16

    +
    (Luke 9:7-9)226“Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead;
    And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again.
    And Herod said, John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him.”
    — Luke 9:7-9

     
    — Account of John the Baptist Death – Parenthetical
    (Matthew 14:3-12a)227“For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.
    For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. […]
    And his disciples came, and took up the body, and buried it,”
    — Matthew 14:3-4…12a

    +
    (Mark 6:17-29)228“For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her.
    For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife. […]
    And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb.”
    — Mark 6:17-18…29

     
  88. Jesus Hears about John Being Buried
    (Matthew 14:12b)229“…and went and told Jesus.”
    — Matthew 14:12b
—— END SECTION TWO
  1. Apostles Return to Jesus
    (Mark 6:30)230“And the apostles gathered themselves together unto Jesus, and told him all things, both what they had done, and what they had taught.”
    — Mark 6:30

    +
    (Luke 9:10a)231“And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done.”
    — Luke 9:10a

     
  2. Jesus goes to the Outskirts of Bethsaida
    (Matthew 14:13)232“When Jesus heard of it, he departed thence by ship into a desert place apart: and when the people had heard thereof, they followed him on foot out of the cities.”
    — Matthew 14:13

    +
    (Mark 6:31-32)233“And he said unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while: for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat.
    And they departed into a desert place by ship privately.”
    — Mark 6:31-32

    +
    (Luke 9:10b)234“And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.”
    — Luke 9:10b

    +
    (John 6:1)235“After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.”
    — John 6:1
  3. The Feeding of the Five Thousand (Passover #2)
    (Matthew 14:14-21)236“And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.
    And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals. […]
    And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.
    And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.”
    — Matthew 14:14-15…20-21

    +
    (Mark 6:33-44)237“And the people saw them departing, and many knew him, and ran afoot thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and came together unto him.
    And Jesus, when he came out, saw much people, and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.
    And when the day was now far spent, […]
    And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes.
    And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men.”
    — Mark 6:33-35a…43-44

    +
    (Luke 9:11-17)238“And the people, when they knew it, followed him: and he received them, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing.
    And when the day began to wear away, […]
    And they did eat, and were all filled: and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets.”
    — Luke 9:11-12a…17

    +
    (John 6:2-15)239“And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip,
    Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do. […]
    …Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
    Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
    When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.”
    — John 6:2-6…12b-15

     
  4. Jesus Sends His Disciples on a Ship and goes to a Mountain
    (Matthew 14:22-23)240“And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
    And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.”
    — Matthew 14:22-23

    +
    (Mark 6:45-46)241“And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida, while he sent away the people.
    And when he had sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray.”
    — Mark 6:45-46

    +
    (John 6:16-17)242“And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea,
    And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.”
    — John 6:16-17
  5. Jesus Walks on Water
    (Matthew 14:24-33)243“But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
    And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
    And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
    But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.”
    — Matthew 14:24-27
    244“And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come.
    And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
    But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
    And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
    And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.”
    — Matthew 14:28-33

    +
    (Mark 6:47-52)245“And when even was come, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land.
    And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.
    But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:
    For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.
    And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered.
    For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.”
    — Mark 6:47-52

    +
    (John 6:18-21)246“And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.
    So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
    But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.
    Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.”
    — John 6:18-21

     
    — John’s narrative247Before #196, Triumphal Entry
    (John 6:22 — 11:54)248“The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;
    (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks:)
    When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.”
    — John 6:22-24
    249“And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
    Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
    Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. […]
    This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
    These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.”
    — John 6:25-27…58-59
    250“Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
    When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
    What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
    It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
    But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
    And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”
    — John 6:60-65
    251“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
    Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
    Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
    And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
    Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
    He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.”
    — John 6:66-71
    252“After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
    Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. […]
    Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?
    They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
    And every man went unto his own house.”
    — John 7:1-2…51-53
    253“Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
    And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
    And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; […]
    She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
    — John 8:1-3a…11
    254“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
    The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. […]
    Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
    Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”
    — John 8:12-13…58-59
    255“And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
    And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? […]
    And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
    And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.”
    — John 9:1-2…38-39
    256“And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
    Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. […]
    There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
    And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
    Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?”
    — John 9:40-41… 10:19-21
    257“And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
    And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.
    Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. […]
    If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
    But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
    Therefore they sought again to take him:”
    — John 10:22-24…37-39a
    258“…but he escaped out of their hand,
    And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
    And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.
    And many believed on him there.”
    — John 10:39b-42
    259“Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
    (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) […]
    And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
    And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
    And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
    And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.”
    — John 11:1-2…41b-44
    260“Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
    But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
    Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
    If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.”
    — John 11:45-48
    261“And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
    Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
    And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
    And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
    Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.”
    — John 11:49-53

     
  6. Jesus goes to Gennesaret
    (Matthew 14:34-36)262“And when they were gone over, they came into the land of Gennesaret.
    And when the men of that place had knowledge of him, they sent out into all that country round about, and brought unto him all that were diseased;
    And besought him that they might only touch the hem of his garment: and as many as touched were made perfectly whole.”
    — Matthew 14:34-36

    +
    (Mark 6:53-56)263“And when they had passed over, they came into the land of Gennesaret, and drew to the shore.
    And when they were come out of the ship, straightway they knew him,
    And ran through that whole region round about, and began to carry about in beds those that were sick, where they heard he was.
    And whithersoever he entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole.”
    — Mark 6:53-56
  7. Jesus Rebukes the Scribes and Pharisees (The Tradition of Men)
    (Matthew 15:1-9)264“Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
    Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. […]
    This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
    But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
    — Matthew 15:1-2…8-9

    +
    (Mark 7:1-13)265“Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
    And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. […]
    And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
    Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
    — Mark 7:1-2…12-13
  8. Teaching about Defilement
    (Matthew 15:10-20)266“And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
    Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. […]
    For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
    These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.”
    — Matthew 15:10-11…19-20

    +
    (Mark 7:14-23)267“And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
    There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. […]
    For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
    Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
    All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”
    — Mark 7:14-15…21-23
  9. Jesus Visits the Coasts of Tyre and Sidon
    (Matthew 15:21-28)268“Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
    And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. […]
    And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
    Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”
    — Matthew 15:21-22…27-28

    +
    (Mark 7:24-30)269“And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.
    For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
    The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. […]
    And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
    And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.”
    — Mark 7:24-26…29-30
  10. Jesus goes to the Sea of Galilee
    (Matthew 15:29a)270“And Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee…”
    — Matthew 15:29a

    +
    (Mark 7:31)271And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.”
    — Mark 7:31

     
  11. Jesus Heals a Man who is Deaf and Mute
    (Mark 7:32-37)272“And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him.
    And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue;
    And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
    And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.
    And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;
    And were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.”
    — Mark 7:32-37

     
  12. Jesus goes up into a Mountain
    (Matthew 15:29b-31)273“…and went up into a mountain, and sat down there.
    And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus’ feet; and he healed them:
    Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.”
    — Matthew 15:29b-31

     
  13. The Feeding of the Four Thousand
    (Matthew 15:32-39a)274“Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.
    And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude? […]
    And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full.
    And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.
    And he sent away the multitude…
    — Matthew 15:32-33…37-39a

    +
    (Mark 8:1-9)275“In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples unto him, and saith unto them,
    I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat:
    And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far.
    And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness? […]
    So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets.
    And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away.”
    — Mark 8:1-4…8-9
  14. Jesus goes by Ship to the Coasts of Magdala
    (Matthew 15:39b)276“…and came into the coasts of Magdala.”
    — Matthew 15:39b

    +
    (Mark 8:10)277“And straightway he entered into a ship with his disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha.”
    — Mark 8:10
  15. Pharisees and Sadducees Demand a Sign from Heaven
    (Matthew 16:1-4a)278“The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
    He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
    And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring.
    O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
    A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.”
    — Matthew 16:1-4a

    +
    (Mark 8:11-12)279“And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.
    And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.”
    — Mark 8:11-12
  16. Jesus goes by Ship to the Other Side
    (Matthew 16:4b)280“And he left them, and departed.”
    — Matthew 16:4b

    +
    (Mark 8:13)281“And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.”
    — Mark 8:13
  17. Warning about the Leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees
    (Matthew 16:5-12)282“And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
    Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. […]
    Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
    How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
    Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”
    — Matthew 16:5-6…10-12

    +
    (Mark 8:14-21)283“Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.
    And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. […]
    And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.
    And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?”
    — Mark 8:14-15…20-21

     
  18. Jesus goes to Bethsaida
    (Mark 8:22a)284“And he cometh to Bethsaida…”
    — Mark 8:22a
  19. Jesus Heals Blind Man (See men as trees walking)
    (Mark 8:22b-26)285“…and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.
    And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
    And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
    After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.
    And he sent him away to his house, saying, Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.”
    — Mark 8:22b-26

     
  20. Jesus goes to Caesarea Philippi
    (Matthew 16:13a)286“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi,”
    — Matthew 16:13a

    +
    (Mark 8:27a)287“And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi:”
    — Mark 8:27a

     
  21. Peter’s Confession
    (Matthew 16:13b-20)288“…he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
    And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
    And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
    And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
    And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
    Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.”
    — Matthew 16:13b-20

    +
    (Mark 8:27b-30)289“…and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
    And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
    And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
    And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.”
    — Mark 8:27b-30

    +
    (Luke 9:18-21)290“And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am?
    They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again.
    He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.
    And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;”
    — Luke 9:18-21
  22. Jesus Predicts His Resurrection
    (Matthew 16:21-23)291“From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
    Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
    But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
    — Matthew 16:21-23

    +
    (Mark 8:31-33)292“And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
    And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
    But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.”
    — Mark 8:31-33

    +
    (Luke 9:22)293“Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.”
    — Luke 9:22
  23. Jesus Speaks to the People (Take up your cross)
    (Matthew 16:24-28)294“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
    For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
    For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
    For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
    Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
    — Matthew 16:24-28

    +
    (Mark 8:34 — 9:1)295“And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
    For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.
    For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
    Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
    And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”
    — Mark 8:34-9:1

    +
    (Luke 9:23-27)296“And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
    For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
    For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
    For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.
    But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.”
    — Luke 9:23-27
  24. The Transfiguration297Luke counts days inclusively, Mark/Matthew counts exclusively
    (Matthew 17:1-13)298“And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
    And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. […]
    But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
    Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.”
    — Matthew 17:1-2…12-13

    +
    (Mark 9:2-13)299“And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
    And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. […]
    But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.”
    — Mark 9:2-3…13

    +
    (Luke 9:28-36)300“And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
    And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. […]
    And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.”
    — Luke 9:28-29…36
  25. Jesus Rebukes the Dumb and Deaf Spirit (“Not but by prayer and fasting”)
    (Matthew 17:14-21)301“And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying,
    Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. […]
    And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
    Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
    And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
    Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
    — Matthew 17:14-15…21

    +
    (Mark 9:14-29)302“And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them.
    And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.
    And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them?
    And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; […]
    And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
    And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child. And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him:”
    — Mark 9:14-17…20-21a
    303“…but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
    Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
    And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
    When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
    And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
    But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.
    And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.”
    — Mark 9:21b-29

    +
    (Luke 9:37-42)304“And it came to pass, that on the next day, when they were come down from the hill, much people met him.
    And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child. […]
    And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father.”
    — Luke 9:37-38…42
  26. Jesus Predicts His Resurrection (at Galilee)
    (Matthew 17:22-23)305“And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
    And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.”
    — Matthew 17:22-23

    +
    (Mark 9:30-32)306“And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it.
    For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
    But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.”
    — Mark 9:30-32

    +
    (Luke 9:43-45)307“And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,
    Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
    But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.”
    — Luke 9:43-45

     
  27. Jesus goes to Capernaum
    (Matthew 17:24a)308“And when they were come to Capernaum…”
    — Matthew 17:24a

    +
    (Mark 9:33a)309“And he came to Capernaum:”
    — Mark 9:33a

     
  28. Tribute from the Fish
    (Matthew 17:24b-27)310“…they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
    He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
    Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
    Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.”
    — Matthew 17:24b-27

     
  29. Disciples Consider Who is the Greatest
    (Matthew 18:1-5)311“At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
    And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
    And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
    Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
    And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.”
    — Matthew 18:1-5

    +
    (Mark 9:33b-37)312“…and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
    But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
    And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.
    And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
    Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.”
    — Mark 9:33b-37

    +
    (Luke 9:46-48)313“Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.
    And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
    And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.”
    — Luke 9:46-48

     
  30. He that is not against us is for us
    (Mark 9:38-41)314“And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
    But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
    For he that is not against us is on our part.
    For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.”
    — Mark 9:38-41

    +
    (Luke 9:49-50)315“And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
    And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”
    — Luke 9:49-50

     
  31. Woe because of offenses
    (Matthew 18:6-9)316“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
    Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
    Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
    And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.”
    — Matthew 18:6-9

    +
    (Mark 9:42-48)317“And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
    And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
    Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
    And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
    Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
    And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
    Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
    — Mark 9:42-48

     
  32. Every one shall be salted with fire
    (Mark 9:49-50)318“For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
    Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.”
    — Mark 9:49-50

     
  33. Teaching of the Lost Sheep
    (Matthew 18:10-14)319“Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
    For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
    How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
    And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
    Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.”
    — Matthew 18:10-14
  34. Teaching of Two or Three Witnesses
    (Matthew 18:15-20)320“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
    But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
    And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
    Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
    Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
    For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
    — Matthew 18:15-20
  35. The Unforgiving Servant (Seventy times seven)
    (Matthew 18:21-35)321“Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
    Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
    Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. […]
    Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
    And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
    So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”
    — Matthew 18:21-23…33-35

     
  36. Jesus Determines to go to Jerusalem
    (Luke 9:51)322“And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,”
    — Luke 9:51
  37. Jesus is Turned Away by the Samaritans
    (Luke 9:52-56)323“And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
    And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
    And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
    But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
    For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.”
    — Luke 9:52-56

     
  38. Jesus Answers Followers (Foxes have holes)
    (Matthew 8:18-22)324“Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.
    And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
    And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
    And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
    But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.”
    — Matthew 8:18-22

    +
    (Luke 9:57-62)325“And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
    And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
    And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
    Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
    And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
    And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”
    — Luke 9:57-62

     
  39. Jesus Sends The Seventy as Lambs Among Wolves
    (Luke 10:1-16)326“After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
    Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.
    Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
    Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
    And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. […]
    And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.
    He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”
    — Luke 10:1-5…15-16
  40. Jesus Gives Power unto the Seventy
    (Luke 10:17-24)327“And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
    And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
    Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
    Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. […]
    For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.”
    — Luke 10:17-20…24
  41. The Good Samaritan
    (Luke 10:25-37)328“And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
    He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
    And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
    And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
    But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? […]
    Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
    And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.”
    — Luke 10:25-29…36-37
  42. Martha and Mary
    (Luke 10:38-42)329“Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
    And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.
    But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
    And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
    But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”
    — Luke 10:38-42

     
    — Additional teachings out of Luke330Note what Luke 16:14 says: “And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.”
    (Luke 11:1–16:13)331“And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
    And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
    Give us day by day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.”
    — Luke 11:1-4
    332“And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves; For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him?
    And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee.
    I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.”
    — Luke 11:5-8
    333“And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
    If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
    Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
    If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”
    — Luke 11:9-13
    334“And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.
    But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. […]
    But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
    He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.”
    — Luke 11:14-15…22-23
    335“When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
    And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
    Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.
    — Luke 11:24-26
    336“And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
    But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”
    — Luke 11:27-28
    337“And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. […]
    …for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
    No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.
    The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.
    Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.
    If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.”
    — Luke 11:29…32b-36
    338“And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.
    And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.
    And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. […]
    Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
    And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
    Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.”
    — Luke 11:37-39…52-54
    339“In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
    For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. […]
    And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
    For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.”
    — Luke 12:1-2…11-12
    340“And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
    And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?
    And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
    And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
    And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? […]
    But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
    So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”
    — Luke 12:13-17…20-21

    341“And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.
    The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. […]
    But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
    Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”
    — Luke 12:22-23…31-32
    342“Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
    For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
    Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; […]
    And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
    And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
    Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.”
    — Luke 12:33-35…38-40
    343“Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
    And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
    Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. […]
    And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
    But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”
    — Luke 12:41-43…47-48
    344“I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
    But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
    Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
    For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
    The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”
    — Luke 12:49-53
    345“And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
    And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
    Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
    Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?
    When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison.
    I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.”
    — Luke 12:54-59
    346“There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
    And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
    I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
    Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
    I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”
    — Luke 13:1-5
    347“He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
    Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
    And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
    And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.”
    — Luke 13:6-9
    348“And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.
    And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.
    And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.
    And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. […]
    And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?
    And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.”
    — Luke 13:10-13…16-17
    349“And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.
    Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it?
    It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.
    And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God?
    It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.”
    — Luke 13:17-21
    350“And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem.
    Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? […]
    There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
    And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
    And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.”
    — Luke 13:22-23a…28-30
    351“The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.
    And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
    Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.
    O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
    Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”
    — Luke 13:31-35
    352“And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.
    And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy.
    And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?
    And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go;
    And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
    And they could not answer him again to these things.”
    — Luke 14:1-6
    353“And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them,
    When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;
    And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.
    But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.
    For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
    — Luke 14:7-11
    354“Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.
    But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:
    And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.”
    — Luke 14:12-14
    355“And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.
    Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
    And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
    And they all with one consent began to make excuse. […]
    And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
    For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.”
    — Luke 14:15-18a…23-24
    356“And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,
    If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
    And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
    For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? […]
    So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
    Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
    It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
    Luke 14:25-28…33-35
    357“Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
    And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
    And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
    What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? […]
    Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”
    — Luke 15:1-4…10
    358“And he said, A certain man had two sons:
    And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
    And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. […]
    And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
    It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.”
    — Luke 15:11-13…31-33
    359“And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. […]
    And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
    He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
    If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
    And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?
    No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
    — Luke 16:1…9-13

     
  43. Jesus Departs Galilee and Enters Judea Beyond Jordan
    (Matthew 19:1)360“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;”
    — Matthew 19:1

    +
    (Mark 10:1a)361“And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan…”
    — Mark 10:1a
  44. Jesus Teaches and Heals the Multitude
    (Matthew 19:2)362“And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.”
    — Matthew 19:2

    +
    (Mark 10:1b)363“…and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.”
    — Mark 10:1b

     
  45. Pharisees Tempt Jesus about Divorce
    (Matthew 19:3-12)364“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? […]
    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
    His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
    But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
    For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
    — Matthew 19:3…9-12

    +
    (Mark 10:2-12)365“And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. […]
    What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
    And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
    And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
    And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
    — Mark 10:2…9-12

    +
    (Luke 16:14-18)366“And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
    And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
    The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
    And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
    Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”
    — Luke 16:14-18

     
  46. The Rich Man and Lazarus
    (Luke 16:19-31)367“There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
    And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, […]
    And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
    And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
    — Luke 16:19-20…30-31
  47. Woe Because of Offenses (Seventy times seven)
    (Luke 17:1-4)368“Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
    It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
    Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
    And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.”
    — Luke 17:1-4
  48. We are unprofitable servants
    (Luke 17:5-10)369“And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
    And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
    But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
    And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
    Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
    So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.”
    — Luke 17:5-10
  49. Jesus Heals Ten Lepers
    (Luke 17:11-19)370“And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.
    And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: […]
    And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan.
    And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?
    There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger.
    And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.”
    — Luke 17:11-12…17-19
  50. Pharisees Demand When the Kingdom of God Should Come
    (Luke 17:20-21)371“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
    Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
    — Luke 17:20-21
  51. Jesus Predicts the Day When He is Revealed
    (Luke 17:22-37)372“And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
    And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
    For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. […]
    Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
    And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.”
    — Luke 17:22-24…36-37
  52. The Parable of the Persistent Widow
    (Luke 18:1-8)373“And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; […]
    And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.
    And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
    I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”
    — Luke 18:1…6-8
  53. The Pharisee and the Publican
    (Luke 18:9-14)374“And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
    Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. […]
    I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
    — Luke 18:9-10…14

     
  54. Suffer little children
    (Matthew 19:13-15a)375“Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
    But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
    And he laid his hands on them…”
    — Matthew 19:13-15a

    +
    (Mark 10:13-16)376“And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
    But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
    Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
    And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.”
    — Mark 10:13-16

    +
    (Luke 18:15-17)377“And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
    But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
    Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.”
    — Luke 18:15-17
  55. Jesus Answers the Rich Young Man and Peter
    (Matthew 19:15b-30)378“…and departed thence.
    And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
    And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. […]
    And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
    When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
    But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”
    — Matthew 19:15b-17…24-26
    379“Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
    And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
    And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
    But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.”
    — Matthew 19:27-30

    +
    (Mark 10:17-31)380“And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
    And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. […]
    It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
    And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
    And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.”
    — Mark 10:17-18…25-27
    381“Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
    And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,
    But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
    But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.”
    — Mark 10:28-31

    +
    (Luke 18:18-30)382“And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
    And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. […]
    For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
    And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
    And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.”
    — Luke 18:18-19…25-27
    383“Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee.
    And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake,
    Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.”
    — Luke 18:28-30

     
  56. Teaching of the Vineyard Workers’ Wages
    (Matthew 20:1-16)384“For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
    And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. […]
    But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
    Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
    Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
    So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.”
    — Matthew 20:1-2…13-16

     
  57. Jesus Sets Out for Jerusalem
    (Matthew 20:17-18a)385“And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
    Behold, we go up to Jerusalem;”
    — Matthew 20:17-18a

    +
    (Mark 10:32a)386“And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem;”
    — Mark 10:32a

    +
    (Luke 18:31a)387“Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem…”
    — Luke 18:31a
  58. Jesus Predicts His Resurrection
    (Matthew 20:18b-19)388“…and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
    And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.”
    — Matthew 20:18b-19

    +
    (Mark 10:32b-34)389“…and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him,
    Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:
    And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.”
    — Mark 10:32b-34

    +
    (Luke 18:31b-34)390“…and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
    For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
    And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
    And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.”
    — Luke 18:31b-34

     
  59. Jesus Answers James and John
    (Matthew 20:20-28)391“Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
    And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
    But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. […]
    And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
    Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
    — Matthew 20:20-22a…27-28

    +
    (Mark 10:35-45)392“And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.
    And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
    They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
    But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: […]
    And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
    For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
    — Mark 10:35-38a…44-45

     
  60. Jesus Approaches Jericho
    (Luke 18:35a)393“And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto Jericho…”
    — Luke 18:35a
  61. Jesus Heals a Blind Man
    (Luke 18:35b-43)394“…a certain blind man sat by the way side begging:
    And hearing the multitude pass by, he asked what it meant.
    And they told him, that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by. […]
    And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.
    And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God.”
    — Luke 18:35-37…42-43
  62. Jesus Enters and Passes Through Jericho
    (Luke 19:1)395“And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”
    — Luke 19:1

     
  63. Jesus Departs Jericho396either before or after visiting Zacchaeus
    (Matthew 20:29)397“And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him.”
    — Matthew 20:29

    +
    (Mark 10:46a)398“And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho…”
    — Mark 10:46a

     
  64. Jesus Heals Blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus
    (Mark 10:46b-52)399“…and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.
    And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me. […]
    And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight.
    And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.”
    — Mark 10:46b-47…51-52

     
    — Recounting How Jesus Healed Two Blind Men While Visiting Jericho
    (Matthew 20:30-34)400“And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
    And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: […]
    They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened.
    So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.”
    — Matthew 20:30-34

     
  65. Jesus Visits Zacchaeus401possibly during #191 instead of after
    (Luke 19:2-10)402“And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.
    And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. […]
    And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
    For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
    — Luke 19:1-2…9-10
  66. The Parable of the Ten Talents
    (Luke 19:11-27)403“And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
    He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. […]
    For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
    But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
    — Luke 19:11-12…26-27

     
  67. Narrative leading up to the Triumphal Entry
    (John 11:55 — 12:11)404“And the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.
    Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?
    Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.”
    — John 11:55-57
    405“Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
    There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. […]
    …against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
    For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
    Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.
    But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;
    Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.”
    — John 12:1-2…7b-11
—— END SECTION THREE
  1. The Triumphal Entry
    (Matthew 21:1-11)406“And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
    Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. […]
    And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
    And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?
    And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.”
    — Matthew 21:1-2…9-11

    +
    (Mark 11:1-10)407“And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples,
    And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. […]
    And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord:
    Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.”
    — Mark 11:1-2…9-10

    +
    (Luke 19:28-44)408“And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem. […]
    Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
    And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
    And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
    And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.”
    — Luke 19:28…38-44

    +
    (John 12:12-19)409“On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
    Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
    And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,
    Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt. […]
    The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.”
    — John 12:12-15…19

  2. Jesus Drives out the Moneychangers (Sunday)
    (Matthew 21:12-16)410“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
    And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
    And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
    And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
    And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?”
    — Matthew 21:12-16

    +
    (Mark 11:11a)411“And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things,”
    — Mark 11:11a

    +
    (Luke 19:45-48)412“And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
    Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.
    And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him,
    And could not find what they might do: for all the people were very attentive to hear him.”
    — Luke 19:45-48

  3. Jesus Lodges in Bethany
    (Matthew 21:17)413“And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.”
    — Matthew 21:17

    +
    (Mark 11:11b)414“…and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.”
    — Mark 11:11b
  4. Jesus Curses the Fig Tree (Bethany -> Jerusalem)
    (Matthew 21:18-19a)415“Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
    And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever…”
    — Matthew 21:18-19a

    +
    (Mark 11:12-14)416“And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
    And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
    And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.”
    — Mark 11:12-14

  5. Jesus Drives out the Moneychangers (Monday)
    (Mark 11:15-18)417“And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
    And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
    And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
    And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.”
    — Mark 11:15-18
  6. Jesus Speaks to the Greeks
    (John 12:20-36)418“And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:
    The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. […]
    The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?
    Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.
    While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.”
    — John 12:20-21…34-36
  7. Remarks on Jesus’ Ministry
    (John 12:37-43)419“But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
    That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
    Therefore they could not believe… […]
    Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
    For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”
    — John 12:37-39a…42-43
  8. Jesus Rebukes Unbelief
    (John 12:44-50)420“Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
    And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. […]
    He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
    For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
    And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.”
    — John 12:44-45…48-50
  9. Jesus Lodges in Bethany
    (Mark 11:19)421“And when even was come, he went out of the city.”
    — Mark 11:19

  10. Disciples Observe the Fig Tree (Bethany -> Jerusalem)
    (Matthew 21:19b-22)422“…And presently the fig tree withered away.
    And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
    Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
    And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”
    — Matthew 21:19b-22

    +
    (Mark 11:20-26)423“And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
    And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
    And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. […]
    And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
    But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
    — Mark 11:20-22…25-26

  11. Chief Priests, Scribes, and Elders Question Jesus’ Authority
    (Matthew 21:23-27)424“And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
    And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. […]
    And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.”
    — Matthew 21:23-24…27

    +
    (Mark 11:27-33)425“And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,
    And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?
    And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. […]
    And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.”
    — Mark 11:27-29…33

    +
    (Luke 20:1-8)426“And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,
    And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?
    And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me: […]
    And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.
    And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.”
    — Luke 20:1-3…7-8

  12. The Parable of the Two Sons
    (Matthew 21:28-32)427“But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
    He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
    And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
    Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
    For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.”
    — Matthew 21:28-32

  13. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants
    (Matthew 21:33-46)428“Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
    And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
    And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. […]
    And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
    But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.”
    — Matthew 21:33-35…45-46

    +
    (Mark 12:1-12)429“And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
    And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.
    And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.
    And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.
    And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. […]
    And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.”
    — Mark 12:1-5…12

    +
    (Luke 20:9-19)430“Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.
    And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty.
    And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty.
    And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. […]
    And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.”
    — Luke 20:9-12…19

  14. The Parable of the Banquet
    (Matthew 22:1-14)431“And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
    The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
    And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. […]
    Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
    For many are called, but few are chosen.”
    — Matthew 22:1-3…13-14

  15. Pharisees and Herodians Question Jesus about Taxes
    (Matthew 22:15-22)432“Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
    And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
    Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
    But Jesus perceived their wickedness, […]
    When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.”
    — Matthew 22:15-18a…22

    +
    (Mark 12:13-17)433“And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
    And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
    Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, […]
    And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.”
    — Mark 12:13-15a…17

    +
    (Luke 20:20-26)434“And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.
    And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:
    Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
    But he perceived their craftiness, […]
    And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.”
    — Luke 20:20-23a…26
  16. Sadducees Question Jesus about Resurrection
    (Matthew 22:23-33)435“The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
    Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. […]
    I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
    And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.”
    — Matthew 21:23-24…32-33

    +
    (Mark 12:18-27)436“Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
    Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. […]
    And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
    He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.”
    — Mark 12:18-19…26-27

    +
    (Luke 20:27-40)437“Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,
    Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. […]
    For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
    Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said.
    And after that they durst not ask him any question at all.”
    — Luke 20:27-28…38-40

  17. Pharisees Question Jesus about the Greatest Commandment
    (Matthew 22:34-40)438“But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
    Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
    Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
    Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    This is the first and great commandment.
    And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
    — Matthew 22:34-40

    +
    (Mark 12:28-34)439“And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? […]
    And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
    And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
    And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.”
    — Mark 28…32-34

  18. Jesus Questions Pharisees regarding Whom Christ is the Son of
    (Matthew 22:41-46)440“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
    Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
    He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
    The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
    If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
    And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.”
    — Matthew 22:41-46

    +
    (Mark 12:35-37)441“And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?
    For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
    David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.”
    — Mark 12:35-37

    +
    (Luke 20:41-44)442“And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David’s son?
    And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
    Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
    David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?”
    — Luke 20:41-44
  19. Jesus Warns about the Scribes and Pharisees
    (Matthew 23:1-39)443“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
    Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
    All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
    For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. […]
    Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
    For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”
    — Matthew 23:1-4…38-39

    +
    (Mark 12:38-40)444“And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
    And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
    Which devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.”
    — Mark 12:38-40

    +
    (Luke 20:45-47)445“Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,
    Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
    Which devour widows’ houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.”
    — Luke 20:45-47

  20. Jesus Remarks about the Widow’s Offering
    (Mark 12:41-44)446“And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
    And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
    And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
    For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.”
    — Mark 12:41-44

    +
    (Luke 21:1-4)447“And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
    And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
    And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
    For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.”
    — Luke 21:1-4

  21. Jesus Remarks about the Temple Buildings (Jerusalem -> Mount of Olives)
    (Matthew 24:1-2)448“And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
    And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
    — Matthew 24:1-2

    +
    (Mark 13:1-2)449“And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
    And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
    — Mark 13:1-2

    +
    (Luke 21:5-6)450“And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
    As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
    — Luke 21:5-6
  22. The Olivet Discourse
    (Matthew 24:3-51)451“And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
    And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. […]
    The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
    And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
    — Matthew 24:3-4…50-51

    +
    (Mark 13:3-37)452“And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
    Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
    And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: […]
    Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
    And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.”
    — Mark 13:3-5…36-37

    +
    (Luke 21:7-36)453“And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
    And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; […]
    For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
    Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”
    — Luke 21:7-8…35-36

  23. The Parable of the Ten Virgins
    (Matthew 25:1-13)454“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
    And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. […]
    Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
    But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
    Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.”
    — Matthew 25:1-2…11-13
  24. The Parable of the Ten Talents (Mt. Olivet Version)
    (Matthew 25:14-30)455“For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
    And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. […]
    For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
    And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
    — Matthew 25:14-15…29-30
  25. The Teaching of the Sheep and Goats
    (Matthew 25:31-46)456“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
    And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
    And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. […]
    Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
    And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
    — Matthew 25:31-33…45-46
  26. Jesus Predicts His Betrayal
    (Matthew 26:1-2)457“And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,
    Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.”
    — Matthew 26:1-2
  27. Jesus Lodges in the Mount of Olives
    (Luke 21:37)458“And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.”
    — Luke 21:37
  28. Jesus Teaches in the Temple
    (Luke 21:38)459“And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him.”
    — Luke 21:38

  29. The Chief Priests, Scribes and Elders Plot Together
    (Matthew 26:3-5)460“Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
    And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
    But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.”
    — Matthew 26:3-5

    +
    (Mark 14:1-2)461“After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.
    But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.”
    — Mark 14:1-2

    +
    (Luke 22:1-2)462“Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
    And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.”
    — Luke 22:1-2

  30. Woman Anoints Head of Jesus (Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached)
    (Matthew 26:6-13)463“Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
    There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. […]
    Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.”
    — Matthew 26:6-7…13

    +
    (Mark 14:3-9)464“And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. […]
    Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.”
    — Mark 14:3…9

  31. Judas Iscariot Meets with the Chief Priests
    (Matthew 26:14-16)465“Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
    And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
    And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.”
    — Matthew 26:14-16

    +
    (Mark 14:10-11)466“And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
    And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.”
    — Mark 14:10-11

    +
    (Luke 22:3-6)467“Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
    And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
    And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
    And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.”
    — Luke 22:3-6
  32. Preparations for the Last Supper
    (Matthew 26:17-19)468“Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
    And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
    And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.”
    — Matthew 26:17-19

    +
    (Mark 14:12-16)469“And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
    And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
    And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
    And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.
    And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.”
    — Mark 14:12-16

    +
    (Luke 22:7-13)470“Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
    And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.
    And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?
    And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.
    And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
    And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.
    And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.”
    — Luke 22:7-13

  33. The Last Supper Gathering
    (Matthew 26:20)471“Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.”
    — Matthew 26:20

    +
    (Mark 14:17)472“And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.”
    — Mark 14:17

    +
    (Luke 22:14)473“And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.”
    — Luke 22:14

    +
    (John 13:1)474“Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.”
    — John 13:1

  34. The Last Supper
    (Matthew 26:21-29)475“And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
    And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? […]
    For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
    But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
    — Matthew 26:20-21…28-29

    +
    (Mark 14:18-25)476“And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
    And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? […]
    And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
    Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
    — Mark 14:18-19…24-25

    +
    (Luke 22:15-23)477“And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: […]
    Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
    But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
    And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!
    And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.”
    — Luke 22:15…20-23

  35. Jesus Remarks about Greatness
    (Luke 22:24-30)478“And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
    And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. […]
    And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
    That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
    — Luke 22:24-25…29-30
  36. Jesus Washes the Disciples’ Feet
    (John 13:2-17)479“And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;
    Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
    He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. […]
    For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
    Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
    If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”
    — John 13:2-4…15-17
  37. Jesus Predicts His Betrayal Again
    (John 13:18-30)480“I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
    Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. […]
    …he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
    And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
    Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
    For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.
    He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.”
    — John 13:18-19…26b-30
  38. Jesus and His Church Sing a Hymn
    (Matthew 26:30a)481“And when they had sung an hymn…”
    — Matthew 26:30a

    +
    (Mark 14:26a)482“And when they had sung an hymn…”
    — Mark 14:26a

  39. Jesus Leaves the Upper Room
    (Matthew 26:30b)483“…they went out into the mount of Olives.”
    — Matthew 26:30b

    +
    (Mark 14:26b)484“…they went out into the mount of Olives.”
    — Mark 14:26b

    +
    (John 13:31a)485“Therefore, when he was gone out…”
    — John 13:31a

  40. Jesus Gives a New Command
    (John 13:31b-35)486“…Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
    If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.
    Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
    A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
    By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
    — John 13:31b-35
  41. Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial
    (Matthew 26:31-35)487“Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
    But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
    Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.
    Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
    Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.”
    — Matthew 26:31-35

    +
    (Mark 14:27-31)488“And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.
    But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.
    But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.
    And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.
    But he spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all.”
    — Mark 14:27-31

    +
    (Luke 22:31-34)489“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
    But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
    And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.
    And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.”
    — Luke 22:31-34

    +
    (John 13:36-38)490“Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.
    Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.
    Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.”
    — John 13:36-38

  42. Jesus Procures Two Swords
    (Luke 22:35-39)491“And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
    Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
    For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
    And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
    And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.”
    — Luke 22:35-39
  43. The Discourse on the Path to Gethsemane492after leaving the lower room of the house
    (John 14:1–17:26)493“Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
    In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
    And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
    And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. […]
    Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
    But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.”
    — John 14:1-4…30-31
    494“I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
    Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
    Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. […]
    Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
    He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
    All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
    A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.”
    — John 15:1-3… 16:13-16
    495“Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?
    They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith. […]
    These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.
    At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
    For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
    I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”
    — John 16:17-18…25-28
    496“His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
    Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
    Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?
    Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
    These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”
    — John 16:29-33
    497“These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: […]
    Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
    O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
    And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
    — John 17:1…24-26
  44. Jesus Arrives at the Garden of Gethsemane
    (Matthew 26:36a)498“Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane,”
    — Matthew 26:36a

    +
    (Mark 14:32a)499“And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane:”
    — Mark 14:32a

    +
    (Luke 22:40a)500“And when he was at the place,”
    — Luke 22:40a

    +
    (John 18:1)501“When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.”
    — John 18:1

  45. Jesus Prays at Gethsemane
    (Matthew 26:36b-44)502“…and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.
    And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. […]
    He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
    And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.
    And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.”
    — Matthew 26:36b-37…42-44

    +
    (Mark 14:32b-40)503“…and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray.
    And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; […]
    And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words.
    And when he returned, he found them asleep again, (for their eyes were heavy,) neither wist they what to answer him.”
    — Mark 14:32b-33…39-40

    +
    (Luke 22:40b-44)504“…and his disciples also followed him.
    And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
    And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
    Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
    And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
    And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”
    — Luke 22:39b-44
  46. Jesus Speaks to His Sleeping Disciples After Prayer
    (Matthew 26:45-46)505“Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
    Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.”
    — Matthew 26:45-46

    +
    (Mark 14:41-42)506“And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
    Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand.”
    — Mark 14:41-42

    +
    (Luke 22:45-46)507“And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,
    And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.”
    — Luke 22:45-46

  47. The Betrayal of Jesus
    (Matthew 26:47-56)508“And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. […]
    Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
    But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
    In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
    But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.”
    — Matthew 26:47…53-56

    +
    (Mark 14:43-52)509“And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. […]
    And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?
    I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.
    And they all forsook him, and fled.
    And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
    And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.”
    — Mark 14:43…48-52

    +
    (Luke 22:47-53)510“And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
    But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? […]
    Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
    When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”
    Luke 22:47-48…52-53

    +
    (John 18:2-11)511“And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
    Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
    Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
    They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he… […]
    …if ye seek me, let these go their way:
    That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
    Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
    Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”
    — John 18:2-5a…8b-11

  48. Jesus Brought Before Annas (and First Denial)
    (John 18:12-23)512“Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,
    And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
    Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. […]
    And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
    Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
    Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.”
    — John 18:12-14…22-24

  49. Jesus Brought Before Caiaphas (and Second Two Denials)
    (Matthew 26:57-68)513“And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. […]
    Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
    Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
    What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
    Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
    Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?”
    — Matthew 26:57…64-68

    +
    (Mark 14:53-65)514“And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes. […]
    And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
    Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
    Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
    And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.”
    — Mark 14:53…62-65

    +
    (Luke 22:63-71)515“And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
    And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
    And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. […]
    And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
    And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
    Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
    Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
    And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.”
    — Luke 22:63-65…67b-71

    +
    (John 18:24-27)516“Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
    And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.
    One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
    Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.”
    — John 18:24-27


    — Peter’s Three Denials
    (Matthew 26:69-75)517“Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
    But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. […]
    Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
    And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.”
    — Matthew 26:69-70…74-75

    +
    (Mark 14:66-72)518“And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:
    And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
    But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. […]
    …said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.
    But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
    And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.”
    — Mark 14:66-68…70b-72

    +
    (Luke 22:54-62)519“Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off.
    And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. […]
    And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
    And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
    And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.”
    — Luke 22:54-55…60-62


  50. Jesus Sent to Pilate
    (Matthew 27:1-2)520“When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
    And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.”
    — Matthew 27:1-2

    +
    (Mark 15:1)521“And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.”
    — Mark 15:1

    +
    (Luke 23:1)522“And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.”
    — Luke 23:1

    +
    (John 18:28)523“Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.”
    — John 18:28

  51. Judas Iscariot Hangs Himself
    (Matthew 27:3-10)524“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
    Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
    And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. […]
    Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
    And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.”
    — Matthew 27:3-5…9-10

  52. Jesus Accused Before Pilate
    (Matthew 27:11-14)525“And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
    And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
    Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
    And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.”
    — Matthew 27:11-14

    +
    (Mark 15:2-5)526“And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
    And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing.
    And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee.
    But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.”
    — Mark 15:2-5

    +
    (Luke 23:2-5)527“And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
    And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
    Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.
    And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.”
    — Luke 23:2-5

    +
    (John 18:29-38a)528“Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
    They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. […]
    Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
    Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
    Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
    Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
    Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?”
    — John 18:29-30…34-38a

  53. Jesus Brought Before Herod
    (Luke 23:6-12)529“When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.
    And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
    And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.
    Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.
    And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.
    And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
    And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.”
    — Luke 23:6-12

  54. The People Chooses Barabbas
    (Matthew 27:15-23)530“Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
    And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
    Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
    For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
    When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. […]
    And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.”
    — Matthew 27:15-19…23

    +
    (Mark 15:6-14)531“Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
    And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
    And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them. […]
    And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
    — Mark 15:6-8…15

    +
    (Luke 23:13-23)532“And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,
    Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.
    I will therefore chastise him, and release him. […]
    And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.
    And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.
    And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.”
    — Luke 23:13-16…23-25

    +
    (John 18:38b-40)533“And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
    But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
    Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.”
    — John 18:38b-40
  55. Pilate Delivers Jesus Over
    (Matthew 27:24-26)534“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
    Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
    Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.”
    — Matthew 27:24-26

    +
    (Mark 15:15)535“And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.”
    — Mark 15:15

    +
    (Luke 23:24-25)536“And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.
    And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.”
    — Luke 23:24-25

    +
    (John 19:1)537“Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.”
    — John 19:1

  56. Soldiers Mock Jesus
    (Matthew 27:27-31a)538“Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.
    And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.
    And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
    And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.
    And after that they had mocked him…”
    — Matthew 27:27-30a

    +
    (Mark 15:16-20a)539“And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.
    And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head,
    And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!
    And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
    And when they had mocked him…”
    — Mark 15:16-20a

    +
    (John 19:2-3)540“And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
    And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.”
    — John 19:2-3

  57. Jesus Appears Before the Judgement Hall
    (John 19:4-7)541“Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
    Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
    When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
    The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”
    — John 19:4-7
  58. Pilate Questions Jesus
    (John 19:8-12)542“When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
    And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
    Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
    Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
    And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.”
    — John 19:8-12
  59. Pilate Takes Jesus to the Judgment Seat
    (John 19:13-15)543“When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
    And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
    But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.”
    — John 19:13-15

  60. Jesus Taken to be Crucified
    (Matthew 27:31b)544“…they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.”
    — Matthew 27:31b

    +
    (Mark 15:20b)545“…they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.”
    — Mark 15:20b

    +
    (John 19:16)546“Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.”
    — John 19:16

  61. The Cross is Carried to Calvary
    (Matthew 27:32)547“And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.”
    — Matthew 27:32

    +
    (Mark 15:21-22)548“And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
    And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.”
    — Mark 15:21-22

    +
    (Luke 23:26-32)549“And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.
    And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
    But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
    For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
    Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
    For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
    And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.”
    — Luke 23:26-32

    +
    (John 19:17-18)550“And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
    Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.”
    — John 19:17-18

  62. Pilate Writes the Superscription
    (John 19:19-22)551“And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
    This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
    Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
    Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.”
    — John 19:19-22

  63. Jesus is Crucified, Raiment is Parted, Offered Vinegar Mixed with Gall
    (Matthew 27:33-35)552“And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
    They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
    And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.”
    — Matthew 27:33-35

    +
    (Mark 15:23-25)553“And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.
    And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
    And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.”
    — Mark 15:23-25

    +
    (Luke 23:33-37)554“And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
    Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
    And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
    And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,
    And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.”
    — Luke 23:33-37

    +
    (John 19:23-24)555“Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
    They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.”
    — John 19:23-24

  64. The Onlookers and Two Thieves Comments
    (Matthew 27:36-44)556“And sitting down they watched him there;
    And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
    Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
    Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
    He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
    He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
    The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.”
    — Matthew 27:36-44

    +
    (Mark 15:26-32)557“And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
    And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
    And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
    And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
    Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
    Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
    Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.”
    — Mark 15:26-32

    +
    (Luke 23:38-43)558“And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
    And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
    But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
    And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
    And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
    And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
    — Luke 23:38-43

  65. Jesus Speaks to Mary and John
    (John 19:25-27)559“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
    When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
    Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.”
    — John 19:25-27

  66. Darkness from the Sixth to Ninth Hour
    (Matthew 27:45)560“Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.”
    — Matthew 27:45

    +
    (Mark 15:33)561“And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.”
    — Mark 15:33

    +
    (Luke 23:44)562“And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.”
    — Luke 23:44

  67. Jesus Cries Out to God (Psalm 22)
    (Matthew 27:46-47)563“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
    Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.”
    — Matthew 27:46-47

    +
    (Mark 15:34-35)564“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
    And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.”
    — Mark 15:34-35

  68. Jesus Offered Vinegar
    (Matthew 27:48-49)565“And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
    The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.”
    — Matthew 27:48-49

    +
    (Mark 15:36)566“And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.”
    — Mark 15:36

    +
    (John 19:28-30a)567“After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
    Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
    When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar…”
    — John 19:28-30a

  69. Jesus’ Death
    (Matthew 27:50-54)568“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
    And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
    And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
    And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
    Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.”
    — Matthew 27:50-54

    +
    (Mark 15:37-39)569“And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
    And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
    And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.”
    — Mark 15:37-39

    +
    (Luke 23:45-47)570“And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
    And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
    Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.”
    — Luke 23:45-47

    +
    (John 19:30b)571“…he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
    — John 19:30b

  70. Onlookers Mentioned
    (Matthew 27:55-56)572“And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
    Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.”
    — Matthew 27:55-56

    +
    (Mark 15:40-41)573“There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
    (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.”
    — Mark 15:40-41

    +
    (Luke 23:48-49)574“And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.
    And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.”
    — Luke 23:48-49

  71. Jesus’ Side Pierced
    (John 19:31-37)575“The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
    Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
    But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
    And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
    For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
    And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.”
    — John 19:31-37

  72. Joseph of Arimathaea Embalms and Buries Jesus
    (Matthew 27:57-60)576“When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple:
    He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
    And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
    And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.”
    — Matthew 27:57-60

    +
    (Mark 15:42-46)577“And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,
    Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counseller, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
    And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
    And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
    And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.”
    — Mark 15:42-46

    +
    (Luke 23:50-54)578“And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counseller; and he was a good man, and a just:
    (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
    This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
    And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
    And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.”
    — Luke 23:50-54

    +
    (John 19:38-42)579“And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
    And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
    Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
    Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
    There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews’ preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.”
    — John 19:38-42

  73. The Women from Galilee Behold the Sepulchre
    (Matthew 27:61)580“And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.”
    — Matthew 27:61

    +
    (Mark 15:47)581“And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.”
    — Mark 15:47

    +
    (Luke 23:54-55)582“And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
    And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.”
    — Luke 23:54-55

  74. The Chief Priests and Pharisees Secure the Tomb
    (Matthew 27:62-66)583“Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
    Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
    Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
    Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
    So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.”
    — Matthew 27:62-66


  75. The Women Observe the Sabbath Day
    (Luke 23:56)584“And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.”
    — Luke 23:56


    — The Angel Rolls Back the Stone
    (Matthew 28:2-4)585“And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
    His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
    And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.”
    — Matthew 28:2-4


  76. Mary and the Other Women go to the Sepulchre
    (Matthew 28:1)586“In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.”
    — Matthew 28:1

    +
    (Mark 16:1-2)587“And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
    And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.”
    — Mark 16:1-2

    +
    (Luke 24:1)588“Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.”
    — Luke 24:1

    +
    (John 20:1a)589“The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre…”
    — John 20:1a
  77. They Enter the Tomb and Meet Angels There
    (Matthew 28:5-8)590“And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
    He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
    And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
    And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.”
    — Matthew 28:5-8

    +
    (Mark 16:3-8)591“And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
    And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
    And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
    And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
    But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
    And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.”
    — Mark 16:3-8

    +
    (Luke 24:2-7)592“And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
    And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
    And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
    And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
    He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
    Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”
    — Luke 24:2-7

    +
    (John 20:1b)593“…and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.”
    — John 20:1b

  78. Mary Reports to Peter and John
    (Luke 24:8-11)594“And they remembered his words,
    And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
    It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
    And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.”
    — Luke 24:8-11

    +
    (John 20:2)595“Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.”
    — John 20:2
  79. Peter and John Visit the Site of the Sepulchre
    (Luke 24:12)596“Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.”
    — Luke 24:12

    +
    (John 20:3-10)597“Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
    So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
    And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
    Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
    And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
    Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
    For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
    Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.”
    — John 20:3-10

  80. Mary Speaks to the Angels Again
    (John 20:11-13)598“But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
    And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
    And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.”
    — John 20:11-13

  81. Jesus Appears to Mary
    (Mark 16:9)599“Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.”
    — Mark 16:9

    +
    (John 20:14-17)600“And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
    Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
    Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
    Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
    — John 20:14-17

  82. Jesus Appears to the Other Women Running to Report to Disciples601it is possible that the other unnamed women who started in Luke 24:8-10 (#274) were still running to tell the remaining 11 disciples while #275-277 happened
    (Matthew 28:9-10)602“And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
    Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.”
    — Matthew 28:9-10
  83. The Chief Priests and Elders Incite a False Report
    (Matthew 28:11-15)603“Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
    And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
    Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
    And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
    So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.”
    — Matthew 28:11-15

  84. Mary Reports to the Disciples A Second Time604possibly before #278-279
    (Mark 16:10-11)605“And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
    And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.”
    — Mark 16:10-11

    +
    (John 20:18)606“Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.”
    — John 20:18

  85. Jesus Appears to the Travelers on the Path to Emmaus
    (Mark 16:12-13)607“After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
    And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.”
    — Mark 16:12-13

    +
    (Luke 24:13-32)608“And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
    And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
    And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. […]
    And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
    And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
    And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”
    — Luke 24:13-15…30-32

  86. The Travelers Return to Jerusalem and Find the Eleven
    (Luke 24:33-35)609“And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
    Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
    And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.”
    — Luke 24:33-35

  87. Thomas Leaves the Meeting
    (implied by John 20:24)610“But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.”
    — John 20:24

  88. Jesus Appears to the Apostles at Evening Assembly
    (Luke 24:36-43)611“And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
    But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
    And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
    Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
    And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
    And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
    And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
    And he took it, and did eat before them.”
    — Luke 24:36-43

    +
    (John 20:19-23)612“Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
    And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
    Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
    And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
    Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”
    — John 20:19-23

  89. Jesus Appears to the Eleven After Eight Days
    (Mark 16:14-18)613“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
    And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
    He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
    And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
    They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”
    — Mark 16:14-18

    +
    (John 20:24-29)614“But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
    The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. […]
    And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
    Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”
    — John 20:24-25…28-29


  90. The Eleven Go to Galilee615maybe equivalent to #285.
    (Matthew 28:16)616“Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.”
    — Matthew 28:16

      
    — The Great Commission
    Matthew 28:17-20617“And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
    And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
    Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
    — Matthew 28:17-20

      
  91. The Ascension
    (Mark 16:19)618“So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.”
    — Mark 16:19

    +
    (Luke 24:44-51)619“And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
    Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, […]
    And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
    And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.”
    — Luke 24:44-45…50-51

    +
    (Acts 1:4-11)620“And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”
    — Acts 1:4-8
    621“And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
    — Acts 1:9-11

  92. Epilogue
    Mark 16:20622“And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.”
    — Mark 16:20

    +
    Luke 24:52-53623“And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
    And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.”
    — Luke 24:52-53

    +
    John 20:30-31624“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
    But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
    — John 20:30-31

    +
    John 21:1-25625“After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself. […]
    If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
    This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
    And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
    — John 21:1…23b-25


    — No Fixed Time
    (John 1:9-13)626“That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
    He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
    He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
    But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
    Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
    — John 1:9-13
—— END SECTION FOUR

The following overall conclusions proceed from this. In this ordering of the Synoptic Gospels, with the exception of a few passages:
The Gospel according to St. Mark is in complete chronological order;

The Gospel according to St. Luke is in chronological order, except in one place: Luke 3:19-20627The account of Herod imprisoning John the Baptist necessarily happens sometime after Luke 4:13628This is because: in the parallel passages to this of Matthew and Mark, it is stated that these events began after John the Baptist was imprisoned already; and,

The Gospel according to St. Matthew is in chronological order except between Matthew 4:23 and Matthew 19:1.

Observe that The Gospel according to St. John may be placed alongside these as in chronological order in itself, as well.

The enumeration of parenthetical passages:
The Parable of the Sower Explanation629Matthew 13:10-23
Mark 4:10-20
Luke 8:9-15
occurs in three Gospels, and would have occurred once during a meeting with the disciples.630Explanations for the parables were given only to the disciples.
“And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.” — Mark 4:33-34
While the preaching of the Parable itself is found on two separate occasions, at the discourse in Luke 8 for the first occasion, and at Matthew 13 and Mark 4, which is the “Boat Version.”631There are many instances of the same, and/or quite similar teachings being taught multiple times by Jesus, this being one example. Reasoning for this: it makes sense that the explanation of the Parable, in all three Gospels, would be given after the Parable itself, even if it is jumping slightly out of the order of events.

—The passage about John the Baptist’s death632Matthew 14:3-12
Mark 6:17-29
occurs in two Gospels. This is should be parenthetical because there is no reason to think that this event had to occur strictly after the passage before it, however it did occur before the passage following it.

—The passage about Peter’s Three Denials633Matthew 26:69-75
Mark 14:66-72
Luke 22:54-62
John 18:15-17, 25-27
occurs in four Gospels. In Matthew and Mark, it comes before the council trial, while in Luke it comes after the council trial. In John, it is interspersed with the events of the trials. This indicates two things were happening at once.

—The Gospel of Luke has other parenthetical remarks, Luke 1:80 (John the Baptist maturing) and Luke 3:23b-28 (Mary’s ancestral line).
Most significantly, our outline places the whole section of Luke 11:1–16:13 as effectively a parenthetical collection of passages, due to the context of Luke 16:14634as it says, “And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.” — Luke 16:14. We can extend “all these things” all the way back to Luke 11:1 – Luke 16:13., which can be taken as referring to this entire set of chapters. This means that the events in these chapters simply would have occurred sometime before Luke 16:14. There is no order in time within this section. It is rather a set of sayings from Christ which the Pharisees heard and derided.
With all this, the only real exception to the rule of chronological order in all of Luke exists at Luke 3:19-20, once previously mentioned.

—Also, Matthew 20:30-34 can be seen as parenthetical because it summarizes what happened during the course of the visit to Jericho. Two blind men were healed. By parsing Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35–19:10, we find out that one was healed on the way into the city and the second was made whole on the way out of the city. Other possibilities, which seem less likely, are that three or four blind men were healed at around this same time. However, the accounts of Mark and Luke are each ordered with respect to time. In this case the account of Matthew can simply be parenthetical and capture both of them. If so, then each of the three passages gives information to understand the total picture.

Now, having dealt with Luke and Mark, returning at last to Matthew from the 4th to 19th chapters. These are the last part to explain. By considering the context of the other Gospels overall, I chose to order the account this way chronologically with respect to time:

Matthew 1:1 — 4:22
Matthew 8:14-17
Matthew 4:23 — 8:4
Matthew 9:2-13
Matthew 12:1-15a
Matthew 8:5-13
Matthew 11:2-30
Matthew 12:15b — 13:53
Matthew 8:23 — 9:1
Matthew 9:14-34
Matthew 13:54-58
Matthew 9:35 — 11:1
Matthew 14:1 — 18:35
Matthew 8:18-22
Matthew 19:1 — End

Of course, there are many possible orderings of the total events of the Gospels, not all of which must be chronological in nature. We see that there are thematic orderings present here and elsewhere as well. It should be noted that there are also many other possible orderings and harmonizations, which however are less ordered with respect to time.

The above is seen as one possible ordering. It is being presented for the sake of determining a reasonable chronological ordering. This method prioritizes keeping the Gospels in order with respect to time. Except for Matthew, it was noticed that the Gospels can remain as given in a very well close chronological ordering. If chronology is what is being looked after.

With comparison to the rest, discontinuities were found in this middle section of Matthew, although in many places, it is alternatively a possible explanation that similar events happened multiple times rather than Matthew being out of order in place. It has even been shown that similar events and teachings must have been repeated elsewhere. So, it is possible that Matthew has no chronological break in some of these places, but rather that the event it describes (or two similar events) occurred twice. For the most unlikely or impossible cases of this, it was deemed necessary to create discontinuities with respect to time in Matthew in some places between the fourth and nineteenth chapters. These are likely to be arranged as written in a non-chronological, thematic order within the overall account of Matthew.

This ordering also results in an interesting pattern, however.

Matthew 1:1 — 4:22
Matthew 8:14-17
Matthew 4:23 — 8:4
Matthew 9:2-13
Matthew 12:1-15a
Matthew 8:5-13
Matthew 11:2-30
Matthew 12:15b — 13:53
Matthew 8:23 — 9:1
Matthew 9:14-34
Matthew 13:54-58
Matthew 9:35 — 11:1
Matthew 14:1 — 18:35
Matthew 8:18-22
Matthew 19:1 — End

Limit ourselves first to the section of Matthew 4:23 — 18:35, and consider the four bolded places/rows above.
You will notice that actually, the whole passage of Matthew 8:5 — 9:1 (the four bolded sections), are, in this scheme, broken into four pieces and scattered to the first and last edges of the middle section. But if those are removed, the scheme reduces to this (with the missing piece skipped over):

Matthew 1:1 — 8:4
Matthew 9:2-13
Matthew 12:1-15a
Matthew 11:2-30
Matthew 12:15b — 13:53
Matthew 9:14-34
Matthew 13:54-58
Matthew 9:35 — 11:1
Matthew 14:1 — End

The discontinuities are limited now to the subsection of Matthew 9:2 — 13:58.
Matthew 4:22 and 4:23 now reconnect and are continuous from 1:1 until 8:4.
Also, Matthew 18:35 and 19:1 reconnect, so 14:1 to End also now makes up one block.
But now, notice that the one passage, Matthew 11:2 — 13:58, from the very end of the discontinuous area, is broken into four parts and the four parts are again scattered into earlier areas of this reduced subsection. But if those are omitted we have:

Matthew 1:1 — 8:4
Matthew 9:2 — 11:1
Matthew 14:1 — End

You can see where the two sections of the gospel were located which go out of chronological order, where the rest of the book, in three broad pieces, is in chronological order with respect to itself.

The two subsections exist from Matthew 8:5 — 9:1 and Matthew 11:2 — 13:58. These could be seen as places where the evangelist went out of chronological order to relate events for thematic reasons. It can easily be seen that Matthew is interested in bringing to our attention the fulfillment of various prophecies in the Old Testament, so this arrangement might be more convenient for that purpose. We see that outside of these two sections, the rest of the Gospel is organized in the same chronological ordering as the other three Gospels. Not only that, but these two sections are each subdivided into four smaller pieces which are discontinuous with respect to each other. The eight passages here describe events that occurred as early as after Matthew 4:22635c.f. Matthew 8:14-17 and through as late as before chapter 19636c.f. Matthew 8:18-22.

The unusual pattern also explains how Matthew 9:2-13 (by itself) appeared to jump backwards, when compared to 9:1 and 9:14 – Actually, Matthew 8:23 — 9:1, as part of the discontinuous section, was detailing events that occurred later than 9:2. The same verses also happen to fall just before Matthew 9:14, in terms of chronology. At the same time as all this, the later discontinuous section (i.e. Matthew 11:2 — 13:53) return to fill in a great period of time between 9:13 and 9:14, making it so that 9:14 becomes relatively far forward. So then, 9:2-13 is not moving out of place, but had the section right before it taken out and moved far forward in time, to the point right before the time where 9:14 picks up the narrative after chapters 11-13. The jump from verse 13 to 14 is forward in time as normal, however from a chronological standpoint it has sections such as 8:5-13, 8:23 — 9:1 and 11:2 — 13:53 from the discontinuous sections, filling in details between the two verses. The fact that 9:1 happens to be right before Matthew 9:2 in verse order and right before Matthew 9:14 in time order creates the illusion that 9:2-13 jumps backwards in the above chronology. This jump then becomes a huge leap backwards because other large sections that occupy this space between 9:13 and 9:14.

Finally, after all of these unusual coincidences surrounding this passage, the subtle difference between Matthew 9:14 and its parallel passages in Mark and Luke, which is that the disciples of John asked the question rather than the Pharisees at the table (even though both questions were the same and received virtually the same answer from Jesus, and appear to be true parallel passages), makes any casual timeline appear to create a massive chronological loop, one that seemingly cannot be resolved, as soon as the mistake is made of not properly placing 9:2-13 in the timeline as a separate event from Luke 5:33-39 and Mark 2:18-22. Although the content of the passages is nearly the same otherwise, the identity of the person(s) asking the question between the Matthew passage on the one hand, and the Mark and Luke passage (true parallels) on the other hand, are completely different. This is the clue that allows this resolution to be found.

And with this noticed, we are not forced to make Mark or Luke non-chronological. We are allowed to leave the parallel passage dealing with Jairus and the woman who touched Jesus and was healed while on the way to his house as a unique event that (must have) only happened one time, and which all three synoptic gospels have parallel together, thus avoiding the chronological loop. See the below explanation.

The explanation for what truly happened is this. First, the pharisees asked Jesus about fasting at the house of Levi. Jesus gave them the answer to the question, which was recorded in both Mark 2 and Luke 5. At a later time, the actual disciples of John asked Jesus the same question, and Jesus gave them the same answer, which Matthew recorded in Matthew 9. This is a separate event, but since Jesus gives the same answer here, none of the three gospel accounts records the same answer twice. Mark and Luke record the earlier occasion and Matthew records the later occasion of the same answer which however was given to a different crowd.637We see a similar pattern with other events. If one does not believe in the actual historicity of the accounts – believing that they were real events that happened in real time, they will be hopelessly confused by these details, and will be likely to prematurely conclude that this is a simple mistake in the ordering. Naturally, Matthew skips over the earlier incident, while Mark and Luke skip over the later one, to avoid repeating. This explains why the incident with Jairus follows almost immediately after in Matthew 9, yet, the same event does not appear until several chapters later, in Mark 5, and Luke 8, of the other Gospels638though confusion is compounded, because Jairus is not mentioned by name in Matthew 9, but only in Mark and Luke… thus, some might still be tempted to conclude they are not parallel events in order to reconcile things, but this then breaks the continuity of Mark and Luke. But this is not because they are separate events, it is only because Matthew 9, as we explained earlier, jumps forward between verses 13 and 14. The fact of this jump existing appears to be hidden (unusually) from view by the special section in Matthew 9:2-13, which as we explained before, is actually chronologically long before Matthew 9:1 or 9:14 for rather unique reasons, and this contains the special event where Matthew is recruited by Christ, which is in common with Mark 2 and Luke 5… thus further adding to the potential confusion. This is because it makes it even easier to conclude that Matthew 9:14 is also a strict parallel with these chapters (since Matthew 9:9-13 clearly is), although we have shown in our ordering that it is not because 9:14 jumps far forward to another time and place, which is also just after 9:1.

After all this, the apparent contradiction to the naïve chronology subsequently appears in Matthew 9:18, where it states that the man (assumed to be Jairus), came up to Jesus “while he spoke those words,” even though in Mark and Luke there are three chapters worth of material before they get from the feast at Levi’s house to this point. If one assumes “those words” refers to Matthew 9:14-17 as it does, and further assumes that Matthew 9:14-17 is a true parallel to Mark 2:18-22 and Luke 5:33-39 (which it is not, but appears at first to be), then it seems like both Mark and Luke must be out of order if Matthew is to be held as correct, because they include a lot of events between Jesus’ answer to pharisees (in Mark 2, Luke 5) and the approach of Jairus (Mark 5, Luke 8), but in Matthew it says that Jairus came up to Jesus while he spoke those words. Furthermore, Mark and Luke state that Jesus was “nigh unto the sea” when approached by Jairus, having just returned from the country of the Gadarenes. This has long been a source of difficult explanations and claimed contradictions in the Gospels. But this is all explained by the Matthew 9:13 to 14 time gap, as pointed out above, including that Matthew 9:14 is not a true parallel event to Mark 2:18 and Luke 5:33, but it only appears to be – as revealed by the details of who asked the question. The appearance of being the same is all the more so because the narrative leading up to all three of these verses, including the one in Matthew as well despite the discontinuity, has Jesus sitting at a table. Mark 2:18 and Luke 5:33 could very well have occurred at the table of Levi without contradiction, while in Matthew 9:13 Jesus was at the same table but in Matthew 9:14, at a completely different time and place (but perhaps thematically connected to the previous passage [i.e. deja vu, possibly?]), our Lord was at the sea side, being asked this question by the disciples of John moments before Jairus arrived.

With this article, it is shown that Mark and in large part Luke are chronological in order. I am pleased with this result and I hope that this gives us another occasion to study these words and receive a blessing.

The view of baptism by Baptists compared with Zwingli

Here we have an examination of the treatise, “In Catabaptistarum Strophas Elenchus.” This was a classical treatise, one of the first known which designed to promote and defend infant baptism. It was written by the hand of the reformer Huldrych Zwingli. The following was written in Zürich, in the year 1527, on July 31, which is not too far removed from the controversy on baptism that had taken place in the city. This work will be examined and we will provide a potential response to some of the claims made in it here.

Zwingli had prominently advocated for the executions of the side that believed, practiced and taught differently. This treatise was written just a few months after the first executions had taken place in the city. The treatise we investigate is a justification for the views that Zwingli (the reformer) held, given for why the infant-baptism, then widely practiced at the time, must be recognized by all.

This document was originally written in Latin, the usual scholarly language of this time, although he had to translate at times from the Swiss German of his opponents. This is what this reformer presented for all to see, consider and judge with respect to baptism. So in the end, the arguments he makes here become a defense for why he acted the way he did.

How well have his ideas withstood the test of time and how well does his defense hold up today? Were his reasons for his actions doctrinally sound, and were they coming from a scriptural perspective? On this subject, at least, we may be somewhat able to avail ourselves by careful examinations.

Preface

To begin, Zwingli opens his article with an opening line in his preface, not derived from any Scripture such as the New Testament, but rather, he simply quotes an “old saying” (Lat. vetus dictum1as described in the opening line on pg. 3) which states, “success is the mother of all evils”.

However, this saying may be replied with the truth that is divinely inspired as given in an epistle of Paul in 1 Timothy, which tells us that “the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

It has already been shown clearly from this that Scripture and Zwingli cannot both be correct.

Much of the reformer’s remaining response to the “Catabaptists,” which is what he chooses to term them, shows a disinterest in adhering to or respecting the dictates of inspired scripture. The reformer Zwingli many times demonstrates a preference for the traditions of men over giving a careful and full recognition to the truths of the Holy Bible, although he had been a major contributor to its translation into German, and must have been aware of its sayings. He pays it lip service, to be sure. But often in this writing, he shall leave us only with his personal collections of nonbiblical sayings, common superstitions, and temporal arguments which even contradict Scripture at times. He shall appeal often to worldly concerns, to the superstitions of poorly educated non-Bible readers, his own base of support, and to matters seeming to relate to public order, but which in this case bear equally as much on himself as on anyone else. So much less are these kinds of arguments to be used against those whom he, as a magistrate and city official, dealt rather violently with, and as we shall see without justifiable cause. The opponents of Zwingli were persecuted in a manner that was perceived in his own time as both lacking honor, and unusually unmerciful. So we will take up their case here.

In investigating such a treatise as this, the light of the God’s eternal inspired Scripture reveals the foundations of these arguments.

Continuing on now into his preface, there is another place worthy of mention. Our reformer claims that “the faith of some” is being “assailed2as the translation reads, in Selected Works of Huldreich Zwingli tl. by Jackson, Samuel Macauley, (U. Penn. 1901), p. 127 by exposure to the Gospel. The faith is being assailed, he says. Yet, the faith which he [Zwingli] speaks of can be shown, as below, to be nothing other than that of idols and superstitions of blindness, and the assailing of these ideas as we shall see is the opening of their eyes, turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith.3see Acts 26:18

Those people who have repented themselves from their trust in what is empty ritual, have turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.41 Thess. 1:9 They have thereby quit trusting in idols in order to place their faith in God. The assailing of what our writer calls here “faith”, is in fact preaching of repentance from trust in dumb idols and in their false teachers, who appeal to the flesh. These use worldly riches and appeals to base superstition to allure men. The trust in these is what had to be ‘assailed.’ As it says in the book of 2 Corinthians, “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”. The Gospel is, as Zwingli mentioned, the method by which this is done.5In the original treatise, he wrote: “Neque enim satis est illis Evangelio in quæstum abuti
or…
“It was not enough for them to profit from misusing the Gospel…”
See what Scripture says about the Gospel:

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” —1 Peter 1:23-25

And again:

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
— 1 Thessalonians 2:13

The next charge of our reformer: “They deny that Christ, himself, perfected forever his saints in his one offering of himself.6l. perpetuum consummavisse

From this point onward, we will continue to investigate each of this man’s claims in like manner as above. In the quotation above, a clear reference to Hebrews 10:147“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
— Hebrews 10:14
is made by him.

However, we must say that for him to imply that the practice of a scriptural mode of baptism,8namely, baptism by immersion of a professing believer into the church congregation or body, or believer’s baptism somehow denies this fundamental tenet of the New Testament, is committing another error, because it implies that the baptism itself is the offering. We know this is not so, as according to 1 Peter 3:21, we have been saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is a “like figure” of this resurrection, as the apostle Peter says.9“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
— 1 Peter 3:21
Now, being a “like figure” of a thing is not the same as being the thing itself. We are saved by that which baptism is a figure of, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day.10“I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
— 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

Thus, regardless of position on baptism, this is not a debate about the subject of “whether or not the offering of Christ is effective.” Zwingli misses the point. This is not brought under debate, but is agreed by all as being that the offering of Christ is effective.

Likewise, also in the epistle to the Colossians, it is again explained for us that during baptism, one is both buried with, and “risen with him in the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.11“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
— Colossians 2:12
So without the faith of the operation of God, and if the faith of the operation of God is not present, then there can be no being risen. This is because that faith is what one has been risen in. For again, he says in the Bible, “risen with him in the faith of the operation of God.” This is according to Paul in Colossians 2:12. And therefore if this faith, which is a belief that God will operate12footnote: lit. “ἐνεργείας” or “energeia,” meaning energy, efficacy, or power is not present in the person, then of course we are not speaking of a baptism at all, but only an outward washing in water that has taken place. As Paul asks in Acts 19:3, “Unto what then were ye baptized?” So then a baptism must be unto the right thing.

The person being baptized should be able to profess their faith therefore. And so did Philip require the enunch to do in Acts 8:36-38.13“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”
— Acts 8:36-38
Notice the ‘if’ statement in Acts 8:37.

Thus according to all of this, Christ’s death, burial and resurrection is what fulfills Hebrews 10:14. That was the one offering of himself. Baptism is a sign of this, and an active recognition and answer of a good conscience toward the effectiveness of this.

We should not place superstitious faith in the ability of water or other priests or other men, or works of other men or our own works to save. Do these things have to do with salvation? No they do not, only the resurrection of Christ does. So rather, we should hold the individual faith, which is by grace (Ephesians 2:8-914“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
— Ephesians 2:8-9
) and believe in the word of God, which tells us to do this. This faith is placed solely in the name of Christ alone as the only mediator. (John 14:6).15“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
— John 14:6
16“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
— Acts 4:12
17“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
— Acts 16:31
18“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”
— 1 Timothy 2:5

For this reason, water, other priests, other men, or works done by men cannot be the object of the true faith. Only Christ can be.

Next charge of Zwingli: “It is to no purpose that they say, … that Christ was a great prophet or a man of God, but not the Son of God.

This is clearly a false accusation drawn up by Zwingli, so he waxes eloquent in this section of the treatise with arguments against a faulty position, to allow him to further drag the discussion off track. Nobody has argued against Him being the Son of God, and this “refutation” is toward a position nobody on the opposing view holds. His purposes here are of creating more confusion in these opening lines, especially to unwary readers, about what the controversy is really all about.

The only person who has argued or maintained such a position in the first place, is the reformer himself – This is because he has been relying on unscriptural priesthood instead of the one true high priest, Jesus. Therefore, dethroning Christ in his own mind and placing usurpers to His dignity, and doing all of this based on a trust in the glories merely of this world: in superstitious idols, and water rituals that are not scriptural baptism. Unto what were they baptized?19Acts 19:3 None of these objects have any scriptural basis on which these may be justified. As far as salvation, Zwingli has himself argued in essence, that water has a stronger effect than the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or belief in Him. He attributes salvation to that water or priest and water alone.

And this is also why Zwingli claims that, to take the correct view of baptism as a sign of salvation, (whereas the death, burial and resurrection of Christ itself is the cause of salvation), is equal, in his mind, to saying that the “one offering” is not effective.

For Zwingli, the origin of both false beliefs that he charges is actually within himself.

The next charge in his preface: “In brief, then, when they clearly deny that Christ is by nature the Son of God, it is through evil design that they rage about baptism, and not for zeal’s sake.

Zwingli again harps on this charge here, but no further details are provided to substantiate it. Nowhere is it seriously maintained that the theological opponents of Zwingli ever said this. He does not provide the location of where such a denial of the nature of Christ ever occurred. And so this seems to be more of an attempt to create a cloud of smoke around his opponents, and nothing more.

And his last allegation of note via the preface: “They assail far more sharply than do the Romanists all who stand by Christ, by which they evince to what purpose [i.e. Romanism] they spare those whom they so anxiously flatter. But all our material cannot and must not be sought elsewhere than from the armory of the Old and the New Testament. Do thou, Father of lights, illuminate their darkness, that they may see their error, and as thou wilt sometime do, eliminate this error from the Church quickly, we pray!

Here, Zwingli makes an appeal to pragmatism. He claims that, in a political struggle, which is what he perceives this as, one must be pressed to choose sides. Either us or the Romanists, he says.

At that time, he was a magistrate, a state official, of a rival political sphere to that of Rome. The reformer now argues that only the might of arms could stand up against the Roman Catholics. He appeals to the fear of being overcome by arms, and he draws divisions, not on theological grounds any longer, but on political lines. However, this last appeal shows us more inclinations as we noted from the beginning, as many of the sectarians, state churches that rely on infant baptism – demonstrate this tendency to rely on manmade sayings to support views that actually require a Biblical basis, a basis which they cannot find to draw from. They seek to draw support by rallying all toward worldly and political causes, instead of remaining strictly in Scripture – And thereby run counter to it. This would seem to be a fundamental error of sectarianism.

Therefore, it is a great mistake to suppose that, just because this man claims to be following only the Old and the New Testament, that this is in fact a true claim. We must “try the spirits,” as the apostle John wrote, to see whether they are of God, rather than believing every spirit.201 John 4:1 Would that he would follow such of his own advice, he could become as many of those that he caused to be killed. He could embrace the local church of the New Testament, as opposed to merely the state church. Then he would embark on the God-seeking, God-fearing ways, based on a pure approach toward God’s word and placing all things otherwise beneath the authority of that word, as far as faith and practice.

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
—1 Thessalonians 2:13

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” —1 John 5:9-10

This faith includes keeping the family, the state and the church separate. “Them that are without God judgeth.211 Corinthians 5:13 And “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.22Romans 13:1 Every ecclesiastical order should keep this in mind. Christ said his kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, the political realm should not have any weight in deciding spiritual matters, which are matters of truth. The truth does not change – and we should not allow it to change – according to the political situation.

Main Argument

Moving into the main arguments, Zwingli next divides his full “refutation” into four parts. First, there is a series of replies against the baptist view against his own (the arguments of which we get an indirect glimpse of). Second, going to the offensive, he writes a series of counterarguments against what he thinks their own position is. This is switching from the defense to the attack. He then finishes out the main text in the third section with a closing monologue. At the end, there is an appendix attached as the fourth and final part.

However, our reformer momentarily departs from this structure at the start, to provide the reader with another long-winded account from his perspective of how the controversy arose. There is much repetition here, and we will not belabor any point that has already been made, but a few remarks of this intro section can be made.

Here, the reformer’s reaction to the truth is made abundantly clear by the sentence which he gave toward the baptists. He held, that they should be executed by drowning. In this section then, Zwingli attempts to justify the city council’s decision to impose this death sentence upon those who had dissented from the accepted view. He goes to some length in order to stress that he had given the baptists of Zürich a chance first, to make their case. He does this in order to make it less obvious that he resorts to brutal violence to impose his own will and order on society. He chose this rather than allow the truth, if he truly thought it was on his side, to prevail. But we consider that if I Corinthians 2:13-1423“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
— I Corinthians 2:13-14
is true, especially the second verse, then there are men who think only in their natural minds, which cannot understand the truth of God’s word. We read that, this is for the reason that they are not being taught by the Spirit of God, contrary to what it states of the church in verse 13, which is that they are taught by the Holy Ghost. So then, such men thinking only in their natural minds would not be able to come to right conclusions.

For the above reason therefore, to decide that a theological debate wherein one side might have men that are unable to come to the right conclusions, that the outcome should be enforced by killings, for supposed thought-crimes by the “losing” side: this is to impose a “might makes right” mentality. This is to impose totalitarianism, bound up in the decisions of fallible man. So even winning a debate is no possible excuse to justify enacting a death sentence for alleged thought-crimes. This much, should be obvious.

Regardless of these circumstances, as has often been the case, the esteemed “winner” of a debate may not even be correct – they may merely be more popular, but on the truthfully incorrect side of the debate. Yet further, those who are correct, will have nothing to object from giving free course to the truth to override falsehood in its own course. For the truth, at least, this happens without the aid of extortion or other forms of coercive penalties for the unpopular side. But only from the desperation of the false view would a necessity be seen to terrorize those who disagree with it – To silence the truth that overwhelms them. But we see this done by a combination of fallacy, false accusation, and persecution. So, the decision to execute those men simply for disagreeing or simply for holding their own communion within their church cannot be argued as a positive for Zwingli’s position or views.

More specifically, Zwingli labors on in his account here however, raising more complaints about public servants who have been “harshly treated24contumelia adfectis. He complains about how the same baptists “assail and rush on25concitent et rapiant others, and how the ministers of the church on his side are supposedly “reviled” and “abused.” But in the face of Zwingli’s approval of the killings of these men, these complaints miss the mark.

He also charges them quite loosely and repeatedly as agents of disorder. How can the reformer compare the upheaval of minds toward the truth of God’s word as bringing any greater “disorder” than his own faction’s cowardly and dishonorable killing and exile of dissenters? Did not our reformer take part in killing them, drafting laws against them simply for having the wrong ideas? If they had committed any real crime, as he alleges, then why did he have to craft new laws against baptism to sentence them under?

How can any society, we might ask, be freely and peacefully ordered according to law and nature when such factions exist, such as Zwingli’s reformers and the city council, who tyrannized against ideas that may be true? This would seem to be the much greater disorder, in truth. Zwingli, being the perpetrator, is willing to turn a blind eye to his own actions. But we should not however. Those with untrue ideas cannot withstand honest scrutiny.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
—II Corinthians 3:17

Now to the main dialogue section:

Our reformer objects first to the assertion that the basis for his infant-baptism doctrine is found in I Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, 16:33. He counters this by proclaiming that his own book is his primary basis. Not any scripture! From this other book, the reformer cites himself from his own book, as saying the following: “Circumcision among the ancients (so far as it was sacramental) was the same as baptism with us. As that was given to infants so ought baptism to be administered to infants.” [End quote, underline added]26p. 139 in the translation by Jackson

Although Zwingli passes the opportunity to reference a single passage of scripture in this part of his argument (he even denies having done so), he does make allusion to Colossians 2:11, which indeed draws the same parallel, but it is in different terms.

“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:”
—Colossians 2:11

It may be briefly responded here that, just as it makes sense that one cannot be “born again” without believing on Jesus Christ first (see John 3:3-8) so also the “circumcision made without hands” (next verse, Colossians 2:1227“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
— Colossians 2:12
) would be required to occur after having been “born again” as a new believer. (i.e. I Peter 1:2328“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God,”
— I Peter 1:23
, I John 5:129“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:”
— I John 5:1
). As circumcision came after birth, so also baptism would come after belief (i.e. being born the second time), and in that order. Zwingli’s theory is missing the concept of being “born again” as one being born of the Spirit. Hence, because of this, his point is invalid – Because being born the second time is not the same thing as being born the first time, but happens later, so baptism happens later as well.

The term given in Acts 2:38, “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” supports this. We may explain the term, “for the remission of sins” in a natural way as follows: As one receives a gift for some either accomplishment or occasion such as a birthday (i.e. “a gift for your birthday”), one is baptized because of, not in order to receive, remission of sins.

The incorrect understanding here would be: “giving someone a birthday gift causes it to be their birthday,” or “giving someone a baptism causes them to have remission of sins.” To spell it out even more plainly, you do not somehow cause it to be someone’s birthday simply by giving them a birthday gift: That is not what “a gift for your birthday” means. Otherwise, you could cause every day to be their birthday easily by giving them a gift on every day. Likewise, it is not caused the remission of sins through the use of water. But rather, that is caused through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Peter wrote, baptism is a “like figure” of that by which we are saved.301 Peter 3:21 As a like figure, baptism is given for the remission of sins which has been received. So then baptism is a sign of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and is given because of having already received the remission of sins through belief, i.e. because of being born again.

Acts 2:41-4231“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
— Acts 2:41-42
also supports this, because we learn here, those who “gladly received his word” were baptized. We also learn that this is how they were added to the church (Acts 2:4732“…And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”
— Acts 2:47b
, I Cor. 12:1333“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,”
— I Corinthians 12:13
) and that these individuals continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. None of these things describes the behavior of an infant who is oblivious to the events around them. It only describes those who gladly received his word.

Now, for those who did not do these things, those who did not or could not gladly receive his word at that time, there is nothing spoken about them. It does not say that they were baptized. This fits with the concept that non-believers and false believers were not baptized. Only those who did truly gladly receive his word were baptized. This passage in Acts 2 tells us therefore that infants certainly were not immersed in baptism either, because they were not capable of these preconditions, being not yet born again at this young age. They had not yet gladly received those words: they had not yet believed. Only those, exclusively those who had done so were baptized at that time, according to what the Bible says in Acts 2:41-42.

In Acts 8:3734“And the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”
— Acts 8:36-38
, this profession is the requirement for baptism given by Philip to the eunuch (Philip uses the crucial word, ‘If’ in Scripture). Infants, we being quick to remind once again, are not capable of making such professions, as the eunuch made, nor are they capable of continuing in a doctrine (as it says in Acts 2:42) which requires comprehension of and belief first. And this is the truth, which vain superstition cannot hide from, nor can it prevail against.

On to the next point, the reformer returns to explain that his real use of the three earlier mentioned passages35that is 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33, are as examples to support his basis (which was in his book, not in inspired Scripture). So again, the basis of his argument, according to the reformer, is his own book. The three examples given in Scripture are, in his view, merely supposed to support that.

In particular, Zwingli tells us, that in one of the theological councils, Balthasar Hubmaier retorted to him this: “Those [verses] are the columns and they bring no other Scripture but futile conjecture; we demand clear Scripture.

Zwingli acknowledges this, and that these three scriptures are not and cannot be a foundation, but he simply counters that the other side had been relying on similar “columns” of its own. This is supposed to be his defense. Zwingli argues now, that, to suppose that the apostles themselves had been baptized, is also going too far, because this fact is not explicitly written in Scripture!

The main problem with this line of reasoning is that everyone agrees they were baptized. This is not something that needs to be assumed to support any doctrine at all, much less one worthy to put others to death over. Because the disciples were professing believers (!), so there is no reason at all why Acts 2:41-42 and Acts 8:37 precludes them from having been baptized.

However, these are reasons why non-professing and nonbelievers are precluded: This includes infants and others. Hence, for this reason and this difference, the weight of Zwingli’s counterargument here is empty.

We should reiterate now that Zwingli freely acknowledged (!) that the three verses from before, form no solid basis for his conclusions (!) at all, and that Zwingli instead leans back on his own book which he wrote, to provide the basis for his conclusions… But is his book inspired, or could it have errors? Zwingli concludes at the end of this point: “I laid as the foundation the saying:” and gives another statement from his book. Yet his book is a fallible writing, not inspired scripture.

In this article we show, that a statement from outside of the inspired Scripture is subject to private interpretation. Thus, his statement may be compared to Biblical statements to see if it is true, but cannot serve as a foundation by itself.

He does not provide Scripture to actually support his statements. This, in sum, shows his entire problem.

He next argues the following: “It does not follow: ‘The apostles are not said to have eaten pork, therefore they did not eat it.’ So our reasoning here is: It cannot be proved that believers’ infants were not baptized by the apostles because this is not written, for there are many things done, both by Christ and by the apostles, which were not committed to writing. The lawyers call this a question of law, not fact.

The Scriptural mode of baptism, we can show, involves a believer who, through the faith of the operation of God, is buried with and risen with Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:1236“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
— Colossians 2:12
). This means that to claim someone is baptized without this faith, this does go against Scripture – and there is also no example of it being done in the way which Zwingli argues.

In I Peter 3:21,37“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”
— I Peter 3:21
baptism is also characterized specifically as not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but as the answer of a good conscience toward God. Therefore, baptism is not simply an outward act that could be performed on any object. The baptism has become the answer of a good conscience toward God. As such, it implies there is a good conscience toward God in the person being baptised first of all.

Some things cannot become baptized. As such, it makes no sense to speak of neglecting to baptize those things.

Suppose I make the statement, that, “everything that could be eaten was eaten.” Does this simple statement prove that mountains might have also been eaten? Mountains cannot be eaten; my statement does not open up the possibility that mountains might have been eaten, because it only includes things that could be eaten. Therefore, we do not require a clarifying statement, every time I say this, just to disprove the possibility that mountains may have also been eaten at that time. It is an absurd notion on the face of it to think that my statement tells us that mountains were eaten. Surely you see the point of this statement, reader.

Baptism spoken of in scripture is always undergone by the believer. No one else can be baptized, according to Scripture. It is an absurd notion to suggest that anything other than a believer could be baptized. As it says in Colossians, the person is “risen through the faith of the operation of God” and not through any other thing. We do not require a clarifying statement that nonbelievers are not baptised at every one of these various points in Scripture, since, according to Scripture it is proven that only believers are baptised… There is no counterexample to this, as well. There are only imagined counterexamples. Just as misreading my statement, somehow, as evidence that mountains were eaten. I never said that. Zwingli’s reply to this: You never said they weren’t. (!!) I suppose we can prove from this same argument by omission that animals, rocks, and unbelievers were baptized by the Apostles also as well.

Yet, not only is this line of reasoning on Zwingli’s part absurd: what he willfully resists admitting, is that it actually positively contradicts scripture. This shall be shown with plenty of examples below.

Zwingli follows all of this weakness, by writing next: “If it were down in plain words somewhere: The apostles did not baptize infants, it would not (even then) follow that they are not to be baptized. The inquiry would have to be made whether they simply omitted the performance or whether it was not right to baptize.

What the reformer has done here is advance to a plan B argument. Zwingli has failed his previous argument, tacitly admits that nowhere in Scripture does it teach what he before claimed. So, failing that, the reformist falls back to a second line now, not being compatible with the first and Zwingli himself admitting that the first explanation that he had earlier argued is wrong. He says at this point that, if the apostles never baptized infants, that still would not invalidate his position.

He writes, just because the apostles never once baptized a single infant, that would not necessarily mean that it is wrong to do that. He argues now that it would not be wrong to break away from the apostolic practice and tradition of Scripture.

However, his inquiry fails again to consider whether the following was possible: that the Biblical definition of baptism itself excludes nonbelievers from the very possibility of being objects of baptism from the very start, as I have already maintained above.

The issue is not that “it’s not right to eat mountains”, that’s not the issue, but rather, that it is not even possible. The moral conflict of whether it is right or not for a man to eat mountains does not cross the mind under any normal circumstances. It is accepted as mad to try to eat a mountain. A task that is not possible. So there is no debate or special discussions over whether it is right to do so, either. The omission of any debate over whether such an action is right, does not prove, as Zwingli would like to have it, that it is possible. Quite the opposite. The lack of any discussion or debate about eating mountains is evidence of the impossibility of the task. Because no one is even thinking of it happening. And it is not evidence of the possibility. Other examples of things that are impossible to do may be constructed: And it is also not possible to baptize anyone without faith, and it is therefore normal and normative to require a profession of faith, as Philip did in in Acts 8:36-3838“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”
— Acts 8:36-38
and as the apostles did in Acts 2:41-42;39“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
— Acts 2:41-42
after all, only those that gladly received the word were indeed baptized according to Scripture. After this, Luke, in the book of Acts states, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that those who were baptized continued in the doctrine of the apostles.

Zwingli further adds, “these examples you will never be able to do away with, as I shall clearly show.

However, his examples will also be addressed now. The household of the jailer in Acts 16:3340“And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
— Acts 16:33-34
we have more information about. In Acts 16:34, the very next verse, the account says that “he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

So when the account of Acts speaks of his house being baptized, it also says that they all believed in God.

The household of Stephanas in I Corinthians 1:1641“And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.”
— I Corinthians 1:16
is another household that is said to have been baptised. But we should not forget that they are also made mention of again, in I Corinthians 16:15,42“I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)”
— I Corinthians 16:15
where this is said of the same house: “that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints”. Obviously, being addicted to the ministry of the saints is not talking about infants here.

Lastly: the example of Acts 16:1543“And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there.”
— Acts 16:15
has, by far, the least information of the three. But an argument from less information cannot be used, if one also wishes to refer to the other two examples which provide information that already affirms our Acts 2:41-42 foundational understanding of baptism, which is that the baptised gladly received, and believed, the word of God. Acts 16:15 does not contradict these accounts.

Now, as Mark 16:1644“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
— Mark 16:16
alludes, baptism must coincide with and be preceded by belief. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”: Notice the very ordering of the words.

Also in Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.

As we have seen in Colossians 2:12, we know that baptism occurs through the faith of the operation of God. We see from every example that, if they did not believe, then they were not baptized. So, the statement (he who believes and is baptized shall be saved) also goes along with the eternal security of the believer (which is discussed more in this article; See also Acts 13:48.45“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”
— Acts 13:48
) This is because it makes sense to say that, 1) if anyone is baptized, then they are a believer, and, if, 2) as many as are ordained to eternal life do believe; then, we do also know that, 3) anyone who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Only believers are saved (2), only believers are baptized (1). Thus, anyone who is baptized (in the Biblical and true sense so that it is recognized in the Bible), must also be saved: Mark 16:16. So all three statements hold together without any contradictions. This is our Biblical foundation.

Moving to Zwingli’s fifth reply, he writes: “For what else have I ever done but confirm by testimony of Scripture all that I have given out?46p. 145 of translation

Just a few pages before this, Zwingli used his own book as his foundation (as previously discussed). He did not confirm it by testimony of Scripture. Unless he thinks that his own book is Scripture! See page 139 of the same treatise. And it is so unfortunate that the man does not live up to these words within his own treatise. This almost leads us to think that the work in question must have been falsified somewhere by a second author, to contain such a blatant self contradiction, five or six pages after he had quoted his own book as evidence without Scripture. “What else have I ever done?” I checked the translation but that is what he seems to be saying.

Because of this, it is worthwhile to recall here what the original argument of the baptists states, as can be gleaned from Zwingli’s responses: “Now he [Zwingli] hastens to do what the enemies of truth have thus far done.

In the next part of the reformer’s same reply: he adds on another untrue statement which adds unneeded confusion: “As often as they, either Christ or the apostles, refer to Scripture they mean not their own letters or the gospel records, which were either not yet written or were then in the process of writing, just as the times demanded; they meant the law or the prophets.

See II Peter 3:16—

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. —II Peter 3:16

St. Paul’s epistles (the antecedent of this verse) were accounted to be scripture according to St. Peter in this epistle. Hence it makes no sense to suggest that scripture according to the New Testament must be strictly referring to the law or the prophets.

Also, in I Thessalonians 2:13,47“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
— I Thessalonians 2:13
Paul boldly maintains that he has brought to them the word of God. He says the word of God, and not the word of men. And again also to I Peter 1:23-25,48“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
the word of God is the word which by the gospel is preached unto us. So then, from these references it is shown that scripture is not limited to Old Testament according to the apostles. The word of God includes the gospel.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. —II Peter 1:21

Yet Zwingli leans on the earlier false statement, to argue that his opponents the baptists were denouncing the Old Testament. And what is the reason for this? He accuses them because they called the New Testament “scripture.” He therefore states multiple times: “totum vetus Instrumentum negaretis.” or translated: “they reject the whole old Testament.”~!

Needless to say, this is perfect anti-logic. There is no right reasoning behind it. How can believing the statement that “the epistles of Paul are scripture” lead to be rejecting the Old Testament? If so, does this mean that Peter, who called Paul’s writings “scripture” in the book of II Peter, also rejected the whole Old Testament by the same logic?

Scripture says in Ephesians 2:20-22, “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

We see here that the apostles and prophets serve together as foundation: the apostles, obviously, do not detract from the others. We therefore challenge Zwingli’s charge, which honestly appears to be saying, that holding the apostles’ writings as Scripture somehow detracts from the other Scripture, or in other words detracts from the Old Testament.

What does the book of Hebrews say in the beginning of it? “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Reading John 17 shows us that the Son entrusted his word to the apostles and that the world would learn his word by the apostles. And in Hebrews 1:1 we see that the prophets of the Old Testament likewise spoke by the Holy Ghost. Just as in these last days, God spoke unto us by his Son. All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

What does the book of Titus say in the beginning of it? “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;” (Titus 1:2-3)

So we see that just as God manifested his word through preaching in due times, (again see Hebrews 1:1) so also God committed unto Paul the same according to the commandment of God, our Savior. It is the same inspiration in both the Old and the New Testament. It is therefore a work pure of deceit to try to separate them. Often, this false argument (i.e. ‘the New Testament is not scripture according to itself’) is made to throw off those that are weak in the faith, and I have also seen it made myself in person.

II Peter 3:15-1649And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
— II Peter 3:15-16
is enough to answer this, because there Peter makes reference to Paul’s epistles as “scripture.” If there are “other” scriptures aside from what Paul has written, then what Paul has written must be scripture as well.

Paul himself says in Galatians 1:11-12, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

In same reply still, Zwingli wrote: “At Worms you deny Christ, and lead the way back to trust in works…

It is manifest that trusting in a work such as water baptism*, rather than faith in the operation of God,50Col. 2:12 is actually a works salvation. Any of Zwingli’s assertions therefore that he makes against justification by works, should be applied back to his own advocacy for nonscriptural baptism, which does represent trust in works.

*- done in an irregular method that does not adhere to the scriptural method – if it were done in a scriptural method, then it would not be the object, in itself, of belief, but it would be “a like figure” unto that by which we are saved (see I Peter 3:21) which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are actually saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and baptism is “a like figure” to that same death, burial and resurrection. That is what it was always meant to be, according to I Peter 3:21.

We shall continue on somewhat into the reformer’s replies here, avoiding many pitfalls and repeats of several arguments already addressed.

In the sixth reply, Zwingli writes: “I ask then what you mean by family? You will doubtless say: ‘Those who had come to such an age that they knew what law is and what sin is, for he must repent who wishes to be baptized, but since infants cannot repent, they cannot be included in the family.’ Thanks to God that you have learned to make so fine a rope of sand, twisting out lie from lie. For having persisted in the statement that none is to be baptized but he who can repent, you will rightly assert that infants may not be baptized. But here there is need of a law forbidding, and you have no law.

We have the testimony of Philip in Acts 8:37. One cannot act as though it says otherwise. What hinders a man to be baptized? This is asked in Acts 8:36. A conditional if, that is, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” The answer is provided by Philip in Acts 8:37. This condition, this ‘if’ statement made by Philip prompted the eunuch’s confession and then his baptism afterward.

Surely, Zwingli was aware of this passage. It seems near certain that his trusted defense against this was, by feigning that the passage does not exist. He may have believed many in his audience would not be aware of the passage. His claim, that there is no law forbidding, might be one received on trust toward the reformer in this case, as is done elsewhere. He merely asserts that there is no law forbidding. Some people who do not know better might accept that. But actually there clearly is a law forbidding in Acts 8:37.

It seems in the face of such a situation, the way in which they choose to avoid the full impact of God’s word and law in Acts 8:36-37 is simply by not dealing with it or answering it in any way. Remaining silent when presented with the witness of this great man of God, Philip, and going on about their arguments as if they had never seen it afterward. This, as well as complete spiritual darkness and confusion, would explain to us why this passage in Acts 8 is never, so much as one single time mentioned, in the discussion here.

This is because there is simply no way for the Zwingli position to answer it. For him, its existence has to be quietly ignored. The ignorance of the audience is relied upon for support here. Yes, that’s right. Acts 8:36-38 is simply too powerful to be dealt with. Too likely to convince the skeptics of the truth to be mentioned. So that it has to be ignored altogether by Zwingli. To even mention it a single time, and thus risk bringing more peoples’ awareness to it, is too dangerous for him.

Please also note that the concept of whether infants should be considered part of the “family” (as far as the statements of the New Testament) will also become important very soon in this discussion. It is hinted at by Zwingli in the reply here, and will be discussed in the eighth reply.

In the seventh reply, Zwingli writes: “How could [Paul] say in general, in [1 Cor. 1:16], that he had baptized the house of Stephanas, which he did not do if there were children in it whom he had not admitted? The same must be said about [Acts 16:15]. But in the third case [Acts 16:33], when he asserts that the whole house was baptized, how is it that they do not see that in the beginnings the same custom obtained as with Abraham and his descendants, who circumcised the whole class of his servants, as well those taken in war as the homeborn slaves and those bought, not to say the children, as appears from the passage just cited from [Exodus 12:48]? There it expressly commanded to circumcise every male of the family, and there is never any mention of believing or knowing God, which yet ought to be the especial care of all.

It has already been explained before that while circumcision had to follow after the physical birth, likewise baptism occurs after being born again (John 3:6-751“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”
— John 3:6-7
), also inwardly. Being born again is being saved, as shown in John chapter 3.

Now, after all this we finally arrive at the hinge of this reformer’s argument. A full quote of this important reply is provided here, which will include the original argument of the baptists themselves52being the eighth argument quoted by Zwingli, on pp. 44-45 of the original, and pp. 158-159 of the English translation followed by Zwingli’s chosen reply.

Catabaptists: Eighth- The last chapter of this epistle53I Corinthians 16. (and verse 15.) shows that the apostle neither knew nor baptized children. Zwingli dishonestly keeps this back; it makes against his foundation of glass. Paul describes this family to the learned when he says: Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits in Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the service of the saints– that ye submit yourselves to them and to every one that helpeth with us and laboreth. A family of this sort pædobaptism54i.e. infant-baptism and pædobaptists do not recognize; they do away with it, for it is against them.

Reply- As in many other places so here, we easily catch the author of this frivolous confutation, although the greatest proof is the Swiss tongue, in which it is so written that it has no foreign or imported words. Yet, as I have said, since the man now doubtless burns among the shades as much as he froze here through his catabaptist washings, I have concluded to omit his name. What impudence is this, O shade, in that you assert that I wish to ignore these words of Paul. Were these words not cited by Haetzer in the first two debates?
Did not I reply that they were synechdochic, like 1 Cor. x. 1 : ‘All our fathers were under the cloud?’ But there were infants also under the cloud, yet no individual mention is made of them. All crossed the sea. Yet the infants could not have crossed. Therefore they crossed who did not, but were borne by those who did…

Here, Zwingli finally describes what he regards as the “unstoppable argument.”

Any explanation of how “a family” performed some action, such as crossing the sea, is explained as a “synecdoche.” A synecdoche means, that those parts of the family or group that were able to do the described actions, did the actions, and that the rest of the group – which is the part unsuited to partake in the action – is said to be “included by synecdoche.”

This synecdoche explains what is meant, when it is said in Scripture that the group (as a whole) partook in the action. So, in this case, if Scripture says, “the family crossed the sea,” it means that those who were able carried those who were not. It does not mean that the infants individually crossed the sea on their own power. When they say the family crossed over, it means that the infants were carried over the sea. They could not cross themselves. But they were included in the family’s action of crossing by synecdoche. Hence, included by synecdoche only.

We do not assume from the fact that the family “crossed over the sea,” that every individual member, even the infants, crossed by their own power. They would not have had the ability to do this.

Likewise, if the family was performing, “the ministry of the saints,” then the infants would be included by synecdoche only. If this is truly a synecdoche, then the statement does not force us to believe that every infant in the household was performing the ministry of the saints. The statement only means that everyone in the family that could perform the ministry was doing it.

In this method Zwingli appears able to explain how the infants of the house of Stephanas, if they existed, in I Corinthians 16:15, had not themselves, “addicted themselves to the service of the saints.” They would only be included by synecdoche, he says. Let us consider his argument further:

…So in the family of Stephanas there were those who were the first believers of the Achaians; there were also those who at the same time belonged to the church, who in actuality, because of age, not yet believed nor took part in the ministry of the saints.

So, by this device of words, Zwingli tells us to include infants as being individually baptized as part of the family, while excluding them from having engaged in any of the other activities.

He tells the reader that they are only included in each of these other activities by synecdoche, and not by explicit action themselves.

This then, supposedly explains the statement in Scripture. In a similar argument, found in his twelfth reply55contra Acts 2:41-44 (see Zwingli, In Catabaptistarum Strophas Elenchus., original, p. 70) Zwingli straightly argues this point again:

Learn then that infants were counted among believers and were baptized, and that of believers those actually believed, prayed, distributed property, broke the Lord’s bread, who had come to such age and understanding as to be fitted for this and subject to the observance, … but however the letter reads, by synecdoche is understood every class according to its manner and understanding. What have squalling [infants] to do with the reading of the law, or adolescents with the offering of the firstfruits?

But now, we may say, if this concept is admitted, then it is immediately possible to say that the family was baptized, and that the infants were excluded from this household baptism by synecdoche, as they were not (yet) suited to undergo baptism any more than they were to believe, pray, or distribute property!

In fact, this argument has been historically used by baptists to advocate in favor of their position. Consider the following from the 1542 Vermanung:

They claim that, beyond a doubt, there were children present. Therefore, they say, the apostles baptized children. So, why should we not do so if the apostles did? But this assumption proves nothing. Why? At the time when entire households were baptized, it is just as likely that there were no infants present as it is likely that they were. For there are as many homes in which there are no infants as there are homes with infants. Often, reference is made to an entire land, city, or house without including any children at all. We read that the whole of Judea went out to hear John (Mt. 3:5). Matthew says: ‘King Herod is afraid and, with him, the whole of Jerusalem’ (2:3). It does not follow that the infants went out from their cribs to hear John or that they were afraid. Similar examples can be found in other places in Scripture.56Vermanung, p. 248: in, The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck, translated and edited by Klassen and Klaassen (1978), p. 255

As we have said: there are positive requirements found regarding right baptism. In Acts 2:41, only those who gladly received his word were baptized, not all. In Acts 8:36-38, Philip would only baptize the eunuch if he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. These are positive requirements.

And so the argument by synecdoche is brought crashing down immediately upon itself. One might apply household baptism merely by synecdoche to the whole family. Those who were not of sufficient age were not individually baptized. If we admit the existence of synecdoche, why then it logically follows: we may apply it to baptism.

It is for this reason that the argument by synecdoche is a null point. For whether one admits of it or does not admit of it, either way the argument from Scripture against baptism of infants remains completely true. We have also shown from the above points that this is far more than just an argument from silence, although that alone would be enough.

How can one say from any Scripture that such group as have not believed nor made professions of faith (after the model of Acts 8:36-3757“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
— Acts 8:36-37
) were able to be included in baptism? So then, if we admit synecdoche (contended to be the best argument by Zwingli), why then, we have only made the case against Zwingli stronger!

It can be said that, if the households mentioned did have any infants, then they were included only by synecdoche in baptism. That they did not partake of the baptism themselves by reason of this early age. This is the same reason why, according to synecdoche, they did not partake of the believing, the doctrine of the apostles, the breaking of the bread, and the prayers.

This is all the more bolstered by the passages of Acts 2:41-44, where, those who were baptized were said to continue steadfastly in the doctrine of the apostles, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. If Zwingli thinks that infants were not capable of this, but only included by synecdoche: why then, by all means they were likewise only included by synecdoche in baptism as well. This is according to the requirements of Scripture previously discussed.

And this is supported in Acts 16:33-34, where the same household is said to have been baptized and to have believed in God. If we permit infants to be excluded from the following actions by synecdoche, namely ‘believing in God and continuing in the doctrine of the apostles, breaking of bread, and prayers’ – we shall likewise permit them to be excluded by similar reasoning, from having been baptized also.

Just as one synecdoche may exist… so too another appears. But if neither exists, then Zwingli’s argument is not helped at all. His escape from the original dilemma is undone: if no synecdoche is allowed, then if the household of the Jailer believed with all his house, then clearly it did not include any infants.

Next argument: “As those infants then belonged to the family of their earthly and their heavenly Father and were sealed by their sacraments, so now also they who are children of Christians, since they are also sons of God, use the sacrament of God’s sons. You will find no crack by which you can escape.

According to Scripture, one is a son of God at the point when they are saved. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:” – 1 John 5:1. And by grace are we saved through faith, according to Ephesians 2:8-9.

He adds: “Although I take no exception to the change of form: We are baptized into one body581 Cor. 12:13, instead of: We who are of one body are baptized in one baptism, for by nature being of the body precedes bearing the mark of the body.

The body spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the congregation – the church body: Here Zwingli mistakes being born again (salvation) with church membership (baptism – after salvation). An individual person with a body becomes baptized in water. A single member of the church is not to be confused with the church body that is referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:13. The “one body” in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the church body, not the individual body of one person being baptized. Zwingli appears to be in error.

Zwingli: “In Ex. xxiii. 17 it is written: Three times a year all thy males shall appear before the Lord thy God. Notice this word ‘all.’ Tell me, then, were infants in the cradle from all Palestine carried thrice a year to Jerusalem? If so, then according to your argument, they ate unleavened bread for seven days, sowed the fields and offered the firstfruits. But since they did not do this, it follows that all males were not included.
If they were not brought, it is not true that every male appeared thrice a year before the Lord. ‘All males’ is therefore synecdoche, and however on first appearance it seems as though every male is ordered to be present at the three feasts, they alone are bound by the law who were so old that they could not receive the instruction…

On accepting this, we may say that the infants not baptized by apostles, being excluded by synecdoche as they were not yet believers. Thus, “the household was baptized” likewise, becomes synecdoche. In reality, only those that were old enough to believe and be baptized were.59Mark 16:16 The rest, who were not old enough, might be included only by synecdoche. Thus the reformer’s arguing from synecdoche is without effect.

Zwingli carries on: “Paul, in [1 Corinthians 10:1-2], tends in no other direction than to prove that they are as much initiated by our sacraments as we ourselves. It follows therefore, first, that in Paul’s time it was the custom of the apostles to baptize infants; second, if any one contradicts it he vitiates the opinion of Paul.

We do not see how Zwingli responds to the possibility that infants were excluded from baptism by the same synecdoche. It seems that he has no response to this. This is what has been advanced above.

However, were we to use I Corinthians 10:1-2 as a counterexample for baptism, then why do we not include all, including those not even born or conceived, as the apostle Paul does in I Corinthians 10:1-260“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;”
— 1 Corinthians 10:1-2
himself? From this passage not only infants, but also the unborn and those generations yet to come were included by Paul in I Corinthians 10:1-2.

If we were to fully carry the analogy of I Corinthians 10:1-2 to the ordinance of baptism in the church, we would have to apply baptism not only to infants but also to the unborn and generations not yet conceived. Paul speaking in I Corinthians 10:1-2 refers to many unborn people who were also under the cloud and passed through the sea. He said, “all our fathers were under the cloud.” That includes those who were yet unborn. He says, “all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” That includes every generation from Moses to Paul.

A similar example to this exists in Hebrews 7:9-10, where the author writes, “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Therefore, if we carried the analogy of I Corinthians 10:1-2 in particular, then it needs be explained how unborn and future generations could be baptized before they even begin to exist. Does one water baptism carry down to all descendants? Is one water baptism of one person sufficient to baptize all future sons, daughters, grandchildren, etc.? If not, then the analogy of I Corinthians 10 in particular does not hold, at least not in the way that Zwingli would want.

The above quotation deserves its own mention despite being a repeat of his earlier argument, because the weakness of Zwingli’s argument is easily demonstrated by this non sequitur. So I have included it for further reference.

It is true, however, that the reformer’s synecdoche is completely broken. For if anything, his synecdoche actually helps our case and it clearly hurts his own. Synecdoche would allow us to explain how a household would have an infant, and be included by synecdoche in the baptism while not being baptized him-or herself. Why not? Because they were not old enough to believe that Jesus is the Christ and be born of God,61Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:
—1 John 5:1
there are positive requirements, and therefore even if Zwingli is right, it means that they were only included in the mentioned baptism of the household by synecdoche.

This absolutely concludes the matter: Synecdoche can only help the case against Zwingli, and synecdoche at best does nothing to support Zwingli.

His remaining argument, after settling this point, is so glaringly weak that we will simply leave you with his closing statement to this section of the book before moving on:

The arguments against the synecdoche in 1 Cor. x. 1 : All our fathers were under the cloud, they all crossed the sea, all were baptized unto Moses, all ate the same spiritual food– the arguments, I say, that they bark out against these synecdoches are so foolish and impure that they are not to be taken into account.62? For they say they know that they ate, drank, crossed the sea, went to stool and urinated, but it must be proved by us by clear Scripture that infants were baptized. After that they insult us this way: See now how Zwingli stands with his synecdoche, which he affirms with his own peculiar cunning and sophistry, lest by acknowledging the truth he may suffer the persecution of the cross of Christ. What can you do with these men? That I might expound synecdoche correctly I adduced these examples, which they are so far from tearing away that he who will may use them, not only as examples of synecdoche, but to show also that in the apostles’ time believers’ infants were baptized, as I have indicated above.
They approach the matter with bitterness, since they can do nothing by the sharp energy of the word of God. They charge cunning and sophistry, which I so express my abhorrence of that all my writings can free me from the charge better than any oration prepared for this purpose. But I recognize and cherish the truth. And I should have to endure nothing if I should adopt your opinion, unless you are most mendacious, for you have promised oftener than I can say that all will eventuate happily if I join you. But you had to have recourse to calumnies and shouts when you undertook to overthrow synecdoche, for you saw this to be impossible. This remains, and will ever remain synecdoche: The fathers were all baptized, the fathers all ate the same spiritual food with us, as was shown in the foregoing sufficiently and will be treated again in the following. Thus far I have replied to the first part of your refutation, to the rest I will do the same in the course of the disputation. Now I proceed to the second part.

Second Part

There is not much left to say on this part that has not already been addressed. But some of the objections contained in these later sections of the book are certainly of interest and significance.

Zwingli moves on from his own defense, to the “offensive” in the second subdivision. There is not much to discuss here except for an early portrait which he provides of a “CONSTITUTION OF THE SECT OF THE CATABAPTISTS” which must predate the publication date of this book, on Jul. 31, 1527. It has articles on the following: on Baptism, on excommunication (or church discipline), on breaking of bread, on separation, on pastoral office, on the sword, and on oaths. This must clearly be the Schleitheim Confession of Feb. 24, 1527.

Zwingli at this point charges that two men took part in two adulteries at the same time which caused their couch to collapse, and that one town in their faction refused to judge a man who had mercurially beheaded his brother in a complete frenzy. But there is little else to say in response to these charges that was not already properly addressed in the main article. Having no evidence, no response is warranted. He does at this point present an interesting discourse on the Latin terms, “jurare” versus “dejerare,” compared to the term “perjerare” used in the section on oaths. This minor section of the book would merit a separate analysis which we do not pursue now. He also charges the baptists with promoting a works gospel and “leading the way back to trust in works” at this point, as well as other charges which are going to be repeated again in the third subsection which we will delve into at that time.

Third Part

Zwingli writes63p. 146 in the original text, p. 227 in the translation: “The Israelites were God’s people with whom he entered into covenant, whom he made especially his own, to whom also he gave a sign of his covenant from the least to the greatest, because high and low were in covenant with him, were his people and were of his church. And when, in giving command or prohibition, he addresses that whole people, the infants are not excluded because they understand nothing of what is said or commanded, but he speaks synechdochically, so that so far from excluding that part which could receive nothing that came because of the times or its age he even includes it, just as when a person acts with a man he acts also with all the family and his posterity. So that he often addresses the whole people as one man: ‘Hear, O Israel,’ and: ‘Say to the house of Jacob,’ etc.

As mentioned before in the main part, the fact that circumcision followed physical birth in no way tells us about baptism. This is because the person who is born again (as Christ explained in John 3:3-7) is a new creature. See Galatians 6:15.64“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.”
— Galatians 6:15
In Christ we are a new creature, are born again not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God.65“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”
—1 Peter 1:23
Before the birth of the new creature,66“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:”
—1 John 5:1
there would be no object to the baptism. Before the physical birth and the appearance of the child, it would not be possible to circumcize them before that time. And before being born again by the word of God, which is being born the second time, which is being born of the Spirit67“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”
— John 3:6-7
it would not be possible to be baptized before this. To anyone that wants the true parallel, they can have it.

Zwingli writes here68pp. 158-9 original, pp. 235-6 translation: “Abraham was justified by faith. Here is synecdoche. If this were not so it would follow that Hebrew infants were not of the people of God, which has been shown to be false, for they did not believe, and therefore according to the Catabaptists’ faith they were not sons of Abraham.

See Paul writing in Galatians 4:

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

— Galatians 4:22-28

From this we see, that just as the people of God were descended from Abraham, they were also descended through Isaac. As Romans 9:7 says, “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” So being descended from Abraham was not enough. After him, they had to also be descended from Isaac in order to be the people of God.

From Isaac, the people of God were also descended, all the way through the lineage of the Savior, until Christ himself was born. And of Christ it is said that, “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”69John 1:12. This is even true regardless of time period (see Matthew 22:43-45). So we see that, just as it was Isaac (but not Ishmael) that the seed was called, it is also only through Christ that the people of God descend. Paul writing in Galatians 3:16 states this plainly.70“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
— Galatians 3:16
71“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
— Galatians 3:29
72“Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”
— Galatians 4:7

A man cannot see the kingdom of God, except he be born again73John 3:3, and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God741 Corinthians 15:50. It follows from all of this this that the people of God, even the seed that shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation75Psalm 22:30, are children by the promise of faith, as Paul wrote in Romans 4:16, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,”76Romans 4:16 Therefore, one might be a son of Abraham, yet not be accounted for the seed. In this way, the house of Hagar was not accounted, because, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” This shows us a principle that limits both the righteousness and direct inheritance, actually to Christ only. In truth, Galatians 3:16 tells us this plainly. He is the seed singular, heir of the promise to Abraham. Now converse to this, one who is born again has been placed in Christ, so that they along with him have become the true heirs and shall be true inheritors of the original promise.77Hence, Peter wrote, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”
— 1 Peter 2:9-10

For all of this reason, there are some “sons of Abraham” which are not “the people of God.” In Isaac shall thy seed by called.

Anyone also who is in Jesus Christ the Savior is the seed of Abraham, and therefore is “now the people of God” as Peter wrote in 1 Peter 2:10. The objection of Zwingli is therefore undone.

To save time, we will briefly describe the ending remarks of the reformist’s third subsection.78p. 177 original, p. 248 translation In a few words, Zwingli makes the argument that, “there should have arisen controversy” over the desire of some to baptize their infants. In other words, he is not seeing any controversy over the issue in question.

But we see this immediately for what it is: an argument from omission. As we have discussed before, it already makes sense that no controversy would exist about something that was not even possible to do. If everyone knew that baptism was the answer of a good conscience toward God791 Peter 3:21, then it would make as much sense to argue over allowing infants to read scrolls or for men to eat mountains, as for those (who are unwilling) to be baptized. There would naturally be no controversy over such impossible things.

This controversy may well have occurred, we have no indication that it never did. Or, it may well not have. The reformer urges, by his argument from omission (which he elsewhere rejects) that it never occurred. He now says that parents concerned with their childrens’ wellbeing would have brought the dispute.

And yet, we also do not see any controversy over not including newborn infants in the breaking of bread, the Lord’s supper – the form of the other ordinance. Is the lack of controversy over this point somehow an indication that infants broke bread and ate the Lord’s supper? No, it is not. We find we are to “examine ourselves” beforehand, as this is something which infants cannot do.

And so, whether or not someone raised “concern” over this matter, it makes no difference. And further, we see no reason why in the first place anyone would raise the concern over baptism of infants at all, since from the earliest time under John the Baptist, the water baptism was given as a “baptism of repentance.”80Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 13:24. In Matthew 3:8 John the Baptist says to the audience, “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance Baptism therefore would apply from its earliest usage to those that repented. Infants do not verbally repent, making a profession of faith. These are things of which they do not know nor profess yet. Furthermore, it was a baptism of immersion, as seen by the Greek word definitions. Infants do not come up straightway out of the water from a full immersion baptism in a river such as the river Jordan. They do not have the required fortitude. All these reasons, this truth must be hidden from the senses on a constant basis by a pædobaptist. This is the truth, and the cognitive dissonance which they must suppress so that such nonsensical positions could be maintained.

And yet, none of this presents any difficulty to the church. Laws against baptizing of those who were already ‘baptized’ in their infancy, only creates the occasion for glorious martyrs for the faith.

Having cleared away this argument by Zwingli, there are a few threads that remain which we shall answer. Lastly, we turn to respond to some side points in our appendix at the close this article.

Zwingli writes81p. 179 original, p. 250 translation: “For we learn [in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2] that Paul attributed our externals to the Hebrews, though they had the internals alone, but the externals not in the same form but differently. No one denies that they ate spiritual bread just as we, for they, like we, were saved through him who was to come. But they did not carry around the bread and wine in the supper, but used other externals in place of these, manna and water from the rock.

Here this reformer seems to confuse the passages about “spiritual bread” in John 6 and 1 Corinthians 10, with other passages on the Lord’s supper. A careful examination of the two former passages will immediately show that no “bread and wine” nor a “supper” was physically presented in either of these passages.

But the passages that deal with the Lord’s Supper involve a physical table and bread itself physically being broken and served. This is not so with John 6:24-71 or 1 Corinthians 10:1-4.

John chapter 6 shows us what the spiritual meat is, which is the word of God. This is found in the explanation of Jesus in John 6:63, which states: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” This is as Jesus Christ also said in Matthew 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

The apostle Peter recognized the truth of this by responding, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68). This is also that same true spiritual meat in 1 Corinthians 10:3 that the Israelites received.

Henceforth, we should not confuse the spiritual meat and spiritual drink any longer with the externalities, such as the manna and the water from the rock, which they were meant always to represent.

“And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” — 1 Corinthians 10:3-4

“How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” — Matthew 16:11-12

The error of Zwingli’s argument is plain to see, because the spiritual bread referred to in 1 Corinthians 10 and John 6 is a true explanation for the externalities they refer to in the Old Testament. These externalities, manna and water from the rock were a foreshadowing, and a sign of the spiritual meat and spiritual drink, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. We should not add confusion to this picture as Zwingli does, by bringing in the Lord’s Supper, something which is involved with breaking of physical bread and wine, and which is dealt with in its own separate passages in the New Testament.

Zwingli goes on: “The internals were the same, the externals different. So [Paul] attributes to them that internal baptism, so that they as well as we were cleansed through Christ; external baptism he expresses by the analogy of the sea and the cloud. But to us, he attributes internal circumcision, for we are under the same covenant with them and are renewed by the same Spirit, and by it are circumcised.

Now here, the comparison of two external analogies to an internal baptism appears legitimate. This is on topic for 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. However, confusion to this is added (again) due to the reformer tying in circumcision. Here we have one internal, “made without hands” mark, and its explicit external, which was circumcision. It is not immediately clear that Colossians 2:11-12 connects all of this to the external of baptism, or simply presents them side by side. If we allow it, which we may, it presents no problem to our foregoing explanation, because of the fact that one is not baptized until after having been born again. Which, as previously explained in our main section, occurs some time after the age of accountability. This also follows the analogy, because circumcision was a sign made after physical birth, while this also-external sign is made after being saved or born again (born the second time821 Peter 1:23, 1 John 5:1, John 3:3-8), and cannot be done before as has successfully been explained and explicitly defended to this point in this article.

Last argument to address: “And you will at the same time consider here that in the apostles’ time no one used any Scripture but the Old Testament, nay, Christ himself used no other, and what controversy arose about baptism would have to be settled by its authority; but since this [Old Testament] not even leads us to think anything but that baptism, the sign of the covenant, must be given to infants equally with circumcision, there could have been no hesitation with the apostles in approving the baptism of infants.

We know this argument is not true, because Jesus Christ was a prophet himself, bringing inspired doctrine to mankind, along with giving it to the world by his apostles. As it says, “For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matthew 7:29).

Paul in Galatians, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11-12). If Paul had to settle all things by the Old Testament alone (as Zwingli now says), why speak of receiving revelations of Jesus Christ here?

And it is also written “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:1-2).

So then, Jesus had his own authority to teach, and the apostles were not bound to settle a controversy exclusively by the Old Testament. Thus in Hebrews 8:7 it says, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The position taken by Zwingli does not make sense. Water baptism was not given in the Old Testament. It was within the revelation of God in the New Testament. If the ordinance itself was given in the New Testament, then its administration may also be specified in the New Testament. There is no real reason why only Old Testament administrations must be used.

It is true that everything God did was consonant with and even predicted by and fulfilling of the Old Testament. God the Son however did not have to be reliant on its authority for all matters, as Jesus Christ is the author of it. Whether it be Old or New Testament, the same fact is still true. There is no requirement therefore, which says Jesus Christ had to settle all things by the authority of the Old Testament. In Matthew 7:29, it says Jesus taught them as one having authority. That is because He is the Lord God who inspired all Scripture to begin with.

The Appendix

A few other arguments are made in the fourth and final appendix section, which we examine here.

The reformer argues83p. 182 original, p. 252 in translation: “The Catabaptists teach that the dead sleep, both body and soul, until the day of judgment, because they do not know that ‘sleeping’ is used by the Hebrews for ‘dying.’ Then they do not consider that the soul is a spirit, which, so far from being able to sleep or die, is nothing but the animating principle of all that breathes, whether that gross and sensation-possessing spirit that quickens and raises up the body, or that celestial spirit that sojourns in the body.

Zwingli accuses his opponents of the ‘soul sleep’ doctrine. However the method by which he does so, reveals another deep error Zwingli has made respecting the Scripture passage he decides to use… We now present his central point here:

The reformer: “In 1 Cor. xv. the apostle, speaking of the resurrection, makes this which is understood as continuance or persistence in life, so to speak superior, of which he speaks in general, until he comes to the passage: How do the dead rise, or with what body do they come? There finally he reaches the discussion of that resurrection of the flesh which is to come at length. Do you, reader, that you may see that I assert nothing rashly, come to this passage, dismissing the rest. Notice how ‘From man came death, and from man the resurrection from the dead, for as in Adam all die, so in Christ all are made alive,’ pertains not only to the resurrection of the flesh, but to that life which follows this at once. ‘For through Adam we die, but through Christ we are preserved in life.’ For he says: ‘He who believeth in me shall live even though he die.’
Then consider what follows: ‘Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?’841 Corinthians 15:29 You see, the ancients had a custom of baptizing themselves in behalf of the dead, not that this is approved by Paul or us (it was a foolish thing which followed the faithful out of unbelief even unto belief, for some things cling which perversely have the appearance of piety, especially toward parents and relatives). But the apostle acutely employed the foolish abuse of baptism – which in my judgment was the sprinkling with lustral water the graves of their dead, as some do today — against those who denied that the soul lived after it left the body until it was raised for judgment.
And he thus catches them: If then the soul sleeps, why do you, too, moisten with lustral water the graves of the dead? What benefit do you do those who do not live, but are either nothing or asleep? You may note here in passing, reader, that this argument is used partly in behalf of infant baptism. For if they supposed that with baptismal or lustral water they accomplished something for the dead, how much less would they refuse it to children? For they would do this according to the Lord’s word, for which they would have no document?
85Last sentence is unclear. original text: “Nam si baptismali aqua, sive lustrali putabant se quiddam facere defunctis, quanto minus negabant eam liberis? quum hoc iuxta verbum domini facerent, istius documentum nullum haberent?

Now first of all, if we wanted a passage against soul sleep, we would find one in 2 Corinthians86“Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”
— 2 Corinthians 5:6-8
. We would not need to use a passage like this one out of 1 Corinthians 15:29, which is less clear to the point for which Zwingli presses it. But we see the ulterior motivation for doing so as a way of fallaciously arguing for his position. And so, the reformer turns only here, to 1 Corinthians 15:29, and not to much more decisive and clear passages dealing with that subject, such as 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, as we have cited above.

To refute his argument, we must first explain how the reformer is mistaken in his conclusions, and he is according to every possible view of the exact meaning of the passage in question, regardless of which one is true. Below is a threefold explanation.

(1) According to the most straightforward view, the statement by Paul87“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”
— 1 Corinthians 15:29
is in view of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Here, he asks the hypothetical question, ‘what shall they do which are baptized for the dead (namely, Christ), if the dead are not raised?’ Clearly, they are actually baptized with the belief that the dead, namely Christ, is risen. But he asks the hypothetical question, why are they then baptised for the dead? The desired answer here would be that, ‘they are baptized not for someone that is dead, but risen.’ This first view refutes Zwingli’s argument, because it does not make reference to someone being baptized in place of a dead person at all, as he suggests, but rather: they are baptized because of the death and burial, (but also) the resurrection of Christ. Paul then according to this view is keen to remind us that we are baptized for one that is now alive, not for one that is still dead. And this is also the truth. This first view has the strength that we know elsewhere this is the point of baptism according to Colossians 2:1288“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
— Colossians 2:12
and others.

(2) According to the view here adopted by Zwingli and others, the statement by Paul89“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”
— 1 Corinthians 15:29
is in view of the fact that some Corinthians had taken up the practice of specifically performing baptisms for the dead by baptizing those that are still alive in their place. This would be a wrong practice, and as such, this view has the weakness that Paul never directly censures such activity. Under this view, this would stand as the only evidence of the performance of such activity, at least, until the time when this passage seems to have been misinterpreted by marcionist gnostics in the mid-2nd century AD. However, Zwingli argues that he, Paul, uses this example as a means by which to reprove others. The problem with this is that it still seems that this could be taken as an approval by Paul of the (supposed) practice, because in this case he never reproves or censures the behavior itself. But even under this view, Zwingli’s argument is refuted. This is because that practice is viewed as a wrong practice by Paul, as Zwingli already conceded. Why would the existence of a wrong practice at Corinth provide justification for infant baptism, rather than demonstrate that it also for the same reason is a wrong practice? If the only reason Paul cites this example is to use it as proof of the belief that the dead do not remain dead, and not as advocacy for the practice, then it seems that this passage still does nothing to provide justification for the practice. Neither then does this passage provide justification for the proposed parallel which Zwingli forces here with infant baptism. Indeed, Zwingli’s position for infant baptism is less than “baptism for the dead”, because it has not the slightest mention here nor anywhere elsewhere in Scripture. And if Paul is seen here as disapproving this practice, how can we draw from this disapproval any approval for any other unstated one?

(3) According to a more circumspect view, the statement by Paul90“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”
— 1 Corinthians 15:29
is in view of the fact that the dead in Christ, plural, shall rise in resurrection again. This view has the strength that it operates under the proper plurality of the term “the dead” in the Greek, which all three occurrences are plural and not singular. This view can be supported mostly by paying close attention to the word used as the preposition in, “for the dead,” which is not the most common “εἰς” but in 1 Corinthians 15:29 it is the word “ὑπὲρ”. Now this is the word at the root of the word “hyper”. It is used as a preposition: often accurately translated “for”, sometimes “of” or “above” in English. Consider the lexicon definition of this word given by Greenfield:

Ὑπὲρ, prep. (fr. ὕπος, high) with a genitive, upon, above, over; met. as to, i.e. of, concerning, respecting, Ro. 9. 27 ; in respect to, in relation to, 2 Co. 1. 6, 8 ; for, i.e. in behalf of, Mat. 5. 44 ; for, i.e. on the part of: on the side of, Mar. 9. 40 ; for, i.e. in the place of, instead of, 1 Co. 5. 20 ; on account of, because of, for the sake of, Ac. 5. 41 ; with an accusative, over, above, i.e. beyond, more than, greater than, superior to, Mat. 10. 24, 37.

We draw the following conclusion. In the less common accusative case, this word can mean beyond, greater than, or superior, as we would often understand the term “hyper” directly today. We find this accusative case in passages like Ephesians 3:2091“Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,”
— Ephesians 3:20 (word occurs 2x here)
and Philemon v. 2192“Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say.”
— Philemon 21
. In the more common genitive case, this word has a usual meaning given by the preposition either “concerning” or “in place of”, such as in most examples, but it also has the definition meaning “because of,” which we have underlined from the above lexicon article, and we can also perhaps say more directly, “for the cause of.” This latter use has examples such as Acts 9:1693“For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.”
— Acts 9:16
, Philippians 1:2994“For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;”
— Philippians 1:29
, and Ephesians 6:2095“And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.”
— Ephesians 6:19-20
and also the example given by Greenfield Acts 5:4196“And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.”
— Acts 5:41
. Now if we take this sense in view of ‘the dead in Christ:’ we see how one is baptized ‘for the same cause as’ those that are already dead in Christ. Since we know that the dead rise, we would then in baptism follow the same ’cause’ that they presented to us while they were alive with us. But Paul asks the audience, ‘if the dead rise not at all, why then would we be baptized because of them?’ The desired answer here would be that ‘they are baptized not for the cause of those that are or remain dead, but we have certainty, for the cause of those who rise in Christ.’ Likewise, ‘they are not baptized for the cause of those who are truly dead – but instead, for the cause of those who we know with certainty rise in Christ.’ In this view, therefore, we see that if the dead rise not again, then there are many who have been baptized “for the dead” — but if the dead do rise again, then there are many who have been baptized “for [the cause of] those who rise in Christ,” rather than “the dead.” So that “baptism for the dead,” as such, does not exist, provided that the dead in Christ do rise again, and we know this is as taught throughout the rest of Scripture. For the use of making a point about how the dead in Christ rise again (as seen from the context of this section of 1 Corinthians 15), Paul raises this hypothetical situation where the dead in Christ do not rise simply in order to show how baptism would be invalidated, as it would then be for “the dead” and not for those that rise again, and therefore, baptism in turn is a proof of the belief that the dead will rise again.

This view does not have the weaknesses of the second view because it does not imply anyone was performing baptisms “in place of” dead people in that sense, but only “for the cause of,” or in a broader sense “because of” those people. This explains why Paul never censures anyone for maintaining such a practice, since it cannot exist as long as the dead are set to rise in Christ. If the dead are set to rise in Christ, then we see clearly the reason why we should be baptized because of them, and for their cause, which they stood for while still alive with us on earth.

Some who take this view have found other means to support it than what I have argued, that is aside from analyzing the Greek root word as above. It has been proposed that the term “βαπτίζονται” in 1 Corinthians 15:29 in this view, should be in the oblique sense as Matthew 20:2297“But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.”
— Matthew 20:22
, Mark 10:3898“But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”
— Mark 10:38
and Luke 12:5099“But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!”
— Luke 12:50
, rather than the meaning of “water baptism.”

This modification to the third view has been favored by some apparently because it eliminates the “vicarious baptism” explanation of the second view immediately, it addresses the weakness of Paul not censuring this supposed practice in the same time as mentioning it and leads us directly to the third view conclusion. But this modification can be shown not to be necessary because of the explanation around the preposition “hyper” as shown above. That is a perfectly valid reason to favor the third view over the second. However, while the modification to the third view may not be necessary, it has strength from the fact that, if we are baptized for the cause of the dead in Christ (who we remind are not truly dead), then we also follow the whole law of Christ for the same cause and reason; therefore, it might be thought there is no reason why baptism is singled out, except as one example as Paul has done here. And if baptism is brought up by St. Paul as an example of an ordinance followed for the cause of Christ (which the dead in Christ, who will rise again, imparted to us), then it could equally mean perhaps the oblique usage of “baptism,” meaning a baptism in blood, as this modification of the third view proposes. And this version of the third view draws support for itself immediately from Paul’s statement in verse 30, adding, “And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?” drawing attention to the perilous situation, which suggests, that perhaps those who are referred to as being “baptized” in the previous verse are not those who receive literal baptism, i.e. Christians universally, but are martyrs who went through their sufferings, all for the cause of those whom they believed would rise again. If this meaning of baptism is meant, then this powerfully motivates Paul’s statements.

It has also been argued that this modification of the third view is seemingly necessary, because Paul refers to “theywhich are baptized for the dead”, whereas in the next verse, Paul includes himself: “And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?” When he says “they,” and does not include himself, this seems to suggest that not every Christian is being referred to by this verse. However, this textual situation does not actually require that we accept the modification to the third view. This is because, as we have previously explained, those “baptized for the dead,” in the sense that the dead rise not again, are merely a hypothetical existence. In reality, no one is so baptized, because those (whose cause we have been baptized for) are not in fact dead100as they would be in the hypothetical situation entertained by Paul in this single verse, but rather, actually they are set to rise in Christ.101And Luke 20:38, “For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. Thus, those “baptized for the dead” are a mere hypothetical existence, as we earlier explained, posed for a single rhetorical point; whereas Paul and the other Christians did stand in jeopardy every hour; hence, Paul included himself with “we” in verse 30, but “they” who are baptized for the dead (who will not rise again) are a mere hypothetical existence. We know that the dead in Christ will rise, so that therefore, no one in reality is baptized merely for “the dead.” Thus far our defense of the unmodified third view, where “baptism” is taken literally for water baptism in 1 Corinthians 15:29.

What about the modification of this third view? This modification where “baptism” is taken from that given by Jesus in Matthew 20:22, et. al. follows from the same exact explanation as the unmodified view, because whether it is a water baptism or not, it is for the same cause. The question arises for both, Why would we do anything for the cause of those that are dead, if the dead rise not again – water baptism, martyrdom, or anything else?

From this, it may be seen how the passage in question under this third view can be seen to totally disagree with Zwingli’s impositions upon it. In all cases, we have disproven his impositions on 1 Corinthians 15:29.

To go a step further, we can even adduce support for the baptist doctrine here. Now see the excerpt from Gill’s commentary upon 1 Corinthians 15:29,

“Those seem to be nearer the truth of the matter, who suppose that the apostle has respect to the original practice of making a confession of faith before baptism, and among the rest of the articles of it, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, upon the belief of which being baptized, they might be said to be baptized for the dead; that is, for, or upon, or in the faith and profession of the resurrection of the dead, and therefore must either hold this doctrine, or renounce their baptism administered upon it; to which may be added another sense of the words, which is, that baptism performed by immersion, as it was universally in those early times, was a lively emblem and representation of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and also both of the spiritual and corporeal resurrection of the saints. Now if there is no resurrection, why is such a symbol used? it is useless and insignificant;”102from Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on 1 Corinthians 15:29

This is support from the unmodified version of the third view in favor of the Biblical doctrine as we have shown regarding baptism. If one is baptized for a cause, such as for the cause of the dead in Christ, this naturally includes a belief in the resurrection of the dead – and it requires that one first knows the cause of Christ before one would cause themselves to be baptized for it. Therefore, our passage now presents us with the idea that one was baptized for a cause knowingly.103Again, see how the word Ὑπὲρ is used in Acts 5:41, Philippians 1:29, and the first word of Ephesians 6:20, where the word is translated “for.” This cause is namely the cause of those that are dead in Christ. St. Paul asks, why would one be baptized for the dead (that is for the cause of those dead) if the dead rise not at all? Gill now proceeds to describe the modified version now, as well, in this additional commentary:

“…I see nothing of moment to be objected to these two last senses, which may be easily put together, but this; that the apostle seems to point out something that was done or endured by some Christians only; whereas baptism, upon a profession of faith in Christ, and the resurrection from the dead, and performed by immersion, as an emblem of it, was common to all; and therefore he would rather have said, what shall we do, or we all do, who are baptized for the dead? I am therefore rather inclined to think that baptism is used here in a figurative and metaphorical sense, for afflictions, sufferings, and martyrdom, as in Matthew 20:22 and it was for the belief, profession, and preaching of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, both of Christ and of the saints, that the apostles and followers of Christ endured so much as they did; the first instance of persecution after our Lord’s ascension was on this account. The Apostles Peter and John, were laid hold on and put in prison for preaching this doctrine; the reproach and insult the Apostle Paul met with at Athens were by reason of it; and it was for [the resurrection of the dead] that he was called in question and accused of the Jews; nor was there anyone doctrine of Christianity more hateful and contemptible among the Heathens than this was.

Now the apostle’s argument stands thus, what is, or will become of those persons who have been as it were baptized or overwhelmed in afflictions and sufferings, who have endured so many and such great injuries and indignities, and have even lost their lives for asserting this doctrine, if the dead rise not at all? how sadly mistaken must such have been! why are they then baptized for the dead? how imprudently have they acted! and what a weak and foolish part do they also act, who continue to follow them! in what a silly manner do they expose themselves to danger, and throw away their lives, if this doctrine is not true! which sense is confirmed by what follows: the Alexandrian copy, and some others, read, ‘for them’; and the Ethiopic in both clauses reads, ‘why do they baptize?’

This is the end of the threefold argument. However, there are some other views of this verse which exist outside of these three. We will briefly review them as well. But please note that none of these other views seems to have any advantage over the three discussed above.

(4) It has been argued that the preposition does not refer to an act figuratively of being baptized “for the dead” at all, but the accusative case of “ὑπὲρ” is substituted. Here it is held that some Christians performed baptisms rather “above” the dead, in the sense that the baptistery was physically placed over the grave(s) of the dead. Luther adopted this view. But this however provides no motivation for Paul’s statement. What particular significance would this form of baptism have, over a baptism performed in any other place? How does such a practice (baptising over the dead) prove the belief that the dead in Christ will rise again, such that Paul would use it as an example?

(5) It has been argued that the preposition takes the same form as that of the third view, except not because of the dead in Christ that they are baptized, but merely ‘the dead’ as a whole. In this case, the motivation of the baptism is not the cause of Christ; but simply “because of” the dead. In other words, the person acts because they do not want to become like the dead. This view was held by the Geneva Bible footnotes.104The argument taken of the end of baptism, that is, because those who are baptized, are baptized for dead: that is to say, that they may have a remedy against death, because baptism is a token of regeneration. / They that are baptized to this end and purpose, that death may be put out in them, or to rise again from the dead, of which baptism is a seal.” in: Geneva Bible (1560) But this actually contradicts the true reasons we know would be reasons for baptism according to the scriptures dealing directly with baptism.

(6) Some views argue instead, against the usual definition of “the dead.” But they do so by placing extreme force and stress on the words. For example, it may suppose that A) “the dead” refers to the future state of one’s own self; B) “the dead” refers to the current self, being as dead in sins; C) “baptism for the dead” refers to the practice of the so-called “Clinics” – such as Constantine the Great – who delayed baptism until near the point of death, and thus were nearly dead. None of this explains the usage of plural for “the dead” in the Greek of the verse, but rather substitutes the self for “the dead” in various ways, which is singular.

Other explanations appear to be weaker still than these three. For instance: “for the dead” meaning “to supply themselves in place of the dead,” as though one baptised had done so to take the place of one passed on – or, another meaning, that the recently dead are ‘baptized’ or washed, i.e. “for the dead” would actually mean “in order to join the dead,” – or some such thing. These other explanations not only seem to have no strength over other views, but also have no coherency in themselves: they fail to explain the context for which the statement is brought up in this passage at all, and also place a great force and strain on the meanings of these words, generally. Thus we have dealt with all possible meanings of this passage and shown that none of them supports Zwingli’s argument for infant baptism. Furthermore, we have shown that both the modified and unmodified version of the third view even supports believer’s baptism. Thus ends the overview for this section of the reformer’s arguments.

The reformer argues105pp. 187-8 original, p. 256 translation: “The Catabaptists teach this, too, that the devil and all impious will be blessed. They claim to learn that עוֹלָם, i.e., the Hebrew word meaning forever, does not mean interminable duration. Here they do just as they do everywhere. […]
And so do you, O reader, listen: In that last judgment, after which there shall be no other, after which there shall be no age but sheer eternity, Christ will say: ‘Depart hence from me into eternal fire.’ What end will that have that can find no end? For if that ‘eternal’ were temporary, as it cannot be, for then all time ceases, then the salvation of the blessed would be temporary. But the foolish talk foolishness.

Now this, like many of the reformer’s opening arguments, appears to be nothing more than a screen of false accusation, for we find nothing wrong in his arguments. Nothing is wrong except the unwarranted accusation that anyone would seriously argue or hold the beliefs of “annihilationism” or universalism, or that anyone would argue against the concept of eternity in the first place or at all. No quotation showing that Zwingli’s opponents ever believed or taught this is present in the treatise.

But let us charitably suppose that perhaps, somewhere, one of his opponents at some time did argue against the term “forever.” In this case, Scripture is correct and the reformer is not wrong.

The reformer argues106pp. 188-9 in original, p. 256-7 in translation: “Catabaptists assume to themselves all, the office of preaching, and of others who are legitimately set apart by Christian churches, ‘Who elected you?’ But here they do not regard Scripture. It has no force. We do not read that any of the true apostles assumed to himself the ministry of the word. So no one ought to assume it to himself. When Paul asks: ‘How shall they preach unless they are sent?’107Romans x. 15. let him hear, Catabaptists. By what authority, pray?
That of the father of lies and strife.

Unless our reformer Zwingli is willing to tell us first by what authority preachers are sent, why would he expect to be told by what authority these are sent?

But in the above he says that this is merely his response to the question, “who elected you?” This, he believes, is impertinent. But in defense of this, what of all the churches who chose men to send into the field, such as in Acts 11:22,108Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. and Acts 15:25.109It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
— Acts 15:25
What of the statement of Paul regarding those that are sent by the churches? 2 Corinthians 8:23 says this: “Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.” Recall as well that even Paul the apostle was sent by a church:

And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.
” — Acts 9:26-30

So then, “who elected you” should at least be an answerable question. Whether it is a church body like it should be or else not.

The reformer110pp. 189-90 original, p. 257 translation: “For they have nothing by which they may trust in Scripture, but only a negative basis alone when they say: We do not read that the apostles baptized infants, therefore they should not be baptized. They ward off all Scripture by the boss of an asserted spirit. Spurn not prophecy, they say, and do not extinguish the spirit. Right enough! But what is added? ‘Prove all things.’ We shall then prove the spirit, for the divine John warns not to trust every spirit, but to prove them whether they are of God.1111 John iv. 1.
You deny that Christ is by nature the Son of God, the propitiation for the sins of all the world.
Your spirit is then not of God by John’s test.

This seems to be yet again a repeat of the earlier charge unsubstantiated. If Zwingli could produce a single quote at all, which established this, do you not think, reader, that he would surely have quoted it numerous times by now? Surely, if his theological opponents openly denied that Christ is the Son of God, this would have become the crux of his every argument to prove them wrong, and the rest of the long writing by Zwingli would not have been necessary. I leave it to the judgment of the readers now whether he had such a quote of his opponents, and withheld it to the very end choosing not to provide the direct quote to us his readers in order to convince us, or whether this was merely a false charge against his opponents.

I will say that Zwingli did provide quotes of his opponents frequently in the first and second parts. None of these quotes did anything to suggest they held the beliefs remotely that he implied – namely, universalism, soul sleep, and denying the nature of the Son of God. None of the quotes that he provided remotely suggests that.

Now, we also know what kind of spirit creates false charges.

Now at this point, I will also add the following bit of information: Besides from his deafening silence surrounding the Acts 8:36-38 passage, there is one other piece of circumstantial evidence that suggests the Reformer has not been entirely thorough or complete in representing the points of his opponents.

Going back to the eleventh reply in the main argument, a curious detail may be found in his quotations. In the course of this eleventh argument by Zwingli’s theological opponents, they make mention of a passage that they are going to “establish” their case from, namely in Acts 18 & 19, that Paul did not baptize Corinthian children. However, we never hear from them again on this second mentioned chapter. We hear their argument from Acts 18, and Zwingli responds to it in the usual way. But then after this the discourse immediately shifts to a quotation from the baptist side on Acts 16:31.

What is interesting is, we never heard mention of Acts 19 again from anywhere else in the entire discourse.

How possible is it that Zwingli left out, that is, skipped over, the original argument from Acts 19 by his theological opponents, as he would prefer his readers not be aware of what that passage says? Did he leave in, perhaps by accident or oversight, the very brief reference to an argument from Acts 19 that was originally present but which he chose to remove from the record?

In Zwingli’s treatise, we never get to hear how the baptists were going to use Acts 19, this second chapter, to “establish” their point on this matter, despite the fact that it is recorded they said they were going to do so.

What is more possible, that the baptists explicitly mentioned Acts 19 but then forgot to return back to Acts 19, despite having mentioned it in writing? or is it more likely that the reformer quietly removed that section of their argument from his version in this treatise because it was not convenient to him?

In any case, the passage is likely the following:

Acts 19

“And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
And all the men were about twelve.” — Acts 19:1-7

This passage tells us that, if these men had not heard of the Holy Ghost, this means they could not have been baptized according to the rule of Jesus in Matthew 28:19.112Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
— Matthew 28:19
As soon as Paul hears that the men had not heard of the Holy Ghost, he immediately asks them: unto what then they were baptized? So we see from this that the men could not be baptized unto something which they did not already know. This means there is a pre-requirement for baptism in Acts 19. And this therefore places Acts 19:1-7 in the same category as Acts 8:36-38, which as we have already discussed, gives us a requirement for belief upon the person being baptized. And here we have a requirement for knowledge beforehand unto what the men were baptized.

So, regarding water baptism in particular: According to Paul, if any man does not know about something, it is not possible for him to be baptized unto it.

This is according to Acts 19:2-3.

So, now we not only deal with the deafening silence from Zwingli, who spoke not a single word on the entire subject of Acts 8:36-38. It is not referenced even a single time. But we also have a curious lack of further details about Acts 19, after the baptists so curiously mentioned it as one of the Scriptures they were about to use to “establish” their views.

Below is the quote of the baptists (whom he calls “Catabaptists”) by Zwingli from the original book. The original text here says Acts 18 and 19.

Yet we find no further reference to anything in Acts 19 anywhere else in the document.

To prove this, I have reproduced the entire quote of the baptists from out of the translation, while skipping over Zwingli’s objections.

The baptists113pp. 51-55 original text, 163-65 translation: “Eleventh. It is not true that Paul baptized Corinthian children. Why? Because he baptized believers alone or saw that they were baptized by others. As we shall establish it from Acts 18. and 19., to the confusion and disproof of the misleading pædobaptist contention.
It is thus in the Acts, 18. When Paul was at Corinth, ‘Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with his whole house, and many Corinthians who heard at the same time believed and were baptized.’ Infants could not hear, they could not then believe, much less be baptized. For the hearing faithful were baptized. And here the whole house was rendered faithful, from which infants are excluded, and they were so excluded because there were none there, or if there were, they were not counted in it and accordingly not baptized, for the faithful families were baptized.
[interjection of Zwingli here]
So also in the sixteenth chapter: ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thy house.’ And that his house was saved with him follows on: ‘And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and so he was baptized, and all who were in his house; they, too, heard and so were baptized.’ Where again infants are excluded, for they could not hear and believe, as follows on: ‘And he rejoiced with his whole house, because he had believed in God.’
” [end of full quote]

Anything missing here? What happened to the part where they were going to establish this from Acts 19, I ask. Did this explanation exist in the original from which Zwingli quotes? Did he only partially quote them here, or did they themselves actually forget? There is a discrepancy here. They clearly mentioned Acts 19 in the above passage. And yet, it is unclear whether the baptists themselves mentioned Acts 19 while failing to return to it later, or whether they did mention Acts 19 again, but Zwingli quietly skipped over their arguments.

Do you think the baptists quoted from Acts 8:36-38114And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

— Acts 8:36-38
at any point? Do you think they never quoted from it? Is it possible that the baptists also quoted from Acts 8:36-38, but that Zwingli chose to skip over their argument to avoid dealing with the passage entirely? Why would Zwingli completely avoid discussion of Acts 8:36-38 and Acts 19:1-7? Only time will tell.

I certainly do refer frequently to Acts 8:36-38, Acts 19:1-7 and Acts 2:41-42 – and Acts 22:16 as well as Acts 10:47-48, as some of the most positively proving Scriptures for water baptism, in addition to the passages mentioned earlier. These are as well as the passages which place belief and faith as a pre-requirement, like Mark 16:16, Matthew 28:19, Colossians 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 18:8, and others which I have waited to mention until now.

In Zwingli’s version of events, it seems like we were outright denied any use or reference of two of these primary references in Acts. As it appears that, whatever the baptists did or did not say, Zwingli did go out of his way to avoid all discussion over Acts 8:36-38 and Acts 19:1-7.

He writes115p. 258, in the final ‘peroration,’: “For though, as the apostle continues on, ‘we are one body and one soul or spirit, in that we are called to one and the same hope,’116Eph. 4. 4. they are unwilling to hear the apostle’s warning. For secretly they have taught what is not right, doubtless not knowing ‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism.’117Eph. 4. 5. So it is not strange that they have left us, since they who do not see those things are not of us.1181 Jn. 2:19

According to Zwingli, the following is true:

Paul in I Cor. xii. says: ‘In one spirit we are all baptized into one body.’ But you Catabaptists yourselves argue that if one comes to the Lord’s table, he must first through baptism have become of Christ’s body. I do not say this because now or hereafter I wish to teach that circumcision or baptism introduces one into Christ, […] but that I may show that the circumcized or baptized are in the body of God’s church…119p. 223 of translation

The reformer Zwingli seems to suggest here that baptism has nothing to do with entering into the body of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 12, this is called the church in other words. If Zwingli is correct, and baptism is not related at all to joining the church, then why does he bring this up as an issue of them leaving the church in his peroration now, via Ephesians 4:5? On the other hand, if it does signify the attainment of church membership, as we find by reading of 1 Corinthians 12:13, then this leads to a position that is in contradiction to Zwingli in his second quotation above.

Misc.

There are two minor points that I have deferred until now, as they are not related to baptism. Rather than breaking the flow of the rest of the article, I relocated them here at the end of the article.

The reformer writes120pp. 226-7 in the translation: “The promises also were made to [Israel] alone; I say nothing about the sibyl’s poems, whether they were produced among them or introduced. Still this people of God stood for this, that whatever good he wished to bestow upon the human race he gave or promised through this quasi priesthood. It was then the special people whose were the promises, even though he spoke also through sibyl prophetesses among the Gentiles

This obviously is not in line with Scripture because it states in Romans 3:1-2 that the oracles of God were committed unto them and so this was their advantage. The last verses of Psalm 147 also states in the Old Testament the following,
He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

The reformer writes121pp. 245 in the translation: “But since [Esau] lived and was of the non-elect, he so lived that we see in the fruit of his unfaith that he was rejected by the Lord. […] Since then we learn from the dead mind of Esau that he was rejected of God, in vain do we say: ‘Would that he had died an infant!’
He could not die whom divine Providence had created that he might live, and live wickedly.

The problem with this statement is that it goes against statements of intent such as 1 Timothy 2:4122Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
— 1 Timothy 2:4
and 2 Peter 3:9123The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
— 2 Peter 3:9
, as well as Matthew 25:41124Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
— Matthew 25:41
.

This statement by the Reformer makes the error that the statement about Esau being hated, as found in Romans 9:12-13, is taken from Genesis. However, the second part of this quote (or the second quote), actually comes from Malachi 1:2-3, which was written long after Esau was born, and not Genesis.

Septuagint: The Greek Old Testament

Note: Click the blue numbered links to expand the footnotes on this page

We have a few important points to review regarding the Septuagint, which have not already been discussed more broadly on other pages. The Septuagint is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek. This translation is commonly referred to as “LXX”. The Septuagint has this name (LXX meaning Seventy) due to the fact that it was supposed to have been transcribed by seventy “elders” of Israel. The beginning of this translation is usually placed in the city of Alexandria in the third century BC, at the earliest date, which is the usual date ascribed to it by ancient sources mentioning it.

In any case, it is important to note that the Septuagint is often claimed to be the unique source for many of the direct quotes of the Old Testament that are found within the New Testament. This translation, containing the Old Testament in Greek, is often mentioned as an equally ancient source as the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, having been given in very ancient times based on its translation date in the 3rd century BC. However, the implication of making such a comparison is that the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament must be lost – for if the original Old Testament exists today, it would surely take priority in understanding the Old Testament over a later translation of the same Scriptures, such as what the LXX is commonly understood to be.

The matter of preservation of the original inspired scriptures, including the Old Testament, has been discussed in this post. The arguments and details of interest related to this are available on that page. Based on the observations explained there, we mention that the original Old Testament existed long before this Greek version was made. The LXX translation is undoubtedly a translation, so it must derive its authority from the source in the original languages that it was translated from. However, there are no received original-language manuscripts that agree with the LXX to provide this. As a translation, the Septuagint naturally should have a source in the original language. In reality, it is standalone. In fact, it will be explained that we are not in possession of the original LXX translation (the one that was made in the third century BC) either. Rather, what we have today is but a rescension of this Greek version of the Old Testament, with additional alterations that have been made within it up until the third century AD before it has reached us in its complete form.

The version of the LXX that now survives (or is extant) can be shown to differ substantially from the original-language, received sources of the Old Testament, which the Authorized Version (KJV) and other received-text translations use as a basis to translate the Old Testament. This would be the original “Hebrew version” of the Old Testament.

Before I begin, I want to highlight one thing: the language of the Old Testament is not entirely Hebrew, although primarily it is. Some portions are written in a language that is called Syriac-Chaldee Aramaic, or just Syriac-Aramaic for short. A few passages, mainly Ezra 4:8 – 6:18, Ezra 7:12 – 7:26 and Daniel 2:4b – 7:28, based on modern-day chapter and verse divisions, are written in this language, instead of Hebrew. But for the sake of brevity I will in this article a refer to it as the Hebrew Old Testament, as the majority is written in this language.

We can now discuss the central points and the controversies.

Some assert that the New Testament (which is also written in Greek) must have drawn its quotations from the LXX. It is reasoned that this is where the Septuagint derives its authority, for the New Testament writers supposedly quoted from it. However, this is not required to be the case. Neither premise nor conclusion is necessarily the case. In fact, such an idea supposes that the original language source for the Old Testament, which this Greek translation must have been based on originally (as we are told), is lost. The only other way to avoid this conclusion would be to admit that the LXX must be a corruption of its own real source, since there is no complete Hebrew equivalent to it. Then it might still be possible that the source for the Septuagint could be found among extant Hebrew literature. The fact is that no existing Hebrew Old Testament agrees with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Advocates of the Greek Septuagint are caught between these alternatives, as we do not have a copy of a Hebrew Old Testament that confirms what the Greek LXX version contains.

In fact, it is even true that the original form of the LXX itself is known to be significantly different from what we call the Hexaplar LXX. The Hexaplar LXX is the form of the Septuagint that has survived until today, as we mentioned before. Origen, a writer of the 3rd century AD, author of the Hexapla, was involved in editing this Old Testament version. The LXX is contained within the Hexapla as one of the six parallel columns. This version of the LXX is the oldest surviving complete rescension of the LXX now. The Hexaplar LXX may be substantially different from the older, third century BC version, of which there is no complete copy. In fact according to sources of the time,1Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates, found in Philo (in Life of Moses), Josephus (Antiquities) and Eusebius (Praeperatio Evangelica) the original LXX may have only included the Pentateuch, which are the original five books of Moses. In this translation, there may have also been a limited number of other texts in addition to this, but there is no indication that the original LXX comprised of a complete Old Testament. Whatever translations of the remaining part of the Old Testament that were made between the 3rd century BC and the 3rd century AD would have been performed by other translators besides the original seventy elders, and this material may have been compiled together by Origen into the form that it is now known today. This Hexaplar rescension of the LXX could differ in any number of details from older versions of the Septuagint translation which preceded the Hexapla.

For instance, it would have been possible for later compilations of the LXX to emerge, centuries after the original LXX was made, which added new materials from the translation work of various other men who translated other parts of the Old Testament into Koine Greek. This would have eventually resulted in the Hexaplar LXX that Origen published in the 3rd century AD. Origen, working from 3rd century Egypt, could have taken isolated excerpts of Greek translations of the Old Testament from historical works that had been written before his day and placed them into the Hexaplar LXX. This may also give the Hexapla version of the LXX the appearance of having existed when those historical works were written, although it is in fact a compilation of those historical works rather than their actual source.

Some supporters of the LXX have said that the original Hebrew version, on which the LXX was originally based (they say), is now lost. Taking this into consideration, this is not much different from the claims being made by others about the New Testament, and the corresponding suggestion that the original language form that it was given in has been lost as well. Once this proposition has been suggested, an “imperfect” solution is proposed, which is to refer to a translation of the (lost) original. However, said version is not held to be entirely accurate, being a translation of the original and not the original version itself. To suppose that the original-language copies of God’s word are lost now, is essentially the same as saying that some part of God’s original word was lost in transmission between today and the time that it was given.

Similar to this, those who advocate for the LXX fall into this same assumption that the original Hebrew Old Testament was lost. This is because, if they did believe that the original Hebrew Old Testament was extant, then there would be no reason not to refer to it primarily, instead of referring to a Greek translation that was made later. By this it can be seen that the advocates for these versions only attempt to find an approximation to the original. They do not claim to have an accurate copy of the original text of the Bible, or to be making a translation of it, when they translate the Septuagint into languages like English.

Most importantly, the position taken by advocates of a less-than-completely-accurate source for Scripture seem to contradict passages of Scripture. Consider what it says in Isaiah 59:21.2As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
— Isaiah 59:21
This passage of Scripture teaches that the original word will never be lost. Also see Psalm 119:160, which says “Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” And Proverbs 30:5 which also says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Likewise also with Isaiah 40:83The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever., Isaiah 55:114So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it., and many other prophecies of Scripture.

Now that we have established central points of the discussion, let us take a look now at the claim that the Septuagint must have been used by the New Testament authors. As mentioned before, it is important to start by making an important distinction. The original Greek translation, from around the 3rd century B.C. timeframe, is not exactly the same as the version of the LXX that we have today. The only surviving complete version of the LXX comes from one source: Origen of Alexandria. As we have pointed out, his work was in the third century AD.

Produced around A.D. 240, Origen’s project was known as the “Hexapla.” The Hexapla was an interlinear Bible. Of interest within this interlinear work is the fifth column out of the six-column parallel, which contained the recension of the “Septuagint” provided by Origen. Later manuscripts of the LXX, as well as modern editions, are reliant on the Hexapla for the completion of the Old Testament.

So, the text that we have today is referred to as the Hexaplar Septuagint. This is not to be confused with the translation5which according to original sources appears to be a translation of fewer than ten of the Old Testament books: Genesis – Deuteronomy, and possibly some others, into Greek which was originally mentioned in historical sources as the “Septuagint.” It might be anachronistic therefore to ascribe the name “Septuagint” to a work that may not have been fully completed until about five centuries later, and that by other people than the original 70 or 72 translators. The modern version of the LXX is known primarily and substantially from Origen’s version. And Origen’s version of the Septuagint is known to contain interpolations, that is, additions by the editor of the Hexapla. To be blunt, the Scripture text itself, in at least some places, was changed during the production of the Hexapla. The same therefore can be said for the version of the LXX that has been in use, since at least the 3rd century AD.

One problem therefore with the claim that the New Testament must provide authority to the Hexaplar Septuagint, is the fact that the Hexaplar Septuagint was authored and written after the New Testament. So it is possible for its writers to have substituted any Scripture quotation directly from the New Testament into their translation of the Old Testament. This is effectively a form of back-translation.

This method, if used, would represent a huge loss to translational accuracy of many places of the Old Testament. This is because there are many cases in the New Testament where a quotation of the Old Testament Scripture is not completely exact, as it is sometimes more of a paraphrase or a loose quote of the Old Testament. This, in and of itself, is not typically seen as a problem. No matter what text of the Old Testament is being used, the New Testament does not always quote it exactly the same in every instance. In some places, the New Testament writers were inspired to quote as exactly from the Old Testament as is possible in Greek, while other times their quotes are not exact and they only reflect the Old Testament text approximately rather than exactly. This is still true regardless of whether one compares the New Testament with the Hebrew Old Testament or with the Hexaplar LXX version of the Old Testament.

The above fact becomes relevant for us, because those who back-translate an inexact quote are effectively copying from the New Testament, rather than performing the most accurate translation of the underlying Hebrew, in many cases. If the writers of the New Testament had given a more paraphrased quote of the Old Testament in a place, but then the editors of the Hexaplar LXX placed that New Testament Greek text directly into their translation of the Old Testament, this would give an appearance of being the source from which the New Testament had drawn from. However, this would not be the case – and furthermore, the Old Testament translation in these places would not be as exact as if they had directly translated into Greek from the Hebrew, instead of back-translating the New Testament.

It becomes more obvious from this situation that we cannot conclude that a version of the Old Testament is authoritative simply because it has certain similarities to the New Testament. This is especially true if the text was written and produced after the New Testament itself was written. As an extreme example to demonstrate this point, if my own book quotes the New Testament in some places, that does not make everything written in that same book as authoritative as the New Testament.

A similar argument to that used in favor of the Septuagint has also been used by others in an attempt to promote writings, such as the book(s) of Enoch, as inspired Scripture. The argument has been made on the basis that one line of script in the book of Enoch matches a quotation from a place in the New Testament.6See the book of Jude verses 14-15.

But in this case, is it not just as likely that the book (or books) of Enoch, and possibly other books, were composed by simply copying from parts of scripture, or from some third source, and that this process of copying a portion of scripture into another book was entirely separate from the divine inspiration of scripture itself?

As we begin to look at some specific evidence in the Hexaplar Septuagint, there are quite clear indications that an attempt was indeed made to synchronize this version of the Septuagint with the New Testament, and that in a very unmistakeable way. If there was a desire to have an Old Testament that more closely matches the New Testament, that would provide a motive to explain at least some of the changes or modifications in the LXX that we observe to exist relative to the original Hebrew Old Testament. Consider firstly what the book of Genesis says in chapter 46—

And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.
— Genesis 46:27 (Authorized Version – A.V./KJV)

In the Septuagint, the number given at this place is not seventy,7i.e. threescore and ten but seventy-five. In other words, the LXX changes the number in this verse of Genesis: up from seventy, to seventy-five. However, in the New Testament in Acts the reader actually does see seventy-five:

Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. — Acts 7:14 (A.V.)

So what is the difference here? Well, reading the whole chapter of Genesis 46 provides a long list of the “souls of the house of Jacob.” In fact in Genesis 46, the Bible lists all seventy persons by name. Included in this list are Jacob, Joseph, and the two sons of Joseph. In verse 26,8All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six;
27 And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.
— Genesis 46:26-27
as underlined in footnote, observe that the wives of the patriarchs are not supposed to be included in this count, according to the text of Genesis 46:26.

On the other hand, the words spoken by Stephen in Acts 7:149Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.
— Acts 7:14
give the number as seventy-five. Observe something about this: this number cannot be including Joseph! Stephen, in Acts, mentions that Joseph called seventy-five people, but this group excludes exactly six: the person himself (Joseph didn’t call himself into Egypt), it excludes his sons Ephraim and Manasseh (they were born there), Jacob himself (is mentioned separately), and lastly, Hezron and Hamul (were unborn, see Genesis 38:29, 46:12). On the other hand, the seventy-five mentioned here includes the wives of the other patriarchs, besides Joseph. By starting with 70, removing six and adding eleven, we bring the total number of Acts 7:14 to 75. (70 → 64 → 75).

We can look at this another way. There are 64 persons found in both groups. But the Genesis 46 group also absolutely includes Joseph, Jacob, his two sons, and the two (unborn) sons of Phares. 64 increases to 70. The Acts 7:14 group, instead, has the wives of the 11 patriarchs, thereby increasing the number from 64 to 75. This is the explanation of this discrepancy. The two groups cannot be exactly the same, as it makes no sense for Joseph to have invited himself (somehow) or his two sons into Egypt, if they were already there when Joseph sent the invitation.

At the same time, Joseph is clearly counted among the 70 in Genesis 46:27, even though he is not in the 75 of Acts 7:14.

However, the Hexaplar Septuagint does not seem to recognize this difference. The LXX in the passage in Genesis 46 has increased the number from 70 to 75, as mentioned earlier. The tally of individuals in the chapter is deliberately modified in such a way that Genesis 46:27 comes out with a different total. In the LXX, it says seventy-five.10Compare the versions:
all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.
— Genesis 46:27 KJV

all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls.
— Genesis 46:27 LXX (Brenton 1844)
This in fact appears to be a clumsy attempt to make the passage agree with Acts 7:14.

In the process however, this change to the chapter of Genesis 46 creates a contradiction. The seventy-five individuals which Joseph invited into Egypt (Acts 7:1411Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.
— Acts 7:14
) could not have included himself. So the two groups cannot be exactly the same. Yet, Joseph is still listed as one of the 70 (or 75) persons counted in Genesis 46. No matter what, the groups of Genesis 46 and Acts 7 have to be slightly different groups (one contains Joseph and the other does not, as Joseph did not invite himself into Egypt). With the changes made in the Septuagint, the numbers no longer add up correctly in this version. But the numbers do add up correctly when Acts 7:14 in the New Testament is combined with the Hebrew Old Testament which has “70” in Genesis 46:27.

In addition to what was mentioned above, the LXX version also changes a nearby passage in Exodus 1:512And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.
— Exodus 1:5 KJV

But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls born of Jacob were seventy-five.
— Exodus 1:5 LXX
in the same way again: The Septuagint also says seventy-five instead of seventy in Exodus 1:5, which is the same change that occurred over in Genesis 46:27.

However the most interesting fact remains. There is still a third mention of the seventy souls that was not changed in the Septuagint. For that, see Deuteronomy 10:22.13Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons; and now the LORD thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.
— Deuteronomy 10:22 KJV

With seventy souls your fathers went down into Egypt; but the Lord thy God has made thee as the stars of heaven in multitude.
— Deuteronomy 10:22 LXX
In the book of Deuteronomy, both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Hexaplar Septuagint write seventy (and neither one says seventy-five). So in conclusion, we see that in two out of three places, the LXX differs from the Hebrew Old Testament by writing the number 75 instead of 70. But in Deuteronomy 10:22, both versions still contain the number 70. Whoever seems to have originally changed the first two numbers (Gen. 46:27, Exod. 1:5 – two nearby passages), from 70 to 75 in the LXX – is it possible that this person forgot or overlooked this third reference to the 70 persons in Deuteronomy 10:22?

In any case, the Hebrew Old Testament says seventy in all three places. The Septuagint however, gives the number as seventy-five in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, but in a strange twist, it– still – gives the number as seventy in Deuteronomy 10:22.

This would seem to create another contradiction inside of the LXX. This discrepancy seems to be an inconsistency by comparison. The LXX does not give the same number in all three places. The LXX says 75 in both Genesis and Exodus, but it says 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22. The Hebrew Old Testament says 70 in all three passages, so it is more consistent. In addition to this, the LXX also has the problem we mentioned previously, of contradicting Acts 7:14 when it gives the total count as being 75 in Genesis and Exodus. The question is, did someone copy the number 75, directly from Acts 7:14, into the Hexaplar LXX at Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, and was this a clumsy attempt to make the two passages match in number, during the composition of the Hexaplar Septuagint?

And, why was the number 70 seemingly missed or not changed in Deuteronomy 10:22 of the LXX to reflect these changes? What other way is there to explain these things?

In conclusion, then, here is one significant difference that exists between the Hebrew “received” Old Testament and the Greek LXX, or Septuagint, version of the Old Testament.

Investigation of more Scripture passages reveals more evidence of a tendency for LXX writers to synchronize the LXX Old Testament with the New Testament:

Let us take a look at an addition of words that was made, relative to the Hebrew Old Testament, in the LXX passage Genesis 11:12-13. The name Cainan was added to the LXX genealogy in this passage.

The name Cainan is in fact to be found in the New Testament, and exists as a name at this same place in the genealogy of Luke 3:36.14Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
— Luke 3:36
Since this extra Cainan (not to be confused with Cainan, son of Enos15Genesis 5:9, Luke 3:37b) is not found except in Luke 3:36, we know that the writers of the Hexaplar Septuagint could have, and were most likely to have, obtained it from that source.

It is easy to understand that this name would have been added into the LXX in Genesis 11, according to the same rationale also used in Genesis 46 and Exodus 1, to change the numerical values in order to make them match the New Testament.

This change in Genesis 11 is further grounds to explain the reason behind certain differences that can be found in the LXX version of Genesis. That is, someone involved in the production of the Hexaplar LXX may have copied the extra name found in Luke 3:36 directly into Genesis 11 in the LXX, in order to “synchronize” (make their version match with), Luke 3:36 in the New Testament.

This difference with Luke 3:36 can be explained without the use of synchronization however, because the geneaology of Luke 3 is actually given differently than the others. A careful reader will notice that the list in Luke chapter 3 proceeds in reverse chronological order, and Luke calls each person the son of the next person mentioned. This unusual reverse chronological ordering, and using the term “son of,” instead of “begat,” should be a potential clue that this list in Luke 3 may be different than other genealogies.

In fact, we know the above is true. At the beginning of the list, Luke places Joseph as the son of Heli,16And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
— Luke 3:23
who was the biological father of Mary. Recall from Matthew 1 that Joseph’s biological father was Jacob.17And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
— Matthew 1:16
This need not contradict Luke in chapter 3 of the Gospel of Luke, because Joseph could also be the son-in-law of Heli. This is further supported by the fact that Jesus is listed as “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” in this same list, supporting this inference.

If Luke includes son-in-laws, then Joseph would appear in Luke’s list as being the son-in-law of Heli. For this same reason, it is also possible that Cainan was the son-in-law of Arphaxad.

One of many possible explanations could be that the patriarch Arphaxad may have only had daughters by the time he was 35, and he might have allowed Cainan to be his heir as son-in-law. Thus, Cainan would not appear in the list in Genesis 11, as he was not begotten by Arphaxad. But in this scenario, Cainan’s son, Selah, would be the descendant of Arphaxad. If this is true, Cainan would not appear in any other geneology but Luke 3, since he is a son-in-law of Arphaxad, while Selah is the next begotten. If the genealogy of Genesis 11 had a gap from grandfather to grandchild (Arphaxad to Selah), this would not be the only example of such a gap within the Old Testament18compare Deuteronomy 11:6 with Numbers 26:5-8, Ezra 8:18 with 1 Chron. 6:47, or Ezra 7:1-3 with 1 Chron. 6:6-8 or the New Testament19compare Matthew 1:8 with 1 Chron. 3:11-12 (note that Azariah, Uzziah and Ozias all refer to the same king). And this is only one possible way to explain how Cainan might be considered a son-in-law of Arphaxad, being both the son of Arphaxad as well as having Selah be a son to him.

But, as the example with the numerical change in Genesis 46 and Exodus 1, a hasty editor might still be motivated to change Genesis 11 against its original form in order to match Luke, regardless of these considerations. This is what has apparently happened in the LXX version of Genesis 11. As with the initial example shown from the LXX with Acts 7:14 influencing a change to Genesis and Exodus, this editor may have had Luke 3:36 in mind when they added the name Cainan (and made the necessary adjustments) to Genesis chapter 11 in the Hexaplar Septuagint. Therefore, we see some additional reason to believe that the Hexaplar LXX was “synchronized” with the New Testament in certain places.

There are more significant differences with the Septuagint than what has been discussed so far. As a third example, an extra line can be found in Psalm 145 of the LXX— specifically there is an extra line added between the thirteenth and fourteenth verses here. Typically, one will find that verse 13 of Psalm 145 (note that Psalm 145 is numbered 144 according to LXX numbering20Note: The LXX combines Psalms 9 and 10, as well as Psalms 114 and 115 into a single Psalm, while splitting Psalm 116 and Psalm 147, respectively, into two separate Psalms each. Because of this, Psalm numbering is offset by one throughout most of the book as compared to the Hebrew Psalms.) is twice the length of the other verses, due to the added words in the LXX version of Psalm 145:13. The reason why this particular line seems to be added is because Psalm 145 has the form of an acrostic.

Psalm 145 is an acrostic, where each verse in the original language actually begins with a very specific letter of the Hebrew alphabet: The first word of verse 1 starts with aleph, which is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Then the first word of verse 2 starts with beth, the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and so on through the entire 22-letter Hebrew alphabet.

However, there is an exception in this Psalm in the Hebrew Old Testament. The 14th letter is skipped over in the 145th Psalm. While verse 13 starts with the 13th letter, verse 14 instead starts with the 15th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, then verse 15 with the 16th letter, and so on. In other words, the 14th letter is skipped in the Hebrew form of Psalm 145. In this exact place, between the 13th and 14th verses, the Hexaplar Septuagint adds an extra line. This extra phrase reads as follows: “The Lord is faithful in his words, and holy in all his works.”

However, an attentive reader will notice that this “missing” verse, at the end of Psalm 145:13, is simply the text of Psalm 145:17 with one word changed, where it says “faithful” instead of “righteous”!21The 17th verse:
The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.
— Psalm 145:17 KJV

Upon examination, the insertion of the (Greek) word for “faithful” in this place was likely intended to imply that there stood in this place the Hebrew word for “faithful,” which is written: נֶאֱמָ֥ן = “nman.” This word for “faithful” starts with ‘nun,’ the 14th letter, thereby creating a 14th verse wherein the acrostic is supplied with its apparently “missing” 14th line.

The motivation for why someone would want to modify this Psalm from the form that it is found in the Hebrew Old Testament, which is normally 21 verses long, reflecting 21 out of the 22 Hebrew letters of the alphabet, is clear. Someone might want to add an extra verse between verses 13 and 14 in order to have Psalm 145 become 22 verses for 22 letters. This is exactly the change that we observe here. However, it is accomplished by taking the text of verse 17 and changing one word, so that the added text has a word that (if it were written in Hebrew) starts with the 14th letter instead of the 17th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This was then handed down to us via the LXX.22Note: Some findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls seems to confirm the existence of an Hebrew source for this particular part of the LXX version of Psalm 145, as one might expect. If true, this demonstrates that Origen is likely not the source of this particular addition to the LXX.

However, there is no reason to see a problem with Psalm 145 in its Hebrew form, with 21 verses. For instance, in Psalm 37, which is another acrostic Psalm just as Psalm 145 is, the 16th letter is also not included, although the other 21 letters are present in the acrostic of Psalm 37.

Psalm 25, yet another Psalm with an acrostic, has two letters (the 6th and 19th letters) excluded.23In the case of one of these, the 6th letter (vau) does occur immediately after the 5th letter (he) at the start of the first word in that verse: therefore, the 5th verse was sometimes given a subtitle with these two letters combined: “ הו ”. And, while the 19th letter is not found in the acrostic, the 20th letter is instead repeated twice. It’s not seen as a problem that the acrostics in either of these two Psalms cover fewer than 22 letters. Similarly, the fact that Psalm 145 has a small gap in its acrostic pattern is not considered to be a problem. One explanation for such a thing is that the omission of a letter is intentional. For example, the omission of a letter could indicate (or bring to mind) a certain word that starts with the said letter, which might be implied by the surrounding letters. These are things to think about. One therefore should not be so anxious to correct these things, as if there is an error in them.

We should always prefer the original version of the 145th Psalm. There is no reason to prefer anything which has any extra lines added in the main text, even if that extra line is almost identical to a nearby verse. In fact, one possible explanation for why the Septuagint contains this extra line may be that it has originally been added to the LXX as a way to make LXX seem, to the untrained, to be the more authentic version. The version of this Psalm (with the extra line added) could become a convenient example of a seemingly “complete” 22 lines with 22 letters. This could be used to make the Hebrew version seem like a corruption, by comparison.

It is a fact that the Septuagint version Psalm 145 has 22 lines for 22 letters, while the Hebrew Psalm 145 as we know it, with 21 lines, has a gap in the acrostic pattern by comparison. But, as we have said, Psalm 37 and Psalm 25 have a similar situation as the Hebrew Psalm 145: One or more letters from the acrostic is not present in each of these Psalms. But if a person is not aware of these facts, the difference between the two versions of Psalm 145 might then be used in order to make the LXX look authentic. This addition to Psalm 145 could have originated with a similar motivation as the changes in Genesis 46 and Exodus 1, and the change in Genesis 11 with Cainan as well.

We have seen three examples now, where the text of the Septuagint may have been altered to make it seem to be the authentic version.

Moving to more examples, there are other major issues with the Septuagint as compared to the Hebrew Bible which we can get into. One of the first cases I want to mention involves the timeline of the patriarchs leading to Noah, and their ages given in the 5th chapter of Genesis.

By comparison to the Hebrew version of Genesis ch. 5, the LXX has some changes in the ages of the patriarchs which creates a timeline where Methuselah, the ancestor of Noah, outlives the flood of Noah by a full 14 years!24Look at the LXX version of Genesis 5:25-29, and also 7:6.
It says Methuselah lived to 167 years and begat Lamech, and Lamech lived 188 years and begat Noah. The flood occurred 600 years later. That is 955 years. The LXX also reports that Methuselah lived to the age of 969.
And all the days of Mathusala which he lived, were nine hundred and sixty and nine years, and he died.
— Genesis 5:27 LXX (Brenton 1844 translation)
25The Hebrew Old Testament, in Genesis 5, gives the first age as 187, the second as 182, and Noah’s age at the flood as still 600. This is exactly 969, the same as the age of Methuselah.
And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
— Genesis 5:27 KJV
Of all the contradictions to be found in the Septuagint, this is one of the earliest as well as the most blatant that could be found. We should note that the apostle Peter states26see 1 Peter 3:20 that there were eight souls who were saved from the flood: Noah, his three sons, and their wives. If Methuselah, the ancestor of Noah, lived fourteen years after the flood, then he would be a ninth person to outlive the flood, which would make Peter’s statement not entirely accurate in 1 Peter 3:20, which says that eight souls were saved from the flood.

This alone shows that somewhere in the LXX version of Genesis 5, one of these numbers must be inaccurate. Otherwise, it contradicts 1 Peter 3:20 and the clear meaning of what was said in Genesis chapters 7 and 8.

Apart from all these examples, one book of the Old Testament that is altered very substantially in the Septuagint is the book of Jeremiah. Overall, about 1/8 of the entire book of Jeremiah is missing from the Septuagint. Whole sections of chapters – such as the entire second half of Jeremiah 33 – are completely missing in the LXX.

The second half of Jeremiah 33 happens to contain a prophecy about the Davidic kingdom. Jeremiah 33:15 says, “In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.” This is an example of a Bible prophecy that is completely removed from the LXX version of this book. The next eleven verses of Jeremiah chapter 33 are also skipped over in the LXX. And this is just a small part of the total amount of omitted or removed passages and verses in the LXX version of Jeremiah. I have provided, in full, below, a table of the omissions within the LXX which omit an entire verse (or more).

If one counts all of the missing words from Jeremiah in the LXX, it has been calculated that about 2700 words, or 1/8 of the book, is missing. This 12.5% of Jeremiah is an even greater proportion than the 7% of the New Testament that is missing (or substantially changed) in the Alexandrian text or critical text used by modern Bible versions, in their representations of the New Testament. If one holds these versions to be inaccurate, one might also consider holding the LXX version of Jeremiah to be inaccurate.

For the book of Jeremiah in the LXX, there are other changes still beside everything that has been mentioned which produce various inaccuracies in meaning of the text itself, even where it hasn’t been removed. These constitute additional errors or contradictions in the Septuagint.

Let us take a quick look at Jeremiah 37:1. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the name “Coniah the son of Jehoiakim” is mentioned in this verse. However, in the LXX this name replaced with “Jehoiakim”. So, in the LXX, one person’s name is changed out for another. Where the Hebrew Old Testament mentions Coniah (i.e. Jehoiachin or Jeconiah), the Greek LXX version says Jehoiakim. It is important to distinguish these two people, because Coniah is the son of Jehoiakim, and is therefore not Jehoiakim himself.

Let us consider the full context of Jeremiah 37:1— “And king Zedekiah the son of Josiah reigned instead of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, whom Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah.

Now, if the name “Coniah the son of Jehoiakim” is replaced simply with ‘Jehoiakim,’ then that changes the meaning of this verse in Jeremiah. The meaning of Jeremiah’s prophecy is changed here to imply that Zedekiah succeeded Jehoiakim, rather than that Zedekiah succeeded Jehoiakim’s son Coniah. Coniah reigned for three months and ten days27see 2 Chron. 36:9 between the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. We know the fact of who succeeded Jehoiakim. According to other passages of Scripture, outside of Jeremiah 37:1, the successor of Jehoiakim was his immediate son Coniah. After three months and ten days under Coniah, then Zedekiah reigned. Jeremiah in the Hebrew version of Jeremiah 37:1 confirms that. But the LXX instead changes the name here, replacing the name of Coniah with that of Jehoiakim. But in fact Zedekiah did not reign after Jehoiakim – he reigned after Coniah, who was the son of Jehoiakim.

Here is one example of a change from the Septuagint in the book of Jeremiah. In the case of Jeremiah 37:1, the change is not even to the extent of an entire verse being omitted, it is only a single name being changed. As it says in Ecclesiastes, “Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.”

Consider another small but subtle change to the wording in Jeremiah 30:9 between the Hebrew and LXX versions. Below are the KJV and Septuagint versions of this verse placed side by side. You are invited to consider the differences that exist between the two following verses:

But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.
– Jeremiah 30:9 (KJV)

but they shall serve the Lord their God; and I will raise up to them David their king.
– Jeremiah 30:9 (LXX)

Although the word change is subtle, the difference is enormous. The Hebrew Old Testament says that they shall serve both the Lord their God as well as David their king (whom he will raise up to them) in the same capacity.

The Greek LXX version of Jeremiah 30:9 omits the mention of serving the king, whom the prophecy says God shall raise up. It does say that God shall raise up this king, but it does not say that the people shall serve him. In the Hebrew Old Testament, this is significant. This prophecy places this future king on the same level as God; both God and the king who is to be raised up are being served in the same capacity. However, the LXX does not include this extra detail. This is one of many examples of changes in the book of Jeremiah within the LXX.

Below is the table of removals—

Omitted verses from the LXX version of Jeremiah (chapter and verse):
7:1
8:10b-13a
10:6-9a, 9c-10
11:7-8
17:1-5a
25:13b-14
27:1, 7, 12b-13, 20b-21
29:16-20
30:10-11, 22
33:14-26
39:4-13
46:26
48:44b-47
49:6
51:44b-49a
52:2-3, 15, 27b-30

Verses omitted and replaced with different reading:
27:17
46:1

Verses omitted in the 1935 edition LXX, but present in the Brenton 1844 LXX translation:
2:1
27:17
30:15
46:1

In addition to the above removals, the “nine judgments” against the nations, which are usually referred to as Jeremiah chapters 46-51, are removed from their usual place in the LXX. These chapters are reinserted (in a different order) immediately after Jeremiah 25:13 in the LXX. If the usual ordering of the nine judgements is ordered 1 through 9, then in the LXX they are given in the ordering 8, 1, 9, 2, 5, 4, 6, 7, 3.28In the 1935 edition, 6 and 7 are in reverse order from this. In the LXX, these passages are given chapter and verse numbers from Jeremiah 25:15 up to chapter 31.

At the same time, the Hebrew Jeremiah 25:14 is omitted in the LXX. Finally, Jeremiah 25:15 onward is moved to chapter 32, and Jeremiah chapters 26-44 are renumbered to chapters 33-51 in the LXX. So, major sections of the book are presented in a different order in addition to all of the removals and omissions in the LXX. The missing verses, as mentioned before, are skipped over in their respective locations. Jeremiah chapter 45, which is five verses long, is attached to chapter 51 in the LXX as the last five verses of this chapter. Chapter 52 of Jeremiah, which is the last chapter, covers the same passage in both versions, but the Septuagint also has six entire verses omitted compared to the Hebrew Jeremiah 52, not including other changes.

Looking at a few other books in the Septuagint, there are significant additions to the books of Job and Daniel. But let us consider the LXX version of another major prophecy which is different from the Hebrew version. Compare the famous prophecy in Isaiah 9:6 below:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
– Isaiah 9:6

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
– Isaiah 9:6 (from 1844 Brenton Septuagint)

Taking a step back and looking at the overall differences in the Septuagint, there are a vast number of changes to mention. In an independent count, I was able to locate entire verses that were omitted from the following books: Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, 1 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel. It was also noticed, beyond this, that many other verses29such as Daniel 8:11 were almost entirely omitted and/or substituted with different text. Particularly, the LXX in Exodus downright omitted 58 verses, while in 1 Kings omitted 49 verses, 1 Samuel omitted 39 verses, Proverbs omitted 33-34 verses (depending on LXX edition used), Joshua omitted 17 verses, and Nehemiah was missing 13-17 verses, depending on LXX edition (the 1844 Brenton Septuagint edition omits Nehemiah 7:68 and Nehemiah 12:38,40,41 ; but the 1935 and later editions include text for these verses).

A few examples of LXX-omitted verses (outside of Jeremiah) include:
–Exodus 28:23-28
–Exodus 36:10-33
–Exodus 37:4, 11-12, 14, 20, 22, 24-28
–Exodus 40:7-8, 11, 28, 31-32
–Joshua 8:30-35
–1 Samuel 17:12-31, 41, 50, 55-58
–1 Samuel 18:1-5, 10-11, 17-19, 29b-30 (verse 9 also omitted in 1844 ed.)
–1 Kings 6:11-14, 18, 37-38
–1 Kings 14:1-20
–1 Chron. 1:11-16, 17b-23
–Nehemiah 11:15b-16, 20-21, 28-29, 32-35
–Proverbs 16:1, 3-4, 6-9
–Proverbs 20:13a, 14-19 (20-22 also omitted in 1935 ed.)
–Proverbs 24:7-11 (all replaced with apocryphal verses)

In addition to the partial list of omissions listed above, further significant changes to the Septuagint were found, as follows:

Exodus 20:13 was relocated to Exodus 20:15 (the prohibition of killing in the 10 commandments was relocated after adultery and stealing)30Note: Deuteronomy 5:17-19 was still in the normal order, with prohibition of killing mentioned before the other two.
–Exodus 21:16 and 17 were placed in reverse order
–Exodus 35:15,17 were relocated to before verse 13 and in reverse order
–Exodus 39:1-31 relocated to Exodus 36:8-40
–Exodus 38:9-19 relocated to Exodus 37:7-17
–Exodus 37:1-23 relocated to Exodus 38:1-17 (and six verses removed)
–Exodus 38:24-31 relocated to Exodus 39:1-10
–Exodus 39:36,37,38 relocated and in reverse order at Exodus 39:18,17,16
Twenty-five additional verses from Exodus 36-40 were rearranged in their order of occurrence, with two of these verses being omitted altogether

–Several verses in Numbers chapter 1 and Numbers chapter 26 are found in a rearranged order
–Joshua 6:6b moved to the end of verse 7

–1 Kings 3:1 relocated to the end of chapter 4
–1 Kings 4:20-26 relocated to the end of 1 Kings chapter 231Verses 22-24 repeated a second time in chapter 4
–1 Kings 6:1 the number “480th year” is changed to “440th year
–1 Kings 8:1 the words “twenty years later” are added to the text32Yet, see 1 Kings 9:10-11 which also says “twenty years later” in both versions of 1 Kings!!
–1 Kings 9:20-22 relocated to 1 Kings 10:22 (and verse 21 omitted)
–1 Kings 9:24 relocated to 1 Kings 9:9a
–1 Kings chapter 20 and 1 Kings chapter 21 are in reverse order
–1 Kings 22:41-50 relocated to chapter 16, between verses 28 and 29331 Kings 22:41-45 and verse 50 are still repeated a second time in chapter 22

–A few parts of 2 Kings chapter 23 are copied into 1 Chronicles chapters 35 and 36 in the LXX, where they do not occur in the Hebrew

–An extra speech is placed in the mouth of Job’s wife in Job 2:9 of the LXX
–The following words: “in having spoken words which it was not right to speak; and my words err, and are unreasonable.” are placed in Job’s mouth at Job 19:4 of the LXX
–Several extraneous phrases are inserted in Elihu’s speech at Job 36:28
–A large amount of extra information is added to the last verse of Job in the LXX

–One apocryphal Psalm, called “Psalm 151,” was added after Psalm 150

–Two verses were added to the end of Proverbs 434Numbered Proverbs 4:27-28 in OSB, which say the following: “for God knows the ways on the right hand, but those on the left are crooked: and he will make thy ways straight, and will guide thy steps in peace.
–in Proverbs 6:6, “be wise” was changed to “become wiser than he
–Three apocryphal verses were added after Proverbs 6:8
–in Proverbs 8:35 “whoso findeth me findeth life” was changed to “my issues are the issues of life
–Three apocryphal verses were added after Proverbs 9:12
–Four apocryphal verses were added after Proverbs 9:18
Proverbs 12:26 is interrupted by two apocryphal insertions within the verse
–Three verses added in place of Proverbs 16:6-9 (four verses removed)
–An apocryphal verse was added after Proverbs 18:22, which says: “He that puts away a good wife, puts away a good thing, and he that keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly.35Proverbs 18:23-24 also omitted
Proverbs 19:7 is removed, and about three verses’ worth of apocryphal material is added instead, which has a vague resemblance to what is removed
–Three apocryphal verses were added after Proverbs 20:9
–First half of Proverbs 20:13 replaced with an apocryphal verse, remaining part of verse removed from its original context
–Three apocryphal verses added in place of Proverbs 24:7-11 (five verses removed)
–Five apocryphal verses were added after Proverbs 24:22
–Two apocryphal verses were added in place of Proverbs 28:17 (one verse removed)
–The meaning of Proverbs 29:21 was reversed
–In some editions of the Septuagint, Proverbs 30:1-14 is relocated to immediately before Proverbs 24:23
–In same editions as previous list item, Proverbs 30:15—31:9 is relocated to immediately before Proverbs 25:1
Twenty-five additional apocryphal verses, not already listed, are added in the LXX between chapter 6 and chapter 29 of Proverbs36Added after: Proverbs 6:11, 9:10, 10:4, 12:11, 12:13, 13:9, 13:13, 14:22 (addition is unnumbered), 15:5 (unnumbered), 15:18, 15:27, 15:28, 15:29 (two verses), 17:6, 17:16, 22:8, 22:9, 22:14, 25:10, 25:20, 26:11, 27:20, 27:21, 29:25 (unnumbered)37Meanwhile, the following verses are entirely removed or omitted in the Septuagint: Proverbs 1:16 (1844 ed.), 4:7, 8:33 (8:32 mostly omitted in 1935 ed.), 11:4, 13:6 (1844 ed.), 15:31, 16:1, 16:3-4, 16:6-9, 18:23-24, 19:1-2, 19:7, 20:13a, 20:14-19, 20:20-22 (1935 and newer ed.), 21:5, 22:6, 23:23, 24:7-11 (replaced w/ five other verses), 28:17

Here are two examples of other changes in the Proverbs of the Septuagint or LXX:

A wise man is strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength.
For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellers there is safety.

– Proverbs 24:5-6 (KJV)

A wise man is better than a strong man; and a man who has prudence than a large estate.
War is carried on with generalship, and aid is supplied to the heart of a counsellor.

– Proverbs 24:5-6 LXX

The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.
– Proverbs 24:9 (KJV)

The fool also dies in sins; and uncleanness attaches to a pestilent man.
– Proverbs 24:9 LXX

Let us consider another prophecy in the Psalms. If we compare to the original language version of Psalm 2, the Hexaplar Septuagint is missing an important prophecy again in the last verse of this Psalm. See below:

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
– Psalm 2:12 (KJV)

In the Hexaplar Septuagint, the above is not what is said. The first clause of this verse is changed to the words “δράξασθε παιδείας” which means, “embrace discipline,” instead of, “kiss the Son.”

To go along with the above change, the LXX also inserts another word later on in the sentence: “lest the Lord be angry” rather than “lest he be angry.” This seems to be a necessary change to the structure of Psalm 2:12, as “discipline” would not seem to refer to an entity capable of anger.

So in Psalm 2:12, the LXX says, “Embrace discipline, lest the Lord be angry”.

Psalm 2:1238Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
— Psalm 2:12 KJV

Embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and ye should perish from the righteous way: whensoever his wrath shall be suddenly kindled, blessed are all they that trust in him.
— Psalm 2:12 LXX
in the original languages says, “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry”.

In Psalm 2, there is a prophecy specific to “the Son,” who you will find earlier in Psalm 2 as well, which is changed or removed in the LXX. In the LXX version, Psalm 2:12 is no longer specific to “the Son” and does not mention Him.

Instead of mentioning the Son, the LXX closes Psalm 2 by saying “embrace discipline” or “embrace correction.”

This difference seem to arise from the fact that the word for “son” in this verse is given in Syriac-Aramaic rather than Hebrew. Hence, the word in Psalm 2:12 is written as “bar” rather than “ben”.

Besides Psalm 2:12, there are other examples of the Old Testament changing between languages in mid-sentence. Consider Jeremiah 10:11 for example. In this verse, Jeremiah says, “Thus shall ye say unto them,” while the sentence that follows here switches from Hebrew to Syriac language.39Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.
— Jeremiah 10:11
The transition from Daniel 2:4a to Daniel 2:4b, which is a switch from Hebrew to Syriac, also occurs in mid-sentence.40Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation…
— Daniel 2:4

We can defend this usage of the word “bar” for “Son” in Psalm 2:12 further. The same word that is used in Psalm 2:12 is also used thrice for the word “son” in Proverbs 31:2.41What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows? [same Syriac-Aramaic word “bar” for “son” used in all three places]
— Proverbs 31:2
Considering these examples, there is no reason why Psalm 2:12 cannot have the Syriac-Aramaic word for “son,” as we see it translated in the Authorized and other accurate Bible translations.

In Psalm 2:12 the Greek LXX version seems to have lost this nuance. In this way, the messianic prophecy is omitted in Psalm 2:12 in the LXX, as it does not include the word “Son.” This is another prophecy we could mention related to the coming King which is not found in the Septuagint.

I could stress further the importance of this verse. Psalm 2:12 and its prophecy serves to link the only begotten Son, from Psalm 2:7,42I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
— Psalm 2:7

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
— Acts 13:33
with the word of God in Proverbs 30:5.43Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
— Psalm 2:12

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
— Proverbs 30:5
Furthermore, Psalm 2:12 is one place in the Old Testament where a prophecy specifically says to “trust” in “the Son,” while the Bible commands repeatedly that one should trust in the Lord and God in 39 other Psalms44Psalm 4:5 – Psalm 5:11 – Psalm 7:1,
Psalm 9:10 – Psalm 11:1 – Psalm 16:1,
Psalm 17:7 – Psalm 18:2,30
Psalm 21:7,
Psalm 22:4,5,8,
Psalm 25:2,20,
Psalm 26:1 – Psalm 28:7,
Psalm 31:1,6,14,19,
Psalm 32:10 – Psalm 33:21,
Psalm 34:8,22 – Psalm 36:7,
Psalm 37:3,5,40,
Psalm 40:3,4 – Psalm 55:23,
Psalm 56:3,4,11,
Psalm 57:1 (2x) – Psalm 61:4,
Psalm 62:8 – Psalm 64:10 – Psalm 65:5
Psalm 71:1,5 – Psalm 78:22 [inverted],
Psalm 84:12 – Psalm 86:2,
Psalm 91:2,4 – Psalm 112:7,
Psalm 115:9,10,11,
Psalm 118:8,9 – Psalm 125:1,
Psalm 141:8 – Psalm 143:8 – Psalm 144:2
and elsewhere!

Because of this, it seems to be consequential that the unique reference in Psalm 2:12 which tells us to trust in “the Son” (Psalm 2:12) is removed or missing in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

Some modern translations, such as the “JPS Tanakh 1917” and the “NET Bible,” follow the LXX version of Psalm 2:12.

This is interesting, because those same two translations (JPS 1917 and NET) also include a noteworthy change to Isaiah 7:1445Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
— Isaiah 7:14 KJV

“…behold, the young woman shall conceive…”
— JPS Tanakh 1917
“…Look, this young woman is about to conceive…”
— NET Bible
46Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
— Psalm 2:12 KJV

Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, When suddenly His wrath is kindled. Happy are all they that take refuge in Him.
— JPS Tanakh 1917
Give sincere homage! Otherwise he will be angry, and you will die because of your behavior, when his anger quickly ignites. How blessed are all who take shelter in him!
— NET Bible
which changes the term “virgin” to “young woman.”

So far, we have shown some important differences between the Hexaplar LXX and the Hebrew Old Testament. The reader may wish to consider and be aware of the significance of these changes between these two versions of the Old Testament.

This is far from an exhaustive list of changes. I plan to return to this study and to list out some of the specific changes in the Septuagint Psalms, the Septuagint Isaiah, and some other passages of interest, but I will need to dedicate more time to a closer study in this regard. Before ending this analysis of the differences in the Septuagint, I feel like it would be appropriate to investigate the ending of the Septuagint directly, especially the later prophets such as Daniel and the minor prophets.

I made a personal examination of parts of Ezekiel, the entire book of Daniel, and most of the text of the minor prophets, by comparing the 1844 Brenton Septuagint translation, the 2008 Orthodox Study Bible (another Septuagint translation) and the 1935 Rahlf’s Septuagint (a Greek edition), each as compared with the Hebrew Old Testament and the Authorized KJV. I documented 268 significant changes in these passages, and 273 in the OSB, and I have listed some examples of the changes that I found here:

Ezekiel 28:13, the word “silver” is added in the LXX, and twelve gemstones were listed instead of nine (these 12 gemstones are similar to the list of gems in Exodus 39:10-13), and also the mentions of “tabrets and pipes” in this verse were removed or omitted in the LXX
Ezekiel 32:29Edom” changed to “Assyria
Ezekiel 32:30Zidonians” changed to “Assyrians

Daniel 3:16we are not careful to answer thee” changed to “we have no need to answer thee
Daniel 3:22 LXX omitted the words “the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego
Daniel 5:5,24part of the hand” changed to “knuckles of the hand
Daniel 5:16 LXX omitted the words “and dissolve doubts
Daniel 5:25MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN” changed to “Mane, Thekel, Phares
Daniel 6:2 LXX omitted the words “above the presidents and princes
Daniel 6:13 LXX omitted the words “regardeth not thee, O king,
Daniel 6:18 LXX omitted the words “neither were instruments of musick brought before him
Daniel 6:18 LXX added the words “and they brought him no food
Daniel 6:18 LXX added the words “But God shut the mouths of the lions, and they did not molest Daniel
Daniel 6:20lamentable voice” changed to “loud voice
Daniel 7:1 LXX omitted the words “and told the sum of the matters
Daniel 7:4lion” changed to “lioness
Daniel 7:4and made stand upon the feet as a man” changed to “and she stood on human feet
Daniel 7:7 LXX omitted the words “in the night visions
Daniel 7:23shall be diverse from” changed to “shall excel
Daniel 7:24 LXX omitted the words “out of this kingdom
Daniel 7:24shall be diverse from the first” changed to “shall exceed all the former ones in wickedness
Daniel 8:2 LXX omitted the words “And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw,
Daniel 8:5west” changed to “southwest
Daniel 8:9little horn” changed to “strong horn
Daniel 8:9and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” changed to “and toward the host” (in 1844 Brenton ed.)
Daniel 8:9and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” changed to “and toward the east, and toward the north” (in 1935 Rahlf Septuagint)
Daniel 8:10it cast down some of the host and of the stars” changed to “there fell to the earth some of the host of heaven and of the stars
Daniel 8:12truth” changed to “righteousness
Daniel 8:14three hundred” changed to “four hundred” (in Brenton 1844 ed.)
Daniel 8:24 LXX omitted the words “but not by his own power
Daniel 8:25he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.” changed to “and he shall stand up for the destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand.
Daniel 9:1was made king over” changed to “reigned over
Daniel 9:17cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake.” changed to “cause thy face to shine on thy desolate sanctuary, for thine own sake, O Lord.
Daniel 9:24and to make reconciliation for iniquity” changed to “and to blot out the iniquities

Daniel 9:26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;” changed to “And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming:

Daniel 9:27the sacrifice and the oblation” changed to “my sacrifice and drink-offering
Daniel 10:1 LXX omitted the words “but the time appointed was long
Daniel 10:3 LXX added the words “with oil
Daniel 10:10 LXX omitted the words “and upon the palms of my hands
Daniel 10:13I remained there” changed to “I left him there
Daniel 11:1Darius the Mede” changed to “Cyrus
Daniel 11:9So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.” changed to “And he shall enter into the kingdom of the king of the south, and shall return to his own land.” (opposite person)
Daniel 11:20a raiser of taxes” changed to “one that shall cause a plant of the kingdom to pass over his place
Daniel 11:21And in his estate shall stand up a vile person,” changed to “One shall stand on his place, who has been set a nought,
Daniel 11:24the strong holds” changed to “Egypt
Daniel 11:26Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him,” changed to “and they shall eat his provisions, and shall crush him,
Daniel 11:29 LXX omitted the words “or as the latter
Daniel 11:30them that forsake” changed to “them that have forsaken
Daniel 11:31And arms shall stand on his part,” changed to “And seeds shall spring up out of him,
Daniel 11:32And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries:” changed to “And the transgressors shall bring about a covenant by deceitful ways:
Daniel 11:33shall instruct many” changed to “shall understand much
Daniel 11:35 LXX omitted the words “and to make them white
Daniel 11:36 LXX omitted the words “against the God of gods
Daniel 11:37the God of his fathers” changed to “any gods of his fathers
Daniel 11:39 LXX omitted the words “shall acknowledge
Daniel 11:40 LXX omitted the words “like a whirlwind
Daniel 12:3they that turn many to righteousness” changed to “some of the many righteous
Daniel 12:4many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” changed to “until many are taught, and knowledge is increased.
Daniel 12:7when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people,” changed to “when the dispersion is ended
Daniel 12:10Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried;” changed to “Many must be tested, and thoroughly whitened, and tried with fire, and sanctified;
Daniel 12:13But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot” changed to “But go thou, and rest; for there are yet days and seasons to the fulfillment of the end; and thou shalt stand in thy lot


Hosea 2:23will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy47see 1 Peter 2:10 changed to “will love her that was not loved
Hosea 3:2half homer of barley” changed to “flagon of wine
Hosea 4:6My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:” changed to “My people are like as if they had no knowledge:
Hosea 7:1When I would have healed Israel” changed to “When I have healed Israel
Hosea 8:7For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind:” changed to “for they sowed blighted seed, and their destruction shall await them,

Hosea 11:1called my son out of Egypt” changed to “out of Egypt have I called his children48See Matthew 2:15

Hosea 11:12and the house of Israel with deceit: but Judah yet ruleth with God” changed to “and the house of Israel and Juda with ungodliness

Amos 3:2only” changed to “especially
Amos 5:8seven stars and Orion” changed to “all things
Amos 5:15Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate” etc. changed to “We have hated evil, and loved good: and restore ye judgment in the gates” etc.
Amos 7:1it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings” changed to “and, behold, one caterpillar, king Gog
Amos 8:3songs” changed to “ceilings
Amos 8:10only son” changed to “beloved friend

Jonah 1:8 LXX omitted the words “Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us;
Jonah 1:9 LXX omitted the words “I am an Hebrew;
Jonah 2:4yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.” changed to “shall I indeed look again toward thy holy temple?
Jonah 2:5weeds” changed to “clefts of the mountains
Jonah 2:6yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.” changed to “yet, O Lord my God, let my ruined life be restored.
Jonah 2:7and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.” changed to “and may my prayer come to thee into thy holy temple.
Jonah 2:9Salvation is of the LORD.” changed to “the Lord of my salvation.
Jonah 3:3great city” changed to “great city to God” (in 1935 Rahlf Septuagint)
Jonah 3:4Yet forty days” changed to “Yet three days
Jonah 3:8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth,” etc. changed to “So men and cattle were clothed with sackcloths,” etc.
Jonah 3:8violence” changed to “iniquity
Jonah 3:8 LXX added the word “saying,
Jonah 4:1displeased” changed to “grieved
Jonah 4:1angry” changed to “confounded
Jonah 4:2 LXX omitted the words “I pray thee,
Jonah 4:3 LXX omitted the words “I beseech thee,
Jonah 4:4angry” changed to “grieved
Jonah 4:5on the east side of” changed to “over against
Jonah 4:9angry” changed to “grieved” (2 times)
Jonah 4:11cannot discern between” changed to “do not know

Micah 6:6come before the LORD” changed to “reach the LORD
Micah 6:6bow myself before the high God” changed to “lay hold of my God most high
Micah 6:8to walk humbly with thy God” changed to “be ready to walk with the Lord thy God
Micah 6:10Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable?” changed to “Is there not fire, and the house of the wicked heaping up wicked treasures, and that with the pride of unrighteousness?
Micah 6:11Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights?” changed to “Shall the wicked be justified by the balanced, or deceitful weights in the bag,
Micah 6:15 LXX added the words “and the ordinances of my people shall be utterly abolished
Micah 6:16reproach of my people” changed to “reproach of nations

Nahum 2:6The gates of the rivers shall be opened” changed to “The gates of the cities have been opened
Nahum 2:7And Huzzab shall be led away captive,” changed to “and the foundation has been exposed;
Nahum 3:3and there is none end of their corpses; they stumble upon their corpses:” changed to “and there was no end to her nations, but they shall be weak in their bodies
Nahum 3:8Art thou better than populous No,” changed to “Prepare thee a portion, tune the chord, prepare a portion for Ammon:

Habakkuk 2:11beam” changed to “beetle
Habakkuk 2:19Arise, it shall teach!” changed to “Be thou exalted!
Habakkuk 3:2O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years” changed to “I considered thy works, and was amazed: thou shalt be known between the two living creatures,
Habakkuk 3:2in wrath remember mercy.” changed to “thou shalt be manifested when the time is come; when my soul is troubled, thou wilt in wrath remember mercy.
Habakkuk 3:4And his brightness was as the light” changed to “And his brightness shall be as light
Habakkuk 3:4and there was the hiding of his power” changed to “and he caused a mighty love of his strength
Habakkuk 3:5Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet.” changed to “Before his face shall go a report, and it shall go forth into the plains,
Habakkuk 3:6He stood, and measured the earth:” changed to “the earth stood at his feet and trembled:
Habakkuk 3:6 LXX omitted the words “his ways are everlasting.49Omitted from most editions, but in the 1844 Brenton edition it was instead changed to “at his everlasting going forth.
Habakkuk 3:9Thy bow was made quite naked, according to the oaths of the tribes, even thy word. Selah.” changed to “Surely thou didst bend thy bow at scepters, saith the Lord. Pause.
Habakkuk 3:10The mountains saw thee, and they trembled:” changed to “The nations shall see thee and be in pain
Habakkuk 3:11The sun and moon stood still in their habitation” changed to “The sun was exalted, and the moon stood still in her course

Habakkuk 3:13Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed50Note: the word “anointed” in this verse in the Hebrew OT, is מְשִׁיחֶךָ or “masiah / messiah” and this word is not plural but singular case changed to “Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, to save thine anointed:51“anointed” here refers to Greek plural: χριστούς

Zephaniah 1:11for all the merchant people are cut down” changed to “for all the people has become like Chanaan
Zephaniah 1:14 LXX omitted the words “the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.
Zephaniah 2:7for the LORD their God shall visit them,” changed to “for the Lord their God has visited them,
Zephaniah 2:9even the breeding of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual desolation” changed to “and Damascus shall be left as a heap of the threshing-floor, and desolate for ever
Zephaniah 2:10against the people of the LORD of hosts” changed to “against the Lord Almighty
Zephaniah 3:1Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city!” changed to “Alas the glorious and ransomed city.
Zephaniah 3:17The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save” changed to “The Lord thy God is in thee; the Mighty One shall save thee

Haggai 1:1 LXX added the words “saying, Speak
Haggai 1:5 LXX added the words “I pray you” (1844 ed. only)
Haggai 1:10is stayed” changed to future tense (two times)
Haggai 1:11And I called for a drought upon […]” changed to “And I will bring a sword upon […]”
Haggai 1:13Then spake Haggai the LORD’S messenger in the LORD’S message unto the people, saying, […]” changed to “And Aggaeus the Lord’s messenger spoke among the messengers of the Lord to the people, saying, […]”
Haggai 1:14governor of Judah” changed to “of the tribe of Juda
Haggai 2:1governor of Judah” changed to “of the tribe of Juda
Haggai 2:4be strong, all ye people of the land” changed to “let all the people of the land strengthen themselves
Haggai 2:5 LXX omitted the words “According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt,
Haggai 2:6 LXX omitted the words “it is a little while,

Haggai 2:7and the desire of all nations shall come” changed to “and the choice portions52Gr. eklekta, plural of all the nations shall come

Haggai 2:9 LXX added the words “even peace of soul for a possession to every one that builds, to raise up this temple
Haggai 2:14and that which they offer there is unclean.” changed to “and whosoever shall approach them, shall be defiled because of their early burdens: they shall be pained because of their toils; and ye have hated him that reproved in the gates.
Haggai 2:15 LXX added the words “what manner of men ye were
Haggai 2:20 LXX added the words “the second time
Haggai 2:21governor of Judah” changed to “of the tribe of Juda
Haggai 2:21I will shake the heavens and the earth” changed to “I shake53Gr. present active the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;

Zechariah 1:3saith the LORD of hosts” omitted by the LXX (one instance) and changed to “Lord” by the LXX (second instance)54See Greek 1935 edition
Zechariah 1:6But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not take hold of your fathers?” changed to “But do ye receive my words and mine ordinances, all that I command by my Spirit to my servants the prophets, who lived in the days of your fathers;
Zechariah 1:8,10,11myrtle trees” changed to “shady mountains
Zechariah 1:11sitteth still” changed to “is inhabited
Zechariah 1:12had indignation” changed to “disregarded
Zechariah 1:14I am jealous” changed to “I have been jealous
Zechariah 1:15that are at ease” changed to “that combine to attack her
Zechariah 1:16I am returned to Jerusalem” changed to “I will return to Jerusalem
Zechariah 1:17 LXX added the words “And the angel that spoke with me said to me,
Zechariah 1:21 LXX added the words “and they broke Israel in pieces
Zechariah 2:4 LXX omitted the words “as towns without walls
Zechariah 2:6I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven” changed to “I will gather you from the four winds of heaven
Zechariah 2:11shall be my people” changed to “shall be his people
Zechariah 2:11I will dwell in the midst of thee” changed to “they shall dwell in the midst of thee
Zechariah 3:7I will give thee places to walk” changed to “I will give thee men to walk
Zechariah 3:9I will remove the iniquity” changed to “I will search out all the iniquity
Zechariah 4:2seven lamps” changed to “lamps
Zechariah 4:2 LXX omitted the words “which are upon the top thereof:
Zechariah 4:3two olive trees by it” changed to “two olive trees above it
Zechariah 4:7Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.” changed to “Who art thou, the great mountain before Zorobabel, that thou shouldest prosper? whereas I will bring out the stone of the inheritance, the grace of it the equal of my grace.
Zechariah 4:10 LXX omitted the words “with those seven
Zechariah 4:10they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.” changed to “these are the seven eyes that look upon all the earth.
Zechariah 5:1,2book” changed to “sickle
Zechariah 5:6resemblance” changed to “iniquity
Zechariah 6:10even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon,” changed to “the chief men, and from the useful men of it, and from them that have understood it;
Zechariah 6:10 LXX added the words “that came out of Babylon
Zechariah 6:12Temple of the LORD” changed to “house of the LORD55See Zech. 8:9
Zechariah 6:13 LXX omitted the words “Even he shall build the temple of the LORD
Zechariah 6:13he shall bear the glory” changed to “he shall receive power
Zechariah 6:13and he shall be a priest upon his throne” changed to “and there shall be a priest on his right hand
Zechariah 6:14the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah,” changed to “the crown shall be to them that wait patiently, and to the useful men of the captivity, and to them that have known it, and for the favour of the son of Sophonias,
Zechariah 6:15Temple of the LORD” changed to “house of the LORD56See Zech. 8:9
Zechariah 7:3Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?” changed to “The holy offering has come in hither in the fifth month, as it has done already many years.
Zechariah 7:6when ye did eat, and when ye did drink” changed to “if ye eat or drink
Zechariah 7:7the south and the plain” changed to “the hill country and the low country
Zechariah 7:10let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.” changed to “and let not one of you remember in his heart the injury of his brother.
Zechariah 7:12they made their hearts as an adamant stone” changed to “they made their heart disobedient
Zechariah 7:14I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations” changed to “I will cast them out among all the nations
Zechariah 8:2 LXX added the words “for Jerusalem
Zechariah 8:8they shall be my people, and I will be their God” changed to “they shall be to me a people, and I will be to them a God
Zechariah 8:12the seed shall be prosperous” changed to “I will shew peace
Zechariah 8:21the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying,” changed to “the inhabitants of five cities shall come together to one city, saying,
Zechariah 9:1Damascus shall be the rest thereof: when the eyes of man, as of all the tribes of Israel, shall be toward the LORD.” changed to “his sacrifice shall be in Damascus; for the Lord looks upon men, and upon all the tribes of Israel.
Zechariah 9:10And I will cut off” changed to “And he shall destroy
Zechariah 9:10and he shall speak peace unto the heathen” changed to “and there shall be abundance and peace out of the nations
Zechariah 9:12Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope” changed to “Ye shall dwell in strongholds, ye prisoners of the congregation
Zechariah 9:14shall go with whirlwinds of the south.” changed to “shall proceed with the tumult of his threatening.
Zechariah 9:15and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altar.” changed to “and fill the bowls as the altar.
Zechariah 9:16 LXX omitted the words “for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land.
Zechariah 9:17For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty!” changed to “For if he has anything good, and if he has anything fair,
Zechariah 10:1shall make” changed to “has given
Zechariah 10:2shepherd” changed to “healing
Zechariah 10:3I punished the goats” changed to “I will visit the sheep
Zechariah 10:3hath visited … hath made” changed to “shall visit … shall make
Zechariah 10:4Out of him came forth the corner, out of him the nail, out of him the battle bow, out of him every oppressor together.” changed to “And from him he looked, and from him he set the battle in order, and from him came the bow in anger, and from him shall come forth every oppressor together.
Zechariah 10:8I have redeemed them” changed to “I will redeem them
Zechariah 10:12walk” changed to “boast
Zechariah 11:10,14cut it asunder” changed to “cast it away” (twice)
Zechariah 11:11the poor of the flock” changed to “The Canaanites, the sheep
Zechariah 11:12I said unto them” changed to “I will say to them
Zechariah 11:13Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them.” changed to “Drop them into the smelting furnace and see if it is proven, as in the same manner I was proven for their sake.
Zechariah 11:14brotherhood” changed to “possession
Zechariah 11:17idol shepherd” changed to “vain shepherds
Zechariah 12:2a cup of trembling” changed to “trembling door-posts
Zechariah 12:3burdensome stone” changed to “trodden stone
Zechariah 12:3all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces” changed to “every one that tramples on it shall utterly mock at it
Zechariah 12:5The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength” changed to “We shall find for ourselves the inhabitants of Jerusalem

Zechariah 12:10they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,” changed to “they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me,

Zechariah 12:10for his only son” changed to “for a beloved friend
Zechariah 12:11as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon57See 2 Chron. 35:25 changed to “as the mourning for the pomegranate grove cut down in the plain
Zechariah 12:13Shimei” changed to “Symeon
Zechariah 13:1there shall be a fountain opened” changed to “every place shall be opened
Zechariah 13:3thrust him through” changed to “bind him
Zechariah 13:4neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive” changed to “and they shall clothe themselves with a garment of hair, because they have lied
Zechariah 14:6the light shall not be clear, nor dark” changed to “there shall be no light
Zechariah 14:8winter” changed to “spring
Zechariah 14:11utter destruction” changed to “curse
Zechariah 14:17even upon them shall be no rain.” changed to “even these shall be added to the others.

Malachi 1:7contemptible” changed to “polluted
Malachi 1:13ye have snuffed at it” changed to “I have utterly rejected them with scorn
Malachi 1:14the deceiver” changed to “the man who had the power
Malachi 2:3I will corrupt your seed” changed to “I will turn my back upon you
Malachi 2:4Levi” changed to “the sons of Levi
Malachi 2:10we … us … we … our” changed to “ye … you … ye … your
Malachi 2:11Judah hath dealt treacherously” changed to “Juda has been forsaken
Malachi 2:11married the daughter of a strange god” changed to “gone after other gods
Malachi 2:12 LXX omitted the words “the master and the scholar
Malachi 3:6 LXX omitted the words “therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed
Malachi 3:9Ye are cursed with a curse” changed to “ye do surely look off from me
Malachi 3:10Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith,” changed to “The year is completed, and ye have brought all the produce into the storehouses; but there shall be the plunder thereof in its house:
Malachi 3:11 LXX omitted the words “I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes
Malachi 3:15And now we call the proud happy” changed to “And now we pronounce strangers blessed
Malachi 4:1all the proud” changed to “all the aliens
Malachi 4:6and the heart of the children to their fathers” changed to “and the heart of a man to his neighbour
Malachi 4:4 moved to the end of the chapter, after verse 6

I hope that the above list of some changes in the Septuagint or LXX as compared to the received or Hebrew Old Testament shows the extent of how consequential some of these differences are. Some of the Messianic prophecies found in the Old Testament, which we noted were not found in the Hexaplar Septuagint were:

Psalm 2:12
Isaiah 9:6
Jeremiah 30:9
Jeremiah 33:15
Daniel 9:26
Hosea 11:1
Habakkuk 3:13
Zephaniah 3:17
Haggai 2:7

Lastly, I will make a defense of the Hebrew Old Testament against a frequent claim that I see being made that it is missing prophecies:

There is a popular short list that is being circulated online which mentions six quotations of the Old Testament located in the New Testament. The claim made by the advocates of the Septuagint is that the Hebrew Old Testament does not contain these six quotations. These six quotations are compared, as listed, to the LXX, which supposedly differs from the Hebrew Old Testament in that it contains these six quotes.

However, it will be shown that the Old Testament contains all six of these quotations, and that there is no need to resort to the Septuagint/LXX in order to find these New Testament references.

The list presents the six examples, in the following order:
—1. Psalm 40:6 & Hebrews 10:5
—2. Isaiah 7:14 & Matthew 1:23
—3. Deuteronomy 32:43 & Hebrews 1:6
—4. Isaiah 61:1 & Luke 4:18
—5. Psalm 22:16 (as compared to the Gospel account of the crucifixion)
—6. Isaiah 42:4 & Matthew 12:21

The second and fifth items of this list can be cleared first, as they are the simplest to explain. Mistranslations of Isaiah 7:1458virgin” is supposedly changed to “young woman” in the following:

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
— Isaiah 7:14 KJV
and Psalm 22:16,59they pierced” is supposedly changed to “like a lion” in the following:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.” — Psalm 22:16
can be addressed immediately by recognizing the following:

All one must do is disregard the inaccurate translations found in some translations of the Hebrew in modern time. There is a mistranslation of the Hebrew words here in Isaiah 7:14 and Psalm 22:16. If we look at the way that the AV (KJV) renders these verses into English, we can see an example of the Hebrew language accurately translated directly into English in both places. It is only with some modern efforts that have been made to redefine these words that a mistranslation of these words has sometimes occurred within Isaiah 7:14 or Psalm 22:16.

So, the true and accurate translation of Hebrew in the Old Testament says “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14, and “they pierced” in Psalm 22:16. Therefore, these prophecies are not really missing in the original Hebrew, as has been alleged.

The remaining list is as follows:
1. Psalm 40:6 & Hebrews 10:5

3. Deuteronomy 32:43 & Hebrews 1:6
4. Isaiah 61:1 & Luke 4:18

6. Isaiah 42:4 & Matthew 12

Next, let us take a look at the first item in the list.

Psalm 40:660Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
— Psalm 40:6
with Hebrews 10:561Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
— Hebrews 10:5
:

In this place, it can be held that Psalm 40 already lines up with the book of Hebrews, despite having slightly different terminology. The explanation is as follows:

“Opening of the ears” is associated with an event that happens before being born in the Bible, while a person is being formed in the womb. For an example of this, see Isaiah 48:8.62Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.
— Isaiah 48:8
In Isaiah 48:8, “the time that thine ear was not opened” refers to a time before birth. That’s why he is called a transgressor “from the womb.”

The time before a person’s ear is opened refers to a time when the body is still in preparation. Thus, “a body being prepared” and “an ear being opened” are two different ways to refer to the same thing. The body is being prepared during the time that it is in the womb, and one of the things that happens during this time is that the ears are opened. According to the Hebraism in Isaiah 48:8, if someone’s ears have not been opened yet, then that means that they are still in the womb, and consequently, that their body is still being “prepared.”

What this means is that, if someone “opened their ear” according to the same meaning as mentioned in Isaiah 48:8, this act is the same as, or part of, preparing their body before birth. Because of this, Hebrews 10:5 (where the New Testament mentions a body being prepared) can be referring to Psalm 40:6 (where the Old Testament mentions the Psalmist’s ears being opened.)

The explanation I have just given was also mentioned in the commentary for Hebrews 10:5 in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (1902). It is interesting that the word translated as “opened” in Psalm 40:6 has the same root word (כָּרָה) as is found in Psalm 22:16 for the word “pierced,” although it is conjugated differently. Psalm 22:16 is a Bible passage that was just discussed earlier. The word in both of these passages basically means “digged.”

Next is the third quotation. Our reference, as mentioned in the original list, is Deuteronomy 32:43 with Hebrews 1:6.63And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
— Hebrews 1:6

The answer to this third quotation is a basic one. There is no reason that Hebrews 1:6 must be referring to Deuteronomy, as the list given previously maintains. The author of Hebrews may be referring to another passage, such as Psalm 148:2.64Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
— Psalm 148:2
In the previous verse Hebrews 1:5, the author of Hebrews quoted Psalm 2:7; and in the next verse Hebrews 1:7, the author quoted Psalm 104:4. So, it would meet the context of Hebrews 1:6 to be quoting from another Psalm, for example Psalm 148:2; considering that Hebrews 1:5 and 1:7 are each quoting from Psalms as well. Psalm 103:2065Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.
— Psalm 103:20
is another possibility for the reference point of this verse in Hebrews 1:6.

There is also no specific reason why the quotation in Hebrews 1:6 has to be or should be from Deuteronomy 32:43 rather than the aforementioned Psalm.

The remaining list is as follows:
4. Isaiah 61:1 & Luke 4:18
6. Isaiah 42:4 & Matthew 12

The last two quotations each involve a specific passage in Isaiah 42.

Consider next Isaiah 61:166The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
— Isaiah 61:1-2
and Luke 4:18.67“17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.
— Luke 4:17-20

Also consider the underlined portion in this citation of Isaiah 42:7.68“…and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
— Isaiah 42:7

In Luke 4:18, one part of the combined passage which reads “recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,” is derived from Isaiah 42:7. By the combination of Isaiah 61:1-2 and Isaiah 42:7, a reading is obtained that is noticeably closer to Luke 4:18-19 than the LXX version of Isaiah 61:1 alone.

This is because LXX version of Isaiah 61:1 not only added the phrase “recovery of sight to the blind,” but it also deleted/omitted the phrase “the opening of the prison to them that are bound” from Isaiah 61:1 as well.

So, while this second phrase about opening the prison is not found in the LXX version of Isaiah 61:1, it is still found in Luke 4:18, and in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1. Consider again the second part of the underlined phrase in this citation:69The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
— Luke 4:18
and consider that the second part of this underlined section (in bold within the citation) still exists in the Hebrew form of Isaiah 61:1, but not in the Septuagint form of Isaiah.70The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
— Isaiah 61:1-2 KJV

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord,
— Isaiah 61:1-2 LXX

The Hebrew words in Isaiah 61:1, combined with Isaiah 42:7, as represented by the Authorized Version, matches completely with Luke 4:18. However, the LXX version of Isaiah 61:1 is missing the part of the prophecy about setting at liberty (or opening the prison) to the bound, which comes after recovery of sight to the blind in Luke 4:18. The KJV (also the Hebrew version of Isaiah) still includes this phrase in Isaiah 61:1.

So, to be clear about the differences, the LXX version of Isaiah 61:1 does include the part about proclaiming liberty, but it does not include the part about setting at liberty which comes after it.71The only way to obtain this phrase is to look also at Isaiah 42:7 So because of this, the Septuagint version of Isaiah 61:1 does not contain the full quote of Luke 4:18, despite what is sometimes claimed. It is clear that the Gospel of Luke is justified in quoting Isaiah 42:7 from the Old Testament. The complete quotation in Luke 4:18 is not in the LXX version of Isaiah 61:1. Neither is it in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1, without including Isaiah 42:7. Hence, there is no clear reason why the LXX would be preferable here, because it also is missing part of the quotation from Isaiah that is given in Luke 4:18.

The last reference is Isaiah 42:472“1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
— Isaiah 42:1-4
and Matthew 12:17-21.73“17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
— Matthew 12:17-21
c.f.74Now, the LXX version of Isaiah 42:4 (noting the extra underlined addition):

“4 …He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgment on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
— Isaiah 42:4 LXX

In comparing these two distinct versions of Isaiah chapter 42, in the first four verses, we see that the LXX version does not completely fit with Matthew 12:18-21. In particular, look at verse 21 of Matthew’s Gospel. Reading carefully, one notices that there are several ‘intervening phrases’ in both versions of Isaiah 42 at this point. These are termed as ‘intervening’ because they do not appear anywhere in Matthew 12:17-21.

Matthew 12:18-20 clearly aligns with Isaiah 42:1-3. This can be said to be true for each version of Isaiah.

However, the next thing Matthew says after this is, “And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.” Picking up from where we left off in Isaiah 42 at the start of verse 4, one does not observe the above phrase to occur next in either the Hebrew version of Isaiah or in the LXX. Rather, we see, at the start of verse 4, these ‘intervening phrases,’ which states –

He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
– Isaiah 42:4 (KJV)

These intervening phrases are found, regardless of which version of Isaiah one looks at, in Isaiah 42:4.75these intervening phrases are located immediately after Isaiah 42:1-3 (the passage being quoted by Matthew 12:18-20), at the start of verse 4, but before the phrase which was added into the LXX version at the very end of verse 4, which may have taken from Matthew 12:21 These intervening phrases are not found in Matthew 12:20-21.

If Matthew 12:20-21 were to have included Isaiah 42:4, one would expect these intervening phrases to appear in Matthew here.

This suggests that the first quotation that is found in Matthew 12:17-21 ends at verse 20.76A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
— Matthew 12:20 (aligns with Isaiah 42:3)
This would mean that Matthew 12:2177And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
— Matthew 12:21
is a second quote from another place in Isaiah, that could come from any part of the book. Being a separate quotation, Matthew 12:21 could have come from anywhere in Isaiah. And this means that the quotation in Matthew 12:21 does not need to be found in Isaiah 42:4.

As there is always a gap, comprising the earlier part of Isaiah 42:4, which is not found in Matthew 12:18-21 regardless of what version of Isaiah is being used, that is enough to show that we do not need to take Matthew 12:18-21 as a single unbroken quote from one place in Isaiah. Rather, we can allow Matthew 12:18-20 be a quote of Isaiah 42:1-3, while Matthew 12:21 is taken as a separate quote from any passage in the prophet Isaiah.

This type of rapid quoting from separate passages of the Old Testament being brought together, such as in Matthew 12:18-20 and in Matthew 12:21, would not be without parallel in the New Testament. Romans 15:12 is a good example. In Romans 15:12, Paul uses similar terminology to Matthew (“in him shall the Gentiles trust.”), and furthermore, this is known to be a quotation of Isaiah 11:10. So Matthew 12:18-21 could be a combination of quotations, from Isaiah 42:1-3 followed immediately by Isaiah 11:10.

There are numerous occasions in the New Testament, including some examples already mentioned, where quotations in the New Testament from one or more prophets (or psalms) are quoted in rapid succession. Sometimes these quotations are divided by nothing more than a conjunctive: the Greek word “καὶ” = “and”. The beginning of Matthew 12:21 includes this conjunction, which, in all likelihood, signifies that a new passage of Scripture is being quoted. Many times, distinct quotations of Scripture from the Old Testament are only divided by a single “and,” before moving on to the next quotation. If one wanted to quote from multiple places in Scripture, this would be a good way to do it.

Other times, a conjunctive word is not even included, as the New Testament writers have been known to move at times from one quotation directly to the next without including any kind of a division between the two quotes. For instance, Luke 4:18, as previously mentioned, is a combination of two passages of Isaiah (from chapters 42 and 61). Likewise, the quotation in Mark 1:2-378As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
— Mark 1:2-3
is a quotation in Mark’s Gospel that refers to two separate passages, specifically from Malachi and Isaiah.79Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:
Malachi 3:1
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Isaiah 40:3
Notice how Isaiah 40:3 is quoted immediately after Malachi 3:1, without there being any signification of a division by Mark, not even a conjunctive “and,” although we know these are two separate passages of Scripture. Reading the book of Romans, one will find at least ten different places in the Old Testament being quoted over the course of nine verses, mostly without any addition of a conjunction between quotations.80Romans 3:10-18

vv. 10-12 are from Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3
v. 13a,b is from Psalm 5:9
v. 13c is from Psalm 140:3
v. 14a is from Psalm 10:7
v. 14b is from Psalm 64:3
v. 15 is from Proverbs 1:16
v. 16a is from Proverbs 10:29
v. 16b is from Proverbs 13:15
v. 17 is from Isaiah 59:8
v. 18 is from Psalm 36:1
Paul, writing in Romans 3:10-18, quotes from Psalm 14:1-3 or Psalm 53:1-3, and then quotes Psalm 5:9, Psalm 140:3, Psalm 10:7, Psalm 64:3, Proverbs 1:16, Proverbs 10:29, Proverbs 13:15, Isaiah 59:8 (with a conjunctive before this verse), and Psalm 36:1, in what amounts to a single sentence.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.81The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

–Psalm 14:1-3 or Psalm 53:1-3

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit;82For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.
–Psalm 5:9
the poison of asps is under their lips:83They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders’ poison is under their lips. Selah.
–Psalm 140:3

Whose mouth is full of cursing84His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity.
–Psalm 10:7
and bitterness:85Who whet their tongue like a sword, and bend their bows to shoot their arrows, even bitter words:
–Psalm 64:3

Their feet are swift to shed blood:86For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
–Proverbs 1:16

Destruction87The way of the LORD is strength to the upright: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity.
–Proverbs 10:29
and misery88Good understanding giveth favour: but the way of transgressors is hard.
–Proverbs 13:15
are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:89The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.
–Isaiah 59:8

There is no fear of God before their eyes.90The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.
–Psalm 36:1

– Romans 3:10-18

Returning back to the example of Matthew 12:18-21, it is observed that Isaiah 42:4 contains an intervening phrase, which is not found anywhere in Matthew 12:18-21. This fact shows that Isaiah 42:1-4 is not a complete match for Matthew 12:18-21, although the first three verses of both line up.

There is always this intervening phrase in the first half of Isaiah 42:4.

With all of that having been explained, it is true that the exact text of Matthew 12:21 (“and in his name shall the gentiles trust”) appears verbatim at the end of Isaiah 42:4 in the LXX, but it is added after the intervening phrase. It is still left to be explained why the first part of Isaiah 42:4 is not quoted in Matthew 12:18-21, if the Matthew passage is supposed to be an exact quote of Isaiah 42:1-4. The fact that there is a conjunctive word (in the Greek) at the beginning of Matthew 12:21 also serves as an indicator that what follows is meant to be another quotation from Isaiah. Since Paul quoted Isaiah 11:10 while writing in Romans 15:12, and he used the same terms as are found in Matthew 12:21 while doing so, it makes sense either way for Matthew 12:21 to be a quote from this part of Isaiah chapter 11, because Romans 15:12 certainly is.

There is therefore no requirement that Matthew 12:21 be a quotation of Isaiah 42:4 as opposed to Isaiah 11:10.

As an aside, the Hexaplar Septuagint also has a change in the words of the “intervening phrase” we have been discussing at Isaiah 42:4 as well:

In the KJV it reads: “He shall not fail nor be discouraged,
The LXX however writes, “He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged…”

However, to “shine out” and to “not fail” are two entirely different things.

From this fact, we see that the writers of the Hexaplar Septuagint (LXX) may have attempted to change these specific passages. The existence of this additional change to Isaiah 42:4 provides us with evidence to support the pattern that seems to appear, in some places in the LXX, as previously established in this article. It seems that some changes were made in the Hexaplar Septuagint, in order to synchronize the LXX directly with the New Testament. One possible motivation for changing Isaiah 42:4 would be an intentional attempt to make it look as if Matthew had quoted it. But as we have seen, the reality instead was that the Evangelist had originally been making a combined quote of Isaiah 42:1-3 and Isaiah 11:10.

As we examine this quotation of Isaiah by Matthew, consider again the alterations made by the LXX to Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, where the number 70 was changed to 75. This would seem to be a change to the LXX version of Genesis and Exodus made to match Acts 7:14 (however this change is strangely not present at Deuteronomy 10:22 in the same LXX). Consider also the alteration made to Genesis 11:12-13 in the LXX, wherein the name “Cainan” was added, in order to match Luke 3:36, which is the only other place that this Cainan is mentioned as being directly related to Arphaxad (albeit, in Luke 3:36, Cainan is mentioned as a son, instead of having been begotten by Arphaxad). Similarly to each of these examples, Isaiah 42:4 in the LXX could have been altered in order to make it match Matthew 12:21.

Someone can make their translation of the Old Testament seem authentic by placing words taken directly from the New Testament into it.

Lastly, I bring back the fact from the opening of this article that we already started this article with a good enough reason to be fully persuaded to believe in the received version (the original unchanged Hebrew Old Testament). This is according to the Biblical arguments found in this previous post. What is reviewed and covered in this article is some extra information to judge and consider. We have shown how the original language version of the Old Testament does not really contain any contradictions or inaccuracies. The original version of the Old Testament we still have. It served as the basis of the 1611 Authorized KJV Bible. The same Hebrew and Syriac-Aramaic source can be used to make accurate translations in other languages. With the accurate copies available comprising the originals (as foretold in Isaiah 59:21), it is possible to distinguish where inaccuracies arise in other disagreeing versions. This article would hopefully be an example that process.

I should also note, that while it is not the most accurate translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint is, if used with a degree of caution, still useful as a reference for how ancient writers translated Hebrew into Greek. Similar to other ancient “versions” – or translations – the LXX may help as a preservative for understanding the meaning of some more obscure Hebrew words. This is because the LXX provides an insight as to one way in which these words were translated into another well-known language. The other columns of Origen’s Hexapla – such as the translations of the Old Testament into Greek by Symmachus, Aquila of Sinope, and Theodotion may also be of some limited use for translators of the Hebrew in this regard.

Defense of Philippians 2:6

This time in defending the right reading of Scripture, in rightly dividing the word of truth, I would like to take a look at another number of Scripture references that we have so far not yet discussed, where, in many of the modern versions, a visible move away from the doctrine on the nature of God has occurred.

Before we begin, remember what the apostle Paul had to say on these matters in his epistle to Timothy.

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
— 1 Timothy 6:3-5

Any change to Scripture that is made to move the Bible away from its received foundation involves denying of the immutability, that is, the unchangeability, which rests in the word of God. See the linked articles for more there. Denying this results, many times, in attacks on the divinity of the Word, by whom “all things consist,” as it says in the Holy Bible.1“And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
— Colossians 1:17 AV

As is written, “he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.2Proverbs 30:5 And as Hebrews 4:13 says, “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight”.

So having said that we take a look at Philippians 2:6 in the Authorized Version in red firstly, followed by the modern variants which provide a different translation of this passage of sacred Scripture.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
— Philippians 2:5-6 (A.V.)

…who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, — Philippians 2:6 (NASB)

…who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, — Philippians 2:6 (ESV)

You can immediately see by comparison that the true meaning of the passage has been reversed in these modern versions.

Whereas Christ Jesus “thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” in the new version it is made to say, that he did not count it as “a thing to be grasped.”

This one reversal exists in these two versions, as quoted above, the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version. Many other modern versions, however, do not include it.

By implication of this revision, equality with God is something that he never “grasped,” nor “claimed” to possess. Many non-believers have mistakenly said the same thing about Christ. Many have made the poorly informed claim that Christ Jesus never claimed to be God. They could open an ESV and go straight to this verse, which have been altered in these versions, in order to quickly bolster their point. They could say: “look here in Philippians 2:6 in this ESV/NASB, he never counted it as a thing to be grasped.” In this way, the ESV and NASB, and the translators of the ESV and NASB, provide a false statement on which such arguments can and have been attached.

Not only this, but many great passages that we could turn to elsewhere in order to defend the truth of Christ, the divinity of the Son of God, also, just so happen to be muddied and obscured in the same modern versions. We will show a number of examples here so that the pattern in this regard can be clearly seen.

What this situation leads to is relativism. People with modern versions, on the basis of these changes, will often become more compromising with respect those who argue that the Bible does not in fact teach the divinity of Christ. This stems from an inability on their part to defend the doctrine regarding Christ, because of the numerous changes in the modern versions. It can be shown here – to those who are not in denial – that these changes are both systematic and increasing in number.

To help defend Philippians 2:6, we can examine the changes collectively. This will help to show that the modern translation is, in this place and generally speaking, motivated against Christ. We should consider the effects that it would have if we accepted their changes. We should also recall, as has been done before, that further changes are inevitable in future modern versions, on the basis of future manuscripts, or future translation choices, which are used to make further changes or revisions to the so-called “modern versions” of the Bible by future translators. These translators, we add, in the future may or may not have the same beliefs, as the historical church. Finally, it is worth noting in all this, that the perpetrators of this have (understandably for their business) put up blanket denials that any doctrine is changed in their versions, which will of course be shown to be misleading by the below facts.

Let us start with the verse itself. The word used for “robbery” (occurs one time) in the A.V. is “ἁρπαγμὸν”. This is also given in a lexicon simply as:

Ἁρπαγμὸς. οῦ, ὁ, rapine, robbery, thing plundered; met. & meton. what is retained with an eager grasp, or eagerly claimed and conspicuously exercised, Phi. 2.6: from

According to the received text, the object in question here is not simply a possession, but – more specifically, something obtained by robbery and held forward as an object of value obtained thus. This would not fit the divinity of Christ according to Paul because it was not something obtained crookedly, to be conspicuously exercised in this way. Indeed, Jesus Christ possessed divinity eternally, so it would not be “robbery” for him to be equal with God.

The above is also different from saying, that something was not counted as a thing to be grasped at all! See below dictionary definitions for “grasp”:

Webster 1828
GRASP, verb transitive To seize and hold by clasping or embracing with the fingers or arms. We say, to grasp with the hand, or with the arms.
1. To catch; to seize; to lay hold of; to take possession of. Kings often grasp more than they can hold.
*
GRASP, verb intransitive To catch or seize; to gripe.
1. To struggle; to strive. [Not in use.]
2. To encroach.
— To grasp at, to catch at; to try to seize.
— Alexander grasped at universal empire.
*
GRASP, noun The gripe or seizure of the hand. This seems to be its proper sense; but it denotes also a seizure by embrace, or infolding in the arms.
1. Possession; hold.
2. Reach of the arms; and figuratively, the power of seizing.
— Bonaparte seemed to think he had the Russian empire within his grasp.

Johnson 1755
To Grasp. v. a. [graspare, Italian.]
1. To hold in the hand; to gripe.
— Kings, by grasping more than they can hold,
First made their subjects, by oppression, bold. Denham.
— Doom, as they please, my empire not to stand,
I’ll grasp my sceptre with my dying hand. Dryd.
2. To seize; to catch at.
— This grasping of the militia of the kingdom into their own hands, was desired the Summer before. Clarendon.
*
To Grasp. v. n.
1. To catch; to endeavor to seize; to try at.
— So endless and exorbitant are the desires of men, that they will grasp at all, and can form no scheme of perfect happiness with less. Swift.
2. To struggle; to strive; to grapple. Not now in use.
3. To gripe; to encroach.
— Like a miser ‘midst his store,
Who grasps and grasps ’till he can hold no more. Dryden.
*
Grasp. n. s. [from the verb.]
1. The gripe or seizure of the hand.
— The left arm is a little defaced, though one may see it held something in its grasp formerly. Addison.
2. Possession; hold.
— I would not be the villain that thou think’st
For the whole space that’s in the tyrant’s grasp,
And the rich East to boot. Shakesp. Macbeth.
3. Power of seizing.
—They looked upon it as their own, and had it even within their grasp. Clarendon.

By this definition, we see how the term “to be grasped” implies anything that would be held in the hand. The implication of saying that something was not a thing to be grasped, implies, that Jesus Christ did well not to make an attempt to grasp something that he – supposedly, by implication – could not grasp, as it was not a thing to be grasped.

This is contrary to the reality of the Scripture passage in the KJV. Here, Scripture states quite clearly that he did not exercise something that was his already, as if it was obtained by robbery.

He thought it not robbery to BE equal to God. It plainly says that he was equal to God there. This is not the same thing as saying that being equal to God was something that he “could not grasp,” or did not count himself to be worthy of “grasping.”

He thought it not robbery to be equal to God”; and not, “he did not regard it a thing to be grasped.”

If He supposedly did not think to grasp it, this openly suggests that divinity was something to be grasped in the first place; that is, placed inside your hand for the first time – which he was supposedly wise enough not to attempt to grasp.

In reality though, and according to Paul writing in Philippians here, divinity was something Jesus possessed. He was able to grasp it, and already had done so since eternity. We learn that he did not think it was something to be held forth as if it had been obtained by robbery. The wisdom of Christ here (according to the Holy Bible) is not to treat His possession as if it were obtained through some performance of cunning or skill. This is actually clear and can be easily obtained simply by translation of the words for what they really are in Philippians 2:6 of the Authorized Version. However, the enemy would like to cloud up this reference and cast doubt on this.

What the NASB and ESV version of the verse tells the casual reader, is far, far different from this. The NASB and ESV version tells the casual reader that Jesus Christ did not think to grasp something, and that the wisdom of Christ was thus not to grasp something, which suggests, that equality with God was something Christ could not have grasped, held in His hand, or possessed; and that He was wise not to attempt to do so, according to what Paul is (supposedly) saying here.

The above is utterly the opposite of what the passage in Philippians 2:6 really means. But it is perfectly in line with the arguments from unbelief that Jesus never claimed in the Bible to be God. They would prefer this version of Philippians 2:6 which is presented in the NASB and ESV. The version presented by the ESV and NASB could be used as a “quick reference verse” to argue that position. To a crowd unfamiliar with the Bible, this “modern” version of Philippians 2:6 might seem to say what they suggest. Thus serving the plan of corrupting Scripture in order to lessen the deity of Christ.

There are many other passages of scripture that go along with this which have likewise been changed in most modern versions, including the NIV (New International Version) and others. For example in Isaiah 63:16 and in Micah 5:2, consider the following two prophecies:

Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting. — Isaiah 63:16

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. — Micah 5:2

The modern versions replace the phrase “from everlasting” in both places with one of the following: “from of old”, “from ages past” or “from ancient days/times.”

But this change undermines the concept that his name and goings forth are from everlasting; it says they are simply old, not from eternity: thus undermining the deity of Christ. Let us continue with more.

In Isaiah 7:14,3Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
— Isaiah 7:14 KJV
the NET or “New English Translation” of 2005, changes the word for “virgin” with simply “young woman,” in accordance with the “modern context” of the word – that is, by following Hebrew lexicons that have been written recently. But we will show in another post, that “modern Hebrew” is a fabrication not to be confused with the authentic language of Hebrew. Nevertheless, this change is starting to enter modern translations now.

Likewise, in the book of Luke there are several examples of the motive to be found. In Luke 2:33,4And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
— Luke 2:33
most modern versions will replace “Joseph and his mother” with “his father and his mother”. This change to making Joseph the father of Jesus again seems to line up with the altered prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Recall that Isaiah 7:14 was changed in the NET and some other modern versions so that a “young women” will give birth, not a virgin. Both this change and the one in Luke 2:33 implies that Joseph was indeed his true father.

This is so, because, otherwise, having Luke, as the narrator of the Gospel, state that Jesus’ “father and mother marvelled” at his statement introduces a technical untruth.

We know this because no earthly man was his father according to the regular, “Authorized version” form of Isaiah 7:14.

The change to Luke 2:33 in the modern versions suggests that the Christ was not Jesus born of Mary, as Isaiah conventionally describes. This is because Isaiah said he would be born of a virgin. If, according to Luke as the narrator, it was Jesus’ father and mother that marvelled at His statements, then His true father would have been Joseph, according to Luke. This is a contradiction to what Isaiah said, who said that He would be born of a virgin. Future modern versions are prone to include together the changes to Isaiah 7:14, and Luke 2:33, and Luke 2:43 also (which repeats the same change as Luke 2:33), in this way helping to support a new narrative of Jesus having an earthly father, overall. Although one change already is enough, other changes to modern versions may further provide additional references for this false, and ultimately misleading and untrue narrative to be propagated.

Additional mentions of Jesus’ divinity, and the fulfillment of prophecy regarding being the only begotten Son, could very well be removed in future modern versions of the Bible that add additional undiscovered manuscripts or make different translation choices. We continue for the time being with some more examples:

An “eclectic” Bible version (like the NASB, ESV and others) always removes the last three words of the following passage of Scripture:

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: — Ephesians 3:9

The removal of “by Jesus Christ” in this verse, also unassociates Jesus Christ with these passages: Hebrews 1:1-25God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
— Hebrews 1:1-2
, Hebrews 11:36Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
— Hebrews 11:3
, 2 Peter 3:57For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
— 2 Peter 3:5
.

The eclectic changes in Isaiah 63:16, Micah 5:2, Isaiah 7:14, Luke 2:33, 2:43, and Ephesians 3:9 amount to an orchestrated attack on the eternal pre-existence of Christ. But this is not all, there are further references to discuss. We have additional references that have yet to be mentioned. This may begin at Ephesians 3:14. The words removed are underlined:

For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
— Ephesians 3:14

In this passage, the words “of our Lord Jesus Christ” are removed in most modern versions.

In addition to this, the words “and of the Father” were removed as well in Colossians 2:2 here:

That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; — Colossians 2:2 (A.V.)

Also in the same versions, in addition to the above, these versions have chosen to change the wording in 1 Timothy 3:16,8And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
— 1 Timothy 3:16
which normally says “God was manifest in the flesh,” into the unclear statement, “he was manifest in the flesh”. This is another place in addition to the above where the divinity of Christ, the fact that Christ is God, is stated clearly in Scripture, but where it is changed once again in modern versions. Christ is the one that was manifest in the flesh, born of a virgin, by whom all things were created. He considered it not robbery to be equal with God. These are things we now know from Scripture.

Hence, by reading the apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy, we see also that “God was manifest in the flesh,” indicating to us that Christ – who was manifest in the flesh – is in fact God. According to 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV.

Continuing, in John 1:189No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
— John 1:18 KJV
, the ESV and the NET versions replace “the only begotten Son” with “the only God”. Clearly you can see how this change in these versions makes it less clear that the Son is being spoken of here.

Likewise, at Ephesians 4:3010And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
— Ephesians 4:30 KJV
, the translation called “HBFV” (or Holy Bible Faithful Version) from 2009, attaches the following footnote to this verse:

“The traditional translation of the Greek word λυπ∈ω as ‘grieve’ assumes one is ‘causing grief’ to a third person of a trinity. The Holy Spirit of God is not a person, but the spiritual power God gives to converted believers. … Therefore, it has been translated ‘vex’ instead of ‘grieve’ ” (underline added)

All of the above changes that have been documented so far show a definite trend in modern versions, where they change the translation in some way away from clear statements in favor of the Son of God, and his divinity. Rather than letting Christ be equal to God, some would rather have it that he did not think equality with God “was a thing to be grasped.” Included in this would be any of the ESV and NASB translators, in their respective versions, who are behind the change to Philippians 2:6 we have mentioned here.

But lest we stop now, there are further changes in the modern versions, beyond everything that has so far been mentioned, which can be shown, would be convenient to have for someone who wanted to claim Jesus was not the Christ or the Messiah… likely to advance the claims of someone else to these titles! Therefore, the desire to change Philippians 2:6 is better described (if not understood), and we see why the NASB and ESV translations are not accurate translations in these places but instead are motivated by a bias against the divinity of Christ.

Now, by all indications, more changes are soon to come in further modern versions. But below are some of the changes that already support some of the well-known lines and positions against the divinity of the Lord Jesus, which are used to argue against the titles of Jesus as both Lord and Christ.

All the words below underlined were directly removed from the received text of the Bible and are removed by the modern versions.

And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. — John 4:42

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. — Acts 16:31

Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. — Acts 20:21

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
— 1 Corinthians 16:22

Here we can see that additional changes of this sort would soon bring us to a situation where all references to Jesus as being eternally pre-existent, the word of God, and Christ will be removed in modern versions of the Bible. A situation like this would undoubtedly make it much easier for someone who claims falsely to be the Christ in the future to point to the corrupted form of scripture as lacking anything specific to contradict it. By all indications, more changes are imminent in future modern versions. These are only glimpses at what the final forms of the corruptions may end up looking like. Once it is denied that the word of God is eternally unchanging, then any amount of translational alterations and unpredictable future corruptions of scripture are left for the individual reader to decide. And without faith in the immutability and preservation of the Bible – God’s word – one is left with relativism.

In the school of the critical text, it can be taught that, everything is more or less the same… whether or not people believe in Jesus as Christ, and in His divinity. It just comes down to which Bible version you prefer. And yet, they are all supposedly the same and do not alter any doctrine whatsoever, according to the producers of these versions. Maybe that is because these producers hold no doctrine at all to begin with, which is why they can say that.

In Romans 14:10, the word “Christ” is changed to “God,” so that there is no reference to “the judgment seat of Christ” anymore but in modern versions just “the judgment seat of God.” In Romans 14:12 it then says “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

If Romans 14:10 does not say Christ anymore then they lose that connection of him being God according to Romans 14:12.

In Galatians 4:7, it is written “an heir of God through Christ” but the modern versions simply write “an heir through God”. This again cuts off the connection of Christ with God, and destroys precious information, and keys to understanding. It says in Scripture, that “every word of God is pure,” (Proverbs 30:5). Christ says “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” How then can it be argued that removal of some words from the Bible changes nothing.

Paul said, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” If all scripture is profitable, then what is the removal of those words in the modern versions but a destruction of precious information and of keys to understanding? That’s exactly what it is.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We know that by Romans 10:17. But if the foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Jesus described his sayings as a “rock” in Matthew 7. It was a rock upon which a wise man built his house. And we know that the foundation is secure because Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35 that “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

The same kind of removal occurs also in modern versions in 1 Corinthians 15:47, where the underlined words are removed as well. “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.” But now consider also the next scripture which is also changed likewise in modern versions:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. — Hebrews 1:8

In most of the modern versions mentioned here (except the CSB and NLT) our verse Hebrews 1:8 is altered to say, “But about the Son he says…” or, “of the Son”.

This is a clear passage used in the KJV to show the Father speaking to the Son. Although we also get this from 2 Peter 1:1711For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
— 2 Peter 1:17
and other places, it is in Hebrews 1:8 that this verse is outright and specific in calling the Son as “God,” so it really seems unusual that some unbiased translators would feel the need to treat the grammar of this one sentence differently.

It is more likely the influence changing this word of the same bias that enacted the similar changes in Philippians 2:6 which is also at work here in Hebrews 1:8 in the modern translations. In both places, they do not want Jesus Christ the Son being called too strongly as God and equal with God.

Now we have gone over quite a few examples. But over and above most of these are the following three infamous instances of removal of Scripture, which are in 1 John 4:3, 1 John 5:7 and Revelation 1:11.

Each of these three passages have already been used as arguments that, because they are or were removed, the removal of the words in modern versions therefore proves false some part of authentic Biblical doctrine touched upon by these verses. It has been used to argue for example that the changes to these verses prove that the Holy Trinity is false. Or that it is false as a Biblical concept. These changes have been used to deny the eternal Godhood of Jesus Christ, and in 1 John 5:7 case, of the Holy Spirit. We see that it is very important to have an accurate account of what Scripture says in these places. The simple fact that words have been removed by modern versions, has been enough to trigger arguments against the doctrines about God’s nature in the Bible. I have personally seen such arguments made contrary to Scripture myself. Those who argue against the divinity of Christ or Triune nature of God will always take the critical text view, now that it has been promulgated, as a basis and justification for their false teachings. That alone is objective, unquestionable proof of the positive merits of these Scriptures for defending it. Not that we need to cast forth our proof before anyone. As it says in 1 Corinthians 4, “it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

Just like all of the arguments which their benefactors – who are the textual critics or adherents of higher and lower criticism – have used, their arguments against the inclusion of these famous passages of Scripture have all been dealt with in the context of this post. So the discussion, particularly on the text of 1 John 5:7, is referred there: for discussion on inclusion of 1 John 5:7 and others, scroll to the last three paragraphs of Pt. 1 in the aforementioned article.

Such arguments generally against the divinity, the eternal pre-existence, and the identity of Christ, continue to run up against untold numbers of other references in the word of God beside these. Nevertheless, they will continue to attempt this, through preying on assumed unfamiliarity with Scripture and the overall acquiescence of the presumed apologist to relativism. Further changes in future versions will surely continue to dissolve away more and more Scripture passages dealing with His – Jesus, our Lord’s – divinity and status as Lord: which is exactly as Philippians 2:6-11 in the KJV, the Authorized Bible, continually and clearly explains.12Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
— Philippians 2:5-11

The Bible passage is not going to change. Only the poor modern versions will change.

I have now more examples, if the above has not yet been enough to make a convincing case. Consider Acts 2:30, where it is written—

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; — Acts 2:30

In the modern, critical-text versions, the word “Christ” is again replaced with the phrase “one of his descendants”.

But this version of the text makes absolutely no sense. Just as the alteration of Isaiah 7:14 into predicting a “young woman” conceiving, it is rather unremarkable that “a descendant of” David would sit on his throne. Why is such a thing is even brought up as a prophecy! Surely, any of the kings that were heirs to David would have fulfilled that.

If the prophecy only said that a descendant of David would sit on his throne, what would even be the purpose of predicting that simply “a descendant” would sit on the throne of David. Consider that the prophecy in question was made in David’s own lifetime, as seen here, in 2 Samuel 7:12-16.

So then Solomon or any of his subsequent sons would have already fulfilled that prophecy. Thus raising the question of why this was significant to be brought up in the New Testament in Acts 2:30. The original manuscripts all say “Χριστὸν” in Acts 2:30. It is only in the so-called “eclectic” version, as it is sometimes called, that this is removed.

But if the passage never mentioned “Christ,” why would it have been brought up by the apostle Peter as a reference to Jesus in Acts 2:30 at all?

But this change again removes any reference of Jesus as being Christ. In this case, as fulfilling the prophecy of 2 Samuel 7:12-1613And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
— 2 Samuel 7:12-16
, not just the one part about being his seed, but the whole prophecy.

The change to Acts 2:30 raises another question, of who we are really talking about. If it is not referring to “Christ,” then this reference might be referring to someone else than it traditionally has been held to for the whole time when the Scripture was accepted by all as saying “Christ.”

Now, see in Luke 23:42:

And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
— Luke 23:42 (A.V.)

The modern translators have universally thrown out the word “Lord” here.

The only line spoken by the thief on the cross, in the entire New Testament, is left devoid of this extremely important word. This word is again removed in the modern versions such as the NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, CSB, NET. All of these translations throw out the one word, Lord, here.

So then the thief on the cross, in his only line in the Bible, has his recognition of Jesus as ‘Lord’ undone.

Thus, they change the whole passage. Especially because this is the only line that the thief speaks. In the modern versions, Jesus is not recognized as Lord by the thief on the cross. The thief on the cross is later said to be saved. This omission alone should probably raise significant doubts about the lack of doctrinal changes to the text of the translators of the modern versions. Yet nary a word is spoken from them over this. They are on extremely thin ice and they do not want to make any cracks. They cannot move. All that can be done for them is to desperately act like nothing is wrong, and to continue relying on no one noticing or catching on.

Lastly, perhaps most tellingly of all the changes here – in Isaiah 14:12,14How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
— Isaiah 14:12
the name of Lucifer, in English, is replaced with either “morning star” or “day star”.

However, we note right away that Jesus Christ respectively claims these same names in 2 Peter 1:19 and in the book of Revelation 22:16. Therefore, the modern versions have arbitrarily created a linkage between the figure of Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12, and the name of Christ.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! — Isaiah 14:12

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! — (NIV)

How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! — (NASB)

How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! — (ESV)

In the Authorized version, you will notice that there never was a linkage between Isaiah 14:12 and the name of Christ. Because note once again that in the book of Revelation, at the 16th verse of the last chapter, Jesus refers to himself as, “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

For the above reason, the change to Isaiah 14:12 creates a linkage, between the name of Christ which He gives Himself, and the proper name only found in Isaiah 14:12, as being the same. If one goes back to the original languages, are they the same name?

If not, is it poor translation practices that have been employed by modern translators in order to arbitrarily create this link?

The fact that Christ’s eternal pre-existence is called into question repeatedly by the changes in “modern” versions – such as where they alter Micah 5:2, Luke 2:33, John 1:18 and Ephesians 3:9 – is contradicted by Christ’s claim to be “the root and the offspring of David,” since He was in the beginning (e.g. John 1:1, 1:15, 17:5, 17:24; Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 13:8, 1 John 1:2, Book of Revelation 3:14).

The fact that Jesus is the true Christ (from His fulfilling prophecy) is called into question repeatedly by the changes found in “modern” versions, such as where they change Isaiah 7:14, Galatians 4:7, 1 John 4:3 and Acts 2:30.

In addition to these things, Jesus Christ’s divinity and identification with the Son, the seed of David and Jacob, the Messiah, the anointed one, and the Word of God, are significantly questioned or removed by changes in translation in the “modern” translations in various places.

In this way, it is shown that there undeniably exists a motivation for these “modern” translations to also reinterpret Philippians 2:6, using the same methods of altering the translation as have already been used against numerous other passages, which have been demonstrated here and elsewhere across this site.

But in Isaiah 14:12, among the most direct attempts is made to contrive a new meaning. The translators actually resorted to the interpretative false context of modern Hebrew, as well as to the Latin definitions, not the English definitions (as you would normally expect), of words to justify their motivated alteration of Isaiah 14:12, wherein “Lucifer” is changed into “morning / day star.”

This would be as unusual as it is, in a Greek to English translation (say, of Ephesians 2:8-915For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
— Ephesians 2:8-9
), to change the word “gift” to “poison” in the translation, based on the German definition of the word “gift.” In other words, reasoning that, since, in German, the word “gift” means “poison,” so then “poison” could be substituted for “gift” in the English translation of the Greek. Really?

In English, the word Lucifer (a proper noun) is defined as follows:

Webster 1828 Dictionary
LUCIFER noun [Latin lux, lucis, light, and fero, to bring.]
1. The planet Venus, so called from its brightness.
2. Satan.
— And when he falls, he falls like lucifer never to hope again.
*

Johnson 1755 Dictionary
Luciferous. adj. [lucifer, Latin.] Giving light; affording means of discovery.
— The experiment is not ignoble, and luciferous enough, as shewing a new way to produce a volatile salt. Boyle.
*
Lucifick. adj. [lux and facio, Lat.] Making light; producing light.
— When made to converge, and so mixed together; though their lucifick motion be continued, yet by interfering, that equal motion, which is the colorifick, is interrupted. Grew.

From this information we see that the nearest improper noun to the proper noun “Lucifer,” which would fit the translation here is not the Latin definition of the word (meaning “morning star”), but rather “bright one” or “shining one,” which is what some other types of translations affix.

Notice first that this definition of “bright one” has nothing to do with celestial bodies like planets or stars – it simply denotes brightness.

However, that being said, in the case of Isaiah 14:12, since this is the only occurrence of what is clearly a proper noun (as the invocation of “O Lucifer” with the added descriptor, “son of the morning” depicts) it is therefore most appropriate to continue using the proper name “Lucifer” here, and not “bright one” or “shining one.” This is what KJV, and earlier English, and many other translations do.

Meanwhile, the least appropriate translation is to substitute the term “morning star,” in place of what would be more accurate, “bright one” or “shining one.”

This can clearly be seen as a motivated change. Some cleverly thought they could talk their way out of having made this arbitrary change, but in doing so, they, (or rather, he, the father of lies) have betrayed the real intention here in the changes that have been made in the modern versions overall.

Finally, the fact that this term in Isaiah 14 is supposed to be a proper name makes substitution of the term “O morning star” in its place, all the more brazen in its misattribution toward the only bright and morning star of Revelation 22:16. This is because if there is only one, whom we cannot mistake with any other in referring to as ‘the morning star,’ with a definite article, then it cannot be the being described in Isaiah 14:12. It has to be Jesus Christ who spoke to us in the final chapter of the book of Revelation. Of course, no one can by any suggestion equate the two as the same entity by giving them the same proper name.16Therefore, because this is dealing with proper names, 1 Peter 5:8 is not analagous to this situation.

The devil is said to have been cut down from heaven. Christ the Savior however, inherits the prophecy of the Psalms:

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

— Psalm 8:5-6