The real reason for all of those “new translations” of the Bible
REWRITING ACTS XIX IN ORDER TO BURY THE EVIDENCE THAT WARNS AGAINST FREEMASON JOHN THE BAPTIST'S INVALID BAPTISM OF FIRE
One of the tragedies of the Masonic takeover of Catholic seminaries and publishing houses is that new candidates for the priesthood are kept in the dark about this mystery of the mark because Freemasons have destroyed the evidence and are now teaching these new priests a terrible lie, using their efforts to advance their cause of marking every new Catholic baptismal candidate with the name of the devil. Young, naive priests who are in the dark about the duality of the competing initiation rites (Christ Catholic Rite vs. Masonic John's baptism of fire) find themselves actually helping out the enemy destroy the Church from within. Our purpose is to inform both deceived seminarians and concerned parents. The rest is up to you. This is the secret of how the Church is being destroyed from within: by preventing souls from receiving the Sacraments and their power. On this page you will find samples of original texts which have gone missing from Vatican II seminary libraries.
"We (Jewish Freemasons) control the seminaries, the academic departments of theology, the catechetical and liturgical institutions, the publishing houses, the magazines that matter and the chanceries. Most of the bishops are now on our side and those that aren't have been neutralized. Anybody who wants a future in the hierarchy or the Catholic academy has no choice but to co-operate." - Fr. Hans Küng (”worthy” recipient of the Freemasons' lifetime achievement award)
”The Church finds Herself in an hour of unrest, of self-critique, one might say, even of auto-destruction! It is like an internal, acute, and complicated revolution, for which no one was prepared after the Council.” - Masonic anti-Pope Paul VI, Dec. 7, 1968.
It is noteworthy that Pius X ordered a lockdown of all religious texts over 100 years ago. In reality, this war over heretical changes in Catholic texts was a lost cause in 1907, and Pius X knew this. It does not take much imagination to understand how far gone the truth is today. Here are some relevant quotes from Pius X's Encyclical, “Oath Against Modernism.” Any Illuminati researcher should be able to identify the pose that Pius X is making on the right, the sign of Baphomet. He would have written an oath against heresy if he were a real Catholic Pope.
PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907
VENERABLE BRETHREN, HEALTH AND THE APOSTOLIC BLESSING:
1. One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of ***feeding the Lord's flock*** is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,” “vain talkers and seducers,” “erring and driving into error.”It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office.
2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperativeespecially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought notonly among the Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded anddeplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less theykeep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to theCatholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthooditself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solidsafeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued withthe poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost toall sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church;and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is mostsacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the DivineRedeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the conditionof a simple and ordinary man.
3. Although they express their astonishment that We should number themamongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprisedthat We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal dispositionof the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets,their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong inregarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of theChurch. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots,but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. Andonce having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffusepoison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive tocorrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, inthe employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the doublepart of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easilylead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic,there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they donot thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance To this must be addedthe fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they leada life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application toevery branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputationfor irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all hutfatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bentto their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint;and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love oftruth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.
Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better mind, and to this end Wefirst of all treated them with kindness as Our children, then withseverity; and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance,to public reproof. It is known to you, Venerable Brethren, how unavailinghave been Our efforts. For a moment they have bowed their head, only tolift it more arrogantly than before. If it were a matter which concernedthem alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it; but the security of theCatholic name is at stake. Wherefore We must interrupt a silence which itwould be criminal to prolong, that We may point out to the whole Church,as they really are, men who are badly disguised.
*** It is noteworthy that Pius X in 1907 began the “Oath Against Modernism” with the phrase “feeding the Lord’s flock.” Of course the Lord is not the Catholic God and by acknowledging that “the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church” he seems to be saying that Masonry owns the papacy. It seems the pot was calling the kettle black even back in 1907. But since the Sacraments were destroyed in 1777, this doesn’t seems difficult to believe. They would wait another 52 years to begin the final destruction of the Church, the Vatican II Council. ***
Pius X's Encyclical Pascendi seemed to motivate the writers of Catholic Encyclopedia, which was written in Chicago between 1906-1914. Here are some entries from the Catholic Encyclopedia documenting how the Catholic Bible was changed in 1752, and how almost every copy that exists today relies on the 1752 heretical version, not the accurate in English 1582 Version or even the pre-1800 Canonical Latin Vulgate.
From the 1906-1914 Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. III, Challoner, p. 564-5:
“Challoner, Richard, Bishop of Debra, Vicar General of the London District, author of spiritual and controversial works, b. 29 Sept., 1691 ; d. 12 Jan., 1781…was not born of Catholic parents…was never an original thinker, but his gift lay in enforcing the spiritual reality of the doctrines he was expounding…Disguised as a layman, Dr. Challoner ministered to the small number of Catholics, celebrating Mass secretly in obscure ale-houses…In his spare time he gave himself to study and writing, and was thus able to produce several works of instruction and controversy. One of these, “The Catholic Christian instructed in the Sacraments, Sacrifice and Ceremonies of the Church”, led to trouble…(College of) Propaganda had apparently already arranged Challoner’s appointment as president of Douai…Another work to which he devoted much energy and time was the preparation of a revised edition of the Douay Bible and Reims New Testament. The chief points to note in his edition are the elimination of the obscure and literal translations from the Latin in which the original version abounds, the alteration of obsolete words, a closer approximation in some respects to the Anglican version, as for instance, in the substitution of “The Lord” for “Our Lord”, and finally the printing of the verses separately. The first edition of the New Testament appeared in 1749, the second, together with the first edition of the Old Testament, in 1750. Between these two editions there are but few differences, but the third edition, published in 1752, had important changes both in text and notes, the variations numbering over two thousand. Dr. Challoner’s Bible has been the groundwork of nearly all subsequent English versions. An American edition was published in Philadelphia in 1805.”
From the 1906-1914 Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. XV, Versions, p. 377:
“The original Douai Version has undergone so many revisions that “scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.” - Dr. Challoner probably merits the credit of being the principal reviser of the Douai Version (1749-50)”
From the 1906-1914 Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. VII, Haydock, p. 160:
“Haydock, George Leo, priest and Biblical scholar; b. 11 April, 1774… d. 29 November, 1849…On 19 August, 1831, he was forbidden to say Mass by Bishop Penswick, whereupon he retired for the succeeding eight years to the Tagg, devoting himself to study…Father Haydock’s chief publication was a new edition of the English translation of the Latin Vulgate first published at Reims in 1582, and at Douai in 1609; Bishop Challoner’s text of 1750 was the basis of the work…”
From the 1906-1914 Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. V, Douay Bible, p. 140:
“The original Douay Version, which is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based, owed its existence to the religious controversies of the sixteenth century. Many protestant versions of the Scriptures had been issued and were used largely by the Reformers for polemical purposes. The rendering of some of the texts showed evident signs of controversial bias, and it became of the first importance for the English Catholics of the day to be furnished with a translation of their own, on the accuracy of which they could depend and to which they could appeal in the course of argument. The work of preparing such a version was undertaken by the members of the English College at Douai, in Flanders, founded by William Allen (afterwards cardinal) in 1568…
“Although the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52…The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they “almost amounted to a new translation”. So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, “To call it any longer the Douay or Rhemish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.”
From George Orwell's 1984:
“Sometimes, indeed, you could put your finger on a definite lie. It was not true, for example, as was claimed in the Party history books, that the Party had invented aeroplanes. He remembered aeroplanes since his earliest childhood. But you could prove nothing. There was never any evidence. Just once in his whole life he had held in his hands unmistakable documentary proof of the falsification of an historical fact.” - George Orwell's 1984, page 20
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE IN PRINT
Below we have the 1950 “Douay Confraternity New Catholic Version” of the Bible. In Acts XIX, readers are led to believe that Paul encountered certain disciples and asked if they had received the Holy Spirit. They indicated they had not even heard there was a Holy Spirit. When asked how they were baptized, the disciples replied “With John’s baptism.” Priests who rely on these altered texts would never know there was a name switch and as a consequence, would have no problem with performing this the Masonic Baptism Rite in the name of the Holy Spirit, anathematizing their flocks.
Here we have what is called a Douay-Rheims Catholic Holy Bible from 1899. It mentions a different name than the 1950 Douay-Confraternity New Catholic Version. That name is the Holy Ghost. John’s baptism is in the Holy Spirit. This proves that in 1899, there was a difference.
Pictured above is what is called the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter XIX, from an 1883 Haydock version of the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible. This is one of those extra-large display books, outfitted with metal clasps. Highly decorative and impressive, you can fetch one of these on eBay for only a few hundred dollars. The same point is made here though, that the Holy Ghost was not received by these disciples, and that was corrected by Paul. They had only received John’s baptism, which is one of penance. The spiritual technicality of John’s baptism rite is that it clears the way for the one that is coming. Since Christ already came, performing this rite after the time of Our Lord, actually clears Jesus Christ out of the way with a counter-Seal or Mark of the Spirit of the one who is coming, the Anti-Christ. This is the spiritual tactic of Vatican II and what Paul VI meant when he said in 1972, “The Church is in a state of auto-demolition.” Now you know. It explains why so many Catholics do not have the grace associated with Catholic baptism rite- they are marked.
The significance of Vatican II destroying the Rite of Baptism with a name change is best understood by reading Acts XIX and John III from the original Douai-Rheims Catholic Bible from 1582. Here are the full page scans with explanations to follow. You will notice that in Acts XIX, the designation “Our Lord” is used instead of “The Lord,” as the post-1752 versions use, that will be explained a bit later. But notice also that when the Holy Ghost is received by these 12 disciples, they become Apostles and miracles and exorcisms follow.
Also notice in the first scan, Chap. XIX, that the notation in the left margin says “John’s Baptism not sufficient. Christ’s Baptism necessary.” This is significant because it mirrors the pre-Vatican II baptism Rites, and distinguishes the two baptisms. They are most definitely not the same.
Front Cover of the 1582 Rhemes New Testament
Also notice that in John 3:10 it is written: “Thou art a maister in Israel and art thou ignorant of these things?” This heretical Jesus is approached by a Prince of the Jews by night and the purpose of this chapter is to create the Biblical basis for the faulty baptism rite. Protestant congregations base their baptism Rites not on Christ’s baptism, but on John’s. St. John is really the patron saint of Freemasonry. Freemasonry is of the Devil and their baptism rite has become the Catholic Rite by editing the books and changing the binding Dogmas. This is scandalous heresy, but more on this later. What is clear is that the priests of Judeo-Masonry are performing false baptisms and ridding the world of Christians, effectively using the usurped Catholic Church against itself and converting everyone to Judaism, anticipating the Anti-Christ, and condemning our children. That’s what their evil smiles are all about.
In the Latin these Masonic priests are actually clearing Christ out of the world for the one who is coming, the Lord Jesus of the Root and Stock of David, the bright morning star.
The last biblical scans proving two different baptisms are from two Latin Vulgate Bibles from 1685 and 1769, shown below. Now they actually include the two names in Acts XIX, the Spiritum Sanctum (Holy Ghost) and the Spiritus Sanctus (Holy Spirit). These are available on Ebay for a couple of hundred dollars each. Some versions with English forwards are around $1,000. It is recommended that you buy a pre-1800 Latin Vulgate because the Ezra Apocalypse (3Esdras and 4Esdras) were removed after the year 1800, but we have them available here.
The purpose of documenting these rare texts is to prove that the distinction between the two names of the baptism rite has been eliminated in the Catholic Bibles. It is understandable why so many priests know nothing about this deadly distinction because unless it is brought to their attention, they just do the rite in the name that their pamphlets tell them to - the Holy Spirit. The tragedy is that over the course of a Catholic priest’s career, he becomes a spiritual Shepard to thousands of souls and if he is not baptizing them, he is truly in for a broken afterlife and so is his flock. This is the difference between a good shepherd and a bad one. This is also the main tactic of the Judeo-Masonic counter-church hierarchy that aims to eliminate Catholicism off the Earth and this is what Paul VI was implying in 1972 when he stated that the Church is in a state of auto-demolition. They are keeping silent and hoping that the Holy Spirit heresy sticks. This book is an effort to inform priests of this difference so they can perform corrective baptisms if they have fallen for this critical heresy.
Remember that heresy is the Gates of Hell and forgetting the Holy Ghost is a sacrilege, leaves the child unbaptized and systematically murders by numbers over time the number of Catholics in the World.
So what is a priest supposed to adhere to when learning how to care for souls? The teaching of the Church, not the words of the Bible. They are required to adhere to Dogma, lest they become heretics and automatically excommunicate themselves from the Catholic Faith. But with the state of the seminaries today, most don’t want to rock the boat, don’t have the intellectual capacity to study what they should, etc., that they go the easy route and do what all the other modernists are doing. Or they do not read the teachings of the Councils. Well, here are the instructions on Baptism from the Council of Trent.
COUNCIL OF TRENT, 1545-1563
CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
CANON I - If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ: let him be anathema.
CANON II - If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema.
CANON III - If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism: let him be anathema.
CANON IV - If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V - If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation: let him be anathema.
CANON VI -If any one saith, that one who has been baptized cannot, even if he would, lose grace, let him sin ever so much, unless he will not believe: let him be anathema.
CANON VII - If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ: let him be anathema.
CANON VIII - If any one saith, that the baptized are freed from all the precepts, whether written or transmitted, of holy Church, in such wise that they are not bound to observe them, unless they have chosen of their own accord to submit themselves thereunto: let him be anathema.
CANON IX - If any one saith, that the resemblance of the baptism which they have received is so to be recalled unto men, as that they are to understand, that all vows made after baptism are void, in virtue of the promise already made in that baptism; as if, by those vows, they both derogated from that faith which they have professed, and from that baptism itself: let him be anathema.
CANON X - If any one saith, that by the sole remembrance and the faith of the baptism which has been received, all sins committed after baptism are either remitted, or made venial: let him be anathema.
CANON XI - If any one saith, that baptism, which was true and rightly conferred, is to be repeated, for him who has denied the faith of Christ amongst Infidels, when he is converted unto penitence: let him be anathema.
CANON XII - If any one saith, that no one is to be baptized save at that age at which Christ was baptized, or in the very article of death: let him be anathema.
CANON XIII - If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church: let him be anathema.
CANON XIV - If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.
CANONS ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL
CANON I - If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be anathema.
CANON II - If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacraments of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites: let him be anathema.
CANON III - If any one saith, that these seven sacraments are in such wise equal to each other, as that one is not in any way more worthy than another; let him be anathema.
CANON IV - If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual: let him be anathema.
CANON V - If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone: let him be anathema.
CANON VI - If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers: let him be anathema.
CANON VII - If any one saith, that grace, as far as God’s part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons: let him be anathema.
CANON VIII - If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace: let him be anathema.
CANON IX.- If any one saith, that in the three sacraments, Baptism, to wit, Confirmation, and Order, there is not imprinted on the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible Sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated: let him be anathema.
CANON X - If any one saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments: let him be anathema.
CANON XI - If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does: let him be anathema.
CANON XII - If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament: let him be anathema.
CANON XIII - If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones: let him be anathema.
Most Holy Family Monastery
The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II
Chapter 12: New Sacraments: the Changes to the Other Sacraments
“The New Order of Baptism was promulgated on May 15, 1969. The questions “Do you renounce Satan?” and “Do you believe…?” are now directed toward the “parents and godparents”; they are no longer directed toward the candidate for baptism. In the new rite, the candidate for baptism is not even asked if he believes.
In the new rite, the newly baptized child no longer receives the lighted candle – instead it is given to a parent or godparent. Also, the newly baptized child no longer receives a white garment – it is only mentioned symbolically. The candidate for baptism is no longer required to make a baptismal vow.
In addition, all the exorcisms of the Devil are omitted in Paul VI’s newrite of Baptism! Why wouldone remove the exorcism prayers? AlthoughSatan is mentioned in the texts, he is not banished.
Conclusion: As long as the person baptizing in the Novus Ordo Church pours water anduses the essential form – “I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” – with the intention to do whatthe Church does, then the baptism is valid, despite these other problemsin the surrounding rite. Butthese changes to the rite of Baptism, although not essential to validity,serve to reveal the true character and intentions of the men who haveimplemented the Vatican II revolution.”
Remember that even with all the evidence of biblical editing to remove the necessity of receiving the Holy Ghost, it is not possible to Administer the Sacrament of Baptism properly without the intention to do what the Church is supposed to do. Remember that the Bible, all versions of the Bible, are not the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Faith is found in the Mass and the Sacraments, the old Rites, and their requirements. But the bible clues are interesting:
Matthew 3:11: “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
Imagine being tormented with this biblical verse which contradicts John’s baptism. For those who only believe in the Bible, and not the old Catholic Rites, this verse exists for their future torments. It is important to perform the rite in the more powerful Liturgical Latin for its accuracy in the dative declension.
Matthew 28:19: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”
As mentioned before, John is the patron saint of Freemasonry. The initiation rite into Freemasonry is a debaptismal ceremony where the candidate seeking the First Degree is brought in dressed as a heretic from the Middle Ages. Once it is understood that Freemasonry has infiltrated the Church and placed one of their own in the Chair of Peter, it will become obvious why they have changed the RITE to mirror their a Masonic Initiation. If you are comfortable with men like this pictured below performing the rite of baptism on your children, then don’t worry about any of this. If this disturbs you, as it should, read on.
Books such as the 1582 Douai-Rheims Version are extremely dangerous to the Judeo-Masonic machine and its design of a New World Order without a Catholic Church. In fact, if you were caught with or in the act of distributing a Catholic Bible in England, you were tried for treason up until 1800. Here is an article from Catholic World, November 1880, explaining the consequences of translating this version. It contains a list of Catholic Clergymen who were tortured and killed over its contents by the Government of England. Pardon the length, but it is worth reading to get an idea of what was being covered up. You can then draw your own conclusions about its relevance and why it was so important for the Masonic State to destroy. You may also realize that if you are going to read a Catholic Bible, not reading this 1582 Douai-Rheims version in English is equivalent to ignoring the sacrifices made by these Saints martyred by the English Government for our Catholic faith. It is suggested that you not do that.
THE CHURCH UNDER ELIZABETH
By the Rev. Frederick George Lee, vicar of All-Saints, Lambeth, author of Historical Sketches of the Reformation
From Catholic World, Nov. 1880
In the history of no land is more strikingly illustrated the plausibility of the saying of the Latin satirist, “Difficile est scribere verum,” than in the case of the annals of England, especially so in treating of the change of religion in the sixteenth century. But how much is the difficulty enhanced when we realize the surroundings of Dr. Lee, the author of the two beautiful volumes before us! When Juvenal said it was difficult to write the truth he meant that it was dangerous, for the profligate patricians of his time had ready clients to punish those who displeased them ; but now, though writing the truth of English history, most particularly on the epoch under notice, the veracious chronicler has the consciousness of having written truly as his sole reward. Be his labor ever so onerous, his research ever so painful and prolonged, he will have but a scanty patronage from the British public, too long swayed by the so-called histories of the eighteenth century, and still more set astray by the more recent falsehoods of Turner and Froude. One of the most favorite lies (the old English monosyllable is the most apt for the utterances of this flagitious misrepresenter of the truth) is that “the Bible was put into the hands of every artisan, who read it with avidity at the street-corners and at his fireside,” etc. How many men were able to read at the time? The price of the first edition of the Bishops’ Bible, with prefaces by Cranmer and Parker, Lowndes states to have been set down at (English Pound sign)60 IOS. English money of our day. It was printed by Richard Jugge in 1568, and no kind of Bible was attainable throughout Elizabeth’s long reign by the wretchedly-paid artisan, who, even if he knew how to read, would prefer a loaf of bread or a draught of beer to the miserable hash of barbarous English presented by Tyndale as the “sacred buke.” Another falsehood, not the less so though only implied, with which Mr. Froude favors us is that to the Reformation we owe the translation of the Bible. Now, in Italy, Germany, the Low Countries, in Spain and in France, the Bible was printed on the vernacular long before Luther had the misfortune to be born ; and all the original printers, as well as the English Caxton, who had his printing-office in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey, were Catholics, not apostates.
Only a comparative few have what may be called the courage to take up books like Dr. Lee’s and ascertain the truth from his invincible and undeniable averments. It is superfluous to say that no portion of English history has been so misrepresented as the reign of Elizabeth—“that bright Occidental star” of King James’ Bible, but who was really one of the worst women that ever existed. Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne of England over the wrecks of a nation trampled to the earth by a mushroom aristocracy, enriched and rampant from the plunder of the church and the heritage of the poor ; for the old nobility had been all but annihilated by the Wars of the Roses. Some eighty thousand of the despoiled and evicted, the hitherto employers and employed, had been hanged or otherwise “disposed of” for manifesting their desolation in the reign of her father ; and the long and dreary interval of contending factions in the reign of the wretched boy-king, and the rule by a profligate and domineering council of affairs during the reign, but not the rule, of Mary, must have made a harassed people experience hope at the accession of Elizabeth.
Her reign it is the custom even to this day to celebrate as the most glorious era in the British annals ; but whatever celebrity it possessed did it not owe in great measure to the darkness of the times, the habitual slavery of the people, the sex and undoubted ability of the monarch, and the talents of an utterly unprincipled ministry? Queen Elizabeth has been accredited with virtues whose sole existence consisted in the assertion of her prejudiced eulogists. Her wisdom was not that of truth and right, but of a cool, penetrating sagacity, prompt, vigilant, and inexorable. The energy of her resolution and her profound dissimulation accomplished what no other attribute of her mind nor her physical powers would have been able to surmount. By the potent use of hypocrisy, falsehood, and bribery she managed to keep her neighbors of the Continent in a blaze of war or enveloped in the dark clouds of mutual distrust, whilst with gold, intrigues, and promises, through subtle agents, she made an Aceldama of distracted Ireland and Scotland. At home she was despotic, abroad she was victorious. By her buccaneer heroes, Drake, Frobisher, Hawkins, she plundered the subjects of her relative Philip, whose gigantic remonstrance in the shape of the Armada was consigned to destruction through the agency of the elements and the superior skill of her hardy and invincible seamen, mostly pirates as they were. The people admired her because she was a successful queen, and she liked her people because they were submissive slaves. By her acuteness she secured able ministers, who served her with fidelity because they feared her anger, and they flattered her vanity because their doing so prolonged her favors. But they served her at their peril, and she selected and sacrificed them with equal cunning and indifference, as witness her conduct to Walsingham, Davidson, and others. She affected learning and professed religion—the latter of an inexplicable description. However, in the one she was a pedant without depth, and in the other a bigot without devotion or even morality. She plundered her people to be independent of her Parliament, and bullied her Parliament to be independent of her people. In fine, the external glory of England under her administration rose so high in the obtuse vision of her contemporaries and the concurrent glorification of the trembling parasites who prostrated before her that the stunted intelligence of her day even led good men to believe that Providence seemed in her case to have condoned every disregard of moral principle and to smile even upon the vies of this too celebrated female tyrant.
This is the summary of Queen Elizabeth’s character which we venture to make from a close perusal of the work of Dr. Lee. Upon the inner life of Queen Elizabeth we will not enter. It is here set down in “words of fire,” and we would not transfer to these pages a scintilla even from the ashes. The woeful straits to which this self-conscious yet recusant believer in the truth brought the honest professors of the true religion are set down in these pages with appalling realism as well as with irrefragable veracity. Nothing but an overwhelming conviction of the wrong which has been done to the English-reading race, to the cause of Christianity even, not to speak of common honor and honesty, by “those delators of honor and honesty called historians” who have deified this English monarch, could have impelled this devoted Anglican clergyman to write these fearless volumes, which really constitute, under the circumstances, one of the greatest literary wonders of our age.
Even to those who know that Queen Mary has been most cruelly maligned in reference to the Smithfield burnings ; that it was her council, before whom she was powerless, who were the acting agents in those scenes ; that Cranmer himself would not permit the boy Edward to save a young lady victim from Cranmer and the stake ; that Cranmer and the bishops burned in Mary’s reign were rebels to Mary and suffered as heretics by her council, who themselves became Protestants in the next reign—even to those students of history who know all these things Dr. Lee presents a fresh and appalling catalogue of slaughter against Elizabeth on the score of religion. Mary’s council, over whom she had no power, burned a few rebel bishops against Mary’s will ; Elizabeth, of her own free will, with the obsequious concurrence of a ministry, her creatures, did not burn, but hanged, drew, disemboweled, and quartered, or stifled and racked in her pestilent jails, Heaven knows how many good, harmless, humble teachers of the faith of her ancestors and of theirs. We have greatly abridged the details from the appendix to the second volume ; and yet we fear the length of the list will be regarded as too extended for our pages. But in some monumental way, as here, should this fearful array of martyrs, furnished by a noble witness to the truth, be placed before American readers, Catholics as well as those of other beliefs.
A LIST OF MARTYRS WHO SUFFERED UNDER QUEEN ELIZABETH.
Cuthbert Maine, priest, born at Yarlston, near Barnstaple, Devonshire. Student of St. John’s College, Oxford, and after his conversion, of Douay College. Apprehended at Colveden, near Truro, tried at Launceston, and condemned for high treason ; hung, drawn, and quartered at Launceston, November 29, 1577.
John Nelson, priest, son of Sir N. Nelson, Knight, born at Shelton, near York. Student at Douay. Taken prisoner in London, condemned for denying the queen’s supremacy, and executed in the usual manner as a traitor at Tyburn, February 3, 1577-8.
Thomas Sherwood, scholar, born in London, educated at Douay. Apprehended, tried, and condemned in London for denying the queen’s supremacy ; executed at Tyburn, being cut down while yet alive, disemboweled, and quartered, on February 7, 1577-8.
Everard Hause, priest, born in Northamptonshire, educated at Cambridge, and ordained a clergyman of the Church of England. A convert, studied at Rheims, and ordained a Roman Catholic priest on March 25, 1581. He was apprehended while visiting prisoners in the Marshalsea Prison, and cast into Newgate amongst thieves, and loaded with irons. He was condemned for high treason, and sentenced to be hung, drawn, and quartered. He suffered at Tyburn on July 31, 1581.
Edmund Campion, priest, S.K., born in London, educated first at Christ-church Hospital ; student of St. John’s College, Oxford ; ordained deacon of the Church of England. A convert, studied at Douay, and admitted into the Society of Jesus at Rome in 1573. Coming to England in 1580, he labored in his vocation for thirteen months, and was taken at the house of Mr. Yates, of Lyford. He was brought to London, and, after being cruelly racked and tortured, was arraigned and condemned for high treason, but offered life and one hundred pounds a year if he would change his religion. He suffered in the usual manner, being hung, disemboweled, and quartered at Tyburn, December 1, 1581, aged forty-two.
Ralph Sherwine, priest, born at Nodesley, near Longford, Derbyshire. Student and fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. A convert in 1575, and studied at Douay until he was made priest in 1577. Returned to England, and was soon taken in London, in November, 1580. After being twice cruelly racked, and imprisoned for seven months, he was arraigned and condemned for high treason. Six months afterwards he was martyred by being hung, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, on December 1, 1581.
Alexander Brian, priest, S.J., born in Dorsetshire, and studied at Hart Hall, Oxford. A convert, and afterwards a student of Douay in 1576 ; returned to England a priest in 1579, and apprehended in London 28th April, 1581. After cruel racking and torturing he was condemned and sentenced as a traitor to be hung, disemboweled, and quartered, which sentence was executed upon him at Tyburn, December 1, 1581.
John Paine, priest, born in Northamptonshire. Admitted into the English College at Douay in 1575, ordained priest in the following year, and sent upon the English mission. He was apprehended in 1581, and brought to the Tower of London, where he was cruelly racked. Tried at Chelmsford, in Essex, and condemned to suffer for high treason in the usual manner, but offered life if he would go to church. The sentence was carried out on April 2, 1582.
Thomas Forde, priest, born in Devonshire, graduated at Trinity College, Oxford ; took his M.A. degree in 1567, and admitted fellow of that college soon afterwards. A convert, and entered the seminary at Douay in 1571 ; ordained priest in 1573. He returned to England and labored some years upon the mission, and was taken, together with Father Campion, in the house of Mr. Yates, at Lyford, in Berkshire. Tried and sentenced to death in London, November 21, 1581 ; executed May 28, 1582.
John Short, priest, born in Cheshire ; educated at Brazenose College, Oxford. Coming to England from Rheims, he was arrested on July 14, 1580, condemned to die as a traitor, and was executed in the usual barbarous manner at Tyburn, May 28, 1582.
Robert Johnson, priest, born in Shropshire, educated at Douay, sent on the English mission ; arrested and sent from some other prison to the Tower in 1580, where he was three times cruelly racked. Sentenced in November, same year, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, he was not executed till 28th May, 1582.
William Filbie, priest, native of Oxford ; arrested at the house of Mr. Yates with Father Campion and his companions ; committed to the Tower in July, and sentenced to death on November 20 following. For six months he remained in prison, cruelly pinioned with heavy iron manacles, and suffered the usual death of a traitor at Tyburn, 30th May, 1582, aged twenty-seven.
Luke Kirby, priest, born at Richmond, Yorkshire ; a Master of Arts. Returned to England after having been some time at the English College at Rome ; was arrested in 1580 and committed to the Tower, where he suffered the torture of the “scavenger’s daughter.” He was sentenced at the same time as Father Campion, but was not executed till May 28, 1582.
Lawrence Richardson, arrested whilst laboring as a missionary in his native country of Lancaster. Hung, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, May 30, 1582.
James Fenn, priest, native of Somerset. Laboring on the mission in his native country, he was arrested and thrown into Rochester jail. Thence sent to London, he was thrown into the horrible dungeon of the Marshalsea for two years. He was released at Tyburn by being hanged, disemboweled, and quartered “in the usual manner,” February 12, 1584.
John Munden, or Mundyn, priest, native of Dorset, condemned at the same time and for the same cause as the four preceding, suffered death with “great joy and cheerfulness” at Tyburn, February 12, 1584.
John Nutter, priest, born at Burnby, Lancashire ; B.D. Oxford. Returning to the Catholic Church, he went to Rheims, where he was ordained and sent on the English mission. Apprehended immediately on his landing, he was thrown into the Marshalsea, whose horrors he suffered for a year. Condemned for being a Catholic, he and four other priests were executed at Tyburn, February 12, 1584.
William Carter, printer, was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, January 11, 1584, for printing a treatise on Schism, against Catholics attending the Protestant services.
James Bell, priest, native of Warrington, Lancashire, ordained in the reign of Queen Mary, conformed to the new religion, but repented and returned. Apprehended for doing so, he was tried at Lancaster with three others for denying the queen’s supremacy, and suffered the usual traitor’s death with “great joy and constancy,” being then sixty years old, April 20, 1584.
Thomas Cottam, priest, native of Lancashire ; B.A. of Oxford. Apprehended in 1580, imprisoned and tortured, and finally hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, 30th May, 1582.
William Lacy, priest, born at Hanton, Yorkshire, ordained at Rome ; returning to England in 1580, labored in his native Yorkshire ; was apprehended, thrown into York Castle, and loaded with chains. He was tried at York “for persuading the queen’s subjects” to the Catholic religion, and was executed in the usual manner, August 22, 1582.
James Thompson, priest, hanged, drawn, and quartered at York, November 28, 1582. “He received his sentence of death with great joy.”
William Hart, priest, native of Wells, Somerset, a distinguished alumnus of Lincoln College, Oxford. Arrested for “assisting at Mass,” heavily ironed in York Castle, and hanged, drawn, and quartered there, 15th March, 1583.
Richard Thirkill, priest, native of Durham, executed in the usual manner at York, May 29, 1583.
John Slade, a native of Dorset, schoolmaster, hanged, drawn, and quartered at Winchester, October 30, 1583, “for denying the queen’s supremacy and maintaining the old religion.”
John Body, native of Wells, Somerset, apprehended at the same time as the foregoing, suffered the usual “death of a traitor” at Andover, Hampshire, November 2, 1583.
George Haydock, priest, son of Evan William Haydock, Esq., of Cottane Hall Lancashire. Offered his liberty if he would renounce the Pope. Refusing, he was sent to the Tower, where for two years he was confined in irons, deprived of all human comfort and assistance. Finally executed in the usual manner, February 12, 1584.
John Finch, born at Eccleston, Lancashire, and brought up a Protestant. Becoming a convert, he assisted the Catholic clergy in every possible way. He was arrested, thrown into a filthy dungeon, where he was subjected to fearful cruelties for years. Refusing finally to abandon his religion, he was executed as a traitor with Mr. Bell, April 20, 1584.
Richard White, native of Montgomery, schoolmaster, arrested for refusing to go to church, put in the stocks, treated with every indignity, cruelly tortured at Bewdley, and finally condemned for denying the queen’s supremacy. This noble lay martyr suffered on October 17, 1584, at Wrexham, in Denbighshire, where he was suspended for a few minutes, cut down alive, and then mangled and butchered in the most barbarous manner.
Thomas Aldfield, priest, native of Gloucester, first cruelly tortured for dispersing, with the help of Webley, a dyer, copies of Cardinal Allen’s modest answer to the English persecutors. He and Webley were executed as traitors at Tyburn, January 5, 1585. Both were offered life if they would renounce the Pope and acknowledge the queen’s spiritual supremacy.
Hugh Taylor, priest, born at Durham, hanged, drawn, and quartered at York, November 26, 1585.
Marmaduke Bowes, a married gentleman of Anerane Grange, Cleveland, was executed with the aforesaid Father Taylor for having harbored him in his house.
Thomas Crowther, priest, died in the Marshalsea after two years’ imprisonment.
Edward Poole, priest, sent from Rheims in 1580, cast into prison same year. Heard of no more.
Lawrence Vaux, canon regular, thrown into the Gate-house prison with N. Tichborne, Esq., in 1580, died there the same year.
Edward Straneham, whom Stow in his Annals calls Edward Barber, suffered the death of a traitor at Tyburn, January 21,1585, “for being a priest.”
Nicholas Woodfen, priest, executed with the preceding for the same crime—“being a priest.”
William Thompson, priest, executed on 20th April, 1585, for “remaining in England,” and Richard Lee, priest, was hanged, drawn, and quartered with him for the same offence.
Richard Sergeant, priest, and William Thompson, priest, were executed as traitors at Tyburn simply for being priests and remaining in the kingdom.
Robert Anderton, priest, born of an honorable family in Lancaster, and William Mardsen, same county, were executed in the Isle of Wight for “being priests,” April 25, 1585.
Francis Ingolby, priest, son of Sir William Ingolby, suffered at York, June 3, 1586.
John Finglow, priest, was executed for “being a priest,” at York, August 8, 1586.
John Sandyr, priest, executed at Gloucester, August 11, 1586.
John Lowe, previously a minister of the Established Church, converted, ordained a priest, and sent on the English mission, executed at Tyburn, October 8, 1586.
John Adams, priest, executed at Tyburn, October 8, 1586. Same day with the two preceding, and on the same charge, Richard Dibdale, native of Worcester.
Mrs. Margaret Clitheroe, gentlewoman, was pressed to death at York for harboring and relieving priests, March 26, 1586.
Robert Bickerdike, gentleman, was executed at York for refusing to go to the Protestant church, July, 1586.
Richard Langley, Esq., executed at York, December 1, 1586, for harboring and assisting priests.
Robert Pilchard, priest, born at Battle, Sussex, executed at Dorchester, December 1, 1586.
Edmund Sykes, priest, banished in 1581, was condemned for returning, and executed at York, March 23, 1587.
Stephen Rowsham, priest, executed at Gloucester, July, 1587.
John Hanibley, priest, born at Exeter, put to death at York, September 9, 1587. Offered his life and a good living if he would conform to the new religion. Same day, and for the same cause, George Douglas, priest, a Scotchman, suffered.
Alexander Crowe, priest, hanged, drawn, and quartered at York for priestly character and functions, November 30, 1586.
Nicholas Garlick, priest, native of Sheffield, tried, condemned, and executed at the same time and place as the preceding “for priestly character and function,” July 24, 1588.
Richard Simpson (some time a minister), priest, executed at Derby, July 24, 1588.
William Dean, priest, executed at Mile End, London, August 28, 1588.
Robert Leigh, priest, executed at Tyburn with five Catholic laymen and Mistress Margaret Wood, August 30, 1588.
William Way, a Cornish priest, executed at Kingstown-on-Thames, in Surrey, October 1, 1588.
Robert Wilcox, Edward Campion, and Christopher Burton, priests, were likewise executed.
Robert Widmerpool, of Widmerpool, Nottinghamshire, gentleman, tutor to the Earl of Northumberland, about the same time.
Ralph Crockett and Edward James, priests, at Chichester, October 1, 1588.
John Robinson, priest.
William Hartley, priest, executed October 5, 1588, in his mother’s presence, near Bankside.
John Weldon, priest, executed October 5, 1588.
Richard Williams, priest.
Robert Sutton, schoolmaster, executed at Clerkenwell.
Edward Burden and John Hewitt, priests, executed at York, October 5, 1588.
William Lamplough, layman, suffered at Gloucester in 1588.
Robert Dalby and John Amias, priests, March 16, 1598, suffered at York.
Richard Yaxley of Lincolnshire, and George Nichols of Oxford, priests, executed at Oxford, July 5, 1589.
Thomas Belson, of Brill, Bucks, gent., executed at Oxford, July 5, 1589.
Humphrey Pritchard, layman, a servant to Belson, executed at Oxford the same day.
William Spencer, priest, executed at York, September 24, 1589.
Robert Hardesty, layman, executed at York, September 24, 1589.
Christopher Bayles, priest, executed at Fleet Street, London, March 4, 1590.
Nicholas Horner, layman, executed at Smithfield, March 4, 1590.
Alexander Blake, layman, executed at Gray’s-Inn-Lane, March 4, 1590.
Miles Gerard and Francis Dickensen, priests, executed at Rochester, April 30, 1590.
Edward Johnes, priest, executed at Fleet Street, London, May 6, 1590.
Anthony Middleton, priest, executed at Clerkenwell, May 6, 1590.
Edmund Duke, priest, executed at Durham, May 27, 1590.
John Hogg, priest, executed at Durham, May 27, 1590.
Richard Holliday, priest, executed at Durham, May 27, 1590.
Richard Hill, priest, executed at Durham, May 27, 1590.
Robert Thorp, priest, hung, drawn, and quartered at York, May 31, 1591.
Mountford Scott and George Beesley, priests, executed at Fleet Street, London.
Robert Dickenson, priest, executed at Winchester, July 7, 1591.
Ralph Milner, layman, of Winchester, executed at Winchester, July 7, 1591.
William Pikes, layman, of Dorchester, suffered there for denying the queen’s supremacy.
Edmund Jennings, priest, executed at Gray’s-Inn-Fields, December 10, 1591.
Swithin Wells, gent., executed at Gray’s-Inn-Fields, December 10, 1591.
Eustachius White, priest, executed at Tyburn, December 10, 1591.
Polydore Plasden, priest, executed at Tyburn, December 10, 1591.
Bryan Lacey, layman, executed at Tyburn, December 10, 1591.
John Mason, layman, executed at Tyburn, December 10, 1591.
Sydney Hodgson, layman, executed at Tyburn, December 10, 1591.
William Paterson, priest, executed at Tyburn, January 22, 1592.
Thomas Pormorte, at St. Paul’s Churchyard, London, February 8, 1592.
Robert Ashton, gent., at Tyburn, June 23, 1592.
Edward Waterson, priest, at Newcastle, January 7, 1593.
James Bird, gent., at Winchester, Lady Day, 1593.
Anthony Page, priest, hung, drawn, and quartered at York, April 20, 1593.
Joseph Lampton, priest, at Newcastle, July 27, 1593.
William Davies, priest, at Beaumaris, July 21, 1593.
John Speed, layman, at Durham, February 4, 1594.
William Harington, priest, at Tyburn, February 18, 1594.
John Cornelius, priest, at Dorchester, July 4, 1594.
Thomas Bosgrave, gent., at Dorchester, July 4, 1594.
Terence Carey, layman, at Dorchester, July 4, 1594.
Patrick Salmon, at Dorchester, July 4, 1594.
John Bost, priest, suffered at Durham, July 19, 1594.
John Ingram, priest, suffered at Newcastle, July 25, 1594.
George Swalllowell, some time a minister, executed at Darlington in 1594.
Edward Osbaldeston, priest, executed at York in 1594.
Robert Southwell, priest, at Tyburn in 1595.
Alexander Rawlins, priest, at York in 1595.
Henry Walpole, priest, at York in 1595.
James Atkinson, layman, in 1595.
William Freeman, priest, at Warwick in 1595.
George Errington, gent., suffered at York in 1596.
William Knight, yeoman, at York in 1596.
William Gibson, yeoman, at York in 1596.
Henry Abbott, yeoman, at York in 1596.
William Andleby, priest, at York in 1597.
Thomas Warcopp, gent., at York in 1597.
Edward Fullthorpe, gent., at York in 1597.
John Britton, gent., at York in 1598.
Peter Snow, priest, at York in 1598.
Ralph Grimstone, gent., at York in 1598.
John Jones, priest, at St. Thomas’ Watering in 1598.
Christopher Robinson, priest, at Carlisle in 1598.
Richard Horner, priest, at York in 1598.
Matthias Harrison, priest, at York in 1599.
John Lyon, yeoman, at Oakham in 1599,
James Dowdall, merchant, at Exeter in 1599.
In the year 1600 the following priests were executed: Christopher Wharton at York ; Thomas Sprott at Lincoln ; Thomas Hunt at Lincoln ; Robert Nutter at Lancaster ; Edward Thwing at Lancaster ; Thomas Pallasor at Durham. And the following laymen: John Rigby at St. Thomas’ Watering ; John Norton at Durham ; John Talbot at Durham.
In the year 1601 the following priests were executed: John Pybush at St. Thomas’ Watering ; Mark Barkworth at Tyburn ; Roger Filcock at Tyburn ; Thurston Hunt at Lancaster ; Robert Middleton at Lancaster. And the following laity: Ann Line, gentlewoman, at Tyburn ; Nicholas Tichbourne at Tyburn ; Thomas Hacksott at Tyburn.
In 1602 four priests were executed, viz.: Tomas Harrison at York ; Thomas Tichbourne at Tyburn ; Robert Watkinson at Tyburn ; Francis Page at Tyburn. And the following laymen: Anthony Batty, gent., at York ; James Duckett, bookseller, at Tyburn.
In 1603 one priest, William Richards, was drawn, hung, dismembered, disemboweled, and quartered at Tyburn.
[To this catalogue should be added the fact that hundreds of lay men and women in the ranks of the gentry were beggared by being compelled to pay a fine of (British Pounds)20 per lunar month for refusing to go to church, where, in the main, the so-called clergy were men of the most infamous lives.]
Need it be added that a howl of excited vituperation of these volumes has affrighted all within the pale of the Established Church, except Dr. Lee? If the present writer were at the freedom to speak of this high-souled witness of the truth it would be seen by the world that no nobler evidence ever bore testimony against the “felonry of history,” as Macaulay indignantly wrote in reference to the falsehoods of the Reformation pamphleteers used in the written history provided for the “British public.” How the reverend and irreverend critics have raved in the organs of the “Establishment”! In the English Churchman a “reverend” writer denounces the work of Dr. Lee as a production to be avoided and abhorred, but carefully abstains from giving reasons for the abstention and abhorrence. Not a line from the book has been quoted in this characteristic criticism, simply because, as the chapmen say in the French markets if remonstrated with by an expert on the price of their commodities, “Eh, bien, monsieur, la verité ne se vend pas.” Truth does not pay in Britain either in the work of the hand or of the truthful intellect. It has been asked by the organs of the English “Established” Church: How dares Dr. Lee, an Anglican cleric, so far consort with papists as to commune with them even on the common highway of historical truth? But why, above all, raise the veil and show in veritable aspect the crimes of the hitherto accepted heroine of Protestantism? Is not this craving to suppress the truth a proof of the identification in the self-conscious yet most reticent souls of English churchmen of the origin of their religion with the most odious criminality? And deny or ignore it as they may, such identity is a fact as solid as granitic rock. The why and the wherefore, and the consequences of the perversion of England, meet one face to face every day in the incongruous and most heartless medley called “English society.”
To sum up: The originators of Protestantism in England were, firstly, a licentious tyrant subserved by bad or timid Catholic bishops and clerics ; secondly, the quasi rule of a wretched boy-king mastered by the infamous council of Somerset, by Cranmer, Paget, Richy, and so forth, all of whom who survived the axe of mutual hate becoming “anxious Catholics” again in the brief reign of the much-maligned Mary, with the proviso that their plunder should remain in possession ; thirdly, Elizabeth, accepting Protestantism from factious motives, the plunderers being the richer and thereby the stronger party, aided, counseled, and confirmed by the help and advice of the Cecils, father and son, Walsingham (whom Elizabeth allowed to rot in his bed when he was of no further use), and Davidson, whom she perjuriously sacrificed in sullen obedience to the execrations of Christendom at her unnatural murder of Mary, Queen of Scots. That the Protestantism fashioned into an emasculated observance by evil-doers, all bad Catholics, imitated paganism in its initiation, by cruelly persecuting their fellow-mortals is no fault, of course, of its present marvelously diverse profession ; but that the cultus, whatever it is, had its base cemented with the blood of hundreds of martyrs Dr. Lee too sadly proves. We see every day glorifications of the Reformation. Reformation from what, and by whom? Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and all the Protestant Episcopal “martyrs”—with the exception of Hooper, who was the victim of the private hate of Paget—were all rebels as well as perjured and sacrilegious priests, just as, with the exception of rebellion, was the first Protestant archbishop, Parker. These were the men, with the lay plunderers of the poor, who “reformed” the ancient creed of England. John Knox, too, one of the murderers of Rizzio, was a priest ; and so had been the execrable Moray, the illegitimate brother and would-be murderer of Mary, Queen of Scots. Reformation! A sad mutation from the olden faith of the great and good, effected by profligate misnamed Catholics, foisted upon an enslaved and devastated country. Quis poterit reformare ipsos reformatores? In the impossibility of reforming themselves the evil genius of abandoned Catholics set to work to deform the pristine belief of a too facile yet down-trodden people.
* By the way, let us state that Dr. Lee’s volumes contain the letters to Paulet, the jailer of Mary, and his very shrewd replies respecting Elizabeth’s desire “to clear off poor Mary by poison to avoid further trouble.”
The current Queen Elizabeth is shown here in her Masonic Knights of Malta garb. Some things never change. The goal of the Masonic Knights of Malta is to subvert the Catholic Church from within and to prevent people from receiving valid Sacraments, specifically, the valid Sacrament of Baptism. Most parishioners do not understand the motivations of these “religious” orders that operate in the light of day, but when they die and realize they are excluded from Heaven because they never received the valid Sacrament of Baptism, they will then understand how serious this war is. It doesn't make it any easier when the occult has the strength of the government to carry out their subversion, but that's how the world is.
Click on the above image to go to the Masonic Knights of Malta website.
