ATJ
THE Christianity of the Crusades was the gospel of revenge, of force, of the sword: it was the National Reform movement of that era. AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.1
Europe was already “Christian,” having been made so largely by the sword; and what was more natural than that men believing in national “Christianity” should regard carnal weapons as the most potent means of establishing even the kingdom of the Prince of Peace? AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.2
But the Christianity of the Crusades was not in any sense the Christianity of Christ. When the people sought to take Christ by force to make him King, he hid himself from them. 1John 6:15. AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.3
When Peter drew a sword in defense of his Master, Jesus said: “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” 2Matthew 26:52. AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.4
When arraigned before Pilate as one guilty of speaking against Cesar, Christ said: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight; .... but now is my kingdom not from hence.” 3John 18:36. AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.5
And finally, the great apostle to the Gentiles wrote: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imagination, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” 42 Corinthians 10:3, 5. AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.6
This is the Christianity of Christ. Its fundamental law is: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;” and, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” 5Matthew 19:19. Its one undeviating rule of human conduct is: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” 6Matthew 8:12. AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.7
Christ himself came not into the world to condemn the world, “but that the world through him might be saved.” 7John 3:17. His ministers are ambassadors of peace. Says the apostle: “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead be ye reconciled to God.” 82 Corinthians 5:19, 20. AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.8
Such is the Christianity of Christ, of the Gospels, of the Acts, of the Epistles; and such the relation that its ministers should sustain toward all men. But such is not the Christianity of the Crusades. The Saviour said: “Love your enemies; do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.” 9Luke 6:27, 28. But the Christianity of the Crusades taught the very opposite of all this. AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.9
Peter the Hermit, the great apostle of the Crusades, appealed to passion, prejudice, love of conquest, and hope of temporal and eternal reward. He exhorted his hearers to be revenged on the hateful infidels, and assured them that they would at the same time acquire great spiritual “merit”! AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.10
Mounted on a mule, the Hermit carried his “gospel” of hate everywhere. In his so-called preaching this man pictured the profanation of the holy places. Pantomine often supplied the lack of words. Depicting the scenes he had witnessed, he displayed a crucifix he had brought with him from Jerusalem, and smiting his breast with it until the blood flowed, he exhorted his auditors to purge the Holy City of the hated Turk. AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.11
“For many years,” says Ridpath, “the fanatical religious sentiment of the West had prescribed a pilgrimage to some holy place as the best balm for an inflamed conscience. The morbid soul of the Western Frank saw in the sandal-shoon and scallop-shell of the pilgrim the emblems and passport of a better life. He who had sinned, he who had consumed his youth in lawlessness and passion, he who had I his manhood done some bloody deed for which he was haunted by specters, he who had forgotten the ties of kindred and stopped his ears to the entreaties of the weak, must ere the twilight faded into darkness, find peace and reconciliation by throwing off the insignia of human power and folly and going barefoot to the holy places of the East. And what other spot so sacred, so meritorious, as the scene of the crucifixion and burial of Christ?” 10History of the World, Vol. II, chap. XVII. AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.12
The Crusades afforded an opportunity to do penance and to get renown and even wealth at one and the same time. “To destroy the hated Turk,” says the historian, “and eradicate his stock from the earth, was regarded as the one work worthy of the praise of men and the favor of heaven.” 11History of the World, Vol. II, chap. XVII. AMS March 26, 1896, page 97.13
The Council of Clermont assembled in the autumn of 1095. On the tenth day of the Council, Pope Urban II., who had crossed the Alps to be present, ascending a throne, said: “Christian warriors, rejoice! for you who without ceasing seek vain pretext for war have to-day found true ones; you are not now called to avenge the injuries of men, but injuries offered to God. It is not now a town or castle that will reward your valor, but the wealth of Asia, and a land flowing with milk and honey. If you triumph over your foes, the kingdoms of the East will be your heritage. If you are conquered, you will have the glory of dying where Christ died.... Gird your swords to your thighs, ye men of might. It is our part to pray, yours to do battle; ours—with Moses—to hold up unwearied hands, yours to stretch forth the sword against the children of Amalek.” 12Ib. AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.1
The response to this appeal was just such as might have been expected. From the lips of that mighty throng burst the cry, Dieu le Veut! Dieu le Veut! and answering back, the “successor of St. Peter,” the self-styled Vicar of the Son of God, said, “God indeed wills it. Go forth, brave warriors of the cross, and let ‘God wills it,’ be your watchword and battle-cry in the holy war.” AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.2
“As soon,” says Ridpath, “as the loud cry of Dieu le Veut was hushed at a gesture from the pope, one of the cardinals arose and pronounced a form of confession for all those who would enlist in the holy enterprise. Thereupon, Adhemar, bishop of Puy, came forward and received from the hands of Urban one of the red crosses which had been consecrated for the occasion. Knights and barons crowded around the seat of his holiness to receive the sacred badge and to take the oath of loyalty to Christ. The cross of red cloth was then stitched upon the right shoulder of the mantle, and the wearer became a soldier of the cross—a Crusader.” AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.3
“From Scandinavia to the Mediterranean the Crusade was preached with a fiery zeal that kindled a flame in every village. In accordance with a canon of the Council of Clermont the taking of the cross was to be accepted in lieu of all the penances due to the church. The license thus granted was in the nature of a plenary indulgence and became one of the most powerful incitements to the cause.... All the warlike lusts of the age were set at liberty under the sanction of religion and retributive justice.” AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.4
“Those who were in debt gladly threw off the burden by assuming the cross. The creditor might no longer menace or disturb those who had become the soldiers of Christ. Offenders and criminals also found the day auspicious. No prison wall might any longer restrain him who took the sword against the infidel. Over the thief and the murderer on whose right shoulders appeared the sacred emblem of the holy war the church threw the egis of her protection. All manner of crime was to be washed white in the blood of the sacrilegious Turks.” AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.5
Very naturally the movements of large bodies of such men were attended with every sort of excess. The Crusaders “swept through the German territories,” says Ridpath, “like an army of devouring locusts, until through sheer waste of resources they were obliged to divide into smaller masses.” Pillage marked the track of the Crusading hosts; and if they met opposition, massacre too often followed, and this before they had opportunity to cross swords with the infidel Turks. Semlin, in Austria-Hungary, suffered all the horrors of massacre, pillage and burning, at the hands of men made “soldiers of the cross,” by papal decree, and by adopting and wearing a badge. AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.6
“One band numbering about twenty thousand, commanded by Walter the Penniless, of Burgundy, pressed forward through Hungary and Bulgaria in the direction of Constantinople. It is said of this advanced host that there were only eight horsemen in the whole number. The rest of the wretched mob proceeded on foot, generally marching without shoes and hundreds falling by the wayside through exposure, disease, and famine. Nothing but the tolerance and friendly disposition of Carolman, king of the Hungarians, saved the miserable vanguard from entire destruction. In Bulgaria, however, the lieutenant of the Eastern Emperor looked with less favor upon the lawless horde that had been precipitated into his kingdom. The Crusaders were quickly cut off from supplies and were obliged to have recourse to violence, but they now found themselves opposed by a race as savage as themselves. AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.7
“The Bulgarians took up arms to defend their country from destruction. The track of Walter and his army was marked with blood and fire. The Crusaders were cut off day by day until at the confines of the country only Walter and a few followers remained to make their way through the forests to Constantinople. AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.8
“Meanwhile the second division of the host, numbering about forty thousand men, women and children, under the command of Peter the Hermit himself, pressed on in the same direction taken by Walter. Their march was promoted through Hungary by the favor of king and people. The wants of the vast multitude were supplied, and friendly relations were maintained, as far as the city of Semlin. Here on the walls were displayed some of the spoils which had been taken two months previously from Walter and his savages. On seeing these tokens of their friends’ overthrow the Crusaders broke into ungovernable rage, and fell furiously upon the offending city. The ramparts were scaled, thousands of the people were butchered, and Semlin suffered all the horrors of pillage and burning.” 13Ib. AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.9
True, these things were committed by an unorganized mob that never actually reached Palestine. But the regular Crusaders were little better. Having cast away the gospel bands from them to the extent of entering upon war for the furtherance of the gospel, why should they stop short of any excess? AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.10
Of the host that besieged and finally captured Antioch, Ridpath says: “One of the chief incentives to the uprising had been the license freely offered by the Church to all who should be victorious over the infidel. To them restraint should be unknown. The maidens of Greece and the dark-eyed houris of Syria, were openly named as a part of the reward due to them who should hurl the Turk from his seat on the tomb of Christ; and the Crusader in his dreams saw the half-draped figures of Oriental beauties flitting in the far mirage. Before the walls of Antioch the men of the West sat down to enjoy whatever the land afforded. The god of license became the favorite divinity. All restraint was cast aside. Every village in the surrounding country was recklessly pillaged, and the camp of the Crusaders was heaped with spoils. Then the armed warriors gave themselves up to feasting and love-making with the Syrian damsels. Bishops of the Church wandered wantonly through the orchards and lay on the grass playing dice with Cyprians.” 14Ib. chap. XVIII. AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.11
And finally, when Jerusalem was taken by the professed followers of the Prince of Peace, indiscriminate slaughter followed. “Blood,” says the historian, “flowed in the gutters, and horrid heaps of the dead lay piled at every corner. None were spared by the frenzied Christians, who saw in the gore of the infidels the white way of redemption. Ten thousand dead, scattered through the city, gave token of the merciless spirit of the men of the West. Another ten thousand were heaped in the reeking courts of the great mosque on Mount Moriah. ‘God wills it,’ said the pilgrims. The indiscriminate butchery of the Saracens was carried out by the rank and file of the Crusading army. In this blood work they needed no incentive—no commander. Each sword flamed with hatred until it was cooled in the dripping life of the enemies of Christ.” 15Ib. AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.12
Such were the deeds done and the scenes enacted in the era of the Crusades in the name of Christianity. And what was accomplished? Absolutely nothing for either true religion, or genuine civilization; and worse still, Christianity became with millions of the human race a hissing and a by-word. Henceforth it was to be judged, not by the sublime precepts of its Founder, not by the spiritual truths which he taught, or by the spirit power he had promised, but by the sack of Antioch, by the massacre at Jerusalem, by the rivers of blood that everywhere flowed in the track of the Crusaders. AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.13
And who was to blame? Who but the leaders in religious thought? Who but the religious teachers of the day? Suppose that instead of preaching the Crusades, Peter the Hermit had preached the gospel of the Son of God. Suppose that, like the apostle, he had been an ambassador of peace and not of war, how different might have been the history of the eleventh and twelfth centuries; yea, of all subsequent time! AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.14
ATJ
THE Christian Advocate, of February 20, commenting upon the provisions of the New York State Sunday law, says: “Section 264 protects religious liberty in the following: ‘It is a sufficient defense to prosecution for work and labor on the first day of the week that the defendant uniformly keeps another day of the week as holy time, and does not labor on that day, and that the labor complained of [Sunday labor] was done in such a manner as not to interfere with or disturb any other person in observing the first day of the week as holy time.’” AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.1
If religious liberty in the State of New York had no better protection than this, we think it would not long survive. AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.2
By the provisions of this section, but two classes of citizens are considered as entitled to religious liberty; namely, those who observe Sunday, and those who uniformly keep another day of the week as holy time. All other classes may whistle for their religious liberty, but never get it so far as the law is concerned. Yet it is a fundamental principle of our system of government that all men have equal rights. The Sunday “law” denies to certain classes of citizens what the Creator has freely given them. AMS March 26, 1896, page 98.3
But this is not all that is wrong with this “protective” provision. In order to be entitled to its benefits, the individual must uniformly keep another day as holy time. If he ceases to do this, he falls at once without the provisions of the section, and becomes liable under the law. More than this: he is required to observe the day as holy time. This is more than is required of the Sunday observer, he being merely obliged to abstain from Sunday labor. AMS March 26, 1896, page 99.1
The law declares that every citizen of the State shall regularly observe some day of the week as a day of rest. If he chooses Sunday, he is obliged to refrain from secular labor; if his choice falls on any other day, he is obliged to observe it as holy time. In any case, his religious observance of the day is under legal compulsion. And compulsion is not liberty, but the opposite. AMS March 26, 1896, page 99.2
This “exemption clause” of the “law” shows conclusively that the statute is religious in character, and not civil. It exempts from the penalty for Sunday labor such persons as uniformly keep another day of the week as holy time. That is to say, the law annuls itself, in the case of such individuals, in everything except that which pertains to religion. They may do secular work on Sunday, but they must observe another day of the week as “holy time.” They must observe the day religiously; this the “law” demands. AMS March 26, 1896, page 99.3
We willingly recognize in the provisions of the section an honest attempt to combine justice with a Sunday “law.” But the two will note unite; and hence some very curious features of the “law.” It prohibits secular labor on Sunday on the part of any of its citizens, and yet leaves all free to escape from its prohibition by the avenue of regard for some other day. It accepts in lieu of abstinence from secular work on Sunday, a religious regard for another day of the week, which it does not claim will be of any possible utility or value to the State; in other words, it exchanges what it assumes to be of value, for nothing. It exempts the very class who have the strongest objections to obeying it,—namely, those who regard another day of the week as sacred; it makes an act which is the most contrary to its requirements—the observance of another day—a valid ground for noncompliance with the same. Such are some of the anomalous features of a Sunday “law” when enacted with, it may be, the best motives and an honest desire to protect religious liberty. AMS March 26, 1896, page 99.4
Such a “law” falls very short of constituting a safeguard to religious freedom. AMS March 26, 1896, page 99.5
ATJ
THE only good law for Sunday that was ever made, was enacted by the Creator. It is the only good law of the kind that can ever be made. AMS March 26, 1896, page 100.1
Let it not be thought strange that the Creator enacted a law for the first day of the week. He has created all things, and he has law for everything that he has made; he set nothing adrift after he created it, to float about subject to no rule of guidance, no defined purpose of utility, amidst the rest of his creation. He has a law for the earth, a law for the tree and flower, a law for every operation of nature. “He sendeth forth his commandment upon earth; his word runneth very swiftly. He giveth snow like wool; he scattereth the hoar frost like ashes. He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold? He sendeth out his word, and melteth them: he causeth his wind to blow, and the waters flow.” Psalm 147:15-18. He has law for the beings he has made, both man and beast. And he has law for the days of the week. AMS March 26, 1896, page 100.2
The fourth commandment not only states the law of the Sabbath, but of the other days of the week as well, so far as concerns man’s relation to them. That it makes so brief mention of them in comparison with the Sabbath is due to the preëminence of the latter. The commandment says: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” Every word of the Creator is law. The sentence, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work,” is law, as much as is any other divine pronouncement; not, indeed, in the sense of prohibiting all rest or recreation upon any other day than the seventh, but as distinguishing between man’s relation to it and his relation to the Sabbath. It is the law of their character as related to mankind. They are the working days; the Sabbath is the rest day. AMS March 26, 1896, page 100.3
The Creator’s law for Sunday therefore is, that it is one of the six common days upon which man may labor and perform his work. That is the law as it stands in the divine code to-day. AMS March 26, 1896, page 100.4
Man, it is true, has enacted a different “law.” He has made a statute which sets forth the first day of the week, instead of the seventh, as the weekly rest day. But can man with his enactments set aside the decree of the Eternal? Can a man-made statute have any force, as opposed to the law of the Almighty? AMS March 26, 1896, page 100.5
Shall we observe the Creator’s law for Sunday, or man’s? AMS March 26, 1896, page 100.6
ATJ
THE word “papacy” is derived from “papa,” and designates that religious system in which the church acknowledges a visible earthly head. This head is called the papa, or pope. AMS March 26, 1896, page 101.1
It is obvious that this system demands for the church a human source of authority in spiritual affairs; otherwise her visible, earthly head would be such only in name. This demand is met in the pope’s claim to infallibility, when speaking “ex-cathedra.” Infallibility must, of course, pertain to the church’s spiritual head. AMS March 26, 1896, page 101.2
Hence it is equally obvious that this system dispenses with the Scriptures; for they claim to be the source of all authority in questions of religious belief and practice. “To the law and to the testimony; if the speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20. “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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. AMS March 26, 1896, page 101.3
If the church should appeal to the law and to the testimony for knowledge upon every religious question, she would acknowledge as her head the Author of that word, who is Christ. There would be in this no recognition of any visible head on earth. The papal system demands that there should be another “word,” equal in authority to that given through the prophets and apostles. But two such words cannot stand together in truth; for they deny each other. The Scriptures deny that any spiritual authority exists in any word other than the word of God; and the pope’s word, by claiming to be infallible, contradicts scripture; and this contradiction appears in the very fact that by the scriptural doctrine that all question are to be determined by the law and the testimony, the pronouncements of the pope are superfluous. AMS March 26, 1896, page 101.4
It is not strange, therefore, that the papal power should look with no great favor upon the Word of God as a guide for the people, and should commit the copies of that Word to the flames whenever she has a favorable opportunity to do so. AMS March 26, 1896, page 101.5
The papal antagonism to the Bible is simply a necessary part of the antagonism of the papal system to Christianity, in respect to the church’s head. For the Word of God declares that Christ is the head of the church, which is his body. Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18. The body cannot have two heads; the church of Christ is not a monstrosity. That church which acknowledges a visible earthly head, denies by that very act the invisible, divine head, which is Christ. That system of religion is antichrist. AMS March 26, 1896, page 101.6
Another thing demanded by the papal system is the union of the church with the State. The word of God has in it the power of God. By his word all things were created. It has all power itself, so that it needs no other support. But the word of man is powerless in itself; it must have support to make it effectual. That support must be the power of man; and the highest form of that power is represented in the State. AMS March 26, 1896, page 101.7
The thing produced by the union of the papal system of paternalism in religion, with the State, is designated in the Scriptures as “the beast.” AMS March 26, 1896, page 101.8
ATJ
THE gospel of Christ is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” Romans 1:16. The devil’s gospel—for he can transform himself into an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14)—is, salvation(?) through outward religious forms by the power of compulsion to all who can be subjected thereto, without regard to belief or conscience. AMS March 26, 1896, page 104.1