Did Melanchthon always teach the sun stood still?

      While preparing an English translation of the German text of the St. Louis Edition of Luther's complete writings, I decided to read Melanchthon's "Foreword" that was written in 1552, several years after Luther's passing.  In the very first paragraph, he stated the following (my emphasis):

“We should thank God that under such great disruptions of the governments and dominions and destructions of the cities, and also under such destruction of the human race, He nevertheless does not let this divine teaching of His be destroyed, and that He also lets us see beautiful clear testimonies, such as the raising of the dead and that the sun is stopped in its course, and many other things more; so that we may know for certain, both that there is one God and that He is gathering a church, and also that this doctrine, which He has given, is the right, certain, immutable truth.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Scholars want to emphasize Melanchthon's weakness in the matter of Copernicanism. Patrick Ferry stated that

…over time Melanchthon began to write and speak of Copernicus more approvingly. More significantly, the manner in which he interacted with those who demonstrated Copernican sympathies reveals that, while Melanchthon was personally unconvinced by most of the theory, he remained extremely supportive of and encouraging toward younger faculty members who were inclined otherwise.

Melanchthon may indeed have had a weakness on this.  However, in his "Foreword" to Luther's German writings, he could have named many other miracles from the Old Testament, such as the parting of the Red Sea,  Daniel's miraculous deliverance from the Lion's Den, etc..  But he chose to highlight the miracle of Joshua 10:13, that "the sun is stopped in its course".  — Luther was no longer around to oversee him, to correct him.  So Melanchthon could have slipped in a phrase of doubt, but he did not.  In spite of his weakness of faith developing after Luther's passing, he confessed to the world, also to the "younger faculty members who were inclined otherwise", that God stopped the sun in its course. 

    As far as I can tell, Melanchthon's "Foreword" was not published in the CPH American Edition of Luther's Works.) That is about to be rectified…

Walther on Papal bans: “strange fogies” (Der Lutheraner 1871)

      Walther never let up on castigating the schemes of the Pope and Roman church.  When he came across reports in his extensive readings, he could not wait to bring the news to his readers.  And so it was when two notable defections occurred against the Pope, he set pen to paper.  From Der Lutheraner, vol 27 p. 149, June 1, 1871 [EN]: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Papal Ban. More than two years ago, the Franciscan priest Clemens Jäger from Prague converted to the Lutheran Church in Dresden and was then employed as a Lutheran pastor at Zehista near Pirna in Saxony. Now, after two long years, he has been excommunicated by the archbishop's consistory in Prague. The papists are strange fogies: even when someone has long since left their house, they still want to throw him out! — 

 

By cable it has recently been reported from Munich that the famous Catholic professor [Johann Joseph Ignaz] von Döllinger in Munich has now also been banished by His Unholiness, the Pope himself, because he absolutely did not want to accept the new article of faith fabricated last year at the Roman Council, that the popes are infallible. W. [Walther]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

While Walther's report on von Döllinger and his stand against the doctrine of papal infallibility is covered in Wikipedia, the conversion of the priest Jäger is not covered at all that I could find.  Walther's report on both of these events, again, brings the actual account of the spiritual matters.

Psychology vs Scripture (LC-MS vs OLC): McLaughlin speaks

    In reviewing old issues of the publication of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference (OLC), a church body formed from Missouri Synod members who left that erring church, I came across a 1-page blurb from 1953 with the above title.  It highlights what ruled the thinking of LC-MS teachers after they had given up on orthodox teaching — "psychology".  The author was Prof. Wallace McLaughlin of whom this blog has written about many times.  He joined with Prof. Paul E. Kretzmann in leaving the LC-MS.  From The Orthodox Lutheran, August, 1953, p. 166; (bolding and highlighting are mine):

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Psychology versus Scripture

[by Wallace H. McLaughlin]

Some time ago a rather lengthy correspondence between a Missouri layman, who had been graduated from one of the junior colleges of that Synod, and our dear brother H. F. Koehlinger, known to the readers of this church paper chiefly through his heart-searching devotionals based upon Luther’s exposition of the Twenty-third Psalm, was turned over upon request for publication in this paper. After careful reading and consultation among three or four of us we decided that we could not afford the space in this Scriptural publication to reproduce so much of the Missourian’s scurrilous language as would form the necessary background for printing all of our brother’s fine Scriptural rejoinders. If space were not so precious with us we could indeed cite excellent precedent for publishing the whole correspondence, in Luther’s frequent practice of publishing libels written against him with or without his own detailed reply.

Yet this material is so symptomatic of the attitude of many Missourians today that we could not wholly ignore it. Even before the establishment of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference, but in an intensified degree since that time, the so-called “psychological approach” has displaced the old-time Scriptural propaganda and polemics once characteristic of the Missouri Synod. If you disagree with Missouri today and attack her aberrations you are not likely to be regarded as an erring brother who must be set straight from Scripture, or as a heretic whose mouth must be stopped by Scripture, but rather as a “psychoneurotic” who should consult a psychiatrist.

The Missouri correspondent to whom we are referring is an extreme example of this attitude. We find him constantly insisting that he has no interest whatsoever in our “silly theological debate” but only in the personal “frame of mind” of his former friend. In his letters he uses no Scripture, although Brother Koehlinger’s answers are full of Scripture properly applied, but takes evident pride in the ease with which he has been able to recognize what he considers the peculiar “psychosis” expressed in the actions and publications of our Orthodox Conference.

Such attacks on our church-body, whereby he presumes to enter a public controversy without knowledge of the facts and with professed disinterest in the theological principles involved, are the most objective sections of his extremely subjective tirades. He does once express curiosity as to “what new thought your group is advancing,” but suppresses his curiosity with the remark: “Seems to me you aren’t saying anything new.” In this of course he is right; as Brother Koehlinger’s rejoinder shows: “We believe, teach, and confess only the eternal Bible truths.” That is really all the answer we can make to people who are not interested in “theological debate” on the basis of Scripture. There is no common ground on which we can meet.

The situation delineated above, which is startlingly general, may account in large degree for the failure to “get together and talk things over” between representatives of the Missouri Synod and the O.L.C. When we adduce God’s Word and are met by the suggestion that we have our heads examined there is no basis for discussion. Under such circumstances we are not surprised when our adversaries lose interest and break off discussion, as occurred in this case. With those who regard the fact of taking Bible doctrine seriously as an indication of “fanaticism,” and the willingness to die for it if need be as a “martyr complex,” we have nothing to discuss.

W. H. M., with grateful acknowledgments to H. F. K.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

By the terms that McLaughlin showed from an LC-MS graduate, I, and my blog, are

• “psychoneurotic” and “should consult a psychiatrist.” I have a
• peculiar “psychosis” and should
• “have my head examined.”

Actually I have been counseled by psychologists and psychiatrists, but that was because I left my Missourian/Lutheran/Christian faith.  Now, after returning to my faith, I no longer need their godless counseling.  Now I am in good company, with those who held to the truth of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. I hold with Luther, Walther, Franz Pieper, and Wallace McLaughlin.  I am back home again, and going Back To Luther.

“Sisters of Mercy” on the Bible (Walther, Der Lutheraner 1872)

      In 1872, C. F. W. Walther read an account of an exchange between a Bible society agent and a nun in South Bend, Indiana.  Most people are aware of South Bend's association with the Roman Catholic Church because of its well known university.  Walther wanted to give this account a wider audience among his readers so that they could hear an actual exchange on the matter of how the Bible is viewed in the Pope's Church. From Der Lutheraner, vol. 28, No. 14, April 15, 1872, p. 110 [EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

The Spirit of the papist so-called “Sisters of Mercy”.

American Bible Society

The spirit that animates these nuns, who spread such a halo around them, is revealed only too clearly in a conversation that Rev. Wood, an American Bible [Society] agent, recently had with them, and which is reported in the Christian Messenger of March 27. After the aforementioned Bible agent had been admitted in a very polite manner to the parlor of the local institution of the “Sisters of Mercy” in South Bend, in the state of Indiana, the following conversation took place:

 

Agent: “My business is that of a Bible agent. I work here for the St. Joseph County Bible Society, providing Bibles to the poor and collecting money for the ‘Bible cause.’”

Sister: “Sir, we do not subscribe to your Bible. We consider it a seduction, a falsehood, put on by apostates, corrupt people and followers of the devil. Yes, it is the devil's book. The circulation of this book plunges thousands of souls into damnation every day. No Bible should be circulated among the common people, but the holy priesthood should explain the Bible to them.”

Agent: “Madame, I did not come in to have a theological quarrel or fight with you over the authenticity of the Bible, but because this institution purports to be an institution of the Sisters of Mercy, I came in to ask for a contribution — thereby to distribute Bibles to the poor.”

Sister: “I tell you, sir, that we do not support your Bible in any way or on any condition. I would much rather give money to destroy it than to spread it.”

Agent: “We Protestants are not selfish in this regard, for we give Bibles to the poor of all denominations; I have already given Bibles to poor Catholic families in this city.”

Sister: “This is an untruth.”

Agent: “I repeat what I said about providing poor Catholic families in this city with the Word of God, and I am ready to confirm it.”

Sister: “I am telling you that it is a falsehood. It is a lie! You have never given a Bible to a Catholic family in your life. They would much rather burn your Bible. I would burn it right now. Yes, I would need it to heat the kettle with.”

Agent: “Madame, the day of burning Bibles is over. France and still other papal countries have burned not only the Bible, but also those who read and followed it; but I tell you, their day is gone.”  

“Bible should be burned”

Sister: “This Bible should be burned this very day in South Bend with those who dare carry it among the people.”

Agent: “Now madame — in general, you show and reveal more the spirit of a serpent than that of a merciful sister.”

Sister: “We don't want to see you or your Bible in this institution. You came in just to give an insult.”

Agent: “How and in what way did I offend you?”

Sister: “You already gave us an insult by bringing this Bible into such a sacred institution as this, since we do not wish to see you or the book here.”

Agent: “As for myself, I can escape quite easily; but I feel you should have this Bible.”

Sister: “I tell you, I would make my tea with your Bible.”

Agent: “Your will is strong, but your arm is too weak. Farewell Madame.”

Sister: “I do not return a greeting to such a Bible agent.”

Agent: “Your non-greeting has no meaning.”

 

We only note the following in this regard:

All biblical Christians who have daughters and send them to the “Sisters of Mercy” so that they can instruct them in female work, should consider what they are doing. They are sending their children into a real den of soul murderers. Would that such parents would not be so foolish and so blind as to be deceived by the hypocritical nature and assurances of those nuns that their instruction has nothing to do with religion. All papal orders, including that of the “Sisters of Mercy,” have no other ultimate purpose than to eradicate the Bible religion and to spread the Papacy. Whoever hands over his dear children to such anti-Christian institutions, does nothing other than putting his own flesh and blood into the hellish net of Antichrist himself. Woe to him who does this in spite of all the warnings he has received! From him God will one day demand the blood of his children in His wrath.    W. [C. F. W. Walther]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Note well the nun's reason for her opposition to the Bible — it was because

“the holy priesthood should explain the Bible to them.”

Walther on women's emancipation (Der Lutheraner 1870)

      The struggle today to reduce the so-called "gender gap" is only a continuation of what has been going on for over 100 years — even in Walther's day, 150 years ago.  But Walther's insight into the driving force to promote this gives us a clear picture of what is actually going on.  From Der Lutheraner vol. 26, March 1, 1870, p. 102 [EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

Women's emancipation is making more and more progress. As was to be expected, it is also penetrating the church in America. For as much as one boasts that America has no state church, as Germany does, but that church and state are strictly separated here, church and religion are often used here to achieve political ends, or political principles and measures are also applied in the ecclesiastical field. Evidence for this assertion is that recently, among others, in the penitentiary of Johnson County in the state of Kansas, a woman named Lydia Sexton, who belongs to the fellowship of the United Brethren, has been employed as a chaplain. W. [Walther]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In this case, it was the United Brethren who were filling in the "gender gap". But today, practically all external church bodies are doing the same, more or less. It seems that the "church" is actually "used here to achieve political ends." (This post is dedicated to the so-called "Women's History Month", the month of March.)

Luther on "Believer's Baptism" (Galatians commentary)

      I am aware of smaller Baptist congregations that still apparently want to retain Biblical teaching.  I highlighted one of them last year.  For this they may be commended, and they should be reminded over and over that this only proves what Walther said, that

"All of the sects, which have separated from the papacy, were originally Lutheran Churches"

But these Baptists have only made a certainty uncertain.  How so?  As I was researching Luther's writings on the book of Galatians, a work famous even among the Reformed, I ran across a paragraph that succinctly identifies the problem with these "Baptists" and most of the Reformed, or so-called "Evangelicals", today.  From CPH's Luther's Works, volume 27, p. 148, "Luther's Preface [to Galatians commentary] of 1535", page 148 (bolding, highlighting are mine):

The papists and the Anabaptists are harmoniously agreed today on this one proposition, over against the church of God, despite their verbal pretenses: namely, that a work of God is dependent on the worthiness of man. For this is what the Anabaptists teach: “Baptism is nothing unless a person is a believer.” [i.e. "Believer's Baptism"] On the basis of this principle, as it is called, it necessarily follows that none of the works of God are anything if a man is not good. Now Baptism is a work of God, but an evil man can make it not a work of God.

So Luther plainly states that "Believer's Baptism", a common practice among most of the Reformed camp, is the work of an "evil man" who has made a work of God "not a work of God".  So the Baptists who teach "Believer's Baptism", are actually what Luther calls "Anabaptists", those "evil men" who of God's Baptism "make it not a work of God".  Luther could not be more plain than what he states in this paragraph on "Believer's Baptism." — Luther's famous Galatians commentary is about to be given a new way to be read in an upcoming blog post.

Intolerance8: Lafayette: Romanists will destroy liberty

      This concludes from Part 7 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting J. C. W. Lindemann's essay "Religious Intolerance in America." — Now Lindemann shows America that it is still a target for the intolerance of the Papal Church.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Intolerance in America.

[by J. C. W. Lindemann]

What the "heretics" in America can expect from the papists. 

The following was read as early as 1853 in the Shepherd of the Valley, the organ of the Archbishop of St. Louis, Mo.:

"We admit that the Roman Catholic Church is intolerant, that is, that it does everything in its power to eradicate error and sin. But this intolerance of hers necessarily follows from her infallibility. She alone has the right to be intolerant, because she alone is and has the truth. Heresy, according to her laws, is a sin deserving death. The Church tolerates heretics when and where she is compelled to do so, but she mortally hates them and expends all her powers to bring about their destruction. When one day the Catholics will have an immense majority, which will certainly be the case, although only after a long time, then the religious freedom of this republic will have come to an end. Our enemies say so, and we believe it. Our enemies know it, that we are no better than our Church, and as to the latter, its history is openly laid out before them. They know how the Roman Church dealt with heretics in the Middle Ages, and what it still does with them nowadays wherever it has the power to do so. We do not in any way deny these historical facts, or blame the saints and princes of the church for having done and approved such things. Heresy is a mortal sin, which kills the soul and plunges the whole man, body and soul, into hell. It is also a highly contagious and infinitely propagating disease, which endangers the temporal and eternal welfare of countless generations to come. Therefore truly Christian princes will root out heresy in their lands, and Christian states will, if they can, drive it out of their domains. And if we now refrain from <p. 35> persecuting the heretics here, it is only because we are too weak to do so, and believe thereby to do more harm than good to the Church we serve."

The French Catholic popular newspaper L'Univers wrote:

"We only regret that Jan Hus was not burned sooner, and Martin Luther was not also burned, that the princes of that time were not so wise as to begin a crusade against Protestantism! A heretic used to be handed over to the authorities to be put to death; nothing seems to us more natural and necessary than that; more than 100,000 people perished by [John] Wycliff’s heresy, still more by [Jan] Hus's; we stand, after three centuries, on the eve of the beginning again." (Protest. Reply, p. 261.) 

The famous [Marquis de] Lafayette († 1834), highly honored by all Americans, once said:

"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall at the hands of the Roman clergy." (Luth. Stand., 1875. p. 243.)

America now also has a Cardinal, a Roman dignitary who immediately succeeds the Pope in rank. The infallible Pius IX has bestowed this distinction on the previous Archbishop of New York, Mr. [John] McCloskey, and he was publicly installed as such with great pomp on April 27th of last year. To learn what the Roman Pontiff, the pretended Lord of the World, demands and desires from this high servant, one need only read the oath which every Cardinal has to take before he receives the red hat, the sign of his dignity. Here is what he must swear [as of 1876, now amended here]:

"I ________, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, vow and swear that from now until the end of my life I will be faithful to St. Peter, the Holy Apostolic Church at Rome, and our most Holy Lord the Pope, and the successors of the same, canonically and legally elected; That I will never give my advice, consent, or assistance to anything contrary to the Pontifical Majesty, and will never knowingly transgress or publish advice, admonitions, or instructions of the Apostolic See given to me in confidence; and that I will render every assistance in defense of the Papacy at Rome and the Regatta of St. Peter. That I will dutifully and for the sake of honor proclaim and defend the messages and decrees of the Holy Apostolic See in all churches, monasteries, and charitable institutions subject to me, and support papal nuncios and legates when they come, as long as they stay, and when they go, with cordiality and reverence, and that I will resist and fight to the death all who should undertake anything against them; that I will endeavor in every way and by every means to increase, fortify, and promote the rights, honors, privileges, and prestige of the Holy Bishop of Rome, the Pope our Lord."

It concludes, "that I will seek out, fight, and persecute heretics, schismatics, and adversaries against our Holy Lord the Pope with all my power and with all my means." (Prot. Reply, pp. 180-181)

[Some of the phrasing is omitted in the current version of this oath according to the Vatican website. But who knows what goes on behind closed doors, because they “will never … transgress or publish advice, admonitions, or instructions of the Apostolic See given to me in confidence.”]

In Hungary to this day all who convert from the Protestant to the Catholic Church must take the following terrible oath: "We swear, as long as there is a drop of blood in our veins, to persecute that accursed Protestant doctrine in every way, secretly and openly, by force and cunning, by word and deed, not excepting the sword." 

Dr. Luther said, "Many complain of this, and think that I am too vehement and hasty against the papacy; but I complain that I am, alas, much too mild. But I would that I could speak vain thunderbolts against the papacy, and that every word were a thunderbolt." (XXII, 1350, #63 .)

 

The Puritans also recognized in the Pope the Antichrist. In their "Confession of Faith," signed at Boston, May 2, 1680, it is said, Chap. 26, § 4. 

"There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; neither can the Pope in any way be the head of it, but he is Antichrist, the man of sin, and the son of perdition, who exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and against all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the glory of his coming." (Mather's History II, 176.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  End of Essay  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Some of the phrasing for the oath of a Cardinal is omitted in the current version according to the Vatican website. But who knows what goes on behind closed doors, because they “will never… transgress or publish advice, admonitions, or instructions of the Apostolic See given to me in confidence.” — It seems most Lutherans of the LCMS do not believe the threat of the Pope's intolerance.  They minimize the power that the First Amendment holds over the Pope, to keep him from implementing his wishes. And so the First Amendment is truly under attack at all times, but our Lindemann has marvelously highlighted just this power for America today.  But Americans now have a Roman Catholic President who sought and received Holy Communion from Pope Francis recently.  How concerned will he be about the First Amendment?  May God preserve this freedom from religious intolerance for Christians in America.

Intolerance7: Pope's ban, atrocity in America, avenged

      This continues from Part 6 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting J. C. W. Lindemann's essay "Religious Intolerance in America." — This segment includes the history of intolerance by the Pope's Church, as it spilled over from Europe to America. Walther's history of the Florida massacre was presented previously, but Lindemann adds a concluding detail not found in Walther's account, the name of the Frenchman who sought revenge against the Spanish massacre in Florida.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Intolerance in America.

[by J. C. W. Lindemann]

A Papal Ban. 

When the death of Henry VII in 1313 settled the German imperial throne, the princes could not agree. Some chose Frederick the Fair of Austria, others Louis IV of Bavaria. Each of these two wanted to be the rightful emperor. A fierce struggle arose over this, which brought much disaster upon Germany. In the Battle of Ampfing in 1322, Frederick took the short straw, whereupon Louis was recognized by the princes as the sole head of the German Empire. However, Pope John XXII did not agree with this. He had already arrogated to himself the decision of the dispute between the two contenders, but nevertheless decided nothing. When the dispute had been settled by force of arms and recognition of the princes, the pope threatened with ecclesiastical excommunication in 1323 if Louis did not immediately renounce the administration of the empire. Because the emperor did not submit to the Pope's insolent impositions, he was subjected to the following curse in the following year:

"Let the divine omnipotence cast down Louis and deliver him into the hands of his enemies and persecutors. "and let him fall into an unforeseen net. Let his entrance and exit be accursed. The Lord smite him with folly and blindness. Let heaven consume him with its lightning. Let the wrath of God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul be kindled against him in this world and in that. Let the whole earth take up arms against him. The abyss opened up and swallowed him alive. His name must not remain over a single limb, and his memory is extinguished among men. All elements are abhorrent to him. Let his house be left desolate, and let his children be driven from their dwellings, and perish before their father's eyes by his enemies."

At the same time, all the faithful, both ecclesiastical and secular, were ordered, in order to avoid an equal ban from the church and to lose their offices and dignities, to no longer obey the accursed Louis as the head of the German Empire and to avoid all communion with him. Louis, however, was and remained German emperor in spite of the dreadful curse, and even when the said pope declared him deprived of all his lands and fiefs and absolved all his vassals from the oath of allegiance to him. He remained emperor until his death in 1347, although the popes Benedict XII and Clemens VI also wanted to push him from the throne. He resolutely rejected their insinuation that he should lay down the crown, <p. 34> purify himself from the ban as a penitent, and expect from them the supremacy over Germany.

Murder of Protestants in Florida — 1565. [ref. this blog]

In 1563, the French Admiral [Gaspard II de] Coligny (the same who was murdered in the Parisian blood wedding on August 24, 1572) envisioned beautiful Florida as a refuge for his persecuted fellow believers. In 1564, under the command of Jean Ribault, a famous, brave, and pious Huguenot, he sent over two ships, which had on board a large number of colonists, composed of the best families of France. They first landed at the site of what was afterwards St. Augustine, discovered the St. Johns river, which they called Jordan, and thence sailing along the coast first northwestward, they at last found the port of Port Royal. There they built a fort and named it Carolina in honor of their king (Charles IX).

No sooner did the bloodthirsty Philip II of Spain hear that Huguenots had settled in a country which he considered his own because the Pope had given it to him (!) than he commissioned Pedro Menéndez de Avilés to repossess the land and exterminate the "heretics" who might dare to desecrate his kingdom. Menéndez, just as bigoted as his lord, gladly accepted the commission. With more than 500 men, including those who had their families with them, accompanied also by artisans and priests, he landed on September 8, 1565, at the port that was named St. Augustine by the saint of the day. Soon after, he began to lay the foundation of the town, which is the oldest in the present United States (Jamestown in Virginia was not founded until 1607).

No sooner had Melendez made the necessary arrangements than he sent word to the Huguenots at Fort Carolina that he had come "to kill every person who was not a Catholic"! Ribault suspected that the enemy would attack him from the sea side; he therefore armed his ships and sailed to meet Meléndez. Then a terrible storm struck him; his flotilla was scattered, and all the ships were wrecked on the coast. Meanwhile the Spaniards had penetrated through the woods and were attacking on land. Unprepared and surprised, the Huguenots who had remained behind had to surrender, and now a real Spanish slaughter began: all the Huguenots who were present in the fort, whether men or women, whether old or infants, were cut down! No sooner was this bloodbath completed than news arrived that the shipwrecked crew of Ribault's flotilla had been found tired and exhausted on the shore. Meléndez sent word to them to come "and trust to his mercy." The unfortunates believed him, came, and — were all slain!!! Nine hundred "heretics" were thus miserably murdered "for the greater glory of God and the Blessed Virgin." Melendez said, "This is not done to them as Frenchmen, but as Lutherans!" The blood of these Huguenots is, as far as our historical record goes, the first Protestant martyr's blood shed in America.

A cry of horror went through all Europe when the news of this atrocity reached the ocean; but the "most Christian king" of France did not lift a finger to avenge the blood of his subjects on the Spaniards, or even to confront the tiger Philip II. Anyone who knows that the same king arranged the "Bartholomew's Night" will not be surprised. Both rulers, though national enemies, were yet united in their hatred of the heretics, — were well mannered "sons" of the "Holy Father" in Rome. 

Three years after that terrible bloodbath, a band of Frenchmen, led by the Chevalier de Gourges, set out for Florida and punished the murderers. The latter had 200 Spaniards hanged on the trees, and placed over them a plank with the caption, "This happened to you not as Spaniards and sailors, but as traitors, robbers, and murderers!" —

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Concluded in Part 8  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I was glad to get the name of the Frenchman who avenged the massacre in Florida by the Spanish Catholics against the Protestants. Will there by more "Protestant martyr's blood shed in America" to follow the Florida martyrs in my lifetime? — In the concluding Part 8…