Accurate Inquisition Statistics?

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not a historian, and do not keep a reference file on the Inquisition. But I have read a lot about it over the years, from many sources; some Catholic, some not. Some things about it seem clear to the point of near undeniability:

1. It varied from place to place and from time to time. In some places and at some times it was extremely benign. Not so in others.
2. Its purposes varied in time and place. In Spain, it was mainly concerned with Moriscos and Moranos; “converted” Muslims and Jews. In more northerly parts of Europe, it mainly concerned itself with heretical sects, particularly those with political connotations.
3. The Inquisition itself killed no one. The purpose was to “inquire” into the reality and accuracy of state allegations against particular accused persons. To be sure, the INquisition, upon being persuaded that a person held views proscribed by the state, would turn him over to the state, which might well execute him. Participation in that whole process can certainly be criticized, but it also “cleared” many people who were wrongly accused.
4. The Inquisition very little concerned itself with issues of witchcraft; being very skeptical of such accusations. That was more a northern European protestant fixation.
5. Neither from the Inquisition’s perspective nor the states, was religious persecution per se really the objective. In Spain, for example, it was legal to be Muslim or Jew, and the Inquisition did not concern itself with either. What was not considered legal was to pretend conversion to Catholicism, as it made the state suspicious of subversive motivations. Catholic political leaders might well have been wrong and immoral in supposing that, e.g., the Albigenses were politically subversive to the state. (As Elizabeth I obviously thought Catholicism subversive to the political situation in England she wanted to create. Some argue that she, herself, believed in no religion at all.) But they do seem to have thought it. At the time, religion was very much politicized by the various states; Catholic and Protestant alike.
6. For the most part, a modern analogue might be if, having captured a suspected Al Quaeda suspect, the U.S. government turned the suspect over to an arm of the Church to determine whether or not the person really was Al Quaeda. A strange thing to do, but in the context of the times perhaps it was not so strange. At that time, the most educated people in the law were churchmen.
7. The Inquisition did sanction, though it limited, torture. Suspects had legal representation, though certainly that representation was by churchmen who had a definite conflict of interest. Still, it was unbelievably enlightened for its time to provide representation at all. In the U.S. that requirement did not happen until the 1970s.
8. At times, and in places, particular inquisitors ran amok; the Abu Ghraib of its time. Some were disciplined for it. Some were not.

It is hard to argue that the Church or its clergy should have had anything whatever to do with torture, even though it was stringently limited (15 minutes in a given day, from one historical source; though it probably varied from time to time and place to place) The fact that the states of the time would have been much more lavish with it still does not excuse it.

It is hard to argue that the Church or its clergy should have had anything to do with “turning” the person over to “the secular arm”, as that would have been tantamount to a sentence of death. Had the state done the whole thing, far more would have died. From the perspective of our own time, it seems a better moral stance would have been to oppose all religion-based persecution. But then, the Church could have perhaps rightly then been accused of not doing enough to ameliorate the results.

 

[mozart-250]

BTW: the name “Baptist” is a shortened version of the scornful name “anabaptist”. We call ourselves Baptists today only because that is what we have been known as. We would rather call ourselves “baptized believers”.

I’m not a church history expert by means, but a while back I did some reading on reformation times and started looking into the anabaptists because the name “anabaptist” kept on popping up and I was totally unfamiliar with who they were.

I came away very impressed with the anabaptists, their faith and their testimony, much more so than either the Catholic or Reformed who were their persecutors, torturers, and killers. If I were looking for “one true church” of that time period, and used the metric of conduct and Christlikeness to determine it, the anabaptists of that day would be it.

Now maybe I am wrong, but from my reading I concluded that the Mennonites of today are the one group that can trace their lineage to the anabaptists. As a result, I came away with much respect and love for the Mennonites.

I did not catch an anabaptist/current Baptist lineage. And I have never thought that present day Baptists are that much like present day Mennonites anyway.

(I also read of wonderful reconciliation services between both the Reformed/Mennonites and Catholic/Mennonites. If I were of a mindset to hold a grudge against either of the persecutors, I could not since the persecuted have obviously forgiven)

 

[bibleapologist]

So when they deny the Trinity do you agree with them?

Of course I don’t deny the trinity… Niether can I verify that the Paulicians did… Nor does it matter, they were an independent church of baptized believers by immersion, who were saved by grace through faith, and respected the individual’s God given soul-liberty.

I would never deny the trinity, or condone anyone attending a church that teaches “oneness theology”, but I also would never deny the authenticity of their conversions, or the legitimacy of their existence as a Church, or Christ as the veritable Head of that Church.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[VociMike]

…With all that said though… The Catholic Church still endorses the Inquisition and the persecution of heretics.

This assertion causes me to ask, what figures do you accept for deaths resulting from the Inquisition? The 3000-5000 figure or something close to that? The 60-100 million figure? Or another number?

 

[bibleapologist]

Mozart-250

The Mennonite Church sprang from Menno Simons (Dutch), who was saved and baptized under the influence of the Anabaptist group “The Obbenites” in Leeuwarden, Holland led by Obbe Phillips, in 1536.

Menno Simons did alot of writing, much of which exists today. And by his own writing we can glean that held to Baptist distinctives. By the early 1600’s we know that the Mennonite congregations had leaned toward a Catholic / Protestant worldview, by their influence in Amsterdam on the “Gainsborough Congregation”. The Gainsborough Congregation split because of the doctrinal influence of the Mennonites there.

This same doctrinal divergence from truth that was evident in Amsterdam, is what has allowed for those “reconciliation” services for Reformed and Catholic Mennonites. The early Mennonites were “Baptist” in their distinctives.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

This assertion causes me to ask, what figures do you accept for deaths resulting from the Inquisition? The 3000-5000 figure or something close to that? The 60-100 million figure? Or another number?

As far as the inquisition goes, the Catholic Church would have a better record than anyone on the numbers of those who were brought in for questioning. The inquisition was a by-product of the canon law.

As far as the murders of others who were killed as a result of the Catholic imposition of their beliefs… nobody knows for sure. We only have scattered accounts of deaths beginning with the Donatists in the Macarian War ordered by Augustine in 314 to the Vaudois in the “Valley of Piedmont” in 1566 where such horrible atrocities were committed by the Catholic Church, that Muston (their Pastor) as he wrote about the details of that day in his book *“Israel of the Alps”, *his tears stained the pages and his hand shook.

Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

It was said that the day the Vaudois were killed in the Valley of Piedmont that the Army gathered by the Catholic Church seemed to be “drunken” with rage against them… You can read about some of the atrocities that Muston wrote about here…

The Waldenses 1566

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[VociMike]

As far as the inquisition goes, the Catholic Church would have a better record than anyone on the numbers of those who were brought in for questioning. The inquisition was a by-product of the canon law.

So I take your reply to mean that you reject the figures of tens of millions killed in the Inquisition as anti-Catholic lies (or at a minimum, grotesque and malicious exaggerations without any basis in fact)

If you want to expand the discussion to talk about all Christian-era religious conflicts in Europe, that would be a subject for another thread.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Historical accounts differ concerning the Vaudois, or Waldenses, as you know. Initially, notwithstanding that their movement had elements of political and economic belief inconsistent with those of the contemorary states, they were initially just considered eccentric and were protected in France, both by Church and state. Later, it appeared some portion of the group entered into correspondence, seemingly believed by some to be conspiracy, with protestant groups in Germany and Switzerland. The king of France issued a decree setting up the Inquisition, seemingly but not certainly, at the instance of a French cardinal. The king had been previously faced with Protestant challenges to his authority, and decreed that all those of the Waldenses who were found guilty of heresy be put to death. Since they had been previously regarded as strange but not heretical, a real inquisition might not have amounted to much. However, a provincial army misinterpreted the king’s decree to authorize mass executions. That army definitely seems to have gone berserk. Initially, it was measured in its actions, but then exploded, and killed a great many; probably around 3,000.

No one knows why that army went on a killing spree. There had been spontaneous persecutions of heretics by the French populace prior to that. Some stories that may only be legendary, accused the Waldenses of atrocious practices. Poor discipline and looting might have played a part. The cardinal’s probable recommendation of Inquisition, and the French king’s decree of inquisition clearly seem to have been the wrong things to do in a time so explosive that almost anything seemed capable of setting off religious-based violence.

But it is also wrong to say that an army of the Church perpetrated the massacre. It was an army of the kingdom of France, under the authority of the king and his officers. The Church had no army there, or any army it could have put there. It is also wrong to suggest that the Inquisition ordered the massacre. The Inquisition had no army, and was a judicial, not a military institution. Most respectable historians now agree that no one ordered it other than perhaps provincial officers, if even they did.

 

[jimmy]

Of course I don’t deny the trinity… Niether can I verify that the Paulicians did… Nor does it matter, they were an independent church of baptized believers by immersion, who were saved by grace through faith, and respected the individual’s God given soul-liberty.

I would never deny the trinity, or condone anyone attending a church that teaches “oneness theology”, but I also would never deny the authenticity of their conversions, or the legitimacy of their existence as a Church, or Christ as the veritable Head of that Church.

John
www.gideonsword.net

The key of truth denies the Trinity and you are using that as your source. They were heretics, of course they were independant.

 

[bibleapologist]

But it is also wrong to say that an army of the Church perpetrated the massacre. It was an army of the kingdom of France, under the authority of the king and his officers. The Church had no army there, or any army it could have put there. It is also wrong to suggest that the Inquisition ordered the massacre. The Inquisition had no army, and was a judicial, not a military institution. Most respectable historians now agree that no one ordered it other than perhaps provincial officers, if even they did.

You are right, the Catholic Church did not have an army… but they did organize and give authority for the persecution, hence my statement

the Army gathered by the Catholic Church

I agree it sounds like I eluded to an army of the Catholic church, but that is not what I meant.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

The key of truth denies the Trinity and you are using that as your source. They were heretics, of course they were independant.

As I said in the post you replied to, I don’t know that it does for sure, and it really doesn’t matter anyway.

This is what the Catholics always attempt to do in this situation. Since baptists, to be in line with Biblical teaching, are independent churches, Catholics attempt to claim that there is no evidence of Baptists preceeding the 16th century, because there is no possible way to perfectly match doctrine of a modern Baptist church with an ancient one.

I tried to quell any arguments in this direction by laying out the “Baptist Distinctives” in my previous post. But some people don’t get it.

You can’t argue that point with me, I have proven it doesn’t matter.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Fidelis]

This is what the Catholics always attempt to do in this situation. Since baptists, to be in line with Biblical teaching, are independent churches, Catholics attempt to claim that there is no evidence of Baptists preceeding the 16th century, because there is no possible way to perfectly match doctrine of a modern Baptist church with an ancient one.

Sorry, but you are wrong about this. There is NO New Testament evidence of “independent” churches. All local churches that were founded as the apostles went from city to city, nation to nation, were clearly subject to the rule and decisions of the apostles and their successors – a situation that remains today in the Catholic Church to this day.

 

[bibleapologist]

Fidelis,

There is NO New Testament evidence of “independent” churches. All local churches that were founded as the apostles went from city to city, nation to nation, were clearly subject to the rule and decisions of the apostles and their successors

Revelation 2:1 says…

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;

If Jesus had given the Apostles complete authority over the churches, then why did Christ command John to write to each of these seven church what Christ had said?

And the first statement John was commanded to write from Jesus, was verification that the message was from Jesus and not John.

And it was this same Jesus that "holds the seven stars in His right hand (the pastors who were answerable only to Christ),

And it was this same Jesus that walked in the midst of the Churches (the seven golden candlesticks)

In 1 Corinthians, we find that the Apostle Paul had alreay heard that he was regarded as some kind of authority over that Church, and had this to say about it…

1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

I want to be careful to say what I am about to say because I do not believe God desires to rule by theonomy today, but…

It has always been God’s desire to be the “head” of his people, it was because of the hardness of men’s hearts that He allowed Saul to rule as king in God’s stead.

But, we have been given the Holy Spirit who seals us and bears witness that we are His children. With a helper, and comforter like the Holy Spirit we should need no-one to be in authority over us in God’s stead. In fact, to say that we are need of authority over us in spiritual matters is to say that the Gospel is incomplete, and Christ’s work on the cross was not sufficient to bring people back to God, in the type of relationship He desires to have with us.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are right, the Catholic Church did not have an army… but they did organize and give authority for the persecution, hence my statement

With all due respect, I think that’s still wide of the mark. The “Catholic Church”, the “they” I think you are talking about, did nothing of the sort, and didn’t have the power to do it. If any Catholic authority had anything to do with it, it was the cardinal of, I believe, Toulon. There is no evidence whatever that he had any authority from Rome, let alone that “The Church” directed it.

No churchman or the Church as a whole, had the ability to organize or “give authority” for a persecution. The Inquisition had no ability to persecute anyone, and no power to authorize a persecution. The Inquisition was a tribunal, not an executive entity. If, and only if, a secular leader authorized an inquisition, which was more like a court than anything else, then it might be approved by a religious authority. Then, if the state brought accused persons to the tribunal, the inquisition would investigate (thus the term “Inquisition”,) into the legitimacy of charges made against the person by the civil authority. There is no question that oftentimes churchmen encouraged inquisitions, since the usual alternative was state-sponsored slaughter of all suspects without distinction. There can be little doubt that inquisitions sometimes perpetrated injustice in individual cases, and its indulgence in torture, limited though it was, (15 minutes per day, maximum, I believe) is indefensible. But on the whole, it did not expand persecutions, but limited them. Had Elizabeth I had a protestant analogue to the Inquisition, there can be little doubt far fewer English Catholics would have died. But she didn’t authorize any kind of “vetting” by intermediaries. She just exercised the naked power of the state.

Now, it is widely believed by historians that the cardinal encouraged the king to begin an inquisition, so we must accept that as probable. No one knows whether the cardinal intended thereby to encourage some military action inconsistent with the usual purposes of the inquisition, or whether, knowing military action was probable or inevitable, intended to ameliorate its effects. It could be argued that he was a hateful person and knew it would get out of hand. It could also be argued that since the Waldenses had theretofore been considered eccentric (rather similar to Franciscans) but not harmful, he meant to limit any prosecution to any (if any) who really might have been in conspiracy with Zurich and the German Lutheran states, as was believed by the state. No one is ever going to know, this side of Jordan.

What we may reasonably believe is that neither the cardinal nor the king intended a mass slaughter, and that both greatly miscalculated the discipline and obedience of a provincial army; things the central authority could not be confident of at that very disordered time. But there is no question that the army far exceeded its orders. It was probably something like a My Lai Massacre, on a larger scale. It is reasonable to believe that both the cardinal and the king were negligent, perhaps reckless, in not perceiving that the situation could easily get out of hand, much as Luther most likely miscalculated the effect of some of his inflammatory remarks concerning the Peasants Revolt in Germany. In that latter case, the Lutheran princes most likely seized upon his words as an excuse to conduct massacres for their own purposes, went well beyond what Luther intended, and knew they were doing it when they did. That was a far worse slaughter than that of the Waldenses, but it is reasonable to believe Luther should not be blamed for it, other than, perhaps for negligence or even recklessness in misjudging the effect his words would have. Certainly, the “Lutheran Church” as a whole cannot be blamed.

 

[BigTurkey]

bibleapologist:

I think you are clearly wrong about the NT example is one of churches being independent. A few questions:

1. Why the council in Acts 15? Why not go to every church asking and pleading with them to adopt the teachings of the council? The language of the letter in Acts 15 is one of commandment, not one of suggestion. “You are to abstain…” “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements.” He says “requirements”, not “suggestions” as one would expect if the churches were autonomous.
2. Who appoints elders in your church? Who appointed them in the NT church? From what I read, Paul told Titus and Timothy to appoint the elders; these two were not apostles. He didn’t tell the congregation to appoint them.
3. Do you appoint elders in your church? If so, does this conflict with “God’s desire to be the “head” of his people” (quoted from your last post)? You act as if any authority over a Christian besides Christ prevents Christ from being in control. Do the fathers in your church have authority over their children? Does that keep Christ from being the head of the children? Do the husbands have authority over the wives? Does that keep God from being the head of the women?

Also,

If Jesus had given the Apostles complete authority over the churches, then why did Christ command John to write to each of these seven church what Christ had said?

Who was writing to the Churches? John? Was John an Apostle? Plus, is this not revelation from Jesus? Because the early Christians found a revelation from Jesus authoritative doesn’t provide any fodder with which to burn down the hierarchical structure of the early church. It doesn’t mean that the Apostles or their successors are not authoritative; it simply means that Jesus is authoritative. And, of course, he is authoritative over the apostles and bishops, whom derive their authority from Jesus. Once again, I don’t think this is evidence that the early Church was had an autonomous congregations. The fact that Jesus is authoritative to all Christians doesn’t mean that there aren’t other authorities (e.g. elders)! We can discuss this more, though, because there is more to be said about this argument from Revelations.

In 1 Corinthians, we find that the Apostle Paul had already heard that he was regarded as some kind of authority over that Church, and had this to say about it…

Are you saying that Paul wasn’t an authority? Philemon verse 8: “Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do…” Paul seems to be saying that, if he wanted to, he could order them to do something. There are other reasons to suggest that Paul had authority. For considerations of length, I’ll leave those for later.

Also, your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:11-13 is doubtful at best. He is not rebuking them for considering him an authority, but for being divided. (1 Cor. 1:10). The problem with them saying they followed Apollos, or Paul, or Cephas wasn’t that they were erroneously crediting authority to them, but that they were dividing over that. Imagine your church being split over which elders they would follow. Imagine someone else rebuking them for the division. Would you take that person (the one doing the rebuking) as claiming that they shouldn’t have elders? or claiming that they shouldn’t divide? You’ve thrust an interpretation upon 1 Cor. 1:11-13 which isn’t there.

With a helper, and comforter like the Holy Spirit we should need no-one to be in authority over us in God’s stead. In fact, to say that we are need of authority over us in spiritual matters is to say that the Gospel is incomplete, and Christ’s work on the cross was not sufficient to bring people back to God, in the type of relationship He desires to have with us.

Once again, what role do you see elders and fathers playing? Are they there to be suggestive about the correct path, or are they there to be spiritual authorities to those underneath them? In telling Titus and Timothy to appoint elders (oops…I’ve given away the answer to my first question), was Paul making the Gospel “incomplete”? Was he denying the Holy Spirit its role in guiding the Church at Crete?

-BT

 

[mozart-250]

Since baptists, to be in line with Biblical teaching, are independent churches…

Are Southern Baptists independent churches? I just read an article on the last election where the Southern Baptists elected their leader?

 

[bibleapologist]

Once again, what role do you see elders and fathers playing? Are they there to be suggestive about the correct path, or are they there to be spiritual authorities to those underneath them?

Spiritual authorities…no. Each individual believer, being indwelt with the Holy Spirit receives the same teaching concerning spiritual things as the pastors and other leaders. Therefore they are personally responsible for their own obedience and will be answerable to Christ at the “great white throne judgement”.

Like I said above, the leaders in the church are just that… leaders. They preach the word, they teach and they lead in righteousness, and care for the needs of the flock. But they do not dictate. If the were to dictate, what responsiblity would the lay believer have for their own doctrinal stance, actions, relationship with Christ?

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Notice in verse 5, Paul did not say that Timothy was to rule the Church… only that he should “take care of it”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Are Southern Baptists independent churches? I just read an article on the last election where the Southern Baptists elected their leader?

The Southern Baptist convention used to be an organization set up for the facilitation of missions funding, and association of believers. But in recent years they have leaned to the ecumenical side by attempting to dictate to the churches what to believe and operate… money seems to do that kind of thing.

I spoke with a SB pastor of a quite large church in my area about the SBC. He assured me that the churches still remain completely independent, but they are leaning more toward being “kingdom oriented”, as was he. I gave him a copy of my book, and he recently retired from the SBC (I don’t know if it was because of my book, but I hope so).

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[BigTurkey]

You say the elders are leaders. Does that mean that you deny God the right to lead? If not, they why is it that having bishops as authority means that Catholics deny God the right to have authority?

More to come tomorrow I have to rest; I’ve been sick. I also have a lot of work to finish in my classes (college student at Auburn University).

 

[bibleapologist]

You say the elders are leaders. Does that mean that you deny God the right to lead?

1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over [God’s] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

The elders of the Church are not to assume authority over the “parishoners”, but to lead by example. They are to oversee the flock… the word “oversight” here comes form the greek word “epeeskopeho” which means to: beware, or to look diligently. Oversight of the flock does not mean to “impose authority”, but to look to their needs, and their safety (in this case spiritually).

If not, they why is it that having bishops as authority means that Catholics deny God the right to have authority?

Jesus said…

Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Luk 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

To highly esteem a man as authortiy where God should be authority is to allow that man to be a lord over God’s heritage (1 Peter 5:3 above)

John
www.gideonsword.net