The best laid schemes of FROGS and men . . .

ILLUSTRATIONS

OF

PROPHECY:

IN THE COURSE OF WHICH

ARE ELUCIDATED MANY PREDICTIONS, WHICH OCCUR

IN ISAIAH, OR DANIEL,

IN THE WRITINGS OF THE EVANGELISTS,

OR THE BOOK OF REVELATION;

And which are thought to foretell, among other Great Events,

A Revolution in France, favourable to the Interests of Mankind,

The Overthrow of the Papal Power, and of Ecclesiastical Tyranny,

The Downfal of Civil Despotism,

And the subsequent Melioration of the State of the World:

TOGETHER

WITH A LARGE COLLECTION OF

EXTRACTS,

INTERSPERSED THROUGH THE WORK, AND TAKEN FROM

NUMEROUS COMMENTATORS;

AND PARTICULARLY FROM

Joseph Mede, Vitringa, Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Dr. Henry More, Dr. John Owen, Dr. Cressener, Peter Jurieu, Brenius, Bishop Chandler, Sir Isaac Newton, Mr. William Lowth, Fleming, Bengelius, Daubuz, Whitby, Lowman, Bishop Newton, and Bishop Hurd.

VOL. I

LONDON.— M,DCC,XCVI.

[1796]

CHAPTER XVI.

ON THE GENERAL COURSE OF FUTURE EVENTS,

AND PARTICULARLY ON THE PREDICTION OF

THE WAR OF ARMAGEDDON.

'“In the ordinary wars which nations have waged,” says a recent writer*, “they have, perhaps, lost one hundred thousand lives, and slaughtered as many of their enemies; countries have been laid waste, and taxes incurred to the oppression of the industrious; but in other respects they may have sat down much as they were [. . .]” [* Mr. Bicheno in, The Signs of the Times, p. 42.]

'I now pass to a very remarkable prediction, already alluded to, which distinctly announces a military combination of divers European kings against the happiness of mankind. As the exact time is not marked out, it remains to be illustrated by the Event. It is plain, however, from its situation in ch. xvi. that it is to be accomplished during the period of the seven vials: It is plain, that the confederacy is to be planned and completed, and that the war is to be commenced, prosecuted, and concluded, whilst they are pouring out.

'But, previously to citing it, I shall allege one or two preliminary observations. The first, which is from Daubuz, there has before been occasion to cite. “Wherever the Beast and False Prophet are named, by the Beast must be understood the former with seven heads and ten horns; and by the False Prophet, the Beast with two horns.” Now it has been already seen, that the former of these is the representative of the antichristian princes who inhabit the Western part of the Roman empire; and that the latter is emblematic of the members of the antichristian priesthood. And if the Dragon be mentioned as joined with them in a great confederacy, it must signify such antichristian potentates, as have entered into the confederacy, but do not constitute a part of the proper ten-horned Beast. Such for instance may be the empress of Russia, the king of Prussia, and some of the princes of Germany, who reign over territories that lie out of the bounds of the Western Roman empire.

'St. John commences the passage by alluding to those partisans of the princes, who provoke the war, and employ themselves with activity in concerting the general alliance. It is as follows: and I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the Dragon, and out of the mouth of the Beast, and out of the mouth the False Prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto, or, as I think it ought rather to be translated, among the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. — And he gathered them together into a place, called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

'In the first of these verses, St. John has wrapped up his meaning under the cover of prophetic emblems. In the next, he changes his style; and employing phraseology for the most part plain and unfigured, proceeds to explain the reason, why he had described the emissaries as coming out of the mouth of the Dragon and the Beast. For, says he, they go forth among the kings of the earth and of the whole world. To these two verses a remark of bp. [Bishop] Newton is applicable. “It is customary with the prophets, after they have described a thing in the most symbolical and figurative diction, to represent the same again in plainer language.” This episode is introduced between the sixth and the seventh vials. With a reference to the expression, and I saw, Daubuz says, “This is a fresh vision that is, the vision of a fresh matter different from the former, and therefore hath this fresh mark of attention. The Holy Ghost has here followed the method observed before in those parts of the vision, which are distinguished by seven epochas: namely, to have an episode or parenthesis discovering some collateral and remarkable accidents, which seem not to follow the same kind of matters, and could not be so well placed elsewhere; and this is done constantly after the sixth epocha.” But there is another reason, more weighty than mere precedent, to account why this episode is placed just before the description of the seventh vial. Though the confederacy of princes which it announces may be supposed to exist during the effusion of the most early of the vials, and the war conducted by them may continue to be carried on while the six first are pouring out; there nevertheless appears to be a manifest propriety, why it should be inserted immediately before the seventh [vial], because it is descriptive of those great events, which are the foundation, and indeed the immediate cause, of the mighty Revolution foretold in the last of the vials.

'The persons spoken of in this episode are represented as coming out of the mouth of the Dragon, &c; and this, says Daubuz, is a symbol of decorum, because they are said to be spirits. Of the passage that follows from this author a part has before been cited. “The mouth,” he says, “is the organ of speech, and words in the sacred style are the same as commands and actions, because they imply the effects of the thoughts, — To come out of the mouth therefore signifies to be constituted and commanded; to become an agent or minister, under a superior power.” Accordingly those mentioned in the verse under consideration are, he adds, such agents, as execute the commands of those, “out of whose mouth they are said to come” Though they are, says Vitringa, a numerous body of men, they are spoken of as if they were only three, because the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet, from whom they proceed, are three in number.

'Since the False Prophet is mentioned, it is plain, that the war of Armageddon shall be some war, which shall not only be distinguished by an extraordinary confederacy of princes, but which shall also meet with the marked approbation of the [Roman] ecclesiastical orders; a war, which the great body of priests, in the different hierarchies, shall be active to kindle, and zealous to promote. . . .' (pp. 289-293).

* * *

'The word Armageddon alludes, says Vitringa, to the Valley of Megiddo, which is mentioned in the book of Chronicles and in the prophecy of Zechariah. Indeed, says Lowman, Megiddo, being “famous in the history of God's people for several memorable slaughters, became a proverbial expression for a place of destruction and mourning.” The commentators accordingly observe, that it here signifies such a place; and Vitringa declares, that it without doubt points to some great plain situated in Europe, wherein the two parties are to be engaged together. The defeat at Armageddon, says this eminent commentator, will cause the mightiest changes, and draw after it the downfal of the antichristian empire, as is most clearly evident from the succeding prophecy. “The battle of Armageddon,” says Mede, “shall give an end to the antichristian sovereignty.” But it is not to a single engagement, but to a war, in which a succession of battles are to be fought, that the prediction of St. John probably refers; for the word translated battle signifies more properly a war, and it has been seen, that that other word, day, standing in connexion with it, is perfectly reconcileable with this notion. . . . Mr. Lowman [says] “Whoever the three unclean spirits are,— they seem plainly to intimate some powerful league or CONFEDERACY, by which the principal Popish Powers* [*from footnote: 'Who are the principal Popish Powers? Austria and Spain.'] shall be engaged with all their forces in some war, in which they shall be totally overthrown, and which shall end in their final destruction, as seems to be more fully expressed in the description of the seventh vial or last cup.” If Mr. Lowman apprehended, that these coalesced princes would be such only as profess popery, he would have found it a task of no small difficulty to have assigned any valid reason for drawing such a line of distinction. The expression, the kings of the earth, is general, and appears to be no farther restricted, than to the European quarter of the world. They go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, i.e. says Peganius, “of the whole Roman dominion, as we read of Augustus, that he taxed all the world, Luke 2. Among these are perhaps comprehended also those kings and princes, that heretofore were under the Roman jurisdiction, but have renounced the Romish religion: for certainly, amongst them also, all things are not so very well.”

'It is said in v. 16, and he gathered them, that is, says Mr. Cradock in his paraphrase, “God by his all wise providence permitted it so to be.” To the same purpose Mr. Brightman. “Whatsoever the kings of the earth aimed at, God's secret providence shall so guide and over-rule them, that whatsoever destruction they devise and intend to bring upon others, it should fall upon themselves.” It is worthy of remark, says Mr. Bicheno, “that these foul spirits are to go forth unto the kings of the earth, and not to the people,which seems to indicate that it, will be a war, in which kings will be more interested than mankind at large.” The prophet says of them, that “they are the spirits of devils working miracles. No one supposes these to be real miracles. This figurative language is used to set forth the impostures, lies, and frauds, with which they deceive men, and draw them into their destructive measures.”' (pp. 294-296).

* * *

'As the Psalmist says [Ps. cv. 30.], describing the plagues of Egypt, the land brought forth Frogs, even in their Kings' chambers. . . . Such is the Plague which St. John announces to the World in the Sixth Vial. He represents it as issuing from the mouth of the Dragon, – the Devil – and of the Beast, and of the False Prophet.'

(Canon Wordsworth, Lectures on the Apocalypse, Third Edition, 1852. p. 387).

* * *

'When we read in Revelation xvi. 13, 14, of the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet, as the prime agents in bringing about the final war of Armageddon, we cannot imagine three visible corporeal beings on earth, working to stir up the war by breathing frog-like spirits out of their mouths; but, consistently with the Historical method which we have followed, assigning a symbolical meaning to these strange symbolic figures which St. John saw again and again in his visions, we must understand that Satan, together with the Papal Power, and the body of the Romish Priesthood, the most complete organization in the world, will work by all the dark means which may then be at their disposal, in order to embroil the nations, as they have often done before . . .

'Some interesting information concerning the scheming ambition of the Papacy in the present [1898], and its power to embroil the nations in the future, is given in a remarkable article contributed to McClure's Magazine by M. de Blowitz, who from his experience and political insight is admitted to be an authority on such a matter. He Says : “To the Vatican flow innumerable missives from every corner of the world, and could I only tell some of them, it would seem how long still is the arm extending from the shadow of St. Peter's: how dreadful still are the lips that speak in the shade of the Vatican. I should show the Holy Father and his cardinals writing to the Emperor of Austria, directing him by counsel and advice, and sometimes almost by orders.”'

(From: Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy, and our place in it; A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation, by Rev. Joseph Tanner, B.A.; Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1898. pp. 206-207, 215).

* * *

'“The day before, on 26 July [1914], Baron Ritter, Chargé d' Affaires of Bavaria at the Holy See, had written to his Government: “The Pope approves of Austria's harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of a war against Germany. The Cardinal Secretary of State does not see when Austria could make war if she does not decide to do so now.” [Author's Note: This despatch from Baron Ritter appears in, Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch, III (Bavarian Documents on the Outbreak of War), p. 206.]

'“The authenticity of [this text] . . . has been acknowledged after many debates in the Catholic press . . .” notes Pierre Dominique [La politique des Jésuites, pp. 248 and 250]. “The key to the question maintains Count Sforza, along with a few others, was the necessity of converting Francis Joseph to the idea of war. The opinions of the Pope and his minister were certainly the most likely to influence him. Hence the [latter] despatch of [July 29, from] Count Palffy. . . .”'

(Edmond Paris, The Vatican Against Europe. First Published France 1959; First English Edition 1961; Reprinted 1993 by The Wickliffe Press, p. 47).

* * *

Envoi

'Lateran Treaty. A treaty concluded between the Holy See and the kingdom of Italy in 1929, establishing as sovereign the Vatican City State, thus ending the “Roman Question” began in 1870 when the temporal power of the papacy was finally abrogated and Rome became the capital of the Italian kingdom.'

'Lateran. The ancient palace of the Laterani family, which was appropriated by Nero (AD 66) and later given to Pope Sylvester I (reigned 314-335) by the Emperor Constantine. It remained the official residence of the popes until the departure to Avignon in 1309. The present palace is now a museum. Legend derives the name from Latin latere, “to hide”, and rana, “frog”, and accounts for it by saying that Nero once vomited a frog covered with blood, which he believed to be his own progeny and so hid in a vault. The palace built on its site was called the “Lateran”, or palace of the hidden frog.'

(From: Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable; Fifteenth Edition (paperback), 1997; pp. 615-616).

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs . . .

(Rev 16:13)

ARMAGEDDON: The Vatican Against Europe

(A cartoon of Pope Pius X, and Cardinal Merry del Val, From L'ASINO, 6 June 1909, As reproduced in The Papal Conquest)

In his work Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, John Cornwell writes:

'When Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were gunned down by a pan-Serbian agitator in Sarajevo on June 28, [1914] the emotions prompted by the Serbian Concordat [signed between the Vatican and Serbia a few days earlier on June 24, 1914] became part of the general groundswell of anti-Serbian anger. The concordant nevertheless represented a contribution to the tensions that led the Austrian government to overplay its hand by delivering a humiliating ultimatum to Serbia. There is no indication that Pope Pius X grasped the role of the Holy See in adding to the pressures that brought the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia to the brink. The declaration of war, it is said, threw him into a profound depression from which he never recovered. He died on August 20, 1914 – of a broken heart, it was said.'

(Hitler's Pope; American paperback edition – Penguin Books, 1999, 2000; pp. 57-58).

In a later post I'd like to give some details of the Vatican-Serbian Concordant of June 1914 – but firstly, concerning the claim that Pius X died of 'a broken heart' soon after the outbreak of war:

That this is the official 'version' can be adduced from the following, which is written in the Concise Holy History used in parochial catechisms:

'Pius X did all he could to prevent the war of 1914 and died of grief when he foresaw the evils it was about to unleash.'

Count Carlo Sforza, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Italy, in a chapter on 'The Origins of the [First World] War', in his Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins (1944/6) calls the rumour of Pius X succumbing to grief at his 'impotence to advert the disaster' of the war, as: 'A legend more tenacious than history'. And then to, 'establish the truth as to that legend', he quotes extensively from official letters deposited in the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that he himself had seen.

In a double posting for the start of this month, I include excerpts from the relevant chapter of Count Sforza's work in a seperate post below this one. The majority of the post appearing here, under the subheading, The Vatican Against Europe, is culled from a book of the same name by Edmund Paris, which was originally published in France in 1959, under the title, Le Vatican contre l'Europe; and was later translated into English by A. Robson and published as, The Vatican Against Europe; reprinted, 1988, 1993, by The Wickliffe Press (Protestant Truth Society) with a Preface by the Rev. Dr. Alan C. Clifford, B.A., M.Litt., Ph.D.

Concerning Pius X and the outbreak of war, Edmund Paris writes:

'Pierre Dominique, [in La politique des Jésuites (Grasset, Paris 1955, pp. 245-246)] on the authority of Count Sforza's Memoirs and of diplomatic documents, shows how far the Vatican was from considering conciliation [during the events that would initiate the First World War]:

'“. . . We have access to a certain number of documents”, continues Pierre Dominique, “whose analysis shows beyond doubt that, at least in the beginning, the Vatican looked with satisfaction upon a venture in which the crushing of Serbia would have entailed a decrease in the influence of Russia, whose prestige the Roman Church detested. . . . In these conversations the Secretary of State [Cardinal Merry del Val] spoke explicitly in the name of the Pope, who, he informed the Austrian representative, deplored the fact that Austria had not before this inflicted upon the Serbs the punishment they deserved.”

'Indeed the despatch of 29 July 1914 from Count Palffy, Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican, to Count Berchtold, Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, leaves no doubt that Pope Pius X and the Curia wanted war. Here is the Document [Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für neuere Geschichte Österreichs, 26 Wien–Leipzig 1930, pp. 893 and 894]:

'“In times of extreme political tension such as those we are now going through, human fantasy runs away with itself, redoubles its intensity and soon goes beyond the limits of common sense. Thus the last few days there has again been a rumour that Pope Pius X has intervened in the Serbian conflict and had been in touch with His Apostolic Imperial Majesty, entreating him to spare the Christian nations the horrors of war. An argument based on such absurd premises is of course bound to lead to the conclusion, as logical as it is erroneous, that there was in fact intervention by the Pope. The real opinion of the Curia is not without interest. When, two days ago, I went to the Cardinal Secretary of State, he did, of course, speak about the serious questions and problems that at present preoccupy the whole of Europe. His Eminence's conversation bore no sign of any particular goodwill or moderation. He unreservedly approved the note addressed to Serbia, and he indirectly expressed the hope the Monarchy would hold out to the end. 'It goes without saying', remarked the Cardinal, 'that it is regrettable that Serbia should not have been brought low a long time ago.' This declaration is equally consonant with the Pope's opinion: many a time during the past year His Holiness has expressed his regret that Austria-Hungary should have missed the opportunity to subdue its Danubian neighbour”.

'Austria's representative at the Vatican then endeavours to justify the attitude of Pope Pius X with arguments which, according to Pierre Dominique, [op. cit., pp. 247 and 248] Count Sforza reports in these terms:

'“One might well ask oneself why the Catholic Church adopts such a bellicose attitude. The answer is very simple. The Pope and the Curia see in Serbia a consuming disease which, little by little, has penetrated to the very marrow of the Monarchy and which, in time, would end by disintegrating it . . . Austria-Hungary is and remains the Catholic state par excellence, the strongest buttress of religion that is now left to the Church. For the Church the fall of this buttress would mean the loss of her strongest support; she would see the fall of her most devoted champion in the battle against Orthodoxy . . . In the light of this fact, it is not difficult to forge a link between the apostolic feelings and the spirit of war.”' (ibid. pp.43-45).

At this point, it seems appropriate, for a moment, to break away from Edmund Paris' work and to reflect on the words of Christopher Wordsworth, D.D. (The nephew of the poet 'Wordsworth'; and at the time of the work to be cited below's writing, Canon of Westminster – and later, Anglican Bishop of Lincoln). Though the 'Orthodoxy' that he writes about below, should not be assumed to be that of the 'Eastern' variety, he writes thus – concerning the 'three unclean spirits like frogs', that in Revelation ch. 16; v. 13-16 gather 'the kings of the earth' to the great 'battle' (more properly, 'war') which is styled in the Apocalypse, 'Armageddon' :

'As the Psalmist says, describing the plagues of Egypt, the land brought forth Frogs, even in their Kings' chambers [Ps. cv. 30.]. . . . Such is the Plague which St. John announces to the World in the Sixth Vial. He represents it as issuing from the mouth of the Dragon, – the Devil – and of the Beast, and of the False Prophet.

'Thus he foretels that the Papacy, distressed by the ebbing of its strength . . . will hate Orthodoxy worse than Scepticism, and will endeavour to persuade mankind that they cannot be Christians unless they are Papists, and thus will do the Dragon's work, and promote Infidelity. He portends that Roman Preachers, Ministers of the False Prophet, will advocate doctrines of political licentiousness, and flatter Rulers and Nations with seducing words . . .'

(From: Lectures on the Apocalypse; Critical, Expository, and Practical; Delivered Before the University of Cambridge; Third Edition, 1852; pp. 387-388).

Returning back to Edmund Paris' work he continues:

'To [the] overwhelming document [already cited above] may be added another, no less official . . . In July 1913, after the signature of the Peace of Bucarest, Austria-Hungary was already threatening to attack Serbia, and it was the turn of the Austrian prince Schönburg to go and acquaint himself with the feeling of the Vatican on the subject. This is how he reports [Document P.A. XI/291] to Count Berchtold the conversations that he had there at the end of October and on 3 November 1913:

'“Among the first subjects tackled by the Cardinal Secretary of State during our interview last week, as was to be expected, was the question of Serbia. The Cardinal began by expressing his joy at the energetic and commendable attitude which we have recently adopted. During today's audience (upon which I have made a separate report, see document A), His Holiness, who began the interview by mentioning the energetic step we have taken at Belgrade, made several very characteristic remarks. 'Certainly,' then said His Holiness, 'Austria-Hungary would have done better to punish the Serbs for all the mistakes that have been made.'” (pp. 45-46).

To set the above dispatch within its historical context, I quote now from J'Accuse! 'By A German' (Richard Grelling); and translated by Alexander Gray, and published by Hodder and Stoughton, 1915 :

GIOLITTI'S REVELATIONS.

'It is known that, soon after the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Austrian Government proposed to take military measures against the growing Great-Serbian movement, which had been produced as a result of the annexation. This was an act of criminal insanity on the part of Austria; it was a crime, because here the violator intended to punish the violated because he resisted violation; it was insane, because national tendencies cannot be suppressed by force of arms. But the wise men of Austria thought otherwise. Serbia was threatened with war, and only through the submission of Russia and the mediation of England and Germany was it possible to prevent, by means of a propitiatory declaration on the part of Serbia, the European war which even then threatened to break out. That was in March, 1909, and is known to everyone. What, however, was not known, and has only become known by the revelations of Giolitti [the Italian Prime Minister] on December 5th, 1914, in the Italian Chamber, is the fact that Austria entertained in August, 1913, the same intentions as in 1909, and was prevented from giving effect to these intentions only by the opposition of Italy.

'These revelations of Giolitti have rightly been regarded in the whole of the foreign Press as epoch-making, because they revealed in an incontestable manner the aggressive intentions of Austria. But precisely for these reasons the German and Austrian Governments have preserved, with regard to these revelations, a silence as of death. There is therefore all the more reason why I should in this place once more awaken the dead to life.

'In midsummer, 1913, after the second Balkan War, the relations in the Balkans between those States immediately concerned were regulated by the Treaty of Bucharest. Austria-Hungary was not satisfied with the arrangement to which effect was given, since in her view Serbia had got too much and Bulgaria too little. She aimed at accomplishing a revision of the Treaty and in view of Serbia's opposition resolved to give effect to her desires by arms. For this purpose she naturally required the support of the Powers of the Triple Alliance and above all of Italy, who had always claimed the right to make her influence felt in the settlement of the Balkan question. The concurrence of the allied Powers in military action against Serbia was, however, regarded as necessary by Austria chiefly, because the Austrian Government was even then fully aware of the fact that a war with Serbia must lead to a European struggle. Austria consequently addressed inquiries to Italy with a view to ascertaining what her attitude would be in view of her duties under the Triple Alliance in the event of a Serbian, and, should it arise, a European war. As a result of the Austrian inquiry the following exchange of telegrams took place between the Foreign Minister, Di San Giuliano, and the Prime Minister, Giolitti, who was then absent: “Austria has communicated to us and to Germany her intention of taking action against Serbia, and defines such action as defensive, hoping to bring into operation the casus fœderis of the Triple Alliance, which, on the contrary, I believe to be inapplicable. I am endeavouring to arrange for a combined effort with Germany to prevent such action on the part of Austria, but it may become necessary to state clearly that we do not consider such action, if it should be taken, as defensive, and that, therefore, we do not consider that the casus fœderis arises. Please telegraph to me at Rome if you approve.”

'Giolitti replied to this: “If Austria intervenes against Serbia it is clear that a casus fœderis cannot be established. It is a step which she is taking on her own account since there is no question of defence inasmuch as no one is thinking of attacking her. It is necessary that a declaration to this effect should be made to Austria in the most formal manner, and we must hope for action on the part of Germany to dissuade Austria from this most perilous adventure (pericolosissima avventura).”

'On this occasion success, in fact, attended the task of restraining Austria from a war against Serbia, but whether this was due to Germany's efforts or to Italy's opposition is not known. What, however, is to-day of the highest interest is the fact that, even a year before the outbreak of the present war, Austria was firmly resolved to initiate, without any urgent reason, a military conflict with Serbia, for there was then no question of the death of an Archduke . . .' (J'Accuse!; pp. 121-124).

Concerning these tumultuous times, and the first Balkan War, Joseph Goricar, formerly of the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Service, recounts:

'[L]eaflets were circulated, through the agency of our Socialists, among the Polish workmen throughout Russian Poland urging them, when called to the colours on the outbreak of hostilities, to destroy as far as possible all military materials, to “spoil everything that could aid the Russian armies in their advance,” and above all, “to let themselves be taken prisoners.” The all-Polish organ, Slowo Polskie of Lwow, capital of Galicia, published an article which concluded with these words: “In holding before its eyes the reconstruction of the Kingdom of Poland, the Polish nation must hold itself in readiness for war at any moment.” These anti-Russian and pro-German protestations occurred at the very time when the forcible expropriation of Polish estates in the German Ostmark was at its height. In this campaign the Socialist, Polish, Jewish, and Pan-German press was ably supported by organs controlled by the Vatican. Among these the Oesterreichs Katholische Sonntags Blatt came out at the beginning of the first Balkan war with this declaration:

'“Our ideal is not to perpetuate European Turkey, but to bring the Balkan Peninsula into the possession of Catholic Austria and the Catholic Church.” This ideal was thus defended in their issue of October 27th :

“Just as a violent storm refreshes and cleanses the oppressive atmosphere, so we hold when it once comes to real war the moral and economic gain to Europe will in the end be very great. The social democracy is not yet strong enough to prevent a war. As a result of the emotional pressure of a European war it will break to pieces with its millions of casual followers, and under the same pressure modern liberalism will also break down. It will not hurt Europe if its conditions are for once well shaken up.”'

(From: The Inside Story of Austro-German Intrigue, or, How the World War Was Brought About, by Joseph Goricar, Formerly of the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Service, and Lyman Beecher Stowe; published Garden City New York, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1920; pp. 94-95).

After which, it seems fitting to reappraise the following words that appear in Dr. Andrew D. White's Autobiography (vol. ii. pp. 349-351); as quoted in the Rev. Alexander Robinson's, The Papal Conquest; words that issued forth from the mouth of a man, whom Dr. White (of Cornell University, and late Ambassador at Berlin of the United States of America; and President of the American Delegation at the Hague Conference, 1899) described as being, 'a leading Roman Catholic diplomat who represented one of the great Catholic Powers'; here again are some of that statesman's incriminating sentiments as expressed to Dr. White after the Hague Conference:

'The Vatican has always been, and is to-day, a storm-centre. The Pope and his advisers have never hesitated to urge on war, no matter how bloody, when the slightest of their ordinary worldly purposes could be served by it. . . . Their whole policy is based on stirring up hatred and promoting conflicts from which they hope to draw worldly advantage.' (p. 315).

Before returning back to Edmund Paris' work – so as to give, again, some of the historical background to the final official document he quotes from – a quick return back to Richard Grelling's J'Accuse! supplies us with the following information:

'The indictment to be brought against the Empires of Germany and Austria is that in the summer of 1914 they intentionally brought about the war which they had long prepared and desired, because they thought that the moment was specially favourable for striking the blow. This time the occasion of the dispute was not, as in previous years, a paltry territorial question in the Balkans, a squabble about a harbour or a stretch of sea-shore, questions which could neither arouse public interest nor kindle the enthusiasm of nations. The issue raised on this occasion related to the murder of an Arch-Duke and his Consort, a tragic event which was bound to awaken the indignation of the whole world, and, so they calculated, could not fail to enlist universal sympathy on behalf of the Powers who appeared as the avengers of such a crime.

'Thus, in the first place, the moral advantage was on their side. But they believed that they could also rely on a similar military advantage. Certain matters just about this time had come to light which were regarded as proving the disorganisation of the French and the defective preparation of the Russian army. The revelations of Senator Humbert had just made public the existence of serious defects in the French Army, and it was believed that the Russian Army, quite apart from its defective equipment, was still required to cope with internal unrest and weakened by civil dissensions. England's neutrality was still hoped for, in spite of previous failures in this direction, and the Italians were thought to be foolish enough to draw the chestnuts out of the fire in the Balkans for the hated Austrian, and to risk their whole national existence “pour le roi de Prusse.”

'All this was a complete miscalculation. But as the art of calculation was not understood in Berlin and Vienna, it was thought that the moment was favourable for striking – and they struck.' (pp. 136-137).

Returning, finally, back to The Vatican Against Europe – and in the light of the official documents thus far perused in his work – Edmund Paris continues:

'Far be it from us to question the good faith of the Holy Father's apologists. At the same time, we cannot help asking by what miracle are his unequivocal appeals for war transformed, in their eyes, into appeals for peace? Let us confess in all humility that we are unable to explain this fantastic state of affairs. But no matter: we have now established, beyond all possible question, with official records, the way in which Pius X “did all he could to prevent the war of 1914”.

'Might it be said, nevertheless, in an attempt to excuse him, that he was hoping to see the conflict limited to Austria-Hungary and Serbia? Let us hear the pious René Bazin, of the Académie française, another author who cannot be suspected of bias against the Vatican [who wrote in Pie X (Flammarion, Paris 1928, pp. 88 and 89)]:

'“Pius X ruled the Church from 4 August 1903 to 20 August 1914. On 2 June of that year, he entered his eightieth year. The war was approaching. He had foreseen this upheaval of the world; he had more than once said to Cardinal Merry del Val, who used to bring him diplomatic despatches and other papers of the previous day, whenever he was explaining some serious question:

'“What is that, compared with what is to come? The Great War is coming: 1914 will not be over before it breaks out.

'“To the Minister of Brazil, who was taking leave of him, Pius X said: 'You are fortunate', the Pope told him, 'you will not see the Great War at close quarters.'

'“The diplomat, struck by this remark, wrote to several of his friends about it. Less than three months later, five nations were mobilising their armies, and Germany was invading Belgium.”

'Can it be maintained, after this, that the Holy Father did not foresee the extension of the conflict? On the contrary, he foresaw it so well, that he expressly mentioned it before a diplomat, during an interview recorded in another official document which is quoted by Count Sforza and Pierre Dominique:

“The day before, on 26 July [1914], Baron Ritter, Chargé d' Affaires of Bavaria at the Holy See, had written to his Government:

“The Pope approves of Austria's harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of a war against Germany. The Cardinal Secretary of State does not see when Austria could make war if she does not decide to do so now.”

[Author's Note: This despatch from Baron Ritter appears in, Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch, III (Bavarian Documents on the Outbreak of War), p. 206.]

'“The authenticity of these two texts has been acknowledged after many debates in the Catholic press . . .” notes Pierre Dominique [La politique des Jésuites, pp. 248 and 250]. “The key to the question maintains Count Sforza, along with a few others, was the necessity of converting Francis Joseph to the idea of war. The opinions of the Pope and his minister were certainly the most likely to influence him. Hence the despatch of Count Palffy. . . .” (pp. 46-47).

' . . . Thus, it is proved that Pius X and his Secretary of State, when they encouraged the most Catholic Emperor to make war, were coldly contemplating the consequences of their act: a general conflict which would set the Central European Empires against France and Russia. They believed they had accurately estimated the strength of the different forces involved.

'But, what His Holiness and his accomplice had not foreseen was the participation in the war of England and finally of the entire Anglo-Saxon world, a participation which was to thwart their plans, tip the scales in favour of France and liberate the Orthodox populations from the Viennese yoke.

* * *

'Hence the responsibility for the crime is beyond doubt – an enormous crime which, over a period of four years, was to throw into the charnel-house millions of “Christian” corpses, all the flower of European youth, and a crime all the more odious for being completely premeditated.

'One may say quite specifically that in 1914, the Roman Church started the series of hellish wars. It was then that the tribute of blood which she has always taken from the people began to swell into a veritable torrent.' (pp. 47-48).

Envoi

'[O]ne feels that it is impiety or culpable ignorance to talk, as so many do, of the Pope being the Vicar of the Prince of Peace, and of the Roman Catholic Church as having a mission of peace and of goodwill to mankind. He [the Pope] is, on the contrary, the Vicar of Christ's Adversary [Satan], [who is] “The Prince of this World”; [John xii. 31, xiv. 30.] he [the Pope] is the “Beast” of the Revelation, to whom the “Dragon” [Satan] gave “his power, and his seat, and great authority . . . to make war with the saints.” [Rev. xiii. 2, 7.]'

Rev. Alexander Robertson, D.D., The Papal Conquest (1909), p. 316.

Count Sforza on “The Origins of the War”

THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR

'In 1914 the Germany of William II and the Austria-Hungary of the Hapsburgs were guilty of the same error as Hitler in 1939 and Mussolini in 1940: they despised their eventual adversaries too much. In 1939 Hitler believed, since they had allowed him to assassinate Czechoslovakia, that he could do the same to Poland; in 1940 Mussolini believed, like Petain and Weygand, that Great Britain would be incapable of resisting after France's fall.

'The former Ambassador of Austria-Hungary at London, Count Mensdorf, said to me one day after the monarchy he had loyally and skilfully served had come to its end: “Yes, you are right; they were mad, at Vienna and Budapest – Berchtold as mad as Tisza to have unleashed the great war after Serajevo. But Berchtold, at least, and all the Austrians with him, always believed from the bottom of their hearts that they would end by letting Austria have her little war with Serbia ; hadn't Europe swallowed without wincing all the acts of violence of the Central Empires? Fundamentally, we were tricked by the Entente; we were sure they had decided never to make war against us. . . .”'

(Contemporary Italy Its Intellectual and Moral Origins, by Count Carlo Sforza; Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946; p. 145)

'The assassination of Francis Ferdinand of Hapsburg and his wife at Serajevo on June 24, 1914, seemed to the camarilla of the Court of Vienna and to the feudal Hungarians a fortunate pretext sent by the gods.

'That Serajevo was only a pretext is proved by the compilation of the memorial written in Vienna, actually several days before June 28, formally to request German assistance for an attack on Serbia. . . . The famous memorial presented to the Emperor William after the death of Francis Joseph's heir, to assure Austria the support of her German ally, had been prepared and completely drafted previously, on the morrow of the German Kaiser's visit to Francis Ferdinand at the castle of Konopisht in mid-May, 1914. The assassination of Serajevo had no other result than to add to the already prepared document the following postscript:

'“This memorial had already been completed when the terrible events of Serajevo supervened. One can scarcely realize the full import of this abominable assassination which has, nevertheless, if indeed that were still necessary, produced the irrefutable proof of the impossibility of putting an end to the antagonism between the Monarchy and Serbia, as well as the danger and intensity of the Pan-Serbian propaganda that recoils at nothing. . . . Under these conditions the necessity of breaking with an energetic hand the net in which her adversary wishes to suffocate her is imposed on the Monarchy.”

'The Bosnian crisis had been, as I have said, the dress rehearsal for that of 1914, with this difference, however, that in 1909 the Austrian statesmen dominated the events, whereas in 1914 Aerenthal's successors were but the victims of their passions and puppets of the events.

'Aerenthal had had a view of the future, limited but clear; moreover, he was a man and in a certain sense a new man. Berchtold, his successor, was only the symbol of the old Austria whose real masters were the old narrow-minded bureaucrats, like Count Forgach, who one day said to one of his subordinates at the Ballplatz, Baron Szilassy, a Hungarian like himself: “I wish that in all the offices of the Ministry they would inscribe this maxim: Serbia delenda est” (Serbia must be destroyed.)

'I knew Forgach as a young diplomat at Constantinople and was aware of the hate he already had for anything Slavic, even before the ridiculous part he played before all Europe in the affair of the forgery of the Friedjung case. Minister in China from 1911, I never again saw Forgach, who became all-powerful at the Ballplatz. But from Peking I returned and spent several weeks in Austria in 1912 and 1913. Duke Avarna, then Ambassador of Italy, Dumaine, Ambassador of France, Count Dudzeele, my wife's father and Minister of Belgium who, like myself, had known Forgach intimately at Constantinople, all insisted that the danger in Vienna was that, thanks to Forgach, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, instead of acting as a counterweight to the preference of the military circles for war, excited them still more.

'The memorandum which was to decide the European war could have issued only from a Ministry of Foreign Affairs directed by men of Forgach's stripe.

'The fatal document started for Berlin on the evening of July 4. Count Hoyos, Berchtold's Chief of Cabinet, carried it. The next day, July 5, Emperor Francis Joseph gave a long audience to the Chief of Staff, Conrad, who left an exact report of the conversation:

'“I expressed”, wrote Conrad, “my opinion of the inevitability of war with Serbia.”

“The Emperor: Yes, that's perfectly true, but how do you expect to make war if everyone attacks us, especially Russia?

“Conrad: Doesn't Germany shield us?

“The Emperor: Are we sure about Germany?

“Conrad: But we ought to know, Your Majesty, the situation we are in.

“The Emperor: A note left last night for Berlin; we asked for a point-blank reply.

“Conrad: And if the reply assures that Germany places herself beside us, shall we make war on Serbia?

“The Emperor: In that case, yes.”'

(pp. 147-149)

'Three days after his meeting with Francis Joseph, on July 8, Conrad had a definitive conversation with Berchtold. The meticulous exactness with which Conrad reproduced it in his memoirs* is surprising; it is the language of a conspiracy, and he does not realize it. [*From footnote: 'Conrad's memoirs, Aus Meiner Dienstzeit (My Years of Service), has the advantage of sincerity where other writers, more anxious about public opinion, would have been tempted to gloss over the truth.']

'“Berchtold: What will happen if Serbia lets matters slide until the mobilization, and then yields completely?

“Conrad: Then we invade Serbian territory.

“Berchtold: And if Serbia does nothing?

“Conrad: Then Serbia will remain occupied until all our war expenses have been paid.

“Berchtold: Shall we delay the ultimatum until after the harvest, and after the Serajevo inquest?

“Conrad: Better to-day than to-morrow; we have to exploit the situation. The moment our adversaries suspect anything they are going to prepare.

“Berchtold: We'll take care that the secret will be strictly kept and that nothing shall be known by anyone.

“Conrad: About what date should the ultimatum be sent?

“Berchtold: In a fortnight, July 22. It would be a good idea for you, as well as for the Minister of War, to go on leave for a while so as to dissipate any kind of anxiety.”

'Such was the atmosphere at Vienna when Francis Ferdinand's assassination seemed the most fortunate of opportunities, one which had been lacking in 1913, and one that at no price should be missed again. Apponyi's “At last!” was the avowal of the official world. Those who hesitated, like Tisza, did not do so from love of peace, but because they were not sure of being sufficiently aided by Germany. The moment William II's “Now or never” became known at Vienna and Budapest, there was not a Magyar nor an Austrian-German who was not for the war. At the time of the dramatic interview that took place on November 2, 1918, between the members of the Deutschoesterreicher Staatsrat and Emperor Charles, when the latter protested “not having wanted it” and a Socialist leader indicated approbation, the old Christian-Socialist Dr. Mayer rose and, alone, had the dignity to declare:

'“Let us be sincere, gentlemen. We all wanted the war: even the people wanted it. You need only recall the enthusiasm of the summer of 1914. . . .”' (pp. 149-150)

* * *

'A legend more tenacious than history was formed in 1914 and afterward regarding Pope Pius X's attitude toward the Hapsburg aggression toward Serbia. This legend shows us Pius X praying and fighting against the outbreak of the war, horrified to see Christianity divided into two enemy camps, and dying of grief at the invasion of Belgium and all the horrors of war unchained. The truth is quite otherwise.

'During the war of 1914-18 the religious question had only a minor importance; both camps included Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox members and Mohammedans. Catholic unity did not prevail any more than Mohammedan unity, which seemed so sure of its jihad (the Holy War proclaimed by the Sultan-Caliph, which neither Arab nor Hindu [Indian?] Moslem obeyed). The clergy of the different countries could all invoke Allah or the old God of Armies with opposite hopes.

'One fact, however, during the tragic weeks of July and August, 1914, scandalized European opinion: that the war should have been provoked in the name of God by a powerful and decrepit sovereign, Francis Joseph, Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King of Hungary, the most Catholic of all the sovereigns and the most important of all Catholic sovereigns. When this Prince declared that he made war to chastise Serbia, millions of timorous souls imagined that the Pope would intervene to prevent the catastrophe. This hope gave birth to the legend. It was said at the time that Pius X, the moment he knew of the ultimatum to Serbia, had enjoined his Nuncio at Vienna to admonish the old Emperor and King in the name of the Almighty. Then, since the war happened just the same, it was explained that the Ballplatz diplomats and military men of the imperial entourage had prevented Pius X's messenger from talking with the Emperor. And here is the last act of the legend: The Pope having died suddenly on August 20, 1914, it was affirmed that the good Pius had succumbed to grief, having realized his impotence to avert the disaster.

'It is time to establish the truth as to that legend, and here it is:

'As soon as the danger of war became evident, Count Palffy, Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican, several times informed Pius X's Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry del Val, of the intentions and the “duties” of the Dual Monarchy. The Cardinal's replies were deposited in the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy, correspondence that I have seen. They reveal that the Vatican saw with satisfaction, at least at the outset, an undertaking in which the crushing of Serbia would entail a diminution of the influence of Russia. The latter's prestige was detested by the Roman Church, which viewed it as the principal obstacle to a reconciliation of the Oriental churches with the See of Rome. In these conversations the Secretary of State spoke expressly in the name of the Pope who, he declared to the Austrian representative, deplored that Austria had not earlier inflicted on the Serbs the chastisement they deserved. It is sufficient to quote the following passage from a dispatch of Count Palffy to Count Berchtold on July 29:

'“During the conversation I had two days ago with the Cardinal Secretary of State he spoke spontaneously of the great problems and questions now agitating Europe. It would be impossible to detect in His Eminence's words any spirit whatever of indulgence and conciliation. It is true he characterized the note to Serbia as very harsh, but he nevertheless approved it without any reservation and at the same time expressed, in an indirect way, the hope that the Monarchy would go to the limit. Certainly, added the Cardinal, it was too bad that Serbia had not been humiliated very much sooner, for then it might have been done without putting into play, as today, such immense possibilities. This declaration also corresponds to the Pope's way of thinking, for, in the course of recent years His Holiness has often expressed regret that Austro-Hungary has failed to 'chastise' her dangerous Danubian neighbour.

'“One might wonder for what motive the Catholic Church evinces herself so bellicose at an epoch when she is governed by a chief who is truly a saint, imbued with veritably apostolic ideas. The answer is very simple. The Pope and the Curia see in Serbia the ravaging malady that little by little penetrated the Monarchy to the marrow, and which, in time, would end by disintegrating it.

'“Despite all the other experiments attempted by the Curia in the course of the last decade, Austria-Hungary is and remains the Catholic State par excellence, the strongest rampart of the Faith which stands in our day for the Church of Christ. The fall of this rampart would signify for the Church the loss of its solidest prop; in the conflicts with the Orthodox Church she would see her most powerful champion struck down.

'“Hence, just as for Austria-Hungary there is an immediate necessity of self-preservation to expel from its organism, even by force if need be, the dissolving malady, there is also for the Catholic Church an indirect necessity of doing or approving everything that would serve to attain that end.

'“In this light, a harmony between the apostolic sentiment and the war spirit can easily be confirmed.”

'The widening of the conflict which from Austro-Serb became European changed probably the Pope's frame of mind. But at least in the very first days of the war he considered the march of the German army nach Paris as a punishment that God had inflicted on the “eldest daughter of the Church” who had given him the worst worries of his pontificate.' (pp. 153-155).

[The above paragraph in the American edition published by E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York, 1944 (by the same translators: Drake and Denise de Kay) reads slightly differently; as here follows:

'The widening of the conflict which from Austro-Serb became European did not do much to change the Pope's frame of mind. In his honest but narrow mind the march of the German army nach Paris assumed the form of a punishment that God had inflicted on the “eldest daughter of the Church” who had given him the worst worries of his pontificate.' (p. 189).]

'We have seen that the proceeding of the Nuncio at Vienna is a legend. That Pius X died of grief is still another. I have it from his doctor, my colleague in the Italian Senate, that the malady of which the Pope died had for long months wasted the old man by slow degrees, and that the overwork of the last few weeks could, at most, but have hastened the end that he, Marchiafava, had already declared inevitable and due to occur very shortly.' (p. 155)