William Haines - 'History Parallels pt2' - 'Preparation for the Messiah

About God, they know what page He is on; they're able to understand what He's going on about. Secondly, it has to be what you call a foundation substance, which means there has to be religious freedom. So even if they don't agree with what He says, still the law protects Him so that He won't be put to death. So there are two most important things: Foundation of Faith, they can understand what He's on about, and Foundation substance, which means religious freedom. This allows for the possibility of Him doing what He wants to do, and people, if they want to respond to Him, can follow Him freely. When we look at European history, we can see there have been very few instances where it's been like this, where there's been this sort of religious freedom. Anyway, this is as far as we got. The last thing we were looking at was about the Crusades, and so we're going to be looking at what's been going on here. We could see there are many parallels to what went on in history.

What went on next is a period called papal captivity. When we looked at the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III, he talked about this Donation of Constantine, where the Pope claimed that all the authority of the Roman emperors had been transferred to the papacy. In other words, the Pope then had the authority to crown Charlemagne as the King of the Romans and the Holy Roman Emperor. If he had the authority to crown him, it also meant he had the authority to depose him. This then became a theme running through the whole of European history, and you still get echoes of it today. At the beginning of the 14th century, Pope Boniface VIII issued a papal bull in which he retracted all the privileges that the French King had been given by previous popes. He ordered the King to come and appear before him at the council in Rome, claiming that God had placed him over the kings and kingdoms.

Do you think the French King was pleased with this? No. He wrote back, saying, 'Your venerable conceitedness may know that we are nobody's vassal in temporal matters.' He had enough of this because, as I said last week, the Pope had done the same sort of thing in Germany, breaking Germany up into lots of little principalities because he didn't want one emperor running the whole of Germany. So he called the French Parliament, the States General, together, and they all supported his position. The King of France accused the Pope of committing all kinds of dreadful sins, of being a heretic and a witch, and he ordered him to appear before the council. In response, the Pope said it's necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff. In other words, every human being has to be underneath the Pope in order for them to be saved. If they're not under the Pope, there's no salvation for them.

This was a really serious matter because for an ordinary believing Catholic, if you couldn't have the last rites before you died, then there was a possibility you wouldn't go to heaven. If your whole country was excommunicated, that was kind of scary stuff. So what happened then is that the French King sent somebody off to Rome, and they basically attacked the Pope. A few days later, the Pope died, a bit shocked by this. A new Pope was elected, Pope Clement V, and he decided he was going to move the papacy from Rome to Avignon because it was controlled by different families within Rome. The previous Pope had declared a crusade against one of these families because one of the Cardinals was threatening his position. The whole papacy was dominated by Roman politics, with different families trying to gain control of the papacy and all the power that came with that.

Clement V wanted to escape from this infighting among the families, so he decided to move to France. The idea was that just as many Hebrew leaders, the elite from the Jewish people, went into exile in Babylon and reflected upon their situation, purifying themselves, so when they went back to Jerusalem, they had a new start. However, when the papacy moved to Avignon, instead of doing that, it started to take on the customs and traditions of the French court. They were supposed to be purifying, but they became even more political. The papacy then became even more centralized in terms of trying to control the rest of the churches, very much involved in grabbing money, and became very attracted to a luxurious way of life, imitating the life of the French court and becoming even more corrupt than they were before. Eventually, Pope Gregory XI decided it was time to move back to Rome, but the year after he got to Rome, he died.

The Cardinals in Rome got together and elected someone called Urban VI, but he behaved rather badly. The Cardinals decided they didn't like the way he was behaving, so they went back to Avignon and elected someone called Clement VII. Now there were two popes, a pope in Avignon and a pope in Rome, and both of them claimed to be the true Pope. Both claimed to have the authority to decide whether someone could be saved or not, and whether someone could go to heaven or hell. For ordinary believers, it was really confusing. They wondered, 'Are we following the right Pope or the wrong Pope?' It was really confusing. They had a council at Pisa, where they decided to depose those two popes and elect another one, but the other two didn't want to stand down, so they had three popes. The Cardinals called another council at Constance, and it was arranged that one Pope decided to retire, another Pope resigned, and the other one was excommunicated. They elected another one, and finally, things were back where they were supposed to be.

In different parts of Europe, some people became very upset with the kind of corruption and luxury that was going on, where popes would promote their nephews to become bishops. A couple of movements started in England, particularly with someone called John Wycliffe, who was a professor at Oxford University. He spoke out against this corruption and organized a translation of the Bible into English. He inspired someone in Czechoslovakia called Jan Hus, who founded what later became known as the Moravians. He also spoke out about the church corruption and the problems he could see within the Catholic Church. The Council of Constance was called by the Holy Roman Emperor, who presided over it because he wanted to sort out the church and get rid of these three popes, leaving just one. The Holy Roman Emperor was also quite interested to know what Jan Hus had to say about the corruption in the Catholic Church, so he invited Jan Hus to come to Constance to address the council and tell them what he thought.

Jan Hus turned down the invitation because he was afraid for his life. However, the emperor said, 'Don't worry, I'm issuing the invitation. I guarantee you a safe passage to Constance to speak, and I guarantee you a safe passage to go home again.' So Jan Hus thought, 'If the emperor has promised me a safe passage, then I'll make use of this opportunity to go and speak to them.' He went to the council, addressed all the Cardinals, Bishops, and Archbishops, and told them what he thought about the problems and corruption within the Catholic Church. They were so outraged that they took him outside the council and burned him at the stake, even though he had been promised safe passage. You can imagine the foundation to receive the Messiah here. What would have happened if the Messiah had been born into Medieval Europe? He would have been burned at the stake. They were very religious but very narrow, so there wasn't the religious freedom for the Messiah to come. This is a real problem; God has been working throughout European history to try to create the foundation so that He can send the Messiah, allowing the Messiah to say what He thinks and for the people to be free to follow Him without the risk of death.

This goes on to the preparation for the Second Advent, which we're going to look at in a lot of detail in a moment. The Renaissance was followed by the Reformation, Enlightenment, and Great Awakening. The Second Reformation saw missionaries sent all over the world, the British Empire created a democracy, and there was a free market in science and technology. Over the last 400 years, this foundation to receive the Messiah has been created. Now, we're going to look at this period of the last 400 years in much more detail. Are there any questions up until now? That little bit was leftover from last week. What about the parallels? For instance, when Ezra the Scribe went back to Jerusalem, he spoke to the people who had settled in that land and basically told them that they would have to separate from their foreign lives, etc. He introduced a very strong reform, concerned with the purification of the lineage, the bloodline, and making sure that there were no foreign gods. In that sense, there was a spiritual purification of faith and rebuilding the temple. There was a strong religious foundation, but no foundation later on during the time of Jesus. We looked at that a few weeks ago, so I don't really want to go back to that, but there was.

Christianity and Islam can be viewed from different perspectives. From one perspective, Muhammad is seen as a prophet sent to reform Christianity. Born in 570, Muslims regard Muhammad as the heir to the promises given to Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. They believe that Judaism and Christianity failed, and thus, God's Providence moved to Islam. As a result, Islam spread rapidly, primarily through Arab armies that swept across North Africa, into Spain, and briefly into France, as well as eastward throughout the Middle East. This expansion was part of a jihad, which means a struggle in the way of Allah, encompassing both internal struggles to overcome one's fallen nature and external struggles against perceived evil governments.

The rapid conversion to Islam among the predominantly Christian populations of North Africa, Spain, and the Middle East can be attributed to several factors. Muslims believe that Jesus was the Messiah and acknowledge the Virgin Birth. Notably, there is more written about Mother Mary in the Quran than in the New Testament. For Christians living in the 7th and 8th centuries, Islam appeared as a reforming movement within Christianity, presenting a clear doctrine about the Oneness of God. In contrast, Christianity had developed complicated doctrines about the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, leading to significant internal conflict. For Muslims, there is only one God, and Jesus is viewed as a human being, the Messiah, and a word from God. Additionally, Muslims await Jesus' return at the end of the world, reinforcing the perception that Islam was not a separate religion but rather a continuation of the Abrahamic faiths.

The question arises as to why the Messiah, or the Lord of the Second Advent, was not born in a Muslim country. To receive the Messiah, a foundation of faith is necessary. For Muslims, this foundation is built upon a very strong religious life, exemplified by the Five Pillars of Islam, which include fasting for one month a year and praying five times a day. This strong foundation separates believers from evil and establishes a space for freedom of religion. The unity of Cain and Abel, which we discussed in the context of Adam's family, is now being examined on a larger scale, focusing on the unity of different cultural streams.

For instance, the integration of faith and reason, as well as science and religion, is essential. Hebraism and Hellenism represent two distinct cultural streams that developed in different ways. Hellenism, with its focus on the external, science, and humanism, contrasts with Hebraism, which is more centred on God and the Divine. Both movements are necessary for restoring original human nature. Religious life should take precedence over secular life, and only through the integration of Hellenism and Hebraism can the foundation for receiving Christ at the Second Advent be established worldwide.

Hebraism, derived from the word 'Hebrew,' developed in Israel as a spiritual culture that is closer to God. It is theistic and focused on the worship of one God. The Old Testament contains numerous laws revealed by God to Moses, establishing a divine source of authority. The Jewish people conceptualised themselves as a worshipping community, identifying as the people of God, a kingdom of priests. Their modest dress and conservative sexual morals reflect their spiritual identity. The Hebrew Bible contains extensive regulations regarding sexual relationships, making it one of the most morally stringent religious texts.

In contrast, Greek culture is characterised by its materialism and humanism. The Greeks expressed their culture through art, architecture, and philosophy, focusing on the human experience rather than divine authority. Laws in Greek society were created through democratic processes, with citizens voting on their own governance. This self-governing approach fostered a strong sense of political identity, where individuals identified primarily as citizens of their city-state rather than as children of God. The development of reason and philosophy in Greece led to significant advancements in science, while Jewish culture remained more theistic and God-centred. The clash between these two cultural streams is evident in historical conflicts, particularly during the Hellenistic period, when Greek culture sought to impose itself on the Jewish people.

The tension between Hellenism and Hebraism is illustrated by the resistance of the Jews to adopt Hellenistic practices. For example, the construction of a gymnasium outside Jerusalem, where exercise was performed in the nude, was met with outrage from the Jewish community. The Greeks viewed the human body as beautiful, while the Jews, who practiced circumcision, saw it as a violation of their religious beliefs. This cultural clash led to significant conflict, culminating in the Maccabean Revolt, where the Jews fought for their independence. Both cultural streams possess valuable qualities, and their integration is essential to avoid the pitfalls of religious fundamentalism and fanaticism that can arise from an exclusive focus on either Hebraism or Hellenism.

By itself, you end up with a lot of spiritual emptiness and all kinds of dreadful stuff. So, they need each other. The challenge is how to synthesise these two. Before the birth of Christ, there was quite a synthesis. For example, in Alexandria, there was a large Jewish community established by Alexander the Great. Alexander read all the Greek philosophers and sought to synthesise their ideas. Although some Jews completely rejected this, others recognised the good aspects of Greek philosophy and sought some kind of synthesis between the two. Later on, people regarded Christianity as an example of the synthesis of Judaism and Hellenism.

Now, let's look at Islamic history for a bit. Islam spread into Spain, which Muslims often still call Al-Andalus, and a caliphate was established in Cordoba. This was one of the Golden Ages of European history and culture. It wasn't the entire period of Islamic rule, but there was a certain period of a few hundred years where there was an extraordinary flowering of culture, science, art, architecture, philosophy, libraries, medicine, and astronomy. For instance, the extraordinary buildings that still stand in Spain today are a testament to this period. At this time, Spain was relatively tolerant of Jews and Christians, which contributed to its extraordinary cultural flourishing, a synthesis of Islam and Greek philosophy.

The greatest piece of literature in Arabic is the Quran. There was no pre-Quranic literature; perhaps the odd poem existed, but Muslims would assert that the Quran is the most perfect piece of Arabic literature, standing head and shoulders above anything else ever written in Arabic. In that sense, the whole of Arab and Muslim civilisation and culture rests upon the Quran. Al-Farabi, from Persia, is one of the figures who emerged during this time. When the Islamic armies spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa, they encountered Greek philosophy and translated most of the Greek philosophers into Arabic. They established a huge translation centre in Baghdad, one of the first universities, where they translated Greek philosophy into Arabic and studied it.

Muslim architecture was based upon Greek architecture, meaning that the Muslim world inherited the entirety of Greek civilisation and culture. Al-Farabi sought to synthesise Revelation, as found in the Quran, and philosophy, believing that both were two ways to the same truth. He was one of the founders of Islamic culture, emerging a couple of hundred years after Islam began. Another great Muslim philosopher, Avicenna, from Uzbekistan, was a polymath who made significant contributions as a physician, philosopher, and scientist. He wrote standard medical texts used in Europe during the Middle Ages, and he also tried to synthesise Islam with Aristotle's philosophy.

Then there was Al-Ghazali, a brilliant philosopher who became heavily influenced by Sufism. He systematised Sufism and sought to synthesise it with philosophy. However, he later critiqued Avicenna and wrote a book called 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers,' rejecting Plato and Aristotle. He argued that if something is not in the Quran, it is unnecessary. In Cordoba, in the 12th century, another extraordinary figure, Maimonides, was born. He was a Jewish physician, mathematician, and jurist who wrote extensively on logic, psychology, politics, and music. He also commented on Plato and Aristotle, and his ideas became the basis for Orthodox Judaism up until today.

Judaism achieved a synthesis of Hebraism and Hellenism, making extraordinary contributions to world culture and civilisation. However, they lacked their own country, which limited their ability to receive the Messiah. Without a nation, they could not protect the Messiah, leading to a lack of foundation for this reception. Now, let's examine what was happening in Christianity during this time. In the Middle Ages, an extraordinary figure emerged: Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest philosophers in European history. He was a theologian and a monk who synthesised faith and reason, religion and science, creating what is often referred to as the medieval synthesis.

This synthesis became the foundation for Western Christianity. The huge flowering of medieval culture in Europe was based on this synthesis. European Christianity established a foundation to receive the Messiah, which we will explore further. Should we take a short break for tea or coffee? It seems there haven't been many questions. Is this interesting? Yes, Raymond's lecture last week was very good. It wasn't recorded, but they seem to be dealing with Aristotle. Is there any particular reason for that? Yes, Aristotle was regarded in the Middle Ages as a master, while Augustine was heavily influenced by Plato. Augustine was essentially a Platonist, whereas Aquinas and others were Aristotelians.

The Muslims also regarded Aristotle as a master. Personally, I believe Aristotle is the greater philosopher of the two. Platonism can lead to totalitarianism, as Augustine's theology often demanded uniformity and conformity. Aristotle, as a scientist, recognised that people live in different ways and that there is no ideal way of life. He acknowledged that different systems could work well or become corrupted, but there is no perfect system. Recently, Platonism has become the dominant philosophy in Europe, appealing to those who desire an ideal society. Aristotle, however, was a realist, recognising that morals and ways of life vary greatly across cultures.

Now, let's look at European history. With Aquinas, there was significant intellectual development and freedom during this time. However, the medieval Church became increasingly monarchical, trying to control European society and enforce certain beliefs. Those who held different beliefs faced excommunication, and there were Crusades against heretics, not just those aimed at liberating Jerusalem. The medieval Church became stagnant, blocking God's work and Providence. Just as plants can break through concrete over time, God's Providence cannot be stopped. In late medieval society, figures like Alexander VI exemplified the corruption of the Church, practising nepotism and repressing free development.

Medieval society was highly feudal, with extreme social stratification. If you were born a blacksmith, you would remain a blacksmith; if your father was a carpenter, you would become a carpenter. There was little social or economic mobility, and even a genius born into a specific role could not develop their potential. This situation persisted for hundreds of years, with some places still exhibiting similar patterns today. While England was relatively more mobile than other regions, feudalism dictated that individuals were bound to their social class, with little opportunity for change.

Traveling to another country meant going to another village, and you couldn't just move or say, 'Well, I'm going to live somewhere else.' You didn't have that freedom; there was no social mobility. You had to get permission because you belonged to the land, and you were tied to it. Laws enforced this system because every feudal lord held his position from the king. For example, when William the Conqueror came, he imposed feudalism in Britain, which had not existed before. He conquered the country, meaning the whole of England belonged to him. He parcelled out all the land among his followers, who became the lords, dukes, and aristocracy. They held this land because the king had given it to them on lease, not as freehold. Even today, the whole of England is considered the personal property of the Queen. You might think you have freehold rights, but ultimately, it all belongs to the Crown because of William the Conqueror. If you die without heirs, everything goes to the treasury, not directly to the monarch anymore.

In Cuba, for instance, people who get educated must ask permission to leave the country. They can be away for eleven months but must return. This situation reflects a broader historical context, particularly in Europe. In Russia, similar restrictions existed until the mid-19th century. Lords of the manor were responsible for a certain piece of land, with peasants living there. If the king wanted to declare war, the lord had to mobilise a certain number of men to fight for him. This is why people couldn't move freely; it was all connected to defence and the feudal system. The medieval Church also became very secular during this time. The bourgeoisie were heavily involved in power and wealth, and priests often had sons who inherited their positions, leading to a form of corruption known as simony.

The Catholic Church introduced the concept of an unmarried priesthood to combat this corruption. The idea was that if priests could not marry, they could not pass their positions on to their sons. When a priest died, the bishop could assign a new person to the parish. Additionally, services were conducted in Latin, which the people could not understand, making them reliant on what the priest said. In Western Europe, services had always been in Latin, while the Eastern Orthodox Church used the vernacular. This lack of understanding contributed to the Church's power, as people had to rely on priests for guidance in their lives. The Church became incredibly wealthy, owning a significant portion of land, which further increased its influence and military power, leading to conflicts with the king.

The Crusades also contributed to a loss of spiritual authority, as did events like the execution of Jan Hus. These issues created a significant problem for the path of restoration in the original mind. People were unable to pursue and fulfil their potential due to the social status into which they were born. They could not develop their spiritual lives because if they did not believe what the Church told them, they could be accused of heresy. Jesus, for example, would have been born a carpenter's son and would have had to remain a carpenter, unable to progress. However, at the end of the day, it is in our hearts to realise the three blessings: to grow up and have religious freedom, to worship God in our own way, and to develop our creativity and potential.

This irrepressible desire for freedom led to the breakdown of barriers throughout history. Rebels have continually sought to change and improve their circumstances, striving to realise their potential. God worked through the Renaissance and the Reformation to dismantle the medieval Church, making it possible for people to realise these three blessings. The first blessing is to grow up and achieve a unity of mind and body, which allows individuals to worship God freely. This desire for religious freedom is crucial, as people wanted the ability to worship God in their own way. They also sought the rule of law, ensuring that no one could be imprisoned arbitrarily. The Magna Carta established that no one could be imprisoned without a jury finding them guilty of breaking the law, protecting people's freedoms and regulating society.

Property ownership is another aspect of realising the third blessing. People wanted the freedom to own their own land and homes, which would enable them to fulfil their potential. The Renaissance and the Reformation emerged from two distinct traditions: the Hellenistic and the Hebraic. The Renaissance, rooted in the Hellenistic tradition, led to the pursuit of science, philosophy, and reason, while the Reformation focused on worshipping God. These two movements needed to be harmonised for the Messiah to come. The impetus behind the Renaissance was the belief that we are created to attain perfection by fulfilling our responsibilities through our own free will, without direct assistance from God. This means we must grow up and mature independently, fulfilling our responsibilities without relying on divine intervention.

A person of perfect character understands the will of God and puts it into practice through their own insight and reason, without needing revelations from God. When one becomes one with God and matures, they gain the wisdom and intelligence to navigate life independently. This pursuit of reason and understanding is why people seek education; they want to make sense of the world and understand the decisions necessary to achieve their goals. We are endowed with a God-given right to master the natural world, the third blessing, which involves taming and cultivating it to create a pleasant living environment. This desire to understand the natural world and its laws is one of the driving forces behind science.

The Renaissance began in Florence, Italy, during the 14th century. People in Florence loved freedom and sought the liberty to be creative, pursuing beauty, truth, and goodness. This led to an extraordinary flourishing of art, as artists sought to develop different styles rather than conforming to the Church's dictates. The governance in these Italian city-states allowed for this freedom, and the Church could not control the artistic expression that emerged. The Renaissance humanists did not reject Christianity; many of their greatest works were devoted to it, and the Church patronised Renaissance art. This synthesis between the Renaissance and Christianity allowed for a new expression of faith through art and science, with figures like Copernicus and Galileo contributing to our understanding of the natural world. Galileo famously stated that he did not feel obliged to believe in a God who endowed humanity with intellect but expected them to forgo its use. He believed that God could be discovered through both the Bible and nature, highlighting the harmony between faith and reason.

Numbers work out better like that. Then Galileo came along, and Copernicus was supported by the papacy at that time. Galileo was also supported by the papacy, but then a new pope came along, and there was a sort of conflict for various political reasons. Galileo got involved in this; he said various things that upset the pope, who was his friend. A cardinal was invited to go around and look at Galileo, see what he was saying, and ask him not to go around saying that the sun was at the centre and that everything went around the sun. Galileo said, 'Well, look through my telescope. You can look at that planet up there, Venus. Look, there's a moon going around it. If that moon is going around Venus, that means not everything goes around the Earth because that particular little body is going around that planet.' He looked through, and he said, 'No, it isn't.' People can sometimes deny things that are obvious, that they can see with their eyes, for various political reasons. They deny reality because it doesn't fit in for political reasons. Anyway, you've got this conflict, but generally speaking, through most of European history, there was actually a lot of very good relationship between the church and science. There's Galileo's instance, which people always talk about, and the reason they always talk about Galileo is because it was an exception to the rule; it wasn't normally like that.

How is it expressed in literature and politics? Well, you had Machiavelli, who came up with this new understanding of politics, very humanistic. Thomas More as well. In literature, you had Boccaccio, Shakespeare, and Milton, again this huge flowering of Renaissance literature and politics. The humanists asserted the genius of man, the unique and extraordinary ability of the human mind. They were very much humanistic, trying to recover the glory of the human mind, the glory of the human body, the glory of the human being. They were all religious people. Shakespeare expressed profoundly a lot of the virtues and values of Christianity. The Renaissance was a reform movement of the whole of European culture—of science, of art, of literature—and of course, it moved into the reform of religion. As I said, with the fall of Constantinople, these Byzantine scholars came to the West and brought lots of new Greek texts of the New Testament with them. People started to compare the Latin Vulgate with the new Greek texts and found there were differences. They looked at different versions of the New Testament and found all these differences. They thought, 'Well, we have to go back and create a new authoritative version of the New Testament by going back to the Greek instead of the Latin.' Erasmus was one of the greatest scholars who published in that regard, going back to Greek texts and trying to revive the spirit of early Christianity.

The Renaissance began in a time of religious turmoil and produced an effect on contemporary theology, particularly in the way that people perceived the relationship between man and God. Erasmus was a Christian humanist who wanted to reform the Church. In Switzerland, you had Zwingli and Calvin, and in France, then Martin Luther. So, let's have a look at the impetus behind the Reformation. What was behind it? Any questions? Please ask questions at any time; stop me. I don't want to just keep talking. Right there, Veronica, it's not quite as interesting as the story of Cain and Abel. As people advocated humanism, it was a sort of reaction to the extreme religiousness that degraded the value of the human being. As people advocated humanism, they also rebelled against the ritualism and rules of the Church, which constrained their free devotions. They wanted to be able to worship God in the way they wanted to worship God instead of the way that the Church said they had to worship God.

I mean, people were always talking about this one and that one, but I always think about the people. They must have been confused with all these different rules and regulations. This is why—oh no, but that's not right anymore because this—well, it didn't change so much. Generally speaking, they weren't confused because you get confused when you come across alternatives, but there were no alternatives. Even though the rules were changing, they weren't changing much. The rules basically were the same; they were canon law. The Roman Catholic Church worked with confession, which was supposed to be done at least once a week. This means the priest knows exactly what you have been up to and can tell you what to do. He knows what you've been thinking and can straighten out your thoughts. This was a tool they used for a very long time to keep the people quiet. If you say this is bad, then the people following the word of the priest think that is not something you should deal with. There was almost no literacy at this time. There was a sort of sense of authority that was quite intimidating. If you didn't tell the priest, then you would feel guilty for not telling him. You would have all these other hang-ups. You either felt guilty for doing it, then you confess, and you don't feel guilty anymore because you've unburdened yourself. But if you feel, 'I don't want to tell him,' then it just compounds it. It was really not easy. There was just one religion basically, except for a few outbursts that were suppressed very bloodily, like the Moravians and Hussites in Prague. It was terrible the way they were suppressed.

People started rebelling against the ritualism and rules of the Church, something like Wycliffe, and they fought against the stratified feudal system of papal authority, which deprived them of autonomy. The Pope would say, 'This is what you have to believe; this is what you have to do.' The Church supported the feudal system, which was very much a mirror image of society. Not everybody protested the medieval view that faith required unquestioning obedience to the dictates of the Church in all areas of life. You couldn't go around questioning the Creed. If you questioned the Creed, saying, 'I don't believe in this part of the Creed,' you were stepping outside the bounds of acceptable belief and becoming a heretic. You had all these witchcraft trials of people who were accused of being witches because they spoke their minds. They would be burned at the stake. It was horrendous in many ways, but a lot of people just accepted it. Most people didn't question; they just went along with it for a quiet life, an easy life. They just wanted to do this and that and not really be interested in questioning things. Most people are like that most of the time.

The idea of unquestioning obedience to the dictates of the Church in all areas of life meant that the Pope controlled everything. The priest could control the whole of your life. You denied the right to worship God according to the dictates of your conscience based upon your own reading of the Bible. If you read the Bible, you had to read it in the way the Church said you had to read it. You couldn't interpret it in the way you wanted to interpret it because there was one correct way of interpreting the Bible. This is one of the reasons why it was kept in Latin; only priests had access to it, and they knew how it should be interpreted. They didn't want to let it get into the hands of people who might interpret it in their own way. If your conscience deviated from the conscience of the Church, you were wrong. They also questioned the otherworldly and ascetic monastic idea, which devalued the material, the natural world, science, and the practical affairs of life. After these grievances, many medieval Christians revolted against the rule of the papacy, and this is the sort of impetus behind the Reformation. You could discuss the corruption, the otherworldliness, the valuing of human life, the huge cathedrals that were extraordinary, while most other people were living in little hovels. How is this expressed? Well, John Wycliffe, who was a professor of theology at Oxford University, translated the Bible into English. He said that neither the Pope nor the priesthood could determine the standard of faith; only the Bible itself could be the basis of the standard of faith. If the Church's teaching was contrary to what was written in the Bible, it couldn't be right. The Bible is the standard of faith, and he denounced the priesthood for the decadence, exploitation of the people, and abuse of power. This was in 1324, which was some years before the Reformation.

The Council of Constance, which was the one that had Jan Hus burned at the stake in 1415, decreed that his books were to be burned, his remains were to be dug up and burned, and his ashes cast into the river. Forty years after he died, the Council of Constance ordered that his bones should be dug up, burned, and thrown into the river. It was rather vindictive. Here was a person who inspired Jan Hus, and we saw what happened to him. You can see here that things weren't so good in Europe at this time in terms of the foundation receiving the Messiah. A hundred years later, in 1483, you had the next major movement. It was a huge period. One person tried and was burned at the stake, and then basically, people kept their heads below the parapet. They kept quiet, thinking, 'Well, I don't want to get myself burned at the stake. Why should I speak out?' There was this incredible fear, intimidation, and control. Then Martin Luther came along, and he was rather outraged by some of the things that were taking place in the Church, particularly the misuse of what's called indulgences. The Pope at that time wanted to raise a bit of cash to build St Peter's Basilica, so he issued a special indulgence. People who contributed a certain amount of money towards building St Peter's Basilica could have their sins forgiven. Martin Luther said salvation comes through faith in Jesus, not through being able to pay for your sins. It was all right for the rich people; they could afford to sin because they could afford to pay off their sins. But what happens if you're a poor person? What was a sin? Well, all sorts of things, from sexual sins to bad thoughts to not doing this and not doing that. The way it worked was that for every sin, there was a particular period of time allotted to you in purgatory. By certain indulgences, you could get maybe 300 days off for a certain amount paid, and if you were very determined, you could get even 700 days off if you paid more. The more you paid, the more time off you got. When I went to school, we had those indulgences; we had brackets at the bottom that were 400 days, 300 days. We were never told specifically what it was, but I guess it was all building up good credit. That's amazing; we were even told what a sin was! There was one person who was a sort of fundraiser for the Pope, I think his name was Tetzel. He came up with this little ditty: 'When the coin hits the box, a soul is released from hell.' You could even release your ancestors through this. Martin Luther said it doesn't say anything about this in the Bible. It says salvation through Christ, repentance, forgiveness, and being born again. Martin Luther came up with 95 points where he thought the Church was wrong and nailed them on the door of Wittenberg Cathedral. He criticized the indulgences, and of course, it was a shock. What he had written drew everyone's attention, and the news travelled all around about this shocking statement because he spoke the truth. Eventually, the news reached Rome, and the Pope heard about this. He sent Martin Luther an invitation for tea, suggesting they discuss this. Martin Luther politely declined because he thought, 'I don't want to go the way of Jan Hus.' He turned down the invitation, and then a Cardinal was sent along to dispute with him and argue with him. At the end of the day, Martin Luther said, 'Here I stand; it's not written in the Bible.' The local people were instructed by the Pope to arrest him and try him for heresy. In Germany, the papacy had basically dismantled the power of the princes, leading to many little kingdoms, and the German princes were not happy with their situation.

The situation led to discussions with Luther among the northern princes, who asked for his views on church-state relations. They inquired whether he believed the pope and the church had the authority to make and unmake kings and reorganise governments. Luther responded that the church should be under the state, which pleased the German princes, prompting them to support him. Consequently, they protected Luther from persecution, allowing him to advocate for justification by faith and declare the Bible as the sole source of authority. He translated the Bible from Latin into German and abolished monasteries, marrying off priests and nuns.

The next significant development was the wars of religion, marking a tragic turn in the Reformation. Despite earlier reform movements within the Catholic Church, the church itself was not reformed, leading to a split in Christianity across Europe. Germany became divided, with the north turning Protestant and the south remaining Catholic. This division resulted in devastating wars, significantly reducing the male population in the German states by almost half. The wars caused immense destruction, with the Swedish armies alone destroying thousands of castles and villages, leaving Germany fragmented into numerous territories.

The impact of these conflicts extended beyond Germany, affecting the entire continent. The notion that religion causes wars has persisted through generations, often overshadowing the idea that religion is fundamentally about peace. The struggle between Protestants and Catholics was the most destructive conflict in European history, influencing relationships across nations, including Britain and Ireland. The Thirty Years' War, from 1618 to 1648, epitomised this devastation, leading to the Treaty of Westphalia, which established a new political order based on the principle of sovereign states and non-interference in each other's internal affairs.

The Treaty of Westphalia also recognised Catholics and Protestants as equals, acknowledging that neither side could eliminate the other. This de facto agreement marked a significant moment in European history, with Germany remaining divided along religious lines. In France, Catholicism prevailed, while Switzerland exhibited a clear division between Catholic and Protestant villages. The Renaissance and Reformation periods saw a synthesis of Hebraism and the need for harmony between these two religious traditions, setting the stage for the Enlightenment.

The Renaissance was a humanistic movement that, while still Christian, began to elevate the dignity of human beings and the value of the natural world over devotion to God. This shift led to a growing humanistic perspective, where the importance of human beings and nature began to overshadow traditional worship. Artistic expressions during the Renaissance reflected this change, moving away from purely religious themes to celebrate Greek mythology and the beauty of the human form.

As the Enlightenment emerged, it sought to understand the world through reason and experience, leading to a devaluation of revelation as a source of authority in science. This period birthed rationalism and empiricism, challenging the harmonious synthesis of faith and reason established by Aquinas. The Enlightenment prompted a questioning of values, traditions, and doctrines, as people began to critically assess long-held beliefs and practices. This era marked a significant departure from the past, as individuals sought to create new understandings and frameworks for their lives.

The ongoing struggle between Protestantism and Catholicism continued, with the Catholic Church convening the Council of Trent to address internal reforms. The Jesuits emerged as intellectual defenders of Catholicism, combating the spread of Protestant ideas. The Enlightenment's development varied across Europe, particularly in England, France, and Germany, each contributing uniquely to the modern world. The historical context of wars and religious strife serves as a reminder of the complexities of faith and reason in shaping contemporary society.