The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 77

June 5, 1900

“The Sermon. Rome in the Book of Daniel” ¹ Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 23, pp. 354, 355.

A. T. JONES

(Continued.)

IN 2 Peter 1:16-19, where the apostle is recalling the fact that they saw the kingdom and glory of God in the transfiguration of Jesus on the mount, of which they were eye-witnesses, you remember these words: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts,” as well as everywhere else. The object of prophecy, then, is to give light in the dark. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.1

You know, likewise, that it is written that “darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people;” and that is the time of the world in which we are now living. You know also of that expression in Ephesians 6, touching “the rulers of the darkness of this world.” Darkness does cover the earth, and gross darkness the people, but God has caused his light to shine in this darkness. And the light that particularly shines in the darkness of this world, to give light to those who are in the darkness, is “prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.2

You know also: you have found in your lessons, over and over, that the prophecies of the book of Daniel are written especially for the last days. He who revealeth secrets maketh known “what shall be in the latter days.” “It shall be for many days.” “At the time of the end shall be the vision.” “Shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end.” Then, the book of Daniel, being prophecy written especially for the time of the end, and the prophecy being as a light shining in a dark place; in that, it is the prophecy that is particularly to give light in the time of the end. But the book of Daniel, I repeat, discusses principally only two great powers—babylon and Rome. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.3

The history of Babylon of old—that of Rome of old—has instruction in it—through the book of Daniel—that must be, and will be, light to the people who are living in the time of the end, and who are in, and surrounded with, the darkness of this world. We know that in one phase of Rome, it is particularly a prophecy of these times, and that is in the characteristic of the little horn—the union of Church and State, the changing of God’s law, the persecuting of God’s people, etc. All this is spoken of in the last times, and we have studied that particularly all these years. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.4

Eight years ago, only a little later than this, I spoke from this pulpit one Sabbath, on the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the likeness of Rome in our day in the uniting of religion and the State in the United States government. We ourselves have seen this done, in spite of the Constitution, in spite of all principle, in the declaring this to be “a Christian nation;” and in the changing of the Sabbath of the Lord to Sunday. This was done when in Congress the fourth commandment was read as expressing the reasons for the pending legislation, and then was so interpreted that “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday,” must be the Sabbath that is meant in the fourth commandment, and shall be meant in the United States, so far as legislation goes, and the power of the United States shall go, to cause respect for it. In the study of that procedure we saw the very likeness of what had been before, when the Church, in the fourth century, united herself with the Roman State, and exalted Sunday in the place of the Sabbath of the Lord, and put under a curse all who presumed to work on Sunday, and who did not work on the Sabbath. I need not further review that. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.5

But there is more to Rome than just that,—a good deal more. And all of it is to show us that, in this time in which we live, that which was Rome in its day is instruction to us in our day. What Rome did in the course of her going away from God, and leading the world away from God, is instruction to us in our day, when we see the like thing carried on, in the same way precisely, and for the same purpose precisely. As I have often said on this subject: Two things that are so much alike in the making, must be alike when they are made. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.6

It will be impossible for any power on the earth more certainly to change the Sabbath, so far as any power can change it, than the United States government has done, in exact likeness of the papacy before it. It is a principle in governmental procedure, recognized as such in law, and so regarded in history, that for a subordinate government to re-enact, especially with changes, a law made by the supreme authority, for the government of the subordinate state, is “tantamount to a declaration of independence” on the part of the subordinate government. And any power, whatever it might be, however it might be organized, and wherever it might be on the earth, that would presume to take the law of God, and incorporate it, in legislation, with changes, would in that, declare itself independent of God. The papacy did that when, by its working, the Sabbath was incorporated in legislation; and yet all that pertained to it was transferred to another day, thus incorporating the law of God in the legislation, with changes. That was the assertion of independence of the power of God. And when the United States government incorporated the fourth commandment of the law of God in its legislation, and then in its legislation deliberately changed the Sabbath of that commandment to Sunday, after the very example of the papacy, in that thing, this government asserted its independence of God, in the very likeness of the papacy. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.7

In that respect we have things in this day exactly in the likeness of Rome. In that course the United States has followed and is following in the steps of Rome in her day. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.8

But that later phase of Rome, which is symbolized by the “little horn” of Daniel 7, was produced by the union of Church and State—the union of the apostate Christian Church with the Roman State. And that is in the prophecy which was sealed up till the time of the end, then to shine forth, to be light to the people in the darkness of the time of the end. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.9

What kind of State was it, with which this union of the church was made that caused that same power of Rome in Daniel 7, to take on a different form in the prophecy, and in the world?—The record says that it was “diverse from all kingdoms,“—“diverse from all that were before it;” and not only that, but “diverse from all.” Wherein was Rome diverse from all?—In that Rome was a republic, while all the others were kingdoms. When the Church, then, united with that State, it was a union of the Church with a republic,—or rather with that which had been a republic, but which had become an imperial power. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.10

I need not follow that particular phase of this subject farther just now. I did that a little later than this two years ago, when from this pulpit I called your attention to the course of Rome from the point at which she entered upon the stage of action in the prophecy. At that time you saw Rome, being a republic, reaching out beyond her own proper home territory, sending her navies and her armies across the seas, to fight the battles of struggling peoples who longed for liberty, to set them free—all only for the love of humanity. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.11

This I say was reviewed nearly two years ago; I do not need to follow that further just now. And this especially because there is now another phase of that history to which I must call your attention in this review. And, as in that study nearly two years ago, all I shall need to do will be to read to you the authentic, the indisputable, history of Rome. Indeed that is all that I shall do; because, if it id more, some might think that I was going out of the right way as a minister of the gospel, preaching in the pulpit. But it can not be out of the way for me, a minister of the gospel, a minister of the Word of God, in the pulpit, studying the prophecy of Daniel concerning Rome, to read the history of Rome, in the fulfillment of the prophecy. That never can be out of place in the pulpit. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.12

Here is a book that I bought twenty-one years ago. So nobody can say that it was made up for the occasion. It is a sketch of Cesar and his times, and the Roman State in the time of Cesar. I shall read only a few sentences, that you may see what Rome was in her day. A few sentences, plainly read and understood, will be enough to demand of all that we seriously ask ourselves whether there is not something in it that is suggestive in connection with what is occurring now, before the eyes of all people. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.13

Thus I read— ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.14

To the student of political history and to the English student above all others, the conversion of the Roman republic into a military empire commands a peculiar interest. Notwithstanding many differences, the English and the Romans essentially resemble one another. The early Romans possessed the faculty of self-government beyond any people of whom we have historical knowledge, with the one exception of ourselves. In virtue of their temporal freedom, they became the most powerful nation in the known world; and their liberties perished only when Rome became the mistress of conquered races, to whom she was unable or unwilling to extend her privileges. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.15

Rome’s liberty perished, the Roman republic failed, only when she became the mistress of conquered races, to whom she was unwilling to extend the privileges of the Roman republic and of Roman law. Because she was not “unable.” She was able to do it: she COULD have done it, but she was UNWILLING to do it. And when a thing is refused because of unwillingness only, then that is INTENDED so to be. But why was it that Rome was unwilling to extend the privileges of the Roman government, the Roman Constitution, the Roman law, the Roman Republic, to these conquered peoples?—Only because in Rome’s estimation they were incapable of governing themselves. That is all. And, being “unfit for self-government,” it was not meet that they should be placed upon an equality with Romans, and to come up to the capital and legislate for US. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.16

The next sentence:— ARSH June 5, 1900, page 354.17

If there be one lesson which history clearly teaches, it is this; that free nations can not govern subject provinces. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 355.1

That is where Rome failed; and Rome is in the prophecy. And the course of the Roman republic is portrayed in the prophecy as a light to shine in the darkness, in “the time of the end,” to give us light by which we may walk. The Roman Republic—a government of the people—failed, and became a one-man power, the greatest civil despotism ever known. And when the religious power—the apostate church—seized that one-man civil power, and turned it to a one-man religious power, it became the greatest despotism of any kind that ever existed. It was then the “man of sin,” “the mystery of iniquity,” “the Beast.” And the repetition of that history will be a reproduction of the greatest despotism that the world has ever seen. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 355.2

And, if there is to be no repetition of that history, then why is that history put into the prophecy and closed up and sealed till “the time of the end,” and then opened, to shine there as a light to the people in the time of the end? By that very fact it is settled beyond all reasonable question that, in “the time of the end,” that history will be so nearly repeated that the people living at that time will need this prophecy, and what is in it, as a light, to save them from ruin like that which came upon Rome, in the way that she went. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 355.3

(To be concluded.)

“The Third Angel’s Message. The Place of Sunday Legislation in the Making of the Image of the Beast” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 23, p. 360.

AS is well known by all, in the Sunday legislation throughout the United States to-day the claim is made that it is only in behalf of the “civil” Sabbath. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.1

No more baseless claim was ever presented for anything than this in behalf of Sunday as a civil Sabbath. Sunday, as a rest day, has not anywhere about it any suggestion of anything civil. Its present standing, its whole genealogy, its origin—all demonstrate the truth that Sunday legislation can not possibly be anything else than religious. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.2

The Sunday movement of to-day is but a revival, or a continuation, of that which has been. All the Sunday legislation of the newer States has been in imitation of that of the original States which at first were the colonies. And the colonies had Sunday legislation because they all (except Rhode Island, which, too, did not have Sunday legislation) had a union of religion and the State. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.3

In such legislation the colonies only continued that same thing from their original homes in Europe. Their original homes in Europe inherited it from the time when the Papacy rule Europe. And the Sunday legislation at the time when the Papacy ruled Europe, was but the continuation of the Sunday legislation that was originated in the making of the Papacy, in the fourth century. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.4

Since, then, the Sunday legislation of to-day connects, by its undisputed and unbroken genealogy, with the Sunday legislation of the making of the Papacy in the fourth century, it is perfectly plain that the nature of that original legislation marks the character of Sunday legislation forever. Accordingly, the study of that question in the days of the making of the Beast is also, and in itself, a study of the Sunday legislation of the present time, and of the making of the Image of the Beast. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.5

In a previous study we saw how that, in the false theocratical scheme of the bishops of the fourth century, when the church had been exalted in imperial favor, and had become one with the State, this was held to be the establishment of the kingdom of God upon the earth. And, because of this, Sunday was set up in this false kingdom of God, in imitation of the establishment of the Sabbath among the people of Israel, after their deliverance from Egypt and the establishment of that true theocracy. And, “all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we,” said the bishops, “have transferred” to the Sunday. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.6

All this shows that Sunday legislation was, in its very essence, and in its every idea and purpose, religious, and only religious. There are, however, several items that are worth mentioning, which show this yet more fully. One of these appears in an oration which Eusebius, one of the principal bishops of that day, and especially one of the principal bishops in the uniting of Church and State, delivered, “in praise of Constantine,” and in his presence, on the thirtieth anniversary of the emperor’s reign. He declared that God gave to Constantine the greater proof of his beneficence in proportion to the emperor’s holy services to Him, and, accordingly, had permitted him to celebrate already three decades, “thirty years,” and that now he was entering upon the fourth one. He related how the emperor at the end of each decennial period had advanced one of his sons to a share of the imperial power; and now in the absence of other sons, he would extend the like favor to other of his kindred. Then he gave the meaning of all this as follows:— ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.7

The eldest, who bears his father’s name, he received as his partner in the empire about the close of the first decade of his reign; the second, next in point of age, at the second; and the third in like manner at the third decennial period the occasion of this our present festival. And now that the fourth period has commenced, and the time of his reign is still further prolonged, he desires to extend his imperial authority by calling still more of his kindred to partake his power; and, by the appointment of the Cesars, fulfills the predictions of the holy prophets, according to what they uttered ages before: “And the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom.”—Eusebius, “Oration in Praise of Constantine,” chapter 3. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.8

Then, as the sun was the chief deity in this new kingdom of God, the bishop proceeds in draw for the edification of the Apollo-loving emperor, the following picture of him as the sun in his chariot traversing the world; and positively defines the system of government as a “monarchy of God” patterned after the “divine original,” as follows:— ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.9

Lastly, invested as he is with a semblance of heavenly sovereignty, he directs his gaze above, and FRAMES HIS EARTHLY GOVERNMENT ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN OF THAT DIVINE ORIGINAL, feeling strength in its CONFORMITY TO THE MONARCHY OF GOD.—Id. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.10

The system of government there established being considered as in very fact the kingdom of God itself, the laws enacted in promoting the interests of that kingdom would, necessarily, be religious. And even so Eusebius plainly declares, in the following words:— ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.11

Again, that Preserver of the universe orders these heavens and earth, and the celestial kingdom, consistently with his Father’s will. Even so, our emperor, whom he loves, by bringing those whom he rules on earth to the only begotten Word and Saviour, renders them fit subjects of His kingdom.—Id., chapter 2. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.12

And the Sunday laws were the very chief of all the laws that were ever enacted in the interests of this “kingdom of God.” For, by it, the authority of the Church was extended over those who did not belong to the Church, equally with those who did; and this is not true of any other law. Consequently, the Sunday law was the chief means by which men were brought “to the only begotten Word and Saviour,” and rendered “fit subjects of his kingdom.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.13

This is fully confirmed by the fact that the purpose of the first Sunday law that ever was enacted, was “that the day might be devoted with less interruption to the purposes of devotion” (Neander) and “that God should be served with prayers and supplications.”—Sozomen. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.14

And, of the second Sunday law, Eusebius gives the intent in his declaration, “in praise of Constantine,” that “he commanded, too, that one day should be regarded as a special occasion for religious worship.” And, again: “Who else has commanded the nations inhabiting the continents and islands of this mighty globe to assemble weekly on the Lord’s day, and to observe it as a festival, not indeed for the pampering of the body, BUT FOR THE COMFORT AND INVIGORATION OF THE SOUL, BY INSTRUCTION IN DIVINE TRUTH?”—“Oration in Praise of Constantine.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.15

Such is the true character, and the real purpose, of Sunday legislation, in its origin, and ever since. And whatever may be claimed for it, the character and purpose of Sunday legislation never can be anything else than just that. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 360.16

“Studies in Galatians. Galatians 4:21-24” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 23, p. 328.

“TELL me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bond-age, which is Agar.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 328.1

Thus the two covenants were in the family of Abraham. For “these women are two covenants.” Verse 24, R.V. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 328.2

But how did the two covenants get into the family of Abraham, and one of these even the covenant from Mount Sinai? “For these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 328.3

Since Hagar is one of the two covenants,—the one from Sinai, and the one which genders to bondage,—the story of Hagar in the family of Abraham is the story of the covenant from Sinai. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 328.4

But God had made a covenant with Abraham himself, before ever Hagar was heard of. And this covenant was confirmed in Christ, before ever any mention was made of Hagar. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 328.5

This covenant was the covenant of God’s promise to Abraham and to his seed—not “seeds, as of many: but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” This was the covenant of God’s righteousness,—the righteousness of God which is by faith,—for when God had made promise to Abraham, Abraham “believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 328.6

This promise was to Abraham, that in him should “all families of the earth be blessed,—that to his seed would he give the land of promise, which is the world to come; and that his seed should be as the stars of heaven. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 328.7

This seed, to whom the promise was made, being Christ, this covenant was made in Christ; and, when Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, this covenant was confirmed in Christ. This is, therefore, the everlasting covenant, which answers to Jerusalem which is above; for, in that covenant, because of that promise, Abraham “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 328.8

All this came to Abraham when as yet he had no child; and the promise was to be accomplished in his seed. Several years had passed after the first mention by the Lord of Abraham’s seed when as yet he had no child. Abraham was already old when the thought of his seed was first suggested, and was growing older without seeing any seed. Accordingly, he said: “Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thee hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 328.9

“And behold, the word of the Lord came unto him saying, This shall not be thine heir, but he that shalt come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shalt thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness. And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.” Genesis 15:2-7. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 328.10

And when Abram asked: “Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” the Lord “said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pig- eon. And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.” Then it was that the Lord, by passing between those pieces, “made a covenant with Abraham,” a blood covenant, in which he pledged himself to the fulfillment of every promise that had yet been made to Abraham. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 328.11

Here, then, was God’s own heavenly, everlasting covenant, made and confirmed with Abraham, with God’s own life pledged that everything promised should be accomplished, so that nothing promised could any more fail than that the Lord should cease to exist. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.1

But still the time passed, and no child was seen; for “Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children.” But Sarai “had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her.” Genesis 16:1, 2. Thus Hagar comes upon the scene, and is brought into the story. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.2

But how was it that Hagar was brought into the story at all? Was it by trusting the promise of God?—No. It was altogether because of distrust. Was it by faith?—No. It was altogether because of unbelief. This is confirmed by the fact that when this part of the program had all been carried through, it all had to be repudiated, and the promised seed had still to be expected by Sarah herself, and “through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.” Hebrews 11:11. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.3

This being so at the last, why was it, then, AT THE FIRST, that “Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children”?—It was simply because of her unbelief, and her not judging “him faithful who had promised.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.4

Then it was that, in this distrust of God, this unbelief, Sarai invented the scheme which brought in Hagar. And this scheme, springing from distrust of God, and unbelief in him, was altogether a scheme of the natural mind—an invention of the flesh—to fulfill the promise of God. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.5

The important consideration in this scheme of Sarai’s, is that it was to fulfill the promise of God. The thought was not merely that the Lord had not fulfilled his promise; but that he had refused to fulfill it. For Sarai said plainly, “Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing.” This straightly charged unfaithfulness on the part of the Lord. And since it was held that the Lord had failed to fulfill his promise, it was naturally concluded that they were to fulfill it themselves, by an invention altogether of their own, springing from distrust and unbelief in God. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.6

And even Abram swerved from his trust in God, from his faith in the Lord’s promise. Abram fell in with this scheme of distrust and unbelief, this invention of the flesh. “Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.7

“And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.” “And Hagar bare Abram a son.” Genesis 16:3, 4, 15. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.8

“But he who was of the bondwoman was born after THE FLESH.” How could he be born of anything else? The whole scheme by which he was ever born at all, was altogether of the natural mind, in distrust and unbelief of God,—an invention of the flesh. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.9

“Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.10

The covenant, therefore, for which Hagar stands,—the covenant from Mount Sinai,—is a covenant in which people, in distrust of God and unbelief of his promise, knowing only the natural man and the birth of the flesh, seek by their own inventions, and their own efforts, to attain to the righteousness of God, and to the inheritance which attaches to that righteousness. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.11

But the righteousness of God, with the accompanying inheritance in all its fullness, is a free gift. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 361.12

“The Church of Rome and Protestantism” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 23, p. 363.

THE following editorial article in the Christian Advocate of March 29, 1900, is worthy of consideration everywhere. It presents anew, and in a forcible way, the truth that should always be emphasized that the only way in which Catholicism and Protestantism can possibly unite is by the apostasy of Protestantism—by Protestantism ceasing to be Protestant. And, indeed, when Protestantism ceases to be Protestant, it is Catholic, even though it still be called “Protestantism,” for Catholicism is simply naturalism under the name and forms of Christianity—“the form of godliness without the power.” The Christian Advocate says:— ARSH June 5, 1900, page 363.1

A few weeks ago the New York Sun denied the allegation that its very able editorials, religious, are written by a Roman Catholic. Justice Brewer, of the United States Supreme Court, who has appeared several time in the role of a prophet, but on close inspection appears, like many modern prophets, to be predicting merely what it would please him to have happen, says, “It is not unworthy of notice that the ancient enemies, Catholicism and Protestantism, are drawing closer together,” and declares that “the history of the past should be ignored, and each should shake hands and join in the common effort to further the common cause of a common Master.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 363.2

Upon this the Sun says, editorially:— ARSH June 5, 1900, page 363.3

“The Church of Rome, surely, has neither abandoned, nor in any degree lessened, its claims; it still offers to Protestantism no possibility of unity with it, except on the condition of yielding to its authority and rendering allegiance to the papal supremacy. Within a very few years the pope, by refusing to accept the validity of the Anglican orders, has practically pronounced the whole Church of England heretical, schismatic, and destitute of an apostolic foundation for its ministry. The only terms Rome offers in the nineteenth century are the same as those offered in the eighteenth century—unconditional surrender. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 363.4

“The present pope, Leo XIII, is not one step closer to Protestantism in 1900 than was Pius VII in 1800. Nor is Protestantism in its spirit, distinctive features, its very genius, any closer to Catholicism now than it was then. The strongest Protestant tendency at present seems to be to an even wider separation than in the past, for the new school of Biblical criticism, now so powerful in Protestant theology, tends logically to the exclusion of all such supernatural authority as the Church of Rome asserts. Protestantism is growing more rather than less distinctively Protestant; it is more insistent on the right of private judgment and more intolerant of the domination of church authority. Meanwhile Catholicism insists not less stoutly on that authority than it did in the days of the Reformation: it has shown no shadow of yielding. Individual Protestants, craving such spiritual control, may pass over to the Church of Rome, but Protestantism, in the exercise of its asserted private judgment, is now further from it than ever. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 363.5

“The difference is deep and radical, full of great significance, and, as we have said, can not be bridged over by any gush of sentiment. The two can never come together except by Protestants’ yielding and becoming Catholics, or Catholics’ turning into Protestants. You might as well try to mix oil and water as to attempt to bring these two radically conflicting and diametrically and essentially opposing religious systems into harmony, without the complete surrender of the one to the other; and the twentieth century will not lessen that impossibility by one whit.” ARSH June 5, 1900, page 363.6

This is absolutely true, and such sentiments as those of Justice Brewer, though quite common, are of the same sort as those which have betrayed a large part of Protestantism, at the other extreme, into the hands of the Unitarians, anti-supernatural Biblical critics, and even avowed agnostics. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 363.7

If the twentieth century obliterates distinctions between Protestants and Roman Catholics, the latter will swallow up individual Protestants in ever-increasing numbers; while at the other extreme, agnosticism will flourish, and many of the most spiritually minded Protestants, distracted, will react into variant, forms of fanaticism; and worse, though different, forms of confusion than those that have marked the well-defined conflicts of the past will leave a large majority of the population of adult years drifting into worldliness or agnosticism, protected from suspicion and unpleasant embarrassment by a politic silence. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 363.8

This is not prophecy, but conclusions based upon an “if.” To say that if dynamite is ignited, there will be an explosion, is not prophecy, but truth. ARSH June 5, 1900, page 363.9