The American Sentinel 10
January 31, 1895
“Editorial” American Sentinel 10, 5, pp. 33, 34.
WHY is it that now in the last half of the last decade of the nineteenth century the papacy is triumphing over Protestantism in the very countries where in the first half of the sixteenth century the Reformation triumphed so gloriously? Why is it? AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.1
IT is not because there are fewer professed Protestants now than then. There are a thousand now to one when the protest of the princes was announced. It is not because Bibles are scarcer now than then. There are a thousand Bibles in Germany now where there was one then. It is not because it is more dangerous to read the Bible and practice its precepts now than it was then. Then why is it? AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.2
THE answer is easy. The German Reformation began in the heart of Martin Luther and so wrought upon his affections that he was willing to sacrifice his position, his honor and his life in order to profess and promulgate its principles. AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.3
SINCE the Reformation was born and promulgated at the cost of such devotion to principle, it follows that if it is to be kept alive and vigorous it will be at the cost of similar devotion to principle. AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.4
WHAT were the principles underlying the Reformation? Let the historian of the Reformation answer:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.5
“The reformers and the apostles set up the Word of God as the only light, as they exalt the sacrifice of Christ as the only righteousness. By mingling any authority of man with this absolute authority of God, or any human righteousness with this perfect righteousness of Christ, we vitiate both the foundations of Christianity.” 1 AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.6
And now we maintain that these principles which were the life of the Reformation have been in effect abandoned by popular Protestantism. On this point we quote and indorse the words of Rev. R. Sailiens, Paris, France, in the Missionary Review of the World, for October, 1894. After pointing out the reaction toward Rome in France, Germany, Russia and England, the writer says:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.7
“In Protestant countries we are afraid the main cause is the weakness and loss of power of the evangelical churches. As they have grown rich and prosperous, the Protestants have forsaken, to a great extent, that puritanic spirit which was the strength of the Reformation. From their primitive simplicity of worship they have come down to elaborate services, beautiful and luxurious buildings which are imitations of Roman Catholic medieval architecture, and thus have led their sons and daughters to the very threshold of Rome, with which Protestants will never be able to compete, try as they may, for finery, music, and display. Moreover, it is sadly evident that, in Great Britain especially, the work of the Reformation did not go deep enough, and that many Romish errors—such as baptismal regeneration and apostolic succession—were left in the prayer—book as seeds for future apostasy. Wherever a notion of a visible universal church is entertained, logic must lead to the Roman Catholic position. AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.8
“But we believe that the main cause of this reaction toward Rome in Protestant lands lies in the fact that the Bible does not hold in those countries the same place that it did three centuries ago. Then people turned away from the infallibility of a man to the infallible Book; but now the Book is no more deemed infallible; the ‘higher’ criticism has submitted it to an ordeal as severe as that of the Inquisition in times past. The Inquisition burned the Bible, but the higher critics are tearing it to pieces. And yet there is a craving in the human soul, and especially in the soul which has come into contact with the gospel, for a moral certainty, for a divine, infallible authority. AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.9
“As I am writing these lines, our daily papers are publishing an encyclical letter of the pope—his swan’s song, as some say—which exhibits that wonderful craftiness of which I have just spoken. It is an appeal for reunion, specially directed to the Greek and Anglican churches. ‘Speaking to those nations which have for the last three centuries been separated from the church, the pope shows that there is no certain rule of faith and authority left to them. A large number among them have overthrown the very foundations of Christianity by denying the divinity of Christ and the inspiration of the Scriptures.’ AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.10
“Is it not the wonder of wonders that the man who incarnates that awful system by which the Bible has been burned, and its disciples, even to this day, persecuted to death; that system which has established tradition above the Bible, has contradicted every Bible doctrine and tried to silence every Bible preacher, should now dare to stand before the world as the advocate of the Bible against—the Protestants! And yet, it is, alas! but too true that Protestantism to a large extent is no more the religion of the Bible. This accounts for the boldness of Rome, and for her success.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.11
After so clearly giving the cause of Roman Catholic triumph in Protestant countries, he points out the one and only remedy, as follows:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.12
“But how shall we oppose her growing power? AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.13
“I am fully convinced by my experience as a missionary for twenty years among my own people, that it will not be by clumsy imitations of her gorgeous display, but rather by a return to the primitive simplicity of worship manifested in the upper room. To worship God in spirit and in truth, and not in beautiful temples, the cost of which would support two or three missionaries for a whole lifetime; to invite, and not to exclude, the poor, the sinner, the outcasts, who now find it so difficult, even if they would, to sit in our refined places of worship—such seems to me the imperative duty put upon us if we do not wish to see the masses go to Rome, which to them appears so much more democratic than ourselves. AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.14
“I have also a deep conviction that it is only through the Bible—as the Reformers did—that we shall withstand popery. Anything, however pious in tone, that helps to destroy the people’s faith in the Bible as an infallible book, works on behalf of Rome. I have no time to dilate on this point, but I beg the readers to reflect on it. It is to me the vital question, and I do not see any other alternative but this: the Bible or the pope. AMS January 31, 1895, page 33.15
“Finally, let us preach Christ, his free forgiveness, his atoning blood. Ethical, political, or social preaching—“sermons for the times,” as they are sometimes termed—will not prevent the drift of the masses toward the old system. But the upholding of the Crucified!—I have seen it, thank God, hundreds of times—will always prove the power of God unto salvation. Rome has many weapons—money, genius, traditions, beauty of forms. It appeals to the lower nature of man, dispenses with the necessity of a second birth, renders sin easy. It deifies mankind, as all heathen religions do. It must, therefore, have a great measure of success, as it corresponds so marvelously to man’s natural cowardice and depravation. But if we are faithful to the Bible and to the crucified, we need not fear defeat; all true Nathanaels, all the sincere and noble hearts who are seeking a real Saviour, will come out of Rome to meet us. The true sheep know the Shepherd’s voice, and, hearing it, follow it.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.1
This is the remedy which the SENTINEL has prescribed and will prescribe for the universal Romanizing malady. But the remedy will not be accepted and applied, and therefore the drift Romeward will continue until Rome shall once more, but for the moment only, sit as queen over the conquered nations of earth. AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.2
No political opposition will stay the progress of Rome when the vital life of the Reformation has disappeared from the minds and hearts of men. The “Iron Chancellor,” Bismarck, may bid political defiance to the pope, and refuse to go to Canossa, but he will eventually go, and a Roman Catholic chancellor will take his place, as is now the case in aforetime Protestant Germany. Oh, that popular Protestantism would return to its first love, take up again its discarded weapon, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God!” “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.” 2 Corinthians 10:4. AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.3
“Rome’s ‘Religio-Political Affairs’” American Sentinel 10, 5, p. 34.
THE Protestant Episcopal Church is planning to centralize its power in the United States by erecting a cathedral in Washington, D. C. AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.1
On this project the Catholic Review, of January 19, furnishes the following information:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.2
Our Episcopal friends are thinking of building a grand cathedral in Washington, D. C. Rev. Dr. Geo. W. Douglas, one of the trustees, says of it: “We know it’s a great scheme, but we feel the need for it in our national capital, and we are willing to put our shoulders to the wheel and try to make it a reality. The site given for it is near the centre of the city and not far from the Capitol. The former owners of the property have told me that it was the site first desired by the Roman Catholics for their university. The merits of a cathedral, as we look at it, are three in number. They are: (1) An association in labor and a division of labor. (2) Centralization. (3) Education. This is an age of centralization. The Romanists appreciate it and are ready for it. I respect them for it, for their strong organization, their power of devotion, their concentrative energy. And I do not believe that the American Church should propose to rely upon the old idea of parochialism in the face of the Romish Church, its perspicacity, its steadfast devotion and its energy. In the face of organized Romanism we ought to show that Protestantism can be organized.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.3
Upon this utterance of Dr. Douglas, “The Catholic Review, a Weekly Journal for Catholic Families, Commended by His Holiness, Leo XIII., the Archbishop of New York,” etc., makes this plaintive and significant comment:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.4
The Catholic Church does not desire to be placed unnecessarily and offensively in face of organized Protestantism at a time when the Kingdom of Christ in the Republic is in face of organized Cesarism, of organized anti-Christian secret society movements, of organized plans for the exile of God from the national life of the country by the complete secularization of all its institutions. If Protestantism does care for the Lord and does not desire to be used as an ally of Lucifer in the war of devilish forces against Christian principles, it will not take pains to organize itself in face of “the Romish Church,” but will direct it energies against radical atheistic tendencies and influences now operative in the nation. It can do much to antagonize and to hamper the Catholic Church in politico-religious affairs, but if it does so, it will play the part of Samson, and will find out, when too late, that it has irretrievably involved itself in the general ruin. AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.5
The Catholic Review here candidly acknowledges that the Catholic Church has schemes to work out in America, termed “politico-religious affairs,” which she entreats Protestants not to “antagonize” or “hamper.” This religio-political scheme is further explained to be an effort to prevent “the exile of God from the nation life of the country by the complete secularization of all its institutions.” What the Review means by the exile of God from the national life of the country is the exile of the hand of the Roman Catholic Church from the national treasury and the rescue of the public school and the nation itself from Romanish control. AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.6
The nation can bear much of this kind of “exile” and “secularization” both as regards Roman Catholic and popish-Protestant control, without playing the part of Samson. Protestantism will not, by consistently opposing Romanism in our Government, involve itself in the general ruin. It is when it attempts to control the Government in the interests of itself, and thereby unites itself to the State, that it pulls down the pillars of the national edifice and involves itself, Samson-like, in the general ruin. AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.7
“Priest Elliott’s Propaganda” American Sentinel 10, 5, p. 34.
PRIEST ELLIOTT is still engaged in his “Mission to non-Catholics,” and gives in the Catholic World for January a glowing account of his meetings at Marvin and Ely, Ohio. AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.1
One feature of these “missions” is good singing. In this the priest is copying the popular revivalist. Good music has great drawing power. AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.2
At Marvin, the Opera House, seating twelve hundred persons, was much too small for the audiences which greeted the priest, and “many Protestants were unable to get in at all after the opening.” “If we had had three thousand sittings,” says Mr. Elliott, “we could have filled them some evenings.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.3
Mr. Elliott mentions that a regular attendant at his meetings was “the president of a bank” and “one of the leading men of the city.” This man, it is related, stopped the resident priest in the street one day and assured him that the “lectures were timely, and were beneficial to the people.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.4
One lady, “a sort of a preacher,” living some miles out of Ely, “attended every evening, sitting in front and paying strictest attention.” Of her, Mr. Elliott says: “She has been gradually working and thinking and praying and preaching herself towards the church, and will, doubtless, soon place herself under instruction—at least so we judge from her conversation.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.5
Priest Elliott concludes his account of his “mission” at the latter place by saying: “We had many requests from non-Catholics to return and give another course, and we hope to do so. In that case it might be well to choose a different line of topics; expounding, for example, the fundamental moral principles; or, perhaps, treating of the higher spiritual and mystical life of the soul.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.6
Now all this is significant. It shows a settle purpose on the part of Roman Catholics to make proselytes. The church of Rome is no longer on the defensive in the United States, but has assumed the offensive, and is “pressing the battle to the gate.” Protestantism was never less able to resist this onslaught than at the present moment. Having lost the real spirit of Protestantism and degenerated into a dead formalism, tens of thousands are in just the condition to be captivated by the elaborate ritual of Roman Catholic worship. Having lost faith by which alone man can live “as seeing the invisible,” they are ready to listen favorably to the claims of a church which caters to this demand of the natural heart for the visible, and which gives not one but many tangible objects of worship. AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.7
Moreover, the Paulist lecturer, conducting “missions” for non-Catholics, does not represent Romanism as it really is, but in a way to make it attractive. “The Faith of Our Fathers,” by Cardinal Gibbons, is a fair illustration of the Romish manner of presenting popish doctrines to credulous Protestants. In that book the Inquisition is explained away, so far as Rome is concerned; the massacre of St. Bartholomew is denied as having any religious significance, and the real position of the Catholic Church in regard to liberty of conscience is concealed under a skillful and deceitful use of words. Religious liberty is defined as “the free right to worship God according to the dictates of a right conscience.” And only the critical read will discern that the church deserves the right to say what is a “right conscience.” This is, however, the fact. Rome always has been, and is at this moment, opposed to the exercise of private judgment. AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.8
It is a sad thing that the Protestants of to-day have forgotten the history of the past and are so ready to listen to the siren song of the “mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.9
“War Between the Beast and the Makers of His Image” American Sentinel 10, 5, pp. 34, 35.
THE following question and answer appeared in the Christian Statesman of Jan. 12:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.1
Question 23. F. L., Utica, N.Y. “I am greatly pleased with the Christian Statesman. It is preëminently the reform paper of our country. But does it not antagonize Roman Catholics too much? Would it not be better to secure their coöperation as possible in the great cause of Christian government as against infidel and atheistic secularism?” AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.2
Answer. This paper does not oppose any friend of Christian government, be he a member of any church, or of no church. It does oppose every principle or system that denies the right and duty of the nation to take the law of Christ as its supreme rule of conduct. This right and duty require the nation to take the Word of God as its authoritative law book, and to interpret and apply it for itself. Romanism antagonizes this right and duty of the nation. It puts the interpretation of moral law by the “infallible” head of the Romish system in the place of Christ’s own immediate authority over the civil power. This system is one of the gravest dangers threatening our land to-day. Fidelity to the cause of Christian civil government demands that this dangerous enemy of our civil and religious liberties shall be vigilantly opposed. AMS January 31, 1895, page 34.3
Under another head attention has been called to the change of attitude on the part of the Christian Statesman cohorts from the position of fawning suppliants for fraternal coöperation with Rome, to that of open and avowed enemies of the system. In this article we call attention to the similarity of the contending systems. For years the system inaugurated by the Christian Statesman begged the Roman Catholic Church in the United States to aid it in securing from Congress some legislative action which would commit the Government of the United States to religious legislation, and thereby break down the American idea of complete separation of Church and State, which the National Government had maintained for more than a hundred years, but which the Christian Statesman system assailed as “political atheism.” Seeing their opportunity to accomplish a long-cherished object similar to that of their Protestant petitioners, the leading prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States joined forces with what we will call apostate Protestantism, and influenced Congress to do that which it had persistently refused to do (enact a Sunday law), and which the Senate in refusing to do in 1829 said:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.1
Should Congress in legislative capacity adopt the sentiment it would establish the principle that the legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of God. It would involve a legislative decision on a religious controversy, and on a point in which good citizens may honestly differ in opinion, without disturbing the peace of society or endangering its liberties. If this principle is once introduced, it will be impossible to define its bounds. 1 ... AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.2
Let the national legislature once perform an act which involves the decision of a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legitimate bounds. The precedent will then be established, and the foundation laid, for the usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country, which has been the desolating scourge of the fairest portions of the Old World. 2 AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.3
Now that these combined forces have accomplished that fatal thing; now that Congress has presumed “to determined what are the laws of God” at the dictation of this combine; now that it has performed “an act which involves a religious controversy;” now that it has “passed its legitimate bounds;” now that the precedent is “established and the foundation laid for that usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country, which has been the desolating scourge of the fairest portions of the Old World,” the rogues which accomplished the ruin have fallen out. But why fall out? Are not their objects the same? “Aye, there’s the rub.” Their objects are the same; both want to be pope, and infallible interpreter of the “Word of God” “in the place of Christ’s own immediate authority over the civil power,“—over our captive Republic. And now, to show that this is the case with the system voiced by the Christian Statesman’s answer previously quoted, we will proceed to dissect it. AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.4
It says that it is “the right of the nation to take the law of Christ as its supreme rule of conduct. This right and duty require the nation to take the Word of God as an authoritative law book, and to interpret and apply it for itself.” But who make up the nation?—The people. Are the people all agreed on the same interpretation of the “law of Christ,“—the “Word of God”?—No; their interpretations are legion. Does not the Christian Statesman element know this?—Yes. How, then, does it propose that the nation shall interpret and apply the law of Christ for itself?—It doesn’t propose that it shall. This was strikingly illustrated in the recent political struggle in Pennsylvania. Mr. Lyon was candidate for the office of lieutenant-governor, and his interpretation of the “law of Christ” regarding Sabbath observance, did not agree with the interpretation held by the popular Protestant churches as voiced by the Christian Statesman. What did this Christian Statesman element do?—It interpreted the law of Christ regarding the Sabbath, and told Mr. Lyon that if he did not accept the infallible interpretation of this apostate Protestant pope, they would knife him at the polls. He refused, and this new pope proclaimed a political church boycott against Mr. Lyon; and although he was elected, he ran considerably behind his ticket. What this element tried to do in Pennsylvania in 1894, it succeeded in doing in 1892 when it bulldozed Congress into legislating its interpretation of the “Word of God” upon all the people of the nation, and later boasted of it in this fashion:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.5
What did Congress do last summer on the Sabbath question?—It did just what the Christian people asked it to do.... Representatives in Congress are anxious to do what the people [these popish preachers] want done. They are waiting for instruction; they ask for it.... Who is to give this instruction?—Only those who have it can give it [meaning themselves]. Have not Representatives been chosen without much reference to what moral light or character they had in themselves? 3 AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.6
Thus it is evident that this apostate Protestant element, a small minority but well organized, arrogates to itself the right to act as pope, to interpret the “Word of God” for the “nation,” and then instruct representatives of the nation in this interpretation, and in case these statesmen desire to follow their own interpretation, it is the duty of this new pope to compel submission under penalty of political ruin. AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.7
And now, to show the similarity between the Roman Catholic pope and this apostate Protestant pope, we print their claims in parallel columns:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.8
| The Roman Catholic pope claims:— | The apostate Protestant pope claims:— |
| That it is the right and duty of the nation to take the “law of Christ” as its supreme rule of conduct. | That it is the right and duty of the nation to take the “law of Christ” as its supreme rule of conduct. |
| That the individual should not be permitted to interpret that law for himself. | That the individual should not be permitted to interpret that law for himself. |
| That he is divinely authorized to interpret the “law of Christ” for the individual and for the nation; and to enforce that interpretation by civil pains and penalties. | That he is divinely authorized to interpret the “law of Christ” for the individual and for the nation; and to enforce that interpretation by civil pains and penalties. |
Is there a single statement in the above conclusion that can be successfully controverted? If not we then ask, is there not a complete likeness between the Roman Catholic pope and the apostate Protestant pope? And is there any wonder that two infallible popes, both contending for the control of the American Republic, should quarrel? Is there any wonder that the apostate Protestant pope should turn “white with fear and wrath” on beholding the Roman Catholic pope in possession of the prey, the captive Republic, which it petitioned that pope to help it capture? AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.9
“‘Priest and Parson Act Together’” American Sentinel 10, 5, pp. 35, 36.
THE Detroit Daily News of January 16, contains the following account of a confederacy between Protestant ministers and Roman Catholic priests, which we reprint, including the News’ significant headlines:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.1
MEET IN LOVE. PREIST AND PARSON ACT TOGETHER
A MOST REMARKABLE MOVEMENT IN BAY CITY,
That Joins Catholic and Protestant Together.
All Said to Be Members of the Same
“Mystical Body.”
BAY CITY, MICH., Jan. 17.—The Bay City ministers will not carry on a social crusade in the Saginaw or Little Parkhurst style, but on the contrary announce that they do not sympathize with the methods employed in a majority of these movements. They have, however, organized a movement that will be farther reaching in its effects. AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.2
The avowed objects of this association are to promote “Christian unity” and arouse a feeling that all Christian churches are engaged in one great object. Prejudice and intolerance are especially denounced and are to be opposed by the association. AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.3
The matter has been brewing since Thanksgiving day, when Rev. C. T. Patchell preached a strong sermon on the subject. Monday, a meeting was held at the rectory of St. James’ Catholic Church, at which nearly all of the Catholic priests and a number of the leading Protestant ministers were present. Christian unity was the object of the gathering, but church unity was not thought of. After thorough discussion the following was adopted as embodying the sentiment of those present:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.4
“The aim of this meeting is to instill into every Christian heart the necessity of mutual love and respect among the members of the mystical body of Christ. It is unnatural that members of the same body should tear one another to pieces. They should protect and assist each other. AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.5
“The means to attain this end are of two kinds: (a) fraternal meetings of the ministers of the different churches, with a view to becoming better acquainted, and for devising means whereby to carry on our mutual work; (b) public lectures on ‘Christian unity,’ ‘Christian tolerance,’ ‘Christian charity,’ and kindred subjects, said lectures to be delivered alternatively by priest and minister. AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.6
“It must be well understood that the presence of a minister or a priest at one of our meetings does not in the least affect his distinctive religious principles. Each remains what he is, prejudice and its consequences expected.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.7
The memorial is signed by the following pastors: Rev. Wm. H. Clark, First Presbyterian Church; Rev. H. Schneider, Zion Reformed Church; Rev. T. W. McLean, Trinity Episcopal Church; Rev. M. Matkowski, St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church; Rev. R. C. Johnson, Second Baptist Church; Rev. J. G. Sanson and Rev. Jos. Shrembs, St. Mary’s Catholic Church, West Bay City; N. Rutenik, German Reformed Church, West Bay City; Rev. M. C. Hawks, Madison Avenue M. E. Church; Rev. Thomas Rafter, St. James Catholic Church; Rev. C. T. Patachell, First Congregational Church; Rev. John G. Wyss, St. Boniface Catholic Church; Rev. Jacob Braun, German Methodist Church. AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.8
What a confederation! Presbyterian, Reformed, Episcopalian, Baptist, German Reformed, Methodist, Congregational and German Methodist ministers uniting with Roman Catholic priests, as members of the “mystical body of Christ,” “in mutual love and respect,” “to carry on” “our mutual work”! Shades of Protestantism, of Wycliffe, Martin Luther, John Knox and John Wesley! The founders of every one of the Protestant churches here represented, boldly and scripturally declared that the Roman Catholic Church is the anti-Christ of Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church, a part of the “mystic body of Christ”! Where then is anti-Christ? Catholic and Protestant ministers uniting to “protect and assist each other” in “our mutual work”! Has it come to this, that Protestant churches have become so blinded by a false charity that they can unite to protect each other in a “mutual work” with the “infallible” papal church—“drunk with the blood of the saints”? There is not “mutual work” between true Protestantism and the papacy. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” 2 Corinthians 6:14, 15. AMS January 31, 1895, page 35.9
Philip Melancthon, at the Diet of Augsburg, undertook to unite the Reformation with the Roman Church “in mutual love and respect,” with the view to carrying on a “mutual work;” but the God of saints and martyrs used Martin Luther to prevent the fatal compromise, and Luther wrote to Melancthon:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 36.1
There can be no concord between Christ and Belial. As far as regards me, I will not yield a hair’s breadth. Sooner than yield, I should prefer suffering everything, even the most terrible evils. 1 AMS January 31, 1895, page 36.2
Writing again, he said:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 36.3
I learn that you have begun a marvelous work, namely, to reconcile Luther and the pope; but the pope will not be reconciled, and Luther begs to be excused. And if, in despite of them you succeed in this affair, then after your example I will bring together Christ and Belial. 2 AMS January 31, 1895, page 36.4
But popular Protestantism has lost the spirit of the Reformation, and the uncompromising attitude of the leading Reformers so much praised in denominational books of fifty years ago, is now repudiated and their noble work discounted, if not by direct declaration, by an attitude of compromise, with the enemy of the Reformation. AMS January 31, 1895, page 36.5
And it is just this kind of a confederation of papists and apostate Protestants which the SENTINEL has looked for. We have never expected that there would be an organic union of either the popular Protestant sects, or these sects with the papacy; but we have looked for a confederation of papists and so-called Protestants to accomplish certain “mutual work,” prominent among which is the enforcement of the Roman Catholic Sunday. Already we have seen Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland indorsing petitions for Sunday legislation prepared and circulated by the popular Protestant churches. Why is it that Rome refuses to compromise on the dogmas of the church, and yet eagerly joins with these churches in exalting Sunday?—It is because when Sunday is exalted, the papacy which instituted the Sunday Sabbath, is exalted. When Cardinal Gibbons added his name to the petition for a national Sunday law, he had penned the following words, found on page 111 of his book, “Faith of Our Fathers:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 36.6
Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday, and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify. AMS January 31, 1895, page 36.7
And now we venture to predict that one of the first acts of “mutual” performed by this confederacy of the papists and compromising Protestants will be the enforcement of the Sunday institution,—the badge of the papal beast of prophecy. AMS January 31, 1895, page 36.8
“Ignorant or Traitorous, Which?” American Sentinel 10, 5, pp. 36, 37.
THE Christian Statesman, the spokesman of the National Reform Association,—that organization which gave birth to, and faithfully fostered that un-American combination of popular Protestantism, which forced from the Congress of the United States, in 1892, the first distinctive religious legislation ever enacted by our National Legislature,—has something to say in its issue of January 12, on the Roman Catholic question, that will interest our readers. AMS January 31, 1895, page 36.1
In order that we may get the point in question quickly and sharply before the reader, we will print in parallel columns several utterances of the Statesman, together with the one referred to:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 36.2
| 1884. | 1894 & 1894. |
| This common interest [interest of religious people in the legal enforcement of Sunday observance] ought to strengthen both our determination to work and our readiness to coöperate with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, for the time is not yet come when the Roman Church will strike hands with other churches, as such; but the time has come to make repeated advances and gladly accept coöperation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it. It is one of the necessities of the situation. | It becomes us, Americans, to look at once into the secret plottings of this political church [Roman Catholic]. They are striving with mighty energy to gain control of the whole Government of America. National and State, as well as municipal. The assertion is ventured without much fear of mistake, that they have already succeded to an extent that if it were known to the people, would turn our faces white with fear and wrath. |
| —Christian Statesman, Aug. 31, 1884. | —Christian Statesman, Sept. 1, 1894. |
| Whenever they [Roman Catholics] are willing to coöperate in resisting the progress of political atheism, we will gladly join hands with them. | This system [Roman Catholic] is one of the gravest dangers threatening our land to-day. Fidelity to the cause of Christian civil government demands that this enemy of our civil and religious liberties shall be vigilantly opposed. Our readers would do well to obtain a book, to which we call attention in another column—“Romanism Analyzed.” This gives a comprehensive sive view of the system which has been of necessity a curse to every land where it has prevailed. |
| —Christian Statesman, Dec. 11, 1884. | —Christian Statesman, Jan. 12, 1895. |
Question: Were the leaders of the “National Reform” element ignorant, in 1884, of the character and aims of the Roman Catholic system? It cannot be that they were, for they are D.D.’s and LL. D.’s, and are men with gray hairs. More than that, they are Covenanters, and who, if not a Covenanter, ought to know what that system has done to crush liberty? That they did know is apparent from the expression, “It is one of the necessities of the situation.” We are therefore impelled to the conclusion that the managers of the movement to secure the control of the National Government in the interests of enforced Sunday observance and kindred objects, were hob-a-nobbing with the Roman Catholic system, and suffering rebuffs to secure its coöperation; and were courting a system which they knew to be “a curse to every land where it has prevailed,” and “the greatest danger threatening our land to-day,“—a system that was “plotting to gain control of the whole Government of America, National and State, as well as municipal.” It therefore follows that since these men were not ignorant of the most patent facts of history, they must have been treacherously and traitorously joining forces with that system which is the “enemy of our civil and religious liberties,” “a curse to every land where it has prevailed.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 36.3
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 5, p. 40.
H. P. HOLSER, a Seventh-day Adventist minister and manager of the denominational publishing house at Basel, Switzerland, who was recently imprisoned for permitting work to be done in the publishing house on Sunday, called at our office last week on his way to attend the international conference of the denomination at Battle Creek, Mich. He informs us that similar prosecution shave been begun against the Seventh-day Adventist publishing house in Christiana, Norway; and that their London house is also threatened. We have expected that these persecutions would become world-wide, and are not surprised; but we are deeply impressed with their bearing on the fulfillment of the “sure word of prophecy.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.1
THE Catholic Review of January 19 publishes a call for the organization of an association in the United States whose object shall be to create sentiment for the restoration of the pope to temporal power. Similar associations are organizing in the leading countries of the world, and the organization in the United States is a part of an international movement. AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.2
How this association is to work in America for the restoration of Rome and the papal states to the control of the pope, is explained in a work first published in England but afterward published by Catholic houses in New York, Boston and Montreal. In explaining why citizens of a foreign country should work to make the pope the civil governor of Rome, the author says:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.3
Suppose it be said, “I acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Holy Father; but why am I, an Englishmnan [or American, we may add], to come forward in a political way, to use all my exertions to protect the temporal rights of a foreign prince?” My answer at once is plain. The pope is not a foreign prince to any Christian, to any human being. 1 AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.4
And now let Americans understand that this new organization proposes “in a political way” to use all its exertions to make Pope Leo XIII. political ruler of Rome, the United States and the world. AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.5
THE following significant paragraph appeared in the Catholic Reivew of Jan. 26:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.6
Six more bishops in Italy have been granted the royal exequatur that entitles them to receive their official income—the bishops of Carpi, Possuoli, Penafro, Luvera, Anglona, and Nuseo. The government does not fear religion now; it seeks the strength of the church against revolution. It cannot conquer the turbulence it bred. AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.7
This means that the government of Italy has given these bishops the right to tax the people in their districts for the support of the Catholic Church. And the last two sentences explain how the church won the victory, and it is the great international scheme of the papacy to secure universal dominion. First, teach her people that the government that refuses to acknowledge the pope is unstable and must sooner or later end in “turbulence” and “revolution;” and when this teaching bears fruit, then she offers to conquer the turbulence in exchange for political support. AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.8
IT is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that priests are not properly subject to the civil authorities like other men, but that no matter what crime a priest may commit he is amenable only to “the church,” unless “the church” sees fit to degrade him, strip him of his vestments, recall his ordination so that he is no longer a priest, and then turn him over to civil power for condign punishment. “Father” Phelan, editor of the Western Watchman, had the temerity to challenge this dogma some months ago, and to maintain that a priest was properly subject to civil law just as other men. The bishop of his diocese demanded that he retract the offensive statement upon pain of having his paper place under the ban of “the church.” The doughty priest at first refused obedience, but finally yielded and made a meek submission to the bishop. From a Roman Catholic standpoint,—the end justifies the means,—this was not strange; but how “Father” Phelan can maintain his self-respect and say what he does in the Western Watchman of Dec. 27, 1894, is more than we can imagine. He says:— AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.9
We have been in the business of editing an publishing a newspaper for thirty years. We have built up a large newspaper properly. During those thirty years we never heard it stated, nor was it ever intimated to us by any ecclesiastical authority, that we could not give free expression to our opinions, provided the language was respectful and the convictions honest. AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.10
It is thus cheerfully that the minions of Rome write themselves down knaves at the behest of “the church.” And this is what Rome would do for the press of the entire country. AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.11
A GREAT many people seem to really believe that Sunday laws have a substantial basis; that they are not enacted as religious measures, but for good and sufficient civil reasons. Instead, in some instances, courts of justice have given color to this view of Sunday statutes, though they have signally failed to define the so-called civil basis of such legislation. AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.12
But the question is being simplified very much by the attitude of those who are foremost in demanding the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws. The basis of the American Sabbath Union is the fourth commandment of the Decalogue, and that organization is clamoring more and more for Sunday laws, upon religious grounds. Reduced to its lowest terms, their demand is for the legal recognition and enforcement of Sunday as the Sabbath of the Lord, upon the basis of the fourth commandment. Their published utterances show that this is so. AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.13
This thought was made very prominent in the late National Reform Convention at New Castle, P. In a speech in the convention referred to, Rev. R. C. Wylie, for years a leader in National Reform thought and work, said: “Formerly, the demand for Sabbath laws was based largely on humanitarian grounds. It was said that we should have such laws because men needed to rest one day in seven. But some of us said that will never do; that is not the correct basis for such legislation. And now Christian people have come to the conclusion that we must have a Sabbath law because God has one.” AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.14
Such expressions as this do much to open the eyes of the people to the true nature of Sunday legislation. AMS January 31, 1895, page 40.15