The American Sentinel 9
September 6, 1894
“Editorial” American Sentinel 9, 35, pp. 273, 274.
LAMST week we showed the absurdity of any suggestion of a “regency of God” as is not only suggested but claimed by the head of the Catholic Church, “Leo XIII., Pope.” AMS September 6, 1894, page 273.1
THIS claim of a regency of God, however, is of the same piece with the suggestions, and claim that man is head of the body of Christ, which is his church, as is claimed by, and in behalf of, the pope of Rome; and which is indeed the foundation claim of the papacy. AMS September 6, 1894, page 273.2
IN the Scriptures the Church of Christ is described under the figure of the human body as God made it. The relationship between Christ and his church is shown and illustrated by the relationship that exists between the human body and its head; and the relationship between Christ and the members of his church is illustrated by the relationship between the members of the human body and the head of that body as God has placed it. AMS September 6, 1894, page 273.3
“THE church is his body.” Ephesians 1:22. “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” 1 Corinthians 12:27. The members of his church are “members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones.” Ephesians 5:30. As with the members of the human body, the members of his church are also “members one of another” (Romans 12:5); therefore “the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.” “For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? ... But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him.” 1 Corinthians 12:14. These scriptures all speak of the Church of Christ. AMS September 6, 1894, page 273.4
NOW, Christ is the head of this body, which is his church. He is the head of this church, which is his body. For “He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead.” Colossians 1:18. “God raised him from the dead ... and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body.” Ephesians 1:19-23. And it is Christ himself, too, who is head of this church. Not Christ by a representative; not Christ by a substitute, a vicar, or a regent; but Christ himself, in his own proper person. This is certainly true, because in stating this same thought under the figure of a building, the Word declares that Christ himself is the chief corner stone, “the head-stone of the corner.” And here are the words: “Ye are God’s building.” 1 Corinthians 3:9. In Christ “All the building fitly framed together growth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation [a dwelling-place] of God through the Spirit.” “Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” Ephesians 2:21, 22, 19, 20. “This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:11, 12. Thus it is as certain as that the Scripture is true, that the head of the Church of Christ is “Jesus Christ himself.” Not Christ by a representative; not Christ by a substitute, a vicar, or a regent; but Christ himself in his own proper person. AMS September 6, 1894, page 273.5
YET the claim of the papacy is, that a man is head of the Church of Christ. The claim of the Catholic Church is, that the head of that church is the head of the Church of Christ. The claim of the church of Rome is, that the bishop of Rome is head of the Church of Christ—in the place of Christ—as the “representative,” the “substitute,” the “vicar,” the “regent,” of Christ. Here is the authoritative statement, if any were needed in proof of a thing that is so notorious and undenied as is this. It is well to set it down here, however, for the sake of the contrast between this absurd claim and the truth as it is in Jesus Christ and his written word. So we quote from Cardinal Gibbons:— AMS September 6, 1894, page 273.6
Says the Council of Florence (1439), at which also were present the bishops of the Greek and the Latin Church, “We define that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church, the father and doctor of all Christians; and we declare that to him, in the person of blessed Peter, was given by Jesus Christ our Saviour, full power to feed, rule and govern, the universal church.” AMS September 6, 1894, page 273.7
The pope is here called the true vicar or representative of Christ in this lower kingdom of his church militant; that is, the pope is the organ of our Saviour, and speaks his sentiments in faith and morals.—The Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 154, 155. AMS September 6, 1894, page 273.8
It was the Council of Chalcedon, 451, that first addressed the bishop of Rome as “the head, of whom we are the members.” AMS September 6, 1894, page 273.9
LET us look at this claim of the Catholic Church in view of the statements made in the Scriptures on this point. As we have seen, the Church of Christ is his body in this world, and he is its head. God is the builder of this body, the Church of Christ, as he was the builder of the human body in the beginning; for “God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him.” Now, take a human body as God made it, with the head in its place as God set it. In the place of that head, which God gave to that body, you put a “representative” head—a substitute head. In the place of the true head, which God set to that body, you put a “regency” head—another head to occupy the place in the absence of the true head—then what have you? Take away the head from a human body, and you have left only a dead body. This is the very first and the only result of taking away the head. And even though you set another head on this headless body, it is still only a dead body. AMS September 6, 1894, page 273.10
NOW this is precisely the case of the church of Rome. It was once the Church of Christ; its members were members of the body of Christ; and Christ was its head. It had life from Christ its living head, the life which is by faith, so that its “faith was spoken of throughout the whole world.” Romans 1:8. But, there came “a falling away.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3. The bishops and councils of the church put away Christ, the true head whom God had set, and put another, a man, in his place, as head of that church. The putting away of Christ, its living head, left it only a lifeless body; and the putting of another head in his place did not, and could not, give life to that lifeless body. So far as spiritual life is concerned—the real life of the Church of Christ—the church of Rome is as destitute of it as is a human body with its own head cut off and another head put on in its place. Thus the church of Rome is destitute of the life that vivifies the Church of Christ, and partakes only of the elements of death. The only hope for it, or for those that are connected with it, is to recognize that it is indeed spiritually dead, and have Christ the life-giver raise them from the dead, and connect them with himself as their living head, that thus they may live indeed. AMS September 6, 1894, page 273.11
WARNING was given against this very course of that church in the first days of the Church of Christ, and the same warning is yet given. In the second chapter of Colossians it is written: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.... Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind; and not holding the head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, are ye subject to ordinances after the doctrines and commandments of men? Which things indeed have a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting [punishing, margin] of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.”—Verses 7-10, 18-23. This is the divine warning against the spirit that made the papacy, against the papacy itself, against all its workings, and against its very nature. Men, fleshly-minded men, ambitious men, in the church, not being dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, holding the rudiments of the world and not holding the head—these were the men who put away from the people of Christ the true and living head, and put a man, one of their own sort, in his place. And to supply the lack of Him and his life they imposed upon the people a host of forms and ordinances, and commandments and doctrines of men, and voluntary humilities, and will-worshiping, and punishings of the body in penances and pilgrimages, and worshiping of angels, and saints, and dead people called saints. And this is the body of which “Leo XIII., Pope,” is the head. This is the church of Rome, with a man as its head, in the place of Christ. This is the Catholic Church. And this is how the bishop of Rome obtained his “regency of God on earth.” AMS September 6, 1894, page 274.1
THERE is another figure used in the Scriptures that forcibly illustrates the absurdity and iniquity of the claim of the church of Rome in this matter of the headship of the church. It is the relationship that exists between husband and wife in the marriage bond. In the fifth chapter of Ephesians, in speaking “concerning Christ and the Church,” it is done under the figure of the marriage relation, with Christ in the place of the husband, and the church in the place of the wife. And the Word says, “The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body. Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.... This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”—Verses 23, 24-32. The relationship of the church to Christ is thus plainly shown to be the same as that of the wife to her own husband. As the husband himself, and not another man, is the head of the wife; so Christ himself, and not another, is head of the church. AMS September 6, 1894, page 274.2
NOW, suppose another man should propose to put himself in between a husband and his wife, to speak to her the sentiments of her husband in faith and morals (?), what would the loyal wife do?—Everybody knows that she would resent such an intrusion, and would promptly repudiate all such proffers. But, suppose another man should not only propose to put himself in the place of the husband to the wife, but that the wife should agree to the proposal and actually accept this other man in the place of her husband to speak to her the sentiments of her husband in faith and morals, then what is that but treason to her own husband, apostasy from her marriage vows, and adultery with this other man? And what kind of faith and morals have you in that case?—Everybody knows that that would be nothing but unfaithfulness and immorality. AMS September 6, 1894, page 274.3
NOW, upon her own showing, upon her own claim, this is precisely the case of the Catholic Church. She claims to be “the bride of Christ.” She claims that she is “the spouse of Christ.” And yet she has accepted another, a man, as the “representative” of her husband, as the “substitute” for her husband, to occupy the place of her husband in his absence, to speak to her “his sentiments in faith and morals.” She not only has accepted another in the place of her husband, but she openly boasts of it and actually proclaims it as the chiefest evidence of her faithfulness, her morality, and her purity. How could the unfaithfulness, the apostasy, the immorality, and the impurity, of that church be more plainly shown than in this which is her boast? AMS September 6, 1894, page 274.4
HOW could the complete abandon, and the essential wantonness, of a wife, be more clearly demonstrated than in citing the confirmed fact of another man’s occupying the place of her husband to her, as evidence of her faithfulness and purity? Would not such a boast, and for such a purpose, be the strongest possible evidence that that woman’s native modesty and moral sense had become absolutely deadened? Yet this is precisely the case of the Catholic Church. She has accepted another to occupy the place of her husband to her. She constantly boasts before the world that this fact is evidence of her faithfulness, her morality, and her purity; and insists that all the world shall fall in with her in this course, in order that they may all be faithful and moral and pure! How could she more clearly demonstrate that all true sense of faithfulness, of morality, and of purity, has become completely obliterated from her consciousness? That a confirmed adulteress and harlot should boast of her iniquity as being the only way to righteousness, is certainly nothing else than the very mystery of iniquity itself. And such is the church of Rome. AMS September 6, 1894, page 274.5
SUCH is the merit, all that it has, of the claim that the Catholic Church is the true church; and that the bishop of Rome, the head of the church, is the head of the Church of Christ and “holds the regency of God on earth.” AMS September 6, 1894, page 274.6
“Still Courting Rome” American Sentinel 9, 35, p. 276.
THERE are “Protestants” and Protestants. The former are those who, while bearing the name, declare by their acts that Protestantism has no reason for existence, no excuse for being; that Rome is Christian, one of the “grand divisions of the Redeemer’s army,” etc. Such “Protestants” have no use for the caution given by the Apostle John: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed.” Rome comes bringing another doctrine, namely, salvation by penance instead of salvation by faith, and yet “Protestants” do, in effect bid her God-speed, as witnesseth the following from the Pilot, the leading Catholic paper of Boston:— AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.1
Chautauqua Sends Greetings
On Wednesday, August 8, a very interesting incident occurred. It was the receipt of a telegram by the Rev. Thomas J. Conaty, D.D., president of the Catholic Summer School, from Bishop John H. Vincent, the chancellor and founder of Chautauqua. It read:— AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.2
Chautauqua, N.Y., August 7. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.3
By a vote of 5,000 Chautauquans to-night Chautauqua sends greeting and best wishes to the Catholic Summer School. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.4
JOHN H. VINCENT. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.5
Wednesday night, just before Father Pardow’s lecture, Dr. Conaty read the telegram to a crowded audience, which received it with enthusiasm and loudly applauded this answer:— AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.6
The scholars of the Catholic Summer School of America are deeply grateful for Chautauqua’s cordial greeting, and send best wishes to Chautauqua in return. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.7
THOS. J. CONATY, President. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.8
But this is only what we might expect. Years ago “Protestants” declared: “Whenever they [the Roman Catholics] are willing to coöperate with us in resisting the progress of political atheism we will gladly join hands with them.” This Chautauqua gush is only a part of the programme. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.9
“A Righteous Decision” American Sentinel 9, 35, pp. 276, 277.
SOME months since a Roman Catholic died in Buffalo, N.Y., leaving seven children. Previous to her death she divided among these children $1,200. She then made a will by which she bequeathed the whole of her remaining estate, $1,000 in trust to Nicholas Bashman, to be used by him in paying for “masses for the benefit of my poor soul, and for the benefit of the soul of my deceased husband.” The seven children contested the will. Mr. Bashman had been left with discretionary power to pay the money for the masses to any church he chose. The attorney for the children appeared before the surrogate, and opposed the admission of the will to probate on the following grounds:— AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.1
1. That the trustee has too much discretion. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.2
2. That a soul has no standing in a temporal court. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.3
3. That the trust is illegal, not being for the benefit of any living human being. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.4
In arguing the case he set forth the following points: AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.5
a. The very existence of the soul after death has never been proved. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.6
b. That its alleged immortality has never been sustained by facts. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.7
c. That the whole subject of a hereafter is a matter of pure speculation. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.8
d. That the law requires that trust should be for the benefit of living human beings, and this creates a trust for the benefit of a soul which may possibly be nonexistent. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.9
c. Further, he raised the question whether the soul, it immortal, would derive any benefit from the masses said. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.10
At the hearing of the case recently it was shown, in addition to the facts already stated, that the maker of the will was of sound mind and memory, and the will was properly made. She directed that all her debts, doctor’s bills, and funeral expenses should be paid, and that the balance should be applied to masses, as already stated. In rendering his decision the judge said:— AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.11
The intent of the testator is the rule of construction. The most sacred duty the court can perform is to give full force to the intentions of the deceased.... She had a right to appropriate her money as she deemed reasonable and proper, to offer masses for the remission of her and her dead husband’s sins. The direction, “a Roman Catholic Church in Buffalo,” is not indefinite. AMS September 6, 1894, page 276.12
The court very properly declined to consider the question of the immortality of the soul, dismissing it with the remark that it was enough to know that the testator believed it. The decision is just. The property of the testator was her own. She might have directed that it should be used in erecting a monument to her memory, or to providing a memorial window to some church, but instead she elected that it should be devoted to masses for herself and her deceased husband. It is true that the masses could be of no possible benefit to either herself or her husband, but that is a question outside the jurisdiction of any civil court. AMS September 6, 1894, page 277.1
“Too True” American Sentinel 9, 35, p. 278.
THE hidden aim of the advocates of church taxation is disclosed by the Boston Congregationalist, which says: “The amount of property in the United States in church buildings and equipment is very large, being in 1890, according to the census report, $679,694,439. But of this amount Roman Catholics control only $118,069,746. If an attempt by Protestants to weaken the power of Catholics were wise under any circumstances, it evidently would not be wise for Protestants to advocate, for that purpose mainly, the taxation of church property.” The Congregationalist does not condemn the attempt to injure the Catholics, it only calls attention to the fact that this ought not to be done in a way that will hurt the Protestant sects more than it will the Catholic Church. But to weaken the Catholics—that is the object of the champions of church property taxation.—Catholic Review. AMS September 6, 1894, page 278.1
It is too true that much of the opposition on the part of so-called Protestants to State aid to religious institutions is not because of adherence to a principle but with the view of injuring Rome. Such “Protestants” are always ready to avail themselves of State aid in any way that offers. Several denominations saw no impropriety in accepting money from the Government for the support of mission schools among the Indians until they discovered that the Catholics were getting the lion’s share. Then they refused to accept further bounties from the civil power and demanded that Rome should support her own schools also. The reason for the change of front was too obvious. The time to have protested successfully was when the evil was in its infancy, and before they had themselves eaten of the Government’s pottage. But the birthright has been sold, and now they find no place for repentance though they seek it carefully with tears. AMS September 6, 1894, page 278.2
“Seventh-day Adventists and the Authorities of Basle” American Sentinel 9, 35, pp. 278, 279.
AMS our readers are aware, for some time in the past the police authorities of Basle, Switzerland, have been endeavoring to compel H. P. Holser, the manager of the Seventh-day Adventists’ publishing house in that city, to suspend operations on Sunday. Mr. Holser has been arrested several times, and fines have been imposed and finally collected by the sale of his household effects; he refusing to pay voluntarily. AMS September 6, 1894, page 278.1
Subsequent to the seizure of his goods, Mr. Holser was again arrested, and August 16 he was fined 200 francs and sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment. If the fine is not paid, as it will not be, the term of imprisonment will be sixty-one days. Mr. Holser, who is a minister, writes thus to a brother minister in London, of his trial:— AMS September 6, 1894, page 278.2
Basle, August 18, 1894. AMS September 6, 1894, page 278.3
DEAR BROTHER WAGGONER:—
I had much more time than at former hearings, and could state our position more fully than ever, though not as fully as I should like. When I opened my Bible to read some passages, they did not seem to relish that sort of argument. AMS September 6, 1894, page 278.4
This being the sixth offense, they did not seem much inclined to hear from me. The president acted as uneasy as though he were sitting over a hornet’s nest; but as I had been shut off too soon at other times, I insisted on stating our position, and succeeded in getting much more time than on former occasions. After I made my plea the State’s attorney spoke, stating that the law was very plain, that I had been punished repeatedly and still insisted on working, instead of appealing to the higher authorities to settle the question as to whether the police authorities were doing us injustice, but instead had circulated a pamphlet in the city to bring the police authorities in disrepute. He would not advise imprisonment, for this would only be furnishing us an advertisement; but would propose a higher money fine—300 francs. He also stated that I seemed to be ignorant of the fact that the State had no creed! i.e. nothing to do with religion. AMS September 6, 1894, page 278.5
Time was then allowed me, in which I replied to the points which he made, showing that Sunday is a religious day, and if the religion were taken away, our difficulty would soon cease. Sunday is to be found only where Christianity is found. And when the French Revolutionists rejected so-called Christianity, they rejected the Sunday as a part of it. Also that our work in itself was not of a nature to disturb people if they were not influenced by religious prejudices. On the green in front of our house is ten times as much noise as our work makes; there is shooting, football, companies of soldiers drilling, and officers shouting, so that the little noise which we make is entirely drowned. Yet all this does not disturb people. This proves that it is not the noise that disturbs people, but it is our religion; it is because we don’t believe as they do; and their being disturbed on such grounds is purely papal; and for us to yield to their demands under such circumstances would be the same as bowing to the papacy; God expressly warns us against doing this. So, although Sunday may be called a purely civil day, it does interfere with our religious rights. I intended to make more points, but the judge interrupted me, and closed the hearing. After having been out about ten minutes, I was called back to hear the sentence. The judge closed with the statement that if we did not stop work he would next order that the house be closed altogether. AMS September 6, 1894, page 278.6
The reports in the papers were quite fair. One point they made particularly clear, for which I am glad, and that is, we declared that we could never obey Sunday laws, as that was the same to us as obeying man rather than God. AMS September 6, 1894, page 279.1
And appeal has been taken to a higher court, and the result is awaited with interest. It is evident that the prosecution of Seventh-day Adventists for refusing to obey laws enforcing obedience to a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, is becoming world-wide. But this state of things is just what they have been expecting for more than forty years. They have declared that the governments of earth would attempt to cause all men to worship the papacy or a system made in the image of the papacy, and that this would be done by attempting to force all men to observe Sunday, the mark of Roman Catholic power. Events are multiplying on every hand showing the fulfillment of these predictions. These events have, for forty years, been expected through faith in the prophetic word of God, but it has been only recently that they have seen the persecutions which are a fulfillment. They have, for more than forty years, declared that the Sunday Sabbath was exclusively a Roman Catholic institution, and now in 1893, Cardinal Gibbons’ paper, the Catholic Mirror, comes forward declaring the “Christian Sabbath” (Sunday) to be the “genuine offspring of the Catholic Church,” without scriptural authority for its support; and further that the observance of it by Protestants who profess to take the Bible for their guide, is “indefensible, self-contradictory, and suicidal;” and further still, challenges the whole Protestant world to disprove its position. AMS September 6, 1894, page 279.2
For more than forty years Seventh-day Adventists have declared that Sunday laws were an attempt to enforce obedience to this Roman Catholic dogma, and now in 1894 a Roman Catholic member of the Canadian Parliament, in a speech against a Sunday law, declares that by the bill the author “seeks to compel a great number of his fellow-citizens to disobey the Word of God, and obey the words of a church, (Roman Catholic) of which they (Seventh-day Adventists) do not approve.” Again only a few days ago Mr. Pax, a Catholic priest, of Sleepy Eye, Minn., declared in a published letter, that “The imprisonment of Seventh-day Adventists.... for performing bodily labor on the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, proves that the Government assumes the right to enforce a religious dogma of the Catholic Church.” AMS September 6, 1894, page 279.3
There is no doubt of the correctness of the position. And now let Seventh-day Adventists in all the world, with one heart and one mind, stand resolutely and refuse to “worship the beast and his image and receive his mark.” AMS September 6, 1894, page 279.4
“Back Page” American Sentinel 9, 35, p. 280.
A KENTUCKY woman who opposes the renomination of Col. W. C. P. Breckinridge for Congress, has written a letter “To the Men and Women of the Blue Grass,” in which she says: “What we need from the Ashland district is a clean, pure man, with brains enough to know that it is a man’s actions and not his religious twaddle that make for righteousness, and not brains enough to fool a whole community for half a century into thinking him a Christian gentleman when he is directly the reverse.” This is unkind to National Reform, the stock in trade, of which is high profession; not that many engaged in this movement are not highly moral men, but they are—unwittingly, it is true, but none the less really—doing all in their power to commit the whole nation to a course of hypocrisy similar to that pursued by the father of the Breckinridge Sunday bill. To dub the nation “Christian” will no more make it such than did years of false profession make a Christian gentleman of the “hero” of the worst scandal that has ever shocked Washington society. AMS September 6, 1894, page 280.1
IT is stated that Cardinal Gibbons has received a letter from the pope “couched in very affectionate terms,” inviting him to visit Rome. This he proposes to do, it is said, probably before the close of the present year. It is supposed that the pope wishes to consult the cardinal about matters of importance relative to the interests of “the church” in America. It is intimated that Satolli is to be clothed with still greater authority by the pope, and that the cardinal’s visit to Rome may have something to do with the contemplated enlarging of the powers of the papal delegate. Protestants who sneeze when papal dignitaries take snuff, will of course feel flattered that the pope is paying so much attention to this country; but others will watch to see what new phase of the popish conspiracy against American institutions will unfold next. It will not be forgotten that according to the pope himself, “what the church has done in the past for others she will do for the United States;” and until this dire threat has been retracted Americans cannot feel otherwise than apprehensive, and start at every new evidence of the pope’s affection for, and interest in, this country. AMS September 6, 1894, page 280.2
THE New York Observer has this to say about how Sunday is observed by Roman Catholics in Japan:— AMS September 6, 1894, page 280.3
The Romanists in Japan have a special dispensation from the pope, allowing them to labor half of the Sabbath day and attend to their religious services the other half. But in spite of these concessions, Romanism does not receive the favor given Protestantism. A half-breed religion wins no one’s respect. Even the Japanese can see through the hollow sham which the pope offers them and despise it. AMS September 6, 1894, page 280.4
Why should the Japanese “see through the hollow sham which the pope offers them and despise it,” any more than so-called Protestants in other countries? It seems that the Japanese take only half of this papal sham—a false Sabbath—while the Observer, and with it nearly all the Protestant world, has greedily swallowed the whole of it, even though warned by Rome herself that it rests only on the authority of the church, and that the Protestants have no right to any part of it. AMS September 6, 1894, page 280.5
But if the Japanese are to accept Sunday at all, why not take it just as the pope gives it to them? As a “Christian” institution it was made by the papacy, and what authority other than the papacy can so well tell how it ought to be observed. The intent of the lawmakers is the law; and who better than the Roman Catholic Church can tell the meaning of her own law for the observance of the false Sabbath which she has given, not alone to her own votaries, but to the world? The Observer has in this matter of Sunday observance not a leg to stand upon in opposition to Rome. If Protestants would only teach the heathen that which the Bible says about the Sabbath, teach them to keep the Bible Sabbath instead of a base counterfeit, then might they properly criticise this dispensation granted by the pope to Japanese Catholics; but so long as they adhere to the papal day, they should keep silence as to the papal manner of observing it. Let Rome do what she will with her own. AMS September 6, 1894, page 280.6