The Present Truth, vol. 11
February 28, 1895
“Interpretation” The Present Truth 11, 9.
E. J. Waggoner
“Interpretation,” as applied to the Scripture, means the art of attempting to reconcile the precepts of the Lord with the practices of men. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.1
“Overcoming Evil” The Present Truth 11, 9.
E. J. Waggoner
Overcoming Evil.-The Word of God tells us the only way to overcome evil,—“overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:21. This means that we are simply to let the good in, and it will drive the evil out. By yielding to the good, we deliver a fatal blow to the evil. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.2
“Guarding Reputation” The Present Truth 11, 9.
E. J. Waggoner
Guarding Reputation.-The man who sets himself the task of jealously guarding his reputation, has a job that will last him a lifetime, and which will give them no opportunity to do anything else. He must needs keep himself informed of everything that everybody says about him, and must give diligence to correct every erroneous statement. The life of such a man must be a burden to himself; most certainly it is to everybody else. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.3
“A Fool’s Sacrifice” The Present Truth 11, 9.
E. J. Waggoner
A Fool’s Sacrifice.-This is a sacrifice of empty words. No defective sacrifice offered to God was acceptable, and vain words are wholly valueless. The Scripture admonishes us, “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools.... Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter anything before God; for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few.” Ecclesiastes 5:1, 2. A fool vows that which he does not pay; he promises what he is not able to perform (verse 4), and with this He satisfies his conscience. But God can be satisfied with nothing but reality. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.4
“Statement and Appeal” The Present Truth 11, 9.
E. J. Waggoner
It is quite well known to all readers of the daily press, as well as the readers of the PRESENT TRUTH, that on the 13th day of February, the Secretary of the International Tract Society, 59, Paternoster Row, with works at 451, Holloway Road, was, in behalf of the Society, summoned in the Clerkenwell Court, and subjected to fine and costs amounting to ?3 18s. for violation of the Factory Act, the offence being that of employing two women and one young person on Sunday. The Secretary informed the magistrate that he could not in conscience pay the fine, and was informed that goods from the works could be seized to cover the amount. So far it seems a very simple affair. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.5
HISTORY OF THE CASE
The International Tract Society, which is the missionary Society of the Seventh-day Adventists, has been doing a publishing business at 451, Holloway Road for about six years. In all that time labour has been regularly performed on Sundays, the Sabbath being strictly observed. At various times Factory Inspectors have visited the works, and have known that Sunday was regularly used as a labouring day. No effort has been made to conceal the fact. One Inspector stated that inasmuch as no work was done on the seventh day, the intent of the Act was fully met. No action was taken with regard to the Sunday work until a few months ago an Inspector informed the manager that the employment of women or young persons in any factory on Sunday was not permitted. He stated, however, that an exception was made in the case of Jews. A form was also sent to be filled out, claiming exemption as Jews. This of course cannot be done, since Seventh-day Adventists are Christians. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.6
After mature deliberation on the part of the Directors of the Society, it was decided that they could not in conscience require any employés to refrain from labour on Sunday; but in order not to seem to ignore the authorities in the matter, it was deemed best to send the following resolution and statement to the Home Office:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.7
In consideration of the facts that we are commanded by God to keep holy the seventh day as the Sabbath, and that we cannot so keep the day holy to the Lord while at the same time regarding the Sunday, which is a rival institution to God’s Sabbath, thus yielding homage to the power which established the Sunday in opposition to the law of God and Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath; therefore be it PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.8
Resolved, That it be recorded as the mind of the Board of Directors that, having closed our office on the Sabbath, we cannot in conscience also close it to any regular employés on Sunday, nor can we refuse to allow such persons to work on Sunday if they desire to do so; and further PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.9
Resolved, That those in charge of departments be instructed to see that the provisions of the Factory Act are otherwise, where this principle is not involved, carefully complied with, and further PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.10
Resolved, That a statement of the case be prepared for submission to the Home Office, setting forth the reasons for this action. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.11
THE STATEMENT
“The International Tract Society, Limited, is a Seventh-day Adventist Institution, a body whose members regard the Bible as the word of God, and as telling in plain terms our duty to our Creator. As a consequence, they observe the seventh day of the week, in obedience to the fourth commandment which says:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.12
“‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy works; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.’ PTUK February 28, 1895, page 129.13
“By this commandment we are strictly forbidden to labour on the seventh day of the week. Not only so, but we are forbidden to recognise any other day having a religious significance, as a day of rest; for if any other such day be to any degree recognised as a rest day, the distinction between it and the true Sabbath is to that degree broken down, and therefore the Sabbath is not kept holy or separate from other days. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.1
“The keeping of Sunday is therefore a direct violation of the fourth commandment, the day itself being a rival of the Sabbath of the Lord, brought into the church when the Pagan element gained control of it in the third and fourth centuries. We cannot therefore, without disloyalty to God, recognise Sunday in any way whatever as different from the other labouring days of the week, nor as having anything whatever in common with the Sabbath of the Lord. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.2
“On this ground, we find it impossible to make any difference in our work on that day by requiring some of the regular employés to remain away from work. This statement is a result of careful consideration of all the principles involved, it is made out of respect to the authorities, so that they may not misunderstand our position, and that we may not appear to be acting evasively in the matter. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.3
“Since the seventh day of the week is recognised as the Sabbath by the cessation of all labour, it follows that, as a matter of conscience, work cannot be performed in our factory on more than six days in the week. No consideration whatever could induce the Society to employ labour on the seventh day (from sunset Friday night to sunset Saturday night), nor would its employés consent to labour on that day if it were required. They are all conscientious in their observance of the fourth commandment, and therefore freely and gladly labour on any and all of the six working days, having rested the seventh. Each individual is free to act upon his or her own convictions as to labouring on the first day of the week; but whether they labour on that day or not, they could not by any possibility labour on more than six days in one week. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.4
“The Directors of the International Tract Society, Limited, feel bound in conscience to observe with the utmost faithfulness every provision of the Factory Act that does not require a violation of the commandment of the Lord. In fact, the object of the Act, insofar as it seeks to guard employés against being overworked, is fully met, and must be, as a matter of conscience, even if there were no such Act, since the seventh day must be strictly observed, and since, as Christians, and followers of Him who said, ‘Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them,’ we are bound to do all that may be pointed out as necessary for the safety and health of those employed; but to recognise Sunday as in any way whatever different from other working days, by ceasing a portion of our work on that day, we may not do, since it would be sin against God.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.5
This was evidently taken as a request for permission to labour on Sundays, and a letter was received from the Chief Inspector, stating his regret that the law made no provision for Seventh-day Adventists. The following Sunday an Inspector visited the works, and found all the hands at work as usual, and in due time a summons was issued, with the result above stated. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.6
THE OFFICE
These statements are made, not for the purpose of eliciting sympathy, but that the readers may fully understand the case, and appreciate what will follow. Without the above statements the reader could not see exactly what is the real offence in this case. For what was the Society, in the person of the Managing Director, convicted? We will first state what it was not for. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.7
It was not for working employés overtime. The employés labour only fifty-four hours a week, having a half-holiday on Fridays, and doing absolutely no work on the seventh day of the week, when the establishment is strictly closed. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.8
It was not for insanitary surroundings, nor for endangering the lives of employés by unprotected machinery; for the Inspector bore witness to the healthfulness of the conditions under which labour is performed. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.9
For what, then, was the conviction?—Solely for employing certain hands on Sunday, after they had rested on the seventh day of the week. It was purely a question of Sunday work. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.10
It should further be stated that these persons are not employed against their will, for that since they conscientiously observe the seventh day, they desire to work on Sunday. To compel them to desist from work on Sunday would be to deprive them of one-sixth of their earnings, since no consideration would induce them to labour on the Sabbath. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.11
It is evident, therefore, that no plea of humanity can be urged for the enforcement of the Factory Act in this instance. On the contrary, its enforcement would be a positive injury to the employés whom it seeks to compel to desist from work on Sundays. The sole issue is over the Sunday. It is not a question of protecting labourers, but protecting the Sunday. And now with the facts before us, we may proceed to consider PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.12
THE REAL POINT AT ISSUE
The following extract from the Daily Globe, will suffice as a text to show how utterly the real issue is misunderstood:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.13
However, they would not allow that they were Jews, even in the legal sense, and the English laws do not provide for anybody else being allowed to work on Sundays. The magistrate fined the Society, as he was bound to fine it, but the Secretary explained that the tender consciences of the Directors would not permit them to pay the money, in spite of Mr. Bros’ suggestion that the law was likely to prove too strong for them in the end. We will venture to suggest to these worthy people that they had better keep Sunday as well as Saturday, till they can get the law altered, or they will find that the fines will amount to a good deal more than the profits on Sundays. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.14
The question, Why not yield to the law until it can be altered? covers the whole ground, and we will answer it in detail. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.15
THE COMMANDMENT
In a word we may answer the above question by saying that we are positively forbidden to do so. Here is a higher law, which admits of no exception:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.16
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.17
This commandment requires us to keep holy the seventh day. “To hallow” and “to sanctify” are the same thing, both terms being a translation of one and the same Hebrew word. Consequently the following rendering of the fourth commandment, found in Deuteronomy 5:12, is identical with that in Exodus 20:8. “Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.18
MEANING OF “SANCTIFY’
In the account of the preparation for the giving of the fourth commandment we have the word “sanctify” perfectly illustrated. The Lord told Moses to set bounds about the mountain upon which the Lord was coming down, so that the people should not approach it. Accordingly, after Moses had ascended the mountain to meet the Lord, and the Lord again charged him to warn the people against coming near the mountain, “Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai; for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.” Exodus 19:23. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 130.19
From this we learn that the mountain was “sanctified” by being set off from all the surrounding country. The ground that was made sacred by the presence of the Lord was so clearly distinguished from the rest, but nobody had any excuse for not recognising the difference. To sanctify, therefore, or to hallow, means to keep a thing separate and distinct from everything else. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.1
Apply this now to the Sabbath. The commandment says that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and charges us to sanctify it or to keep it holy. We are to keep it separate from other days, by doing none of our own work upon it, while upon the other six days we are charged to do with our might whatsoever our hands finds to do. The great and essential difference between the Sabbath and other days is that it is a rest day, while they are labouring days. If now we should labour on the Sabbath the same as on other days, it is very evident that we should not sanctify it. We should be putting no difference between it and ordinary days. But suppose, on the other hand, that we should rest upon the seventh day, and should also regularly rest upon another day as well; it must be just as evident that in this case we should also be breaking down the distinction between the Sabbath and other days. In other words, we should not be sanctifying the Sabbath. So far as our action was concerned, no one would be able to tell which day is the Sabbath. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.2
Now the reader can see why we cannot keep Sunday as well as the Sabbath, pending some proposed alteration to be considered later on. Just as true worship of the true God is impossible while also worshipping another god, so it is impossible to keep the Sabbath of the Lord according to the commandment, and at the same time regard another day. The commandment which tells us to sanctify the Sabbath day,—the Sabbath of the Lord,—thereby forbids us to give to any other day any of the honour which belongs alone to the Sabbath. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.3
Let it be understood that there is no controversy with those who may not think that the fourth commandment is to be strictly and literally regarded. They are free to think and act as they choose. We are simply taking the commandment as it reads, remembering the words of Christ, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” Luke 16:17. By the commandment we are positively forbidden to recognise Sunday as in any way whatever different from Monday or Tuesday. This is why we cannot keep Sunday as well as the Sabbath, whether for a few weeks or for ever. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.4
THE MAJESTY OF THE LAW
“But,” it will be urged, “the dignity of the law must be maintained, and it must be enforced; you must not expect that the law can be set aside to suit your ideas; and surely as Christians it is your duty to obey the law, and not to defy it.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.5
Very good; and in reply we have this to say. First, we by no means expect or desire that any exception should be made to meet our ideas. A law that is not good for everybody and at all times, is not good for anything. Second, we recognise the fact that the Christian, of all persons, must respect the law, and must by no means defy it. “He that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God; and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment.” Romans 13:2, R.V. God forbid that we should ever be found in a position of defiance or opposition to any earthly Government. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.6
Here, however, is a point which our friends who have so kindly advised us, seem not to have thought of. While we are upholding the majesty of the law, shall we ignore the claims of the law of God? Is English law superior to the law of God? We yield to no one in respect to the English Government and its law; but we are bound to regard the Government of God, and His laws, as higher still. It is not that we regard English law less, but that we regard the law of God more. Let us put the case squarely: Here is a man who acknowledges that there is a God who is above all, and who has laws; now what becomes of this acknowledgement if, when he talks about the majesty of the law, he sets the laws of men above the laws of God? PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.7
Let it be understood then, that this is not a case of opposition to the civil law, but of reverence for the law of God. But here is a case where the civil law directly opposes the law of God. We are forced therefore to say to the rulers, as did the apostles, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” Acts 4:19. The controversy is not between us and Government, but between Government and a law of God. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.8
As before stated, we are bound to obey the law of the land no matter what sacrifice of money or convenience. But this is PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.9
NOT A QUESTION OF CONVENIENCE
but solely one of loyalty to God’s law. Our adviser has said that if we do not change our course we shall find that the fines will amount to much more than the profits on Sundays. Very likely; but that has nothing to do with the case. If no principle were involved, then it would be simple stubbornness not to give way; but where principle is at stake, then inconvenience or profit has no place. Our duty is clear. We must obey God, and we must not resist the laws of the land. If therefore the laws of the land come in conflict with the law of God, we must take the consequences, whatever they may be. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.10
We have shown that it is impossible for us to keep the Sunday as well as the Sabbath until the law is altered; let us now say a few words as to the fact itself of PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.11
GETTING THE LAW ALTERED
Our friends would have us make an appeal to the Government to have an exception made in our favour, permitting us to labour on Sunday without molestation. But this we cannot do. Why not?—Simply because such a course would be insulting both to God and to Parliament. How so? Thus: God Himself has already not only given us permission to labour on the first day of the week, but has commanded us to make a difference between it and His rest day. Surely anybody can see that it would be an insult to Him for us to ask men for permission to obey Him. It would be holding Him inferior to men. It would be to exalt Parliament above God, saying, “We wish to obey the Lord, but we cannot think of doing so without your permission.” Or, it would be the same as saying, “Will you not allow us to keep the commandment of the Lord, and protect us in so doing?” would not the infidel well retort, “What kind of a God do you serve? If you have to appeal to men to protect you in His service, you would do better to forsake Him, and to serve the men in whom you trust.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 131.12
Again, to appeal to Parliament to change the law in our favour, would be an insult to it, for that would imply that if the permission were not granted we would not obey the Lord’s commandment; and this alternative could by no means follow. To ask permission to keep the commandment and at the same time to say that if the permission were not granted we should obey it just the same, would be the height of disrespect. So we are not allowed to take any steps toward inducing the Government to make any change in its laws, further than may be done by the simple statement of the truth. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.1
Let us repeat that our personal convenience cuts no figure whatever in the affair. Really, the case concerns the people of England. To whom we appeal, far more than it does us. And let it be further understood that we make this appeal not in our own behalf, but in theirs. It is not that we may be saved from inconvenience or pecuniary loss, but that they, or at least some, may be saved from taking sides against God, in opposing His law. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.2
RIGHTS AND RIGHT
Let it also be distinctly understood that we do not arraign the Government in this matter. We do not question its right to make whatever laws it chooses. Christ said, “If any man hear My words, and believe not, I judge him not,” thus giving to every man perfect freedom to believe and obey, or not, just as he pleases, and throwing upon him the responsibility of his own choice. That is to say, The Lord gives to every man the right to do wrong, and to suffer the consequences. The privilege that He grants to one man, he grants to all, and to every combination of men. Therefore Governments have the privilege, granted them by God, even to oppose Him if they choose. But the consequences of such choice must be faithfully set before them. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.3
God gives to every man the right to set himself and his rights up against His Creator, but lets him know that such a course is most wrong. The part of the true follower of God is to refuse to choose for himself, and to allow God to choose his way for him; to claim no rights for himself, but to regard the right only of God to his undivided service. While the men of the world may be concerned about his rights, the Christian can be concerned only about what is right. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.4
One has said that the members of the Society are likely to find that the law will “be too strong for them in the end.” From one point of view, that may be the case. But it is impossible that the law should be too strong for the commandment of God, and on that we stand. That Word is settled for ever, and he who stands upon it is safe, even though he lose his life. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.5
OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY
It is often the case that officers of the law excuse themselves for executing a law which they know to be wrong, and seek to absolve themselves from all responsibility in the matter, by saying, “You know that we are bound to enforce the law; we do not like to do it, but we cannot help ourselves.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.6
That is a mistake. Nobody is forced to do wrong. Nobody can shield himself under the mantle of the Government. “Every man shall give account of himself to God.” The men who make the laws are individually responsible to God for their action. If they exercise their right to do wrong, they will as individuals have to bear the responsibility. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.7
The officers of all are in the same position of individual responsibility. Lowell has well and quaintly put it, PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.8
“If you take a sword and dror it,
And go stick a feller thru,
Gov’ment aint to answer for it;
God’ll send the bill to you.”
PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.9
God has said, “Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished.” Multitudes joined together in any wrong course, do not make it right, and do not lessen the responsibility of each individual. The official is in the same relation to the law as the private citizen. If Government commands him to do a thing that is unjust, he must say, “We must obey God rather than men,” and abide whatever may result. Governments cannot absolve any man, whether he be an official or a private person, from allegiance to God. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.10
“ACTING CONSCIENTIOUSLY’
When the magistrate imposed the fine upon the Secretary of the Society, he very graciously added that he had no doubt but that they were acting conscientiously. Now, reader, whether you are a judge or a private citizen, let me ask you a question. Suppose there was a thing which you conscientiously regarded as a matter of vital principle, but the law forbade it, under penalty; Would you stifle your conscience, in order to escape the penalty? or would you be true to your conscience, let the consequences be what they might? Let every man answer this for himself. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.11
The freedom of England is a matter of boast; but if there had not been scores and hundreds of men and women in England in time past who would rather suffer death and do what they were convinced was wrong, liberty would not be found in England to-day even in the dictionary. The very name of it would be forgotten. We have need to beware lest, while we build the tombs of the prophets and martyrs, we give evidence that we are the children of those who killed them. We cannot honour those noble men, no matter how much we boast of their deeds, if we basely yield our consciences into the keeping of another. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.12
PARLIAMENT AND CONSCIENCE
The Inspector who conducted the prosecution of the Society for Sunday work, referred to the fact that it was a matter of conscience, but said, “Parliament cannot make a law to fit every individual conscience,” and all seemed to think that that settled the matter. “But,” our friends say to us, “do you really think it can?” We reply, No; and therefore it cannot, in justice, legislate with regard to anybody’s conscience, since to do so is for it to commit sin, and to attempt to force others to sin. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.13
The idea that a man ought to make his conscience bow to the law of the State, is a most pernicious one. It is to say that the State is the keeper of conscience. It is to make of the State a gigantic priest who shall dole out the measure of faith to every man. It is to say that a man has no business to have any conscience of his own, or even to think anything different from what the men at the head of the Government prescribe for him to think. In short, it is to make a god of the State, and even to set it above God, since God Himself does not seek to compel any man’s mind or conscience. Englishmen are justly very jealous of the encroachments of Popery; but if a man must submit his conscience in the keeping of another, what difference does it make whether that other sits in the Vatican or in Westminster? PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.14
But after all, to come back to the main point, this is PTUK February 28, 1895, page 132.15
NOT MERELY A QUESTION OF CONSCIENCE,
nor of interpretation of Scripture, but of fact. The fourth commandment plainly says that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” and there is no interpretation to it. Interpretation is needed only for those things that are obscure; but this language is very plain. It is not a question of how we understand a portion of Scripture, but of whether or not we believe and will obey it. And we do not make any demand that Parliament shall pay any regard to our conscience; but we do ask the people of England, high and low, to have regard for their own conscience, and remember that the word of God is the only true guide of it. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.1
CHRIST OR ANTICHRIST?
But the crowning point of all is that this question is in reality a question of loyalty to Christ. We will avoid everything like involved argument, and will simply make a few statements that a child can follow. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.2
Speaking of Christ, the beloved disciple said, “Whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected; hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked.” 1 John 2:5, 6. To be a Christian means to do as Christ did, and not to do differently. There is but one standard of Christianity, and that is Christ. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.3
But Christ did not change the Sabbath. On the contrary, He kept the seventh-day Sabbath of the commandment, the same day that the Jews regarded. How may you know this? Search the Scriptures, and see for yourself. The fact that in the whole of the New Testament there is not the slightest hint of any change in the day of the Sabbath, is sufficient evidence that the Scripture warrants no change in the practice. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.4
Further, you will find the term “Sabbath” used many times in the New Testament, and invariably with reference to the seventh day of the week, the original Sabbath. But the Scripture was written by holy men under the influence of the Holy Spirit of God. It was written as the guide for Christians. Its language is the language which the Holy Spirit has given for Christians. Therefore the only Christian name for the seventh day is the Sabbath, and the only Sabbath for Christians is the seventh day. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.5
But in the lack of time just at the present to read the New Testament through in order to find the absence of Sunday, let us read one or two impartial statements, since they are from men who believe in Sunday. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.6
Rev. Isaac Williams, B.D., late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford, in a book entitled, “Plain Sermons on the Catechism,” published by Longmans, Green & Co., makes the following candid admissions:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.7
In the first place we are commanded to keep holy the seventh day: but yet we do not think it necessary to keep the seventh day holy; for the seventh day is Saturday. It may be said that we keep the first day instead; but surely this is not the same thing; the first day cannot be the seventh day; and where are we told in Scripture that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day.-p. 334. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.8
On the next page but one he says that a difficulty to be explained is “how it is that the observance of the seventh day is done away with, although there is no warrant in Holy Scripture for doing so,” and gives the following answer:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.9
The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the Church, has enjoined it. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.10
The writer of the above seems to represent that branch of the Church of England that does not sympathise with Rome; going to the other branch, we find that Canon Knox-Little, in his book on “Sacerdotalism,” in which he argues in favour of Romish practices, against the Evangelical portion of the Church of England, says:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.11
Well, as to certain specific statements of Scripture which are said to forbid the teaching of fasting communion. What are they? The palmary argument of opponents is that our Lord instituted the Blessed Sacrament “after supper.” It is difficult to believe that fairly instructed persons who use this argument are in earnest, and sincerely believe what they say. It would be just as sensible to argue that you are a “sacerdotalist” for observing the Lord’s day, instead of observing the Jewish Saturday. It is certain that our Lord when on earth did observe Saturday, and did not observe Sunday; but no one, as far as I know, has ever been called a “sacerdotalist” for departing from His undoubted habit of “resting the seventh day.”—p. 75. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.12
And again:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.13
Their effort strictly to adhere to our Lord’s example to the letter, in spite of the usage of the Church, implies that they know better what our Lord desired than His Church. If they are consistent, as I have said, they must keep Saturday, not Sunday, as the day of rest.-p. 93. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.14
Here the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is shown to be the crucial test whether with Rome or against her. It is not only admitted that the seventh day, commonly called Saturday, is the only Bible Sabbath, but it is shown that disregarding it involves the acceptance of the ceremonies and authority of Rome. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.15
Now since Christ did not change the Sabbath, but kept it, it necessarily follows that His church did not and cannot change the Sabbath, but must keep it. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.16
“THE CHURCH” AND THE SABBATH
But the church did change its practice in regard to the Sabbath. Yes, that is true, and thereby “the church” proclaimed itself not the Church of Christ, but anti-Christian. Let us read “the church’s” own testimony on this point. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.17
In “A Sure Way to Find Out the True Religion,” by Rev. T. Baddely, a Catholic priest, I read:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.18
Lastly, the keeping holy the Sunday is a thing absolutely necessary to salvation; and yet this is nowhere put down in the Bible; on the contrary, the Bible says, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8), which is Saturday, and not Sunday; therefore the Bible does not contain all things necessary to salvation, and, consequently, cannot be a sufficient rule of faith. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.19
In a book which was written in 1801, entitled, “The End of Religious Controversy,” consisting of a series of letters by the Rt. Rev. John Milner, addressed to Rev. Dr. Burgess, Lord Bishop of St. David’s, in answer to his lordship’s Protestant Catechism, I find the following:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.20
The first precept in the Bible is that of sanctifying the seventh day: “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.” Genesis 2:3. This precept was confirmed by God in the Ten Commandments: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Exodus 20. On the other hand, Christ declares that He is not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. Matthew 5:17. He Himself observed the Sabbath; and, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day. Luke 4:16. His disciples likewise observed it after His death: They rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Luke 23:56. Yet, with all this weight of Scripture authority for keeping the Sabbath or seventh day holy, Protestants, of all denominations, make this a profane day, and transfer the obligation of it to the first day of the week, or the Sunday. Now what authority have they for doing this? None at all, but the unwritten word, or tradition of the Catholic Church, which declares that the apostles made the change in honour of Christ’s resurrection, and the descent of the Holy Ghost, on the first day of the week.-Page 89. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.21
This is simple fact. It is true that Protestants generally suppose that they are following the example of the apostles in observing the Sunday, but the fact is that the Bible gives no warrant for such a supposition. The Roman Catholic Church is the only authority for it. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.22
Once more; in “A Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-day,” I find the following very plain language:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.23
It is worth its while to remember that this observance of the Sabbath-in which, after all, the only Protestant worship consist-not only has no foundation in the Bible, but is in flagrant contradiction with its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath, which is Saturday. It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage which they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the Church. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 133.24
It will be noticed that these Catholic statements concerning the Sabbath and the Bible are precisely the same as those previously quoted from Protestant writers. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.1
THE “MAN OF SIN’
Bear in mind two things. First, Christ did not change the Sabbath, and neither He nor the Holy Spirit ever authorised anybody else to do so. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.2
Second, It was “the church” which arrogated to itself the right and power to do that which Jesus Christ declared that He would not do, and which could not by any possibility be done. Therefore we may add to these two points a PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.3
Third, namely, that in presuming to make that change, “the church” put itself above the Lord. The doing of it was the sign of apostasy. For bear in mind also the fact that the Sabbath has never been changed, and never could be changed. God’s law is as unchangeable as His throne; but the people have changed. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.4
This apostasy was thus foretold by the Apostle Paul who said that before the coming of the Lord there should be “a falling away first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God setting himself forth as God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4. In presuming to change the practice of Sabbath-keeping, contrary to the commandment of God and the practice of Jesus Christ, “the church” has confessedly fulfilled this Scripture. Not only so, but the State in attempting to enforce the observance of Sunday, puts itself in the very same place, namely, above and against God. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.5
It matters not that this has been PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.6
DONE IN IGNORANCE
It is truly said that in proscribing labour on Sunday the Government had no thought of invading anybody’s religious convictions. That is why we make this appeal, in order that those who have been led into a wrong course with no evil motive may have opportunity to clear themselves from all complicity in it. An evil is none the less an evil because it is done unintentionally. As much damage may be caused by an infant playing with matches as by an incendiary. But remember that when we speak of the evil, we have not the slightest reference to any inconvenience that we may suffer from the law. Our appeal is PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.7
First, to the officers of the law. Will you, for the sake of a position, consent to be the agents of the man of sin? Will you be a party to opposition to God? PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.8
Second, to the people generally. Will you, for fear of loss of earthly gain or reputation, follow the Papacy instead of Christ? PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.9
ENGLAND AND ROME
There is much talk just now as to Rome’s influence in England. Remember this, that separation from the Word of God is in itself union with Rome. A partial Reformation was effected in the days of Wycliffe and Tyndal, by means of the Word of God. As the result of giving the Bible to the people in their own tongue, and teaching them to read it for themselves, England shook off the papal yoke, and became free. The emancipation was never complete, because the Word was not followed fully; but it is a fact that England’s present freedom from paying tribute to a foreign ecclesiastical power is due solely to the Bible. Individual liberty is the basis of all liberty. No State gives freedom to its subjects, but the State becomes free in proportion as the men composing it are free. Individual liberty through the Word of God led to the emancipation of England from vassalage to the Pope of Rome. Disregard of that word will rivet the chains again. Therefore this is not by any means primarily a question for the Government, but one for individual consideration. What will you do about it? Men are free only as the truth in Christ makes them free. Will you then choose the freedom of Christ, or the bondage of anti-christ? PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.10
ASKED TO DENY CHRIST
One point more may serve to bring close home the fact that this question is, so far as we are concerned, solely one of loyalty to Christ. As stated before, the law does not provide for any but Jews to be allowed to work on Sunday. Why it is right for Jews to work on Sunday, and wrong for Christians, has never been made clear; but we will pass that. The fact is, that if the Directors of the International Tract Society had been willing to sign a paper declaring that they were Jews, they would have been allowed to labour on Sundays unmolested. That is to say, all that was required of them was that they should deny Christ. So that, in very truth, the Society, in the person of its Secretary, has been fined in the Clerkenwell Court for refusing to deny Christ. We simply ask our fellow-Christians, Would you do it at the demand of the State? PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.11
This is not a matter of small importance. It is a good deal more than a question of a few pounds, or the convenience of a few people. It resolves itself simply into this, which every man should ask himself in all seriousness, “What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.12
“The Two Hopes” The Present Truth 11, 9.
E. J. Waggoner
Speaking of Spiritualism, and its professed manifestations of the spirits of the dead to the living, Professor Barrett, of the Royal College of Science, Dublin, wrote:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.13
I know and rejoice in the blessing Spiritualism has been to my own faith, and to that of several dear friends of mine. Moreover, I cordially recognise the fact that in bereavement and deep distress numbers have been cheered and consoled by the hope that Spiritualism has set before them. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.14
But how different the hope which Spiritualism professes to give from that set forth in the word of God! “I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.... . For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.15
“What There Is in It” The Present Truth 11, 9.
E. J. Waggoner
It is not alone in this country that civil pains and penalties are being imposed upon people who feel conscientiously bound to sanctify the seventh and not the first day of the week. What is just beginning here in this direction, has in some other countries attained a considerable degree of development, and exhibits more clearly the nature and purpose of the movement. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.16
What it has become in one country, it will soon become in every other where it is inaugurated; for the elements which enter into it and direct it are the same in all lands. We have already noticed in recent issues the fining and imprisonment of the manager of the Seventh-day Adventist publishing house in Basel, Switzerland, for Sunday work, and later news from that country states that nearly the entire adult membership of one church of Sabbath-keepers there is under arrest, for refusing to send their children to the public school on the seventh day. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 134.17
Until recently the Canton law gave them the privilege of keeping their children at home on the Sabbath, but now this privilege has been taken away, and although they have made every effort short of a compromise of religious principle to adjust themselves to the situation, even offering to hire the State teachers to give their children extra lessons in compensation for absence from school on the Sabbath, they have met nothing but refusal from the authority; and now, as stated, they are to suffer confiscation of property or imprisonment, or both, for refusing to obey a law that is contrary to the fourth commandment. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.1
The movement is, in its nature and necessary consequences, the same in all countries. It is one which, while it begins with light penalties and mild admonitions, has in it the imprisoning of conscientious Christians who, while careful to conform to all governmental requirements not contrary to the Divine rule of life, feel that it is better to face the wrath of man than the wrath of God. And it has more than this; for in this controversy between the word of God and the powers that have arrayed themselves against it, there is no half-way ground of compromise, or of satisfaction for either side. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.2
The word of God makes no compromise, and a great deceiver who is moving the powers of earth to stand in opposition to God’s word, will not stop with any half-way measures against those who hold to and proclaim it. As milder measures fail, the penalties imposed will assume the harshest forms; and death has never been thought too severe a punishment for “heretics” by those who have the power and the disposition to oppose them with the penalties of civil law. And this is what the movement has within it, as shown by history and indicated by the logic of existing facts. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.3
“The Papacy. The Workings of the Papacy” The Present Truth 11, 9.
E. J. Waggoner
In our study of the seventh chapter of Daniel, we have been brought to the 25th verse, describing the character and work of the power that was to arise among the divisions of the Roman Empire. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.4
“And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change the times and the law.” Daniel 7:25, R.V. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.5
We will consider the specifications in detail. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.6
“GREAT WORDS’
1. “He shall speak great words against the Most High.” It is a notorious fact that the Pope is styled the “Vicar of the Son of God,” indicating that He fills the office of Christ. Paul, speaking of the Papacy, which he calls the “man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4), says that he “exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.” This is a parallel to Daniel 7:25. It is fulfilled in the Pope’s claim to have power to grant indulgences, a thing which God Himself has never promised to do. Further, it is fulfilled in the papal dogma of infallibility. This dogma was ratified by the council of 1870, and the following is a portion of the decree:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.7
“And since by the Divine right of apostolic primacy the Roman pontiff is placed over the universal church, we further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the apostolic see, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgment.”—The Vatican Decrees. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.8
Although this dogma was ratified in 1870, it has been held for centuries, as is shown by the following monstrous assertion in one of the Roman decretals:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.9
“If the Pope should become neglectful of his own salvation, and of that of other men, and so lost to all good that he draw down with himself innumerable people by heaps into hell, and plunge them with himself into the eternal torment, yet no mortal man may presume to reprehend him, for as much as he is judge of all, and to be judged of no one.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.10
Monsignor Capel, who was private chaplain to Pope Pius IX., in a pamphlet entitled, “The Pope; the Vicar of Christ; the Head of the Church,” gives a list of titles and appellations that have been given to the Pope in various church documents, and from this list we select the following:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.11
“Most Divine Head of all Heads.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.12
“Holy Father of Fathers, Pontiff Supreme over all Prelates.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.13
“The Chief Pastor; Pastor of Pastors.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.14
“Christ by Unction.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.15
“Melchizedek in Order.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.16
“High Priest, Supreme Bishop.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.17
“Key-Bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.18
“Supreme Chief; Most powerful Word.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.19
“Vicar of Christ.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.20
“Sovereign Bishop of Bishops.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.21
“Ruler of the House of the Lord.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.22
“Apostolic Lord and Father of Fathers.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.23
“Chief Pastor and Teacher and Physician of Souls.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.24
“Rock, against which the proud Gates of Hell prevail not.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.25
“Infallible Pope.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.26
“Head of all the Holy Priests of God.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.27
“Chief of the Universal Church.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.28
“Bishop of Bishops, that is, Sovereign Pontiff.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.29
These titles, and many others equally blasphemous, including “The Lion of the Tribe of Judah,” the Pope receives as his own by right. In our own enlightened age, this title has been given to Pope Leo XIII., by his servile flatterers, in whose eyes “His Holiness” is a divine being. No other power on earth has ever so opposed and exalted itself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that the Pope sitteth in the temple of God, “setting himself forth as God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:4, R.V. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 135.30
WEARING OUT THE SAINTS
2. “And shall wear out the saints of the Most High.” When we come to this particular, the evidence is overwhelming. Both time and language would fail to do justice to the matter. Prominent among Papal atrocities is the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day. On the 24 th of August, 1572, was begun in Paris one of the most horrible, cold-blooded massacres that history records,—that of the Huguenots. The king himself, Charles IX., took part in it, shooting down many of those who were attempting to escape the fury of his soldiers. The number slain throughout France on this occasion is placed by the best authorities at seventh thousand. To show Rome’s connection with the massacre, we quote the following from Wylie:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.1
“At Rome, when the news arrived, the joy was boundless. The messenger who carried the despatch was rewarded like one who brings tidings of some great victory, and the triumph that followed was such as old Pagan Rome might have been proud to celebrate.... Through the streets of the Eternal City swept, in the full blaze of pontifical pomp, Gregory and his attendant train of cardinals, bishops, and monks, to the Church of St. Mark, there to offer up prayers and thanksgiving to the see of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church.... On the following day the pontiff went in procession to the Church of Minerva, where, after mass, a jubilee was published to all Christendom, ‘that they might thank God for the slaughter of the enemies of the church, lately executed in France.’”—History of Protestantism, book 17, chap. 16, paragraph 15. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.2
But the saints were to be worn out. This implies more than outright slaughter. We quote one paragraph from the account of the imprisonment of the Waldenses, when, at the command of Louis XIV., who was the obedient servant of the Pope, they had been driven from their valleys:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.3
“We know not if ever before an entire nation were in prison at once. Yet now it was so. All of the Waldensian race that remained from the sword of their executioners were immured in the dungeons of Piedmont! ... And how were they treated in prison? As the African slave was treated on the ‘middle passage.’ They had a sufficiency of neither food nor clothing. The bread dealt out to them was fetid. They had putrid water to drink. They were exposed to the sun by day and to the cold at night. They were compelled to sleep on the bare pavement, or on straw so full of vermin that the stone floor was preferable. Disease broke out in these horrible abodes, and the mortality was fearful. ‘When they entered these dungeons,’ says Henri Armand, ‘they counted fourteen thousand healthy mountaineers, but when, at the intercession of the Swiss deputies, their prisons were opened, three thousand skeletons only crawled out.’”—Wylie. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.4
In the above instance we see how an entire nation was literally worn out, yet we have scarcely more than hinted at the atrocities visited upon the innocent Waldenses. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.5
In his speech a fortnight ago in the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury, when he vainly endeavoured to keep the House from practically condemning those Spanish churches which have separated from the Church of Rome in Spain, Archdeacon Farrar quoted the words of the eminent Roman Catholic historian, the Comte de Montalembert, who said of the Spanish Church:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.6
“On the day that it began to try and crush and persecute Jews, Moors, and Protestants, then all discussion, inquiry, and research, and initiative, and all liberty of conscience-all was lost.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.7
Continuing, Archdeacon Farrar remarked:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.8
“It was the Church of Torquemada and Deza; in which between 1491 and 1798, 32,000 ‘heretics’ many of whom were holy men and women, were burned, and 296,000 tortured, imprisoned, and ruined. It was the church in which, at the very time when she was blackening the skies of Spain with the Tophet smoke of burning saints, the lives of the priests were so grossly licentious that Rome had to suppress for very shame the commission of inquiry, which she herself had appointed to look into the horrible abuses of her own confessional. Had the Church of Rome repented of these things? Had she ever disowned her Inquisition? No.... In 1882 the Dominican Monsabre openly defended the Inquisition in the pulpit of Notre Dame.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.9
How many millions of martyrs have been put to death in the name of Christianity, by that most unchristian and antichristian power, the Papacy, will never be known until the dead, small and great, stand before God. In this way, perhaps, more than by its wonderful pretensions and blasphemous titles, has the Papacy spoken great words against the Most High; because, since it professes to be Christian, it has caused the enemies of Christ to revile the Christian religion, which they ignorantly supposed to be responsible for so many outrages. The Papacy has done more to make infidels than all other causes combined. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.10
AGAINST GOD’S LAW
3. “And think to change times and laws.” The Papacy has not hesitated to lay impious hands even upon the laws of God, and has remodeled the ten commandments to suit herself. To allow for her image worship, she has expunged the main portion of the second commandment, adding the remainder to the first, and has divided the tenth in order to make the number good. She also openly boasts of having changed the fourth commandment, as the following will show:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.11
The first question of chapter 23 of “The Catholic Christian Instructed” is this:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.12
“What are the days which the church commands to be kept holy?” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.13
And the answer is:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.14
“1 st, The Sundays, or the Lord’s day, which we observe by apostolical tradition, instead of the Sabbath,” etc. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.15
Again the question is asked:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.16
“What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday? PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.17
“Answer-We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolical tradition.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.18
It may be said that there is no undue assumption of authority here, since “apostolical tradition” is given as the reason for the church’s celebration of Sunday instead of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. But the Catholic Church does not claim that it has any warrant from the Bible for its practice. The next question is:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.19
“Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.20
In answer to this, reference is made to three passages of Scripture, in which the first day of the week is mentioned, and then the answer continues:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.21
“But neither one nor the other tells us that this first day of the week was to be henceforward the day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath, so that truly, the best authority we have for this is the testimony and ordinance of the church. And therefore those who pretend to be so religious observers of the Sunday, whilst they take no notice of other festivals ordained by the same church authority, show that they act by humour, and not by reason and religion; since Sundays and holy days all stand upon the same foundation, viz., the ordinance of the church.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.22
The Catholic Church claims that it has made the change by its own authority, thus arrogating to itself the power to undo the decrees of God. That it does expressly set itself above the Bible, is further shown by the following from “A Sure Way to Find Out the True Religion:”— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 136.23
“Lastly, the keeping holy the Sunday is a thing absolutely necessary to salvation; and yet this is nowhere put down in the Bible; on the contrary, the Bible says, ‘Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy’ (Exodus 20:8), which is Saturday, and not Sunday; therefore, the Bible does not contain all things necessary to salvation, and, consequently, cannot be a sufficient rule of faith.”—Pp. 95, 96. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 137.1
But the Bible is a more sure and sufficient guide in all things. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. “Every word of God is pure; He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:5, 6. Whatever varies in the slightest degree from the Scripture standard, must be wrong. He who adds to His words will be found to be a liar. Now, since the Papacy does add to the words of the Lord, and boasts of its power to do so, it follows that it is one with that sytem of religion of which Paul says that its votaries “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” Romans 1:25. It puts a man in the place of God, and boasts of its power to change the words of God, and to command the consciences of men, contrary to the decrees of God; and thus it exalts itself above God. What greater words could be spoken against the Most High? PTUK February 28, 1895, page 137.2
“News of the Week” The Present Truth 11, 9.
E. J. Waggoner
-A Vienna telegram states that twenty persons were frozen to death in Galicia, on February 18 and 19. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.1
-The German Reichstag passed without debate, a resolution for the repeal of the banishment laws against Jesuits. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.2
-Several witnesses have given evidence before the Turkish Commission at Muesli of the massacring of children in Armenia. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.3
-A telegram from Hong Kong status that 2,000 soldiers are reported to have been killed in an explosion at Takao in Formosa. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.4
-The Paris correspondent of the Chronicle states that a judgment given in the Court of Cassation has finally decided that bull-fighting is illegal in France. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.5
-It is announced from Rome that active negotiations have taken place between Italy and Germany with a view to securing the adhesion of Russia to the Triple Alliance. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.6
-Communications received from the Universities Mission to Central Africa give an alarming account of the locust plague and famine in the Bonde country. An argent appeal is made for help. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.7
-A trial in Paris showed that a bullet does not penetrate a wall of snow six feet thick from a distance of fifty yards, while it would pass through thick earthworks and trees from a much greater distance. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.8
-Rumours have reached Auckland, New Zealand, from Samoa that German warships will arrive there in May next, in order to subjugate and disarm the natives, the Germans afterwards exercising the sole control over the islands. No mention is, however, made of annexation. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.9
-The average annual circulation of Bibles in Russia, by the British and Foreign Bible Society, is over 600,000 copies. In Germany the Society circulates nearly 300,000, and local societies a little more. In France the total is 238,000, in Austria and Hungary 156.000, and in Italy 169,000. The Society employs 106 colporteurs and hawkers in Russia and Siberia, 30 in Germany, 43 in France, 64 in Austria, and 87 in Italy. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.10
-Deposits of saltpetre that promise to be the most valuable yet discovered have been found in Cape Colony. They are said to bo true potassium nitrate, which is one of the chief ingredients of gunpowder and is worth over ?16 a ton. The principal supply at present is from Chile, but the Chile saltpetre has to undergo a costly chemical process before use. The dryness of the South African climate is supposed to account for the richness of the latest find, which, it is stated, will reduce the price of the mineral one-half. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.11
-A Bill has been introduced in the Senate of Tennessee to punish lynchings and mob violence. The Bill provides “that the taking by force of any person from the custody of an officer or while in confinement, and the killing of such person shall be murder in the first degree. Every person connected with or composing any mob shall be guilty of murder in the first degree, likewise all persons present aiding and abetting, or willing to aid and abet, in the killing of any such persons not in the custody of an officer or some one empowered by law.” It also imposes severe penalties for inciting to mob violence by voice or pen. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.12
-Some faint idea of the meaning of war may be gathered from the following words of one who was present at one of the recent battles in Manchuria, between the Japanese and Chinese: “During the fight, possibly swing to shells, the town of Sum?ncheng was burnt to the ground, and the unfortunate inhabitants, numbering from 7,000 to 10,000 were left homeless on a bitterly cold night, there being between 30deg. and 40deg. of frost and a strong north wind blowing. What these poor people and the wounded on both sides suffered is terrible to think of. Thousands of women, children, babes and sucklings, sick and wounded men, must have perished, dying of cold and starvation. And now thousands are probably dying slowly in fearful agony of frost-bites and the results of exposure without food, without shelter.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 142.13
“Back Page” The Present Truth 11, 9.
E. J. Waggoner
The motion in favour of the repeal of the law against the Jesuits in Germany passed its third reading in the Reichstag last week by a large majority. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.1
The Christian Church Magazine, published in St. Leonard’s-on-the-Sea, states that during 1894 the number of “confessions” heard by the clergy (Anglican) attached to that church alone, was at least 1,000. Romanism is making rapid progress in the Church of England. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.2
The Premier has chosen Lord Acton, a Catholic, to fill the vacant chair of Regius Professor of Cambridge. He is said to be the first Catholic since the reign of James II. who has held high office in either of the great Universities. The Catholic Times is quite right in noting this as “a remarkable sign of the times.” There is probably not the slightest doubt that “he is free from the defects of historians such as Mr. Froude.” PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.3
Speaking in the Lower House of Convocation, on the question of securing Parliamentary aid for Church Schools, Mr. Spottiswoode said that “the Church must look about for allies, and the only powerful allies who could assist them were the Roman Catholics.” The Anglican Bishop of Chester has also said recently that “he could not help feeling that in this matter the Roman Catholic body and the Church of England and the Wesleyans were naturally allies, and he hoped that the time was not far distant when an opportunity might be found of representatives of their own church and the Roman Catholic bishops coming to friendly communication and ascertaining whether they could not combine their forces.” The Roman Catholics know how to make the most of such things. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.4
In the Pope’s Encyclical to the American Bishops he said:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.5
In accordance with the Constitution of the Republic the Church is permitted to exist and act amongst you unmolested, free from legal fetters, and protected against violence by the common law and the justice of the public tribunals. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.6
One would think that such a state of things ought to be quite satisfactory, but not so, for Leo adds:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.7
But though this be true, it is well to guard against the mistake of thinking it follows that an example of the best condition of the Church can be found in America, or that it is right or expedient that the Church and State should be everywhere dissociated in the American manner. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.8
What the Papacy desires is not equality but supremacy. It is not enough that “the Church” should be free for itself; it must have power to coerce others. And this it will have. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.9
The Methodist Times says:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.10
We forget the enormous victories of Protestantism in the present century. The principles of Protestantism have now, to a great extent, established civil and religious freedom everywhere except in Russia. Liberty of conscience did not exist a hundred years ago even in England, where Clericalism was in some respects weaker than on the Continent. Now it exists legally and in theory everywhere. For the first time in human history all civilised Governments guarantee to Protestants the right to worship God without political disability, fine, or imprisonment. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.11
Yet what calls itself Protestantism is so infected with the spirit of Rome that during the past year, and even at this very time, observers of the Sabbath have been subjected to fine or imprisonment in London, Switzerland, Australia, and America. And in America even Methodists have been so active and malignant in their use of Sunday laws against Sabbath-keepers as to call forth protests from the Catholic press. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.12
The following from a communication to the Church Times, entitled, “Why Working Men Don’t Come to Church,” speaks very plainly as to the fact:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.13
I am a working member of the largest trade union in the world, and a member of the London Trades Council-let this be my credential. I worked in a large factory near London, employing nearly 1,000 hands, from 6 A.M. to 5:00 p.m., and have worked in London in one employing nearly 2,000, and one employing 700, and in these representative factories I have made a religious census. In the 2,000 factory I find three Roman Catholics, one Church of England, one Dissenter only. In the 700 factory, I found one Church of England, one Spiritualist. Where I am now (nearly 1,000) I find one dissenter only. I mix with, and am known to several thousands of men in London in our Society, in political societies, and factories, and yet I can assure you that it is a novelty to meet a religious man, so much so that a new man starting in a factory for the first time is sure to have somebody say to him (on a certain person passing) “there goes our religious man.” This is a true picture of the state of religion in London at the present day amongst working men. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.14
The Western Morning News reports a meeting held in Devonport to celebrate the return of a Catholic priest at the head of the poll in the School Board election. It was declared that it was a “Catholic triumph, for it was as a Catholic priest that Father Kent came before the electorate.” “It was not Father Kent’s personal qualities but his proud position as a Catholic priest” that made his candidature acceptable. It is not surprising that Catholics fight as Catholics for control in public affairs, for it is Rome’s own way of doing; and besides, are not Nonconformists and Churchmen seeking to dominate in political and public affairs and thus doing Rome’s work for her? PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.15
One of our workers in Chile, South America, sends a cutting from the Valparaiso Record giving an account of an attack upon a religious procession by a mob. The Record says:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.16
The incident is a sign of the times. Thirty years ago, and less, the Church demanded that every passer-by, Chilean and foreigner alike, should uncover and kneel to her processions. Now the processions are openly interrupted, the santos broken, and the priest insulted. We do not hesitate to condemn the disgraceful conduct of the mob, nor do we hesitate to blame the Church leaders for their unhappy policy. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.17
Having taught the mob only intolerance, and having kept them from learning anything from the religion of Christ, the priests are only reaping what they have sown. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.18
A short time ago a large audience assembled in New York to hear distinguished Catholic priests protest against open public-houses on Sunday, and declare in favour of a strict observance of the day. The priests spoke very strongly; but what they said is not so important as what was said afterwards by the Protestant religious papers. The New York Independent, after quoting from the various speeches, said:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.19
A warmer defence of the Sabbath has not been made by any of its friends. We thank God for such earnest speeches from our Catholic brethren. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.20
The Christian Advocate (Methodists) said:— PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.21
We will join Catholics without reserve in the warfare against the saloon; and rejoice to accept them as allies against legalising it on Sunday. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.22
If it were not that Luther is now almost forgotten, people would wonder what he made such a stir about a few hundred years ago. PTUK February 28, 1895, page 144.23