Protestantism of the Reformation—Protestantism of To-day—Testimonies of the Past and Present—The Great “Protestant” Churches.
BY ELDER A. F. BALLENGER.
Is TRUE Protestantism dead? Not, Are there organizations wearing the name “Protestant,” and many others professing to adhere to Protestant principles? but, Is true Protestantism dead? In searching for an answer to this important question, it is necessary to inquire, What is true Protestantism? Protestantism derives its name from the protest of the German princes at the Diet of Spires, April 19, 1529. The following are its closing paragraphs:—
Moreover, the new edict declaring the ministers shall preach the gospel, explaining it according to the writings accepted by the holy Christian church; we think that, for this regulation to have any value, we should first agree on what is meant by the true and holy church. Now, seeing that there is great diversity of opinion in this respect, that there is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the word of God, that the Lord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine, that each text of the Holy Scriptures ought to be explained by other and clearer texts, that this Holy Book is in all things necessary for the Christian, easy of understanding, and calculated to scatter the darkness, we are resolved, with the grace of God, to maintain the pure and exclusive preaching of his only word, such as it is contained in the biblical books of the Old and New Testament, without adding anything thereto that may be contrary to it. This word is the only truth; it is the sure rule of all doctrine and of all life, and can never fail or deceive us. He who builds on this foundation shall stand against all the powers of hell, whilst all the human vanities that are set up against it shall fall before the face of God.
For these reasons, most dear lords, uncles, cousins, and friends, we earnestly entreat you to weigh carefully our grievances and our motives. If you do not yield to our request, we PROTEST by these present, before God, our only Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Saviour, and who will one day be our Judge, as well as before all men and all creatures, that we, for us and for our people, neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatever to the proposed decree, in anything that is contrary to God, to his holy word, to our right conscience, to the salvation of our souls, and to the last decree of Spires.
At the same time we are in expectation that his imperial majesty will behave toward us like a Christian prince who loves God above all things; and we declare ourselves ready to pay unto him, as well as unto you, gracious lords, all the affection and obedience that are our just and legitimate duty. In commenting upon this protest we shall adopt the words of D’Aubigné, the historian of the Reformation, as follows:—
The principles contained in this celebrated protest, the 19th of April, 1529, constitute the very essence of Protestantism. Now this protest opposes two abuses of man in matters of faith; the first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate, and the second, the arbitrary authority of the church. Instead of these abuses, Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate, and the authority of the word of God above the visible church. In the first place, it rejects the civil power in divine things, and says, with the prophets and apostles, “We must obey God rather than man.” In presence of the crown of Charles Fifth, it uplifts the crown of Jesus Christ. But it goes farther; it lays down the principle that all human teaching should be subordinate to the oracles of God.
Principles of Christianity.
This is true Protestantism, and, at the same time, true Christianity. Christ began his work by protesting against “laying aside the commandment of God” and “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” And, besides calling the minds of men away from tradition to the word of God, he taught the separation of Church and State, in the following words: “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” In the presence of “a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests,” he said, to one who would defend his Master with carnal weapons, “Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” And when the church was clamoring for the aid of the Roman State to silence in death the voice of the Great Teacher, he said to Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
These principles were maintained during the early history of Christianity, but gradually the word was supplanted by tradition, and the gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation,” by the power of the State. Then professed Christianity exchanged the pilgrim’s garb for the purple robe, “the sword of the Spirit” for the sceptre of power; and, thus equipped, she ascended the throne of the Cæsars, and hurled the kingdoms of the world against the cross of Christ. Peter’s carnal sword was again unsheathed and bathed in the blood of Christians who chose to follow the dictates of conscience rather than the decrees of councils. Tradition was again exalted, and the word of God suppressed. Conscience was stifled. The lamp of God burned low. Its flickering light shone only in darksome dungeon, in secluded valley, or mountain cave. The Papacy prospered, and the darkness deepened. The long papal night settled like a pall over the earth. It was the noontide of papal power, but the moral midnight of the world. For more than a thousand years the Bible was banished, or locked in the language of the learned and chained to a convent wall. Liberty was lost.
The Coming Dawn.
But at last the world passed its midnight. “The hours of darkness were wearing away, and in many lands there appeared tokens of the coming dawn.” “The morning star of the Reformation” appeared, leading away from the traditions of men back to the word of God. Wycliffe translated the Bible into277the English language, and demanded liberty for all men to practise its precepts. His grave was desecrated, and his bones burned; but morning was coming. Huss and Jerome, the Bohemian torch-bearers, were burned. But day was dawning. Martyrdom followed martyrdom, “but as well might men attempt to turn back the sun in its course as to prevent the dawning of that day which was even then breaking upon the world.” Next came the “Wittenberg monk,” crying, “The gospel! the gospel! Christ! Christ!” to the answering challenge of Rome, “Customs! customs! ordinances! ordinances! fathers! fathers!” Like his Master, when the sword was about to be unsheathed to defend his cause, he quickly declared: “No sword can give aid to this cause. God alone must do all, without human aid or coöperation.” “It is by the word we must fight, by the word overturn and destroy what has been established by violence.” “It is neither with the sword nor the musket that Christians fight, but with suffering and the cross. Christ, their Captain, did not handle the sword,—he hung on the tree.”
Luther translates the Bible into the German tongue, the princes make their noble protest, and the day has dawned. The bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness warm the hearts of men with the love of God, and the world awakes from the slumber of ages.
True Protestantism is the same yesterday, to-day, and to the end of time. It always has demanded, it demands to-day, and always will demand, a “Thus saith the Lord,” and with this the complete separation of Church and State, that all may render unto God the things that are God’s.
Its enemy, under varying names, is ever the same. It always has pleaded, it pleads to-day, and always will plead to the end of time, for the traditions of the church and for civil law to force them upon the consciences of all men.
Decline of Protestantism.
Protestantism of the sixteenth century mounted higher and higher on the wings of faith, poised a moment, and then fluttered slowly, but not less certainly, back to earth; and in every country where the Reformation was carried forward with such power, there is to-day a return to tradition and its complement,—a union of Church and State.
Touching this sad fall, the historian says:—
The Reformation was accomplished in the name of a spiritual principle. It had proclaimed for its teacher the word of God; for salvation, faith; for king, Jesus Christ; for arms, the Holy Ghost, and had by these very means rejected all worldly elements. Rome had been established by the law of a carnal commandment, the Reformation by the power of an endless life.
If there is any doctrine that distinguishes Christianity from every other religion, it is its spirituality. A heavenly life brought down to man—such is its work. Thus the opposition of the spirit of the gospel to the spirit of the world was the great fact which signalized the entrance of Christianity among the nations. But what its founder had separated had come together again, and by this criminal union it had been reduced to the deplorable condition in which we find it at the era of the Reformation.
Thus one of the greatest tasks of the sixteenth century was to restore the spiritual element to its rights. The gospel of the reformers had nothing to do with the world and with politics. While the Roman hierarchy had become a matter of diplomacy and a court intrigue, the Reformation was destined to exercise no other influence over princes and people than that which proceeds from the gospel of peace.
If the Reformation, having attained a certain point, became untrue to its nature, began to parley and temporise with the world, and ceased thus to follow up the spiritual principle that it had so loudly proclaimed, it was faithless to God and to itself. Henceforward its decline was at hand.
It is impossible for a society to prosper if it be unfaithful to the principles it lays down. Having abandoned what constituted its life, it can find naught but death. . . .
One portion of the reform was to seek the alliance of the world, and in this alliance find a destruction full of desolation.
Another portion, looking up to God, was haughtily to reject the arm of the flesh, and by this very act of faith secure a noble victory.
If three centuries have gone astray, it is because they were unable to comprehend so holy and so solemn a lesson.
After the sun of Protestantism had set in Europe, it was still shining in America. One portion of the Reformation did here seek alliance with the world, but another portion, looking up to God, fearlessly rejected the “arm of the flesh,” and by this very act secured a noble victory,—the establishment in the American Constitution of the first government the world had ever seen in which Church and State were divorced, a free church in a free State.
But American Protestantism has at last proved unfaithful to the principles it laid down, and, “having abandoned what constituted its life, it can find naught but death.” It has sought the alliance of the world, and in this alliance is finding “a destruction full of desolation.” Are these statements too strong?—No, not if true. We submit the facts; let the reader judge. Let it be remembered that the “life” of Protestantism “lays down the principle that all human teaching should be subordinate to the oracles of God,” and “rejects the civil power in divine things.” This is the Protestant platform. The following is the papal platform as touching the same principles:—
Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine tradition contain the word of God, the precious gems of revealed truths.
Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, tradition is to us more clear and safe.
Touching the other principle of Protestantism, it is well known to all that the Papacy has always made use of the civil power when available to force her decrees upon the consciences of men, and curses the doctrine of separation of Church and State. On which of these two platforms does American Protestantism stand? Let us apply the test to the great Protestant denominations of America and decide the question. The word of God says:—
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, 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 maid-servant, 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.”
The Methodist Episcopal Church.
In the face of this plain command, the Methodist Episcopal Church, while claiming to be Protestant, observes Sunday, the first day of the week. This she does, though admitting in the following quotation that there is no command for the change:—
Jesus, after his resurrection, changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.
When Jesus gave instruction for this change we are not told, but very likely during the time when he spake to his apostles of the things pertaining to his kingdom. This is probably one of the many unrecorded things which Jesus did.
Thus it is seen that this church repudiates the commandment of God,—“The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,”—and observes Sunday, the first day of the week, while acknowledging that “we are not told when Jesus gave instruction for this change,” and that the commandment for this change is unrecorded. In this matter, therefore, the church teaches by precept and practice that tradition, or the “unrecorded” word is “more clear and safe” than the plain word of God, and in doing this plants herself on the papal platform. But besides teaching for doctrine the commandments of men, she is asking aid of the civil power, “the arm of the flesh,” to force upon others the “unrecorded” decree, even to the extent of imprisoning men who choose to keep the commandments of God; and in this she violates the other cardinal principle of Protestantism, and takes the side of the Papacy.
The Protestant Episcopal Church.
The Protestant Episcopal Church, while bearing the noble title “Protestant,” continually violates God’s plain command, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” and requires the observance of the first day. This the church does, while acknowledging her course to be without scriptural authority.
Is there any command in the New Testament to change the day of weekly rest from Saturday to Sunday?—None,
There are some points of great difficulty respecting the fourth commandment. 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 same278thing; the first day cannot be the seventh day, and where are we told in the 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.
Another difficulty on this subject: we Christians, in considering each of the ten commandments, turn to what our Lord says in explanation of them: . . . “Not one jot or tittle” of the law shall fail; that he has come “not to destroy, but to fulfill” the law; and then he shows in the instance of the sixth, seventh, and third commandment, how he will require them to be fulfilled by Christians, not in letter only, but in the spirit, and the heart, and thought.
In the face of these fatal admissions, in the face of its own declaration that “Holy Scripture containeth all that is necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man,” and “it is not lawful for the church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s word written”—in the face of the fact that, after reciting the fourth commandment, it prays weekly, “Lord, incline our hearts to keep this law”—in the face of all this, the church commands the observance of the first day of the week, which “cannot be the seventh day,” and which “is contrary to God’s word written,” and has labored and is laboring, in the person of a majority of its bishops, for the legal enforcement of this unscriptural dogma, thus violating both principles of Protestantism, and, though flying the Protestant banner, has arrayed herself on the papal platform.
At this point it may be objected that these churches and others introduced later are widely separated from the Roman Catholic Church on many points of doctrine and practice. While this is true, the fact remains that in violating the principles of Protestantism in the vital matters above cited, they place themselves on papal territory, and can give no valid reason why they should not accept all other doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church on the same authority. Touching this point the Protestant church historian Dowling says:—
The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestantism. Nor is it of any account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant how early a doctrine originated if it is not found in the Bible. He learns from the New Testament itself that there were errors in the time of the apostles, and that their pens were frequently employed in combating these errors. Hence if a doctrine be propounded for his acceptance, he asks, Is it taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles? . . . Though Cyprian, or Jerome, Augustine, or even the fathers of an earlier age, Tertullian, Ignatius, or Irenæus, could be plainly shown to teach the unscriptural doctrines and dogmas of popery, . . . still the consistent Protestant would simply ask, Is the doctrine to be found in the Bible? Was it taught by Christ and his apostles? And if truth compelled an answer in the negative, he would esteem it of no greater authority as an article of his faith than the vagaries of John of Munster, the dreams of Joanna Southcote, or the pretended revelations of Joe Smith, of Nauvoo. . . .
He who receives a single doctrine upon the mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he will, by so doing steps down from the Protestant rock, passes over the line which separates Protestantism from popery, and can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism upon the same authority.
The Presbyterian Church.
The Presbyterian Church desecrates the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, and keeps holy Sunday, the first day of the week, though admitting that there is no recorded command for the change. This she does in the following quotation:— To guard the inviolability of his law, God had signally punished Saul, Nadab, and Abihu. How then could he have been pleased with the substitution of the first for the seventh day, if not provided for in his new revelation. . . . This change may have been one of those things pertaining to the kingdom of God, concerning which Luke tells us Jesus spoke to his disciples after his resurrection.
To supply the lack of a recorded command for the change, the church delves into the musty traditions of the fathers, with the following astonishing results:—
The epistle of Barnabas; whether genuine or not, dating in the first part of the second century, says, etc.
The church handbook, called “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” recently discovered, whether genuine or not, seems equally conclusive of the observance of the first-day sabbath.
Thus the law spoken by the voice of God amid the awful grandeur of Sinai, and transmitted to us in unmistakable clearness, is violated, and a day observed which has no command of God in its favor, and which is only supported by forged traditions of men. But besides all this, the church is petitioning the civil government to force this tradition of the Catholic Church upon all men; and in this she violates the second great principle of Protestantism, and arrays herself on the side of Rome.
The Congregational Church.
The Congregational Church, while claiming to be a Protestant body, and to take the Bible as the rule of faith, treats as a secular day God’s holy Sabbath, the seventh day, the day which alone was blessed, hallowed, and sanctified by the Lord of the Sabbath, and treats as a holy day Sunday, the first day of the week, though making the following fatal admissions:—
Christ’s indorsement of the Decalogue must be accepted as revealing his view of the permanency of the Sabbath. This indorsement is several times repeated. In the opening part of the sermon on the mount he uses this language: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”
But every lingering doubt of Christ’s position on the Sabbath is put to rest by his own express words, “The Sabbath was made for man,”—not for man in any limited period or in any stage of his history, but for man universally and always. The Sabbath can never cease as a memorial of divine rest.
Many works of beneficence were done on the Sabbath, which brought the observance of the day into prominent discussion. The Gospels, accordingly, abound in frequent reference to the subject. A different state of things existed when the Epistles were written. There did not seem to be any special occasion for calling attention to the Sabbath. The day was kept. Its validity was not questioned.
The Sabbath, immediately after the resurrection, continued to be a day in which Christ’s followers met for religious worship, as they had done with the great Master before his crucifixion.
In ancient writers frequent mention is made of religious assemblies on Saturday. Athanasius says, “They met on the Sabbath, not that they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath.” Notwithstanding the above truthful admissions, and notwithstanding the previous statements that the fourth commandment is “clothed with such particularity of detail to obviate the danger of obscurity,” that the Sabbath precept, which, in fullness and minute instruction, is more pronounced than any other, “given with such circumstances of detail and particularity”—notwithstanding all this, the denomination teaches by precept and example that this same Sabbath is no longer holy, but that Sunday, the first day of the week, is holy time. And, not satisfied with thus teaching and practicing this Heaven-defying doctrine, she is attempting to force it upon all men, by means of pains and penalties. Thus she repudiates both principles of Protestantism, and takes her stand on the side of tradition and the use of civil power in religious things.
The Church of Roger Williams.
The Baptist Church, while loudly denouncing infant baptism as a papal doctrine, without foundation in Scripture, and declaring that “what is not there commanded is not binding,” yet observes Sunday, notwithstanding the following fatal admissions:—
Up to the time of Christ’s death, no change had been made in the day.
So far as the records show, they did not, however, give any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week.
Thus the Baptist Church, though admitting that, so far as the records show, there is no command for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh day, blessed at creation and rehearsed amid the sublime glory of Sinai with a voice that shook the earth, yet observes Sunday, which was never blessed of the Lord, never sanctified nor hallowed, never kept by the Saviour of men nor by his apostles. And besides all this, the Baptist Church, the church of Roger Williams, the church which claims the preëminence as champion of religious liberty in America, and which has always argued for a complete separation of Church and State, is now petitioning for civil power, “the arm of the flesh,” to force upon all men the Sunday institution,—the mark or badge of Rome. In view of these facts, on which platform does the Baptist Church stand?
Are They Followers of Christ?
The Christian, or Disciple, Church, which above all churches claims to be founded upon Scripture, and which most strongly attacks the traditions of the church, observes the first day of the week; in the face of the following admissions:—279
The popular doctrine taught from many pulpits which has given rise to the many errors of the religious public on the nature and observance of the Lord’s day, is that it came in the room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week,—a notion which originated in the dark night of popery, or which obtained credit in the same ratio as the following article of the Catholic Church obtained credit, viz., “The unwritten word of God, or the apostolic traditions [i. e., the traditions of men], are equally the rule of Christian faith and Christian holiness as the unwritten word.”
A zealous and intelligent defender of the faith of the “holy mother church” told me in a late conversation if I would not admit the above article in the Catholic sense, I must renounce the Protestant faith in the Christian sabbath and infant baptism, for they have no other foundation than “the unwritten word of God, or the traditions of the holy Catholic Church.” I told him that I agreed with him in this, but that I renounced the above articles, and also the Protestant faith in the Christian sabbath and infant baptism, as being contrary to the word of God, by which alone I was regulated. “Then,” said he, “you must be considered a heretic, not only by the Catholic Church, but also by many Protestant churches.” “Yes,” said I, “a heretic of the first magnitude; for this I confess unto them that after the way they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things that are written in the law, in the prophets, and in the apostles. I do not believe that the Lord’s day came in the room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day, for this plain reason, that where there is no testimony there can be no faith.” Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath was changed, or that the Lord’s day came in the room of it. . . .
I believe that the dead shall be raised. My faith in this instance is a divine faith, or a faith founded on divine testimony, viz., “there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.”
. . . The argument deducible from the above is fairly this: where there is no divine testimony, there can be no divine faith. But there is no divine testimony that the Sabbath was changed or that the Lord’s day came in the room of it, therefore there can be no divine faith that the Sabbath was changed or that the Lord’s day came in the room of it. . . . Everything that is believed upon human testimony alone is received and acted upon by a mere human faith; but that the Sabbath is changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, or that the Lord’s day came in the room of it, is believed on human testimony alone; therefore he that believes that the Sabbath was thus changed, &c., receives it on a mere human faith.
Having shown from the writings of Alexander Campbell, the founder of the Disciple Church, that the Sabbath has not been changed from the seventh day of the week to the first day, we now quote a leading modern writer of the same denomination touching the institution of Sunday observance, and the authority on which it rests:—
The Lordian Supper [Lord’s Supper] was instituted by the Saviour, whereas the Lordian day [Lord’s day] was not.
There was vastly greater propriety that institutions solely designed for man to honor Christ should originate with man himself.
We are not of those who think that either the value or authority of the day depends upon divine command.
It [Sunday] is the day of all days immensely, immeasurably, infinitely superior to the Sabbath in every lesson which it teaches.
In this last quotation the climax is reached. A day which was not instituted by the Lord is declared to be “immensely, immeasurably, infinitely superior to the Sabbath,” which he did institute, which he “blessed,” “hallowed,” and “sanctified,” and which he calls “my holy day.” A day which “originated with man himself” is declared to be “immensely, immeasurably, infinitely superior to the Sabbath,” which the Lord himself instituted, which he says “was made for man,” and of which he declares, “The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” The day which the Lord did not institute, which originated with man himself, “the man of sin,” a day whose “value” or “authority” does not depend upon “divine command,” is here blasphemously declared to be “immensely, IMMEASURABLY, INFINITELY superior to the Sabbath,” a day which was instituted by the Lord himself, which did not originate with man, a day whose value and authority does rest on divine command, a command which God placed in the heart of that law which Paul calls “spiritual,” “holy, and just, and good,” and in which James says if a man “offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Notwithstanding these startling statements regarding the man-made institution, this church is keeping the first day of the week, and joining in the movement to secure the civil power, “the arm of the flesh,” to force this man-made day upon those who choose to keep the day made, blessed, hallowed, sanctified, and kept by the Lord of the Sabbath, the Saviour of men. On which platform, Protestant or papal, does the “Christian church” stand?
American Protestantism—Its Condition.
Again we ask, Is not American Protestantism dead? Has not the church “abandoned what constituted its life”? Has it not sought “alliance with the world”? and is it not finding in this alliance “a destruction full of desolation”? Let Dr. David H. Moore, the editor of the Western Christian Advocate (Methodist), in the issue of July 19, 1893, answer:—
TO THE CHURCH OF METHODISTS WRITE.
The great trouble with us to-day is that the rescue of imperiled souls is our last and least consideration. Many of our congregations are conducted on the basis of social clubs. They are made centers of social influence. Membership is sought in order to advance one’s prospects in society, business, or politics. Preachers are called who know how to—
> “Smooth down the rugged text to ears polite,
> And snugly keep damnation out of sight.”
The Sunday services are made the occasion of displaying the elegancies of apparel in the latest fashions. Even the little ones are tricked out as though they were the acolytes of pride. If the “rules” are read, it is to comply with the letter of the law, whose spirit has long since fled. The class books are filled with names of unconverted men and women. Official members may be found in box, dress circle, and parquet of opera and theater. Communicants take in the races, and give and attend card parties and dances. The distinction between inside and outside is so obscure that men smile when asked to unite with the church, and sometimes tell us that they find the best men outside.
When we go to the masses it is too often with such ostentatious condescension that self-respect drives them from us. And yet we have so spread out, under the inflation of the rich and ungodly, that they are a necessity to us. The enforcement of the unmistakable letter of the discipline for a single year would cut our membership in half, bankrupt our missionary society, close our fashionable churches, paralyze our connectional interests, and leave our pastors and bishops unpaid and in distress. But the fact remains that one of two things must happen,—the discipline must purge the church, or God’s Holy Spirit will seek other organized agencies. The ax is laid at the root of the tree. The call is to repentance. God’s work must be done. If we are in the way, he will remove us.
Let Rev. Geo. Guirey, Presbyterian minister, also bear testimony upon this point. In his work entitled “The Hallowed Day,” for which he received the Fletcher prize of $500 from Dartmouth College, and which is devoted principally to a plea for Sunday laws, and in which the author boldly advocates the “arrest” of Christians who observe the seventh day and labor on Sunday, the first day of the week, he speaks thus plainly of the condition of the churches:—
But is there not some reason for the common impression that the worldly spirit in the church is weakening her power with the public? Are there not evidences at hand that seem to confirm the impression that the history of the church in the Roman Empire, in the fourth century, is repeating itself in the United States to-day? This is a Christian country, and the laws are all in favor of religion; but the enervating influence of wealth, luxury, and fashion tells upon the church, producing spiritual declension, neglect of holy vows, and indifference to responsibility. The blandishments of the world are too much for human nature to withstand, and we see the sad spectacle of the great moral and religious activities of the church drop down into the rut of the ordinary routine of mere business affairs, while her beautiful and glorious life is shorn of its spiritual power. As a result, Sabbath desecration is almost as common in the church as out of it. It is not the noisy, offensive kind of desecration, but it is all the more harmful for that very reason. It does not seem too much to say that, with her vast resources and advantages, her intelligence and her ability consecrated to the service of God, and with the leverage of civil law in her hands, the church could to-day have a Sabbath such as is enjoyed in Toronto in every city in the United States. But the love of the world, the greed for wealth, and the ambition for place and power, leave the church in the hands of a faithful few to bear her burdens and responsibilities, while the great body of her membership joins the world in Sunday pleasuring. . . . And we say to the mixed multitudes that make up her nominal membership, “Fall in.”
Such is the condition of American Protestantism, according to its friends, and their testimony is in harmony with the prediction of Christ. On the authority of this word, the writer will change one letter in the last sentence, and, instead of saying to the “mixed multitude” (Babylon) that make up her nominal membership, “Fall in,” will say, “Fallen.” “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.”
And instead of saying, “Fall in,” we say, on the authority of the word of God, to the “faithful few” who “sigh and cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof,” “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have280reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.”
Seventh-day Adventists have, for more than forty years, predicted this fall, with all its dire consequences. We have declared, on the authority of the prophetic scriptures, that, as the “beast” was the result of a “falling away” from the principles of primitive Christianity, so the “image to the beast” would result from the falling away of American Protestantism from the principles of primitive Christianity, the Reformation of the sixteenth century, and the principles of the American Constitution.
We have warned and entreated both the Church and the State not to unite what had been separated by Christ, the Reformation, and the Constitution. Our warnings have been unheeded; that which we have protested against has been done. The Constitution of the United States has been violated. The precedent for religious legislation has been established, and the Constitution, which has stood for more than a hundred years as a breakwater against the angry seas of intolerance, has at last been broken, and through this opening will flow the billows of persecution. “As milder measures fail, the most oppressive laws will be enacted.”
And now, like the mysterious rider, who, with the swiftness of the wind, galloped down the Conemaugh Valley, warning the people of the onrushing floods, so we turn from petitioning the nation, and, with the “loud voice” of the apocalyptic angels, call to the people to flee for their lives. To give this final warning, we have pledged “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honors.” Reader, will you unite with us in giving this warning? It will cost you persecution in this world, but it promises, “in the world to come, eternal life.”