The Third Angel’s Message.
By S. A.
FURTHER EXPLANATION OF THE MARK.
We were brought to the conclusion last week that the mark of the beast is the change which that power (the papacy) has made in the law of God. We now inquire what that change is. By the law of God, we mean the moral law, the only law in the universe of immutable and perpetual obligation, the law of which Webster says, defining the terms according to the sense in which they are almost universally used in Christendom, “The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai.” If, now, the reader will compare the ten commandments as found in the Roman Catholic catechisms with those commandments as found in the Bible, he will see in the catechisms that the second commandment is left out, that the tenth is divided into two commandments to make up the lack of leaving out the second, and keep good the number ten, and that the fourth commandment (called the third in their enumeration) is made to enjoin the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, and prescribes that the day shall be spent in hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, and reading moral and pious books. Here are several variations from the decalogue as found in the Bible. Which of them constitutes the change of the law intended in the prophecy? or, are they all included in that change? Let it be borne in mind that, according to the prophecy, he was to think to change times and law. This plainly conveys the idea of intention and design, and makes these qualities essential to the change in question. But respecting the omission of the second commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the first, and, hence, should not be numbered as a separate commandment. And, on the tenth, they claim that there is so plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments. So they make the coveting of a neighbor’s wife the ninth commandment, and the coveting of his goods the tenth. In all this they claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as God intended to have them understood. So, while we may regard them as errors in their interpretation of the commandments, we cannot set them down as intentional changes. Not so, however, with the fourth commandment. Respecting this commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by God. They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by the church. A few quotations from standard Catholic works will make this matter plain. In a work entitled, Treatise of Thirty Controversies, we find these words:— “The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy; you [Protestants], without any precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose, against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said, the first day of the week, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory, and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause, indeed, to laugh us to scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath days in which those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is expressed in the written word of God.” In the “Catholic Catechism of Christian Religion,” on the subject of the third [fourth] commandment, we find these questions and answers:— “Ques. What does God ordain by this commandment? “Ans. He ordains that we sanctify, in a special manner, this day on which he rested from the labor of creation. “Q. What is this day of rest? “A. The seventh day of the week, or Saturday; for he employed six days in creation, and rested on the seventh. Gen. 2:2; Heb. 4:1, &c. “Q. Is it then Saturday we should sanctify in order to obey the ordinance of God? “A. During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but the church, instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so now we sanctify the first, not the seventh, day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of the Lord.” In “Abridgment of Christian Doctrine,” we find this testimony:— “Ques. How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days? “Ans. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church. “Q. How prove you that? “A. Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin.” In the “Catholic Christian Instructed,” again we read:— “Ques. What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday? “A. We have for it the authority of the Catholic church, and apostolic tradition. “Q. Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath? “A. The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18:17; Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess. 2:15. But the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath.” In the “Doctrinal Catechism,” we find further testimony to the same point:— “Ques. Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept? “Ans. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority.” And finally, W. Lockhart, late B. A. of Oxford, in the Toronto (Cath.) Mirror, offered the following “challenge” to all the Protestants of Ireland; a challenge as well calculated for this latitude as that. He says:— “I do, therefore, solemnly challenge the Protestants of Ireland to prove, by plain texts of Scripture, the questions concerning the obligation of the Christian Sabbath. 1. That Christians may work on Saturday, the old seventh day. 2. That they are bound to keep holy the first day, namely, Sunday. 3. That they are not bound to keep holy the seventh day also.” This is what the papal power claims to have done respecting the fourth commandment. Catholics plainly acknowledge that there is no scriptural authority for the change they have made, but that it rests wholly upon the authority of the church; and they claim it as a token or mark of the authority of that church; the “very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday” being set forth as proof of its power in this respect. For further testimony on this point, the reader is referred to a tract published at this Office, entitled, “Who changed the Sabbath?” in which are also extracts from Catholic writers, refuting the arguments usually relied upon to prove the Sunday Sabbath, and showing that its only authority is the Catholic church. “But,” says one, “I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath.” A great many suppose so; and it is natural that they should; for they have been so taught. And while we have no words of denunciation to utter against any such for so believing, we would have them at once understand that it is, in reality, one of the most enormous of all errors. We would therefore remind such persons that, according to the prophecy, the only change ever to be made in the law of God, was to be made by the little horn of Dan. 7, and the man of sin of 2 Thess. 2; and the only change that has been made in it, is the change of the Sabbath. Now, if Christ made this change, he filled the office of the blasphemous power spoken of by both Daniel and Paul—a conclusion sufficiently hideous to drive any Christian from the view which leads thereto. But why should any one labor to prove that Christ changed the Sabbath? Whoever does this is performing a thankless task. The pope will not thank him; for if it is proved that Christ wrought this change, then the pope is robbed of his badge of authority and power. And no truly enlightened Protestant will thank him; for if he succeeds, he only shows that the papacy has not done the work which it was predicted that it should do, and so that the prophecy has failed, and the Scriptures are unreliable. The matter had better stand as the prophecy has placed it; and the claim which the pope unwittingly puts forth, had better be granted. When a person is charged with any work, and that person steps forth and confesses that he has done the work, that is usually considered sufficient to settle the matter. So, when the prophecy affirms that a certain power shall change the law of God, and that very power in due time arises, does the work foretold, and then openly claims that he has done it, what need have we of further evidence? The world should not forget that the great apostasy foretold by Paul has taken place; that the man of sin for long ages held almost a monopoly of Christian teaching in the world; that the mystery of iniquity has cast the darkness of its shadow, and the errors of its doctrines over almost all Christendom; and out of this era of error and darkness and corruption, the theology of our day has come. Would it then be anything strange if there were yet some relics of popery to be discarded ere the reformation will be complete? A. Campbell (Baptism, p. 15), speaking of the different Protestant sects, says:— “All of them retain in their bosom, in their ecclesiastic organizations, worship, doctrines, and observances, various relics of popery. They are at best a reformation of popery, and only reformations in part. The doctrines and traditions of men yet impair the power and progress of the gospel in their hands.” S. A.