Two Great Compromises by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jun 11, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 23.

Two Great Compromises.

By Editor

IN regard to the increasing power of the papacy, facts are constantly coming to our notice; and we turn slightly aside from the course we intended to pursue in this number to notice in general the position which the system of Catholicism now occupies, or is assuming, as contrasted with the position which it formerly occupied in the eyes of Protestants.

In the Presbyterian General Assembly in Cincinnati, May 25, 1885, a resolution by Judge Drake was under consideration. The resolution denied the validity of the baptism of the Catholic Church. “Dr. W. C. Alexander, professor in the Theological Seminary at San Francisco, spoke in opposition to the resolution.” He said: “This resolution denies the validity of baptism administered to millions of persons who have come into the Protestant church from the Roman Catholic Church, and have never received any other baptism.”

This alleged reason touches no principle; it only looks to the bearing which the resolution would have upon their past action, without showing that their action was consistent or proper. The report says:—

“Dr. Schaff offered a substitute to the resolution to the effect that the Roman Catholic Church, though corrupt and teaching many unscriptural doctrines, yet retaining the holy Scriptures and ancient creeds, with all the fundamental truths of Christianity, is still a branch of the visible church of Christ, and, therefore, the sacrament of baptism administered by that church with the right to baptize is a true and valid Christian baptism, which cannot and ought not to be repeated. Dr. Schaff spoke in favor of his substitute, by showing from the history of the church that baptism administered in the name of the trinity, with proper intention, regardless of the character of the one administering it, had always been considered valid.”

The report of May 26 says: “Judge Drake’s resolution on Romish baptism was overwhelmingly defeated.”

The Christian at Work heartily espouses the cause of Romanism, saying:—

“To say that a child baptized in infancy by a pious Roman Catholic priest doing the Lord’s work in his own humble way—there are plenty of them, brethren!—to say that such a child must be baptized over again at the point of Presbyterian digitals is, in our view, a reversion to Anabaptism.”

In one sense they are consistent in this position. They have derived their baptism, not only in its administration from the Romish Church, but in its doctrine both as to form and subjects, from tradition handed down mostly by the Catholics. If they deny the validity of the Romish ordinances and creeds, they deny their own standing. They well understand that they have very much at stake in this direction. Dr. Schaff might have gone even farther than he did; he might have said in truth that some of “the Fathers” held that baptism was valid and purifying without regard to the character of the baptizer or the intention of the baptized! And this view has its literal succession in all churches which baptize infants, for in such baptism the recipient has no intention at all. A faith more in conformity with the Bible would lead to a conclusion differing from that arrived at in the General Assembly.

Thus far they are consistent, but as professed Protestants they are not consistent. They are fallen from the grace of true Protestant faith. The Presbyterians may be more conservative than most other denominations, but their old standards do not justify their high encomiums of the Romish church. Thus, Dr. Scott says:—

“The ‘man of sin’ does not mean a single person, but a succession of men, impious in themselves; and conducting the same wicked design of corrupting Christianity, in doctrine, worship, and practice; establishing an intolerable tyranny on religious pretences; and using all kinds of seduction, iniquity, and cruel persecution to induce mankind to adopt the antichristian system. This ‘man of sin’ would be ‘the son of perdition,’ a genuine descendant of Judas, the apostle and traitor, who sold his Lord for money, and betrayed him with a kiss; a peculiar factor and agent of Satan, in destroying the souls of men; and finally sinking himself into perdition as his inheritance (Notes, Rev. 17:7-14). It is manifest that no succession of men have yet appeared on earth to whom this description fully accords, except that of the Roman pontiffs, as in succession the visible head of the popish church. This deceiver would ‘oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped,’ either by Christians or pagans; thus the Roman pontiffs have opposed the truths, commandments, and disciples of Christ, in every age and by every means: they have opposed the prophetical office of Christ, by teaching human inventions, his priestly office, by the doctrine of human merits and created intercessors; and his kingly office, by changing and dispensing with his laws.”—Scott, on 2 Thess. 2.

This estimate of the papal church, drawn directly from the description of the Scripture, is widely different from that of Dr. Schaff and the Presbyterian Church at large of the present time. Is the baptism of a blasphemous, God-defying, and Christ-denying power, and “antichristian system,” valid? And Dr. Scott gives the same idea of the papacy in Revelation, applying the blasphemous beast of chapters 13 and 17 to the papacy. If this application is correct, then so far from the Romish church being the veritable church of Christ, or an important part of it, her head and ruling prince is “the son of perdition,” and the system itself, rather the body or power itself, is to go into perdition—the lake of fire and brimstone!

And with this agree the words of Dr. Barnes. He comments at length on Dan. 7:25, referring it to the papacy, and says:—

“It would be arrogant and proud, ‘speaking great words against the Most High.’ No Protestant [italics his own] will doubt that this is true of the papacy; no one acquainted with history will presume to call it in question. The arrogant pretensions of the papacy have been manifested in all the history of that power, and no one can doubt that its assumptions have been, by fair construction, a ‘speaking of great words against God.’”

Dr. Barnes also applies to the succession of the popes the title in 2 Thess. 2: “the man of sin.” This does not refer to any particular “man” as both Scott and Barnes say, but to the succession as head over an “antichristian system.” The title, “man of sin,” would certainly forbid the idea that the system represented thereby is the church of Jesus Christ, having the genuine faith and ordinances, as Dr. Schaff says. On this title Dr. Barnes says:—

“To no succession of men who have ever lived could the appellative ‘the man of sin,’ be applied with so much propriety as to this succession. Yet they claim to have been the true successors of the apostles, and there are Protestants that deem it of essential importance to be able to show that they have derived the true ‘succession’ through such men.”

Yes, the Presbyterian General Assembly “deem it of essential importance to be able to show that they have derived the true [baptismal] succession through such men,” and through such an “antichristian system.” Dr. Barnes makes the same application of the symbols of the Revelation, which also fixes to the papal power the title of “the son of perdition.”

We think the point is clear; no further proof is needed, that the Protestant faith is dying out of the Protestant church; that there is a turning back toward the papacy, and the line dividing between Protestants and Catholics is fast being obliterated. But, as we remarked, all the change is on the part of the Protestants; the Catholics are making no change at all. They deny that the Protestant churches are churches in any proper sense, but only sects or heretics, whom they over and over again say they would not tolerate if they had the power in their hands.

In the United States the papacy is recognized as a power, both spiritual and political. And it alone, of all churches, occupies this position. Its representatives alone are accorded special honors as representatives of a church. It alone stands separate and distinct from all other churches; claiming affinity with none; recognizing none as its associates. That it is a political power in fact if not in open profession is shown in that, for years, political parties have taken positions which were well understood to be “bids for the Catholic vote.” Who ever heard of their bidding for the Methodist vote, or the Baptist vote, or the Presbyterian vote? Such an idea never entered the heads of politicians. But they are careful to angle for “the Catholic vote.” Why is this? It is because it is tacitly acknowledged that the Catholic Church is a political power, planning shrewdly and working unitedly for the accomplishment of its purpose. It knows how to bide its time; but it knows also how to take advantage of every opportunity which others so heedlessly are opening before it. It also even now demands privileges and favors of our Government which other churches do not presume to ask.

At first glance it may be supposed that all this has nothing to do with a “compromise” with this power in Europe. But it is a sign not to be lightly overlooked. We believe that we stated a simple truth when we said that, for years past, Protestantism has existed in greater purity in the United States than in any other land in the world. England comes next, and her tendency to Ritualism too plainly shows what may and what may not be expected there. If, in the strongholds of Protestantism, there is such a voluntary yielding of the landmarks in favor of the papacy, and in a time of peace, when there is no pressure—no emergency—to require it, what must we expect of those nations whose people are ranged from nominally Protestant to intensely Catholic? Everything looks toward a fulfillment of Rev. 17 and 18, in the kings of the earth giving their power to the beast, and the antichristian “woman” boasting that she is no longer a widow and shall see no sorrow; that her trials are past, and her triumph at last complete. But alas for her boasting; her plagues shall come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire; for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. Rev. 18:8.