A Feature of Catholicism.
By W.
IN the "decrees" of the Plenary Council held in Baltimore, the following is found:— "We earnestly appeal to all Catholics, without distinction, not only to take no part in any movement tending toward a relaxation of the observance of Sunday, but to use their influence and power as citizens to resist in the opposite direction. Let them make it not only a day of rest, but also a day of prayer." The Congregationalist prints the above with simply the following comment: "Here is a feature of Catholicism which we most heartily indorse." We doubt if the Congregationalist realized the full import of its comment. Sunday observance is indeed a "feature of Catholicism," and is, in fact, its principal feature, as may be seen by the following: The apostle Paul gave as the chief characteristic of the papacy that he "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." 2 Thess. 2:4. And the angel told Daniel how the papacy would fulfill the specification of opposing and exalting himself above God, namely, by thinking to change the law of God. Dan. 7:25. In no other way could the Pope exalt himself above God. Of course no power on earth could really make a change in the law of God; but the papacy was to think itself able to do so. That the Catholic Church fills this specification, putting itself above God, by thinking it has power to change God's law, is evident from its own 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."—From "Abridgement of Christian Doctrine." "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."—From the Doctrinal Catechism. To the statement that "all modern religionists agree with her" in substituting Sunday for the Sabbath, we must take exceptions. We agree that she has done it, but we do not agree that she had any right to do it. But some one will say that there was no papacy until about the fifth or sixth century, and that as the Sabbath was changed before that time, it could not have been done by the papal power. To this we reply that the "mystery of iniquity" was working even in Paul's day, and that before Justinian's decree making the bishop of Rome head over all the churches, the Catholic Church existed just as really as it did afterwards. All the difference lies in the fact that after that decree the papacy was firmly established, as we may say, on a legal basis. An act performed before the beginning of papal supremacy, was just as much an act of the Catholic Church as one performed afterwards. In writing of the Trinitarian controversy, which took place in the time of Constantine, Gibbon refers to the two parties as the Arians and the Catholics. The party which finally became dominant, and which Constantine favored, is invariably termed the Catholic party. Thus we see that it is a recognized fact that the Catholic Church, so-called, had an existence in the time of Constantine. Although Constantine was not baptized till near his death, he favored the nominally Christian party from the year 313. He is called "the first Christian Emperor;" and as the influential "Christians" in his day were the Catholics, it follows that any decree issued by him concerning a matter of religion, would be a Catholic decree. It is well known that in the year 321 A. D. Constantine did issue a Sunday edict, and of that edict Chambers's Encyclopedia, article "Sabbath," says:— "Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that day [Sunday] is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, A. D. 321." More testimony to the same effect might be given, but this is sufficient to show that the Catholic Church is responsible for the change that has been made in the Sabbath, a change which has no Scripture warrant, and that this change of the Sabbath is claimed by the Catholic Church as the mark of its authority. It is not simply a feature of the Catholic Church, but it is the feature of that church. As we said before, the Congregationalist probably did not realize the import of its own words; but it is a fact, nevertheless, that in indorsing that "feature of Catholicism," it is simply indorsing Catholicism itself. As a Catholic writer said in a book entitled, "A Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-day:" "It is worth its while to remember that this observance of the Sabbath [Sunday]—in which, after all, the only Protestant worship consists—not only has no foundation in the Bible, but it is in flagrant contradiction with its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath, which is Saturday. . . . Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church." What do you say, friends? Will you indorse this "feature of Catholicism," and thus indorse Catholicism itself, with all its abominations and horrible deeds of blood? This is a question that will not down. The time has come when it must be answered by each person for himself. It may be passed by once or twice, or even more times, but it will surely come again and call more loudly for an answer. The Lord says, "with a loud voice," "If any man worship the beast and his image . . . the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God." Would it not be better to serve God by doing just as he says? "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."