p. 8 | WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY? by T.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA · Nov 22, 1899

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 25, No. 47.

WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY?

By T.

A DESPATCH from Washington, under date of October 21, says in part: "Archbishop Chapelle, recently appointed by the Vatican as delegate apostolic to the Philippines, was closeted with the President this morning for nearly two hours. Mgr. Chapelle is here by appointment to confer with the President before his departure for the Philippines.

"Archbishop Chapelle presented a mass of data dealing with the alleged spoliation of churches and church property by American troops in the Philippines. It had been originally intended that this data should be presented to the Board of Archbishops at their recent meeting at the Catholic University. The President intimated an intention to order a special inquiry.

"In his capacity of delegate apostolic, Monsignor Chapelle has been commissioned by the President to submit to the Filipino insurgents, in general terms, certain propositions of peace. He is also authorized to inform the insurgents of the intentions of the American Government as to the future administration of the archipelago when peace shall permit civil officials to supersede the military. . . . This is a general summary of his civil instructions.

"Mgr. Chapelle intimated to the President that he would be satisfied if the church property in Cuba and the Philippines was allowed to stand, so far as title and occupation were involved, upon exactly the same ground as any corporation having vested rights. The President said he would refer that suggestion to Congress.

"Mgr. Chapelle will leave the United States for Manila early in December. Meanwhile he will consult freely with the principal members of the administration."

Another sentence in the foregoing despatch says of Mr. Chapelle, "His Roman ecclesiastical mission does not conflict with his undertaking any mission on behalf of the President which will tend toward a peaceful solution of the complications now existing."

Right in line with the foregoing despatch is the following, from Washington, under date of October 27:

"President McKinley to-day appointed the Rev. W. D. McKinnon, late chaplain of the California Volunteers, chaplain in the regular army. Chaplain McKinnon will return to the Philippines very shortly. He has been chosen by Archbishop Chapelle to work with him in the Philippines toward the pacification of the insurrection and the settlement of various church property questions which have arisen."

The Signs of the Times for a whole quarter of a century has been teaching that the beast with two horns like a lamb, mentioned in Rev. 13:11, is a symbol of the United States. Our presses have put forth several pamphlets and small books at various times showing our reasons for this conclusion. And hundreds of articles from time to time have appeared in our columns upon the subject. We have not only maintained that the United States is symbolized in this prophecy, but have also affirmed the doctrine so generally taught by Protestants, that the "beast whose deadly wound was healed," spoken of in Rev. 13:12, is a symbol of the Papacy. Following this interesting prophecy to the close of the chapter, we learn that this country is to make an "image" to the Papacy. And, therefore, Protestant America will bow at the feet of Rome. When an "image" is made to anything, it shows adoration that is begotten of the spirit of worship.

We have both known and taught that Protestantism, even in this most Protestant of all countries, would so far depart from its principles that it would combine with the Papacy. And the reason why we have known and taught these things all these years is because we could read it clearly in the never-failing Word of prophecy; and we need only place the prophecy side by side with passing events in order to see the striking fulfilment. It is a new thing for a United States President to send for a Catholic prelate so that he may confer with him and instruct him how to act in the capacity of a representative of the government. And it should be noted that Archbishop Chapelle not only secures his own appointment as United States representative in the Philippines, but also gets an assistant sent with him, under the title of an army chaplain. Mr. McKinnon will be called an army chaplain, and will draw his pay from the government as such. But he was chosen because Archbishop Chapelle wanted him as an assistant.

And right in this connection it should be noted that at numerous banquets and public celebrations and parades of late the place of honor has been given by the President to some Catholic dignitary.

Truly we are in eventful times; and how can any one fail to see the meaning of passing events?

THE INCONSISTENCY OF IT.

IT has been only a few weeks since the New York Diocese of the Episcopal Church held its convention. One of the notable features in that convention was the report of Doctor Dix in regard to Sunday observance. The doctor introduced some resolutions with a view of arresting "the decay in the observance of the Lord's day," reference being had, of course, to Sunday.

The doctor's report deplored the growing disregard of Sunday and its devotion to "bicycle riding, excursions, golf, tennis, large dinners, and social receptions," with the consequence of a "wide neglect of public worship." Even clergymen, so Mr. Dix said, now indulge in "bicycle riding, golf, tennis, large dinners, and social receptions" on Sunday, and commend the practice.

To put the situation in a nutshell it is this: The great majority of the people regard Sunday as a mere holiday, and treat it in every respect as such. And many of the clergy have fallen in with this idea of things rather than condemning it. And then there is another large and growing class of clergymen who deplore this condition of things and desire to have civil laws passed so that they can invoke the police power in compelling the observance of Sunday. Even if Sunday were the true Sabbath of the Lord, which it is not, if men could not be persuaded to observe it, they would only be made worse by trying to compel them to do so. God does not compel men to serve Him. He draws them by love. Then why should men undertake to do what the Lord, with all His love and omnipotent power and infinite wisdom, has not considered within the realm of moral possibilities?

But this seeking to compel the observance of religious dogma by civil force is in the line of fulfilling prophecy. It is also history repeating itself. It is of importance as well as interest to studiously watch the developments.

WAIT TILL THE APOSTOLIC DELEGATE REPORTS!

ARCHBISHOP CHAPELLE is the "apostolic delegate to Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines." He is practically the go-between of the Vatican and the United States in the matter of the church's interests in the new colonies of the now imperial republic.

General Funston is one of the army officers who have been fighting the Filipinos. Returning to America not long ago, he delivered a number of public addresses, in which he spoke very emphatically in regard to the sinister influence of the friars in the islands. In his address before the Stanford University he is reported to have said that "if Congress would drive out the friars and confiscate every inch of church property, the bottom would drop out of the insurrection in one week. . . . The inhabitants of Luzon are completely under the church."

Archbishop Chapelle takes exception to this statement, and doubts the correctness of the report. He thinks that if the general did use such language, he must have referred merely to a demand of the Filipinos as a condition of surrender. In rebuttal of the alleged statement that the natives are under the influence of the Roman Church, he cites as a fact that for the last 18 months more than 350 friars have been prisoners and "undergoing unheard-of torture in insurgent dungeons."

I have no judgment to pass as to the truthfulness of either of the foregoing statements. It is possible that there is truth in both of them. This possibility is shown by the following further utterance of the archbishop:—

"Whatever the natives are or have they owe to the friars. By them they were lifted out of savagery and brought under the blessed and refining influences of Christianity. By them they were educated not only in the schools, but in the fields and the workshops were taught by them the very industries which are now the source of their prosperity." Mr. Peyton, the agent of the Episcopal Foreign Mission Association, tells us that the natives are the most moral and religious people on the face of the globe. Now, the men who taught them to be so can not be such men as some narrow-minded people would try to have us believe. Rev. Dr. Abeel, a Scotch Protestant missionary, also testifies that nearly all the population of the Filipino archipelago has been converted to the Catholic faith by the Spanish monks, and a wonderful improvement in their social condition has been the result.

This is a frank admission that the so-called "insurgents" are under the influence of the education given to them by the friars. It is a further admission that the character of that influence is manifested in the disposition to inflict "unheard-of torture in insurgent dungeons." They must be acting under the influence of "the church," for the apostolic delegate says, "Whatever the natives are or have they owe to the friars." Then this spirit of dealing out torture to their prisoners is a specimen of "the blessed and refining influences of Christianity" which they have received from the Roman Church. The principle of torture for opponents always has been a doctrine of the Roman Church where it had sufficient influence with the civil government to carry out its doctrines to their full extent. The Inquisition was in full blast in Spain when that government gained control of the Philippines and established there the Catholic religion. "Rome never changes," only as compelled by circumstances to make an outward show of change, and having had undisputed sway in the Philippines from the beginning of Spain's occupancy, of course the spirit of the Inquisition has continued to permeate all of her work in bringing the natives under "the blessed and refining influences of Christianity."

This being a prominent feature in the religious training of the natives, when they became hostile to Spanish tyranny and the friars took the side of the government, which in reality they controlled in the archipelago, it was not natural for the Filipinos to cruelly treat those of the friars who fell into their hands. This was natural because the government, under priestly domination, had so treated the insurgent natives who became prisoners of war. Thus whatever of torture or other ill fare the captive friars may have received at the hands of their former pupils, it is but the fruit of Rome's own seed-sowing.

But the blandest suggestion on the part of the apostolic delegate is that the people of the United States should not believe anything concerning the situation in the Philippines—that is, anything derogatory to Romish influence—until he has personally investigated and reported. Of course he will do exact justice, and tell the exact truth as no other can! The "opinions of gentlemen" who have been there before him are not reliable! Here is his appeal:—

"In a short time I will start for the Philippines, and I will personally investigate all charges made against religious orders, titles of property, etc. Until I have completed my work I would ask the good people of the United States not to be too ready to swallow as facts the opinions of gentlemen whose previous training and lack of opportunities to get at the root facts do not warrant their statements concerning the Catholic ministers of religion, the intellectual capacity, the moral and social condition, of the people of the archipelago, to be taken as undisputed facts by sensible and just minds; nor can they, therefore, be taken as an exact presentation of a condition of things in the Philippines upon which the United States Government could prudently and equitably base its policy with regard to this archipelago. The church asks only justice, and I will not countenance the retention of one inch of property which is not now legitimately held."

It would not be justice to take from the church "one inch of property" that is lawfully held by her. The same is true concerning the rights of the Filipinos. It was just as true four hundred years ago, when, under the papal blessing and support, the whole archipelago was forcibly taken from its natural owners by Spain; and it was just as true when the ill-gotten property was purchased from Spain by the United States.

But, granting that "the church" has many property