IT is a boast of the Roman Catholic Church that “Rome never changes;” and yet few people realize how true it is that the Roman Catholic Church of to-day is the same in spirit, in purpose, and in policy as was the Roman Catholic Church in the sixteenth century.AMS August 29, 1895, page 265.1

September 5, 1893, Mgr. Satolli, speaking for the pope of Rome, bid the people of the United States to “go forward, in one hand bearing the book of Christian truth—the Bible—and in the other, the Constitution of the United States.” But let no one be deceived by this apparent change of front by the papacy. Rome’s attitude toward the Bible is just what it has always been, namely, one of hostility to the Word of God uninterpreted by “the church.”AMS August 29, 1895, page 265.2

Prior to the Reformation, the Bible was an unknown book, so far as the common people were concerned; but few even of the priests had ever seen the Book, and fewer still had ever read the sacred Volume, Luther never saw a Bible until he was twenty years of age; and until that time imagined that “those fragments of the gospels and epistles that the church had selected to be read to the people during public worship every Sunday throughout the year,” composed the whole Word of God. ^{1“History of the Reformation,” by D’Aubigne, chap. 2, book 2, par. 4.}AMS August 29, 1895, page 265.3

It may be said that this was the fault of the times and not of the church; that all books were rare and expensive. But that Rome could have given the Scriptures to the people in the living languages of Europe, is proved by the fact that the Reformers did it in a single generation, in the face of the most bitter opposition by the papal church.AMS August 29, 1895, page 265.4

The fault was not with the times but with an apostate church, which not only kept the Word of God locked in dead languages, but forbade the reading of it under heavy penalties. Our illustration shows with what trepidation the people read the Scriptures in those days. It was against the law to read the Bible, and they watched as they read, as a housebreaker watches lest detection overtake him; and startled at the slightest noise, even as the hunted deer starts at the snapping of a twig or the rustle of a fallen leaf.AMS August 29, 1895, page 265.5

But the Reformation unsealed the previous Volume. “Tyndall and Luther,” says Dr. Wylie, “the one from his retreat at Vildorfe in the Low Countries, and the other from amid the deep shades of the Thuringian forest, sent forth the Bible to the nations in the vernacular tongues of England and Germany.”AMS August 29, 1895, page 265.6

The thirst thus awakened for the Scriptures, Rome did not think it wise to openly oppose. Civil penalties could no longer be invoked to punish those who read the Word of God. But papal policy was equal to the emergency. The Council of Trent enacted ten rules regarding the reading of prohibited books; and in the fourth rule the council prohibits anyone from reading the Bible without a license from his bishop or inquisitor—that license to be founded upon the certificate from his confessor, that he “is in no danger of receiving injury from so doing.” The council further said: “If anyone shall dare to keep in his possession that book [the Bible], without such a license, he shall not receive absolution until he has given it up to his ordinary.” ^{2Council Trid de Libria Prohibitis, p. 281 of Lepsic ed. Quoted by Wylie, in “The Papacy,” book 2, chap. 2}AMS August 29, 1895, page 265.7

Such was the attitude of Rome toward the Bible at the era of the Reformation, and such it is to-day. “No farther back than 1816,” says Wylie, “Pope Pius VII., in hi bull, denounced the Bible Society, and expressed himself as ‘shocked’ by the circulation of the Scriptures, which he characterizes as a ‘most crafty device, by which the very foundations of religion are undermined;’ ‘a pestilence,’ which it behoves him ‘to remedy and abolish;’ ‘a defilement of the faith, eminently dangerous to souls.’ He congratulates the primate, to whom his letter is addressed, on the zeal he had shown ‘to detect and overthrow the impious machinations of these innovators;’ and represents it as an episcopal duty to expose ‘the wickedness of this nefarious scheme,’ and openly to publish ‘that the Bible printed by heretics is to to [sic.] be numbered among other prohibited books, conformably to the rules of the index; for it is evident from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit.’ ^{3Given at Rome, June 29th, 1816, and addressed to the Archbishop of Geneva, Primate of Polsed.} Thus, in the solemn judgment of the Church of Rome, expressed through her chief organ, the Bible has done more evil than good, and is beyond comparison the worst book in the world.” ^{4“The Papacy,” by J. A. Wylie, LL.D., pp. 181, 182.}AMS August 29, 1895, page 265.8

In America, Satolli, the papal delegate, tells the people to “go forward bearing in one hand the book of Christian truth—the Bible;” but in Roman Catholic countries the Word of God is still a forbidden book; and as we shall see, the Bible, as the supreme authority in matters of faith, is still forbidden by Rome even in this country.AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.1

Some years ago, while Rome was yet under the rule of the pope, and English clergyman found it impossible to purchase in the city of Rome a single copy of the Scriptures of portable size in the language of the people; and when he inquired of each bookseller the reason of his not having so important a volume, the answer in every instance was “E prohibite,” or “Non? permisso;” ^{5Id. p. 186.} that is, the volume was prohibited, or not permitted to be sole. It is a matter of general knowledge that at the present time Protestant colporters in the Roman Catholic countries of South America, are not permitted to circulate freely copies of the Scriptures. They are hampered and hindered in a hundred ways, and are often arrested and thrown into prison upon the slightest pretext, evidently to prevent them from putting the Bible into the hands of the people.AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.2

But does not Rome permit the reading of the Bible by her people in the United States? Yes; but of the Catholic version only, and that is never printed without notes. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the only authorized interpreter of the Scriptures, and she suffers her people to receive the Scriptures only as she interprets them; and when Rome says, “Go forward, bearing in one hand the book of Christian truth—the Bible,“—she means the Roman Catholic bible, and that interpreted by the church; for Rome has repeatedly refused to authorize the circulation among Catholics of the Douay version of the Scriptures, without note or comment.AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.3

The creed of Pope Pius IV., which every Catholic is taught to recite, and to which every priest is required to subscribe, thus defines the sense in which Rome admits even her own version of the Scriptures:—AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.4

I do also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother, the church, has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.5

To the same intent, the present pope, Leo XIII., says:—AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.6

The professors [teachers] of Holy Scripture, therefore, amongst other recommendations, must be well acquainted with the whole circle of theology and deeply read in commentaries of the holy fathers and doctors and other interpreters of mark.AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.7

Thus Rome interposes insurmountable barriers between the people and the Bible, even while professing to freely give them the sacred Volume, bidding them go forward, bearing it in the right hand.AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.8

“The Protestant Bible,” says Rome, “is only a false skin, in which infidelity and revolution wrap themselves.” ^{6Segur’s “Plain Talk About Protestantism of To-day,” a Roman Catholic book, indorsed by Joannes Josephus, Epicopus Boston, and for sale at all Catholic book stores. Page 118.} But Rome no longer fears the Bible in the United States as she once feared it, because the Bible is no longer regarded by the great mass of the people of this country as it was once regarded. The higher criticism and the thousand and one evasions of the plain Word of God, which have been adopted by so-called Protestants to support unbiblical doctrines, have so discredited the bible and so instilled into the minds of the people the papal idea that the Bible must be interpreted, that Rome now feels safe in bidding the people thus educated to go forward, bearing in one hand the emasculated and discredited Bible, and in the other the perverted Constitution of the United States.AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.9

The very foundation principle of true Protestantism was thus set forth in the protest of the princes at Spires, April 12, 1529:—AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.10

“There is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the Word of God.” “The Lord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine.” “Each text of the Holy Scriptures ought to be explained by other and clearer texts.” “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 is contained in the biblical books of the Old and New Testaments, 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 fall or deceive us. He who builds on this foundation shall stand against all the powers of hell whilst all the human vacuities that are set up against it shall fall before the face of God.”AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.11

It is before the Bible regarded in this light that Rome trembles. But Protestants are no longer taught to reverence the Word of God as did the German princes; they are no longer taught that a plain “Thus saith the Lord” is the end of controversy. They are, on the contrary, taught to accept what men have said about the Bible rather than the Bible; and as this is distinctively Roman Catholic doctrine, Rome can well afford now to appear as the champion of the Scriptures, for she well knows that, under the influence to which we have referred, the Bible has lost its power with the people; and she no longer fears it.AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.12

“Rome never changes,” but times changes; and the changed attitude of Rome toward the Bible is not a change in principle but in policy. The same hostility to the Word of God exists as formerly; but as Protestants are no longer taught to look upon the Bible as of supreme authority, but regard it as something that must be interpreted, Rome no longer opposes the Bible but sets herself forth as the interpreter, expounder, and defender of that sacred Book. There is, in fact, an unconscious conspiracy between Rome and apostate Protestantism, and Rome’s so-called change of front is due to this conspiracy.AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.13

“Keeping the Fourth Commandment” American Sentinel 10, 34, pp. 266, 267.

ATJ

THE commandments of God are given men to be kept every day in the week, and to this rule the fourth commandment is no exception.AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.1

That commandment says, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” The Sabbath day is holy, for God made it so; and we are commanded to keep it holy. How are we to do this?AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.2

God made the Sabbath day holy by resting from his work upon it, blessing and sanctifying it. Genesis 2:2, 3. This separated the Sabbath day from the other days of the week. They are working days; it is the sacred rest day. Ezekiel 46:1.AMS August 29, 1895, page 266.3

This distinction we are commanded to preserve. In the words of Deuteronomy 5:12, we are to “keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it.” To sanctify means to make separate, or distinct, from surrounding things. This definition is based upon Scripture.AMS August 29, 1895, page 267.1

When the Lord was about to come down in his majesty upon Mount Sinai and proclaim his law in the presence of the assembly of Israel, he gave directions to Moses concerning the mount, telling him, “Thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death.” And afterwards Moses, alluding to the same, said, “The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai, for Thou chargedst us, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.” Exodus 19:12, 23.AMS August 29, 1895, page 267.2

Another illustration is furnished in the narrative of God’s meeting with Moses at the burning bush. As Moses turned to behold the bush, God said to him, “Draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” Exodus 3:5.AMS August 29, 1895, page 267.3

Mount Sinai, while it was the abode of God, was sanctified,—set apart from the country about it, by the bounds placed around it, through which the people were not permitted to pass. The ground about the burning bush was likewise set apart from other ground, being made holy by the presence of God. By being thus separated or set apart, it was sanctified.AMS August 29, 1895, page 267.4

To sanctify the Sabbath, therefore, we must keep it separate, or distinct, from other days. It has been made so by the act of God, and this distinction we must preserve. Hence, while we are to regard the Sabbath as a sacred rest day, we must also regard the other days as working days. And this precludes us from regarding Sunday as a rest day.AMS August 29, 1895, page 267.5

Therefore it is utterly impossible to keep the Sabbath holy—to sanctify it—while making a weekly rest day of Sunday. To make Sunday a rest day, is to break in upon the distinction which pertains to the Sabbath. To keep the Sabbath commandment, we must regard the first six days as working days, as well as rest upon the seventh.AMS August 29, 1895, page 267.6

Let no one then assert that the law of the State commanding the observance of Sunday is not of a nature to interfere with the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath. It is directly contrary to the fourth precept of God’s law, and forces upon every observer of that precept whom it reaches, the question whether he shall render obedience to God or to man?AMS August 29, 1895, page 267.7

“Righteousness by Statute” American Sentinel 10, 34, p. 267.

ATJ

THE World, of the 16th inst., thus contrasts New York’s policy with that pursued in Chicago:—AMS August 29, 1895, page 267.1

If there is anything which the city of New York can do in the way of aiding the mayor of Chicago to make government easier and better in the western city, it ought to do it. We owe him a debt of gratitude for having expressed in just thirteen short words a doctrine that is at the present time of vital importance to New York.AMS August 29, 1895, page 267.2

Mayor Swift says: “Out in Chicago we don’t think men can be made righteous by statute.” The opinion of New York is identical with that of Chicago. The difference between the two places is that in Chicago the authorities, recognizing the impossibility of making men “righteous by statute,” do not attempt the impossible, whereas in New York a young police commissioner, clothed with the novelty of power, acts on the theory that he can make men righteous by statute, although he would probably admit as a matter of fact that such an achievement was impossible even for a police commissioner.AMS August 29, 1895, page 267.3

But Chicago is not consistent in the stand it has taken, as is witnessed by the fact that while it cannot make men “righteous by statute,” to the extent of closing saloons on Sunday, the authorities of that city propose to make Seventh-day Adventists “righteous” by compelling them to cease work on that day. There is a vast deal of hypocrisy in both New York and Chicago.AMS August 29, 1895, page 267.4

“Progress of National Reform” American Sentinel 10, 34, p. 269.

ATJ

THE Christian Statesman, of August 10, published an article upon the progress of National Reform, in which it recounts with evident satisfaction, the conquests made by the National Reform movement since its inauguration in 1863.AMS August 29, 1895, page 269.1

“A little over thirty years ago,” says the Statesman, “a few National Reformers went about our country lecturing on the kingship of Christ. They were met with a very cool reception.” “But,” continues the Statesman, “the workers never lost heart; they continued holding their local meetings and national conventions and sending out their literature.”AMS August 29, 1895, page 269.2

The publication of the Christian Statesman was commenced in 1867. At that time the entire daily press of the country was opposed to the movement; and “the religious weeklies with rare exception,” says the Statesman, “were also hostile, or at the best utterly indifferent. It was not simply the idea of a constitutional acknowledgment of Christ as King that was regarded as so impracticable or absurd, but the idea of the kingship itself. The thought seemed to prevail on every hand, even among the members of the evangelical churches, that the truth of Christ’s kingly office was a theological doctrine with which civil government and nations had nothing to do.”AMS August 29, 1895, page 269.3

“But,” exclaims the Statesman, “what a marvelous change is witnessed to-day! The ‘Good Citizenship’ movement of the Christian Endeavor Society is only one of many indications as to the moral revolution that has taken place. Papers are springing into existence to advocate the truth that Jesus Christ is the Saviour and Governor of the nation. The Christian Statesman, once so lonely, now has plenty of company in the maintenance of this truth. And the National Reform Association is now not the only organization for the dissemination of the principles of Christian civil government. Other societies are being organized throughout our land with such avowed aims as the following, which we quote from document No. 11 of the series issued by the National Christian Citizenship League: ‘It already has auxiliaries in various States and Territories, and exists for the following purposes: 1. To reveal Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the State and nation as well as of the individual. 2. To make Christian principles operative in public affairs. 3. To unite the followers of Christ in consistent, harmonious, and aggressive action for these purposes.’”AMS August 29, 1895, page 269.4

This is, as the Statesman very properly says, taking up the very same work that the National Reform Association has been engaging in for over thirty years; and what that movement is, the Statesman then proceeds to define: It is to incorporate the fundamental principles of Christian civil government into our nation’s fundamental law. In short, National Reform means a man-made theocracy. It means men ruling in the place of God; it means an image to the papacy, for the papacy is the man of sin, sitting in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. And National Reform, whether called by that name or whether dubbed “Christian Citizenship,” is practically the same thing; it is a new papacy, an image of the power that has its seat upon the seven hills.AMS August 29, 1895, page 269.5

It is all very well enough to talk about making the law of God the fundamental rule of national life; but who is to define the law of God? As Richard M. Johnson so tersely expressed in [sic.] in 1829: “Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for the violation of what government denominated the law of God.”AMS August 29, 1895, page 269.6

Persecution is inseparable from the assumption to rule in the place of God. It was for this reason, that our forefathers sought to establish in this country a purely secular government.AMS August 29, 1895, page 269.7

This principle was recognized by the Presbytery of Hanover in Virginia; when, in 1776, it addressed the Virginia House of Assembly a memorial in which occurred these words:—AMS August 29, 1895, page 269.8

It is at least impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects that profess the Christian faith, without erecting a claim to infallibility, which would lead us back to the church of Rome.AMS August 29, 1895, page 269.9

Whoever assumes to decide a religious question for anybody else, assumes the prerogative of infallibility as truly as does the pope of Rome, and thus leads all who follow him, back to the church of Rome; and this the government must do if it shall undertake to make the law of God the fundamental law of the land. It must decide what the law of God is, and having decided what it is, it must decide what it means, as was done in the World’s Fair Sunday legislation when Congress decided that the fourth commandment now requires the observance of Sunday. National Reform means that such questions shall not only be discussed and decided in the halls of Congress, but in our courts of justice; and it is to such a regime as this that not only the Christian Statesman and the National Reform Association, but all the auxiliaries to which the Statesman has referred, are pledged. And it is such a regime as this that the SENTINEL has opposed and will ever continue to oppose.AMS August 29, 1895, page 269.10

“Wants to Set Himself Right” American Sentinel 10, 34, p. 272.

ATJ

REFERRING to our illustrated number of August 15, a Knoxville, Tenn., pastor, writes us as follows:—AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.1

EDITORS AMERICAN SENTINEL:AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.2

Gentlemen: Having given a partial quotation of an interview which I accorded a reporter for the SENTINEL, a daily paper of this city, on the subject of the punishment of the Tennessee Adventists for violation of the Sunday laws of the State of Tennessee, I ask that you do me the justice of publishing the closing paragraph of that same interview, as follows:—AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.3

“As to so-called Sunday laws, I believe they could, and certainly should be so framed as to duly respect the conscience of the subject. It is to be regretted that a body of religionists who conscientiously regard some other day of the week than Sunday as sanctified to holy purposes cannot, under the existing laws of our commonwealth, have their conscience respected. I believe, however, they would themselves prefer the enforcement of the law as it exists, to having its provisions disregarded at the expense of correct public notions touching the supremacy of the law. Perhaps in this I credit them with a patriotism their lips would discision. However, I think not.”AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.4

I have no doubt you will give the foregoing a place in your paper, together with so much of this letter as may be needful. That you will be as careful to send marked copies of the paper in which it shall appear, to various sources in this city, as you were to furnish the same sources with your issue of the 15th inst. can not be questioned.AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.5

Very truly yours,AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.6

THOS. C. WARNER.AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.7

Knoxville, Tenn., August 31st, 1895.AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.8

We cheerfully comply with Mr. Warner’s request, though we do not see that it alters the case materially. We quoted only a portion of the interview because we had not space for all of it, and because his opinion of what a Sunday law ought to be could not affect his deliberate judgment that—AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.9

The question of righteousness should never decide whether an existing law is to be enforced or not. Is it the law of the land? That question settled in the affirmative, then let the law be enforced. If the law is unjust, if it works hardship to innocent persons, still let it be executed so long as it remains upon the statute books.AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.10

We said before, and we say again, that this being Mr. Warner’s deliberate convictions, he must have said the same ting in the glare of the fires that consumed the martyrs in France or Spain, or at the foot of the gallows tree whereon the Protestants of Holland were executed; for it was all only the enforcement of civil law. We are glad that Mr. Warner’s better self revolts at the logic of the words which his lips uttered. The country can well dispense with the “loyalty” which says: “If a law is unjust, if it works hardship to innocent persons, still let it be enforced so long as it remains upon the books.”AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.11

Mr. Warner has not exactly retracted this unguarded utterance, but we are glad to believe that he spoke without realizing that he thereby justified all the crimes which have been committed in the name of law in this wicked world; and their name is legion.AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.12

“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 34, p. 272.

ATJ

MRS. J. C. BATEHAM, Superintendent of the Sabbath Observance Department of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, has an article in the Christian Statesman, of August 3, in which she protests mildly against the persecution of Seventh-day Adventists in Tennessee, and says:—AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.1

A clause providing exemption for those who conscientiously observe Saturday instead of Sunday, and are careful not to disturb the rest of others, should always be inserted even if those provisions may occasionally be abused.... Courtesy and the Golden Rule require that even at partial expense of uniformity the consciences of the minority should be protected.AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.2

This statement does credit to Mrs. Bateham’s heart. It is perhaps all that could be expected of one in her position. It does seem that almost everyone ought to be able to see that all Sunday legislation is improper, and that all Sunday-law enforcement savors of religious persecution. Mrs. Bateham can see this in the case of the enforcement of the so-called law against Adventists in Tennessee. She says, “It savors of religious persecution, which, looked at on the lowest plain, is thoroughly impolitic since making martyrs for conscience always increases the following, and nothing more prejudices the onlooker than appearance of lack of fair play.”AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.3

This is indeed looking at the matter from the “lowest plain.” But we do not attribute this motive to the lady in question; we believe that it is her innate sense of justice that leads her to protest against persecution. Having seen and admitted so much, may she be enabled to see more.AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.4

THE Sabbath Recorder thinks our strictures of August 1, unjust, and complains that we quoted only a part of what it said. We can only say that we had no intention to be unfair; nor do we think that we did our contemporary any injustice, though our criticism was probably unnecessarily caustic. This latter we regret. We still think, however, that one unacquainted with the facts in the case, could get no other impression from the Recorder’s vote than that some at least of the persecuted Seventh-day Adventists had been unnecessarily offensive to their neighbors, and had thus needlessly brought trouble upon themselves. This we deny in toto, and base our denial not upon the unsupported assertion of the Adventists themselves, but upon the sworn testimony of the State’s witnesses in the several cases. We are sure that in not a single one of the scores of cases tried during the past ten years in several different States, has there been any evidence of aggravation. The annoyance charged has all been of the kind that is begotten of bigotry and intolerance, and is born of an unwillingness on the part of the persecutors to award to others equal rights with themselves.AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.5

“More Tennessee Injustice” American Sentinel 10, 34, p. 272.

ATJ

AUGUST 19, the authorities of Rhea County, Tenn., notified the Seventh-day Adventists whom they have been driving in the chain-gang for nearly two months, that they will be required to make up the time which they have “lost” by keeping the Sabbath. Thus these men are being punished directly for obeying the fourth commandment.AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.1

The constitution of Tennessee provides that “no man shall in time of peace be required to perform any service to the public on any day set apart by his religion as a day of rest;” but this constitutional guarantee is being deliberately violated by the authorities of Rhea County, who are punishing men for not working on a day set apart by their religion as a day of rest.AMS August 29, 1895, page 272.2