[From
pages 8 and
9 of the Catholic Mirror
of Sept. 23, 1893]
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH
THE GENUINE OFFSPRING OF THE UNION OF THE
HOLY GHOST AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HIS SPOUSE. THE CLAIMS OF
PROTESTANTISM TO ANY PART THEREIN PROVED TO BE GROUNDLESS,
SELF-CONTRADICTORY, AND SUICIDAL
"Halting on crutches of unequal size,
One leg by truth supported, one by lies,
Thus sidle to the goal with awkward pace,
Secure of nothing but to lose the race."
In the present article we propose to
investigate carefully a new (and the last) class of proof assumed to
convince the Biblical Christian that God had substituted Sunday for
Saturday for His worship in the new law, and that the divine will is to
be found recorded by the Holy Ghost in apostolic writings.
We are informed that this radical change has found expression, over
and over again, in a series of texts in which the expression, "the day
of the Lord," or "the Lord's day," is to be found.
The class of texts in the New Testament, under the title "Sabbath,"
numbering 61 in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles; and the second class,
in which "the first day of the week," or Sunday, having been critically
examined (the latter class numbering nine [eight]); and having been
found not to afford the slightest clue to a change of will on the part
of God as to His day of worship by man, we now proceed to examine the
third and last class of texts relied on to save the Biblical system from
the arraignment of seeking to palm off on the world, in the name of God,
a decree for which there is not the slightest warrant or authority from
their teacher, the Bible.
The first text of this class is to be found
in the Acts of the Apostles, 2d chapter, 20th verse: "The sun shall be
turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and
notable day of the Lord shall come." How many Sundays have rolled by
since that prophecy was spoken? So much for that effort to pervert the
meaning of the sacred text from the judgment day to Sunday!
The second text of this class is to be found in
1st Epistle Cor., 1st chapter 8th verse: "Who shall also confirm you
unto the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus
Christ." What simpleton does not see that the apostle here plainly
indicates the day of judgment? The next text of
this class that presents itself is to be found in the same Epistle, 5th
chapter 5th verse: "To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction
of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord
Jesus." The incestuous Corinthian was, of course, saved on the
Sunday next following!! How pitiable such a makeshift as this!
The fourth text, 2d Cor., 1st chapter, 13th and
14th verse: "And I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end, even as
ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus." Sunday or the day of
judgment, which? The fifth text is from St.
Paul to the Philippians, 1st chapter, 6th verse: "Being confident of
this very thing, that He who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect
it until the day of Jesus Christ." The good people of Philippi,
in attaining perfection on the following Sunday, could afford
to laugh at our modern rapid transit!
We beg to submit our sixth of the class;
viz., Philippians, first chapter, tenth verse: "That he may be sincere
without offense unto the day of Christ." That day was next
Sunday, forsooth! no so long to wait after all,
The seventh text, 2 Ep. Peter, third chapter, tenth verse. "But
the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night." The
application of this text to Sunday passes the bounds of absurdity.
The eighth text, 2 Ep. Peter, third chapter,
twelfth verse: "Waiting for and hastening unto the coming of the day
of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire, shall be
dissolved," etc. This day of the Lord is the same referred to in the
previous text, the application of both of which to Sunday next
would have left the Christian world sleepless the next Saturday night.
We have presented to our readers eight of the nine texts relied on to
bolster up by text of Scripture the sacrilegious effort to palm off the
"Lord's day" for Sunday, and with what result? Each furnishes prima
facie evidence of the last day, referring to it directly,
absolutely, and unequivocally.
The ninth text wherein we meet the
expression "the Lord's day," is the last to be found in the apostolic
writings. The Apocalypse, or Revelation, first chapter, tenth verse,
furnishes it in the following words of John: "I was in the Spirit on the
Lord's day;" but it will afford no more comfort to our Biblical friends
than its predecessors of the same series. Has St. John used the
expression previously in his Gospel or Epistles? Emphatically, NO. Has
he had occasion to refer to Sunday hitherto? Yes, twice. How did he
designate Sunday on these occasions? Easter Sunday was called by him
(John 20:1) "the first day of the week." Again, chapter twenty,
nineteenth verse: "Now when it was late that same day, being the
first day of the week." Evidently, although inspired, both in his
Gospel and Epistles, he called Sunday "the first day of the week." On
what grounds, then, can it be assumed that he dropped that designation?
Was he more inspired when he wrote the Apocalypse, or did he
adopt a new title for Sunday, because it was now in vogue? A reply to
these questions would be supererogatory especially to the latter, seeing
that the same expression had been used eight times already by St. Luke,
St. Paul and St. Peter, all under divine inspiration, and
surely the Holy Spirit would not inspire St. John to call Sunday the
Lord's day, whilst He inspired Sts. Luke, Paul, and Peter, collectively,
to entitle the day of judgment "the Lord's day." Dialecticians reckon
amongst the infallible motives of certitude, the moral motive of analogy
or induction, by which we are enabled to conclude with certainty from
the known to the unknown; being absolutely certain of the meaning of an
expression can have only the same meaning when uttered the ninth time,
especially when we know that on the nine occasions the expressions were
inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Nor are the strongest intrinsic grounds wanting to prove that
this, like its sister texts, contains the same meaning. St. John (Apoc.
first chapter, tenth verse) says "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day;
"but he furnishes us the key to this expression, chapter four, first and
second verses: "After this I looked and behold a door opened in heaven."
A voice said to him: "Come up hither, and I will show you the things
which must be hereafter." Let us ascend in spirit with John.
Whither? through that "door in heaven," to heaven. And what shall we
see? "The things that must be hereafter," chapter four, first verse.
He ascended in spirit to heaven. He was ordered to write, in full, his
vision of what is to take place antecedent to, and concomitantly with,
"the Lord's day," or the day of judgment; the expression "Lord's day"
being confined in Scripture to the day of judgment exclusively.
We have studiously and accurately collected from the New Testament
every available proof that could be adduced in favor of a law canceling
the Sabbath day of the old law, or one substituting another day for the
Christian dispensation. We have been careful to make the above
distinction, lest it might be advanced that the 3rd
(6) Commandment was abrogated under the New Law.
Any such plea has been overruled by the action of the Methodist
Episcopal bishops in their Pastoral 1874, and quoted by the New York
Herald of the same date, of the following tenor: "The Sabbath
instituted in the beginning and confirmed again and again by Moses and
the prophets, has never been abrogated. A part of the moral
law, not a part or tittle of its sanctity has been taken away." The
above official pronunciamento has committed that large body of Biblical
Christians to the permanence of the 3rd commandment under the new law.
We again beg to leave to call the special attention of our readers to
the twentieth of "the thirty-nine articles of religion" of the Book of
Common Prayer; "It is not lawful for the church to ordain anything that
is contrary to God's written word."
|
(6) In the Catholic
enumeration, the Sabbath commandment is the third of the ten
commandments. ED. |
CONCLUSION.
We have in this series of articles, taken
much pains for the instruction of our readers to prepare them by
presenting a number of undeniable facts found in the word of
God to arrive at a conclusion absolutely irrefragable. When the Biblical
system put in an appearance in the sixteenth century, it not only seized
on the temporal possessions of the Church, but in its vandalic crusade
stripped Christianity, as far as it could, of all the sacraments
instituted by its Founder, of the holy sacrifice, etc., etc., retaining
nothing but the Bible, which its exponents pronounced their sole
teacher in Christian doctrine and morals. Chief amongst their
articles of belief was, and is today, the permanent necessity of keeping
the Sabbath holy. In fact, it has been for the past 300 years the only
article of the Christian belief in which there has been a plenary
consensus of Biblical representatives. The keeping of the Sabbath
constitutes the sum and substance of the Biblical theory. The pulpits
resound weekly with incessant tirades against the lax manner of keeping
the Sabbath in Catholic countries, as contrasted with the proper,
Christian, self-satisfied mode of keeping the day in Biblical countries.
Who can ever forget the virtuous indignation manifested by the Biblical
preachers throughout the length and breadth of our country, from every
Protestant pulpit, as long as yet undecided; and who does not know
today, that one sect, to mark its holy indignation at the decision, has
never yet opened the boxes that contained its articles at the World's
Fair?
These superlatively good and unctuous Christians, by conning over
their Bible carefully, can find their counterpart in a certain class of
unco-good people in the days of the Redeemer, who haunted Him night and
day, distressed beyond measure, and scandalized beyond forbearance,
because He did not keep the Sabbath in as straight-laced manner as
themselves.
They hated Him for using common sense in reference to the day, and
He found no epithets expressive enough of His supreme contempt for their
Pharisaical pride. And it is very probably that the divine mind has not
modified its views today anent the blatant outcry of their followers and
sympathizers at the close of this nineteenth century. But when we add to
all this the fact that whilst the Pharisees of old kept the true
Sabbath, our modern Pharisees, counting on the credulity and
simplicity of their dupes, have never once in their lives kept the
true Sabbath which their divine Master kept to His dying day, and
which His apostles kept, after His example, for thirty years afterward,
according to the Sacred Record.
This most glaring contradiction, involving a deliberate
sacrilegious rejection of a most positive precept, is presented to us
today in the action of the Biblical Christian world. The Bible and the
Sabbath constitute the watchword of Protestantism; but we have
demonstrated that it is the Bible against their Sabbath. We
have shown that no greater contradiction ever existed than their theory
and practice. We have proved that neither their Biblical ancestors nor
themselves have ever kept one Sabbath day in their lives. The Israelites
and Seventh-day Adventists are witnesses of their weekly desecration of
the day named by God so repeatedly, and whilst they have ignored and
condemned their teacher, the Bible, they have adopted a day kept by the
Catholic Church. What Protestant can, after perusing these articles,
with a clear conscience, continue to disobey the command of God,
enjoining Saturday to be kept, which command his teacher, the
Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, records as the will of God?
The history of the world cannot present a more stupid,
self-stultifying specimen of dereliction of principle than this. The
teacher demands emphatically in every page that the law of the Sabbath
be observed every week, by all recognizing it as "the only infallible
teacher," whilst the disciples of that teacher have not once for over
three hundred years observed the divine precept! That immense concourse
of Biblical Christians, the Methodists, have declared that the Sabbath
has never been abrogated, whilst the followers of the Church of England,
together with her daughter, the [pg. 9] Episcopal Church of the United
States, are committed by the twentieth article of religion, already
quoted, to the ordinance that the Church cannot lawfully ordain anything
"contrary to God's written word." God's written word enjoins
His worship to be observed on Saturday absolutely, repeatedly,
and most emphatically, with a most positive threat of death to him who
disobeys. All the Biblical sects occupy the same self-stultifying
position which no explanation can modify, much less justify.
How truly do the words of the Holy Spirit apply to this deplorable
situation! "Iniquitas mentita est sibi" "Iniquity hath lied
to itself." Proposing to follow the Bible only as teacher, yet
before the world, the sole teacher is ignominiously thrust
aside, and the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church "the
mother of abomination," when it suits their purpose so to designate her
adopted, despite the most terrible threats pronounced by God Himself
against those who disobey the command, "Remember to keep holy the
Sabbath."
Before closing this series of articles, we beg to call the
attention of our readers once more to our caption, introductory of each;
viz., 1stThe Christian Sabbath, the genuine offspring of the union of
the Holy Spirit with the Catholic Church His spouse. 2ndThe claim of
Protestantism to any part therein proved to be groundless,
self-contradictory, and suicidal.
The first proposition needs little proof. The Catholic Church for
over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue
of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. We say
by virtue of her divine mission, because He who called Himself the "Lord
of the Sabbath," endowed her with His own power to teach, "he that
heareth you, heareth Me;" commanded all who believe in Him to hear her,
under penalty of being placed with "heathen and publican;" and promised
to be with her to the end of the world. She holds her charter as teacher
from Him a charter as infallible as perpetual. The Protestant world at
its birth found the Christian Sabbath too strongly entrenched to run
counter to its existence; it was therefore placed under the necessity of
acquiescing in the arrangement, thus implying the Church's right to
change the day, for over three hundred years. The Christian Sabbath is
therefore to this day, the acknowledged offspring of the
Catholic Church as spouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of
remonstrance from the Protestant world.
Let us now, however, take a glance at our second proposition, with
the Bible alone as the teacher and guide in faith and morals.
This teacher most emphatically forbids any change in the day for
paramount reasons. The command calls for a "perpetual
covenant." The day commanded to be kept by the teacher has
never once been kept, thereby developing an apostasy from an
assumedly fixed principle, as self-contradictory, self-stultifying, and
consequently as suicidal as it is within the power of language to
express. Nor are the limits of demoralization yet reached. Far from it.
Their pretense for leaving the bosom of the Catholic Church was
for apostasy from the truth as taught in the written word. They
adopted the written word as their sole teacher, which they had no sooner
done than they abandoned it promptly, as these articles have abundantly
proved; and by a perversity as willful as erroneous, they accept the
teaching of the Catholic Church in direct opposition to the plain,
unvaried, and constant teaching of their sole teacher in the most
essential doctrine of their religion, thereby emphasizing the situation
in what may be aptly designated "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare."
[EDITORS' NOTE. It was upon this very point that the
Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers
had constantly charged, as here stated, that the Catholic Church
had "apostatized from the truth as contained in the written
word. "The written word," "The Bible and the Bible only,"
"Thus saith the Lord," these were their constant watchwords; and
"the Scripture, as in the written word, the sole standard of
appeal," this was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation and
of Protestantism. "The Scripture and tradition." The
Bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers," this was the position and claim of the
Catholic Church. This was the main issue in the Council of Trent,
which was called especially to consider the questions that had
been raised and forced upon the attention of Europe by the
Reformers. The very first question concerning faith that was
considered by the council was the question involved in this issue.
There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the council
who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the
Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was
so decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's
legates actually wrote to him that there was "a strong tendency to
set aside tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole
standard of appeal." But to do this would manifestly be to go a
long way toward justifying the claims of the Protestants. By this
crisis there was developed upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the
council the task of convincing the others that "Scripture and
tradition" were the only sure ground to stand upon. If this
could be done, the council could be carried to issue a decree
condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was
debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a
standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the
Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the
following argument to the party who held for Scripture alone:
"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They
profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They
justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized
from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants
claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true.
Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of
faith, is false. PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the
observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe
the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the
scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the
seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they
not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the
written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance
of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church.
Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,'
fails; and the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition'
as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves
being judges." [The Archbishop of Reggio (Gaspar [Ricciulli]
de Fosso) made his speech at the last opening session of Trent,
(17th Session) reconvened under a new pope (Pius IV), on the 18th
of January, 1562 after having been suspended in 1552. J. H.
Holtzman,
Canon and Tradition, published in Ludwigsburg, Germany,
in 1859, page 263, and Archbishop of Reggio's address in the 17th
session of the Council of Trent, Jan. 18, 1562, in
Mansi SC, Vol.
33, cols. 529, 530. Latin.]
There was no getting around this, for the
Protestants' own statement of faith the Augsburg Confession,
1530 had clearly admitted that "the observation of the Lord's
day" had been appointed by "the Church" only.
[Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power.
33. They refer to the Sabbath-day as having been changed into
the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalog, as it seems. Neither is
there any example whereof they make more than concerning the
changing of the Sabbath-day. Great, say they, is the power of
the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten
Commandments! ]
The argument was hailed in the council as of Inspiration only; the
party for "Scripture alone," surrendered; and the council at once
unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation as
only an unwarranted revolt from the communion and authority of the
Catholic Church; and proceeded, April 8, 1546, "to the
promulgation of two decrees, the first of which, enacts under
anathema, that Scripture and tradition are to be received
and venerated equally, and that the deutero-canonical [the
apocryphal] books are part of the canon of Scripture. The second
decree declares the Vulgate to be the sole authentic and standard
Latin version, and gives it such authority as to supersede the
original texts; forbids the interpretation of Scripture contrary
to the sense received by the Church, 'or even contrary to the
unanimous consent of the Fathers,'" etc. (7)
This was the inconsistency of the Protestant practice with the
Protestant profession that gave to the Catholic Church her
long-sought and anxiously desired ground upon which to condemn
Protestantism and the whole Reformation movement as only a
selfishly ambitious rebellion against the Church authority. And in
this vital controversy the key, the chiefest and culminative
expression, of the Protestant inconsistency was in the rejection
of the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, enjoined in the
Scriptures, and the adoption and observance of the Sunday as
enjoined by the Catholic Church.
And this is today the position of the respective parties to this
controversy. Today, as this document shows, this is the vital
issue upon which the Catholic Church arraigns Protestantism, and
upon which she condemns the course of popular Protestantism as
being "indefensible", self-contradictory, and suicidal." What will
these Protestants, what will this Protestantism, do?]
(7) See the proceedings of the Council;
Augsburg Confession; and Encyclopaedia Britannica, article "Trent,
Council of." |
Should any of the Rev. Parsons, who are
habituated to howl so vociferously over every real or assumed
desecration of that pious fraud, the Bible Sabbath, think well of
entering a protest against our logical and scriptural dissection of
their mongrel pet, we can promise them that any reasonable attempt on
their part to gather up the "disjecta membra" of the hybrid, and to
restore to it a galvanized existence, will be met with genuine
cordiality and respectful consideration on our part. But we can assure
our readers that we know these reverend howlers too well to expect a
solitary bark from them in this instance.
And they know us too well to subject themselves to the
mortification which a further dissection of this anti-scriptural
question would necessarily entail. Their policy now is to "lay low," and
they are sure to adopt it.
|
Notre Dame
University has the relevant issues of the Catholic
Mirror archived on microfilm.
