p. 123 | Review and Herald, Vol. 45, No. 16. (4/15/1875)

Earlier text: TWO LAWS—MORAL AND CEREMONIAL

Present Aspects of the Papacy.

By John Norton Loughborough

Those who have carefully read our former articles must see conclusive evidence that the church of Rome, with its blasphemous assumptions of the attributes and the powers of the Deity, with its enforcements of its tenets by civil law, is the “little horn,” Dan. 7, “the man of sin,” 2 Thess. 2, and the leopard beast of Rev. 13.

As we have shown, in A. D. 538, the papacy attained to civil power in the manner predicted in the prophecy. The duration of its civil power was to be “time, times, and a half;” Dan. 7; “a thousand two hundred and three score days;” Rev. 12; “forty and two months.” Rev. 13. All these expressions relate to one and the same period; the 1260 years, which terminated in 1798. At that time a deadly wound was given to the papacy, when its dominion was taken away. This wound was in a measure healed in A. D. 1800, when, under the sanction of Napoleon Bonaparte, a new pope, Pius VII., was elected to rule in Italy. Since that time the civil power of the papacy has been consumed and destroyed to its end. Dan. 7:26. Italy, striving for its independence, has taken the city of Rome—the “seat” of the dragon which was given to the papacy, Rev. 13—as its own capital. For a time Victor Emanuel has tolerated the presence of the pope in the Vatican, in Rome, and has permitted the ambassadors of other nations to hold court with him there, but now he intimates

that this must cease; thus, virtually saying that the pope must leave.

As far as civil power is concerned, Rome is about dead with consumption, but as a church it has access to more territory than when Pius IX. commenced his reign. Says Macaulay of England, “The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the new world have more than compensated for what she has lost in the old.”

As a church, Rome will exist till Christ comes, although stripped of its civil power. It is to be “cast alive into the lake of fire;” Rev. 19; and be “destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming.” 2 Thess. 2. Daniel’s prophecy follows this power down to the point where the pope loses his dominion, and the Judgment is about to set. It was to speak “great words,” then, that were an astonishment to Daniel. This is as true, when we look at the facts, as the other points we have noticed.

We will take a look at the pope as he is, stripped of his civil power, yet still claiming to be the “Viceregent of the Deity.” “He wears on one of his fingers,” as successor of St. Peter, says Gavazzi, “what is called the fisherman’s ring, set with pearls, rubies, and diamonds, worth $8,000.” Strange, if that was Peter’s ring, and a sample of his condition, that his Lord had him resort to the expedient of angling for a fish which chanced to pick up a piece of money in its mouth, in order that they might pay tribute to Caesar.

Look at this humble (!) man, who has upon him the “three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.” He receives in his poverty, from Ireland alone, one penny a week for every house in Ireland, according to a stipulation made between Henry Plantagenet—Henry II. of England—and Pope Adrian IV. By this contract, Henry obtained the title of “Lord of Ireland,” by paying the penny tribute to St. Peter, called “Peter’s pence.” From 1849 to 1873, the gathering to the pope’s “meager purse of poverty (!) from this source alone, was $34,000,000 or $1,360,000 per year.

Again, let us look at him with his vow of chastity upon him, and see with what he is daily surrounded, and whether these surroundings are calculated to cultivate in him purity of thought. On this point, we will quote from Gavazzi’s description of the Vatican gardens which he calls the “pope’s retreat for leisure hours”:—

“Come down with me into these smiling, these most beautiful, gardens, in which you breathe such an air of voluptuousness that you begin to be in doubt whether you are not in those of Paphos or Cytherea. And to increase your doubts, at the end of the first alley behold a statue of Venus, as fine, as lascivious, certainly to please the tastes of the Vicar of Christ, to purify the heart of the Viceregent of God, to inspire the thoughts of the head of the church. That Venus is not without significance! Proceed a little further, and in the middle of an orange grove, near the romantic murmur of a hundred fountains, you meet a sort of summer-house for papal retreat. Let us enter this pavilion, which surpasses in richness the more modern form of its brother at the Quirinal, although used for the same secret purposes. See how elegantly it is adorned for female taste! What fragrance we breathe in that priestly recess, surrounded on every side with luxuriant flowers! We go to the apartments. Ah! you start on a sudden; your modesty is shocked! Everywhere bas-reliefs, statuettes, groups of Venuses and cupids, and pagan lovers of the most lascivious and bewitching forms, are the first objects that strike your eyes. This must surely be one of the ancient temples of Venus. No, no; undeceive yourself. The ancients were more chaste, more modest. This pavilion is the place where the so-called God on earth spends his leisure hours with the beauties of Rome, and with the imported belles from all the Catholic world. Into this sanctuary no man is admitted! When a man is a god, he must have also his mysteries! Remember that.”

But I was about to speak of the “great words” of this papal power. It has been claimed for the popes, all the way along, that they were infallible, that “the church can never err, can never teach officially, that is, in her capacity as the church of Christ on earth, any false doctrine or immorality, otherwise she would have done something wrong.” “The church cannot officially teach anything false, and in all her teachings and sanctions must be proper.” This they have taught of the church as a whole, but it remained for the Ecumenical Council of 1869 to declare a feeble old man, Pius IX., in his dotage, INFALLIBLE.

The reported statement of the pope, made before that Council is wonderful. I quote from the San Francisco Weekly Bulletin, of Dec. 18, 1869, as follows:—

“The telegraph reports the pope as saying in his Allocution to the Ecumenical Council, that ‘the church is stronger than Heaven itself,’ and therefore he deems it adequate to overcome all the schemes of impiety. Perhaps his holiness argues that if Heaven were strong enough it would overcome them; but it remains to be seen whether his church can give better proof of strength; for we read of an antipapal Council at Naples, sitting under the very eye of the Papal See, composed, too, of five hundred Italian delegates, together with twenty or more from other lands.

The French government, moreover, it is said, intimates that if the pope insists upon his infallibility, France will consider herself released from the concordats and the obligations therein assumed. Thus the opening of the Council is not promising, and its assumption of superheavenly puissance savors more of the ridiculous than the sublime.”

The Council took its vote on infallibility. The time was fixed for its decision to be announced. When the speaker arose to read the decision, it is said, there was a terrific thunder storm over Rome, and such a deafening roar of thunder that the words of the reader could not be heard. One enthusiastic bishop jumped up and cried, “This is a second Mount Sinai.” To a candid, thinking world it looked more like God thundering against them for their blasphemy—a foreshadowing of what was so soon to be their fate, and the end of their confident boasting.

In a few weeks’ time the French withdrew their army from Rome, and Victor Emanuel took possession of the city as the capital of his kingdom, and then a different tone came to the world in mourning strains, from the “infallible pope,” “stronger than Heaven itself.” Even before Victor Emanuel had entered Rome, Pius IX. felt the force of the blow that was coming, and said, in an address to the Sacred College, June 28, 1871:—

“We are, my very dear brothers, in the hands of a divine Providence. We have nothing to expect from human aid; for man has abandoned us. Why should we dissemble? It is better that I should tell you that the kings and governments, forgetting their promises, leave us to our fate. They have addressed us in fine phrases. They sent us the warmest congratulations on the day of our jubilee; but they are far from taking steps in support of their messages. We can hope for no help from any quarter. King Victor Emanuel will be here in a few days, and will be attended by the ministers of the Catholic States. We have done all that was in our power, but our efforts have failed. All is lost. You will tell me, perhaps, that we have still hope in France; but France can do nothing. She is going through a frightful crisis, which may be succeeded by others yet more dreadful. I repeat: All is lost, and only a miracle can save us. Turn, then, to the Almighty, and seek his interposition.”

Still later, we read in the papal allocution of the year 1873, as published in the New York Catholic Review, of Jan. 13, 1873, “Now there has been proposed in the Legislative Chamber, as they call it, a law not wholly dissimilar from that which, notwithstanding our protests and solemn condemnation, has already been put into execution in other parts of Italy, which must extinguish, even here in the centre of the Catholic faith, the religious congregations, and confiscate the goods of the church and offer them at public auction.”

In this same allocution, among other woes, the pope refers to Germany, and says the prelates and priesthood there “refuse to prefer the laws and the will of the civil empire to the holy laws of God and the church.” He says the same course is pursued in some of the Cantons of the Swiss republic, and for this reason “the government is persecuting the church.” In conclusion, the pope says of the situation, “The Lord has truly smitten us, venerable brothers, with his sword, hard, great, and strong; but let us endeavor to appease the divine anger in this acceptable time of the advent of our Lord.”

Feeling himself thus forsaken by man, smitten of God, the pope is casting about for help. Before this calamity came upon him, in the year 1866, as the result of secret workings in England to draw the Church of England back to Romanism, nearly two hundred of the clergy of the Church of England united in a letter to the Cardinal Patrizi, at Rome, stating their earnest desire for the restoration of communion between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. The cardinal replied, “Unconditional surrender is the only terms” the pope can think of.

The pope now sees that this work of “going back to the ceremonies of the Romish church” has gained ground in England. A call was recently made for a great council to be held in London to consider the subject, and, withal, to constitute the pope the arbiter of the nations, to settle all disputes that may arise between them, thus avoiding the necessity of war.

I presume the proposition seems like irony or insult to those nations who have for ages felt the iron heel of papal oppression, and are just now making earnest efforts to rid themselves entirely of papal dictation in civil affairs.

In close connection with the issue of this call for the council at London there appeared a pamphlet issued by Gladstone of England, in which he claims that the acceptance of the doctrines of the Ecumenical Council conflicts with the idea of a man’s being a genuine citizen of England, as he cannot be loyal and endorse the doctrines of the church there set forth. Archbishop Manning, head of the Catholic church in England, seems to be much agitated over this document. He denies that accepting the doctrines of the Vatican Council has any effect upon a man’s citizenship in England or any other country. He seems offended that Gladstone did not wait and see whether this was so or not. He hardly thought it was any concern now of Gladstone any way whether accepting the Vatican doctrines affected a man’s citizenship or not.

We are inclined to think that Gladstone’s knowledge of facts in the past was sufficient to arouse the fears expressed in the said pamphlet. He well understood that, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Bishop Bonner was called upon to take the oath of a subject of her kingdom. He refused to do so, and for this reason was by her deprived of his bishopric.

He was doubtless aware of the speech of Father Nugent at Liverpool, England, on St. Patrick’s day 1873, in which he said, “The labor of my life in this town, is that you should try to cultivate a national spirit, grounded upon our holy religion; for I believe in no nationality that is not based upon religion.”

He undoubtedly remembered also what Pius VII. wrote to his nuncio at Vienna in 1804: “The principle of the canon law is this; that the subjects of a heretic prince are liberated from all duty of fealty and of homage toward him.” Fresh in his mind must have been the statement of Lord Dunbigh, at a meeting at St. James’ Hall, London, in December 1867, where he said, “I am a Catholic first, and an Englishman afterwards.”

We have shown in former articles, that the Church of Rome claims a right to rule all nations; and to rule them, not only in harmony with the tenets of their church, but, when possible, without endangering the safety of their church, to submit to no other ruling. It is not in England alone that they are seeking for power, but in America also. Their rapid increase of power here as a church makes them feel their strength. At times they give a hint of what they are going to do when they get the power. As quoted already from the Shepherd of the Valley, St. Louis, they say, “If we once get an immense numerical majority in America, as we certainly will, religious freedom is at an end.”

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

(Concluded next Week.)

Prayer, Sunrise, and the Bruised Reed

By Talmage

WHEN the sun rises there is light—why, I know not; but God has put these two things together—sunrise and light. So with prayer, there is a blessing—I know not why; but God has pleased to make this a rule for the government of the universe that there shall be the answer to prayer. The iceberg of trouble will melt in the warm stream of divine sympathy. The bruised reed will He not break. The shepherds used to play on reeds, and they were easily bruised, and could never be mended. They threw them away, and made others. Not so with our Shepherd. When the music is gone out of a man's soul, he does not throw him away. He mends and restores. The bruised reed he never breaks.—Talmage.

Read This, Ye Lifeless Preachers.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

My brother, do you want to learn the real reason why you have so little success in reaching the hearts of men? Read the following. May the souls of all of us be moved by it, then we can move the hearts of others. D. M. C.

“ROUTE TO SUCCESS.—When truth burns in our own souls it will force an entrance into others. Rhetoric, eccentricities, genius, are poor substitutes for the Holy Spirit. When the word of God powerfully convinces the preacher, it will move the hearer. Faith is convincing, love persuading, warmth inspiring, concern alarming, and when these are like fire in our own hearts, there is power which others will feel. Great possibilities are deposited with every preacher, yet few make them realities. It is wasteful to run our mental forces empty and alone, when we may have ‘power from on high.’ Empty, we are ‘sounding brass;’ full, we are mighty to demolish strongholds.

“Many are searching books, aping eccentric men, studying curious methods, in order to find power to take hold of people and move them. Their search is vain. They may make themselves ridiculous, they cannot become effective in that way. If they resort to the Source of Power, open their souls to the Holy Spirit, and keep trying until the rusty bolts yield, the creaky hinges turn, and every door is opened, every recess filled, their whole natures will be inspired. It may cost them a struggle, days of prayer and heart searchings, anxious waitings in some ‘upper room’ with the disciples, but the blessing is attainable, power can be had, the whole being can be set on fire.”—Baptist Union.

Late at Meeting.

A BAD practice of coming late to divine service prevails more or less in some congregations. It is a practice that ought to be abandoned. It is attended with evil consequences. It disturbs the minds of devout worshipers who do not indulge in it. It distracts the attention of persons previously assembled from the solemnities in which they are engaged. It tends to cause the services of the sanctuary to be held in low repute. It promotes the spread of lax views as to the proper nature of public worship. It seems to suggest a performance to be witnessed rather than a solemn exercise to be participated in; or a recreation to be enjoyed in whole, or in part, as inclination may dictate, rather than a duty which men are under a strong obligation faithfully to perform. Its effects upon the mind of those who habitually indulge in it must be detrimental. It is incompatible with the cultivation of that devoutness of thought and feeling in the absence of which worship in any form is but a profitless exercise.

Where it does not spring from want of punctuality, promptitude, and forethought, it is probably mostly caused by utterly inadequate views of the true character of the service of the sanctuary, which we are required to render to the Most High. It is to be feared that such views obtain to an extent truly lamentable, even among Christians of an average degree of piety. Much would be accomplished in the way of rectifying such views, were all accustomed to attend divine worship punctual in their attendance, and earnest in their endeavor to derive the largest possible degree of benefit from the use of this precious means of grace.—Sel.

The Postage Swindle.

By Editor

If the members of the Forty-third Congress had deliberately sought to make its memory odious with the people, they could hardly have chosen a more effective method than by perpetrating in the closing hours of the session the outrageous swindle involved in the amendment of the postal laws, by which the rate of postage on books, transient newspapers, magazines, book-manuscripts, proof-sheets, prospectuses and circulars, and other “third-class” mail matter, was doubled. There had been no call from the people for any such change; none had been suggested or recommended by the Postmaster-General. It is said to have been brought about by the lobby influence of the express companies, with the special co-operation of Senator Hamlin, who manipulated the scheme and succeeded in getting the amendment engrafted upon the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill, to accomplish their purpose. It was sent to the House between two and five o’clock in the morning, and concurred in without debate, we believe, on motion of Mr. Garfield, probably not a dozen members being aware of its real scope and purpose.

The effect of this swindling legislation will be to take thousands of dollars from publishers and the people sending by mail transient papers and other reading-matter, and to enrich to a corresponding extent the express monopoly. Such action is all the more offensive in face of the fact that senators and representatives voted themselves the privilege of sending again free through the mails, at the expense of the public treasury, tons of their own speeches in the Congressional Record and other documents. The Postmaster-General announces that he would gladly suspend the operation of the law till Congress meets again next December, when it will doubtless be changed, but that he has no such option in the matter. The amendment is said to have been prepared by Ex-senator Ramsey, of Minnesota, and by him given to Senator Hamlin to engineer through the Senate. Both merit a rebuke from the whole country commensurate with the flagrant outrage thus perpetrated, as does Congress, as a whole, for recklessly assenting to it.—National Temperance Advocate.

The Devil's Art: Turning the Gospel into Law

The devil's highest art is to make a law out of the gospel; to represent the Lord Christ as a judge and accuser, and not as a Saviour, a Mediator, a High Priest and Throne of Grace.

The Law and the Gospel.

By James White

TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST CONSIDERED.

The apostle James illustrates the object and work of the law of God by that of a common mirror. In the one, we see the imperfections of the face. In the other, we behold the imperfections of the moral character. The apostle introduces the figure in these words: “If any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass; for he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.” James 1: 23, 24.

The figure is thus clearly set before us. And the application of this impressive figure is made in forcible words: “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” Verse 25. In this scripture, God’s great looking-glass is termed the perfect law of liberty. In the next chapter it is called the royal law, and is applied to the Christian’s every-day life in a most searching manner. The apostle continues:—

“If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well, but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Chap. 2: 8–10. And to place the matter beyond all cavil as to what is meant by the law of liberty, or the royal law, the apostle next quotes two of the ten commandments. “For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.” Verse 11. And we also learn by this last verse that it requires the observance of all ten of the precepts of the moral code to be a commandment-keeper, while the violation of only one of the ten commandments constitutes one a commandment-breaker. Hence, the declaration that he who offends in one point is guilty of all.

And let it be borne in mind that the epistle of James was written A. D. 60, about twenty-nine years after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the day of Pentecost. The church had been fully established, and had passed down in the Christian age more than a quarter of a century when the apostle took up his pen to write. Consequently, what he said of the nature and work of the royal law, or the perfect law of liberty, and which he illustrated by a mirror, in the year of our Lord sixty, is applicable in all its original force in the nineteenth century.

The beloved John, whose epistles are so rich and thorough in Christian experience, speaks of both the Father and the Son as holding close relation to true believers in the Christian age. In this fact may be seen the relation which the law of God, and the gospel of the Son of God, sustain to each other in Christian experience, and in the great plan of redemption. John speaks of what he had seen and heard of the Word of life, which makes him a proper witness of Christ. But he does not by any means leave the Father out of the scheme of redemption from sin and death. John says:—

“That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” 1 John 1: 3–5. The statement of the apostle that “truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ,” is worthy of especial notice. It is in wide contrast with that stripe of modern gospel which leaves the Father and the ten precepts of the royal law upon the background, and brings the Son to the front, as lawgiver, mediator, and redeemer, so that Christ alone sustains a close relation to Christians. If John was of this class we might expect him to repeat the popular revival strain, that “Christ is light,” and “Christ is love,” and “Behold what manner of love Christ hath bestowed upon us.” But the apostle brings the Father also to the front; and declares that “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” Again he says, “God is love.” Chap. 4: 8. And again he exclaims, “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God.” Chap. 3: 1. John continues:—

“If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Verses 6, 7. Please notice:

That it is the Father that is represented as a body of pure light, in whom is no darkness at all. This is evident from verse 7, where Jesus Christ is called his Son.
That while Christians should seek to walk in the light as Christ is in the light, this is but a part of their duty. They should endeavor to walk in the light as the Father is in the light. They should come very near the Father by cheerful obedience to all the precepts of the divine law.
It is when Christians walk in the pure light of the Father, in obedience to all his commandments, that the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth from all sin. The chapter closes:

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” Verses 8–10. The apostle has written very pointedly and sharply in this first chapter of his first epistle. And as though fearing that feeble minds might be discouraged at the straightness of the way, he magnifies the grace of God through Jesus Christ in the first verse of the next chapter. Hear him:—

“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” The beloved John has written pointedly that the church might be faithfully guarded against sin. And at the same time he has set before the erring the height, and depth and breadth of the pitying love of the Father through his Son Jesus Christ for those who are overcome by sin. Three parties are here introduced:—

The Father, the author of the divine law.
Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the sinner’s advocate with the Father.
The sinner who, having transgressed the law of the Father, needs an advocate with the author of the divine law.

“Sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3: 4. What law? “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Chap. 2: 1. The sinner is in trouble with the Father. He needs Christ to plead his cause with the Father, simply because he has transgressed the Father’s law. But if it be said that John speaks of the law of Jesus Christ then we inquire:

Is Christ an advocate with himself?
If Christ is the lawgiver in the Christian age, why should the apostle introduce the Father into the plan? Why not say: If any man sin against the law of Jesus Christ, we have an advocate with Jesus Christ, which is Jesus Christ? If it be objected that Christ cannot be an advocate with himself, then,
If Christ be our lawgiver, who is our advocate? The Catholic may answer, “The Virgin Mary.” But if the Protestants cling to the popular error that Christ is the lawgiver for the Christian age, then we press the question—Who?

Those who recognize the harmony of the law of God and the gospel of the Son of God in the plan of redemption will see the natural application of the text, and will feel the force of the great facts stated therein: “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” J. W.

Continue reading: Editorial Correspondence