Earlier text: SOWING FOR PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL HEALTHTHE THIRD ANGEL'S MESSAGE: WHAT IS IT?
The Third Angel's Message is, first of all, a warning against the worship of the Beast and his Image. In the studies of several weeks ago, we have abundantly seen what is the Beast. And in the nature of things, whatsoever is like it, is the Image of the Beast. In these studies we have likewise seen that, in this nation and before the eyes of all people to-day, there is abundance of effort revealing a perfect likeness to the efforts which were the making of the Beast; and which, therefore, in the nature of things, can result here only in the making of the Image of the Beast. Now, while it is true that the Third Angel's Message is a warning against the worship of the Beast and his Image, and this upon the basis of the keeping of the commandments of God, it is equally true that the law of God forbids the making of images, just as really as it forbids the worship of them. Indeed that law forbids, first of all, the making of images; and, plainly, if no images were ever made, no images would ever be worshiped. Therefore, when the awful warning of the Third Angel's Message is spoken against the worship of the Beast and his Image, and this upon the basis of the law of God, it is certain that this Message warns just as much against the making of the Image of the Beast as it does against the worship of that Image. Accordingly, it is just as certainly the giving of the Message, it is just as certainly the work of the people who must give that Message, to warn all people against the making of the Image of the Beast, as ever it can be, when that Image stands fully made, alive and active in its dreadful work, to warn them against the worship of the image. Simple Christian regard for mankind requires that the people shall be warned against the making of the Image; because thousands of persons will take part in the making of the Image of the Beast who would have no part at all in it if they knew what they were doing. Consequently, if they to whom is committed the giving of this Message to the world, really care for the spiritual welfare, and, in this time, even the temporal welfare, of their fellow men, surely they will be as earnest and active, while the Image is being made, to make known to all people, by every possible means, what is the making of the Image of the Beast, as they will have to be earnest and active in making known what is the Image of the Beast, and in warning against its worship, after it is made. This is yet further emphasized in the truth that whoever, professing to have that Message of warning, does not warn against the making of the Image, will not be likely to warn anybody against the worship of the Image when it shall have been made. How can he? If he is unable to discern the movements that enter into the making of the Image, will he be likely to discern the Image that is made by those movements, and which simply results from those movements which he is unable to detect? And yet further this is emphasized by the fact that the Third Angel's Message was opened to the world by the Lord long before the Image was made. Now, if the Message is a warning only against the worship of the Image, and not just as much against the making of the Image, then why should the Message ever have been opened up before the Image is made? Surely, it can not be worshiped until it shall have been made. Then, if the warning against the worship of the Image is the only true bearing and strength to the Message, there can be no place for that Message to be preached until after the Image shall have been made. But, instead of that, the Third Angel's Message was opened to the world more than fifty years ago—long before any of these definite steps had been taken toward the making of the Image of the Beast. This very fact makes it certain that the message must be given in warning against the making of the Image, just as certainly as against the worship of it after it shall have been made. In these studies we have called attention to the falling away from the gospel, in Christianity in this nation, just as there was a falling away in Christianity in the Roman Empire. And, as the result of this falling away in Christianity in this nation, we have traced, step by step, her theories and practices in the exact likeness of those that appeared in the falling away in Christianity in the Roman Empire. And from these things, no one who sees them can fail to see that there is being made here, to-day, the Image of the Beast. This is as certain as that those things that occurred in the Roman State were the making of the Beast. Six to ten years ago, Seventh-day Adventists, throughout this whole nation, were wide-awake and active in discerning the making of the Image of the Beast, and in warning people against it. Why are they not so active now? Have all the efforts ceased that were then being made in the formation of the Image of the Beast?—It is hardly possible that any person even thinks that those efforts have ceased. And if it were possible that there should be any who so think, it is certain that they would be thinking wrongly; because it is the truth that there has been not only no cessation of those efforts, but that all continue which were then in vogue, and many others have been added. And these new efforts are no less powerful in their working, and no less portentous in their meaning, than were the others: yea, they are even more portentous, because of the added strength of the original efforts, by the lapse of time; and because of this lapse of time itself, which brings us so much nearer the great culmination. The efforts which, six to ten years ago, were rife in the making of the Image of the Beast, and to which we were all so alive at the time, are summed up in the words—the repudiation by this nation of the principle of Protestantism. But the National Reform system—that combination which accomplishes the formation of the Image of the Beast—does not end with the repudiation of the principles of Protestantism: it includes also the repudiation of the principles of republicanism. The repudiation of the principles of both these was inherent in the National Reform movement from the beginning. The repudiation of republican principle inheres in the repudiation of the Protestant principle. This the National Reformers knew. Not only did they know it, but they proclaimed it. They said openly, and published it to the world, that “to appeal to divine authority in our legislation would be to fundamentally change the law of our land, or the principle adopted by our fathers when they said that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. I for one do not believe that as a political maxim. I do not believe that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. And SO the object of this movement is AN EFFORT TO CHANGE THAT FEATURE OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL LAW. . . . And I see in this reform a providence teaching us the necessity of recognizing something else besides the will of the people as the basis of government.” It has been a repeated declaration of representative men of the National Reform movement, that “governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Accordingly the abandonment by the government of the United States of the fundamental principle of the nation, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, is not at all a new thing except in the mere acts in which the thing is manifested in practice. This practice is only the fruit of the evil seed diligently sown all over the land for more than thirty-five years by the National Reform organization. All these years their organization has been working and aiming definitely to turn the United States government into a government of another form. Accordingly that organization has denied and repudiated the fundamental principles of this nation as the nation was founded. All these years this organization has had its agents traveling throughout the length and breadth of the land, diligently teaching these principles, which are antagonistic to the principles of the nation. These agents have had unquestioned entry into the academies and colleges of the whole country; they have been prominent on the programs of Chautauqua assemblies; they have had the sympathy and support of the churches, and of religious and temperance organizations, everywhere. And all these opportunities they have employed to the uttermost. Now, in the discussion of this question in national circles to-day, it is recognized that it is the younger generation of public men who are leading in the path of world-glory at the expense of the fundamental principles of the nation; while the old men are the conservatives, and call for allegiance still to these principles wherever the jurisdiction of the nation may be extended. This is the truth. And this younger generation of public men of to-day were the boys in the academies and colleges of the country twenty to thirty years ago—in the time when the National Reformers were sowing that evil seed in the colleges and academies everywhere. These were the boys who in those academies and colleges were inoculated in those years with this virus of the National Reformers—that governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. And now when those boys, as the men of the younger generation in public affairs to-day, meet a crisis in which it must be decided whether the fundamental principles of the nation shall be adhered to or repudiated, they are prepared, and have long been prepared, to repudiate these principles in the interests of a will-o'-the-wisp of “the empire of the Son of God,” and in order to the execution of “his will”! This is the secret and the true philosophy of this national repudiation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the nation to-day—the repudiation of the principles of republicanism. Thus this national repudiation of the principles of republicanism to-day, is just as certainly an element in the National Reform movement, is just as certainly a part of that movement, as was the national repudiation of the principles of Protestantism seven to eight years ago. This to-day is just as certainly an element in the making of the Image of the Beast, as was that of seven to eight years ago. Is it possible that there are any who profess to know the Third Angel's Message, who can not see that this is so? And if this be possible, then is it not high time for them to awake out of sleep, and look diligently lest they themselves shall be found taking part in the making of the Image of the Beast? To-day, while it is called to-day, is the most thrilling and the most critical time that the people of the Third Angel's Message have ever seen. Who is awake to this time and its work? Who is studying the Third Angel's Message as for his life? Who is proclaiming the Third Angel's Message, as that message is to-day, for to-day? Plenary Council of Latin America Issues Decrees
Last year there was held, in the city of Rome, the Plenary Council of Latin America. The acts and decrees of this council have only lately been issued, in Latin. The Independent of May 10 presents a translation of some of the items of these acts and decrees. In the title, “On Catholic Faith,” says the Independent, “it very severely attacks the civil indifferentism which would allow the state to take no care of religion. It declares, following the Pius IX Syllabus of Errors, against public schools in which religion is not taught, and insists that ‘they are totally in error who say that there must be a separation between church and state.’ It condemns ‘those who either reject the notion of revelation, or who, practically withdrawing all revelation from society and all authority of God and the church, declare for a separation of church from state, and a political atheism bewitched by a show of refinement and progress.’” “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants.” Ishmael was the son of Abraham, born after the flesh. And what was his disposition? Before he was born the Lord described it: “He will be a wild man.” Another translation gives it: “He will be a wild ass man.” The Revised Version translates it: “He shall be as a wild ass among men.” “His hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him.” Remember that this child of Hagar, this son that was born after the flesh, this “wild ass among men,” was the fruit of that invention of Sarai’s, which sprang from her distrust of God and unbelief of his promise to give a son. Accordingly, bear in mind that this son was intended by Sarai to fulfill the promise of God. It was really intended, and even expected, by Sarai, and even by Abraham, that this child of the flesh, this wild man, should be accepted by the Lord as the son whom he intended in his promise, and that the promises to Abraham should be fulfilled in him. This is certain, by the fact that, afterward, when the Lord told Abraham that he would give him a son by Sarai, Abraham answered: “O that Ishmael might live before thee!” Now remember that Hagar, the mother of this “wild ass man,” represents the covenant from Sinai; and her son, who was born after the flesh,—this wild man,—represents the children of that covenant from Sinai. And just as, in the invention which brought forth Ishmael, it was intended that he should fulfill the promise of God, and that God’s covenant with Abraham should be fulfilled through him, so these children of the covenant at Sinai, like Ishmael, born after the flesh, expected that they could fulfill the promise of God, and that the Lord’s covenant with Abraham should be accomplished in its fullness through them; that is, through the flesh. But Abraham kept the commandments of God. The righteousness of God is an essential part of the covenant with Abraham; for, without it, no one can attain unto the inheritance given to Abraham in the covenant. But how could Ishmael, born after the flesh, keep the commandments of God, when the minding of the flesh is only enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, and neither indeed can be? How could that wild ass man keep the commandments of God, with his hand against every man, when one of the two principles of the whole law of God is, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”? And this child of Hagar the bondwoman corresponds to the children of that covenant at Sinai, which gendereth to bondage. As Ishmael, they knew only the birth of the flesh; and yet they promised to keep the commandments of God “indeed.” Knowing only the birth of the flesh, and only “the minding of the flesh,” which is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be, they covenanted to keep the law of God “indeed”! But Ishmael was not the son intended by the Lord: he could not fulfill the promise of God, nor could the promise of God be fulfilled in him. So far as God’s promise was concerned, and God’s covenant with Abraham, Ishmael’s birth was no more than as if he had never been born at all. Accordingly, when Abraham said to the Lord: “O that Ishmael might live before thee!” “God said, Nay; but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.” Gen. 18:19-21, R. V. At this time Sarai had become a believer in God’s promise, and trusted God alone, and the Lord had changed her name to Sarah. And so, “through faith Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed,” and according to the promise Isaac was born. Now what was Isaac’s disposition?—It is illustrated in his conduct at the time that Abraham and he supposed that he was to be offered as a sacrifice. He submitted, as a lamb, to be offered. It is further illustrated in the record in Genesis 26: After Abraham had died, and Isaac was the heir of the covenant, he dwelt for a time in the land where the Philistines were. “Now all the wells which his father’s servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth. And Abimelech said unto Isaac, Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we. And Isaac departed thence, and encamped in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt there.” “And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them. And Isaac’s servants digged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water.” Gen. 26:15-19, R. V. These wells were doubly Isaac’s. Abraham had digged them, and they therefore belonged to Abraham. And when Isaac became heir of Abraham, these wells became his by inheritance. And now he had digged them again, which was the same as if he had digged them new. Thus they were doubly his. Yet by even more than this they were his, because the Philistines, when the wells were open, had filled them with earth, showing in the strongest possible way that they did not wish them at all. Yet the Philistines come now to Isaac, and say of the wells which he had opened, and which, by such full right, were his: “The water is ours.” Verse 20. Isaac let them have it. But what would Ishmael have done? And what would you do? Which of the “two sons” of Abraham are you? “These are the two covenants.” Of which covenant are you? Isaac “digged another well,” and the Philistines “strove for that also.” But Isaac, instead of striving with them for this, which was by such large right altogether his own, “removed from thence, and digged another well.” But what would Ishmael have done? And what would you do? Which of the “two sons” of Abraham are you? “These are the two covenants.” Of which covenant are you? When Isaac had digged this last well, for it the Philistines “strove not: and he called the name of it Rehoboth; and he said, For now the Lord hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.” Verse 22. But how was it that the Lord made room for him?—Simply by Isaac’s refusal to strive with the Philistines, by his yielding to them all that they claimed, even when it was his by every possible right. But could the Lord have ever “made room” for Ishmael and those Philistines? Does the Lord “make room” for you and the envious opposers? Which of the “two sons” of Abraham are you? “These are the two covenants.” Of which covenant are you? “And he went up from thence to Beer-sheba. And the Lord appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake. And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the Lord, and pitched his tent there: and there Isaac’s servants digged a well.” “Then Abimelech went to him from Gerar, and Ahuzzath one of his friends, and Phichol the chief captain of his army. And Isaac said unto them, Wherefore come ye to me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you? And they said, We saw certainly that the Lord was with thee. . . . Thou art now the blessed of the Lord.” Verses 23-29. But it was only by Isaac’s continual yielding before them that they ever had any opportunity to see that the Lord was with him, and that he was the blessed of the Lord. But what would Ishmael have done? And what would you do? What do you do? Which of the “two sons” of Abraham are you? “These are the two covenants.” Of which covenant are you? And so “it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” Are you? THE MANY MANSIONS.
By Uriah Smith
“In my Father's house are many mansions.” In our Lord's parting words to his disciples, before his final ascension to the right hand of the throne of the majesty on high, he set before them a picture based on promise, experience, and prophecy; taking in the whole scope of the plan of redemption, and giving them a glimpse of the glad destiny of those who love and serve the Lord. It is in the often-quoted and familiar language of John 14:1–3: “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” In all this declaration, there is no element lacking to make assurance doubly sure. It begins with the basis upon which must rest all religious experience—belief in God. “Ye believe in God.” But “without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Heb. 11:6. Our relation to God, as here revealed, would lead us to expect that if we were basing unwarranted hopes upon his promises, he would undeceive us in this respect. But our hope of immortality through him is uncontradicted by him. “If it were not so, I would have told you.” The place to which our Lord points us, he calls his “Father's house;” and Paul says that “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Then when Christ returns to take us to himself, to be with him where he is, we, too, are in our Father's house. It is our paternal home. It is a place that Christ prepares for us: “I go to prepare a place for you.” To do this, it was necessary for him to go away from this earth. But the more immediate purpose of his absence was that he might send the Holy Spirit, the Comforter. Thus he said to them: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” John 16:7. It was the purpose of God in redemption to renew us after the divine likeness, to build up again that image, which, in our first parents, had been ruined. This was to be the especial work of the Holy Spirit; and our Lord taught his disciples, again and again, that this could not be done without his being taken from them, and going to the Father. The ascension was, moreover, necessary for the manifestation of Christ's sovereignty. No manifestation of majesty here upon earth could ever have been equivalent to the resumption by Christ of the glory that he had with the Father before the world was. Another great necessity for the removal of our Lord from this world was that he might perform his efficient and merciful office as high priest for us in the heavenly tabernacle. And, further, his ascension has become to us the token of the entire acceptance of the Saviour's sacrificial work for mankind, in our nature. Our thoughts and affections should therefore be directed to the place whither he has gone before. “If we really love our Saviour, and his glorified humanity is to us the spring of our joy and the center of our interests, though the world394 may catch our fleeting thoughts and our less earnest attentions, he will have our most serious determinations, and our deepest affections. The world may be our tabernacle; but the place where he is will be our home.” Our Lord makes mention of the amplitude of our future abiding place: “In my Father's house are many mansions.” How many?—Let us learn from other comparisons. In Heb. 2:10 we read: “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” “Many sons.” “Many mansions.” As many mansions as there are sons to fill them. The promise to Abraham was that he should be the father of many nations. How many?—Every nation, kindred, tongue, and people; for out of all these the children of Abraham are to be gathered at last. “If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal. 3:29. How many mansions?—Enough to accommodate all these children of Abraham; and it was meet that the patriarch should be favored with a view of this place. So the apostle says that, on the strength of the promise, he “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” Heb. 11:10. In verse 16 of the same chapter we read further, respecting the ancient worthies: “But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.” And the apostle exclaims, in Heb. 13:14: “For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.” What is this continuing city which they seek?—None other than that city, spoken of before, which is founded and built by God,—the city which hath many mansions, and is the Father's house,—a city “prepared” for those who are seeking a better country, even a heavenly. “I go,” said Christ, “to prepare a place for you.” What place does he go to prepare?—It can be only this heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, the presence of which so changes the feelings of God toward his people, that he is “not ashamed” to call them brethren, for this very reason that he “hath prepared for them a city.” John gives us a more definite view of this marvelous city, in Revelation 21. He mentions the foundations, which well might have arrested the gaze of Abraham, as they are composed of superimposed layers of most precious stones, filling the whole area inclosed within the broad outlines of the foundation itself; while on the line of the promenade that marks the limit of the city proper, in emerald beauty rises the jasper wall. And all within—the golden, polished streets; the dazzling façades, the columned porches; the gateways, minarets, and towers; all lighted with the glory of God, which shames into utter invisibility the most vivid, blinding beams of the noonday sun—present a scene of incomprehensible glory; the conception of which, as Paul well says, has never entered into the heart of man, and any description of which would be essayed in vain by any human tongue. 1 Cor. 2:9. This is the Father's house which is prepared for them that love him, to take them to which our Lord will, by and by, return, that where he is, there they may be also. “A tent or a cottage, why should I care?
They're building a palace for me over there;
Though exiled from home, yet still I may sing,
All glory to God; I'm a child of the King.” In John's description, the angel had a golden reed with which to take the dimensions of the city. The length of the city was equal to the breadth; and the measurement he reported was 12,000 furlongs. This being the entire circumference of the city, according to the ancient custom of measuring places, we have a length of 3,000 furlongs for each of the four sides. There being eight furlongs to the mile, we have 375 miles for each of the four sides of the city. This gives an area of 140,625 square miles, within the walls of the city. Now, for the sake of easy comparison, let us take one of the rectangular States of the Union, as, for instance, Wyoming, which is 360 miles long by 270 miles wide. This would give about 97,200 square miles as the superficial area of the State; but the New Jerusalem is so much larger that it would take in the entire State of Wyoming, bodily, and still have 43,425 square miles to spare. But perhaps the illustration would be a little more forcible, to take the better-known State of Iowa, which is 300 miles long, east and west, and 220 wide. Here we have an area of 66,000 square miles, which would not take up all the space in the New Jerusalem, into 74,625 square miles. Truly, here is space enough for the “many mansions” of the Father's house. It is to be inferred that these mansions were not ready for occupancy at the time of Christ's ascension; for his language pertains to the future: “I go,” he said, “to prepare a place for you.” It can not therefore be that any of the great bodies of the stellar worlds constitute the “Father's house,” of this scripture, or any of the mansions to which Christ refers; for these starry worlds were all finished away back in the beginning. “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” Gen. 2:1. They can not therefore be the place which Christ went away to prepare, when he said, “I go to prepare a place for you.” And his work since he ascended has not been that of creating new planets. But does it not read, “In my Father's house are many mansions,” and that God “hath prepared” for them a city, as if the work was then already done?—Yes; but students of Scripture well know that the past or present tenses are often put for the future, according to the law to which appeal is often legitimately made, to adjust the different tenses of Scripture to accord with the facts in the case. Rom. 4:17 explains: “God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” So the sacred writer, over seven hundred years before Christ appeared at his first advent in this world, made this declaration: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given,” etc., because that thing was sure to be. And Christ said that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; and still he said that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and they were all then dead. But it was all right, because they were sure to live again. And though Paul wrote of the ancient worthies, that God “hath prepared for them a city,” it is evident that it was prepared only in determination and purpose; for he writes again, saying: “For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come;” and this city which they looked forward to, which was to come, is and was only that city which he said that God “hath prepared.” God speaks of some things which are not, as if they were, because they are so sure to be. In like manner John says that the beast and the false prophet were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. This has not yet taken place, but it is spoken in the past tense, because the time certainly is coming when it will be so. Another objection to the view that the starry worlds constitute the “Father's house,” in which are the “many mansions,” is that, in that case, our own little world would be one of them; and then it would follow that we are already in the Father's house, and that, so far, the prophecy has been fulfilled unto us—a depressing thought which would be too heavy to bear. The most direct, simple, literal, and consistent application seems to be that the holy city, the New Jerusalem, is the Father's house; that its innumerable apartments, or dwelling-places, are the many mansions which are being fitted for the saints; that these mansions were not in readiness when Christ ascended, but he went to prepare them, as he said; and when this is done, he will come again, and take his people to the place made ready. “He is fitting up my mansion, which eternally shall stand;
For my stay shall not be transient in that holy,
happy land;” and all this is as yet unseen to mortal eyes. The glass through which we view it is the word of God; and the light in which it is seen is the light of faith. It is not a question of science or of astronomy, grand as that is, but wholly a matter of faith. “The things which are not seen are eternal.” But, sad thought! all will not attain to that which is intended for them. Christ has died and opened the way to eternal bliss for all; but how many, by unbelief and perversity of life, will cause it to be that, in their cases, his death has been in vain. So there are mansions being fitted up for certain ones who will never occupy them. Crowns are being designed for certain ones, which they will never wear; palm branches are intended for certain ones who will never wave them in the triumph of the great day. What a miscarriage that will be! Alas that man has power thus to frustrate the beneficent and eternity-spanning designs of heaven in his behalf! “He that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth,” says, “Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” Rev. 3:11. PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS.
June 5 we reprinted, from the Christian Advocate, an editorial on “The Church of Rome and Protestantism,” which closed with the following excellent words:— If the twentieth century obliterates distinctions between Protestants and Roman Catholics, the latter will swallow up individual Protestants in ever-increasing numbers; while at the other extreme, agnosticism will flourish, and many of the most spiritually minded Protestants, distracted, will react into various forms of fanaticism; and worse, though different, forms of confusion than those that have marked the well-defined conflicts of the past will leave a large majority of the population of adult years drifting into worldliness or agnosticism, protected from suspicion and unpleasant embarrassment by a politic silence. This is not prophecy, but conclusions based upon an “if.” To say that if dynamite is ignited, there will be an explosion, is not prophecy, but truth. These words are worth reprinting again for the truth which they contain; and this especially in view of what further we have now to present; for the Christian Advocate is pre-eminently the church paper of the Methodist denomination. The Methodist General Conference always prints a Daily Christian Advocate, giving full proceedings of the Conference. The editor of the Daily Christian Advocate is chosen by the General Conference, at each session. At the late session of the Conference, Levi Gilbert, D. D., was editor of the Daily Christian Advocate. By the Conference he was also elected editor of the Western Christian Advocate, an official paper of the denomination, for the Cincinnati district. In the Daily Christian Advocate of May 28, there is an editorial on “Protestants and Catholics.” This editorial is written with reference to the statement of Justice Brewer, and of the New York Sun in commenting upon it, which we reprinted June 5. After referring to the statement of Justice Brewer, and the article of the Sun, the editor of the Daily Christian Advocate says:— But the true position of religious bodies, either in their relation to the truth, to the age, or to each other, can never be learned accurately from an examination simply of their dogmas. Pastors in the field can better report the practical situation. They know that there is a better entente cordiale [French for “cordial understanding”] between the two great sections of Christianity than there was fifty years ago. The old bitterness and rancor is somewhat subsiding. There is, perhaps, owing to a larger and more sympathetic study of history, a better understanding of each others’ position and a better appreciation of the great work being done by each. At least this is so in the Protestant pulpit. It is true that the Protestant minister still thinks that Rome has very much superstition and misleading ceremonialism to eliminate before she can become a truly apostolic church; but he no longer identifies that church with the “scarlet woman” or thunders against Babylon. Rather he sees very much good working with and underneath the evil,—the good overbalancing the evil,—and he prays that more and more that great church may free itself from abuses and errors, and come, purified, into a clearer faith. He fraternizes not infrequently with Catholic priests. He is glad to sit side by side with them in public meetings, such as those conducted by the Anti-Saloon League, and to speak on the same program. He welcomes the growing spirit of Americanism shown by their great prelates, like Keane, Ireland, and Gibbons. He reverences the memory and deeds of such brave and good priests as Father Malone and Dr. McGlynn and Father Damian. He is glad to admit that the Church of Rome to-day is not what Luther found it; that Pope Leo is not another Borgian, but a leader of high395 character, piety, and intellectual genius; that the church in the United States is not what it is in Spain and Mexico—that it is involuntarily affected by the atmosphere and institutions of freedom, and this process will go on wherever liberty spreads in the lands of absolutism. From this it is plain that even in the Methodist Church there are influential persons who are “obliterating distinctions between Protestants and Roman Catholics,” and so are helping forward the time when the Catholic Church “will swallow individual Protestants in ever-increasing numbers.” It must be borne in mind also that all of this “better understanding” and “better appreciation” is on the side of the Protestants. And what is peculiar about it is that these Protestants think they know more about Rome than Rome herself knows: they insist that Rome is better than she used to be, while Rome herself insists that she is not—that “Rome never changes.” They declare that “the Church of Rome to-day is not what Luther found it,” while the Church of Rome herself declares that she is to-day exactly what she was before “the so-called Reformation.” To any one who observes and thinks, it will be perfectly plain where the change is really taking place.