Post by Stephen Korsmanx-no-archive: yes
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author
That is so true..which is why the argument "it isnt in the bible" is
not a valid point.
In this case, you are correct. However, in many cases, the point IS
valid.
and in many cases where a specific issue is not mentioned, enough
similar teaching is given that we can draw a fairly specific
conclusion.
What too many do NOT understand is that the Bible is DELIBERATELY
silent on MANY modern issues meaning that God grants many more freedom
than they're comfortable with.
For that reason, such "leadership" as that found within the Vatican,
and such leadership as that found in Calvinism and the "Reformed"
churches go to great lengths to "fill in the gaps" God left, and
"correct" His divine omissions.
THen, Why does Rome claim to have changed the Sabbath sanctification to
Sunday, when that's not a command of God, or His Son, nor found
anywhere in the bible, and fills in the gaps with their traditions and
commands and dogma, and why do you a Baptist obey them?
Simply because there is biblical evidence that the early Christians kept
Sunday, that the Sabbath is not meant for Christians, and the early
Christians wrote in other texts that they kept Sunday.
Your claims about Rome's claims do not match up with Rome's claims.
http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/238/I-B-Wonderin
http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2
Korsman is a deceiver...
http://snipurl.com/KorsmansExpose
Rome has two early witnesses to Sunday keeping, one from Rome and one
from Alexandria, (and another, Barnabus, which they themselves claim was
in error and his writings uninspired, although his writing wqere read in
Alexandria as scripture... --And as I quoted previously Socrates
Scholasticus, a church historian of the fifth century A.D., wrote, "For
although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred
mysteries [the Lord's Supper] on the sabbath of every week, yet the
Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient
tradition, have ceased to do this."[2] And Sozomen, a contemporary of
Socrates, wrote, "The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere,
assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the
week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."[
neither of those witnesses ever claimed that Christ nor the apostles
changed the Sabbath, nor sanctified Sunday, and those two churches were
unique at that time, as the rest of the Christian world kept the
seventh-day Sabbath. As Josephus the Jewish Historian recorded:"There is
no city anywhere of the Greeks nor of the barbarians, to which the
observance of the seventh day, in which we rest, has not reached"
(Against Apion 2.282 [Loeb, 1:404-71).
Jewish Encyclopedia:
Josephus, in the main, follows the Biblical narrative, giving the word
"Sabbath" the meaning "rest" ("Ant." i. 1, § 1), and controverting the
stupid etymology of the name upheld by Apion, according to whom the Jews
were forced to observe the Sabbath by the fact of their being afflicted
with bubonic boils known in Egyptian by a word similar to the Hebrew
word "sabbath" ("Contra Ap." ii., § 2). Moreover, his descriptions of
Sabbath celebration do not differ from the Biblical. That the beginning
and end of the Sabbath were announced by trumpet-blasts ("B. J." iv. 9,
§ 12) is shown by the Mishnah (Suk. v. 5).
Josephus makes much of the spread of Sabbath observance in
non-Palestinian cities and among non-Jews ("Contra Ap." ii., § 39; comp.
Philo, "De Vita Moysis," ii. 137 [ed. Mangey]). That he does not
exaggerate is apparent from the comments of Roman writers on the Jewish
Sabbath. Horace, in his "Satires" (i. 9, 69), speaks of "tricesima
Sabbata," which certainly does not refer to a Sabbath so numbered by the
Jews. Juvenal ("Satires," xiv. 96-106), Persius (v. 179-184), Martial
(iv. 4, 7), and Seneca (Augustine, "De Civitate Dei," vi. 11) also refer
to the Sabbath. In the Maccabean struggle the observance of the Sabbath
came to have special significance as distinguishing the faithful from
the half-hearted; but Josephus confirms I Macc. ii. 39-41, where the
faithful, under Mattathias, decided to resist if attacked on the
Sabbath, and not to permit themselves to be destroyed for the sake of
literal obedience to the Sabbath law (comp. "Ant." xii. 6, § 2). He
mentions instances in which the Jews were taken advantage of on the
Sabbath-day-for example, by Ptolemy Lagi ("Ant." xii. 1; xviii. 9, § 2).
Still, according to Josephus, the Jews carried on offensive warfare on
the Sabbath ("B. J." ii. 19, § 2). Titus was outwitted by the plea that
it was unlawful for Jews to treat of peace on the seventh day (ib. iv.
2, § 3). Josephus also publishes decrees exempting Jews from military
service on the Sabbath, which exemption gave rise to persecutions under
Tiberius ("Ant." xiv. 10, § 12 et seq.). The Essenes are referred to as
very rigorous observers of the Sabbath ("B. J." ii. 8, § 9).
Saturday is called "the sacred day" by Tibullus (Tibullus 1.3*.18
[Loeb, 206-7]; cf. more authorities in Eusebius, Preparation for the
Gospel 13.13.677c [ed. E.H. Gifford], 2:732).
Clement of Alexandria: "Not only the Hebrews, but also the Greeks hold
each seventh day to be sacred" (alla kai ten hebdomin hieran, ou monon
hoi Hebraioi, alla kai hoi HellEnes isasi, Stroniata 5.14 [ANF 2:469; PG
9.161-62]). He proves this from Hesiod, Homer, Linus and Callimachus, by
whom the seventh day (hebdomz) is called the "sacred day" (hieron
Ernar). By Philo, it is called the public feast" (heorte pandilmos)
belonging to all the Gentiles equally (Flaccus 14 [116] [Loeb,
9:366-67]).
Rome never claimed that the apostles changed the Sabbath till 1000 and
500 plus years later at Trent. Korsman can't prove they did, for it's
not biblical, nor established historically, nor by Rome's early claims,
So he's irate.
So, What is Korsman really upset about, and what started this problem he
has here?
Rome lies, The Apostles changed nothing, and he can't prove they did, as
he claims, according to Rome's own history, teaching and doctrines which
he is claiming to uphold and defend....
Here is Rome rebutting Korsman's claims.
http://snipurl.com/RomesClaims
ROME'S CHALLENGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of
worship. The Roman Catholic Church protests that it transferred
Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and
that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both
dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to
base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.
Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles
discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday.
The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the
authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the
Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented here in
their entirety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
For ready reference purposes, here are links to verses quoted in the
article below-
New Testament verses relating to the apostles
assembling the "first day of the week"
All New Testament references to
"The Lord's day" or "day of the Lord"
Luke 24:33-40
John 20:19
John 20:26-29
Acts 2:1
Acts 20:6-7
Acts 2:46
1 Cor. 16:1-2
Acts 18:4
Acts 2:20
1 Cor. 1:8
1 Cor. 5:5
2 Cor. 1:13-14
Phil. 1:6
Phil. 1:10
2 Pet. 3:10
2 Pet. 3:12
Rev 1:10
FEBRUARY 24, 1893, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
adopted certain resolutions appealing to the government and people of
the United States from the decision of the Supreme Court declaring this
to be a Christian nation, and from the action of Congress in legislating
upon the subject of religion*, and remonstrating against the principle
and all the consequences of the same. In March 1893, the International
Religious Liberty Association printed these resolutions in a tract
entitled Appeal and Remonstrance. On receipt of one of these, the editor
of the Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, Maryland, published a series of
four editorials, which appeared in that paper September, 2, 9, 16, and
23, 1893. The Catholic Mirror was the official organ of Cardinal Gibbons
and the Papacy in the United States.
Photo copyright 1914 by Underwood & Underwood
James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore Maryland (1877-1921)
These articles, therefore, although not written by the Cardinal's own
hand, appeared under his official sanction, and as the expression of the
Papacy to Protestantism, and the demand of the Papacy that Protestants
shall render to the Papacy an account of why they keep Sunday and also
of how they keep it.
The following matter (excepting the footnotes, the editor's note in
brackets beginning on page 25 and ending on page 27, and the two
Appendixes) is a verbatim reprint of these editorials, including the
title on page 2.
* The Supreme Court said in a decision, "this is a Christian nation"
(Holy Trinity Church v. U.S.), on February 29th, 1892. The
Congressional legislation was H.R. 7520 (the Durborow World's Fair
Bill), a bill passed by the 52nd U.S. Congress and signed into law by
President Harrison on August 5, 1892, appropriating $2,500,000 to the
Chicago World's Fair (Columbian Exposition), on the condition that the
fair be closed to the public on Sundays. The bill declared "the first
day of the week commonly called Sunday" to be "the Christian Sabbath,"
"the Sabbath of the nation". (U. S. Statutes, Vol. 27, Part 1, pp. 363,
388.) Despite this, the fair directors eventually bowed to public
pressure and opened the fair on Sundays, beginning on May 28th of 1893.
Notre Dame University has the following issues of the Catholic Mirror
archived on microfilm.
Archdiocese of Baltimore Maryland website, which published the Catholic
Mirror.
[From page 8 of the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 2, 1893]
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
THE GENUINE OFFSPRING OF THE UNION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH HIS SPOUSE. THE CLAIMS OF PROTESTANTISM TO ANY PART
THEREIN PROVED TO BE GROUNDLESS, SELF-CONTRADICTORY, AND SUICIDAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Our attention has been called to the above subject in the past week by
the receipt of a brochure of twenty-one pages, published by the
International Religious Liberty Association, entitled, "Appeal and
Remonstrance," embodying resolutions adopted the General Conference of
the Seventh-day Adventists (February 24th, '93). The resolutions
criticize and censure, with much acerbity, the action of the United
States Congress, and of the Supreme Court, for the invading the rights
of the people by closing the World's Fair on Sunday.
The Adventists are the only body of Christians with the Bible as
their teacher, who can find no warrant in its pages for the change of
the day from the seventh to the first. Hence their appellation,
"Seventh-day Adventists." Their cardinal principle consists in setting
apart Saturday for the exclusive worship of God, in conformity with the
positive command of God himself, repeatedly reiterated in the sacred
books of the Old and New Testaments, literally obeyed by the children of
Israel for thousands of years to this day, and endorsed by the teaching
and practice of the Son of God whilst on earth.
Per contra, the Protestants of the world, the Adventists excepted,
with the same Bible as their cherished and sole infallible teacher, by
their practice, since their appearance in the sixteenth century, with
the time-honored practice of the Jewish people before their eyes, have
rejected the day named for His worship by God, and assumed, in apparent
contradiction of His command, a day for His worship never once referred
to for that purpose, in the pages of that Sacred Volume.
What Protestant pulpit does not ring almost every Sunday with loud
and impassioned invectives against Sabbath violation? Who can forget the
fanatical clamor of the Protestant ministers throughout the length and
breadth of the land against opening the gates of the World's Fair on
Sunday? the thousands of petitions, signed by millions, to save the
Lord's Day from desecration? Surely, such general and widespread
excitement and noisy remonstrance could not have existed without the
strongest grounds for such animated protests.
And when quarters were assigned at the World's Fair to the various
sects of Protestantism for the exhibition of articles, who can forget
the emphatic expressions of virtuous and conscientious indignation
exhibited by our Presbyterian brethren, as soon as they learned of the
decision of the Supreme Court not to interfere in the Sunday opening?
The newspapers informed us that they flatly refused to utilize the space
accorded them, or open their boxes, demanding the right to withdraw the
articles, in rigid adherence to their principles, and thus decline all
contact with the sacrilegious and Sabbath-breaking Exhibition.
Doubtless, our Calvinistic brethren deserved and shared the sympathy
of all the other sects, who, however, lost the opportunity of posing as
martyrs in vindication of the Sabbath observance.
They thus became a "spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men,"
although their Protestant brethren, who failed to share the monopoly,
were uncharitably and enviously disposed to attribute their steadfast
adherence to religious principle, to Pharisaical pride and dogged
obstinacy.
Our purpose in throwing off this article, is to shed such light on
this all-important question (for were the Sabbath question to be removed
from the Protestant pulpit, the sects would feel lost, and the preachers
be deprived of their "Cheshire cheese") that our readers may be able to
comprehend the question in all its bearings, and thus reach a clear
conviction.
The Christian world is, morally speaking, united on the question and
practice of worshiping God on the first day of the week.
The Israelites, scattered all over the earth, keep the last day of
the week sacred to the worship of the Deity. In this particular, the
Seventh-day Adventists (a sect of Christians numerically few) have also
selected the same day.
Israelites and Adventists both appeal to the Bible for the divine
command, persistently obliging the strict observance of Saturday.
The Israelite respects the authority of the Old Testament only, but
the Adventist, who is a Christian, accepts the New Testament on the same
ground as the Old: viz., an inspired record also. He finds that the
Bible, his teacher, is consistent in both parts, that the Redeemer,
during His mortal life, never kept any other day than Saturday. The
Gospels plainly evince to him this fact; whilst, in the pages of the
Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, not the vestige
of an act canceling the Saturday arrangement can be found.
The Adventists, therefore, in common with Israelites, derive their
belief from the Old Testament, which position is confirmed by the New
Testament, endorsing fully by the life and practice of the Redeemer and
His apostles the teaching of the Sacred Word for nearly a century of the
Christian era.
Numerically considered, the Seventh-day Adventists form an
insignificant portion of the Protestants population of the earth, but,
as the question is not one of numbers, but of truth, and right, a strict
sense of justice forbids the condemnation of this little sect without a
calm and unbiased investigation; this is none of our funeral.
The Protestant world has been, from its infancy, in the sixteenth
century, in thorough accord with the Catholic Church, in keeping "holy,"
not Saturday, but Sunday. The discussion of the grounds that led to this
unanimity of sentiment and practice of over 300 years, must help toward
placing Protestantism on a solid basis in this particular, should the
arguments in favor of its position overcome those furnished by the
Israelites and Adventists, the Bible, the sole recognized teacher of
both litigants, being the umpire and witness. If however, on the other
hand, the latter furnish arguments, incontrovertible by the great mass
of Protestants, both cases of litigants, appealing to their common
teacher, the Bible, the great body of Protestants, so far from
clamoring, as they do with vigorous pertinacity for the strict keeping
of Sunday, have no other resource [recourse] left than the admission
that they have been teaching and practicing what is Scripturally false
for over three centuries, by adopting the teaching and practice of what
they have always pretended to believe an apostate church, contrary to
every warrant and teaching of sacred Scripture. To add to the intensity
of this Scriptural and unpardonable blunder, it involves one of the most
positive and emphatic commands of God to His servant, man: "Remember the
Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
No Protestant living today has ever yet obeyed that command,
preferring to follow the apostate church referred to than his teacher
the Bible, which, from Genesis to Revelation, teaches no other doctrine,
should the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists be correct. Both sides
appeal to the Bible as their "infallible" teacher. Let the Bible decide
whether Saturday or Sunday be the day enjoined by God. One of the two
bodies must be wrong, and, whereas a false position on this
all-important question involves terrible penalties, threatened by God
Himself, against the transgressor of this "perpetual covenant," we shall
enter on the discussion of the merits of the arguments wielded by both
sides. Neither is the discussion of this paramount subject above the
capacity of ordinary minds, nor does it involve extraordinary study. It
resolves itself into a few plain questions easy of solution:
1st. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2nd. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the
original command?
3rd. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the
command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible
guide and teacher, the Bible? and if not, why not?
To the above three questions we pledge ourselves to furnish as many
intelligent answers, which cannot fail to vindicate the truth and uphold
the deformity of error.
[From page 8 of the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 9, 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"But faith, fanatic faith, one wedded fast,
To some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last."
-Moore.
Conformably to our promise in our last issue, we proceed to unmask
one of the most flagrant errors and most unpardonable inconsistencies of
the Biblical rule of faith. Lest, however, we be misunderstood, we deem
it necessary to premise that Protestantism recognizes no rule of faith,
no teacher, save the "infallible Bible." As the Catholic yields his
judgment in spiritual matters implicitly, and with the unreserved
confidence, to the voice of his church, so, too, the Protestant
recognizes no teacher but the Bible. All his spirituality is derived
from its teachings. It is to him the voice of God addressing him through
his sole inspired teacher. It embodies his religion, his faith, and his
practice. The language of Chillingworth, "The Bible, the whole Bible,
and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants," is only one
form of the same idea multifariously convertible into other forms, such
as "the Book of God," "the Charter of Our Salvation," "the Oracle of Our
Christian Faith," "God's Text-Book to the race of Mankind," etc., etc.
It is, then, an incontrovertible fact that the Bible alone is the
teacher of Protestant Christianity. Assuming this fact, we will now
proceed to discuss the merits of the question involved in our last
issue. Recognizing what is undeniable, the fact of a direct
contradiction between the teaching and practice of Protestant
Christianity - the Seventh-day Adventists excepted - on the one hand,
and that of the Jewish people on the other, both observing different
days of the week for the worship of God, we will proceed to take the
testimony of the teacher common to both claimants, the Bible. The first
expression with which we come in contact in the Sacred Word, is found in
Gen., 2d chapter, 2d verse "And on the seventh day He (God) rested from
all His work which He had made." The next reference to this matter is to
be found in Exodus 20, where God commanded the seventh day to be kept,
because He had himself rested from the work of creation on that day; and
the sacred text informs us that for that reason He desired it kept, in
the following words; "wherefore, the Lord blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it." (1) Again we read in 31st chapter, 15th verse: "Six days
you shall do work; in the seventh day is the Sabbath, the rest holy to
the Lord;" sixteenth verse: "it is an everlasting covenant," "and a
perpetual sign," "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and in
the seventh He ceased from work."
In the Old Testament, reference is made one hundred and twenty-six
times to the Sabbath, and all these texts conspire harmoniously in
voicing the will of God commanding the seventh day to be kept, because
God Himself first kept it, making it obligatory on all as "a perpetual
covenant." Nor can we imagine any one foolhardy enough to question the
identity of Saturday with the Sabbath or seventh day, seeing that the
people of Israel have been keeping the Saturday from the giving of the
law, A.M. 2514 to A.D. 1893, a period of 3383 years. With the example of
the Israelites before our eyes today, there is no historical fact better
established than that referred to; viz., that the chosen people of God,
the guardians of the Old Testament, the living representatives of the
only divine religion hitherto, had for a period of 1490 years anterior
to Christianity, preserved the weekly practice the living tradition of
the correct interpretation of the special day of the week, Saturday, to
be kept "holy to the Lord," which tradition they have extended by their
own practice to an additional period of 1893 years more, thus covering
the full extent of the Christian dispensation. We deem it necessary to
be perfectly clear on this point, for reasons that will appear more
fully hereafter. The Bible - the Old Testament - confirmed by the living
tradition of a weekly practice for 3383 years by the chosen people of
God, teaches, then, with absolute certainty, that God had, Himself,
named the day to be "kept holy to Him",- that the day was Saturday, and
that any violation of that command was punishable with death. "Keep you
My Sabbath, for it is holy unto you; he that shall profane it shall be
put to death; he that shall do any work in it, his soul shall perish in
the midst of his people." Ex 31 ch. 14 v.
It is impossible to realize a more severe penalty than that so
solemnly uttered by God Himself in the above text, on all who violate a
command referred to no less than one hundred and twenty-six times in the
old law. The ten commandments of the Old Testament are formally
impressed on the memory of the child of the Biblical Christian as soon
as possible, but there is not one of the ten made more emphatically
familiar, both in Sunday School and pulpit, than that of keeping "holy"
the Sabbath day.
Having secured the absolute certainty the will of God as regards the
day to be kept holy, from His Sacred Word, because He rested on that
day, which day is confirmed to us by the practice of His chosen people
for thousands of years, we are naturally induced to inquire when and
where God changed the day for His worship; for it is patent to the world
that a change of day has taken place, and inasmuch as no indication of
such change can be found within the pages of the Old Testament, nor in
the practice of the Jewish people who continue for nearly nineteen
centuries of Christianity obeying the written command, we must look to
the exponent of the Christian dispensation; viz., the New Testament, for
the command of God canceling the old Sabbath, Saturday.
We now approach a period covering little short of nineteen centuries,
and proceed to investigate whether the supplemental divine teacher - the
New Testament - contains a decree canceling the mandate of the old law,
and, at the same time, substituting a day for the divinely instituted
Sabbath of the old law, viz., Saturday; for, inasmuch as Saturday was
the day kept and ordered to be kept by God, divine authority alone,
under the form of a canceling decree, could abolish the Saturday
covenant, and another divine mandate, appointing by name another day to
be kept "holy," other than Saturday, is equally necessary to satisfy the
conscience of the Christian believer. The Bible being the only teacher
recognized by the Biblical Christian, the Old Testament failing to point
out a change of day, and yet another day than Saturday being kept "holy"
by the Biblical world, it is surely incumbent on the reformed Christian
to point out in the pages of the New Testament the new divine decree
repealing that of Saturday and substituting that of Sunday, kept by the
Biblicals since the dawn of the Reformation.
Examining the New Testament from cover to cover, critically, we find
the Sabbath referred to sixty-one times. We find, too, that the Saviour
invariably selected the Sabbath (Saturday) to teach in the synagogues
and work miracles. The four Gospels refer to the Sabbath (Saturday)
fifty-one times.
In one instance the Redeemer refers to Himself as "the Lord of the
Sabbath," as mentioned by Matthew and Luke, (2) but during the whole
record of His life, whilst invariably keeping and utilizing the day
(Saturday), He never once hinted at a desire to change it. His apostles
and personal friends afford to us a striking instance of their
scrupulous observance of it after His death, and, whilst His body was
yet in tomb, St. Luke, 23d chap. 56 verse informs us: "And they returned
and prepared spices and ointments, and rested on the sabbath day
according to the commandment." "but on the first day of the week, very
early in the morning, they came, bringing the spices they had prepared."
The "spices" and "ointments" had been prepared Good Friday evening,
because "the Sabbath drew near." 54 Verse. This action on the part of
the personal friends of the Saviour, proves beyond contradiction that
after His death they kept "holy" the Saturday, and regarded the Sunday
as any other day of the week. Can anything, therefore, be more
conclusive than the apostles and the holy women never knew any Sabbath
but Saturday, up to the day of Christ's death?
We now approach the investigation of this interesting question for
the next thirty years, as narrated by the evangelist, St. Luke, in his
Acts of the Apostles. Surely some vestige of the canceling act can be
discovered in the practice of the Apostles during that protracted
period.
But, alas! we are once more doomed to disappointment. Nine (3) times
do we find the Sabbath referred to in the "Acts," but it is the Saturday
(the old Sabbath). Should our readers desire the proof, we refer them to
chapter and verse in each instance. Acts 13c., 14v.; again, same
chapter, 27v., again, 42v.; again, 44v. [Acts 13:14, 27, 42, 44] Once
more, 15c., 31v. [Acts16:13] Again, 17c., 2v.; [Acts 17:2] again 18c.,
4v. [Acts 18:4] "And he (Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath,
and persuaded the Jews and Greeks." thus the Sabbath (Saturday) from
Genesis to Revelation!!! Thus, it is impossible to find in the New
Testament the slightest interference by the Saviour or his Apostles with
the original Sabbath, but on the contrary, an entire acquiescence in the
original arrangement; nay a plenary endorsement by Him, whilst living;
and an unvaried, active participation in the keeping of that day and no
other by the apostles, for thirty years after His death, as the Acts of
the Apostles has abundantly testified to us.
Hence the conclusion is inevitable; viz., that of those who follow
the Bible as their guide, the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists have
exclusive weight of evidence on their side, whilst the Biblical
Protestant has not a word in self-defense for his substitution of Sunday
for Saturday. More anon.
(1) Of course the scriptures quoted throughout in these editorials are
from the Douay, or Catholic, Version, -ED.
(2) It is also referred to in Mark 2:28.-ED.
(3) This should be eight.
[From page 8 of the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 16, 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
When his Satanic Majesty, who was "a murder from the beginning," "and
the father of lies," undertook to open the eyes of our first mother,
Eve, by stimulating her ambition, "You shall be as gods, knowing good
and evil," his action was but the first of many plausible and successful
efforts employed later, in the seduction of millions of her children.
Like Eve, they learn too late, alas! the value of the inducements held
out to allure her weak children from allegiance to God. Nor does the
subject matter of this discussion form an exception to the usual tactics
of his sable majesty.
Over three centuries since, he plausibly represented to a large
number of discontented and ambitious Christians the bright prospect of
the successful inauguration of a "new departure," by the abandonment of
the Church instituted by the Son of God, as their teacher, and the
assumption of a new teacher - the Bible alone - as their newly fledged
oracle.
The sagacity of the evil one foresaw but the brilliant success of
this maneuver. Nor did the result fall short of his most sanguine
expectations.
A bold and adventurous spirit was alone needed to head the
expedition. Him his satanic majesty soon found in the apostate monk,
Luther, who himself repeatedly testifies to the close familiarity that
existed between his master and himself, in his "Table talk," and other
works published in 1558, at Wittenberg, under the inspection of
Melancthon. His colloquies with Satan on various occasions, are
testified to by Luther himself - a witness worthy of all credibility.
What the agency of the serpent tended so effectually to achieve in the
garden, the agency of Luther achieved in the Christian world. (4)
"Give them a pilot to their wandering fleet,
Bold in his art, and tutored to deceit;
Whose hand adventurous shall their helm misguide
To hostile shores, or 'whelm them in the tide."
As the end proposed to himself by the evil one in his raid on the
church of Christ was the destruction of Christianity, we are now engaged
in sifting the means adopted by him to insure his success therein. So
far, they have been found to be misleading, self-contradictory, and
fallacious. We will now proceed with the further investigations of this
imposture.
Having proved to a demonstration that the Redeemer, in no instance,
had, during the period of His life, deviated from the faithful
observance of the Sabbath (Saturday), referred to by the four
evangelists fifty-one times, although He had designated Himself "Lord of
the Sabbath," He never having once, by command or practice, hinted at a
desire on His part to change the day by the substitution of another and
having called special attention to the conduct of the apostles and the
holy women, the very evening of His death, securing beforehand spices
and ointments to be used in embalming His body the morning after the
Sabbath (Saturday), as St. Luke so clearly informs us (Luke 24 ch. 1v.),
thereby placing beyond peradventure, the divine action and will of the
Son of God during life by keeping the Sabbath steadfastly; and having
called attention to the action of His living representatives after his
death, as proved by St. Luke; having also placed before our readers the
indisputable fact that the apostles for the following thirty years
(Acts) never deviated from the practice of their divine Master in this
particular, as St. Luke (Acts 18 ch., 4v.) assures us: "And he (Paul)
reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath (Saturday), and persuaded the
Jews and the Greeks." The Gentile converts were, as we see from the
text, equally instructed with the Jews, to keep the Saturday, having
been converted to Christianity on that day, "the Jews and the Greeks"
collectively.
Having also called attention to the texts of the Acts bearing on the
exclusive use of the Sabbath by the Jews and Christians for thirty years
after the death of the Saviour as the only day of the week observed by
Christ and His apostles, which period exhausts the inspired record, we
now proceed to supplement our proofs that the Sabbath (Saturday) enjoyed
this exclusive privilege, by calling attention to every instance wherein
the sacred record refers to the first day of the week.
The first reference to Sunday after the resurrection of Christ is to
be found in St. Luke's Gospel, 24 ch., from 33 to 40 vs., and in St.
John's 20 ch., 19 v.
The above texts themselves refer to the sole motive of this gathering
of the part of the apostles. It took place on the day of the
resurrection (Easter Sunday), not for the purpose of inaugurating "the
new departure" from the old Sabbath (Saturday) by keeping "holy" the new
day, for there is not a hint given of prayer, exhortation, or the
reading of the Scriptures, but it indicates the utter demoralization of
the apostles by informing mankind that they were huddled together in
that room in Jerusalem "for fear of the Jews," as St. John, quoted
above, plainly informs us.
The second reference to Sunday is to be found in St. John's Gospel,
20th chapter, 26th to 29th verses: And after eight days, the disciples
were again within, and Thomas with them." The resurrected Redeemer
availed Himself of this meeting of all the apostles to confound the
incredulity of Thomas, who had been absent from the gathering on Easter
Sunday evening. This would have furnished a golden opportunity to the
Redeemer to change the day in the presence of all His apostles, but we
state the simple fact that, on this occasion, as on Easter day, not a
word is said of prayer, praise, or reading of the Scriptures. The third
instance on record, wherein the apostles were assembled on Sunday, is to
be found in Acts, 2d chapter, 1st verse: "The apostles were all of one
accord in one place." (Feast of Pentecost - Sunday.) Now, will this text
afford to our Biblical Christian brethren a vestige of hope that Sunday
substitutes, at length, Saturday? For when we inform them that the Jews
had been keeping this Sunday for 1500 years, and have been keeping it
for eighteen centuries after the establishment of Christianity, at the
same time keeping the weekly Sabbath, there is not to be found either
consolation or comfort in this text. Pentecost is the fiftieth day after
the Passover, (5) which was called the Sabbath of weeks, consisting of
seven times seven days; and the day after the completion of the seventh
weekly Sabbath day, was the chief day of the entire festival,
necessarily Sunday. What Israelite would not pity the cause that would
seek to discover the origin of the keeping of the first day of the week
in his festival of Pentecost, that has been kept by him yearly for over
3,000 years? Who but the Biblical Christian, driven to the wall for a
pretext to excuse his sacrilegious desecration of the Sabbath, always
kept by Christ and His apostles, would have resorted to the Jewish
festival of Pentecost for his act of rebellion against his God and his
teacher, the Bible?
Once more, the Biblical apologists for the change of day call our
attention to the Acts, 20th chapter 6th and 7th verses: "and upon the
first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread,"
etc. To all appearances, the above text should furnish some consolation
to our disgruntled Biblical friends, but being Marplot, we cannot allow
them even this crumb of comfort. We reply by the axiom: "Quod probat
nimis, probat nihil" - "What proves too much, proves nothing." Let us
call attention to the same Acts 2d chapter, 46th verse: "And they,
continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house,"
etc. Who does not see at a glance that the text produced to prove the
exclusive prerogative of Sunday, vanishes into thin air - an ignis
fatuus - when placed in juxtaposition with the 46th verse of the same
chapter? What the Biblical Christian claims by this text for Sunday
alone, the same authority, St. Luke, informs us was common to every day
of the week: "And they, continuing daily in the temple, and breaking
bread from house to house."
One text more presents itself, apparently leaning toward a
substitution of Sunday for Saturday. It is taken from St. Paul's 1 Ep.
Cor. 16th chapter, 1st and 2d verses.
"Now concerning the collection for the saints," "On the first day of
the week, let every one of you lay by him in store," etc. Presuming that
the request of St. Paul had been strictly attended to, let us call
attention to what had been done each Saturday during the Saviour's life
and continued for thirty years after, as the book of Acts informs us.
The followers of the Master met "every Sabbath" to hear the word of
God; the Scriptures were read "every Sabbath day." "And Paul, as his
manner was to reason in the synagogue every Sabbath, interposing the
same of the Lord Jesus Christ," etc., Acts 18th chapter 4th verse. What
more absurd conclusion that to infer that reading of the Scriptures,
prayer, exhortation, and preaching, which formed the routine duties of
every Saturday, as had been abundantly proved, were overslaughed by a
request to take up a collection on another day of the week?
In order to appreciate fully the value of this text now under
consideration, it is only needful to recall the action of the apostles
and holy women on Good Friday before sundown. They brought spices and
ointments after He was taken down from the cross; they suspended all
action until the Sabbath "holy to the Lord" had passed, and then took
steps on Sunday morning to complete the process of embalming the sacred
body of Jesus. Why, may we ask, did they not proceed to complete the
work of embalming on Saturday? - Because they knew well that the
embalming of the sacred body of their Master would interfere with the
strict observance of the Sabbath, the keeping of which was paramount;
and until it can be shown that the Sabbath day immediately preceding the
Sunday of our text had not been kept (which would be false, inasmuch as
every Sabbath had been kept), the request of St. Paul to make the
collection on Sunday remains to be classified with the work of the
embalming of Christ's body, which could not be effected on the Sabbath,
and was consequently deferred to the next convenient day; viz., Sunday,
or the first day of the week.
Having disposed of every text to be found in the New Testament
referring to the Sabbath (Saturday), and to the first day of the week
(Sunday); and having shown conclusively from these texts, that, so far,
not a shadow of pretext can be found in the Sacred Volume for the
Biblical substitution of Sunday for Saturday; it only remains for us to
investigate the meaning of the expressions "Lord's Day," and "day of the
Lord," to be found in the New Testament, which we propose to do in our
next article, and conclude with apposite remarks on the incongruities of
a system of religion which we shall have proved to be indefensible,
self-contradictory, and suicidal.
(4) Of course we have not the least sympathy with what is here said
about Luther. Only the Lutherans think that Luther had all the truth,
but his was nevertheless a grand work. He was a Christian hero. Had his
work only been continued as it began, papists would not now be taunting
"Protestants" with the inconsistency of professing to accept the Bible
alone and then following the traditions of the Catholic Church. -ED.
(5) The Passover was always the fourteenth day of the first month,
without any reference whatever to any particular day of the week, and
therefore it was impossible that the Pentecost should always be
"necessarily Sunday," as stated. This note is inserted merely in the
interests of accuracy, and not with the intention that it should have
any bearing on the controversy in the text. - ED.
[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.,
1st-The Christian Sabbath, the genuine offspring of the union of the
Holy Spirit with the Catholic Church His spouse. 2nd-The 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.
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.
See Korsman's futile arguments about this here:
http://snipurl.com/NotOnKorsmansSite