Rev. 13-- 16 And he causeth all, both small and
great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or
in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he
that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Daniel and Revelation-
Revelation Chapter 13- (by Uriah Smith
1897-1907) Excerpt-
We now inquire what
that change is. By the law of God, we mean the moral law, the only law in the
universe of immutable and perpetual obligation, - the law of which Webster
says, defining the term according to the sense in which it is almost
universally used in Christendom, "The moral law is
summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two
tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai."
If now the reader
will compare the ten commandments as found in Roman Catholic catechisms with
those commandments as found in the Bible, he will see in the catechisms - we
mean those portions specially devoted to instruction - that the second
commandment is left out, that the tenth is divided into two to make up the lack
caused by leaving out the second, and keep good the number ten, and that the
fourth commandment (called the third in their enumeration) is made to enjoin
the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, and prescribe that the day shall be
spent in hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, and reading moral and pious
books.
Here are several variations from the decalogue
as found in the Bible. Which of them, if any, constitutes the change of the law
intended in the prophecy? or are they all included in that change? Let it be
borne in mind, that, according to the prophecy, he was to think to change times
and laws. This plainly conveys the idea of intention and design, and makes
these qualities essential to the change in question. But respecting the
omission of the
p 601 -- second
commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the first, and hence should
not be numbered as a separate commandment; and on the tenth they claim that
there is so plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments - so
they make the coveting of a neighbor's wife the ninth command, and the coveting
of his goods the tenth.
In all this they
claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as God intended to have
them understood; so, while we may regard them as errors in their interpretation
of the commandments, we cannot set them down as professedly intentional
changes. Not so, however, with the fourth commandment. Respecting this
commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by God.
They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by
the church. A few quotations from standard Catholic works will make this matter
plain. In a work entitled, Treatise of Thirty Controversies, we find these
words: -
"The word of
God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept
holy; you [Protestants], without any precept of Scripture, change it to the
first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English
Puritans oppose, against this point, that the observation of the first day is
proved out of Scripture, where it is said, the first day of the week. Acts
20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these
places? If we should produce no better for purgatory and prayers for the dead,
invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause indeed to
laugh us to scorn, for where was it written that these were Sabbath days in
which those meetings were kept? or where is it ordained they should be always
observed? or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation
of the first day should abrogate, or abolish, the sanctifying of the seventh
day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of these is
expressed in the written word of God."
In the Catechism of
the Christian Religion, by Stephen Keenan (Boston, Patrick Donahue, 1857), p.
206, on the
p 602 -- subject of
the third (fourth) commandment, we find these questions and answers: -
"Ques.- What
does God ordain by this commandment?
"Ans.- He
ordains that we sanctify, in a special manner, this day on which he rested from
the labor of creation.
"Q.- What is
this day of rest?
"A.- The
seventh day of the week, or Saturday; for he employed six days in creation, and
rested on the seventh. Gen. 2:2; Heb. 4:1; etc.
"Q.- Is it,
then, Saturday we should sanctify, in order to obey the ordinance of God?
"A.- During the
old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but the church, instructed by Jesus
Christ, and directed by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday;
so now we sanctify the first, not the seventh day. Sunday means, and now is,
the day of the Lord."
In the Catholic
Christian Instructed (J. P. Kenedy, New York, 1884), p. 202, we read:
"Ques.- What
warrant have you for keeping the Sunday preferable to the ancient Sabbath,
which was the Saturday?
"Ans.- We have
for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolic tradition.
"Q.- Does the
Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?
"A.- The
Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18:17; Luke 10:16), and to hold
fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess. 2:15. But the Scriptures do not
in particular mention this change of the Sabbath."
In the Doctrinal
Catechism (Kenedy, New York), p. 174, we find further testimony to the same
point: -
" Ques.- Have
you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals
of precept?
"Ans.- Had she
not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists
agree with her - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the
first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change
for which there is no Scriptural authority."
p 603 -- In
Abridgment of Christian Doctrine (Kenedy, New York), p. 58, we find this
testimony: -
"Ques.- How
prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
"Ans.- By the
very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of! and
therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and
breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.
"Q.- How prove
you that?
"A.- Because by
keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church's power to ordain feasts, and to
command them under sin."
And finally, W.
Lockhart, late B. A. of Oxford, in the Toronto (Catholic) Mirror, offered the
following "challenge" to all the Protestants of Ireland, - a
challenge as well calculated for this locality as that. He says: -
"I do therefore solemnly challenge the Protestants of Ireland to
prove, by plain texts of Scripture, these questions concerning the obligations
of the Christian Sabbath: (1) That Christians may work on
Saturday, the old seventh day; (2) that they are bound to keep
holy the first day, namely, Sunday; (3) that they are not bound
to keep holy the seventh day also."
This is what the
papal power claims to have done respecting the fourth commandment. Catholics
plainly acknowledge that there is no Scriptural authority for the change they
have made, but that it rests wholly upon the authority of the church; and they
claim it as a token, or mark, of the authority of that church; the "very
act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday" being set forth as proof of its
power in this respect. For further testimony on this point, the reader is
referred to a book entitled, The Change of the Sabbath, in which are also
extracts from Catholic writers refuting the arguments usually relied upon to
prove the Sunday-sabbath, and showing that its only authority is the Catholic
Church.
"But,"
says one, "I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath." A great many
suppose so, and it is natural that
p 604 -- they
should; for they have been so taught. And while we have no words of
denunciation to utter against any such persons for so believing, we would have
them at once understand that it is, in reality, one of the most enormous of
errors. We would therefore remind such persons that, according to the prophecy,
the only change ever to be made in the law of God was to be made by the little
horn of Daniel 7, the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2; and the only change that
has been made in it, is the change of the Sabbath. Now, if Christ made this
change, he filled the office of the blasphemous power spoken of by both Daniel
and Paul, - a conclusion sufficiently hideous to drive any Christian from the
view which leads thereto.
*******
To be continued.
This TRUTH must be
known!
We can't forget that
believing lies, refusing the truth, is something that will keep Christ from
knowing millions of people who believe they are His.
By the grace of God
may we be HIS! Believing ONLY His turth!
No comments:
Post a Comment