IS THIS SO? by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Aug 18, 1881

IS THIS SO?

By Editor

SOME time since we clipped an article from the N. Y. Sun in regard to "a departure from orthodoxy that has stirred two denominations." It was concerning the resignation of Thomas R. Slicer, pastor of the Park Congregational Church, Brooklyn. Of his antecedents it says:—

"Every old Methodist minister has anecdotes to tell of the Rev. Henry Slicer, or 'the War-Horse of Methodism,' as he used to be called for his denominational energy and zeal. He took a leading part in the General Conferences in the half century of his ministry. He was a strong supporter of the itinerant system. The wife of Father Slicer was the granddaughter of one of the pioneers of Methodism, and her father had been a Methodist minister also. It therefore seemed in virtue of hereditary appointment to the Methodist ministry that Father Slicer's son Thomas, while still a youth, mounted his horse, and, with umbrella hanging from his pommel and his library in his saddle-bags, started out as a Methodist country circuit-rider. Now, after having been an orthodox minister for fifteen years, he publicly forsakes the faith."

That to which we wish to call attention is a statement of Mr. Slicer, and we copy the above only to show what are his opportunities to judge of certain matters of which he affirms. Of his declension from his faith the Sun says:—

"Talking on the subject yesterday he said that the mythologic theology of orthodoxy was everywhere breaking down and giving way. Clergymen nominally orthodox felt it and admitted it among themselves. They make a show of defending the old dogmas, but they practically turn their backs upon them. Men have their livings to earn and their families to support, and they avoid shocking their people by frank declarations of their opinions. 'But,' said Mr. Slicer, 'I am young, strong, and healthy. I can earn my living, and I cannot conceal my conscientious convictions.'"

Is this so, that the clergy are largely doubting the doctrines which "they make a show of defending?" Mr. Slicer referred especially to doubts on the subject of "eternal punishment," the preaching of which, he says, does not move the people, particularly in the west.

The Examiner and Chronicle noted the remark of "a friend of high standing in the Congregational pulpit," who, speaking of their ministry in regard to the subject of future punishment, said, "It would be hard to number those among us who doubt or disbelieve."

The truth on the subject of future punishment—that it is "everlasting destruction," not eternal misery—is spreading so fast that it is impossible to affect people with the dogma of eternal torment as they used to be affected by it. And the preachers know it; although they defend it as a necessary adjunct of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, they say little about it, and do not make it the foundation of stirring appeals, as was the custom half a century ago. Such appeals, and such descriptions of endless torment, and eternally increasing misery, as we used to hear in our boyhood, would be only met with derision in these days. And yet if it was truth that was so preached—if the soul of man is by nature immortal, and the finally impenitent must suffer endless torment—it cannot too much be impressed upon the minds of the people; no description of such a destiny can be too terrible with which to arouse people to a sense of the fact. If it was true then, it is true now; and if it is true now, the clergy are worthy of all blame for not constantly presenting it to their hearers.

The Examiner and Chronicle thinks that the Baptist ministers, as a class, are exempt from these doubts because they "looked to the Bible alone for religious doctrine." But of the Congregationalists it says:—

"They imitate Socinians at times in trusting to reason rather than to revelation; and at other times they follow Rome in borrowing from tradition."

But the contrast which it draws between the denominations is only partially just; it is not just in all respects. It must be apparent to every considerate person that the Baptists have decided advantage, on Scripture grounds, over all Pedo-Baptist denominations. But we would be pleased to be shown an argument by any Baptist minister or paper, set forth within the last five years, on the observance of the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day, in which the writer trusted entirely to the words of revelation, and not at all to reason aside from revelation; or that did not follow Rome in borrowing anything from tradition. The opportunity is open to all parties who wish to give us information on the point. If they will take the pains to examine, we think they will become convinced that the Baptists are not entitled to all that is claimed in their behalf in respect to following "the Bible, and the Bible alone."

When we read statistics of the growth of the denominations, of the increase of church membership, we are almost ready to give them credit for actual progress, and to admit that the world is indeed growing better under their influence. Our inclination leans toward believing it, for we would gladly have it so. But when we consider their own confessions to a steadily increasing retrogression from their landmarks, their lack of confidence in their own systems, we are forced to the belief that their foundations are giving way; and that the appearance of reform in the world is specious, superficial, and not of a kind to give hope of the conversion of the world, or any considerable part of it, to genuine Christianity.

We should not find fault with their departures from their old dogmas if they showed inclination to dig deeper into the mines of Biblical truth, and to supersede their crumbling theories by a faith more consistent with the word of God. But this is done by very few. Most of them drift away into the vagaries of Spiritualism, or accept some (so-called,) "scientific" substitute for revelation; accepting as Mr. Slicer does, a system of morality as more available or more acceptable to the masses than the doctrines of Christianity. So long have they made their religion conform to popular sentiment that they look to the popular feeling as an index of what they ought to preach. And because the world is pleased with their preaching, they verily think the world is growing better! A good official in the Presbyterian church actually cited to us the fact that there is so little difference between the church and the world, as evidence that the world is fast growing up to a Christian stand-point. But it is not because the world is rising higher in the moral scale, but the church is sinking lower. They are nearing each other on the descending, not on the ascending, scale. Our large and popular churches of the present day are worldly—of the world. They are as much slaves to fashion and popular sentiment as are the veriest worldlings.

Some may impute to us a want of charity in speaking of these things. But we would ask as Paul did, "Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" Is there not evidence on every hand that the churches are sadly degenerate? Will it make the case any better to shut our eyes to the facts, or to keep silent when we know that a warning is needed? Hear what the Lord says concerning a backslidden church:—

"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins. Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God; they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God." Isa. 58 : 1, 2.

We prefer to be found crying aloud, even without sparing, to crying "Peace and safety," when destruction is impending. 1 Thess. 5 : 1-3.