Your ShelfYour Projects

THE THIRD MESSAGE

5%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 20, 1869

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 34, No. 4.

Read the full edition

THE THIRD MESSAGE.

By Uriah Smith

An article bearing this heading, and professing to have been written by the “Rev. Wilson Gray,” appeared in the Northwestern Christian Advocate, of June 9, 1869. As a specimen of the reckless and careless manner in which professed clergymen treat the great Bible truths we advocate, it demands a brief notice. Ignorance, or a willingness to misconstrue our teachings, seems to lie at the foundation of his article; and as the result, his production is but a series of misstatements and misrepresentations.
He first accuses us of pinning our faith to a “non-essential of the Christian life.” What he intends by this he does not tell us. All we have to say in reply is, that we pin our faith to nothing but the word of God, and take nothing to be essential but that which it represents to be so.
He next gives us a wonderful piece of information respecting the Seventh-day Baptists, as follows: “The sect called Seventh-day Baptists had its origin since 1846; a more recent development bears the name of Seventh-day Adventists.” What would some of the eminent men of the S. D. Baptist denomination, who flourished at least two hundred years ago, say to this statement could they hear it! And the declaration that S. D. Adventists are a development of the sect called S. D. Baptists, will, I imagine, surprise not a little, some of those now living. The origin of S. D. Baptists is placed this side of 1846, and that of S. D. Adventists later still, whereas S. D. Adventists existed previous to that year. Thus in his self-assumed task of enlightening the world in reference to S. D. Baptists, and S. D. Adventists, Mr. G. is not correct in one particular respecting their origin and rise.
He is further guilty of the unpardonable jumble of confounding the two denominations, making them both equally concerned in the doctrine designated by the expression, “third message,” for which the S. D. Baptists will not, I venture to presume, particularly thank him.
He says the “third message dates from the disappointment in 1844.” It must then have been given some time by the S. D. Baptists alone; for S. D. Adventists did not rise till after them, and they are placed subsequent to 1846. By whom it was given before S. D. Baptists got hold of it, we are not informed! Such inaccuracy would be simply amusing, did it not amount to an imposition on the public.
He speaks of 1844 as “the time set by Wm. Miller;” another statement which needs no correction so far as those are concerned who have any knowledge of the Advent movement.
After an indiscriminate reference to Daniel and “Revelations,” little horn and pope, beast and mark, he says, “Advent exegesis on this text [what text no kind of information is given,] is a gratuitous assertion, which, for folly, misapprehension, or selfish design, cannot be surpassed by any of the Pope’s expositors.”
But as he gives no reason for calling our exposition gratuitous, nor tells wherein the folly consists, nor points out the misapprehension, nor exposes the selfish design, we pass it by as a harmless ebullition of prejudice unworthy of further notice.
He next makes an assertion, damaging either to the character of God, or to his own profession as one who understands and can teach his word. It is this: “What in particular shall constitute the mark of the beast, is not told in Scripture.” What kind of an idea can a man have of the word of God who will make such an assertion as that? Is not the reception of the mark of the beast set forth as a most heinous sin? Is not the generation that lives just before the appearing of the Son of Man on the white cloud, specially warned against receiving it? And is there not on record, the most terrible denunciation of wrath against it that can be found in the word of God? Oh, yes! But yet we are not told what the mark of the beast is, and can, therefore, know nothing in particular about it. Again I ask, What kind of an idea can a man have of the word of God, or the character of God, who will take such a view as this? To fathom the indignity which such a position offers to the great Lawgiver, suppose for a moment that human legislators should make laws against a certain crime, denouncing it in the strongest terms, and affixing to it the severest penalties known, and then give no information as to what that crime was, which was to be so carefully avoided, or if committed, so terribly punished. What would be thought of such men? Their legislation would be denounced as a mockery, and a farce, and they themselves would be a laughing-stock and a by-word from one end of the continent to the other. Yet men will dare to charge upon the Almighty folly as much greater than this, as heavenly things are higher than earthly.
He further represents us as holding that the “patience of the saints, and keeping the commandments of God are all comprised in observing Saturday.” If he knows no more of us than is indicated by the above sentence, he has no right to speak in reference to us at all. If he does, how shall we account for so malicious a representation? Had a person deliberately tried to see how effectually he could falsify in reference to our position, he could not have uttered what is farther from the truth. The patience of the saints is distinct from the commandments of God, and all the commandments are not comprised in keeping Saturday. We dwell particularly on the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord, because on this point, the people have long been taught to practice in opposition to the requirements of the fourth commandment.
He continues: “A very pleasant faith. Easily obtained, indeed, would Heaven be, if this were the mark of the righteous. Mohammed could have offered no better terms for entering his paradise.” I presume this man has in his articles of faith some Christian duties which he considers it at least advisable to practice. Now suppose we should single out some one of these, and then represent him as teaching that Heaven was to be gained by doing that thing. How would he like it? There is a short passage of scripture which reads, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets;” and we would say to him, Sir, please remember the golden rule, and do not let your hatred of the law lead you to violate that principle which our Lord lays down as the soul and essence of the law, and do unto others as you would not they should do unto you.
Having stated something about the origin of this people, as already noticed, he makes a statement equally reliable respecting one of its leaders. He says:
“A leader of the sect under consideration was first a Congregationalist, obtaining more light he afterward became a Baptist, he next joined the Christians. Still in search of light, he became a Millerite; the disappointment of 1844 left him a Second Adventist. A few years since his mind was greatly enlightened, and he embraced the Sabbath, a doctrine which eclipsed all his former beliefs. Now who would be surprised if this individual found something else to embrace (religiously) before his death?”
Writers of fiction usually have the honesty to give the reader to understand that such is the nature of their writings, or at least only claim that they are founded on facts. But what object a man can have in manufacturing statements, and presenting them as truth, especially a professed minister of the gospel, is difficult to determine. When any reason can be given for such a course, the statements above quoted can perhaps be accounted for. They are not true concerning any leader in this work. The one to whom reference is probably made, never was a Congregationalist nor a Baptist. From the Christian church he embraced the doctrine of the Advent as taught by Wm. Miller, to which he has steadfastly adhered, subsequently adding the observance of the Sabbath, as the light on that subject was presented to him.
But to give credit for the good as well as to take exceptions to the bad, I am happy to notice one excellent paragraph. Here it is: “It is nowhere stated in Scripture that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week.” It is good for the readers of the Advocate to know this fact; and we would that the writer, having got so fairly on the track, had kept on; but, alas! he is on only a moment like one crossing it at right angles; for the very next paragraph reads: “But Scripture is not wanting to prove that the keeping of any special day is not essential to our salvation.” In support of this, he quotes those texts which speak of ceremonial observances and feast days, but have no reference to the weekly Sabbath whatever. But lest, he says, we should say Paul here referred to Jewish holidays and customs, he quotes Isaiah 1, 13: “Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths.” “Here,” he says, “they are all classed together, and the Sabbath in its observance is declared an abomination.” Because the word “sabbaths” occurs here, he thinks it must be the weekly Sabbath. He seems not to be aware that there were seven yearly sabbaths connected with the typical system; and to these Isaiah refers, classing them where they belong, with oblation, incense, and new moons. But rather than lose its application to the weekly Sabbath, Mr. G. is willing to set down the observance of that as an abomination!! It would be gratifying to know how the readers of the Advocate received that statement.
But compare this with his closing words: “With Paul we would say, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; if he regards the day unto the Lord, the Lord will accept him and the day, whether it be Saturday, or Sunday, or Thursday.” How is this? Will the Lord accept it? Had he not just said that the Lord regarded it as an abomination? Does the Lord accept abominations? Mark his positions: 1. No Sabbath; no day is essential. 2. The Sabbath is an abomination. 3. Any day is acceptable to the Lord. But if this is so, and the observance of Saturday is just as acceptable to the Lord as Sunday, why all this uncalled for and gratuitous ado over the matter? Where do men’s conscientiousness and ideas of consistency go to, when they take up their pens against the Sabbath? Can any one show us an article, however short, written against Jehovah’s rest-day, which is true to facts, or consistent with itself? If so he shall be liberally rewarded.
U. S.
Greenville, Mich., July, 1869.