Your ShelfYour Projects

IS IT A PERVERSION?

6%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 14, 1868

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 32, No. 8.

Read the full edition

IS IT A PERVERSION?

By C.

This is the question which heads an article of seven columns in the last issue of the “Voice of the West,” written, I presume, by the editor of that sheet. He complains of the criticism given by the editor of the Advent Herald of the recent work entitled “Adventism,” as being “decidedly ill-natured,” and “curt.” He also intimates that the editor of the Herald purposely withheld some facts relating to this matter, in order to deceive his readers. But leaving these points for the editor to attend to, let us notice some things stated by the Voice.
First, he affirms that the Herald “party renounced the name of Adventists, and adopted the appellation of Evangelical Adventists in Worcester, in 1857.” In doing this, he says “they left the older and simpler name of Adventist” to the body from which they sought thus to separate themselves. Now as the editor of the Voice was one of the most forward persons in that movement I would like to inquire if he then considered that he “renounced the name of Adventist” in giving his voice and vote to the motion which there prevailed. As he was one who then adopted the “appellation of Evangelical Adventists,” are we to understand that he now gives up that name, and wishes us to consider him simply as an “Adventist,” but not an Evangelical one? In other words, that he holds to the original Advent faith, but has connected with it several unevangelical or unscriptural sentiments? Certainly this is a natural inference from the statements he makes. He intimates further that when the Adventists came out from the other churches, they were generally believers in what is called the “death question,” and that those now styled “Evangelical Adventists” are “offshoots from the main body.” If this is correct, then I am in possession of information never before given to the world. I never until now knew that the belief of man's unconsciousness in death, and the final extinction of the being of the wicked, attended the early proclamation of the advent of Christ at hand, as it was given in the various churches, resulting in the formation of a new society known as Adventists. It has always been affirmed—and the editor of the Voice formerly joined in the affirmation—that after the Adventists had become a separate body, the “death question” was introduced among them, which created distraction and division among us.
I well recollect when Father Chapman had labored long and hard in the West in proclaiming the Advent doctrine, and had succeeded in raising up several churches to hold up the light, of hearing the editor of the Voice express his grief that certain ones had worked their way in among those churches to preach those distracting and dividing sentiments, and adding—“the only way I can reconcile myself to these things is by remembering that when God had made the earth all beautiful and good, and planted a garden so lovely for man’s residence, that the Devil was suffered to enter and spoil it all. And Satan has been at the same work ever since; and if God can endure it, Father Chapman and myself must submit.” “But,” said he, “those materialists do exactly as Satan did; they don’t go into new fields, and build up interests of their own, but they go and pervert those churches built up by the self-sacrificing labors of others. But Satan’s triumph is short, and so we’ll struggle on.” Now as his statements then and now do not agree, which will he have us credit? Moreover, it is well known that other pernicious errors were extensively propagated among the Advent churches, such as the denial of the Deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Ghost, the vicarious atonement, etc., so that many supposed these were the prominent and prevailing views of Adventists. Then the question was mooted, how shall we meet this obstacle in the way of our usefulness? This question was discussed at Worcester, which led to the adoption of the “appellation of Evangelical Adventists.” And many then holding their “materialistic notions,” voted for the addition. Did they by that vote renounce the name of Adventists? Nay; they affirmed that they stood on the original Advent basis, and that, as to other great Scriptural truths, not specifically distinguished as Adventistic, they were evangelical—that is, in reference to the great cardinal doctrines of Christianity
they were in agreement with the Evangelical Protestant world. William Miller, J. V. Himes, J. Litch, A. Hale, C. Fitch, and others, who were recognized as leaders in the Advent movement, never dreamed that the “death question” was an essential ingredient in the system of Adventism. Hence the Signs of the Times, afterward called the Advent Herald, which was started to defend and proclaim the Advent faith, never called attention to the above error only to oppose it. As this paper was the first organ of the Advent body, how is it that it did not advocate the materialistic doctrines, if they were considered as essential parts of Adventism, or if the “main body” of Adventists at that time held to those sentiments? I need not enlarge on this point; it speaks for itself. A work entitled “Adventism,” to do justice to all, should certainly give these facts a place on its pages. “Evangelical Adventists,” therefore, stand on the original platform, and publish still the “Advent Herald,” which continues to herald the same views it has from the beginning,—definite time alone excepted. Its editor consequently may well complain of injustice in his notice of the work entitled Adventism, in which these facts are suppressed, and the majority of his readers will join in the complaint. It is said “that the views now advocated by the Herald contain little or nothing to make its supporters a separate people.” But as there has been no change in the views of the Herald since the passing of 1844, when it gave up the advocacy of the definite time of the advent, the change was as good from the commencement of 1845 till 1859 or ’60, when its first publisher ceased his connection with it, as it is now.
Again, we read concerning the supporters of the Herald, that “their faith in the cleansing of the earth by fire at the commencement of the millennium, and rejection of the doctrine of the return of the Jews, are, perhaps, the only distinctive features of this ‘Evangelical’ body of Adventists.” Was this statement true of the editor of the Voice previous to his leaving his relation with the Herald? If not, as the Herald has made no change since, what shall we think of the above statement? If the writer of this article had uttered it, it would have been with the consciousness that he was uttering a deliberate falsehood.
The personal, pre-millennial advent of Jesus Christ, now nigh, “even at the doors,” is here omitted. Why was this? The Herald proclaims this truth as boldly as ever. And it is the great distinguishing feature of Adventism, and so considered by all who are well informed on the subject. And the Herald is as clear in its utterance on this point as the Voice; for the Voice has now very quietly ceased the advocacy of definite time. But still it declares that “time” and materialism are the “points of faith which cause a separation between Adventists and the churches generally.” As the Voice no longer contends for definite time, it can claim no distinction on that ground. As the only other point of distinction which it urges, is materialism, of course it follows that its separation from the Herald, and from all Evangelical churches, is on that question alone. But the assertion that we can proclaim freely every other point in the churches is not true, and the Voice knows it, and the writer knows it by sad experience.
Again, the Voice says that Father Miller was opposed to the views of materialists, and “this was the more natural because his mind was so fully occupied with the great truth of his early mission, and he feared the introduction of such doctrine might hinder our mission, and prove a new source of weakness and division, from which we had already suffered much.” (The italics are mine.) Here it is fully conceded that the “early mission” of the Adventists was entirely separate from the life and death question; and its introduction has had the very effect which the good old man “feared” it would have. The same thing is granted by the Voice in the following quotation: “One by one the old Adventists of the original movement have adopted the views they once called ‘heresy,’ until, comparatively speaking, but few of them are left standing on the old orthodox platform of eternal misery for the lost.” Who then has departed from the original Advent position? Who are the “offshoots” from the body? The answer is apparent to all.
Once more; the editor of the Voice speaks as though the Herald believed and taught the doctrine of the “natural immortality” of man. But he was too long associated with it not to know the exact truth in the case, especially as he then coincided in sentiment with what the Herald has invariably maintained. Then why does he not tell the whole truth?
He knows we do not believe the same as many in the churches do on this question; that we maintain man can secure immortality only through Christ, and that it is to be put on at the resurrection; that wicked men do not, and never will possess that attribute; and that we hold with the orthodox church from the beginning, up to the present century, on this question. Now I insist upon it that truthful men will tell the truth. If, therefore, the editor of the Voice wishes to be credited as a truth-teller, let him speak out the facts on this point as they are. In all his quotations from Enfield, and others, concerning the views of the ancient philosophers, and their intercourse with Jews and Christians, and the effects of their philosophy upon the latter, we perceive no especial pertinency to the case in hand.
Suppose they did teach the immortality of the soul, and suppose some in the Christian church have been improperly influenced by “vain philosophy,” what has all that to do with the true faith of the Bible as held by the primitive Christians, and the great body of the martyrs and Reformers, and by the present supporters of the Herald? Plainly nothing. The ancient philosophers, and heathen religion, had among them all the great doctrines of revelation in a corrupted form, having come to them more or less through the medium of tradition. The tendency of the human mind is to mix up human reasoning with divine revelation, hence the existence of so much error in the church throughout her entire history. But, admitting and maintaining all this, how does it follow that the doctrine of the separate existence of the soul, and the eternal punishment of the wicked, is unscriptural? Heathen philosophers had many errors, and many Christians have been corrupted by them, but it seems the only error of any consequence they had, which the Voice is able to see, was the one concerning the soul’s immortality. This is the “heresy which lies at the foundation of nearly all heresies.” A statement more easily made than demonstrated, judging from the article in question.
The Voice declares that “Martin Luther and others boldly refuted the immortality of the soul and its kindred errors.” And yet he partially admits Luther’s faith in the separate and conscious existence of the soul during the intermediate state. But why does he not state the Reformer’s faith plainly as he did in his discourse preached at the dedication of the chapel in Waterbury, Vt.? And in his criticism of remarks to which he listened at a funeral in Dec., 1858, and which he gave in the Herald? He then said that to “impute to Luther and the Reformers the view of the unconsciousness of the dead, was to do ‘the mighty dead injustice.’” And then quoted from Moritz Meurer’s Life of Luther, in proof, where he speaks of his remarks about the death of his daughter Magdalena, showing that the great Reformer believed that her spirit was in conscious peace and rest. After giving the quotation he added the following:
“When Luther’s testimony against the purgatory of the Romanist, and his denial of the immortality of the soul, are quoted to prove that he held to the unconsciousness of the dead, great injustice is done him. The above utterances were made at the age of sixty years (only four years previous to his death), when his opinions were matured; and in this faith he died. The other Reformers held the same views.”
Now, after nine years, he endeavors to invalidate the above testimony. At Waterbury, he showed clearly that Luther and his associates, J. Wesley, etc., did not believe in the soul’s going immediately to Heaven at death, and receiving its reward, and neither did they believe in the soul’s unconsciousness in death, but they held that the souls of the righteous rested in Paradise until the resurrection, and then came the period of reward. This was argued from the Bible, and from the faith of the early church, and of the Reformers. Now, if Luther was correctly represented, then why does he now seek to invalidate that testimony? If
these were the sentiments of his mature life, and those in which he died, why speak about some uncertain expressions which he wrote twenty years before, as he was just emerging from papal darkness, in order to conceal the real facts in the case? To all who are well informed on this question, the professed “collection of historic facts” which the Voice gives us, will have no weight, while the grand display which has been made may have an opposite effect upon others.
No lover of truth will fear to have everything connected with his faith stated correctly and fully. There can be nothing gained in the end by efforts to conceal, or keep back historical facts relating to any Scripture doctrine. Notwithstanding the long article in the Voice, we are compelled to answer the question at its commencement in the affirmative,—most emphatically, would we call it a gross perversion.
Do we not have in the case of the editor of the Voice a striking illustration of the passage—“ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth?” When the doctrine of the advent found him he was a Unitarian Materialist; at the Evangelical Alliance in London in 1846, he was staunchly orthodox; and after the discussion in Boston between Dr. Litch and Eld. Grant, he announced in the Herald his purpose to oppose materialistic views more earnestly than he had ever done, and now we find him absorbed in the advocacy of materialistic sentiments as the only distinguishing characteristic of Adventism, his time theory having slid from under his feet! Where shall we look for him next?—C.—in Advent Herald.