The California Christian Advocate’s Attack
By Editor
It has ever been a pleasure to us to keep on the most friendly terms with our cotemporaries, especially of the religious press. If any of them have so far lost sight of their duties or of the dignity which becomes their position, as has been the case in a few instances, to treat us ill, we have not returned such treatment to them, but have been uniformly courteous, even to those who did not seem to be able to appreciate it. We regret that it is true that the California Christian Advocate, the organ of the Methodist Episcopal Church on this coast, has been the most faulty in this respect, admitting to its columns statements concerning the Seventh-day Adventists uncourteous and unfounded in fact; manifesting anything but the spirit of that Christianity which it so largely professes. A recent number of that paper says:— "Seventh-day Adventism, it is believed, is about as materialistic and superficial a form of error as has crept into the church since the days of the apostles. The propagators of that ism would compass sea and land to make proselytes. They creep into men's houses to lead astray the silly. Their perverts, when made, are left in utter destitution of the aids which are necessary in securing growth in grace and in spirituality." The above are only a part of the unjust and bitter words which it uses in reference to us. And it proceeds to inform its readers that they can procure a little book which will give them all the information they need upon the Sabbath question, to be used "as an antidote for the poison which is administered in large doses by numerous quacks in many sections of the country." 1. Dr. Benson, the former editor of the Advocate, put forth the same charge in his book, that our churches were left without aids to Christian work and Christian growth. Our reply to him is our reply to Dr. Crary also:— "People in California are well aware that the Seventh-day Adventists are thoroughly organized, having a Conference in this State, and other State Conferences, and a General Conference; also General and State Missionary Societies; the General Conference having the oversight of foreign missions. Our churches are regularly organized, with local elders, deacons, and clerks, maintaining their Sabbath-schools and temperance organizations. Our Conferences have Executive Committees, who take oversight of the work during the year within their respective bounds. Our ordained ministers are all evangelists, not being located, except a few who act as editors of our periodicals. While the ministers visit the churches to look after their welfare, the churches are taught to be working bodies, and not to look to the preacher as the sole source of their life and strength. Our houses of worship are not closed in the absence of a preacher, as is generally the case in other denominations. We do not intend to have them preached to death, as the editor of the Louisville Recorder says is largely the case in these days. Rejoicing in the precious truth which they have received, and the 'blessed hope' (Titus 2:11-14) which they have imbibed, they willingly forego the pleasure of having settled pastors, outside of their local elders, that the truth may be carried to others who are yet in darkness. We are certain that no other body of Christians of equal numbers do so much missionary work, or afford so much Bible instruction in their Sabbath-schools. If there is any body of Christians in the land to whom the doctor's querulous remarks will not apply, it is the Seventh-day Adventists." We would remind the editor of the Advocate that a Sunday attendance, where fashion and folly go out to present themselves, to listen to popular essays misnamed sermons, and to operatic music, is no indication of the strength and vitality of a church. These are shown at the weekly prayer-meeting, in missionary work, in every-day, self-denying, Christian life. 2. Two little books have been advertised and recommended by the Advocate, both of them opposed to the Sabbath of the Lord God, both of them decidedly antinomian in their tendency, both striking at the very life of the fourth commandment. One by Dr. Benson, which we reviewed at the time of its publication, the review running through eight numbers of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A correspondent from Missouri requested us to publish the review in a pamphlet for general circulation, as furnishing a complete reply to Dr. Benson's many assumptions. But we refused to do it, on the ground that his book was not worthy of so much labor and expense, as it was not likely to exert any great influence. We think so still. But if we could be brought to believe that his work was considered by Methodists generally as conclusive as the editor of the Advocate affects to consider it, we would publish the review in a pamphlet. In view of its leaning toward antinomianism, we have been surprised to see that book indorsed by Dr. Briggs. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that Dr. Briggs would willingly lend his influence to antinomian teaching, though we know that the tendency of the denomination is in that direction, much as it is opposed to the Methodist Standards. We do not affirm that it was indorsed by him, but the book states that it "was read before the San Francisco Preachers' Meeting, Dr. M. C. Briggs presiding." It is quite possible that, in the reading of it before the meeting, where it was desired to have Dr. Benson's conclusions proved to be true, the antinomianism of the method was not noticed. But no one can read it with care and not perceive it. We would like to see how any one could defend Dr. Benson's book and prove that the fourth commandment is binding at the same time. Our review was published about the time that Dr. Benson was superseded on the Advocate by Dr. Crary. Perhaps the latter never read it or saw it. If he did he cannot deny that it was shown that the pretended arguments of Dr. B. were shown to be no arguments at all; nothing more than groundless assertions. Or, if he denies it, we would be pleased to see him attempt to turn aside the force of our reasonings therein. He would find that he had a more difficult task to perform than that of saying unkind things. These can be uttered without a reason, as the editor of the Advocate has fully demonstrated. He would then learn that to meet a well-founded Scripture argument is quite different from passionately appealing to blind prejudice. The other little book which was recommended by the Advocate was written by a Mr. Armstrong of the Genessee Conference. His strongest effort was put forth to show that the Sabbath of Ex. 16 was a new institution, made when the manna first fell, and given to and for the Jews alone. Dr. Benson took the same position. No theory can be more inconsistent with the plain declarations of the Scriptures than this. But Mr. Armstrong assumed to give this all the force of a demonstration of an argument based on the reading of the Hebrew text. We have known others to take the same position, but none to make such reckless statements as Mr. Armstrong did. His work was indorsed in an Introduction by a Doctor of Divinity, and published by the Methodist Book Houses, and, as before stated, recommended by the California Advocate. This part of Mr. Armstrong's book we reviewed at some length, as this was the ground work on which he based all the rest. On this we made the following points:— - His arguments contradicted the facts occurring at the time covered by Ex. 16 and subsequent chapters, as well as those referred to in the fourth commandment.
- His conclusions on the reading of the Hebrew are in conflict with all Hebrew Grammarians.
- He misrepresented the Hebrew text both in Ex. 16 and 20, in order to make it appear that he was correct in his argument against the Sabbath commanded to Israel.
- He was contradicted in his conclusions by such authorities as Dr. Clarke and Dr. Scott.
We then appealed to the Methodists, and to the editor of the Advocate specially, because we supposed he was a competent scholar and would feel an honest interest in the issue, to point out the error or errors which our strictures contained, if they contained any. We appealed to them for the honor of their large and influential denomination, to defend the book they were publishing and recommending from these serious charges, or to withdraw it from the market. No defense was ever attempted. We know that they cannot defend it. It bears every appearance of a rank deception on the part of the writer. For, (1) If he was ignorant of Hebrew it was a deception to profess to understand it, and so impose grave errors upon his readers. (2) If he was not ignorant he could but know that he was misrepresenting the original when he stated that a certain substantive in a certain verse has not the article while in fact it has the article; it was a deception practiced upon his readers to draw a conclusion in his argument from this false statement, because he knew that comparatively few of them had the ability to detect his erroneous reading of the Hebrew. No excuse can be framed for this course of Mr. Armstrong. We have queried, To which of these little books does the editor of the Advocate now refer? That paper has indorsed them both. We have convicted them both of serious errors. Both of them strike at the very life of the fourth commandment, and through that at the Decalogue itself. See James 2:9-11. Are the public to understand that in these flings at the Seventh-day Adventists the editor of the Advocate has done the best he could under the circumstances? We remember the story of a boy who, when beaten in a combat, comforted himself with the remark that if he could not whip his antagonist he could make faces at him. In his dilemma the editor may find it quite comforting to "make faces" at the Seventh-day Adventists; but there are thousands of intelligent and conscientious readers in the land who will inquire why he pursues such a course—why he condescends to throw mud if he has any more substantial missiles at hand. All who have observed his course will bear him witness that if he has not brought more effective weapons to bear against our position it is not for lack of a disposition; it is because he has no better than he has used at command. Our literature is being circulated very extensively. The reading public—all who are divested of party prejudice—are willing to accord to us, not only honesty of purpose, but, a Scripture foundation which enables us "to give an answer to every man that asketh" us "a reason of the hope that is in" us. 1 Peter 3:15. It has been well said that "They who have the truth can afford to be fair." We thank God that, in proclaiming and defending the warning message which contains "the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus," Rev. 14:9-12, we are not left to the necessity of slurring those who exercise their privilege of differing from us, or treating them with discourtesy when we are called upon to meet their arguments. It is our desire and determination to "live peaceably with all men." We have no personal grievance to state; no personal feelings to gratify. We speak for the honor of the truth of God's word, and for the benefit of those who are in danger of being misled by strong expressions which, because they are set in strong terms, they may suppose have a foundation in fact.