S. D. Adventists and Their Critics by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 21, 1871

S. D. Adventists and Their Critics.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Concluded.)

MARK OF THE BEAST—CONTINUED.

But let us examine the first “law,” “constitution,” or “public authority,” for Sunday-keeping. Campbell says it was given by Constantine. Dr. Heylyn says no such law existed for a hundred years after Tertullian’s time, who died in A. D. 216. Therefore it is evident that Dr. Heylyn referred to this same law of Constantine, which was made in 321, and was as follows:

“Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven.”

All authorities point to this as the first law for resting on first-day; but notice that this was limited to the town’s people, and it was then only regarded as the venerable day of the sun—sun’s day, or Sunday—not as a Christian institution, or as the Sabbath. To take this heathen festival of the sun and make a Sabbath or Christian festival of it, was an after work, accomplished by the church of Rome, or beast power. And I would invite Eld. Wellcome, or any other who pretends to take the mask off from our position, to examine this subject till he at least knows what our position is—till he discerns between a heathen festival and a church ordinance. We have evidence that the sixth and first days were early regarded as peculiar days, because of the crucifixion and the resurrection; but neither of them was regarded as the Sabbath. Constantine’s decree attached no peculiarity of the Sabbath to first-day, or day of the sun; it did not affect to degrade the Sabbath and exalt the first day to its place. This was the work of the Romish Church. And this is what constitutes the Sunday a rival, or counterfeit, of the Lord’s Sabbath, or sign. This is what must make it the mark of the beast. Any other festival or canon of the Catholic Church cannot be that mark or sign; because no other stands as a rival to the Lord’s sign; and this rivalry or counterfeit character did not exist till after the rise of papacy, and only by its authority. Surely the subject is plain enough for any who wish to have any position on it.

There is one more feature of the prophecy to which I wish to call your attention. The mark of the beast is first presented in its enforcement by the two-horned beast, of Rev. 13. Verse 12 says he “causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.” They that dwell in the earth may follow the papal power in many respects. But how is it that the earth itself is caused to worship the beast? Evidently in that it must not be tilled or cultivated on the Romish festival of Sunday. In this and this only is the prophecy fulfilled. Let this fact be carefully noted, and duly weighed in this connection.

Now I have presented to you evidence.

That the Third Angel’s Message of Rev. 14:9–12, is present truth;
That the special danger just before the Lord comes is in having the mark of the beast;
That the present test duty is the commandments of God, in order that God’s sign or seal may be upon us;
That the sign or seal of the living God, the creator of Heaven and earth, is his Sabbath;
That the Sunday-sabbath is a creature of the papal power, and offered by it as a sign of its power;
And that it is a counterfeit of God’s sign, and is the mark or sign of the beast referred to in the Third Angel’s Message.

Here is a plain, direct chain of testimony, leading to a plain conclusion and solution of this important subject. You object to it. Will you be so kind as to give us a better? Will you take the same facts of Revelation, in which every Adventist who examines them must feel interested, and tell us what they mean, and to what conclusion they tend? In the fear of God we have examined this subject; with the near coming of the Lord before our eyes we have adopted our faith; and if we are wrong, pray help us. But remember that to close your eyes against the facts, the reasons, the arguments, which we present, and cry, “Fanaticism,” will never give you the truth, nor correct our errors, if we are in error.

They who so persistently denounce others as hypocrites, ought to be able to present a clear record on their own part. As we are constantly assailed in the most unmeasured terms by the writers and preachers connected with the World’s Crisis, we think it no more than simple justice to give a short chapter in their own history, from which the reader can judge whether the cry of hypocrites is raised because they occupy a moral position higher than ours, or whether it arises from prejudice and ill-will and a want of the spirit and principles of Christianity.

In the Crisis of Feb. 14, 1866, appeared the following remarks by Eld. T. M. Preble:—

“My discussion with Eld. M. E. Cornell on the Sabbath question, has led me to delay the publication of my book on this subject, until I could enjoy the benefit of the criticism of the opposition against my views, as would be brought out in that debate in P., and also by the report as given by the opposition through their paper. As this report was concluded last week, I am now prepared to say that my opponents have failed to meet my arguments in favor of a change of days for the Sabbath, from the seventh to the first day of the week.

“I am highly pleased with the results of this discussion. Those who heard it, and have read the report as given in the opposition paper, will be compelled, we think, to say that the description of the debate as given through their paper is not the fairest thing in the world. But all things, thus far, only encourage me to publish my promised work on the Sabbath question, as soon as circumstances will admit.

CHALLENGE.

“In the REVIEW AND HERALD, of Jan. 30, 1866, in referring to J. N. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath, the writer says:

“‘The door is now open for them to test this matter, if they dare step in and risk their cause in fair, open encounter.’

“To this challenge I reply that I am ready, and ‘dare step in and risk’ an ‘open encounter’ with any man in their ranks qualified to defend ‘their cause,’ in testing the merits of J. N. Andrews’ History, or any other point connected with their theory of the seventh-day Sabbath, either in oral or written discussion, as soon as arrangements can be agreed upon.

“Will they ‘dare’ do it? Will they ‘risk their cause’ in this manner? We shall see. They may try to shield themselves from this issue, by saying they will not debate this question with me, unless the World’s Crisis will also publish the discussion. But I am disposed to ‘dare’ them to ‘risk their cause’ in an ‘open encounter’ through the columns of this paper. But it is quite doubtful whether they will ‘dare’ to run such a ‘risk’ as this. But we shall see what we shall see.” “T. M. PREBLE. “East Weare, N. H., Feb. 5, 1866.”

Immediately upon the receipt of this challenge, steps were taken to have it promptly met, and the following response appeared in the REVIEW AND HERALD of Feb. 27, 1866:—

“Acting for the other members of the Gen. Conf. Committee, we would designate Eld. J. N. Andrews, as the one to conduct this discussion in behalf of Seventh-day Adventists. And he is hereby instructed to make such arrangements with Eld. P. and the Crisis, as shall bring the matter to an early issue. “U. SMITH, “G. W. AMADON, “J. M. ALDRICH.”

On receipt of this notice of the committee, Eld. Andrews addressed the following letter of acceptance to the editor of the Crisis:

“Brother Grant: I accept the proposition of Eld. T. M. Preble, in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question through the columns of the Crisis and of the ADVENT REVIEW. He proposes to discuss the merits of J. N. Andrews’ History, or any other point connected with their theory of the seventh-day Sabbath. In accordance with this offer, I name two points for discussion:

“1. The Biblical argument for the observance of the seventh day. “2. The historical argument relating to the seventh and first days of the week, and involving the merits of J. N. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath.

“Upon the publication of this acceptance in the Crisis, I will open the discussion of the first point. J. N. ANDREWS. “Norridgewock, Me., March 5, 1866.”

The challenge of Eld. Preble was made in such a bold, defiant manner, that we could not doubt but that a discussion would result. But instead, the following note from the editor of the Crisis was received by Eld. Andrews:—

“Boston, Mass., March 15, 1866. “Brother Andrews: Your note of the 5th inst. was put into my hands to-day. “Our regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis. I have sent your proposition to Bro. Preble. Your brother in Christ. “MILES GRANT.”

To this, Eld. Andrews returned the following answer:—

“Norridgewock, Me., March 19, 1866. “Brother Grant: Yours of the 15th inst. has just come to hand. I learn with surprise and regret that your ‘regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis.’ Your regulations did allow the publication of a challenge in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question, ‘through the columns’ of that paper. The proposition was clothed in very defiant language; and being admitted into the Crisis by its editor, it did necessarily open that paper to the discussion of this subject. In accepting Eld. P.’s proposition, thus indorsed by yourself, I did not act upon my own responsibility. I was duly designated by those who have charge of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, to conduct this discussion on behalf of the observers of the seventh day. In shutting the columns of the Crisis without one word of explanation, you certainly do us great injustice. I think it would have been no more than just, that you should have inserted my brief letter of acceptance, accompanied by such remarks as you deemed proper. My regret would have been no less that the discussion could not be had; but I should have felt that you had not been guilty of injustice. We stand before the world ‘dared’ to risk an encounter through the columns of the Crisis, and yet not allowed even to accept such a challenge through its columns.

“You say you have sent my letter to Eld. P. With Eld. P. privately, I have nothing to do. An oral discussion is of very little consequence. I have other and more important duties to perform. But a written discussion that should bring the subject before the whole body of Adventists, I would deem really important. In good faith I accepted the proposition for such a discussion. If this cannot take place, the fault is certainly not on the side of Seventh-day Adventists. Will you not do us the justice to make a fair statement of the fact that we did accept the proposition of Eld. P., for a discussion through the columns of the Crisis, and of the ADVENT REVIEW? “Yours in Christ, “J. N. ANDREWS.”

No notice whatever was taken of this just and candid appeal; but ministers of that party continue to boast of their victories over these ignorant Seventh-day Adventists! Witness this article of Hiram Munger.

But it is not with individuals we have to do in this matter. The World’s Crisis is the organ of that body. Those who devise and carry out its “regulations,” are guilty of spreading abroad and perpetuating the false report that we dare not meet them in open discussion. We appeal to the candid everywhere. Does it become such a people to persistently brand us as a body of hypocrites? Could they present facts like these against us, we would bow our heads to the charge, and remain silent.

Again I say, We have made no assault upon them. Whatever we have said is strictly in self-defense. It is quite contrary to our feelings to enter into controversies of a personal nature. We prefer to rest our cause on the merits of its own just principles, and labor to extend a knowledge of the truth of God’s word, and so prepare ourselves and others for the coming of the Lord.

When we deviate from this course, it shall be only to repel the unjust attacks of those who first boast of their own strength, and then, hiding behind their “regulations,” deal in calumny and vituperation, instead of openly meeting our arguments.