Non-Resurrectionism by J. H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 20, 1872

Non-Resurrectionism.

By J. H. Waggoner

I was informed recently that there was some wonder why I had not noticed the strictures in the Herald of Life on my little book entitled “Resurrection of the Unjust.” One reason is, that, having published my views I was willing to rest the question with the readers. And I am pleased with the assurance gathered from many sources, that the little book has been doing a good work. Many who were perplexed by the sophistry of the Non-Resurrectionists have been saved from that error; and some have been converted from it. I had the pleasure of forming an acquaintance with a minister, not long since, who had imbibed that view, and who had renounced it on reading that book, affirming that there was no ground left to stand upon. Knowing these things, I was not anxious to keep up a war of words.

Another reason is, I do not know what they have said or written on the subject. When I was at the camp-meeting in Springfield, Mass., in 1869, a friend from New York city, and prominent believer of that faith, offered to send the Herald of Life to me if I would read it. I expressed my desire to read, and my thanks for the offer, and the paper was sent to my address. But very soon after the publication of my little work, the Herald ceased to come; and since that time I have seen but a few numbers.

But I have thought it duty to notice one thing, which is the object of this present writing. I was informed by a friend from Massachusetts that J. C. Day had said that he had reviewed some of my positions but I did not notice it. Perhaps he has; I cannot deny it; nor do I know it. But this only I do know.

A letter was received from J. C. Day, accusing me of garbling and perverting the words of Geo. Storrs. To this I answered as follows, immediately upon receiving it:

“Battle Creek, Mich., March 2, 1870.

“Bro. J. C. Day—Dear Sir: I have just arrived here after an absence of several weeks, and Bro. Andrews has handed me your letter of Feb. 17, to him. I see that you have become somewhat excited over my little book, which is the only excuse for most that you have written. But to one thing I must call your attention. You say,

“ ‘I think he has fallen into the same error for which he complains of T. M. Preble in Eld. Haines’ paper, that is, so garbling the arguments of different writers as to keep the argument entirely out of sight, and make them teach what they never thought of teaching.’ ”

“Whether I succeeded in proving that T. M. Preble has garbled the writings of others, the readers can judge, as they have my reasons on that point. All that has nothing to do with this matter.

“But you give no reason whatever for your accusation against me. If you have any I wish to know it. Therefore I request you, 1. To point out the place or places in my work where I have so garbled the words of any writer as to falsify, or corrupt, or obscure, his meaning. 2. To point out what the writer did mean in each case where his meaning is different from that which I have imputed to him.

“I do not expect that all who oppose my work shall reason correctly or draw conclusions logically. But in matters of fact I have a right to insist that justice be done to me. I hope to hear from you soon.

“Yours very truly,

“J. H. WAGGONER.”

And there, so far as I know, the matter rested. If Mr. Day or any other one has shown, or can show, a single point wherein I misconstrued or perverted the language of any of their writers, I would be pleased to see it. I have the opinion, given to me by one who has quite extensively preached that doctrine, that I proved the points I took against Eld. Storrs’s book.

It would be a pleasure to us all to be informed what is Eld. Storrs’s present opinion of his own book on the non-resurrection of the wicked. He is decidedly progressive; but we do not know how far he has progressed. Having become a Restorationist, or very nearly a Universalist, would it not be well for him to declare openly what are his views of the resurrection?

Some men seem to be much in need of a balance wheel in their brain machinery. J. Blain, who has made “Destruction” his sole hobby for several years, has now discovered that it does not necessarily mean utter, or entire, or final destruction, but a kind of modified destruction which admits of their restoration and final salvation. He and Geo. Storrs are yet in company; but what next? J. H. W.