Which Is Fair? by J. H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 3, 1874

Which Is Fair?

By J. H. Waggoner

A SERIES of articles is now passing through the World's Crisis, on the subject of the Sabbath, over the initials of the under-editor, “M. G.,” which I have been requested to review. I wish to state my reasons for declining to do so.

1. The numbers which have appeared contain no new arguments, and rest entirely on the assumption that the ten commandments are the old covenant which is done away. From our knowledge of the writer and his past efforts, we have reason to believe that no new arguments will be brought forward.

2. The assumption on which he rests has been so often refuted in the REVIEW and the truth on that subject so often stated therein, that its readers do not need light on that subject more than is often presented in general articles.

3. The readers of the Crisis could not be benefited by a review, as they would never learn that the articles were reviewed. And here we call special attention to the difference between our treatment of their arguments and their treatment of ours. When anything appears in their works which seems to be worthy of a reply, our writers take it up, state the strongest points presented as forcibly as they present them, and frequently in their own language, and candidly review it. But, to the contrary, their writings never contain statements of our arguments; they pass by our strongest points in silence, and their readers are led to believe that the Seventh-day Adventists are a foolish people who have no evidence of the truthfulness of their faith. Such a course cannot always prosper. The blind will not always be suffered to lead people in blindness.

4. The same course has been pursued by the advocates of the Age to Come. No position with any degree of plausibility has ever been taken by their strongest writers which has not been candidly refuted by us. But year after year passes and their readers are never suffered to know that we have written anything on the subject. We honestly think that their view of the future priesthood of Christ, the corner-stone of their theory was completely overthrown years ago. Since our views on that subject have been published, in which their positions have been fully and fairly stated, Elds. Stephenson and Reed have each written a pamphlet on that subject, and both followed their old beaten track, paying no attention to our exposures of their fallacies, or trying to meet our arguments. So far as we have known, their periodicals have never noticed the fact that Seventh-day Adventists have publicly opposed their views.

5. But more than all others the conductors of the World's Crisis have shown great fears that their readers would become acquainted with the reasons of our faith, or even of their existence. When the present under-editor, “M. G.,” was sole editor of the Crisis there was published therein a challenge for a discussion of the Sabbath question through that paper. When that was accepted he not only refused to admit the discussion into the Crisis, but persistently refused to let his readers know that the challenge was accepted! Years passed by and they were led to suppose that we did not dare to accept the challenge. When “M. G.” was fairly exposed in the presence of his friends he was obliged to promise to correct the wrong he had done; but in an “apology,” he gave a false version of the facts, leaving the wrong as great as before. Such a course is entirely consistent with that kind of “holiness,” which he has mounted as a hobby, but with that holiness which is the outgrowth of obedience to God’s holy commandments, which requires love to God and to man and leads us to do to others as we would that they should do to us, such a course is not to be tolerated.

6. Our love for the truth of God, and our duty to defend it, when necessary, would lead us to overlook the dishonorable course of the writer of these articles and to give them a candid review, were it possible to even acquaint his readers with the fact that they had been reviewed. But as such facts are studiously concealed from them, we can see no profit in a review.

J. H. WAGGONER.