S. D. Adventists and Their Critics.
By John H. Waggoner
The World’s Crisis is published by the Advent Christian Publishing Association, in Boston, Mass. This Association is composed of one branch of the people called Adventists. Another branch, under the name of American Millennial Association, publishes the Advent Herald, also in Boston. The main differences of these bodies are these: the latter believes the soul is immortal, and that the Sabbath is changed to the first day of the week. The former denies the immortality of the soul, and teaches the abolition of the ten commandments; and, consequently, that there is no Sabbath in this dispensation. These remarks are only true of the bodies, and do not apply to every individual among them; for some articles have appeared in the Herald looking toward the abolition of the commandments, while some have also appeared in the Crisis teaching that the Sabbath is not abolished. But these are inconsiderable exceptions. Another body of Advent believers publishes the ADVENT REVIEW AND HERALD OF THE SABBATH, in Battle Creek, Michigan. This body agrees with the first of the above (the Crisis) in regard to the nature of man, but disagrees with both of them in this: the REVIEW teaches that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord still, and ever binding on man. The ADVENT REVIEW has pursued a course tending to preserve friendly relations with the bodies represented by the other papers mentioned; and so far as the Advent Herald is concerned, the effort has been successful. Although the supporters of that paper believe the REVIEW is in error both in regard to the Sabbath, and to the condition of man in death, and destruction of the wicked, nothing has ever passed between the papers, or the ministers of the respective bodies, to my knowledge, inconsistent with the most liberal courtesy, and fraternal feeling. But with the Crisis it is somewhat different. I regret to say that many things have appeared in its columns, at different times, manifesting a very bitter spirit, not at all in harmony with that meekness and kindness toward others which are essential elements of Christian character. These things consist in personalities, insinuations (which are always difficult to meet because they are evasive), and misrepresentations. The latest specimen of vituperation, not by any means the only one, is found in a report of travels and labors of Hiram Munger. With Mr. Munger, personally, we have always been on the most friendly terms. We make no attack on him; but we feel compelled to defend ourselves from a violent and unjust attack made by him, published in the Crisis of Oct. 1870. That you may better understand the nature and spirit of the attack to which I refer, I copy as follows:— “Richmond. This is an old Advent church, which has been visited with two or three whirlwinds within a few years, which only confused and broke a few of the branches, while the trunk of the tree and the roots are in good soil. The second attack of the seventh-day people, or Ellen G. White’s messengers, have just closed a five weeks’ bombardment, stumping and bragging of their arguments, Goliath-like. I understand a young David, after being threatened and stumped to fight, silenced their battery in a short time, and turned the mesmeric current. If ever there was a time to take off this hypocritical wart or fungus flesh from the Advent body, it is now. I know God does not bless it. It proves a corroding curse wherever it goes. “The doctrine is pushed into communities’ Mahomet-like, and calmed down by a mesmeric anodyne, until the subjects are dead or dozy enough to submit to the rigid law of taxing, which, by the way, has awakened some from their stupor, and their eyes are fully open to the imposition and curse on a religious and Christian community. I am aware that in saying this I call down the bulls of this pretended church upon me; but let them come. If these were my last words, I would warn my brethren and the world against this delusion. We as a people have supported it thus far, and are guilty by keeping silent, as a body, so long. So long as they claim the name of Adventist, they are a cancer to this body, and the worst forms of the cancer are out of sight. Whitewash and paint cover up the internal inflammation (so all say that have had the experience in it), just as the freemasons who have had their eyes opened to that trap of the devil, and have exposed it.” “It is time to rid ourselves of these influences, and be free. What if some are honest? So much the more need of trying to liberate them from this snare, by lifting our voices against it.” A few points in the above I notice: 1. The reader would suppose, from this report, that the Seventh-day Adventists had pretty nearly broken up the “old Advent church” in Richmond. This is not the case. It was divided, or rather torn in pieces, by internal dissensions, and by trials and jealousies among the preachers; so much so that when Eld. Wellcome left that place, its identity was nearly lost. A reliable individual in that neighborhood said to me, “When I. C. Wellcome preached his farewell discourse here there were just seven persons in the house, and I was one of them.” This was in the “Reed Meeting House.” When I went there and preached the Sabbath and Third Angel’s Message, only two individuals anywise connected with the church embraced it. They who styled and considered themselves “the Advent church,” would neither hear it nor admit me into their house to preach it. 2. The silly boast of “silencing their battery,” is worth but little in the neighborhood where both sides were heard. But boasting is characteristic of many of that class, who, while they profess to be led only by “the law of Christ,” have not yet learned that “boasting is excluded” by that law. Rom. 3. But these boasts we are used to hearing, and care nothing for them. They who wish to understand the realities of the case can try for themselves. We seek no controversies and shall never run from them. 3. We are styled a “hypocritical wart or fungus flesh,” to be taken off from the advent body. Paul said of them that have a “form of godliness” and deny the power thereof, in the last days, they shall be “false accusers.” The above words contain a false accusation, and we have every reason to believe it is willful, for we have given every evidence that it is possible for any people to give that we are honestly sincere, walking out on our conscientious convictions. We believe that Mr. Munger and his co-laborers who oppose the holy law of God are deeply in error; but we do not therefore denounce them as a body of hypocrites. By what authority is such a judgment rendered? On what evidence based? We feel very free to meet our accusers before the righteous Judge of all on such an unchristian and slanderous accusation as the above. Or if this remark is of local application, designed specially for the Seventh-day Adventists of Richmond, it is then peculiarly unfortunate, as the whole community will bear witness. Among them are those against whom a word of suspicion has never been raised, except by such reckless maligners as Hiram Munger. It certainly cannot raise the Crisis in the estimation of the people of Richmond that it should contain such inexcusable slanders of some of their best citizens. They who deal in such wholesale denunciations, should be able to present a higher standard of morality and Christianity in their own lives, which the no-law Adventists have not done, either in Richmond or in the country at large. 4. He says he knows God does not bless us. How does he know it? We know he does bless us. We stand on Bible ground. “Whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” 1 John 3:22. We know it by an experience worth more to us than all the treasures of this world; one which happily sustains us in the midst of the scorn, reproach, and hatred we receive for our faith. 5. We not only believe, but know, by observation and experience, that the truth we teach proves a great blessing to all who in heart embrace it; and the “corroding curse” is found in the opposition to it. How can it prove a curse to any man or community to believe that the ten commandments are binding, and to live accordingly? Let us reason together. We can readily understand how it may prove a curse to believe and teach that the ten commandments are abolished, and to live according to that belief. Such a belief we know by observation, as we might judge by reason, tends to laxity in regard to the great principles of morality taught by those commandments. Antinomianism, which we zealously and constantly oppose, but which is one of the cardinal points of no-law Adventism, as taught by the Crisis, has ever been regarded by the eminently pious of all ages, as the greatest perversion of Christianity—the bane of society. That it is evil, and only evil, we think we can prove by abundant Scripture testimony. To us it is evidence of blindness of mind, if not of hardness of heart, to stigmatize obedience to the law of God as a curse. “Sin is the transgression of the law,” and sin is an accursed thing, and the foundation of all curses. We endeavor to keep the commandments of God, and to “teach men so.” Matt. 5:17–19; Rev. 14:9–12. What is there evil in this? The Lord be judge between us! 6. He says we push our doctrines into communities “Mahomet-like.” We would be pleased if he would point out the likeness. Will he please to do it, or retract the slander? The former he cannot do, for there is no likeness in the case; the latter we have no hope he will do until he gets converted to a spirit of Christian charity not found in his article. Mahomet went forth with the spirit of persecution, enforcing his doctrines by the sword. In this respect I invite you to institute a comparison between us and our opponents—the no-law Adventists. The REVIEW AND HERALD has now entered upon its 37th (half yearly) volume. And I affirm with confidence that during its entire publication not an article has appeared in its columns so unjust in statement, so denunciatory in style, so bitter in spirit, and evincing so strong a desire to ride down by authority, or in other words, to persecute into submission, as this article by Hiram Munger. And he is not the only one of that class that has manifested such a spirit toward us. The charge is eminently unjust and untrue. We have depended upon evidence, upon argument alone, seconded by the Spirit of God, always, and in all places. We have avoided railing accusations, even in cases wherein we knew that the characters of our opponents were assailable, that our cause might rest only on its merits. We have never menaced nor threatened. “Being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed we intreat.” In this respect there is a marked contrast between our publications and such articles as this of Mr. Munger. That his words do show the spirit of Mahomet, of real persecution, is very plain. We appeal to the honest, the candid everywhere, that if Mr. Munger understood the language he used, he knew it was unjust and false as applied to us. 7. We are unitedly and determinedly, publicly and privately, committed in our opposition to the practice of mesmerism. Will Mr. Munger affirm the same of himself and all of his fellow-laborers? 8. “Submit to the rigid law of taxing.” This is another charge entirely destitute of truth, and shows an ignorance of language, or recklessness in its use. We do teach obedience to the Scripture rule of giving—“as God hath prospered,” which we denominate “Systematic Benevolence.” The same in substance has been repeatedly urged upon the great denominations of the land, by their most devoted and energetic men. An eminent minister of Europe came to America purposely to lay the same (“Systematic Benevolence,”) before the great convention of Protestants which was expected to assemble in 1870. And we know that “first-day Adventist” ministers have expressed the wish that they could get their people to adopt the same plan! A tax is an impost levied by authority and in nowise partakes of the nature of a free-will offering. That all our offerings are free, is proved in that all our members exercise their own choice in the amount to be laid aside for the support of the gospel. We recommend a plan which is uniform in its operation, that, as the Scripture enjoins, “one be not eased and another burdened.” Is this wrong? We leave it with the Author of the injunction on which the plan is based. We act with his fear before our eyes. Those who hate the cause we advocate are envious that our brethren generally have such confidence in the Scriptures that they adopt and follow the divine plan of giving “as God hath prospered” them. But in so acting they must receive the blessing of Heaven and give the best possible evidence that the charge of hypocrisy is false. But on this point, it is due that I remark further. There is an insinuation in the words of the writer, calculated to do great injustice. It is often set forth by that class that we adopt this plan because of our love of money. We love justice, equality, and the cause of God. This charge of money-loving and money-getting, so often made by our opponents, is about as just as the charge of speculation laid against Messrs. Miller and Himes in 1843. While writing this, there fell into my hands a copy of the Morning Star, the organ of the F. W. Baptists, containing the twenty-second annual report of the Corresponding Secretary of the Systematic Benevolence Society. From this report, I quote as follows: “We are gratified also in being able to record the formation of a Systematic Benevolence Society at New Haven, Conn., last January, at a meeting of persons of various evangelical denominations. An Executive Committee was appointed to present the subject of Systematic Benevolence to the ministers and churches, and to do other necessary work. This society, so far from being denominational, has for its field the whole American church, and not merely one benevolent cause, but all. Its object, as stated in its circular, is to persuade, as far as possible, every minister and Christian in our land to adopt in his practice the principle of systematic and proportionate giving, i. e., a stated proportion of his income to aid in the world’s evangelization, both at home and abroad. * “The circular argues that the unsystematic, irregular, and impulsive giving, on which our benevolent operations are now so largely dependent, is utterly inadequate for the vast work which the church has to do. A very large increase of benevolent contributions is manifestly needed. A higher style of Christian giving must be adopted. If the members of our churches could be induced to fix upon one-tenth of their income to be devoted to objects of Christian benevolence, we should have, it is estimated, an immediate increase of not less than four-fold in the amount contributed to the support and spread of the gospel.” The report mentions the names of Dr. Barnes and other eminent men who have given their influence to this object, and it is worthy of notice that the circular of the society organized at New Haven by the various denominations, recommends the same plan and the same proportionate sum that is recommended, and quite generally adopted, by Seventh-day Adventists. More attention has been given to this subject in Europe than in America, and the report speaks of its practical working there. “As an illustration of the practical working of this system of laying aside a tenth, we quote the present year’s contribution of the mission churches in Turkey, which is reported as amounting to $15,000 in gold, making an average of over $5 per member. Comparing the wages of laborers in Turkey, (12 to 15 cts. per day,) with wages in this country, this average amount of $5 per member would correspond to an average contribution of over $50 from each one of our American church members. “Our feeble churches little understand the strength they would find imparted to them, if each member could be persuaded conscientiously to lay aside a tenth of his income as an offering to God. Instead of the piteous and almost heart-rending calls for aid which are sent to Home Mission Boards, many of them, like the very poor church where Johannes first preached that memorable sermon, would be surprised to find themselves suddenly able not only to sustain their own churches, but also to aid in the establishment of churches in new fields.” Why is it that the no-law Adventists have never raised the cry of warning nor uttered their protest through the Crisis against this work in “the various denominations?” Are they so wedded to influence and names that they overlook in large bodies that which they persistently condemn in a small one? Or are their envy and prejudices so strongly excited against us that they fear in our taking a right position we shall be blessed and prospered? On no part of our practice have we been assailed more than on this; and whatever motive they may choose to assign for their action, the facts are to their own discredit, and ready to meet them which ever way they turn. 9. He says, “We as a people have supported it thus far, and are guilty by keeping silence so long.” I quote as it appeared in the Crisis. The article is a fair specimen of the support our faith has received from them. Though I have no right to go back of the record, I will suggest that, perhaps Mr. Munger may have written “suffered it,” and “supported” may have got in by blindness of MS., or the printer’s oversight. It matters little which form of speech is used. The language throughout is evidently as strong and bitter as he could possibly make it. In connection with the above I quote another sentence as follows: “It is time to rid ourselves of these influences, and be free.” Now in all kindness and good nature I ask, What are you going to do about it? We have never attached ourselves to your body, nor attempted, nor desired to do so. We have asked no favors at your hands save this: that you will do us justice and not misrepresent us. Again I ask, What are you going to do about it? This question will be better appreciated if I quote once more from the article. 10. “So long as they claim the name of Adventists, they are a cancer to this body.” Surely, “this body” must be in a bad condition! A “cancer,” a body of “fungus flesh,” a “hypocritical wart,” which it is troubled to get rid of. Our offending, according to this, is two-fold. 1. We earnestly preach just what we believe the Bible teaches. 2. We call ourselves Adventists. And our kind-hearted friends of the “Crisis party” have too long suffered us to do so!!! Is it then so, that we are to be permitted to do so no longer? How shall this terrible evil of our being true to God and our own consciences be remedied? We have a very strong, yes a growing, inclination to continue preaching just as we have aforetime. But Mr. Munger proposes that we be suffered to do so no longer. Who is “Mahomet-like” now? Is there not a fulfillment of prophecy in this? Please read Rev. 12:17. Is it not becoming more and more evident that we are in the last days? But again, we must not be suffered to injure them by calling ourselves Adventists. Just how they propose to prevent it we are not informed; and we strongly suspect the effort will fail. We have a very strong reason to offer for calling ourselves Adventists. It is this: We are Adventists! We claim the name as especially belonging to us. The Seventh-day Adventists were the first to adopt the name of “Adventists,” as a denominational designation. It was adopted by the “no-law” body some time afterward, and not without strong opposition among themselves. It is a singular freak of Christian modesty in them to now come forward and dispute our right to the name. If they wish to bear a name altogether differing from ours, they are welcome to carry out the plan that some of them have entertained; they may drop the title of Adventists. But we shall not. Reader, thus far I have noticed the different points in the article to show the spirit manifested by the no-law Adventists toward us. But to notice these points is not the object of my writing, only so far as these all tend toward the main point; viz., to inquire who are entitled to the name of Adventists. Our idea of the true Adventist is this: one who believes, on Bible evidence, that the Lord is coming soon, and is earnestly preparing for that work. Many among the no-law Adventists have very little idea of the subject of the Lord’s coming. Many of their preachers seldom27preach on the evidences of the Advent. With them one passes for an Adventist if he denies the immortality of the soul, and opposes the Sabbath! The views preached by their ministers as a body, are so various, so diverse, so contradictory, that it is impossible to frame anything like a system out of the conglomerate mass. Their National Conference at Rochester, attempted to systematize their faith, but without success. They teach that the time of the advent may be known, and it cannot be known. The signs of the Lord’s coming have been fulfilled, and they have not been fulfilled. The one thousand years of Rev. 20 are in the past, and they are in the future. The wicked dead will be raised, and they will not be raised. The righteous dead will be raised mortal; and they will be raised immortal. The beast of Revelation is Napoleon III., and it is the Catholic power; and this is but a sample of the confusion among them. On the termination of the prophetic periods, they have had a new theory for every few years, each one as true as the Bible, as fixed as the multiplication table, and certain to prove the truth of their position—till it is exploded! Claiming that the watchmen shall see eye to eye, and each one running with a message peculiarly his own. These three things; viz., the confusion, and want of union among them, both in doctrine and spirit; antinomianism, or opposition to the ten commandments; and setting so many times for the Lord’s coming, have brought more reproach upon the cause and name of Adventism, than all other causes combined.