p. 44 | Our Opponents

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 25, 1871

Our Opponents.

Ever since the utterance of that first untruth of Satan—“Thou shalt not surely die”—the spirit of error has been in the world, warring with the spirit of truth. And until the great controversy between truth and error shall close, when Satan, fallen angels, and wicked men, shall be blotted out of the universe, will opponents to the truth arise, of every grade and stripe. While Satan and his angels live, and have power over unsanctified minds, opposition, which will sometimes ripen into persecution, will be manifested against the truth of God.

There can be no union between truth and error. All attempts at compromise, so that the controversy between truth and error shall cease, will result in a disgraceful lowering of the standard of truth, and injury to the cause of Christ. Paul’s appeal to the church at Corinth is very much to the point: “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [the word thing is supplied], and I will receive you, and be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” 2 Cor. 6: 14–18. These good words of the apostle need no extended comment. There need be no doubt as to their import. They are not an appeal for union at the sacrifice of solemn convictions of truth. But they are virtually a most scathing rebuke of the popular idea of a general union of all Christians on the ground that “it makes no difference what we believe, if we are only honest.”

The controversy between truth and error commenced with Cain and Abel, which, in that instance, resulted in the death of Abel. He was God’s first noble martyr. Abel doubtless could have compromised the matter. He could have formed a union on a basis acceptable to Cain, and saved his life. Cain in his infidelity brought of the fruit of the ground as an offering to God. But righteous Abel, in faith of the great Sacrifice for sin in the person of the Redeemer to come, brought of the firstlings of his flock. God accepted Abel’s offering, and rejected Cain’s. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.” Heb. 11: 4. Abel could not compromise the truth; but for its honor could die a martyr. Cain, stirred to madness by the truth of God firmly held by his brother, raised his murderous hand and slew Abel. “And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” 1 John 3:12.

And all the way along down the ages of the patriarchs and prophets the truth of God had many opponents, and a few valiant witnesses who suffered for the pure testimony they gave. After mentioning Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, the apostle adds, “And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah, of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets, who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again; and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection. And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheep-skins, and goat-skins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented (of whom the world was not worthy); they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” Heb. 11: 32–40.

Those who have been valiant for the truth since the point of time to which sacred history reached, have suffered from their opponents as did those who lived before them. Millions of worthy martyrs, long since moldered back to dust, felt the ire of bitter opponents to the truth to which they bore cheerful and faithful witness. And when every other argument failed to turn men away from their honest convictions of truth and duty, instruments of torture and death were employed as the strongest and the closing argument. To speak ironically, Of what infinite value it would have been to the poor martyrs could they have had the advantages of the modern position of those who wish to dodge the truth of God, that “it makes no difference what we believe, if we are only honest.” These might have saved their necks, and lived popular Christians to a good old age. But no; these martyrs regarded pure truth of more value to them than life. They bore fearless testimony to the truth, and sealed it with their precious blood.

In our hearts we bless Luther, Calvin, Whitefield, the Wesleys, and other men of God of their stamp, for bravely standing in defense of Bible truth, so far as in the providence of God it was opened to them. In their battles for truth, and in their struggles to bring the church up to a living, active faith, what would they have done with the conscience-soothing, and soul-damning declaration, that “it makes no difference what we believe, if we are only honest”? They would have trampled it in the dust. The adoption of such a heretical sentiment would have taken from them their strength, as Samson was shorn of his.

The voices of the prophets are heard in bold appeals to the servants of God as follows: “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.” Isa. 58: 1.

And when we come to the New Testament, we read this remarkable statement of Christ: “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division; for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” Luke 12: 51–53. Our Lord is here stating the inevitable results of proclaiming the pure truths of his gospel. Adopt the idea that “it makes no difference what we believe, if we are only honest,” and we at once have a plan upon which to work, and avoid the unhappy divisions mentioned in the above quotation.

Says Paul, “I am set for the defense of the gospel.” Phil. 1:17. What did his position and work cost him? He answers: “Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren.” 2 Cor. 11: 24–26.

What a pity this eminent scholar and devoted minister could not have had the benefit of the wise (?) saying of some popular Christian of our favored times, that “it makes no difference what we believe, if we are only honest,” and saved himself from so much unnecessary persecution which must have crippled his influence.

And then, the beloved John, had he lived in our time, to enjoy all the improvements of modern Christians, how his mild spirit would have exulted in the popular saying, “It makes no difference what we believe, if we are only honest.” But it was his misfortune (?) to live in an age when truth was prized above union, and we hear him speak in harmony with old Scripture style, “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.” 3 John 4.

Be not deceived, dear reader, God is the same in every age. The devil is the same, only that the experience of six thousand years, and the fact that he knows that his time is short, qualifies him, and nerves him for more desperate and successful action. And the battle for truth is the same now as fought by patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and reformers, only as we pass the perils of the last days, and near the last effort of Satan, his angels, and wicked men, to deceive and lead from the truth of God, the heat of the battle will become more intense.

But just how to meet bitter, subtle, and wiry opponents is a matter that should be carefully studied by all who teach unpopular truth. Here we would make a few suggestions.

1. We may always expect opponents, and should do all in our power to be ready to properly meet them. This preparation embraces a knowledge of the truth taught, knowledge of human nature, and the wiles of the devil, knowledge and command of one’s self, and a deep and full experimental knowledge of the things of the Holy Spirit. Those who make these things their close study will succeed.

2. It may be duty at times to hold set discussions, and to meet opponents in public, and in a more private way, in sharp debate. But the spirit of debate and contention for the mastery is generally deplorable.

3. We should always be very careful to treat candid, intelligent opponents with that Christian courtesy and liberality of feeling, of which they are worthy. Such men will feel the force of argument, and great care should be used that words do not wound them, and destroy the force of argument.

4. But there is a class of opponents who appear to be destitute of principle, whose main object is to create prejudice in the minds of the people. These may fail in argument, yet will never yield the point. They are set to oppose us at all hazards. They will, of course, use the best arguments they have. And when Bible arguments fail them, they next resort to misrepresentations of our views and general course in order to prejudice the people and close their ears and hearts against our appeals. With this class of opponents we should have as little to do as possible. It may be duty, however, when they become very bold in misrepresentation, to expose them, and let them feel, if feel they can, the shame of their conduct.

The World’s Crisis for July 5, 1871, has an editorial headed “San Francisco,” in which the editor does Seventh-day Adventists great injustice. He first gives the notice, from the San Francisco Daily Chronicle, of the tent meeting held in that city by Elders Loughborough and Cornell. The notice came from an unprejudiced pen, therefore, candid. It follows:—

“ANOTHER SERIES OF TENT MEETINGS.

“A sect styling themselves Second Adventists have determined to hold a series of meetings under canvas, with the view of advancing their peculiar theory of religion. A commodious tent has been erected on a vacant lot on the south side of Market street, between Fifth and Sixth, in which place their doctrines, setting forth the theme of man’s nature and destiny, and the tendency of modern spiritualism, will be expounded. Elders J. N. Loughborough and M. E. Cornell of Michigan, as well as other well-known Second Advent preachers, will address the meetings, which will commence this evening at 7:45 o’clock, and will continue every evening, and the usual Sunday services, for several weeks.”

The notice of this tent meeting held by Seventh-day Adventists, in the field of his recent labors, we may safely conclude, disturbed Eld. Grant. If he feared that the people he represents might be confounded, in the minds of his friends in California, with Seventh-day Adventists, he could have made a fair statement of the facts in the case without any attempt whatever to misrepresent the Seventh-day Adventists. But his effort reaches beyond this. We are grieved that a religious editor, who holds in common with us very many points of important, unpopular Bible truth, should stoop to the gross misrepresentation in the following words. Eld. Grant says:

“It will be noticed that these meetings are to be conducted by those who hold that Saturday—the Jewish Sabbath—should be observed now as a rest-day; and that those who keep the first day of the week as a Sabbath, have taken upon them ‘the mark of the beast,’ referred to in Rev. 14: 9–11. If this position were correct, then all Christians, who do not keep Saturday for a Sabbath, ‘shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.’”

We do not deny that we observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord our God. But we do deny that we observe a “Jewish Sabbath” any more than we worship a Jewish god. We reject the terms “Jewish Sabbath” and “Christian Sabbath,” as being not only out of the line of Scripture phraseology, but as conveying untruthful ideas. We are content with the Scripture terms, “the Sabbath,” or “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” without any false or odious qualifying word.

In reply to the statement that we hold “that those who keep the first day of the week as a Sabbath, have taken upon them the mark of the beast,” and that “all Christians who do not keep Saturday for the Sabbath shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God,” we have to say,

1. That the statement is false. This is evident from the following facts: (1.) The third message is a warning to men not to receive the mark of the beast. Seventh-day Adventists are giving that warning. And the editor of the World’s Crisis is presuming marvelously upon the credulity of his readers in supposing that he can make them believe that such men as Andrews, Waggoner, Loughborough, Cornell, Cottrell, Littlejohn, Butler, Canright, Ingraham and Van Horn, are guilty of such stupid inconsistency as to devote their lives to a proclamation that warns the people not to receive what they already have! (2.) Our works show that we believe no such thing. We are earnestly and tenderly teaching the people of every denomination of Sunday-keepers, and warning them of coming danger. We have a world-wide message of merciful warning which gathers disciples from all the various churches of Sunday-keepers, and from the world. (3.) The people have not received Sunday from enlightened choice. It has come to them as a matter of course, handed down from their parents, taken for granted without close investigation, that it was really the Sabbath of the New Testament. The people have not received the mark of the beast in the sense of the warning message that mentions it. But when the warning message shall be fully given, the claims of the fourth commandment are understood, and the rival Sabbath of the papacy shall be enforced by law, then it will become a matter of fearful choice. It will be then, and not till then, that man can receive the mark of the beast in the sense of the third message.

2. And what makes the statement of the editor of the Crisis appear still worse are the following evidences that he knew when he penned it that it was utterly false: (1.) No Seventh-day Adventist has ever taught that all men “who do not keep Saturday for the Sabbath,” have the mark of the beast, and are consequently doomed to the wrath of God. Thirty-seven volumes of the ADVENT REVIEW AND HERALD OF THE SABBATH have been completed, and in not one of them has this position been taken. Neither can it be found in one of our numerous publications. It would be very remarkable if all our brethren, public and private, had always in all they have said and written upon the subject of the mark of the beast, clearly stated that the solemn warning of the third message had reference to a future test, when men would accept of the papal Sunday as a matter of choice. But of this we are certain, that no one has ever stated the matter as reported by the editor of the Crisis.

(2.) As early as April, 1855, J. N. Andrews wrote an able work entitled, “The Three Messages.” Several editions of this work have been published and sold, to the amount of twenty thousand copies. This has been regarded by our people as a standard work, well representing the views of Seventh-day Adventists. From it we take the following, written sixteen years ago last April:

“Notwithstanding the fourth commandment in the plainest terms enjoins the observance of the sanctified rest-day of the Lord, almost all the world now wonder after the beast, and observe the pagan festival of Sunday, which the great apostasy has substituted for the holy Sabbath. By the observance of the Sabbath, men acknowledge the great Creator as their God. But when they understandingly choose in its stead the sabbath of the man of sin, they acknowledge him as above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, and as able to change the times and laws of God. There is no evading this point. If we observe the Sabbath of the Lord and that of the apostasy also, we only make

the man of sin equal with God. But when we profane the Lord’s Sabbath, and observe in its stead the Romish festival of Sunday, we acknowledge the papacy above God, and able to change his times and laws. We speak of those who have the light of truth and act contrary to it. Those who have never yet understood that the observance of Sunday is a tradition of the fathers which makes void the fourth commandment, are not referred to. It is the bringing of this sabbath of the apostasy to the test that will constitute it the mark of that power that should think to change times and laws. There is no other papal institution that directly sets aside one of the ten commandments, that the whole Protestant world observes. This mark is very conspicuous in the forehead or hand, and signifies not a literal mark, but a public profession, or act, that all may see or know.”

“It is proper that we should speak with carefulness of that which relates to the events of the future. That the scene described in the conclusion of Rev. 13, pertains to the time of trouble before us, such as never was, we have no doubt. It is also evident that in the providence of God the line of separation between the worshipers of the beast and his image on the one hand, and those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus on the other, will be most distinct and visible. The third angel’s proclamation will prepare the people of God for the coming crisis; and the formation of the image and the reception of the mark will prepare all the various classes of adherents to the beast, to receive the vials of the wrath of God, the seven last plagues.”

(3.) In another standard work of Seventh-day Adventists of 328 pp., entitled, “Thoughts on the Revelation,” written by Uriah Smith, when editor of the ADVENT REVIEW, in 1865, we find the following clear statement:—

“It will thus be seen that a person does not have the mark of the beast in the Scripture sense, except by a voluntary obedience to the authority of the beast, with the issue fairly before him. The observance of the first day of the week, under the uncorrected supposition that it is a scriptural requirement, cannot constitute the mark of the beast. God takes into the account the light a person has, and the motives from which he acts. He who was the light of the world once said to the Jews, ‘If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.’ John 15: 22. Hence the good of past ages who have died in the observance of this institution, unaware of any connection between it and the enactments of the beast, and supposing, the while, that they were thereby rendering obedience to the requirements of God—can they be said to have had the mark of the beast? By no means. The honesty of purpose with which they lived up to the best light they had, will be a guarantee of their acceptance with God. Hence, again, it cannot be said of any at the present time, that they have the mark of the beast. But the true church must not come up to translation encumbered, however unwittingly, with papal errors and institutions; and before we come upon the issue brought to view in Chap. 13: 15–27, light must be given upon the mark of the beast, and an effectual warning be uttered against its reception. The third angel’s message, now in full process of accomplishment before us is therefore timely and important. It is a summons to the faithful to make speedy preparations for the coming issue.” Pp. 238, 239.

The editor of the Crisis cannot be held guiltless for his misrepresentations of the views of Seventh-day Adventists on the ground that he may not have read these works. Before making such sweeping statements, calculated to prejudice all who regard him as an intelligent and honest man, he should understand our views. If he does not understand our positions, he should not meddle with them before the people. A candid public will hold a professing Christian editor accountable for abusive statements in reference to a sincere Christian people made in ignorance of the real facts in the case, the same as if he uttered willful falsehood. God pity such an one.

(4.) But it is a fact that in the presence of a large audience, in Library Hall, Chelsea, Mass., November, 1869, on the occasion of a discussion on the Sabbath question, between Elder Miles Grant, editor World’s Crisis, and Elder M. E. Cornell, of Battle Creek, Mich., Elder Cornell did correct Elder Grant’s misrepresentations on this subject in the following words:— “One thing has been said for mere effect, which I must notice. We do not believe that they who keep Sunday have the mark of the beast; we do not teach so. It is a misrepresentation. But we do believe that when it becomes enforced by law, the warning has been given, and the people become enlightened on the subject, if they then persist in disobedience to God by breaking his holy Sabbath for an institution of another, opposing power, they will be condemned as worshipers of that power.”—Discussion, p. 107.

This report of the discussion Elder Grant endorses in the following statement: “This is to certify that the following report, as taken by Elder J. H. Waggoner, is impartial and honorable. It does not profess to be a verbatim report, but the points and ideas are well expressed and satisfactory. MILES GRANT.”

With these facts before the editor of the Crisis he will find it a difficult task to free himself from the charge of a deliberate attempt to deceive his readers, in the act of abusively misrepresenting us. Neither will those who read this exposure be able to excuse him, unless it be those of his friends who believe the commandment abolished which says: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” After quoting a passage of Sacred Scripture, in reference to which we are both doubtless acting a part—“Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” Rev. 22: 14, 15—we leave the editor of the Crisis in the hands of a candid public and a sin-pardoning Saviour.