A Striking Parallel by Editor

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · May 10, 1906

A Striking Parallel

By Editor

AFTER having devoted seven pages to as strong an argument as he is capable of making to prove that “not everything is Testimony that is issued as Testimony,” the writer of a leaflet now being circulated among us defines his position concerning the Testimonies as follows:—

It is possible that the report will now be spread that I have “attacked,” “denounced,” “renounced,” and “repudiated” the Testimonies. But none of it will be true.

Possibly some may say that what I have written does of itself repudiate the Testimonies. With me it does not; and in truth it does not. Neither by the sanitarium has there been, nor is there to be, any repudiation of the Testimonies. It is perfectly safe to say that there is not to-day a Seventh-day Adventist institution in the world where, in principle and in purpose, and because of their inherent value, the Testimonies are more truly followed than in and by the Battle Creek Sanitarium.

When Jesus was seized and led away to trial, the record states that Peter “followed,” but the fatal trouble was that he “followed afar off.” His next step was to deny any acquaintance with Jesus, asserting plainly, “I know him not.”

For some time in the past the way of following the Testimonies which has been adopted at the Battle Creek Sanitarium has been such as to wreck all confidence in the Testimonies on the part of those who have not been able to profess faith in some of the Testimonies after having listened to repeated demonstrations of the falsity and unreliability of other communications sent out as Testimonies. In order to be able to do this one must first make himself a judge of the Testimonies, and must have unbounded confidence in his ability to distinguish between what is Testimony and what is not Testimony, even when it all comes from the same source, and he then can of course profess to follow most fully what he has himself decided to be Testimony. But this is simply following one’s own judgment, and not the Testimonies, and the claim of following the Testimonies on such a basis as this is only another way of declaring unswerving loyalty to one’s self. Those who are really following the Testimonies do not spend their time in preparing, and their money in circulating, labored arguments to prove the unreliability of some of the Testimonies, making assertions concerning some of the Testimonies which, if true, would inevitably destroy the confidence of the people in all the Testimonies, unless they had complete confidence in their own ability to separate the false from the true in what professes to be Testimony.

We do not think it necessary to argue the case as to whether the Testimonies have been followed and are being followed at the Battle Creek Sanitarium. The record is a public one, and will speak for itself. Those who have read any considerable portion of the warning and instruction which has been sent to the management of that institution during the past few years, and who know the situation as it now exists, will have no difficulty in arriving at an intelligent decision concerning this claim of following the Testimonies.

The parallel between this course concerning the Testimonies and the course of the “Higher Critics” concerning the Bible is perfectly plain. One of these prominent liberal thinkers has recently written a book in which “he denies the miraculous, as ordinarily understood, absolutely, declares that it is the modern thinker’s foremost duty to disengage religion from supernaturalism, and speaks of seeking to understand the Biblical accounts of miracles as ‘poesies.’ The virgin birth, the stilling of the sea and feeding of the thousands, the turning of the water into wine, the resurrection, the ascent into heaven and return on the clouds, are all to him alike incredible.” And yet it is asserted in his behalf that “he confesses for himself the ‘faith which the gospel requires—faith in God the Father, in his fatherly grace in forgiving sins, and in an eternal life.’” As

these things are revealed only in the Bible, it is plain that this writer claims to believe and follow the Bible, after having eliminated from it such portions as he can prove to his own satisfaction to be unreliable and unworthy of credence. But there are many people who are unable to juggle with the Bible after this fashion, and who will consequently lose their confidence in the whole Bible if they accept this writer’s conclusions concerning some parts of it. We regard such an attitude toward the Bible as more likely to lead men into infidelity than a frank rejection of the whole Bible.

We regret exceedingly that a former companion in arms should now direct his attack upon what he has formerly taught, and upon what we continue to teach; but when the choice comes between following any man, even an intimate associate, and the Testimonies which have been an integral part of this movement from the beginning, we make our choice without hesitation. No man can scatter doubt and uncertainty concerning the Testimonies, and at the same time maintain the integrity of this message. ‘Let God be true.’