A Check on Adventism by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Nov 29, 1883

"A Check on Adventism."

By Editor

WHILE we are reviewing that which assumes to be a check on Adventism, it becomes necessary to inquire, What is Methodism? We used to think we had some understanding of the faith of the Methodist church. We think so still; that is, we understood what the Methodist faith was, but it appears now that that is no certain indication to what it is. The question may be asked to us, Do you not believe in change, in progress? Yes, when it is in the right direction. But we have heard of progress in error, and their change is manifestly of that kind. And we hold that when a religious body virtually repudiates its own standards and landmarks, it ought to have the frankness to avow its purpose, and prove its sincerity by stating the reasons for the change. The Methodists fail to do this, though they are denying their own standards, and building again the things they once destroyed. Gal. 2:18.

We might notice several important points wherein the Methodist Church is changing its faith, but we will confine ourselves to the present issue. When we read, years ago, in the Discipline, that "no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral," we knew that reference was made to the decalogue or ten commandments. We knew it because they, pre-eminently above all other commandments, "are called moral." Had this sixth in their "Articles of Religion" referred to something else than the decalogue it would have been deceptive without an explanation, because, as before said, these are "the commandments which are called moral." We give a few proofs:—

1. Dr. Webster, in his Dictionary, says "The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God in tables of stone."

2. Alexander Campbell, in his justly celebrated discussion with Bishop Purcell, said the ten commandments, "not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation, are most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality."

3. John Quincy Adams, writing of God's revelation to his people, said: "The decalogue having been spoken by the voice, and twice written upon the stone tables by the finger of God, may be considered as the foundation of the whole system."

4. Dr. Chalmers, in his Sermons, said: "For the permanency of the Sabbath, however, we might argue its place in the decalogue, where it stands enshrined among the moralities of a rectitude that is immutable and everlasting."

5. Dr. Clarke, on Ex. 20, says: "It is worthy of remark, that there is none of these commandments, nor any part of one, which can fairly be considered as merely ceremonial. All are moral, and consequently of everlasting obligation."

6. Bishop Haven, in his book entitled, "The Pillars of Truth," being sermons on the ten commandments, said: "This decalogue can never become obsolete. It was designed for all men; and, obeyed, would render all men noble and worthy of immortal blessedness. It is a kind of concentration of the moral teachings of the Bible."

Much more to the same intent might be given, but these are sufficient on this point. We have thus proved the meaning of Article 6 of the Discipline.

When we reviewed Dr. Benson's pamphlet we called attention to the fact that his argument undermined the fourth commandment, and was antinomian in its tendency. And still stronger was this tendency manifested in the pamphlet of Mr. Armstrong. If the Methodists still stood on genuine Methodist ground, and deprecated antinomianism as did Wesley, Fletcher, Clarke, and others, they would have heeded the caution which we gave them on this point. But no; "Adventism" was in their way, and in their estimation "the end will justify any means," to put "a check on Adventism." And so Mr. Woodward comes to the front, recommended by the Christian Advocate, introduced with laudations by Dr. Stratton, and, waxing exceeding bold, openly teaches the abrogation of the fourth commandment! This we shall prove by his own words. And we shall apply the rule laid down by James, that "he who offends in one, is guilty of all," and insist that the moral force of all the decalogue—the moral law—is weakened in the minds of his readers, by destroying the fourth commandment. Mr. Woodward's pamphlet is a virulent antinomian production, endorsed by the exponents or representatives of Methodism on the Pacific Coast.

First, we will expose his deception (or his ignorance, for one or the other is involved, and he may take which side he pleases,) in his comment on Matt. 5:17. On the word "fulfil," and its use by Adventists, he says:—

"The word law in this text cannot mean the decalogue, for the simple fact that it is followed by the word fulfil. Nowhere in the Bible is it said that the decalogue is fulfilled, for the reason that the decalogue is not a prophecy. It is said of the decalogue that it is kept or transgressed, but never fulfilled. It is not possible for the ten commandments to be fulfilled; they are not prophetic. It can only be said of prophecy that it can be fulfilled. 'That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the prophet,' is a Biblical phrase with which all are familiar. If it were necessary we could fill pages to show that the word fulfil never relates to the decalogue, but only and always to prophecy. Therefore as this word 'law' is followed by the word 'fulfil,' it must have been a prophecy."

And at considerable length he descants on the folly of Adventist preachers and writers for using the word "fulfil" in reference to law or obligation. Now let us consider a few facts.

1. Worcester, in his Dictionary, defines fulfill: "To perform whatever has been prophesied, promised, desired, commanded, or intended." And under synonyms, he says: "See accomplish, complete, keep."

2. Dr. Webster also says it means to carry into effect a requirement, "to answer the requisition of." And quotes Jas. 2:8, which will presently be noticed.

3. The Bible Commentary, on Matt. 5:17, says: "The original word is frequently used by St. Matthew in the sense of fulfilling a prophecy, but this is not the sense which best suits the present context in which it is opposed to destroying."

4. Dr. Clarke, on Ex. 20, said: "Though Christ is said to have fulfilled the law for us, yet it is nowhere intimated in the Scripture, that he has so fulfilled these ten laws, as to exempt us from the necessity and privilege of being no idolaters, swearers, Sabbath-breakers, disobedient and cruel children, murderers, adulterers, thieves, and corrupt witnesses. All these commandments, it is true, he punctually fulfilled himself; and all these he writes on the heart of every one redeemed by his blood."

5. Jesus said to John the Baptist: "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Matt. 3:15.

6. Paul said: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." Gal. 6:2.

7. James said, and speaking of the ten commandments also: "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well." And he adds: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all."

Every word quoted from the above authorities is a direct refutation of Mr. Woodward's position, and the words of Dr. Clarke and of the apostle James are a direct condemnation of Mr. Woodward himself. He says he could fill pages to show that the word fulfill never relates to the decalogue; but Dr. Clarke says Christ fulfilled every one of the ten commandments, and Dr. C. is in harmony with the dictionaries, and Mr. W. contradicts them. We have noticed this point at this length because it is material to the main issue, and the proof is such a sweeping condemnation of Mr. Woodward's trickery in dealing with the word of God. We may add, that Wesley contradicts his conclusion on Matt. 5:17, for he refers it to the moral law. We say on this point as we said of another: We would like to see Dr. Stratton come forward and try to vindicate that which he so "cogently" indorsed! Before we finish this review he may have occasion to change his mind as to which party has the "whimseys," and which has reason and the Bible with them. The Advocate said that Mr. Woodward and Dr. Stratton are able to take care of themselves. But to clear themselves of their unenviable position they must set aside the testimony of Webster, Worcester, the Commentaries, Clarke, Wesley, James, Paul, and the Saviour himself. When they have successfully refuted all these, then Adventism will acknowledge that it has received a "check"!

The matter on our hands so limits our room that we are compelled to reserve for next week the effort he makes to set aside the fourth commandment.