Men who are hard pressed upon any religious topic will use the best arguments they have. And no class of men can appreciate the importance of this more than Eld. Grant and his law-abolished friends. Seventh-day Adventists have pressed them hard upon the Sabbath question. This has driven them to misrepresentations of our real views and positions, as their present stronghold. By putting our people in positions which they know we do not occupy, and resorting to smut and blacking, they hope to raise prejudice in the minds of the people, and thus cut off our influence. But in doing this, they not only commit the high crime of deliberately bearing false witness against a God-fearing people, but they expose the fact that with them is a want of Bible evidence.
Those who have the truth of God can afford to be fair. They are sustained in their labors, not only by the happy fact that they have embraced sacred truth, but with the clear and harmonious evidences by which it is sustained. They can afford to state the positions of their opponents truthfully and correctly, and then refute them in the spirit of candor and honesty. But judging from the general conduct of not a few of our opponents, they cannot afford to be fair. They speak of our views, and of us as a people, as though they could not afford to rightly represent us, lest some of their adherents should hear us, and embrace our views.
The following from the Review of July 25, 1871, is a striking illustration of the course of some of our opponents, in the person of Eld. Miles Grant, who seems willing to sacrifice truth and honesty for the sake of abusing Seventh-day Adventists:—
The World’s Crisis of 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 Elds. Loughborough and Cornell. The notice came from an unprejudiced pen, and was 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. Elds. 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.”
If Eld. Grant 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 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 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 White, Waggoner, Loughborough, Cornell, Cottrell, Littlejohn, Butler, Canright, Van Horn, and others, 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 persons can receive the mark of the beast in the sense of the third message.
But what makes Eld. Grant’s statement appear still worse is the following evidence that he knew when he penned it that it was false. 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.
As early as the spring of 1855, J. N. Andrews wrote a 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 nineteen years ago the present month:—
“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 proclamation3will 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 incorrect 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. 13:15–17, 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 here, is therefore timely and important. It is a summons to the faithful to make speedy preparations for the coming issue.” Pages 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.
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 Eld. Miles Grant, editor World’s Crisis, and Eld. M. E. Cornell, of Battle Creek, Mich., Eld. Cornell did correct Eld. 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 Eld. Grant indorses in the following certificate, printed upon the second page of the “Discussion”: “This is to certify that the following report, as taken by Eld. 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.”
But imagine our surprise, when we saw in an issue of the Crisis in July, 1871, only twenty months after Eld. Grant had been corrected in the most unmistakable manner, the same old falsehood repeated from his pen.
With these facts before him, the editor of the World’s Crisis will find it a difficult matter 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.”