Our Defense by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 14, 1874

Our Defense.

By Editor

Seventh-day Adventists are for peace. The following words from one of our standard works, published in 1870, express the views and feelings of our people upon this point as they are to-day:—

“It is true that we differ in some respects with other religious bodies of the present time, and with most of them we differ widely. But we do not differ with others from choice. We do not love to differ for the sake of being odd. No, we choose to be in harmony, if possible, with our fellow-men, especially with those who revere God and his word. We believe it to be a sin to differ with others unless there be good reasons why we should differ.”

We solemnly believe that God has given to us a message of unpopular truth for the present generation. And we are no less confident that it is the will of God that we should proclaim it in such a manner as not to trample on the precious God-given rights of our fellows. We expect that the discussion of our religious sentiments will bring men and women, not only from the world, but from the ranks of other religious bodies. But while we present our views in a proper manner, and conduct ourselves as Christians, we should not be censured when God-fearing people, under deep convictions of duty, take up the heavy cross of observing the Sabbath of the Bible.

Seventh-day Adventists make sacrifices to teach and to observe the Sabbath, because they regard it as an important truth, and an important duty. He who will teach unpopular religious sentiments, and call persons from other religious bodies out upon a new platform, and form them into a new sect, and then tell the people that his new views and new positions are not essential to salvation, should be either marked as one who causes needless divisions among brethren, or be set down as a hypocrite.

We repeat it, Seventh-day Adventists are for peace. They do not disturb other religious assemblies; and they regard the rights of others. Our ministers do not cultivate the spirit of debate and strife, but avoid discussions as far as possible, on account of the spirit of strife which they gender, which is injurious to the cause of true religion.

Seventh-day Adventists have borne very much from their opponents. And their silence under repeated abuses has doubtless emboldened Eld. Grant to push his wicked, aggressive warfare to that extent to make the exposure in these columns necessary. Our brethren in Napa, Cal., did not provoke the discussion. The Sabbath question had recently been so fully agitated in that city by able men on both sides that there was no real call for a discussion. And at the time when Eld. Grant was pressing the matter, Eld. Cornell addressed him the following note:—

“Bro. Grant: I am inclined not to accept your ‘invitation,’ to debate before the public in Napa City, for several reasons.

“1. The Sabbath and Law question has just been quite thoroughly canvassed in lectures pro and con.

“2. The subject of the greatest interest in the public mind here now, is, what the clergy of Napa are pleased to term, ‘Materialism,’ or ‘Soul Sleeping.’

“3. Too many here would rejoice to see two Advent ministers in conflict, they are so bitter against Adventism in general. For my part, I do not feel like spending strength and precious time to gratify such motives.

“4. If the clergy here are anxious for debate, and would like to see Eld. Grant measure swords with some one, just let them bring their own men and try it on the Soul and Spirit question! They have talked very bold on that subject.

“Trusting that you will agree with me in these reasons and conclusions, they are submitted with due respect. Yours in haste, M. E. Cornell.”

But Eld. Grant pressed on the debate under these circumstances; and in his mad folly undertook to publicly blacken the reputation of a humble Christian woman who lives in the confidence of many thousand Seventh-day Adventists, and all others who know her self-sacrificing, godly life. When it comes to this, that a professed minister of Christ, under the garb of holiness, will deliberately stab the reputation of the innocent before the ungodly who are called out for the very occasion, it is time that the flimsy garb of pretended sanctity be torn off from him, that he may appear before the public in his true character.

With all respect for the inspired words of Paul would we handle such men. “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” Rom. 12:18. Here is a strong intimation that it is not possible to sustain peaceable relations with some men. They may presume upon your forbearance until it ceases to be a virtue. The common sinner may perhaps be guilty of slander without awakening general indignation. But when men who make high professions of godliness wantonly and persistently commit this great crime, all just men will unite in denouncing the wickedness of such vile conduct.

The intelligent reader, after becoming acquainted with the wicked course pursued by Eld. Grant toward the Seventh-day Adventists, will hardly expect the REVIEW to continue a controversy with him.