The Blindness of Error by Uriah Smith

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 28, 1874

The Blindness of Error.

By Uriah Smith

Error does not seem to be able to bear in mind that truth is as eternal as the years of God. The truth may for a time be covered up and hidden, but it still lives; for it cannot be destroyed; and in due time it will manifest its existence and vindicate its own rights. He who has embarked in a campaign against it is engaged in a losing warfare. As impotent and useless will be his efforts as to try to arrest the flow of Niagara with a gill dipper. Error may for a while congratulate itself over its false issues, its misrepresentations, and its untruthful and malicious statements. But whatever gain it may secure in this way is only temporary. Those who are deceived and misled will, if honest, eventually have the opportunity of learning the truth, and will discover the fraud and cheat of which they have been the victims.

These thoughts are suggested by the course of Eld. Grant, of the World’s Crisis, who is just now fuming terribly over the visions of sister White. When a very sanctified man is shown to have pursued a very unsanctified course, the exposure no doubt is exceedingly trying to the carnal heart; and having been thoroughly exposed in his unchristian and dishonest course toward our views and people, he seeks retaliation by waging a petty warfare against the visions. Relying on the prejudice he may be able to excite, rather than on the arguments he can produce, he resorts to this course. What a convenient thing it is for a person to be so “sanctified” that he cannot sin, and so “holy” that any course he may pursue is honorable.

In the Crisis of July 8, 1874, is an article from his pen on the “Mark of the Beast,” some parts of which are so glaringly false that we shall be pardoned for alluding to it. He seems to be wrought up to such a pitch of bitterness, that he cannot even state our views correctly. He says:—

“It is said the mark of the beast will consist in keeping the Lord’s day, instead of the seventh day observed by the Jews under the old covenant.”

Eld. G. is combating our views, and states this as our belief upon this point. But we have never said any such thing. We have repeatedly proved, as our publications testify, that the Lord’s day is the true Sabbath, the seventh day. We do not believe that keeping the Lord’s day is ever to constitute the mark of the beast. He means, of course, Sunday; but let him not attach a false title to the day, and then state it as our view. Again he says:—

“When we inquire for the reason of the belief that keeping the Lord’s day will constitute the mark of the beast, we find it consists mainly in the visions of one who professes to be a prophetess of the Lord.”

There has no vision been given on this question. In the first volume of the PRESENT TRUTH published as far back as 1849, our views on this question are set forth based on the Bible. And as far back as 1845, Eld. T. M. Preble more than suggested that view, when in his essay dated Feb. 13, of that year, he said: “Therefore it appears to me that all who keep the first day for the Sabbath, are Pope’s Sunday-keepers, and God’s Sabbath-breakers.” No one ever pleads the visions as proof of our views of the mark of the beast. It is not in the visions themselves, nor in our books, nor in the sermons of our preachers. We go to the Bible alone. All this Eld. G. well knows. Yet he says “We find” that the reason for this belief consists mainly in the visions. How does he “find” it? He coins it from the bitterness of his own spirit, or receives it from the lips of his associates in falsehood.

On the subject of history he most astonishingly and deliberately falsifies. Thus he says:—

“It is a fact that the Christians in the first century did observe the Lord’s day—the first day—as a day of rest and worship, set apart to commemorate the resurrection of Christ.”

Such a statement from him is inexcusable in whatever light we may view it. If he has read history, he knows that it is false; and if he is so ignorant as not to know it, he is inexcusable for pretending to be a teacher on this subject. But we happen to know that he has read enough on this subject to know that history furnishes no support whatever for the Sunday institution. We therefore leave the reader to account for the declaration as best he can.

We will give but one extract more, as follows:—

“Does it look reasonable that after the dear friends of our Lord have kept and honored this day for eighteen hundred years, and enjoyed his special blessing century after century, as they have met on that day for his worship, working as freely on Saturday as on any other day without feeling any condemnation, that all at once the keeping of this same day, for the same reason, by those who love Christ, and accept him as their only Savior, should by so doing receive the mark of the beast or government that utterly denies Christ as a Savior?”

If this sentence can be surpassed as a grammatical curiosity, we should be happy to see it. But passing over this, we would state that we have italicized one expression in the foregoing extract, because the iniquity of that expression needs to be made prominent. It has been repeatedly explained, even to Eld. G. himself, that we do not hold that Sunday-keeping will constitute the mark of the beast, till enforced by the government in direct opposition to the Sabbath of the Lord. And with this issue plainly set before them, people then cannot and will not keep Sunday for the “same reason” that many have kept it in the past and many keep it to-day. They will keep it because the government enjoins it, their attention being also called to the fact that God’s law requires another day. Then by keeping it they will designate themselves as followers or worshipers of the power that enjoins that day. Yet Eld. G. seems anxious to state very explicitly that we hold that keeping Sunday for the same reason that the good of past ages have kept it, who supposed that they were doing God service, is all at once without any change in the programme, to constitute the mark of the beast; while he well knows that we neither hold nor teach any such view. There are no terms of censure that can fitly condemn such a course.

Adapting to the present circumstances some lines of Whittier’s, we can say,

“Patience, friends! the eye of God, Every path by “falsehood” trod, Watches lidless day and night.” While deception’s devious maze, And all those who love her ways, “And our hearts are in his sight.”

The best antidote for the work of the enemy is to spread abroad the truth. Let books and pamphlets be put into the hands of all who will honestly investigate. Some of the leaders of the opposition have already given evidence that they fear these, as Satan fears the light of Heaven. The History of the Sabbath should be immensely circulated.

In the Crisis of July 22, 1874, is a reiteration of the stale old falsehoods about the visions teaching that the door of mercy was shut, and the salvation of sinners past in 1844. Let the visions themselves be read that their spirit and tendency may be seen by all who desire to investigate them. By their fruits, says Christ, ye shall know them. And Eld. G. has himself admitted that whoever would follow their teaching would be saved. A curious devil we have indeed, if he has turned to be a preacher of righteousness without connecting with it any error or deception of such a nature as to debar a person from the kingdom of Heaven. Whoever will candidly investigate the writings of Sr. White, will be more and more astonished at the uncalled-for and bitter attacks that are made upon them. U. S.