REPLY TO REV. F. WIDMER.
By R. L. Whitney
A recent number of the Citizen contains an article from the pastor of one of the leading churches in the city, under the title of “The Dumb Dogs.” Our first impulse was to pass it by without comment, but recalling some of the unfair insinuations and gross misrepresentations which it contains, we feel that justice to the cause we represent demands that we give it a passing notice. We do this through the courtesy of the Citizen, that it may thus reach those who have seen the article in question. The first point that attracts our notice is the fact, so frankly confessed in his first sentence, that the Reverend gentleman arrives at his conclusions concerning what has been said and done at the tent, not from what he has himself seen and heard, but from hearsay, or at second hand. The meekness with which he acknowledges the justice of the application of the text from which he selects the heading of his article is certainly commendable, much more so than his effort to shield himself from blame in thus neglecting a plain duty, by offering the “special apology” he does for “such silence.” Certain it is that he pays a very questionable compliment to the church going people of this city, and especially of his own congregation, concerning whom he is expected to know more than of any other, when he insinuates that they are much more deficient in the direction of “Bible intelligence and historical reading” than he supposed them to be—asserts that “the rank and file of Christian men and women are not posted for religious controversy;” and that because of this deplorable state of imbecility and ignorance on their part, they are compelled to seek their defense in the pulpit, as that represents the only class of minds who are prepared to examine for themselves and come to their own conclusions as to what the Bible does really teach. If the church going people prefer to sit quietly by and see themselves thus held up before the public, if they do not choose to hold the pulpit responsible in a large measure—in view of the sacred trust reposed in it as the expounder of the word of God—for whatever lack there may be of “Bible intelligence” and qualifications for “religious controversy,” that is their business, not ours. But in justice to the respectable and intelligent audience that listened attentively night after night at the tent, we beg leave to say that however “doctrinally absurd” may have been the contents of the “carpet bag” which was opened for their inspection, or however great our anxiety to “peddle them off” on such, it was not one that could be more properly characterized as “poorly informed” than the one to whom the gentleman ministers from week to week. But what shall be said of the condition of the flock who, when driven as their last resort to the “defense of the pulpit,” find themselves in their perplexity deserted here? And this brings us to the real point at issue, which the writer endeavors to hide by specious reasoning concerning the duty of the people toward their pastors—we had almost said priests, so nearly does it sound like the teaching of the church of Rome—and a generous share of fault-finding with those who have neglected this duty, in that they have dared to search the Scriptures and decide their course for themselves. Why have not the clergy of this city come forward and in a manly and honorable way defended their Christian Sabbath from the word of God, and thus at once put to silence those who have been the occasion of so much disturbance in the community by their advocacy of “exploded ideas”? It is easier, we admit, to oppose unpopular truths by an appeal to men’s prejudices, by designating as a “doctrinal harlequin” him who seeks by all legitimate means to promote what he believes to be the truth, and especially to brand such with reproach as those who are seeking to plant a “perpetual mark of division,” apparently forgetful of the fact that “He who spake as never man spake” was open to the same criticism when he said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace but a sword”—it is easier, I say, to meet unpopular ideas in this way than fairly and squarely, with logical reasoning and direct Scriptural testimony to overthrow what is so boldly denounced as error. This, we assert, the pulpit of this city has not done, and until they do it, we claim for candid, intelligent, thinking men and women, the right to investigate for themselves. We have no sympathy with that overweening “delicacy” that makes it such an extremely “unpleasant thing” for one who professes to be set to watch for men’s souls to point out the danger, and endeavor to set men on the right track when he sees them going astray. The gratuitous slur on our unpretending house of worship, now erecting in this city, we can accept with quite a good grace, and congratulate ourselves on the prospect of having a place, even though humble, where we shall have the right to pay our last tribute of respect to the dead, as these sad offices may be necessary. We cannot help wondering, in this connection, if the gentleman has forgotten the time, within the memory of many, when the Methodists were content with much less expensive structures, in fact were thankful for a good barn in which to worship God. We wonder, too, if his costly church edifice holds more of the “pure religion and undefiled” than those same barns of not many years ago. Our Reverend critic seems not a little troubled at what he is pleased to denominate “the call to the righteous to repent.” Just how he would be understood by his remarks on this point, we hardly know; but if we interpret them aright, he would have us to understand that the professed Christian church has reached the point beyond which no further reform is needed. Surely, had the prophet Isaiah lived in our day, he would have been spared the “unpleasant” duty of delivering this message from the Lord: “Cry aloud, spare not; show my people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins.” Or the prophet Zephaniah, when he breaks forth: “Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgments; seek righteousness, seek meekness; it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger.” But is it indeed true that the church of Christ has reached that stage of development that precludes any further effort at reform? Has she no sins that need to be repented of? May no “new light” be allowed to shine upon her pathway? If so, then we have indeed what the intelligence of the nineteenth century has thought proper to treat with derision in the profession of the bishop of Rome—a church that cannot err. Such an unqualified assumption of righteousness on the part of any, reminds us very forcibly of a class, a representative of which once stood and prayed, “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, * or even as this publican.” We come now to the most important point in the article. We suppose the Reverend gentleman understands the views of Seventh-day Adventists. If he doesn’t, he certainly has no right, as a Christian gentleman, to attempt to state them publicly; and yet, taking this view, how can we account for the statements and conclusions of the latter paragraph of his article, except on the theory of designed misrepresentation? He says: “The fountain of so much good to man, the light of the world, the salt of the earth, the great Christian church, is branded Babylon, the great harlot, the maker of the nations drunk, the beast whose communion is to end in fire and brimstone,” &c. Does he not know that in making this statement he misrepresents the views that have been presented at the tent? If he does not, those who heard the lectures on these subjects do, and are prepared to judge of the qualifications for “religious controversy” of one pastor, at least, who has in this instance failed to state fairly the position of his opponent. I may be allowed to state here that the position of Seventh-day Adventists, in applying the prophetic Scriptures concerning the beast and the great harlot to the Roman Catholic church, and in tracing the history of this church, the fulfillment of these prophecies, is in harmony with the great body of Protestant commentators. In reference to the term Babylon, I offer this thought, that whatever interpretation we may give to those scriptures which refer to it, it certainly represents some organization with which the people of God are connected, as they are called upon, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins.” In answer to the question why the “great Christian church” is thus branded, we have the reply: “Because they are not Jews.” This is equivalent to the assertion that Seventh-day Adventists are Jews, because they observe the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, an institution of which our Saviour declared himself Lord. Those who hold the truth can afford to be fair. In our presentation in this city of the views held by our people, we have found it necessary to differ frequently and widely from the views held by others. We have yet to hear it alleged that we have not fairly represented their positions. We invite those who profess to represent us before the public to treat us with the same courtesy. To those who have heard our lectures, it is unnecessary to repeat our views on this point; but for the benefit of those who might be misled by such representations, I would say that we yield to none in our faith in Christ, as the only way by which man can be justified before God, and consequently as the sinner’s only hope of salvation. But at the same time we fully accept the position of the apostle Paul, when he says: “Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid. Yea, we establish the law.” One more point and we are done: “This great church keeps as her holy rest the day on which her Redeemer rose from the dead.” By whose authority does she do this? If by the authority of the Author of inspiration, then we may surely find on the sacred page the plain command therefor. And certainly the pastors who invite us to avail ourselves of their reserve fund of “Bible intelligence,” as we shall go to them for something to soothe our troubled consciences, will give us a “Thus saith the Lord,” as the great remedy. But what is the defense of the pulpit? Alas! has it come to this, that the great Protestant church, which owes her existence to the truth that has been the bulwark of her strength for centuries—that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sufficient rule of faith and practice—that this great church is now compelled to resort to the tradition of the mother church—to “authentic church history”—for the authority on which to base the corner stone of the great superstructure, instead of appealing to the word of God? On this question Protestantism and Catholicism stand on one and the same ground, viz., the tradition of the church. “She has in this one custom never changed, and all authentic church history affirms she was instructed by the apostles to keep it.” This statement we deny, and to call out the gentleman’s information on the subject of ecclesiastical history, we challenge him to prove, from “authentic church history,” that the first day of the week was generally observed by the Christian church for at least five hundred years after the commencement of the Christian era. We also request him to disprove the statement that the first edict in behalf of Sunday-keeping was issued by a heathen emperor, and that not until the fourth century. If in this brief review we have spoken plainly and pointedly, it is not because of any personal feeling in the matter, but because we are jealous for the honor of the truth we hold. Has not the time fully come when intelligent men and women should arouse themselves to a more diligent and earnest study of the word of God, that they may know why they believe as they do, and no longer pin their faith on other men’s sleeves? Thus shall we be truly educating and preparing ourselves to answer the high purpose for which we were created. This we believe, and this we are trying to do.—R. L. WHITNEY, in (Rome, N. Y.) Sentinel.