DISGUISED INFIDELITY by J. O. Corliss

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 8, 1877

DISGUISED INFIDELITY.

By J. O. Corliss

Infidelity may be properly divided into two classes, disguised and undisguised. In either form contact with it is dangerous; but undisguised infidelity is so readily known and well understood, that the man who openly avows his unbelief in the Bible, and seeks to sow the seeds of unbelief in other minds, is feared, and to some extent his society is shunned, on account of his baneful sentiments. Especial warning is given the young, lest they should be brought under such influences, and their minds molded in the wrong direction.

Open infidelity is not, however, its most aggravated form. That which wears the garb of religion is far worse, being more insinuating and seductive, and by its form of godliness it wields a strong influence over the church and world. To illustrate: A few days ago a lady sought information on the Sabbath question of a university graduate, who, being a member of the church, of course felt it his duty to comply with the request. He commenced by saying the Sabbath was a nonessential, having no foundation. The science of geology has clearly demonstrated that the six days in the Mosaic account of creation were not literal but figurative, and each represented a long indefinite period, probably covering millions of years; hence we cannot possibly tell what is meant by the seventh day that God blessed, as recorded in the second chapter of Genesis. Contradict the Bible? Oh, no: he did not intend to do that; but God has revealed his truth in nature through immutable laws, which cannot be ignored, and they show the creation of the world impossible in six literal days; therefore the Bible must be made to conform to these natural revelations!

How absurd and ridiculous are such statements in the light of reason and true revelation! Do such men believe God created the earth? They say so. Why do they believe it? Because the Bible reveals it. But if God reveals his truth in nature, why not reveal its Author in the same way? Why do not the heathen, who have no revelation but nature, know as much of God? If we, then, by accepting a written revelation, can believe in the Creator it reveals, and thus have the advantage every way over the heathen, why not, with the same propriety, believe in its record of the creation; or, in other words, if our faith ascribes to God power to create a world, why may we not, by the same assent of the mind, believe him capable of producing such a result in six days?

That many of the assertions of geologists are false and directly opposed to the Bible, one has only to take a glance at the sacred record to assure himself. In the first chapter of Genesis we have a definite statement of what was created on each day, and this period, the record affirms, was made up of one portion of darkness and another of light, and designated evening and morning.

When Israel went out of Egypt, God performed some most wonderful miracles by which he pointed out his weekly rest, the Sabbath. On each recurring sixth-day, his people were warned to prepare for the Lord’s rest by gathering a double portion of manna, while on the Sabbath itself none fell. See Ex. 16. Had any inquisitive Israelite at that time wondered why God commanded them to rest on each seventh day and withheld the manna on that day, he need not long remain in suspense; for in a few weeks God came down in awful majesty, and told the assembled multitude at the base of Sinai, that in six days he

created the heavens and earth, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day, and for that reason he blessed and hallowed that day.

Notwithstanding this, geologists tell us that the laws by which the strata of the earth are formed are immutable; that these strata thus formed comprise a great book of nature in which is written in indelible characters the facts of the creation; and that an examination of their record shows the creative work to be the growth of an incalculable round of ages.

But did the Author of the ten commandments base the obligation of the fourth command on an assertion which he had contradicted in the book of nature—a book which was also open to man’s inspection? If so, did he not know that such a course would beget distrust in his word? If we believe this, we are forced to the conclusion that he uttered a falsehood to establish his authority, when it might have been just as firm without it; or we are driven to the other extremity, which is but another horn of the same dilemma, and leaves us in as bad a condition as the other: we are certainly forced to conclude that that law, stamped with falsehood, is a forgery, and utterly unworthy of our confidence.

But the same Being is represented as giving all the institutions and ordinances of the Old Testament. If no dependence can be placed on the statements made in his law, neither can we have confidence in other recitals by the same Author, as they are all based on the account of creation and the institutions immediately introduced because of the fall of man. The New Testament, then, in ratifying the statements of the Old, concerning the creation, the fall of man, the adoption of the Israelites, the giving of the law, and the institution of sacrifices pointing to Christ, has made a blunder and is also without foundation.

Thus, step by step, the Bible is undermined, and one rejects this portion and that, until he becomes a downright infidel; not intentionally perhaps, but as a logical result of rejecting the Mosaic account of creation, which is really the foundation of all truth. J. O. CORLISS.