SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS.
By A. Smith
Are Seventh-day Adventists bigoted and exclusive? We have heard such a charge advanced, but we deny its application. The term bigotry is thus defined by Webster: “Obstinate or blind attachment to a particular creed; unreasonable zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect, or opinion; excessive prejudice.” Now since Seventh-day Adventists acknowledge no creed but the Bible, accepting no doctrine or article of faith that cannot be clearly and unequivocally proved by it, we ask, in all candor, Are they blindly and obstinately attached to that sacred word? Let Paul answer, in an epistle abounding with the doctrine of the second advent: “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor of darkness.” 1 Thess. 5:4, 5. If those who now claim to be preaching the third angel’s message are indeed the people of God who will witness the second advent, the above quotation emphatically applies to them, and in its terms foreshadows, not only the time and manner of the second advent, but also the self-purification and holiness that will enable them to stand in the day of wrath. The third angel’s message is the last message that is ever to be given to man, and it is the most solemn and awful one that has ever been proclaimed. Can those, therefore, who believe and embrace it, be unreasonably zealous and warm in advocating it, and exalting the standard of truth; or in maintaining their purity and distinctness of character as a religious body? We think not. The wonder is that they are not more zealous and in earnest. Are they “excessively prejudiced?” We presume the objector means against other religious denominations. Prejudice is thus defined by Webster: “An opinion or decision of mind, formed without due examination of the facts or arguments which are necessary to a just and impartial determination.” They must not only be prejudiced, but excessively so, to incur the charge of bigotry on this point. The force of circumstances compelled us to organize a distinct religious body; but we have often declared that we do not like to differ with others, nor will we unless we are compelled to do so to be in harmony with revealed truth. Furthermore, we believe and teach that God has children in all those religious bodies from which we have separated. Do these facts justify the charge of bigotry? “But you will not attend their meetings,” says one. This, again, is a mistake. We believe in attending meetings in other churches whenever the glory of God can be promoted by it, or any good accomplished. We are compelled to believe, by the evidences that are continually forced upon our attention, that the popular churches of our day have suffered great religious declension, as the Scriptures declare. They teach dangerous and unscriptural doctrines; as, the change of one of the most important precepts of that law which the psalmist declared was perfect, and which Christ said should not pass away “till all be fulfilled;” the eternal torment of the lost; and the immortality of the soul, the pet dogma of spiritualism, which, doubtless, will finally obtain control of all those churches. Is the Sabbath of the Bible indeed a test in these last days? How, then, can we freely unite in worship with those who keep and teach for the Sabbath a commandment of men? If we attend their meetings, and do not join in the exercises, they will be offended; and if we have anything to say, we must keep the truth we hold in the background or offend in this also. There are, in the churches, honest people, who deplore the corruption and pride which they see to be on the increase all around them. We should do all we can to rescue such, going, if need be, to the meetings where they worship, and if God so send us, bearing a message from him that will not prove in vain. A. Smith.