p. 132 | A CLERICAL SCOFFER

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 24, 1878

A CLERICAL SCOFFER.

In the Methodist of Aug. 31, 1878, appears a “Letter from Minnesota, by the Rev. J. Milton Akers.” It is about Seventh-day Adventists, and hence we notice it. He says of them:—

“They used to declare the day and the hour, and we suppose the reason they do not do it now is because they have failed so many times.”

Those who know anything of the history of Seventh-day Adventists know that they have never set any time—day, hour, or year—for the second advent of Christ. And those who know anything of our teaching know that our views of prophecy forever preclude any such idea as the fixing of a definite time for Christ to come. If Mr. Akers knows nothing of us in these respects, he does himself no credit by assuming to give the world information concerning us. If he does know our position on these points, he deliberately falsifies when he makes the above statement. In his lack of discrimination he was doubtless thinking of the First-day Adventists, when speaking of the day and the hour; but to confound that class with Seventh-day Adventists, between whom there is so broad and marked a distinction, is inexcusable in one who assumes to be a public teacher in this matter.

Again he says: “They represent this age of the world by the little toe of Nebuchadnezzar’s image; hence the world is in its last decade, and pretty nearly through, at that—half through the toe nail. They seem determined to pick the ‘end of the world’ out of that little toe.”

This language not only states throughout that which is utterly false, like that first quoted, but it is also scurrilous and low. Seventh-day Adventists have never said that the world was in its last decade; nor has he or any one else heard them saying anything about the “little toe” of Nebuchadnezzar’s image, nor about being “half through the toe nail,” nor about “picking the end of the world out of that little toe.” These expressions could have been prompted by nothing but the essential vulgarity of his own nature. We speak of the image as Daniel speaks of it. That the image symbolizes consecutive kingdoms, all commentators agree; and the last stage of the fourth kingdom is represented by the feet and toes. Has Mr. A. ever read the second of Daniel?

Can the reader endure another quotation? This, for instance: “They have made many predictions as to the second advent of Christ, but every prediction has failed. A prophet whose every prediction has failed, but who continues to make a new one upon the heels of every failure, simply stultifies himself in the estimation of every intelligent man and woman. A man who continues to make predictions under such circumstances betrays an asinine stupidity and stubbornness by a seeming determination to succeed at last in spite of the fiat of Omnipotence.”

These statements are of the same piece with the others quoted. Positions are assumed for us which are absolutely false to the very last item; and then he falls to berating and insulting us for views which we never have entertained. Where are some of the predictions we have made “as to the second advent of Christ,” which have failed? We ask for just one, to say nothing of the “many” claimed. What does a man who takes the course Mr. A. has here taken, do toward stultifying himself? Has he the manliness, not to say Christianity, to retract false statements, which he has without provocation published to the world, to the injury of some of his fellow-men?

But the strangest part of his article is the following. Speaking of the success of S. D. Adventists, he says:—

“We account for their success on one of two principles,—natural depravity or mental imbecility, or both.”

Is the man trying to frame sentences which will sound smart, without any reference to logical sequence or common sense? or what is he trying to do? Look at the facts: We urge upon men everywhere repentance toward God and faith in Christ. As one motive to this we present the fact, prophetically used by the New Testament writers themselves, that the end of all things is at hand, that the great day of the Lord is near, when it will be too late to obtain mercy and find pardon. We hold up before them the commandments of God, which Solomon declares present the whole duty of man. Eccl. 12:13, 14, and which Paul says the carnal mind is not subject to, Rom. 8:7; and by which James says we are all to be judged. James 2:10-12. In view of the terrors of a soon-coming Judgment, we call upon them to obey, and warn them that without a renunciation of, and entire freedom from, all the works of the flesh they cannot be saved. Gal. 5:19-21. We meet with some success. A few are found disposed to heed the warning, and try to prepare for the coming of Christ. And Mr. A. accounts for this on the ground of “natural depravity”! Oh! the natural depravity of man likes all these things immensely, does it not? Perhaps the reader will here discover that some of the epithets which Mr. A. has introduced might appropriately be applied to other parties than those he intended.

In reference to the Sabbath question he contents himself with a few assertions, and one attempt at argument. Of his assertions this is chief: “Even a tyro in Bible history and doctrine ought to know that the Jewish Sabbath was a temporary institution that began with the Exodus and ended with the resurrection of Christ.” Then Dr. A. Clarke, who used to be good authority with Methodists, never attained to the standing of a tyro in this matter; for he dated the Sabbath, the same one which the Jews kept, from creation not from the exodus; and Wesley, whose views were once not obsolete among Methodists, was in the same unfortunate condition; for he says (Works, vol. xi. p. 360): “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” It is not thine, but God’s day. He claims it for his own. He always did claim it for his own, even from the beginning of the world.” The same may be said of such commentators as Henry, Scott, Bush, Dwight, Watson, etc. We greatly prefer the society of these men on this question to that of “the Rev. J. Milton Akers.”

His attempt at argument is based on Heb. 4:9. He says, “If ‘a keeping of a Sabbath’ ‘remains,’ it is as clear as a demonstration that ‘a keeping of a Sabbath’ must have ‘departed.’” But Dr. Clarke reasons that the “rest” of which Paul speaks is the “rest in glory that remains for the people of God.”—Com. on Ex. 20:8. This is in harmony with Paul’s reasoning; for he shows that it is by a life of faith and obedience that we are to “labor to enter into that rest.” Is it thus that we are to enter into the rest of Sunday-keeping, which Mr. A. would have us understand is the rest that remains? That would be absurdity run mad.

As a whole, this “Letter from Minnesota” is a disgrace to its author; and we are sorry that the Methodist has seen fit to sully its otherwise fair record by giving it publicity.