SEVENTH-DAY BAPTISTS AND SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS.
By James White
The growth of the Seventh-day Baptists as a denomination has been slow. The labor of centuries has brought to them numbers hardly equal to those of the Seventh-day Adventists, whose organization dates back but a score of years. In point of numbers both are feeble. But the fact that both denominations are small does not constitute evidence of errors in the fundamental principles of their religious faith. If numbers be regarded as proof of correctness in doctrine, then the Romanist is not so wide of the mark on the question of infallibility; and the Methodist and some of the other old denominations may safely take stock in a modified view of the same heresy. Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists stand united in sentiment on the great fundamental doctrines of the perpetuity of the moral code, and the changeless character of the ancient Sabbath of Jehovah. The Baptism of the one is also the baptism of the other. Both hold that immersion is Christian baptism. In this both denominations adopt the literal and most obvious interpretation of the declarations of Christ and his apostles upon the subject. These naturally form a strong bond of union between the two people. The principal differences between the two bodies are in regard to the nature and destiny of man, the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, and the doctrine of the trinity. These, not being practical in the strictest sense of the word, should not be regarded as tests of Christian character and fellowship. Therefore, while a strong bond of fellowship and union should exist between the two bodies, standing on so broad a platform as the practical doctrines of the nature and perpetuity of the law of God, and Christian baptism, the indulgence of a spirit of controversy and contention upon these lesser points of doctrine upon which a perfect agreement does not exist should be regarded by both bodies as a violation of the principles of forbearance taught by Christ and his apostles. The widest difference between the Seventh-day Baptists and the Seventh-day Adventists is in the manner of labor. For want of sympathy from other denominations, and for pecuniary and religious advantages, the S. D. Baptists, at an early date in their history, collected in certain localities. Their influence upon the world at large has consequently been small, hence their growth very slow. Thus situated, they turned their attention to education, to mental and moral culture. The cross which they have borne for centuries has been a heavy one, and has required men and women of firm principle. They have had their trials, and in these trials the chaff has been separated from the wheat until the S. D. Baptists of to-day, as a body, are far in advance of the other denominations in education, moral principles, and culture. Their missions and their churches, however small, are very dear to them; they have cost them much. The growth of the S. D. Adventists has been rapid. Our existence as an organized body dates in the year 1860. We have no settled pastors; but like John Wesley, our ministers regard the world as their parish. They go everywhere preaching the word, and everywhere find converts. The field is a broad one, and the laborers are few. S. D. Adventists regard the press as the right arm of their strength. Every minister is a colporteur. Our books, tracts, and papers go everywhere. Instead of colonizing, our people remain in the localities where they embraced our views, excepting those who are pressing their way into the new countries of the West. In recent years members of the S. D. Baptist churches East have located in the West, and in many places have organized churches that barely maintain an existence, while there are a few scattered here and there where there are no S. D. Baptist churches. In this situation of things it is no marvel that the scattered S. D. Baptists, and even some of their churches, are brought under the influence of the publications and preaching of the S. D. Adventists. In fact, with the evidence before us that not a few of the S. D. Baptist people are as anxious to read our books and listen to our preachers as we are to have them, we can hardly see how it can be avoided that S. D. Baptists, as individuals and even churches, should become S. D. Adventists. As a delegate to the S. D. Baptist General Conference in 1876, we sympathized with that body in their grief that some of their feeble churches had suffered from the loss of certain members who had gone over to the S. D. Adventists, and we there pledged our influence to prevent our preachers, as far as possible, from selecting fields of labor where there are S. D. Baptist churches. This pledge we have kept. Our statements relative to this sensitive question have been frank and full in the REVIEW. Those who have the truth can afford to be fair. The field is a broad one. And while we have no fears that the S. D. Baptists can take from us valuable members, we should not take advantage of the desire on the part of many of the S. D. Baptists to hear our ministers, and thus grieve a people that we should respect and love for their intelligence, moral worth and long adherence to the Sabbath we revere, by selecting as fields of labor the very localities of S. D. Baptist churches. We shall continue to issue our publications, and to send them out where they are wanted; but we do not see the necessity of urging them upon our S. D. Baptist brethren. If they want them, they shall have them. Our ministers will continue, with the blessing of God, to go forth preaching the word. Should S. D. Baptists come to hear them, we would repeat, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” If they are invited to speak to S. D. Baptist congregations, they should not refuse, unless duty demands their labors elsewhere. We were happy to accept the invitation of Eld. N. V. Hull to speak to his people at Alfred Center, N. Y., in September. It was our pleasure to present Christ before those who in some respects were our superiors, and receive from them a hearing, attention, sympathy, and love, more than any humble servant of Jesus Christ could ask. And should we be so happy as to speak to that or any other congregation of S. D. Baptists many times, we should not feel called upon to introduce those subjects upon which S. D. Baptists and S. D. Adventists differ. With feelings of pleasure and tenderness we mention the names of brethren Allen, Wardner, Rogers, Burdick, Whitford and Hull, delegates from the S. D. Baptists to our General Conference in years past. Did these brethren come to us with feelings of sorrow that S. D. Adventists hold views which they regarded as error? Did any of them come to us with any degree of prejudice? They came to us as Christian gentlemen of high culture, with full command of their feelings of sorrow and prejudice, if they had them. These they waived, for the time being, at least. They came near to us, and did us good. They preached Christ, and our people listened with pleasure and profit. They were men of too much good sense and Christian politeness to bore our large audiences with arguments to show that S. D. Adventists were in error on the immortality theme, the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, or to explain the mystery of the trinity. Those who have come among us, and best understand the doctrines, work, and spirit of S. D. Adventists, are not the men who are prejudiced against us and our views. We need not be anxious about the S. D. Baptists, only to do to them as we would have them do to us. God’s truth is free for all, and all should have time to investigate, and to be impressed by the spirit of truth. We hope to mingle with that people more in time to come than we have in the past. Next week we shall treat this subject more fully, in view of statements recently made in the Sabbath Recorder, prejudicial to S. D. Adventists. Let there be no strife among us, for we are brethren. J. W.