Your ShelfYour Projects

The Gilroy “Advocate” and Second Adventism

6%

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Jun 24, 1875

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 1, No. 33.

Read the full edition

The Gilroy “Advocate” and Second Adventism.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

THE following article from the Gilroy Leader explains itself. The article reviewed is generally looked upon as being a shameful one, which it is in truth. Our surprise at its publication was greatly increased when we learned that the Advocate is controlled by a minister. The Leader charges it directly upon him as the following item will show:—
“Parson Dickerman’s organ, last week, seemed quite irreverent. Didn’t want anything to do with Christ, unless it got his job work at his second coming.”
The “parson” passes for orthodox but, of course, is to all intents a spiritualist; as his views lead to a denial of the resurrection.
The last Advocate contained an article on our tent-meetings which well deserves notice. Though we gave it some attention in the tent, we ask the privilege of the Leader to expose its errors for the benefit of those who were not at the meeting. The article appeared as editorial, and thus the Advocate stands responsible for the sentiments contained therein.
1. It pays a singular compliment to the people of Gilroy, representing them as being specially favorable to “a quack doctor, a sensational preacher, or any humbug.” We have not thus judged this people; we think there is a mistake here. We have known such a case that a preacher, not being able to raise a sensation of his own, was ready to cry “humbug” to anything that presented itself. We do not pretend to judge of the motive that actuated this article. It thinks it a sufficient argument for Darwinism that the community go to the tent. This is unjust. If truth is preached in a tent, and people are instructed and led to think or to reason, there is nothing low or degrading about it. Some men preach in a theatre, and few are disposed to find fault with that. Our tent has never been used for any other purpose than preaching the Bible.
2. It says our “interpretation of prophecy is narrow and stupid.” It would no doubt be more satisfactory to the people if it would give a good reason for such an uncharitable assertion. The intelligent congregations who have candidly listened to our discourses know that they are neither “narrow” nor “stupid,” but are according to the plain reading of the Bible. It sets down our views of the United States as “insulting and blasphemous.” Whether we have a reason to think the United States a subject of prophecy, we will soon give the people further opportunity to judge; and we will at any time give the writer in the Advocate the use of the tent, if he will give his views of the same prophecy, and so let the people judge between us. It may appear, however, that his ideas of blasphemy are not very clear. We think there is no greater danger of blaspheming, to speak truthfully of the sins in the United States, than there is to speak disrespectfully of the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Speaking of the signs of the times, it says the world is no worse now than it was described in Paul’s letter to the Romans: To us it seems as small consolation that, under the light of the nineteenth century, we are no worse than Paul’s description of the heathen, eighteen hundred years ago. In judging actions, privileges are to be taken into account. The Saviour said all the righteous blood that was ever shed should come on that generation, evidently because they had the examples and warnings of all the past before them. They were accessories after the acts to every persecution which had been carried on. Criminals of to-day, especially in the light which now prevails, are more guilty before God than those of two thousand years in the past. There is much boasting of light and privilege which is evidence, not of a high state of morality, but often of severe condemnation.
On this point it says, spiritualism is nothing new. In one sense it is right, Spiritualism prevailed in the days of Moses; the magicians of Egypt were mediums. Also in the days of the Saviour as frequent reference in the gospel proves. But Matt. 24:23-27; 2 Thess. 2:1-10; Rev. 13:11-17 compared with chap. 14:9-14; and 16:12-15, show that it will remarkably prevail just before the coming of the Lord, and in its present phase it is essentially new. If the writer is competent to edit a newspaper, he knows that spiritualism, as now prevailing, arose in Hydesville, N. Y. less than thirty years ago.
4. The most objectional part of the article is that which speaks of the second coming of Christ. It says, “the idea of Christ’s second physical appearance on the earth is too gross to be treated seriously.” Was not his first appearance on earth a physical one? It was. Is it not reasonable then, to consider that his second will be? To nothing but a physical appearing will the term “second” apply. Will the writer please to inform the people what a second spiritual or mystical appearing might be? Of course he must define when the first of that kind was. But on the second coming, and where Christ would come if he did come personally, we must quote as follows:—
“Of course Christ would come to the United States. He would not go to the ‘bloated aristocracy’ of the Old World. He would prefer a State, too, that has a reliable currency, not one that depends on irredeemable shin-plasters. If he should go to San Jose or Hollister first, and draw away trade from Gilroy, we should give him a cold shoulder. If he came to Gilroy, and had not common sense enough to know where the best job printing is done, we should suspect him of imposture.”
The above has the single merit of ‘honesty’ for it is not every paper, even political or secular, that would have the frankness to own that it would “give a cold shoulder” to Christ if his coming did not increase its job printing! And with all its boast of “brains,” we unhesitatingly give it as our opinion that no one who has brains enough to render him responsible, can speak thus of the advent of the Son of God without being guilty of blasphemy. For irreverence, for trifling with sacred things, it is rarely equaled, and its professed Scripture reason for denying the second coming of Christ is unscriptural. Indeed, we think, as Nasby would express it, that theology is not the Advocate writer’s “best hold.” Thus it says.—
“Christ said to his disciples: ‘It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I will send him unto you.’ He being the judge, his physical return will not be expedient for us.”
A partial presentation of truth is often the worst kind of error. In this case there is no excuse for the error, for the text quoted has no reference to his return; and the writer intimates that this is the Saviour’s decision on that subject. This is what the Saviour said: “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself.” John 14:2, 3. When he went away the angels said: “This same Jesus which is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into Heaven.” Acts 1:11. As he went physically, in their sight, so will he come again. And Paul said: “The Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the triumph of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” 1 Thess. 4:16-18. This is a physical coming, even as there will be a physical resurrection, and as we which are alive will certainly be caught up physically to meet the Lord when he returns. But if he does not return there will be no resurrection, and we shall lose the comfort of “these words.”
We regret that the Advocate has done itself the injustice to so present itself before the public. We hope its writer may feel the responsibility of his position, and speak as we all ought to speak in view of the solemn truth that for our words we shall be brought into Judgment.
J. H. WAGGONER. Gilroy, June 10, 1875.