Unreasoning Prejudice by Editor

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Mar 20, 1879

Unreasoning Prejudice.

By Editor

PREJUDICE is both cruel and unreasoning. It never discriminates—never seeks that which is just and right. Therefore there is but little use to try to reason with it. A few things have lately been presented to our notice which we do not hesitate to lay to the account of unreasoning prejudice.

1. Dr. J. R. Graves, reporting from California to his paper in Tennessee, speaks disparagingly—almost contemptuously—of the Adventists, as denying the resurrection of the wicked and the salvation of infants. There is a comparatively small body of people, calling themselves Adventists, who deny the resurrection of the unjust. But they do not as nearly represent the Adventists of the United States as the Hardshells of the South represent the great Baptist denomination. We have traveled some in California and never been so fortunate (or unfortunate) as to meet one of that belief. We once wrote a pamphlet against the non-resurrection theory which is indorsed by Adventists in general—by Seventh-day Adventists unanimously, and almost entirely by the First-day Adventists. The latter have three organs on the Atlantic—the Bible Banner in Philadelphia, and the World's Crisis and Messiah's Herald in Boston—all of which are openly committed against that non-resurrection theory. Nothing but prejudice connects the Adventists in such a general manner with that theory.

As to the other point, we are not aware that those who deny the resurrection of the unjust deny the salvation of infants. We shall not believe it till we have more proof than we have at present. We know that other Adventists do not deny it. As Dr. Graves represents that wing of the Baptists who are the most Radical Calvinists or predestinarians, we should far sooner ascribe that position to him and to his followers than to any body of Adventists; for we know that in the past these predestinarians have taught the reprobation of unborn infants! True, they do not preach it so much now as they used to; but we have yet to learn that they have ever repudiated it as a doctrine.

2. Another case which we can only ascribe to the same cause, is found in the California Christian Advocate of the 13th inst. We confess that it has the appearance of cruelty to associate in the same article the editor of the "Great Iron Wheel!" We deeply regret that there exists a necessity for our so doing; but the necessity is pressed upon us, and we are forced to "accept the situation," however much it jars our feelings of charity.

We think the Advocate has done needless injustice to "Second Adventism" in its notice of a recent publication—"The Last Trump." There are several bodies of professed Adventists in the United States (not, however, as many as there are of Methodists). But this "Last Trump" does not represent either of them. It is "unique"—its editor is an original. In all our travels among Adventists for a quarter of a century, from Maine to California, we have met with only just one man whose faith appears to be similar to that of the editor of the "Last Trump." And he could not be called an Adventist, for he believed that the Saviour has come, and that the resurrection of the righteous has taken place, or is taking place; for he said the resurrection of the just, as the coming of Christ, is a silent, unobserved event, which occurs without any body on the earth knowing it! Something similar to this we noticed in the "Trump;" but whether or not it is the same, we are not able to say, as the writer urges that it can be understood only by a certain class, of whom probably we are not one.

Again, the editor tries to belittle the doctrine because many of the "Disciples" in Indiana embraced it "more than thirty years ago," and perhaps mingled it with their own peculiarities. But we can inform him, if he does not know it, that at that time many Methodists also embraced it,—thousands of lay members, and not a few of the elders, some of them very able men in that connection. But this does not lead us to endeavor to identify Methodists as Second Adventists, or even to class them together. And yet it is true that there is more difference between the Disciples and Second Adventists than between the Methodists and Second Adventists. And this is especially true of Seventh-day Adventists who stand at the very extreme of opposition to the antinomianism of the Disciples. In this, as well as in the doctrine of the immediate presence and operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion and in Christian life, we are in harmony with the Methodists whenever Methodists are true to their own principles. We have now "on file" for early publication some excellent things from Wesley's Works, against antinomianism. We regret that it is a fact that even some Methodist ministers need to be corrected by such teachings as those of the noble Wesley. They are leaving the landmarks of Methodism, apparently not realizing what they are doing or how they are falling.

But the gravest offense is an error of statement for which we can find no excuse. Or, if it is not an error of statement, we would like to have it shown. The following are the words:—

"The wise virgins had their lamps trimmed and oil in their vessels—and some of them provided their ascension robes."

This old story of "ascension robes" we have tracked from ocean to ocean, entirely across the continent; we have seen many who affirmed it to be a fact, but never one who knew it to be a fact. A reward of $1000 offered by a party in New England for an authenticated instance, was never called for. We are sorry that the Advocate, for which paper we have entertained genuine respect, should strengthen the prejudice of its readers by making such a statement. It can do them no good, and may do them harm, for there is entirely too much "denominational spleen" already existing; too much religious bigotry which cannot "render a reason," and too little of that charity which "thinketh no evil."

We are not pleading for exemption from blame where blame is deserved. Let it fall—let justice have its course. "Cry aloud and spare not," where sin is known to exist. But we deplore the fact that so many who apparently mean to do right and to be Christians, let their prejudices so control them that they cannot do justice to their fellow-man who conscientiously differs with them.