SCARCELY ANSWERED by James White

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 10, 1881

SCARCELY ANSWERED.

By James White

THE Advance publishes "Some Questions from a Roman Catholic Brother," which it professes to answer. It well says, "The following letter speaks for itself":—

"BALTIMORE, MD., Jan. 12, 1881. "Dear Sir: I am a Catholic, and I have been disputing with a Protestant gentleman on the subject of religion. The other day I pointed to the multitudinous sects as a proof that they one and all have not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—since some of them hold as gospel doctrine what others deny as such. My friend replied that they are one where essentials are concerned, and many only in non-essentials. "'Since these essentials are vital,' I retorted, 'they ought to be as sharply defined and as well known as the ten commandments. What, then, are the essentials of Christianity, which all Protestant denominations are a unit in maintaining?' He could not tell me. As I have heard the same assertion often made but never yet demonstrated, will you, as an exponent of Protestantism, kindly furnish me with the desired information? I would like to have a tabulated statement, so as to know precisely—1, 2, 3, 4, etc.,—all the essentials of Christianity recognized as such by all Protestant denominations. Hoping you will gratify me in the next issue of your paper, and thanking you in advance for your courtesy, I am "Yours respectfully, L. W. REILLY."

The editor indorses the statement of the Protestant gentleman, and admits the reasonableness of the requirement that these "essentials" of religion should be sharply defined and well known. He then proceeds to answer them, and his first item is as follows:—

"1. All the evangelical Protestant denominations are a unit in accepting the supreme authority of the ten commandments."

This is an error, at the very outset. The denomination to which President Garfield belongs is quite numerous, and it certainly claims to be evangelical, and is generally fraternized by other denominations, and it is almost "a unit" in its rejection of the authority of the ten commandments. We make this statement from a long and close acquaintance with their teachings. We have heard it from the lips, and read it from the pens, of eminent men of the denomination; not as an incidental declaration, but as the subject of a labored argument, sometimes in a public discussion where it is expected that the views of the speaker and of his indorsers will be stated with precision.

Nor is that denomination alone in this. There is an increasing tendency in that direction with other denominations. It is becoming a very common thing with nearly all denominations to deny the binding force of the fourth commandment in their endeavors to refute the claims of the seventh-day Sabbath. This position is taken by accepted authors in the largest denominations of the land. And if the fourth commandment was local, or confined in its obligation to the Jews and to a past dispensation, then there can be no "supreme authority of the ten commandments." Far, very far is the Advance from being right in this first item of Protestant faith.

And it is equally unfortunate in respect to its seventh article. It reads as follows:—

"7. They are a unit in accepting the divine sanction and peculiar grace put forth upon the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, and are a unit in maintaining that the essential thing about these sacraments is not the particular form or mode of the rite, but it is the spirit with which the believing heart accepts from God the grace which he offers, and of which the sacraments are the expressive symbols."

Whether it be right or wrong to reject the statement of the above item of faith, it still is true that there is a very large part of the evangelical Protestant church who would never accept it. Protestants are not a unit in any such form of faith. Every true baptist in the world would deny it. And we do not speak merely of the Baptist denomination, but baptists in principle, whatever their name. It is not difficult to enforce or elucidate their position.

Let us place Naaman the Syrian under the tuition of the Advance, and he could easily display the spirit which he did display, and reason it out logically.

"I accept the divine sanction and peculiar grace put forth upon the prophet's injunction, but the essential thing is not the particular river to which I must go, or the form or mode of applying the water. The rivers of Damascus are just as good as Jordan, or sending my servant to bring some water and sprinkle it upon me is just as well as dipping myself in the river, as long as I, with a believing heart and in a right spirit, accept the grace offered in the precept."

If the Advance can find any fault with this language in the mouth of Naaman, it is because there is a defect in its own article. But, had Naaman reasoned thus and acted accordingly, he would not have obeyed the prophet's direction. And none can deny that the grace offered is received in obeying the Lord's requirements, and not in substituting something else for them. When the sacrament was perverted in Corinth, Paul said, "This is not the Lord's supper." And so we might say of every perversion of the divine commandments, "This is not the Lord's ordinance." And there is no difficulty in framing reasons and excuses for any and every departure from the divine precepts. The Protestants deny the right of the Catholics to elevate the tradition to a level with the written word; but they only accept such traditions as "have a pious use." It is not so much the matter of accepting Scripture or tradition, as it is the spirit in which the believing heart accepts the grace which is offered to him who believes the gospel! And where shall this thing end?

In his ninth, and last, article also the editor has strayed from the facts in the case. A part of it reads thus:—

"They agree in protesting against any form of religious persecution, believing that to his own Master, even God, every man must be accountable, and that each individual possesses an incommunicable responsibility for his own religious beliefs; that in essentials all the sincere disciples of Christ, everywhere, of all names, of all grades of regenerate, spiritual development, are one."

Now the truth is that they are more nearly a unit in denying the right of a denomination or of individuals to religiously carry out their conscientious convictions in obeying the fourth of the ten commandments exactly as Jehovah spoke it, and has given it to us in his written word. What evangelical Protestant denomination has raised its voice in a protest against the arbitrary persecuting laws of Pennsylvania, under which people are punished for obeying the fourth commandment of the ten? What denomination has repudiated the object of the "Religious Amendment" association, which openly avows its determination to disfranchise those who will not keep a day not mentioned in the commandment, in preference to the rest-day of Jehovah, which is enjoined in the commandment? The Advance cannot be ignorant of the object of this National Association which has the moral support of almost every large denomination in the land.

It is far better to confess our faults than to try to evade the responsibility of them. If ever Catholics are convinced that the Protestant denominations are right, it must be by some better argument or reason than that of the unity of their faith! Whether it be fortunate or unfortunate, the fact remains that among them no unity of faith exists. Were we to select the large denominations, and then accept only those things as matters of faith in which they do not differ, we should find our creed to be beautifully small. Although the Advance thinks that however the questions are answered, the answer would amount to about the same, it is prudently careful to say,—

"Now our Catholic questioner will please remark that in saying this, in answer to his questions, we do not assume to speak authoritatively for the rest; we only 'speak from the floor,' not ex cathedra."

And here is just where the Catholic questioner can not fail to notice the difference between the Catholics and the Protestants. When a Catholic makes known his faith he does "speak authoritatively for the rest." They are of one faith.

In noting these points we state explicitly that we have no manner of confidence in the Catholic system. We believe in "the unity of the faith," but not a unity enforced by arbitrary power. It must be under freedom of conscience, under the enlightening influence of the holy Bible. Unity of faith is not desirable if the faith be a false one. We only confess that there are serious errors among Protestants, even among those acknowledged as "evangelical." We would that there was among them a greater willingness to confess their errors, and to correct them, and less inclination to excuse them, or to evade the responsibility of them.

J. H. W.