The Argument of Slur by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Aug 8, 1906

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 32, No. 30.

The Argument of Slur.

By Editor

WHEN the enemies of truth fail to accomplish their purpose by means of what might be considered legitimate contention, they usually resort to the argument of slur. The last resort is to make the advocates of righteousness appear mean and insignificant in the eyes of the people at large.

When Moses demanded of Pharaoh, in the name of the Lord, that he should let Israel go free, he replied: "Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go." But his attempt to belittle the God of his slaves was fraught with great disaster.

When David went forth in the name of the Lord to meet Goliath, the giant "disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance. And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field." But a pebble from the leather sling of the shepherd boy brought the giant boaster to the ground in ignominious defeat.

Sennacherib came against Jerusalem with great display of power, and sought to discourage Hezekiah by making light of his God. "No god of any nation or kingdom was able to deliver his people out of mine hand, and out of the hand of my fathers; how much less shall your God deliver you out of mine hand?" This slur was repeated with much emphasis in the ears of the people of Jerusalem; but "the Lord sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valor, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land." See 2 Chron. 32:9-23.

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, set up a golden image and commanded all his officers to worship it. But three Hebrew captives refused, when the king ordered that they be thrown into a fiery furnace, saying, "Who is that god [with special reference to the God of Israel] that shall be able to deliver you out of my hands?" In a very short time, however, he saw that his fiery furnace could not have any effect on the servants of the God whom he had despised, and he was constrained to admit that "there is no other god that can deliver after this sort."

When Jesus of Nazareth came into the world to save sinners, He was "despised and rejected of men." The learned men said, "How knoweth this Man letters, having never learned?" The Pharisees said, "We know that God spake unto Moses; as for this fellow, we know not whence He is." His disciples were also disdained; their accusers said, "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." In all controversies with Christ, He always silenced His opponents with the Scriptures; hence they resorted to the argument of slur and innuendo, and finally they put Him to death. But He arose triumphant over all His foes, and sits at the right hand of His Father in heaven.

Coming down to later times, the real reformers, religious and political, have been despised and belittled by the powers whose oppression and corruption they have exposed and resisted. Luther, the Wesleys, the heroes of the American Revolution, and others too numerous to mention, have had to meet the argument of slur. And it has been demonstrated again and again that the only effective answer is the Word of God, the general principles of justice and mercy, and lives and works that bring to naught the slurs of those

who are driven to the use of such weapons against the truth.

Such men as Jefferson had to meet, and in his case his name has yet to meet, the charge of being an enemy of Christianity because he consistently contended for religious liberty.

It is true that in all ages there are many people carried away by the smart wit of the argument of slur. In all the instances to which we have referred, this argument had great weight for a time, even convincing the weak minded, but, worst of all, frightening those who know its fallacy but lack the moral stamina to stand up against it.

To-day there is a persistent effort being made by the so-called National Reform Association, and the so-called Bureau of Reform, to eradicate religious liberty in this country for all excepting those who support the intolerant movement. The argument of slur is a stock argument with them. Such epithets as "infidel," "traitor," "anarchist" are on the tongue's end of the average National Reform orator. But that which seems to express the limit of slur is the name Seventh-day Adventist. To class one in this category is deemed an answer to every argument based on the Scriptures, and every appeal to the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The little "one-seventh of one per cent." of population specification is sufficient in their minds to overthrow the religious liberty declarations of Christ Himself, together with all the patriotic doctrines of the fathers of the republic, and those who have maintained them since. And the millions of other people who still believe in the civil and religious rights of all classes are supposed to be silenced by the dread of being called Seventh-day Adventists.

But the intolerant religionists of Christ's day called Him Beelzebub, "the prince of devils," and those who maintain and proclaim His principles can afford to bear a name indicative of their faith, even if it is made an offensive epithet by the enemies of truth.