Reply to Wrong Statements Respecting "Misrepresentations."
By Joseph Bates
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—On my arrival at Albion, Wis., July 15th, I found the communication which you kindly forwarded me, a notice of which you had published in the Review and Herald the 8th, from C. W. Low, C. Crawford, M. Whitaker and N. Riehardson. As soon as an opportunity offered, after our series of meetings closed, I commenced a reply to them personally. Before I had finished my letter, the Advent Harbinger of July 10th was placed in my hand, showing that the article in question was published in that paper. I therefore change the order of my communication and send you the following for publication. In the first place, allow me to say that whatever responsibility is thrown on you by the Harbinger, or from any other quarter, because you did not publish their communication without a more thorough knowledge of it, let it all be placed in my account. I am much obliged to you for sending me the communication and withholding the publication of it as you have. I will quote from their article which is headed, "MR. JOSEPH BATES' MISREPRESENTATIONS." "Mr. White, Sir: It is well known to the readers of your paper, that Mr. Bates in company with Mr. Edson, came to Fredonia last February and spent two Sabbaths there and in the adjoining town. The account of this meeting is given by him in the Review and Herald of May 6th, 1852. In that account there are a number of misrepresentations. The first is, that two local ministers (Brn. Low and Crawford) said they might occupy the forenoon. But they did not say so. They said they might preach, if they would give them the privilege of replying." We reply that Bro. Hamilton's request for us to speak was complied with, that we might occupy the forenoon. After some moments, Bro. H. said, Bro. Bates, there is liberty, or you can speak. I then objected, because there was not sufficient time allowed me to present the subject which I had thought to speak from, and make it clear. Bro. Hamilton spoke again, and said, take your time, or your own time. I knew there would have been no necessity for the above remarks if they had not limited me to a particular time. That time, I say again, was the forenoon. I think it was then some fifteen minutes past eleven in the forenoon. I occupied from that time until near 2 o'clock P. M. As for their replying to me, it was not my prerogative to grant. They were in their own meeting, and acted their own pleasure. The second misrepresentation which they charge me with is as follows: "As soon as Mr. Bates sat down, Bro. Hamilton arose and said that he rejoiced to have the privilege that he then had, and that he had seen so much light from God's word, &c. When he sat down, Bro. Low arose, the first minister Mr. Bates mentioned, and says that he, followed him. Bro. Low did say that the Sabbath was not binding upon us, for it was given to the Jews, &c. Bro. Low said that the nine commandments are embodied in the gospel of the Son of God but the fourth is not." The accusation against me here is, that Bro. Hamilton followed me and not Bro. Low. My own statement in the Review and Herald is as follows: 'One of the ministers followed me in opposition to my subject.' Bro. Hamilton's remarks, as above stated, were not in opposition to my subject, but Mr. Low's remarks were. Those that read will judge for themselves, which statement is right. The third misrepresentation which they charge me with, is as follows: "Bro. Crawford arose and said it was time to close. At this Sr. Miller arose and said that she would like to make a few remarks. Bro. C. then set down while she spoke. He then arose, and Mr. Bates now says that Bro. C. commenced by saying, produce me a command of my Lord for keeping the Sabbath and I will keep it. This is another misrepresentation and utterly false, for Bro. C. commenced by reading Mr. Bates' text," &c. My reply is, that Mr. C. might possibly have spoken of my text first. If he did, I do not remember it. I penciled in my note book what I considered the most important sentences that the two ministers uttered. I read some of them to the ministers afterward in the meeting. At first some of them were objected to, but when it was stated by one in the meeting, that, that was the language uttered, Mr. Low acknowledged that he did say what they have all acknowledged, viz: 'Bro. Low said that the nine commandments are embodied in the gospel of the Son of God,' &c. When I wrote the article they refer to, it was some weeks after the meeting. I then had recourse to my notes of the meeting to see what Mr. C. stated. The first sentence under his name, stands as I have stated. 'Produce a command of my Lord for keeping the Sabbath and I will keep it.' I know not how to state it differently, even now. If it shall hereafter come to my knowledge that Mr. C. did speak of some passages of Scripture, as he and his three associates say he did, before he spoke the sentence, 'Show me a command of my Lord,' &c. then I shall most readily acknowledge that he did speak some other words first. "Finally, Mr. Bates says that these two ministers put on their overcoats and left the meeting in disorder. Here is another statement that is not true." We answer, the meeting came to its end as we have stated. Mr. C. said it was time to close before Sr. Miller spoke. He himself spoke after this and some others, but they did leave the meeting without uttering a prayer, benediction, or even so much as to say the meeting is closed. If this was not a disorderly way of closing a religious meeting, then I do not understand the signification of order. But after charging me with another falsehood for thus saying, they ask, "What was that disorder? It could not consist in their abruptly leaving the meeting, as though Mr. Bates had whipped them out as he represents." (Those who wish to know, can read my article and see if I have so represented.) "Mr. Bates was the very man that commenced it. How? by breaking in upon Bro. Low when he was talking. Now then instead of the rebuke of which Mr. Bates speaks, resting upon the heads of Brn. Low and Crawford, it will rest upon his own head in the day of judgment, unless he repents and confesses his false statements and misrepresentations. If Mr. Bates had asked the plain facts in the case they would not have been noticed. But as he has not, we think that justice to God and humanity, &c. demands that a correct state of the facts in the case be made and published." The disorder of the meeting, was not as they have stated, neither is it according to the statement of C. Crawford Jr. in the Harbinger of July 17th, 1852, "that Mr. Bates began it by breaking in upon Bro. Low when he first spoke." When Mr. Low was speaking the first time, he said in a very vehement manner, (referring to my discourse,) that it was a dishonest way of presenting the fourth commandment, and called for an open rebuke from heaven. I then spoke these words, Amen, let it come where it belongs. Bro. Edson responded. Those were the only words that I have the least knowledge of uttering, during, his severe and unjust remarks, and if I am in any way capable of judging when men are in anger by their words and gestures, then was Mr. Low angry. But our amen did not even check the sentence which he carried out, for he continued: 'We do not now live by the law. The nine commandments are embodied in the gospel of the Son of God, but the fourth is not.' &c. Mr. Crawford in his remarks said, 'The nine commandments are embodied in the sayings of our Saviour.' In their statement they leave this out, and endeavor to cover it up by saying, Mr. Bates represents here as though the gospel of the Son of God was simply the sayings of our Saviour, &c. As soon as a fair opportunity offered, I asked the privilege of presenting a few questions for the meeting. Will you please to read the text from the New Testament to prove where the Saviour has embodied the first commandment of his Father. 1 Cor. viii, 6 was read by Mr. C. We asked if that was the testimony of Jesus. An attempt was made to prove that Paul's argument here was the same as that of Jesus. As he had said that "the nine commandments are embodied in the sayings of our Saviour." I asked them to read the first one to the meeting, and for holding them to this point, or a qualification of it, the disorder arose by their breaking in upon me, instead of my breaking in upon them. When they attempted to change the subject, I asked for a reply to my question, and stated that I had more questions to ask. After they had put on their overcoats and got to the outside door to go out, I followed them, and pressed them for an answer.—They did not give it. This is where I believe that the rebuke fell on their heads, and they are endeavoring to shift it upon me. If they will prove what they then asserted, and show how Jesus has embodied the first commandment of his Father in his sayings and also the second and third, and left out the fourth, or confess their error, then they will begin to get out of the difficulty they are now in, and not before. I quoted Matt. xxii, 36-40, to show that Jesus had given them all there, they would not admit that, if they had I suppose they see at once they could not leave the fourth out. As to their sweeping remarks respecting our practice, faith and teaching, we say that we teach no doctrine but what we can prove by the Bible; neither have we the slightest fear that men can overthrow our position. Victory is certain to those who rally under the banner of the third angel's message. Our illustration of the black flag of Papacy is used like other illustrations to give a clearer idea of our subject. Mariners can appreciate it better than landmen. The 144,000 being sealed under the sixth seal, and while the four angels are holding the four winds, a clear bible doctrine, according to the revelation of Jesus Christ. The ending of the 2,300 days of Daniel's vision is a clear bible doctrine connected with the history of the church in 1844. The Seventh-day Sabbath is a sign and a seal of the living God to those who keep it faithfully. We do not teach that those who keep the first day of the week have the mark of the beast. The testimony is, 'if any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark, &c.' If you will reject the commandments of God in which is the true or bible mark, and receive the mark of the beast understandingly, then you have it. We do not teach that we are judging or condemning the world by the doctrines we preach; neither are we in any way connected with, nor favoring S. S. Snow's doctrine, nor Shakerism, nor any other class of people that are not willing to keep the commandments of God. JOSEPH BATES.
Janesville, Wis., July 27th 1852.