A. N. SEYMOUR AND THE THIRD ANGEL'S MESSAGE.
IT has become so common for our no-law, or anti-law opponents to place this message in the future age, that an effort by any of that class to locate it anywhere else is quite an out-of-the-way event. But such an event occurred in Burlington some time since. Mr. Seymour spoke on the subject according to an appointment. His method of proof was as brief as it was novel. He said that the second message located the first and third, and then affirmed that the second was proclaimed by Luther, and of course the others were also. The point on which he particularly dwelt was that the Roman Catholic church was Babylon, and that "Protestants have nothing to do with it whatever." He said he was favorably inclined to our view of the message once, but that word Babylon kept him from embracing it. When he came to that he stopped—he could go no farther. That this referred to the churches was a position too monstrous for him to endorse. This sounded exceedingly strange to those who had heard him preach and argue, in sermon after sermon, that the churches were Babylon. I was informed by those who had attended his meetings here, that he had in times past preached it much stronger and made it more prominent than we have. And the impression of such was that his convictions were the same that they were then, but it was the only point where he could raise a prejudice in the minds of the churches, and cast an influence against us. His pretended argument was a complete failure, as the following facts will show: He did not show, or attempt to show, that Luther preached "the hour of his judgment is come." He did not show what the image and mark were, or the relation they sustain to the beast in the message. He did not tell where the beast received a deadly wound, and refused to answer a question on that point. His closing remarks were against the Law and Sabbath, in the usual strain of such harangues. In reviewing his discourse I denied that the first and third messages were located by the second, and then showed that, 1. The first message is located by the word "another," showing its relation to certain events then past. 2. The third message is based on facts existing subsequent to the wounding and healing of the seven-headed and ten-horned beast. 3. "The hour of his judgment is come" could not be proclaimed till the termination of 2300 days of Dan. viii, 14. 4. The degenerate state of the churches since 1844 is so plain to be seen that our observation scarcely needs the confessions they have made to confirm it. He defied any man to show one passage of scripture that says the Protestant churches are Babylon! This is similar to his method of argument on other points. In turn I called for one passage that says the Catholic church is Babylon. There is no such passage. We arrive at the conclusion by a process of reasoning, and we reason from the same facts to show that the Protestant churches are "the legitimate daughters," as A. Campbell says, corrupting themselves with the nations of the earth, sustaining their unjust laws, and in return receiving charters from earthly governments. See the reason assigned for her fall in Rev. xiv, 8. In his second discourse he read a few pages of questions, relating to the Sabbath, about three dozen in number, which he said were unanswerable. A few of the first questions covered the whole ground, the others being transpositions of the same subject. The subject of these questions is fully set forth in a little tract published at the Review office, entitled, "Both Sides," containing a letter by E. Miller jr., and a reply by Bro. R. F. Cottrell. In reply to Mr. Seymour's statement that we dare not try to answer them, I stated that they had been answered, and the answers sent to the Expositor, where the questions were published, but the Editor refused to publish them, still sending forth the cry that no one dare reply to them. On being questioned in regard to this statement, I am told Mr. S. said that Mr. Marsh said they were not fully and scripturally answered, therefore he did not publish or notice the answers! Such is the boasted freedom of the Expositor. His readers must not be permitted to judge of the merits of the case. Could they hear "both sides" they might exercise "the right of private judgment," a privilege not countenanced by the Pope of Rome and Joseph Marsh. Mr. S. gave as his reason for not answering my question on Rev. xiii, 3, that I had published him as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and he would not answer till I retracted it. This I could not do, as I had reasons for so publishing him. First, I think he answers to the description given of that class by our Saviour. Second, his course demanded that the warning be given. Some suppose that Mr. Seymour denied my statements, in the Expositor; but that is a mistake growing out of a hasty or careless reading of his remarks.85He said I depended on others for my information, and published from hearsay. But he did not deny that the information I had received was correct. Had he done this, I stood prepared to prove it, and he knew I could do it. And some have complained of the act as though it was an unpardonable sin to make an application of the words of the Saviour. But if we shall not do this, of what use is the scripture? Will some one tell? Jesus gave the warning, and told us what class to beware of; but he did not inform us what individuals would belong to the class. Of this we must judge, being responsible to the Author for the use we make of the scripture. But this passage is not alone in this respect. The same responsibility rests upon us in regard to all the word of God. The warning can only be of use to us as we are permitted to make an application of it. Mr. Seymour stated that we feared his influence more than that of any other man in Michigan. For the information and gratification of those who have heard of his efforts against the truth, I will say that his lectures in Burlington have been the means of greatly strengthening the faith of the church in this place. When it was announced that he was to preach against the Message, some feared the result would be to weaken the faith of some, and raise doubts of the truth of our position. But when they saw the weakness of his position, and the lack of argument to remove the message from the present generation, their confidence in the truth was strengthened. A friend has placed in my hands some objections to the ground taken in the review of Mr. S., which have lain unnoticed for want of time to attend to them. I hope to be able to attend to them soon. J. H. W.