BOTH SIDES | AdventAI

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 25, 1862

BOTH SIDES.

REPLY TO THE FOREGOING LETTER.

To the Congregational Church of Malone, N. Y. DEAR BRETHREN : The first letter of admonition to myself from Dr. Parmalee and your pastor in your behalf, has been received; and feeling that the cause of truth, as well as justice to myself, demands that some explanation be made to correct the misapprehension that seems still to exist, and to show the fallacy of the reasoning by which the charges preferred against me were sustained, I take the liberty of replying. It is with a feeling of hesitancy and distrust of my ability that I commence the task, especially when I contrast the age and experience of the writer with my own; but my trust is in Him whose "grace is sufficient," and whose truth does not require the aid of "enticing words of man's wisdom," either in its promulgation or defense; in Him who is able with the weak and base things of the world to confound the wise and mighty. I admit, as I have done before, that the rule laid down in Matt. xviii has been followed in my case; but the fact that there were but thirteen members of the church present at the meeting before which I was cited, to hear my defense, is an additional inducement for making this reply. In remarking upon my reply to charge 1st, the Dr. refers to the woman spoken of in Rev. xvii, having in her forehead the name written, "Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth," and admits that it represents a corrupt church. He then asks what evidence we have that the "pastor and members of the church from which I have gone out are the moral children of this profligate and bloody woman." I will notice this point soon. The woman spoken of in Rev. xii is also referred to as an emblem of the true church. That all God's people from that time forward are not here included, is clearly shown by verse 17, where they are mentioned under the distinctive terms of the woman and her seed. Is it then unreasonable to conclude that the term Babylon, as used in chap. xiv, 8, and xviii, 2, includes not only the profligate mother, but also the harlot daughters? It seems not. But let us look at some of the reasons that make this conclusion not only reasonable, but necessary. 1. Babylon is derived from Babel, and signifies mixture, confusion. Webster. It would seem to have more direct reference to a confusion of language or teaching. But the Roman church alone manifests no such confusion. It is a unit in this respect. Its teachings are the same the world over. 2. It is stated in chap. xviii, 3, that "all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." This cannot be true of the church of Rome alone, for several nations have their established religion, and disavow all allegiance to the church of Rome. The question then arises, Who, or what, constitutes this great Babylon of whom such accusations are made, and upon whom such judgments are denounced? Who are the moral children of this abominable woman? And here the Dr. in his inquiry evidences considerable misapprehension. We do not apply this to individuals, but to the several ecclesiastical organizations professing Christianity, but in works denying it. And we believe we have evidence sufficient to convince any honest inquirer after truth of the justness of this application. 1. The confusion existing among the ecclesiastical bodies, is enough to put ancient Babel to the blush; for they not only cannot understand each other, but their language is often contradictory and almost unintelligible to themselves. Examine their creeds, all of which are professedly taken from the Bible, and no two of them teach the same things. Demand an explanation of any article of faith, and it is given to suit the taste of the individual inquired of. 2. They have all sprung, directly or indirectly, from the church of Rome; and although they protest against her, and admit the Bible to be a sufficient rule of faith

and practice, yet like her they all have their creeds or articles of faith, and which uphold many doctrines and practices that are only to be found in the "acts of the Man of sin," such as the first-day Sabbath, infant sprinkling, &c. Nor are individuals admitted to, or retained in, their communion unless they subscribe to these articles; and offending members are tried and condemned by them. As proof on this point I have but to refer to the third charge preferred against me, which reads as follows: "3d. For adhering to, and promulgating, doctrines contrary to the belief and teachings of this body" (not the Bible). The following from the Rev. Charles Beecher clearly expresses my idea upon this point. He says: "The creed system is now exerting upon the clergy of the Protestant churches a secret, unsuspected, but tremendous power against the Bible—a power of fear. Yes, while it professes to venerate and defend the Bible, it is virtually undermining it." Protestants are horror-struck with the idea of claiming infallibility, but how often will you find them admitting that they are wrong? Now find the difference between "never can err," and "never do err," and what does it amount to? Merely a cipher. So that Protestants have all the benefit of the claim, and leave Romanists to bear the odium attached to it. But when we look at the moral character of the professed Christian world, when we view a worldly-minded, fashion-devoted, and pleasure-loving church, we involuntarily exclaim, How are the mighty fallen! The angel declares [Rev. xviii, 2] that Babylon is "become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." It is a deplorable fact that among the members of nearly all denominations of professed Christians, are many who have become victims of the Satanic delusion, Spiritualism, some of whom come directly under Satan's influence as mediums. It is also a lamentable fact that very many make a profession of religion and unite with the church, merely from motives of self-interest and aggrandizement, making religion a garb under which they may the more successfully prosecute their schemes for amassing wealth and obtaining rank and distinction; for the standard of truth and holiness is thrown into the dust by the church, so that success and popularity follow only in her wake. Where will you find the spirit of consecration, humility, and self-denial that should characterize the people of God? Not in the Protestant churches of the present day, by any means. On the contrary, their most prominent characteristics are covetousness, conformity to the world, and love of ease and pleasure, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof;" and the apostle's positive admonition is to "turn away," and "withdraw" from such. 1 Tim. vi, 5; 2 Tim. iii, 5. I will introduce a few extracts, and leave the subject for your consideration. Dr. Cumming, of England, says: "I believe that one-half of the professors of the gospel are nothing better than practical infidels." Time of the End, p. 183. Robert Atkins, in a sermon preached in London, says: "The professors of religion of the present day, in every church, are lovers of the world, conformers to the world, lovers of creature comfort, and aspirers after respectability. . . . Apostasy, apostasy, apostasy, is engraven on the front of the church." Mr. O. Scott (Wesleyan Methodist) says: "Most of the denominations of the present day might be called churches of the world with more propriety than churches of Christ." The following is from the report of the Michigan Yearly Conference, published in the True Wesleyan, Nov. 15, 1851: "The world, commercial, political, and ecclesiastical, are alike, and are together going in the broad way that leads to death. Politics, commerce, and nominal religion, all connive at sin, reciprocally aid each other, and unite to crush the poor. Falsehood is unblushingly uttered in the forum and the pulpit, and sins that would shock the moral sensibilities of the heathen, go unrebuked in all the great denominations of our land. These churches are like the Jewish church when the Saviour exclaimed, Wo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"

How applicable the call, "Come out of her, my people." The next question the Dr. considers is the Sabbath, and I thank him for the frank admission he makes on the start, that the "seventh day was the Sabbath from the creation, which continued in full force till after the resurrection of Christ;" for unless his reasons for believing that a change was then made are conclusive, he must admit that it is still in force. These I will briefly examine. 1. "Redemption is a much greater work than creation." In this the Dr. has but reiterated the sentiment of the Catholic Catechism and the Protestant hymn books; but how either knows, I have not been able to learn, as the Bible is entirely silent in regard to the matter; and as the only Being who is able to perform these great works has been pleased to say nothing about it, I think it the part of wisdom for us to remain silent. But is redemption complete? Let Paul answer. In Eph. i, 14, he speaks of the redemption of the "purchased possession;" and in Rom. viii, 22, 23, he says, "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." When redemption is complete, every vestige of the effects of sin will be swept from this fair creation, and the earth again take its place in the universe, robed in all its Eden glory, and become the happy abode of the resurrected and immortalized saints. And as to a memorial of Christ's work on earth, we have the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper given us to commemorate his death, burial, and resurrection, so that we are not driven to the necessity of robbing God of his memorial of creation. But did Christ, by his example, show that the first day had become sacred? We will examine the passages referred to. Mark xvi, 2. "And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came to the sepulchre at the rising of the sun." How strange! But the preceding verse shows that the Sabbath was past. So much for that. Verse 9. "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." Wonderful! He could not appear to her before he was risen, and who would require him to wait till the next day unless he chose to? Luke xxiv, 15-33. Please read it over, and see if there is a word in it about the Sabbath, much less an intimation that it was changed. John xx, 19–26. In respect to the meeting mentioned in verse 19, we shall find by reference to Acts i, 13; Mark xvi, 9–14; Luke xxiv, 36, 37, that the disciples were together in their common abode, partaking of their evening meal; that they did not believe that Christ was risen, but were terrified at his presence; and that he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart. If he chose to manifest himself to them the same day that he rose, does that necessarily make it a Sabbath? The meeting mentioned in verse 26 was "after eight days," so that it could not have been the next Sunday, as the Dr. would have us suppose, for by reference to Mark ix, 2, and Luke ix, 28, we learn that "after six days" is equal to "about an eight days;" so that "after eight days" may be about a ten days. 2. Apostolic example. Acts xx, 7. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread," &c. We see that this was an evening meeting, for there were "many lights in the upper chamber." Verse 8. As at that time the day commenced at the setting of the sun, according to the original reckoning of time in Gen. i, this must have corresponded to our Saturday evening, and Paul, instead of observing the day as a Sabbath, continues his journey to Jerusalem. Will the Dr. accuse Paul of Sabbath-breaking? 1 Cor. xvi, 2. "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store," &c. Look at this carefully, and see if there is anything like a public contribution in it. Justin Edwards, in his notes on this passage, says, "Lay by him in store at home." And

every translation of this passage we have ever seen conveys the same idea. We may learn what apostolic example is from the following scriptures: Luke xxiii, 56; Acts xiii, 42, 44; xvi, 13; xvii, 2; xviii, 4, 11. From these we learn that the holy women kept the Sabbath according to the commandment, and that it was Paul's manner to reason out of the Scriptures every Sabbath-day, both to the Jews and Greeks. And in Acts xxviii, 17, we read that Paul told the chief of the Jews that he had "done nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers;" which he could not have said in truth had he been an observer of Sunday in the place of the Sabbath. Rev. i, 10. "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." The Dr. seems to "understand" very clearly that this refers to the first day of the week; but the Bible teaches very differently. We read in Gen. ii, 3, that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; and in Isa. lviii, 13, he calls it "my holy day;" and Christ calls himself the Lord of the Sabbath. Matt. xii, 8; Mark ii, 28. 3. Testimony of the fathers. Dr. Clarke says, "We should take heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the doctrines of the gospel; because he who knows them best knows that on many of those subjects they blow hot and cold." Autobiography of A. Clarke, p. 134. In answer to the extract from Mosheim, we give the following from Neander: "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was only a human ordinance; and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin." Rose's Neander, p. 186. Kitto says, "The earliest authentic instance in which the name of the Lord's day is applied . . . is not till A. D. 200, when Tertullian speaks of it as 'Die Dominico resurrectionis.'" Cycl. Bib. Lit. art. Lord's day. The following is from the American Cyclopedia, article Lord's day: "Constantine the Great made a law for the whole empire (A. D. 321), that Sunday should be kept as a day of rest in all cities and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their work on that day." Let us hear Mosheim again: "The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated times for the public assemblies of the Christians, was, in consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been." Eccl. Hist. cent. 4, part 2, chap. 4, sec. 5. How much does this look like a Sabbath? Notwithstanding the edict permits all sorts of agricultural labor, yet, according to Mosheim, it caused the day to be observed with greater solemnity than it had been before. (Concluded next week.)