Letter to Bro. Carver by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 21, 1862

Letter to Bro. Carver.

By Editor

DEAR BROTHER: With pleasure we give in this week's issue your communication in reference to our duty in relation to the present war. The readers of the Review should have all the light that can be given on this subject at this time. This is what we have requested. We are too late in the investigation of this subject. The crisis is upon us, and we are poorly prepared to meet it.

The experience which you relate may be prized very highly by yourself and by others. We also have an experience on the subject, which followed deep anxiety, much study and prayer, which we have thought much of; but this you might not prize any higher than we do yours. However much we may value our own experiences, they cannot be guides to others.

We regret that our honest sentiments in the article referred to should grieve you. You were well aware that the closest Bible students stood in opposition to the position we had taken, and wherein we had erred from the truth of God's word, they and you could show it up. Did you or they ever see in us any unreadiness to listen to scripture testimony, or sound arguments drawn from the Scriptures? We think not.

We have called on the brethren to speak out upon the subject. And now you have spoken, it gives us feelings of joy rather than grief. On such a subject as this, he who would chose to bear alone the responsibility of marking out the course for others, seems worthy of the charge of fanaticism. We have objected to the style in which some have written opposing our position, and probably shall oppose such a style as long as we have our reason.

When we first made suggestions in reference to organization, we stated, "If any object to our suggestions, will they please write out a plan upon which we as a people can act." We have frequently repeated the request for nearly three long years, but no one of the anti-organization champions have sent us their plan, yet many continued to stand firm against us. Had you stood in our position in that battle, you would have had just cause for grief. We have called for light from all stand-points on the war question. Had you not written, and still opposed privately our position, we should have had ample cause to be grieved with you. But considering the open and free manner in which we have handled the question, we do not see that you have cause for grief more than the one hundred and one who were grieved on account of our suggestions relative to organization.

Dear brother, we still deny that there is a parallel between the cases of Daniel and the three Hebrews, and ours in case of a draft. You are not certain that the setting up, and the required worship, of the golden image, was not in reference to the Hebrews. But admitting that no reference was had to the worshipers of the God of heaven—which does not seem at all probable—the cases vastly differ. That was an act to establish idolatry in direct violation of the law of God, whether ignorantly put forth or not, but probably in defiance of the law of the God of heaven. The present war, and the consequent draft, is not directed to establish idolatry, Sunday-keeping, or any system or principle in opposition to the law of God; but to put down a rebellion resulting from the highest crimes on the part of rebeldom that man can be guilty of, and to establish a government which has, under the providence of God, secured to us the right of worshiping the God of high heaven according to his word. You labor to make it appear that the cases are a parallel in the one item of the decree touching the Hebrews, and a draft us, incidentally; but when we view all the facts, the cases appear most dissimilar.

In the case of Daniel, king Darius was led into a trap by those who were plotting against Daniel. They said, "We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God." The decree was by them introduced to the king, and he was urged by them to sign it, which he did in ignorance of its real design. Hence the decree was really aimed personally at Daniel, in direct opposition to the law of his God, and stands in widest contrast with a military draft to put down as wicked a rebellion as was ever inspired by vile men and devils.

Again, in laboring to sustain the position that what is called civilized warfare is a violation of the sixth commandment, you say in the case of the Hebrews slaughtering the Canaanites by the Lord's command, "God assumed all the responsibility." Very true. But assumed the responsibility of what? Of requiring them to violate a moral precept which he had under circumstances of awful grandeur established with them? Take care, my dear brother, lest you strengthen the reckless hands of the no-law men! God could have used other means to subdue the Canaanites, rather than to have required his people to do that which in itself is a violation of his immutable law. If your position be correct, we wait to see you and others establish it with legitimate conclusions from correct premises.

In an earlier communication you say, "You advise us, nay, urge us, to go to war when commanded to do so by the civil power." Please point out the paragraph in which we have thus advised or urged. We did say, in case of a military draft it would be madness to resist. And, certainly, no true disciple of non-resistance would resist a military draft. Such a man would well compare with the fervent advocate of peace, who would "have peace if he had to fight for it."

We have advised no man to go to war. We have struck at that fanaticism which grows out of extreme non-resistance, and have labored to lead our people to seek the Lord and trust in him for deliverance. How this can and will come, we have no light at present.—ED.