|
|
The
Lord's Day From Neither By
D. M. CANRIGHT
The
Lord's Day From Neither Catholics nor Pagans: By
D. M. CANRIGHT “I
try to put myself in the place of the man who does not know all the things that
I know.” - Pres. Woodrow Wilson. “We also are compassed about with so great a cloud of
witnesses” - Hebrews 12:1. PREFACE
One
of the chief things which Seventh-Day Adventists urge the most strongly is that
the observance of Sunday originated with the pagan Romans, thence was brought
into the Roman Church and then the Pope, or the Papacy, imposed this upon the
entire Christian world. Hence Sunday is only a pagan, papal day. They assert
this so strongly and so repeatedly, that un- informed people are frightened into
giving up the Lord's Day and accepting instead the Jewish Sabbath. It is a
subject on which people are generally not posted. Even those who are intelligent
and well read on general topics know little, or nothing, on this particular
subject, while the common people know absolutely nothing about it. To learn the
real facts in the case requires much careful research in the history of both
Church and State through several centuries of the early Church. Few people have
the time, or the means at hand, or the interest to do all this. Even educated
ministers in general have never given the subject much thought, because they
have had no occasion to do so. Hence, when suddenly required to meet Adventists
on this question, they are unprepared, nor do they have the necessary
authorities at hand to quickly look it up. So the strong assertions of the
Adventists often go unanswered. In an ordinary audience of several hundred there
would not be one person who would know how the pagan Romans regarded Sunday, or
whether the Papacy ever had anything to do with it or not. Hence, they are
easily misled. I do not mean to accuse the Adventists of purposely deceiving. I
myself taught that way for many years while with them. I accepted what our own
"History of the Sabbath" said, and quoted it as conclusive. It was
long before I saw how one-sided it was. In
this present book both ministers and common people will have the facts in
concise and handy form for ready reference with the testimony of the most
reliable and unbiased authorities given in their own words. I made several
typewritten copies of the manuscript and sent them to five well-informed
ministers, requesting each one to spare no criticism nor pass over any
questionable point. Together they gave me valuable help and eliminated some
nonessentials. They also added much of value which I had not found myself. All
these I gladly accepted. Rev.
John J. Husted, Congregationalist, had been familiar with Adventists for fifty
years. Rev. O. W. Van Osdell, D.D., Baptist, had met their arguments often. Rev.
M. H. McLeod, Presbyterian, has published a written discussion with a prominent
defender of Adventism. Rev.
W. H. Phelps, Methodist, had been for seven years pastor of the M. E. Church in
Battle Creek, Mich., and was at the time in a discussion with the Adventist's
pastor. Hence, all were well qualified to judge of the matter in my manuscript.
Read their commendations on a previous page. Then
I selected a Seventh-Day Adventist minister, one of the most critical students
in their ranks. He kindly consented to criticize my manuscripts. He did a
thorough job, cutting out, or adding words and sentences, or pointing out what
he thought were objectionable statements. I gladly accepted nearly all the
criticisms he made and omitted some things which he questioned. I greatly valued
his review of the work. I did not expect him to agree with all my conclusions
nor recommend the book. He could not do this and remain a Seventh-Day Adventist.
His criticisms were all made in a friendly tone, showing that a kindliness of
spirit is not all on one side. For
myself, after thorough research, I am profoundly satisfied that the Christian
Church has been right in observing the Lord's Day. I have written this work with
constant prayer that I might be fair and kind in my statements. I have a high
regard for my Advent brethren, and the most kindly feeling towards them. I know they are sincere, but am sure they are mistaken in their views about the Sabbath and the Lord's Day. Their widespread and aggressive agitation of these subjects will result in a better understanding of these questions. This
book is not written to convert Adventists, but to defend our own faith. If they
would let our members alone, we would say nothing; but we would be recreant to
our duty if we kept still while they publicly denounce us as pagans and papists
and then go from house to house among our Christian members with their
literature and Bible readings to proselyte them to their erroneous views. The
future of Seventh-Day Adventism - what will it be? This is a conundrum.
Apparently two insurmountable difficulties lie before them in the near future. First.
They are now, 1915, putting tremendous emphasis on their claim that the end
must, and will, come in the generation beginning in 1844, now seventy-one years
in the past. They say they are now" finishing the work," "just
entering the port." It creates great enthusiasm, large gifts, and big
sacrifices. But if the generation passes, if a few decades come and go, then
what? Yes, then what? Must not a sad catastrophe follow? Second.
From the beginning, they have claimed that their "Message" is to
gather out just the 144,000 of Rev. 7:1-4; 14:1-5. Then the end will come. But
they now have 122,000. As they are gaining now, two or three years more will
complete the number wanted. Then what? Suppose, after a few years, they number
200,000, or 56,000 more than wanted, then what? Yes, then what? Third.
Another issue confronts them: A younger generation is arising in the Church,
better educated, more intelligent, more cultured, and more tolerant towards
other Churches. These are steadily, but surely, adopting the manners and methods
of the older Churches. These young men are beginning quietly to discount Mrs.
White, and do a little independent thinking for themselves. Will
these be strong enough to leaven the body, or will they split the Church on some
new issue now that Mrs. White is dead? After
I left them, naturally, my Advent brethren expected that the frown of God would
follow me for opposing their "message." Hence ever since it is
reported among them that I have become a physical and mental wreck, poverty
poor, in despair spiritually, etc. But the fact is that at the age of
seventy-five I am in perfect health, have the same strong faith and hope in God
as ever. Financially am better off than ever before. As to my mental conditions
let these pages answer. I
have outlived nearly all the Advent ministers who labored with me. Elder White
died at the early age of sixty; one of my age, with whom I labored, died some
years ago insane; another companion-laborer was killed in the cars; another was
drowned; and many more died very young. Had any of this happened to me it would
have been reported as the judgment of God. Then my remarkable preservation and
prosperity should be accredited to God's blessing. I firmly believe it that way. Every
page of this work has been written with earnest prayer that the tender spirit of
the Master may breathe through it all. None of us is infallible. All are liable
to make mistakes. Hence, we need to be charitable towards those who have the
misfortune to be misled. Contents
I.
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM - WHAT? WHENCE?
WHITHER? II.
THE "RELIGIOUS LIBERTY" SCARECROW. Persecution
predicted - Death penalty Worldwide - United States to lead III.
ADVENTISTS ASSERT THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CHANGED THE SABBATH; BUT WHICH
CATHOLIC CHURCH? Advent
assertions - Roman Church - Claims origin with apostles - Date of first Pope -
Catholic Church, Roman Church, Papacy, all different - True Catholic Church
Apostolic - This is not the Roman Church, but the general Church - The Eastern
Greek Church not Rome, is the Mother Church." IV.
CATHOLICS LOCATE THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH BACK WITH THE APOSTLES. This
is the doctrine of the Roman Church - Council of Trent - Catholic Bible
- Papal delegate - Cardinal Gibbons - Archbishop Ireland - Catholic Encyclopedia
- Catholic Dictionary -Written testimony of two Catholic priests - Catechisms -
Mission priests - Catholic Challenges. V.
THE PAGAN ROMANS AND GREEKS HAD NO WEEKLY DAY OF REST, OR FESTIVAL, OR
WORSHIP. Advent
Theory - Claim pagans kept Sunday as a festival - Papacy brought it into the
Church - The theory false - Testimony of British Museum - Smithsonian Institute
- Harvard University -Wisconsin University - Fowler's Roman Festival text book -
Standard Dictionary - Webster - Max Muller -Tertullian - Encyclopedias - Dr.
Schaff - Admissions of Adventists themselves - No heathen nation ever kept
Sunday - Lord's Day did not originate with pagans, but with Christians. VI.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT OUR LORD'S DAY WAS OBSERVED FROM THE TIME OF THE
APOSTLES. Pliny's
Letter - Barnabas - Teachings of the Apostles - Justin Martyr - Bardesanes -
Clement - Tertullian - Origen - Apostolical Constitutions - Cyprian -Athanasius
- Laodicea - Augustine - The Greek Church - Cyclopedias - The Jewish Sabbath not
kept. VII.
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE ORIGINATED WITH THE EASTERN, OR GREEK CHURCH, NOT WITH ROME
IN THE WEST. The
Church began in the East, not in Rome, in the West, Eastern Church the Mother -
Rome the Daughter - Testimony of Bishop Raphael - Greek catechism - Gospel
carried from Greece to Rome - East to West, not from Rome East - Greek Church
largest, most influential for centuries - Rome no influence on East - Thirty
facts in favor of - Five great gospel memorials -Easter controversy. VIII.
CONSTANTINE'S SUNDAY LAW, A.D. 321 Constantine's
parents Christians - His conversion in 3I2 - His edict nine years later - Proof
- Only a civil law - First Civil Law for Sunday rest - Eusebius - Constantine's
policy- Summary - Testimony of Adventists. IX.
THE LORD'S DAY AT THE COUNCILS OF NICE, A.D. 325, AND LAODICEA, A.D. 364 The
Lord's Day recognized by the first general council - Importance of that council
- Sabbath ignored - Jewish Sabbath condemned at Laodicea and the Lord's Day
sustained - It was wholly a Greek council - not Roman. X.
THE PAPACY AND THE LORD'S DAY. Adventists'
assertions - The Papacy wholly a Western institution - No authority for
centuries after Christ - Testimony of encyclopedias - Of Adventists themselves -
Lord's Day kept centuries before the Papacy was founded - Had no influence in
the East - No Papacy in the East - Admission of Adventists - Eastern Church
opposed to Rome - The Spirit of the Papacy. XI.
THE MARK OF THE BEAST - WHAT IS IT? Adventists
say it is Sunday-keeping - That theory absurd - The Mark of the Papacy is the
supremacy of the Pope. XII.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT CHANGED BY CATHOLICS - ADVENTISTS DECAPITATE THE
DECALOGUE. How Adventists try to prove it - Protestant and Catholic Catechisms compared - Lutheran Catechism - Adventists decapitate the Decalogue - Introductory words important part of that law and designate the Author of it. Chapter
I SEVENTH-DAY
ADVENTISM - WHAT? WHENCE?
WHITHER?
To
know Adventism better than Adventists know it themselves! That is no small
claim, and the reader must judge as to whether this claim is made good. I
believe in, and love, the doctrine of the Second Advent of Christ, and with many
others, hope it is near. I only wish to guard against false theories concerning
it. Having
spent twenty-eight years of the best of my life among a people who initiated
this form of faith, or have espoused it, and having given my services to them
and for them for that period of time, I may modestly claim that I may be
credited with a knowledge of that whereof I speak. (Note:
In this chapter I deign to give only such a brief outline of Seventh-Day
Adventism as will enable the reader to comprehend why this book is written. For
a full account of this peculiar tenet of faith, and for an answer to the
arguments of its advocates from the Bible, see my other book, as announced on
the front page. [Webmaster note: There is no
reference to any book “on the front page”.
Based on other notations in this book, Canright is probably referring to:
Seventh-day
Adventism RENOUNCED.
See also Life of Mrs. Ellen
G. White - Her Claims Refuted] The
facts concisely stated in this chapter may all be found in full in books bearing
the imprimatur of Seventh-Day Adventism itself. See "Early Writings,"
by Mrs. White; Life of Miller; Life of Elder White; "Great
Controversy," by Mrs. White, and their Year Book for any year. All these
may be ordered from Adventist publishing houses. ORIGIN
OF THE LORD'S DAY OBSERVANCE The
adherents of Seventh-Day Adventism are to be commended for their strong faith in
God, in the Saviour, and in the Bible. They are ensamples in the great
sacrifices they cheerfully make for their faith, and in their zeal for what they
firmly believe to be the only message for this generation. Among them I have
many good friends. Their
mistaken views, their excessive zeal for these views, and their general
condemnation of others for not accepting them, largely counteracts the good they
otherwise might do. These things, and some of the methods they employ in
promulgating their doctrines, lead them to become very annoying to other
Christians equally as devoted as themselves. I am sorry to say that, unknown to
the great majority of their own people, their leaders have dissembled with
regard to their past mistakes and their reliance upon Mrs. White's
"inspiration." The laity, specially the converts in foreign lands,
know nothing of this nor will they believe it. While
they hold and teach the fundamentals of Christian doctrines, with these they mix
a large number of errors. These erroneous theories they make the most prominent
in their work, urging them as the present test
of acceptance with God. This does great harm. It is only these false
teachings which I wish to answer. They base their special "message"
upon their own peculiar interpretation of different lines of symbolical
prophecies, with which no other expositors agree. It is a field where they can
easily be mistaken as they have all along in their past history. From
the first, Mrs. White has been held as a prophetess and all her writings and
teachings are regarded just as divinely inspired as the prophets of the Bible.
Publicly, they try to soften this, but, privately, teach it strongly. No
minister or editor is tolerated among them who questions it. To their own people
they quote her as " inspiration," as the "voice of the
Lord," on everything they wish to carry through, because she always has a
ready revelation to fit that case. In their church papers she is quoted far more
than the Bible. Here is one from the Lake
Union Herald, November 1, 1914. It says: "Read carefully the following written
by the pen of inspiration. Then
follows a quotation from Mrs. White. Again: "As with the ancient prophets,
the talking is done by the Holy Spirit through
her vocal organs. The prophets spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2
Peter 1:21 (Review and Herald, Oct. 5, 1914).
No stronger possible endorsement of her inspiration could be made.
She, herself, all through her writings, hundreds of times, makes the same claim.
Hear her: "It is God, and not an erring mortal, that has
spoken. (Testimonies, III, p. 257) Mrs.
White stands related to Seventh-Day Adventism the same as the Pope to
Catholicism, or Mrs. Eddy to Christian Science. If you become a Seventh-Day
Adventist, sooner or later, you will have to accept Mrs. White's Testimonies as
the voice of God or get out. She has written twenty volumes. They push the sale
of these in every possible way, through their papers, catalogues, by ministers,
canvassers, colporteurs, etc. But they have not one single person specially
canvassing or working to sell Bibles. This is significant. During
the past year many, both ministers and laymen, have been expelled from this
Church because they refused to accept Mrs. White's Testimonies as inspired
revelations. For
the same reason many Churches have been disbanded to get rid of these
unbelievers in Mrs. White who could not be excommunicated any other way. Two
papers are now published by these "Castouts." It
is remarkable what a large number has all along left the body on account of
unbelief in Mrs. White's Testimonies. This includes many of their most talented
ministers, editors, writers, college professors, physicians, and business
managers. I could fill several pages with simply a list of their names. Every
year sees new ones added to the list. Ten years hence some, who are now
prominent in that Church, will be outside and opposing it, judging from the
past. Many who have no real faith in Mrs. White's inspiration are held there by
official position, faith in other parts of the doctrines, and dread of religious
ostracism by their old associates. I have been there and know. Modern
Adventism of all branches originated with one Wm. Miller, an old, uneducated
farmer, a sincere Christian, but a visionary. Of him the "Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia" says: "Limited in his educational advantages, and a
farmer by occupation, he yet pretended to interpret prophecy."
The same authority, article "Adventists," says:
"Adventists, or the followers of Wm. Miller, a fanatical student who put
the Second Advent of Christ in the year 1843." The unanimous opinion of the
Christian world today agrees in this view of Miller. "Millerism" has
become a byword of reproach ever since. Adventists themselves are ashamed
of it; yet that was their origin. Miller
rejected all Biblical commentaries, simply took the Bible and wholly relied upon
his own unaided views of it. He decided that all prophetic periods would end in
1843. A chart was prepared with all dates ending there, all signs fulfilled
then. Adventists themselves have proved Miller unreliable because they find many
prophecies not fulfilled even now, while he taught positively that all were
fulfilled in 1843-1844. Soon
a number of ministers joined him in preaching that set time. Quite a number were
converted to that view. But 1843 passed, and, of course, their predictions all
failed. Learning nothing by this, the Adventists next set October 22, 1844, for
the end of the world. Several hundreds went out "lecturing" on that
"time." Papers were published, and books and tracts were scattered
widely. The work was largely confined to a few of the New England and adjoining
states with scattering ones elsewhere. Everywhere it was regarded as a religious
freak and is still so regarded. Possibly forty or fifty thousand in all, for a
period, favored that set time. As
they came near the day, great enthusiasm prevailed. Business ceased, goods were
given a way, crops were left ungathered, meetings were constantly held, and all
were waiting for the end. No food even for the next day was provided. Of course,
it failed again. Five years later Miller died a disappointed old man. Nearly all
who took part in that work have passed away. But fanaticism dies hard and its
sad fruits are here yet. Over
and over Jesus, in the plainest possible language, warned against just what
Adventists did in 1843 and again in 1844 - setting a definite time for the Lord
to come. Hear Him: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels of heaven, but My Father only." "Ye know not what hour your
Lord doth come." "In such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man
cometh " (Matt. 24:36, 42, 44; also Matt. 2513). Again: "Ye know not
when the time is " (Mark 13:33; see also Acts 1:7). The
passing of their set time has proved their folly to all the world. Here is what
they predicted to occur October 22, 1844:
Christ would come in the clouds of heaven. Not
one single thing of all this occurred - all failed. Now read Deut. 18:18:
"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not,
not come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken." By
this plain rule, the Advent preaching of 1844 was proved to be not of God. As
might have been expected, great confusion and all kinds of fanaticism followed.
Adventists then split up into several different parties, opposing each other and
continuing their divisions to this day. There are seven of these now. All these
are the results of that time setting. Such
a brood of errors and heresies as has resulted from Millerism cannot be found in
the history of the Church. Take
the matter of time-setting: some of these different parties of Adventists have
set the time for the end of the world in 1843, 1844, 1847, 1850, 1852, 1854,
1855, 1863, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1877, and so on, till one is sick of counting.
Learning nothing from the past, each time they are quite as confident as before. This
fanatical work has brought disgrace upon the doctrine of the Second Advent, so
that it is not now dwelt upon as much as formerly in other Churches. The study
of the prophecies has been brought into disrepute by the unwise course of the
Adventists. No thoughtful man can fail to see this. To
their credit it should be said that Seventh-Day Adventists do not believe in
setting time definitely since 1844. But then their leaders were all in that
particular time-setting and defend it yet. Elder White engaged in that
time-setting in 1843 and 1844. So their leader was a time-setter. Mrs. White,
their prophetess, was also engaged in the time-setting of 1843 and 1844. Elders
Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, and all the first crop of Seventh-Day Adventists were in
the time-setting of 1843 and 1844 and these Adventists still defend it as right
and approved of God. They claim to be simply carrying on the same work which
Miller then began. In all their books and sermons they point to 1844 as their
origin and endorse the work of the Millerites. The following from Mrs. White
will settle the point: "I have seen
that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not
be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was over
and hid a mistake in some of the figures."
(Early Writings, p. 64) This endorses that work and throws upon God the blame
of their blunder! It will be seen that Mrs. White in her "inspired"
revelations strongly endorsed Miller's figures for 1843-1844. All Seventh-Day
Adventists have to abide by and defend these now, and always must in the future. So
their entire system rests upon the figures of an old farmer of seventy years ago
and the visions of an uneducated girl in her teens! A very doubtful foundation.
Out of this confusion came Seventh-Day Adventism this way: Enthusiastically
engaged in setting these two times were all their leaders. These persons held on
to the time-setting of 1843-1844 as being right and of God; but said that on
October 22, 1844, Christ, instead of coming to the earth, as they had preached,
began the judgment of the world up in heaven! Now they had it where no one could
go and report on facts and so were safe to speculate on new theories. As
all the Churches had opposed their work, they, in turn, denounced them all as
fallen, rejected of God, apostates, and "Babylon." And this they have
preached strongly ever since. In big letters they label all other Churches
"Babylon," and cry, "Come out of her." Thus Mrs. White: "As the Churches refused to receive the first
angel's message [Miller's work] they rejected the light from heaven and fell
from the favor of God" ("Early Writings," p. 101).
Again Mrs. White says: "Satan has taken full possession of the
Churches as a body. Their profession, their prayers, and their exhortations are
an abomination in the sight of God" ("Early
Writings," p. 135). What awful thing had they done to fall so? Why, Miller
said the world would end in 1844 and the Churches said it wouldn't. He was wrong
and they were right, but God rejected them and upheld the Millerites! This
view of all Churches they still hold. Hence, of course, they can have no
fellowship with them. So they are just as zealous to proselyte a devout member
of a church as they are to preach to sinners. PROBATION CLOSED IN 1844 Adventists
adopted the view that probation for sinners and all the unconverted world ended
in 1844. Mrs. White states it thus: "After the passing of the time of
expectation in 1844, Adventists still believed the Saviour's coming to be very
near; they held that the work of Christ as man's intercessor before God had
ceased. Having given the warning of the judgment near, they felt that their work
for the world was done, and they lost their burden of souls for the salvation of
sinners. All this confirmed them in the belief that probation had ended, or, as
they then expressed it, 'the door of mercy was shut'" ("Great
Controversy," p. 268, edition 1884). This
statement of Mrs. White herself is enough to settle the point that the
Adventists believed "the door of mercy was shut" in 1844. While Miller
and all other Adventists soon abandoned this theory, Seventh-Day Adventists
continued to believe and teach it strongly for several years, or until 1851. Here
are Mrs. White's own words: "March
24, 1849. . . . I was shown that the commandments of God and the testimony of
Jesus Christ, relating to the Shut door, could
not be separated. . . . I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders and false
reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were
not reformations from error to truth, but from bad to worse, for those who
professed a change of heart had only wrapped about them a religious garb, which
covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some appeared to have been really
converted, so as to deceive God's people, but if their hearts could be seen they
would appear as black as ever. My accompanying angel bade me look for the
travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for
the time for their salvation is past." (Present Truth, pp. 21-22, published
August, 1849) Here
you have the shut door and no mercy for sinners just as clear as language can
make it. Every candid reader knows what it teaches. "The
Present Truth," James White, editor, Oswego, N. Y., May, 1850, has an
article by the editor on the "Sanctuary, 2,300 Days, and the Shut
Door." Elder White says: "At that point of time [1844] the midnight
cry was given, the work for the world was closed up, and Jesus passed into the
most holy place. . . . When we came up to that point of time, all our sympathy,
burden and prayers for sinners ceased, and the unanimous feeling and testimony
was that our work for the world was finished forever." Any honest man can
see that the "shut door" meant no salvation for sinners, and this is
what Elder White and his wife taught up till 1851. It will be seen that
Seventh-Day Adventism was born in this monstrous delusion that probation for the
world ended in 1844, over seventy years ago. Did God send people to preach such
a fearful error as that? If they made such terrible mistakes then, are they safe
to follow now? If any of Mrs. White's revelations were from God, those teaching
the close of probation for sinners in 1844 certainly were, for she states it in
the most positive terms over and over during several years, or from 1844 to
1851. Her written revelations for those years are full of it. Her statements are
too plain for denial. I have all of them here now. But neither she nor her
people believe that theory now. This is positive proof that God never told her
what she claimed back there. If she was misled and deceived then, she has never
been reliable since. The
entire Seventh-Day Advent message is so inseparably bound up with her
revelations that they must stand or fall together. In 1846 Elder White and wife
were married, both young, she only nineteen, very sickly and claiming to have
"visions." Soon Elders Bates, Holt, Rhodes, Edson, and Andrews joined
them. All these had been in the time-setting movement of 1843-1844. To their
Advent theory they gradually added the visions as divine revelations, the Jewish
Sabbath, sleep of the dead, annihilation of the wicked, feet-washing, tithing, a
radical health-diet, a short dress with pants for women, and other
peculiarities. They now claimed that they were raised up of God to preach the
three messages of Rev. 14:6-14. The Jewish Sabbath is the chief thing. This is
the "seal of God" with which the 144,000 of Revelation 7 are to be
sealed for translation when Christ comes, which is right at hand. These 144,000,
all of whom will be Seventh- Day Adventists, will be all the ones then living on
the earth who will be saved. All others, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, no
matter what they profess, unless they join them before that time, will be lost.
Hence, necessarily, they oppose all other Churches as "Babylon," will
unite with none in any way, but zealously proselyte from all in every possible
way, both at home and in all the missionary fields in heathen lands. A large
percentage of their "converts" are from other Churches. In this way
they work great confusion, specially in foreign mission fields among the simple
minded native converts. Foreign missionaries report that this is becoming one of
the great hindrances they have to meet. I have letters from missionaries all
over the world all agreeing in this. A letter of April 9, 1914, by Bishop William Burt, Buffalo, N.Y.,
says: "In Europe, and
especially in Italy, these Adventists have been a troublesome lot. After we have
fished people out of sin and superstition they come around to trouble them with
their doctrines." Methodist Episcopal Church, Inayat Bagh, Lucknow, India. Dear Brother: I knew Seventh-Day Adventists at home and have known much of them here,
and it is my judgment that their methods are worse on the foreign field than at
home. The new converts have never heard of such things as they teach, and they
are confused before we can even find out that they are secretly sending their
literature and their workers among our people. Fraternally, Honolulu,
T. H., March, 1911. The
Seventh-Day Adventists are proselyters rather than missionaries. Here in Hawaii
they confine their efforts to such work among white people and Christian
Japanese and Chinese, for whom missionaries have labored for years, and whose
minds become greatly confused through the propaganda among these new converts. Sincerely,
JOHN
W. WADMAN, Edinburgh,
Scotland. The
work of Seventh-Day Adventists in Japan and Korea is proselyting. They have
divided Churches and paralyzed others, and have done much harm. This I am sorry
to state, as some of their missionaries mean well. Sincerely, London,
England, July 1, 1910. Dear
Brother, Sincerely, Buenos
Aires, May 16, 1911. Yours
fraternally, New
York City, June 14, 1910. Sincerely
yours, Adventists
themselves report the same as these other missionaries do. Thus: "A friend
of mine visited the young people's services at the Tabernacle and heard a
returned missionary from Africa tell how he had started his Mission near a
Methodist chapel and how, in due season, he won every single member to the truth
and forced the minister to close the doors and begin elsewhere. Here your
missionaries and ours tell the same story" The
following is from the South African
Sentinel, an Adventist missionary paper: "I
am sorry to say, we have met some bitter opposition from one of the Churches.
Six of our most promising people who belonged to, and attended, that Church kept
the Sabbath for some time, but finally gave it up because of the efforts made by
the ministers and through reading the Canright book denouncing Adventism." It
will be seen that they get their best members out of other Churches and then
complain of "bitter opposition" from that Church. Pearl
Lagoon, Nicaragua. Yours
truly, It
will be seen that Adventists are not welcome anywhere by Christian missionaries. Mrs.
White and their leaders dictate to their people the same exclusive system which
Roman Catholics teach their members. Hear her: "I was shown the necessity
of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy being separate
from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old
should attend their meetings. God is displeased with us when we go to listen to
error without being obliged to go." (Early Writings," supplement pages
37, 38) Their
editors enforce the same teachings. Thus Elder Uriah Smith says: "It
will not mix." "That system of belief which we denominate the 'Present
Truth' possesses this peculiar feature, that it will not mix with anything else. It is a sharp, clean cut, decisive
doctrine. It admits of no halving, no copartnership or compromise."
(Replies to Canright, p. 112) Both
of these are like the language of a Roman Catholic priest to his members, and
both are obeyed as implicitly. Hence, as a rule, they attend only their own
meetings, hear only their own ministers, and read only their own religious
literature. As a result they sincerely believe they are the only ones who have
the truth, the only ones who have God's special favors! Mrs. White assumes to
hold the keys to heaven as firmly as
the Pope does. Reject her inspiration, her teachings, and you will never enter
heaven! They teach that Sunday is only a pagan day brought into the Church by
the Roman Papacy, and is the mark of the beast, hateful to God. They are now
called to restore the old Sabbath. This is now "the seal of God" (Rev.
7:1-8), with which 144,000 saints will be gathered out from "Babylon"
and the world. The Sabbath is now the supreme test of loyalty to God. They are sent to "test" all with
it. This will bring out 144,000 all perfect saints who will be living and
translated when Jesus comes (Rev. 14:1-5). Of all the millions on earth at that
time, in the Churches or out, not one will be saved except these 144,000, and
all these will be keeping the Sabbath, Seventh-Day Adventists! "The
Biblical Institute," by Elder Uriah Smith, page 240 says: "We answer
that before the end we understand that the religious world will be divided into
just two classes, those who keep the Sabbath and those who oppose it." This
explains their zeal in proselyting. These 144,000 Adventists will be privileged
in heaven above all others as the special body-guard of Christ through all
eternity. Of them the "History of the Sabbath," edition 1912, page 812
says: "They will be the special body-guard of the Lamb!" Mrs.
White says: "The living saints, 144,000 in number, heard the day and hour
of Jesus coming." (Early Writings," edition of 1882, p. 11)
Of the most glorious place in heaven Jesus said, "Only the 144,000
enter this place" (page 14). There "the names of the 144,000 were
engraved in letters of gold" (page 15). Again: The angel said to her,
"If you are faithful, you, with the 144,000, shall have the privilege of
visiting all the worlds and viewing the handiworks of God" (page 33). These
Adventists are to spend eternity in pleasure trips to "all the
worlds"! They are to be a very select company all because they kept
Saturday instead of Sunday! The prophets, apostles, and martyrs will not be in
it with them! As to the reasonableness of such celestial pleasure trips the
reader may judge. In
"Great Controversy," edition of 1884, Mrs. White devotes six chapters,
31 to 37, or 94 pages, describing ahead in detail the awful things to occur just
before the end. The Holy Ghost will baptize the Adventists as on Pentecost. They
will go everywhere with a " loud cry," work miracles, perform wonders,
show signs, and every true Christian on all the earth will "come out of
Babylon " and join them. Then Satan will come personally in great glory,
walk among men, talk with them familiarly, go all around the earth that way. He
claims to be Christ himself and is accepted as such by all Churches and
statesmen. He now says that Sunday is his holy day and urges that all Adventists
must be killed for preaching against it. His advice is accepted and a decree of
death against them is passed in every nation of earth. Just then Jesus comes,
and delivers them. This is all to occur right off, possibly in a year or two,
soon anyway. Since the beginning of
the world no such thing as this has been seen. There is no scripture for it. It
rests solely on the word of Mrs. White, yet they all believe it, and are
hurrying to be ready for it by disposing of their property, etc. It borders
close on to fanaticism and must end in a catastrophe. THEIR EXTREME VIEWS ON DIET The following quotations from Mrs. White's "Testimonies to the
Church" give an idea of their extreme views on diet. Remember that these
are accepted as divine commandments to be expressly obeyed. The following quotations are from Volume II, page 61: "You
have used the fat of animals which God in His word expressly forbids." Page 68: "Cheese should never be introduced into the
stomach." Page 70: "It is just as much sin to violate the laws of our
being as to break one of the Ten Commandments." Page 96: "The use of swine's flesh is contrary to His express
commandments." Page 400: "Eggs should not be placed upon your table. They are
an injury to your children." Volume III, page 21: "We bear a positive testimony against
tobacco, spirituous liquors, snuff tea, coffee, flesh meats, butter, spices,
rich cake, mince pies, a large amount of sugar and all sweet substances used as
articles of food." Well, then, what are we permitted to eat? Here it is - Volume II,
page 67: "A plain simple diet, composed of unbolted wheat flour,
vegetables, victuals prepared without spices or grease." Notice it is just as big a sin to eat a piece of pork as it is to
break one of the commandments, which forbids lying, adultery, stealing, etc.!
Notice further that the whole tendency of this system is to go back to
the laws of the Old Testament, which were designed for a local people in a
limited territory and for a limited time. When the Gospel was to go to all the
world, these laws could not be applied. Think of missionaries among the Eskimos
in the winter, trying to live on this diet. The directions in the New Testament are directly contrary to Mrs.
White's revelations. Jesus said, Luke 10:8: " And into whatsoever city ye
enter and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you ".
And Paul said the same, 1 Cor. 10:25: " Whatsoever is sold in the
shambles (meat market) that eat asking no question for conscience sake."
And Romans 14:17: "For the
kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the
Holy Ghost." These texts, and many more, strongly contradict the rigid
rules laid down by Adventists.
THE
HARM IT DOES 1.
It imposes on conscientious people an unnecessary sacrifice not required by the
Gospel. 2.
Its advocates become very annoying to other Christian workers as devoted as
themselves. 3.
Their work largely is to divide or break up other Churches and missions wherever
they can. 4.
It creates an unnecessary division and confusion in neighborhoods otherwise
united in a day of rest. 5.
It sows distrust of all other Churches in the minds of thousands who do not join
the Adventists, neither can they be reached by other Churches after that. 6.
A large share of their children give up the Sabbath as soon as they are grown.
Then they keep neither Saturday nor Sunday, nor attend any church, but drift to
perdition. There are thousands of these now scattered everywhere. 7.
As their meetings are held on Saturday, no one attends but their own people. If
left to them, the mass of any community could never hear the Gospel.
8. The evangelical Churches hold all the Gospel truth Adventists
have, but without their errors. 9. By staking all on a certain limited time, as they have done in
the past, and
are now doing again, limiting it to the generation beginning in 1844, the
passing of their set limits, ends them in disaster, as this must do in time. Their
power lies in their unbounded faith in their "message," not in any
truth they teach. Evident sincerity, clean lives, great zeal and positive
assertions win people regardless of whether or not their doctrines are
reasonable and Scriptural. Christian Science, in many respects, is exactly the
opposite of Adventism, and yet it spreads several times as fast. So does
Catholicism and other isms. This brief sketch will give the reader a fair idea of what Seventh-Day Adventism is, and what it hopes to accomplish. It is hoped that the following chapters will help to save honest persons from falling into that error. Chapter
II THE "RELIGIOUS LIBERTY" SCARECROW As
early as 1847, in their very first printed publication, "A Word to the
Little Flock," published at Brunswick, Maine, May 30, 1846, Elder White
argued from Rev. 13:11-18, that just before Jesus appears, a decree must go
forth to kill the saints (A Word to the Little
Flock," p. 10). In this pamphlet, page 19, Mrs. White records a
vision in which she says, "the wicked took council to rid the earth of us.
We all fled from the cities and villages, but were pursued by the wicked who
entered the houses of the saints with the sword. They raised the sword to kill
us, but it broke, and fell as powerless as a straw." From
that day till this, Seventh-Day Adventists have continued predicting that this
persecution would come upon them. Why were they to be thus outlawed? Simply
because they would not refrain from work on Sunday, "The Pope's Day." What
power is to pass this death decree? It was to be the United States, represented
by the lamb-like beast of Rev. 13:11-18. So Adventists said. In my other book,
pages 85 to 116, it is clearly proved that this symbol cannot possibly apply to
our nation. That beast kills the saints (Rev. 13:15; 20:4). But the Adventists
say that not one of them will be killed. This would contradict that prophecy, if
it applies to them. So
long as their work was confined to the United States, Adventists limited that
decree of death to this nation. But recently, since their work has extended to
all nations, they have also extended that prophecy to all the world. Now a
stringent, Puritan Sunday law is to be decreed by every nation on earth with
that death penalty for a disregard of that day! The Advent Review of January 7, 1915, has a lengthy editorial, arguing
that there will be a world-wide confederacy of all nations with the President of
the United States as the head of it! Then
that world-wide power will pass the long expected Sunday law with the death
penalty in every nation on earth. I will quote a few sentences: "What
is more natural than that such a confederation should declare for a Sunday
Sabbath obligatory upon all the people of
the world? Some President will take the step [to issue that decree] when the
time is ripe. The United States, according to the prophecy, is to lead the world
in bringing to a head that movement which must culminate in the universal decree
which demands the worship of the beast
[keeping Sunday] on the pain of
death." The
Advent Review, February 4, 1915, says:
"By means of the Sunday Sabbath the 'man of sin' will cause all
the world to worship him as God. According
to the prophecy of Revelation 13, as far as the majority are concerned, he will
succeed in his deception." This
is only a sample of what Adventists are constantly predicting. Mrs. White's
latest revelations are urging with vehement appeals to her followers that this
event is right upon them. They must hurry,
hurry, hurry, and "finish the work" before the decree goes forth
and their goods are all confiscated and they are all sentenced to death! If any
wild brain ever imagined a theory more improbable than this I never read of it.
The President of the United States is to become the head of all the nations of
the world in one Universal Confederacy. This would include England, France,
Germany, Austria, Italy, Russia, Turkey, China, Japan, and all the republics of
South America. Then he will influence all these various nations to enact a
strict Sunday law with the death penalty, for a desecration of the day! Consider
this fact: The population of the globe today is sixteen hundred million. Of
these there are four hundred million Chinese who keep no day of the week, but
work Sunday the same as on other days. Then the Mohammedans, two hundred
million, have their Sabbath on Friday and work Sunday; India, with three hundred
and fifteen million, has no weekly rest day. Then comes Japan, Korea, all the
millions of Africa, who have no regard for Sunday. Out
of the sixteen hundred million on earth, ten hundred million (almost two-thirds)
have never had any regard for Sunday and do not now. They are opposed to
Christianity. Can all these suddenly be brought to keep Sunday themselves so
strictly that all these nations will join in a Sunday law so strict that it will
be death to disregard it? And all this is to happen right off - perhaps in five
years! Then,
of professing Christians, two hundred and fifty million are Roman Catholic, as
in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, France, Mexico, and all the South American
States. These Catholics are notoriously loose in Sunday observance, and ridicule
the Protestant idea of Sunday sacredness. Thus, the Ecclesiastical
Review, February, 1914 (a standard Catholic monthly), page 250, says:
"Protestants make much of the observance of the Sunday and are sometimes
sincerely and honestly shocked that we Catholics seem to make little of that
same observance." They attend mass forenoon, then attend ball-games,
beer-gardens, bull-fights, dances, elections, or work if they choose. Contrary
to all their theories and practices for ages past, are all these to suddenly
turn square about and observe Sunday so strictly as to enact a law with the
penalty of death for desecrating that day? Then there are one hundred and fifty
million Greek Catholics comprising nearly all the vast Russian empire, the
Balkan states, etc. These regard Sunday as loosely as Roman Catholics. With many
of them Sunday is a market-day after a morning service. Then
a large share of Protestants pay only a slight regard to the observance of
Sunday. They go on excursions, auto-riding, fishing, ball-games, and large
numbers work on the street cars, rail-roads, boats, in their gardens, on their
farms, and in many other ways. Then
take the non-churchgoing people comprising more than half the population in all
Christian lands. Largely, they pay only a loose regard to Sunday. Every
observing man must see that the whole trend in all lands is directly the
opposite of a stricter Sunday observance. In
the face of all this, Adventists expect the whole world - heathen, Mohammedan,
Roman Catholic, Greek, worldlings, socialists, saloon-men, infidels, all to
suddenly turn around and unite to enact a world-wide Sunday law with a death
penalty! All this is to come quickly, possibly in less than five years. Have
these brethren lost their reason, their common sense? Such a radical, world-wide
revolution in so short a time would be contrary to all the history of the past.
All natural causes and the general growth of new ideas must be ignored and an
unheard-of miracle must be assumed, to fulfill their predictions. It smacks
strongly of fanaticism. Instead
of a spirit of intolerance and religious persecution growing in the world, the
whole trend is all the other way, not only in America, but the world over.
Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of
religious and political views are coming more and more to be respected.
Persecution for religious views is growing to be more unpopular, and less and
less practiced. The rack, the inquisition, torture, burning at the stake,
hanging, etc., all too common centuries ago, would not now be tolerated in any
civilized country. Even despotic Russia, Austria and Spain have outgrown these.
The death penalty, even for murder, is coming largely to be condemned. Will
this, our free and enlightened nation, soon issue an edict to slaughter a whole
denomination of honest people simply for believing that Sunday is not a holy
day? Will they then all be condemned to be killed, men, women, children, simply
for an opinion? Can an intelligent man believe that? The
effort in some states to close the manufacturing plants, shut up barber shops,
close the saloon, and restrict work on Sunday, is largely in the interest of
laboring men, and is being demanded by them that they may have a day of rest and
leisure with their families, as well as the wealthy class. It is simply along
the general trend of human progress to secure better conditions for the
overworked, toiling men, women and children. This is seen in the effort to limit
the ages under which children cannot be employed in factories; the number of
hours beyond which women cannot be employed in each week; the closing of stores
at 6 P. M. instead of working the clerks to late hours; the Saturday
half-holiday; and the nine hour, even now the eight hour, working-day.
Sunday-closing is along the same line, and largely for the same purpose, and is
being demanded by working-people, many of whom care little for religion and less
for the Church. Of
course Christian people favor it, as it secures to them the privilege of
religious service. If all business was free to operate on Sunday, thousands of
Christians would be compelled, against their conscience, to work that day to
keep their jobs and support their families. Hence, the majority of intelligent
people, worldlings and Christians, are united in wishing a Sunday rest-day for
the betterment of society in general. In this there is no thought of persecuting
Adventists. Most of the states already have Sunday laws forbidding general work
on that day; yet Adventists go right on with their work freely. Where, in a few
cases, some have been arrested out of spite, popular sentiment of judges and
juries has been opposed to it and only a nominal fine, or none at all, has been
made except in rare cases years ago, but none of late. Take
the world over during the seventy years Adventists have been predicting a
religious persecution, and the laws, in all nations, have gone just the other
way. Seventy years ago Christian missionaries were either entirely shut out of a
large part of the heathen and Mohammedan countries, or had to work under the
most oppressive restrictions. Protestants, also, were so persecuted and hampered
in such countries as Russia, Austria, Spain, Mexico and all the Catholic
countries of South America, that they could do little. But steadily, through
these seventy years, the oppressive laws have been modified and all these
countries are now open to the Gospel nearly, or quite, as freely as at home.
Adventists themselves now have missions in nearly every nation on earth and are
seldom molested. Even twenty-five years ago they could not have done this. All
this contradicts what they have predicted and are still preaching. "None so
blind as those who will not see." February
27, 1915, Bruce McRae, Corresponding Secretary of the Actors' Association of New
York, reported as follows: "This
association, representing over two thousand of the most representative actors
and actresses, desires to go on record, that inasmuch as the legalizing of
Sunday performances would be a great injustice to the members of the theatrical
profession, it would oppose it with all the influence that it could command. "The
actor needs his Sunday's rest as does any other brain worker and when his
position is sufficiently influential, he gets it." (Bulletin of the New
York Sabbath Committee, April, 1915) Thousands
of actors complain that their managers, when a Sunday law does not prohibit it,
compel them to work seven days for six days' pay, and that such
continuous work breaks them down. Adventists oppose all efforts to relieve these
and hundreds of thousands of other overworked toilers. Their opposition
is supremely selfish, born of a misguided zeal. In
many states Barbers' Associations are demanding the same as the actors for the
same reason. Religious worship is not the idea of any of their associations.
What they want is simply to have the privilege of a day of rest like other
people. In
closing work on Sunday there is no thought of compelling people to go to church
or to be religious. But it is desired by Christians to give people a chance to
hear the Gospel if they wish to. We do not close the saloons to compel the men
to be sober, but to remove from them the temptation to drink. Hence it is
unfair, and untruthful, to argue that Sunday laws are made to compel men to go
to church or to become religious. ADVENTISTS
BACK DOWN ON SUNDAY WORK Recently
Mrs. White had a revelation directing her people, the world over, to refrain
from work on Sunday whenever the law requires it. They will all readily obey.
How, then, can they be persecuted for Sunday work when none of them work that
day? In Australia, a law required Adventists to close their publishing houses on
Sunday. For three Sundays they did not obey. Then they were threatened with
arrest. What now? Did they brave the law and take the penalty as they always
said they would? Mrs. White, their divine oracle, fortunately was right there.
Did she counsel martyrdom? Oh, no! She
immediately produced a revelation directing them to obey the law, close the
plant on Sunday and devote the day to the Lord in religious work just as
Sunday-keepers do. Here are her instructions in "Testimonies to the
Church," Volume IX, Number 37, published in 1909. It is a square back down
from all she had published before. It avoids all possibility of persecution for
Sunday work. She says, "The light given me by the Lord at a time when we
were expecting just such a crisis as you seem to be approaching was that when
the people were moved by a power from beneath to enforce Sunday observance,
Seventh-Day Adventists were to show their wisdom by refraining from their
ordinary work on that day, devoting it to missionary effort." Page 232:
"Give them no occasion to call you lawbreakers." "It will be very
easy to avoid that difficulty. Give Sunday to the Lord as a day for doing
missionary work." "At
one time, those in charge of our school at Avondale [Australia] inquired of me,
saying, 'What shall we do? The officers of the law have been commissioned to
arrest those working on Sunday.' I replied, 'It will be very easy to avoid that
difficulty. Give Sunday to the Lord as a day for doing missionary work. Take the
students out to hold meetings in different places, and to do medical missionary
work. They will find the people at home, and will have a splendid opportunity to
present the truth. This way of spending Sunday is always acceptable to the
Lord'" (page 238). It
will be readily seen that Mrs. White now directs her people to keep Sunday
exactly as all conscientious Sunday observers do; that is, in holding religious
meetings and doing religious work! "They
are to refrain from their ordinary work on that day. Give Sunday to the Lord as
a day of doing missionary work. This way of spending Sunday is always acceptable
to the Lord."
A
prospect of arrest suddenly converted Mrs. White to a zealous religious
observance of Sunday. "Give the day to the Lord." And then especially
notice: "This way of spending Sunday is always acceptable to the
Lord." Good and true. Now if it is acceptable to the Lord from Adventists,
it must be acceptable to the Lord from Methodists, Baptists, etc. Why not? But
the point is this: If Adventists follow this advice, how will they be persecuted
for working on Sunday? What becomes of the prediction that an edict will be
issued to kill them all for violating a Sunday law? That was what Adventists
have always taught before. But in 1909 they were directed to observe Sunday
strictly and obey the law. If
the prospect of simply a fine will cause Adventists to obey the law and refrain
from work on Sunday, would not the prospect of a death penalty quickly induce
them to obey? Surely. It shows that their theory breaks down when really tested.
Then if Baptists, Methodists, etc., have the mark of the beast because they
"give Sunday to the Lord" in religious service, why will not
Adventists also have it if they gave the day to the Lord in the same way? Of
course they will. A
STRICT SUNDAY LAW WOULD IN NO WAY INTERFERE WITH THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF
ADVENTISTS The
Adventists publish a Liberty Magazine wholly
devoted to an effort to prove that a Sunday law would restrict their religious
liberty and require them to violate their conscience. Their position is
untenable, their arguments fallacious. It would do no such thing. Mrs. White
herself, as above, has proved their contention untrue. How? She directs them to
obey the law and do no work on Sunday. Would she advise them to violate their
conscience, disobey God? And neglect a sacred duty to avoid a fine? Surely not.
Then she does not regard it as a religious duty to work on Sunday, nor do they,
or they would not advocate what she directs. Why
does an Adventist work on Sunday? Does he do it as an act of worship? No, he
works for money, for the financial gain there is in it. That is all. If an
Adventist was receiving two dollars per day for Sunday work, and should be
offered four dollars per day to simply remain at home, would he not accept the
offer? Yes readily, and why shouldn't he? He violates none of his religious
principles. He works to get money, and sits still to get more, that is all. A
law forbidding manual labor on Sunday deprives him of no religious privileges.
At home he can read his Bible or any religious book; or write articles, or pray;
he can go to any church; or to his own; he can hold public meetings and teach
his doctrines freely; he can go from house to house with his literature and
teach his doctrines there. He is not required to attend church where he does not
care to, nor profess any creed he does not believe, nor deny what he does
believe. How then would a law prohibiting work on Sunday interfere with his
religious liberty? That is only a scarecrow of straw of their own making and
that is all. "The
saloon-keeper wants to keep his saloon open on Sunday. What for? As a religious
duty? To worship God? He does it for gain, for business. He says the law
restricts his personal liberty. Theatrical and moving picture proprietors insist
on conducting their business on Sunday. Do they do it as a religious duty? No.
Neither do Adventists work Sunday as an act of worship, or as a religious duty.
It is a business proposition and that is all. Then
everyone knows that Saturday is observed the world over by the Adventists as
their sacred day for religious worship. Any law which does not interfere with
worshipping on Saturday has no bearing whatever upon the religious liberty of
Seventh-Day worshippers. But a Sunday closing statute in no way applies to
Saturday any more than it does to Friday. There is no complaint coming for
Saturday-observing Jews, or Friday-observing Mohammedans that a Sunday law
infringes upon their religious liberties. The Adventists will be just as free to
worship on the Jewish Sabbath under the most stringent Sunday law as they are
now in California, where at present there is no Sunday legislation. And this
they know right well. It is illogical and unreasonable, and wholly without
excuse, for them to oppose a Sunday law on the ground that it will deprive them
of their religious liberties. ONLY
THEIR CIVIL LIBERTY ABRIDGED All
that Adventists can truthfully claim is that a Sunday law would abridge their
civil liberty - their personal freedom. Here their arguments lie very close
along the line of the saloon men and liquor users - personal liberty. But any
person who chooses to live among other people has to pay for that privilege by
giving up many personal rights which he might exercise freely if he lived by
himself alone. Suppose a man with a family lived on an island a way from all
others, as Robinson Crusoe did. He could go naked, go loaded with firearms, get
drunk, smoke and spit tobacco-juice anywhere, build his house anywhere, of any
kind of material, make all the noise he chooses, let his cattle run loose, let
his children go uneducated, hunt or fish all seasons of the year for any kind of
game or fish, and do many other things unmolested. Now
let him move into a civilized farming community. He would immediately have to
sacrifice all these rights. He could not go naked nor keep his children out of
school, nor let his cattle run loose, nor hunt or fish out of season, nor leave
a dead animal by the roadside, etc. When
he goes to the city, he must not spit on the sidewalk, nor get drunk, nor beg on
the street, nor drive on the left side of the street, nor cross a main street
without a signal from the police, nor turn a corner only in such a way, nor
drive only so fast, nor leave his team there only so long, nor leave them
unblanketed in the cold, nor allow his boy to work in the shop under a certain
age, nor his daughter to work in a shop more than so many hours per week, and
many more such things. This
is simply what is called "Police Power " delegated to every state,
through all its agencies, both general and local, to preserve order, regulate
intercourse between citizens, and to insure to each the lawful enjoyment of his
rights. The
civil power is the power of arbitrary force to compel men who will not be
righteous to at least be civil, that men may live together in peace and
quietness. In
return for the personal restrictions which are necessarily placed on each member
of society, this protects his property, his person, and his personal freedom as
far as consistent with the rights of others and the general good of society.
Polygamy is a religious tenet of the Utah Mormons which they hold as strongly as
Adventists hold the Sabbath. Here the law has restricted their "religious
liberty." Would Adventists leave them free, anywhere and everywhere, with
their many wives? In India, mothers threw their children into the river as a
religious duty, and wives were burned alive with husbands when they died.
British law stopped this "religious freedom." What do Adventists say
to that? All
this is the price a person must pay for the privilege of being a citizen with
other fellow citizens whose rights and conveniences must be consulted as well as
his own. This is a universal law, recognized among all civilized people. Without
it, we would have lawlessness and anarchy. What is for the best interests of the
whole must be considered, not simply the convenience of the few. This is
democracy and is just and right. It is the word of God too. Paul says: "For
none of us liveth to himself" (Rom. 14:1). "Look not every man on his
own things but every man also on the things of others" (Phil. 2:4).
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Mark 12:31). A Christian
will sacrifice much rather than annoy his neighbor. The one, the few, the
minority, must harmonize with the majority as far as they can without
sacrificing principles. An Adventist sacrifices no moral or religious principle
when he abstains from manual work on Sunday. He foregoes a business gain for the
general wish and social good of the majority. If the law required Adventists to
work on Saturday, that would be a different thing. That would require them
to violate their conscience and break the law of God as they believe. But no
such thing is proposed or thought of. Besides,
there is a growing tendency on the part of our state legislatures to exempt in
the Sunday laws, all who observe some other day as a day of worship and who
refrain from business and labor on that day, from the Sunday prohibitions. But,
strange to say, Adventists oppose these exemptions made for their protection as
much as any other part of the Sunday bill. It is a proof that they are not
sincere in grounding their opposition to Sunday legislation upon the protection
of their civil and religious rights. Many of the states have already adopted
such exemption clauses. Adventists
should be the first to recognize the great value of a rest day each week for all
men. To them, resting on the Sabbath once a week is the most important of all
duties. If a weekly Sabbath is of so much benefit to them, then it will be so to
all others and they should aid them to secure such a weekly rest day. But they
cannot, and do not, expect to win the majority over to give up Sunday and keep
Saturday instead. A few in each community is all they have ever succeeded in
getting. Do they wish all the rest of the great majority to have no Sabbath?
Their whole effort and influence is that way - to have a Sabbathless and
churchless community. They confuse thousands of people who, after that, keep no
day. They argue that every Sunday law is unconstitutional. They bitterly oppose
any and every Sunday restriction. They
argue that all business should continue on Sunday the same as on any weekday.
They would have saloons open on Sunday the same as on Monday. They all work
themselves Sunday and ridicule Sunday keepers as pagans and papists. If their
influence prevailed, society would soon be demoralized. Adventists strongly
oppose three of the greatest bulwarks of our government, namely: the public
school, the churches, and a Sunday rest-day. Consider
a moment: Sunday is just as long as Saturday - to a minute. It affords every
advantage that Saturday does, physical rest, mental rest, social privileges,
time for reading the Bible and religious work, prayers, attendance at church and
Bible school, song service, etc. There is no difference in the advantages of the
one day over the other, so far as the use of the day is concerned. But Sunday
has the great advantage of being the day on which the people generally rest and
so the day is quiet. Moreover, the vast majority of those who observe Sunday
conscientiously suppose they are keeping the day in obedience to the Lord's
will. They keep it as "the Sabbath" just the same as Adventists keep
Saturday. Their
motive is to serve God. They have not the remotest idea of reverencing the
Papacy, or the sun, or paganism. As God looks at the heart, at the motive, does
He not accept such sincere service? Paul says they that "regard the day
unto the Lord" (Rom. 14:6) are acceptable to God. Adventists do no more
than this in keeping Saturday. In
keeping Sunday we preserve the model of the seven days of creation, and thus are
reminded of the creation as plainly as Adventists are. Added to this we also
commemorate the resurrection, the key-note of the entire Gospel. Here the Jewish
Sabbath fails to remind us of anything in the Gospel. For twenty-eight years I
myself kept conscientiously the seventh day unto the Lord. Now, for twenty-eight
years, I have kept Sunday unto the Lord. The first was dry duty, bondage; the
last is privilege - liberty, and I like it the best. SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS USE POLITICAL METHODS WHICH THEY CONDEMN IN
ALL OTHERS Adventists condemn in strong terms the efforts of Catholics and the
Federation of Churches to influence legislatures and legislation in their favor.
They are constantly denouncing both these religious bodies for trying to
influence men in office to secure the law they wish, or to defeat laws they do
not favor. They condemn this as using worldly and unchristian methods to further
religious views. But, strange to say, Adventists do the very same
thing themselves and they use every possible means in their power to accomplish
it. They keep trained and paid men in every conference to watch every state
legislature and congress for any Sunday legislation. These men are furnished
with an abundance of specially prepared literature and are on the alert to
personally influence every man in office from the President down to the mayor
and common voters. They boast that they have defeated many a Sunday bill in
Congress and in the states. They
publish a Liberty Magazine for this
express purpose. In proof read the following: "Elder E. L. Cardey,
religious liberty secretary of the Greater New York conference, writes that the
executive committee has voted to send the current number of Liberty
to 500 judges and attorneys in that conference." "The
District of Columbia conference has decided to unite with the North American
Division Religious Liberty Department in circulating 900 copies of Liberty
each quarter among the United States senators, representatives, and other
molders of public opinion at the Capital of our nation. If you wish to help in
this good work, it will cost you only $1.00 to send Liberty
to five of these persons of influence for one year. Send the order to your
tract society. We will furnish the names of legislators, public-school teachers,
attorneys, judges, as you may prefer. Send this issue of Liberty to all lawyers and judges of our conference."
(Adventist Review, Jan. 14, 1915) This
gives a fair idea of what they are trying to do. Every member of every church is
urged to do his utmost along this line, and largely he does it. No Protestant
Church, not even Catholics, work as zealously along this line as Adventists do.
And they have the most efficient organization in the world to carry it out. It
shows what they will do, if they ever become numerous enough to have political
influence. Chapter
III ADVENTISTS
ASSERT THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CHANGED THE SABBATH; BUT WHICH CATHOLIC CHURCH?
Adventists
repeat this assertion, in various ways, so constantly that their people believe
it to be absolutely true. Their children are taught this as thoroughly as they
are the Bible. Any one at all familiar with their teachings needs no proof that
they make the above claim. Mrs. White says: "The Pope had changed it [the
Sabbath] from the seventh to the first day of the week." (Early Writings,
p. 65) The
following is from the Signs of Times Magazine, October, 1914: "Sunday
is the first day of the week and its observance belongs to the Catholic
Church." "Every
one who accepts the Sunday institution as a Sabbath thereby accepts an
institution of the Catholic Church." "The
Catholic Church says: 'By my divine power I have abolished the Sabbath day and
command you to keep the first day of the week! And lo, the entire civilized
world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the Holy Catholic
Church.'" But
there are two damaging objections to this theory:
First: Adventists assume and argue on the assumption that the
"Catholic Church" began to be formed about three hundred years after
Christ. Hence, if the Catholic Church did change the Sabbath, the change could
not have been made before that late date. Then they easily find, and gladly
quote, a large number of Catholic catechisms, Catholic priests, and Catholic
challenges to Protestants, all boasting that the Holy Catholic Church changed
the Sabbath. Adventists say that this settles the question.
Second: But in this they ignore, fail to state, another claim which all
these same Catholic authorities always make just as strongly, namely, that their
Holy Catholic Church extends back to, and began with, the apostles, and that the
change was made by them. If Adventists accept one claim of the Catholics, then,
to be fair, they should accept both. But this would overthrow their argument. Now
the simple fact is, the original "Catholic" Church, which did actually
begin with the apostles where the day was changed, is not the same Church as the
Roman Catholic Church, or the Papacy, of a much later date. The ground on which
the Roman Catholic Church makes the false claim that she changed the Sabbath is
by making the further false claim that the present Roman Church extends back to,
and includes the apostles, who, they readily agree, made the change. Both these
facts are abundantly proved by the testimony of Catholics themselves. It is by
ignoring these fundamental facts that Adventists can use quotations from
Catholics as they do. Their lay members and the common people do not know this,
and hence are easily deceived. No
class of people denounces the Roman Church more strongly than Adventists do.
They pronounce them deceivers, false teachers, perverters of history, and their
boastful claims they repudiate as worthless, all except on the change of the
Sabbath. Here they hold up, and publish to the world, her mere assertion as
settling the question beyond dispute. The Catholics offer no proof of their
claim that they changed the day. They assert
that they did and leave it there. Adventists gladly accept this without any
proof. Consider now: The Roman Catholic Church makes all the following boastful
claims: 1.
The Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church. The
Catholic Church strongly claims all these ten items. What do Seventh-Day
Adventists say to these assertions? They quickly deny all the first nine, say
they are all lies, without any foundation in fact. But when you come to the
tenth one, the change of the Sabbath, then Adventists fall over each other to
accept every word of this as the infallible truth. It settles the question
beyond dispute. "The Catholic Church just owns it right up" that it
did really do the job!! To
illustrate: Adventists bring their chief witness into court. But when he is
sworn they acknowledge that nine-tenths of his testimony is a lie, is perjury,
but one-tenth of what he swears to is true. On this they claim they have won
their case! Selah! Any
judge would quickly throw out of court such testimony as worthless, yet this is
the witness, and the only witness, Adventists can produce saying that the Roman
Church changed the Sabbath. See any of their publications on this point. We
will now examine this witness. The Roman Catholic Church claims to extend back
to the apostles and include them. This is so well known that no proof need be
offered. Yet I will give a few quotations. Cardinal Gibbons is the highest
Catholic authority in America. His work of 480 pages, "The Faith of Our
Fathers," is written expressly to prove that the modern Roman Catholic
Church dates back to Christ and the apostles and has continued in an unbroken
succession down to the present time. He claims that St. Peter was the first Pope
and that his office and authority have descended unbroken through
all the Popes to the present one. On page 58 he says: "The true Church must
be Apostolical. Her ministers must derive their power from the apostles by an
unbroken succession."
On page 67 he gives a table of the true Church, the Catholic, thus:
Name
of Sect
Place of Origin
Founder
Year Authority
Catholic Church
Jerusalem
Jesus Christ
33
New Testament
On
pages 68 and 69 he says all the Protestant sects "came fifteen hundred
years too late to have any pretensions to be called the Apostolic Church."
"The Catholic Church, on the contrary, can easily vindicate the title of
Apostolic, because she derives her origin from the Apostles." "Thus we
go back from century to century till we come to Peter, the first Bishop of Rome,
Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ." On page 81 he says: "She
is the only Church which is acknowledged to have existed from the
beginning." Again, page 161, "St. Peter, the first Pope in the long,
unbroken line of Sovereign Pontiffs." The
"Catholic Dictionary," Article "Catholic Church," says:
"General or universal. It was applied to the true Church spread throughout
the world." "The present Catholic Roman Church is the Church founded
by Christ." I
have just examined a large number of Catholic works from the smallest catechism
up to their great "Encyclopedia," and all agree in contending that the
Catholic Church goes back to the apostles and includes them with Peter as the
first Pope. On this assumption they found the claim that whatever was done by
the apostles was done by the Roman Catholic Church. Mark this act well, for on this claim rests the assertion of
Catholics that their Church changed the Sabbath. The
Pope. The
name, "Pope," simply means father. For centuries after Christ that was
the common name for all priests, both in the Roman and Greek Church. It meant
then the same as " pastor " now means with us. Later, in the West, it
was gradually restricted to bishops only. In 1073, Gregory VII, in a council,
prohibited the use of the title by anyone except the Bishop of Rome. So, then,
the " Pope," as that term is now used, did not exist till hundreds of
years after the time fixed by Adventists for the change of the Sabbath. So it
could not have been changed by the "Pope." The
term, "The Catholic Church," is now commonly used to mean the Church
of Rome only, with the Pope at its head, and it is now claimed by that Church as
belonging exclusively to itself, excluding all others from that name. The Roman
Church also claims this title exclusively clear back to the apostles, including
them as the founders of their "Catholic Church" with Peter as their
first Pope. But this claim is wholly unfounded and contrary to the plainest
facts of history. The "Catholic Church" is one thing, the "Roman
Church" another thing, and the " Papacy" is still another thing,
each differing from the other. "Catholic"
means general, or universal. Beginning with the apostles, or soon after, this
was used by Christians the world over to distinguish the Christian Church from
the Jewish Church, which was national and local. Later, when heresies came up,
"Catholic" meant all orthodox believers everywhere, but excluded the
heretics. This continued for over 1,000 years till the final split between the
Eastern and Western Churches, A.D. 1052. Then the Eastern Church assumed the
title of "The Greek Oriental Orthodox Catholic Church," while the
Western Church still continued to use the common name "Catholic."
The" New International Dictionary" says: "Catholic: 1. Universal
or general; of, or pertaining to the Church universal, designating or pertaining
to, the ancient, undivided Church, or a Church or Churches historically
continuous with and claiming to be a true representation of it, hence, of the
true Apostolic Church; orthodox. The term Catholic originally designated the
whole body of Christian believers, was officially appropriated as a title by the
Western Church at the time of its separation from the Eastern Church [1052],
which assumed the title of Orthodox. After the Reformation, the Church of Rome,
or Roman Catholic Church, asserted its exclusive right to the title and although
this right has not been recognized by the Reformed Churches, specially that of
the Anglican communion, in practice the title is often so restricted." This
is the truth exactly as to the historical use of the term "Catholic
Church." It began with the Apostolic Church and was used by the undivided,
or whole Church, during all the early centuries for over a thousand years. I have before me a book entitled, "Catholic Principles," by Rev. J. W. Westcott, Episcopalian. In this he gives abundant historical proof showing that the term, "Catholic Church," began with the apostles, or immediately after, and embraced all true Christians of orthodox faith in all the world. It continued to be so used till the eleventh century when the Eastern, or Greek Church, separated from the Western, or Roman Church, in A.D. 1052. Then Rome assumed to itself the term Catholic, contrary to its former use through the first eleven centuries. Mr. Westcott says: "To start with, we must be careful not to be misled by the use of names, phrases, and expressions, which meant one thing in the third and fourth centuries and mean quite a different thing in the mouths of modern Roman Catholics in the present century" (page 206). "When Protestants use the word Catholic, </ |