the church of God (evening light): Seventh-day Adventism RENOUNCED

Seventh-day Adventism RENOUNCED

by D. M. Canright

Preface to Fourteenth Edition
My Present Standing
Introduction
Chapter I - Doctrines and Methods of Seventh-day Adventists
Chapter II - An Experience of Twenty-Eight Years in Adventism
Chapter III - Adventism: A Yoke of Bondage
Chapter IV - Origin, History and Failures of Adventism
Chapter V - My Objections to the Seventh-day Adventist System
Chapter VI - The Two-Horned Beast and the Messages
Chapter VII - The Sanctuary
Chapter VIII - Mrs. White and her Revelations
Chapter IX - The Nature of the Sabbath Commandment
Chapter X - Why Christians Keep Sunday
Chapter XI - Did the Pope Change the Sabbath?
Chapter XII - Sabbatarian Positions on the History of Sunday Refuted
Chapter XIII - The Sabbath in the Old Testament
Chapter XIV - The Sabbath in the New Testament
Chapter XV - The Jewish Sabbath Abolished. Colossians 2.
Chapter XVI - A History of Numerous Efforts to Revive the Jewish Sabbath
Chapter XVII - The Law
Chapter XVIII - The Decalogue Examined
Chapter XIX - The Two Covenants
Chapter XX - What Law Are Christians Under
Chapter XXI - Forty-Seven Prominent Texts used by Sabbatarians Examined
Chapter XXII - The Nature of Man
Appendixes

Preface to Fourteenth Edition

"To criticise, expose and condemn others is not a pleasant task; but when religious teachers enthrone error, and mislead honest people, silence would be unkind and censurable."

Being profoundly convinced that Seventh-Day Adventism is a system of error, I feel it my duty to publish what I know of it. I do it in the fear of God. Knowing the sorrow it has brought to my heart and to thousands, I must warn others against it. I do not question the honesty of the Adventists, but their sincerity does not sanctify their errors. I have had to speak plainly, but, I trust kindly. I have had to treat each subject briefly, and leave many untouched, but I have taken up the main pillars of that faith! if these fall, the whole must go down.

It is now nearly twenty-five years since this book was first published. This is the fourteenth edition. It has been translated into several languages, sold by numerous publishing houses, gone to the ends of the earth wherever Adventism has gone, and has been the greatest obstacle that work has ever had to meet. Yet Adventists have ventured no answer to it. Say what they may, it is evident that they would gladly answer it if they could do so safely.

"Replies to Eld. Canright," quoted in this work, is not an answer to this book, but to a few articles I wrote for a paper long before the book was published. The pamphlet itself proves this. The title page is dated "1888," while my book was not published till one year later, 1889. See my title page. Then on page eighty of their pamphlet I read this: "He promises a forthcoming book, by which we presume he designs to sweep away clean everything which his articles have left. It will receive due attention, if thought worthy of it, when it appears." This shows that this "Reply" was no answer to my book. One was promised but never appeared. The book discusses many topics not even mentioned in the articles, and, of course, is much more complete every way. Considering that Adventists are always so ready for debate, discussion and replies, how is it that this book, that has bothered them more than all others which have appeared against them, is so carefully let alone by them? The reason is manifest to all candid people.

And here is what my Advent brethren thought of me before I left them:

"Battle Creek, Mich., July 13, 1881. Brother Canright: * * * I feel more interest in you than in any other man, because I know your worth when the Lord is with you, as a laborer. James White."

"Battle Creek, Mich., May 22, 1881. * * * It is time there was a change of the officers of the General Conference. I trust that if we are true and faithful the Lord will be pleased that we should constitute two of that Board. James White."

"Battle Creek, Mich., Aug. 6, 1884. You have long been with us, and we will all love you. G.I. Butler."

"Martinsburg, Neb., July 14, 1884. You were a power in the world, and did a vast amount of good. * * * We need your help in the work greatly. Your precious talent, if humbly and fully consecrated to God, would be so useful. There are so many places where it would be a great help. G.I. Butler."

Advent Review, March, 1887: "We have felt exceedingly sad to part in our religious connection with one whom we have long esteemed as a dear brother."

Advent Review, March 22, 1887: "In leaving us, he has taken a much more manly and commendable course than most of those who have withdrawn from us, coming voluntarily to our leading brethren, and frankly stating the condition of mind he was in. He did this before his own church, in our presence, and, so far as we know, has taken no unfair, underhanded means to injure us in any way. He goes from our midst with no immoral stain upon his character, chooses associations more pleasant to himself. This is every man's personal privilege if he chooses to take it."

The quotations in my book are from the Adventist books published up to the date when I wrote my book, 1889. Since then most of their books have been reprinted and paged differently. To conform to these books as now paged, I would need to change many of my references. To do this I would have to reprint my whole book, as it is in electrotype plates. A change of a few plates would necessitate a change of all. So it leaves them as they were. The quotations are all there, only some are on a different page in their present editions. I took great care to have every quotation exactly correct. They are reliable.

I design to be perfectly fair towards my Advent brethren. I was with them twenty-eight years, from the age of nineteen to forty-seven, the most active years of my life. I was dearly loved by them and I loved them. I love them now. I have thousands of dear friends among them still. It was a terrible trial to break away from all these tender ties. Even now the tears fall fast as I write these lines. But truth and duty were dearer to me than social ties.

Again I bear them record that they are a sincere, devoted, self-sacrificing people, thoroughly believing what they profess. They have many excellent qualities, and many lovely Christian people among them. Like all churches, they have their full share of undesirable members, not from any immoral teachings, but from human frailty, common in all churches. Daily I pray for them that the Lord may bless all that is good in them and forgive, and, in some way, overrule for good when they are in error. This is all I dare ask for myself.

D. M. CANRIGHT. 1914.

My Present Standing (Back to Top)

WHEN a prominent man leaves one church or party and joins an opposing one and gives his reasons for it he may expect that his old associates will reply to him. I expected no exception in my case when I renounced Adventism, so have not been disappointed. The great majority of my former brethren have been very friendly to me and treated me kindly. A few, a very few, have done otherwise. Their object has been to counteract my influence against what they regard as God's work. These few have started the report that I have been sorry I left Adventism, that I have said so, have tried to return to them, have confessed that my book was false, and some have said that I was very poor, a physical and mental wreck, with no hope of salvation, etc. These reports are accepted as facts by honest brethren and repeated till they are believed by many Adventists the world over. I have denied them in every possible way, but they are still believed and repeated, and doubtless always will be. I leave God to judge between us.

I now and here for the hundredth time solemnly affirm before God that I renounced Adventism because I believed it to be an error. I have never once regretted that I did so, have never intimated to any one that I have had the least desire to go back to that people. It would be impossible for me to do such a thing and be an honest man. I am now (1915) well in body and mind, have a good home worth $10,000 or $12,000, and have four grown children, of whom any man would be proud. On leaving the Adventists I joined the Baptist church at Otsego, Mich., and became its pastor till it was built up into a prosperous church. They have been my ardent friends to this day. Twenty years ago I moved to Grand Rapids, Mich., took a new mission and built this up, organized it into a church which has become one of the strong churches of the city, having several hundred members with a fine edifice. Have twice been its pastor, always an active member. At present I teach a large adult Bible class every Lord's day and often preach for them. Have always been in perfect harmony with the church. They honor me as their father, consult me on all important matters, and hotly resent the foolish reports which some circulate concerning me.

Out of scores of printed testimonies before me I select only a few which speak for themselves:

"Grand Rapids, Mich., Nov. 1, 1907. "To whom it may concern: "Having received many letters from all parts of the United States from those that have been informed by Adventists that Rev. D.M. Canright was not a member of a Baptist church and many other things pertaining to his character, we very emphatically denounce any such statements and will say that he is now and has been for many years an active member of the Berean Baptist church of this city and twice its pastor, a man above reproach and above all a noble Christian. "Respectfully, W. H. Andrews, former clerk and charter member of the above named church. I hereby certify to the above. "REV. ROBERT GRAY, "Pastor of the Berean Church."

"Grand Rapids, Mich., April 9, 1910. "To whom it may concern, world wide: "DEAR BRETHREN: "This letter is to say that Rev. D.M. Canright has been known to the undersigned for many years as an earnest, consecrated Christian man, and a true minister of Jesus Christ. He has been 'a faithful and true witness' against the errors of the Seventh-Day Adventists in his books and tracts for many years. "OLIVER W. VAN OSDEL, "Moderator Grand River Valley Association. "ALEXANDER DODDS, "President City Baptist Mission Society. "W.I. COBURN, "President Baptist Ministers' Conference."

The Baptists are not the only people who think well of the Rev. Mr. Canright. A Congregational minister adds his word: "This certifies that I have been acquainted with the Rev. D.M. Canright of this city for more than forty-five years. At least twenty years of that time he was an Adventist preacher, and during those years his reputation as a Christian man and as a preacher of rare ability was of the highest order. His name among the Adventist people of this state was of the highest order. His name among the Adventist people of this state was a household word for righteousness of character, and an able defender of their faith. And when he left the Adventist denomination, all who knew the man, if they were at all imbued with the Christian spirit, must admit that the change made by him was due to a candid, conscientious conviction of what he believed to be right. There could be no other motive in his case, for he was successful beyond many of his brethren, and honored by them in the highest degree. For at least twenty years he and his beloved family have lived in this city and he has maintained the same reputation that he had, as a Christian gentleman and respected citizen. What I have written is from personal knowledge of Rev. D.M. Canright and of the Adventist denomination in this state. "J. T. HUSTED, "Pastor of the Wallin Congregational Church. "Grand Rapid, Mich., April 12, 1910."

The Methodist pastors add their tribute as follows: "Various inquiries having come to the different members of the Association concerning the character and standing of Rev. D.M. Canright, the regular monthly meeting of the Methodist Ministers' Association of Grand Rapids, Mich., did, by an unanimous vote, adopt the following expression of its confidence in and regard for the personal worth and ministerial usefulness of Brother Canright. "Rev. D.M. Canright, formerly a minister in the Seventh-Day Adventist Association, more recently a minister in the Baptist Association of this city, has been known by some of our, number in person for several years and by reputation by the rest, and all our knowledge and information concerning him are of the most favorable kind. "Any reflections on his personal character as a man, a husband, a citizen, a son or a Christian are without foundation, in fact, are unwarranted by any facts known to his intimate acquaintances. He is honored among his brethren, respected in his own community, and is commended by us as being worthy of confidence and trust. He has had an honored and useful ministry, and in no sense is deserving of the attacks made on him. "Done at Grand Rapids, Mich., this 11th day of April 1910, by the authority of the Grand Rapids Methodist Ministers' Association, by "JOHN R. T. LATHROP, District Supt. "CHARLES NEASE, President. "J. R. WOOTEN, Secretary."

"Grand Rapids, Mich., April 11, 1910. "It is with sincere pleasure that I write concerning the character and integrity of the Rev. D.M. Canright. I have known him and his family a good many years, and do not hesitate to say that they are very estimable people, and have the confidence of their neighbors and friends in the community. "I consider Mr. Canright a Christian gentleman in every sense of the word; a man of the highest integrity and one who desires, in every project with which he is connected, to make righteousness his guide to action. "He has done business with our bank for a good many years and I have personally had reason to test his integrity and am unequivocal in my express of confidence in him. "Very truly yours, "CHARLES W. GARFIELD." (Mr. Garfield is president of a bank with $2,000,000.)

Adventists sometimes say I left them four or five times. I withdrew from that church just once, no more, that was final. Their church records at Battle Creek and Otsego will show that. For years I was troubled with doubts about some of their doctrines and three times stopped preaching for a period, but remained a member in good standing. At a large campmeeting I was persuaded to swallow my doubts, take up the work again, confess that I had been in the dark, and go on again. I yielded judgment to the entreaties of my brethren and the love I had for old associates and said what I soon regretted. I found it a terrible struggle to break away from what had held me so long.

Since I left them they try to make it appear that I did not amount to much anyway. "Sour grapes," said the fox to the delicious fruit which he could not reach! As a refutation of their detractions, see Chapter II of my book. I will here state only a few facts briefly:

During two years, 1876, 1877, I was one of the general conference committee of three which had control of all their work in the world. There is no higher authority in the denomination. How did it happen that I was placed in that office if I was not one of their best men? Year after year I was elected on the boards having charge of their most important institutions, such as their Publishing House, College, Sanitarium, Sabbath School Association, etc., etc. For proof of this see their printed year books. where my name appear constantly. I was made theological teacher in their college, president of a state conference, associate editor of a paper, etc. I selected and arranged the course of reading which all their ministers had to follow, and I was sent to the annual state conferences to examine these preachers in those studies, in their theology, and in their fitness for the ministry. Is such work usually committed to an inferior man?

But it was as a writer in their papers, as the author of numerous tracts, pamphlets and books covering nearly every controverted point of their faith, as a lecturer and debater in defense of their doctrines, that I was the best known during the last fifteen years I was with them. In these lines, not a man among them stood as prominent as I did. Every one at all familiar with their work during that period knows that I tell only the simple truth in the case. They know it, too. For my writings the office once paid me $500 in one check and many other times different sums. After twenty-seven years they still publish and use several of my tracts as being better than anything they have been able to produce since.

My long and thorough acquaintance with Adventism and all their arguments prepared me to answer them as no other could. Hundreds of ministers from all parts have written me their thanks for the aid my book has been to them in meeting Adventism. Did not God in his providence prepare me for this work? I humbly believe he did, and this reconciles me to the long, and bitter experiences I had in that bondage. But if God and the truth is honored, I am content.

The only question is, do I know their doctrines well enough to state them clearly, and have I the ability to answer them plainly? Let my work be the answer.

Since I withdrew Adventists have published five or six different tracts to head off my influence. If I amount to so little, why all this effort? What they do refutes what they say. God has preserved me to outlive nearly all the Adventist ministers with whom I began laboring. At seventy-five am full of faith in God and the hope of eternal life through our lord Jesus Christ.

I love those brethren still and know that most of them are honest Christian people, but in error on many of their views. I would be glad to help them if I could.

D. M. CANRIGHT, Pastor Emeritus of the Berean Baptist Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Introduction (Back to Top)

By Rev. Theo. Nelson. LL.D., late President of Kalamazoo College.

I met for the first time the author of "Adventism Renounced" in the autumn of 1865. He was then a rising young minister in high favor with his people. Then, as now, I had entire confidence in his sincerity. Nor do I think it strange that, after more than twenty years devoted to Seventh-Day Adventist propagandism, he should finally renounce their doctrines, and return to the orthodox faith. It is not necessary to impute any sinister or unworthy motives. Rather, it is easy enough to believe that experience and study, or the evolution of intelligence, as well as the irresistible logic of events, would inevitably bring to pass this result. Seventh-Day Adventists have always made a great deal of the "signs of the times," of earthquakes and falling stars, of "wars and rumors of wars." Arguments which might profoundly impress the imagination of a youth during the troubled period of our great civil war, would naturally lose their hold upon the riper judgment of a man in these "piping times of peace."

Toward the Seventh-Day Adventists as a people I cherish none but feelings of kindness. Generally, their piety is undoubtedly genuine, though misanthropic and melancholy. They take a low view of human nature, and practically isolate themselves from their neighbors, and from those affairs which concern the well-being of society as a whole. They stand aloof from every movement which looks to human progress, because they believe that human progress is impossible, and that mankind are already doomed; that destruction is impending, "even at the door." In fact, their religious faith restrains, if it does not destroy, their sentiment of patriotism, and causes them to regard with suspicion, if not with feelings of hostility, the free government under which they live. Nothing can be more absurd than their interpretations of current events, and, especially, their belief that our general and state governments are about to be converted into engines of religious persecution and despotism. It cannot be otherwise than that many sincere Seventh-Day Adventists, who have been such by what they believed the imperative necessity of Scripture teaching, will be grateful to Mr. Canright for aiding them to put off a yoke which fetters their usefulness and galls their minds.

Seventh-Day Adventists believe and teach that before the second coming of Christ the United States will form a union of church and state, and, like France and Spain in the seventeenth century, will become a persecuting power. They hold that the prophetic Scriptures clearly foretell this extraordinary change in the form and spirit of our government. Touching the correctness of the interpretations of Scripture upon which their expectations are based, they admit no possibility of mistake. They assume to know that they have the right key to prophecy - that they have the "Present truth." They believe and teach that the Seventh-Day Adventists are to be especially tried in this ordeal that is being prepared by the civil government; that they are to be the chief victims of the fiery persecutions that will be waged against the "Saints of the Most High"; that they are to suffer, at the hands of the secular power, imprisonments, tortures, "the spoiling of their goods," and perhaps death itself. Indeed, they stake their whole system of doctrine upon this meaning of the Word of God, and they regard these momentous events, which they claim the Bible forecasts, as much a reality as though those events had already transpired Those events are a reality to them and have the same value in argument, and the same authority in action, as history itself. In their publications and sermons they often adopt the style of the confessor who is already brought to the scaffold, or bound to the stake; they speak out in a tone of defiant, heroic submission, as though the fagots were being kindled and the crown of martyrdom were in full view. To one who is familiar with the history of religious persecutions, and has studied the progress and development of religious freedom, especially in Anglo-Saxon nations; to one who is fairly acquainted with the spirit of the age and country in which we live, this ostentatious martyr-spirit of our Adventist friends seems quite absurd. Were it not for their well known uprightness and probity of character, we should be disposed to challenge their belief, such is their eagerness to find its proof and confirmation in events which have no such meaning. Under our form of government would it be possible to achieve a more intimate and perfect union of "church and state" than is embodied in the government of monarchical English? Such a change would be a greater miracle than for God to grow a giant oak in an instant. The trend of our civilization, the most powerful currents of public opinion, are all in the opposite direction. Yet, even in England, Adventists are free to publish their peculiar doctrines, to establish churches, and to pursue their vocations like other men. Religious freedom is the spirit of the age, and, most of all, the spirit of the age in America. Hence, we say, there need be no fears for the grave forebodings of our Advent friends.

THEO. NELSON.

Chapter I - Doctrines and Methods of Seventh-day Adventists (Back to Top)

Seventh-day Adventism originated about seventy-five years ago in the work of Mr. Miller, who set the time for the end of the world in 1843-4. Adding some doctrines to the original faith, Elder James White and wife in 1846 became the leaders of the Seventh-day branch of Adventism. Their headquarters were at different times at Paris, Me., Saratoga, Oswego, and Rochester, N.Y. In 1855 they settled permanently at Battle Creek, Mich., which remained the center of the work till recently.

Their Doctrines

In doctrine they differ radically from evangelical churches. The main points are these as taught in all their books: They hold to the materiality of all things; believe in the sonship of Christ; believe that they only have a correct understanding of the prophecies to which they give most of their attention; that the end of the world is to occur in this generation; that we are now in the Judgment which began in 1844; that the Seventh day, Saturday, must be kept; that keeping Sunday is the mark of the beast; that all should pay tithes; that Mrs. White is inspired as were the writers of the Bible; that the Bible must be interpreted to harmonize with her writings; that they are called of God to give the last warning to the World; that the dead are unconscious; that the wicked and the devil will be annihilated; that all churches but their own are Babylon and rejected of God; that everybody but themselves will soon become spiritualists; that when Christ comes only 144,000 out of all then living on the earth will be saved, and all these will be Seventh-day Adventists. Hence, they have no fellowship with other Christians; never work with them in any way, but zealously proselyte from all.

They believe in the Bible, in conversion, in purity of life, in rigid temperance, in strict morality, and in other good things common to all churches. There are many excellent persons among them. In character they are not to be compared with the spiritualists, infidels, etc., as is sometimes unjustly done.

The Extent of Their Work

Their Year Book for 1912 reports the following:

Conferences, 129; mission fields, 87; organized churches, 2,769; membership, 90,808; unorganized, 15,758; total, 104,528. Ordained ministers, 828; licensed ministers, 458; missionaries, 1,234; book canvassers, 1,697; total laborers, 4,346; Sabbath Schools, 4,151; membership, 101,161; church schools, 594; students, 13,357; colleges and academies, 86; students, 7,169; publishing houses, 28; employees, 610; sanitariums, 74; employees, 1,989; tithes, $1,338,689.65; average per member, $12.81; contributions for missions, home church work, tithes and all funds by the denomination, $2,223,767.52.

They publish 121 periodicals in twenty-eight languages. Books and tracts published in ninety-one languages.

The above will give a fair idea of the strength of that church. However, their main efficiency is in the distribution of their literature. Every member, old and young, down to little children, is taught and urged to engage in every way possible in distributing these tracts, papers and books through every possible channel. Every one believes he is doing God's work when he does this. Hence every member is a missionary in some way. The result is their literature is coming to be widely scattered the world over. Yet the results of all this tremendous outlay of money and work are very meagre. In the last four years with 4,000 laborers in the field, they have only averaged a gain of 4,000 members per year, or one for every worker. They have been at work now for seventy-five years to get 104,000 members. The Mormons, starting about the same date, now number 500,000, nearly five times as many. The Christian Scientists, only about half as old, have over a million members. There is very little real spiritual power in it. The work is done mostly by hard labor and argument, not by any such mighty power as attended the work of the Apostles, or Luther, or Wesley, or Moody and many others. Their work now extends to all parts of the civilized world and into many heathen lands.

The number of their actual converts does not tell the harm they do. Where they convert one they confuse a score, who after that have no settled faith in any church, and are useless for any Christian work. Other conscientious persons are bothered and worried over it for years, not knowing what to do.

Their Hostility to All Other Churches

One of the highly objectionable features of that system is the bitter hostility of its believers towards all other churches. Their theory is that all churches but their own were utterly rejected of God in 1844 for not embracing Miller's doctrine. Thus Mrs. White says: "I saw the state of the different churches since the second angel proclaimed their fall [in 1844]. They have been growing more and more corrupt.... Satan has taken full possession of the churches as a body.... The churches were left as were the Jews; and they have been filling up with every unclean and hateful bird. I saw great iniquity and vileness in the churches; yet they profess to be Christians. Their professions, their prayers and their exhortations are an abomination in the sight of God. Said the angel, God will not smell in their assemblies. Selfishness, fraud and deceit are practiced by them without the reprovings of conscience." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 189, 190. She says it is the devil who answers their prayers. Thus: "I saw them look up to the throne and pray, Father give us thy spirit; Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence." Early Writings, page 47. Again: "The nominal churches are filled with fornication and adultery, crime and murder, the result of base, lustful passion; but these things are kept covered." Testimonies, Vol. II, page 449. All intelligent people know that such statements are a misrepresentation of the evangelical churches today. Elder White says: "Babylon, the nominal church, is fallen; God's people have come out of her. She is now the synagogue of Satan." Present Truth. April, 1850.

Hence they say that the revivals and conversions in the churches are largely a deception, the work of the devil, not of God. Mrs. White says of them: "The converts are not renewed in heart or changed in character." "They will exult that God is working marvelously for them, when the work is that of another spirit. Under a religious guise, Satan will spread his influence over the land. HE HOPES TO DECEIVE MANY BY LEADING THEM TO THINK THAT GOD IS STILL WITH THE CHURCHES." Great Controversy, page 294, 296. On this the Review and Herald, May 3, 1887, says: "we are aware that to assume that this revival work, so unquestionably accepted by all the churches, is not genuine, will cause the hands of Christendom to be raised in holy horror.... If He [God] is with us, He has not been with the popular churches in any marked manner since they rejected the Advent message of 1843-4, and they are congratulating themselves over delusive appearances, and a prosperity which has no existence in fact. The hand of God cannot direct two movements so antagonistic in nature."

Believing this, they eagerly watch for evidence to prove it and shut their eyes to any facts against it. So they rejoice at any unfavorable thing they can hear against ministers, churches, or members. They report it, repeat it, publish it, magnify it, and live on it. To weaken, divide, or break up a church, is their delight. They heartily join with worldlings, infidels and atheists in their opposition to churches, and thus strengthen their unbelief and help them to perdition. They have gathered up all the most unfavorable things possible to find against the churches and put it in a book occupying thirty pages, and this they hand out for all to read. It is sad to see honest men devoting their lives to such highly censurable work, which must please Satan well.

Who is Deceived?

Seventh-day Adventists dwell much on how easy it is to be deceived, to be led by Satan, when we think it is the Lord - to believe a lie for the truth. It is amusing to see how innocently they apply this to all others, and never dream that is has any application to themselves! What, THEY deceived? THEY misled? Impossible! They KNOW they are right. Exactly, and that is just the way all feel, whether they be Mormons, Shakers, Catholics, or what not. The Adventists themselves are an illustration of the ease with which people are misled.

Their Methods of Work

Tent Meetings. Largely they use tents to enter new fields. Being a novelty, they attract attention. At first they present subjects which will offend no one till they gain the confidence of the people. Gradually they introduce their peculiar dogmas, then come out more boldly, till at length they denounce all other churches as Babylon, and their pastors as hirelings and deceivers. They say these pastors cannot defend their doctrines; dare not try. They offer rewards to any who will prove so and so; boast how they have scared this one, defeated that one, and silenced another. If in sermons the least reference is made to them, they call it persecution, give out a review, and do everything to provoke controversy. When the resident pastors are compelled to defend themselves, the Adventists claim to be greatly abused.

If a doctor, lawyer, teacher, or business man should enter a town and denounce all others of his profession as quacks, fools, or deceivers, how would he be treated? All would combine against him as a common enemy.

This is the way the pastors and churches meet the attacks of the Adventists, because compelled to. Like Ishmael of old, the hand of the Adventist is against every man, and hence every man's hand is against them. Gen 16:12. It is useless for them to deny this, for all know it to be true. They all do it. I was taught that way and followed it, and taught others to do the same.

Camp meeting. Adventists hold many camp-meetings yearly. Here their ablest speakers preach their doctrines to thousands, and distribute their literature widely. They hire the papers to print lengthy flattering reports of their meetings, which they write themselves. Their reporters are trained for this special work. They gain wide attention, and impress many in this way.

Bible Readings. Hundreds of their men, women, and even young girls, are trained with printed lessons which they learn by heart, to go from house to house and give Bible readings. At first they conceal their real object and name, till they get a foothold. Then they cautiously introduce their tenets, work against pastors and churches, and lead many away.

Book-selling. Hundreds also are employed to canvass for their doctrinal books. The real nature of the book is studiously concealed, and the subscriber is deceived into buying a radical Advent book.

Distribution of Tracts. In every possible way, publicly, privately, from tent or church, by book-agents, colporteurs, Bible-readers, or private individuals, in depots, on boats, in stores, or families, through the mails, by sale, loan or gift, their tracts are persistently crowded everywhere.

Missions. They have Missions in many of the large cities and in foreign lands; but they are largely proselyting agencies. They do little among the heathen, or for the destitute and fallen, but go into the best families to which they can gain access, and gather the converts whom other missionaries have made. Thus Mrs. White instructs them: "Mistakes have been made in not seeking to reach ministers and the higher classes with the truth.... Educate men and women to labor for these higher classes both here and there and in other countries." Testimony No. 33, pages 108, 109. Jesus sent his disciples into the highways and hedges for the poor, lame and blind, for publicans, harlots and sinners; but Mrs. White does not relish that kind. She wants them from "the ministers and higher classes," "the whole who need no physician," those who can bring talent and money into the cause.

Where They Work. Adventists have the best success in new fields, where they are least known. Hence the western States is where they are most numerous. In New England, where they started, they have had to struggle hard to hold their own. In some of the older fields they have lost in numbers, in others the gain is very small. In hundreds of places where they were fair sized, active churches in the past, now no church at all, or a straggling, discouraged handful. Battle Creek is a fair illustration. This was their headquarters for forty years. Once there were 2,000 Sabbath keepers here, all united. Now there are less than 1,000, divided into four opposing parties, their influence entirely gone. The same is true elsewhere. About all the converts they make are at the outset. After a few years' acquaintance, they have no influence and few or none join them. Their churches grow smaller, generally, till they are unnoticed. The average membership of their churches is 29 - exceedingly small; how different from the evangelical churches! The longer these are in a town the stronger they grow, and the more influence they have generally. But Adventism does not wear.

How to Meet Adventism

People are led into Adventism from lack of information. Hence, when Adventism enters a town the people should be told plainly what it is, what its effects are, and wherein it is unscriptural. Quite generally pastors make a mistake in letting it alone for weeks, till it has gained a foothold. I always noticed that where the pastors united and worked against us on the start, we could do but little. So I would advise churches and pastors to take right hold of the matter earnestly as soon as people are interested in it. Preach on it; visit those who are being led away; hold Bible-readings; furnish them with proper books and tracts. Sit down patiently and answer arguments. Visit them again and again. Adventists will work a whole year, will go a hundred times, will give them scores of tracts to proselyte one person. If we would work a tenth as hard, scarcely one would be led away. People love to be noticed. The very attention they receive from the Adventists often wins them more than their arguments.

What Will Be Their End?

Adventism is founded on time, and time will kill it. It began by setting a definite time, 1844, for the end of the world, and failed. Now they hold that it must come in this generation beginning in 1844. This is only another way of time setting. In time all this will fail and overthrow their system. Then will come doubt, discouragement, divisions, apostasies, infidelity, and ruin to souls. This end is inevitable. The wider their influence now, the more terrible the disaster then. These wild, enthusiastic, fanatical moves which end in failure are the delight of Satan, as they bring disgrace upon the cause of Christ and end in infidelity. That such will be the end of Adventism I have not a doubt.

Lack of Education and Talent Among the Adventist Leaders

The men whom God has chosen to lead out in the great religious movements of the past have, with few exceptions, been men of high education, refinement, and great talents. Moses, the founder of Judaism, "was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds." Acts 7:22. Nehemiah, who restored Jerusalem after the captivity, was cup-bearer to the king. Neh 2. So Daniel, the great prophet, had "knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom." Dan 1:17. He was prime minister of a mighty empire for many years. Paul was so renowned for his learning, that the king said to him: "Much learning doth make thee mad." Acts 26:24. He did for Christianity ten times more than all the other apostles together. It is to him, and not to the other apostles, that the Gentile world is indebted for Christianity. Then the twelve, though uneducated, had the advantage over all other reformers, that they were taught directly by the Son of God, and could work miracles.

St. Augustine, A.D. 353-430, the father of Christian theology, to whom the church owes almost as much as to Paul, was highly educated. As is well known, Luther was a thorough scholar, educated in the best schools of his day, and filled a professor's chair in a university. So Calvin and Melanchton were both profound scholars, occupying professor's chairs in halls of learning. Zwingle, the great Swiss reformer, was celebrated for his learning and scholarship. Wiclif [sp], the "Morning Star of the Reformation," was a graduate of Oxford, England, and a doctor of divinity. Cranmer, the great English reformer, was a graduate, a doctor of divinity, archbishop, and regent of the kingdom. Wesley, the father of Methodism, was a graduate of Oxford, a man of vast reading, the author or editor of commentaries, grammars, dictionaries, etc. It is a false idea that God generally uses ignorant men as leaders in reform, as the above great names will show.

Now look at the founders of our heretical sects. Joanna Southcott was wholly illiterate, a mere washer-woman. Ann Lee, the foundress of the Shakers, received no education, worked in a cotton factory, and was cook in a hospital. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, received no education, and Brigham Young very little. Not one of these persons were of influence in the world, outside of their own deluded followers.

How is it with the leaders of Adventism? Wm. Miller, the founder, was reared in the backwoods, in poverty, and received only the poor advantages of a common district school. Except some general reading, this was the extent of his education.

Elder White, the leader of the Seventh-day Adventists' party, only secured sufficient education to teach a common district school. He was no student of books. In all my travels with him, I seldom saw him read half an hour in any book. Of the languages or the sciences he knew nothing, and little even of common history. Mrs. White received no school education, except a few weeks when a child. She, like Joanna Southcott, Ann Lee, and Joseph Smith, was wholly illiterate, not knowing the simplest rules of grammar. Not one of the leading men in that work ever graduated from college or university, and many are illiterate as Mrs. White herself. Elder J.N. Andrews, Elder Smith, and one or two more, by diligent study and reading out of school, became well informed men in their line. After Elder White came Elders Butler and Haskell as leaders, neither of them educated men, nor of half the natural talent of Elder White. The present leaders are small men also. Such men are poorly prepared to lead out in a great reformation in this educated age. Not a man among them has now, or ever had, a particle of influence in the world, or any office or responsible position in state or nation. How different from the great reformers of the past, who often had extensive influence for good, not only with the masses, but with the great men and kings of earth. Hence, from whatsoever side we view Adventism, it has none of the marks of a genuine reformation sent of God to bless the world.

Elder A.A. Phelps, for years editor of a First-day Adventist paper says: "I watched and waited, and worked, with patience, meakness and loyalty, in hearty co-operation, and with an earnest desire to see such unity, enterprise, breadth and moral power, as ought to characterize a scriptural and heaven-inspired movement. How slowly and reluctantly I yielded to the conviction - forced by sad facts and illustrations that I have not even dared to detail - that I was only throwing away my life in stemming such waves of discord, indolence, looseness, narrowness, dogmatism and spiritual death as I could not overcome."

Reader, if you are still outside of this spiritual Babylon, take warning from those who have been through the mill, and stay out.

Later, 1914. Already strong men among them admit that, (1) Mrs. White had made many mistakes in her inspired (?) writing; (2) Now contradicts what she once wrote; (3) Has copied from many other authors what she claims as revelations from God; (4) Has often been influenced by others to write what they wanted to help their projects. Time has proved this so clearly that it can no longer be denied. Hence her revelations are steadily losing influence with their able men. She is now eighty-seven years old and is reported as having largely lost her mind. The laity, specially in foreign lands, being ignorant of all these facts, still regard her as the voice of God to them.

Chapter II - An Experience of Twenty-Eight Years in Adventism (Back to Top)

I long hesitated about bringing personal matters into this book, but could see no way to tell my story without it. My experience illustrates the power which error and superstition have over men. I am amazed at myself that I was held there so long, after my better judgment was convinced that it was an error. I propose to tell the simple facts, just as they were, hit whom they may. Public men become public property, and as such their conduct and work should be laid open and discussed. This is my reason for criticizing the course of Elder White and wife, and others. They invite criticism by claiming to be reformers, better than other people.

I was born in Kinderhook, Branch county, Mich., Sept. 22, 1840. I had no religious training till I was sixteen. I was converted among the Methodists under the labors of Rev. Mr. Hazzard, and baptized by him in 1858. I soon went to Albion, N.Y., to attend school. Here, in 1859, I heard Elder and Mrs. White. He preached on the Sabbath question. I was uneducated, and knew but little about the Bible. I had no idea of the relation between the Old and New Testaments, the law and the gospel, or the difference between the Sabbath and the Lord's day. I thought he proved that the seventh day was still binding, and that there was no authority for keeping Sunday.

As I was anxious to be right, I began keeping Saturday, but did not expect to believe any more of their doctrine. Of course I attended their meetings on Saturday and worked on Sunday. This separated me entirely from other Christians, and threw me wholly with the Adventists. I soon learned from them that all other churches were Babylon, in the dark and under the frown of God. Seventh-day Adventists were the only true people of God. They had "the truth," the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They defended Mr. Miller's work of 1844, believed in the visions of Mrs. White, the sleep of the dead, the annihilation of the wicked, feet washing, etc. At first these things staggered me, and I thought of drawing back; but they explained them plausibly and smoothed them over, and said they were no test anyway. Having no one to intelligently aid me, I began to see things as they did, and in a few weeks came to believe the whole system. I was again baptized, as their converts from other churches generally are, so as to get clean out of Babylon. Persuaded that time was short, I gave up going to school, dropped the study of all else, listened to their preaching, devoured their books and studied my Bible day and night to sustain these new views. I was now an enthusiastic believer, and longed to convert everybody to the faith. I had not a doubt that it was the pure truth. This is about the experience of all who go with them, as I have since learned.

In May, 1864, I was licensed to preach. Soon began with Elder Van Horn at Ithaca, Mich. We had good success; raised up three companies that year. In 1865 worked in Tuscola county, and had excellent success. Was ordained by Elder White that year. Up to this date I had not a doubt about the truthfulness of our faith. As I now began to see more of Elder White and wife, and the work at headquarters, I learned that there was much trouble with him. I saw that he ruled everything, and that all greatly feared him. I saw that he was often cross and unreasonable. This troubled me a little, but not seriously. In 1866 I was sent to Maine with Elder J.N. Andrews, the ablest man among them. This was a big thing for me. I threw myself into the work with great enthusiasm, and was very happy. Elder Andrews was strong in the faith and very radical, and I partook of his spirit. We had excellent success. By this time I had become quite a writer. I returned to Battle Creek in 1867. At that time there was great trouble with Elder White, and many church meetings were held to investigate the matter. It was clear to me that he was wrong, but Mrs. White sustained him in her "Testimonies" and severely blamed the church. Elder Andrews and a few others proposed to stand up for the right, and take the consequences. My sympathies were with them; but others feared, and finally all wilted and confessed that "we have been blinded by Satan." This was signed by the leading ministers, and humbly adopted by the whole church. See "Testimonies," Vol. 1, page 612. This shook my faith a good deal, and I began to question Mrs. White's inspiration. I saw that her revelations always favored Elder White and herself. If any dared question their course, they soon received a scathing revelation denouncing the wrath of God against them.

About this time several of our able ministers, with quite a party in the West, drew off from the body, in opposition to Elder White and the visions. They were denounced as "rebels," were doomed to perdition, and it was predicted that they would soon come to ruin! But they have continued their work for about fifty years, having several thousand believers. Their headquarters are at Stanberry, Missouri, where they publish two papers, books, etc. They have done a good work in exposing the fallacy of Mrs. White's inspiration.

But I dared not open my mind to a soul. I was only a youth, and had little experience. Older and stronger men had broken down and confessed. What could I do? I said nothing, but felt terribly. I wished I had never heard of the Adventists. Shortly I was back on my field in Maine. Busy with my work, preaching our doctrine, and surrounded with men who firmly believed it, I soon got over my doubts. I have since learned that scores of others have gone through a similar trial.

In 1868 I went to Massachusetts. Being away from the trouble at headquarters, I got on finely. But in May, 1869, I was in Battle Creek for a month. Things were in bad shape. Elder White was in trouble with most of the leading men, and they with him. I was well convinced that he was the real cause of it all, but Mrs. White sustained him, and that settled it. They were God's chosen leaders, and must not be criticized or meddled with. I felt sad. I was working hard to get men into "the truth," as we called it; to persuade them that this was a people free from the faults of other churches; then to see such a state of things among the leaders disheartened me greatly. So far, I myself had had no trouble with any one, and Elder White had been very cordial to me. But I saw then that if I ever came to be of any prominence in the work I should have to expect the same treatment from him that all of the others got. The more I saw of the work, the more objections I saw to it. I will not stop to give them here, as I will give them together in Chapter V.

I had been so thoroughly drilled in the Advent doctrines that I firmly believed the Bible taught them all. To give up the Advent faith was to give up the Bible. So all my brethren said, and so I thought. That year I went to Iowa to work, where I remained four years, laboring with Elder Butler, who soon became president of their general conference. We had good success and raised up several churches. I finally opened my mind to Elder Butler, and told him my fears. I knew these things troubled him as well as myself, for we often spoke of them. He helped me some, and again I gathered courage and went on, feeling better. Still, I came to see each year more and more that somehow the thing did not work as I had supposed it would and ought. Wherever Elder White and wife went they were always in trouble with the brethren, and the best ones, too. I came to dread to meet them, or have them come where I was, for I knew there would be trouble with some one or some thing, and it never failed of so being. I saw church after church split up by them, the best brethren discouraged and maddened and driven off, while I was compelled to apologize for them continually. For years about this time, the main business at all our big meetings was to listen to the complaints of Elder White against his brethren. Not a leading man escaped - Andrews, Waggoner, Smith, Loughborough, Amadon, Cornell, Aldrich, Walker, and a host of others had to take their turn at being broken on the wheel. For hours at a time, and times without number, I have sat in meetings and heard Elder White and wife denounce these men, till I felt there was little manhood left in them. It violated all my ideas of right and justice, and stirred my indignation. Yet, whatever vote was asked by Elder White, we all voted it unanimously, I with the rest. Then I would go out alone and hate myself for my cowardice, and despise my brethren for their weakness.

Elder and Mrs. White ran and ruled everything with an iron hand. Not a nomination to office, not a resolution, not an item of business was ever acted upon in business meetings until all had been first submitted to Elder White for his approval. Till years later, we never saw an opposition vote on any question, for no one dared to do it. Hence, all official voting was only a farce. The will of Elder White settled everything. If any one dared to oppose anything, however humbly, Elder White or wife quickly squelched him. Long years of such training taught people to let their leaders think for them; hence, they are under as complete subjection as are the Catholics.

These, with other things, threw me into doubt and discouragement, and tempted me to quit the work. I saw many an able minister and scores of valuable men leave us because they would not stand such treatment. I envied the faith and confidence of brethren who went on ignorant of all this, supposing that Battle Creek was a little heaven, when, in fact, it was as near purgatory as anything I could imagine. Many poor souls have gone there full of faith and hope, but have soon gone away infidels. In 1872 I went to Minnesota, where I had good success. By this time I had written much, and so was well known to all our people. In July, 1873, myself and wife went to Colorado to spend a few weeks with Elder White and wife, in the mountains. I soon found things very unpleasant living in the family. Now my turn had come to catch it, but instead of knuckling down, as most of the others had, I told the elder my mind freely. That brought us into open rupture. Mrs. White heard it all, but said nothing. In a few days she had a long written "testimony" for wife and me. It justified her husband in everything, and placed us as rebels against God, with no hope of heaven only by a full surrender to them. Wife and I read it over many times with tears and prayers; but could see no way to reconcile it with truth. It contained many statements which we knew were false. We saw that it was dictated by a spirit of retaliation, a determination to break our wills or crush us. For awhile we were in great perplexity, but still my confidence in much of the doctrine and my fear of going wrong held me; but I was perfectly miserable for weeks, not knowing what to do. However, I preached awhile in Colorado and then went to California, where I worked with my hands for three months, trying to settle what to do. Elders Butler, Smith, White and others wrote to us, and tried to reconcile us to the work. Not knowing what else to do, I finally decided to forget all my objections, and go along as before. So we confessed to Elder White all we could possibly, and he generously forgave us! But from that on my faith in the inspiration of Mrs. White was weak. Elder White was very friendly to me again after that.

Now the Adventists say that I have left them five times, and this is one of the five. It is utterly untrue. I simply stopped preaching for a few weeks, but did not withdraw from the church nor renounce the faith. If this is leaving them, then most of their leading men have left them, too, for they all have had their periods of trial when they left their work awhile. About 1856, Elders J.N. Andrews and J.N. Loughborough, who were then the most prominent ministers among them, and several other persons, left the work and went into business at Waukon, Iowa. Mrs. White gave an account of this in "Experience and Views," pages 219-222. Elder White and wife went there, and, after a long effort, brought them back. Mrs. White says: "A dissatisfied party had settled in Waukon.... Brother J.N. Loughborough in discouragement had gone to work at his trade. He was just about to purchase land," etc., page 222. These men did just what I did.

Elder Uriah Smith, by far the ablest man then in their ranks, also had his seasons of doubt, when he ceased to work, and engaged in secular employments. Hear his own confession: "That I have had in my experience occasional periods of trial, I do not deny. There have been times when circumstances seemed very perplexing; when the way to harmonize apparently conflicting views did not at once appear, and under what have seemed for the time strong provocations to withdraw from the work, I have canvassed the question how far this could reasonably be done, or how much of this work could consistently be surrendered." Replies to Elder Canright, page 107. His own words show that he has doubted different parts of the theory, the same as I did. For years we were on intimate terms; often traveled and labored together. We freely talked over these matters. His doubts and trials were very similar to my own. This ran through a long period of years, till it was feared that he would quit them entirely. His wife was nearly driven to insanity over similar trials. Finally they broke down, "confessed" the same as I did once, and now profess to be satisfied. He wrote to me that he had to endorse Mrs. White's visions out of policy. The thing is so unreasonable, that most of them at times are more or less troubled over it, just as I was. In the language of J.W. Morton, "I pity their delusions, and abominate the spiritual tyranny by which they and others are held to the most unscriptural dogmas. Even Mr. Smith, for whom, however he may denounce me, I entertain only the most kindly feelings, is in a position that calls for tender commiseration. He is expected, as the great man of the denomination (for he undoubtedly is by far the ablest man they have), to give a full and explicit endorsement of Mrs. White's claims of inspiration; and yet whoever scans his public utterances on this point - especially he who has skill to 'read between the lines' - can see that his endorsement is so feeble as to be no endorsement at all. Such a position is one in which I would not place my worst enemy. He is, in part at least, under the heel of a spiritual tyranny. Oh, that Uriah Smith had the courage, and the manliness, to assert, before God and man, his right to that 'soul liberty' which is the inheritance of every child of God!"

Elder Geo. I. Butler, who for many years took the place of Elder White as leader of the denomination, got into trial with his brethren, and, practically, out of the work. Till middle life he was a small farmer. Naturally he was a humble, good man, with a strong sense of fairness. Elder White became jealous of him. Later, Mrs. White also turned against him and required a servile submission which he would not make. Said when he could not be an Adventist, and be a man, then he would be a man, as others had decided. Disappointed and soured, under pretext of ill-health, he went off to Florida on a little farm - another example of the blighting effect of Adventism. He is now doing what I did two or three times, only from a different cause. Has he, then, left them?

In 1874 Elder White had arranged to have a big debate held at Napa City, Cal., between Elder Miles Grant, of Boston, Mass., and one of our ministers. Though Elder White and wife, Elder Cornell and Elder Loughborough, their ablest men, were there, they selected myself to defend our side, which I did for about a week, while the other ministers sat by. I mention this to show the confidence they had in me, though I had been in so great a trial but a few months before. In 1875 we returned to Michigan. Elder Butler was now out with Elder White, who took every possible opportunity to snub him; but I was in high favor, was sent to attend their state meetings in Vermont, Kansas, Ohio and Indiana. With Elder Smith, was sent as delegate to the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference. In 1876 I was sent to Minnesota, then to Texas, and so on through most of the Southern States, to look after our interests there. Each year greater responsibilities were laid upon me. That year I raised up a large church at Rome, New York, and labored over the State. Went with Elder White and wife to Indiana and Illinois, and was then sent to Kansas to hold a debate, and to Missouri for the same purpose. This year I was elected a member of the General Conference Committee of three, with Elder White and Elder Haskell, and continued on the committee two years. It is the highest official authority in the denomination.

In 1877 I went to New England, where I raised up two churches and did other work. I spent 1878 in general work in various States, as Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Ohio. In the fall was president of the Ohio conference. In 1879 labored in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. At the general conference at Battle Creek in the fall, things were in a bad shape. Elder White was cross, and Mrs. White bore down heavy on several ministers. Harshness, fault-finding and trials were the order of the day. I felt that there was very little of the spirit of Christ present. I got away as quickly as possible. I saw more and more clearly that a spirit of oppression, criticism, distrust and dissension was the result of our work, instead of meekness, gentleness, and love among brethren. For the next whole year these feelings grew upon me, till I began to fear we were doing more harm than good. My work called me among old churches, where I could see the fruit of it. Generally they were cold and dead, backslidden, or in a quarrel, or nearly extinct, where once they had been large and flourishing churches. I lost heart to raise up more churches to go in the same way. One day I would decide to quit them entirely, and the next day I would resolve to go on and do the best I could. I never suffered more mental anguish in my life. I labored that year in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.

In the fall of 1880 I resolved to leave the Adventists, and, if I could, go with some other church. I was president of the Ohio conference. Our annual state meeting was at Clyde, Ohio. Elder and Mrs. White were there. My mind was made up to leave them as soon as the meeting was over. Against my protest they re-elected me president. Mrs. White urged it. Said I was just the man for the place; yet her special claim is to be able to reveal the hidden wrongs in the church. Here was an important matter. Why did she not have a revelation about it? No, I was all right so far as she knew. The next week I resigned, went east, and wrote Elder White that I would go with them no longer. Then she sent me a long written revelation, denouncing me as a child of hell, and one of the wickedest of men, though only two weeks before she thought me fit to be president of a conference!

For three months I taught elocution. I knew not what to do. I talked with ministers of other churches, but they did not seem to know how to help me. I could settle on nothing. I held on to my Christianity and love for Christ and the Bible, and preached and worked as I had opportunity. I was glad I had decided to leave the Adventists, and felt much better. Finally I met my present wife, who was an Adventist. Then I had a long talk with Elder Butler, Elder White, Mrs. White and others, and was persuaded that things were not as I had imagined. They said I was in the dark, led by Satan, and would go to ruin. All the influence of old friends, associations, habits and long cultivated ideas came up and were too strong for my better judgment. I yielded, and resolved again to live and die with them. In my judgment and conscience I was ashamed of the surrender I had made, yet I tried to feel right and go on.

Death of Elder White

Early in 1881 I went with Elder White to New York. By this time he had lost the leadership of the people. Elders Butler and Haskell had taken his place, and hence he was very hostile to them, working against them, and planning all the while to get them out and get back in again himself. But the people had largely lost confidence in him as a leader. He wished me to work with him against them, saying that we would then be on the General Conference Committee together. He had good grounds to oppose Haskell, who was always a crafty, underhanded man. Elder White wrote me thus: "February 11, 1881 - I wish Elder Haskell were an open, frank man, so I need not watch him." Again: "Battle Creek, Mich., May 24, 1881 - ...Elders Butler and Haskell have had an influence over her [his wife] that I hope to see broken. It has nearly ruined her. These men must not be suffered by our people to do as they have done... I want you to unite with me... It is time there was a change in the offices of the General Conference. I trust that if we are true and faithful, the Lord will be pleased that we should constitute two of that board."

I could give much more to show how little confidence the leading men had in each other. I wrote Elder White that I could not unite with him nor work with him. July 13, 1881, he wrote me again: "I have repeatedly abused you, and if you go to destruction, where many, to say the least, are willing you should go, I should ever feel that I had taken a part in your destruction.... I do not see how any man can labor with me." Soon after this he died. I have no doubt that Elder White believed in the Advent doctrine, and persuaded himself that he was called of God to be a leader. He had some excellent qualities, and doubtless meant to be a Christian, but his strong desire to rule and run everything, together with an irritable temper, kept him always in trouble with some one. No one could work with him long in peace. Elder Butler told me that his death was providential to save the body from a rupture. Mrs. White was so offended at Butler, that she would have no communication with him for a long while. All these things helped me to see that I was being led by selfish, ambitious men, who were poor samples of religious reformers.

That year I labored in Canada, Vermont, Maine, New England, and Michigan, and was elected member of the State Executive Committee of Michigan that fall. I worked another year in Michigan. But I was unhappy; I could not get over my doubts; I had no heart in the work. Several leading ministers in the State felt about the same. I then decided to quietly drop out of the ministry and go to farming. This I did for two years, but retained my membership with the church and worked right along with them. But I was in purgatory all the time, trying to believe what I could not. Yet I was not settled on any other church, and feared I might go wrong and so stood still. In the fall of 1884, Elder Butler, my old friend, and now at the head of the Advent work, made a great effort to get me reconciled and back at work again. He wrote me several times, to which I made no answer. Finally he telegraphed me, and paid my fare to a camp-meeting. Here I met old friends and associations, tried to see things as favorable as possible, heard explanations, etc., etc., till at last I yielded again. I was sick of an undecided position. I thought I could do some good here anyway; all my friends were here, I believed much of the doctrine still, and I might go to ruin if I left them, etc. Now I resolved to swallow all my doubts, believe the whole thing anyway, and stay with them for better or for worse. So I made a strong confession, of which I was ashamed before it was cold.

Was I satisfied? No. Deep in my heart I was ashamed of myself, but tried to feel that it was not so. But soon I felt better, because I had decided. Gradually my faith came back, till I again really felt strong in the whole doctrine, and had no idea I should ever leave it again. In a few weeks I was sent to attend large meetings in Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, Iowa, and New England; assisted in revival meetings in Battle Creek; was appointed with Elder Butler to lecture before the ministers on how to labor successfully; conducted a similar course in the Academy at South Lancaster, Mass.; was at the state meetings in New York, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. In the spring of 1886 was appointed to lecture before the theological class in the Battle Creek College, and Associate Editor of the 'Sickle'.

By my urgent appeal, an effort was made to bring up our ministers to some plan of study in which they are very deficient. I was on the committee to arrange this. I selected the course of studies and framed all the questions, by which they were to be examined. I was then furnished a shorthand reporter, and in the summer was sent to ten different states, namely, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Dakota, and Michigan, to attend their state conferences, examine their ministers, report their meetings for the daily press, etc., and this I did. In our conflict with the Disciples at Des Moines, Iowa, it was agreed that each side should select a representative man and hold a debate on the Sabbath question. They selected Professor D.R. Dungan, president of Drake University. Our people selected me. We expected a notable time, and I made every possible effort to be ready. That preparation did much to convince me of the unsoundness of some of our positions on the covenants, the two laws, etc. In our General Conference that fall, a sharp division occurred between our leading men over the law in Galatians. One party held it was the ceremonial law, the other the moral law - a square contradiction. After a long and warm discussion the conference closed, each party more confident than before. There was also much disagreement over other points of doctrine, and a good deal of warm party feeling. This, with other things, brought up my old feelings of doubt, and decided me that it was time for me now to examine and think for myself, and not be led nor intimidated by men who could not agree among themselves.

I used every minute I could get for several weeks, carefully and prayerfully examining all the evidence on the Sabbath, the law, the sanctuary, the visions, etc., till I had not a doubt left that the Seventh-day Advent faith was a delusion. Then I laid the matter before the leading men at Battle Creek, resigned all the positions I held, and asked to be dismissed from the church. This was granted February 17, 1887. That was the first and only time I ever withdrew from the church, nor was any charge ever made against me during the twenty-eight years I was with them. As soon as I took my stand firmly, to be a free man and think for myself, a great burden, which I had carried all these years, rolled off. I felt like a new man. At last I was out of bondage. I have never for a moment regretted the step I took.

They now report that I left them four or five times before, and then went back. This is entirely untrue. From the time I joined them, in 1859, till I withdrew, in 1887, I remained in good standing in that church. After I was licensed to preach in 1864, my credentials were renewed each year except one, when I was farming and did not ask for them. Till I left them, in 1887, I never preached nor wrote against them once; nor did I unite with any other church, nor teach any doctrine contrary to theirs. Let them deny any of these statements if they can. They say I may yet return to them. They know better. The moment I took my stand decidedly, that matter was settled forever. The fact that I remained with them under all these trials for twenty-eight years, shows that I am not a vacillating man, as they now try to think.

Why I Did Not Leave Them Sooner

I am often asked why I did not leave them sooner. Why it took me so long to find that it was an error. Then the Adventists affirm that I must have been dishonest while with them, or I am dishonest now. They say I am an apostate now, because I left them and joined the Baptists. My answer is this: If to change one's opinion and join another church makes one an apostate, then more than half their members are apostates, for they have come from other churches to join the Adventists. Again, they circulate and commend highly a book called "Fifty Years in Rome," written by a man who was many years a learned priest in the Roman church. They say that his high standing and long experience in that church makes his book invaluable. But they say that the fact that I was with them in high standing so long, and now have left them, only proves that I am a hypocrite!

Any candid man can see the inconsistency of their positions. I united with the Adventists when I was a mere boy, uneducated, with no knowledge of the Bible, of history, or of other churches. I went into it through ignorance. For years my zeal for that faith, and my unbounded confidence in its leaders, blinded me to their errors. But, as I grew older, read my Bible more, read history, met with other churches, heard sermons and read books against Adventism, became better acquainted with our leaders, with the inside workings of the church, learned more about its unfavorable origin, the many mistakes we had made, saw the fruit of it in old churches, on families and society, got hold of the early writings of Mrs. White and others; gradually I began to see that Adventism was not just what I had first supposed it to be. When I embraced it in 1859, Seventh-day Adventism was only fourteen years old, the believers were few, and it was comparatively untried. But when Adventism was twenty-five years older, ten times as large, and had fully developed its spirit and shown its fruits, when I had had the education, observation and experience of a quarter of a century, I think my judgment in the matter ought to be worth more than when I embraced it as a green boy.

Again, it was only during the last few years that I gained possession of early Adventist documents, which show how they now deny and contradict what they once taught. These are now either suppressed or kept out of sight, so that not one in a thousand of them knows or will believe that they ever existed. My doubts of the system did not come to me all at once and clearly. It was well known that for the last dozen years I was with them, I was greatly troubled over these things. Gradually, year by year, the evidence accumulated, till at last it overbalanced the doctrine, and then reluctantly and sorrowfully I had to abandon and renounce it. God pity the soul that has to go through what I did to be honest to his convictions of right.

Positions Which I Held When I Left Them

Notwithstanding it was well known to all that I frequently had serious doubts about their faith, yet, as soon as I took hold with them again, each time they immediately put me forward and set me at the most important work. Elder Butler says: "He doubtless would have been [elected to important office] had he not proved himself unreliable in so many instances. His ability would have justified it." Review and Herald Extra, Nov. 22, 1887. Suppose, now, that I had been an office-seeking man, caring more for place and position than for truth and conscience, what would I have done? I would have gone right along, pretending to be full in faith and in harmony with them. But instead of this, time and again, I went directly to their influential men, Elders White, Butler, Haskell, etc., and told them my doubts. Let candid men judge of my motives.

The day I left them I held the following positions: Was teacher of theology in their college at Battle Creek, where I had a class of nearly two hundred of their best young people; was associate editor of the Gospel Sickle; was writing the lessons for all their Sabbath Schools throughout the world; had the charge of some eighteen churches in Michigan; was member of the Executive Committee of the International Sabbath School Association; member of the Executive Committee of the Michigan State Sabbath School Association; and at the last session of the general conference was chairman of the International Sabbath School Association, and was on nine different committees, several of them the most important in the conference, as the one on distribution of laborers over all the world, the theological committee, the one on camp meetings, on a special course of study in our college, on the improvement of the ministry, etc. This shows what they thought of my ability. I had just gotten out a new pamphlet, "Critical Notes," of which they printed an edition of 10,000 after I left them. Others of my works they have revised, left my name off, and use them still. Why reprint mine after I have left them and renounced what they teach? They now say that my writings are cheap and worthless. But while I was with them they published over twenty different productions of mine, and circulated hundreds of thousands of them, translated several of them into other languages, and paid me hundreds of dollars for them. Strange that all at once I have become so imbecile, and my writings so worthless. Any one can see the animus of all this.

Elder Smith, in Replies to Canright, page 25, says I left them at a time when my withdrawal embarrassed them more than it would have done at any other time. This confesses that I was becoming more and more useful to them, and all know that I was. At the time I left I was getting higher pay than ever before, and was on friendly terms with all. All the leading men, as Butler, Haskell, Smith, etc., were my warm personal friends, ready to do all in their power to assist me. Had I desired office, or better position, all I had to do was to go right along without wavering, and positions would come to me faster than I could fill them. But if I left them, where could I go? What could I do? How even make a living? I took this all in, and it required all the courage and faith in God I could master to take the risk.

It cost me a terrible struggle and a great sacrifice, for in doing it I had to leave all my life-long friends, the cherished hopes of my youth, the whole work of my life, all the means of my support, every honorable position I held, and bring upon myself reproach, hatred and persecution. I had to begin life anew, among strangers, with untried methods, uncertain where to go or what to do. No one who has not tried it can ever begin to realize the fearful struggle it requires. It is the dread of all this which holds many with them who are yet dissatisfied where they are. I know that this is so, for many have confessed it to me, and yet remained where they were. Anyone of candor and fairness can see readily that self-interest and personal ambition would have held me with them. Yet, as soon as I did leave them, though I went out quietly and peaceably, and let them entirely alone, and even spoke favorably of them, they immediately attributed to me all sorts of evil motives, base sins, and ambitious designs. They seemed to feel it a sacred duty to blast my reputation, and destroy my influence, if possible. "Apostate" was the epithet all applied to me. I was compared to Baalam, to Kora, Dathan and Abiram, to Judas, Demas, and a whole list of evil characters. Not one honest or worthy motive was granted me. The meanest and wickedest reports were circulated as to what I had done or said - things that I would despise even to think of. Yet all were eagerly accepted and believed as undoubted truth. But I expected it, for it is the way all are treated who dare to leave them and give a reason for it.

During the twenty years now since I left them, they have had spies constantly on my track, who have watched and reported the least thing I have said or done, to torture it into evil, if possible. This they circulate to the ends of the earth, and it comes back to me in newspapers and letters. They have issued four different publications against me, and Mrs. White, in her last "revelation," has devoted three articles to myself! Yet I don't amount to anything; never did! "Sour grapes," you see. It has been widely reported that I was smitten with a terrible disease, had broken up my church, been expelled from the denomination, and more yet, concerning all which the Lord judge between us. The pastors of all the churches here, and public men of the place have had to make written statements to meet these attacks in distant states. Sometimes this has seemed hard to bear, but knowing that I was right, I have had grace and patience to keep steadily at my work, and leave the rest with God and my friends.

I am in constant receipt of letters from all parts of the country, saying that the Adventists affirm that I have asked to be taken back among them! They will report it till I die, and long after. This book shall be my answer. They are so certain that the curse of God will follow all who leave them, or that they will become infidels, or return to them, that they cannot be reconciled to have it otherwise.

A Sample Letter

"Glenwood Springs, Colo., March 29, 1889. D.M. Canright, Otsego, Mich.: My Dear Friend and Brother - If the lightning's shivering crash had torn my scalp loose from my head, I would not have been more surprised than I was today by having placed in my hands your pamphlet entitled "The Jewish Sabbath." I have read after you for years, sold your valuable works, and preached the "Third Angel's Message." Now, I wish to ask you, how do our people treat you? To my knowledge you were a great favorite, and quoted oftener than any standing near the head. Do they go back on you as hard as they did on Snook? I suppose that your great research and life-long study of the subject in hand goes for nothing with them, and that you are classed among the fallen angels. F.A.B."

Ordained a Baptist Minister

April 19, 1887, at Otsego, Mich., where I had lived for eight years, I was ordained as a minister of the Regular Baptist Church, by an exceptionally large council, composed of several of the ablest ministers of the state. The 'Otsego Union' of that date says: "Regularly appointed delegates were present from Baptist churches in Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Plainwell, Three Rivers, White Pigeon, Allegan, Battle Creek, Paw Paw, Hickory Corners, Prairieville and Otsego. Rev. A.E. Mather, D.D., of Battle Creek, was elected moderator of the council, and Rev. T.M. Shanafelt, D.D., of Three Rivers, secretary. The order of exercises was as follows: Reading of the Scriptures, by Rev. H.A. Rose, of Kalamazoo; prayer, by Rev. D. Mulhern, D.D., of Grand Rapids; ordination sermon, by Rev. Kendall Brooks, D.D., President of Kalamazoo College; prayer of ordination, by Rev. M.W. Haynes, of Kalamazoo, with laying on of hands by Rev. H.B. Taft, of White Pigeon, Rev. E.A. Gay, of Allegan, and Rev. H.A. Rose, of Kalamazoo; hand of fellowship, by Rev. T.F. Babcock, of Prairieville; charge to the pastor, by Rev. L.B. Fish, of Paw Paw; charge to the church, by Rev. I. Butterfield, of Grand Rapids.

"Rev. D.M. Canright has thus been fully recognized by a large and representative council as a regular Baptist minister, and pastor of the Baptist church in Otsego."

I have never regretted leaving the Adventists, nor for one moment had the slightest desire to return.

Chapter III - Adventism: A Yoke of Bondage (Back to Top)

Largely, people are drawn into the Seventh-day doctrine through fear, fear of being damned if they refuse. Once in, they try to feel happy, but very few really are. With a large class, the more intelligent ones, there are so many doubts and fears, such a sensible want of something which they do not find, that they are unhappy. Many of their ministers have gone through the same trials that I have, and scores have left them, as I did, while others have fixed it up and remained with them. Elder White himself had doubts. Mrs. White says of him: "He should make it a rule not to talk unbelief or discouragement." "My husband has cherished this darkness so long by living over the unhappy past, that he has but little power to control his mind when dwelling upon these things." Testimonies, Vol. III, pages 96, 97. Mrs. White herself, as we might expect, is troubled with infidelity. She says: "In the night I have awakened my husband, saying, 'I am afraid that I shall become an infidel.'" Testimonies, Vol. I, page 597. Nearly all their prominent ministers had their time of trial, the same as I did, when they ceased preaching and went at other work, as we have seen.

I will quote a few words from letters received: "I have had many blue times in my experience because of these doubts.... Once I decided that I must follow the convictions of my own judgment in these things; but when the time came the pressure was so strong that I tried to convince myself that I was wrong.... The facts are, I am just miserable.... It seems like a terrible thing to take a course that will cause all the cherished friends of this world to look upon you as one fallen from grace; and here I am, bound with these chains." Another writes: "It seems to me that the views held by Seventh-day Adventists are so burdensome that they will crush me. They are a yoke of bondage which I cannot stand up under. Still I do want to be right." Another minister, D.H. Lamson, writes: "How am I straightened, while the fetters are being forged for most unwilling limbs!... What distress we are in as a people! how miserable! and is there no relief?" And still another talented minister, W.C. Gage, writes me: "Our ministers, and people as well, are growing to be a denomination of hypocrites, by a slavish fear of expressing an honest belief.... I am sick and disheartened.... The basis of confidence is gone, and I shall only await the outcome of the matter." Still another, Uriah Smith, writes: "There is a fear, on the part of the powers that be, of free thought and free discussion. So far as this is the case, it is a shame and disgrace to us." And yet these brethren patch up the matter some way, and go right on as though nothing were wrong. I know how to pity them, for I myself have passed through precisely the same experience. And another writes: "I wish I had never heard the Advent doctrine preached. Previous to that, I know that I did enjoy the blessing of God. I was not troubled about doctrine.... I think I then had some influence for good over others, but I fear my change of faith had a bad influence over my children." Strange to say, these are the very men who now denounce me the worst because I had the courage of my convictions, while they haven't.

These are fair samples of how scores among them feel, from men in leading positions, to the humblest in the church. Largely they keep it to themselves, but occasionally it will out. Many of them almost get out, and then fall back, to linger along in bondage all the rest of their lives. "But if these persons are in such bondage, why not break loose, and be free? Who would harm them? Be it remembered that there is a bondage worse than African slavery - the bondage of religious tyranny and superstition. I was held there for years, and know its power.

Milton F. Gowell, Chicago, gives so true a picture of Advent experience, that I quote him in a letter to me. I was often at his father's house, in Portland, Me.; when he was a boy. He says: "My recollections of those days are full of the terrors of law, prophetic charts, Mrs. White's visions, the Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, health reform, bloomer dresses, and a great zeal for being industrious on Sunday, and little or nothing of Christ. All the DOING was indelibly impressed on my mind as a boy, but the BELIEVING on Christ for salvation, and RESTING in his finished work, I have no remembrance of whatever. How many there are that join the Seventh-day Adventists utterly unsaved, knowing nothing of the grace of God, hearing always barely the law. I joined them at the age of fourteen, under conviction, guilty before God, but unsaved, though I was baptized and received into the church as a SABBATH KEEPER. I received no peace, no rest, till I entered into rest by believing about three and a half years ago; saved from the borderland of infidelity." This is just the impression which all the children of that people are receiving - cold legalism. While this young man was finally saved from infidelity, hundreds of them are not, as I well know.

Prominent Persons Who Have Left the Adventists

It is nothing new for men to leave a party, good or bad; but so large a number of prominent persons have left the Adventists as to excite surprise. It is clear that there must be something wrong in the system itself. First, according to the best of my judgment, from one-third to one-half of all who begin the observance of the Sabbath, sooner or later abandon it.

At different times large numbers have left them, mostly on account of Mrs. White's visions. We will name a few of the ministers who have departed from them: J.B. Cook and T.M. Preble, the pioneers who started the movement, both renounced it; O.R.L. Crozier, Ann Arbor, Mich., has renounced the Sabbath; Elder B.F. Snook, the leading man in Iowa, is now a Universalist; Elder W.H. Brinkerhoof, of Iowa, has renounced the faith; Elder Moses Hull, the ablest speaker they ever had, is now a Spiritualist, and Elder Shortridge, a minister of much talent, has also gone the same way; Elders Hall and Stephenson, at the time very prominent in the work, went to the Age-to-Come party; C.B. Reynolds, of New York, has become a noted blasphemer; Elder H.C. Blanchard, Avilla, Mo., renounced the doctrine; ditto T.J. Butler, of the same state; Elder L.L. Howard, Maine, H.F. Haynes, New Hampshire, left them; Nathan Fuller, Wellsville, N.Y., became a libertine; M.B. Czechowski went to Europe and died in disgrace; H.F. Case, Elder Cranmer and Philip Strong, all of Michigan, left them.

Elder J.B. Frisbie, their pioneer and most efficient preacher for years in Michigan, finally left them. Dr. Lee, of Minnesota, who inaugurated the work among the Swedes, now opposes them. Elder A.B. Oyen, missionary to Europe, and editor of their Danish paper, has renounced the faith. Living right at the head of the work for many years, he had the best of opportunity to know all about its workings. Elder D.B. Oviatt, for many years president of the Pennsylvania Conference, renounced the faith, and is now a Baptist minister.

So Elder Rosquist and Elder Whitelaw, both of Minnesota, have recently left them and gone to the Baptists. Other ministers of the West have also gone over to the Baptists. C.A. Russell, Otsego, Mich., an excellent man, once preached that doctrine with me, but is now a Methodist. H.E. Carver, H.C. Blanchard, J.W. Cassady, A.C. Long, Jacob Brinkerhoof, J.C. Day, H.W. Ball, Goodenough, Bunch, and others, once members of that church, have written against it. Elder Hiram Edson and Elder S.W. Rhodes, noted pioneers in the work, died confirmed cranks, and a trial to the church. The sad example of their leading ministers who have been guilty of adultery, proves that their church has nothing to boast of over other churches in the purity of its ministers and members.

Their College Professors

They have been very unfortunate in their college professors. Professor S.S. Brownsburger, the first Principal of their College at Battle Creek, Mich., which position he occupied for years, and then filled the same position in their college in California, is now wholly disconnected from the work. Elder W.H. Littlejohn, who next stood at the head of the college, was expelled from the church and fell into doubts. Next came Professor A. McLearn as head of the college. He has renounced the faith, and now opposes them strongly. Professor Vesey, a learned teacher in that college, has forsaken the faith. Professor C.C. Ramsy, born in that faith, was professor of mathematics in the Battle Creek college for three years; then filled the same place for three years in their college in California; then was called to take charge of their academy in the East, which he did for three years more. He was editor of their educational journal, prominent in Sabbath School work, and many other ways. He has renounced that faith, but remains an earnest Christian. Others of their teachers of lesser note have also left them. What is the cause of such results? There must be something wrong.

Their Physicians

They have been equally unfortunate with their physicians in their sanitarium at Battle Creek. Dr. H.S. Ley, an excellent man, was the first physician-in- chief. He left the institution in a trial, and was out of work for years. Dr. Wm. Russell, a talented doctor, came next. What he there saw of Adventism made him an infidel, and he was dismissed. Next, I believe, came Dr. M.G. Kellogg. The treatment he received drove him into scepticism for years. Then came Dr. Sprague and Dr. Farfield, both of whom renounced the faith, and, I believe, are sceptical now. Mrs. Lamson and Miss Fellows, both matrons of the sanitarium, lost faith in the doctrine. Dr. Smith, brought up in the faith, renounced it. Here again we see that education unfits men for Adventism. I am not acquainted with another church which has lost so large a proportion of its most prominent men. Every year, nearly, so far, more or less have gone away from them, till they have lost more talent than now remains with them.

It Leads to Infidelity

A strong argument with Adventists is, that most of those who leave them become infidels, as all know. But, after long watching, I became satisfied that it is Adventism which has made them infidels. Look at Romanism. Wherever it has had sway a while, it filled the land with infidels. Go among the Mormons at Salt Lake. Large numbers of their children are becoming infidels. The natural rebound from fanaticism and superstition is into infidelity and scepticism. Right here in Otsego we have several infidels, the grown-up children of Adventists. I know them and meet them all over the country, and their numbers are increasing. I feel sure that the ripe fruit of Adventism in the years to come will be a generation of doubters.

Their Church Backsliding

Seventh-day Adventists claim to be raised up of God, to reform the church of to-day. They claim to be purer, more spiritual, and on a higher plane than other Christians. All other churches are Babylon and apostates, while they are the chosen saints. But now, after their church has had only fifty years trial, and hence is still small and young, and so ought to be better than older and larger churches, I can quote confessions from their own writers, proving that they are as wordly, backslidden and corrupt as they make out other churches to be. I will give a few. Elder G.I. Butler, in the Advent Review, May 10, 1887, says: "A terrible stupor like that which enveloped the disciples in the Saviour's agony in the garden, seems to hang over the mass of our people." Mrs. White, in Testimonies, Vol. I, says: "The Spirit of the Lord has been dying away from the church," page 113; "The churches have nearly lost their spirituality and faith," page 119; "I saw the dreadful fact that God's people were conformed to the world with no distinction, except in name," page 133; "Covetousness, selfishness, love of money, and love of the world, are all through the ranks of Sabbath-keepers," page 140; "Vital godliness is lacking," page 153; "There is but little love for one another. A selfish spirit is manifest. Discouragement has come upon the church," page 166; "Spirituality and devotion are rare," page 469. Many of them are not even honest. She says: "As I saw the spirit of defrauding, of over-reaching, of meanness, even among some professed Sabbath-keepers, I cried out in anguish," page 480; "There is but little praying. In fact, prayer is almost obsolete," page 566; "Not one in twenty of those who have a good standing with Seventh-day Adventists, is living out the self-sacrificing principles of the word of God." page 632. Of the Battle Creek church she says: "I can select family after family of children in this house, every one of whom is as corrupt as hell itself." "Right here in this church corruption is teeming on every hand," Vol. II, pages 360, 361; "Sin and vice exist in Sabbath-keeping families," page 391; "We have a dwarfed and defective ministry," Vol. IV, page 441. In Testimony, No. 33, just published, Mrs. White says: "There is a deplorable lack of spirituality among our people.... There has been a spirit of self- sufficiency, and a disposition to strive for position and supremacy. I have seen that self-glorification was becoming common among Seventh-day Adventists," pages 255, 256. Thus as they grow older, the have to confess to all the weaknesses and short- comings which they have so eagerly charged against other churches.

I could quote whole pages of such confessions as these from Mrs. White and their leading men. They are compelled to say it. It is common in their camp- meetings to see half their members forward as backsliders. Their preaching is largely scolding their members for their coldness. In fact, the thing is a practical failure in whatever way you look at it. Are they any better, any more spiritual, than the regular churches which they denounce so? No, as the above shows. After being well acquainted with both, I say confidently that there is as much devotion and spirituality among the Evangelical churches as among Adventists.

If, then, these things in the other churches prove that they are Babylon, they prove the same of the Advent church, too. (See Appendix A)

Chapter IV - Origin, History and Failures of Adventism (Back to Top)

Every little while, from the days of Christ till now, individuals, and often large sects, have arisen, proclaiming the Second Advent at hand and themselves the God-appointed messengers to warn the world. Right on this point Jesus warned his church: "Take heed that no man deceive you.... The end is not yet." Matt. 24:4-6. Yet right away it was said that Jesus would come before John should die. John 21:23. The Thessalonians had to be corrected by Paul for expecting the Advent immediately at hand. II Thess. 2:1-8.

In the middle of the second century arose the Montanists. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says: "Ecstatic visions announcing the approach of the Second Advent of Christ... were set forth as divine revelation." Art. 'Montanism.' Like Seventh-day Adventists, they adopted a severe discipline - condemned the wearing of ornaments, intercourse with the world, etc. They created a great sensation, obtained a numerous following, and flourished for a century or more.

Tenth Century Adventism

The following is from the "History of the Christian Church," by M. Reuter, D.D., Century 10, Chapter 2, pages 202, 203: "Among the numerous opinions, however, which disgraced the Latin church and produced from time to time such violent agitations, none occasioned such universal panic, nor such dreadful impressions of terror or dismay, as a notion that prevailed during this [tenth] century of the immediate approach of the day of judgment." "Public and private buildings were suffered to decay, and were even pulled down, from an opinion that they were no longer of any use, since the dissolution of all things was at hand."

The Fifth-Monarchy men of England, about 1660, "believed that the time was near at hand when, to the four great monarchies of Daniel's prophetic vision, was to succeed the fifth, which was to break in pieces all others, and to 'stand forever.'" Johnson's Encyclopedia, article Fifth-Monarchy Men. They undertook to set up the kingdom by overturning the English government.

The Irvingites of England "declare the speedy coming of Christ;" have "prophets," "revelations," "tongues," "gifts," etc. They have gathered large congregations and are spreading over the world.

Swedenborg, Ann Lee, Joanna Southcott, Joe Smith, etc., all made the speedy advent of Christ the ground-work of their systems, as is well known. Hence, movements of this kind are nothing new.

Seventh-day Adventism originated in the well-known movement of William Miller, who set the time for the end of the world in 1843-44. They claim now that Mr. Miller's move was right, and in the providence of God. They claim to be simply carrying on the same work which he began. In all their books and sermons they point to 1844 as their origin, and endorse the work of the Millerites in 1843 and 1844. 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 his hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures." Early Writings, page 64. God helped them make the mistake! "I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I., page 133. So God wanted them to set that time! "I saw that they were correct in their reckoning of the prophetic periods; prophetic time closed in 1844." Page 107. Again: "The Advent movement of 1840-44 was a glorious manifestation of the power of God." Great Controversy, Vol. IV., page 429. Elder White says: "We hold that the great movement upon the Second Advent question, which commenced with the writings and public lectures of William Miller, has been, in its leading features, in fulfillment of prophecy. Consistently with this view, we also hold that in the providence of God, Mr. Miller was raised up to do a specific work." Life of Miller, page 6. So it will be seen that Seventh-day Adventists still believe in and defend the Millerite movements of 1843 and 1844. Indeed, they claim that all other churches who did not accept and endorse Miller's work were rejected of God on this account. 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, page 101.

Here, then, we have the origin of Seventh-day Adventism, the fountain from which it flowed. As a stream will be like its fountain, let us examine it. Elder and Mrs. White, Elder Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, Holt, Edson, and all the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were in the movement of Miller, and helped in setting and preaching the time in 1843, 1844, and carried the Advent work right on afterwards.

The work of Mr. Miller is so well known, that I need but refer to the facts about it. William Miller was born at Pittsfield, Mass., 1782, but he was reared at Low Hampton, N.Y. He was a farmer, with only the poor advantages of a country school. He united with the Baptist church. About 1831 he claimed that he had discovered by the prophecies the exact time, the very year, and, finally, the very day when Christ would appear and the end of the world would come. He succeeded in converting perhaps fifty thousand people to his views. The first date fixed was 1843. It failed. Then he fixed a day in October, 1844, and that failed. Many other times have since been fixed by Mr. Miller's followers, and all have failed. Over fifty years have come and gone, and the end has not come yet.

What was the one great burden of Miller, the one point on which he differed from the Evangelical churches? All these churches believed in the personal Second Advent of Christ just as strongly as Miller did. They loved Jesus and preached the Second Advent, even teaching that it was near at hand. But the Millerites said they knew the TIME when it was to be, and that time was 1843- 4. They staked all upon this. The issue was plain and definite. All who did not endorse their SET TIME were "opposers," "enemies," "in the dark," "evil servants," rejected of God and lost, just because they would not believe in setting a time for the end. Here are Miller's words: "I believe the time can be known by all who desire to understand.... Between March 21, 1840, and March 21, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of computation of time, Christ will come." Life of Miller, page 172. Jesus says: "Ye know not when the time is." Mark 13:33. But the Millerites thought they knew better than Jesus Christ did. So they condemned all who did not agree with them. Here is a mild sample of what they said and the spirit that possessed them: "This is God's truth; it is as true as the Bible." "There is no possibility of a mistake in this time." "Those who reject this light will be lost." "Those who do not accept this argument are backsliders," etc. History of Advent Message, page 596. And this is the spirit that has followed them ever since - a harsh, denunciatory spirit against all who did not agree with their figures, interpretations and theories.

But their set times came and passed without the least regard to their figures and facts, proofs and demonstrations, prayers and predictions. Remorseless old Time, the true tester of every theory, marched right on and demolished them all. This demonstrated the folly and error of the Adventists. Miller's prediction was a wretched abortion. He preached and propagated a falsehood. He preached that the world would end in 1843, and it didn't. He set 1844 for it to come, and it didn't. If ever a religious movement on earth was demonstrated to be a humbug and a failure, it was Millerism. But if Millerism was a failure, then Seventh-day Adventism is also, for that was the fountain from which this has flowed; that was the foundation on which this is built. Deut. 18:22: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken." This, surely, is a simple and fair test. By this rule the Lord was not in Miller's move.

"But were not the Adventists in 1843-4 very confident that they were right?" Confident is no name for it. They were SURE that they were right, they KNEW they were right, for they proved it all by the Bible, every word of it, positively. The Bible said so; to deny it was to deny the Bible. But it failed all the same. It is just so with Seventh-day Adventists now. They are the most positive people in the world, though they have made scores of terrible blunders.

That no one will know the time of the second advent is as plainly taught as words can teach. Read the following: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only;" "Watch, therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come;" "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh;" "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." Matt. 24:36,42,44; 25:13. "Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is." Mark 13:33. "It is not for you to know the time or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." Acts 1:7. Jesus said, "Ye know not when the time is;" Miller said, "We know when the time is." Jesus said, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons;" Miller said, "We know all about them." Jesus said, "No man knows the day;" Miller said, "We know the exact day." Which was right? The disappointments of the Adventists, time and again, during the past fifty years, in setting the date for the end of the world have clearly demonstrated their folly. The whole Advent move was conceived in error, born in a mistake, has grown up in folly, and must die in disgrace. "But were not the Millerites honest?" There is no doubt of it, but that proves nothing as to their correctness.

The Fruit of Millerism

"By their fruits ye shall know them." Millerism, for about four years, in a few states, created a great excitement. Churches were divided and broken up, pastors left their flocks to "lecture" on "time," while argument and strife were the order of the day. As the time set drew near, in thousands of cases, the Adventists not only left their work and their business, but gave away their property. Crops were left ungathered, goods were distributed freely, so that many who had been well to do were left penniless. After the time had passed, these were destitute and their families suffered. Many had to be arrested and put under guardianship, to protect their families. Then the wildest fanaticism broke out here and there, which brought disgrace upon the very name of religion. Many said the Lord had come, probation was ended, it was sin to work, all property must be held in common, all the churches were apostate, Babylon, etc. Some Adventists had spiritual wives, some went to the Shakers, many went back into the churches, some into despair, and hundreds into doubt and infidelity - just what might have been expected. The glorious doctrine of the Second Advent was covered with shame, Satan rejoiced, while the cause of Christ was greatly injured. For proof of these facts, I refer to the testimony of thousands now living, and to the published works of the Adventists themselves. Thus Elder U. Smith is compelled to say: "The Advent Body were a unit [in 1844] and their testimony shook the world. Suddenly their power was broken, their strength paralyzed. They passed the point of their expectation, and realized not their hope. That a mistake had been made somewhere, none could deny. From that point the history of a majority of that once happy, united people has been marked by discord, division, confusion, speculation, new mistakes, fresh disappointments, disintegration and apostasy." The Sanctuary, pages 13, 14.

Paul said, "God is not the author of confusion." I Cor. 14:33. Then surely he was not the author of Adventism, for the confusion it produced is unparalleled in religious history. Ten souls were ruined by it where one was saved. Immediately after 1844 they split up into numerous parties, each contradicting and condemning all the rest. Instead of renouncing the whole thing, as sane men ought to have done, each one set himself to find some "explanation" of their mistake. Hardly any two agreed, while each one was sure he had the true explanation. Their utter confusion is well illustrated by the following anecdote told by Mr. Miller himself: The first person in his own parish who fully embraced his views was an old woman, an humble Christian. Mr. Miller sent her his papers when he had read them. One week he received sixteen different sheets, all purporting to be Advent publications, but the most of them advocating contradictory sentiments. He sent them to the old woman. Soon she sent for him, and on his arrival began: "Have you read all these papers?" "I have looked them over." "But are they all Advent papers?" "They profess to be." "Well, then," said she, "I am no longer an Adventist. I shall take the old Bible and stick to that." "But," said Mr. Miller, "we have no confidence in one-half there is advocated in these papers." "We?" exclaimed the old lady, "who is WE?" "Why," replied Mr. Miller, "WE are those who do not fellowship these things." "Well, but I want to know who WE is." "Why, all of us who stand on the old ground." "But that ain't telling me who WE is. I want to know who WE is." "Well," said Mr. Miller, in relating the story, "I was confounded, and was unable to give her any information who WE were." History of Second Advent Message, pages 414, 415.

And so it has continued unto this day. What do Adventists believe? Go ask what language was spoken by the people after the Lord confused their tongues at Babel. Adventism is a second Bable[sp]. But Seventh-day Adventists say "We are united; we believe alike." Partly true, but they are only one branch of this Advent Babel. Such a brood of errors and heresies as has resulted from Adventism, cannot be found in the history of the church before. Time- setting, visions, miracles, fanatics, false prophets, sleep of the dead, annihilation of the wicked, non-resurrection of the wicked, future probation, restoration, community of goods, denial of the divinity of Christ, no devil, no baptism, no organization, etc., etc. Gracious! And these are the people sent with a "message" to warn the church! They had better go back and learn and agree on what their "message" is, before they run to deliver it.

The other 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 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.

Seventh-day Adventists and Time-Setting

It is the one constant boast of the Seventh-day Adventists that THEY never set time; THEY don't believe in it. But they deceive themselves and deceive others when they say so. Elder White, their leader, engaged in preaching three different set times for the Lord to come, viz., 1843, 1844, 1845. here are his own statements on this: "I found myself happy in the faith that Christ would come about the year 1843." Life Incidents, page 72. Then he tells how he preached it. Of 1844, he says: "I stated my conviction that Christ would come on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month of that year [1844]." Pages 166, 167. "It is well known that many were expecting the Lord to come at the seventh month, 1845. That Christ would then come we firmly believed. A few days before the time passed, I was at Fairhaven and Dartmouth, Mass., with a message on this point of time." 'A Word to the Little Flock,' by James White, page 22. So their leader was a time-setter. Mrs. White, their prophetess, was in the time-setting of 1843 and 1844. She herself says: "We were firm in the belief that the preaching of definite times was of God." Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 56. Of the first date she says: "With carefulness and trembling we approached the time when our Saviour was expected to appear." Then she tells her disappointment. Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 48. Again: "Our hopes now centered on the coming of the Lord in 1844." Page 53. She was a time- setter. Elders Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, and all the first crop of Seventh-day Adventists were in the time-setting of 1843, 1844. They still endorse Miller's time-setting of 1843 and 1844 as right and approved of God. How much truth, then, is there in their assertions that they have never set time? But they say, "WE did not keep the Seventh-day when WE set time; therefore WE never set time!" That is too thin. The thief says, "I did not wear this coat when I stole the sheep, therefore I never stole him!" They say that they have given the THREE messages. Well, the first message was in 1844 when they set time. Are they the same people, or are they not?

Again they endorse Mr. Miller's work as of God. But Miller is responsible for all the time-setting done by the Adventists since his time, because they are the legitimate outgrowth of his work. He began setting time. He did it the second time. He taught them how to do it. He fathered the idea. He inculcated it in all his followers. They then simply took up and carried on what he had begun. Seventh-day Adventists claim to be the original Adventists, and endorse Miller's work. In doing this they endorse time- setting, and should justly bear all the odium of that fanatical business.

But don't Seventh-day Adventists rise to explain why they were disappointed in 1843, and again in 1844, and for forty years since? O, yes; but we naturally become a little suspicious of the man who is compelled to be constantly explaining his conduct. Straight works needs no explanation. They say the Lord caused them to be disappointed in 1843, on purpose to test their faith, that was all! In 1844 they made just one little mistake, that was all! They then taught that the earth was the sanctuary. Come to find out, the sanctuary us up in heaven, and Jesus did really come, in a certain sense, that very year! So they were right, after all. Don't you see? Clear as day. Now they have the whole matter removed from the troublesome facts of earth, where we can test them, to the beautiful theories of heaven, where no one can go to report on facts which might spoil their theories. Now they can speculate and argue in safety. But sober, thinking men see through all this. It is merely a make-shift to get out of a difficulty.

Miller's Confession - He Opposes Seventh-day Adventism

All the other Adventists long ago renounced the 1843-4 time-setting as an error. Thus: "The majority of Adventists took the position that the TIME was an error of human judgment." History of the Second Advent Message, page 383. Hear Mr. Miller himself: "On the passing of my published time, I frankly acknowledged my disappointment.... We expected the personal coming of Christ at that time; and now to contend that we were not mistaken, is dishonest. We should never be ashamed frankly to confess our errors. I have no confidence in any of the new theories that grew out of that movement, namely, that Christ then came as the Bridegroom, that the door of mercy was closed, that there is no salvation for sinners, that the seventh trumpet sounded, OR THAT IT WAS A FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY IN ANY SENSE." History of the Advent Message, pages 410, 412.

From this we see: 1. That Miller, the founder and leader of that move, owned that it was an error. 2. He repudiated the idea that it was a fulfillment of prophecy in any sense. 3. He especially points out the Seventh-day Advent position as utterly wrong. He knew all about their arguments of the three messages, the sanctuary, the Sabbath, etc., and yet he not only rejected them, but earnestly warned his people against them, so that very few of the original Adventists ever accepted them. Hear Mrs. White herself on this point: "I saw leading men watching William Miller, fearing lest he should embrace the third angel's message and the commandments of God. As he would lean towards the light from heaven, these men would lay some plan to draw his mind away. I saw a human influence exerted to keep his mind in darkness, and to retain his influence among them. At length WILLIAM MILLER RAISED HIS VOICE AGAINST THE LIGHT FROM HEAVEN." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, page 167.

Thus the father and founder of Adventism condemned and opposed the position which Seventh-day Adventists took with regard to his own work. He had sense enough to see, and honesty enough to confess, that it was a mistake. But they will not have it so. They know better than he himself. They will have it that it was a wonderful fulfillment of Rev. 14:6,7. Miller denies it. Thus it will be seen that Seventh-day Adventists give an interpretation to Miller's work which he himself condemned. Not a leading man in Miller's work ever embraced the views of the Seventh-day Adventists, but have always opposed them as fanatical and as a side issue. None of the leaders of Seventh-day Adventism, such as White, Andrews, Bates, Rhodes, etc., were ever of any note in Miller's work, though they were all in it; yet afterwards they claimed to be the only ones who had the right view of it. All the rest were "in the dark," "foolish virgins," "apostates," etc. How modest!

Mistakes of Adventists

A people who have made as many mistakes as Adventists have, ought to be very modest in their claims, and ought to see that they have been led by men and not by the Lord. 1. They set the time for the end of the world in 1843, and failed. 2. They set it again in 1844 and failed. 3. Elder White, the leader of the Seventh-day Adventists, set 1845 for the end, and failed again. 4. They held in 1844 that the earth was the sanctuary, another mistake, as they admit now. 5. They all held for some time after 1844 that probation for sinners was ended - a fearful mistake. See chapter 8 of this book. 6. For ten years Seventh-day Adventists began the Sabbath at 6 P.M., instead of at sunset as now. Thus they broke the Sabbath every week! 7. They kept their children out of school for years, because time was so short they would need no education. Those children now have grand-children! 8. They gave away their goods in 1844, because they would not need them after that! 9. They would not vote, for that was like the fallen churches. Now they vote freely. 10. They held that it was wrong to take a church name, for that was Babylon. Now they have a name. 11. Church organization was wrong, for that was like Babylon. Now they organize. 12. For years they said it was denying their faith to set out trees, for they would never grow to bear fruit. 13. Led by a revelation from Mrs. White, the sisters put on short dress with pants. None of them wear it now. 14. For thirty years they would not take up any collection on the Sabbath. Now they do it every week. 15. For fifty years they have been expecting the end of the world to come inside of five years, and it has not come yet. 16. They said Jesus would come to the earth in 1844. Now they say that was a mistake; he came to judgment in the sanctuary above. Thus: "The Adventists of 1844...thought the bridegroom would come; and THEN HE DID COME - not to this earth, as they incorrectly supposed, but to the MARRIAGE." "They simply mistook the KIND of coming referred to." U. Smith, in Parable of the Ten Virgins, page 13,14. He owns that: 1. They got the time wrong in 1843. 2. The place wrong. 3. The event wrong. Now let him add, 4. The whole thing wrong, and he will be right! 17. Then they said the door was shut, Matt. 25:10; now they say that this was wrong; it is open yet. Thus: "There can be no other place for the shut door but at the autumn of 1844." Elder White, in Present Truth, May 1850. "The door is still open, and other guests may come." U. Smith, in Parable of the Ten Virgins, page 17, February, 1889. These are the people who always KNOW they are just right! 18. They once adopted a rigid vegetarian diet - not meat, no butter, only two meals per day, etc., but it was a failure. It killed many and ruined more, till they had to modify it and live like other people.

These are only samples out of numerous mistakes the Adventists have made; and this they have done with an inspired prophetess right at their head for forty-four years! These simple, undeniable facts alone should be enough to open the eyes of all to see that the Lord has not led them in their work.

Chapter V - My Objections to the Seventh-day Adventist System (Back to Top)

1. It was born in a mistake. The origin of Adventism was in the Millerite time-setting of 1843 and 1844, which all know was a mistake.

2. That work produced great fanaticism, and wrought disaster to thousands of souls.

3. Out of that movement has grown a whole brood of errors, as they themselves will admit.

4. Seventh-day Adventism is a system of popery - one-man power. From the first, Elder White took this position, and molded the whole system to fit it. He would and did rule and dictate in everything in all the field. He would make it hot for one who dared to start anything which he had not bossed. He was head and president of everything. So now a few run everything. Their word is law. It is contrary to the Gospel, and has resulted in the mental degradation of the mass of that people. A few think for all.

5. The mere word of Mrs. White, an uneducated woman, is accepted as the voice of God to them dictating in everything. "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them." Isa. 3:12.

6. From the start, Elder and Mrs. White would take up publicly the faults, real or imaginary, of any one and every one, ministers, editors and all, and expose them before the whole congregation. If any objected, they were "rebels." All this was then printed in her "Testimonies" as inspired, and circulated for all to read. This has begotten in all a habit of criticising and fault-finding, which is reprehensible to the last degree. Any one might have foreseen that it would result in this. Mrs. White herself now says: "There has been a picking at straws. And when there were no real difficulties in the church, trials have been manufactured." Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 144. "Love for one another had disappeared, and a fault-finding, accusing spirit has prevailed. It has been considered a virtue to hunt up everything about one another that looked wrong, and make it appear fully as bad as it really was." Page 164. Mrs. White herself has set the example, and she is largely followed, till they are a denomination of fault-finders.

7. It is a fundamental doctrine with them that all the other churches are apostate and corrupt. Hence they are eagerly on the watch for every evil thing they can pick up against them. This is poor business, and it begets in themselves a hard, unlovely spirit.

8. They are constantly on the watch for all the evidence they can gather, showing that the world is rapidly growing worse. This again has a bad effect on themselves, tending to make them sour and gloomy.

9. Their ministers are mere lecturers, going from place to place, staying only a few weeks at a time, and repeating the same old sermons over and over. As a consequence they became narrow and small and dry. Their preaching is almost wholly doctrinal and argumentative. This makes them hard and combative, instead of tender and charitable.

10. Their churches are very small, generally numbering from fifteen to forty. They have no pastors, and seldom any preaching. Their meetings are held on Saturday, when others are at work, hence not a soul attends except themselves. So their meetings are small and dull and tiresome, especially to youth and children. Never mingling with other churches, they soon fall into a rut and become very dry. The great mass of them are uncultured, and their local leaders are farmers or mechanics. The decorum seen in other churches is generally wanting in theirs. Their children are noisy, and often the members too. This is not good.

11. Their theory compels them to be narrow and uncharitable. They cannot work at all with other Christians in anything. This is another bad feature of that system. They condemn all Christian workers who do not follow them. See how Jesus rebuked that narrow, bigoted spirit: "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not, for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me; for he that is not against us is on our part." Mark 9:38-40.

12. In a community they have no influence whatever over the irreligious. Not one of them attends their meetings; not a child outside of their own families attends their Sabbath schools. Other churches, by their public meetings, sermons and schools on Sundays, have a mighty influence for good over the unconverted.

13. Their work is largely proselyting. Truly, "they compass sea and land to make one proselyte." They will work just as hard to get a good old Christian out of another church as they will to convert a sinner. They tear down more than they build up.

14. They count all lost who reject their "message." Their missions of which they boast so much are the dread of all other missionaries, as they work as hard to proselyte members from churches as they do to convert raw heathens or sinners. Thus, of their "mission" in London, Elder Haskell says: "Thirteen have taken their stand on the Sabbath.... These have come principally from the Church of England." Review, April 10, 1888. Yes, their converts are always "principally" from other churches. I became sick of such work.

15. By their arguments they confuse the minds of many, so that they know not what to believe. They set them against other churches, and so they drift away from all and are entirely lost. Adventists have done a large amount of this work, and their influence in that line is fearful.

16. Many of their children grow up to keep neither Saturday nor Sunday, nor to attend any church, and hence they become irreligious.

17. Sunday-breakers who hunt, fish, sport or work that day, are encouraged in it by the arguments and examples of the Adventists. This certainly is evil. A community where Sabbatarians live has no quiet rest-day at all.

18. The power of God does not attend the Advent work as it should, if it is His special work. During my long experience with them, I was impressed with the fact that, as a rule, the work was exceedingly dry and powerless. This disheartened me greatly. I saw that it was so with all their ministers, from large to small. Their year book for 1888 shows that they did not average one convert to each minister!

19. In fields where they have been the longest and are best known, they have the least success. As soon as it is well understood what it really is, they can do nothing.

20. The apostles, the reformers, and others whom God has sent, have built up large societies, and wielded a great influence for good in society. But the Adventists never do. They have no influence for good on society. This feature of the work often troubled me. Notice how the heretical and fanatical sects generally withdraw themselves from community, and build up a little exclusive society by themselves. See the Shakers, the Mormons, the Oneida Community, the followers of Mrs. Southcott, etc. Seventh-day Adventists become a little exclusive party in any community where they are. They go by themselves, and take part in almost nothing which interests others. Take my own town as an example. They have had a church here for thirty years, numbering from fifty to seventy-five. They take no part nor interest in any social, literary, moral, sanitary, temperance or religious work outside of their own. They are never thought of as helpers in any such necessary and noble work. They never attend a prayer meeting, a revival effort, or a Sabbath School except their own. The Young Men's Christian Association, which is wholly unsectarian, is doing a noble work to save the young men of the place. Not one Adventist attends or takes interest in it. On the contrary, the Adventist store is open for trade, and thus becomes a resort for idlers and Sunday breakers. In whatever way considered, their influence is detrimental to the best interests of religion and good society.

How different it was with the followers of the true reformers, Luther, Wesley, Calvin, etc. They stood with the people, worked for them, and made society generally better.

The moment a person becomes a thoroughly converted Seventh-day Adventist, he is spoiled for any further usefulness in society. This is their record everywhere, as all will testify who know them. To convert men to their doctrine is the all-absorbing passion of their lives, leaving them neither interest, time nor means for anything else.

21. I came to see that the great burden of Adventists was about merely speculative theories concerning which they cannot KNOW positively that they are correct after all. Such are their theories about the sleep of the dead, destruction of the wicked, the sanctuary in heaven, the time when Jesus will come, their interpretation of the image beast of Rev. 13:11-18, the mark of the beast, etc. Do they KNOW that they are right about these? No, they think they are, and others equally honest, pious and intelligent, think differently. I came to feel that it was foolish for me to spend my life over what after all I did not know was really so. But we do know that it is right to evangelize the heathen and the vicious of our cities, to save the drunken and fallen, to preach Christ and convert sinners, and to work for everything that will improve the condition of men and society NOW. But with Adventists these things are secondary or neglected entirely, while they constantly put their pet theories first and dwell upon them most of the time.

22. All in their system that has been a blessing to them is held also by all evangelical churches, such as faith in God, in Jesus and the Bible, a pure heart, holy life, self-denial, etc. Nothing good has come to them or to the world by those doctrines which are peculiar to Adventist, as the TIME of the advent, the condition of the dead, the Sabbath, the visions, etc.

23. Having been disappointed so many times and so long, taking so gloomy a view of things generally, they are as a class a very discouraged and unhappy set of people.

24. It is "another gospel," Gal. 1:6, which the apostles never preached. I was long impressed with the fact that we Adventists preached very differently from the apostles. For instance, we were always preaching and writing about the Sabbath, while Paul in all his fourteen epistles mentions it but ONCE, Col. 2:16, and then only to condemn it! "We find in the New Testament 'preach the gospel,' fifty times; 'preach Christ,' twenty-three times; 'preach the word,' seventeen times; 'preach the kingdom,' eight times; 'preach the law,' or 'the Sabbath,' not once!" Warner.

25. They are unpatriotic. Not a soul of them, man or woman, in field or hospital, lifted a finger to aid in putting down the rebellion or slavery. They staid [sp] at home and found fault. See Mrs. White's Testimonies, Vol. 1, pages 253-268. If a man had gone to war he would have been expelled from the church, for Mrs. White forbade it. Hear her: "I was shown that God's people, who are his peculiar treasure, cannot engage in this perplexing war, for it is opposed to every principle of their faith." Testimonies, Vol. 1, page 361. They hold that our nation is "the beast" of Rev. 13:11-18, which will soon become a tyranny. Mrs. White says: "The nation will be on the side of the great rebel leader," the Devil. Testimony No. 31, page 132. So they all feel.

26. Their false ideas of Sunday leads them to join with infidels, atheists, Jews, saloon-keepers and the irreligious generally in opposing any restriction on Sunday desecration. It is one of the anomalies of the age to see a Christian church unite with the worst elements of society and the enemies of Christ, to oppose the best interests of society and the sacrificing work of the most devout and intelligent of the land. What is a religion good for, anyway, which spoils a person for all practical usefulness in society? What does it mean to "love your neighbor"?

The Adventists and the Prophecies

The Adventists claim great light above all others on the prophecies. The old women and the little children among them confidently believe that they know more about the prophecies than all the commentators and scholars in the world. They can tell exactly what every horn, and wing, head and tail, trumpet and vial, beast or angel in all the prophecies means! Any possibility of mistake? Not the slightest. And yet probably no people ever made as many mistakes in the same length of time as Adventists have.

Consider how little critical knowledge of exact historical dates and facts common people really possess. The great mass of intelligent business men, farmers, mechanics, mothers and housekeepers, would be poor judges in such matters. Most of them know nothing about it. They could not intelligently dispute any statement a lecturer might make on such points. These Advent preachers go before such an audience night after night for six or eight weeks, with their positive statements boldly made and often repeated, till their deluded hearers think them to be the most wonderful historians, and accept their statements as undoubted truths! So of their Bible readers, who go from house to house to expound the deep things of God. I know them well, have taught many of them, and have been in their training schools. Many of them could not get a third grade certificate, nor have they ever read a volume of history. They simply learn by rote, parrot-like a lesson which they repeat glibly to the astonished farmer or unread mother. Get them off this track and they are dumb. They are like those whom Paul rebuked, "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm." 1 Tim. 1:7. This fits them exactly. (See Appendix B and C.)

Chapter VI - The Two-Horned Beast and the Messages (Back to Top)

Seventh-day Adventists lay great stress upon their interpretation of this symbol. Rev. 13:11-18. Their theory of the mark of the beast, and his image, the seal of God, the Third Angel's Message, and all their special work about the Sabbath is built upon their assumption concerning that beast. If they are mistaken here, their whole system collapses. They claim that this beast is the United States, and that soon we shall have here church and state united, the image of the beast, the papacy. The mark of the beast is Sunday-keeping. A law will enforce this upon Seventh-day Adventists. They won't obey. Then they will be outlawed, persecuted, and condemned to death! Of all the wild Advent speculations in the prophecies, this deserves to stand among the wildest.

1. Does the Bible SAY that this beast is the United States? Oh, no; they have to assume and argue out all this.

2. Do they KNOW that their arguments on this are infallibly correct? No.

3. Were their leaders quite as sure in 1843, and then again in 1844, that they were right? Yes; and yet they failed both times.

4. Have they not made many mistakes in interpreting the prophecies? Yes; many of them.

5. Did not Elder White, their leader, set three different times for the end of the world, and fail in all? Yes.

6. May they not then POSSIBLY be mistaken also in this? Of course, as they must admit. So their system rests upon an uncertainty. Or are they infallible?

7. Do our hopes of heaven depend upon such uncertainties as these? Would it not be safer to follow the plain precepts of Christ (Matt. 7:24,25), than to turn after these uncertain speculations? Better than to follow the lead of Adventists who have been making mistakes over and over again for eighty years? "Take heed that no man deceive you." Jesus. Matt 24:4. I will offer a few out of many facts showing that their application of this symbol is not correct.

While Seventh-day Adventists largely quote and follow the leading commentators and Protestant churches in their application of the other beasts, here they take a wild leap into the dark, unsupported by one single biblical scholar. Evidently this lamb-like beast represents the Papacy, or the spiritual and ecclesiastical power of the Roman church, and is so applied by every commentator I have consulted. Thus: "This beast is the spiritual Latin empire, or, in other words, the Romish hierarchy." Clarke, on Rev. 13:11. "It was, therefore, the emblem of the Roman hierarchy." Scott, on Rev. 13:11. "The generality of interpreters confine this second beast to the papal power." Eclectic Commentary on Rev. 13:11-18. "An exact description of the rise of the spiritual power of the Papacy." Notes on Rev. 13:11, by the American Tract Society. "The beast with two horns like a lamb is the Roman hierarchy, or body of the clergy, regular and secular." Joseph Benson. "The two-horned beast or Romish church." Bishop Newton. Albert Barnes the same. Indeed, there is a perfect agreement among all commentators that this lamb-like beast represents the Papacy. For the argument on this I only need refer the readers to the commentaries.

Against this unanimous agreement of all Protestant churches and authorities, you have the unsupported speculations of the Adventists, who have made so many mistakes before. The proofs that this lamb-like beast is the Papacy are many, clear, and easily seen; while the effort to apply it to the United States is labored, and the arguments strained, long, and far-fetched. Thus, in U. Smith's "Thoughts on Revelation," he devotes only ELEVEN pages to the dragon of Chapter 12:1-17, and only EIGHT pages to the leopard beast of Chapter 13:1- 10, but wades heavily through OVER ONE HUNDRED PAGES on the eight verses relating to the two-horned beast! This alone is proof of the desperate task he had on hand to prove that it was the United States.

Beginning with Rev. 11:19, and ending with Rev. 14:5, is a line of prophecy reaching from the First to the Second Advent - the dragon, the leopard beast, and the lamb-like beast. The dragon, Chapter 12:1-17, is the pagan Roman empire. So all agree; Seventh-day Adventists as well. The dragon had "seven heads and ten horns." Verse 3. This is succeeded, Chapter 13:1-10, by the leopard beast with "seven heads and ten horns." What is this? Evidently the same Roman empire, the same ten kingdoms of Europe, with merely a change of religion from pagan to Catholic. Thus, Dr. Clarke: "The beast here described is the Latin empire, which supported the Romish or Latin church." On Rev. 13:1. So says Scott and all I have seen. This was the civil or political power of the ten kingdoms after professing Christianity. That this ten-horned leopard beast is not the Papacy nor the Catholic church, is shown by Rev. 17:1-5, where the same beast is again introduced with a woman riding on and ruling over it. The beast is the civil power, while the woman is the church. Even Elder Smith had to confess this. He says: "We here have the woman, the church, seated upon a scarlet-colored beast, the civil power by which she is upheld and which she controls and guides to her own ends as a rider controls a horse." On Rev. 17:1-5. So, then, the leopard beast is the civil power. Just what it is in Rev. 17 is what it is in Rev. 13. Did the Papacy have ten horns? Did it have seven heads? No, but political Rome did.

That the lamb-like beast of Rev. 13:11-18 is not the United States at all, but is the Papacy , or ecclesiastical and spiritual power of the Romish church, is manifest. 1. Rev. 17:1-5, where the woman, the church, is distinct from the ten-horned leopard beast and rules over it, shows that the beast is not the Papacy. 2. Just so; the lamb-like beast of Rev. 13 rules through the power of the leopard beast. 3. Whatever the woman is in Rev. 17, that is what the lamb-like beast is in Rev. 13. Hence, they both are the papal power of Rome.

Notice the similarity of the two: a woman in one place, a lamb in the other, both having the appearance of gentleness and innocence. The church is represented by a pure woman, II Cor. 11:2, and by lambs, John 21:15; false religious teachers are represented by bad women, Rev. 2:18-23, and by beasts clothed like sheep, Matt. 7:15. The woman and the beast work together in Chapter 17; so the lamb-like beast and the leopard beast work together in Rev. 13:12,14. The woman is drunk with the blood of saints, Rev. 17:6; the lamb beast causes the saints to be killed, Rev. 13:15. The woman is burned with fire, Rev. 18:8; so is the lamb beast, Rev. 19:20. The woman sits upon the beast, guiding and ruling it, Rev. 17:3; so the lamb beast "exerciseth all the power of the first beast," Rev. 13:12. It does not simply exercise SIMILAR power, or AS MUCH power as the beast, but it uses the power of the beast itself, the same as the woman did. He does not himself kill anyone, but CAUSES them to be killed, Rev. 13:15. This is exactly what the Papacy did. It ruled over the kings of the earth, Rev. 17:18, and "caused" heretics to be put to death by the secular power. "He exerciseth all the power of the first beast."

It has ever been the boast of the Roman church that SHE never puts heretics to death. She simply anathematizes them, turns them over to the civil powers, and by her influence with these, CAUSES them to be killed by the secular powers. How exact is the language: he "causeth" it to be done; "he exerciseth [or useth] all the power of the first beast."

Seventh-day Adventists argue that the leopard beast, Rev. 13:1-10, is the papacy, because it does the same work as the little horn of Dan. 7:8,25, which is agreed by all to be the papacy. But they overlook the fact that the leopard beast does all its work simply as the agent of the church, the woman in Rev. 17, and the lamb-like beast in Chap. 13. Hence, of course, it does the same work that the little horn of Dan. 7 does.

Notice the inseparable connection between the leopard beast and the two- horned beast, the Roman civil government and the Papacy. 1. The lamb-like beast controls all the power of the first beast. Verse 12. 2. He does this in the presence and in the sight of the beast. Verse 12,14. This shows that both occupy the same territory. 3. He causes men to worship the beast. Verse 12. 4. He causes men to make an image to the beast. Verse 14. 5. He causes men to receive the mark of the beast. Verse 16,17. 6. The two beasts are working together when Christ comes. Rev. 19, 20. 7. Together they go into the fire. Verse 20.

Evidently, then, these two beasts operate together in all their work. This is precisely what the Catholic church and the Catholic political powers of Europe have done for ages, as all know. Has the United States ever thus cooperated with the papacy? Emphatically, no. Is any man fanatical enough to believe that it ever will? The papacy has exactly fulfilled every specification of the lamb-like beast. 1. It came up in the right place "in his presence." Diaglott, Bible Union, Living Oracles, etc. 2. It came up at the right time after the wounding of the head. Rev. 13:3. The interpretation adopted by Clarke, Scott, and the best authors, "refers it to the extinction of the old Roman Empire under the imperial form in the latter part of the fifth century, and its revival again under Charlemagne." Notes of Am. Tract Society. 3. The papacy came up in the right manner, peaceably and quietly. 4. It had the appearance of a lamb. 5. It has spoken like a dragon. 6. It has exercised all the power of civil Rome. 7. It brought the earth in subjection to Rome. 8. By its great signs and wonders it has deceived millions for ages. 9. It has made an image to the beast. 10. It has caused millions to be killed. 11. It has imposed its worship and mark upon all. 12. It has prohibited heretics from buying or selling. This is too well known to require proof.

The lamb-like beast is not the United States; because 1. "This two-horned beast symbolizes a religious or ecclesiastical government. The false prophet of Rev. 19:20 performs the same work as this beast (see verse 14), and therefore must be identical with it. This is admitted by Seventh-day Adventists. Now, as a prophet is a religious teacher, a false prophet must be a false religious teacher; and as this applies to a government, it must therefore apply to an ecclesiastical government. Such the United States is not, for its government is PURELY political; for one clause of its constitution is as follows: 'Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'" The Two-Horned Beast, by A.C. Long.

2. The manner of its rise. The lamb-like beast comes up quietly and peaceably "out of the earth," Rev. 13:11, while the other beasts come up out of the troubled sea. Rev. 13:1. So the papacy came up quietly at first, with all the appearance of a lamb, but afterwards it spoke like a dragon. Witness its persecutions and tyranny. Not so with our nation. It was born in a terrible war of seven years. Then followed the war of 1812, the war with Mexico, the war of the Rebellion, and war with Indians almost every year. Not very peaceable.

3. It was to exercise ALL the power of the first beast. Seventh-day Adventists say that the first beast is the Papacy, which put to death over fifty million people, ruled over other kings, and over the consciences of men. Even Adventists do not believe the United States will do this.

4. "Church and state must be united. This is against one of the fundamental principles of our government. The constitution expressly forbids it, consequently it must first be changed. And will the intelligent voters of these United States, with the history of past ages before them, deliberately change one of the main pillars of our government, and raise up the Inquisition, the block, the rack, etc., and thus put to death many persons, simply for their religious faith? It does not look reasonable." A.C. Long. Besides, all the tendency of the age is against a union of church and state.

Arguments Answered.

1. "The two-horned beast must be the United States, because it can apply nowhere else."

ANSWER: It applies admirably to the Papacy.

2. "There must be some symbol to represent this great nation."

ANSWER: There is none for Russia, for Mexico, Brazil, Japan, China, and a dozen other nations, most of them professing Christianity too.

3. "The United States came up at the right time, about 1798, when the head received its deadly wound. Rev. 13:3."

ANSWER: This very point overthrows the argument for the United States; for that wound was given at the very rise of the leopard beast, more than 1,200 years before 1798. Look at verse 3-10; all the work of the beast comes AFTER the wound and not BEFORE. This locates the rise of the lamb-like beast just when the Papacy rose.

4. "The United States came up in the right place."

ANSWER: This is exactly what it DID NOT DO. The beast is located in Europe, and a whole ocean rolls between the two; whereas the two-horned beast was to come up "in his presence," in Europe, not America.

5. "Our government has 'come up' from small beginnings to a wonderful nation."

ANSWER: The Papacy began much smaller, and has 'come up' to be much larger.

6. "Our government is lamb-like."

ANSWER: So was the Papacy in its rise and all its professions. A lamb in appearance, a dragon at heart, fits Rome much better. Our government does not put on sheep's clothes to hide wicked designs. It acts openly and boldly. But the Papacy professed outwardly to be a humble follower of the Lamb, while inwardly it was a dragon.

7. "No crown on his horns. Hence it must be a republic - the United States."

ANSWER: The ten-horned beast of Dan. 7 had no crowns, yet all were kingly governments. So the dragon, Rev. 12:3, had no crowns on his ten horns, yet all were kingly governments. So there were crowns upon his seven heads, yet several of these heads represented forms of government that had no crowns. So this argument fails.

8. "Spiritualism has wrought miracles here."

ANSWER: The miracles of spiritualism are a humbug, nor are they in any way recognized or used by our nation in making laws. But in the prophecy the miracles are wrought by the official authority, and not by private individuals, wrought to secure and enforce laws for persecution. Verse 14. Spiritualism does not do this. And surely our nation will never lower itself to the working of miracles by official authority! But papal Rome has abounded in lying miracles, by which she deceived her followers for ages. Our nation is now over one hundred years old, and, according to Adventists, five or ten years more will end its work. But out of eight verses of the prophecy only ONE is yet fulfilled, is our nation. 1. The beast was to come up. Fulfilled. 2. He was to come out of the earth. Fulfilled. 3. Was to have two horns. Not fulfilled. 4. Was to look like a lamb. Fulfilled. But these specifications are much better fulfilled by the Papacy than by the United States.

5. Was to speak as a dragon. Not fulfilled. 6. Was to exercise all the power of the first beast. Not fulfilled. 7. Must cause the earth to worship the first beast. Not fulfilled. 8. Must do great wonders. Not fulfilled. 9. Must bring fire from Heaven. Not fulfilled. 10. Work miracles. Not fulfilled. 11. Id to make an image to the beast. Not fulfilled. 12. The image is to speak. Not fulfilled. 13. To cause all to be killed who do not worship the beast. Not fulfilled. 14. To cause all to receive the mark. Not fulfilled. 15. To prohibit all from buying or selling who do not have the mark. Not fulfilled.

Out of FIFTEEN points only FOUR have been fulfilled, and these relate simply to its rise. Of all the work it was to do, not a thing has been done yet. Adventists are always saying that the rest is just about to be done. But in the past forty years not one single point has been fulfilled, nor is there the least prospect that it ever will be. Unless God works a miracle, no such things as they are looking for can be accomplished anyway.

The mark was to be enforced upon bondmen, verse 16; but slavery is abolished, and that can not be fulfilled here, but it was fulfilled under papal Rome. Souls were beheaded for not worshipping the beast. Rev. 20:4. This was all fulfilled under the Papacy, but Seventh-day Adventists themselves say no one will be killed here.

We have now proved conclusively that the two-horned beast is not the United States. This being so, then Seventh-day Adventists are wrong on the image of the beast, the mark of the beast, the Third Angel's Message, and the Sunday question, and hence their whole theory collapses.

The Image of the Beast. What Is It?

In Rev. 13:14-17; 14:9-11; 15:2; 19:20; 20:4, great prominence is given to "the image of the beast." God's wrath is threatened against all who worship it. It must, then, be some very wicked thing. Seventh-day Adventists claim that the image will be formed by a union of church and state in our nation. That will be an image to Catholicism, the beast, they say. See "Thoughts on the Revelation," page 581. Their great mission is to warn men of this coming image. Sunday-keeping, the Pope's Sabbath, is to be the chief feature of this image. After thorough investigation, I am satisfied that there is no truth in this claim.

1. If a union of church and state constitutes an image to the beast, then this image has been formed ages ago, and by different nations, wherever there has been a union of church and state as in England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Russia, Norway and Sweden, Mexico, Brazil, Abyssinia, Puritan New England, etc. But this would overthrow the Seventh-day Adventist theory that the image has never yet been formed.

2. They say that the Papacy is the beast to whom the image is formed. Elder Smith thus defines the Papacy: "The Papacy, then, was a church clothed with civil power." Thoughts on Revelations, page 585. Is this definition correct? No; it is utterly false, as every scholar knows. It was made to fit a theory as false as the definition. Look at any dictionary. "Papacy: 1. The office and dignity of the Pope... 2. The Popes taken collectively." Web. The Papacy existed long before it was clothed with civil power. It has no civil power now, yet it is the Papacy still. So, then, an image to the Papacy does not necessarily include civil power or a union of church and state at all. On this false assumption is built the Advent theory of the image.

3. What is the Papacy? See Webster above. It is that ecclesiastical system of worship of which the Pope is head. Its distinguishing marks are these: 1. Popes. 2. Cardinals. 3. Monks. 4. Nuns. 5. Celibacy. 6. The mass. 7. Worship of the virgin. 8. Worship of saints. 9. Use of images. 10. Sign of the cross. 11. The confessional. 12. Use of incense. 13. Holy water. 14. Claim of infallibility. 15. A gorgeous worship, and the like. This is the Papacy, as known to everybody the world over. Now unite our Protestant churches with our state, pass a law and fine Sabbath-keepers, and how many of the above distinguishing features of the Papacy would you have? Not ONE. In order to have an IMAGE to the Papacy, you must have at least the main features of it, as above. But even Adventists do not expect to see any of the above items in their Sunday law. Their idea of an image to the beast is a senseless, unscriptural affair from the first to last.

4. A stringent national Sunday law, such as Adventists expect, would by no means constitute an image to the Papacy; because Catholics never had nor taught such a Sunday institution as that would be. Their Sunday is, and always has been, a loose holiday, a day for games, sports, beer gardens, saloons, dancing, voting, and even work, with a little church service and Mass in the morning. Look at the Sunday in any Catholic country or community. Such a strict Sunday as Adventists expect would be no more like that than a sheep is like an ox; hence, not an image to it. The Adventists themselves have shown that the doctrine of a strict Sunday did not originate with the Catholics, but with the Presbyterians and Puritans in the sixteenth century. History of the Sabbath, Chapter XXV. So, then, their Sunday law would constitute an image to the church of Scotland instead of the church of Rome! So their theory breaks down on all sides.

5. All this on the supposition that the Papacy is the leopard beast to which the image is to be made. But we have proved that the leopard beast is not the Papacy, but the empire of Rome under the ten kingdoms after their adoption of Christianity. But their conversion was only nominal. They brought with them very largely their pagan doctrines, customs, religious rites, images, gods, shrines, temples, and pomp of worship. This became the model after which the Papacy was gradually but finally formed. The Papacy in its full and final development was an image of this half heathen, half Christian, worldly kingdom.

The Deadly Wound, and How it Was Healed

The utter fallacy of the Seventh-day Adventist theory of these beasts is shown by the fact that they locate the deadly wound of Rev. 13:3 in 1798, at the END of the forty-two months of verse 5, after nearly all the work of the beast is done. But in the prophecy it is distinctly located in the very BEGINNING of the work of the leopard beast. Read Rev. 13:1-10, and see where the wound was made, verse 3. The worship of the beast, his power, his blasphemies, his persecutions of the saints, his forty-two months, his 1260 years reign, the subjection of all the earth to him - all these come AFTER the wound is healed, not before. On the overthrow of paganism, the breaking up of the empire by the northern barbarians, and the final extinction was about to be entirely extinguished. But right here Christianity conquered those barbarians, and brought them under the rising influence of the Papacy. New life was infused into the old carcass, the empire was revived, the wound was healed. See Barnes, Clark, Scott, etc.

The Mark of the Beast: What Is It?

1. Seventh-day Adventists assert in the most positive manner that the Pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday. "The Pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day." Mrs. White, Early Writings, page 55.

2. Then they affirm that "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." The Marvel of Nations, by U. Smith, page 183. "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850. They thunder this into the ears of the people, and threaten them with God's wrath if they keep Sunday, till they frighten ignorant souls to give it up.

3. This change in the Sabbath, they say, was made by the Popes at the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364. Replies to Elder Canright, page 151. This was over 1500 years ago.

4. All who keep Sunday, they assert, worship the beast and receive his mark. "Sunday-keeping is an institution of the first beast, and ALL who submit to obey this institution emphatically worship the first beast and receive his mark, 'the mark of the beast.' .... Those who worship the beast and his image by observing the first day are certainly idolaters, as were the worshippers of the golden calf." Advent Review Extra, pages 10 and 11, August, 1850. This language is too plain to be mistaken. All who keep Sunday have the mark of the beast.

5. But, strange to tell, they now all deny that any one has ever had the mark of the beast. "We have never so held," says Smith, Marvel of Nations, page 184. All right, though this is a square denial of what they once taught, as above. It is a common thing for them to change their positions and then deny it. We proceed:

6. The United States will soon pass a strict Sunday law and unite church and state; then all who will keep Sunday will have the mark. Marvel of Nations, page 185.

Answer.

Does the Bible say that the mark of the beast is keeping Sunday? No, indeed. That is only another one of their assumptions. To establish this, they have to make a long, roundabout set of arguments, built upon inferences, none of which are sound. Their theory is false, because:

1. The Jewish Sabbath was abolished at the cross. [Col. 2:16] Hence, it was not changed by the Pope.

2. Sunday is the Lord's day of Rev. 1:18. See Chapter X of this book.

3. The Pope never changed the Sabbath. This point I have proved beyond all question in Chapter XI. This fact alone upsets their whole argument on the mark of the beast.

4. The Papacy is not the beast to whom the image is made, as they assume. Here again there whole story is demolished.

5. Merely keeping Sunday would not be an image to the Papacy any way, as I have shown.

6. The two-horned beast is not the United States at all, but is the Papacy, as I have clearly proved.

7. The image to the beast was made ages ago by the Papacy. So every one of their arguments for the mark of the beast fails.

The Absurdities of Their Position.

1. Sunday-keeping has been the mark of the beast for 1500 years. During all this time millions have kept Sunday on the sole authority of the Roman church, and yet no one had the mark!

2. The keeping of Sunday has been time and again and in many countries enforced by law and severe penalties, just as they say it will be in the future here, and yet none of those who have kept it as thus enforced have had the mark of the beast!

3. Church and state have been united in various countries, and have enforced this institution of the Papacy, as they call it, and yet it was not enforcing the mark of the beast!

4. For over 1500 years, taking their own dates, all the pious of the earth, the martyrs, the reformers, the Luthers, Wesleys and Judson, have observed Sunday and enjoyed the blessing of God, but now, all at once, the whole world, Christians and all, are to be damned and drink the wrath of God for doing just what all holy men have done for ages! Of Sunday-keeping in the future, Mrs. White says: "That must be a terrible sin which calls down the wrath of God unmingled with mercy." Great Controversy, page 282. This terrible sin is just what all the church of Christ has practiced for ages, and yet have had God's blessing! How absurd.

5. It is attempted to dodge this point by saying that those of other ages did not have the light on the Sabbath. I have shown the falsity of that on other pages. Luther, Bunyan, Baxter, Milton, all had the "light" on the Sabbath question, and rejected it and wrote against it. Then I can do it, too, and not have the mark of the beast, if they did not.

6. If it is worshipping the beast to rest from physical labor on Sunday after one knows that Sunday is the Pope's Sabbath, then many Seventh-day Adventists are worshippers of the beast. Why? Because they often rest on Sunday. Book agents, colporters, teachers, drummers, persons visiting relatives, ministers in new places, etc., all frequently rest on Sunday, and even go to church all day! Are they worshippers of the beast? Why not? Do you say they only do it for convenience or from policy? Just so they can rest on Sunday for the same reason when the law shall require it, and not worship the beast any more than Adventists do now.

7. Deny it as they may, the Seventh-day Adventist teachings do make all Sunday-keepers, both now and in past ages, worshippers of the beast, having the mark of the beast. Here is proof in their own words:

1. The Pope changed the Sabbath. Sunday is only the Popes day. See above.

2. "The mark of the beast is the change the beast made in the law of God," in the Sabbath. Marvel of Nations, page 175. Then the mark of the beast existed as soon as the change was made, which they locate 1500 years ago. Is not this conclusion inevitable? If the mark of the beast is the change of the Sabbath which was made by the Papacy in the fourth century, then that mark has existed ever since. There is no escape from this conclusion.

3. All who have kept the law since that date, as changed by the beast, have been keeping the law of the beast, not the law of God; have been worshippers of the beast, not worshippers of God. Here is their own argument for it: Referring to the prophecy that the Papacy should "change times and laws," Dan. 7:25, which they claim the Pope fulfilled A.D. 364, by changing the Sabbath to Sunday, Elder Smith says: "When this is done [which is 1500 years ago], what do the people of the world have? They have two laws demanding obedience" - the law of God and the law of the Pope. If they keep the law of God, as given by Him, they worship and obey God. If they keep the law as changed by the Papacy, they worship that power.... For instance, if God says that the seventh day is the Sabbath, on which we must rest, but the Pope says that the first day is the Sabbath, and that we should keep this day, and not the seventh, THEN WHOEVER observes that precept as originally given by God, is thereby distinguished as a worshipper of God; and he who keeps it as changed is THEREBY MARKED as a follower of the power that made the change.... >From this conclusion no candid mind can dissent." Marvel of Nations, pages 174 and 175.

Then, for the past fifteen hundred years, all who have kept Sunday have been "marked" as followers of the beast and have worshipped him! From their own argument, does not this inevitably follow? Of course, it does. When they try to deny and evade this abominable conclusion, they simply contradict and stultify themselves. Either their argument is a fallacy, or else this conclusion must follow. Look at this hideous Moloch which they have set up to frighten the ignorant. The Pope in the fourth century changed the law of God by changing the Sabbath to Sunday. This change is the mark of the beast; whoever after that keeps the law as thus changed, is keeping not the law of God, but the Pope's law; is worshipping, not God, but the Pope. But all Christians for fifteen hundred years have kept Sunday, the Pope's Sabbath, the mark of the beast, and, as Smith says, were "thereby marked as followers of the power that made the change." From this conclusion there is no escape. And so all Sunday-keepers have had the mark of the beast, and have it now.

But they say that they do not teach that anyone as yet has had the mark of the beast. This shows the absurdity of their argument. Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast, yet Sunday-keepers have not got the mark of the beast! For instance: I have a hundred counterfeit bills; I pay them out to fifty men in Otsego, and they take and keep them, yet not a man of them has a counterfeit bill! Isn't that clear - as mud? But they don't know that they are counterfeit bills, and so are not guilty for having them. But have they not got counterfeit bills for all that? Certainly. So, if Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast, then every man that keeps Sunday has the mark of the beast, whether he knows it or not. God may not hold them guilty for it, but they have it just the same. Now, as soon as these fifty men are informed that their bills are counterfeit, are they not guilty if they use them after that? Yes. So, as soon as a man is informed that Sunday is the mark of the beast, if he keeps it after that has he not the mark of the beast as truly as ever he can have it? And if he still keeps Sunday voluntarily is he not just as guilty before God as though the law compelled him to keep it? Yes, and more so; because now he has no excuse, while then he could plead that he was compelled to do it. So, then, it needs no Sunday law to give men the mark of the beast. All Sunday-keepers have it already, and as soon as they are informed that Sunday is the mark of the beast, then they are guilty as worshipers of the beast. But Seventh-day Adventists have already informed thousands upon this point. Then if they have not the mark of the beast, why not? Surely I have been enlightened on it, and yet I keep Sunday, the Pope's Sabbath, the mark of the beast. Have I the mark of the beast? Let them answer if they dare. Remember that Luther, Milton, Baxter, Bunyan and Miller were all informed on the Sabbath question, and still wrote against it and kept Sunday. Reader, this Advent mark of the beast is an absurdity and only a scare-crow. Don't be frightened.

Even if the Pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday, that would not make Sunday HIS mark. The mark of any person was that which he used to mark things as belonging to him. In Bible times a master would put his mark on the right hand or forehead of his slaves. Heathen gods had their worshipers marked so. This custom is referred to and used here as an illustration. So the worshipers of the beast would be required to do something which would mark or distinguish them as his followers. But keeping Sunday does not distinguish a Catholic from members of other churches, for all churches keep Sunday - the Greek, Armenian, Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, etc. The Pope has never used Sunday to distinguish his followers from others, nor as proof of his authority as head of the church. He does point to the keys of St. Peter and his regular apostolic succession from him as proof of his authority. Says Dowling: "The Popes assert their divine right of supremacy in consequence of their claiming to be the successors of the Apostle Peter." History of Romanism, page 44. On this, not on Sunday-keeping, they base their claim of power. Some obscure catechism is quoted, claiming authority for the church to "command feasts and holy days," because that church has made Sunday holy. This falls infinitely short of making Sunday the proof of all their authority, the one "mark" of that church.

4. It is absurd to say that resting on Sunday is such a fearful crime as Adventists affirm. Hear Elder Smith: "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." "The reception of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against God." Marvel of Nations, pages 170, 183. So keeping Sunday is more wicked than lying, stealing, or even murder or idolatry! Such a statement is monstrous. In the mind of any candid, thinking man, it must break down under the weight of its own absurdity.

What, Then, is the Mark of the Beast? (See appendix D)

Elder Smith himself stated this as clearly as need be: "It will evidently be some act or acts by which men will be required to acknowledge the authority of that image and yield obedience to its mandates." "So the mark of the beast, or of the Papacy, must be some act or profession by which the authority of that power is acknowledged." Marvel of Nations, pages 169, 172. Exactly; any act or acts by which men show their reverence for the beast or his image, any form of worship by which they acknowledge his authority, that would be worshipping the beast and his image and receiving his mark. Dr. Clarke says: "The Latin [Catholic] worship is the universal badge of distinction of the Latin church from all other churches on the face of the earth, and is, therefore, the only infallible MARK by which a genuine papist can be distinguished from the rest of mankind." On Rev. 13:16. This is the position taken by Protestants generally, and I believe it to be correct. A conformity to the system of worship set up by the Papacy, that great anti-Christian power, the image to the beast, would be worshipping the beast and his image and receiving his mark. To worship the beast is a great crime; but is it a crime to devote a day to God, even though the Bible has not required it? Surely not, for Paul says: "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord." Romans 14:6. About doing this he says: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Verse 5. So we are at liberty to regard Sunday unto the Lord, if we so choose. Hence, it cannot be a sin as Adventists claim, and so cannot be the mark of the beast.

The Three Messages, Rev. 14:6-12

The one great claim of Seventh-day Adventists is that they are preaching the three messages of Rev. 14:6-12. This is their constant theme. So the Mormons claim that Joe Smith preached this message. But there is not a particle of foundation for the claim in either case. Read the first message, verses 6,7. An angel is seen preaching the gospel to every nation, saying: "Fear God, and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him that made heaven and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." This was fulfilled by the apostles and early Christians, as they preached the gospel to all nations. Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15. The angel in Rev. 14:6,7, is seen preaching the gospel to every nation, as Jesus commanded. Compare Paul's sermon to the idolatrous heathen at Lystra, Acts 14:15, with the words of the first message, Rev. 14:7, and they will be seen to be almost identical. Said Paul, We "preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein." So Rev. 14:7 says "Worship him that made heaven and earth, and the sea." This, then, was a message to idolaters, announcing to them the living God who made all things, but of whom they had been ignorant. This is exactly what the early church preached to the heathen nations till idolatry was overthrown.

Paul says the gospel "was preached to every creature which is under heaven," Col. 1:23. This was before he died, and this exactly fulfilled Rev. 14:6,7. But the Advent work of 1844 was a small, local affair, limited to a few states; much less was it preached to all nations.

Adventists claim that Wm. Miller preached this message in 1840-4. He did no such thing. The burden of preaching was that the end of the world would come in 1843 and then in 1844. But he preached what failed both times, as we know. Does God send men to make such blunders as that? Miller did not preach the hour of judgment come. That was an afterthought, an interpretation put upon his work which was not thought of at the time.

It is claimed that the apostles could not have preached this message, as the judgment did not come in their day. Let us see. Jesus preached thus: "Now is the judgment of this world." John 12:31. Jesus said, "NOW is the judgment." Who will contradict him and say it wasn't? Peter said: "For the time IS COME that judgment must begin at the house of God." 1Pet. 4:17. Then the judgment did begin there. Here are two direct testimonies, and that is enough. So in exact harmony with these, the First Angel announces, "The hour of his judgment is come." Rev. 14:7. If anyone wants to see the truth, this is clear enough; if they don't want to, there is no use arguing with them further.

Second Message, Verse 8

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." What is Babylon, that great city? It is fully described in Rev. 17 and 18, and is regarded by all Protestants as the Roman church. Adventists themselves agree with this, though endeavoring to make Babylon also include the Protestant churches. Even with their view Babylon, "the great," must refer primarily to Rome, and only include other fallen churches as a secondary idea, as her daughters. Seventh-day Adventists claim that this message was preached by the Millerites in 1844. When the churches refused to believe Miller that the end of the world would come in 1844, and that he could tell the very day, then and for this unbelief all these churches were rejected of God and fell. Mrs. White says: "Satan has taken full possession of the church as a body....Their profession, their prayers, and their exhortations are an abomination in the sight of God." Early Writings, page 135. What awful thing had they done to fall so? Why, Miller said the world would end in 1844, and they said it wouldn't. He was wrong and they were right, but God rejected them and blessed the Millerites! This is a fair illustration of the egotism and inconsistency of the Adventists. Did they preach what Rev. 14:8 says? No! They said Babylon was fallen BECAUSE she rejected Millerism, but the message gives a far different reason. Babylon fell "because she made all nations drink of the wine of her fornication." The Bible gives one reason, Adventists give another. Did the Protestant churches in America in the short space of about five years, during Miller's preaching, and by simply rejecting his time-theory - did they thus make all nations drunk? The idea is absurd. This message must have a far deeper and broader meaning than this. So they never preached this message. Just a few of the churches in the eastern states heard and rejected Millerism; for all this the tens of millions of church members throughout the whole world, who never even so much as heard of Miller, were rejected of God! What an unreasonable position. Again, Babylon must at least include Rome. Did the Catholic church fall in 1844? No, for she fell ages ago, as every Protestant knows. So, then, the fall of Babylon does not mean what Adventists say, nor did they preach what the message says.

A thousand times more probable is the application of this message to the work of Luther and the Reformation. Till the time of Luther the Papal church was supposed to be the true church, and as such it ruled over the kings of earth and the consciences of men. Luther startled the world with the bold proclamation that the Roman church was the "Mother of harlots," "Babylon the great," of Rev. 17:1-6, and that she was fallen, as stated in Rev. 14:8; 18:1- 4. October 6, 1520, he published his famous book on the "Babylonish Captivity of the Church."

I will quote from D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, Vol. II: "Luther had prepared a mine, the explosion of which shook the edifice of Rome to its lowest foundation. This was the publication of his famous book on the 'Babylonish Captivity of the Church,' which appeared on the 6th of October, 1520." Page 130. In it he said: "I know that the Papacy is none other than the kingdom of Babylon ." Page 131. "Christians are God's true people, led captive to Babylon." Page 133. "All the evils that afflicted Christendom, he sincerely ascribed to Rome." Page 138. Says Luther: "It is true that I have attacked the court of Rome; but neither you nor any man on earth can deny that it is more corrupt than Sodom." Page 139. "This Babylon, which is confusion itself." "Rome for many years past has inundated the world with all that could destroy both body and soul. The church of Rome, once the foremost in sanctity, is become the most licentious den of robbers, the most shameless of all brothels, the kingdom of sin, of death, and of hell." Page 140.

Here was a proclamation of the fall of Babylon, which was worthy of the name. Truly, Rome had made all nations drunk with her wine. She had ruled over all nations; had become rich; had lived in splendor; had killed the saints; had become the habitation of every evil spirit. All this is exactly portrayed in Rev. 17:1-6, where "Babylon the great," of Chapter 14:8. is more fully described. Then in Rev. 18:1-4 the announcement of the fall of Babylon, as noticed in Chapter 14:8, is more fully explained, but it is the same message. This fits Luther's work exactly.

Luther's message was a mighty cry, which enlightened the earth, announced the fearful corruptions of Rome, and called out of her millions of people, and gave to the world that mighty power, Protestantism. In all the history of the world such a mighty religious move had never before been seen. This was worthy of a notice in prophecy.

Consider this fact: While Adventists find hundreds of prophecies, whole chapters of them, applying to their little work, they find none foretelling the great religious movement of the Reformation which revolutionized the world! It illustrates how they interpret everything to fit themselves. No; the second message of Rev. 14:8, the fall of Babylon, applies to the Catholic church, not to Protestants, and was given three hundred and fifty years ago by Luther, not by the Millerites in 1844.

The Third Message, Rev. 14:9-12

This warning against the worship of the beast and his image, and his mark, has been given by all the Protestant churches for the last three hundred years. Look at the multitude of books against popery and the corruptions of Catholicism. From press and pulpit has been thundered one continual warning against apostate Rome. Never was a prophecy more plainly fulfilled than this.

Seventh-day Adventists say that they are giving this message. Never was a claim more absurd.

1. They are mistaken entirely as to what the beast, image, and mark are, as I have shown.

2. According to their own showing, they have been preaching for seventy years against a thing which does not exist - the image, which they say is yet to be made!

3. That part of the message about the torment of the wicked, their smoke going up for ever and ever, etc., they never preach; for it is just what they don't believe.

4. Their egotistical claim that they are the only ones who "keep the commandments of God," is shown to be false in Chapter XX.

5. There are six angels mentioned in Rev. 14. If the first three represent messages of warning, then the other three do also; and, hence, there are yet three messages more to come after the Third Angels message! What do Adventists have to say about these? Nothing.

These few brief points are sufficient to show that their application of the three messages is entirely wrong.

Is the Sabbath God's Seal?

Seventh-day Adventists claim that "the seal of God is his Holy Sabbath." Thoughts on Revelation, page 452. They are not sent to "seal" the 144,000 of Rev. 7:1-8 ready for translation. Not a soul living on earth when Jesus comes will be saved, unless he is thus sealed by keeping that day. Early Writings, page 11.

1. Does the Bible say that the Sabbath is the seal of God? No; this is another Adventist assumption which they claim to prove by a long, round-about, far-fetched set of inferences. It takes one of their ablest speakers an hour to make it appear even plausible when he has no opposition. Even then few can see through it.

2. The word "seal," as a noun and a verb, is used sixty-five times in the Bible, but not once is it said to be the Sabbath.

3. They argue that SIGN and SEAL are synonymous terms, meaning the same thing; and as the Sabbath is called a sign (Ex. 31:17), it is therefore a seal. To this I object, because (1) SEAL is never defined by the word SIGN, nor SIGN by the word SEAL; nor is one term ever given as the synonym for the other. I have carefully examined fourteen different dictionaries, lexicons and cyclopedias, and find no exception to this statement. (2) This original term for seal (Hebrew, 'chotham'; Greek, 'sphragis') is never rendered sign. (3) The original word for sign (Hebrew, 'oth'; Greek, 'semeion') is never rendered seal. Hence they are not synonymous terms.

4. Rom. 4:11 is used to prove that a sign is a seal; but it does not prove it. Anything may be put to two entirely different uses, as I may use my cane for a staff or for a pointer, but is therefore a staff and a pointer the same? No. So in Rom. 4:11, circumcision was used as a sign and also as a seal; but this does not prove that a sign is a seal. So the Sabbath is a sign. Ex. 31:17 Possibly God might also use it as a seal, but does he? Where is the proof? Nowhere.

5. The Sabbath was a sign between God and the children of Israel. Ex. 31:17. So was circumcision. Rom. 4:11. But neither is a sign to Christians.

6. The Sabbath was abolished at the cross. Col. 2:16. Hence it cannot be God's seal now.

7. If the Sabbath is God's seal with which he seals his people for translation, then every one who has the Sabbath is sealed and ready for translation. When God puts his seal upon a man, that must settle it that he is God's. So in Rev. 7:2-4, where the angel sealed a man with the seal of God, did he not thereby become one of the 144,000 who were "without fault?" Rev. 14:1-5. Yes. Then, if the Sabbath is the seal, all who keep it are sealed and ready for Heaven. But (1) the old Pharisees all kept the Sabbath strictly; (2) millions of Jews keep it now; (3) all Seventh-day Baptists keep it; (4) the Marion party, who bitterly oppose Seventh-day Adventists, all keep it; (5) many Seventh-day Adventists keep it who have been expelled from their churches for their sins. Are all these sealed and ready for salvation? No. Then the Sabbath as a seal, as the proof of God's favor, as a test of character and fitness for Heaven, fails entirely. Hence, it cannot be God's seal.

What then, is God's seal? It is plainly stated to be the Holy Spirit. Thus: "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." IICor, 1:22. "In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." Eph. 1:13. "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Eph. 4:30. These texts are plain enough as to what the seal of the Lord is. It is the Holy Spirit. Strange that men will set aside these plain texts, and try by long, uncertain arguments to make out that the old Jewish Sabbath is the seal, when the Bible never says a word about it.

Adventists argue that the Sabbath is the seal to the decalogue. They say there is nothing else in the Ten Commandments to tell who gave that law. The assertion is utterly false. The very first words of the decalogue tell who gave it: "I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Ex. 20:2,3. This tells as plainly as possible who gave that law, and cuts up by the roots the Adventist argument on the seal. Now look at their "Law of God" chart. These words as God put them are left off. If left on they would clearly contradict the Advent argument.

Chapter VII - The Sanctuary (Back to Top)

Seventh-day Adventists make everything turn upon their view of the sanctuary. It is vital with them. If they are wrong on this, their whole theory breaks down. The reader should, therefore, study this subject carefully. They dwell upon it constantly, and affirm that they are the only ones in all Christendom who have the light on the subject. I will devote only a few pages to it, just enough to show the fallacy of their system.

They based their time of 1844 upon Dan. 8:14. "Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." The sanctuary was the earth. It was to be cleansed by fire at the second advent. The 2300 days ended in 1844. Hence, Christ must come that year. They proved it all by the Bible; so there could be no mistake, they said. But Christ didn't come. Now what? Fanaticism dies hard, positive men don't like to yield. So they now find that the sanctuary does not mean the earth at all, as they had said, but a real building in heaven, just like the tabernacle which Moses built. That was a tent with two rooms, the Holy place, containing the table, a candlestick, and golden altar; the Most Holy, containing the ark, in which were the tables of stone, and over which was the mercy seat and cherubim. See Heb. 9:17. The priests ministered in the first place every day in the year, but only the high priest went into the Most Holy, and he only on the last day of the year. Lev. 16. On that day he cleansed the sanctuary of the sins confessed there during the year. All this was a type of just such a building in heaven, where Christ ministers. Heb. 8:1-5; 9:1-9,24. In 1844 he left the first place and entered the Most Holy to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary, which, really, is the judgment. This explains their disappointment. Jesus went into the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to begin the judgment in 1844, instead of coming to earth, as they first expected and preached! To prove all this they make long, inferential arguments, which are open to objections from all sides.

1. Do the Adventists KNOW that they are right about this question? No.

2. If this subject is as plain and as important as they say it is, it is strange that nobody ever found it out before.

3. After being perfectly familiar with their view of it, and knowing all their arguments, I feel sure they are mistaken about it.

1. God sent the Adventists with a last solemn message to earth upon which the destiny of the church and the world depended. The very first thing they did was to get the wrong year, '43 instead of '44. Then, when they got that fixed up, instead of announcing the real event to take place, the change in Christ's work in the sanctuary in heaven, they said he was to come to earth, raise the dead, and burn the world, when nothing of the kind was to occur!

2. Not one in fifty of the original Adventists ever found out the real mistake they had made. Not even one of the leading Adventists, like Miller, Himes, Litch, etc., ever accepted this sanctuary explanation. Only a mere handful out of the great mass of 1844 Adventists found out the truth about the sanctuary, and these were men of no note in Miller's work.

3. Miller himself opposed the Seventh-day Adventist's move, rejecting the idea of the sanctuary, the Sabbath, and the third angel's message. What a hopeless tangle that Advent work was! No wonder people rejected it. What if Moses had opposed Joshua, and John the Baptist had opposed Christ? Miller was sent to do a work, got it wrong, and then opposed those who did finally get it right!

4. Instead of receiving the "light" of the sanctuary question from Mrs. White's vision, or from heaven, they got it from O.R.L. Crosier. But he soon gave it all up as an error, and has opposed the Seventh-day Adventists for many years. It looks badly for a theory when its very authors renounce it.

5. Seventh-day Adventists at first adopted the sanctuary theory to prove that the door of mercy was shut in 1844, a theory which Mrs. White and all of them held at that time. Here is my proof on this point: Ann Arbor, Mich., Dec. 1 1887. Elder D.M. Canright: "I kept the seventh day nearly a year, about 1848. In 1846 I explained the idea of the sanctuary in an article in an extra double number of the Day Star, Cincinnati, O. The object of that article was to support the theory that the door of mercy was shut, a theory which I and nearly all Adventists who had adopted William Miller's views, held from 1844 to 1848. Yes, I KNOW that Ellen G. Harmon - now Mrs. White - held the shut door theory at that time." Truly yours, O.R.L. Crosier

Now listen to Mrs. White: Topsham, Me., April 21, 1847. "...The Lord showed me in vision more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light on the cleansing of the sanctuary, etc., and that it was his will that Bro. C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day Star (extra), Feb 7, 1846. I fell fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that extra to every saint...." E.G. White, "A Word to the Little Flock," pages 11,12.

Here you have the origin and object of that sanctuary theory. Before me lies "The Present Truth," Vol. I, No. 6, December, 1849, by James White. "The Shut Door Explained," is the leading article, in which it is argued from the type Lev. 16:17, that when the high priest entered the Most Holy there could be no more pardon for sin. "On this day of atonement he is a high priest for THOSE ONLY whose names are inscribed on the bread-plate of judgment," page 44. No more salvation for sinners, is what their sanctuary theory was then used to prove. The whole volume is full of this idea.

6. Their argument from the type on this point was right; in the type no sin could be confessed and conveyed into the sanctuary after the high priest entered the Most Holy. Lev. 4:1-7; 16:17,23,24. So if this was a type of the entrance of Christ into the Most Holy in heaven in 1844, then truly the door of mercy did close there, and all sinners since are lost.

7. No work whatever was to be done on the day of atonement, or day when the sanctuary was cleansed. Lev. 23:27-32. The law was very strict. If the Advent argument on the sanctuary is correct and the day of atonement began in 1844, then they ought not to have worked a day since. Hence, many Adventists after 1844 held that it was a sin to work; but time starved them out, and they had to go at it again.

8. Finally, being compelled to abandon the position that the door of mercy was entirely shut against sinners in 1844, they next taught that ONLY THOSE could be saved who KNEW of the change Christ made in the sanctuary in Heaven in 1844. Thus Elder Smith, in "Objections to the Visions Answered," pages 24- 26, says: "A knowledge of Christ's position and work is necessary to the enjoyment of the benefits of his mediation.... A general idea of his work was then (previous to 1844) sufficient to enable men to approach unto God by him.... But when he changed his position (in 1844) to the Most Holy place... that knowledge of his work which had up to that point been sufficient, was no longer sufficient.... Who can find salvation now? Those who go to the Saviour where he is and view him by faith in the Most Holy place.... This is the door now open for salvation. But no man can understand this change without definite knowledge of the subject of the sanctuary and the relation of type and anti-type. Now they may seek the Saviour as they have before sought him, with no other ideas of his position and ministry than those which they entertained while he was in the first apartment; but will it avail them? They cannot find him there. That door is shut!" So Mrs. White: "They have no knowledge of the move made in Heaven, or the way into the Most Holy, and they cannot be benefited by the intercession of Jesus there. ... They offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 171,172. What abominable doctrine! No one can be saved unless they know of the change which Christ made in Heaven in 1844. But no one except Seventh-day Adventists has the slightest idea of that change. Reader, think of this.

9. But now they have abandoned this view of the sanctuary and hold that all who honestly seek God may be saved without any of this "light" on the sanctuary. Thus they have already held four different positions upon the sanctuary question: 1. It was the earth. 2. The door of mercy was shut to all sinners in 1844. 3. It was open only to those who learned about Christ's change in 1844. 4. It is now open to all. What will they hold next?

After thoroughly investigating the whole subject of the sanctuary, I feel sure that they are in a great error on that point.

1. God's throne was always in the Most Holy place of the sanctuary, between the cherubim, over the ark, never once in the Holy place. For proof on this point see Lev. 16:2; Num. 7:89; ISam. 4:4; IIKings 19:15. Smith argues that God's throne was sometimes in the Holy place and refers to Ex. 33:9. But here the Lord appeared OUTSIDE the tabernacle, and not in the Holy place at all. So his text fails him.

2. When Jesus ascended to Heaven, eighteen hundred years ago, he went directly to the right hand of God and sat down on his throne. Heb. 8:1. Hence, he must have entered the Most Holy then, instead of on 1844.

3. "Within the vail" is into the Most Holy place. "And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the Holy place and the Most Holy." Ex. 26:33. Also see Lev. 16:2,12,13.

None can fail to see that "within the vail" is in the Most Holy place where the ark was. This is just where Jesus went eighteen hundred years ago. Proof: "Which HOPE we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the vail; whither the forerunner is for us entered, EVEN Jesus made a high priest for ever." Heb. 6:19,20. As the high priest went "within the vail," so Jesus, our high priest, went "within the vail," into the Most Holy place, to the right hand of God and sat down on his throne. Nothing could be more plainly stated. This upsets the whole Advent theory of 1844. For further proof see Ex. 27:21; 30:6; 40:22-26; Lev. 4:6,17; 16:15; 24:3; Num. 18:7; Matt. 27:51.

4. "Before the throne," Rev. 8:3. Elder Smith asserts that "the throne of God was in the first apartment of the sanctuary," because it is said that the seven lamps and the golden altar were "before the throne," Rev. 4:5; 8;3. It is as desperate cause which seizes upon such proof. The same argument would prove that the ark and God's throne were always in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary, which we know to be false. As there was only a vail which divided the Holy from the Most Holy, where God's throne was, things in the Holy place were said to be "before the Lord," as they were so near to the throne, which was just behind the curtain. Proof: Ex. 27:20,21; 30:6-8; 40:23-25; Lev. 4:6,15-18. Even outside of the tabernacle entirely, where the beasts were killed, was "before the Lord," as Lev. 4:15 shows. Abraham walked "before the Lord," Gen. 24:40, yet he was on earth, and the Lord was in heaven.

5. Not a single text can be found in all the Bible where the ark and cherubim and throne were in the Holy place of the earthly sanctuary, the type; yet in the antitype they have the throne of God in the Holy place, not on some special occasion, but all the time for 1800 years, just contrary to the type!

6. Adventists always assume and say that "the temple of God is the Most Holy place." Sanctuary, page 234, by U. Smith. But this is false. The Most Holy place, or the oracle, was a ROOM IN THE TEMPLE, but it was not the temple itself. In fact the Scriptures carefully distinguished between the temple and the oracle or Most Holy. See IKings 6:5,16,17,19,23; 7:50. The temple was the house, the whole building. IKings 7:50; IIKings 11:13; ISam. 3:3; Matt. 21:12; Luke 1:9; Rev. 11:19.

7. When was the temple in heaven opened, Rev. 11:19? Adventists use this text to prove that the Most Holy place in the heavenly sanctuary was not opened till 1844. But it fails them: 1) Because, as we have proved above, the temple is not the Most Holy place, but the whole building. 2) Because the heavenly temple was opened when Christ began his ministry there, 1800 years ago. Heb. 8:1,2; 9:8-12. 3) Because verse 19 of Rev. 11 properly belongs with Rev. 12, and begins that new line of prophecy, instead of closing the line in Chapter 11. The Syriac thus divides it. Clarke, Barnes, Scott, and every commentator I have consulted, connects this verse with Chapter 12 as the introduction. Says Scott: "V. 19 - This verse introduces a new subject, and should have been placed at the beginning of the next chapter." Certainly; for when was the temple in heaven opened? When Jesus went there to begin his ministry, of course. Heb. 9:8-12. Thus fails the main pillar of the Adventists sanctuary theory.

Thus far I have argued on their own grounds that there is a real building up in heaven, just like the sanctuary on earth. But that whole thing is extremely questionable.

1. As children are taught moral truths by object lessons, so God taught the Jews spiritual truths by the object lessons of the types of worship. Hence, it does not follow that in Christian worship there must be just such material things used up in heaven. Rather the presumption is against it.

2. The whole temple service was for the Aaronic priesthood; but Christ is not a priest after the order of Aaron, but is after that of Melchisedec, Heb. 7:11. Melchisedec had no temple nor temple service, so Christ should have none. From Adam till Moses there was no temple nor priestly service in heaven. Smith admits this. "There were no holy places laid open, and no priestly work was established in heaven." Sanctuary, page 238. Exactly; for that was under the Melchisedec priesthood, just as now. If no temple was needed there for 4000 years, none is needed there now.

3. Paul directly states that the types of the law were "NOT the very image of the things" they represent, Heb. 10:1. But Adventists make their argument on the assumption that they were exact images of things in heaven, thus ignoring Paul's statement.

4. Paul says that Christ is a minister of a greater and more perfect tabernacle, Heb. 9:11. Then it must differ from the earthly one.

5. Paul says it is one "not made with hands," Heb. 9:11. This shows that it is not a material building.

6. Paul says that Jesus' flesh is the vail, Heb. 10:20. This shows that the temple was only figurative.

7. Scarcely one of the types had an antitype just like it. Thus lambs and oxen were the type of which Jesus was the antitype. But he was a MAN and they were BEASTS. The bodies of those beasts were BURNED, Heb. 13:11,12, but Christ, the antitype was not burned. They were slain at the door of the sanctuary, Lev. 17:3,4, but Jesus was not slain at the door of the sanctuary. Their blood was carried into the temple and put on the altar, Lev. 4:6,7, but the blood of Christ was spilt on the ground. The Levitical priests made offerings daily, but Christ only once for all, Heb. 9:25,26,28; 10:10,12,14. Elder Smith says: "The fact that Moses made two apartments in his likeness of the heavenly temple is a DEMONSTRATION that the latter has two apartments also." Again: "The Priests here on earth, in both apartments, served unto the example of a like service in heaven. Now Jesus is the only priest in heaven, and he must perform this 'like service.'" The earthly priests offered, every day, the morning and evening sacrifice, sprinkling the blood of fresh-slain victims in the outer sanctuary. So for more than eighteen hundred years, Jesus, according to Mr. Smith, must have offered his own fresh-shed blood in the outer apartment of the heavenly sanctuary twice every day; that is more than 1,300,000 times from his ascension to 1844. This is the logical result of Mr. Smith's 'demonstration.' The apostle says, Heb. 7:27: "This he did once for all, when he offered up himself. Thus the 'demonstration' flatly contradicts the scriptures." G.W. Morton. The law regulating the service of the priests and the temple was changed, Heb. 7:12. Then certainly it is not carried out in heaven now. Adventists would have the whole Levitical law of the sanctuary service transferred to heaven and carried out there! This is the absurdity of their system. In Heb. 7:11-28 Paul marks many points of difference between the types and the antitypes. The table of the Lord was in the temple in the Jewish age, Mal. 1:7, but now the Lord's table is in the church, ICor. 10:21; 11:20. The seven lamps in the temple of heaven "are the seven spirits of God," Rev. 4:4. Then they are not literal lamps. So it is more than probable that none of the things mentioned as being there are literal. In one place it is said that the saints in heaven are "clothed in white robes," Rev. 7:9, but in another place this is explained to be the righteousness of saints, Rev. 10:8.

In Rev. 8:3 it is said that the prayers of all saints are offered upon the golden altar. Most evidently this is not to be taken literally, but only as a reference to the Jewish mode of worship. Col. 2:16,17, says that the meats, drinks, feast days, new moons and Sabbath days were a shadow of Christ. Reasoning as the Adventists do about the early sanctuary, Heb. 8:5, we would expect to find something in the gospel exactly like them, meats, drinks, yearly feast days, monthly holy days, etc. But where are they? In the gospel there is nothing at all just like these types.

Paul says directly that the place into which Jesus went was "heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us," Heb. 9:24. The simple truth of the whole is that the ages of types, object lessons, exact forms, set ceremonies, consecrated places and holy vessels - all this ended at the cross, Col. 2:17. The answer of Jesus to the woman at the well is exactly to the point. She said: "Our fathers worshipped in the mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus said unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. ... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." John 4:20-24. Under the gospel one place is no more holy than another. With the holy places went all the holy vessels, sacrifices, incense, tables of stone, and all. Peter states it all in a word: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." IPet. 2:5. To the same effect, Eph. 2:20-22; ICor. 6:19. Now we are under a new covenant; Heb. 8:6-13, an high priest of a new order, Heb. 7:11, we come to God by a new way, Heb 10:20, by new ordinances, Mark 15:15-16; ICor. 11:23-26, by a different temple, and a better sacrifice. Hence, there is no need of a temple in heaven just like the old Jewish one.

The Adventists idea of the sanctuary in heaven is an absurdity. In Early Writings, pages 114,115, Mrs. White was taken to heaven and shown all about it. She saw the building exactly like the one on earth. In it was the candlestick, the table of show-bread, the altar, the curtains, the ark; and "in the ark were tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments." Think, now; what use for a literal candle in the immediate presence of God whose glory is above the light of the sun. "They need no candle, neither light of the sun, for the Lord God giveth them light." Rev. 22:5. And what use for a literal table of show-bread there? Do the angels or the Lord eat the bread? Then real tables of stone in Heaven! and the Lord sitting on the ark over them! What puerile ideas. Hear Paul veto that idea: "Not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." IICor. 3:3. Then think of the absurdity of having the Almighty God and all the "ten thousand times ten thousand" (one hundred million) angels around his throne, dwelling in a literal building with curtains, lamps, tables, walls, etc. It would need to be larger than a whole State. Let Adventists read this: "Howbeit, the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands." Acts 7:48.

"But does not Paul say that the Jewish temple was a shadow, figure, a pattern of heavenly things," Heb. 8 and 9? Yes; and so he says the offerings and holy days of the old covenant were shadows of Christ, Col. 2:16,17. But where are our feast days, new moons, meats, etc., under the gospel? Nowhere, in a spiritual sense. So Paul says the earthly temple was only a FIGURE of a "tabernacle not made with hands." Heb. 9:9-11. How could he say more plainly that the heavenly are not literal? Did Christ minister in a literal temple in heaven from Adam till the cross, four thousand years? No. Did Melchisedec have a temple? No. Gen. 14:18-20. As Christ is a priest after his order, he needs no literal temple. According to the Adventists, the Most Holy place of the heavenly sanctuary was entirely empty and unoccupied from the ascension of Jesus till 1844. Even Christ did not enter it once! Finally, their whole argument on the sanctuary depends upon proving that the seventy weeks of Dan. 9 are a part of the twenty-three hundred days of Dan. 8:14. But does the Bible say they are? No; nor can they prove it. The very best they can claim is to make it plausible that they are.

the church of God (evening light)

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Seventh-day Adventism RENOUNCED

1 comment:

About Me

Blog Archive